been listening to your podcast for a while now and I love the content and the brutal honesty.
As an attorney who fought against COVID mandates, I follow a lot of dissenting medical and legal
voices and read a lot of great stacks, but your posts and podcasts are amongst my favourite.
Thank you for all you do. LegalGlass, thank you so much for that lovely comment and thank
you for subscribing to my sub-stack. Helgi, hi Amid, all the best and lots of love from
Iceland. I've been researching all this stuff since around 2009-ish and I have to say that
your podcast is one of the best in the space so far and I fully support your change to start
charging for every episode. I didn't even know that you had to pay well before. If you're ever in
Iceland, please come by and visit me in my brewery in Hela. Wow, well I hope I do get to visit
Iceland and I'll definitely give you a shout if I come. And Jewel, I believe you're one of
the few out there that is not controlled by ego, arrogance, pride, money or coercion.
It is truly humbling to discover how much of our lives are based on lies which we've failed to
question. And to everyone else who's signed up and become a supporter on Spotify and on
sub-stack, I just want to say thank you so much and welcome. You're part of a wonderful tribe
and you keep this show alive and I'm most grateful. Okay, let's get into the show.
You are listening to the Doc Malik podcast. This show is 100% independent and fully funded
by listeners like yourself. So if you wish to support Ahmed in all that he is doing,
then please subscribe to his channel on Spotify or his sub-stack. Or simply buy him a coffee with a
one-off donation, links to which can be found at dot malik.com. Now, let's get on with the show.
So, Rurik, honestly, listen, thanks for coming back. I so enjoyed our chat last time. I mean,
the stuff that you went on about Plato and the Platonic ideas and how a lot of that has
shaped authoritarian, totalitarian thinking in the last decades and centuries. It was like mind
blowing. So thanks for that. Well, I had a great time. Thanks for having me back. And yeah, it was,
I was surprised that we had such a esoteric talk. But I guess there was just something in there
that night, you know, and we just felt like it. I think it's like, I think we're both fundamentally
deeply philosophical. But look, I'm an amateur. I've never had any formal education in philosophy.
I didn't even know what philosophy was up until a few years ago. I haven't read
learned papers and books by philosophers. But there's something that I'm going to do. But I
love philosophy. I love thinking about things and why we are where we are today. Where did we come from?
Where are we going? Just these thoughts, I always mapped them out in my head. And I think you're
very similar. Am I right? Yeah, I guess what I would object to or quibble about is calling it
philosophy. I know the word means like what love of knowledge or something. But, you know,
I think that what has occurred is a kind of brand capture, where like, for example, if you want to
search for something online, you'll say, I'll Google that. You know, you're trying to say,
I'll search for it. But you've, you know, the brand capture of Google has become so powerful
that it has become a verb. And in the same way that like, you know, you have a runny nose
and you get a Kleenex Kleenex is not a handkerchief or a tissue. It's a company name, right?
So on and so forth. But so philosophy is kind of the same thing. I see it all as a social
engineering project. So when I, when someone said, when I say philosophy, I think of it as,
you know, with a capital P and with a trademark at the end, philosophy TM is literally everything
that is derived from Plato onwards, which justifies and expands the social engineering
project. So I think we have a love of, you know, learning and D and trying to make sense of things.
But I think that pretty much 90% of the philosophical tradition that has been produced
by the West is not only garbage, but it's it's pure evil, actually. And if I could,
I'd round up all the philosopher texts and I would burn them. But, you know, maybe people
aren't ready for such drastic actions yet. Well, listen, no, no, I love that. Look, I was thinking
last time we went back in time, 2000 years, even more than 2000 years. And let's let's stick to
something contemporary and let's talk about Iran and what is going on. But before we do that,
no, expand a little bit more. What do you mean by, you know, social engineering, you'd
burn them all? You had fascinated. What do you mean by that? And I, I kind of understand
because I think what I don't like is intellectualism. I don't like it when people intellectualize and
complicate what are essentially simple things in life, you know, and they just use flowery
language, flowery words, big words, words that people don't understand, trying to make themselves
seem and appear so clever, so superior. And basically contues obfuscate and just,
you know, muddy the waters when things are really, really simple. And I think
that is some of what I say in philosophy, but I also, I want to understand what you,
I mean, I've got other ideas, but I want to hear from you. What do you mean, like 90% plus
you've been it? Why? Well, well, we also said you wanted something contemporary. And I think
I can provide that when we get into discussion of Iran. I think I can tie in the ancient myths
and ancient social engineering agendas with the current situation in Iran. I think it would
turn out really interesting as we get into that. But to answer your question, again, it's, you know,
it's everything that we think of as philosophy or most of it is essentially a Plato project.
It's all derived from Plato. And the philosophers will tell you that themselves, they will call
themselves, you know, plateness or they everything that they're arguing with or about
is in relation to Plato and Aristotle. So, you know, you have the Hegelians. I mean, that's,
that's platonic Kant. It's platonic thought as well. And most of it, most of these philosophers,
we only really know about them because they serve the state in some capacity. And so their
philosophy was useful to the powers that be, that's why they, that's why, you know, they
weren't burned and their works weren't destroyed or censored. And that's why we're taught
about it to this day. So, you know, it was either Hegel or Kant, that was basically the
core historian of Prussia under the Frederick the Great. And he was justifying what at the time
was the most barbarous state or government in all of Europe that was waging war on all of its
neighbors. And he needed like a philosophy to sort of justify this and also to like,
you know, put Prussia on the intellectual map as not just a, you know, a thieving, slaving,
you know, military outpost, but like as a court worth being in. And he basically just
reconstructed neo-Spartanism. And so a lot of the, you know, a lot of people complain about
like the education system, for example, they'll say, oh, it's based on the Prussian model,
you know, like you send your kids to school, and you're they're being drilled in the
Prussian way. And that's true. Basically, our school systems are designed on the Prussian model,
but the Prussians were borrowing from Sparta. So, I mean, you could spend all your time
trying to decode what these philosophers were trying to say. And they spoke, they spoke a coded
language, like you, they use words like that have double meanings. So just you can read it
with like a normal English translation or whatever. And you won't understand any of it because
they'll use simple words like kitchen sink or something like that. And it'll mean something
completely different. It's a philosophical term. And so they create these entire vocabularies and
castles in the sky. And but when you like cut through it all, they are just talking about
Plato, they are just talking about Sparta, they are just talking about social engineering,
justifying it, coming up with ways to make it more palatable. And that sort of thing.
And you know, that's that's it. You can sort of skip all the weird, you know, stuff that they do
about, I mean, everyone talks about the Hegelian dialectic, right? Action reaction synthesis
call, you know, the elite cause a problem they offer, then people react to it and they offer
a solution to it. And that's the agenda. That's how they get the agenda to march forward,
right? Action reaction synthesis. And it's like, yeah, that's that's true. And the but this
was postulated in the context of philosophy. Like, you know, the cover for it was Oh, this is like
some sort of philosophical musing or whatever. In reality, as we have discovered for ourselves,
the Hegelian dialectic was quickly taken from being a philosophical concept, which I don't
think it ever was, and was used for social engineering. So how is it like that's I mean,
it's a direct example of what I'm talking about the guy who comes up with Hegelian dialectic
is the guy who's basically shilling for Neo Sparta, Russia. And he's the guy who and this method of
coercing people and getting them to move along with the agenda. This has been this is basically our
go to frame for understanding what's being done to us now. So I think the connection is really
there. It's really evident if you just sort of, you know, yeah. And I think clarify when
we talk about social engineering, it is the manipulation of the masses, the public,
the proletariat, whatever you want to call it, people by those who are in power for their own
good, not necessarily for the people's good. The system that they build is so artificial
that it requires inordinate amounts of effort to maintain it. It requires inordinate amounts of
coercion, manipulation, propagandizing, upsc, obfuscation, and all these tricks.
And these tricks were all developed by one philosopher or another at some point in history.
They were, you know, the guys were developing their centuries equivalent of MK Ultra. That's
how you should do philosophers. Are they all bad? I mean, take for example,
Francois Marie Arout, you know, known as Voltaire, you know, and, you know, he was locked up
in the Bastille twice for what he was writing about. He was mocking powerful figures.
He talked about freedom of speech. He was against censorship. He was against, you know,
religious intolerance. He was very skeptical of authority. And, you know,
someone like him, is he also a bad guy? I mean, I mean, the thing is, is that pretty much all
of our history, modern political history from, you know, as best as we can reconstruct it,
depending on how far back you think the histories accurately go. It's a battle between
two systems. It's a battle between Platonism and Christianity, or one version of Abrahamism or
another. So in Muslim countries, they have the same dichotomy, and they have their own version
of Platonism. There's a guy called Alpha Arabius or Alpha Reibi. He may, the Greeks called
them Alpha Rabius. Anyway, it doesn't matter. How'd you spell his name? How'd you spell his name?
Well, the Greek version of the spelling is like Alpha and then Rabius. And then the Arab version
is Al Farabi. Okay. Okay. And he wrote, like, so this gets to the foundations. And I think
this is a good place to pick up, because that's where we sort of ended the discussion last
time. But, you know, you have a guy called Augustine who writes City of God. And it's,
you know, it's considered the foundational work of political and religious philosophy
in the West. I don't know. Are you familiar with that? Have you heard of that?
City of God? No. No, City of God, I think I have, yes. Right. So basically Augustine is
trying to explain why Western Roman Empire collapsed. And so he, and he basically comes
up with this explanation. And then he proposes this model going forward for what they're going
to build in its place. And he has basically two utopias that he has in mind, a perfect utopia
and a second best utopia. What does that sound like? And so the first utopia is the
city of God. And then the second one is the city of man. And so it's exactly like the Republic
versus laws. So Plato had the, you know, this ideal utopian state that he wanted to impose.
And then he had the second best utopian state that he wanted to impose. And so there you go.
However, in the standard chronology, seven centuries have passed since Plato. And now we
have Augustine, the Carthaginian of Hippo, I think, and he's basically picking up the discussion
exactly where it was left off. And he's once again proposing a utopian city model. And he's
once again saying, well, you know, we got a first best option and a second best option.
Nothing has changed 700 years have passed. And we're talking about the exact same thing.
And then this alpharabias that I put up writes a book, I think it's, it's called
The Virtuosity. The Virtuosity. And wouldn't you believe it? It's about a utopia government.
And it's once again, it's talking about how he's, he's trying to say,
how can we, he's a Platonist, he's saying, how, how can we actually make the Platonic model
work? And they, yeah, he said he wanted a philosopher profit. He wanted
hierarchical but harmonious order. Hierarchical to me means there are people at the top and
there's people at the bottom. There's people at the top who make the decisions and the people
in the bottom who don't, there's people at the top who have all the wealth and power and
the people at the bottom don't. I'm not for hierarchical. Now some might say, Amid, you're
just a, you know, idealist. This isn't reality. This is a human beings are messy and some are
better than others. And, you know, this isn't communism. Some people at the top have to
make all the decisions. The smarter people have to and the people at the bottom, the
lazy, dumb people, well, they just need to be told what to do. Are we being unrealistic here?
Well, if the devil is in the details, yes, people are different. Yes, they're smarter
and more conscientious people. But that is not the criteria that decides who gets to be
a ruler and a gold soul, the aristocrat or a philosopher king or a virtuous prophet.
But just to finish on that, just a quick thing. So he's basically describing what Mohammed
will have to be. Okay. Like he's creating the template for a Mohammed to step into it,
you see. And it's, he's also basically describing like Kyrgis. He's saying we need a
prophet lawgiver to come along. Okay. And, you know, this gets a little bit weird because
he's ostensibly a Muslim writing in the 10th century or the 9th century, according to the
standard chronology. No mention of Mohammed. No mention of the Koran. He doesn't cite the
Koran. No Hadiths. No. How is that possible? He's a Muslim. First of all, the timeline
doesn't make sense. And even if it is the correct timeline, it's so baffling that
Augustine, who wrote City of God, which is talking about these exact same concepts as Plato, supposedly
seven centuries after Plato, then we have the time skip of how many centuries, seven more centuries,
or six more centuries. And we pick back up with Al-Farabi. And he's talking about the exact
same thing. It's incredible, isn't it? And then we do it. Augustine of Hippo was 450 years
before Al-Farabi. So you're right. I mean, 450 years is a long time. And they're picking, I mean,
the name of the books, I mean, the City of God, Virtuous City, I mean, that's all kind of the
same thing, isn't it? It's all the Republic versus laws of Plato. It's the same thing. It's the
exact same thing. That's all philosophy is, man. I'm telling you, once you understand Plato,
I mean, someone, I think it was Alfred Whitehouse or something, he said that philosophy are the
footnotes to Plato. That's a famous quote. I'm not sure if I got the
Is it incredible that one person, one person thousands of years ago has made such a profound
impact on humanity? I mean, he is arguably, you know, it's Muhammad that made the impact. However,
or it's Jesus or it's Moses, right? Or it's Buddha or something. But if you take our
conspiratorial lens, and you arrange the chronology in the way that I suggest, which is that Plato
came before all of this, then yeah, he's the architect behind the scenes. However, if you ask
any layperson or, you know, 99% of people, they'll argue with these fake constructed
profit lawgivers, they'll say it was the profit lawgiver of, you know, my country or my
religion. That's the guy who really, it's like, yeah, but you know, it's kind of funny that he fits
the template that Plato and Al-Farabi and Augustine outline, like, well, what are the odds of
that happening? You know, so they people, yeah. Yeah, I was going to say something interesting.
Let's, let's, let's just do an elevator pitch on both Christianity, Jesus and Islam, Muhammad.
Why, why are they, are they genuine? Are they fake? Are they constructs? What are they? What
what are they all about? Well, I can quote the mullahs of Tehran. I can quote Homeini, the previous
supreme leader, the supreme religious leader. He based the Iranian government after the overthrow
of the Shah. He based it on Al-Farabi. He based it on Plato. He's open about it. The Iranian,
Iran, what is it? Homeini and Homeini both have said that Iran is the ideal platonic state.
Really? Yes, you can Google that. They have come, there's public statements.
They were also part of this like underground, not like, like, like, like a, like a student circle or
like a academic scholarly society dedicated to neoplatonism. So they, they basically were these
platonic wizards before they came to power. But yes, Iran, that's why it's called the
republic. It's the Iranian people's republic of Iran, right? It's the, it's the, it's the republic.
It's not really a republic. I mean, if you look at this, it's not a republican structure,
like when we think of republic, we think of Rome. When they use the term republic,
they're referring to Plato. It's, it's once again, it's a philosophy word that takes
a normal word or a word that we think means something else. And it's got an esoteric
occult meaning that only the philosophers understand. In the same way that you have the
democratic people's republic of Korea, which is also built on platonic principles, you know, it's,
it's very explicit. And are they really democratic? Are they really a republic? No,
not even close. I mean, I'm not saying it to say that they're evil or something,
but just, you know, structurally, factually speaking, this is not what we would consider
a republic. It's definitely nothing like the French Republic or the American Republic.
So why are they saying that they're republics? Because they're, they're referencing Plato. In
fact, you know, the red star that the communists use and that it's the emblem of the North Korean
state, that's, that's the star of the path of the Pythagorean brotherhood, the five, the
pentacle, the five pointed star. That's supposed to, that's supposed to symbolize the ideal man,
the transformed man, the ubermensch, you know, these are very old ideas. Okay, they, you know,
the ubermensch, I'm kind of skipping all over the place. I think you need to reel me in or
I'll start ranting about tangentially related stuff. But I mean, even if you go to some far,
my point is that even if you go to some far flung peninsula with some bizarre hermit kingdom there
and you'd think, well, surely North Korea has nothing to do with these topics that we're discussing,
ancient Greece and, you know, ancient Maccabean revolts or whatever from last time. But you'd
be exactly wrong. Actually, North Korea is 100% an example of the ideal platonic state as
described in the Republic. And they're consciously imitating it, even the symbology that they use.
And, and if you know the history of how it came to be, how it came about, it becomes even more
readily apparent that that's exactly what happened. In contrast, you could say that's a state like
South Korea is the second best utopian republic, because they're Christian. And, and well,
that's a, it's a whole other attention, I guess you could say. But the point I'm making is that
these ideas are explained about 90% of what's happening in the contemporary world. What happened
a couple centuries ago. This, these ancient conspiracies are 100% relevant. So it actually
does make sense to learn about them. So in terms of Iran, let's go back to Iran a bit.
So the Khamenei, Khamenei, I think the difference with, you know, the, the, the platonic ideas,
instead of having a philosopher king, they've got this religious jurist. So now basically, it's
people who are scholarly and wise in religion. And, you know, so they rule with their superior
knowledge and wisdom. And that's, and they don't rather than popular democracy. But then
some people would argue they have elections in Iran. And, you know, they elect their
officials. So isn't that a democracy? They, well, the Soviet Union had elections too.
You just, you had to vote for people that were only in the Communist Party.
Nobody else was allowed. But yeah, you could vote. It's, you know, voting is not the defining
characteristic of any of these political systems. In fact, in most political systems, you get to
vote. But I think voting is more just a psychological ritual, psychological operation.
You know, so yes, you could vote in the Soviet Union. I think you can vote in North Korea.
You could vote in Iran. That's, but that's not really what's what's going on here.
But you've got your sanctioned candidate A or B, you can never get any, and to be honest,
it's no different in the West, is it? Biden or Trump, and they're both working for the same
people. It's just a different, so I think the way they've, the biggest sigh up is convincing people
that they have power and that they can have, and they also have choice, and they can vote in
their leader and vote out and actually it's just to pacify the masses. I agree. If the
masses realize that they didn't have any choice, then there'd be revolt. And they'd be like
pitchforks in the street. But the way you avoid that is one, the king of old is no longer out there
in public domain. You don't know who the real puppet master is. They're hidden. You don't
know their name. You don't know their face. And then they use puppets, and they control
both puppets. And you then think you, you know, you're voting in your favorite puppet.
And you know, it doesn't matter which puppet you vote in, the real king, the real power
broker, is they're pulling the strings from the shadows. And we can't see them. We don't know
about them. And mention of them is conspiratorial. So we're all pacified and we're kept subdued.
That's what modern day voting and democracy is all about, in my opinion.
I couldn't agree with you more. This isn't to say that one country has a better than
another country. I think it's, it's, they're pretty much all doing one version, or another,
of the thing that I'm complaining about, just to be clear, you know, I don't want people to.
Can I, can I go back to Iran a little bit? So it's really funny. If you look at Iranian
history, it's so desperately sad. America discovers oil and starts refining it in the
1800s. Britain doesn't have any oil. Everything's based on coal. They've got massive coal reserves.
That's what drove their industrial revolution. They've got coal shipped powered, you know,
steamships and Navy ships, but they want oil. And now suddenly oil is discovered in the southwest
of Iran. And the Brits are all over it. And they, they, they get leases and they convince the
local people and the Shah or whatever. And suddenly they set up this company called the
Ango, you know, Iranian oil company, and they make a lot of money from it. But the thing is,
you know, they, they put their own puppet leader, this guy who's just a captain, a cavalry officer,
whatever, as the Shah. And in return, he gets to be the Shah he's trained by the west.
And some like 95% or whatever, I'm not sure the exact number, but a lot of the revenues
of Iran, all the oil revenues to go to Britain. So even though the company's called Anglo-Iranian,
the Iranians get very little of any of the actual oil that's from their land.
It's worse than that. There's many people, conspiracy theorists, Iranians, who believe
that that oil goes to Israel and that it's now controlled by Israel. And people have been
arrested apparently for bringing that up. Oh, there you go. There you go. But let's go before
even the issue. So the Brits now control this oil, one of the biggest oil sources in the world,
I think second only to Venezuela. And they've got gas there as well. So they're very happy,
they're making lots of money, lots of profit. But then this very pesky, annoying guy called
Mossadah comes along and nationalizes the oil in 1951, I think, or something like that.
And now all the revenue stream just disappears, all this, all this oil just is gone.
And they're absolutely furious. And they want to take it back. They convinced the Americans that,
you know, these guys are going to be communists and they're going to be allied with communists.
You need to help us. And I think it's called Project Ajax or BOOT, depending whether it's
CIA or the Brits. And then they take back the oil company because they basically do a coup.
The first coup doesn't work. The second coup doesn't. What do they do? They infiltrate
Iran. They pay all the media companies to broadcast propaganda against Mossadah,
talk about him joining, becoming communism, talking about how he's going to destroy Islam and,
you know, cancel Islam in Iran, which obviously gets people upset.
He pays for rioters and agitators to make it look like the country's falling apart
and there's troubles everywhere. And he pays, you know, people who were loyal to the Shah
in the military. And then they do this coup and they defeat Mossadah. They've imprisoned him
in his own house and he dies in his own house in the late 60s. And it's desperately sad.
And then the Shah comes back. He's tyrannical. He's authoritarian. He's a playboy.
He's got all the girls. He's got his harem. He's got his jets. But as before, all the oil goes to
Israel and Britain. And it was Israel because Israel, Mossad and Israel and MI5, MI6, whatever,
they train the Shah's authoritarian troops. The secret police. Yeah, the Sawaka.
Sawaka, whatever. And they train his secret police. They keep everybody under control.
There's nothing philosophically about him. He's just a tyrant. He's a playboy of the West.
And then, you know, people are getting upset. People are getting upset. Now, what the Americans
and the Brits are very good at is they promote their tyrants. But when they realize that their
lifespan is coming to an end and people are getting a bit agitated and getting wiser
up to this and getting pissed off, they will bring down their own tyrants and replace them with
their other new tyrants, which is just the playbook. So they go, right, you know what, we've had enough
of this Shah and things are getting a bit too difficult. He's not going to be good for us
anymore. And it's interesting. And near the end of his term, the Shah started speaking out
against the influence of Israel and the Israeli lobby and everything. And I think he saw the
writing on the wall. He was like, right, I've had it good for a while. These guys are going to
pull the string on me now. Great. I'm going to start speaking out. And then the Ayatollah
was actually a CIA trained guy. And he was harbored and protected in America, in Paris,
in London. And then they injected him. Now, what I don't know is, did the Ayatollah
go, right, great, I'm in power now, screw you and I'm going to run my own show?
No. Or has he been playing this role ever since this quasi opposition, this mullah bad guy,
and he's still a servant of the globalist and the bankers and the Israelis? Is that still the
case? Because if that is, that's amazing because, and I'm worried because some people are saying,
do you know what? Everything's a show. Iran is working with them. They're all the globalist.
They're all the same. And I think the worry is that that's not true that, you know, they're independent.
They don't have a Rothschild bank. And by falling for the propaganda that they're all controlled,
we kind of like dismiss what's actually happening, which is, you know, a legitimate sovereign
country is being taken over run by despots, I agree, but still people who are standing up
against the empire. And I don't know what it is, are they part of the empire? Are they
playing their role? Or are they a legitimate country that's run by despots and, you know,
being attacked? I just don't know what to believe anymore.
Well, hi, everybody. Little interruption to remind you that I offer a consultation service.
If you want to navigate the sick care system, if you've got an acute illness that you're
dealing with, or even a chronic illness that you need to shake off and recover from or reverse,
if you want to get a second opinion, you want some advice, knowing what questions to ask of
your doctor, I'm here for you. I have a unique position having been a mainstream doctor and surgeon
for 25 years, but also someone who understands the alternative health care system. And I'm telling
you, there's mindfuels in both. Sometimes it can be so confusing knowing which way to turn
and what's right and what's not right, because there's so much conflicting noise and advice.
So I'm practicing medicine as one truly should be, which is empowering and educating the patient to
be their own doctor. I'm offering consultations where I empower you with wisdom and knowledge
so that you ask better questions and you can find solutions that are typically concealed or hidden
from you by the mainstream doctors. I believe in medical ethics and I believe in informed consent.
I have no other agenda. I practice first, do no harm to the patient. So if this resonates with you,
please visit my web.com where you can see the booking page and read all the reviews from past
patients that I've been able to help. And while you're there, check out my website because there's
a shop section with affiliate links to products that my family and I use. These are all
wonderful companies. They're all aligned with our values and these products are not
things that I would not be recommending if they were genuinely not brilliant, such as sea green
supplements, sauna and nudem skincare, et cetera, et cetera. So do check out my affiliate page. It's
another way that you can support the show and another thing you can do is just share my content
and if you haven't already, follow my channel and leave a review if you can on Spotify or
Apple podcast. Okay, folks, that's enough of me. Back to the show. Thank you so much.
Lots of love. No, you've already, you've already, the fact that you know that history, you know,
I don't have to, it's the hardest part is just getting people to learn the basic facts. Everything
that you just spelled out is correct. That's the correct thing. I mean, we can add a few
details here and there, but that is the basic frame. And what people don't understand is that
what you explained that they will put in a puppet and then they will topple their
puppet. And Julian Assange explained this tactic in his WikiLeaks book and he basically,
and I've, my bread and butter, you know, and I'm not talking about ancient conspiracies,
is I believe that this concept, which I call the permanent revolution, is what explains
American and Israeli foreign policy. They maintain a permanent state of chaos in the world.
And this is a Trotskyite philosophy. So, you know, what happens is that in the US,
so there's the revolution in Russia, and the Bolsheviks take power, and there's,
ends up being two factions, Trotskyites and the Stalinites. Stalin wins, assassinates Trotsky,
and, and the story tends to end there in the standard recounting. In reality, though,
the Trotskyites move to the West. Many of them are already in the West and they become the Neocons
in America. So many of the Neocons are sons or descendants of literal mass murders and,
and red Bolsheviks that came over and the American infiltrate the, the, the Fabians. I
mean, the Fabians were already not great. And, and there are politicians or MPs or prime
ministers, you know, they're all Trotskis, Blair, Kirstarmer, all these people.
Yeah. Yeah. And the thing is that, okay, but people don't understand what Trotsky was talking
about. So what Trotsky believed was that, and this is like a deeper philosophical point,
I guess you could say, mostly it's, it's, it's a structural point. It's, it's, he's saying
that basically there's this problem where let's say you have a revolution. And, and
then a hundred years down the line, the principles of the revolution have been lost. They have been
diluted. And so you basically had this divergence. And this is basically a natural process,
as I would put it. So imagine you have a wound. And over time, your wound starts to scab up and
heal. And eventually you just, you're just left with a scar. And that's it, your wound has
recovered. And the, and the problem that Trotsky is trying to solve is how do I keep that wound
open? How do I keep the revolutionary fervor going? How do I keep, you see, people don't
understand that revolutions are actually reversions. They're actually a return to fundamentalism.
And so, you know, what happens is that, you know, you have a revolution, like for example,
the Christians take over Rome. What happens next is that Christianity gets paganized
over the subsequent centuries. All of a sudden you have the cult of the saints.
You have all these, you have this, you know, gargoyles on cathedrals. You have representative
art, which is explicitly banned in the Bible, which is why Protestants don't do representative
art. You know, they don't allow it. That's the same in Islam. Yes, yes, exactly. It's,
they're both getting it from the same source. And actually that source is Plato,
because Plato bans all representative art. We talked about it last time. So yeah. And,
but, you know, obviously Catholicism and orthodoxy allowed it. You have icons and so on.
And so that's clearly Haram. That's not allowed in the Bible. And eventually someone will come
along who points that out and he'll say, whoa, whoa, whoa, what's going on? We've,
you know, we've, we've, we've strayed from the fundamentalist principles.
We need a revolution to get back to the way things were. That's what Martin Luther was about.
He said, he believed the first book he wrote was that Jesus Christ was born a Jew. He was one of
like two people in Europe that could speak that understood Hebrew. So he was able to read
the Masoretic Bible, the Hebrew Bible, and he was in communication with the rabbis who
were teaching him basically. And so he came up with this idea or they gave him this idea
that basically what happened is that Christianity became tainted if it came to pagan. And that's
the reason why the Jews refused to convert. So they had the real original pure strain
of the Bible. And so if we got rid of all the pagan elements in Christianity,
then, then everything will be fine and we would be able to have the Jews convert to Christianity.
And this is kind of like the whole point of Christianity in the sense that once they do
that, once the Jews convert, the end times begin. So there's this constant like, you know,
you know, the church is very, it's like, like, Kyrgis, right? So, you know, the,
you can't change the laws of Sparta until like Kyrgis returns from his journeys and he never
comes back. In the same way, the system of Christianity is set up on the idea that
basically a time will come when the Jews convert and Bada Bing, Bada Boom, the end times kicks off
and Jesus will return and, you know, basically everything we don't, we won't need the church
anymore. Can you imagine having a girlfriend and saying, I love you, I love you, but I need
I need you to change who you are. Like, like, I don't love you as you are right now. I love you
because of who you can become. So I want you to change who you are. It's just so
I could see the reverse. I could see a girlfriend saying that to her boyfriend,
because that's what they all say. But I'm just saying it as a guy. But yeah,
absolutely. The girl is like, absolutely. I mean, I think people try and do that all the time.
Girls do that from what I hear from my guy friends all the time. They're like,
I want you to change. I want you to stop meeting your friends. I want you to stop doing all this
guy shit. Just be this person I want you to be. They're goddesses that are perfect in every
single way and they don't need to change nothing. Yeah. Well, I think maybe it's
got to do with Barbie and Ken. They think the boys are Ken that they can dress up and change.
I don't know. Yeah, that's a good point. Endly, let's get back. Let's get back to
Christianity. Martin Luther. Yeah, so I mean, look, you have this obviously paganized version of
Christianity. Martin Luther is like, well, hold on a sec. I'm reading the Bible here,
talking to the rabbis and they're telling me that you shouldn't have saints. You shouldn't
do this. You shouldn't do that. You shouldn't have music. You know, it's the same. It's
the same in Islam. Yeah, in Islam, there's some sex. Sorry for interjecting. I think
you might find it interesting. In Islam, they're brought in Pakistan and India. There's a thing
called peer, peer and they are saints. And the Muslims certain groups of Muslims will go to the
grave sites of these famous saints who died, who were philosophers and scholarly people
and pray to the saints that, you know, something will happen for them. Good will
happen. You know, but basically pray to the saints. And then there are other Muslims
who are like, oh my God, this is completely heretical. This is blasphemous. The only person
you should pray to is God. Why are we praying to saints? But I don't know. Is it something
about human nature? People want to pray to a dead person? People are naturally pagan. They're
naturally like you want to deify heroes. You want to worship your ancestors. You want to
honor your ancestors' memory. I'll give you an example. In Russia, there's something called
the Immortal March or the Immortal Brigade. And basically on the Victory Day for I think May 9th,
you have these, it was started actually kind of recently, like I think 20 years ago or
something and it really grew. It was, you would just start marching in the street with a photo
or a banner of your loved one in your family who had died or who had served or
was in some way involved in World War II, which was a big deal obviously for Russia.
And so that you'd walk and you'd have candles and you'd have flags and you would have the photo
framed and held or put on a placard and raised above your head. I participated in these marches
three times. I took my dad and for him it was a deeply religious moving experience. He's a kind
so it was, it was a great treat for him that I had basically I said you got to come and we got to
do this and I'm going to have a picture of grandpa ready to go and you know we're going to,
we're going to go out there. So the church. Can I quickly show you something? Can I quickly
show you something? Yeah. So this is in Lahore, Pakistan is Dada Darbar, the shrine of Ali
Hajvery. And my dad, God bless his soul, took me here in 1989. I was only 14 years old or something
like that, 13 years old. I didn't even know what all this was all about. And the funny thing is
this guy, I mean it's not even in our sect of Islam. My sect of Islam is really batshit crazy.
They believe in the promised Messiah, the second coming of Jesus has come already.
But my dad took me here and he wanted to show me how saints were worshiped. And there are people,
thousands of people and they're all going there, they're all praying, touching the, you know,
his Muslim or whatever. It was, it was, I'll never forget it as a kid. And I just thought wow.
And he was like, you know, we're not meant to, we're not meant to pray and worship
dead people. But here you are, Muslims are doing it in this country. And I think that
my dad was just trying to teach me a lesson. I kind of went over my head at the time. But
you know, as a kid, you sometimes have these memories and you never forget them. But anyway,
yeah, that's that. Well, I mean, so my story is the same. And except the church
in Russia, Orthodox Church priests have come out and condemned that march as a, as a pagan idolatry.
And, well, you can see why they would say that because you're honoring the spirits
or the soul or, you know, the memory of your, of your loved ones. And
you know, that's, that's very haram. Like, and then this
But I don't know what is, why that's wrong. Like, I think, I think that's one of the saddest
things about humanity today. Like, I've been to quite a lot of funerals in the last few years.
And I really get disappointed every single time, you know, you go there, whether it's a secular
one or religious one, it's all about, well, the religious ones, it was all about Jesus, Jesus dying,
Jesus dying from the cross and blah, blah. And literally, there's like one mention of the person
who died. And I'm like, wow, like, where have we remembered this person who died? Where are the
people talking about who this person was? And then the secular ones are a little bit better.
They talk about who the person is, but it's all very, it's all very, I don't know,
mechanical. And once it's done that 20 minutes service or whatever happened, because it's all
quick, quick, you know, they're being cremated next one coming, next one coming.
It's like a business model, quick, quick. And, you know, they go to a wake, they have a few drinks,
and then that's it. And then you never remember the dead, you never talk about them. You never,
and I think the moment you stop talking about them, then that's when they're truly dead.
And I think like in South America, there's a culture, you know, where the day of the dead,
wherever they talk about their ancestors, they take out the photos, they remember them.
And I think, isn't this a shame? Oh, my God, yeah, dude, the priests
who were condemning what the March in Russia compared it to the day of the dead and said it was
a disgusting pagan practice. Yeah. But it's not disgusting. Well, we can explain why they think
that. I mean, that's, that's, I spent a lot of time on that. But basically, yeah, the goal of
Abrahamism is to eliminate ancestor worship. And so basically the thing that roots you,
last time you asked me, what would I recommend? Or like, what do I believe? And I told you,
I believe in ancestors, like I have to, I feel like I want to restore my connection to the people
that came before me, and to, you know, think about the future of the people that come after me, I have
to, you know, not be a parasite, but like, you know, someone that, that a strong link in that
chain. And that's exactly what Abrahamism is designed to destroy. I mean, they claim that
they have family values. This is not true. Obviously, the average Christian, or the average Muslim,
probably does have family values. They probably have a wife and kids and, you know, grandma and
grandpa. Yeah, for sure. But you know, if I were a Martin Luther or a Trotsky, a religious
fundamentalist, I'd look at the texts and I'd say what you're doing is haram. And let me explain
why it's haram, because, you know, especially the New Testament is especially bad about this.
It's filled with stuff about cut off your family, take out the sword and drive away your brother,
you know, like in the New Testament. Yeah, yeah, you've, have you heard that quote from Jesus,
I come with a sword? No, I'll just, I'll just, you can just Google it. He's basic. Jesus says
these sort of Christian crusaders online who are like complaining about the Rothschilds or whatever,
they like to quote that a lot. And Jesus says, I come with a sword and they end the quote there.
But there's like a dot dot dot. I come with the sword to cleave or to cut apart, to cut brother
away from brother, father. No, I found it. I'm going to read it to you. Matthew 1034.
Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace
but a sword. Whoa, whoa, whoa. What? I've never, I've never come across it. I've not read the Bible,
so I don't know this. And immediately afterwards it says, for I have come to set a man against his
father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law,
a man's enemy will be the members of his own household. What? Yeah, Jesus. So, you know,
again, why is he saying this? Well, that's the whole, that's the thing that we're getting at here.
That's the whole point of the religion, like structural speaking. And then in Luke 1251 he said,
do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. Huh? Yeah. Yeah. What?
He's there to separate the unclean from the clean, the believers from the unbelievers,
the ones who will burn and the ones who will not burn. Okay, so it's simple. It's like
it's exactly what the modern political establishment does. They create a wedge issue,
something stupid, and those that accept it are going to heaven. They're on the right side of history,
and everyone else has to be condemned. Is he, is he arguing that, look,
there was family loyalty, religious law, communal identity, like, and if you accept Jesus as
the Messiah, well, it's going to be, it's going to cause problems. And some people are going
to believe in him and some people are not. And that's, that's the reason why there'll be divisions.
Is that what you're talking about? That's why you're saying there's going to be fracture?
Sure. But it's also an active injunction to denounce your family. And that comes in
other passages and in acts, and in just, you know, historical records that we have of
what these Christians were up to. So yeah, it's, it's basically it's turning people
against each other, family against one another. And so can I, I mean, I mean, I'm just saying,
I'm just being devil's advocate, it could be, it could be an active injunction, like, you know,
just, you know, this is how it is. It could also just reflect that him saying, look, you know what,
there's not going to be instant harmony and kumbaya, what my message is just going to upset
a lot of people. And it might mean that, you know what families are going to be divided,
be prepared for that. I'm just saying devil's advocate.
Sure. But there are plenty of historical instances of people who took my interpretation of it,
you know, earnestly, who really believed in it and implemented it, right?
Can I just, can I quickly just say something? You know what really confuses me like, you know,
in the Quran, there's a lot of footnotes and commentary. And then the Bible's the same. And,
you know, and I think in Judaism, it's the same people, you know, the Bible scholars,
the Quran scholars, they, they, they pull over the meanings and the ambiguities and the double
meanings. And I'm like, am I, am I being really simplistic and stupid when I say, surely a message
from God should be very simple, easily understood and unambiguous? Like, shouldn't that just-
But if that were the case, if, for example, if civil law in America were straightforward,
easily understood, who, who, you know, how would the lawyers make their money and buy their yachts
and their vacation homes? You know, you need the law to be as opaque and confusing as possible and
contradictory so that lawyers can have a job. And it's the same for priests. You need somebody
to interpret God's, yeah. Absolutely. So my argument is, my argument is, whether it's the
scholars pouring over it with different opinions and, you know, and even in Islam, you've got sex now
because one group of Muslims will say, no, no, this is what the Quran means. And, and other people
say, no, no, this is what the Quran means. And this is what Muhammad actually meant. And I think
Christianity is no different. You know, that's why you've got sex in, in Christianity as well,
because people have different interpretations of what Christianity is. And I'm just saying,
if this was genuinely a God given tome of work or message, I don't think it would
be like that. I don't think it would be ambiguous or confusing. I don't think you need to be a scholar
and study it. I think it would be self-explanatory. I think God would make it simple so that every
one of his children would understand. So by definition, therefore, these aren't works of God.
Is that controversial? I can't even like imagine the mindset of a person who genuinely thinks
that like God wrote these books. So it's hard for me to even step into that frame of mind.
But like, you know, if you're just in general, the problem is ideology, like the concept of
ideology is a very bizarre artificial construct that like we've come to accept and it's become,
we become inert to it in the same way that smartphones were novel to us, you know,
10 years ago. And now everyone has one and we don't think anything of it of having a super
computer in our pocket that also spies on us. But it's the same thing with the concept
of ideology. Like everyone thinks, oh, well, you got to have an ideology. There's nothing wrong
with ideology. People have different ideologies. Ideology is a totally invented thing. Like it's
invented by Plato and it's used as a weapon. So, you know, you get, you can't find two people
in the world that perfectly agree on anything ideologically. It's impossible. You know,
you and I probably could, if we were of the contentious sort, or if someone wanted to
create a wedge between us, they would create some sort of ideological tiff, some sort of ideological
debate. And so every single time you want to divide people or socially engineer a war,
or, you know, come up with some sort of like a thing to achieve actual political social
ends, you go to the ambiguous text that's been edited, revised, you know,
fixed and doctored 10 times over, you find an ambiguous passage, you hone in on it, you tweak
it, or you reinterpret it, and you set off another ideological slash religious war, you can do it with
anything with Marxist Leninism, which is essentially a religion. Ideology is a religion.
It can be a political ideology, Marxism is a religion, fundamentally. But I'll give you
a very concrete example of what I mean. Everyone likes to talk about the Schoesfield
Bible nowadays, right? And how Schoesfield changed the definitions of how he added to the Bible that
he had to support Israel, basically. And that's why Americans and Protestants support Israel,
and they're doing these weird prayer circles to pray for Iranians to be killed,
and to support the Jews, and Hegzeth, this department of war guy, you know,
he considers himself a Christian nationalist crusader, and he's got these tattoos of like
crosses and stuff. It's disgusting. And there's the top spiritual leader of the White House who's
having these bizarre, you know, like, you know, those high roller evangelical, where she like,
you know, starts chanting and saying, I have a prayer and the prayer will come true that
Iran will go up in flames. Oh, Jesus, you know, like there's videos. Yeah, this is the top spiritual
advisor, the head spiritual advisor of the Trump administration, talking about, you know,
blowing up or supporting Israel in their campaigns. And you know what, I've heard that
since Trump came in and Hegzeth, they've appointed all these far right nut job,
you know, conserved to Christian Zionist, you know, military leaders, generals,
carnos, whatever. And there's been complaints from military people like, what the heck? Like,
they're talking about this like Christian crusade against Islam. And this is
Yeah, that they're trying to trigger the end times. Exactly. And I'm so confused because
I'm like, I thought the Iranians were the religious nut jobs like, what the hell is
happening? Like, everybody sounds like a religious nut job. Now, the Mullahs in Iran, you got
the Christian fundamentalism in America, you got the Zionists in Israel, like everybody's losing
the plot. This is a very troubling development. After three centuries of secularism, we are
right back at, you know, in the dark ages of really disgusting superstition. And,
you know, they've really driven people into this. I mean, the Mullahs, they came to power
and they drove Iran into poverty, forced the smartest people to flee. You know, they're looting
and they're mismanagement of the country, creating a desert where there was this verdant,
lush agricultural land, water crisis. The protests that started like in the summer
were over the water crisis that the basically that the government had mismanaged the water
tables and, you know, this is a giant corruption thing. And then that they'd beaten up and shut
up anybody who'd spoken out against it. So people went out to process. This is an Iran. Yeah.
So I've heard, so I've got a friend, a very close friend, the shout out to my friend Ali.
And he's Iranian, British, British Iranian. And I love him to bits. He's the one that
convinced me to grow a beard. Anyway, he was saying, it's not that complicated. Amid is so
hard in Iran. And it sounds like his family were on the side of the Shah and they fled after that.
And he's very sympathetic to what's going on now. And he's like, you know, Iran, the rulers are
awful. They need to be overthrown. And, you know, we kind of welcome what's happening. We know
the Zionists and the Jews want all our land and oil, but they already have it. And they're
just evil. But surely under their rule, we will have a slightly better quality of life than
what we have now. That makes me sad because it makes me think, no, like, you know, your family
benefited under the Shah. That's why you resent the new regime because you lost your favor when he
was overthrown. And, you know, he talks about how normal Iranians can't access money from the
banks. There is no money. But then I think, is that really just the regime? Or is it the
fact that they've had crippling sanctions, blockades, you know, their countries not
being allowed to function normally for the last 15, 20 years? So obviously, things are going to be
tough for the average Iranian. A great example of what you're saying, or like a parallel situation
is with Cuba. So I'm not saying that Iranian regime is great, but I just feel like surely it's
better for the people to naturally, organically sort out their own household, their own shit.
And if they want to overthrow their tyrannical leader, all power to them, I cannot come round to
supporting a Zionist, imperialist bunch of people overthrowing another country. I just,
I will never support that. I will never cheer that on, if that makes sense.
Yeah. And the goal is to literally bathe the country in rivers of blood. Like that's,
I mean, the fact that these Iranians support the bombing of their own people. I mean,
Tehran is getting pounded. I mean, it's the footage is coming out. It's getting the Gaza treatment,
or it will soon resemble Gaza is what I'm trying to say. I mean, it's insane. Like, oh, yeah,
this is a sacrifice that we have to make. What, how many thousands of your own people are going
to be incinerated? Like, you know, what would you do if you're the Iranian leadership? What
would you do? Would you just surrender? What would you buy? Well, again, I like you. I
think the Iranian leadership are CIA assets. So they were put into power. And they did exactly
what they were supposed to do when they took power. They degraded Iran. They started this
pointless war against Iraq. Another client of the Americans.
I thought Iraq started it. I thought it was a Saddam Hussein who got the nod. So the Sunni,
the Shias took power. They turned on their masters. And then America went great. Now
you're going to invade Iran. It was the Iraqis that invaded first. Saddam Hussein was their puppet
and launched the war. Yeah, sure. You know, I've heard both versions. I mean, that's, that's,
yeah, that's probably the 80% correct version of it. But the point is, they were both American
projects. And the Soviet Union, for example, had their own guy, a communist that they wanted
to, they wanted to topple the Shah and put their communists into power. And the Americans
moved, a deal was cut. The leader of the KGB, a guy called Andropov, real name Fleckenstein,
Jewish Trotskyist. He cut a deal with the Americans and said, okay, you can have Iran.
And we're going to go into Afghanistan instead. And we're just going to muck around there and
lose 10,000 men and start, you know, it's a whole, it's a whole conspiracy in the Soviet
Union, basically that like Iran was going to be conquered in 10 days. They had this whole operation
worked out. They were going to install their puppet and invade. This is like 1978, 1979.
Everything was ready to go. And they were going to do it via Azerbaijan, of course,
because Azerbaijan is the battering ram that has will be used against Iran, because
the Azeris have controlled Iran. I mean, even the Shahs is the son of an illiterate
Azeri goat herder. And the government in Tehran is mostly of Azeri extraction.
So it's sort of like an Azeri occupation government, you could say.
Anyway, like even Ahmadinejad, for example, he's famously an Azeri by ethnicity or
self-identification. So, wow, wow. So, okay. So, but could it be that they, they turned on their
masters and are independent? I mean, like, they turned on their masters. Why didn't they get
nukes? Why didn't they actually prepare the, like people now think that some people
argue that there's no such thing as nukes. But anyway, moving on, the reason I'm thinking
is look at China, CCP, apparently that was heavily funded and supported by, you know,
Jewish Bolsheviks from the Soviet Union. And then the American Trotskyists, yes.
And is that to say that they're still under the pay of the Americans in the globalist?
Or are they now? Do you know that Xi's daughter, the New York Times or the Washington Post,
ran an article saying Xi's daughter lives in New York?
Really? Xi's daughter is in America. Yeah.
You can, actually, I think I have a tab. I have it in the tab right here.
Let me just double check here. Xi Jinping. I mean, why did China's first daughter,
what did China's first daughter find in America in New Yorker? New Yorker, that's what it was.
But yeah, I mean, Xi was in Iowa, right? So he was studying in Iowa. He's a huge American
to file. You know, he, he talks, he basically loves everything about America.
And, you know, ever since he came to power or since he came, since he rose the ranks,
China's experienced purge after purge after purge. Well, there was a recent purge a couple of months
ago. Some top generals were arrested, accused of treason or corruption or something and gotten rid of.
Who's being purged? Why is the guy who studied in America, whose daughter is in America,
why is he purging people? I mean, I, why did, why did the Americans of China as their enemy,
why did they send over all their high tech industries, their factories, their capital,
like machines, making machines? Why, why is there, why did they couple their entire economy with
the communist Chinese enemy state that is hell bent on overthrowing American values and
everything that we care about? Would you are, would you give your enemy
all of your manufacturing base and all of your high technology? Does that make sense, you know?
Well, it's, well, if it's a differentiation because who is it? Is it really rank and file
Americans or is it the globalists who currently occupy America? And if it's the globalists
who currently occupy America, they don't, they're not loyal to any country. Well,
they don't really care. They'll, they'll do whatever it takes to have power and money.
Yeah, they're setting up a future war against China, that's for sure. But to make sure
things are under control, they need to make sure that that they have their own people
in the Chinese government sabotaging it from within. And so you're saying they, what,
it's like, it's like the first and second world war, they're funding both sides?
They always fund both sides. I mean, Americans, American company Texas Instruments
was caught sending over critical, what do you call it, like hardware circuit board type stuff
to Russia to help them make their, you know, drones and their, their missiles,
their modified missiles. This was a big investigation that came out. Nobody talked
about it. I don't even think that they shut it down. There's a, for example, Silicon Valley
under Elon Musk and some other big names was transferring hundreds of millions of dollars
worth of high tech over to Moscow to Skolkovo, which is this project run by a Jewish
oligarch in a friend of Putin. And they were setting up the Silicon Valley of Russia. And
these are the guys who also imported Sputnik, who created Sputnik, really they imported
AstraZeneca. That's what Sputnik is. These are the guys who set the COVID policy.
These are the guys who set the AI digitification of society policy with the scanners everywhere,
biometrics. You know, this is all Elon Musk money. Like it was all taken from America,
hundreds of millions of American dollars were invested in what is now being blamed for creating
high end Russian weaponry. And Texas Instruments was sending over parts already
said that and some other companies too. So what do you think is going on in Iran right now?
Why are they doing that? Why are they blowing each other like in Tel Aviv and Tehran? I mean,
surely it's not good for them. Like, well, why would they do that? I don't think Israel's getting
hit that hard. I've seen the videos as well. But I think when the dust clears, I'd be
very surprised if more than 300 Israelis are dead. In contrast, I think thousands upon
thousands of Iranians will be dead. And I think that basically, you know, I wrote these articles
where I said that Iran would be toppled immediately, that they would not put up a fight,
that this is a paper tiger, that everyone in that government was either an American or an Israeli
asset. And then people, I guess, counter and say, well, if that's true, why did they kill
them on the first day? And I have to be honest, I neither Assange had an adequate explanation for
this nor do I. I don't know what they have over these puppet leaders. I mean, it is indisputable
that Saddam Hussein was an American asset. Nobody, this is not like fringe knowledge. The Americans
helped them take power, propped up his regime, gave him those weapons that they then went to
war to supposedly take away from him. He no longer had them.
Including the mustard gas.
That he used on the Kurds, yeah. And then, indisputably, they took him out,
they captured him and they executed him. And I can go down the list. This is sort of a
central theme or a message of my blog. I call it the hoax war hypothesis.
They put these puppets into power everywhere. They then eventually toppled them
and replaced them with an even worse puppet. Why do the puppets look around and see all these
other puppets falling and being replaced and not do something? Why don't they?
Yeah, exactly. Yeah, I don't know. They must have something terrifying on these people.
And Putin, in my opinion, is one of these puppets. And I can trace the story. I mean,
he's been an Americanophile his whole life, his whole career. He's been trying to get
Russia into NATO. He's been trying to completely destroy the Soviet legacy of
autarky, self-sufficiency, everything. He's, you know, in the early interviews that you
can watch of him in like, when he was in the 2000s, he's describing himself.
I know. Okay, but just stop. We'll come back to Putin and Russia in a second.
Still haven't finished Iran. So you're wrong that they were going to capitulate day one.
They're hitting all the radar stations, billions of dollars of, you know,
early warning, you know, radar detection systems have all been shot down and by the Iranians.
They've got their missiles. They're fighting. I mean, they haven't collapsed.
Well, I think actually I did get it wrong because I was nowhere near pessimistic enough.
There's no air defense over Iran at the moment. I mean, this isn't really philosophy. This is
just like depends on what sources you believe in. But like, there are now B 52 bombers that
are bombing Iran. You don't send in those lumbering old easy to hit heavy planes,
unless you completely neutralized your opponent's ability to shoot them down.
How do you know B 52s are over? I thought they were firing these weapons that, you know,
from 200 to 300 kilometers away, these, you know, massive missiles, and that's how
they're getting them. The Americans? No, the Americans are bombing mostly with these
bombing raids with the, you know, they're basically sending missiles.
Are you sure about that?
They're flying over the country and dropping bombs. Yeah, I think so. I mean,
to the extent that any of us can know who aren't in the situation room, I've just seen
the reports that that's what they're doing. So maybe they are, maybe they aren't.
But there's footage obviously of Iran going up in flames. And I have to say,
how many American ships have been sunk? How many American planes have been shot down
by Iran? I don't see any effective air defense. And let's just, you know, this is very contentious,
people get mad about saying that. Let's let's dial the clocks back to the 12 day war in summer.
Now, with the gift of hindsight, Iran was rocked. They had critical facilities taken out.
They were bombed with impunity. They didn't shoot down a single, they claimed that they
shot down one Israeli jet. They then officially retracted that claim a couple weeks before the
second round started. So the Americans in the Israelis bombed Iran in the summer over the
12 day war with impunity, impunity. They and they and everyone was speculating like,
wait a second, they have these air defenses. Why weren't they turned on? How like,
how is that possible? And now, you know, the Iranians themselves will say,
well, we've been finding these Mossad traders and we've been executing them in our government,
like the guy who was in charge of the Coombs special brigade or the, you know, the special
shock troops of like whatever it's some general. Apparently, you wouldn't believe this. He used
to lecture at a Western university about Jewish theology. And what do you know, like he's a
Mossad, you know, collaborator or an asset? What I don't understand is how, how do Mossad
and the West get people to turn on their own people? You never hear of Iranian agents turning
Israelis against the Israeli government. Platonism. Platonism. So that's, that's what you do is you
tell them that they're the gold souls, that they're the philosopher kings, that they're better
than everybody else that they're initiated. That's how all secret societies work, right? I mean,
these are people who are from your country or maybe even your neighbors, but they fill their
heads with this thing like you're superior to everyone else. And, you know, these secret things.
And usually, like if it's the British system, they sort of mice you. So that's what the
British elite was doing to itself with like, for example, the public school system.
Folks, if you've enjoyed this conversation, please share it with someone who needs to hear it.
This podcast survives because of listeners like you. If you want to hear the second half
of this podcast, then please consider becoming a paid subscriber to continue supporting independent
conversations. And if you want personalized support for your own health, or those are
loved ones, then Booker Consultation is available at docmalloch.com. Thanks for being part of this
journey. I am a Malik. I'm a private civilian protected by the Geneva Convention. My substack,
social media posts and podcasts are my personal experiences, observations and opinions. This
information is for educational purposes only. Although I am a doctor, I'm not your doctor,
and I am not providing medical or legal advice to you or to the wider public.
I'm not licensed or registered with the GMC or any other licensing board. The responsibility for the
interpretation due diligence and use of the information from my substack and my podcast
lies with you, the viewer and or listener. Please do your research and use your your
discernment. It is not my intention to harass, intimidate, offend, defame, conspire,
blackmail, coerce or cause anxiety, alarm or distress to any man or woman and the information
presented here is done so with peaceful and honourable intentions. Enjoy folks.