Jeff J Brown: “Cynthia’s book is fabulous and so is our discussion”

Cynthia Chung and Jeff J Brown discuss the contents of Cynthia’s new ground breaking book ‘The Empire on Which the Sun Never Set: The Anglo-American Origins of International Fascism” (vol 1)

Follow Jeff J Brown’s work here.

The Transcript of the discussion follows below:

Jeff J Brown (Host): Good afternoon, everybody. This is Jeff J. Brown China Rising Radio Sinoland and I have an old friend on the show today, Cynthia Chung. How are you doing, Cynthia?

Cynthia Chung (Guest): I’m so good. And I was thinking about it both Matt and myself, you are our first interviewee that before anyone else, when we just started writing, you were our first interviewee.

Jeff: Well, that makes me feel special. And in the interim, Cynthia and Matt and I have done a number of shows together with them being hosts and with me being host, the host for them, single and together and separately. And we’ve always had a wonderful discussions together.

And so, I’m really happy to have Cynthia back on because TA-DA, I want to talk about her new book, which I bought and paid for. So, this is not a bribe. I bought it on Amazon France. It’s in English. And it is entitled “The Empire on Which the Black Sun Never Set”. And then below “The Birth of International Fascism and Anglo-American Foreign Policy”.

And I just took so many notes and I have now over two pages of questions I want to ask her, because the book is just so incredibly chockablock, full of knowledge and research and contextualization and analysis. So, everybody just go to Amazon and gets the book in English. It’s really, really worth taking the time to read it. It will change your perspectives on history in the 20th century. Well, actually, going back to the 19th century. Excuse me.

So, anyway, I’m just going to put the book down and then I’m going to ask Cynthia my first question for your prologue, why did you decide to use an extract from Percy Bysshe Shelley’s poem “The Masque of Anarchy”?

Cynthia: Well, I thought it was very fitting. It was a very kind of last-minute decision to add Shelley, who is a very famous British poet, who was actually very political as well during his life, he actually died at a very young age. He was murdered (got hit on the head) while he was in a boat by an oar. But he was very much vocal against the kind of British oppression that was happening during the time in England. And the Mask of Anarchy is basically telling the people to not live a life of slavery against their oppressors, to not try to just get by just simply survive moment-to-moment kind of thing, but to recognize that we were born free.

He goes on to say, what is freedom? And he says it’s justice, its love, its wisdom, and so forth. And for people to shake the yoke off of slavery. So, this is, I think, a very central theme because Britain, with the research that I went over in this book, especially with the 20th-century geopolitical stage, Britain kind of inherited, they’re not the originators of this system that we’re going to discuss in this interview. But they inherited a system of empire that goes very far back. And so, we are now in a situation very much like the people in Shelley’s poem, where we are also being oppressed by the very same kind of beast, you could say.

And it’s up to us to recognize our true freedom because this sort of thing is very easy to actually rise up against. You have to simply recognize what the game is and recognize what you actually have inherent within yourself. And if we don’t, we will live a life of a slave. And so, it’s kind of this calling for people at the very beginning of the book of what we’re going to be entering into. This is the whole point of the book is to get people to realize what is actually behind our system of slavery today.

Jeff: Well, you and Matt helped me really to understand what’s going on today. You’ve got to go back 3,000 years to ancient Greece and ancient Rome to really get a handle on what’s going on in today’s headlines. And so, I just keep pushing the timeline back. And you all helped me do that. So, I really, really appreciate it.

Number two, you write about how the West and the West our systems of “Democracy gives us the illusion of debate and choice, left versus right, war versus peace, conservative versus liberal.” And you have a great line on page 32. “Such seeming political conflicts were often staged for the population to give them the impression there was actual debate and challenge to the status quo going on. Unfortunately, the reality was that a good deal of it was controlled opposition.” I call it the Big Lie Propaganda Machine (BLPM). Please tell us your thoughts on that.

Cynthia: Yes. So, I think what I’ll do is I’ll give an example that is actually going to set the stage for what we’re going to be discussing anyway, which is it’s going to be a complex subject that has so many layers to it. And that’s why people get so confused because there is so much-controlled opposition. There are so many seemingly changing sides, especially with the Fabian strategy, which is very much similar to the Trotskyist type strategy as well. But some things we should be aware of is, for instance, Joseph Chamberlain is considered in many regards, the spiritual father of social imperialism, which I will explain momentarily, which is really the brand of British Fascism.

And so, Joseph Chamberlain was someone who was, he was an anti-Semite, a very big player in England who has really shaped the roundtable policies that Caroll Quigley talks about in his Anglo-American establishment book and so forth. Joseph Chamberlain, who was a very big anti-Semite, still worked with the father of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, in trying to find a region for Zionist settlers. And at first, he was saying maybe the Sinai Peninsula, which is in Egypt, and they ultimately ended up not getting the approval from Cairo, apparently. And so, they were thinking of somewhere in British East Africa. This was known as the Uganda scheme. But ultimately both the Zionist organization and the British settlers didn’t want it.
But this was the start of what would be this odd pairing of anti-Semites who were in support of the Zionist cause.

And again, there’s a lot I’m going to explain further, but I’m just going to bring up paradoxes for now. Benjamin Disraeli, who was also Jewish, served twice as British prime minister and was in alignment with Joseph Chamberlain’s views. Again, Chamberlain being an anti-Semite, Disraeli was very much overlapping with this with his young England outlook. This is why people like Oswald Mosley, who I’m sure most people will know, but he’s the most, I guess you could say publicly out there, British fascist at the time, who was notorious for wearing the black shirts inspired by Mussolini. He very publicly was talking about how both Joseph Chamberlain and Benjamin Disraeli were two of his idols. Again, Benjamin Disraeli is Jewish. Oswald Mosley had a lot of Jewish friends actually like the Rothschilds and the Sassoons and so forth. Yet very closely worked with not just Mussolini, but Hitler as well.

In the Balfour Declaration, you have the original. And for those who don’t know, the Balfour Declaration is what led to the Zionist homeland in Palestine, which ended up becoming Israel. The original authors were Walter Rothschild, Arthur Balfour, Leo Amery, and Lord Milner. Now all of these people are anti-Semitic and to varying degrees, anti-Semitic. And you might think it weird that I mentioned Rothschild in that, and I’ll explain shortly why. But they’re all, to varying degrees, anti-Semitic and supportive of the fascist cause.

So, you always see this in alignment with the Zionist cause is this alignment with fascism and anti-Semitism and people should be aware Hitler also was trying to ship people to Palestine, as well as Mussolini, I think, might have also been involved in that as well. Balfour, a lot of people probably aren’t aware of when he was prime minister, he was responsible for the Aliens Act, which was about restricting Jewish immigration from Russia to Britain. He didn’t want the Jews in Britain. So, the whole Balfour Declaration again, is this idea of we want to ship the unwanted Jews to a certain region in the Middle East. And when we start discussing the League of Nations, it’s going to become more clear what exactly that meant.

They recognized that that wasn’t going to be an easy life for those people being shipped off and that they were distinguishing between what were good Jews and bad Jews. And this is very similar to the segregational outlook that they had with blacks in the United States and Europe. They largely saw the social imperialists, the British fascist branch, but Mussolini as well was clearly looking at Africa as the like plantation for Europe. Arabia was also looked at in that context.

So, again, you see that there’s always a discussion of shipping the Jewish people, the unwanted Jewish people, to Arabia or in many ways like Chamberlain already had suggested, Africa. But also, later on, they knew Kalergi, who is known to a lot of people.
But I’ll explain who Kalergi is later on. They knew that they wouldn’t be able to ship all of the Jews to Israel. There wasn’t enough space. And so, they were already talking about other places to ship them, which again, Angola came up again, an African settlement was considered another location to ship Jews. It was always Africa or Arabia, which again, in the League of Nations concept are the labor camp zones. So, Lloyd George also was Prime Minister during the Balfour Declaration. He was the one responsible for the British mandate of Palestine, which caused the creation of Israel.

All of this, he was an outright fascist, very public. He was the first choice for a fascist prime minister of England in case of a Nazi invasion. And he was openly supportive of Hitler, as was King Edward the Eighth, who became a Duke of Windsor. They were very close to that. And Lord Alfred Milner, he’s one of the original members of the Lloyd George War Cabinet and shaped the outlook of Churchill and Oswald Mosley. He’s also one of the founders of the British Roundtable. Again, Carroll Quigley did a lot of pioneering work on this, and he also was very much associated with social imperialism, the British brand of fascism.

And Leo Amery is also involved in this. He’s the one who made Churchill’s career. And he was also, even though he was Jewish, he was pro-fascist. He supported Mosley, and his first son actually set up the British Free Corps, which was supposed to be the fifth Column for when the Nazis invaded Britain. His first son served in the SS Waffen SS, and he tried to recruit British people into the Nazi army. He was eventually tried and executed. And Leo Amery’s second son, Julian, played a major role in the Gladio networks, which we will talk about later on. The Rothschilds encouraged the Zionist migration, but again, those were for the unwanted Jews.

The Rothschilds didn’t consider themselves part of that camp. So, they never migrated to that area ever. And that should tell people something about how this fate was ultimately regarded because they knew that the people who were going to go there were going to live a life of instability and were subject to a lot of violence from the Arabs. Understandably, it was a hotbed situation, that they were creating. Very importantly, the Fabian Society, which is also involved in the social-imperialist idea, were pretending Marxists who started the Labor Party in Britain and they also started the London School of Economics.

This is what Mackinder comes out of this Fabian London School of Economics, and it was Mackinder who put forward the Heartland World Island concept. But more importantly, what a lot of people get confused about is that fascism is not nationalistic. It’s in that sense and maybe I’ll wait until your second question because you’re going to ask this more specifically. But anyway, Mackinder is associated with this. Bertrand Russell is associated with the Fabians, H.G. Wells, and George Bernard Shaw. They were all supportive of Mosley and Russell’s work with Burnham, which we’re going to talk about later on in the Trotskyists.
So, it’s all seemingly opposing. If you were to look at these players individually, they would look like they’re often competing and they are competing with each other for who will be like heading the whole thing but they share the same vision in terms of a grand strategy. And in the case of the Fabian liberal strategy was national efficiency, which was social imperialism, which you saw all of this was out of the Boer War, which I still have to do more research on. I don’t fully understand all of the implications of that, but the Boer War is very important in this. And social imperialism was basically an idea vaguely of a government that engages in imperialism as a means to preserve social peace. So, they would use the socialist way of thinking for social reform. But in service to imperialistic goals.

Jeff: Well, I’m going to let you just talk today because we’ve got a lot to cover. I’d like to maybe do a little bit more bantering, but you’ve got so much stuff to talk about. And this one is really important to me, because I lived and worked in China for 16 years. And China is communist and socialist. And so, I’d like to ask you this next question. The West’s Big Lie Propaganda Machine has done a wonderful job of deflecting brainwashing that fascism only started with the Nazis and then to trash communism-socialism and conflating fascism with postwar China and the USSR, which I know is just absurd. But give us the lowdown on the origins of Western Fascism. And if you don’t mind, just maybe make a comment, about how it has nothing to do with the USSR and liberated China.

Cynthia: Yes, from my research, what I’ve concluded about the 20th-century idea of fascism is that its origins are in Western imperialism tied to monarchism. And you will see that throughout World War Two, there was always the idea of establishing a monarch in place and you would have a dictator under the monarch. But there was always an idea that a monarch should be in place or in the case of Italy they had the Vatican and the Pope. Well, they also had a king, actually. And so, this is very important to understand that fascism is not actually what we’ve been told, which is everyone thinks that fascism is actually more of a nationalistic concept.

Like I was saying, with Mackinder from the Fabian London School of Economics, how they were actually thinking about this. And again, especially around the League of Nations idea, the British fascist brand, which the British were in charge of ultimately. They were funding the Nazis and they were closely working with Mussolini. Mackinder was bringing forward the idea that the British Empire shouldn’t really be thought of as an empire per se but as a super nation. So, they viewed the British Empire as a super-national cause. It wasn’t just the geographic location of Britain. So, when Oswald Mosley, for instance, was talking about the nationalistic cause for Britain, he was talking about also the colonies in Africa and India.
So, that’s something that people have to understand. Mussolini as well made no secret that he also wanted a piece of Africa. And the Nazis were clearly moving into Eastern Europe, and their plan was to move into Arabia. They had already set up a lot of connections in Arabia to support the overthrow of the forms of government or monarchies there. So, that’s an important thing for people to understand is that it’s not nationalism in the way that we tend to think of it today. And so, it’s really a route of and continuation of an old system of imperialism, ultimately. And this again dates back to the cult of Delphi, Babylon Rome-type ideology with its occult beliefs.

And that’s why the Nazis were also associated with all this weird occultism. This is because this has been carried forward for centuries and centuries. And it wasn’t just the Nazis. It’s just that it was more obvious with the Nazis and they were maybe a bit more extreme with this kind of way of thinking. And Volume Two of this series, I’m going to be focusing a lot more on the occult aspects of this discussion. So, for this idea of the origins of Western fascism, I would say that it really comes from notable people like Georges Sorel, Joseph Chamberlain, Alfred Milner, and Cecil Rhodes. In the case of Georges Sorel, who lived between 1847 and 1922, he’s oddly recognized, widely recognized as having inspired Socialists, Anarchists, Marxists, and Fascists.

And you will see when you start studying this subject, these people are always constantly being mixed into the same bag, when clearly you would think that they are very distinct from each other, especially Fascist versus Marxist and Socialist and so forth. So, he had actually Sorel directly worked with Charles Maurras’ Action Francaise, which was a Pro-Vichy government that worked with the Nazis. So, there’s a pretty clear overlap there and Sorel on an idea of a science of society. So, this is very much the Fabian outlook of H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, a scientific dictatorship, which Oswald Mosley also promoted.

Aldous Huxley in A Brave New World is also a descendant of this kind of view of a scientific dictatorship. And this is very much a Fabian outlook as well. And they would use Marxism as well, right in their way of trying to promote a lot of this fake social reform. They basically lied to people about the kind of social reform that they were saying was going to be meant to benefit the people from the foreign threat of whatever it was. It was always about the health of the body. You’ll notice that they always talk about it this way as well. It’s like it’s about the health of the body, the health of the people, the bloodline, or whatever, from a foreign infiltration of whatever it is.

And they always make it about that to justify their system which is increasingly attacking all the people like nobody is benefiting from the system but they lie saying that they need to do this for your benefit from a foreign threat. So, when Mosley’s talking about British fascism. Yeah. Nationalism. Yeah. I had already explained that, that he was also bringing up the colonies of Africa and India. So, Sorel created what was termed Sorelianism, which is very interestingly a revisionist interpretation of Marx. And Sorelianism is also recognized as a precursor to fascism and Italian fascism specifically.

So, the Italian fascist newspaper Gerarchia sorry, I don’t know how to pronounce that properly was edited by Mussolini and they had published, “Perhaps fascism may have the good fortune to fulfill a mission that is the implicit aspiration of the whole oeuvre of the master of Syndicalism to tear away the proletariat from the domination of the socialist part, to reconstitute it on the basis of spiritual liberty and to animate it with the breath of creative violence. This would be the true revolution that would mold the forms of the Italy of tomorrow.” So, again when the Italian fascists and the German Nazis called themselves National Socialists, it wasn’t socialism, right?

They weren’t actually supportive of the idea of socialism and how we tend to think of it more generally, they had a specific brand of socialism, national socialism, aka social imperialism. If you understand the Mackinder thing, again, it’s hard because they play with words and so it’s confusing for people. So, this National Socialism, which has pretended elements of Marxism and Socialism in it was always imperialistic and what later became known as Fascist in the 20th century. And this is what inspired the Italian fascists and the German Nazis. But this was completely in line with the view of Chamberlain, Milner, and Rhodes.

And Bertrand Russell, who was a leader of the Fabians was also very much revamping Marxist philosophy. He stressed guild socialism as a path to anarchism. And Guild Socialism was basically another form of approaching syndicalism with this angle, which was ultimately going to lead to fascism. And interestingly, Russell himself in his book Proposed Roads to Freedom, Socialism, Anarchism and Syndicalism. He writes that the League of Nations is the ultimate goal of so-called anarchism. And he writes, “If the peace of the world is ever to become secure, I believe there will have to be, along with other changes, a development of the idea which inspires the project of League of Nations.”

So, now all of a sudden Socialism, Marxism, Syndicalism all of this is supposed to be leading us to the League of Nations, which we’re going to get into in the next question of what is the League of Nations. But in short answer, it’s a colonial idea of the world. So, there’s an interesting way of flipping this around. And a lot of anarchists today still like Bertrand Russell, like they’re very confused about Bertrand Russell. So, what’s interesting too, is Alfred Milner was also talking about a conjoining of German State Socialism with British Guild Socialism. Mosley was talking about social imperialism being a combination of radicalism and imperialism, in other words, imperialism, and social reform, and interestingly, the corporate state outlook.

So, socialism was used to justify the corporate state outlook, which really came out of the Italian brand of fascism, people should realize that this corporate state outlook was actually originating in the City of London which called itself the corporation and has existed for 800 years and for 400 years has been the financial center of the world. It wasn’t Mussolini’s Italian fascists who came up with this corporate state outlook, it was the City of London. Again, very telling. And Mosley talks about the corporate state as a conception of a society working with precision and the harmony of a human body. Every interest and every individual is subordinate to the overriding purpose of the nation.

So, you can see how this can get very confused with a communist ideology or anything that has a big government involved in it as well. That’s why Burnham would say, oh, there’s no difference between Roosevelt’s New Deal, Stalin, and Hitler, which clearly there is. But they were viewing it from the sense that if you have something central within a state that controls everything else, this is something that they can take over. This is something that they can use and can be brought as forward as a corporate state. So, this was sold by Mosley and the European imperialists in general as protection against communism.

But this was always the real totalitarian system. So, this is the irony of the whole Cold War Period. And everything is that we’re always told that we need to sacrifice our civil liberties constantly so that McCarthyism, Cointelpro, now it’s the war on terror, domestic terrorism, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. We always have to sacrifice our civil liberties, because there’s always this foreign threat, this totalitarian foreign threat, when actually the totalitarian threat was always coming from the Anglo-American establishment, which had this outlook of the corporate state, social, imperialistic brand of totalitarianism. So, it’s ironic.

Jeff: Yeah. I’ll just comment that after reading your book fascism is basically a totalitarian, top-down, aristocratic oligarchic control system, where the people maybe get some socialist breadcrumbs like housing and education and medical care and that kind of stuff. But clearly, they don’t have any or very, very little voice in how the country is run. Whereas in communist-socialist countries, democracy is bottom-up from the people to the top and is actually much more democratic. And China is one of the most consensual and broad-based democracies that I’ve ever seen.

And you see it in Cuba and you see it in Vietnam and all these other socialist countries, Venezuela, where the people are having all these meetings and voting and everything that doesn’t happen in fascist countries. My wife and I taught in international schools and we would actually see teachers in these international schools, Westerners teaching Chinese students that there’s no difference between Hitler and Mao. And there’s no difference between Stalin and Hitler. And yet they’re just like 180 degrees apart from each other. And they hate each other. Communists hate fascists.

Cynthia: The Stalinists defeated the fascists and it was the Stalinist communists who were fighting the Italian fascists. It was the Stalinist communists who were fighting in Spain and who were fighting in Greece. There was no resistance otherwise. It was really the Stalinists overall. And then Roosevelt was giving support to Stalin in fighting the Nazi war machine, which was an incredible feat. But it was pretty much just the Stalinist communists, which is amazing how I’m still impressed to this day with how well how they fought, especially in Greece.

It’s such a heroic story and it’s so disgusting that Churchill actually turned against the communists who were actively fighting the Nazis in Greece and started to fight the actual communists, because he said that we could not have a communist government in Greece. It wouldn’t be tolerated. So, it just goes to show. And they also put in place a monarch that was pro-fascist as well. They forcefully put this monarch onto the back of the Greek people. And they made it explicit. There’s a quote that I can’t remember exactly. I have in the book where they say that we will always support any monarchy in Europe. This is Churchill saying this.

Jeff: And we can also in the Asian theater, it was Mao Zedong and the Communist Party of China and the People’s Liberation Army who were fighting the fascist Japanese imperialists and who were fighting the fascist Chiang Kai-shek KMT. So, they were the ones who defeated the Japanese and the fascist KMT. So, basically, if it wasn’t for the communists and the socialists, we might be in a fascist world government today.

Cynthia: Yeah. And all of the warnings that Stalin was going to invade Europe, it never happened because, it never happened because Stalin never wanted to do it in the first place. But yeah, it’s really quite remarkable what Mao Zedong was also able to accomplish for China. He saved China, because they wanted to Balkanize China, they wanted to Balkanize Russia, and they wanted to create these areas, like the League of Nations concept. They include Russia and China in this. But it was not the Russia of Stalin and the China of Mao. This was like the Russia of more of an imperialistic brand of Russia. And they wanted China also to return to an imperialistic brand. This is what they saw them as.

Jeff: Yeah, absolutely. Well, we were talking about the League of Nations, the failed post-World War One League of Nations is portrayed by the Big Lie Propaganda Machine as a noble project that was sabotaged by Hitler in World War Two. But your research paints a totally different picture. Tell us what you learned.

Cynthia: Yes. So, for me, I focus on the League of Nations in the sense that this was a blueprint that just has been changing its name basically, and has been recycled over and over again. We still live in a world where the League of Nations is something that is actively attempted to be implemented in what is now the Western hegemonic structure. And the vision of the League of Nations is, and Kalergi was very much involved in promoting the European nation concept in this, which sounds nice, but it’s actually taking away the sovereignty of these nations so that are beholden, as we clearly see now with the European Union, who has control over the military, the financial structure, the political structure.
These countries don’t actually have a say in what they’re being dragged into at this point and what the economic policies are. So, even if the policy is harmful to your own people, you can’t do anything about it. And so, they lied about this, saying people like Kalergi, who’s the spiritual father of the European Union, he was the one who first was talking about the Pan Europe concept as far back as 1923. He was promoting this as a United States of Europe concept. But, this was a lie because the United States, they were made up of British colonies before they became the United States, which is a very different scenario.

And obviously, you needed the United States with a united banking system and a united system of trade, industry, and so forth, because you need to have this base in order to have sovereignty. So, that you can actually protect yourself against people like the British who are constantly trying to cause problems. And this was sold very dishonestly as a thing for Europe to become the United States of Europe. But the thing is, is that Europe had what was supposed to be nation-states or we’re on the yeah, they were pretty much nation-states at that point. Germany was always kind of struggling to be a nation.

But overall, it was that concept and Germany actually used this system, the Zollverein with Friedrich List to actually create a more united country because they were also kind of regionalized and not really a unit for a really long time. So, this was sold dishonestly to Europe as if like, this was going to make them stronger when in reality it was the reverse. You went from nations to colonial status instead of colonial status to nation status. So, it was actually depriving them of any kind of power that they had. And the League of Nations ideology was that you would have an American nation or a pan-Europe.

You would have a European nation, a pan-Europe. A United States nation, which is an American, a pan America and a European nation, which is a pan Europe. Then you would have Russia, you would have China, you would have Japan, and you would have Britain. And Africa and Arabia were never mentioned for these regionalizations because they were always viewed as the plantations, the labor camp sections. But interestingly, Britain was always kept separate from the European nation because it was agreed upon. And Kalergi comes from the Austro-Hungarian Empire nobility back to the Crusades and the Venetian family lines.

He himself was even saying that it’s understandable that Britain would have a different status because Britain is a part of all of these regions. America is Britain. Europe has a relationship with Britain that is distinct. Australia is Britain, and India is Britain. China at that time with the Opium Wars was kind of not in a place to say no. So, Britain was given a special status to be basically the head of this region. So, it was ultimately an idea of a world government system or a world empire system with the British Empire at the head, or what you would call the British super nation.

And this is what Hitler and Mussolini were also working towards. But people were told that they could get a piece of the pie. And sometimes this was true and other times it was a lie. And those people were being used. People like Hitler and Trotsky were clearly being used. I think Mussolini, they might have actually been willing to work with him. So, that was the idea that you would have these kinds of heads of regions, but you would always be subservient to Rome, aka Britain. The City of London was always going to be at the heart of this empire.

Jeff: It’s funny that you mentioned that because of course, I live here in France and I’m both French and American, and this dream that. How do you pronounce the guy’s name? Kalergi.

Cynthia: Kalergi. Yeah.

Jeff: Kalergi. Yeah. Well, his dream came true because, after the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, no national government in the European Union has any say in what is done inside their country. All of the directives are coming from Brussels and through the European Commission. And even worse, there’s a very secretive group called the Eurogroup, which is essentially the central banks of Europe, and they work with the city of London. It all gets tied back and the secretive Eurogroup, which meets once a month. And they are a part of the city of London and the Federal Reserve in the United States and Wall Street.

And they basically hand people like Macron and Scholz and the other leaders of Europe their scripts. This is what you’re going to tell the public this month. And they’re going to do exactly what basically the City of London wants to be done in Europe, which is austerity and neoliberalism and continued increasing poverty and desperation among the people. So, it all kind of ends up back in the City of London, doesn’t it? It’s unbelievable. All right. On page 130, you list a string, I couldn’t believe this. You list a string of assassinations and forced resignations of world leaders from the 1860s to the early 1900s.

We could even go back to the attempted assassination of Anti-banking President Andrew Jackson in 1830. And it hasn’t stopped since then. The list is long. It looks to me like FDR was murdered and like Lincoln, British complicity, JFK, Nixon was kicked out. They tried to kill Reagan for making peace with the Soviets. Trump and on and on. They all have one common thread, and that is they were against the bankers or later like Reagan and Trump, the military-industrial complex. Do you just want to make some comments about that? Because it’s just astounding, the list that you came up with and how it has not stopped since then.

Cynthia: Yeah. Again, it’s very telling that Britain had only one assassination of a prime minister in their entire history. And the United States had three assassinations of presidents within, I think, like a 40-year period or so, Lincoln, McKinley, and Garfield. But Harding also was poisoned and there are so many presidents within a very short timeframe within the United States that have been assassinated. And when you look into what these people were working on, especially with the Lincoln, Czar Alexander, the Second was also assassinated.
There was a clear idea of what was the opposing economic system especially, but economics is not just like, I think a lot of people when they hear economics, really think of it as a very dry subject that has graphs, and this and that, supply and demand, blah, blah, blah. And it’s really not about that. This is the kind of corrupt version of economics that we’re taught in Western schools today. Economics is really at the heart of how you view people, how you view the individual and what is the sacredness, what is potential, what is value, and what is wealth within an individual, within your own nation.

And so, obviously, a system of empire looks at an individual as primarily something that is enslaved, that is disempowered, that is used for labor, or for some kind of utilitarian use to serve the interests of the empire. Whereas a republic, a true republic is supposed to regard… China as well, is partaking in this idea that you have wealth in how it contributes to the betterment of society. And so, your economic system, for instance, the machine tool industry that was created in the United States, was a way to surpass the system of slavery that was being pushed on the world through the British Empire system and the Southern slave owners in the United States.

This was very much a British system that they were continuing within the United States and a British outlook, and they were part of the British cotton trade, the plantations to service the British Empire’s cotton trade. So, this outlook could no longer be justified. And it was never about efficiency. Slavery used for labor was always meant as a way to justify a certain way of looking at people in terms of their uses. And it doesn’t even have to do with ethnicity. Ireland, too, was treated as a colony in England. They were considered the white savages and the white barbarians.

But when the United States created the machine tool industry, it surpassed the system of slavery by so much in its efficiency and profit, which allowed for a whole bunch of other scientific innovations to occur, which is what actually created the United States as the most powerful nation. By the time of the Centennial Exhibition, which Henry C. Carey, Lincoln’s lead economist organized. Within a hundred years, the United States, which was like a little fledgling nation, was like the most powerful in the world because they understood these core economic principles which allowed them to surpass this system of slavery.

And this was becoming known as the American system and started to be adopted in Germany with the Zollverein with Friedrich List. And you had it also in Russia. It was adopted by Czar Alexander the Second was on record in an interview for saying the reason why he intervened in support of Lincoln’s Union. He didn’t physically intervene, but he put both the navies on the east and the west coast of the United States during the Civil War, because Britain and France had actually written to Czar Alexander the Second saying, hey, we’re thinking about intervening in favor of the South and Czar Alexander the Second was like, if you do this, I will consider it a Casus Belli.

And so, he sent his navies to both sides of the shore of the United States to protect them against British and French intervention. And he was on record for saying that he did this because he recognized it was not of any particular love of the United States, but a recognition that this economic system was going to be the only thing that could resist this system of empire from Britain. So, Russia was also adopting these principles. Sun Yat-Sen in China was very much working directly with these principles and the Meiji Restoration in Japan, which unfortunately was subverted by the British eventually and turned into a military-industrial complex.

But it did have originally an industrial capability that really actually boosted Japan quite high in its economy. It was the system that was really taking over and was being recognized as a way to fight systems of empire. And so, that was why I view World War One is like a fake war. It was created to divide people so that they couldn’t have these very natural alliances that were occurring. Where McKinley is quoting Otto von Bismarck on the Congress floor and things like this are happening in terms of partner close partnerships. And Sun Yat-Sen is talking about the brotherhood of mankind with this shared economic system view.

So, these people, really people are very jaded and they’re very cynical nowadays and they think that nothing good ever happened in all of history and thus are blind to what is good that is happening today, which is Russia and China are very much the ones now that are leading this idea, this proper idea of what defines the individual and what defines a prosperous nation. These ideas were also once shared in the United States by the better parts of the United States. And we’ve lost this because we’ve been just constantly being infiltrated by the social imperialistic ideology throughout the 20th century.

Teddy Roosevelt, who is related to Franklin Roosevelt, was totally like Franklin Roosevelt as J.P. Morgan said, he was a class traitor. It’s true. He betrayed his class. He got along with Stalin better than Churchill. And there’s a reason for that. These people viewed other people as something you could brutalize, and it was justified. Churchill had the ugliest speeches supporting the Indian famines and so forth to the point that other British politicians were uncomfortable around Churchill. So, Teddy Roosevelt was responsible for a lot of this kind of social imperialistic infiltration in the United States. And you had Woodrow Wilson, who was a big player in that as well. I feel like I’ve rambled, but I think I answered the question.

Jeff: Yes, you did. All right. I read Daniele Ganser’s book about the Western fascist underground network called Gladio. And you and Matt got to meet him recently in Switzerland. Tell us about Gladio and what you learned at this meeting.

Cynthia: Well, Gladio is a big subject, and Daniele Ganser wrote a great book on NATO’s secret armies, which there was already work that had been done on Gladio before this, but he was really, I think, the first to academically put it together as a whole the way he did. And basically, these secret armies that became NATO secret armies that became known under the umbrella of Gladio, originated with Churchill, who had started these stay-behind units. But there were two scenarios. Because as they saw that World War Two was going to end and they were not happy with how things were turning out because the Russians were not supposed to have come out of this victorious.

They were thinking of two different scenarios. And this is known as Operation Unthinkable. There are two scenarios, which is one, to either actually use these units that they had to actually attack the Russians without due cause, which obviously would have been extremely controversial when the Russians had just saved the world from the fascists. But this is part of Operation Unthinkable. And this was made after Roosevelt died. This is about a month after Roosevelt died, which you and I both share, that he probably was killed because the timing is just, it’s just too perfect.

He dies two weeks before the first United Nations conference, which is going to set the tone of what the United Nations was going to be, which could have been a good thing, but it ended up being subverted because Roosevelt wasn’t there. So, Operation Unthinkable had that scenario, but it also had another scenario of, oh, well, what if Stalin invaded Western Europe? We need this stay-behind unit to protect the people. So, that was the line that they went with and invaded Western Europe and they increasingly started to use this stay behind units to invoke terrorist activity on the people, false flags, blaming it on the communists to support extreme far right-wing governments.

And they also intervened in not just elections, they intervened in democratic processes by even assassinating democratically elected leaders of people. And Aldo Moro is a big one that’s implicated in this. Olof Palme, Kennedy is also implicated in this. And Italy was going to be the first country to go through elections after World War Two, was supposedly won. It wasn’t won because Churchill announced the Iron Curtain as a justification to keep the Nazis and the fascists working with the so-called good guys.

So, that that was the true reason for the Iron Curtain was to justify why we should now work with the Nazis and the fascists when we just had a brutal war with them, because now it’s the Soviet communists who are apparently the biggest threat in the world, even though that was never justified. And so, the Italian elections were going to be the first elections after World War two. And it was clear that the Communists were going to win, because it was the communists who fought the fascists. And of course, the people were like, yeah, why would we not want those people in power? And this was what Gladio used.

This is why Italy especially had about 20 years of terrorist activity that was organized by NATO’s secret armies to attack the people because they had this support for the communists. It was called the 20 Years of Lead. And this is also what created the OPC branch of the CIA, which is the rogue branch of the CIA under Allen Dulles, because this is before Allen Dulles became the director of the CIA. He had this rogue branch with Frank Wisner. Frank Wisner and Allen Dulles, create this rogue branch of the CIA, which was never supposed to be going into countries and, like, stirring up shit.

They were always supposed to be paper pushers at a desk dealing with intelligence. But quickly Allen Dulles, like, creates this rogue faction to basically sabotage the Italian elections, so that the Christian Democratic Party is brought in, which was known to have a whole bunch of fascists within this party. And this was the dominating party from that point on until the 90s when we found out with the whole controversy with Andreotti admitting to the fact that there were secret NATO armies in Italy, which were known as Gladio, that ended up being the name for all of the secret NATO armies throughout Europe.

But they actually had their own names. But it’s the Gladio umbrella. And that for all of these decades, they were working with Gladio to do these false flag terrorist attacks on the Italian people. And this is what was used to justify the CIA’s role increasingly in intervening in the democratic processes of Europe because they were not happy with how the people were making their choices. And I would just say quickly, too, with Greece again, a really sad story because the communist in Greece fought so valiantly, first against the Mussolini fascists and they organized themselves so well that they defeated the Mussolini fascists.

Then the Nazis came in and they were doing a very good job defeating them. They actually did defeat them, despite the British turning midway against them. And then when they defeated the Nazis, the United States are brought in and Burnham, too, is very much at the center of this promoting the Truman Doctrine, which was the first justified invasion of a country of the United States post World War Two. They dropped napalm on these people who had fought the fascists, the Italian fascists, and the Nazis.

They dropped napalm on these people. They terrorized them to the point that Greece was really hollowed out. It became incorporated into the corrupted United Nations and they became a stronghold of the Gladio network. But they really like, they did such a terrible number on the Greek people. And to this day, like, not very many people know about that, that story. And again, as I was saying earlier, Churchill put in the monarch who was pro-fascist in there as well.

Jeff: Well, just like Henry Kissinger said when they overthrew the democratically elected government in Chile in 1972 to install a fascist dictator, Augusto Pinochet, he said, we can’t let people who want to be communists, be communists. We can’t let that happen. So, it’s the same mentality that we know better what people need. We have better ideas. This is why when you look at countries like North Korea and China and Vietnam and Eritrea and Venezuela and Bolivia and Cuba and what they have had to go through to maintain their independence and freedom from this, as you said, this Western imperialist fascist system. I tip my hat and my heart goes out to all of them.

Cynthia: Yeah, it’s so realistic, right? That’s the important thing for people to understand is that communism was always being sold as having this conspiracy to have world domination. But communism never had this imperialistic tendency when they were involved in countries like Iran, notably like Mossadegh wasn’t a communist, but he was able to get along with the communists, and the British and the American intelligence overthrew him anyway because it was not acceptable that he was putting an idea of national sovereignty and control of resources in Iran under the nation and not under a British conglomerate.

So, people have to understand that like the Soviet presence in Iran, for instance, they did not forcefully intervene like the British were doing or how increasingly the Americans were doing Truman and on. They had more of an interaction, more of a dialog, always with the people. And there were also benefits. There were often industrial benefits to this dialog and to this relationship, including even the Soviet presence in Afghanistan. There was a lot of industrialization that they were doing, whereas the Americans made the Mujahideen.

Jeff: And grew opium.

Cynthia: Yes. And grew opium. There’s a very different qualitative aspect to this. And it was never this imperialistic ideology. It’s really, I think which should be clear for people at this point, the Anglo-American way of doing things, the war on terror. This is an imperial agenda of regime change. So, people have to really wake up and stop believing in this kind of cartoon villain that has never shown itself to be anything like that for over 70 years.

Jeff: Yeah, yeah, it’s true. Well, one of my favorite people in history. Please tell me why Charles de Gaulle knew rats when he saw them and always had a visceral dislike of Anglo-Saxons in the form of Britain and the USA. You cite a great quote of his on pages 234 and 235. And I have a lot of respect for Charles de Gaulle. Tell us, tell us about that.

Cynthia: Yeah. Do we want to read the quote?

Jeff: Well, maybe I should have on 234.

Cynthia: I have a different version of the book, because I ended up making some changes.

Jeff: It’s actually pretty long,
‘What happened to Kennedy is what nearly happened to me. His story is the same as mine. It looks like a cowboy story…’
But it’s basically the Americans killing Kennedy. And they, of course, tried to kill De Gaulle a number of times. But any thoughts you have on Charles de Gaulle and how he fought valiantly against Anglo-Saxon imperialism in Europe?

Cynthia: Well, yeah. De Gaulle is, like, such an amazing positive presence that still has, like, it saved Europe from a descent that Europe is already in a pretty bad shape now. But it would have been so much sooner if it hadn’t been for De Gaulle’s resistance to this. And even then, today, there’s a reason why France is still very pro-nuclear, despite all of the craziness throughout Europe of trying to cut nuclear power. And they still have a certain kind of competency with their industrialists in France. And this is because of De Gaulle’s work. But De Gaulle, for those who don’t know, was at the earlier stages during World War Two, seemingly on the same page as the social imperialists.

As the Vichy government formed and everything though he was very much a part of the La Resistance against this. And he had during this early-stage setup was very much involved with like what became French intelligence. But French intelligence is very complicated. They have like five different agencies and so forth. But because of his work with La Resistance during World War Two, he had created a very strong intelligence and military system around him that was resistant to fascism. So, he becomes the president of France eventually. And there are many attempts on his life, because he’s standing basically in the way of this social imperialist agenda and this League of Nations concept.

He wants France to be an independent sovereign nation, and he’s actually working with Germany, Adenauer with Germany, which was thought to be an impossible relationship because France and Germany have not liked each other for a really long time before this point. He creates a very strong alliance with France and Germany, a strong economic alliance as well for the sovereignty of the two nations, because Germany as well was really put through the wringer after World War Two and had its legs cut out from underneath it when it used to be the industrial powerhouse of Europe.

That was actually one of the reasons why the First World War was fought, was to cripple this industrial component of Germany that was becoming a threat to the British hegemony. So, De Gaulle clearly understood this, and he was trying to actually create a separate economic system from the British system. So, that was one really important thing he was doing. He was wanting to work with the countries in the Middle East to create partnerships in nuclear trade and other kinds of technology trade for raw resources.

So, these countries are actually benefiting from that kind of trade versus the kind of volatile situation where you are completely dependent on raw resources, you’re not allowed to develop and you’re subject to oil politics and all of this. De Gaulle and Germany, Japan also were actually involved with this. They were attempting to trade with the Middle East in a way where the Middle East could also develop and become further economically sovereign. So, this was a problem. And also, the most notorious problem, De Gaulle wasn’t a part of the Vietnam thing.

He stepped down when France did the stupid entry into Vietnam a few weeks after World War Two, like, holy, really insane. But he ended up being the president during the Algerian crisis period. And he really took a step that I think surprised a lot of people because they still, for some reason, thought that De Gaulle was ultimately going to play ball and he didn’t. And he said Algeria deserves independence. And he was actually working with, I believe, the communists within Algeria.

And he started to be called a communist because of this, because how dare you are able to work with people that are different from us. You must be a traitor. You must be a class traitor. But because he had such a stronghold within the intelligence and military, unlike Kennedy, he was able to avoid over 30 assassination attempts against him. And a lot of these arguably most of them were from NATO’s secret armies. And can you believe it? NATO’s headquarters were in France at the time that this is happening. De Gaulle is that amazing. And he ends up kicking NATO out of France. They had to move to Brussels with their secret army apparatus. It was humiliating for them.

Jeff: He gave them two weeks.

Cynthia: Yeah. That’s the power of De Gaulle. And France didn’t rejoin NATO until, like, something like 2009 or so. And even then, it wasn’t fully with Sarkozy. And even then, it wasn’t a full integration like other nations are beholden to NATO. So, for those who say that Trump is like such a shit disturber for wanting to get out of NATO, honestly, all nations should get out of NATO. NATO is not in the best interest of any country. It’s not for anyone’s safety. It’s actually using countries as bulwarks to cause this permanent war, until we basically eliminate all the resistance against the social-imperialist agenda.

And every nation is considered expendable to that agenda in service of the empire. This is what De Gaulle was standing up to. And yeah, D e Gaulle recognized that what killed Kennedy was the same secret Gladio secret army, NATO secret army apparatus that was attempting to kill him and that he saw the tragedy would be that the people within the United States were not going to be able to wake up to that fact that their country was really being taken over. It was being subverted from within. And contrary to how people now are freaking out, that they’re like living in a totalitarian system in the United States.

They’re like is it Russia? Is it China? Is it Russia? Is it China? It’s not. It’s been very clear over decades a process of this fascist agenda, which is within this brand of British infiltration. Churchill had very much controlled a lot of what Truman eventually did. And Eisenhower was controlled by the Dulles brothers, Allen and Foster, who were subservient to this British social imperialistic agenda as well. I go through all of this in detail in the book. This is what has subverted the United States from within. It is not a communist totalitarian system. It is a social imperialistic fascist totalitarian system because you guys didn’t end it in World War Two, but you allowed these people to actually become your allies. You welcomed them in. We opened the doors to them with the Iron Curtain.

Jeff: Tens of thousands of them went west. And Nazis and fascists. And it’s just unbelievable. Unbelievable.

Cynthia: So, De Gaulle was a hero.

Jeff: Yeah, yeah. Another interesting thing is, is that the reason he got along so well with the Germans, he spoke good German. He actually was quite fluent in German and gave speeches in front of the Germans. And they loved him. They thought he was incredible.

All right. Number nine, “Fascism using the mafia to do its many dirty deeds assassination, street violence” et cetera is mentioned a few times in your book. In your excellent book. There we go, everybody. There we go. I’m going to hold it up again. I read that today’s Italian mafia families have their roots all the way back to the Roman Senate, where cliques and family dynasties fought over the theft and exploitation of the empire. Gangsterism and criminality seem to go way back in Western history. Your thoughts, please.

Cynthia: Well, I’d be interested to know your thoughts on this. I mean, clearly, that is the case. I don’t know the details about this. But one interesting thing is that Kalergi wrote in one of his autobiographies, again, that Kalergi is the spiritual father of the European Union and has his descendants through the Crusaders and the Venetian empire lines. His flag for Pan Europe was the Apollo sun with the crusade cross around it with the stars. So, the European Union flag. I would say, is pretty much beholden to that original symbolism.

Jeff: With the gold stars on the blueprint.

Cynthia: Yes, the Apollo sun and the Crusade cross. And again, Apollo is the cult of Delphi, which is too big of a subject for us to go through in detail. But I did write about this, which you can find on my Substack, Through a Glass Darkly. But Kalergi has a very interesting quote where he writes, “When National Socialism made its bid for power, millions of Germans had been thrown completely off their balance. Middle-class families had sunk to the level of the proletariat.” By the way, he also acknowledges that the two economic crises that happened in Germany were the reason why Hitler could exist.

And he said specifically Hitler’s fight against the Treaty of Versailles, which was a complete orchestration by this beast that we’ve been talking about. Anyway, so, he says middle-class families had sunk to the level of the proletariat whilst working-class families were without work. The Third Reich became the last hope for the stranded, those who had lost their social status and of those rootless beings who were seeking a new basis for an existence that had become meaningless. Looked at in this light, National Socialism seemed a repetition on a gigantic scale of the Catalina conspiracy.

It differed from socialism, which was a class movement in the tradition of that of the Gracchi, and from Bolshevism, whose classical prototype was the revolution of Spartacus. So, very interesting that he’s equating the prototype of Bolshevism to Spartacus. Spartacus is the slave that revolted against the Roman Republic, which at that time had really started to descend into extensive corruption in the Roman Empire, actually. And so, that’s very interesting that he makes that alignment. The Catalina conspiracy is actually during the lifetime of Cicero.

So, during Cicero’s lifetime, which is the very end of the Roman Republic before it becomes the Roman Empire. There are two attempts to take over the Roman Republic and have a dictator. Catalina is the first attempt at having a dictator be reinstalled over the Roman Republic and Cicero was the person who thwarted this attempt. He found out about it and it was exposed to the people. And so, for a few more decades, there was an attempt to kind of like save the republic, but it had become very corrupted. And the people ultimately handed Caesar the crown as Shakespeare tells the story in Julius Caesar, which seems to be the case.
They wanted Caesar to be emperor. And so, these people had forgotten what it was to be a true free citizen of a republic. And they were asking for an emperor, asking for a monarch. When originally Rome was the period of kingdoms, they started as kingdoms first before they became a republic. The reason why they became a republic was that their last king was, like, completely insane, had murdered the previous king, and was like the worst kind of despot tyrant on the people you could imagine. And this is when Junius Brutus, Marcus Brutus’ ancestor, Marcus Brutus is the one who killed Caesar. Junius Brutus said, never again.
We will never suffer a king on the people. We will be a free people.

And ironically 500 years later, the people have again descended into a kind of slave mentality. And they hand Caesar the crown. And this is all during Cicero’s lifetime. Yeah. So, it’s again, just interesting that Kalergi was making the connection between National Socialism, which again is the Italian fascism, the German Nazi outlook. He was comparing that to the Catalina conspiracy, which was the first attempt to overthrow the Roman Republic. But that’s the only kind of interesting thing I have for your question. I don’t know what your thoughts are on possibly on that subject.

Jeff: Well, I just read an article that stated that as Rome devolved into just utter corruption and the Senate was basically aristocratic families fighting each other over the spoils of the empire. And as Rome fell those families did not disappear. They were there and they maintained these sorts of mafia-like families. And I read that article maybe ten years ago and those families ended up over the centuries becoming the modern day the roots of today’s mafia families go all the way back to the Roman Senate.

That’s all I know. And I have not researched it since then. But I just thought it was interesting.
All right. You cite Henry Krueger’s book, The Great Heroin Coup, which suggests that there may be rogue factions in the CIA totally out of control of the US government. What do you think? It sure sounds awfully plausible to me with arms, child trafficking, heroin, cocaine, guns, and money laundering. Is there possibly really a parallel CIA that’s just completely out of control of the US government?

Cynthia: Well, yes. And I would say at this point you’d have to be quite naive. Working for the CIA and thinking that you’re doing something good, although the CIA has apparently started these woke commercials to try to recruit the young generation into the CIA. And they’re really trying to revamp their image as something that is actually for the liberal agenda of equality and all of this. And I mean, I find it quite absurd, especially when they’re like scrubbing a lot of their content off of the web, making it harder and harder to find what used to be declassified documents that are supposed to be available to the public.

They’re trying to scrub their history and pretend like they don’t have to be held accountable for the things that they’re ongoingly involved in. And again, like, NED is a branch of the CIA. I didn’t actually listen to this, but I heard that the Gray Zone had a funny conversation with like, some PR person from the NED. I don’t know if you heard about that, where she was claiming that she like to have them prove how NED was involved in color revolutions, which is just absurd. She apparently, it seems, believed that NED really was doing good work. I mean, there’s a lot of naive people in this sense.

These people, I guess, will always have their uses. But at this point, there’s really nothing good in the CIA. Arguably, there was nothing good, to begin with, I would say. But definitely, at this point, there isn’t. And they’re just working against not just the democratic processes in foreign countries, but within their very own country as well. They, as I call them in the book, like Allen Dulles, who was in charge of the Warren Commission over Kennedy’s death. He’s clearly like, Talbot did a very good job. David Talbot’s The Devil’s Chessboard did a very good job showcasing how Allen Dulles had his fingerprints all over that situation.

But they’re basically, when Kennedy fired Allen Dulles, he was still the director of the CIA. These intelligence institutions (the FBI, the NSA) are not elected by the people. And even when the president wants to get rid of them or in Trump’s case as well, he’s like trying to diminish the funding and diminish the purview of these institutions. You’re not able to because they don’t actually service the president or the people of the country. They serve the hand of the king or as Churchill called the High Cabal.

Jeff: Yeah, the High Cabal. Well, the City of London Wall Street. Let’s not forget that the CIA was created by ten Wall Street lawyers. So, their roots go deep into corporate America, the City, the City of London, et cetera. I think that everybody knows the CIA is organizing and managing global money laundering, and human trafficking, arms.

Cynthia: As well as NATO.

Jeff: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Cynthia: NATO is also involved in this. Brussels is like a hotbed for this stuff it’s so telling, right, that NATO moves to Brussels, and then all of this kind of nefarious activity starts to pop up in Brussels.

Jeff: Yeah, heroin, cocaine. I mean, So, it’s possible. I mean, it sure seems because that’s what all-black money means. That’s all-black money off the record money. And so, maybe they get their whatever it is, 80 billion a year, they get from the US taxpayers. And then they’ve got this kind of like parallel. In fact, it was George Herbert Walker Bush who had the expression. He called the dark side of the CIA, “the crazies in the basement”. And of course, he was CIA director.

And so, maybe those crazies in the basement really are absolutely, totally rogue and don’t answer to even the CIA in Langley. And they’re just like complete outlaws. It’s not impossible.
All right. I love your quote on page 255:
‘Don’t have an actual enemy “enemy” to fight and justify your meddling in another country’s affairs. Not a problem. Just split your paramilitary team into good guys and bad guys and have them pretend to fight. Go village to village repeating this action drama and you will see how quickly the world will spread. The word will spread that there are dangerous extremists in the area that exist in great numbers.’
Tell us what you tell us why you wrote that.

Cynthia: Yeah, so that comes from Colonel Fletcher Prouty, who was the liaison between the Pentagon and the CIA. And he wrote the book JFK. It’s longer with Vietnam and the assassination of Kennedy thing. I can’t remember the title fully. And he was basically bringing up this reference to ‘Fun and Games’ in context of the Vietnam War. And the fact that they would stage these mock battles to not only get the locals to support a certain candidate that they would want for election.

So, this candidate would supposedly fight against the terrorists in the area. They would win. And so, people would obviously want to elect this person. But they also were doing these mock battles which were called fun and games by the CIA paramilitary covert operations in Vietnam. So, again, it’s a long story. Prouty does a very good job of explaining the Vietnam situation as being a complete mock battle, basically, in terms of justifying why the United States needed to enter Vietnam to protect the world against the threat of Soviet communism, which was a whole bunch of like, nonsense.

And Vietnam wasn’t even a country at the time. But these mock battles were staged for diplomats and for even the new CIA director who replaced Dulles to try to justify why we had to put even more people into Vietnam to fight this very scary threat that was clearly not going to be contained within Vietnam and was going to spread everywhere. And yeah, it’s very disturbing. Obviously, the fact that was happening in the Philippines, and then these trained people were actually used in Vietnam. This is clearly also something that has been continued.
There’s no reason to think that these fun games have not been continued to our day where we’re constantly being told about these kinds of threats. They’re always distant threats. We never have them so close to home, typically, and not for a long amount of time. So, we have to take what the media is telling us and what the politicians and the intelligence agencies are telling us. And in some cases, these people themselves believe in what they’re saying. So, it is concerning that that was the level of what it just goes to show the level of as we were discussing just previously, how they have taken over the narrative.

They have taken over control to the point where there is no democratic process. And as a president, how are you even supposed to deal with this if the intelligence agencies are lying to you? How are you supposed to work with these institutions for the safety of not just the people within your own country, but the safety of your relationship with other countries? You can very easily be manipulated into backing a war with a country. Based on false intelligence from these intelligence agencies, and people should be reminded of Iraq, the Iraq war was started over false intelligence by the British intelligence by MI6.

Jeff: Yeah, absolutely.

Cynthia: Spread rumors that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons. Iraq was an illegal war, a war crime. Libya was also in an illegal war, a war crime. And they used the war chest of Libya to arm the terrorists who then fought the Syrian people, who terrorized the Syrian people in Syria. And we were sold in the West that these were freedom fighters.

Jeff: Yeah, yeah.

Cynthia: Against the dictatorship of Assad.

Jeff: Yeah, unbelievable. Well, I interviewed Douglas Valentine and he wrote the great book, “The CIA as Organized Crime”. And in the interview, he said the CIA is global capitalism’s secret army. And he said that if the CIA gets caught doing something, if there’s a Senate hearing or whatever, the CIA just says, okay, we’ll stop doing that. They take the plaque off room 202 in Langley. They go to move to room 201. They give it a new name and they just keep on going. MKUltra, and Operation Mockingbird control the media and all these others. They never stopped. They just keep on doing it. And there’s absolutely zero control after Church. Remember the Church Committee and all that back in the 70s and nothing changed. They just kept on going.

Cynthia: And this is what has happened with the FBI as well, with the Durham report. The Durham report has been attacked as being some kind of like biased agenda to attack the FBI. But then the FBI had to itself acknowledge that back in 2019 with the Horowitz report, where they were exposed for not following the law with their warrants during the Hurricane Crossfire investigation, which was of the Trump campaign in the 2016 elections. They were not following the law and they were caught doing this.

The Horowitz report said, oh, it was out of incompetence and negligence, not political bias and malicious intention. But nonetheless, they were caught not following the law. And there was a call for the reform of the FBI. Do you know what the FBI is saying? Yeah, we made some adjustments back in 2019. So, now the Durham report has no cause for asking for us to be reformed because we’ve already made the adjustments.

Jeff: Just like the CIA. All right. I never knew about this guy. You wrote in detail about James Burnham being the father of neo-conservatism. He was once a Trotskyist. I’ve seen names like Max Shachtman, Philip Selznick, and Irving Kristol as Trotskyist converts. And you mentioned Alan Weinstein, the founder of the CIA cutout National Endowment for Democracy, we just talked about. What is it about Trotsky that makes such good Neocons? He and his cohorts, of course, back in the days of the USSR were on the payroll of the Nazis and the fascists during World War Two. What is the connection between Trotsky and Trotskyists and this global imperialism and fascism et cetera? Please.

Cynthia: Yeah. For those who want a more detailed account of how Trotsky was on the payroll of the Nazis and fascist Japan. Grover Furr’s work is very useful in this. But the reason why is that Trotsky was not just on the payroll of the Nazis and the Italian fascists. He was actually, I would go so far as to say he was on the payroll of the City of London and Wall Street and was servicing the Anglo-American intelligence high-level players again in pursuit of social imperialism. And Trotsky thought he was going to get a piece of the pie, as did Hitler.
And clearly, that was never the intention with players like him. Trotsky was clearly expendable at a certain point. Burnham is a very interesting character to study, to showcase how transparent this agenda actually is, because Burnham, who became the lieutenant, top lieutenant of Trotsky in the United States, originally studied at Oxford’s Balliol in England. And again, Carroll Quigley brings this up in his Anglo-American establishment book that Balliol was one of the centers for the round table social imperialistic view that Joseph Chamberlain, Alfred Milner, and Cecil Rhodes.

Jeff: Cecil Rhodes, for sure.

Cynthia: And so, the fact that he studied there, Carroll Quigley brings up right that this is one of the centers for the round table Lloyd George’s cabinet, the formation of the peace conference. These are all round table creations, right? The League of Nations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs was the chief policy shaper behind Palestine and Ireland, and India in terms of like what was shaping policy towards these regions and was a part of the appeasement of Germany. And its roots again lie in the Boer War, which again I have to do further work.

But it always goes back to the Boer War, including MI6 and Cecil Rhodes, Churchill, all of this, it’s all in the Boer War. So, Burnham is in fact from this school, not Trotsky. He was launched, as you could say, like an agent, to use Trotsky as a tool. And this is why Burnham was trying to organize the communists to not fight the Nazis, which is clearly outlined in the book. He was trying to encourage the communists to do nothing because he was saying like, ‘oh, well, the allies are the imperialists. And we don’t, we’re not for imperialism. And the fascists are also bad, So, we don’t want to fight for them. So, we shouldn’t fight for anything. We should just stay out of it,’ which is clearly what he was trying to disorganize the Stalinist communists who were actually fighting the fascists. And he was clearly against the Stalinists specifically and was trying to recruit communists as a weapon against the Stalinists within Europe and also the United States.

He worked for the OSS as an advisor. He, later on, was recruited into the OPC of the CIA. Burnham after he renounces Trotsky, right? Within a few months of Trotsky being assassinated, Burnham very expediently renounces Trotsky. He’s now beholden to Fabian Bertrand Russell, which again shows where his true roots lie again, totally in the social-imperialist viewpoint ultimately, And Burnham ends up working for the OPC. He’s supportive of the Truman Doctrine, again, which is the attack on the Stalinist Communists in Greece. Dump napalm on these people, all as a thank-you for defeating the fascists and the Nazis. And Burnham is the father of neo-conservatism.

So, the reason why so many of these neo-cons and so, a lot of these people who were adamant Trotskyists end up becoming and they never really identified themselves as communists, by the way. They end up becoming ardent McCarthyist supporters and become supporters of the attack on communists. Many of them and they’re working with the Bertrand Russell circles and the John Dewey circles, which again are the kind of Fabian social imperialistic networks. And that’s what the neo-cons are. So, this is really, again, the neo-cons are just an extension of that policy which is again in line with the British fascist viewpoint.

Jeff: Really interesting. On page 366 and this was really incredible. In Burnham’s mind, the promise of socialism would be useful, but only as a guise, a trick for a totalitarian system. This explains why so many fascist movements label themselves as national socialists. I find this ironic and sad since socialism is all about bottom-up democracy and the broad sharing of the Commonwealth, which is the opposite of fascism, not to mention socialism, embraces minority tribal rights, and fascism is anchored in some kind of Aryan race supremacy or, as you say, some kind of boogeyman out there who’s going to take away our freedoms. What do you think?

Cynthia: Yeah, they were again using socialism as a ploy to talk about a certain brand of social reform as if it was going to be for the benefit of the people. And that’s why I find it very interesting that socialism is like a dirty word in the United States. It’s often said with disdain, but like when you look at the general philosophical components of socialism, it doesn’t make sense that there’s that kind of reaction to it and I think that we get kind of lost in the oversimplification of words or branding of a word that is not necessarily how it’s actually being used in the first place.

So, capitalism, socialism, communism, I mean, people use communism as if it’s all like one thing when clearly in our discussion there are different kinds of communists and you had Marx and you had Bakunin, for instance. You had like there’s many different Georges Sorel in his brand of Marxism, Bertrand Russell’s brand of Marxism, Burnham’s brand of Marxism. There are all so many revisions of this. So, people have to be aware of that. And Burnham, who is the father of neo-conservatism is part of the branding rebranding of Marxism. The father of Italian fascism, largely Georges Sorel, is also a rebranding of Marxism. People have to realize these odd seeming paradoxes of trying to appropriate things and relabel things.
So, socialism was then put under this idea of national socialism, which again is the social imperialistic view to lie to the people saying we need these social reforms for the benefit of the people when it was never for the benefit of the people. But they’re lying. And this is again the difference between Keynes’s John Maynard, Keynes’s New Deal versus Roosevelt’s New Deal. And Keynes actually had a foreword in his, I forgot which book it is now. I have the details in my book. He had one of his books published in Germany during the Nazi regime where he says in the foreword, I think that my ideas for an economic system will be better received in a totalitarian system than in a democratic system.

So, it’s very clear, you know what this is if you look past just a simplification of words, and as Stalin himself said I can work with the industrial capitalists. So, the kind of capitalists you had under Roosevelt, for instance, in the United States, I cannot work with the feudalistic capitalists, which is what he was talking about, the brand in Europe, which again is this League of Nations concept of the people, the people are ultimately cattle. So, these words are very much confused and oversimplified, I think, amongst the average person. And they get like very easily like, oh, China, China today they must be bad because they haven’t given up on the word communism.

But then if you look at how China organizes itself as a country, it is actually, as you already mentioned, more democratic than the system within the United States, where people feel that they get a say only during times of elections, which, by the way, is not even a say anymore. The elections are not so free anymore. But the people in China actually are listened to when they make complaints about very specific things in their local community. If things they’re not happy with and the country responds accordingly. By the way, Japan also had this system of approach with their economy where it was understood.

It’s actually quite crazy to think that we’re going to make massive changes in the economic structure of a country based on a president that might be in for four years versus another president who might be in you’re going to do huge overhauls. There should be certain kinds of protections. And I’m not saying the kind of protections that the intelligence agencies have been abusing. You should always be able to make reforms and changes. But there has to be also protection against deconstructing the economic system, which is what happened in the United States with the removal of Glass-Steagall, Greenspan, and Volcker. This was bringing in the derivatives, the fake market, financial market.

Jeff: Financialization of the economy.

Cynthia: Yeah. And like, the United States was completely de-industrialized. And yes, China was the cheap labor of that, but China was not what stole American jobs. It was Volcker and Greenspan that terminated those jobs. It’s Volcker and Greenspan and others who are responsible for why Detroit now is like a freaking ghetto and used to be like an industrial center of the country. So, again, China is very much focused on this industrial economic capability. They’ve alleviated poverty in their country pretty much all around at this point, a massive accomplishment in a short amount of time.
And they’re now focusing on prosperity for the people. And it’s not they’ve made it very clear to anyone who bothers to listen that their idea of equality is equal opportunity. It’s not this idea of communism where everyone needs to have their own same thing. There’s no such thing as getting paid more for the level of contribution you do and things like this. They don’t operate that way in their country. You are selected based on merit and they actually have a much more rigorous way of judging whether you have merit for certain positions of responsibility. And if you abuse power as an institution or as an individual who has a lot of power, like the Alibaba owner, Jack…

Jeff: Jack Ma.

Cynthia: The reason why Jack Ma was taken down a few notches is that he criticized the Chinese government and economic system in support of the World Economic Forum to give people context to what kind of criticism that was. So, they will you know we complain here about the big tech having way too much power in China. That’s what they did with Jack Ma, who was one of those big tech guys who was abusing that power against the people. It wasn’t in any kind of favor of the people.

So, people just hear the word communist for China and they don’t bother to actually look at how the country is running itself, which is actually very democratic and very much for the welfare of the people. They don’t look at them as just like ants to service like cold concrete state, like actually look at some pictures of China. It’s quiet, it’s more beautiful than the United States. The United States wishes it had cities as beautiful as China at this point. So, these words, you have to be very careful and ultimately, I think, hope it’s become clear with this conversation.

The totalitarian system that has taken over the United States is not the Stalin or Mao idea that has been pumped for decades of the boogeyman, totalitarian system of the communists. It is the fascist British brand of totalitarian system that has taken over the United States. That is why the United States entered into the Iraq war and then went for 20 years plus nonstop warfare. When the Americans first realized that the Vietnam War was a mistake, they needed 9/11 to reinvoke that kind of imperialism within the American people.

Jeff: Yeah, absolutely. Here’s a great quote.
‘The modern state is an engine of propaganda ultimately manufacturing crises and claiming to be the only instrument that can effectively deal with them.’
By some gentleman named Christopher Lasch. And my comment was when I saw that is like, in other words, false flags. But is it only modern states? It is understood that Emperor Nero intentionally started the famous fire in Rome to make room for his grand palace and then blame Christians as a pretext to massacre a few thousand of them. So, how long do you think these false flags have been going on?

Cynthia: For a very long time. Your example of Nero is a good example of that. That’s why people need to realize that the people, the importance of people being informed is very important. That’s why false flags occur is because you need a certain amount of support from the people. The people have to willingly accept their enslavement. This is why National Socialism branded social reform for the benefit of the people. They created the economic crises in Germany with the Treaty of Versailles, and then they branded the solution as fascism.

There was also the Great Depression in the United States which was predictable that was going to occur again. That was also to bring in extreme social reform of the brand of fascism, which Roosevelt was luckily there to deal with. So, people have to realize that it is so important that you are informed because they put so much importance on what people think. And 9/11, again, is a very good example of something that occurred to justify an unjustifiable war on a huge section of the world to ultimately cripple the underbelly of Russia and China.
It was an arc of a crisis scenario. They talk about the arc of crisis, the threat of the Middle East, Islamic extremism, and so forth. They created that extremism, which also goes through in my book, it’s British intelligence, Sykes-picot carved up the Middle East in the way that they wanted. And then they’re the ones who funded Wahhabism, the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt’s army was being trained by Otto Skorzeny, the Nazi mastermind of the Gladio networks. There were troops also in Palestine and Israel that were being trained with Nazi Mussolini fascist techniques.

It’s all been fabricated. Nothing of like what has been the biggest thing that we’ve been told is the threats are organic. Or even if you look at the forms of domestic terrorism, the FBI has been implicated in basically the level of entrapment for the majority of domestic terrorist cases. In the United States, there was a Fordham University study on this. They were implicated in the majority of this on the level of entrapment, where they come up with the plan. They recruit people. They supply the materials like they’re coordinating the whole thing.

The thing would clearly not exist without them. And then you also realize that people like Charles Manson or the Unabomber are MKUltra products. So, so much of what has scared us in the world we live in has not been organic. We’ve been lied to saying that our natural way to be violent is to basically have wars for limited resources and all of this. This is not the general person’s outlook. It’s not even the general leadership’s outlook, as we saw clearly with the natural alliance alliances that were happening between the United States, Germany, Russia, China, and Japan.

Wow. What an alliance of the same economic system viewpoint, which is a view of people free of empire. That was what was organically happening and was circumvented by an artificial war that to this day, nobody can really justify why the First World War happened. So, that’s what is very, I guess, a sad truth, but it’s also a wonderful truth because we are not what we’ve been told, which is this very negative thing that is almost kind of doomed to a self-extermination. We’re actually a very positive thing.

And what is sad right now is that Russia and China are the representatives right now today of this outlook. And we are blind to it because we’ve become so cynical in our world because we have become governed in our own minds, mentally imprisoned by this totalitarian system. We think from the perspective of this British totalitarian system, because of the education system that we’ve been implementing onto us. We don’t have a proper understanding of history. We don’t have a proper understanding of economics or what is true statesmanship.

Jeff: Cynthia, this has been a wonderful discussion. And before we sign off, what have you got in the pipeline? I know this is the first of two books, I understand. You and Matt are just like protean. I mean, you were just absolutely protean in your productivity. But tell us a couple of things that you’re working on that are exciting to you.

Cynthia: Well, we’re also working on a video series right now.

Jeff: Yeah, wonderful about China.

Cynthia: Who is your enemy? And it’s yeah, it’s focusing on this again, this fervor that is coming to a very dangerous level in the United States of blaming either Russia or China for the problems within the country, which is not the source of the problems. So, we’re doing a video series on that. And we’re also going to be doing our first video series for the Rising Tide Foundation, which will tackle the energy crisis situation and what is the true economy of energy and the true use of energy, and why this artificial energy crisis has been created, which is again, to disempower the people and make them more easily enslaved.

Jeff: Yeah, okay. Well, it’s always a joy to talk to you and Matt and work together. And Cynthia and Matt are members of the China Writers Group and which is quite an interesting amalgamation of different ideas. So, anyway, I’m going to hold this book up again, buy it, and go on to Amazon. It cost me €20 and I didn’t even pay for shipping. The Empire on Which the Black Sun Never Set. There’re fascist symbols above. And then there’s the Anglo-Saxons below, The Birth of International Fascism and Anglo-American Foreign Policy, by Cynthia Chung. Everybody get it and reads it. I was enthralled and learned so much. Thank you so much for being on the show tonight. Cynthia, I will definitely get this out as soon as I can. All right.

Cynthia: Thank you so much, Jeff. It was such a pleasure.

Jeff: A Buddhist bow from the beaches of Normandy. And I do have my Buddhist bracelets. So, my Tibetan Buddhist bracelets. So, anyway, take care and we’ll stay in touch. All right.

Cynthia: For sure.

Jeff: Bye-bye.