Summary
➡ The text highlights how manipulative globalist forces promoted nationalism to divide larger empires into small, manageable pieces for control. Through a combination of inciting nationalist revolutions, assassination attempts on key figures, and fueling conflicts, these forces aimed to destabilize and weaken powerful empires, ultimately leading to their downfall.
➡ The text debates the historical phenomena surrounding U.S. Presidents, American Civil War and their connections with Europe, and conspiracy theories associated with their sicknesses and deaths. It evaluates the politics behind the selection of U.S. presidents and the balance between north and south. Lastly the text critically evaluates Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, linking it to the rise of Communism, atheism and the undermining of Christian values. The author suggests that Darwin’s theory may have been a laden political tool rather than a genuine scientific claim.
➡ The text questions the conception of life from nothingness and how organisms evolve, challenging the premises of species gaining new genetic traits that did not previously exist in their gene pool; it argues for the existence of an eternal life force. Comparisons are drawn between these topics and modern issues such as climate change. Additionally, the text delves into the history and politics around the U.S Civil War and the dynamics between the North and South, pointing out that majority of the South had Unionist sentiments. The text concludes with discussing a failed pre-inauguration assassination against Abraham Lincoln linked to a secret society.
➡ The text discusses the plans of an assassination plot for Abraham Lincoln and suggests it may have been due to Lincoln’s opposition to borrowing money and his relations with Russia. It also discusses the nuances of slavery in the south, suggesting it was not as universally accepted as often depicted. The conversation moves to discussing the media’s portrayal of a potential second Trump presidency, theorizing it may be part of a larger plan.
➡ The speaker highlights a subscription to the anti-New York Times, delivered for $2 a month. With multiple links between history and current events drawn, Trump’s strategic defenses against being labeled as anti-Semitic are discussed. Despite the challenges, the speaker remains hopeful for Trump’s return, emphasizing the importance of showing the public the reality rather than just telling them.
Transcript
I was stunned. There was some things in there that I didn’t even know, and I was like, Whoa. I had never heard the whole notion that Eisenhower had slowed the role, know? I’d never heard the story about halting the 7th army down almost like the Pyrenees. I’d never heard that. I was Patton. He needed Patton to win, but he didn’t want to win fast. Right? And Patton’s whole mentality, his whole philosophy was just keep going, keep going, keep going, just like they portrayed in the movie.
And so then Eisenhower would always find some pretext to slow him down. There was the slapping incident. Then he cut off his gas. Just horrible, because there was a dirty deal in the works. We’re going to give the east to Stalin. Well, and I didn’t know that he started the war as a lieutenant colonel. Nobody. He was a lieutenant colonel. And then all of a sudden, he thrusts up to a four star and then ultimately a five star.
I’m like, what the heck? Yeah, that’s inspiring right there. When you’re a young nobody and you go on hunting trips with Bernard Baruch, good things will happen in your people. I was telling a few people, I was like, bernard Baruch is basically the George Soros of our exactly. Oh, man. So let me tell you something. You said there’s a lot of stuff you learned and you had never known about, right? In the almost ten years now or eight years since I wrote The Bad War, I’m still blown away by things I’m learning and picking up to the point where I’m seriously considering opening back up and adding another 100 pages.
Mind blowing stuff that I learned that’s not in the original. Give us a taste. Just a taste. Okay, how about this? Let’s go over to the Pacific Theater. Now, I emphasize more on Europe because that’s where Westerners right? But there’s really more needs to be told. And I get into that in A Bad War, but obviously not as in depth as what was going on in Europe. But here’s something that happened in 1936.
Shanghai Shek, the supreme leader of China most populous country on Earth, wants to have good relations with Japan, okay? And he’s fighting a civil war against the Communist Reds. And one day, these generals invite him to come out to the front to meet with him. They kidnap him. He’s held as a prisoner for two weeks, and they said to him, you’re going to start war. No more war with the communists, you’re going to fight Japan or else.
He’s finally released after two weeks. Six months later, there’s an incident. The Chinese provoke a fight. And I don’t know how this could have escaped me. I’ve read so many books and materials, both official history as well as revisionist history. And you never hear about the kidnapping of Changai Shek. He was kidnapped, threatened with his life, stopped fighting the Communists, and we’re going to fight Japan. And that’s how Chiangi Shek, under pressure, picked a fight with Japan.
And instantly Stalin from his end and FDR from here, started supporting China. And that’s how the war in Asia began. It’s right on the front page of the New York Times. Chiang aishek kidnapped. It was the lead story in the news for, like, two weeks. And then in the subtitle, it says, Japanese believe that he’s going to be pressured to go to war. It says right on there, generals demand war with Japan.
But this has been erased from history because it contradicts the narrative of big bad Japan rampaging in China. And, you know, want the reason we’re kind of talking about the bad wars we just finished? What that’s not what this show is going to be about. But just a couple of know I’ve read some of L. Fletcher prowdy, and Prowdy talks about how the State Department ordered a ship that was full of ammunitions from Europe that was inbound to Burma, and they were going to fly all those munitions into Shanghai Shek to fight Mao.
And the State Department ordered those munitions thrown overboard and not to make sure that they didn’t get to and right, because that’s what happened. After the war was over, the Communists went back to fighting a civil war. Right. And they wanted the US. Was cutting off their arms. Meanwhile, the Soviets, with the arms that they got from the US. Now, they didn’t need them anymore. They turned them over to Mao.
So it shifted the whole balance. It was such treason. Yes. And then you had obviously, you had MacArthur who wanted to go up there and take him out, and he’s like, we can do it. We’ve got all the men. And basically the MacArthur was the patent of the Pacific, and they’re nope, nope. You’re just it’s it’s appalling. You know, when I tell people it’s, we the United States and I love my country, but the United States fought on the side of global Communism in World War II, and people don’t want to hear that.
But that’s the truth. That’s the truth of the man, anyway. All right, well, we’re going to go back to where the originating part of global Communism came from today, because we’re going through the 250 years of globalist conspiracy, and we are at the 1830 to 1900, and the revolutionaries subvert Europe. Yeah, well, we left off we talked about Napoleon, and we talked about how the British and their allies, Austria and Prussia, in the final wars against Napoleon.
They went begging to the Rothschilds for finance. And I think we also spoke about rothschild had some conditions for the finance, one of which the main one being after this war is going to be a new deal for the Jews of Europe. You’re going to have emancipation, equal rights, equal citizenship rights. And that was big, because now it wasn’t just Rothschild and some other big financiers. It was just Jews as a whole, many of them.
Revolutionaries began rising at this time, and they began buying newspapers and just gathering money and getting political and so on. And that really gave a big boost to the revolutionary movements which were fronts for Rothschilds by the late 1830s, early 1840s. They’re calling themselves the Communists, okay? And they followed the earlier versions that’s far back. Jacobins yeah, well, Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848, and he didn’t coin the term then, the term probably like a decade earlier.
So they were known alternatively as Reds or as Communists. But that’s the title of his book, the Communist Manifesto, written in 1848. And that is one of the most significant years in the history of these past 250 years of globalist conspiracy. It’s a huge year. 1840, 818, 48 did I say 19? Sorry? You said 1878. My apologies. Oh, no. Yeah, 1848. I mean, there’s books and movies about it.
Big year. There were revolutions in the 1830s as well. These were attempted overthrows of the governments of Europe by subversive movements and the way they used to operate. Know, you appeal to dissatisfied, disenchanted people, which you’re always going to have, and you essentially incite them, know, revolt against the government, and then you’re going to have a better deal. So it was always easy to attract fanatical revolutionaries, okay? I call them the Reds in the streets.
Unbeknownst to most of them, work for reds up in the know, and you see this today antifa. And these red radicals used to do protested riots. Well, the real boss is George Soros. He’s way up here, okay? These radicals think I don’t know what they think. They think they’re fighting for a better world, but the real bosses are high up top, and the mobs don’t even realize who they’re working for.
But this phenomenon goes back to the 1830s, spontaneous uprisings. But 1848 was big because spontaneous revolutions broke out in like, 50 or 60 different countries and kingdoms throughout Europe and also all throughout South America, okay? And it was nationalistic and also communistic at the same time. Nationalistic, but phony nationalism. Nationalism in a sense that back then you had empires and smaller kingdoms and countries were under the jurisdiction of an empire, okay? Like Germany at what time didn’t exist at that time.
It was 300 different federations. There were German people. They had their country and their place, but they were under someone else’s empire jurisdiction. Let me pause you on that for a second guys. And that’s where the term Reich comes from. When basically all of the German little nations came together, that was the First Reich, and then there was a Second Reich and then the Third Reich was when Hitler brought them all together.
That’s why they call it the Third Reich. Just a little tidbit there for you guys. That’s the way Europe was. There were a lot of different little principalities and kingdoms, part of bigger empires. The Russian Empire. The British Empire? The French Empire. Spain had an empire? Mainly Latin America, the Dutch Empire and so on. So what these globalist gangsters did, and this sounds paradoxical, but it’s not, you have globalists promoting nationalists, but the idea was to get these small regions and countries to rebel against the empire structure, break down these empires into small, manageable pieces.
Here they are fighting for their country. They want their country, they want their independence, so they’re overthrowing this foreign king. But the trick was, as smaller units, they would then be ruled by corrupt parliamentarians who work for the globalists and the Rothschilds. So that’s when globalists promote nationalists, there’s always an agenda. So you had all of these fake nationalist revolutions broke out spontaneously in Europe and South America.
It was very bloody and it was very destabilizing. And what it did is it left these empires in many ways permanently destabilized and weakened. And what the monarchs used to do at that time is make concessions and concessions and concessions in the name of freedom and democracy and liberty. But what they’re doing is they have been pressured, intimidated into loosening the reins, not for the people to gain power, for the Rothschild and their allies to move in.
That’s the trick. Running concurrently with these fake, spontaneous revolutions, very similar to the color revolutions we’ve seen with George Soros in these last 2030 years. Same thing, but running concurrently with that. The reds in the streets and nationalists that they controlled, they were being used to murder kings and queens and prime ministers and presidents. They were killing them like flies because they were suicidal, because you can’t get to the king unless you’re willing to give up your own life, because you’re either going to get killed in the process or you’re going to get caught and then later executed.
But they didn’t care. This was known as propaganda of the deed. So you could immortalize yourself. So you’re a disenchanted young man. Your life hasn’t gone well for your fault or society’s fault, whatever. They fill your head with all this hatred and say, listen, you go down in history, you kill the king. And they would do it. Lots of them would do it. They would go up to a king’s carriage with a bomb.
Didn’t matter if they killed 10, 15, 20 innocent bystanders or themselves. In the process, they would do that. That’s how Tsar Alexander of Russia was murdered in 1881. On the fifth attempt or they would go up to a king, and it didn’t matter if the king had been overthrown already or died and the country was a republic, then they would go after the prime minister or the president.
The idea is destabilization just by killing these leaders. And the more that they killed them, and the more that they incited revolution, the more that they would loosen the reins and give more freedom, give up more of their power. They’re thinking, well, if we do this, we’ll get them off our backs. But in reality, by doing that, they made themselves weaker, and eventually they were all toppled. That was the game.
So it was a slow weakening, and it’s just incredible. In my two volume set, Planet Rothschild, I go through these killings, okay? I only touch upon it briefly in crash course. NWO. But if you want to get it more in depth, you go to Realnewsandhistory. com. Look in the book section. You’ll find this. In Planet Rothschild, I talked about how there were five attempts. Guys, let me tell you something.
I want to plug your books right now. Go there and spend the $30 and get the books. What’s the word? I’m going to regret it. You’re not going to regret it. Do it because there’s so much information, you wouldn’t be able to get through it all year. So just trust me. Trust me. Thank you. It took me decades to dig this stuff up and investigate and research it, and I condense it.
But if you really want it quick, just to get your first basic structure, start out with Crash Course NWO, 250 Years of Globalist Conspiracy. That one I would prefer. If people bought it on Amazon, you can get it at my site, but that one’s on Amazon, and that’ll boost my rankings. You go to Amazon, look for crash course NWO. You could buy a bunch, very low price, give them out as gifts.
So it gives a whole skeletal structure of everything we’re talking about here. But getting back to this propaganda of the mean, it is just incredible. I’m going to buy one right now. Yeah. Get it from Amazon. I’m doing it right now. Yeah. So it’s that I can get you. So I’m going to buy one right? Yeah, but go ahead, continue. But I was saying, I spoke already about how they killed Tsar Alexander.
On the fifth attempt, they threw a bomb at his carriage, blew his legs off, okay? And that was in 1881. He was the one who helped preserve the Union during the Civil War because the British and French and Rothschilds were going to interfere on the side of the Confederacy because they wanted to split the country in two, put a central bank in each one. Tsar Alexander sent part of his fleet to New York and another part to San Francisco.
He sent the message, you get involved, we get involved. And that helped keep the British and the french out of the US Civil War. So they got Lincoln and then they got Tsar Alexander, who were working together, sort of like today’s, Putin and Trump. The parallels are always amazing. Fifth attempt they got they, uh they shot Kaiser Wilhelm, first of Germany. They didn’t kill him now or they shot and missed.
I think they hit Chancellor Bismarck of Germany. Injured, but he survived. There were numerous attempts on Queen Victoria. They killed the Prime Minister of Spain, two of them on separate occasions. They killed the King and the Crown Prince, his son of Portugal. They threw a flower bomb at the wedding of the Spanish prince. Didn’t kill him, killed some bystanders. If you look up propaganda of the deed, you can even find it online and just see the list.
They murdered the President of France. It was every country, nobody was safe. And if the king stepped down and gave power to our parliament, then they’d kill the Prime Minister. It was just destabilization fear. And so between that and between the spontaneous revolutions and then the third element was the pitting of one country against another in constant wars. They’re just breaking on these countries, wearing them down, wearing them down, wearing them down to prepare them for the dissolution of the existing structure and then to replace them all with parliamentary puppets.
And this really culminated the grand finale world War I. But now I’m getting ahead of things. But that was the 18 hundreds and so much went on there. Like many students of this global thing, they go back maybe to Woodrow Wilson in the Federal Reserve Forward, but there’s another 100 years before that. It all builds on each other, but that’s how they destabilized and eventually took down Europe.
Everything that happened between 1830 towards the turn of the century, and I think we covered it all the Marxism, the Reds, the phony nationalists. So unless you got any other questions about that time period, what’s going on, I think you pretty much nailed it there. The next thing on the docket is the US presidency becomes a very dangerous draw between 1840 and 1862. Yeah, well, it’s very interesting.
And this is one element of the Civil War which is never talked about, certainly not by the establishment historians, but even by the revisionist truth, ers, missed this, and I had to dig a lot of this out myself. How few people know how many US presidents survived assassination attempts or died suddenly at a relatively young age while they were healthy with tummy aches? It’s mind blowing. Right. We know four United States presidents died in history.
They were shot. Assassinated. Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and JFK. So that’s four killed. Now, there’s others who were shot at and survived. In Andrew Jackson’s case, miraculously, he was shot at twice. The gunman had two pistols. It was apparently a very humid day with those old little the flint locks. Flint locks, yeah. They both misfired and then Jackson whipped out his cane and beat his assailant, but he’s fortunate to have lived.
So that was the first assassination attempt on a president afterwards. And this is all in the same era, like a 30 year period. There was James Polk, who’s very much like an Andrew Jackson type. He was an acolyte of Andrew Jackson during his late in his second term, he gets very sick. Symptoms tummy ache and fever and so on. He lives out his term, but he’s still sick.
He dies just, like, a couple months after leaving office, okay? Then you have President William Harrison. Same thing. Get sick, tummy ache. I mean, these are all classic symptoms of poisoning, poison, but he dies in office. Then you have Zachary Taylor very much. Again, like General Jackson, southerner plantation owner, actually owned slave. But just like Jackson, he said to the secessionists, who had links to Europe, I will hang you.
Okay? And like Jackson, he was able to get away with that because he himself was also a Southerner plantation owner and a slave owner. So he’s like, don’t give me that slavery jive, okay? You start this secession stuff, I will hang you. Just like Jackson threatened them. Well, he gets a tummy ache, gets sick, gets dies. Then there’s Franklin Pierce. He was elected and as president elect. While he’s president elect, there was a big interval in those days.
They weren’t inaugurated until March, right? They’re elected in November. In March. During that period, his vice president gets very sick once again, and he’s dying. During this time, Franklin Pierce’s train derails. His son, ten years old right in front of him, and his wife is decapitated, but he survives. Okay? So he almost died, and then this vice president was very sick after he’s inaugurated. He dies, like, a month later.
So he came very close to having the president and the vice president dead before the inauguration. Okay? That would have created a cris. James Buchanan. Look up the National Hotel disease again. He was president elect, and he was at a hotel in DC. And so many people got sick with the tummy ache. He got very sick, but he survives. But his nephew was very close to him. He dies, and what did I miss? And then there’s James Garfield is assassinated, a hard money guy, okay? So presidents were just getting shot at or killed or just suddenly dying of classic poison symptoms.
And there were conspiracy theories over all of them, but never like a true investigation. And today’s historians just say I read one story, one account from a fake historian speculated that Washington had bad water back then because it was in the swampy area. Okay? Abraham Lincoln. He’s president. Both of his sons get sick, tummy aches, one of them dies. Okay? Same symptoms. So maybe there was probably some bad water going into the White House, and it just kept happening again and again.
How many tummy aches with chills and violent vomiting. How many times does it have to happen before the laws of probability prove that something’s going on? And this is at the same time as that propaganda, the deed stuff was going on in Europe. And what was else was going on in Europe? Well, these revolutions were, in essence, secessionist movements. So now when we come back here, we find these links between some of these secessionist characters in Europe.
So they were doing the same thing here because the United States was big. Growing was like an empire. Okay, you want to break it up? Easier bites to swallow and corrupt both sides. Right? So that is an untold aspect of the Civil War story that was going on. There was the secret societies linked to the secession movements. Like I said earlier, then you had Britain and France and Rothschild rooting for the I’m I don’t know if you know, I was born in Georgia.
I was born in Georgia. So I’ve always kind of had this I don’t want to say like, sympathy, but I’ve always been kind of sympathetic to the south. I never really bought the argument that Civil War was about slavery because he would be naive to believe that slavery wasn’t a component of it. But I didn’t believe that that was the primary thrust, like all the history books talk about.
And there’s a lot of the tariff of Abomination, and then while the tariffs are one big reason and then, of course, what was it, the Missouri Compromise, where talking about before, if the United States was going to grow, you had to have one slave state. Admitted with one free state, you couldn’t have only one or the other because there was an even balance. So there was something to do with that because I guess they were going to admit Kansas in but Kansas wasn’t going to be a slave state, and they was only going to admit one.
And so that was going to askew the balance or whatnot. But are you familiar with the Abbeyville Institute? No. Okay, I’m going to send you some of their stuff I’m sure you’ve heard of. I mean, I used to always also be sympathetic towards the south until I discovered these connections, and especially when I learned how much the earlier iteration of the secession movement 30 years earlier, led by James C.
Calhoun, how much Andrew Jackson hated them and they hated Andrew Jackson, and Calhoun was connected to these Western, these bankers. Okay. Jackson said after he had suppressed the first attempt at secession by South Carolina, he later said he had one group grit. He wished he had hanged James Calhoun. But he also wrote, and I go into this in Andrew the Great, my book about Andrew Jackson, he felt that the tariff was a pretext, and after the tariff was lowered, he says, this isn’t going to go away.
It will return. The next pretext will be slavery. He wrote that in the 1830s and how prophetic it was. He also had some tummy ache issues, too, I’m sure. That is one tough bastard boy. You want to talk about Andrew Jackson abbie villains as he talks about how almost virtually every single president that the United States had up until the Civil War was basically any two term president was from the south.
The north only had four presidents, and each of the four presidents were only one termers. That all of the multiple term presidents came from the south. So I just thought that was interesting. And I guess they were espousing more Jeffersonian ideals as opposed to the Nordic. Well, they had an electoral advantage because of the three fifths clause, which doesn’t just apply to representation. It also applies to electoral votes.
Correct. So even though there was much more population in the north, by negotiating that three fifths clause, it was almost like a balance. Right. So they also had a disproportionate representation in the Senate, in the Congress, and then, of course, with the Electoral College. Yeah, the three fifths clause provided a balance at the outset of the country, but as time progressed, the slavery population was growing, ultimately. That probably you’re, right? That’s actually something that I hadn’t considered.
Okay, well, moving on. We have the 1859 evolution hoax with Charles Darwin. Yeah, that is a big one. That doesn’t get enough credit for what it is. It’s more than just bad science. There’s a serious, very important agenda behind, you know, Charles Darwin, by the way, was a contemporary of Karl Marx, both based in London at the same time. And Karl Marx dedicated I don’t know, not the Manifesto, Das Capital to charles Darwin loved Darwin, and I’ve got all these quotes from the early Communist leaders, like Liebnack of I mean, when he came out with Origin of the Species, I call it Origin of the Species because his arguments are all species.
It’s a joke. I went through that book with a highlight. I must have read it or parts of it when I was in college. And what do you know? Back then, you’re like, oh, wow, right? But you read it now, you’ve gained some wisdom, and you read it closely. It’s like, this is jive talk, man. What is he talking about? None of it makes sense. It’s all rhetorical tricks and arguments.
But that’s very telling that they were. So, I mean, right away, within a year or two of the book being published, and it was hyped at the time. Okay, so it was sold. Always be suspicious when something comes out of nowhere, and it’s hyped. I wish I could get that for my books. But back then, there were certain academic circles, for some reason, were pushing it hard, and the Communists were all over, and they were pushing it hard.
Why? Well, two reasons. Number one, Mark said that this theory could be kind of adapted to his communistic theories in that everything is in motion, it’s a synthesis, and communism will evolve, and it removes God from the well, that’s the second point. That’s more importantly, because Marx and his crowd, all atheists, hated Christianity, hated religion, wanted to tear down family, moral, everything, okay? So now you have this as a weapon, and that’s what’s behind it.
And I do not believe that a man who otherwise as intelligent, as learned as Darwin in his field, I don’t believe for a second he believed any of this stuff, okay? I mean, think for a moment what he’s proposing. First of all, life coming from non life, right? Never been observed, never been duplicated. I mean, can you imagine every blade of grass on this planet, every bacteria cell on this planet? And a blade of grass alone has got 100,000 bacteria cells on it, had a mother, so to speak, okay? That it broke off from.
And you’re telling me, though, all the first life form didn’t have a mom? Think about it. Life coming from sterile planet. Something coming from nothing. It’s not only illogical and I’m speaking let’s put religious doctrine out of this, okay? And faith, put it aside. Just look at this logically, scientifically. That is impossible. Something cannot come from nothing. Life cannot come from non life, which therefore follows smug atheists like to say, wow, who created God? If life can only come from life, it therefore follows that the life force animating the universe must be eternal.
We can’t get our minds around that because we’re humans. It’s above our pay grade. But that’s the only thing it could mean, you see? But that’s the whole underlying foundation. You pull that out, you have nothing. Okay, but let’s give him that just for the sake of argument. Now you have to go with something else that nobody’s ever observed, and that is a species acquiring new characteristics that they did not previously have in the gene pool.
How do you do that? Okay, that’s like saying a dog will have wings one day. I mean, it’s never been observed. I challenge anyone. Show me one case of a species picking up genetic material, genetic codes or chromosomes that did not previously exist in the gene pool. Can’t do it. No, it doesn’t exist. Where’s it going to come from? Out of thin air. Now, they like to pull this trick.
They’ll say, well, look at the super rats. You have these rats delete this poison, it kills 90% of the rats, but 10%, it doesn’t affect them. They’re immune. And then they have offspring. So now you have a new population that’s immune. It’s evolution. No, it’s not evolution. You know why? Because that immunity to the poison already existed in the overall gene pool. Not everybody had it, but it was in there.
Okay? So you just have the suppression of one genetic trait and another one comes to the fore. But it still has to. Be there. So that doesn’t answer anything. Show me something new being added to gene pool. You can’t do it. It’s like if you have a jar of jelly beans, okay, and they’re black, white, red and blue, and that’s it. You can put your hand in there a thousand times, a million times, a billion times.
You’re not going to get a purple one because it was never in there. You’ll get all kinds of variations, different combinations. I think that’s a pretty good analogy there. So then he talks about the fossil record. He says, right in his book, his words, he says, I can see that the fossil record does not support the theory of evolution. Here comes the yeah, but this is how liars do.
He had to put that out there because he has to concede it. But then the yeah, but is he says this must mean that the fossil record is not complete. Wow. I swear I’m paraphrasing. But that’s almost exactly what he writes. He puts it out there. Yeah. Fossil record doesn’t prove it. That’s true. I admit it. However, that means it’s not complete. He does this numerous times. And this is rhetorical tricks, deliberate.
He’ll take all of the prevailing objections to his theory that came from scientists of the day. Okay? He has to acknowledge them. So what he does is he acknowledges them, throws out some BS, and then moves on to the next point. It gives the illusion as if he’s addressing the holes in his theory. But it’s not. It’s all a trick. No. And when I read through Origin of the Species in this way, looking at the arguments, 90% of it is just fluff, which is another trick.
It’s the fallacy of verbosity. You put together this book, 90% of it is legitimate observational science. But when you get to what he is saying, there’s nothing there. And yet, boom. The hype. I would compare it to today’s climate change. I was actually going to say COVID. Yeah. Better yet, all it is is a bunch of word salad trying to make it sound like, what? You don’t know how smart we are and you can’t stay with us, but it’s the same damn thing.
It’s a joke. It is. And that’s how they sell it. Make you feel stupid if you don’t pretend it’s like The Emperor’s New Clothes. And in my book, I wrote a book on this called God Versus Darwin. And I talk about in the book, the movie Inherit the Wind, which was a big propaganda flick. And they keep making remakes and they still show the reruns. And what do they do? They have the character there who’s based on Williams Jenning Bryant is arguing against evolution.
Then you have Spencer Tracy, and they portray Williams Bryant as just a lunatic. And Spencer Tracy is calm, cool, collected, and he’s got all these scientists in the front row with their shirts, their bow ties, and their little pocket protectors. These are men of science. And then he turns around and he’s grilling them on little intricacies of the Book of Genesis. Well, how can this be? Sets up a straw man.
But that’s the bunk. They always try to make you feel stupid. They intimidate you with terminology and biological terms and some other tangential issues. Got nothing to do with it, but keep your eye on the ball. Life coming from non life has never been observed and never will be observed. Amen. New stuff being added to a genetic pool or new body parts coming out of it has not never been observed.
And we go on and on. Got to read God versus Darwin. It’s part of my package. But again, there’s a reason for this. It was to you tear down Gods, you begin to reduce people into degenerates who are easier to control. That’s what the New World Order wants. Right? Well, okay, let’s get to the one more thing, because I don’t think that we’re going to be able to cover too much more.
This is the Civil War, 1861 to 65. And you know what? I want to say that I have a little bit of contention in calling it the Civil War, because a civil war in its essence, is two forces fighting for the control of one thing. And the south wasn’t fighting for control of DC. South was fighting for autonomous control, their own self determination. So they were away from DC.
And the north went down there and basically said, no, you’re going to come back in here. So it was the north trying to force the south back in. It wasn’t really a civil war as much as it was a war. Well, I think the war of Northern Aggression, I think, is probably a more apropos term, but for the sake of discussion, it’s coined as the Civil War. Yeah, it was a long time in the making.
These hardcore secessionists, they were really among the elite class of the Southerner. The average Southerner really didn’t come around to this secessionist view until after 30 years of being hit with what I would consider propaganda. Certainly Andrew Jackson, after he took a very strong hand or a threat of force to suppress the secessionist movement in South Carolina 30 years earlier, and he never lost his support in the south.
The south was pro Union during that time. Well, there were a lot of Southern people. There were a lot of Southern regiments, people who were strong. They wanted to be Unionists, and they sent men up into the north to fight. Well, there are 100,000 Southerners fought for the Union that volunteered to fight. So there was ample Unionist sentiment. If you were pro Union, you were treated very badly.
This whole idea now of, oh, well, we’re fighting for liberty, but men were drafted against their will, including pro union Southerners. So even within the south, there was this division. And in the election of 1860, there were four candidates. Three of them were Unionist, and the fourth, Breckenridge, was pretty much considered an open secessionist. But if you add up all the votes from the south, the majority of the south voted for Unionist candidates.
Not so much for Lincoln, but certainly for the other. They really they really vilified Lincoln. And it was interesting for me to learn that half of the states had already seceded before his inauguration, even though he’s continually know I’m not going to do anything to undo, you know, what is about. I mean, they were willing to compromise on given not only had he given assurance he’s not going to touch slavery in the existing states, his allies in the Congress introduced something called the Corwin Amendment, which would have put it in the Constitution enshrined slavery in Southern states as a constitutional amendment.
Yeah, it would be up to the states if they wanted to get rid of it or not. Yeah. The individual states. It would be nothing from the federal government to challenge slavery. So there were many voices of reason, including Robert E. Lee during this build up time. So I don’t believe that this had to have happened. And also before he was inaugurated, there was a plot against his life that was broken up, and the ringleader was an Italian, which is kind of OD.
I mean, an Italian from Italy and claimed to be well, he’s pro Confederate, but he had links to actually was a member of the Knights of the Golden Circle, which was a secret society. And the assassination plot had the same flavor as some of these murderous plots that were killing European kings at the time. Right. They were going to throw a bomb at Lincoln’s carriage. So this is before he was even inaugurated.
If you read his inauguration message of 1861, to me, it’s very conciliatory, and half the states are already bolted, and he’s saying there can’t be any violence unless you initiate. He’s just he’s know, let’s work this out, essentially. So there was nothing bombastic or threatening in his inauguration speech. That’s for, you know, once the events happened at Fort Sumter, and again it goes back to South Carolina, which was the original hotbed of this stuff, back when Calhoun was not a good man 30 years ago, was starting his stuff.
So I don’t believe it had to happen. And neither did Robert E. Lee or Sam Houston. So it was not this unanimous consent of the Southern people of that’s it, we got to fight. It’s a lot more nuanced than that. I mean, when you have 100,000 Southerners volunteering to fight for the Union at a time when I don’t know, what was the Southern population at that time? Maybe 4 million people, 5 million people, something like that.
Altogether, somebody in the Chat is asking, says it weren’t like, 75% to 80% of the slave owners, Jews. And I think that’s probably true. I think the statistic is 70% to 80% of the Jews own slaves. Yeah. I don’t think it’d be that high because they were a small percentage of the population. Yeah. In other words, most Jews own slaves, including the ancestors of people who own the New York Times, the Salzberger Oaks.
Yeah. And there was only 1%. I think it was 1% of the population in the south had slaves. It wasn’t high at all. But if you really want to delve into who were trafficking the slaves from the continent to the Americas, not just United States, the United States actually got only about 4% of the entire population of people that came from the continent of Africa to the Americas.
Only 4% of them came to the United States. And in the Constitution, they actually had a clause in there that said that they were only going to allow the importation of slaves for 20 years. I think it was 1819 they passed that bill, and there was no more slave importation. So therefore, all of the remaining slaves, if you were going to have slaves in perpetuity, they had to come from the slaves that were actually here, so they had to procreate.
I’m not suggesting by any stretch of the imagination that there weren’t barbarous activities levied against slaves, but the vast majority of what we hear in terms of how we believe the south treated their slaves, that’s all from Hollywood. That’s all from roots. Yeah. Remember Roots? Yeah. I wanted to give it was more of a paternalistic, benevolent type attitude, maybe more like Gone With the Wind. Right. When you really look at I don’t mean to use this in the way that I’m going to, so bear with me.
I’m just using this as an analogy, but when you have a dog or a cat, they’re your pets, and you love them and you cherish them. And I’m not suggesting that these human beings were pets, but I’m saying that the same sort of attitude from the owners. That’s how that translated to these people. They loved them, and a lot of times the slaves loved their owners. So it wasn’t the typical monster attitude.
Django Unchained shows not saying that that never happened, but that was not the overall arching reality. Let’s see here. Do you want to touch on Abraham Lincoln’s assassination, or do you want to go into the do you want to talk about the hope part? Because we got about ten minutes left. The what part? The hope part. We’re going to end every month oh, that’s right. With a message.
Ten minutes left. Can you cover the Lincoln assassination in that time? And we still leave with time for the hope. Yeah, I think so. That, too, was part of a conspiracy. There were actually eight people arrested, four people executed, and that’s conveniently left out of the history books, too, because we’re not supposed to believe in, know, John Wilkes Booth, who to me was just the trigger man. If anything.
He was also a member of the Knights of the Golden Circle, which there’s actually a book out there by a Southern researcher, took a deep dive into this secret society and it was a lot more to it. Breckenridge was one of their boys and he came in, he was vice president one time and he ran against Lincoln in the 1860 election. He ran for president. So there were some big people in the south part of this secret society.
So John Boost was associated with that, as was the earlier conspiracy. I talked about the bomb plot that was foiled. That was Knights of the Golden Circle. And then we have the strange incident of Lincoln’s two sons getting very ill, what appears to be poisoned, one of them dying. Tad dying. So, yeah, they were out to get Lincoln. Lincoln had his enemies. He wasn’t going to take money from the Rothschild.
He printed the greenbacks instead. And that’s always the common link. Lincoln. Garfield. Andrew jackson. Kennedy. Anytime you start doing your own monetary deal okay, another big no no, regardless how one feels about Lincoln, was he hooked up with the okay. Right. And they made a deal. And the purchase of Alaska, I believe, was like a payoff after the fact, so called Sewards folly. It did seem like folly at that time, but it was probably a favor to Russia.
Right. Okay. Between his love of Russia and his opposition to the lending, lincoln had his enemies in Europe, that’s for sure. And I do not believe this is just somebody who was upset that they lost the war, who went out on his own and killed Lincoln. In fact, we know was at least eight people. One thing that you didn’t really touch on is when Lincoln was coming into Washington after being elected in the first term, he actually kind of snuck in.
He dressed under disguise and came into Washington in a disguise because of fear of assassination. Yeah. He was being hunted even before they were going to do a Franklin Pierce on him. Franklin Pierce was taken out before he was even in argument. Almost taken out the training accident which decapitated his ten year old son. Right. And it’s interesting, even though Pierce was not at all like confrontational, as far as the secession is questioned, it’s just a matter of killing for the sake of killing, destabilized the country.
And so this was going on here. This was going on in Europe. Sometimes you kill the guy even though he hasn’t done anything against the cabal, just because he’s the leader of the country, we can benefit from the opportunities of killing him. Absolutely. It was a wild time. Wild time. Well, I think we’re in wild times now, too. Yeah. I think you’re going to like the piece that I just sent out tonight talking about in the anti New York Times.
Yes. The mass media the New York Times, Washington, Paul, pretty much all of them. Now, I’m sure you’ve noticed they’re speaking of Trump in a tone that is almost of inevitability. You notice that? Yes. And they keep dropping the dictator term or the Hitler term. Right. And the point of my article that I just sent out tonight is, I believe the press is under continuity of government directives doing this.
You say, well, no, they’re saying he’s a dictator. That’s bad. Now the only bad publicity is no publicity. And here they are saying that Trump is inevitable and he’s going to have authoritarian power. And he keeps saying it and saying it and saying it. And what’s Trump’s reaction to this? He linked to one of the articles on True Social. He’s proud of what they’re saying. They’re saying he’s inevitable.
We can’t stop him. He’s going to be a dictator. He puts up a link, and the image of the link is a man in the top half is Julius Caesar and the bottom half is Trump. So that’s what’s coming. It is inevitable. And the press now is helping Trump. They’re under control. I truly do believe this because this forget about the negative stuff that’s in the articles. He’s a dictator.
He’s Hitler. It’s a predictive programming, and you’re seeing it more and more and more. I could give you like a dozen cases, major articles. They’re saying Trump, it seems like he’s inevitable. It seems like they can’t stop him. They’re actually publicizing polls that show him six, seven points ahead of with. I’m going to share this just so you get to kind of see what you’re missing is let’s see here.
I need to share it. This is what you guys are missing if you don’t tune in. So why a second Trump presidency may be more radical than his first and then the rebuttal by the Times. So this stuff is real good stuff that Mike puts out, and he puts it out every day. There’s one that comes out almost every single, you know, get in there and sign up because you do not want to miss it.
It’s really good stuff. And I mean, I think it’s like, what, like $4 a month or something like that. You know what, I’ll let your readers get the anti New York Times delivered to their inbox for just $2 a month. You’ll see a special if you go on a home page, you’ll see the automatic subscription. I prefer they do that. You could also do one time subscription. But if they’re going to do the automatic, you’ll see on the front page where it says auto donate through subscribe star $2 a month attorney into New York Times and all the PDFs.
But most of the stuff at the site is free. At the very least, get on the mailing list and sign up for the free report. How to respond to an anti conspiracy genius. It is genius. It is good stuff, and nobody else is doing it. Nobody else links the history to the current events like I do. Because now, again, we’re talking about Trump. Who’s Trump’s favorite president? Andrew Jackson.
Why he killed the bank. Okay? Why did they hate Trump so much? One of the reasons he was close to Russia. Why did they kill Lincoln? He got close to the Tsar. There’s a pattern over and over and over. And once you really understand the history, it’s just even more mind blowing when you turn on the news. And if I may, I also noticed some parallels between our good friend Adolf and Trump, and that is the potential court case.
And that was the court case when he was tried for treason, and then the judge was sympathetic to him, and then that’s how he got all of his information out. We are facing a trial against Trump, and that’s one of the ways he’s going to get information out to the Was. Who was Trump fighting and who was Adolf fighting? I mean, they’re both fighting the same people. I mean, the piece that I sent out tonight, who are all these people attacking? It’s the same cast of characters.
Only difference is, because of circumstances, Trump has to play it strategically correct. It just would not be good for him. And it wouldn’t even be fair to just come out and say, well, the Jews did this, the Jews did that, the Jews did that. He’s isolating this particular gang of Jews, these Jewish mafioso, right? At the same time he’s doing this. He constantly reminds us how much he loves the Jewish people.
And that is brilliant because he has insulated himself against the kiss of death, is when they label you as an anti Semite. They could never put that on Trump. They tried, but they his daughter’s married to a Jew. He’s always saying how much he loves Israel. And some of the people in our movement, they hear this, they’re like, oh, he’s one of them. They don’t understand. This is how you operate.
This is how you approach a dangerous animal. You don’t go head on, okay? You play the game. He’s played it like Michael Corleone played it’s. Absolutely brilliant. Yeah. Guys, do not allow yourself to fall sway to that negative. Trump is a Zionist mentality because that is not the case. If he was, then they wouldn’t be putting 98% of all the media against him. They wouldn’t be trying to attack him.
They wouldn’t be trying to put him into prison and make him I mean, they wouldn’t be doing all these things. And these are signs of desperate moves, because they’re terrified he’s going to win, and they’re terrified of what he’s going to do when he wins. And he’s going to win, and he’s going to do this is one time when the fake news is telling the truth. He is going to get his revenge.
He is an extraordinarily vindictive man. In a justice kind of way. Correct. And this has been consistent throughout his life. He doesn’t tolerate low life sneaks and liars. That’s part of his character. This goes way back. He really hates these people, as he should. Amen to that. Yeah. Mike, listen, hold on 1 second before you go. All right, guys, listen. We’re going to cut it off. We’re at our hour mark, so we’re going to say goodnight to everybody.
You all have a great night and we’ll see you next. Yes, we all know that he did win, but you guys got to realize that there was something bigger at play here. So things had to turn out the way that they did, because when the economy comes crashing down, he can lay it at the feet of Biden, and then he can come in and be the knight on the white horse.
And if you look at all the public sentiment we needed to have the people see again, as Q said, you cannot tell the people. You’ve got to show the people. And these four years that we’ve been going through have been showing the people. Exactly. Anyway, all right, guys, thank you all. We will see you next week. So have a good night, everybody. All right. .
Author
