Politics

Interview with Richard Poe on the origins of communism

Transcript:

Benesch: I welcome to the channel Richard Poe, who came out with a new book “How the British Invented Communism and blamed It on the Jews.”

Poe: Thanks, Alex. Glad to be here.

Benesch: I was very surprised to see that book on Twitter. Somebody posted the cover and said “this looks awesome”. And I looked at the cover and said, okay, this looks awesome. How the British invented communism and blamed it on the Jews. So somebody actually wants to reconstruct secret operations surrounding the revolution in Russia without being soft and without falling back on conventional conspiracy mythology. So my first question would be: How did you come into contact with traditional conspiracy ideology, and how did you discover that it does not explain history, or the history of communism?

Poe: Well, in some ways, this is a lifelong quest for me. My interest in the Russian Civil War goes back to childhood because my grandparents, my father’s parents, actually lived through the Russian Civil War. They were Jews in the Russian Empire. And they left and came to America in the early 1920s. So they were actually in Russia, in the former Russian Empire throughout the entire length of the Russian Civil War. They experienced it. And, as a kid, I was always very curious, to know what sorts of experiences they had. But there was this sort of shushing up that went on in our family where we were told, oh, don’t ask grandma and grandpa about their experiences in Russia.

They don’t like to talk about it. So it was almost a forbidden topic, which of course made it only more intriguing and enticing. And it’s just kind of a mysterious topic anyway, because aside from movies like Doctor Zhivago, you just don’t hear much about it. It’s neglected. You don’t see a lot of books about it, certainly not movies.

It’s not really in the popular consciousness. So I always had this tremendous curiosity and, because of the family connection, I went on to study Russian in college. I studied briefly in the Soviet Union, summer session. I became very interested in Russian history, but, at the same time, I’d say starting from when I was in my late teens or early 20s, I really started delving into what, I guess you might call traditional conspiracy literature. So, my idea of conspiracy literature was basically anything that challenged the mainstream. So I started getting into some of the books; things like Holly Sklar’s Trilateralism, which came out in the late 70s, and that book was basically a collection of academic studies, including peer reviewed studies by left wing Marxist academics, about the Trilateral Commission and what it was supposedly doing, and that it was a terrible plot to take over the world for globalism.

Benesch: So, crazy, large, outrageous capitalism, right?

Poe: Right, exactly. And totally from a left wing Marxist point of view. So I was reading books like Friendly Fascism by Bertram Grosz, with the same, you know, sort of left wing perspective. But I would call those conspiracy books because they were basically saying that our elites are ill intentioned, that they essentially want to take our freedom, enslave us, set up some kind of fascist state. So to me, those are conspiracy books. For others, especially on the left, they might be deemed responsible academic books. But I was also reading real conspiracy books, including people like Eustace Mullins about the Federal Reserve. He wrote a lot of books and he was very controversial. And I certainly don’t agree with so much of what he said, but, I believe it was in Eustace Mullins that I first encountered this idea that the British had been behind the Russian Revolutions and the Russian Civil War.

Benesch: But he was laser-focused on this idea that Jews controlled Britain back then. Right? I mean, when he says Britain, he means the Rothschilds conspiracy that supposedly took over Britain with nothing but loans and a courier system. So we’ve got to be careful when people use these terms like “the Jews” or “the Brits”, right? You got to look into what specific Brits are you talking about. So you’re moving forward, you’re studying scientific works, but you’re also looking into conspiracy books, maybe to get an inspiration because maybe there is something more.

Poe: This is what you would call it.

Benesch: That sounds familiar to me because when you look at what’s published, it’s usually very, very soft on the Western establishment or it’s hypercritical of Western establishment, but then it just regurgitates that idea of the elders of Zion; that you can pin it all on some mythical, Jewish lodge. And these books fall either in this category or the other category or standard left. but I suspect that you were not really happy with those boxes. Those categories.

Poe: Yes, exactly. And I was reading everything from the far left to the far right. And I wasn’t happy with the left because I felt it lacked precision in blaming capitalism, an abstraction called capitalism or capitalist principles. But that’s not to name the names. Who are the people? How does it really work? And on the right, what I found is almost every conspiracy writer eventually, named the Jews as being the head of the snake. And I just didn’t buy it. I found that improbable for all kinds of reasons. So, I just continued exposing myself to every kind of conspiracy literature, if you want to call that from across the board. But in the meantime, I was pursuing a career as a mainstream journalist, a mainstream writer, and in that capacity, I ended up working for a think tank with a guy named David Horowitz, whom some might call a neocon. I don’t think he would call himself that, but I sort of got into that whole neocon world, of, you know, people who were writing, from an almost quasi official, viewpoint of defending national security policy. Promoting the war on terror and all those kind of things. So in a sense, you could say, during that time when I was working in the think tanks, I was kind of a propagandist, you might say. I was a quasi official propagandist.

Benesch: But isn’t it the case that every one of these standard categories, every category, has something to offer, right? They have some things they get right, some things they get wrong, some things they’re not really precise about, some things they are precise about. So it’s like whatever category you’re in, there’s things that make sense, but there’s also something missing or there may be something in it that’s just not right. And in my career, I also tried to understand every single group out there, every single box. And, eventually I thought, they’re using historical arguments for everything. They say in the past this happened. And that’s why we have to do that thing now. They’re all using historical arguments. But these people are not necessarily good historians. And if everything they say is based on a historical argument, maybe I should go further back in history and try to get smart about some slightly older history, because I was focused on the 20th century and I thought everything before that was done and boring. So I had to go back to when these ideologies were created. So this is when serfdom ended, and then you got all these new systems, half-monarchies, full republics, socialism, you know, the era of the so-called new systems. And this is also when modern conspiracy mythology came about, and when I was figuring out what the empires were at the time when these modern ideologies were established, I was wondering why historians never really tried to understand the intelligence capabilities of the past, you know, the British Empire, the French Empire, the Russians, everybody. You know they had big empires. Obviously, they would need big intelligence capabilities to do things. But, you know, historians, they haven’t found any convenient stacks of paper. So they just assumed there were no grand intelligence capabilities back then. And so this kind of created a vacuum, I think. And then came, for example, these British circles that you write about in your book. And they thought, well, we’re going to fill that vacuum, right? Because people, especially in the 1800s and, you know, even earlier, people want to know secrets. They know there’s some secret stuff out there. So we’ll just give them something bogus so they can be misdirected. So then we don’t have to talk about the real intelligence services.

And so this is how this idea came about, that a few Jewish people did intelligence miracles while everybody else was stupid. And this is kind of the core of the mythology. And you write about this in your book. You write about Winston Churchill, talking about that mythology. You talk about Ms. Webster, who was an establishment creature, and she just did that propaganda. And Churchill gave her a positive review. And then you even go back further in time when the first bestselling books happened of the conspiracy genre. This was John Robinson’s “proofs of a conspiracy”. Barruel’s French four volume series. And there were some others at the time. So, you went to the source basically, or the historical era when this mythology was created. So you wanted to see for yourself who came out with this stuff. What were the arguments? What is the documentation that a handful of court Jews actually took over the British Empire and then caused communism. So, what was, during your journey, that breakthrough point when you figured out that conspiracy media was a  government campaign.

Poe: Well, I figured that out pretty early. The intelligence community, of course, exercises a tremendous amount of control over media. I worked in media. I worked in newspapers and magazines. And then I was a full time bestselling author for quite a number of years. And just doing that exclusively. So I worked in many aspects of media and before that I went into the think tank world, and I saw a lot of things. So it becomes pretty obvious, especially because I had worked as a journalist in Russia and I had been a student in Russia. Well you intersect with intelligence people from both sides. And that’s just part of being in that environment. When I first went there as a student, I went to the University of Leningrad and, that was in Brezhnev was still in power. And I went there with as big American group, it was an exchange program that had been going on, I guess, since the 1950s, very big established program that was accepted by both sides, the Russians and the Americans. And very much like all those outreach programs of that Cold War era, you know, we Americans were all in our dormitory and being looked after by our CIA handlers, if you want to call them that. And the Russians were all being looked after by their KGB handlers. So, you know, I was 19 years old and I was already being exposed to that, you know, pretty much in the heart of the beast, in the USSR, and getting an unusually intimate exposure to the basic realities of intelligence and counterintelligence, from the perspective of an American student and going there later as a journalist and just having to be aware of the simple do’s and don’ts and how not to get recruited and how not to get compromised. So I suppose it’s partly because of that I was more attuned than maybe others, of my peer group to just, sort of noticing.

Benesch: And isn’t it like riding a bike once you understand how intelligence works and the mindset and what’s normal to an intelligence asset? Once you know this, it’s like riding a bike. You cannot unlearn it. And then you see the world with different eyes.

Poe: Exactly. And I’d say the most important lesson that I learned right back in those days when I was 19 was: Don’t trust anybody, you know. That’s what they taught us, that anybody you meet, especially any Russian, can be dangerous.

Benesch: Especially when people tell you a narrative you may want to hear or something that is tailored to your tastes or, when it sort of seems to provide something specific that you’re missing in your life or your career.

Poe: And so because of that, as I moved on and I became, let’s say a mainstream journalist, I just continued looking at the world that way and noticing that and reading things, you know, of course, about the published exposures and works of the intelligence community. So I was fairly knowledgeable about that, and I just simply, naturally applied this to the alternative media as well. I assumed the same thing was going on.

Benesch: This was about 2017. I had set myself up to do a project: I wanted to do my own study on 200 years of conspiracy media.  So I read the very first thing. I start with John Robinson’s “proofs of a conspiracy”, a legendary bestselling book shortly after the French Revolution. And so I understand that this author, Robinson, comes from the Royal Society, the scientific, organization, and he’s well-connected and, he praises the British king and he says that British Freemasons are super great, unlike the French Masons and the German lodges. I read this thing first because I wanted to do it chronologically. So I read John Robinson’s book, and by the last page I’m thinking this was clearly written by an intelligence service, because it’s just that kind of a campaign that you would see today. And it seemed to fulfill more than one purpose. The book was designed just like the other bestsellers that came out at the time. It seemed designed to create more chaos in France, to paint the revolution as satanic anarchy, an evil conspiracy. The British also said the opposite. They also spread the opposite propaganda. So this created more chaos in France. Which of course, Britain benefits from. And I noticed something else. Before these conspiracy books came out, the Bavarian order of the Illuminati went bust, right? So they had some tradecraft problems. They lost some important data. The Bavarian police got hold of internal documents and membership lists. So then this stuff was plastered all over the media at the time, the newspapers and pamphlets.

So this was a great embarrassment. And when I look at the membership list, I see some very powerful people there from the high ranking aristocracy, which was tied to Britain. Most people should have a basic understanding that Britain’s ruling aristocracy is very, very German. And so I found these very powerful people as members of the Illuminati, princes of Hessen and Braunschweig and Hanover and this sort of stuff. And so I thought, well, isn’t that interesting? You know, this order seemed like an intelligence front, a pseudo enlightenment intelligence front to me. So this Bavarian order is done and over, everybody is talking about it. And then these British or pro-British circles, they come up with these conspiracy books and these conspiracy books say, that Illuminati stuff was this one guy, Weishaupt, and he fooled everybody else. Everybody else didn’t really know what they were getting into. They thought it was a nice enlightenment group. And there may be some other forces involved, like maybe some French forces or some things we don’t even know about. So this was like a clear diversion to me when I read this. And so I thought, wow, that’s who created modern conspiracy media. Basically these Illuminati circles and British aristocratic circles. They created conspiracy media, right? I mean, that’s that’s just an astounding thing to me. And in your book you talk about this. This is chapter 24, you talk about the German Illuminati, and you talk about constructing the Judeo Masonic conspiracy, right? When we move to the next stages of conspiracy media. It became all about the Jews, meaning small families like the Rothschilds who worked for the British Crown.  People who were recruited initially by the House of Hessen. The House of Hessen built up Mayer Amschel Rothschild to perform tasks.  And then he was handed over to the British crown to perform some more tasks. And ironically, the Brits controlled conspiracy media. These Brits also controlled the Rothschilds, as I see it. So the British must have known, and especially the House of Hessen, and which is also includes the czars of Russia. I mean, to some degree they must have known this conspiracy mythology is completely false. The Rothschilds did not run Britain right?

Poe: I don’t think they do. Of course, there seem to be a lot of people today on social media. Some of them who seem to get pretty heavily boosted and get pretty high engagement numbers. Who are saying just that, which is part of the reason I chose to write this book, at this time. I was seeing what seemed to be a reemergence of the anti-Jewish narrative and coming from the same source, in my opinion, which is Great Britain. The same anti-Jewish campaign that I write about in the book, which began in, let’s say, 1919, 1920. And I think I presented compelling evidence that this wasn’t just Winston Churchill sounding off about some personal opinion. This was clearly an official propaganda position of the British government, sanctioned at the highest levels. Churchill himself was, of course, a cabinet level minister. He was the war secretary and he was an aristocrat. He was from an aristocratic family, the Marlborough clan. And the thing that I find striking about Churchill personally, was writing that article in February of 1920.

Benesch:  Where he distinguishes between the good jews and bad jews. He calls it something like the struggle for the Jewish soul.

Poe: And the bad Jews, of course, he was referring to, were the ones who he said were mainly responsible for Bolshevism.

Benesch: And then he says the same Jews also ran the old Illuminati conspiracy, what he called the Spartacus Weishaupt conspiracy. But he means the old Illuminati. So he’s kind of retconning or retrograde fake adjusting the earliest conspiracy mythology because initially the Illuminati were not considered to be Jewish, but then later Churchill says it goes back to that place.

Poe: And this absolutely intrigued me. The very thing you said, that he not only accused the Bolsheviks of being basically a Jewish plot, but he said that every subversive movement in Europe, going back at least to the French Revolution and the Bavarian Illuminati, had some kind of Jewish influence, if not a Jewish leadership. And that the Jews were completely responsible for it. And in the same article, he cited Nesta Webster, whom you just mentioned as being the source for this and recommended her book on the French Revolution, specifically, which interestingly, her book on the French Revolution, which came out in 1919, actually did not accuse the Jews of any of these things, strangely. But her subsequent, writings, she started including the Jews more and more. And to answer your question, Alex, that’s kind of what got me interested in trying to find out when the Jews actually became the chief villains in this narrative, because I saw that there was a discrepancy between what Churchill was claiming and what his named source, Nesta Webster, was claiming because Nesta Webster did not go after the Jews. Her narrative in her 1919 book was essentially the same as what you find in those books by Robinson and Barruel.

It was this guy, Ephron, who was clearly presented as being an agent of the Prussian monarchy, that he was indeed playing a somewhat nefarious role. That’s what Nesta Webster said in her French Revolution book. But then, almost as if taking a clue from Churchill and the British government, she then started going after the Jews much harder in her subsequent books, The World Revolution and Secret Societies. And so this is where I really started discovering things that were surprising to me. The extent to which this anti-Jewish campaign was absolutely officially sanctioned at the highest levels of the British government and the British aristocracy, as you say.

Benesch: And this is what people don’t understand when people today or in the last ten, 20 years find this traditional conspiracy stuff on the internet, they think they found something special, something that’s kind of rare and almost forbidden or something. But this was a mainstream campaign back then, and there were different eras when this was pushed by different governments. And this was a fairly, mainstream affair. So I tell people that today this is not special information. This is not something that’s rebellious. This came from very powerful circles. And it really baffled me when the mythology was claiming that everybody was stupid. Nobody had any significant spycraft. But then came these few Jewish people, you know, like the Rothschilds and they supposedly were the master spies. They had all the tools. They had the complete toolbox. And then they created these intelligence miracles. Everybody else was stupid. But then I ask these people because I said, I can’t find any special technique that hese few Jewish people supposedly had. Where’s the magic technique? Where’s the new trick? Where’s the special tool that they had? And so then these people tell me, well, they had a courier system. The Rothschilds had a courier system, but those existed even in ancient times. You know, everybody had a courier system. And then they said, well , they made a bank and they gave out loans.

That was not a new idea either. And the British Empire, being as powerful as it was, especially in the new era, you know, since King George the first, the British were not stupid and the aristocracy were not stupid. They must have had spycraft. They must have understood the spy world. So why would why would this large, experienced group of experts be fooled by a few Jewish people? It doesn’t make sense. This is not how the intelligence world works and why aren’t these activists looking at the way more plausible scenario that the aristocracy was recruiting different people? The House of Hessen was recruiting the small Rothschild family to perform tasks. And if you recruit someone, you want to control that someone. You want to be updated if that person is doing what he’s supposed to be doing, you check from different angles. You make sure that this person stays honest with you. And then you develop that recruit. So the more he performs and stays loyal, the more tasks you give that person. Is that a short summary of what the reality is in the spy world?

Poe: Well, I think so, yes. I mean, that seems perfectly logical. And, I guess what you’re saying is that if these Jewish families, these banking families and so forth, such as the Rothschilds, if they were presenting some kind of threat to the state, especially a threat of taking over, why would these European states be so helpless? Did they have no counterintelligence capability to identify such threats and to move against them? And I guess that’s what you’re saying, Alex, how did these kingdoms, how did these empires survive so long if they were so helpless?

Benesch: And just a short point before I forget about this: I mean, we do have a historical record of the laws in Britain. If you so much as conspired just hypothetically against the Crown, this was considered high treason. Any sort of meeting, you know, that’s about removing the king from power. Anything of that sort was regarded as high treason. And they would publicly torture you to death for that crime. So this is the situation. So if any Jewish or non-Jewish banker, if anybody would try to stab these people in the back, you know, these people would be gone tomorrow and their families would be threatened. And this is like old European history. This is the era of the court Jews, you didn’t have much of a choice when the aristocrat would say: You work for me now. And if you work for me, the whole Jewish community in this city or this area will benefit from your cooperation. But if you screw me over, the whole Jewish community suffers, right? And I think that’s one of the main reasons why some Jewish people were recruited in that way because they knew about specific areas of expertise, they spoke different languages, especially, languages that were not common in Europe. And also, you could control them more easily because Jews did not have their own empire they could escape to. There was no Jewish imperialism. They had no empire. So they had to get themselves recruited. They had to serve these aristocracies. And it was easier to control them because they had nowhere to run. And if you stepped out of line, your entire family and the entire local Jewish community, was in grave danger. Does that make sense from an intelligence standpoint? I mean, even if it’s pretty ruthless and awful.

Poe: Well, it certainly makes makes sense to me. And I know a lot more about what was happening in Britain then. I’m not that familiar with the House of Hessen and some of these things you’re talking about. But certainly British intelligence has been very sophisticated.

Benesch: The House of Hessen, they’re named after a German place, but this is an international family. And so you have like these clusters of specific aristocratic lines. You have the House of Hessen, Hanover, Schleswig-Holstein. And these families, they originally controlled some smaller German territories, but eventually they took over the British throne in 1714 with King George. And at that time, the aristocracy wanted to not be in the spotlight so much. They would rather rule more from the shadows. So when we’re talking about the House of Hessen recruiting someone, that’s almost the same as saying British intelligence.

Poe: Well, that’s very interesting. I, I was aware that King George III. is a major figure in our American history. I was aware that he was of German background and that he had some connection with Hessen-Darmstadt. Because of the Revolution a lot of the troops who were sent to fight us were Hessian mercenaries. And that’s a big part of our history. But it’s not something that is really explained very well to us in our history books. It’s kind of glossed over, and maybe in a deliberate way to some extent, but that’s fascinating stuff. What I was going to say is just that my assessment of the strength of British intelligence, I don’t pretend to be any sort of expert on it. But I simply judge by the results that when the British establishment sets out to do something, they have an extraordinary record for accomplishing it. And this especially is visible to me as an American in the way they have manipulated our country, for centuries, since the colonial times, throughout the whole process of us gaining independence.

Benesch: Well, I think that Skull and Bones is a British network. The originally Yale based society that was tied to the creation of the OSS and the CIA and then, ironically, Skull and Bones people played a specific role in selling important technology to the early Soviet Union. And when I look further and further into the past of Skull and Bones, I see a lot of people associated with Britain. I see a lot of British fingerprints on that. And when I say British, this is like a specific cluster of aristocrats and years ago I was not aware how big it was because I thought they had a throne and they had their brothers and their cousins and whatnot. But some of these clusters are surprisingly large. And I think that they probably had some significant intelligence capabilities. Then they took over Britain, and I think when they stopped fighting the war against the rebels in America, they continued the intelligence war indefinitely. And this is something that has never really properly been looked at by, historians. The British were no longer shooting at Americans, but they were just spying on America forever. And they could send all these migrants over. Because what were the most significant migrants that came to America? Or the new United States? It was people from Britain or these German territories. How many Americans have German ancestors? So how easy would it have been for these aristocratic clusters? Who controlled specific German territories? How easy would it have been for them to send spies to America disguised as average Germans or British or Irish or Scottish or whatever?

Poe: Yes, exactly. And this is what I mean when I talk about their record of success. Specifically their success in manipulating the United States to do what they wanted us to do. And so, what we find after a whole century, let’s say, the 19th century, of all kinds of trouble with the British, including intervention in our civil war, trying to help the South to win, and almost succeeding. And, I would mention, too, that the British actually instigated the southern uprising; they had been doing it for decades before it actually happened. There was a British agent named Thomas Cooper who came to the US, in the 1820s, if not earlier, and established himself, he became a judge. He became a very important person. And then in 1827, I believe, he was in South Carolina. He made a speech saying that the South must break away from the North. And this is widely recognized by historians as being the beginning of the southern secession.

Benesch: And wasn’t a specific type of Freemasonry really popular in the South? The ancient and accepted Scottish rite or something. Scottish Masonry. There is actual literature by Freemasons who say that it’s not true that King George I. created masonry in Britain in 1717. But they say it’s older; that it was established in Scotland. So I looked into that. And then I found that the royal House of Denmark, which is tied to the British aristocracy, aristocrats from Denmark were able to infiltrate Scotland, and eventually they got to marry a princess from Denmark to King James.

It smells like an intelligence operation. They would go into Scotland first, then they infiltrated Britain. Then they got King George on the British throne. And then you see these Scottish rite Freemasons roaming around in the American South and they became like a serious thing with the Civil War.

Poe: Yes, absolutely. And, so that was just one of many operations that the British pulled off in the United States. You could say it failed in the sense that they didn’t get an independent South, but they got their way through other means. And finally, at the turn of the century, of course, there was the infamous penetration of the Woodrow Wilson White House, especially by Colonel Edward House, who was a British agent. He was from Texas. His father came from England. And his father had been a blockade runner during the Civil War, running cotton to England and bringing back guns for the Confederates. And then his son Edward House became the closest advisor to Woodrow Wilson, a clear British agent. He worked directly with Sir William Wiseman, who was the head of British intelligence in America at the time. He helped Wiseman to get very close to the president and to befriend him and the two of them together, all the things that we blame Woodrow Wilson for having done, supposedly because of his liberal or progressive ideas, they were all things that Colonel House and Wiseman and the British Foreign Office had had manipulated Wilson into doing, starting the Federal Reserve and enacting the income tax.

Benesch: Wasn’t the Federal Reserve like all the three central banks of America like a copy of the Bank of England? Which itself was not a Jewish creation. There were some Jewish people involved in the whole banking system in Britain, but this was an aristocratic affair because they thought, if they can control the central bank, if they can control all these so-called private banks, you know, Barings and Lloyds and Barclays and everything, if they can control enough politicians, they can scale up, if necessary, that banking system to fund the empire, to fund wars. They can scale it up and down. So this was pushed on to the Americans and they copied it.

Poe: Yes, exactly. And there’s no question that those very men that I mentioned, Colonel Edward House and Sir William Wiseman, were involved in everything that came after. With Sir Edward Gray, who was the foreign secretary, these men all worked closely together to manipulate Wilson. And it was almost a standing joke between them how easily manipulated he was. It is not quite clear why Colonel House had such control over Wilson. But there is a story that Wiseman and some others were at the Versailles treaty talks in 1919, and they were joking with each other, saying, what should we make Wilson say next? Because they actually had the power to make him say things and he would say them. For example, the League of Nations itself, which many people today still believe was Woodrow Wilson’s idea. It was a British idea which had first been floated a century before Woodrow Wilson ever proposed it. And it was clearly being pushed by Wellington House, the War Propaganda Bureau in England. And Sir Edward Gray, the foreign Secretary, I believe in 1915 he wrote a letter to Colonel House saying we need to get this League of Nations underway and can you get President Wilson to make a speech and say that it’s his idea, because we think this idea would be much better received coming from an American president than, from us, the English. And Colonel House said, yes, of course I’ll make it happen. And he did, and he pitched it.

Benesch: He pitched it with the clever marketing so it would fly, it would pass as American.

Poe: But the key thing in my mind is how much control they had over the American president. And at that early date. So the whole rest of the 20th century was one British operational success after another in this great project of bringing the United States into a permanent military alliance.

Benesch: I think partially the British accomplished that through these universities. You know, it wasn’t just Yale, it was also Harvard and these people, because the British had this thing called the Royal Society. This was kind of the dominant scientific organization in the world. And I think the Royal Society was heavily used for espionage as well. They had so many scientists and I think the British could use all that to establish corporations in America, because if you have the seed money, if you have the scientists and you have the patents and you have the network, you can make a serious corporation in America. And I think that by controlling the universities, through espionage and the Royal Society scientists, I think that that’s how you could recruit people in America slowly at the universities and then help their career, jumpstart their career in politics or careers as lawyers and then they become politicians or they become other bureaucrats. I agree, this was a massive, massive program that has never been properly looked into. And I even go a step further in one of my books because I think there was a specific reason why the British stopped their military campaign against the rebels. I mean, they continued the spying. Okay. But they I think they stopped the  fighting, because they thought if Britain could retake control over America covertly, this would keep the French away. And the French had significant territories in America at the time, which they sold later. But before that, there was always a danger of the French and the Indians attacking the 13 colonies. So this was a massive problem for these 13 colonies. And so by having this American independence subverted by British intelligence, by having this official American independence, that kept the French away because the French thought they could work with the Americans because Britain is their mortal enemy. And this is what Britain ultimately wanted and until today, nobody can quite tell how close Britain and America really are. And it’s a strategic advantage if nobody knows. How big is this British empire really? Because if you know how big it is, it’s vulnerable. But if you don’t know where it starts, you don’t really know where it ends. It’s much safer for the British, I guess.

Poe: Yes. And, the thing that really intrigues me and, and in a sense, spurred me to, to finally write this book, as I became more and more outspoken on this issue of British influence and its history in America, I started finding more and more people pushing back on Twitter and social media and saying: Well, who is Britain who really rules Britain? And what they were saying to me was that there is no Britain, that Britain is really, simply, ruled by the Rothschilds. They control it. So why don’t you just come out and say it, Poe, you know, and sometimes it was put just as a challenge. Oh, you’re just covering up for the Jews. You know, who rule England. So it comes down to this question. Once you succeed in making people start to look at this question of British influence in America, which is difficult enough in itself, because that’s not what we read in our history books. But once you get them to that point, then the fallback position comes at you. You know that the second line of defense is, well, is there really such a place as Great Britain? Is there really such a thing, or is it just a territory of the the Pax Judaica or, or something like that? And then where do you go? So, it got to the point where I felt I really have to address this and it’s really being pushed now, this anti-Jewish narrative in a way very reminiscent of the era that I wrote about, in my book, in 1919, 1920, where temporarily the British government was coming across with a very strong anti-Jewish position and blaming the Jews for the Russian Revolution, when in fact the British government itself had been complicit in that.

Benesch: Isn’t this a kind of an obvious strategy to not just have an operation for regime change like in Russia, but to have an information operation attached to that? So you have some other narratives that you can tailor to specific target audiences, right? Because when we talk about Russia and the revolution, of course we have to ask about the motive. Why wouldn’t the British get more involved? Because the British had the option of sending more troops to Russia. The Americans certainly had the option of sending significant troops to Russia and destroy communism early. There were different opinions and different studies back then about how expensive it would be. What casualties to expect. The British were operating on a strangely pessimistic estimate. They would say we’d have to spend a fortune and have all these dead soldiers just to make small gains in Russia against the communists. And the French said, no, we see this completely the other way. According to our French estimate, we could actually achieve a lot with very little in Russia. This is the historical record. Britain says we want Russia to decide its own fate. We will not get involved. The Russians need to decide their own fate. You know, the battle of the whites against the Reds. I call it watching Russia burn to the ground because I think every professional at the time should have been able to determine the Reds would win. They already controlled the weapons industry and the whites, they needed weapons from abroad. And so everybody could tell this would be a horrendous civil war. The communists would win. Britain made that decision, as far as we can tell. And they talk about that decision. You know, we we just let Russia figure this thing out.

Of course the British were involved and so we have to ask ourselves what the motive was. What would be the motive if we put ourselves in the minds of these British elites at the time? What would be the thought? Why would we want to let the communists win in Russia? And in my books I run different scenarios and you cover this in your book “How the British invented communism and blamed it on the Jews”. Now, you talk about the animosities between Britain and Russia, right? So there is one motive. You don’t like Russia, and you just think that, well, if they kill each other, things are much calmer for us British. So that’s one possibility. That’s one scenario. When you look at real life communism for the average citizen, it’s not too different from peasant serfdom. Why would these British aristocrats support communism in Russia? I kind of added two plus two and said, well, maybe the idea was, to have a modernized version of serfdom and try that in Russia, because that may be the future for some very powerful circles. I think the British faked their own enlightenment, going from this traditional system to a half-monarchy. I think this was a fake enlightenment in Britain, run by intelligence circles. So they could have copied that model for Russia. But if you have a half republic and you have some freedom for the people, it’s kind of dangerous. So if you instead have socialism or communism, it’s really just a version of serfdom: Wouldn’t that be a devious idea for Russia’s future? I see it as just another version of serfdom. And by that time, the British had their scientists and they had their money system figured out. They had what they needed. They could always create more scientists and create more intelligence officers and military officers. They had that nailed. So the British didn’t want more freedom for the people. And so I think the decision was made to support communism in Russia because it’s another serfdom.

And you can feed it with Western technology. You can keep it alive with Western technology, but there’s zero freedom. I guess maybe that was the calculation and maybe it went off the rails. Maybe. I think that the British ultimately had to settle with the communists in some sort of a secret deal, because I think Soviet intelligence heavily infiltrated Britain. They knew a bunch of secrets of the Brits. And so maybe they made a deal that nobody’s supposed to know about. This scenario is something we have to run, right?

Poe: Well, I agree with everything you said. Including the ulterior motive of trying to find a different path to serfdom, through communism. And this is something I discuss in my book. But I also agree with your suggestion of a secret deal. Between the British and the Russians. Going back at least to the time of the revolution and the Bolsheviks, we know there were many secret deals of various kinds. One of the deals I discuss in my book is about Trotsky, who was a known British agent, when he became the foreign minister, Foreign Commissar, as he was called for the Bolsheviks. He renounced the Constantinople Agreement, by which the allies, Britain and France, had promised to turn over Constantinople to Russia after the war, assuming they won, and Trotsky completely unilaterally renounced it. They said, no, we don’t want Constantinople. You guys can keep it. And then immediately after he renounced all Russian interests in what we now call Iran, when it called Persia. In those days, Russia controlled half the country. The northern half of the country, with all of its newly discovered oil fields. Trotsky said we’re Bolsheviks, we’re idealists. We don’t want oil fields. We’ll just turn them over to the British. And so the British, they got off the hook with the Constantinople Agreement. They were gifted the entire nation of Persia or Iran and all of its newly discovered oil fields. And with this bounty, which they received directly from the hands of Trotsky, their agent, they founded the Anglo Persian Oil Company, which now today is called British Petroleum. And this was not only a huge and valuable prize, it was probably the most valuable prize of World War One. In and of itself. It would have been sufficient to fight the war, at least from an elite point of view. Of course not from the point of view of all the innocent people who died.

Benesch: I looked at Russia’s structure and, its problems and of course the peasants were freed very, very late. Other countries had had done away with serfdom. They freed the peasants, sort of, generations earlier. So the Russians were still stuck in that system. You had the czars, which were from the Romanoff dynasty, but it was sort of a mixture of the House of Hessen and Schleswig-Holstein. And of course, they also had some genuine Russian roots, but it became very Germanified over time. So you had these weirdo Germans very closely related to Denmark, very closely related to Britain. The czars didn’t have absolute power. They had to share the power with the regular Russian or genuine Russian aristocracy, you know, the so-called whites, the Slavic aristocrats. And as far as we can tell, the British really didn’t like the Whites at all. Neither did the Americans. And we do have some historical records of the British discussing intervention versus nonintervention, in Russia. The argument was at the time, we don’t like these whites. So if we get involved, if we actually fight the communists, if we destroy the communists, we will thereby help these whites. And we do not like them. We don’t like them at all. And so, this was kind of the situation in Russia and I think that was also kind of a motivation for the British to get involved, because if you look at it like the British looked at it; who knew what was going to happen to Russia? There may have been some kind of upheaval in Russia, whereas the whites just get rid of the czars and then there’s no more aristocratic influence from the outside. And so Russia could actually, in the next step, make deals with other countries. Russia could make deals with the French, the arch enemy of Britain. So then you have a two-front situation for Britain. So Britain didn’t like that idea. So isn’t it always a long term planning that we see from established empires like Britain? They tried to look at what may be the problems for them in the future, and how can they get in early, sort of to prevent this stuff from happen.

Poe: Oh, yes. Yes, absolutely. And that’s a very good point, Alex, because I remember, back in the 80s when people here in America were all upset about the Japanese carmakers surpassing us in the growing power of Japan, and everyone was reading Japanese management books and trying to learn what are the secrets of these brilliant people and so forth. And one of the things that was constantly said is that the Japanese plan 100 years in advance, and we supposedly don’t. And, you know, of course, if you if you look at real history and you look deeply into it, you find plans are made more than 100 years in advance. And it’s not just the Japanese who do it. I mean, the Japanese aren’t doing so well right now, so whatever 100 year plans they had apparently ran afoul of someone else’s 100 year plans. But yes, absolutely. This is one of the things that is concealed from people and causes people to believe the myth that history is random and accidental, and it’s just people stumbling blindly from one day to the next, reacting to whatever happened in the news. But the reality is that everything is planned very meticulously and many decades, if not centuries in advance. And, to understand that fact is to make a huge leap in being able to comprehend history itself.

Benesch: And so when I read your book, you’re really interested in the intelligence penetration of the communist movement, not the one by the communist movement, because there’s obviously really good literature out there about Communist intelligence infiltrating us.  So, anybody who’s interested in history, of course, needs to have read these books, but what about other groups early on, other groups infiltrating the communist movement? I mean, this is something that many never even talk about. They never even consider it. But some try this whole Jewish conspiracy thing. But if we look at it from a realistic perspective, the peasant serfdom was over. The Empire, especially Britain, figured out, well, there’s this thing called modern science, and we want to control it with the Royal Society. So if we put these citizens in factories and schools, they can make cool stuff for our imperialism.  But we need to have some sort of a political system where everybody has the feeling they can be involved. So what is the political landscape going to look like? You’re going to have those people in society who used to be privileged in the old system. They have a lot to lose from change. So these became the conservatives. Then you had sort of the middle ground in society. They got something to win, something to lose. They became the political center of the enlightenment. And then you had a lot of people who had nothing to lose, and who craved the most change. And those became the political left. So when the political left started to appear a couple of hundred years ago, the left was totally vulnerable because there was no legal protection. Really, if you were a communist socialist activist,  conspiring and running secret little printing presses and doing all sorts of stuff, the secret police would come after you. And if you’re under suspicion, they can just search your place. They don’t need a real warrant. They can just get one, for no good reason, they can threaten you. They could threaten your family. They can make you confess everything you know, or they can pressure you into becoming an informant. And this was kind of the reality as I was researching this, this was sort of the reality for all kinds of movements, especially the left, because it was so radical. Nobody was protected from the secret police. They could do whatever they wanted. And so I think that we have to look at this angle and you do that in your book “How the British Invented Communism and blamed it on the Jews” and it’s such a rare thing because everybody’s hyper focused on communists infiltrating something else, but who infiltrated communism first? Now, the obvious suspect, in my view, is these ruling aristocracies in Europe, because they had the motive, not just to mitigate a threat against the ruling powers, but also, I think, to control a broader political system that was arising. Because if you control the left, you can string people along, right? You can give them a little something now and then to keep them from uprising and burning everything to the ground. You have a clear motive. It was easy to infiltrate communism back then. And you talk about Karl Marx a lot in the book, which is hyper-important because Karl Marx, he got aristocratic protection. He ended up in Britain. He married into the aristocracy. And the family he married into was even tied to the minister of the interior in Prussia, who was responsible for the spying. And there were also other connections to Britain. So, I mean, how important is this infiltration of communism?

Poe: Well, that’s a very good point that you made. And I see the infiltration of communism and the infiltration by communists as being two sides of the same coin. And I touched on this a little bit in the book when I discuss the Cambridge Five situation during the Cold War, because, one of the issues that we Americans faced during our Cold War alliance with Britain was a very strange, sort of apathy or nonchalance by the British toward counterintelligence. They seemed to be extremely incautious, careless, even reckless about the possibility of penetration by the Soviets to an extent that there were times when U.S. intelligence stopped sharing secrets with them, even though we had this agreement because it was deemed they could not be trusted. And the Cambridge Five situation was sort of the epitome of that where there were five very high level people, upper class, ruling class, Englishmen who had gone to Cambridge and who, in many cases became high level intelligence officers and, in one case, someone who had given atomic secrets to the Soviets and none of these men were prosecuted, they were all discovered and found to be Soviet spies.

Benesch: Yeah, some of them escaped. Klaus Fuchs spent a few years in prison. The atomic spy. And then he was released, and he went to East Germany. It’s a joke, right?

Poe: They really weren’t punished. Some of them went into exile and most of them were just forgiven. So the Americans found this outrageous and couldn’t understand it. And it was always attributed to the British being just sort of careless and incompetent and whatever, none of which they are. And so my explanation for this is that the British simply had a very different relationship to the Soviet Union than we did, because for the British, their idea was the balance of power.

As they came out of World War Two. They were, of course, very grateful that America had sided with them and helped them win. But they were always thinking ahead, just as we were just talking about planning ahead. During the war itself, while Americans were dying in droves to fight this war for Great Britain, Winston Churchill in 1944 was worrying aloud to his closest advisers, what are we going to do at the end of the war?

We’re going to have the Soviets on one side, the Americans on the other side, and we’re going to be in the middle and we’ll be crushed. So Churchill was already looking at the US as a threat in the traditional British way, because this is the British balance of power. And so this is where I argue the very idea of a Cold War came from the British who said we will play off the Russians against the Americans. We’ll get them fighting each other, and we will be kind of in the middle, making sure that neither one gets the upper hand. And I think this whole Cambridge Fire situation was a symptom of that. The fact that they, the British, were actually deliberately helping the Soviets, giving them secrets, betraying American secrets to the Soviets in order to maintain this balance of power. That’s my read on it. I could be wrong, but I think it’s very logical.

Benesch: I think along the very same lines, because if you look at the whole fiasco with Lord Louis Mountbatten, there’s a new book out on him and his communist wife Edwina. And this is from a very well-regarded historian. But the last chapter is so brutal and so honest about Lord Mountbatten. The way he was compromised, the Soviet contacts, how he basically sabotaged NATO, for the benefit of the USSR. I mean, it’s brutal. Just the stuff that we can tell that’s on the historical record.

And when you try to discover British spy networks in America and you think about groups like Skull and Bones and some of these other universities there, this would have been a unique position for Britain to extract information out of America and hand it over to the Soviet Union.

And I think this is sort of the magical secret of why Communist espionage was so effective, because they played with the same toolbox that virtually everybody else had. But it became like this mythological infiltration, this super dark communist force of espionage. Why were they so good? Why? And usually the answer is, well, because we in the West are so bad at it because we’re too stupid to do intelligence or we’re too timid, or we don’t have the personality types for devious operations or whatever.

But I think this is just a bunch of excuses. I think that they were so good because we were so infiltrated already by the Brits. This drove people crazy, like counterintelligence people at the CIA like James Angleton, because he was figuring out there’s Communist spies everywhere. But he could not imagine why it could even come to this point. It seemed like these people are everywhere. And he was still thinking in the standard counterintelligence terms, you know, they try to penetrate us, and we have to stop them. But what about all this other stuff that came before?

And there are so many statements by Mountbatten and he doesn’t like the Americans. And then he worked in a military capacity in the China Burma Theater, a long time ago. And there’s a new book out on Stillwell and Mountbatten. So you have this old Brit, this strange German, British limey guy, and he had to work with these American generals and they did not get along. They didn’t trust each other one bit.

Mountbatten is from the House of Hessen. At some point one of his ancestors, he didn’t marry quite according to the rule book. So a bunch of these Hessian children, they had to adopt a different name. But Mountbatten, he’s really the old House of Hessen. And the Houses of Hessen and Schleswig-Holstein and Saxon Coburg and Gotha are now on the British throne. These people never liked the idea of a republic, especially not an American republic, and freedom and new hierarchies based on skill and effort.

They didn’t like that at all. I mean, they pretended to like it halfway with their phony enlightenment in Britain. But they surely didn’t like that in America. And I think that by these aristocrats aligning themselves with the Russians, the Russians were pushing a system that was just like peasant serfdom.

You know, real life communism. And that’s why I was so surprised when I saw your book on social media “How the British Invented Communism and blamed it on the Jews”, because nobody does that. Nobody does it. I mean, I’ve been dealing with these topics for a couple of years, and people in Germany said to me, are you sure you’re not nuts?

Because we don’t see anybody else doing this. And I tell them, there is actually a bunch of scientists working on the same puzzle. They don’t see the big picture maybe yet, but there’s all sorts of experts looking at different aspects of this. And you quote a bunch of books in your book, for example, you quote studies on the controlled conspiracy literature. So somebody was working on that angle.

And one thing leads to the other. And so, yes, there is, there are scientists working on different aspects of this. And truly, we have a big historical record on some of these families. It’s just that this historical record is not really including the intelligence sphere, because back then, secret services were truly secret.

They didn’t exist officially, they didn’t have a state budget. They didn’t have, to tell the parliament what they were doing. And they didn’t have a big headquarters where everybody knows what it is. So, maybe you want to talk a little bit about Karl Marx and why Karl Marx shows us a British angle, not a Jewish angle. It just it didn’t matter what the family background was of Karl Marx. That didn’t play any role whatsoever.

Poe: Right. And, a lot of people, you know, when I promote my book on Twitter, they immediately come back with these memes of Karl Marx’s genealogy and say he’s descended from a long line of rabbis and this and that, and they just don’t seem to understand that his ethnicity is not the point, because what I’m saying is that he was a British agent of influence, that he was recruited by British intelligence, and he and he was used by them for the second half of his life. When an intelligence agency recruits somebody they don’t care what your ethnicity is. They don’t care what your religion is. What they care about is if they can leverage you and if they can somehow force you or blackmail you, or bribe you or otherwise persuade you to enter into their trap. They get you entrapped. And once you’re in, you have to stay in. And so this is what happened not only to Marx, but to many these revolutionaries, as I describe in my book. It began in the French Revolution.

Many top French revolutionaries had British handlers. It’s very clear the British had a very elaborate infrastructure set up in London, mainly through a group called the British Revolutionary Society. And through this British group in London, they created the Jacobin clubs in France. They sent over a lot of fake English reformers and revolutionaries who were espousing socialism, communism and various forms or proto- communism at that time. And they just recruited French revolutionaries, and in particular, they recruited a guy named Gracchus Babeouf, who was one of the more extreme French revolutionaries.

He was executed in the 1790s, but Marx and Engels called this man the first modern communist. And he was a British agent, or he was a he was a man who was under direct British intelligence handling and control and manipulation, including in the formulation of his ideology. So Marx simply followed in this pattern, which you see repeatedly throughout the whole age of revolution in many countries where the British either went into the country or they invited the revolutionaries to London because it was considered a safe haven with freedom of speech.

And that’s what happened to Marx. So Marx was kicked out of a number of countries in Europe. He took refuge in London, I think, in 1849. London was the revolutionary capital of the world, and the British government wanted it that way. They wanted all these revolutionaries to congregate there so they could keep an eye on them, befriend them.

Benesch: A really quick point: There is something about the period that you describe, when Marx went from one country to another or he went from one part of Germany to the next because Germany was not that unified at the time. Marx went from one communist newspaper to the next, one project to the next, causing nothing but friction and trouble. He was famous for that. So whenever he would scheme his way into a new paper, he would immediately start these feuds, attacking everybody in the Communist movement. And when they responded, he would then respond again and again and again. So this is why, eventually he came under suspicion, even at the time of being a government asset of some sorts, because this is what some assets are tasked with doing, not just collecting information, but also just creating friction, creating disunity. And when you look at his writings, it’s almost impossible to understand in its original German language. And he wrote that mostly by hand in a very bad style of handwriting. And then he handed over the manuscript of his book The Capital. It was intentionally written to be woozy, making it sound more sophisticated than it actually was. Why, of all people, did he become sort of the prophet of communism when he wrote these terrible books? He couldn’t really explain how in communism you would find the right prices for goods and labor. You know, he was just coming up with a pseudoscientific system. And it was all just about creating friction in society and people accused him in Germany of either preaching waiting forever for the revolution or egging people on to do something stupid and get themselves arrested. I mean, why not recruit Karl Marx? Why is that so hard for people to conceive? Because Marx became such a big figure of history. Well, anybody could be recruited for any kind of reason. So we do have to look at that.

Poe: Well, yes, absolutely. When Marx came to England he was introduced to a man named David Urquhart, who was a Scottish aristocrat, a diplomat and a secret agent. He was an intelligence agent, who had done a lot of good work for the British government. He had been at the court of the Turkish sultan. He had been intimate, very close friend with the Sultan. He went to Russia and stirred up a rebellion against the Russian Empire. Among the Circassians. So he was kind of an early Lawrence of Arabia figure, this guy, David Urquhart. Now he was also part of the high aristocracy of Scotland. And he was, apparently, some sort of distant relative of Marx’s wife. As you mentioned before, Alex, Marx married into an aristocratic family. He married a woman whose father was a Prussian baron. Marx was related to a Scottish noblewoman who descended from the earls of Argyll. And they’re part of the high nobility of Scotland and also related in many ways to the royal family of the Stuarts. So Marx married into that family, and all his children were of that blood, which is a very significant thing, often overlooked. So, he met this man, David Urquhart, who was related to his wife’s family, and that I’m sure that had something to do with why David Urquhart became Marx’s mentor, protector, patron for a number of years. He gave him work. He recruited Marx to work on his his own newspapers in England and also helped him get work in America, where he wrote for a New Yorker paper. It was Horace Greeley’s paper in New York. The New York Sun or something like that.

But it was the largest circulation English language newspaper at the time. And Marx was hired there to write a regular column. He became the top attraction at that newspaper. But what he almost always wrote about, both in England and in New York, was the evil of the Russian Empire and the need to fight the Russians and keep the Russians in their place. You would think he’d be writing about the plight of the working class and all of that. But his big subject was Russia, and that’s because it was a foreign policy priority of the British Empire at that time. They were very much concerned with stopping Russian expansion into Europe and southward toward India. And ultimately the British, and their French allies, provoked the Crimean War with Russia. And Marx was cheerleading for them all the way, and all the way through the Crimean War. So this guy, David Urquhart, was so fanatically anti-Russian that he publicly accused the British Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston, of being a Russian agent in the pay of the czar. And he repeated this, and Marx echoed it. Marx said the same thing. Now you’ll see some writings, remarks. It’s sort of making a joke and saying, oh, Urquhart is crazy, but I just go along with him. But the fact is, he was going along with him. He was echoing him. He was working for him and acting as an agent of influence for the British government.

Benesch: So when we look at this thing that people call globalism, I see a toolbox. It’s marketed in two ways: So one style is this British style of fake capitalism. It’s something like the old British East India Company, right? Where you couldn’t really say, is this a private enterprise? Is this government? Is this both? Do these people even care what it is? Well, ultimately they didn’t care because you have the guns and you can enforce the kind of trade that you want and that’s it. So modern globalism, if you want to use that term, reminds me of that British style fake capitalism. And then you have the modern left, the modern left wing style of globalism, which is like the British Fabian Society, the London School of Economics, these people, they also want to control everybody, and they also want to enforce a specific kind of trade and set prices for goods and labor. It’s two different styles, but they’re very similar, actually. It’s this insane drive for control. And we in the West, we’re supposed to pick between these two sides. Are you a capitalist? So then you get screwed by this British style fake capitalism. Or are you a lefty? So you can choose the controlled left wing thing, which is just serfdom anyway.

Poe: Well, in terms of the propaganda positions that you’re talking about, I certainly agree that many artificial ideologies or pseudo ideologies have been set up whose purpose is simply to lead people around in circles and cause people to fight with each other for no good reason. And I’ve fallen into that just like everyone else. I spent my whole life running around in circles, with these ideological tricks that, have been put upon us. The question of globalism itself, of course, it is, is basically about who will rule the world, who rules the world. Now, if anyone does or who will rule it. And in my own work, especially in the last few years, I’ve tried to keep it very simple. And as much as I can, I stick with the known facts of conventional history and things that can be verified through respectable academic history. And where I speculate, I try to ground everything in the most known, most obvious facts, and to me, the most obvious fact is that we live in an English speaking world. We live in a world where the British Round Table movement of more than 100 years ago succeeded in its goal of uniting all the English speaking countries in a single superstate, which we can see defined by transnational organizations and treaties, such as the Five Eyes intelligence agreement, an extraordinary arrangement that basically says that all the English speaking countries share intelligence and take part in each other’s intelligence operations in an extraordinary arrangement. And under these arrangements, English speaking people effectively rule the world. And this is obvious and undeniable. So I start with that. I start with the obvious and say, well, how did this happen?

Benesch: Yeah, it’s a toolbox, right? Because you’re describing a toolbox.

Poe: I’m focused on something I’ve been researching for more than 20 years, which is color revolution. And in this book, my latest book, I come out and say, what I never did before, that color revolution is the secret weapon of the British Empire and has been for at least since the time of the French Revolution. I mean, when we think of the secret of British power, we think of, of course the Royal Navy, and we think of the banking, the Bank of England, which provided unlimited capital and all that sort of thing. These are the conventional, traditional explanations for British power. But what I believe I have realized or discovered at this point is that another pillar of British power was the British mastery of the expertise to overthrow governments, in a clandestine way. In a way that makes it appear that the British were involved in a deniable way, so that it appears the people themselves rose up. And so we have the starving people of Paris grabbing their pitchforks and marching on the Bastille, or the starving people of Saint Petersburg marching on the Winter Palace. But in reality, behind those events, we have the hidden hand of British intelligence, which actually instigated these uprisings for their own reasons of state. And this is the very definition of a color revolution. And so what I finally came to grips with is that the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution, and maybe every revolution of this whole period, we called the Age of Revolution, maybe every significant revolution of that time was actually a color revolution, which is to say, a foreign sponsored coup, usually sponsored by the British, ultimately masquerading as a significant shift in power.

Benesch: At the turn of the centuries, between the 1600s and the 1700s, this  is when the House of Stuart was no more. The Catholics were not running Britain anymore. But now you had this new crew coming in. This was like a bunch of Europeans from mainland. The House of Nassau being involved in changing the leadership of Britain and others. And then this new king happened, King George the First, who spoke German, who was from that German place, Hanover, which was like a mini kingdom at the time. They installed all these other people that nobody’s ever supposed to look into. They had a revolution or they had a coup d’etat to, to change power in Britain. This new king wanted to stay out of the spotlight to a large degree. And then under his command, we saw the new British Freemasonry and its sister organization, which was the Royal Society for science. And many people don’t actually know that British Masonry and the Royal Society belong together. And even British Masonry has a significant focus on research because they wanted to control scientists. British Masonry was, in my view, used for a controlled enlightenment so they could transform the way Britain looked like and not have chaos, such as in France or later in Russia. So they had these tools and they had these people in place. And when I looked at that, I thought, where did these people get so good? Why did they get so good? You know, where does this expertise come from, really? Because they were very professional in what they did. And so I started to compare the empires, the French, the British, some of these Germans and whatnot. I found specific differences. Some of these groups hated each other. Some of these groups, they collaborated with each other. But the thing that surprised me the most was a specific triple cluster of aristocratic lines. They have specific names that most people never even heard of, even though you can find them in history books. These clusters are called Welfs, Wettins and Reginars. And the sub-lineages are named after places they controlled. And these were oftentimes small bits of Germany. So you have the House of Hanover, you have Schleswig-Holstein, you have the House of Hessen. Saxon Coburg and Gotha. Some British people actually know that this is one of the names of the royal family. They call them Windsor. But they’re truly Saxon Coburg and Gotha and Schleswig-Holstein and Hessen. And so you have this triple cluster of families. And they started really small like a thousand years ago. They had small territories. So they didn’t have large spaces, they didn’t have large standing armies. So what I think they did was they focused on intelligence skills instead to compete.

Because you don’t have large standing armies, you’re not the French Empire. You’re not like these other empires. you’re not a great sea empire. So what do you do? You increase your own numbers, you make more children. You make sure that the family stays coherent and improves its intelligence capabilities. And so then they started to control more places. And they kind of played this game with the larger powers. And eventually they got into Denmark, they got into Scotland, then they got into Britain. And then they put their guy on the throne of Britain. So I think when you look at kind of a long term group that’s very consistent and always expanding, I think the most, significant group that I’ve ever seen in recorded history was this cluster of aristocratic families, because they are so large, much larger than what you see on television, the royal family. You think that whenever there’s a wedding or when somebody dies, you get the big event, you get like these 100 people, 150, 200 people, and you think that’s the family. You think that is the royal family. But when your clan goes back a thousand years and has been growing for a thousand years, it’s considerably large. And it’s conceivably large enough to form family intelligence structures. So I think that when we talk about Britain, I think it’s interesting if we go even a bit further, a bit further back, who actually took over Britain, you know, around the 1700s, because these people are really good at what they did. Really clever. And I think this is more, way more convincing than some Jewish people magically doing intelligence miracles, and it’s way more convincing than some communists suddenly having this tradecraft, the spycraft. I agree with you that you’re looking for established professionals who know that game, who may not have invented all the tools of the toolbox, but they certainly developed the toolbox and these circles they can make stuff happen. They can recruit Jewish bankers if they want to, and they can have a revolutionary movement if they want one, and call it communism or whatever. So that’s something that I noticed when I went a bit further back, and there’s still so much to discover. I found stuff in your book that I had never seen. And I’ve been dealing with some of these topics since 2017, and there’s still stuff that I have never seen, right?

Poe: I have to say that the things you’re talking about now about these, these German aristocrats, I know very little at all about any of that. And it challenges me to take a closer look, because I have to admit, I’ve tended to be a bit disdainful of German intelligence, simply because my perception, perhaps a naive or superficial perception, is that it seems that the British are always winning and the Germans are always losing.

Benesch: Yeah, you’re right, because many Germans are or have been terrible at intelligence. But these specific aristocratic lines, they don’t really consider themselves to be like other Germans because, according to their own history, they continued where the Roman Empire left off. I mean, officially, historians can trace the Welfen to the year 800, but they themselves claim they go back to the year 400 and something or whatever, or the year 500 or something. So they they believe they took over from the Roman Empire. So it’s sort of like this South German post-Roman type deal where you have these families and it’s hard to call them German because they’ve controlled places here for a long time, but they also controlled other places somewhere else for a long time. And ultimately when they got control over Britain. Then we talk about the British Empire and the Brits, but if you look closer then you see they look German. I think Prince Philip was even fluent in German. You know, the husband of Queen Elizabeth. There are some clips on YouTube that people can find where Prince Philip does an almost perfect German accent. They’re really big and they’re really good at intelligence. Whereas the other Germans, they’re terrible.

Poe: I think I’ve seen King Charles speaking German, quite fluently.

Benesch: Yeah, he does, yeah, I think not as well as as Philip.

Poe: Gosh, Alex, it’s funny to hear you say this because there’s a British writer. I can’t remember his name. I apologize to him because I never remember this guy’s name. He wrote a book. He’s on Twitter. He’s all over the place. But his book basically says the German intelligence runs the world to this day, and that the loss of World War Two was just an act, and they actually took over. And they’re running everything. And I always thought, I don’t know, I just I thought that was just a British propaganda line. In order to continue the narrative of Britain saving the world, even America.

Benesch: I have relatives in America, and I think 40 to 50 million Americans have German ancestors. So, yeah, we got around because it was pretty horrible to live in Germany for the most part, because it was so small and it was not a unified empire. it was a patchwork of different bits. And these bits often hated each other. So we Germans, we killed each other over the question of should you be a Catholic or a Protestant? So that was us, you know, we murdered each other for the type of Christian church you felt attached to. And so it was not a pleasant place to live for a very long time. And of course, you had these empires around us, so that created friction. And because Germany was so small and the economy for the longest time was based on agriculture, so you couldn’t make serious money in Germany to live, because if you inherited land, you had to share that land with your brothers and sisters. And then the next generation, they got even less land from the parents. And so it was such a miserable place for such a long time that many Germans tried their luck elsewhere. Now some Germans went to Russia under the Tsars, and they tried to do something there. Some Germans, they went to Britain and became Brits. And a lot of Germans went to America and became Americans. So I think this is a point that I always tell to people wen I encounter racism online, when somebody is on a total white power trip and  loves fascism and they hate everybody else, and they always whine and complain that supposedly the elders of Zion are running the world. So nonwhite people, not white people, run the world and the migration. And I tell them actually, objectively, the people running this earth, the most successful, tyrants or rulers, the most successful people in that regard, they look like everybody here. They look distinctively German. They mostly speak English, but, in terms of their heritage, you know, a couple hundred years back, it’s all German or post-Roman, south of Germany. These people actually run things because, for one reason or another, they were more successful than the others. So you got to be careful when you say, well, the Brits or the Americans or the Germans, if you are more specific, you can discover all sorts of really crazy and interesting things that can help us in our world today because, most people, they hear a term like globalism and they think conspiracy mythology, right? They think, oh, it’s the Jewish conspiracy and others, they hear something else or they misinterpret basic terms and they don’t read books and they just follow along what they read on the internet. But if you follow any standard ideology, your thinking becomes controlled and your actions can be predicted. And I think that nowadays with psychometrics, which is also pretty much dominated by the Brits, like Cambridge Analytica and such, they can actually predict what you’re going to do, how you will react. They can run simulations because you have different groups in society, and they follow these baseline ideologies, and they grew up a certain way. So you can predict their behavior. So it’s finally time people started to think for themselves and get outside these boxes and get to know all these other boxes and what’s beyond the boxes.

Poe: Well, let me just ask you, Alex, are you saying the Germans are actually the ones ruling the world? Is that where we’re going here?

Benesch: No, I wouldn’t call them Germans. I think that, as as you said, they speak English. So the most powerful people, they speak usually English. You can call it Anglo, but their ancestors, it’s kind of tied to Central Europe, the British Empire and some of these aristocrats, they spent a lot of time on German soil. So this is what I mean when I say German, because they look German, right? A lot of Americans, they look like everybody here, a lot of Brits, they look like everybody here. It’s tragic and funny when you watch a Hollywood war movie, about World War Two, for example, and everybody looks the same, the Germans are fighting the French or the Brits and then come the Americans, but they all kind of look the same. They even had to use some tricks to keep that from the audience. How similar we all were. The looks of it, not culturally, but a lot of war movies, they tend to show very little of German faces, especially the Nazi faces. You see a few German soldiers close up and whatnot, but usually you keep your distance. Because if you look at these Germans too closely, these actors, they look just like most Americans do. So this is what I mean. And I get into detail about this in my books. So there’s no misunderstanding. Because if you just say, well, Germans rule the world, people go: What? What do you mean? But you can call them Anglos. You can call them or Anglo elite, because it’s like a very tiny circle that’s keeping among themselves.

Poe: Well, I clearly have to get busy reading your books.

Benesch: I sent them over and when I read yours, I found stuff that I hadn’t even used, that I haven’t even quoted. And I think there’s stuff in my books that will really interest you because it just goes into the exact same direction. It feels like actual progress. I mean, when was the last time there was actual progress in political science or in history? In historical research, do you remember the last breakthrough in political science or history? I think the ideologies are stuck in the 1800s. I mean, when do you get to see progress?

Poe: Well, that’s a good question. I mean I’m of the baby boom generation. I still I still pretty much see things the way I was brought up to see them. But it seems like the whole world’s going kind of crazy right now. I don’t understand anything that’s happening.

Benesch: Well, I think about the toolbox, I mean we have to look for constants, because the world is a big place and it’s a very old place and nobody can know every everything in every detail. But if you look for constants, I look for the toolbox, you know, the imperial toolbox. Then I look for the scientific definitions of true human evil. And I look at espionage, the way espionage works. And I think that, when you know these three things, at least, the imperial toolbox, scientific understanding of evil and the intelligence world, I think that’s how you really make progress, because, as you said earlier, if you’re not really getting it, you’re just running in circles. It’s like you’re a lab animal. You’re like a little lab animal, and you’re running around in a lab maze that was created for you, and somebody is looking at you while you run around in these predefined, you know, tunnels.

Poe: What is the scientific, definition of evil?

Benesch: Well, this is what we understand better now, about, extreme pathological states. The correct term now is antisocial personality disorder, which basically means that, part of your brain, a module in your brain doesn’t really work for one reason or another. So you don’t have empathy. And so you are capable of absurd evil, even when it’s not a defensive situation, when it’s not totally necessary for survival or anything. And it’s also sometimes tied to joy, just hurting innocent people and destroying entire populations. So this is what we understand about pathological states, malignant narcissism, when people become detached from reality. I think that was even diagnosed from a distance, when it came to Adolf Hitler, because the Americans, and the Brits, they used their best psychologists and they gathered all the data on Hitler and came up with this assessment. And if you read them now, these assessments describe a narcissistic personality disorder, even though the term wasn’t used back then. In the standard literature, you could find these terms like in the 1980s. So it took a while for the rest of the world to catch up. So we know about pathological evil, and we know how it rubs off on the general population. And this is something that I truly hate on social media. When people who don’t have a personality disorder, when they adopt a way of thinking that comes from psychopaths or narcissists, you know, when they start to hate on Jews, let’s hate on Israel. Hate on everybody who’s nonwhite or let’s hate on white people, or hate on this group, and just calling for everybody’s destruction and enslavement.

And people are generally confused and angry, and then they adopt a way of thinking that comes from a psychopathic place or a narcissistic place, because we have an understanding how many people have pathologies, especially in Germany. I mean, I tell that to people all the time. You know, Germany was pretty messed up. More than 100 years ago or 150 years ago, 200 years ago, Germany was a very miserable place. And so it’s not surprising that the Nazi cult could work so well here. And that’s not because Germans are inherently evil. They don’t have some evil gene. But it’s like there was so much misery for so long, and that breeds pathologies. And that rubs off on people. And you then confront people with external factors and say we have to go along with the cult, because otherwise the Russians will get us or the French will get us, or the British will get us. This is when the primitive survival mechanisms kick in. And you have a very deadly mix. It’s creepy to see what people are getting into on the internet, they adore a dictator or a historical dictator or they just copy from the Nazis. I mean, I get this all the time. And you’re getting this, too, right? It’s these activists. They have two buttons. One button is “it’s the Jews”, and the other button is “you’re with the Jews”. And so when I get button number one and two, first they say I must be a Jew.

And I say, well, first of all, we killed all the Jews here, or my ancestors did. We killed all the Jews. So there’s almost zero Jewish people in Germany. It’s very, very few people. So the probability of actually encountering a Jew is super low to begin with because we killed them all. Second, my ancestors they had to undergo the government vetting process. So if you wanted to marry, if you wanted to join any of these organizations, they would trace your family background, I think, three generations into the past. And if you had a trace of Jewish, you would be killed. And so, by Nazi standards, you know, all my ancestors were just German. There’s a guy on Wikipedia. His name is, Theo Benesch. He was my father’s uncle. And my father grew up with him. And Theo was a true believer. He joined the Nazi movement early. He fought as a young kid in World War one. Cold as ice. He fought in the First World War as a kid.

He became a Nazi early on. And when you joined early, they truly liked you and they trusted you. And he became the highest ranking party member in Bavaria. And at some point he served in Berlin in the Parliament. So he was not just peak Nazi for that matter. In between his political career steps, he actually worked in a significant capacity at the worst rag in human history, which was Der Stürmer. You know, this was the most anti-Semitic publication in the world. And I think that parts of social media nowadays, all these different accounts, that’s exactly like Der Stürmer back then.

So I very much understand how this craziness worked back then. And so my own family was, you know, involved in peak Nazi. So I tell people that, no, I’m not Jewish. And, you know, there’s no Jewish people around me because they don’t want to live here because we killed them all a while ago. So, no, I’m not Jewish. I’m as German as it gets. But then these activists say. Well, you’re still working for the Jews. Because you’re covering up for the Jews. And it just goes in circles. but I think you can sort of get your point across sometimes, and other people can see that, and you can say, no, the Rothschilds did not take over Britain with nothing but loans and a courier system. That’s not how the world, works.

When you’re in a dictatorship or a sort of tyranny, the people oppressing you, they look like you. If you live under communism, if you live in North Korea, if you live in some backwater dictatorship, if you live under the Nazis, your oppressors, your rulers, they kind of look like you.

So you can’t just constantly blame people, you know, because they look different. You have to understand history and the toolbox and what that all means. I mean, you’re getting the same crap right? On the web. People don’t read your book and they say, well, because you’re you’re positioning yourselves against conspiracy mythology, that means you’re part of the conspiracy, right? But I think even craziness becomes a strategy in the toolbox of empires, because if you unbalance people and you push all this craziness on them, and if you allow pathologies to appear in society, this is how you unbalance people, because people are so busy earning money and dealing with horrible people around them, they don’t have the time or the energy to really study how things work. And that’s why they fall back on these gimmicky ideologies. But I think that your book is a serious step in the right direction. People really have to get on these chapters and go further in this direction. Because this is what can get you out of this silly circus that we’re in. I think I’ve pretty much gone through my notes here. Is there anything else you want to add?

Poe: I think you covered all the bases, Alex. it’s a lot of fun. Very stimulating discussion.

Benesch: Well, I sent you my stuff. It’s only been out in English for a couple of months. I mean, I’ve published them in Germany years ago, and I only got around to translating them into English. It’s about Karl Marx being a spy. It’s about these aristocrats. It’s about Britain. It’s about all this stuff that we talked about. I’d love you to go over it and get back to me. I think this is all real, actual progress. When you untangle this stuff, it offers, I think, a unique chance of bringing people back together because if you understand the toolbox, if you understand how this works, there’s no more reason to hate anybody because he has or had a different ideology.

Or a different upbringing or looks different. I think this can really bring people back together. And so I would strongly recommend that people read that book and, and they start to talk in a different way, not just copy activism on the web and then just hammering people with it. Relearn how to have a conversation and how to entertain new thoughts.

And, so, thank you for the time, thank you for the effort.

Related posts

Friends & Enemies (11/5/23) Part II of “Fake Experts”

CandorIsGood

Trumps AG nominee Barr is as deep state as it gets

Alexander Benesch

New kindle ebook on amazon: Evil Decoded

CandorIsGood

Leave a Comment