Karl Marx essentially introduced a doomsday cult. When the predictions did not materialize, climate change became the enhancement.
Nyquist: This is Jeff Nyquist and I’ve got Alex Benesch with me again. Another friends and enemies discussion about the politics of Europe, the background of World War Two, the rise of communism, the strategy of Stalin, the strategy of Germany and the United States, France and Britain, Japan. I think this is really interesting because I’ve never really talked to a German researcher in depth because I have questions about Germany and what happened.
And I I’ve I’ve read a lot, but of course, I haven’t read all the German files in all the books. Let’s let’s start with with the basic thing you’ve read, Victor Suvorov, the chief culprit. You’ve read the ice breaker, I presume? No, no, not that one. No, you haven’t. But, you know, the thesis is that Stalin regarded. Okay, so just to set the stage for everybody that doesn’t know you had the Bolshevik Revolution coming out of World War One, which Lenin called the first imperialist war. Right. All these great European empires went to war with each other, the central powers against the Allies, against the Entente. And and of course, this war resulted in revolutions, Bolshevik revolution in Russia, revolutions in Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire came apart. There, there, there was this transformation of Europe, this, this, this change. And so then in 1920, Lenin said, look, we we you know, in the midst of the Civil War, we were not able to spread the revolution to Germany. They thought for sure it was going to spread in the Soviet Polish war, the Red Army was marching towards Germany, but the Polish army stopped them at the gates of Warsaw. And so the revolution didn’t spread and Bolshevism didn’t spread however much it happened. And so you had the struggles of the 1920s and you had the emergence of national socialism.
And and it’s interesting, National Socialism, Viktor Suvorov, in his book, The Chief Culprit, points out these similarities between Hitler and the Nazis and how there was this closeness at the beginning between the kind of rhetoric that that Hitler’s originally called the the German Workers Party than the National Socialist. You know, Workers Party. It it it was originally they had certain alliances with the Bolsheviks when when the 19 you know, when the Munich beer hall push happened, there was some clandestine negotiations with the communists in Berlin at the time.
This is what Suvorov is claiming. But the Communists didn’t uphold their end, and Hitler sort of drifted off, but that Stalin developed the idea that Hitler was a person that could be used as the icebreaker of the revolution to bring about what Lenin anticipated would be a second imperialist war in which the Noncommunist world would go to war with itself.
And then the Red Army could move over Europe. And he envisioned the same thing for the Far East that Japan and China, the two biggest powers in Asia, would go to war with each other and that Soviet Union would be the one to come in and set up communism in East Asia, that Japan could be gotten into a war with United States.
And then we have a book called Operation Snow, which shows that Soviet intelligence tried to provoke Pearl Harbor from happening. If you’ve heard of that book. But okay, so now I’ve laid it out. So what do you say? What do you know from what you know from your sources there in in the German language?
Benesch: Well, first of all, it’s it’s to this very day, this is the big trauma, the missed opportunity of the 1920s.
So not only did the communists fail to take power over Germany. They also they underestimated the National Socialists and they underestimated, you know, how this all could go so wrong. And this double trauma just translates to this very day, even in the United States, because sometimes people can be, let’s say, deluded about things seeming calm, right? So the 1920s in Germany, they were often regarded as sort of forced.
Let’s have some fun years. Okay. So after World War One, you had sort of this reemergence of culture in movies and theater and people just wanted to have some fun. Okay. This was this was in the 1980s. This was in the 1920s. And they wanted to forget the horrors of World War One. Exactly. And and so at the same time, this this this focus on on having fun proved to be a complete and utter disaster for for the communists because they were taking things seriously and sensed the opportunity.
But they did not grab it and the Russians did not want to to move in that in that manner. So there was a chance to have a communist communist revolution of Germany in 1923. And and that was the year of the runaway inflation, right? Yeah, things were ready to roll. But the Russians, the Russians said, no, this is not the time.
And you had famous, famous German communists who were absolutely shocked about this. And they just came to visit the Soviet Union and they were told that this was not the right time. It was more prudent to let the Nazis take power, watch them fail. And this would be interpreted as sort of the last breath of, you know, old type system.
So like that, because the fascists or the Nazis, they were they market themselves as, you know, fairly old school. So this was would be the last breath of the old, the old ways, and then the communists would take power. Now, of course, things went differently, which was part of the Russian strategy. I mean, if Europe is on fire, it’s easier to take over.
And so to this day, this is the trauma of communists. And in in today’s situation, especially in America, even, you know, when you look at when you look past the, you know, everyday scandals in the newspapers and the Trump stuff and whatever, things seem sort of calm in the general population. They want to focus on work, family and have fun.
Right? They say that’s that’s their focus. But today’s communists, they have not forgotten the old trauma. And they they feel like they’re under pressure because if something like National Socialism happens again in America or something along those lines, this is the end. So this then everything’s going to be over for the left.
Nyquist: And so they see Trump maybe that way, huh?
Benesch: Exactly. So, I mean, if you really look into Trump, he’s just telling people what they want to hear. And it’s been like this for a very long time. But I mean, if you place yourself in the head of the mind of a communist today in America, they see the warning signs everywhere, you know, because even if even after 100 years of, let’s say let’s say 100 plus years of modern socialism in American politics, things have not really moved the way the left wanted it.
So you still have the super rich. You have, I think 90%, 90% of Americans not owning any real significant assets and so on. So they are they feel like they’re losing, even though these things have turned fairly left for. Yeah, exactly. You know, fairly left. But still, at the same time, there’s this panic, there’s this panic that they’re losing and something big is going to happen.
And when that happens, they have lost forever because look at what happened in Germany. You know, they thought they could actually have a Nazi government for five years and then it’s going to fail. It’s all going to fall apart. But it didn’t. So that’s that’s why you should never underestimate underestimate communists today, especially in the United States. They may look like a joke.
They may look like, you know, some some crazy political cult. But don’t forget that this is the big trauma that they’re carrying around. And and this this is what this is what motivates them. So it’s it’s just they they fear losing and they fear losing forever. And so over the last couple of years in in the United States, you have sort of this European style activism in the West.
So suddenly you hear these terms like like what they call it, Antifa in America, but it’s it’s anti-fascism or anti-fascist, actually, that is what it’s called.
Nyquist: And it started in Germany, didn’t it, in the 1920s.
Benesch: Exactly. Exactly. And and so these, you know, people who at least sympathize with communism or socialism, these people are everywhere. So they work in your local power station or they run, they run, you know, they run everything. These people are everywhere.
Nyquist: They’re teaching your kids.
Benesch: Exactly. And and when this climate when this climate change thing became a thing, this also added to this this pressure they put on on members in this in these circles. So time’s running out. Time’s running out, time’s running out.
Nyquist: So the Communists basically have embraced the climate change thing. And of course it’s my thesis that it’s their game, that they actually are behind the whole climate change narrative. They’re the ones that are pushing it. And am I wrong?
Benesch: I’ve looked at I’ve looked at this a few years ago and I thought, well, let’s I want it to be as open about this and and focus about the focus of this as I possibly can. And I found up two things. One, it’s it’s not what it’s marketed as. It’s not international. So if they keep green people, they always say climate change, climate science is very international. It doesn’t serve one particular country. So there’s no suspicion of any any country trying to gain an advantage from it. But in reality, its climate science is dominated by Britain and the United States. The second thing is that it’s pure science and it’s not clouded by anything else followed by politics and so on and so forth. But and this goes back to especially this goes back to World War two. It’s it grew out of the military. You know, this the whole climate science used to be weather science. And this was a deciding factor in in World War two. So if you remember, the landing or the landing of troops at Normandy was dependent on the weather. Before that even happened, there was a tiny window of opportunity when, you know, the cloud in the sky was right. The waves were were not not too big was a tiny window of opportunity. And before that even happened, that landing, there was a kind of a spy war, a spy war and a physical war to gain the upper hand on whether data. So the German encryption was broken so the breast they could gain access to German weather data. And there were weather ships, weather airplanes, and they were routinely shot down or replaced. So in the in the Atlantic, because the weather often was brewed in the North Atlantic, that came Exactly. It was it was it was a race. It was a race to gain the best weather data and the British obviously won. And at the same time, they had weather experts work along with chemical weapons experts, you know, the Porton Down guys and such and and biological warfare. So you needed weather experts to tell you where to spread a chemical agent or a biologic biological agent. You know, how do you spread it? Where do you spread it? So the whole thing was the whole thing was very much military. And out of the war came the Climatic Research units, the UK Met Office, super militarized, of course. And, and then with the Americans you have Nasa, you had Noaa and they were all contributing to this, to the science and, and to a degree it was about labeling military technology, civilian. So for example, if you can observe icebergs that you can observe sort of, you know, the ocean currents and then such, you could also observe the enemy. So this is this is where it originally came from. But at some points, some weird circles, some weird circles, they they kind of changed the original climate research. So this this was a straight military thing. So the gold standard was, can we get an accurate weather prediction seven days in advance or two weeks in advance? That would be the Holy Grail if your Air Force if the Air Force could know the weather in advance for a week or two weeks, precisely. This was the Holy Grail. So we’re talking two weeks, one week, maybe three weeks. Those were the the timeframes that we’re hoping for, not what the Greens and the Communists claim today that you can predict 50 years into the future and a hundred years into the future. And so when climate science became more ambitious, it became convoluted and hyper complicated. So the idea that you can take these very, very different, very complex fields of research, combine them in a way and then translate this into computer code, it’s sort of a ludicrous idea. If you if you think of the the the accuracy, for example. So Noah did some great work on ocean research, even deep ocean research. This was meant for realistic purposes. You know, you wanted to figure out the ocean, you want to watch Soviet submarines and so on. And this this is what it was built for. But then these weirdos, they actually proposed that you could use this military data basically, and then create the super program, the super software and the most important one is it’s called what was it called the it runs on these Cray computers at the UK Met Office. This monolithic computers and this software simulates the world supposedly. And then you can run the simulation and that simulation tells you it’s going to be that much warmer in 50 years or 100 years. And I’ve looked at current, current active climate researches, and I look for studies that contain, especially in the title, that contain words such as challenges and problems. So I wanted to see what active leading researchers had to say about problems in their own field.
Nyquist: And this is within what time frame? Over the last 30 years or last ten years?
Benesch: Yes, that’s ten years. So recent studies. So and what I always found was that the original purpose could be fulfilled. So, for example, if you wanted to have an advanced secret weather report for the military or you wanted a rough estimate a year in advance what the operational area was going to be like for the Navy or the Air Force. And of course, this also touched into weather weapons, weather modification. So these were realistic goals. These were original, realistic goals, reaching back to the Second World War. And, you know, the the weather forecasts that made Normandy possible. So every time I looked at these studies, the leading researchers were saying we fulfill the realistic goals so we can be precise to a certain degree for various purposes, but there are limitations to what we can do. And they were naming these sort of limitations. So these these underwater buoys checking the temperature of the oceans, not enough noise by a long shot, not enough bullets. And they they there’s so many of these problems and with the satellites so that there’s a there’s a measurement problem that they don’t have the data to really say what the temperatures really are. And they they they profoundly stress how how impressive technology has gotten. So they can explain to you how by using satellites, they can measure some object. Let’s say, for example, a new Russian Navy ship or a Russian Navy installation. They can measure it down to a fraction of an inch. Okay. So that’s impressive. But they look at it from space and they can tell you exactly how large this object is. But you cannot use it to measure how much the ocean is rising. It’s just not good enough for that. And they tell you that very specifically. They tell you what the limitations are. And and and this is this is everywhere. You know, leading scientists saying it’s made for a specific purpose. It’s good enough for that. But beyond that, we are losing track of the data. We cannot we cannot even process all the data. A single leading scientist is only good enough for his own field. And so if you actually combine these different fields, how do you make sure you combine them in the correct way? Any slight mistake will ruin the final software in their head.
Nyquist: Because the world is so complicated, there’s so many ocean currents and the currents change and the temperatures change. And in this spot it’s cooler. In that spot, it’s warmer. I’ll give you one data point as an example. You know, when the hottest recorded temperature on Earth ever was 1913, it was 134 degrees. And I believe it was Death Valley, in fact. Yeah, it was. I’m looking right here at it. The that is the hottest in 1913. So we have not had anywhere on earth a temperature recorded hotter than in in on that day in July 1913 when it reached 134 degrees. Now, the coldest temperature ever recorded in Antarctic. And of course, we’ve only been measuring temperatures in Antarctica for less than 100 years on a regular basis was recorded I think the year before last, and I think it was April, they had the lowest ever recorded temperature. So just going by that, the lowest ever recorded temperatures are more recent, the hottest ever recorded. Temperatures are more than 100 years ago. So and then you can argue about that, You know, what does it prove or is the question methodologically and people will argue.
Benesch: Yeah. And even even the the computer coders, they complain they do not have enough programmers. The programmers they have are not good enough. And it’s just it’s it’s an impossible challenge to translate completely different fields of climate science translate this into sort of a master software, write a program that’s supposed to predict the future and there’s no other way to judge the accuracy of the program. This there’s no other way you can use a some familiar type of program, but that’s not actual evidence that this can actually accurately predict the future. You don’t have a time machine. You can travel to the future and back and then check out this all lines up. And so it is possible to manipulate this master software if you apply a little manipulations here and there, because the average leading climate scientist will not be able to find these manipulations. And so it all seems very, very legit. It’s always weird if if politicians or even scientists, if they say, well, it can’t be it can’t be fakery, it can’t be manipulated because there’s hundreds of thousands of climate researchers, they would all have to be in on the scam. And this is impossible to keep secret. But that’s not how a scam works. That’s not how manipulation works. You want everybody to believe that it’s accurate and it’s very scientific. So hiding specific manipulations is fairly easy. And you would expect, especially the left, to complain about the fact that climate research has been a dominated by the United States and Britain and climate science is thoroughly militaristic. Everything about it came out of the military and at some point the military character was sort of hidden a bit by Noaa and Nasa. But even if you look at the directors of NOAA’s, they’re usually military guys and it still has this military character. So wouldn’t you expect the left to look to to figure this out and complain and say, oh my God, this is you know, this is all from the military and we hate the military, but they’re not saying this. And even this Michael Moore character who he produced a movie that was critical of large corporations buying up the Green movement to a degree and just, you know, making more cars and building cars and things instead of promoting pure Marxism, but not even Michael Moore dared to tell people that climate research is very, very, very militaristic, and it’s run by the United States and Britain. So it’s there’s different interpretations of of why this piece of software was created, this massive program that supposedly predicts the future. I mean, if I if I read, let’s say one of the latest books by by this Microsoft guy, Bill Gates, for example, I mean, he tells you that his idea of the future is that special companies, corporations, they have these new patents and they can make basic products in a very, very complicated way, because nowadays every every country could use gas and oil and make these products and make concrete and make artificial fertilizer. But in the future, only select corporations would be able to make these products that are climate CO2 neutral. So this is one interpretation. But of course, if somebody was inclined to have more socialism, controlled socialism, that would be, of course, a motivation as well to hide specific manipulations in climate science, to manipulate the outcome, manipulate the final piece of software that tells us the future supposedly.
Nyquist: Yeah, I what I see is when I look at the global warming science and I’ve got Currie’s book here was a climate scientist that originally just sort of accepted it and then went and looked at it and said, this is being pushed by this is a political agenda being pushed by a minority of scientists who have kind of bullied other scientists into going along with it. And when I look back at the old Pravda editor whose name eludes me right now, he wrote a book in which he said, look, in 1982, this is going to be the future global warming. We’re going to this is how we can get to show that that capitalism has failed. And the people need socialism. And and so when you see who’s pushing it, the the the whole agenda, you’re looking at Al Gore, who wrote Earth in the Balance. Al Gore and his father were put into the United States Senate by Armand Hammer, who was, according to the Hammer file, a KGB agent. I mean, Stalin, right? Yeah. Well. Well, he. Yeah. Yes. Arm and Hammer was an American who knew Lenin, who got rich trading with Soviet goods, who married a, you know, a wealthy American woman and increased his fortune, ended up, you know, a you know, owning a lot of assets. But he was a when he did business in Germany and in France, the intelligence services in the 1920s in those countries found that he was an agent of then it was the GPU, the what we call the KGB, the Soviet intelligence. So Edward Jay Offside published this in the hammer file. And of course, this is the man who was behind Al Gore’s senior JR. He was a man behind Biden. He was a man who pushed Biden into the White House. And and so what’s really interesting is that this narrative does not apply to China, communist China. It does not apply to Russia. Russia does not observe anything concerning global warming, and it is only applied to Western countries. And then now I point to the two other narratives having to do with the World Health Organization and all of these regulations. The World Health Organization is going to now impose on all the nations that are part of the treaty of maintaining common hygiene. Right. And it’s sort of like, well, China controls World Health Organization and China is in bed with big pharma. And you know, the rest of it, we can’t say it necessarily in front of a mixed audience because there’s actually censorship. But but but these narratives don’t apply to these rules are not going to end up applying in China and Russia. They’re not going to end up flying in any communist countries, only in Western countries where the damage is going to be done.
Benesch: I mean, the the the climate predictions, the it’s almost like I always compare it to, let’s say, to a or what they call in the ancient world where you had a specific person who could predict the future. What did they call that in English? The well, the Oracle. So sometimes, as I tell people, it reminds me of an oracle. So you have these monolithic computers. They look like something from the ancient world and a temple, and there’s this magical piece of software and it puts out this this simulation of earth that looks kind of psychedelic and it predicts the future and it tells us what to do and who was who was the original doomsayer, Who was the original oracle? It was Karl Marx, right? Karl Marx explained that any sort of freedom in capitalism was going to inevitably destroy the world because it’s its only exploitation to him. There’s always going to be many losers. And so this capitalist system would have to exploit all the resources and have a bunch of wars and basically destroy everything. And it would it would stop, arise the people to the extent they would rise up. So this was he was he was kind of the original doomsayer and he was making this prediction and and to this day, this prediction has not come true. So is this whole mechanism I mean, try to try to present it as a science, just like the climate software, the final output the final software is supposed to be scientific. And when Marx failed, especially when the 1990s came around, this was a time and I’ve told this at the beginning of this, of this talk when the 1990s came, people wanted to forget the cold War, they wanted the happy years just like the 1920s in Germany. They want family, they want to focus on having fun arts, theater, cinema and just have a good time for a change. But this of course just triggered the communists. This was the old trauma, you know, from from back in the old days. So if people have fun, that’s dangerous. And so Marxism needed a new doomsday device. It needed a new doomsday narrative. And this became, of course, global warming, because it’s so close to what what Marx had said in the past that what we do is is a disaster.
Nyquist: And it’s a different way of saying that capitalism leads to the collapse of everything.
Benesch: Exactly. And so if you follow this this climate, the the output, the final output of climate science, it sort of dictates climate science, then sort of dictates socialist control because you need some sort of a centralized, centralized system that decides what people can produce and cannot produce. And so especially when Marx tried to explain what the value of an item is. So you tried to say, well, how much, how much work somebody puts into this an abstract work and all this nonsense. But nowadays you have like the CO2 factor. So that’s so today the argument is you have products on the market, but the price of the product is does not reflect what the planet actually how the planet actually suffers. So if you factor in the damage you do to climate, then the price of the object, let’s say a car or whatever the price changes, the price becomes much higher. And climate activists say this increased price is the real price. If you factor in the damage done to the environment or the climate. And so this is when especially when did this really take off this climate nonsense? It was the nineties, especially the late nineties and right right after the fall of the Soviet Union. Yes. And so the nineties were a bit like the 1920s. It was the era of let’s all have fun, forget the Cold War, forget the threat of nuclear, you know, nuclear devastation. Let’s just have fun. The communists don’t like fun. Did the communists say no, they don’t like fun. So and then in 1999, this the hockey stick. The hockey stick thing happened. And this was this was when the new Marxist tired doomsday prediction happened. So time is, you know, time is ticking. The clock is ticking.
Nyquist: And and the hockey stick, of course, is the idea that that they they got rid of the global warming I mean the medieval warming period and erased it from the history books who tried to get rid of it and they got caught. Yeah. And if you look if you look closely, you can find leading scientists all over who describe the weaknesses in this in this whole process, you know, because it’s been warmer on the earth and we weren’t driving in SUVs and we didn’t have as much of the CO2 being put out in those days.
Benesch: Correct. And and so supposedly the clock was then the clock was then ticking. And if now remember what we talked about in the last episode, you know, these old networks and the strange connection of these old European networks with socialism and communism, remember who’s running the worldwide fund for Nature Aristocrats from Europe, right. The WWF, the Worldwide Fund for Nature. It’s it’s aristocratic people then who’s who’s been running the climatic research units. It’s aristocratic people who was running the Hadley Center and the UK Met Office. It’s these aristocratic people. I think that and I think it’s it’s different groups that have placed their hopes in this climate scam. So the socialists, they wanted to use it as socialism. Some corporations, they think they’re going to have a monopoly on the new patterns to make climate neutral products. And then I think there’s a group which then there’s a group that wants to have sort of a combination of different ideologies to create sort of the super ideology. So, for example, Klaus Schwab from the World Economic Forum, he’s talking about this for a very long time. It’s not just not just the COVID and his great reset. He called it the fourth Industrial revolution, and he proposed that we have some capitalist elements. So the corporations are going to be powerful, we’re going to have socialist elements and the over all of framework is going to be protecting the climate, protecting the environment.
Nyquist: And he said China’s government way of doing things is the perfect model. So there’s different groups and they want to use this for different for different purposes.
Benesch: And the way climate science has grown was part partly fueled by military needs, which were realistic goals because you had to surveil the oceans, you had to surveil what the Soviets were doing and in the Arctic, Arctic circles and so on and so forth. So of course, if you have a if you have an environmental green satellite, it was an easier sell to the taxpayer than saying we need another spy satellite. So there was certainly that kind of an element, and that’s how this climate science became so big. But by becoming bigger, it’s pure entropy. By becoming bigger, it’s easier to hide certain manipulations and then have this phony computer program saying that, you know, we heat up the planet and we will it can it become not like a runaway train where all these people get on board the train thinking it’s going to take them where they want to go. But the train is really out of control and we’re going to basically destroy modern by driving this train down the track. Something something along those lines. I mean, because some people like Bill Gates. Bill Gates and his is climate Books that came out, I think two, three years ago. This it’s less the climate book. It’s more like like an investment strategy book for wealthy investors.
Nyquist: But of course, Bill Gates is really must be considered as an agent of communist China, because once Microsoft, when he was in charge of Microsoft, he brought Microsoft to China. He said they have four times as many customers in the U.S. This is our future. Microsoft basically climbed into business with China and he became he the Chinese treated him like it, the ultimate celebrity. He’s a hero in China. The Chinese leaders, when they come to this country, they when when I remember when Jiang Zemin came to this country before seeing Bush, he went and saw Bill Gates before he saw the president. So, yeah, it seems to me that that Bill Gates cannot be regarded as it as an autonomous person. Same thing with Klaus Schwab. Klaus Schwab has a bust of Lenin behind his right shoulder in an interview in his in his study, in his library. And it’s like I don’t have a bust of Lenin in my I mean, you have a bust of people you admire in your library. So what is what who is Klaus Schwab? And he’s this he’s well, he’s attacking Putin now. He’s verbally distanced himself with, but he’s been a friend of Putin for years. He’s been a friend of G for years. So I think that this guy is just an aid. I think that the World Economic Forum, frankly, is a communist front organization in the old style.
Benesch: And isn’t it clever? Isn’t it clever how this looks, for example, how Bill Gates is is Bill Gates is indirectly triggering the left because in his book he’s saying, oh, don’t worry, it’s going to be great. It’s going to be a few corporations, my friends. You know, they’re going to run all of this and we’re going to run everything. So everything’s fine. Of course, that makes the drives the left mad and they spring into action. And they everybody wants to become an activist. Everybody wants to become an activist. Then. And yeah, I think it’s different people and they’ve been told different things. I think that some of these characters say they sort of they’re not really told what this is about. They just hope that it serves some kind of goal. For example, maybe create a stable world system where the United States and China and Russia get along happily and whatever. And maybe they believe that this climate nonsense is going to achieve that thing. But of course, you have hardcore communists who who basically say that the clock is ticking. And when you have let’s say when you’re having a say in Europe, when you have in Europe certain corporations that deal with gas and oil and you have the Russians that want to sell us gas and oil, this triggers the communists like nothing else. I mean, they go they go absolutely bonkers.
Nyquist: And the left and it’s funny when you kill just to make this point, when you kill gas and oil production in the United States, you’re basically enriching Russia and you’re rich, enriching Venezuela. And you’re you know, now if you look at a map, the Communist bloc countries, if you call Russia, China, their allies and their associates, and you’ve got the of course, the BRICS nations, that’s you know, if you if you count them, they now control more than half of the world’s energy supply. Now, easily, You know, Saudi Arabia has been kicked out of the tent by Biden, but yeah, no, go ahead.
Benesch: Yeah, I mean, I mentioned this is this is a very, very key point because when I looked at this climate thing, I looked at the Russian response to it. Okay, So the Russians, when it comes to, let’s say, Ukraine or many other topics, the Russians, they still have this antifascist line of propaganda. They still do it like the old days. Right. But when it comes to this climate science, I mean, climate science, as I said, it’s run by Britain. In America, it’s not really international dominated by Britain in America, and it shouldn’t wooden couldn’t the Russians couldn’t the Russians exposed this couldn’t be the Russians use their propagandists in the West to expose all this and tell it’s just a bunch of military technology parading as as it’s imperialism trying to tell you what America it’s American imperial system. It’s all a big scam. And look, this evil military stuff was everywhere. I mean, wouldn’t you expect the Russians to do that? But they did not do that.
Nyquist: And that’s right. And the Chinese the same thing. What’s interesting is that I had a Chinese source and there was an I think it was 2018, there was a conference in China between, you know, what we would call climate scientists, but scientists who are experts in the in the sun, in the ground, in the in the cycles of the sun and how the sun influences the weather. They had a conference in China and they were actually privately saying, look, we we’re worried that the weather is going to get colder. We’re worried about a grand solar minimum. But then publicly, when they would make statements, oh, no, they were giving lip service. I noticed in the in the Chinese press they were giving lip service to global warming with qualifications.
Benesch: Yeah, right. Remember when this this guy, Michael E. Mann, I think it was he was he was a climate scientist of the famous climate scientist, and now he’s an activist. And I call him the Green general because he is coaching the other activists now, especially in Germany and other places. So he’s telling them what to say, telling them what, what to think. If you put out this book where he he he pre prepares all the arguments you’re supposed to have with your family members, with your coworkers, and you anticipate what they’re going to say. So now you have to say this and that. So I call him the Green general and he had this idea in his book and this sort of became part of the Democratic Democratic Party’s policies. He made this comparison that today, to combat climate change, we need an effort. He just called it an effort. We need an effort as great as the effort back in the past against the Nazis. So why that so this this is in his book. And this was also picked up, I think, by the Democratic Party at some point. And, you know, using this analogy, CO2 emissions are now the new Nazis and and anyone who is against them becomes a collaborator. Yeah, you’re an enabler. And this is where this maniacal stuff comes from. When there’s a rift going right through a family, when the young kids, they they become this entire fascist clock is ticking time. They they become these activists and they think the clock is ticking and they start hating their parents because they are not on board, because the parents are more focused on reality, paying the bills and keeping the lights on and paying for the heat of paying for the gas and everything. This is where this comes from. And and I call him the green general. And he’s he’s been doing this for it for for quite a while. So now you have the perfect blend of old school, 1920s anti-fascism, and you bring that into the modern world because what what would have happened if the Nazis had won? This would have been a complete disaster, right? So if the Nazis had won total disaster and nowadays, if if CO2 emissions get too high, this would be complete disaster.
Nyquist: Yeah. Now, going back to so going back to, you know, the interwar period after World War One, before World War Two in the strategy, you know, I have said for years, we’re in a pre war period. You are going to have world wars and there you just as high as you can count until humanity can’t do them anymore. And because within thin the herd too much that we’ve fallen back in our technology. But as long as we have this smaller world reduced by the jet engine in the rocket and the modern economies of scale, we’re going to have world wars. And so Russia and China know this. They want to prevail in the next World War, just like the Soviet Union looked at. The Far East wanted a war between Japan and China. And while all one happened, wanted a war between Germany and the Western allies, well, it happened. And Russia exploited that to create its its socialist bloc in Eastern and Central Europe and to create communist or Soviet China. In 1949. So that was the set up. Now, is there, you know, looking at it this way, do you see since they they see a partial failure, don’t they also see that Stalin succeeded in a way that they that the glass is was the glass was not half empty, that something was won by this process.
Benesch: Well, when when Stalin basically took over China with this, you know, this whole system, basically the Chinese government preached that poverty was noble. Right. So this was this was the line in communist China. Poverty is noble and this is the only way. So poverty today by saying it’s noble because you saved the environment. So if you’re a broke activist, it’s supposedly a noble thing. You don’t have a career, you cannot make anything that’s of value to somebody else, or you can provide a service that’s of value to somebody, but you’re saving the environment, you’re a lawyer, you’re kind of a noble spirit then. Exact Exactly. So this is kind of the only way nowadays to poverty, to be to be noble. In the old days in communist China and even the Soviet Union, the argument was was still the old Marxist doomsday theory that if you have any sort of trade, if people are well-off, if people have anything, this would ruin everything.
Nyquist: You’re not going to have a revolution. So let me make the following analogy. The back When Lenin realized they weren’t going for the revolution in Germany, in America by 1920, and he said, we need another war. What Lenin was saying and with Stalin followed through on, was, if we can destroy level the West and level the Far East, if we can destroy civilization in a world war, we can just come in and take over because they’ll all be completely destroyed. They’ll be devastated. They’ll be saying everything is failed. We need to, you know, Stalin, we need communism, we need Marxism-Leninism. And so now the strategy is, all right, we we could have a world war, but they have nukes. We might get hurt by that. Let’s have a a a a say, false belief system in which they destroy their own economies.They level their own society by their own false belief systems. And we just feed that fake belief until they are just completely on their knees. And then we just come in and take over in it. The same plan with just a different weapon.
Benesch: If you have if you have corporations, even larger corporations in the West and you you join the workforce and you start out with an okay salary and you work your way up and then you can afford a house, you can afford to have four kids and two cars and vacations and stuff. This is this is the nightmare for communists because it completely destroys the old the old doomsday model presented by Marx. And so wouldn’t it be a winning strategy for communists to build up corporations, Certain corporations in the West try to gain control and make them as miserable as possible to sue, to have a corporation, for example, that is so greedy and treats its workers so bad, and to have to work all these different angles to make life miserable. Because what what is always the core demand of the left, they want to nationalize large corporations. So if you have secretly communists running certain corporations, this would make sense from a communist perspective. You make everybody’s lives miserable and you suck up all these competitors and at some point it’s national laws. You can nationalize it. And it seems so fair to everybody.
Nyquist: Well, Lenin was against the German Social Democrats. He called them. He the he he accused them of econom ism. And he you know, you don’t make the plight of the workers better because then they will revolt. You have to make the situation of the workers worse, said Lenin. Otherwise you’re not really doing them a favor because they’re only going to get better in the real sense if they overthrow the bourgeoisie, right?
Benesch: Yeah, There’s this. There’s this cliché that French people are more French people are more likely to to have revolt or revolution. And the Germans, they’re the exact opposite. So what is the old joke? If if Germans rebelled against the the train system, the the train system, they would actually buy train tickets to be there to protest the sort of an old joke. Right. Because Germans supposedly are, you know, very they’re they’re they’re not inclined to to overthrow things.
Nyquist: And in in fact this became established in American political science by like Willy Schonfeld, who studied in in France and Schonfeld and and, you know, they had this this notion about France because Schonfeld was really an expert in France. There was this idea that that the French people were kind of schizophrenic. They could be very, very obedient, like under Napoleon, or they could just be crazy revolutionaries. Like like in the French Revolution in 1948.
Benesch: And and I think the difference the difference is that France had had a long history of being kind of a solid empire. And Germany was this patchwork were little bits that oftentimes fought each other. And if you have a German history like this of war, after the war after war and diseases and I mean modern in the around the year 1900, the average German started to benefit from modern medicine and chlorinated sewage systems, and that before that life was very potentially very short and miserable. So how can you expect Germans to say, Hooray, communism, let’s try out something completely bonkers and new? Of course people are not going to do that. And that’s where the hatred from against the general citizenship, people that want to have stuff and own stuff. So not only the left hates this, but also the extreme right wing, the National Socialists. They hated the average German citizen because they did not want any sort of large change and crazy ideas.
Nyquist: Yeah. So, yeah, the you know, the difference in temperament between the English, the French and the Germans has always been a factor in all of this. But but now it seems to me like all the old rules are, are not to be understood in the same way the old rules of thumb of understanding Europe or understanding what’s happening. This is my sense is that the now going to what’s happening now you have to tell me what you think of this. What I see is that when these major movements like the the the the climate change movement and like the World Health Organization push in the attempt to centralize health. And you have leaders like Scholz in Germany and Biden in the United States and Macron and in France. There is this, as you say, however desperate, the communist, you know, guy in the street may feel that it’s it’s going badly there. It’s really going quite well for them. And then you have Russia and China, the countries that wanted to exploit these narratives to dominate the world. Oh, look, we’re going to crush their economies. China and Russia again. Those countries, though, are still struggling because they have their own demons and because they have their own pathological system. And as much as they’re trying to feed us disinformation and trying to poison our system and sabotage the West as much as they’re trying to do it, they also are self-sabotage because of their because of who they are, how evil they are, because evil is its own kind of stupidity. But here’s China trying to get to go to war, trying to mobilize in its own economy is is failing. You got Russia has invaded Ukraine and it has not been successful. And so where does this go? I mean, are they going to persevere in this strategy and then ultimately prevail? Or is there something in the West, somebody in the West knows what’s going on? And is their a counter strategy? Because, you know, I just talked to Jimmy from Brooklyn last night and Jimmy saying there’s nobody playing back against the communists. What is what is the one system that has not been tried out in the real world on a large scale when it was an interesting time between, let’s say the the 18, 1880s and then the beginning of communism, the communist revolution. So the Russian system, the Russian system had its its, its own ideas of how to move forward. So you mean the czarist? The czarist? Exactly.
Benesch: The Czarist system. So there was this idea tossed around by by the czars, actually, and even by certain types of communists who were run by the Tsarist intelligence agencies. And this idea was to have a visible, traditional monarchy and aristocracy at the top and everything below was going to be socialism. This was a system that was never actually implemented on a large scale anywhere. So the czars had super serfdom, does not. Yeah, the czar said the czar had different ideas to to reform Russia because Russia was so backwards and they had this idea of copying America. But they this was a too dangerous and be the regular aristocracy in Russia was was not happy with that concept because they just didn’t want to do it. And so then you had the idea of moving to a constitutional monarchy such as in Britain and to copy Western enlightenment that didn’t happen in Russia. And so for a while there was this concept of maintaining the Tsarist system and have socialism, complete socialism below that. And this idea was not too popular with the regular aristocracy in Russia because they thought this would be the end, because the czars didn’t like the czar, didn’t like the regular aristocracy. So that competition, by the way, between aristocracy and monarchy, which people don’t realize. Yeah. And so and so this, this idea for a while became quite a thing, even in communist circles and quite a bunch of Russian communists. They fled Russia, they fled the Tsarist system, they went to Europe. And it’s it’s not quite clear who was playing for what side, because quite a few of the communists were run by Tsarist intelligence. So it’s very hard to determine who was exactly what. But if if you read what was this guy called, I think it was Edward Ellis Smith is he was a CIA guy, if I remember correctly. And he worked in the Soviet Union in a diplomatic and spy fashion. I think it was Edward Ellis Smith. And he wrote this book called Stalin something about the the early days of of the Revolutionary and and he tracks Stalin’s Stalin’s movements and his early life. And in that book, you get a quiet point of view, anecdotes of, you know, this this, this infiltration of communism, undesirable rule. It seems like for a time the Russian Czarist actually had intended to control socialism, control communism, and then form this new system, keep the czars and have socialism below. But that sort of got out of control and that that turned into something else. But this was a concept. This was a concept for a while.
Nyquist: And I think that and only in Russia could this even have been conceived because of Russia’s history and because, you know, I once had a Russian defector tell me he was a scientific defector. And he said he said he had read in the newspaper that Irvine Ranch had sold a bunch of its land that it had that it had bought, you know, 50 years before for $100 an acre or something for, you know, you know, half a million dollars an acre. And he said, this is immoral, this is evil. You know, in Russia, we didn’t even under the czars, we didn’t even have fences. We don’t, you know, you know, nobody owns the land. You know, you can’t sell. And and it was I was kind of shocked. And I said, but Alex, who’s being hurt by this, the people who are buying it want to pay that about. And the people that are selling it are okay with getting that amount for it. But he couldn’t he his Russian mind couldn’t wrap his head around it.
Benesch: I think that that I think that idea of having a tsar and socialism below that I think that idea sort of it received it received from Western European aristocratic aristocratic types and the like. But just a few of them, Right. Yeah. And I think that became sort of a ticking bomb because nobody quite knew what to make of it.
Nyquist: And and it was developed as an idea but then it was is that a way of having a controlled opposition though, where you’re able to keep your eye on the socialists and you’re able to get some I mean to some West Western European monarchs and aristocrats, this idea seemed seemed attractive.
Benesch: You have the monarchs in power and below that nobody would have been able to have what the aristocrats had because the secret of success for the aristocrats was strong family ties and large family structures and and wealth.
Nyquist: So. Well, the first problem you have is the problem you had in the American Civil War is that if ever there was a war between a society, that it was organized that way and a society that was organized with with with basically liberal capitalism is a capitalist, was going to beat that other society because it would have the modern tools, it would have innovation, it would have science, it would have industry way above what a society that had an aristocracy and a monarchy atop and socialism at bottom. They would just simply not be able to keep up economically or militarily, would they?
Benesch: But it I mean, to to to some aristocrats, this probably seemed like an attractive proposition because an aristocracy always has competition. If citizens become too smart, if they have larger family structures, and if figure out how this intelligence stuff works, then of course it’s game over for the Aristocrats. And I think that led to some aristocrats actually partially developing this this concept of having a monarchy and socialism below. But I think this went horrendously out of control.
Nyquist: Well, if we can remember what aristocracy was for and how it formed, it was the warriors on horseback, the men they could own, horses who could afford armor, who could arm their neighbors, who became these feudal barons, who were able to defend the community against invasion, against enemies. And so it was a warrior aristocracy. Their whole justification for existing was that they could protect people, they could defend the community. So the minute they lose that function, it’s almost as if they lose their minds and they don’t. And of course, the reward back in those days, how do you reward people for these great things? You give them land so these people have have been they have these special qualities. They’re they they have family tradition. They’re given land to continue in their role, in their social role. But now, when society is industrialized, this role is now put into question. Right, Right, right. And it’s it’s interesting. It’s interesting to see in Europe how these these different ideas sort of collided because on the surface, it may have seemed that two, two separate people have sort of the same idea, but they were coming from very different directions.
Benesch: And that makes it so hard to trace to to now trace who was exactly for what concepts because remember, if you look at new research, for example, Christopher Clark’s book from 2012 about the first war, he’s a Cambridge. He’s a Cambridge historian. I think he called it a sleepwalkers, was sleepwalking into the war. I think that was the German title. And and he actually in 2012, two years before the the attack against Crimea by Russia and 2012, he basically points out a studies saying the driving force the main driving force behind will or one was Russia not Germany.
Nyquist: And so and by the way that does that does that absolutely makes sense because and and just from from you basic knowledge of of the war that the Kaiser did not really want to go to war because Germany was caught in between France and Russia.
Benesch: Exactly. And it was the Russians that mobilized first. Yeah. And that in those days, if a country such as Russia, czarist Russia at the time when they have scaled up to 1.5 million soldiers, then everybody knew that war was coming because Russia did not have the money to do that. They borrowed money. The mobilization timetables were decisive, so they had to borrow money from France. They had to buy ammunitions from France. And the French had built the railroad system in Russia to allow the mobilization. The Russians had to mortgage basically their their their land or mines, everything they could think of to afford this. So the way things worked in Europe for a very long time, it was basically like this.You always tried to form a bigger, stronger alliance to squash the weaker alliance. This is always been but it’s always been done like this. And at the time before World War One, Germany and Austria were in a weak alliance, fairly weak alliance. And so the Russians had the Russians had formed this stronger alliance and everybody knew more was coming. And is the interesting to see that this study comes out in 2012. You know, by that time, of course, Germany is Germany is meaningless in a military sense. But the new threat is Russia. So finally, you know, things are a bit more honest now. And but it’s decades too late.
Nyquist: I mean, it’s many decades and Germany was just then starting to finish paying off its Versailles Treaty debt, right?
Benesch: Yeah. And so well before the war killed, I think it was First World War, it killed about round about 2 million Russians. I think they killed 20 million people overall. But yeah, it killed a lot of Russians. But then came, but then came Russian civil war which was about I think it was 8 million dead people and that’s just a rough guesstimate because they don’t really know.
Nyquist: Yeah. And it’s just like the communists. The communists needed this complete utter misery to take power and to form their their new system and to say there’s no czar anymore. You have to worship in and then and now. And this new idea, this new system, which is supposedly much better than much better than than the old system, and this this thing that you just brought out, the old system versus the new system, this gets us into philosophy and religion because at the bottom of every social system is a religious is it is it is a theology or an ideology or an idea or a philosophy or a feeling about life, about what is the meaning of things and how things should work. And with the advent of the first socialist state in Russia is really because you’d had a century of philosophizing about a kind of socialist system, that what happened in the future of which Karl Marx became, you know, the the leading intellectual exponent, him and his followers in Europe, that that you finally had this Marxist state under Lenin that Stalin took over and built up. And and and so if looking at the the old aristocrat aristocracy, what Schumpeter called called capitalism is the declining form of aristocracy, of declining form of feudalism, that that is a kind of a joke, that that everything is sort of changing and people are losing their their old beliefs. People are calling into question Christian theology, Christianity itself. You know, since the Reformation, people were disgusted in the Enlightenment with the religious wars, the killing over theological questions. So you and it’s as a backlash. And then you had all this science coming in in the in the 19th century and and then ideology in the 20th century. People were very their ideas were changing. And I noticed this, you know, growing up, there’s this change in the 1960s from a country that has serious spiritual beliefs, belief in traditional religion to underneath it. They really do believe in their day to day life, in their actions. They believe they’re materialists. No, I mean, they are they are materialists. And Marx was dialectical materialism, but they might not want to go to Marx, but okay, they’re capitalist materialist or they’re socialist materialist. And so the whole and Carl Jung described this as as the human race going insane.
Benesch: Yeah. I mean, to me it was it was it was a very paradoxical thing when socialists socialists claimed to the socialists claim to have a positive view humans in general. Okay, so but in, in, in reality, in reality, socialism, socialism told us basically that that everybody is everybody is a potential monster. Everybody has this diabolical force inside of them.And you need constant socialism to keep that in check. So this is where this idea comes from of spying. Everybody has to spy on each other. And even if even when you had in like the beginning of communism in Russia, you had sort of the anarchist communists. So they wanted to have more fun, not not centralized control. They just figure things out, you know, let’s all be nice to each other. And what happened. The real communists, they brought in actual machine guns and artillery and shot them to pieces.
Nyquist: These anarchist social clubs in the Russian Civil war. I think they called them greens, the anarchists, and they. And they massacred him. Yeah. And so suddenly they were the enemy.
Benesch: And then, of course, in Soviet Russia and Soviet China, they declared a a group in society that basically didn’t exist. The the exploiters, the those people who supposedly own things, and they wanted to exploit everybody. So this is kind of just this very negative look at people, this very negative outlook on on on humanity in general. So everybody is potentially evil.
Nyquist: It’s the evil structures of ownership and property that make people bad. So if we bring socialism, if we enforce socialism, then people will become good, right?
Benesch: Yeah, socialism has a super pessimistic view on on on humans, general. And it’s very, very negative. And it’s you know, with the Greens, the Green movement today it really is a despairing people if you’re not on board an enabler of CO2 emissions which is the same as the Nazis back then and your basic CO2 is the enemy.
Nyquist: Socialism is a despairing view, is it not? Because because if if you actually meet a socialist, if you actually meet one of these angry activist AKP activists, they will tell you things like like I had the encounter with one in graduate school and we were it was in a political economy seminar. And what was interesting is he he said, you know, we ought to try the experiment of running the world without any means of exchange, without money. Right. And I said, you know, I mean, you know, this, you know, and he was a communist who made the suggestion, a Colombian communist. And I said, well, you know, if you know, if we do this, billions of people will die. And you know what his answer was? So what? So what? Yeah, yeah. And it it was like and of course I you know, when he was drunk one time, you know, he told me, I bet you you think that people that people who murder people, you know, are inwardly destroyed and and feel bad and are unhappy. You know, I’m here to tell you, I know murderers and they’re perfectly and they and they can have normal, happy lives. And and I don’t know who he was trying to convince, but but I, I looked at this and I thought, what is wrong with these people? And what I realized was that when you believe that you when you are a materialist, when you believe your life ends and there’s just blackness and that everything was just a bad joke, when you believe that you are naturally in this point of despair, you know where we’re caricatured. Kirkegaard called it the sin of despair right over and over again, the sin of despair. Where were you? And in a way, it’s the opposite of faith. There’s faith and there’s despair. And the faith is is the belief that that God made the universe and he made it good and that we are in that all evil is ultimately turned to good, and that that’s what you have faith and you live in that faith. Whatever horrible thing happens, you endure it. But you you look ahead. But with them, it’s different. There are things and then annihilate things. And it’s yeah, it’s it. I mean, of course, of course you have different forms of hateful, hateful ideologies, but I mean, other hateful, stupid ideologies I think are much more honest because they are they define a certain type of enemy and they say, well, they they need to be destroyed and but they want an enemy. As to a socialist universal, it’s it’s pretty much it’s pretty much everybody. And yeah, let’s talk about that for a minute. Who is the enemy for the socialist? Anyone, anybody, anyone who disagrees. Right. Y
Benesch: Yeah. And even if even if policy keeps changing all the time, this is I mean, this famously adapted in the novel 1984, the George Orwell book, When the Narrative Changes all the time, you know, we’re all at war with this country, we’ve never been at war with the other country. Policy changes all the time, but you always have to adapt. And if you don’t adapt, you, you automatically become the enemy. Even though this idea is incredibly, incredibly stupid and even if it’s self-destruction. So you’re forced to you’re forced to partake in this partaking of the self-destruction. If you deal with another person on a business level, you can make clear the terms you’re offering. And if the other person doesn’t want to meet these these terms, then you can go separate ways and it’s all it’s all fine and dandy. And if some person says, I want to be greedy, you can say, Well, good luck to you. I don’t think this is going to work out in the long run if you want to stay illegal. And in a communist in a communist system, you become the enemy so fast. And it became such it became this becomes so confusing to people in the Soviet Union. It became very confusing to people in Western Europe, for example. I was and I you know, I was trying to research the western, western German response. So the western German response to the Soviet gulag system, especially the Social Democrats. I wanted to get, you know, the literature. What were they saying? What did they know, when and how did they react? And it’s almost as if literature and scientific studies as if this has been if this stuff has been removed, it’s been it’s very hard to find anything that pertains to the reaction.
The only thing you can find is the reaction to Solzhenitsyn’s book. And for the most part, researchers say it was a non-response in in Western Germany, French were outraged. I mean, even the French intellectuals, especially the French intellectuals, they were outraged. It was saying, look, we don’t want that. I mean, they stopped believing to a certain degree, but not in Western Germany. They just were confronted with the situation of, wait a minute, if we denounce if we condemn the gulag system, we condemn Stalin, we condemn Lenin. Uh, and we condemn a few other leaders, and there’s almost nothing left. So by by accepting reality, they would be left with absolutely nothing. And then, of course, the pragmatism kicks in. If we are left with nothing, the imperialists will take over, the fascists will take over. So they will always decide to go along, because if they don’t go along every single time, they are left with nothing. That is really sad. That means that they don’t really have a political belief. They only exist to be a a sort of thorn in the flesh. And this Aldouri, this the boundary. I mean, you should ask these people I mean, you mentioned this one guy who said his boundary is basically non existent, billions could die. He would be okay with it. Yes. Where is the boundary? At what point will some communists say, okay, this is too much for me? Yeah, this is this is too much for me. This is where I. I leave the train
Nyquist: Well, this is what I learned about his mentality was interesting. I, you know, we, I was, we, we were, we were teaching assistants in a class called Introduction to Political Analysis. And We went and had we were very disciplined in grading the papers. And I think I’ve maybe told you this story before, we went and had pizza and beer afterwards and I was the designated driver, so I was drinking. So I got to hear what they were saying to each other. And these guys, these other graduate students, they were Marxists, right? And so he says at one point, he says that he was at a beautiful evening and he was out there on the and and, you know, I’ve said this before, out in Laguna Beach, and he sees the beautiful moon, how it sets on the ocean. But then he thought of all the poor people in the world. But then his next thought was that he was not going to be remembered in 100 years. And so then when you get to someone like Eric Ferdinand, I immediately understood Berlin as being correct when he said basically these people or Whittaker Chambers, who said, you know, it’s it’s like in the Garden of Eden, where the serpent tempted Eve by saying, Oh, you won’t die if you eat this fruit, you’ll be God’s. There is the belief that there is no God. This belief in materialism leads to the belief that you must then become God yourself, that you as a living entity must become God, and there therefore you get to transhumanism. Therefore you get to this idea that that man must become God, that we’ve got to evolve into immortal, omniscient, omnipotent beings. And how can they immediately grasp for that power by the revolution, you know, by socialism?
Benesch: I ask people I mean, I ask people, answer me this what famous or infamous German said the following words, and then I quote There be a world war to destroy up certain populations. And this guy hated Jews. He hated the Russians, he hated the working class. He everybody who was this famous, infamous German person, was it the German Kaiser? Was it Hitler? Was it, you know, German general? No, it was Karl Marx. And Engels wrote the same thing. Yeah, because they wrote letters to each other and they exchange these ideas.
Nyquist: So it’s like. It’s like this. This clinical, clinical insanity. It’s just this clinical insanity that you find that you find a lot. And this is kind of where it two separate things become complementary.
Benesch: So the kind of the older Western, the older Western European aristocratic system, because it was so harsh, it made people jaded or some people made them very jaded.
Nyquist: And and when they lost basically lost this fear of God of they lost religion, that’s when psychopathic ideas became rampant or even narcissistic, very pathologic ideas became rampant because there’s no higher power to punish you. If there’s no higher power to tell you what to do, why should not Why shouldn’t you destroy it? Why shouldn’t you? Well, and of course, why shouldn’t you conceive of yourself as grabbing for God’s office if there’s this concept of of an ultimate ruler of the universe and you then can say, Wait a minute, that chair is empty, there is no God. So hey, maybe I could be that. So there there’s you get these extremely you narcissistic, psychopathic individuals like Stalin, like Mao, like the Kims in North Korea. I mean, we see what Putin is doing in Ukraine, for example.
Benesch: He is literally annihilating a country because he has decided that there are no Ukrainians there. All Russians. And look, I tell I tell this to the green the green movement, the climate activists, because they see I say the the the regular or the regular IPCC reports about the latest research in climate climate science. The the IPCC report is sort of the Koran for these activists. It’s it’s the holy scripture to them.
Nyquist: Yes. This is the ultimate this is the ultimate truth. And they all, even though year after year, their climate predictions have been wrong.
Benesch: Yeah. And they also and when they combine this with regular, regular Marxism, they think they have found the ultimate formula. And I asked them what what happened to green, green environmental activists in the Soviet bloc, for example, Soviet Eastern Germany, they were actually hunted by the intelligence services. They were hunted by the Stasi because these factories, they had little regard to to the environment and the health of the people. So were getting sick all the time. And when you protests of that and when you try to form some sort of an organization to improve things, you had the Stasi on your tail.
Nyquist: They were considering you to be the enemy because you wanted to join because their agents in the West are doing the same thing to bring our economy down. They automatically think that that’s if that’s done in their country, it’s to bring their economy down too, and they’re going to fight it.Their economy is going to the track record.
Benesch: The track record was horrible, and it was in part because communism could not afford to protect the environment.
Nyquist: It was just not it was just not possible to see. We have to move into the the system wasn’t efficient enough. And if anybody insisted on any environmental regulations, their economy would have collapsed.
Benesch: Exactly. And when when the communists came knocking, they they were asking for Western technology. So who sold Who sold the the factories to to make to make gasoline? It was the coal industries or the DuPont. The DuPont family. They were supplying entire factories to the communists to actually make all these chemicals and make all this stuff. But, you know, in the West, we started, you know, protect the environment and protect people. But that never happened in socialism.
Nyquist: They and in China, it’s even worse. In China, it is even worse as they have more population. Indeed. So do I mean, with this just to wrap up for today, we their strategy, you know, the Bolshevik Revolution, we had the strategy to to devastate the world with world wars and to exploit it.
We’ve we’ve talked about, you know, the devastating through using radical environmentalism and and other radical, you know, ideological measures. Where do you see us headed now? I mean, do you think that we’re going to collapse? Do you think they’re going to succeed? Do you think there’s a any play back here?
Benesch: I think I think the West has accumulated enough technology and knowledge and wealth to protect itself and think by by having such a control over ideologies. I think they can always make do they can always sort of sort of make it make it work in a general sense. So I don’t I don’t buy this argument by the pro-Russian guys and the pro-Chinese guys. I mean, because they always claim that the East is so successful and we’re just we’re just in decline. I mean, everybody’s everybody’s in decline. And so that that’s a good point. And so there might be a point when there might be a point when when, you know, the superpowers might a deal or somebody might try something outrageous. I mean, I’ve been watching I’ve been watching the pandemics, threats and it’s it sort of crosses over with the biological warfare. Yes, I think there is a there is a an attack vector through this whole area that the Chinese in particular and also the Russians could exploit. There have been there have been incidents in American states such as Florida when certain diseases started popping up. And it’s also happening in Europe when some diseases start popping up that are not common here. And climate change is blamed for that because, yes, we heat up the planet and then, you know, the insects, the insects start moving and vegetation starts moving. So there may be a biological attack in the future or a multi-pronged biological attack in the future that is blamed on climate change.
Nyquist: And this is sort of kind of a joke or a joke or that could be played at some point in the World Health Organization. Rules could be used to make a kind of world a dictatorship.
Benesch: Exactly. And so it’s it’s it’s been it’s been something that’s I mean, if you look at the literature on the Soviets, the Soviet biological weapons projects, and if you look at the Chinese developments, for example, because the Chinese, they got a lot of help from the West to develop facilities and to develop all this knowledge and stuff. And so when we saw this, we saw this with COVID when we’re still debating where it came from. And so this is kind of the the the most central factor in modern day biological warfare when you can launch an attack and nobody knows who did this or nobody knows if this was even manmade or came from any sort of it was launched by it, by it by the military. The West had always been limited in terms of in terms of experimentation. This is something the communist states never really had to deal with. I mean, there are incidents in in books about this topic, incidents where some remote islands or some of them some halfway island somewhere in the Eastern bloc suddenly was hit with a mysterious pathogen and everybody died. And it looks like somebody experiments and the Russians and the Chinese, they can experiment all day long. They can do whatever they want and and just make because they have no boundaries. They can they can do anything to anybody. Yeah. And so, yeah, it’s I mean, we’ve heard about China stealing, China stealing China stealing information about American citizens. So, for example, they steal medical data and they. Yes, and they steal DNA. DNA databases and other DNA data. And even if they don’t get all of the DNA data, if they have enough, they can sort of predict rest with computers because everybody is related to somebody else.
Nyquist: They can make a dig at a genetic specific bioweapon that kills a certain segment a certain ethnic people of a certain ethnic background.
Benesch: Right. Exactly. And so if if let’s just play out this this hypothetical real quick. Let’s say China launches an attack, China launches a biological attack against the West, it’s supposed to look natural and and they get hit, too, but it’s done in a way.
Nyquist: So they get rid of excess population. They don’t so big like their elderly folks exist.
Benesch: Exactly. So they can look like a victim, too. They’ve been hit by this as well. And this becomes of a new version of the Black Death.
Nyquist: And it’s China’s alibi. If they have the if they catch the disease first, it becomes their alibi. Oh, we got it, too. Like you said, it’s plausible deniability, which is absolutely, absolutely key.
Benesch: I mean, there have been smallpox very large smallpox exercises done in the United States. I think the last one was called Pacific Eclipse. And in this Pacific eclipse exercise, the experts factored in this information. So, for example, if especially right wing, especially the right wing is coming out with conspiracy ideas and and that sort of thing, this could make things much, much worse for the United States. And so all these military experts, they kind of anticipate a double attack, let’s say a pathogen plus information information warfare.
Nyquist: Yes. And this could be something that is in the works, actually, so that when this all it’s all done in over the world is a different place. Everything looks, everything looks, looks different. And and so, yeah, there’s been quite a lot of experimentation and this this could be a way an opening to a world war because if you can use a bio weapon to completely level Western society, let’s say you have something that kills 20% of the population or 15% of the population. Imagine the panic, the devastation, the lockdowns, the economic destruction. The West might be on its knees then is the moment then to strike perhaps? Yeah. I mean, there’s been this old idea from the from the Chinese that they can annihilate Americans and then repopulate, repopulate America. And they finally have the space, they finally have lives. SOLOMON And all that.
Benesch: And this has to be taken really really seriously by seriously by people, because if you’re not Chinese, you’re not worth anything to them. And it’s it’s not quite it’s not quite clear who has the upper hand technology wise, because the West has more technology, but the East is stealing technology. The East has all of our data and they can do more human experimentation. So Russia has been investing in nano nanotechnology, which is sort of the latest and greatest thing in biodefense, meaning if you have something advanced, you can sort of protect parts of society that you want to protect and just leave the rest to die basically. So this is something that this is something that is that is entirely possible. And it should be more of a public issue because because it’s it’s nice to believe that they’re all going to settle one day. You know, that the United States and Russia and China are going to have some sort of a deal and and sort of run the world.
Nyquist: But this could go any other way. This could literally go any other way. Yeah, No rivals. There’s always the instability. Rivals ultimately turn against each other and fight for ultimate control. And that’s what makes the changes in history.
Benesch: Yes. And it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s something that that people need to talk about in public because it’s it’s way more important than, you know, the daily scandal in American politics. You know what what some leftists or some right winger politicians said. I mean, at the end of the day, people are Americans. People in Western Europeans. And the threat is very real. I mean, we’re still kind of in this happy phase, even though it doesn’t feel that much like it would be. We think that things are calm. But the Chinese the Chinese system has vast, vast problems. And now that American money is withdrawing and the Chinese become sort of the Chinese become sort of desperate and and maybe aggressive. And we can and we saw we saw regular, regular conventional warfare fail in Ukraine because Russia cannot produce Russia cannot produce enough tanks and they cannot produce enough, you know, modern tech to to be successful that way.
Nyquist: But yeah, yeah, Russia has proven to the new Russia, the post-Soviet Russia is really just the Soviet Union 2.0. It’s not really that different.
Benesch: Yeah. And defectors I mean defectors have had given us a picture of the Soviet biological weapons program. And when Western efforts after the USSR, when Western experts were invited to the former Soviet Union, these Western experts were supposed to evaluate the infrastructure and then turn it into civilian infrastructure. And what you can find, obviously in literature was a big surprise about the scale of the program because they found these gigantic fermentation tanks and they kind of did the numbers in their own in their edits, and they figured out this severe overkill, potential bubonic plague, smallpox and anthrax. The Soviets were making amount of pathogens was staggering. And the the defectors told how it was about ten times bigger than what the West had initially assumed. The program in terms of science. And nowadays it’s sophistication. And a lot of it is just sophistication. And in the new world literature, you find examples of combining different pathogens. So you splice in one disease into another. And that has has a very specific effect. So imagine a disease breaks out in the West, the say, the United States. And the initial responses are we know what this it’s that specific disease. So the the the medical so the medical personnel applies the standard procedure for that specific disease. But then the other thing that happens, splice then becomes active. And what you’ve been doing to counter the initial threat actually becomes a problem. So you’re doing it wrong. But you thought you were following in following protocol.
And so this is this is something that is not talked about very much, especially I was surprised after the Ukraine war that this did not become a larger issue because people are talking about nuclear weapons. But that’s that’s a whole different ballgame. That’s a whole different set of problems.
Nyquist: Yeah. Yeah. Well, thank you Alex for that. And this is Jeff Nyquist and friends and enemies. Thank you. And join us next week will, We’re going to do it again.