Richard Poe is the New York Times bestselling of several books including How The British Invented Communism (And Blamed It On The Jews). Poe presents his remarkably persuasive ‘Brits are the real baddies’ case to James, who is nonetheless not wholly convinced that the Rothschilds should be let off the hook.
Richardpoe.com
↓ ↓ ↓
Tickets are now available for the James x Dick Christmas Show 2025 on Saturday, 6th December.
See website for details:
https://www.jamesdelingpole.co.uk/Shop/?section=events#events
↓ ↓ ↓
If you need silver and gold bullion - and who wouldn’t in these dark times? - then the place to go is The Pure Gold Company. Either they can deliver worldwide to your door - or store it for you in vaults in London and Zurich. You even use it for your pension. Cash out of gold whenever you like: liquidate within 24 hours.
https://bit.ly/James-Delingpole-Gold
↓ ↓
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, JD 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/jamesdelingpole
The official website of James Delingpole:https://jamesdelingpole.co.uk
x
Welcome to the Delling Pod with me, James Dellingpole.
And I'm sorry.
I've got some really bad news for you.
I've had to move the date of the Dick and James Christmas special.
I'm really sorry about this.
It was completely unavoidable.
But I really apologise to those of you who've already got your tickets and were fully lined up to come in in November.
And now I'm moving the date.
I hope you can make the new one.
I pray you can make the new one.
It's December the 6th.
It has the advantage of being a Saturday rather than a Friday, so you won't have to take the day off work if that weekend is free for you.
I hope it is.
If not, obviously you're going to get a full refund.
And I'm really, really sorry.
Those of you who haven't bought your tickets yet, well, you're in luck.
This may be a much better day for you.
December the 6th, the Saturday.
There'll be all sorts of fun there.
I mean, my Christmas party is becoming legendary.
There will be, I mean, I'm giving away no secrets here.
There will be a performance in Jerusalem.
There might be some other Christmas, well, some Christmas carols.
There will be a festive atmosphere.
No, I won't wear this jumper probably.
It's a bit hot.
The unregistered chickens are playing, of course.
Dick, we're talking to me.
You remember Dick, my brother?
He's the one with the moustache.
And yes, there will be bell ringing for the special special on the special special VIP tickets and other perks.
And there'll be, I mean, the food is extra, but it's really nice.
The caterers are really good.
It's actually stuff you'd want to eat.
And cash bar, nice venue.
Everyone who comes to these things says, I'm so happy I came because it's really, as I keep saying, it's really not about me.
Although, obviously, I'm mildly interesting.
It's not even about Dick.
It's about you.
This is a wonderful occasion for the gathering of the clans, of the tribes, and everyone there is like the best friend you've never met.
Or maybe you have met them before and you love them anyway.
it'll be fun December what did I say December the 6th.
And I promise you I won't move the date again.
Saturday, December the 6th, James and Dick's Christmas special.
Details below.
I love Delipole.
Go and subscribe to the podcast.
I love Daddy Pole.
And listen on the town, subscribe with me.
I love Delling Pole.
To the Delling Pod 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 word from one of our sponsors.
Have you seen what the price of gold has been doing recently?
It's been going bonkers.
And I hate to say I told you so, but I did kind of tell you so.
But if it's any consolation, even though I do have some gold and bought some a while back, I didn't buy nearly enough.
It's like when you go to the casino and you wait, you win on 36 and you only put down a fiver and you think, why didn't I put down 50?
If you've got that feeling that you haven't got enough gold, or if you haven't got any gold and you really feel you ought to get some, the place to go is the Pure Gold Company.
They sell gold bullion and silver bullion in the form of coins or in the form of bars, which you can either store in London or in Switzerland, or you can have it delivered to your own home if you can work out where to store the stuff.
I think that gold, what do I know?
I mean, I'm no expert, but I've been right so far.
I think gold and silver right now are an essential, maybe even more so silver, actually, because silver, I think, has yet to take off.
Just my opinion.
I'm not a financial advisor.
I reckon that it's worth holding both of them at the moment.
And you don't want them, of course, you don't want to buy paper gold.
You don't want to buy paper silver.
You don't want to buy ETFs.
You want to buy the actual physical thing.
Go to the Pure Gold Company and you will be put in touch with one of their advisors.
And they will talk you through the process, which you want to do, whether you want to have it in bullion or in coins.
I mean, there are advantages to having coins because coins are considered, well, Britannia is anyway, considered legal tender, which means that you don't pay tax.
Weirdly, this, but even my accountant didn't know this.
You don't pay tax at the moment on your profits.
Go to the Pure Gold Company.
They will talk you through all these things.
And follow the link.
Follow the link below this podcast and it will give you all the details.
Go to the Pure Gold Company and they will give you what you need, be it gold or silver.
Do it before it goes up even more.
I think you'd be mad not to.
Welcome to the Delling Pod, Richard Poe.
You don't know this, but I've actually been wanting to have you on the podcast for ages, and I just never got around to it.
I just thought, well, he'll do it sometime and it'll be great.
I tell you what clinched it for me.
I don't really know.
I've just been in Russia.
And when I was there, I heard a story that I hadn't really heard before.
And I'm sure that this is what you've written about.
I haven't read your book yet, but I'm going to.
I'm famous for not doing my research.
I'm sorry about that.
It's part of my brand.
But I heard this story, which you can probably elaborate on, about how the British were basically responsible for the Bolshevik revolution.
Well, the British and Americans.
That's not the Americans off the hook, because the Americans are bastards as well.
I think.
You may correct me.
The Bolshevik Revolution was really a sort of Anglo-American project to destroy Russia.
Is that true?
Well, yes, in part, although I will admit my bias up front, that when you say the Americans are bastards too, I would agree with that.
Certainly with regards to myself, I'm sure that's true and most of my countrymen.
But there was a famous person who said they're bastards, but they're our bastards, something like that.
I guess that's my attitude.
So when you say that it was an Anglo-American project, possibly it's my bias kicking in, but I have a tendency in my writings for which I'm sometimes criticized, perhaps justly, of being much more tolerant of the faults of Americans and much more inclined to emphasize those of the British.
So with that warning, I will say it is my finding, it is my belief that the Bolshevik Revolution was really a British project and that the Americans were manipulated to the extent the Americans took part in it.
They were manipulated.
I could be wrong about that.
I admit my bias, but there it is.
I don't want to go to the money shot yet, because I like to have a bit of, you know, a bit of foreplay and stuff first.
I think we should find out more about you.
Tell me about yourself.
Well, I'm all my life, my adult life, I've been a writer, a journalist, sometimes freelance, sometimes not.
I wrote many books.
I'm a New York Times best-selling author.
And I was, well, I've done, you know, I've been a newspaper reporter, New York Post, senior editor of Success Magazine, managing editor of the East Village Eye.
I wrote a book that's pretty well known with my former boss, the late David Horowitz, called The Shadow Party.
I used to work for David on and off for about six years in the early 2000s, worked for his think tank, edited his website.
So I've done a lot of things, always in the area of writing journalism.
And I don't know if there's much more to say about that.
Yeah, well, so I was a, for most of my career, I was a journalist in the mainstream media.
And I used to think this was a great job to have because although I wasn't paid as much as my university contemporaries who went into law and finance and even business, I had a much more interesting life and I became, I think I stayed younger as a result because nobody really owned me to the same degree you'd be owned if, say, you worked for Goldman Sachs.
I mean, your ass is theirs.
So never once during my mainstream journalism career did I question either the general paradigm that we taught about history and the world, or particularly the one that applies to journalism.
I thought that we spoke truth to power and that we were interested in finding out stuff without fear or favor and that our job was to pursue the truth.
And then sort of, well, actually the starter was the Trump, was the stolen Trump election, which irked me.
What irks me particularly about it was the failure of my journalistic colleagues, who I thought were also interested in the pursuit of truth, their failure to even acknowledge that such a thing had happened or even countenance it.
And then along came COVID.
Sorry, this is very boring for my regular listeners, but I ought to explain to you because I'm going to ask you a question about this.
Then along came COVID, which I think was completely fake, and the population was coerced into taking these kill shots.
And journalism was nowhere to be seen in exposing this.
I mean, nobody in the mainstream media was reporting on this because they were owned by the enemy.
Now, I was going to ask you, have you been on a similar journey, or do you still have faith in the media?
Oh, I have no faith at all.
Thank you.
I'd say probably my trajectory has been similar to yours, except that I was probably more inclined to be skeptical earlier.
I certainly was already thoroughly disillusioned by the time Trump became president.
And I'd say, well, when I started being a professional journalist back in the 1980s, I think one of the very first articles I wrote about was about the Trilateral Commission.
So I was already getting pretty deep into that and probably unwisely writing about it in a naive sort of way.
And maybe that's where my naivety kicked in, that I was aware of things like the Trilateral Commission and intensely interested in them.
But what I perhaps didn't understand is how unwise it was to talk about such a thing.
I didn't appreciate that, but I certainly do now.
Who was publishing that?
Well, my first real job was with the Syracuse New Times.
It was a so-called alternative weekly newspaper in Syracuse, New York, where I was born and raised.
And it was one of these very left-wing weekly papers that popped up in the late 60s, early 70s.
They were all pretty much of a kind.
They were all very similar to each other.
And some of the more famous examples would be the Village Voice in New York City.
That was probably one of the more preeminent ones.
But every city, every large town had one of these, and ours was called the Syracuse New Times.
So there was always, even in 1984, when I started working there, there was always the sense that we are an alternative newspaper and we're speaking truth to power and all that, as you were discussing.
And so there was actually quite a lot of leeway to write sort of unusual or avant-garde things on strange subjects as long as you weren't doing anything suggestive of a conservative or right-wing nature.
And at that time, I was never really a leftist, but I was certainly left-leaning at that time.
I was a left-leaning libertarian, a type that there's quite a lot of.
So I sort of, you know, my idea of being a dissident had a very left-wing tinge to it at that time, and that was acceptable in the media of that time, or at least it was acceptable in the alternative media.
But I was always, I'd say, probably unusually open-minded about all kinds of points of view and reading all kinds of publications from way back.
I was never really doctrinaire about any political ideology.
That's just not my nature.
I'm not doctrinaire by nature, which is probably a fault, I'm sure.
I don't know.
I think it's quite a useful skill to have now.
Whether it's a monetizable skill is probably moot.
That's what I meant.
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, well, it ain't, is it?
Because they like you.
The people who run the world like you to they like you to pick sides.
So when I was Being a kind of outspoken libertarian, sort of a South Park conservative, I think I described myself at one point.
I thought that I was that I was being me and I was expressing my intelligent views about how the world really is.
And I didn't realize at the time that I was just playing a role.
I mean, I was not deliberately playing a role, but I was playing my part in the divide and rule process by which the people who control the world manage the populace, I suppose.
Yes, I like to say that we are all controlled opposition in the sense that if any of us is even being allowed to have a platform, it's because on some level, some way or somehow, we are deemed to be harmless, or at least not terribly harmful.
Those who are deemed to be a serious threat are not allowed to have a platform.
And well, just that I'll leave it at that.
I think it really is true.
I think we are all controlled opposition, each in our own ways.
Some of us are much more consciously so.
Some of us are well compensated for being that.
Unfortunately, I'm not among them.
No, same.
But you know what?
Actually, that would really suck.
I would absolutely hate it.
I mean, I'd like the money, don't get me wrong.
If I had kind of Mr. Gazillionaire who just wanted to give me money, just like he just thought I was cool, that would be fine.
But it always comes with strings attached when you get given large sums of money.
Always.
And then you've lost your soul.
You've sold your soul, literally.
Well, I tend to agree with that.
And likewise, I tend to agree that behind every great fortune is a great crime.
Somebody said that once.
Maybe it was in a movie.
I don't know.
But yeah, but there are so many ways to be corrupted, and they don't all involve people dumping large sums of money on you.
Corruption is everywhere.
Temptation is everywhere.
Compromise is everywhere.
At this stage in my life, James, I guess if I have grown in cynicism, the theme you raised earlier, if my cynicism and skepticism has grown in any way, it's that I no longer aspire to such goals as speaking truth to power, changing the world, things like that.
My ambitions have evaporated to almost nothing.
So all I really want to do is get the next book out and try to contribute some little piece of the truth with basically no hope whatsoever that it's going to affect anything in this world.
And I've completely made my peace with that.
And I think it's important to make that sort of piece because I'm quite sure that nothing I do is going to affect any larger things out there.
That sounds quite a black-pilled position.
Oh, sorry.
To me, it's comforting.
There was no moral judgment in that term black-pilled.
I'm always interested where people are on the spectrum because I mean, most of us do go through the black-pilled stage, and some people stay there.
I went on to the white-pilled stage, where I suddenly realized that God's got the answer to this, and it's all sort of been written, predicted in the scriptures.
Let me say, I do believe in God.
I'm just not persuaded that, well, never mind.
I'll shut up.
No, well, we can always imagine that one.
So I've been about five years, maybe, properly in the conspiracy realm.
And the question you eventually get to is: well, who is running the world?
Who are the people responsible for this bad stuff?
And I've done various podcasts.
There was a guy, E.L. Birlingham, who's convinced it's the Dutch, which is a good one to me.
There's another one.
I saw that interview.
I saw your interview with him.
Sorry.
I mean, he says a lot of interesting stuff, and I'm convinced by at least some of his arguments.
I met this guy on a trip to Moldova last year or the year before, who gave a very articulate account about it's really the Phoenicians.
Everything is to do with the Phoenicians.
Obviously, you get the people who say it's the Jews, which I imagine you're probably because you're Jewish or you've got Jewish ancestry.
My father was Jewish, but I was raised in my mother's faith, a Catholic.
Isn't it weird?
I know there's a guy, there's a very prominent Jew in British TV who is not technically Jewish because his mother is not Jewish.
And it must really piss him off because he wants to play the Jew card and be with, you know, and he can't.
He can't quite because it's weird that, isn't it?
So technically, you are not Jewish.
Well, only in the eyes of anti-Semites.
I mean, that's to be very precise.
You're not Jewish in the eyes of the Jewish community, but you are definitely Jewish in the eyes of anyone who hates or dislikes Jews.
So it is a little odd, but no more so than most other things.
No, but I thought it was the other way around.
I thought it was Jews who were kind of quite prescriptive about this.
You know, quite snobbish, if truth be told.
Well, that's what I'm saying.
So someone like me who's see, I'm not Jewish on two counts, according to halakha, Jewish law.
One, the wrong parent is Jewish.
It's my father, not my mother.
But two, I'm a Christian.
I was raised in the Catholic faith.
So either one of those in and of itself would be sufficient under Jewish law to utterly bar you from being able to identify as a Jew.
But what I'm saying is for people like me who are halakhically not Jewish, nonetheless, people who hate Jews or dislike Jews, they definitely consider me to be Jewish.
And if I try to explain this point, the very point I'm trying to explain to you, as I sometimes do try to explain to people who are saying, you are a Jew, Richard Poe, blah, blah, blah.
And I say, well, technically, I'm really not.
They think it's some kind of trick.
Yeah.
Some Jewish trick.
No, exactly.
They think I'm trying to pull their leg or something.
And they don't understand it.
It's just exactly the way it is.
So it's, you know, it's strange.
But as I said, no stranger than anything else.
It's a strange world we live in.
And I do think E.M. Berlingame has a point.
I think the Dutch have played some nefarious role in some aspects of history.
But just thought I'd toss that out there.
Right.
Yeah.
Well, I've got to have him back on again because we'd only just got to the sort of halfway through his story and we hadn't really talked about the Dutch takeover of Britain and etc.
So yeah, we've got that to look forward to.
Anyway, I was going through the list of evil potential candidates for the evil dark rulers of the world.
So we've got the Phoenicians, the Jews, the, what was the other one I mentioned?
And then we've got the Jesuits, some people who say, oh, it's the Jesuits.
And the Black Nobility.
I don't know what they fit into it.
But so when you were doing your researching, when you decided to finger the British, who exactly do you mean?
Who are these baddies?
And where do they come from?
Well, as far as I can tell so far, it seems to be, let's say, elements of the British aristocracy, along with other groups who may be helping them and profiting from the relationship.
But it does appear to me that it's the aristocracy or elements thereof.
And one of the points that I make in my book, I don't know if you mentioned the name of it.
It's called How the British Invented Communism and Blamed It on the Jews.
Good title.
Thank you.
One of the points that I make is that the result of World War I and all the things that happened during World War I, including the Russian revolutions, is that basically all of the competitors to the British royal family, let's say, were eliminated.
All of the crown heads of Europe, most of them, at least the important ones, the Habsburgs and the Hohenzollerns and the Romanoffs and all them, they were all deposed.
And a lot of people will think, well, this must have come as a blow to the British aristocracy or the British royal family, but I don't think that's true at all.
These were their competitors.
And what I have seen is a concerted effort going back throughout the whole what we call the Age of Revolution, a concerted effort by the British ruling class to eliminate their rival aristocratic families and to replace them with republics, possibly because republics are easier to manipulate.
And because it is my belief that the British have devoted themselves, the British, again, the British being the British ruling class or certain elite elements thereof, that they have devoted themselves and acquired great expertise in covert operations and other intelligence activities, allowing them to manipulate other countries,
including when necessary, to do regime changes of the sort we now call color revolutions.
And I argue they've been doing this for at least two, 300 years.
And the purpose of these revolutions in the last couple of centuries has clearly been to eliminate monarchies and to replace them with republics.
And it's very difficult for me to understand why a monarchical country like England would want to do that unless they actually perceived that republics were weaker and easier to push around and easier to manipulate, possibly.
Let's call that a theory.
Right.
Okay.
So I live in what's supposedly a constitutional monarchy, which means supposedly that the king has no real power.
He can just advise the government, but he's got no executive or legislative power.
I mean, since I've gone down the rabbit hole, I've wondered how true that is.
I mean, I don't know whether you've, do you ever read the sort of the reportage on the royal family in the UK?
Yes.
Yes, of course.
I'm very interested in that subject.
And the very subject of the royal prerogatives, as they're called, the actual powers of the monarch enshrined in British law, my understanding is these powers are very considerable.
The power to dissolve parliament, the power to dismiss the prime minister, and not just in England, but throughout the Commonwealth, in Australia, in Canada, and New Zealand, and all of these so-called Commonwealth realms.
It is my understanding that the British monarch has the very highest executive power to dismiss the government, to dismiss prime ministers, to, I believe, even to veto legislation.
And there have been examples in recent decades where this was done, and it caused extraordinary alarm.
It was done in Australia.
I forget the name of the guy who was dismissed, but it caused great alarm among Australians.
Yes, yes.
Gough, is that how his name is pronounced?
Yes, Gough Whitlam, yeah.
Yes, one of your countrymen mocked me for mispronouncing his name.
We set these traps, Richard.
They're American traps.
And you always fall into them.
Great.
I fall into them all the time, including calling Burlingame Burlingame.
I use the American pronunciation.
But anyway, so what I was saying is This issue of the royal prerogatives of the royal powers that they have has been intentionally obscured, it seems, because whenever these powers are actually exercised in places like Australia and elsewhere, the local people are totally stunned because they had no idea this was even possible.
And yet it is.
So I think there's an intentional obscurantism about this very subject.
What is actually the form of government in England?
And one of the issues that I bring up in my book is in 1919, when the U.S. Senate was considering the Versailles Treaty,
which eventually, as you know, the Senate rejected, they rejected it specifically because there was a feeling among Americans that this was a British project and that it was only going to benefit Britain and not the United States,
especially in the sense that it would bind the U.S. into basically a permanent military alliance with Great Britain.
And so it was seen as a British scheme.
And in support of this position, they had a number of Irish Americans of the Irish Republican persuasion, prominent Irish Americans who were very involved in Ireland's struggle for independence and who were very knowledgeable about the British Empire and how it wields power.
And they testified before the U.S. Senate, one in particular, whom I quoted, a judge, a New York judge, Daniel Cohalen.
And what he said is that Great Britain is not even a democracy.
He said, we supposedly just fought this war, World War I, to preserve democracy.
But he said Great Britain is not a democracy, that it is an oligarchy.
And he claimed, this Judge Cohalen, that it was ruled, that England was ruled, that is, by a small number of aristocratic families who had essentially been running the country at least since the time of Henry VIII, he testified.
And he went into some detail about that.
He named one family, which was the Cecils, as being preeminent, he said, in Great Britain at that time.
Salisbury.
Right.
And of course, this was a position that was decades later repeated by Carol Quigley famously in his books that the Cecils were the preeminent power in England.
Is it true?
I don't know.
But you could be onto something.
Yeah, they definitely do.
Well, I mean, obviously, Cecil was an important place in Elizabeth I's time, doesn't he?
Lord Cecil.
Yes, and that seemed to be this Cohalen's implication that the families that controlled England at that time, 1919, when he was testifying, he said they had been in power at least since the time of Henry VIII.
And so I guess he was pointing to the Tudor dynasty in particular, because the implication would be that these were people who were brought in by the new regime, presumably Protestants, although I'm not quite sure if that's true.
That's another obscurantist issue When you start looking at the British power structure, the British oligarchy, is it really as anti-Catholic as it's made out to be?
There are some people who say it was all a diversion, it was a distraction that actually the Catholic power remained in force in England and the Jesuits in particular.
I can't pretend to be an expert on that subject, but to me, getting back to your original question, when I say the British did this, the British did that, who do I mean by the British?
I mean the British oligarchy, whoever they are.
And remember, Aristotle said that all governments are oligarchies.
No matter what form of government they claim to have outwardly, they are all oligarchies in the sense that ultimately they are all controlled by a small group of powerful families.
And I think that's absolutely true and nothing more than common sense.
Yeah.
I have a friend who is a tremendous social climber.
And he's done very well for himself out of it.
And he has the worst case of cocktail eyes that I've ever seen.
Do you know what cocktail eyes are?
I don't.
When you're chatting to somebody at a party and you can see them constantly scanning the room to see whether there's somebody more important than you that they should be talking to.
That's cocktail eyes.
Anyway, this chap, he spent a lot of time brown-nosing the Cecils at their seat.
Yeah, it's like he has a nose for that kind of thing.
So, yeah, it does make sense to me.
The thing I was going to tell you when I was asking you about whether you follow Royal Tittle-Tattle, and I agree with what you're saying, by the way, I think that we are sold this idea.
We're taught about constitutional monarchy in schools, if we're paying attention, and we're told that it's essentially that the king and the king, our kings and queens have no power.
They're just some ceremonial figures.
And I agree with you now that this is probably a lie.
But you look about how the royal family is reported in the media.
And for as long as I can remember, the royal family has been on its uppers.
We're constantly told that they're finding in a struggle to make ends meet and that they want Parliament to vote them more money in the civil list.
And this gives the illusion that the royal family are dependent on the goodwill of Parliament, which represents the people for their living.
And when the Queen was alive, the late Queen, there were always these anecdotes told about how she would go around Buckingham Palace, turning off any lights that were not being used, and that how in her own room she'd heat herself with a one-bar fire.
And I'm inclined to think now this was all just a lie, or if not a lie, it was something that was particularly focused on promulgated in order to create this national impression of this rather fusty, frugal, slightly threadbare, desperate, harmless.
Do you remember the It's a Knockout?
It's a knockout.
Was this this that there was this during the 1970s and 80s, there was a TV series called It's a Knockout, where people dressed as playing cards would bash each other with rubber foam hammers and they'd cross, they'd go through barrels and climb up slippery slopes with rope.
I missed that one.
I missed it.
Yeah, yeah, it was called Josson Frontier.
It was the French version.
I think it was some sort of horrible, horrible Euro element to it.
Anyway, it's a knockout.
And Prince Edward was, that's right, he was in theatre.
I mean, like all the royals, he was sort of a bit useless.
And he got a job, he was theatrical, which in England normally is code word for he's gay.
I don't know whether he's gay or not, but he was definitely theatrical.
And in his theatrical phase, he decided to stage an it's a royal knockout.
And the story is that the family that, particularly Prince Philip and the Queen, were not amused and that they thought it was a frightfully embarrassing thing and they wish they'd never done it.
I wonder whether they were absolutely full-on behind this project all along, because they knew that this would again promote the image of the royal family as these bumbling idiots.
Whereas, in fact, by your account, you're going to tell me that they're actually evil, manipulative, controlling, so ruthless that they can, I mean, they bumped, they're related to the Romanovs and they happily had them bumped off by your account.
Well, yes, I don't know if I would call them evil.
Maybe it's just a matter of personal style, but I don't go around calling people evil for some reason.
I just not that there's anything wrong with calling people evil.
I just don't enjoy doing it.
But I would rather just see people as being self-interested and looking out for their own interests and the interests of their family and the interests of their class as they perceive them.
I don't make moral judgments when at least except when absolutely necessary.
Sorry.
I should have turned that.
I thought that was my phone.
I started reaching around for it.
Sorry about that.
But the thing that you're talking about is pretending to be powerless.
I call that plain possum.
And it's a very effective strategy for wielding power and a very British strategy to be understated, to understate your power, to understate your wealth.
What is more quintessentially Anglo-Saxon than understatement and who is better at it?
And that's what we're talking about.
And it's just part of this whole panoply of cultural characteristics that make the British who they are and that make them as successful as they are.
Because somebody who goes blustering around bragging of how big and strong and powerful they are, that's not a powerful person.
That's a person who's showing a terrible weakness.
A person who understates and hides their power.
That is power.
Yeah.
Yeah, I agree.
I think that possibly is almost the defining English characteristic.
Yes.
Yeah.
So very effective.
I can see how that works.
Tell me.
So just give me the kind of the big picture story that supports your thesis, supports your book's title.
When did it all begin?
Oh, about how the British invented communism.
Well, it was, as I mentioned before, what I discovered is that I would call it the key to British power, the key to the rise of the British Empire was this very practice, this very expertise of causing regime changes in countries that were rivals or enemies or in some sense in the way of British strategy, that they,
throughout certainly the last couple of hundred years, we see a strange pattern where countries that are annoying to England mysteriously self-destruct, where they have revolutions, civil wars, they somehow collapse internally and basically destroy and annihilate themselves.
And I argue that all of this is due to the activity, the deliberate and conscious activity of the British secret services.
And so...
Global warming is a massive con.
There was 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 of 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 the people behind the climate change scam got caught red-handed, tinkering with the data, torturing till it screened in a scandal that I helped christen ClimateGate.
So I give you the background to the skull juggery 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, who's doing this and why?
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 out.
I think it's a good read.
Obviously, I'm biased, but I'd recommend it.
You can buy it from jamesdellingpole.co.uk forward slash shop.
You'll probably find that one.
Just go to my website and look for it, jamesdellingpole.co.uk.
And I hope it helps keep you informed and gives you the material you need to bring around all those people who are still persuaded that, oh, it's a disaster.
We must amend our ways and appease the gods, appease Mother Gaia.
No, we don't.
It's a scam.
And I argue that all of this is due to the activity, the deliberate and conscious activity of the British Secret Services.
And so In the course of this work, this work of creating or co-opting and exploiting revolutionary movements for the purpose of overthrowing unwanted governments,
I argue that the British, in a sense, did invent communism as we know it today, in the sense that it's not to say that there isn't real socialism or real communism that is really in some ways just a natural expression of people's people's reaction to the Industrial Revolution,
to harsh conditions, to poor pay, and all those things that happened with the onset of factories and industries.
All that was real.
The reaction against it was real.
But the intervention of the British secret services from very early on was always, in a sense, to try to push these movements in the most negative direction possible, to encourage the most extreme and the most violent elements and the most unreasonable elements for the very reason that that was how to weaponize them,
how to turn them into an oppositional force to destroy England's enemies.
And this was done most spectacularly in the French Revolution, at least for the first time.
It was done on such a scale where you had Louis XVI, who was a terrible enemy of Great Britain.
He was single-handedly responsible for the loss of the 13 American colonies through his intervention.
And the British never forgave him for that.
And I believe they set out to destroy him, and they succeeded through the revolution or revolutions in France that began in 1789.
And interestingly, Thomas Jefferson, of all people, supports me in this.
He was U.S. ambassador to France in 1789 at the time the revolution broke out.
He was personally involved in some of the intrigues and machinations that led to the revolution.
Jefferson and the Marquis de Lafayette were actually trying to start a revolution among liberal elements of the French aristocracy to try to convert the French monarchy into a constitutional monarchy.
And what happened is the revolution was hijacked by these violent, extreme elements who then caused the reign of terror.
Well, Jefferson believed till the end of his life that the British were behind that.
He accused the British in letters to Lafayette and others.
He said that the British had created these infiltrators, these hired pretenders, as he called them, to hijack the revolution, turn it in a violent direction, and to kill the king.
That he believed the British secret services were actually responsible for the murder of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.
And so a lot of people don't know this.
And this is an extraordinary thing that you find when you start doing alternative history, that you find a figure of such stature as Thomas Jefferson writing such extraordinary things, and yet nobody knows about it.
And it's just lying there unnoticed.
Yeah, you're giving me a kind of twinge of exultant evil.
Because, I mean, I'm thinking this is supposedly my side, and they're obviously really good at doing pad stuff.
So we presumably we, I mean, the evil British, presumably had a very well-established network of agents in France to be able to do this.
And that must have gone back a long way.
Oh, yes, yes, absolutely.
And this is at the core of my theory.
I believe that British intelligence is the very best in the world.
I mean, they have to be because, and I judge this by the results.
First of all, the result that the British Empire was, bless you, that it was the greatest, the most extensive, most powerful empire that ever existed.
And in my opinion, in my estimation, I don't believe the British Empire ever fell.
I believe they simply, well, it's well known, I mean, that the roundtable movement, the specific mission of the roundtable movement was to incorporate the United States of America into a global British Empire, which Alfred Zimmern called the Third British Empire in his book of that name published in 1926.
Zimmern, of course, was one of these top roundtable people.
The British recognized that America was on the rise, that America was going to replace them as the hegemon of the world and very quickly.
And so they instituted a plan and executed it very successfully to co-opt and to incorporate the United States actually into the British Empire and in the form of globalist institutions, first the League of Nations, now the United Nations, and all these other transnational groups which have been formed.
And the whole plan succeeded perfectly.
Exactly what the British elites were saying they were going to do as far back as the 1860s.
They were saying it very plainly and openly in certain books.
And the exact thing they said they were going to do happened.
They did it.
They had some setbacks.
As mentioned before, they were very unhappy, the British, when the United States refused to join the League of Nations.
That was a bit of a setback.
But they knew eventually the Americans would come around if they kept instigating world wars and finding ways to draw the United States into them.
Eventually the U.S. would come around.
And it only took two world wars, and we joined the United Nations.
So.
Sorry?
No, I was thinking we over here have a I don't whether it's true or not, but we have a very different accepted take on what happened after the Second World War, which is that essentially we were bankrupted and became the vassal of the US.
And you then imposed your Marshall Plan on Europe, which is a massive control mechanism.
Well, it was Americans doing this, not British.
Well, I'm aware of that.
Yes.
And this is the counter-narrative, which I argue was created very skillfully by the British secret services, the British organs of state propaganda, if you will.
And this goes back to my book, is that the phenomenon that I'm describing, the use by the British Empire of their clandestine services to manipulate the governments of the world, they had to create a counter-narrative to cover this up.
And the counter-narrative is, one, England is a small, helpless country who's at the mercy of larger countries.
That's the playing possum aspect of it all.
But the other side of it is to offer specific counter-villains to distract attention from the ones who are actually doing it, the British intelligence, and to say, well, no, somebody else is doing it.
It's not us.
It's the evil Americans.
It's the evil Jews.
It's the evil French at one point.
It was the evil French.
It's always somebody else.
And of course, this is human nature to try to cover up one's wrongdoing and blame somebody else.
But as with so many other things, what makes the English unique, in my opinion, is not, again, it's not that they're evil or that they're more evil than anyone else.
I just think they're better at it.
It's a question of competence.
They're better at the game of empire and the game of geopolitics and specifically the game of clandestine operations, the game of intelligence.
They are the best, as evidenced by the results, as evidenced by the continuing and ongoing success of their, let's call it their globalist project, and by the fact that everyone blames the United States of America.
Until quite recently, everyone just assumed the United States was the evil giant who was perpetrating all of this.
Now we're seeing a resurgence of the idea that it's the Jews who are behind it.
And this too, this narrative that it was the Jews who created the whole globalist edifice and implemented it, this too was a British intelligence narrative.
And this is what I argue and what I show, I think, pretty conclusively in my book, that the British government specifically and the British military intelligence and propaganda apparatus created this idea that the Jews were,
let's say, exclusively or singularly responsible for the creation of communism and for the Bolshevik Revolution.
And this narrative was used to distract attention from the British role in both things, in the creation of communism over 200 years or so, and in the installation of a communist regime in Russia in 1917.
The British had been up to their eyeballs involved in both of those projects and had been primarily responsible for them.
And what I show in my book is that at the time of the French Revolution, which was the first really big color revolution that I'm aware of that the British did, I'm sure there are earlier ones, which I just haven't discovered yet.
But at that time, it's very interesting that they did not try to blame the French Revolution on the Jews, and not at first, not for 20 or 30 years.
Instead, they tried to blame the Germans, actually.
And they were saying that German Freemasons and German Illuminists, German Illuminati, who were actually controlled by the Prussian monarchy, that they were the villains who had conspired through Masonic lodges to create the French Revolution and to overthrow the king and ultimately to kill him.
This was blamed on the German Illuminati.
And in certain works, certain conspiracy books that were published in England subsequently in the 1790s, one by a French exile, Abé Barowel,
and another by an Englishman named John Robeson, very popular, best-selling conspiracy books about the French Revolution, going into great depth about the machinations of the German Illuminati and the German Freemasons,
and making this claim that somehow the continental Masonic lodges had been polluted and corrupted, whereas the English ones had been left innocent and pristine and untouched and unsullied by these wicked ideas of the Germans, specifically, of German occultists.
So it's remarkable that the volume and the quality and the popularity of the conspiracy books which were essentially generated by the British clandestine services,
and I named some names in my books, I show actual connections with people who are known to have been British secret agents who were involved in the conception and the research and the presentation of these conspiracy theories in popular books.
It was clearly a British psychological operation.
And what they were pushing was that the French Revolution was created by German occultists working for the Hohenzollern dynasty, the Prussian monarchy.
And only later in the mid-19th century, they started introducing the idea that the Jews were involved, but then only as adjuncts or as servants of the Prussian monarchy.
From the beginning, it was always that they always wanted to blame it on the Germans.
But what happened is after the British pulled off the Russian Revolution, which they did for various reasons of their own, which we can discuss.
But after they did that, it became very obvious.
It started becoming obvious that the British had done it.
Well, they didn't even try to hide their involvement in the February Revolution, the overthrow of the Tsar.
I quote from British newspapers in my book at the time exulting in the downfall of the Tsar and basically saying it's the Tsar's own fault because when Lord Alfred Milner went over there in early February of 1917 and warned him that he better do this, that, and the other, otherwise he's going to be overthrown, he didn't listen.
And so this was being freely said in English newspapers.
The Tsar brought this on himself because he didn't listen to Lord Milner.
He defied him and he disregarded his warnings and therefore he was overthrown and serves him right.
And the sorry?
Yes.
So Lord Milner, who gave his name to the Milner group, which was responsible for really plotting the First World War, and before that, he was involved in the Boer War.
I think he was a South African governor or something.
I think he was involved in the concentration camps that the British nicely invented as well.
He, as I understand it, he went to the Tsar in 1917 to present him an ultimatum.
Either you kind of become our puppet, you hand over your army to the British and American, sorry, British and French generals, you effectively step down as supreme ruler.
And if you don't, it'll be the worst for you.
And Alexander was like, well, why would I want to do that?
So Milner goes off, and then the next thing that happens is that the revolution happens.
Is that roughly what happens?
Yes.
Except the way it was presented to him is what Lord Milner said to the Tsar is that he wanted him to lay down his autocratic power and adopt a constitutional form of government so that the Duma, which already existed due to the revolution of 1905, so in other words, he would give real power to the Duma.
Now, the purpose of that, however, is actually what you perceptively said.
The real purpose of it was so that the British could take over Russia and run it, because the British ran the Duma.
They had already co-opted and recruited crucial elements among the Russian nobility and the Russian royal family.
They had basically gotten the Tsar's closest relatives, all the Grand Dukes, were against him, and they were conniving and conspiring with the British to overthrow him, or at the very least to force Nicholas II into laying down his autocratic power and accepting becoming a constitutional monarch.
Now, this, in a sense, when Milner offered this to the Tsar, he knew he was making a demand that the Tsar had to refuse, and that if he was stupid enough to do it, it was going to result in Russia losing the war and the Tsar's dynasty falling.
So he was giving the Tsar bad advice on purpose because he was telling him to democratize and to open the doors to the Duma, which was a completely unruly group of people, many of whom were communists and socialists, and all of whom were conspiring against the Tsar one way or the other.
Even the most moderate liberals were in a revolutionary mindset and were trying to remove the Tsar or at least demote him in some way.
They were working against him.
So in the middle of a war and a war that Russia was losing, to let go the reins and to turn over the government to a motley crowd such as the Russian Duma of that time, which was almost totally controlled by British intelligence, by the British embassy.
And the British ambassador at the time, a guy named George Buchanan, it was basically telling him to commit a suicidal act.
And so, of course, he wasn't going to do it.
And in the meantime, the other countries fighting World War I were all doing the opposite.
They were tightening the reins.
They were streamlining their governments.
In England and France, they were taking all kinds of extraordinary measures to centralize government in unusual ways.
And in Germany, they actually de facto created a military dictatorship.
They turned over the government to General Ludendorff and Field Marshal Hindenburg, to essentially a two-man military dictatorship to run the country, because this is what was felt to be effective in that situation.
They were trying to at least temporarily dispense with the inconvenience of democratic accountability.
And this was happening in all the countries, the Allied and Central Powers alike, whereas Russia alone was being told to do this remarkable thing, to do the opposite of what all the other countries were doing, to democratize suddenly in the middle of losing a war.
So this is what Lord Milner demanded of the Tsar.
And it was, as you said, the purpose was for England to gain power over Russia and to be able to control it and to control its army.
But I think really, and I say this in my book, at the point where Lord Milner went and delivered this ultimatum, I don't think the British had any intention that Russia was going to win the war at that point.
And I argue that there was clearly a feeling among British elites that the best outcome of World War I, right from the beginning, before the war even began, that the best outcome would be for Germany to lose the war, but for Russia not to win it, as it was put.
And that's exactly what happened.
Did you discover evidence of something that I heard, which is that when they were forming the Triple Entente in the run-up to the war with France, the British, as bait to lure in the Tsar, because he was reluctant to join this Entente, they eventually offered him, once the war was over, Constantinople, which they knew they were never going to give him.
Have you heard that one?
Yes, yes.
I covered that in my book actually quite extensively because I think that's crucial.
They actually made a secret treaty, in fact, which I think was in March of 1915.
When was the Gallipoli campaign?
It was 1915.
15, right.
So right before the Gallipoli campaign, they made the secret treaty with the Tsar.
And the issue was the Russians were already talking to the Germans and trying to make a separate peace.
They were losing catastrophically.
They had no hope of winning, and they were trying to get out of it.
So the British went to them.
And by the way, when I persistently say the British as opposed to the Allies or the British and the French, again, you could call that my bias, but I actually have some information in my book to prove it.
It seems that France was totally subservient to England in all of these matters, in the conduct of the war itself, bless you.
In the conduct of the war itself and in these machinations against the Tsar, France was fully cooperating with England, but it was actually observed by a Russian noblewoman who was quite close to the French ambassador,
Paleologue, that he was horrified by this plotting against the Tsar, but he had to go along with it because he had received instructions from Paris to do whatever the English ambassador said, this George Buchanan.
And this is a theme that I see persistently in all my research on this question of England's machinations and regime changes basically beginning in the late 18th century with the French Revolution.
Once the French, well, certainly once Napoleon was defeated, I think France was totally subservient to England from that moment on.
And what you see in France is one color revolution after another.
It didn't stop with the French Revolution of 1789.
It didn't stop with the overthrow of Napoleon.
But then they had another revolution in 1830, and then another one in 1848.
And then they had a coup in, I think it was 1854, where Napoleon III took over, again, with British support, with support from Lord Palmerston.
And then they got rid of Napoleon III when they were ready with the Paris Commune and all the events surrounding the Franco-Prussian War and the Paris Commune.
And Napoleon III ended up back where he began as an exile in England.
And so what I see that France, ever since the defeat of Napoleon, was completely at the mercy of England, which simply toyed with them as a cat with a mouse, and changing their governments multiple times through these color revolutions.
Yes.
So they promised the Tsar Constantinople, which they've got no intention of giving.
Oh, sorry, I lost.
I forgot what your question was.
Yes, it was Constantinople.
So anyway, that was a big digression about why I say the British instead of the Allies of the French.
No, a good digression.
I liked it.
Thank you.
So anyway, so the British, they knew that the Tsar was preparing to make a separate peace, so they made him a deal.
Said, if we win, if the Allies win the war, you will get Constantinople.
And, of course, the Russians had wanted that for centuries.
So they said, yes, of course, we'll stay in the war.
I take the position, and in that, I follow other historians who, I mean, real historians.
I'm not a historian.
I'm a journalist at best.
Some would say not even that.
So there are historians, this one guy, Harvey Broadbent in particular, who's Australian, and I cite him quite a bit.
But just so you know, this is a mainstream historical view.
This is not an outlandish view.
But Broadbent says that the British never intended to keep this promise, that they offered Constantinople knowing full well they were going to betray the Russians and never let them have it, and that they, in fact, betrayed them by having the Tsar overthrown.
Although Broadbent doesn't put it quite so explicitly as I do, but he clearly implies that.
And so what Broadbent, he's a special expert on the Gallipoli campaign.
He's written four books on it.
And he says the whole thing was staged.
That the defeat of Gallipoli was that the British allowed themselves to be defeated on purpose.
They sacrificed all those lives in order to put on a big show for the Tsar to say, look, we're attacking the Turks.
We're attacking Constantinople.
And we're doing this to help you because you asked us to.
And look, we're keeping our word.
But oh my goodness gracious, everything fell apart.
We couldn't beat the Turks.
They slaughtered our men.
They sank our ships.
Gee, but we tried.
So Broadbent thinks that was all fake.
I mean, the deaths weren't fake.
Many men were sacrificed for this.
But that the attempt to take Constantinople was fake because the British knew if they took Constantinople, it wasn't going to do them any good.
They would just have to turn it over to the Russians at the end of the war.
And so he thinks it was all just to mollify the Tsar and to convince him the British were keeping their word.
But I think there's an added dimension to it, which I discuss in my book, which is that at the same time that the British made this secret treaty to give Constantinople to the Tsar, they also made another secret treaty whereby the Russians gave the British the lion's share of the oil fields of Iran, or Persia, as it was called at that time.
And this deal was completed right before the Gallipoli invasion, this oil deal.
And I think that the Gallipoli attack was actually the price that the British agreed to pay in order to get this remarkable concession from Russia.
Because, see, Russia had northern Persia, northern Iran.
England had southern Iran, and there was a big neutral zone in between separating them.
So the British got the Tsar to turn over the neutral zone to Britain, greatly expanding the area of Persia they controlled.
But I think the British already knew even then that they were going to get the whole thing.
They already knew that they were going to do a color revolution.
They were going to oust the Tsar.
They were going to end the Romanov dynasty.
And I think maybe they already knew they were going to do the Bolshevik Revolution right behind it.
I think that was already planned.
I think the two revolutions were planned in advance.
And there's some evidence of that that I present.
So the Bolsheviks, the Bolshevik Revolution was, they were mainly Jews, weren't they?
So are you saying they kind of were patsies of the British establishment, that they just happened to be?
Well, I'm not sure if Patsy's is the right word.
I do in my book, excuse me, I do concede this point right up front, I think maybe on page two, that as far as I know, it is true that Jews were greatly disproportionately represented in the Bolshevik movement and in the Bolshevik leadership.
And I have a footnote to that where I cite a British intelligence report to that effect from 1918, or I think it was maybe 1919, and also another academic source.
So as far as I know, that is true.
And I concede the point up front.
I say I'm not here to dispute whether that's true, but it's only half the story, is the way that I put it.
The other half, which I think is the more important half, is that the Bolsheviks, whoever they were, never had a ghost of a chance of overthrowing the Russian monarchy or the Russian Empire on their own.
They wouldn't have known how to do it.
They didn't have the resources to do it.
They didn't have the physical strength to do it.
They basically had nothing that they needed in order to accomplish such an extraordinary feat.
There was only one power on earth that had the ability to do that.
That was the British Empire.
They were Russia's chief and really only rival on earth.
And Russia was the only real rival to the British Empire.
Nobody had the power to destroy Russia or to defeat Russia except the British Empire.
And nobody had the will to do it as they did.
And so what significance do I attach to the, let's say, let's call it the ethnic critique of the Bolshevik movement, saying, well, it was a Jewish movement, so therefore, Richard, how can you say that the British were responsible for this?
Well, what happened in the Russian Civil War, and it was in the Civil War that the Bolsheviks took power.
Excuse me.
I hope I'm not going to lose my voice here.
But the Bolshevik Revolution was an overnight coup in which basically the Bolsheviks took over government buildings, government institutions overnight, but they didn't, in one city, in the capital, in Petrograd, as it was called then.
But they had then to subdue the whole rest of the country, the whole rest of the Russian Empire.
And how did they do it?
Well, it was a war that went on, depending on how you calculate it.
Usually they say five years.
It basically started in 1917, and the last remnants of the resistance were not defeated till 1924, I believe.
But it was probably basically over by 1920, 1921.
But it was a tremendous, tremendous war with many different armies fighting.
And the current estimates are 10 million people killed in that war.
And it was a huge war.
And it was in this war, the Russian Civil War, that the Red Army under the Bolsheviks, under Trotsky, he was actually appointed commander-in-chief, they supposedly defeated all these other forces.
And who are these forces?
Well, first of all, it was the white Russian army, which was the remnants of the Tsar's army, the actual armed forces of the Russian Empire, who were still in the field, millions of battle-hardened combat veterans who had been fighting World War I for years, and battle-hardened commanders, battle-hardened veterans.
And I think there were 300,000 of them in the field at their peak.
I said millions.
The White Army was 300,000, I believe.
And so that was the main force that was against the Bolsheviks.
But in addition, there were all these separatist movements.
Because as soon as the Tsar fell, and especially after the Bolsheviks overthrew the provisional government under Kerensky, all hell broke loose.
And all of these ethnicities, the Poles, the Finns, the various Baltic states, the Caucasus, Ukraine, all of these non-Russian ethnic republics all declared their independence.
And many of them fought very hard and bloody wars of independence against the Bolsheviks, notably Poland.
Poland fought a very savage war against the Bolsheviks.
And so what you had was many different armies, all with their own agendas, fighting for their own reasons and for their own goals, most of them being separatists who were trying to achieve independence.
And all of them were fighting each other and they were fighting against the Bolsheviks.
Plus you had the Allied armies of intervention, who at their peak, I think, were 200,000 men, of whom 60,000 were British.
And only 13,000, by the way, were American.
I would just add on the issue we were talking about before, but anyway, so what I'm saying is that one of the,
since this book came out last year, my book that we're discussing, some of the harshest critiques that I've gotten have been from people who are taking the anti-Jewish line that the how, well, Richard, how can you say that the British did the Russian revolutions when it was obviously the Jews, blah, blah, blah.
And I just say because without the British organizing, funding, and militarily supporting the whole enterprise, it wouldn't have worked.
It never, ever would have gotten off the ground, period.
And that doesn't just apply to the Bolshevik Revolution.
It applies to all these separatist movements.
I like to use the example of Poland, for example.
Now, Poland is a real country.
There are real Polish people, and they are very good fighters and very patriotic.
But Poland never, ever could have won its independence without this vast conspiracy concocted by the British to destroy the power of Russia and to break up, to exhaust Russia through this Great War and through the other wars before it and revolutions, going back to the Russo-Japanese War, which was totally orchestrated by the British.
The British actually built the Japanese navy and trained the Japanese how to use it and then instigated them to attack Russia and destroy the Russian fleet.
And then the 1905 revolution.
It was a very complex, long-running scheme to wear down the power of Russia over many years and then to finally trigger this final cataclysm where the whole country broke up and all these different disgruntled ethnic groups, including the Poles and the Finns and the Baltic peoples and the Ukrainians and the Caucasians and yes, the Jews.
All of these groups, any group that had a grievance against the Russian monarchy, was recruited and supported by the British government and incorporated into this plan.
And so the Poles, to give another example, they could never have pulled this off by themselves.
As brave and good as they are as warriors, they couldn't have done it because Poland was divided.
In 1914, it was divided up in three parts between the Russian, German, and Austrian empires.
And they were never coming back from that.
James, Poland was gone.
There was no Poland.
Poland was never going to come back from that situation where they were divided in three parts with three of the most powerful empires in the world, each holding apart.
And yet somehow they did come back.
And why did they come back?
They came back because the British slaughtered their enemies.
The British defeated all three of those enemies, the Germans, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Russians, and then funded, equipped, and led the Polish nationalists to pull their country together literally out of nothing, and then provided for them this extraordinary opportunity where for the first time since Ivan the Terrible almost,
Russia is in chaos and defeat and breaking up into pieces.
This entire situation was caused and engineered and created by the British through their machinations, through their intrigues, through their clandestine operations.
And only with that extraordinary help were the Poles able to come back from a situation of total national extinction.
So that's how I usually try to explain to people why I say that the Bolsheviks and particularly the Jews who were so heavily involved with the Bolsheviks, why I say they didn't actually do these revolutions and couldn't have.
They could not have done it for the same reason the Poles couldn't have done it, because they didn't have the power to do it, not without all this extraordinary support and planning and execution of these long-running schemes by the British government.
I don't know if that clarifies your question.
Have you come across the theory that Hitler was an MI6 agent?
Yes, of course.
I'm inclined to agree with that theory.
And, you know, again, I mean, the, you know, the anti-Jewish element among us, they don't like to hear this, of course.
But it's not even anything in particular about Hitler.
It's just knowing how the British operate and knowing, as I do, or as I believe, the extent to which the British clandestine services actually really control things that go on in this world on a global scale,
but especially in Europe, knowing the skill that they have to manipulate other countries by turning one country against another, by overthrowing governments, just knowing their track record, knowing their style, knowing how they do things.
A figure like Hitler is just, I mean, they had every ability to prevent somebody like him from getting into power.
It's the same situation, really, as the Bolsheviks.
If the British didn't want the Bolsheviks in power, the Bolsheviks would not have been in power.
And I make this case very strongly in my book: that when the British were in Russia and they were in total control, that is during the Russian Civil War, the British were funding, arming, and running diplomatic cover for the white Russian armies and all these separatist armies.
And then covertly they were helping the Bolsheviks too.
They were actually helping both the Reds and the whites.
When the British were in that position, and Winston Churchill personally was running the whole operation, he was the war secretary, and it was all being run from the British War Office.
During that time, the British had the ability to do anything they wanted with Russia.
If they didn't want the Bolsheviks in, all they had to do was say the word and they were gone.
There would have been no Bolsheviks.
And to answer your question about Hitler and the Nazis, same thing.
When I look at it, it's just plainly apparent there was no way this guy could have gotten into power without the British giving the AOK.
It's just impossible.
They did not have to allow any government to take power in Germany that they didn't want to in 1933.
That's my story, and I'm sticking with it.
And I just want to say to verify this point, with the analogy I'm making with the Russian Civil War, there was a point very early on in the Russian Civil War when Winston Churchill took over as war secretary,
where Churchill said he proposed in a cabinet meeting that they should force the Bolsheviks to agree to general elections.
And he said they have no support, these Bolsheviks.
He knew they had no support because the British were the ones who propped them up all along.
He said they have no popular support.
They'll be voted out.
Then we'll be rid of them.
And Churchill was right.
That would have been the end of the Bolsheviks.
If Churchill had done that plan and the British had the power to do it, they militarily had the power because they controlled all these other armed factions within Russia.
They all looked for British approval and British funding and British diplomatic cover.
And so they would have done whatever the British wanted them to do.
And if the British said we're going to hold elections, there would have been elections and the Bolsheviks would have been voted out.
That was Churchill's plan.
It was shot down by the prime minister, Lloyd George, and he made no bones about the fact.
Lloyd George wanted the Bolsheviks to win.
He said it.
It's on the record in cabinet meetings and other statements that he made in comments by his close colleagues.
He was for the Bolsheviks.
He wanted the Bolsheviks to win.
He was dead set, Lloyd George, that is, dead set against the white Russians.
He hated them.
He said they're conservatives, they're reactionaries.
I don't want them in power.
In fact, Lloyd George said he did not want any return to the Romanov dynasty in Russia, not even in the milder form of a constitutional monarchy.
He said they're not coming back.
That's the end of it.
We're not going to have a military dictatorship led by reactionary officers such as Admiral Kolchak or General Denykin or any of these white Russian commanders.
Lloyd George totally nicks that idea and he made it very clear the only acceptable outcome to the Russian Civil War is for the Bolsheviks to win.
And I have to say that a great deal of the documentation and the support for what I just described, for this fact that Winston Churchill was striving to defeat the Bolsheviks, and Lloyd George was personally stopping him from doing it, and that this was, in fact, the very cause of the Bolshevik victory.
This information comes very largely from a book called World in Torment that was written by a guy named Martin Gilbert, Sir Martin Gilbert.
He was knighted for his historical work.
And this he's in the official biography of Churchill, which is supposed to be an absolute whitewash.
So I'm not sure that Gilbert can be trusted on anything.
Well, I'm not saying he can be trusted, but what I am saying is that what he represented was, in a sense, the voice of Winston Churchill himself after his death, because he was appointed the official biographer of Churchill.
And this book, World in Torment, which deals with the period of the Russian Civil War, this was the argument of the Churchill family itself, of Churchill's heirs.
This was their apology, if you will.
This was their explanation, and it was Churchill's posthumous explanation as to why the Russian Civil War went wrong.
This was his own personal defense of himself and his policy.
And this is what he said through his family and through this Gilbert Martin or Martin Gilbert, his official biographer.
He said that it was Lloyd George who totally stepped on him and stopped him from defeating the Bolsheviks.
He would say that, wouldn't he?
I mean, Churchill was dodgy ass.
So yeah, I mean, anyway, it's a minor point.
I wanted to ask you before we go, because I'm feeling a bit sausy and miserable.
Probably your story is to come.
How does the creation of the State of Israel fit into your theory?
Was that too an intelligence-led plan?
To do what?
Oh, yes, of course.
Well, to establish the post-war order after World War I. Because just as they, you know, in the Middle East, the British had destroyed the Ottoman Empire, which had long been their ally, but they finally tired of that, and the Ottomans had outlived their usefulness.
But then there was a power vacuum right at the same time that all of a sudden the world is converting to an oil economy and all this oil is being discovered in the Middle East.
And so the British had a two-pronged plan, which was one to establish a Jewish state in what was then called Palestine.
And this Jewish state, they believed, would be a useful, essentially a colony of Great Britain that would represent British or Western interests in the Middle East.
But then as always, whenever the British set up these ecosystems, these local power structures, they always want to have a balance of power and controlling both sides.
So at the same time, the British were setting up this Jewish state to partially replace the power of the Ottomans and represent the Western interests in the Middle East, they were also encouraging Arab nationalism.
And that's the whole story, of course, that we see in the Lawrence of Arabia, a Hollywood version, a mythologization of this British operation.
But the operation was real, that they had people like T.E. Lawrence and others of that sort working with the Arabs to encourage them first to rebel against the Ottomans, but then to fight against the Jews.
It is my contention that the British actually created deliberately the stalemate that we have in the Middle East today, that although the way the British played it, they said, oh, we're trying to keep the peace here, but these Jews and Arabs are just fighting.
We can't stop them.
So we're leaving, supposedly.
But that's not how the British do things.
The British never leave anywhere until they have negotiated and engineered things to be just the way they want them to be.
And this, obviously, this is not standard history.
We're told, oh, the British fled from everywhere.
They gave up all their colonies.
They fled in terror from Mahatma Gandhi, supposedly, for some reason.
I just don't buy any of that.
That's just all of that is just more of this plain possum.
What I see that the British did is wherever they left, wherever they supposedly abandoned any colony, they always made sure that their vital interests, specifically their strategic interests and their economic interests, were guaranteed somehow.
And they even did that in America at the end of the American Revolution.
They made sure that their interests were taken care of and they were still going to make money off of the 13 states and they were still going to have their strategic concerns addressed.
And they always do that.
That's why Britain is Britain.
Because they do that.
Presumably, when you talk about this, the sort of the intelligence services and stuff.
I mean, the Rothschilds must have been well in by this stage, because you've got Lord Rothschild sending his letter to, or Lord Bauf, Arthur Balfour sending his letter to Lord Rothschild saying, yeah, we're going to create this state as per your instructions.
You've got Victor Rothschild, who worked for MI6, was possibly a Russian spy as well.
Would you include the Rothschilds in that kind of power structure that you're talking about, the sort of the British deep state?
Yes, of course.
But it's a chicken and egg problem.
I mean, of course, the anti-Jewish position says that the Rothschilds are the head of the snake.
They control Great Britain.
They control the whole world.
I'm extremely skeptical of that claim.
I think it's obviously much more likely that they don't control the world, but that they fit into the power structure somewhere.
But the thing about the Rothschilds in particular, I have to say, the very fact that they are continually offered to us as a name that we're supposed to know and we're supposed to associate with global power, imperial power with this centralized power that's taking over the world.
The very fact that their name is offered so constantly and so persistently to me is evidence that they're not as that's not that high up up the ladder for the reason we were talking about before.
Because people who have real power generally will try to conceal it.
They don't even want you to know their names.
They don't want you to know they exist.
Whereas somebody who's always in your face, always in the public eye, always in every conspiracy book, that is a sign, in my opinion, that this is a person who is being offered as to some extent as a distraction from others.
That's my theory.
But I think it's a good theory because certainly if I ruled the world, I wouldn't want anyone to know about that.
I'd want to keep that very quiet, personally.
Were there any names that you managed to unearth in your foraging?
Can you give me examples of the names that we don't know, but are actually way more powerful than I haven't drawn up a list, but basically in that, I follow Carol Quigley and like-minded authors.
If you look at Tragedy and Hope, or especially the Anglo-American establishment, you'll see names of aristocratic families.
We discussed one of them, Cecil.
Cecil is the one that I feel most confident in Because he seen that the Cecil family, if you look at their history, going back to the Tudor period and you look at the specific things that Cecils were involved in, they're very critical moments in the building of the British Empire.
And the fact that the name is somewhat obscure, that it's not unlike the Rothschilds, for example, it's not constantly being put before us.
Now, it did appear in Quigley's books.
One has to wonder why.
But, I mean, who was Quigley really?
What were his motivations?
What were his agendas?
Of course, one has to ask that too.
But I follow Quigley.
So if you look at all the people he says that he talks about, I tend to think he's probably closer to the truth than most others.
But he throws the Rothschilds in there too.
And I'm not sure if he always, I'm not sure if he exaggerates their role because he more or less portrays them as being the funders and controllers of the roundtable movement.
And I'm not sure that's true.
Why would they not be?
I mean, I'm just thinking about the basic history here about the brothers having been given the different domain, France, Germany, Britain, and what we know about what happened at the Battle of Waterloo when the telegraph system gave them advance notice of the competitive edge, which enabled them to first to fake a kind of crisis and sort of selling their stocks.
And then when there was a sort of run on these stocks, buy them back dirt cheap, ending up controlling 80% of the UK stock market.
That's a lot of money we're talking about.
Why does it seem to you implausible that this should not be the Rothschilds involved?
Well, it's just that to go back to, let's call it my analogy of the Russian Civil War, who has power and who doesn't.
The Bolsheviks clearly did not have power to take over Russia and to overthrow the Russian Empire.
The Poles clearly did not have power to win independence from Russia.
They just didn't, not without massive help.
So what are the Rothschilds or any other group of bankers or financiers?
As far as we know, they're people whose only power is that by the consent of governments, they are allowed to function as financiers and as bankers, which is a total abstraction.
I mean, money is an abstraction.
Money is only worth something if everybody agrees that it's worth something.
So I guess it comes down to if your claim to power is that you control money, excuse me, it seems to me there are forces in the world who can relieve you of that power pretty quickly and decisively, and I would think easily.
Now, yes, you can manipulate things.
Okay, so let's say there's some armed group that wants to kill you and take your money, so you can pay some other armed group to stop them.
Okay, but that dance gets very tenuous.
It gets very delicate.
If the only thing you're doing is doling out money to one group of mercenaries and doling out money to some other government so their army will fight these mercenaries.
I don't know.
I wouldn't want to be in that position because somebody's going to think, why are we all fighting and shedding blood for this guy, doling out money?
Why don't we kill him and take his money?
If I could put it in the sort of simplest, you know, crudest terms.
I don't think your thesis stands or falls on whether the Rothschilds are kind of innocent rich people or whatever.
I kind of think you're slightly protesting too much.
I mean, I'm very persuaded by your thesis that it is the Brits, but I'm not persuaded by your letting the Rothschilds off the hook.
I mean, I think they are incredibly rich.
And I think what you're underestimating is the crowned heads of Europe, for example, they live beyond their means.
And I think that the very nature of banking, fractional reserve banking, conjuring money out of thin air, means that banking is a particularly special, it's an anomalous profession.
And the Rothschilds made it their speciality.
I don't see any reason why they couldn't have got so stupendously rich that the Crown Heads of Europe depended on them for their financing and therefore they became embedded in the system.
I don't think it needs to follow from that the world is secretly run by Jews.
I just think that to discount the Rothschilds seems to me perverse.
Well, just to clarify, I don't think I said that the Rothschilds were innocent.
No, I was exaggerating.
I was exaggerating your case for effect.
The issue that I'm talking about is not about guilt or innocence.
Remember when I said before, we are all controlled opposition.
That means we're all guilty.
And the more money and power you have, the guiltier you are.
So I don't say anybody's innocent.
And certainly anybody at the level.
Well, except for you, I meant.
Thanks.
And you probably, Butted, you're probably innocent as well.
A few of our listens, maybe.
Well, I try.
They're good people.
I try.
But no, the issue that I'm contending here isn't whether the Rothschilds are innocent or not.
It's whether they are the head of the snake as popularly presented, whether they are at the top of the food chain.
I don't think they are.
I think they are two or three notches down.
Yeah, no, I think we're agreed on that.
Well, I think we agree on that.
I don't think they are.
No, for the reasons you've given them.
Yeah.
That was a great.
I would ramble on with you.
It's great talking to you, but I'm feeling quite like I need a cup of tea and something hot to make me feel and you need to rest your throat.
So should we draw to a close there?
Well, sure, of course.
Take care of yourself.
If you'll pardon some brazen sentiments.
No, you should do.
I do want to show my book, How the British Invented Communism and Blamed It on the Jews.
I'm going to get your book.
By the way, Noor Bin Laden, she's a good thing, isn't she?
Well, she's a good friend of mine, and she wrote the forward.
I'm going to have to get her on the podcast.
Would she be a good podcast guest?
Oh, she'd be great.
She's very popular.
People love her.
Yeah.
She's beloved.
I should get it.
I mean, what relation is she to Osama?
Of blessed memory?
I understand she's his niece.
Because he was the CIA agent, wasn't he?
So Hitler was an MI6 agent, and Osama was a CIA agent.
So that's your lot.
That's your lot, not mine, Richard.
I could let that stand, but I have run across information that he actually worked for the British.
Oh, no, really?
Is that true?
I have run across that information, which doesn't preclude working for the CIA, obviously.
The special relationship, five eyes, and all that being what they are.
I failed my recruitment test for MI5.
I mean, I say my Anglo-Saxon tutor at university, apparently, I don't know if this is true, was one of the headhunters for MI5 in my college.
And I never got the tap on the shoulder.
They never even asked me to interview.
They thought I was unreliable, clearly.
Do you have any idea why that would be?
yeah because i'm the last person you'd you'd i'm indiscreet I'm uncontrollable.
i'm not gay um i'm um i'm just i fail all the You wouldn't recruit me.
I'd be shit.
Well, I'd be so shit that I'd be good, in a way, you know, because no one would guess that no one would recruit somebody like me.
You wouldn't.
Would you recruit me for intelligence?
Can you imagine?
I mean, if intelligence runs the world, runs the British Empire, the British Empire would collapse pretty quickly if I were in charge.
If you say so.
I would say that, though, wouldn't I?
I can see how you'd be perfect for certain roles.
Thanks, Richard.
Do you know what you've just gone and done?
You've just gone and given ammunition to that small but vocal group that thinks I am basically compromised and I'm some kind of enemy agent.
I don't know.
Oh, well, that's a good thing.
I mean, you can't be anybody in today's social media ecosystem unless you're at least suspected of being a secret agent of some sort or another.
It's almost obligatory.
Thank you for that.
This podcast has slightly been ruined by the fact because I've got a cold, I haven't even changed out of my new hunting britches for this podcast.
And I was looking down, and they've got like these kind of bits of fluff coming off them.
I've only worn them once.
I'm not sure...
You're hunting britches?
Yeah.
Yeah.
For hunting, you know.
On a horse, like we do in the British Empire.
Anyway, that's by the by.
I love talking to you.
It's been really fun.
And thank you for Keeping me going through my cold, because I was not feeling in the mood.
You've been very entertaining.
Are there any other books you've written that we should buy?
Well, we've written all sorts of books on different subjects.
I just encourage you to.
Well, the one that's best known right now is probably The Shadow Party.
I mentioned it before.
I wrote with the late David Horowitz, used to be my boss.
And that's about George Soros.
It's considered by some to be an important book about Soros.
It exposed, in some ways, for the first time, his color revolutions, his global network for regime change.
And it got a lot of people mad at me.
That book became the it was used by Glenn Beck as the basis for his famous three-part Puppet Masters expose of Soros, which was back in when was it?
Was it 20 gosh, I forgot when it was.
When was the Puppet Master series?
I don't know.
Oh, 2010.
It was 2010.
He did a three-part series.
Was Soros a British agent?
Yes, absolutely.
Totally.
Non-American.
British.
Well, he, yeah, absolutely British.
I mean, you know, he lived in Britain for 10 years.
He went to the London School of Economics.
He got his start.
Yeah, well, he's, you know, his.
I actually wrote an article some years ago, which still gets around quite a bit, called How the British Invented George Soros.
And it's on Substack.
If you're curious, take a look.
Okay.
I'm in danger of prolonging this podcast forever because you keep saying interesting things.
So stop saying interesting things, Richard.
Tell us what you're talking about.
You've got a substack.
Yes, indeed.
Okay.
Well, I'll put the details of that at the end of this piece as well.
Anything else you want to plug before I go and have my hot bath and let me say?
No, just my, you know, my latest.
Oh, oh, yes.
Actually, well, my latest book, as I said, is How the British Invented Communism and Blamed It on the Jews.
But I have another one coming out soon.
I was going to send you a cover to possibly put up.
My new book that's right about to come out, it's called Who Killed Lincoln? The Case Against England.
I thought you were like that.
Well, that's good.
Well, there's a subject for another podcast.
I'm going to crawl into my lair now, feeling full of shame at my compatriots.
Thoroughgoing evil.
So thank you, Richard Poe.
Doesn't this book sound great, everyone?
I think we should find out more.
Even I might read it.
And thank you for listening.
Thank you for watching.
Don't forget, support me.
You must.
It's good.
i'm a good cause and you want to support me um you can support me on you become a paid subscriber Substack, weirdly, are actually allowing new paid subscribers.
They've been holding it for about a month, two months, three months.
Have you found this, Richard?
The number of my subscribers have been increasing recently.
That they have been increasing?
If you look, you know, they give you a chart to see how the, and it had flatlined for a period of about six months, actually.
A lot of substat writers have been complaining about this, that it was basically an intelligence operation to control our audiences, to limit our reach, and that we were being denied paid subscribers.
And for some reason, people are now being allowed through again, so I'm getting a slight bump.
Anyway, I'm hoping that will continue.
I have noticed that, and I noticed, yes, I did get that flatline for several months.
It was very frustrating.
And then when it started going up, it went up very weirdly and inorganically, where it would suddenly jump, like in one day, a big jump, and then it would plateau for like a week or more, then it would jump up again.
And so it's like a step pattern, totally inorganic.
And it was almost as if somehow I was getting a tremendous vertical increase, and they were only allowing a certain amount, and then they'd flatline it for a week or so, then they'd let it jump again.
That's my interpretation.
I mean, that's not advanced mathematics.
I think so.
It just doesn't look organic to me.
I mean, I've been selling books for a long, long time, and I've seen ups and downs and all around, but I never saw this stair-step thing.
That was pretty impressive by its inorganicness.
Yeah, so everyone, try and work your way past this evil intelligence-driven tyranny that we live in and try and get the money to me, to the resistance, and to Richard as well, but obviously me, because this is my podcast, and you love it.
