EM Burlingame has been there done that: author, thwarted bloodlines heir, historian, Special Forces veteran, computational science engineer, tech entrepreneur, venture capitalist… He chats to James about his extraordinary background and life experiences, then elaborates on his fascinating and persuasive theory about who runs the world and how. Their business model is the Financial Kill Chain. So long as it exists we will always be poor and oppressed. You’ll find him on Twitter as @emburlingame His Substack is https://emburlingame.substack.comMonetary Metals is providing a true alternative to saving and earning in dollars by making it possible to save AND EARN in gold and silver.Monetary Metals has been paying interest on gold and silver for over 8 years.Right now, accredited investors can earn 12% annual interest on silver, paid in silver in their latest silver bond offering. For example, if you have 1,000 ounces of silver in the deal, you receive 120 ounces of silver interest paid to your account in the first year.Go to the link in the description or head to https://monetary-metals.com/delingpole/ to learn more about how to participate and start earning a return on honest money again with Monetary Metals.↓ ↓ How environmentalists are killing the planet, destroying the economy and stealing your children's future.In Watermelons, an updated edition of his ground-breaking 2011 book, James tells the shocking true story of how a handful of political activists, green campaigners, voodoo scientists and psychopathic billionaires teamed up to invent a fake crisis called ‘global warming’.This updated edition includes two new chapters which, like a geo-engineered flood, pour cold water on some of the original’s sunny optimism and provide new insights into the diabolical nature of the climate alarmists’ sinister master plan.Purchase Watermelons by James Delingpole here: https://jamesdelingpole.co.uk/Shop/↓ ↓ ↓Buy James a Coffee at:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jamesdelingpoleThe official website of James Delingpole:https://jamesdelingpole.co.ukxxx
There is no evidence whatsoever that man-made climate change is a problem, that it's going to kill us, that we need to amend our lifestyle in order to deal with it.
It's a non-existent problem.
But how do you explain this stuff to your normie friends?
Well, I've just brought out the revised edition to my 2012 classic book.
Watermelons, which captures the story of how some really nasty people decided to invent the global warming scare in order to fleece you, to take away your freedoms, to take away your land.
It's a shocking story.
I wrote it, as I say, in 2011, actually.
The first edition came out.
and it's a snapshot of a particular era.
The era when So I give you the background to the skullduggery that went on in these seats of learning where these supposed experts were informing us, we've got to act now.
I rumbled their scam.
I then asked the question, okay, if it is a scam...
It's a good story.
I've kept the original book pretty much as is, but I've written two new chapters, one at the beginning and one at the end, explaining how it's even worse than we thought.
I think it still stands up.
I think it's a good read.
Obviously, I'm biased, but I'd recommend it.
You can buy it from jamesdellingpole.co.uk And I hope it helps keep you informed and gives you the material you need to bring round all those people who are still persuaded that it's a disaster, we must amend our ways and appease the gods, appease Mother God.
There we go.
It's a scam.
Welcome to the DellingPod with me, James Dellingpole.
And I know I always say I'm excited about this week's special guest.
But before we meet him, let's have a quick word from our sponsor.
Gold and silver.
They've been going like rockets recently.
Especially gold.
I think silver will follow.
But I'm no expert.
What do I know?
I just know that I've got some gold and I've got some silver and I'm very happy to have some.
There are two ways of owning it.
Either you can buy physical gold in the form of gold and silver bullion or in the form of coins.
Or you can take the Monetary Metals option.
Monetary Metals is a company, and I've had the CEO...
It's a way of owning physical gold and silver, but you get paid interest on your holding.
Now, this is different.
When you hold gold in a vault, you have to pay a fee, a management fee.
But if you buy gold and silver through monetary metals, you get paid interest.
So you don't have to pay storage charges.
You're actually earning income.
On your gold, which is paid in the form of more gold and silver.
It sounds like it doesn't make any sense, but actually it works because the jewellery industry pays money to monetary metals, which enables it to pay you interest on your gold.
It does work.
So if you want to buy gold and silver
You can even earn higher yields if you are an accredited investor.
They let you earn income on their ounces paid in more ounces of physical gold.
The interest you earn is paid in ounces of physical gold or silver which you get in addition to any price of appreciation from gold and silver during the year.
Join thousands of investors earning interest in physical gold and silver every month with Monetary Metals.
Visit To earn more.
Welcome to the DellingPod.
E.M. Burlingham.
I'm pronouncing your name in the...
There's the Old English way and then the American one, which I won't engage with, but in America they call you Burlingame?
I think that's it, yeah.
So I think in the Old English, it's actually Birling Aime, son of the local king's most trusted advisor, some cupbearer, right?
So son of the king's cupbearer.
Son of the cupbearer?
Yeah.
The cupbearer is pretty important.
Yeah, well.
You know what?
You could be part of the problem.
I could be talking to bloodlines.
I could be, except I'm adopted as a Berlin game, so, yeah.
Ah, yeah, they do that, don't they, these aristocratic families?
Oh, they do.
Yeah.
Well, we can get into all that later on, and I'm dying to hear your historical exegesis, which sounds absolutely on the money, about how we got to where we are.
But before we go there, I want you to tell me about your earlier life.
You were in the military.
Yeah, but that was so much of the bread on a sandwich because I went in the military early after high school.
And then I went into, well, I tried to be a writer for some years and realized, like Michener has said, I was just young and dumb and hadn't lived enough life to tell the real story.
So I went out to live that life and then got me ultimately into tech and finance and investment banking and private equity and algorithmic frequency, high-frequency trading.
And then in my early 40s, I went back in the Army and I went to Special Forces.
Did that active duty for six years with First Special Forces Group.
And then I went and did my doctoral studies in computational engineering because I wanted to know where we really were with machine intelligence.
And then that got me down a whole other pathway and got me to you.
Whoa.
You've got so much material to be a writer.
If you still want to be one.
Well, that's what I'm doing now.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Okay.
And what brought me to you, you know, brought us together is, you know, these types of concepts and ideas I've been stumbling on as I've been exploring the historical roots for the writing.
Right?
Yeah.
I didn't realize you could join special forces in your 40s.
So I couldn't go straight.
Well, you can't anyways.
You have to get selected.
But because I had served four-ish years before in the 80s, what they did structurally is they subtracted four years from my physical age, and it just fit me in the window.
I had like six months to get in, get selected, get passed, etc., which fortunately I was able to do.
Right.
A bit like Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse Now.
That was my nickname, actually, when I was in the Q course.
Was it?
Yeah.
So they're quite movie literate soldiers.
I mean, I imagine that the lore of all these, you know, like the Gnar movies, like the special forces tiger stripes that...
Oh, that's another wonderful story.
But, you know, as you know, Kurtz and Apocalypse Now is a retelling of Out of Darkness, or the Heart of Darkness, about the Congo, right?
And that was written by...
I think he was from somewhere in Eastern Europe, but, you know, settled and lived in England.
He was, I think, Polish.
Polish, that's right.
That's right, yeah, Conrad, yeah.
Yeah, I find it very interesting to talk to somebody.
If I'd done this podcast ten years ago, I would have been just so eager to hear all your war stories because I was very invested as a younger man in the idea that if you haven't seen the elephant, you're not really a man.
And that combat is the natural state for a man, and that we're born to kill, or that soldiering is honourable, and that it's all the lies we're told.
And now I'm, like you, I'm really, really viscerally anti-war.
Because I understand who's in charge of the war, who creates the wars.
So give me one second.
I'm not anti-war, so I'm not on that side of the spectrum.
I've got no problem with war.
But war in defense of my people, my actual people, my own community, the assets, my children, my grandchildren, if the war isn't quite genuinely in defense and protection of
I think, well, it's a marvelous question.
I think the only one that really has been is the English Civil War, which was really The first attempt by the continental Europeans to take over the British civil, you know, what would become the British peoples.
Oh, tell me, I can't let that one go unexamined.
Tell me about that.
I don't really, I don't really understand the English, the civil war, our civil war.
It was a coup.
who the good is and the bad is were because because we're told that the parliamentarians were fighting for the sovereignty of parliament against a monarch who was who was So tell me what the truth is.
Well, I don't...
I'm not going to be one who says that he knows truth, but...
Give me your theory.
My suspicion and my firm belief is that it was a...
And ultimately, the first hostile takeover failed.
And it failed.
You know, the first hostile takeover was you have to break – like we really did mastered in the 80s and 90s.
But it failed, and it failed because of this one guy, Cromwell.
Cromwell came along, and Cromwell thought, well, I'm fighting on behalf of parliamentarians and freeing the people and down with the princes, etc.
And ultimately what wound up happening, he realized I have to actually, the crown is in the gutter, the crown is the only thing standing between what it represents, not the crown itself, is the only thing standing between this enslavement of people, the English-speaking peoples to wage tax and debt slavery to European banks.
And the only way to do it is somebody's got to wear the crown.
Somebody's got to act like a king.
Somebody's got to be a tyrant.
Which is where the word tyrant comes from, despot comes from, right?
These weren't people who were strongmen who elevated themselves through violence because that doesn't last very long.
Despots and tyrants were individuals elevated by the peerage and by the people to have near absolute power to fight these kinds of parasitic attacks, right?
These type of sophisticated, complex slavery attacks, because that's enslaving efforts.
And so Cromwell wore the crown.
And then, unfortunately, his son couldn't continue that fight.
He wasn't capable.
And the parliamentarians did take over.
But who bankrolled the parliamentarians?
Who sent the Puritans back from the continent back to England?
Who funded all of the civil war?
The Dutch?
The Dutch.
The Dutch.
Because it was a hostile takeover.
It took him 40 years to finally do it, right, with the inglorious revolution, right?
Right.
But you're absolutely – so the inglorious – so the beginning – The English Civil War culminating in the Inglorious Revolution is a set piece.
It's a period of time and it's a set piece.
It's a hostile corporate takeover of what would become the British Empire.
By the Dutch East India Company and the Venetian bankers that had resettled in Amsterdam a century before.
Why?
Because there were all these wars going on on the continent.
And, you know, the 30 years war, the 50 years war, the 80 years war, there had been the 100 years war between the French and the English.
The manpower, you know.
It was just a dangerous place to have a headquarters.
So you need to put your headquarters somewhere that's geographically secure.
And you need the manpower, and you need the martial prowess to go out and have armies that will go out and enforce your debt collections around the world.
Well, the English, right, what would become the British peoples, were just off the coast there.
That's a securable fortress island.
And you can further fortify that by creating a, you know, a walled city, the city of London, right, carved out as a separate complete entity.
That's the headquarters for the Dutch.
It's been the headquarters for the Dutch since 1688.
And they've used the English-speaking peoples as their bully boys.
Remember the old guilds and the bully boys, etc., who were involved in the Civil War?
And they've used the English-speaking peoples and armies, and the Americans are very much a part of that, to go do their debt collection over the last 200-plus years or 300 years.
So it's very much to what you said.
I think the last just war was the English Civil War.
That's already...
We've abandoned the foreplay, and we've gone straight into the...
The main event.
Apologies.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Which I know, well, I don't mind, because I don't mind.
I think it's also better for you if you don't just go from your A to B to Z thing.
If we skip around and see where our fancies take us.
Because this is great.
I'm loving this.
I was thinking, what do we in the world think about the Dutch today?
We think that they're sort of solid, honest.
Dependable, slightly kind of left behind.
Puritan.
Puritan.
Good Puritan Protestants.
They're good wholesome people except for the red light district in Amsterdam and the fact that all the pot smoking and all.
Nice.
They had a very rich period of painting.
The sort of Rembrandt era and you go to the Rijksmuseum and you see lots of pictures of men in black smoking pipes and still lives and But we don't think of them as a kind of as a particularly powerful force.
Oh When we talk about the Dutch The Dutch behind this hostile takeover We're not really talking about the generality of Dutch people, are we?
We're talking about, well, you've already hinted that these are basically Venetian, rebadged Venetians, Venetian bankers, yeah?
Yeah, yeah.
It's the financialists.
You know, this...
You're familiar with Joseph Campbell?
Yes, he's since passed away, of course, in the 1980s.
He studied with Jung when he was very young.
He was a professor, and he studied myths his entire life, from the time he was a late teen, into his latter years when he passed away in his late 80s.
And he said that there was a fourth myth-based system that was developing that had started with the Romans.
And it might take 2,000, 4,000 years to fully come about.
I think it took about 1,000 years.
I think it's taken the last 1,000 years to fully form up into a solid myth system, a very rich, sophisticated, complex ideological system around which very sophisticated religion has developed, and that's financialism.
And where it really formed up was in Venice, but where it reached its apex of ideological conceptual development was in Amsterdam, and then, you know, the city of London, and then Wall Street, etc.
Okay.
so Venice I was in Venice recently ish and I went out to one Somewhere in there, yeah.
Round about then?
Yeah.
Okay.
But that wasn't the beginning.
These people came from somewhere.
Were these in turn displaced Romans?
These were displaced Praetorians.
Constantine had crushed them at the Battle of Milvian Bridge in 312 and said, if you ever come together again, I'll kill you.
And so they fled to the lagoons of Venice.
And by Praetorians, who were the Praetorians?
The Praetorian Guard.
The Praetorian Guard had been in control of the Roman Empire since Augustus.
After Augustus, no Roman Emperor had ever been in control of the Roman Empire until Constantine defeated them in battle and killed their puppet emperor.
Okay.
Yeah, go ahead.
The Praetorians were the aristocracy of that?
No, so the Praetorian, you know, the Praetorian Guard, right?
Everybody thinks of them as the Praetorian Guard.
They were the Emperor's Guard and they killed, you know, they murdered emperors and etc.
What people don't realize is that the Praetorian Guard were also the guard for judges, for magistrates, for senators, for nobles, right?
And they killed a whole lot of them too.
The Praetorians were the power of Rome for a little over 300 years.
The real power.
So what happened?
Are you saying that the Praetorian Guard completely displaced the ruling classes prior to Augustus?
They didn't displace them.
What they did is they lived parasitically off of them.
They hid behind them.
They were the real power behind the Roman Empire, but they're also the reason the Roman Empire ended, because they parasitized upon it so much.
And you want a prime example today, where did all of the wealth of the British Empire go?
Because it's sure as hell not in Britain.
I've noticed this.
Right?
Having to live in this shithole.
Right?
So where's all the old stately homes?
Where's all the old noble families?
It's all gone, right?
I mean, there's the imprimatur of it still, right?
There's the facade of it here and there that you can see, but most of it's all wiped out.
The old nobility's mostly gone.
The old stately homes are gone.
The old estates are gone.
They're all bought up by these bankers and mercantilists.
Financialist.
It was the same back in Rome, and it took a Roman emperor, Constantine.
This whole process of making that even possible took about 100 years of his predecessors.
But finally, Constantine and the Eastern Empire, who did not use Praetorians, they had their own guards and systems, etc., took them about 100 years to get prepared, and then they went back and crushed the Praetorians in a war.
And then hunted them down across the empire.
I'm going to have to read about this battle.
What's it called again?
Milvian Bridge.
The Battle of Milvian Bridge.
It sounds like it was really important.
It's one of the most pivotal periods in European history.
Is this the one where Constantine sported the cross on his banners?
Correct.
Yeah, he said he saw the cross, which is probably a plasma blast over...
Yes.
Yeah.
And then he went back.
Yes, sorry, go ahead.
Are you a fan, a Constantine fan?
I think in the entirety of European and English, you know, British, I don't like the British term because that's actually the Dutch that helped phrase that so that we would not recognize ourselves as a civilizational people, the English peoples, which is an ethnicity.
It's a collection of ethnic groups and languages and cultures, etc., that were brought together 1,100 years ago by Alfred, William, and not William, Edward, and Athelstan, right?
I believe that the two most impactful European continent, and thereby impacting but somewhat differently peoples, you know, the English-speaking peoples, the Isles, I think the two most impactful are Constantine and Eleanor of Aquitaine.
I hesitate to ask you about Eleanor of Aquitaine because that would automatically lead to another digression.
I'm still...
Well, but related because we wouldn't have the Magna Carta if it wasn't for Eleanor of Aquitaine, but not her directly.
Who was married to...
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
And John was her son.
As was Richard.
Can we go to that bit in a bit?
Yeah, yeah.
I just want to finish the...
There are various competing theories on who it is that really runs the world.
So there are those who say, It's the 13 satanic bloodlines and they name, they name families with quite modern names.
I mean, Collins, we're not talking, that doesn't go back to the Phoenician era.
Collins, Lee, obviously Rockefeller and Rothschild and stuff.
And that's fine.
Then there are those who say, no, no, no, you've got to understand, it's the black nobility.
The black nobility, they date the papal nobility and so on.
Is yours a kind of a different theory or does that embrace the black nobility?
Yeah, actually, I don't believe it's families.
They come and go.
I wrote a book called The Eternal War back five years ago.
I'm going to have to read your books.
I'm really sorry I haven't.
I'm feeling bad.
No, all good.
It's a 100-page primer.
I tried to go as quick and hard and fast as I could.
Grok actually did a rather good summary of it.
It's an article on my X page.
I don't believe it's families.
They come and go, as I said.
It's an ideology.
It's an ideology.
It's these competing ideologies.
But this one's the resentful's ideology.
It's the eternal war.
They have a religion.
They have a belief system.
have an ideology that...
And you put the...
You go war with them.
They want you to believe that it's satanic peoples and all of that because then you'll go fight all of that and you won't be paying attention to what's really going on.
How they're really enslaving you with this finance religion.
With tax and debt and wage slavery.
Very sophisticated.
Very capable things.
Ludicrously sophisticated.
But it's not families and peoples and all of that.
It's an ideology that is very sophisticated and very rich that certain people who are just oriented – And you can have some of these families that rise and last for three to four generations, sometimes a little bit longer, but rarely more than three to four generations, and then they're gone.
It doesn't matter that that family's gone because the ideology lasts.
It endures, and another family will rise up.
Probably already has while that family was declining.
It's an infrastructure, shall we say, right?
A neurocognitive, neuroemotive, societal structural infrastructure that distant families at different times and different individuals at different times fall in on and maximize and benefit from.
Right.
And so you trace the origins of this idea to the earliest days of Venice.
I mean, it probably goes back to the earliest cities.
I don't know.
But the instantiation that we are all now still directing, you know, the lineage, right, for, you know, those who pay attention to the nobility and lineage is everything, right?
The current instantiation of this system goes back to Venice.
It's most potent, however, modern really goes back to Amsterdam in the 16th century, which again is where the Venetian bankers went to, but there was already, you know, the Dutch were already, in the 15th century, were already developing as a maritime mercantilist people, right?
Amsterdam was a natural place for the Venetians to go.
It was very similar culturally, economically, structurally, financially to Venice.
Yes, lots of water.
Lots of water, yeah.
The Venetians weren't used to tulips, but, you know.
They got over that.
They got over it, yeah.
Yeah, I bet they were behind the tulip bubble, weren't they?
Well, they helped create the stock markets.
Well, first, you know, they helped create the stock exchanges.
Yeah, I mean, yeah, no, absolutely, the speculation, etc.
Right?
All of it.
Can you give me the idiot's guide, the sort of the TLDR, to how the system works?
Wow, okay.
It works a lot like Christianity.
I wrote it.
It's actually laid down almost right on top of it, right?
And there are some questions as to whether Christianity, since the 300s forward, Council on Nicaea, but really in the 700s to 1000s that led up to the schism, you know, the 1054 schism where the Roman Catholic Church was created out of the old Orthodox world as a separate entity, as the Holy Roman.
Well, Catholic Church.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So one wonders if Christianity and the financialist religion 1054 schism on haven't actually been the same thing, right?
The same entity.
But really, how it works is on a concept.
It's the Christian principles.
And there's a piece I wrote.
It's up on Substack about how finance is a religion, right?
The religion of finance.
and you can map it line by line to Christianity.
And it's how do you...
So that's its core principle.
It's built off of debt And you need the slaves to create the collateral.
You need the slaves to borrow against their future to help create that collateral, right?
And then you need to create crisis so that at some point the slaves can't continue to afford the debt and you come in and buy it for pennies on the dollar.
That's the basic principle, isn't it?
That's how it works.
Pretty much it.
You see, you've explained that very simply.
And now we can enlarge on that.
Do you know, weirdly enough, I was having breakfast yesterday with a man who was very senior in a recent British government.
I mean, I'm not going to mention his name because loads of people will just be...
And he was curious to find out what my thoughts are.
Now I've gone completely down the rabbit hole.
I used to be very conventional.
You know, I used to be a conventional, conservative, libertarian political, cultural commentator.
And I would, you know, repeat...
I didn't realise I was playing an allocated role at the time.
Anyway, he was asking me what my objection was.
Why I was supporting the current leader of Burkina Faso, Emmanuel Traore.
Why I was excited about him.
And I said, well, because he's against...
And that's the basis of everything.
I said the world's model that has been for centuries is disaster capitalism.
Which I think is another way of saying what you're describing.
The way that America particularly goes into South America and encourages them to borrow money that they can't afford.
To create assets.
Yeah, borrow money you can't afford.
So what are you borrowing in this religious concept?
You are borrowing tomorrow's grace today so that I can build a better relationship with the divine, with God.
But that's tomorrow's grace.
I haven't earned that yet.
These religious concepts lay down upon it exactly, right?
Anyways.
It's something I was thinking through this morning, but yeah.
I mean, I'm generally quite pro-Christianity.
Are you getting it?
First to second, third century orthodoxy I think is rather substantive.
I think it's rather solid.
I think it's very sophisticated and rather spot on.
I suspect that Christianity started to be, I believe that this financialist system, this slaver system, began to be laid down, you know, woven into
Christianity, and Christianity woven into it in the 300s and the Council of Nicaea, such that by 600, 700 A.D., we were starting to have some pretty, you know, we were way divergent from first, second, and third century Christianity, where now we really actually have this financialist belief system, which was substantively instantiated.
Wow.
Wow.
I would get rid of cathedrals and massive churches and all of this.
Quite cool to look at.
They are rather marvelous.
I'm not opposed to them on their own, but I believe personally.
I went to Jesuit schools.
I went to Seventh-day Adventist schools, private schools.
And I'm Scandinavian Norman on both sides of my family, biologically, actually.
So a bit of paganism in there.
I would strip it back to the fundamentals.
The fundamental principle I believe that is Christianity, which is that the individual has a direct responsibility for their own relationship with God.
And everything else that builds up on top of that is artifice.
So I would get back to first principles.
You have a responsibility as an individual as you move through your day and through your life and through your relationships and through the complexity of the world that we live in.
To conduct yourself in such a way that you personally maintain your relationship with God, whatever God is, right?
and stop supporting all these structures and all these massive institutions and entities, et cetera, because that's not...
I think that's essentially what monks at places like Mount Athos are doing.
Probably, yeah.
Which I think was founded by Constantine, wasn't it?
I believe so.
He founded several, yeah.
And I'm not here to critique Christianity, right?
My suspicion is that we haven't really had real Christianity for quite some time because it got suborned very early on.
And what we've actually had is this financialist religion that has, you know, Isn't it really interesting?
and our Jesus is money like it's like there but for the grace of cash go I well EM you think about this one when is the moment when Jesus Gets most angry.
The money changers in the temple.
Now, I mean, this is a guy who is completely unflappable, isn't it?
He can go for 40 days and 40 nights in the desert, and the devil offers him everything, and he can just go, nah, nah, not having it.
No, thank you, Epstein.
No, thank you, Epstein, yeah.
Yeah.
And there is this moment where he just absolutely loses his rag.
Just gets out his whip.
Yeah.
I think that tells us something.
Yes.
So if I'm a resentful and I'm a slaver and somebody has come forward with a belief system that defeats The slaver efforts, you know, this complex millennia at that point already long, slaver mind mentality, etc.
I can't take that on head-on because it's already beaten me.
I'm a Green Beret, trained Green Beret, spent 11 years as a Green Beret.
What are we trained to do?
Unconventional warfare.
What do you do?
You go into a country and you take it over from the inside.
With its own concepts and ideas, its own legal structures, its own ideology, its own, right?
You can't go in and destroy it, right?
Not any sufficient country in society.
You've got to corrupt it from the inside.
And then so what do you do?
you use its principles, concepts, ideas, ideologies, relationships, structures, norms, you know, all of that.
Right?
You corrupt it.
Like a virus.
Or like a parasite wasp.
You know those wasps that lay their eggs inside the spider?
Yes.
Yes, but this is...
A very key part of that process is usury.
Oh, absolutely.
It's essential.
You want to extract absolutely everything you can in every way of the productivity of that slave.
And we're now right down to the cellular level where we're enslaving people's cells to pharmaceuticals.
Where we've literally enslaved the metabolism of hundreds of trillions of cells in a person's body.
Right down to the labour of the cells.
That is extraordinary and Do you know what?
There was a...
Sometimes, yeah.
It's bad, isn't it?
It's like predictive programming.
Well, it used to be funny, but, you know, once...
It really wasn't worth it anymore.
It all went downhill after Benny Hill.
It went downhill after Benny Hill.
That's fair enough.
I just was thinking, you know that Netflix was founded by Edward Bernays' great nephew.
Yeah.
You can feel yourself being propagandized as you watch.
But they give you glimpses of what they're doing.
And I watched this.
Netflix film the other day where in the near future people can trade years of their life future years of their life for money so they'll give you a hundred thousand bucks and you'll lose say five years and you'll age correspondingly and somebody else will get your five years and they'll become correspondingly younger but I was thinking that's exactly what this system is Well,
and Harris has very much to what you're articulating.
Here's the corruption of the ideas of Christianity, in that the path to piety in the financialist system, the path to rightness in the eyes of God is the accumulation of wealth.
If I give up five years, to use the reference you just gave, if I give up five years of my life to attain some wealth, well, I've earned some salvation through sacrifice.
Isn't that divine?
But it seems to me that you're being slightly hard on Christianity.
No, no, no.
A financialist religion, right?
The financialist belief system that has corrupted what I believe is early Christianity.
The principles lay down directly on talk.
If I am...
Again, I've written some things.
There's some pieces on Substack and X about how this map's directly going back quite some time.
Okay.
When you look at people in the world today and you talk with them, I don't know many people who are genuinely seeking to better their relationship with God or the gods or whatever that is.
I mean, I hear people talking sometimes, but almost everybody I know is trying to increase their wealth because that gives them greater status in the world.
It gives them more righteousness, more rightness.
Yeah, no, no, I'm only, I'm just sort of encouraging you to examine your definitions more carefully, I suppose.
Because I'm thinking about, when I read Matthew, the Gospel of Matthew, for example, it says something like, lay not up treasures for yourself on earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt and thieves break through to steal.
Okay.
If I'm a financialist, if I'm a resentful, and I have a slave, and I want the slave to work incredibly hard and to build assets, and I want to take those assets, and I want the slave to keep the fruits of their labor, I would say such things.
Ah, but you see...
I mean, I do believe in the supernatural and the afterlife.
I don't know that what you just articulated is necessarily true, that you have to deny.
I think if we go back and go, perhaps, just perhaps, Unless one goes back and really studies early Christianity, first, second, third centuries Christianity, maybe starting with the Council of Nicaea and Constantine and what's happened since,
So most of what we've been reading and worshipping and, you know, the reinterpretations of the Bibles as they were rewritten, etc., might not actually be very much Christianity.
Oh, are you saying that the version of… I don't know, right?
I'm not a biblical scholar, right, so I'm not going to...
It's usury, but on a, you know, gross scale.
And there was a belief system that was developing that was really rather solid and was taking off because it was a vastly more sophisticated telling of individuals, individuals in community, and individuals in community and communion with God and the divine.
I would hijack that.
I'd spend an immense amount of effort and energy not to fight it.
Because what do business investors do?
What do investors do?
They get ahead of the trend.
They ride the trend.
Yes.
I don't want to get bogged down in the question, mainly because you've got so much other interesting stuff to say and I don't want to use it all up.
But just my understanding of Christianity, Is that it is essentially the ideal is the rejection of the materialistic.
So I totally understand what you're saying, that the structures of Christianity can be exploited in a particular direction.
But when you talked about how most people, and I agree with you by the way, most people are interested in how they get money and keep money.
For the obvious reason that we live in a world where designed to stop us doing both.
I mean, it's really frightening.
I was thinking about all the literature that one reads.
I'm a big fan of Trollope, for example.
Have you ever read any Trollope?
No, I haven't.
Well, actually, you find it in Trollope, you find it in Balzac, you find it in Dickens, you find it in Tolstoy and Dostoevsky.
It's people trying to make money when they haven't got it.
Or trying desperately to keep the money when maybe the generation before it has had it but has lost it.
And I think what you are describing very accurately is an environment which has been created for us by a really tiny, tiny fraction of the world's population who've been using this formula over and over again, not to put too fine a point on it, to royally fuck us over.
From generation to generation.
That's the technical term.
That is the technical term.
So give me one second.
I actually rather fundamentally agree with you.
It is a tiny subset.
It's a virulent pathogen.
And it works and operates very much like a sophisticated virus.
That lives within a host.
And what is the host?
The host is humanity.
The host is nation-states.
Well, they created nation-states specifically to set them up, build them up, and then tear them down.
That's the Peace of Westphalia.
That's where that all came from.
But there was a problem.
There was this group of folks over there in the British Isles who weren't all down with the nation-state model that came out of the Peace of Westphalia, Treaties of Innsbruck and Munster, 1645-1649.
And, well, we needed to get them on board because they were a maritime power, sea power, and they were building out an empire.
And we couldn't have them as an actual monarchy and nobility.
We needed them in a liberal democracy because you've got to have liberal democratic structures, and you have to have states without hereditary princes and their relationship with the people and the land that will go to war with you if you try to set them up for a bubble and a collapse.
assets on the cheap.
Okay.
Before we go there, can we just rewind to...
You know, we still had proper history teachers and stuff.
And I recall there were some pretty, pretty dotty periods of history.
There was the 19 long winters of Queen Matilda.
There were eras when men said openly that God and his saints slept.
Things got really bad.
There were...
Henry VIII was a deranged...
It must have been terrifying living with his mercurial rages.
And before that, Henry VII, the usurper, was a kind of weaponised accountant.
I mean, he just raped his, certainly his nobles.
I don't know whether he raped the generality of the populace.
Probably he did.
They were extracting money.
I'm not sure that they were particularly well loved.
At the same time as an Englishman, I am aware that we've always felt superior to our continental brothers and sisters.
We've always thought, you know, we're better than that.
So can you lay out your theory about what England was like before this hostile takeover?
And do you think the system was better?
I think most of the history that we've known it over the last couple of years, a hundred years, is pure and utter bullshit.
Propaganda sold to us by those who've been sitting occupying, you know, occupying us since the 1680s.
And that propaganda bullshit started in the 15th century when they were already setting up the hostile takeover.
OK, so, I mean, obviously, the Elizabethan court was...
Again, technical term.
Okay?
But they weren't wrong.
Except for Mary.
Mary was just straight up.
Insane.
But Henry, His Majesty King Henry VIII, maybe what His Majesty King Henry VIII was doing had nothing to do with divorces.
That was the smokescreen, the justification.
What he was trying to do was break continental Roman power from controlling the English people and being a second tax on the English people.
Was there a lot of money diverted from England to Rome in those days?
Yeah, oh yeah, vast amounts.
Yeah, and look at all the cathedrals and the churches and the wealth, you know, there were bishops in the English Isles, you know, in the British Isles that were wealthier than nobility.
Including Cardinal Pole, who was the last Catholic archbishop.
Correct.
As in Dellingpole.
Yes, yeah.
Yeah, yeah.
Now, this is also why...
Because if you're going to be a parasite on the people, you don't want a competing parasite.
Right!
You don't go into business with your competitor.
That's just...
I've got to remove them.
Okay.
So, a lot of the history, the wig version of history, is that part of the problem?
I've always been suspicious of wigs and wiggery.
Yeah, I suspect that most of what we think about our history, It's just total and utter vaporware, and it was propaganda that started to be fed into, you know, the Vatican and the Venetians and the Dutch are very, very good at information warfare, very good at unconventional warfare.
Right?
If you're going to The very first things you do is psychological warfare.
The very first thing you do is you take petty and small little differences and grievances and you conflate them.
You can't just blow them up.
You have to slowly, steadily conflate them.
And how do you do that?
You whisper in the ear.
You whisper and you contort.
And over time, in our case, centuries, most of what we believe about our history, we're finding, you know, historians are finding when they go back to the actual source documents and they don't come with the biased mind they got, right, that we were all educated in over the last couple hundred years, that the source material doesn't actually support that claim.
Hold that thought.
Do you mind if I go for a P?
I'm going to do the same, by the way.
Middle-aged men's bladders.
I know.
May I say, I'm absolutely loving this conversation.
It's really great.
Wonderful.
I appreciate it.
What's that background I can see?
I'm at a friend's place in Arizona right now, out in the desert.
He does educational programs and we're actually talking these very things and how do we help, you know, just for my own self, right?
I believe fundamentally we have got to restore the princes and we don't stand a chance.
But they have to be worthy.
Yeah.
So we're here talking that.
He's an educator.
multi-generational family offices, etc.
So the new nobility is already here.
They just don't realize it yet.
What do you think, if you had an academy for young princes, We'll deal with the educational curriculum in a moment, but what about the physical skills?
Presumably, riding a horse would have to be key.
I think you start with martial arts when you're young, probably MMA.
Okay.
And then...
I don't know.
Come on, swords.
Fencing.
Well, I've actually said, if we all went back to being able to carry a sword and we re-legalized the duel, a lot of shit would get fixed real quick.
Amen.
Because a whole lot less people would be offended about a whole lot less things, right?
And we could just get things right, proper done.
I have to say, people who get offended by stuff kind of deserve to get got in a duel.
Run through, yeah.
They really do.
You're trying to verbally run me through, so I'm going to run you through with some steel.
So we're allowing fencing.
Horseback riding, absolutely.
But also you want to do defensive vehicle driving courses.
All of the special skills that special operations guys study would all be the curriculum.
You'd start learning it young.
The other piece that's very fundamental, and I do neuroscience stuff with the National Foundation for Integrative Medicine, mostly helping guys recover from traumatic brain injuries.
This is part of what got me and you together, is my own journey in the last five years of recovering from brain injuries.
Briefly on that one, I was wondering about this.
Can one recover from TMIs?
Yes, yes, and actually quite substantively.
You will be a different person, and you're going to have to come to grips with that, right?
identity stack redevelopment, and you're going to have...
So your sort of brain rewires itself?
Yes, depending on the types of damage.
It's not so much that the brain rewires, it's that it reroutes through existing wiring.
Yes, that makes sense to me.
You suffered one yourself?
Numerous, yeah.
What, from sort of shrapnel and things?
The first one actually was a fight, training, testing fight, and I took on an MMA fighter in my early 40s.
He was in his mid-20s, and he knocked me out.
And then the second one was a parachute jump at night in the dark.
I just got the landing wrong and bounced off the side of my head.
And then the third one was another parachute jump that a whole bunch of us got injured because the winds at the exit of the aircraft and the winds on the ground were actually moving in opposite directions and nobody had instructed us.
So we steered in the wrong directions, etc.
And it hurt a bunch of us.
And then I went away to war and blasts, you know, a whole number of blasts over 10 months.
And then I came back and did another parachute jump.
Idiot.
I know, right?
But I think I'm technically the definition of insane, right?
Doing the same thing, expecting a different result.
I have a similar problem.
I'm addicted to this thing called fox hunting.
Oh, the hounds.
The hounds.
I do so love.
I have never actually been, but I have actually been to the tailgate party, shall we say, with a friend just after the hunt where he had a Land Rover Discovery or a Land Rover Defender 90. Yeah, they all do.
And he had a built-in bar that he rolled out of the back.
And it had all the glasses and the decanters.
I'd love to take you.
Can you ride a horse?
I grew up on horses.
Oh, wow.
I grew up training and teaching horses.
My mother was in dressage, and I grew up training and teaching Western working horses.
Oh, wow.
I mean, it sounds like you're way...
because I took it up later tonight so you're probably way better at this stuff than me Obviously, we ride with a different kind of saddle.
The English saddle, yeah, yeah.
I'm familiar.
You can deal with that, can't you?
I can do it, yeah.
It's the little jodhpurs I'm not sure I can pull off well.
Well, maybe we'll get you something.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I think you'd look good in.
Okay, I appreciate it.
Thank you.
I'd be marvellous.
Yeah, that would be marvellous.
It'd be amusing, wouldn't it?
Yeah.
Anyway, back to...
We're going back to...
After that lovely digression, we're going back to medieval England and the...
So you think that to have lived in medieval England would have been a lovely, generally an enjoyable, well I don't know about enjoyable, but things worked then.
Okay so I'm And then things got rather difficult for about eight years.
Really rather difficult, as in living in...
Things that white people don't do in the modern world.
This is in America?
Yeah, in America.
So I know what that life's like.
I know what that, what hardship and having to, And we were up above 7,500 feet, so we'd get 30 below for a week sometimes, and we could have 12 feet of snow on the ground.
And you're digging tunnels from your not-so-good-of-a-house to the barn to feed the stock, and you're using it.
I know all that.
I lived it.
It's not how I started life.
What was the purpose?
Was it an experiment?
Did your mother go mad or what?
My mother did go mad, but she went mad because there was an estate war with her mother and her brother over her inheritance, and they drove her insane.
They gaslit her and attacked her, and they stole all of her wealth and her inheritance, and she didn't know what to do.
The gaslighting and the attacks and everything did drive her mad.
And so it wasn't an experiment.
She genuinely thought, well, with what little I have left, I'll go buy some land and take my two young sons and we'll go live off the land.
Unfortunately, living off the land is a rather difficult task that takes a substantive amount of knowledge and experience.
She lacked having, you know, gone to Stuhl in Grisson, Switzerland, and, you know, very nice schools, etc., right?
So she rather lacked that knowledge and expertise.
So things were hard for some years.
I'm grateful for them, right?
But the point being is that we made it through, even us being Yeah.
We made it through.
And so one wonders, right?
I wonder.
You know, now I'm 58 years old, and I've lived very comfortably after.
I've worked very hard, and I've lived very comfortably afterwards, right?
But I look back on those years sometimes with actual loss.
It was an easier life.
It was a simpler life.
It was a more real life.
It was a very honest life.
It was hard.
And then I think, well, if we actually had had those skills that, you know, had been passed down and the rest of the community knew and, you know, and it probably would have been a rather difficult.
They're all trying to go live like that.
I mean, not like we did, right?
Not like we had to, but they're all trying to go live like that.
It's like here in Arizona where I'm at, right?
People are recreating that, fortunately, with the skills and the knowledge and the stuff that we didn't have.
And so I'm looking at that, and I'm like, quite despite the immense hardship of those years, and ultimately it would cost my kid brother his life, he couldn't.
Handle the strain and stress of it.
It went down a fundamentally different path than me.
But the point being is that when I look at that, it's like maybe the medieval world wasn't so bad.
Maybe it was way more livable, way more honest, way more community.
People were way more in tune with themselves, with nature, with God, whatever their God is, right?
And, you know, when you look at tyrannical systems, you know, genuinely, you know, no joke, not just propaganda that some kingdom or principalities spoke about the other to get people to go fight it, but when you look at genuine atrocities, and I've seen some in the world today in the work I did, They don't last very long.
And they don't build very much.
They don't create very much.
And they don't innovate.
And they don't create cathedrals.
And they don't pave roads.
That's not quite the right thing.
But they don't end up with a Shakespeare.
They don't end up with Burke.
With great philosophy, they don't develop into a civilization.
So perhaps our ancestors weren't what we've been sold.
Maybe there was a lot more going on there.
Maybe it was very vibrant because the English-speaking people, what would become the English-speaking people, set in motion actually by Eckbert, His Majesty Alfred the Great's grandfather, did develop into a rich Sophisticated, brilliant, incredible civilization already before the Middle Ages.
And then in through the Middle Ages, that only expanded dramatically, substantively.
Where are you on the Normans?
Goodies or badies?
Good influence or bad influence?
Well, that's my people, so we're goodies.
Yeah, you were.
You were a bunch of bastards.
Come on, you're horrible.
The harrowing of the North.
You feel brutal.
Yeah, so...
I don't know that...
as ruthless and brutalist as the Normans were, and they were, right?
At the same time, And what would become the English civilization really required the Normans for that catalyst and that forcing function.
And the real...
from the king to the prince to the common man.
Individual sovereignty is at the core of what Alfred said in motion.
In order to have individual sovereignty, you have to have the right to private property.
Again, from the king to the prince to the common man.
Because without private property, you can't own yourself.
You can't be sovereign because you don't own yourself.
You don't own your thoughts.
You don't own your labor.
You don't own your emotions, your future, your present, right?
So these were principles that Alfred the Great codified in the dooms of Alfred.
Which is what is common law, right?
That's where common law comes from.
And it's, of course, been refined, you know, over the centuries and the last millennia.
Those principles and then the further elaboration of what that means, individual sovereignty and private property and how that plays out and that was adjudicated and expanded upon, etc., etc.
By the time the Normans come along, all of that was fairly well established.
And what Alfred had done very, very well is he had realized that the British Isles needed to unify as a people because he had been in, I believe he had been in Charlemagne's court.
He had traveled to the continent.
He had seen what was happening there and how, you know, there were great forces and great powers that were developing on the continent.
And if the British Isles didn't come together as a people, as a unified people, they were going to get conquered.
At some point, what was going on in the continent was going to look west and cross the channel and conquer the English-speaking peoples.
And so, again, this started under Eckbert, his grandfather, really, and carried on by his father.
And so he realized, how do we unify the people of these islands?
They weren't the English-speaking peoples at the time, right?
How do you unify that?
Well, you have to have...
One, you have to have principles that everybody from the highest born to the lowest born will rally to.
Individual sovereignty, private property, first property itself.
That was in direct refutation.
And then the second piece is the rallying principles have to be in direct refutation of what's happening on the continent.
Did the French, for example, the Franks, not have these?
Nope.
Look at what developed out of their civilization, civil law.
Yeah.
French.
Right?
Fucking Frenchies.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So I worked in France for a little while.
I lived on the island of Corsica, though.
France is the only place I've been where every single person in the country genuinely believes they're better than every other single person in the country.
You've got to love the French.
I think that sums the French up.
The best I've ever been able to figure out.
So, you know, not to belabor a point, but what would become the English-speaking peoples?
That was the other thing.
He translated all the laws, all the literature, everything into English.
Old Frisian, right?
He did it on purpose so that we had a common linguistic group, right?
And he focused on literacy very heavily.
Got it up from, I don't know, in the low tens, maybe 5% or whatever.
He got it up into about 40% by the time of his grandson, which was unheard of in the world at the time.
And the other way in which he was able to bring all of this together is he...
And we've got the Scots and the Celts and the Britannis and, you know, etc., etc.
There's good pieces of each of those.
If we're going to meld them together, we've got to bring those pieces together into a single, you know, Conceptual whole, a civilizational whole, so that we can get all these people to come together, because if we don't, We are going to get conquered like happened when the Romans arrived.
Okay.
So we can agree.
Yeah.
Alfred and his grandfather.
Solid, solid guy.
And some of his Edward...
Now, back to the Normans, which was your question, terribly sorry.
I think the Normans were one of the best things that happened to us.
They said they gave us some round arches.
Well, they did, and some nice castles.
Got rid of that, you know, peasant-bought-mott-and-bailey stuff and gave us some right proffer stone castles, which we have these lovely ruins of today.
No, what William the Conqueror did, Being of Scandinavian descent, you know, he's this Norse Norman, right?
He fell in on a system that made a lot of sense, you know, made a lot of sense to them because a lot of those principles and concepts and ideas have been taken from the Dane Law.
And so what did he do?
He furthered, he again, part of the reason that Norm, that William took the islands is he needed a base of operation to go back and fight the continental Europeans.
Right.
And he needed the manpower and he needed the soldiers, you know, the soldiery of England and Scotland and Wales and later on.
But he needed the manpower, the warriors, to go fight in his armies to fight the Continentals.
Well, he wasn't going to be able to do that by wiping away what was now a 300-year-old or...
No, no, no.
He had to further refine that.
He had to further develop that.
He had to further strengthen and fortify that, you know, and that's what he did.
and William the Conqueror became more English than Alfred had ever been.
I think now we're ready to bring in Isabella, who you think is the other...
Eleanor.
Eleanor.
Sorry, Eleanor.
Yeah, yeah, Eleanor.
Isabella was also a fascinating character.
Aquitaine.
Aquitaine, yeah.
Yes.
Yes, who was Isabella Rongellem?
I'm sorry?
Who was Isabella?
Whose wife was she?
Ferdinand's.
Oh no, I'm thinking of somebody other No, Isabella Rongellam.
Who was she married to?
Oh, Rongellam.
I don't remember, honestly.
Yeah, I don't remember.
Okay, in the meantime, Eleanor of Aquitaine.
Aquitaine.
Why is she so important?
Well, because of her lands, the Duchy of Aquitaine, which were very extensive and very rich in France, right?
She had married the French king.
And then that marriage ended.
She married the English king.
Her, you know, John the Bastard, Richard the Lionheart, Cours de Lyon were her sons.
She was hugely influential in both French and English courts and nobility, actively engaged.
She mounted a coup against her own husband, Henry, with her sons.
I mean, she just...
And she was either the mother of, or the wife of, or the sponsor of the greatest men of the time.
Okay.
Who set the modern world in motion.
But in the instance of how I had mentioned her previous, we wouldn't have the Magna Carta, which was a substantive codification of common law and the recognition that English common law was primary in the land and that individual sovereignty and private property retained, remained as core principles.
Which later would be updated with the English Bill of Rights, not the English Constitution because that was a corporate raid takeover, but the English Bill of Rights and then later the American Constitution.
It's all of an arc.
But there was one man, William Marshall.
Oh, yes.
Lord Pembroke, right?
He escorted her in France.
It was her security and escort at one point, and then later he was captured, and she ransomed him and introduced him to her sons.
And he was hugely influential in the life of Richard's older brother.
So William Marshall grew up with the family and was part of the family and was Eleanor's champion with the family.
And the sons.
And he and his choices helped shape English and therefore world history.
He's the one that stood up to John after John signed the Magna Carta and forced John to honour it a couple of years later.
I'll bet you fancy yourself as a William Marshall, don't you?
Oh, I'm not.
I'm not so.
I think I enjoy scotch a wee bit too much.
No, I know that he was.
He was the preeminent knight.
For a very long period.
Correct.
I would say, he's still recognized today, right?
But I would say, the word, there's a specific word, I can't remember it right now, a little bit of word recall still from the head injuries.
I believe that he was the preeminent, And he gave good advice.
He gave good advice, and then he stood by it with his sword and his men and rallied other men to him.
But where that relationship started, where that began, was with Her Majesty Eleanor of Aquitaine recognizing the caliber and substantiveness of that young man when he was a knight such that she ransomed him.
There's been talk, you know, they had affairs.
There's nothing that indicates that at all, right?
He would then go on because of her sponsorship in the family and in, you know, just in the peerage, etc.
And he would be hugely influential, never once by trying to supplant the power of the king, never once by trying to abuse his position, always by, you know, trying to figure out how to...
By the way, Isabella of Angoulême was married to John.
Oh!
Yeah.
So I was...
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Is that the one that his mother hated?
Maybe.
I mean, that's usually the way, isn't it?
With mother-in-laws.
Fair enough.
So, King John, goodie or baddie?
Baddie.
Okay.
I don't want to put it that way.
It's not a baddie.
He was just a weak bastard.
Okay, weak bastard.
Was Richard any better?
Richard was too strong.
Too into his wall.
Well, too much into the Marshall side of things, right?
And this is where William Marshall is really rather extraordinary.
There are seven elements of power.
Diplomacy, information, Marshall, military, economics, finance, intelligence, and law enforcement, which is really legal.
So the seven elements of power have been here since the beginning of time.
And if you are to be a good leader, you must be proficient across all seven elements.
Now, you might, because of your nature, your instinct, your uniqueness, be good at two or three of them above the others, but you need to be proficient across all seven.
If you're not, then you need to have people around you who can compensate for that.
For Richard, he was very good at the M. And very good at the D and the M, right?
Diplomacy and Marshall.
And he was a pretty good diplomatic person.
Of course, he could back it up with his armies, right?
And his sword.
But he was unbalanced.
He wasn't as good in the economic side.
He wasn't so good in the finance side or, you know, the legal side.
John wasn't strong across any of them.
Now, John, interestingly, was somewhat stronger on the legal side because he tried to use the English courts to, you know, extort the people to such a degree that the princes, you know, the barons and their people rose up against him.
So he was good at one.
But William Marshall, on the other hand, which is what I think Her Majesty saw in him, Eleanor of Aquitaine saw in him, is that he was actually innately skilled across all seven and understood that you needed to be...
right?
And then he died shortly there some months after, right?
Yeah.
We've got a lot to cover in short space.
So tell me when it all went to pot in England.
When did the baddies start creeping in and subverting the system?
It started in Henry Tudor's court and it happened it began as the counter to the Formation creation of the Church of England and the removal of the Catholic Church and the power of the Vatican and the Pope over the English King.
That's where the information operations against the English civilization, English culture, English history, it's where it all began as a way to try and subvert Henry VIII's efforts to break free of continental Europe.
But you're saying it happened in the reign of Henry VII?
Henry VIII is the one that separated the...
Sorry, perhaps I misheard you.
I thought you said Henry VII.
No, no, forgive me.
Forgive me if I did.
I meant Henry VIII, yeah.
Okay, so Henry VIII.
Yes, and then they thought that they had gained the advantage with Queen Mary, but she was way the top over bad shit crazy.
And then she died, or was removed and died, but I can't remember exactly.
But the real all-out destroy English history, civilization, recognition of themselves as a civilization, etc., that effort happened full-on during the court of Queen Elizabeth I. And that's, right?
And it was an all-out press of who's going to replace her.
So this fight, this dirtying of English history and sense of themselves as potentially as civilizational people, etc., began all out with Henry VIII full-on.
It's a war under Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth I. She did an extraordinary job.
And she was also crazy and insane, but she was actually really good at what she was doing.
Where it all really started to come undone, however, was in the reign of Charles I. It's where it really started to come undone, and it wasn't because of his majesty.
Where it broke, and where we've been in trouble ever since, where we've been...
Britain should look five times more beautiful everywhere than in continental Europe because of the wealth of the British Empire.
Tell me about it.
Where did it all go?
I mean, it quite literally should look everywhere.
The smallest little hamlet should be the most beautiful.
You can still see the vestiges as well.
You can still see.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
It breaks the heart.
Yeah.
And we have the problems here, right?
It's happening here as well, right?
You know, my beloved San Francisco, right?
Yeah.
So where it broke is when we allowed our king to be killed.
Okay, just going back to...
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Who were the...
So you're saying...
Who were the baddies in the Elizabethan times?
Because presumably all her secret agents and spies, you know, Walsingham and so on, Cecil, these were all loyalists.
They were good, yeah?
Yeah.
Who were the forces of darkness that time?
I don't know the exact names, etc.
And for me, I look less at individuals, unless they're an extraordinary individual like William Marshall, like Alfred the Great, etc.
More what I look at is factions, factional forces, because individuals can come and go.
In a factional force, you might not actually know the name of the two or three people who are really driving it, but you can know the Markovian.
You're familiar with, like, Markov blankets and Markov processes, etc.?
No, what's that?
So, Markovian, you know, mathematics, Markovian systems and physics, etc.
You can see perturbations and movements in something you can perceive, but the perturbations and movements are being caused by something or some things that you can't see.
And so you have ability to...
And I can't see the faction exactly.
I can't see who's inside it and exactly what they're doing, but I can see the impact on systems that I'm engaged in and systems that I'm working with.
And I can, you know, I can ascertain that there's some kind of an organizing force that's causing these types of perturbations in the system I'm engaged in, and that's a Markovian process, Markovian system, etc., right?
So I look at factions and what were the four – There was the Crown and the Royalist.
There were nobles that were unhappy that their family had not come out better than the Tudors in the War of the Roses.
And so they were trying to right that wrong.
There was the Catholic Church that was not going to take it laying down.
They just lost one of their biggest cash cows.
Right?
And what was shaping up as a substantive maritime power that was probably going to be an empire at some point, and that was a whole future earnings that was getting taken off the board for them.
And then there was the Dutch.
There were the Venetian bankers and the Dutch who were like, well, there's an empire over there that's starting to develop and we better get in there and we better get in there now.
Now, because, you know, the trend on future earnings of that are going to be quite substantive.
We can collateralize all the fuckery we're going to be, you know, we intend to unleash here over the centuries on the continent.
You know, this financialist kill chain.
We can use the collateral assets that the British are going to, you know, that these English...
I tell you what, this has completely changed my view on the Dutch.
To what extent?
Okay, so we know that these are ex-Venetian bankers who've moved over to Amsterdam and places because they're a similar environment.
To what extent Was banking, usury, a Jewish thing, and to what extent was it a something else thing?
No.
The whole Jew thing is a trope.
It's a trope.
It doesn't mean that there haven't been Jews that have benefited from it, right?
So I look at the Jews in Europe as the whipping boys.
You're familiar with that old term, yes?
Yeah, sure.
Yeah, so...
Hey, you can all come into Europe.
You can come live in our kingdoms.
You can build wealth.
You can build assets.
We need your managerial capacities.
We need your, you know, It wasn't science, etc.
We need your administrative managerial capacities because we're sending our men off to war to go steal collateral from other parts of the world.
We don't have the manpower.
We're educating and training our young men to be men of war.
We need a managerial class to come in.
Sometimes some things are going to go bad.
We're going to have to do some horrible things to our people because it's going to get out of balance, etc.
And you guys are going to take the blame for it.
You're going to be the whipping boy.
And I think the deal was made.
and I think they've filled that role very well to this very day.
The banking factor I mean, I was in Florence recently and I know that a lot of the people who got rich in Florence were bankers.
Did they when they moved to Amsterdam, did they keep the Italian names or did they did they?
Did they?
Yeah, now, just so you know, the Dutch already had a similar system, probably having bought it from the Venetians.
So it wasn't that they filled in and took over and conquered the Dutch.
No, no, no.
It wasn't a hostile takeover.
Right.
Or it wasn't a shareholder buyout, right?
It was a merger of functions and operations.
That explosion in Delft, you know, when the armories blew up and took most of the time with it?
Yeah.
I bet that was a...
was a...
that was organised.
*cough*
These things don't, they don't block by accident.
Well, sometimes.
Sometimes people are clumsy, right?
Sometimes people are clumsy and accidents happen, but generally, no.
We can't for a moment think that our English forebears and Scottish, but the Crown was stupid and dumb and weak and wasn't aware of what we call intelligence preparation of the battlefield that wasn't happening by all these other factions, right?
and that they weren't doing all in their power to counter that without getting it to the level of open war.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I, so the, the, the monarchy got, So you had Charles II, the Restoration.
And then you had this weird James II, who was a Catholic, briefly.
And then he got replaced by William and Mary.
Okay, so...
Beginning with the bloody Civil War.
Cromwell tried to stop it.
Unfortunately, his son wasn't strong enough to be a strong man like his father, and he didn't have the support.
So the Dutch funded the parliamentarians?
Yes, Pym.
Pym is the biggest traitor in the history of the English-speaking peoples.
Pym.
Okay.
The British East India Company and the Dutch East India Company.
And let's talk about what was happening in the early part of the 1600s along the Thames industry.
The first industrial boom was happening along the Thames.
The Thames, yeah, the Thames River.
Okay, thank you.
In order to set up a factory or a warehouse, You had to have a royal charter.
And you had to pay a tax.
And they didn't want to do that.
The Dutch didn't.
Right?
And they needed capital.
They needed funding and finance.
And they wanted to participate in the four-stock stuff.
Well, the Dutch provided that capital.
They also had to work with the guilds because the guilds were the regulators, the regulatory bodies of their time and the university, the trades, the trade schools, etc.
And so they needed the trades to reorient themselves from classical traditional guild stuff to these new industries.
So they needed the guilds on their side.
Guilds are about money.
They're about, just like the frickin' regulators today, you know, their extortion racket, right?
Yeah.
The guilds also had a second thing.
The guilds had the bully boys.
They had a, you know, for all intents and purposes, they had a army of 10,000 men, which was all the students in the guilds, etc.
Um, Parliamentary.
Parliamentarians wanted power.
They didn't want to be subject to the king.
They wanted this liberal democracy because that puts power in the hands of parliament, not in the princes, not in the king, not in the people, with the illusion of the people.
But it puts power in the parliamentarians, which are backed by their own army, which is all the bureaucracy that they build out.
And that endures.
And what it was is a power play.
The industrialists didn't want to be beholden to the king.
The parliamentarians wanted the power of the king and the princes, because the king only had so much power, really, right?
We've never ever really had an absolute monarch, right?
And the guild saw this new opportunity with this new industry and new business.
Wanted to retool and restructure, and some of the guild leaders, etc., just got paid off.
And it was a coup against the crown.
And Pim led it in the parliament.
Pim is the one who orated.
Pim was the one that led all of this fight.
He's also the one that coordinated the industrialists and coordinated the guilds.
Pim was a Dutch stooge because the Dutch came along and said, hey, here's this liberal democracy structure you can use.
Here's the arguments.
Here's the narratives.
Here's some capital.
Here's some finance.
Here's how you're going to be in power.
I've forgotten what happened to Pim.
Did he get got in the end?
I don't remember, actually.
I think he might have been imprisoned for a while, I think.
I think he was in prison for a while, but I mean, Cromwell comes along, he thinks, you know, and oh, by the way, where were the Puritans, right?
Puritans were in continental Europe, right?
Weren't they in Holland?
I don't know exactly where they were.
Who sent them back to England?
Who financed them and who backed them?
I haven't really thought about this before.
No.
Okay, so, so, Yes.
But then you had the restoration.
Well, then you had Cromwell who tried to prevent this kill chain from being, you know, the financial kill chain from being embedded in England, in what would become the United Kingdom.
So the Commonwealth was this sort of good, was… You know, the Commonwealth was a righteous thing, etc., and then he realized, holy cow, we're actually fighting the wrong damn enemy.
We're being used.
We've been set up, right?
And maybe this thing that we ended was actually pretty damn good.
The Restoration, you put a drunk, womanizing, useless king on the throne that has no power to do anything because power had already shifted to Parliament.
The bully boys were already the muscle in London.
Right?
The guilds had already shifted loyalties to the corporations from the princes and their needs.
You know, the industry.
Industry had already taken off and gained substantively in wealth creation, etc.
And they want to expand all of that with Dutch capital and the markets that the Dutch made available to them as well.
If you're going to, but the English people weren't really having it.
Why?
Because it turns out And this is another uniquely English thing.
Turns out we're kind of a pretty loyal people.
You can't really buy our loyalties.
Now you can some here and there, but we're actually pretty loyal to our civilization.
We're pretty loyal to our crown.
We might not like who's wearing it now, and might not quite like where it's going.
But it's ours, and it's been with us since the 800s, right?
700s.
And we fought that out numerous times.
Our ancestors fought for this.
You know, for centuries.
It turns out we're pretty loyal to it, particularly because of the two principles, right?
Individual sovereignty and private property.
Those are worth fighting for.
So, if you're going, if you can't, if you believe you're going to have to fight the English people, and they're going to put a king up there that will, at some point, you're going to get a Richard the Lionheart, and he is going to go to war with you, and he's probably going to kill you.
Right?
And so you're going to have to put a king on the throne that's your person, yours.
Straight up yours.
But you have to have legitimacy to do it.
You can't just buy force of arms because then the English will rise up and you'll get the Duke of York or one of the Percy's or somebody and we'll rally behind them and we'll freaking kill you.
Right?
Yeah.
So you've got to have legitimacy.
So what do you do?
You put a puppet steward back on the throne.
He's got no power.
He's nobody without you.
Power's already shifted, right?
But it's tenuous.
It's not locked in yet.
Okay.
You let another king, James II, you use the argument that he's a Catholic and I can't remember the...
It's all made-up BS anyways, and who knows that he's bloody Catholic.
You know, probably not true.
It's just made up, whatever.
Okay?
And then you do what you had intended to do all along.
You send William of Orange over, who's got further legitimacy, because who's he married to?
A Stuart daughter.
So now you've got whatever happens now when you replace who's wearing the crown with your man, your corporate guy, right?
It all has legitimacy.
And you do all this informational stuff, all this information warfare, and you call it the Glorious Revolution.
It was a fucking palace coup.
The guy came with a fucking army funded by the fucking Dutch, right?
Directly.
He was fucking Dutch and they put him on the throne.
Right.
That's not a glorious revolution.
people had nothing.
Forgive my language, everybody, but I'm still a little bitter about it.
It hurts.
You're still sore.
And I can see why.
I mean, when they call it this hostile takeover and they call it the Glorious Revolution.
Glorious my bottom.
Well, it was glorious for them because they just enslaved the English-speaking people for the next 340 years to this very day.
So this is when the Bank of England gets created.
Six years later, they create the Bank of England.
Well, first, they use their puppet king.
To carve out a separate territory as the City of London so that they can move their headquarters there.
And then what is their new corporation in the new jurisdiction that is the holding company for everything that they're going to do around the world?
The Bank of England.
It's not a bank.
It's a bloody holding company.
Right.
So all the corporate structures that enable them to...
Right?
Like the Bank of England is like the finance department of a major multinational corporation.
The major multinational corporation was the British East India Company, but the British East India Company had...
All set in motion and made possible by the Civil War.
And then all of that, so you don't get the English-speaking peoples, you know, the loyal Englishmen to rise up, you have to cloud all of it with information warfare.
All out, nonstop for centuries.
And you have to do everything you can to cloud and scrub away any memory, any history, anything that has anything to do that allows the English-speaking people to recognize their actual history and to recognize themselves as a civilizational people.
You have to enslave them culturally, historically, to the continent of Europe, quite despite the fact that we developed indirect refutation of that.
No, I've always thought of...
I mean, certainly in the last five years, I've thought of the Enlightenment as the endarkenment.
So that was just the kind of the artistic and scientific embedding, if you like, Yes, it's financialist culture.
Absolutely.
You have to, when you are going to enslave a population, you have to, in this passive-aggressive way, right, this estrogen way, you have to condition them for it.
You have to culturally, spiritually, intellectually condition them for it.
Some people must have noticed.
Dr. Johnson, did he see this stuff going on?
Yes.
You know who also saw it?
Princes.
Actual hereditary princes.
And so they've been under siege.
Hereditary princes have been under siege since the 13th, 14th century.
By the 16th century.
Of.
By the 16th century.
I don't know.
Nobody directly comes to mind.
Because, I mean, in a way, you look at our rule.
I think in factions.
I think in factions.
Look at our royal family now.
The royal family has been completely co-opted by...
They're Germans.
Yeah, they are.
They're illegitimate.
William and Mary.
So we brought over George V Yeah, we brought over the Hanoverians.
Yeah.
And then we brought over another German.
They didn't even speak English, did they?
No.
Then we brought over the house of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, which is who sits on the throne now.
Yeah.
Now, I'm going to give you a proviso there, okay?
I'm gonna give you a proviso While a quick mickey was done in 1688 to put a foreigner on the throne and give him, you know, The legitimacy, and that's just been replicated since, our crown has been occupied by continental Europeans since 1688.
For the first time in that period of time, though, the crown prince is actually genetically predominantly English.
You know, English-speaking civilization, you know, the English civilization.
He's Scottish and English because of his mother and because of his...
Yeah, his Royal Highness.
He's a wrong one.
He's probably the Antichrist, you realize.
I think that's rubbish.
I think that's rubbish.
Well, we've already established that we have slight differences on...
Back to the Praetorians.
How have these kings, how have these monarchs in 1688 been kept in check?
How have they been kept maintained?
How have they been controlled from within?
Do you think they've been operating independently?
No.
From Holland?
From Amsterdam and Brussels?
Because Brussels is a spin-out.
Their house guard.
MI6, the intelligence community.
That's all Dutch.
Do you think Wollsingham's stuff's any more of that's left?
That's all gone.
That's great.
You see, I do love it.
I do love a new rabbit hole.
And the only way to do that is their intelligence and security has kept their family threatened of mortal danger.
Since the day they put William on the throne.
There's no other way.
You do not allow anybody who could potentially rally the banners and raise the English against them.
You cannot, for a moment, allow them to not be watched and guarded and protected and every once in a while destroy one of theirs so they know, yeah, no, no, we're still here and yes, we will still fuck you up.
I feel that we are at the beginning.
Of the next podcast we should do.
Because we've just got to the sort of level where it all starts.
And I'm not Joe Rogan, luckily.
This is more than a decent length.
And it's been great talking to you.
I feel that you've got lots more to say.
You have, haven't you?
Yeah.
We have to restore the English civilization.
To restore the English civilization, we have to restore our princes or princes restore the king.
It doesn't mean that the king has ultimate power and all that, but that's never the way it was anyways.
It was always a balance of power between princes, people, and parliament, government.
The king is just the executor, like the president, of the three branches of government.
But we must restore ourselves.
Will you come back and tell me more sometime?
Absolutely.
Okay, cool.
Tell us where we can read your stuff, find your work, etc.
So Ian Burlingame on Twitter is probably the best.
Do know that I drink some scotch sometimes and say some rather inappropriate things.
Just fair warning.
emberlingame.substack.com On Substack, I'm serializing a novel that's called As Rome Burns, and it's about William Marshall and Order of Nights that he and L.O.N.R.
of Aquitaine started 800 years ago and how they're playing out in the modern world and the Restoration Protocol.
I go into a lot of I think I'm up to chapter 22 right now that are already available.
I've probably got about 20 more chapters before it's finished.
But in there, in that, you know, I have a few books.
The two that I would recommend on Amazon are The Eternal War, which is the deep underlying principles of everything, and then The Art of Being a Man.
Ray Great That's Great.
You've tempted me.
Thank you so much.
I really enjoyed this, and I do want you back.
And everyone, hey, you've enjoyed this podcast.
I didn't even need to ask you whether you've enjoyed it.
You've enjoyed it.
So do consider being one of those people, those special, special, special people.
I love you all, but the ones who support me, subscribe.
You know, financially, that is.
Obviously, you should subscribe, not financially.
But the ones who make the extra effort, I really appreciate it.
You'll find me on Substack, on Locals, Patreon, if you want to do that.
Remember to support my sponsors.
Well, it's in your interest.
They're good.
They sell stuff that you want.
Buy me a coffee.
I like your coffees, and I like your messages.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I love you all.
And I've got a live event coming up soon.
Which I'll be announcing when I've found a venue and stuff.
Thank you once again, EM Burlingham.
It's been great.
I've been enlightened and intrigued and fascinated.
So thank you.
I'm just a silly storyteller.
No, I like it.
I like it.
I like it.
You've been there, man.
You've done stuff that I haven't.
Thank you.
Yes, thank you.
I'm going to go off and have a All right.
Well, I'm going to go eat some breakfast then.
Oh, yeah.
Sorry to have kept you for your breakfast.
Oh, no, no, no.
But, to be fair, intermittent fasting, later breakfasts are better for you.
Yeah.
I find if you fill the gap with a little sniff of scotch first thing in the morning, it helps you get through the fast.
