 Divide the people. Split them into quarreling factions, fighting among themselves rather than their common enemy. For well do they know from long experience that the nation so divided and weakened can be easily conquered from within. So I want to say right off the bat that I don't think that this is literal communism that's coming in. As it would have been understood in the 60s and earlier, I think it's a simulation of communism. And I'll explain more of what I mean later on. Not to sound like a mad conspiracy theorist, it would be hard to deny that the kind of divisions that we're seeing being agitated and provoked nowadays fit exactly the model that's being described in this video. How can we divide people by gender, by ethnicity, by sexuality, by as many things as possible? The one thing that is conspicuously absent though is class, which is strange considering that this is supposed to be a Marxist philosophy, Marx who would have defined it as quite simply two classes. The oppressed and the oppressor, it was as simple as that. But we do see massive amounts of agitation along these different lines in the culture at large at the moment. Create the appearance of popular support. The dedicated one percent can trick the ninety and nine percent into surrendering their birthright. One of the tactics of narcissistic abuses is to put their target into a sort of a false reality. They take over your perceptions. They take over your emotions, how you feel, and what they like to do is subvert your values. So if you value something, they'll try and invert it and make the opposite value. So you're living inside of a kind of simulated reality, matrix style of the narcissistic abuser. Isn't it strange at the moment how everybody's gone woke, even banks awoke, supermarkets awoke, big corporations awoke, and I'm sort of sat here thinking, how do you believe that you're the vanguard of an authentic revolution? If it's being sponsored by Nike and Coca-Cola, that to me doesn't really make sense. I think what we're seeing right now is part of the phase that you've just heard described to you of it being normalized, that this is hyper normalization as a Russian author put it. That which was strange before is just a given now and we're expected to just de facto accept it as being the way it is. It's considered popular, it's considered widespread, but I wonder if it is really. This one is a little on the nose. I mean we can see this well-intentioned slogans and logos and easily repeatable phrases that you can put out there. Some of these phrases are almost impossible to deny. You could take as a prime example, as front and center stage in the mainstream media at the moment is Black Lives Matter. Who can deny that? It's like saying water is wet or the sky is blue. So you can't deny it. The name itself has a presupposition built into it that if you denied, you would be a monster. But does this well-intentioned slogan represent anything really? Or does it just force you to agree with it? We know that Black Lives Matter is an openly Marxist organization. The people at the top of Black Lives Matter have proudly stated that they are trained Marxists and they are using this particular psychological tool to get consent and to get people to go along with it as though it were normal. Because who isn't well intentioned? Who isn't humane? I mean claiming to be anti-racist or anti-fascist as though that's a virtue to me seems kind of insane. It's like saying you're anti-murder or anti-genocide. Of course you are. There's no virtue in that. That's just baseline standard humanity. We have a word for people who are not in line with that. We typically call them psychopaths or narcissists. So it kind of, it makes special that which should just be a given. And I think it is a given for most people barring a small minority of extremely mentally ill and emotionally dysregulated people. So it becomes redundant in and of itself. You must agree with the entirely redundant phrase or else you will fail the purity test of this orthodoxy. Neutralize the opposition. We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion and scorn toward those who disagree with us. So this next section refers to something that is beyond cancel culture and in a way I think is more pernicious and more damaging than cancel culture. Cancel culture refers to a culture of calling people out and then getting them deplatformed. Which is pernicious and it does create fear but I think it's actually the call out culture that is the problem. And what I mean here is the psychological effect of calling people out. Imagine it's a game and there's a hundred of us inside of this system, this game that we're playing, where the way that you gain points is to call out other people and the way that you lose all your points is to be called out. Now I'm not saying that's what it is but if we run that as a model, we run that simulation, what will the behavior of the people within that system within that game be? Surely they would be rushing to find somebody to call out, exerting time, exerting energy, spending calories just to try and find somebody else to call them out because if you're the one doing the calling out, the presupposition is you won't be called out yourself. One of the things that I've noticed particularly amongst young people, particularly in people aged between 15 and 25, largely called Gen Z, you have the tail end of millennials there but particularly amongst Gen Z is fear. They're terrified, they're frightened that one day this is going to happen to them. They're walking around with a policeman inside their heads terrified that if they say or do the wrong thing they will be called out and there'll be some terrible consequence and in that way we learn to police ourselves. Isn't that convenient? Is there any part of what we're seeing playing out right now that doesn't fulfill a completely totalitarian and corporate agenda? If there is a part of it that I've missed please tell me in the comments because all I see this leading to, all I see this being of benefit to is totalitarianistic agendas. And thus, precipitating mob violence. Master psychologists that they are, the communists know that once the masses are in the streets it's not too difficult to convert an orderly demonstration into a full-scale riot. So this is actually a phase. Chaos, unrest, civil unrest which can easily be provoked into riots and this was specifically stated by Stalin, by Lenin. They knew that if you could break down the social order, bring in chaos, agitate people along these different lines of division you would have chaos. And in that chaos, as things seem to be disintegrating, what happens? I mean if you apply the Hegelian dialectic, you have the thesis, you have the antithesis and then you have the synthesis. Problem, reaction, solution. What's the problem? Well the civil unrest. People are rioting. Well we don't like that. What's our reaction to that? Well we want it to stop and then the government can come and go, ah we have a pre-made solution for you. It's called stronger laws. It's called curfews. It's called you giving up your civil liberties and becoming more tracked and more trackable in everything that you do. Why? Well you know we have all this civil unrest and you said you wanted it to stop so we have to watch you more. We have to tag you more. We need to know exactly where you're up to at all times so that we can control this chaotic force that you find so agitating. And you sit there and you go oh thank you government. Thank you for saving me from all this dreadful chaos whilst they're rubbing their hands with glee. All the power goes up to the government, to the authorities. That's totalitarianism. It doesn't matter whether it's left wing or right wing. Who cares? Who wants to live in a totalitarianistic authoritarian dictatorship? I don't. All the power goes upward and the state grows. It gets bigger, it gets stronger. And who's demanding for it to get bigger and stronger? The people themselves who are in turn being enslaved by it. They're basically screaming for their own enslavement. It's a very clever, very sneaky tactic. In China, as in all countries, the communist appeal was aimed primarily at students, young idealistic intellectuals, most of whom came from wealthy families who could afford to send them to school. It was from this group that the young communist recruits came who later provided the leadership and backbone for the armed conflict to follow. And in the next phase, they openly say we need to target young intellectuals, we need to target students, we need to target young idealistic people who can be easily deceived into utopian dreams for the future. It's easy to tell young people this stuff because young people, even if they're from wealthy families, they've never owned anything themselves. You can, they're in such a neuroplastic state at their brains and so little experience and so much of idealism, you could say look at the horror in the world, look at how awful the world is, look at the pain, look at the suffering. We could stop this, don't you want to stop it? Of course, young students, I was one of them. I was a radical leftist when I was at university. I was a social justice warrior. Why? Because there's terrible things in the world. It's not that the statement of the problem is false. I would agree with 90% of what radical leftists would say is wrong with the world. I would agree with them. I'd say yes, that is a problem. The way you've identified the problems, largely speaking, it's a little exaggerated in historical, but it's actually correct. But the solutions they provide, I agree with none of them. They're always appeals to authority, appeals to force, and it's like a child asking for mommy and daddy to come along by force and fix things. I don't believe anymore that this is the solution. I think individualism is the solution, individual rights, individual strength, individual boundaries. This is all a facade. It's a trick. The people who are feeding you these ideas, the people who are feeding the ideas to young students, they don't give a single shit about suffering in the world. All they want is to convince the students that this is the way things are, so that they'll be the frontline infantry, so that they'll be the vanguard, the revolutionary guard, to agitate for the riots, to bring around the big social chain, so that it falls right into the hands of government forces. And we end up with more authoritarianism and more statism at the end of all of this. As law enforcement officers sought to restore order, police brutality became the cry of the insurgents. The invariable charges of police brutality were hurled as efforts were made to maintain law and order. So here you have it folks, straight from the communist manual itself, calls for less police power. People screeching about police brutality, cherry-picked incidents where you have a country that has 330 million people in it like America, an armed people, you have people with guns, and a police force doing its job, making hundreds of thousands of arrests every day. Who knows how many of them become physical, end up in wrestling matches and control and restraint scenarios. And we are fed a narrative by the mainstream media that cherry picks the absolute worst incidents with the worst actors. Because of course, if you have hundreds of thousands of police officers in operation making hundreds of thousands of arrests, we know from the psychology research, at least one percent, possibly five percent of them will be narcissists and or psychopaths. So of course they're going to do bad things, of course they're going to exploit their power over people, of course there will be bad incidents. But if we focus on that and blow it up, we end and we do it again and again and again. The lie is told over and over and over again that all police are like this all the time. We would be left with the impression that, hey, the police is bad and police brutality is the major issue that we should be looking at in the country today. But then when you actually take a cold, cool, objective look at the statistics, you see a completely different picture emerging. If what we want to do is stop violence. Let's say, for example, we have an incident where it's a man who is hurt. And we say, okay, we've carved this by, we'll just carve it by gender. We'll leave race out of it. A man was killed today. Too many men are killed in America in violent incidents. We say, okay, so you think men dying in violent incidents is bad? Yes, we do. Okay. So what are the statistics? Who's killing the men? Who's killing the male civilians in America on a year by year average? Is it the police? What percentage of men killed in America are killed by police every year? Who's killing the rest of the men? Is it other men? Are they largely civilians? Perhaps the problem we think we have and, hey, murder is a problem. If I have to say that, I'm going to make my case here. Yes, I'm against murder. Yes. Murder is a problem. We should reduce murder. We should reduce injustice. We should reduce violence as a civilized, cohesive, intelligent, democratic, and ostensibly free society. Absolutely. But what is the problem? Where is it coming from? Really, everybody can enjoy a mainstream media news story and get that little cocaine hit of indignation and rage. And they can enjoy a sort of an addiction to conflict, an addiction to a sense of being oppressed and affronted. I'm going to show off now. I was reading Dotsyevsky last night, the camera of Brothers. I only read it so I could tell you in this video. And he was saying the characters were talking to each other and a monk is talking to a Russian man, a Russian monk is talking to a Russian man. And he said, don't become addicted to your own indignation. It's a terrible temptation. It's easy to find a fence if what you're looking for is a fence and it becomes an addictive cycle. So beware. The communists are then ready to implement the final stage of their blueprint for conquest. It takes only a handful of armed opportunists, criminals and savages to create the semblance of revolution. So what we see in this next section is we see a reference to the semblance of revolution. And I thought when I saw this, I was like, that's interesting. Why does it say the semblance of revolution and not a real revolution? Because you don't need a real revolution. You don't need an authentic revolution. To have your revolution, you only need the simulation of it. This is interesting because this video that you're watching clips from was made in 1966. There's no way that they could have known how the world was going to go. There's no way that they could have predicted social media and the multiple forms of entertainment that we have today. But haven't we slowly over time entrained ourselves to consume the simulation of a thing as though it were the real thing itself. So they actually only call for, this is from actual real communists, this is from Stalin, this is from Marx, this is from Lenin, how to do a revolution. You only need the semblance of it. You only need the semblance of popular support. You only need the simulation that everybody's for it and you have your revolution. So just to let it be known where I stand on this here about communism and what I think is happening right now, I am not totally against socialist ideas. I think that we as a civilized society should be kind. What we have in the UK is the same as what we have in America. You don't live in purely capitalist societies. I know people in America are terrified and they react badly to the word socialism. I've got news for you. You live in a capitalist socialist society. You have and have had for decades, strongly socialist policies working there. I'm for a welfare state. I'm for a health service, a state sponsored health service so that nobody who is sick cannot be helped within that country. I just think it's a sign of a civilized society. So should we legislate for kindness? Of course. We'd be monsters if we didn't if we were just running some purely, you know, Nietzsche as interpreted by Himmler society. We were like, well, only the strong can survive. And if you broke your legs, sorry about that, comrades, you're just going to have to die in the street. You wouldn't want to live in that society and neither would I. But we need to be careful when we're legislating kindness because kindness that is forced on a person through the barrel of a gun ceases to be kindness. And we need to realize that communism, the true communism, the beautiful ideal of nobody owning anything and everybody sharing that which is and everybody just working for the good of all, it is a beautiful ideal. But to me, Marx reads like a sci-fi story. Who's going to do that? Do we have like highly intelligent benevolent aliens who are going to come along and track everybody and redistribute the wealth equitably? Are we going to have a huge benevolent supercomputer AI that does that for us? Who's going to do it? Do people not understand that you can't legislate evil away? Evil is in the human heart. Lost, greed, materialism, they're in the human heart. Maybe one day when we've evolved more, we would have true Marxist communism because Marx, when he originally wrote about communism, it was an observation of what would be not what should be that came later when he wrote with angles, the communist manifesto. And I think one day it will spontaneously occur and I've even seen it spontaneously occurring. You know, if you have a group of 20 people who get together for a day and they're working towards doing a singular objective and they can all see each other, what you end up with is what Marx called primitive or tribal communism. It's spontaneous. People share. They help each other. You have a common goal. But for society at large, where we're up to right now in terms of our evolution, we are not ready. So where you see massacres, where you see gulags, where you see genocides in history, I wouldn't say that's a bug. I'd say that's a feature. Why? Because it's human beings as we are today trying to do something that we are just not ready for. Final point. I don't think the kind of communism that we're looking at today is the communism of decades past. I think it's the semblance of communism. Actually, what it's there to do is it's there to cover up the fact that we're moving towards neo feudalism, a technocratic oligarchy at the top of elites who will be less than 1% of the population. So it will be oligarchy and feudalism for them, communism for us. And that that will be a social credit score that will be you will not own anything and you will be happy. That will be you will no longer have products. Your products will all be services and you will share everything. So things will be built to last longer. Not all of this I see as being ultra evil. What I think the problem is is the deception and I think the utopianism is the problem. And the fact that people are drinking the Kool-Aid with this and lacking the ability to see clearly exactly what's going on. We're having our perceptions altered for the benefits of people who do not have the best intentions at heart for us. And I think we need to be aware.