Conrad Speaks

In the wake of Facebook’s downtime, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, NSA-whistleblower Edward Snowden, and several other prominent figures all chimed in to condemn the spread of “misinformation” on social media platforms.

This points to a simple conspiracy, namely that either the downtime or the response to it were coordinated. It also suggests state powers, especially those in the U.S., have an apparent need to begin controlling the flow of information. And that’s called censorship.

Edward Snowden took it to the extreme yesterday and published an article titled “Apophenia”. This condition, first coined by Nazi psychologist Klaus Conrad, involves people looking for confirmation of their own biases, and then finding said confirmation in random coincidences.

In his blog post, Snowden seems to argue that ordinary people who think they see patterns in information are likely conspiracy theorists, and that proper thinking is best left to professionally trained social theorists. This is Marxism in a nutshell, for it denies people can trust their own senses, and claims that those who try are “victims of institutions”. Where have we heard that before?

Snowden further writes, “The easier it becomes to produce information, the harder that information becomes to consume.” Snowden means to say that when ordinary people—rather than trained experts—start writing blog posts on the internet, the information overload makes it harder for everyone to figure out what is true.

If that sounds like an argument for censoring the internet … well that’s exactly what Snowden is suggesting.

Except, it isn’t so. Snowden falsely assumes that by now limiting the production of information (say, through “fact-checking”), we somehow regain access to higher quality, more truthful information. But once we start censoring information, we don’t somehow get more condensed truths, rather, we get more refined b******t.

What he really means to say is that common people shouldn’t be allowed to freely use social media anymore, for they may end up believing things that aren’t true. This is a threat to states and state media, for the public’s own opinions drown out the voices of state-sanctioned outlets. The greater diversity of thoughts among the public that social media has enabled diminishes the effectiveness of state propaganda.

I find it odd that Snowden would not see that value in that. Whose side is he on, really?

Snowden next calls human beings “meaning-making machines” and I thought that was a peculiar phrase, for two reasons. One, people are not machines. Does Snowden think of himself as a machine? Does he believe people ought to be programmed like computers? And two, people don’t just make meaning. They more often absorb it or cultivate it slowly.

We are not meaning-making machines, we are sense-absorbing beings.

Basically, Snowden’s grand argument is that the general public cannot be trusted to filter out truths from untruths on their own, and therefore, we ought to somehow start restricting people’s use of social media. Can you smell the internet passport already? Because I smell the internet passport and I wonder if the unvaccinated will still be allowed to have opinions online. We’ll see.

(Apparently, Snowden himself is still allowed to “produce information” on his blog, and he perfectly timed his post for Facebook’s outage, as though he hadn’t already prepared the article long in advance.)

No, people do not seek “order in the chaos”, either, as Snowden claims. This is a typical leftist trope based on the Left’s own inability to understand the populist Right. They mistakenly think right-wingers need order and closure, but we, on the Right, actually excell at dealing with unpredictable circumstances, whereas it is the Left that has the incessant need to make everything predictable.

It is the Left that wants to capture the workings of the whole universe in unchanging scientific formulae and fixed constants. The Left must deny anything they cannot predict. Hence, the Left’s fear and hatred of the unpredictably superior Right, for the man who has the intuitive senses and his wits about him to deal with an unsure future can succeed without calculation.

Snowden: “But we now live in a dystopian digital landscape purpose-built to undermine these capabilities, training us to mistake planned patterns for convenient and even meaningful coincidences.”

What he calls a dystopian digital landscape is his way of saying social media. In other words, he believes social media, which has enabled ordinary people to communicate among themselves for the first time in human history, is the state planner’s worst nightmare, and it has to be stopped, in some form or way, for it apparently trains people to think wrongly. Wrongthink!

We might, for example, mistakenly assume Snowden has been working for the World Economic Forum all this time, now pushing precisely Klaus Schwab’s and George Soros’s policy of dismantling social media.

I don’t deny that a lot of what is said online is nonsense. I say that social media actually provides some people with a way to puncture through the gigantic historical and present State lies and find a glimpse of the truth, some of the time. By removing this tool from the public’s hands, no one will only be able to access true information, for the fact-checkers are employed by the State. Their alleged independence is a sham.

The technocrats have given us, the people, a tool for searching the truth, but it has proven so dangerous to state interests that we may no longer have it. Social media were supposed to help the blue checkmark crowd spread their version of the truth, but now we cannot have a rebellious population finding out alternative truths, for example, that it was the CIA who killed Kennedy, or that Zionists embedded within the U.S. government such as Paul Wolfowitz actually did 9/11?

It’s very, very strange to find Snowden in this camp of what is, in essence, a call for internet censorship, reeling social media outlets back in, and letting the blue-checkmark fact-checking crowd tell us what is true from now on. But there he is, masterminding the new Ministry of Truth.

Snowden believes that people’s access to and participation in information production “has ‘turned back’ and ‘reorganized [the universe]’ to revolve around the individual, performing and corroborating his suspicions.” What he means to say is he believes social media have made people fall for their own preconceptions by finding lucky coincidences here and there. In other words, he is arguing against common people doing their own research, for he believes you have to be a trained expert to do so.

So, I repeat what I stated earlier. Even if this is so, and most people using the internet somehow end up believing nonsense, there are still immeasurable benefits won here, namely that people’s personal conspiracies help drown out the official state-sanctioned versions, thereby diminishing the power of the state (which I think is a good thing), and that some people do actually manage to find out the truth by critically scrutinizing their thinking.

Without stating any facts to back it up, Snowden feels the need to say “Hitler was one of greatest conspiracy theorists of all time.” Really? Which conspiracies did Hitler believe in? The one where he said that the Russian communist leadership under Lenin was majority Jewish? Oh wait, that’s the one Winston Churchill disclosed in his article Zionism versus Bolshevism.

Without the internet, I would never have found that article, and I would never have been able to confirm that, indeed, most of the Soviet Russian leadership under Lenin was majority Jewish, nor would I have found out that Soviet Russia invaded Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic States, and Czechoslovakia before Hitler invaded the Sudetenland of which mainstream historians still say “that’s what started World War 2”.

Meaning, the Soviets invaded Europe first, but no one in the so-called international community batted an eye until the Germans began to defend themselves.

Without the internet, I could not have known that Lenin and Stalin always meant to invade and occupy all of Europe and that neither the French, the British, nor the Poles could have stopped them. But one country might have been able to stop the Russian advance, and despite all lies told about WW2, the Germans really did stop the Russians at Berlin, thereby granting Western Europe almost 75 years of freedom and peace.

The real conspiracy theorists, I believe, are the censors of history who have deliberately warped our understanding of that period. Of course they fear the free internet that lets critical minds painstakingly piece together what really happened.

Snowden: “In fact [Klaus Conrad, who coined the condition of apophenia] ended up being one of the only Nazi scientists to be producing science without rockets, torture, or pentagrams.” I suppose they also invented the transistor radio, cryptography, the Autobahn, consumer cars, Olympic torch relays, particle board, Jägermeister, and the jerrycan.

I jokingly mention these, because Snowden here actually does what he warns others not to do. He relies on his own apophenic nonsense to justify his literal conspiracy theory that says German scientists were only involved in drawing pentagrams and torturing people. That’s not true.

“In an apophenic state,” he continues, “everything’s a pattern.” Yes, but only to machine-minded men like Snowden. Most people worldwide never ever find themselves in an apophenic state, meaning, to them, the use of and access to mass quantities of information still provides them with a healthy glimpse into the inner workings of reality. It generally does not fool people into believing nonsense.

Snowden goes on to complain about “the narcissism of living online.” But most people online aren’t narcisssists. Sure, we all know Joey B. Toonz’s showcase of the TikTok narcissists, but although social media offers narcissists tools to promote themselves, using the internet doesn’t make anyone a narcissist. Now this might be a conspiracy theory, but I do believe Edward Snowden is a narcissist.

According to Snowden, on social media, “you can basically find evidence for any theory you want”. That still doesn’t say most people who go looking for evidence for their theories end up believing them. Most people don’t. The threat of misinformation is highly exaggerated and must stem from another fear, namely the fear people are waking up to the truths that censors of the past so carefully tried to hide.

It also isn’t true that everybody is always looking for evidence for their made-up theories online, since very few people bother to think up their own theories. In fact, it would be beneficial to society if more people started thinking up their own theories rather than not to think at all. Most people, today, still swallow whatever the mainstream media tell them to believe despite having acess to an internet full of insights that might help falsify the mainstream narrative.

The belief that mainstream media and mainstream historians are telling us the truth is a lie.

At this point, Snowden feels like showing his true colors by citing a Jewish conspiracy theorist named Karl Popper, who, for example, believed that the entire canon of Western philosophy since Plato inevitably led to the Holocaust and the Gulags. That’s not true. That’s a conspiracy theory.

Snowden: “Popper believed conspiracy theories are exactly what feeds a totalitarian state like Hitler’s Germany, playing on and playing up the public’s paranoia of The Other. And authoritarians get away with it precisely because their pseudoscientific claims, masquerading as sound research, are designed to be difficult to prove ‘false’ in the heat of the moment, when data sets—not to mention a sense of the historical consequences—are necessarily incomplete.”

Wow, just wow. He’s so whiny he sounds like Greta Thunberg going blah-blah-blah.

For starters, actual science, as we know it, rests on the unproven and unprovable assumption of materialism, which is the belief that everything in existence in the universe is matter in motion, denying the existence of souls, a free will, a spiritual dimension, the existence of minds, and God. That means all science is pseudoscience, since all science is materialist science, which, as of today, has no sound and proven basis in reality.

Materialism has never yet been proven true. So it is certainly not just “the authoritarans” who make up arguments that are difficult to prove ‘false’. It is the entire leftish ideology, too, that itself rests on yet unproven assumptions. However, the assumptions of the Left do seem to be a lot easier to falsify. Make of that what you will.

Snowden then ends his blog post with a typical left-wing anti-fascist trope:

“The conspiracy theorist will believe that institutions can be understood completely as the result of conscious design; and as collectives, he usually ascribes to them a kind of group-personality, treating them as conspiring agents, just as if they were individual men.”

Sure, we already know Snowden sees people as machines. Himself clearly lacking a personality, he cannot grasp the concept of groups of people behaving as an organism. But groups do behave as one, some of the time. Herds of deer, for example, can collectively respond to a threat. They do not respond as isolated individuals.

Snowden believes that people who recognize that biologically related people with shared values and beliefs can act as “groups” are, in his view, “conspiracy theorists”. In other words, he thinks people who see families as families and not as random collections of thrown-together individuals are all right-wing conspiracists.

Snowden also believes that only the social scientist who forces himself to see the world in terms of atomized individuals, just as he sees the physical world as collections of atoms devoid of any soul or mind, is a “public thinker, oriented toward improving society”, whereas the family-oriented men who see the ties between individuals and how they bond individuals together into groups “is a victim of institutions that lie beyond their control.”

Do I need to say more? Notice that I don’t accuse Snowden of having a personality, and that is because communists, as a group, are too single-minded to be suspected of having a personality. They have been regurgitating the exact same unchanging philosophy at least since the revolution of 1917, and they have not progressed their understanding of the world one iota since Karl Marx.

Snowden is a classical communist whose mind is broken, and who wants to put social scientists—pseudoscientists—in charge of our world. Haven’t we learned enough from history to make sure that may never happen again?

Links Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Discord, Telegram, Apple Podcast

Subscribe www.jmk.info

Get full access to Conrad Speaks at www.jmk.info/subscribe

I talk about the post-national world, the age of empires, where elites are battling it out for global power. They are the European Union, the Commonwealth of Nations, the U.S. Empire, the Islamic/Arabic OPEC nations, the post-Soviet Russia, and China.

Links Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Discord, Telegram, Apple Podcast

Subscribe www.jmk.info

Get full access to Conrad Speaks at www.jmk.info/subscribe

In times of economic collapse, the rich and powerful are overcome by a panic response. They will tighten the belts of society and begin cutting away middle-class fat. To avoid being eaten by the rich, I recommend people join the rebellion against them. But being a rebel also means the control state will come after you, for you represent the Unpredictable.

(You are watching drone footage from the south of The Netherlands. I recorded it with a DJI Mini 2.)

Links Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Discord, Telegram, Apple Podcast

Subscribe www.jmk.info

Get full access to Conrad Speaks at www.jmk.info/subscribe

Today is the twentieth anniversary of the September 11 attacks on the Twin Towers in New York City. Many people born since that day will only know of the event as historical. And though many more who lived through the deception no longer believe the official narrative, few people have a clue what really happened.

I could give you the names of some of the high-ranking conspirators who perpetrated 9/11. I could tell you they were former Secretaries of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld, former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and Condoleeza Rice, owner of the Twin Towers, Larry Silverstein, and on the Israeli side, former Mossad agents Ehud Barak and Benjamin Netanyahu, the later premier, and former deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz.

I could tell you the conspirators publicly organized themselves behind PNAC, the Project for the New American Century, or that the Bush family was deeply involved, but that we must consider George W. Bush a puppet cast for his Christian family appeal rather than for his involvement, let alone for his intellect.

Before I explain more about motive, let me shed a light on how it was done. German journalist Gerhard Wisnewski seems to have been the first who put the missing pieces together in his book Operation 9/11, so here’s a summary added with my own insights:

No civilian planes ever hit the Twin Towers. What you saw on TV was computer-generated imagery to make it look like planes hit the Towers, thereby causing the explosions. The explosions were real, but the planes were not. Most of the fake footage was produced by MIT’s own Media Lab, at the time the most advanced cgi facility.

Some of the videos you’ve seen were staged by secret service actors dressed as firefighters and police officers (such as this one). Other civilian home videos were hunted down by secret police, and some were coerced into redubbing their footage to fit the ‘correct’ narrative.

Actual planes did take off from JFK and other airports but were rerouted hundreds of miles to the west of New York City. Under normal circumstances, hijacked planes should have been intercepted by fighter jets, as has happened over a hundred times before. On 9/11, however, drones intercepted the aircraft.

The conspirators directing the attacks from somewhere within the United States managed to switch over the transponder signals from the civilian airliners to the drones in mid-air, suggesting the drones turned on preprogrammed devices while those of the civilian planes were switched off. Two drones then continued en route to Manhattan, and possibly two missiles or smaller drones set course for the Pentagon and the White House.

The four passenger planes, each carrying around fifty passengers, landed at various airports nearby. Flight United Airlines 175, for example, which was supposed to have hit the North Tower, actually landed at Cleveland airport. The American FAA, the Federal Aviation Authority, listed flights UA 175 and UA 93 as “active duty” aircraft until September 28th, 2005. Only when conspiracy theorists began writing the FAA asking about these planes did the FAA change the planes’ status from “active duty” to “canceled”--but not to “destroyed” as is customary if planes have crashed.

In other words, the FAA’s actions suggest both these planes kept operating regular flights around the USA, even after 2005, and were never destroyed, proving the drone theory is right. No planes ever hit the Towers.

The passengers aboard these planes were mostly government employees who had volunteered to participate in a military exercise, which indeed took place that day, as civilian and military branches coincidentally staged a mock terrorist attack that very morning. That means it’s possible some of the families left behind were also in on the conspiracy, but others were not.

The military exercise certainly added greatly to the confusion among air traffic control employees who couldn’t tell the difference between their exercise and the ongoing terror attack.

Secret servicemen ushered the disembarked passengers into hangars, where some were ordered to record fake phone calls to family and friends just before the drones hit any of their targets. Problem is, in 2001, consumer cell phones couldn’t have had a working connection at such altitudes. The cell-phone calls were all staged on the ground, but so were several phone calls from stewards and stewardesses.

Although the FBI found some of the alleged Muslim attackers’ passports among the burning rubble, no passengers’ bodies were ever found. The conspirators murdered them elsewhere and families buried empty casqets.

The drones that allegedly hit the Twin Towers should have disintegrated upon impact. Considering the impossibility of timing an explosion to the exact moment of an airplane’s high-speed impact, I say not even the drones hit the towers. Nothing hit the towers. The drones flew over their intended targets and then switched off the transponders to disappear from the radar, merely suggesting an impact.

Without a doubt, the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. When owner Larry Silverstein purchased the Twin Towers, he was legally required to strip each floor of the asbestos that had been used during construction. This was going to be a very costly operation but now also served as a perfect cover for rigging the buildings with explosives. During the weeks before the attacks, secret servicemen posing as construction workers were heard using heavy machinery, preparing every floor and every column of the buildings for their demolition.

As firefighters and others on the ground consistently reported, the first explosions heard came from the Twin Towers’ basements, several seconds before the planes supposedly hit, i.e., before the main explosions up top went off. These basement explosions are the reason why hardly 15% of the buildings’ mass was ever retrieved from the site after their collapse. The new Freedom Tower was, in fact, built right on top of where much of the older buildings’ rubble still lies buried today, signaling the victory of Zionism over Heritage America.

Owner Larry Silverstein can be heard spilling too much of the beans when he admitted on live television that they also decided to “pull” World Trade Center 7.

A day of fun for him, but to the victims of 9/11, the event was a literal Holocaust. In Italian, the word holocausto means: “burnt offering”, and I say it in reference to the innocent souls trapped on the upper floors of the towers whose bodies melted alive as the buildings went up in abnormally hellish flames. These men and women were sacrificed to Moloch to secure a future for U.S. Empire, for Greater Israel, and for Saudi Arabia.

Several interests were served here, and it would be wrong to suggest Israel alone benefited from the War on Terror, though in hindsight, the State of Israel gained the most from the 9/11 attacks, whereas the United States ended up drawing the short straw. Twenty years later, Afghanistan has fallen back into Taliban hands, Syria’s Assad allied with Russia to beat the U.S. Army, and China is even better equipped to win the global power game.

The War on Terror was sold to the general public as a nation-building exercise. We were going to bring democracy and women’s rights to rogue states. In reality, the U.S. did everything it could to topple democratically elected leaders and replace them with loyal dictators. Regime change had nothing to do with bringing the vote to the poor and the oppressed.

All 9/11 did was provide U.S. Congress with an excuse to funnel trillions of U.S. taxpayers’ dollars to the Pentagon’s warmachine. Not some high-brow, low-IQ camel herders from Torah Borah, but Zionists in high places did 9/11, and they got away with it without even so much as a parking ticket.

Colluding with foreign actors to stage a terrorist attack on one’s own soil is called treason, yet we find the most treasonous elements that made 9/11 possible among those who weren’t even part of the conspiracy, namely: mainstream journalists.

The majority of our news analysts never even bothered to question the official narrative, while eagerly mocking and humiliating the truth movement. Guys like Wolf Blitzer, idiots without a heart or a brain, greedily sold us the Lie.

Without such silent complicity of tens of thousands of so-called journalists in the West, the 9/11 conspirators could never have pulled it off. We must, therefore, above all, incriminate the media, for if the mainstream media lied to us about 9/11, they lied about everything.

Links Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Discord, Telegram, Apple Podcast

Subscribe www.jmk.info

Get full access to Conrad Speaks at www.jmk.info/subscribe

Western civilization, spiritually and racially speaking, reached its pinnacle around the 1870s. That’s almost 150 years back. The seeds of our modern age—telephones, photography, the headphone jack, and consumer cars—had just been invented. This was the age of Richard Wagner’s Ring of the Nibelungs, of Jules Verne’s Around the World in Eighty Days, and the beginning of the German Empire, the Second Reich.

In that same decade, however, everything came crashing down. The Industrial Age that had uprooted millions of rural families looking for a better life in the new bustling cities proved an illusion. It was the Panic of 1873, following the collapse of the Viennese Stock Market in May of that year, which set in motion the events leading up to the First and Second World Wars.

Earlier that century, in 1806, the Holy Roman Empire had been dissolved, i.e., the First Reich, a deeply religious Catholic empire ruled by a feudal Germanic backbone stretching across Central Europe from Southern Denmark to Northern Italy. Now, a small but cunning financial clique had bankrupted Europe. The colonial powers in the West, such as France, Britain, and Spain, won great riches overseas and wrestled themselves free from Germanic feudalism.

By the late nineteenth century, French socialists had won the culture war, and governments around the West began playing to the new tune of scientific atheism, for the age of machines and computers had started. Laborers across the world saw their demand diminish as machines took over, a trend that still continues into our time as robots and algorithms are filling ever more job openings.

At least Western Europe’s populations still kept growing in absolute numbers until around the year 1990 when most of Western Europe’s native populations began stalling in absolute numbers and have since seen a slow but steady decline. Quality of life has panned out. The struggle for life is noticeably worsening; the loss of our freedoms is casually mentioned on the daily news.

The financial implosion of nineteenth-century Europe ultimately gave birth to the United States as the global superpower, and for some time, Americans proudly carried on the European soul. But the U.S., too, today, is falling for the same scams that killed Europe before, namely: mass immigration of rural peoples into the cities, mass exploitation of said peoples, and the inevitable financial rug-pulling as soon as another banking elite decides the time is right.

Ordinary people have been bred for the slaughterhouse. There is no chivalric white nobility left, so to speak, no self-respecting class of whites in leading positions willing to brave uncertainty and doubt. There seem to be no higher-ups willing to win victories for the people. There is only the sort of misfits left with billions of dollars to spend on their personal reigns of terror.

I presume the people in power of Western media and politics are handing down the abuse they themselves suffered as children, now taking it out on society at large. The speed at which they brought the communist dystopia online says two things: 1. The new totalitarians had been planning to cancel our freedoms for decades if not centuries in advance, and 2. Most of the technology used to control the herd is Made in China.

You see, we are still living with the consequences of what happened in Vienna in 1873. For almost 150 years, white people have had no faith in themselves, only in money and technology. If we do nothing, China is going to win the war on the West, not by firing a single shot but by buying us out, by bribing the traitors who presently pose as our leaders, by making deals with our depressed ruling classes.

Western peoples are at risk of being put up for sale to Chinese bidders. How much Chinese yuan do we get for the Eiffel Tower? How much for the Akropolis? How much is our nation worth to your investors?

Having effectively lost the Cold War and the Gulf Wars and the War on Terror and the Afghan War, and basically every war the U.S. ever started, there is no reason to suggest our once honorable elites have any shot at winning a Great War against the East. It goes against their financial interests. And so, our so-called elites go against their own peoples.

As we are waking up to what life under global communism means—extreme control and humiliation—what choice do we have but to think of rebellion? Perhaps what our elites couldn’t do, we the people can do. This point in history is what I call Our Teutoburg, our Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, that time when ordinary men, workers, and peasants rise to meet the world’s largest army in the forests of Eurasia.

Our rich and powerful have turned traitors. When the next stock market crash comes, they are going to grab all the money they can, dumping the majority of us in poverty. Our new communist overlords shall step out from behind the curtains and openly declare themselves masters of the world.

And then, when the snake believes it has subdued the men of Europa, our peoples shall bring forth a Siegfried, a leader who shall unite the peoples of the West, a man who shall father a New White Nobility, and secure a future for our children.

Links Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Discord, Telegram, Apple Podcast

Subscribe www.jmk.info

Get full access to Conrad Speaks at www.jmk.info/subscribe

Imagine you’re about to parachute out of a plane on your first solo jump. You push yourself out the door and plunge to earth, some fourteen thousand feet below. It’s exciting and you’re enjoying yourself.

But right after you pull the cord, you notice the chute appears to be stuck. The wires are all tangled up, and the canvas won’t unfold properly. You can’t help but notice the surface below is closing in at alarming speeds. You start to panic.

Overwhelmed with immense fear and stress, not knowing what to do, you all of a sudden experience a pop in your head. Your mind has fled to a safe space. It’s as though you are observing yourself from a distance.

In this condition, you seem to be controlling your body the way a driver controls a car. The fear you felt before has gone away. You feel calm and focused, and know exactly what to do.

You make a rational decision that is about to save your life. You release the failed parachute by pulling a cord strapped onto your chest, and you activate a second chute—the emergency chute—by pulling another. You land safely in a maize field.

What happened to your mind is called dissociation. Under extreme anxiety, fear, or stress—or God forbid, pain and torture—people’s minds can seemingly detach themselves from their bodies, stopping us from going insane.

The ability to dissociate our minds from our bodies, then, is a life-saving quality of the human psyche. But when we permanently dissociate from ourselves and from reality, we are suffering from Dissociative Rational Politics, or DERP.

Research shows that men suffering from dissociative politics are more likely to be physically smaller and shorter in stature than their less frightful compatriots. They feel a constant need to dissociate from “the others”, such as rural conservatives or religious people, or from anyone else they deem “too emotional”.

It is from this sterile condition that a host of delusional side effects arise. So disconnected from reality, rationalist political thinkers begin to see an imaginary world, one in which all people are somehow born equal.

They see a world without class differences, without races and religions, without financial inequality, a world in which rational minds all work together for the common good rather than compete against one another.

In this Rational State, ordinary people may even discard the very notions of biology and family, for a mind without a body has no history, no gender, no family, no class, no face, and no life.

This is the world of DARPA and of Boston Dynamics, a world in which robotic machines may become replacement vehicles for our bodies; a world in which people with physical disabilities may, one day, upload their minds to a computer and live on forever.

To usher in the victory of the Rational over all things Natural, the dissociated person must avoid any and all confrontation with the real world. Rational Man prefers to flee into logic in order not to provoke emotions among those he perceives as threats.

All rational politics, then, is deeply rooted in an irrational fear of the outside world, or rather, in the inability to overcome said fear. Should we allow the Rational Left to design a technocratic world for all, one in which faceless and gender-neutral people are ruled by algorithms?

Perhaps people should be careful not to succumb to the paralyzing fears that shut themselves in. Instead, we should confront our weaknesses. We should always strive to reunite our bodies with our minds.

And people suffering from Dissociative Rational Politics would do well to note that, without their bodies, they would be nobodies.

Links Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Discord, Telegram, Apple Podcast

Subscribe www.jmk.info

Get full access to Conrad Speaks at www.jmk.info/subscribe

The philosopher Bertrand Russell argued it was religious people’s job to prove the existence of God rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others. That burden should be carried by people who make the unfalsifiable claim. But it turns out that Russell’s reasoning itself contained an unfalsifiable claim for which no proof has ever been submitted, namely the assumption of materialism.

Russell’s famous teapot analogy, often invoked as an argument against the existence of God, goes as follows:

“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.” (Bertrand Russell)

No telescope, so far, has ever caught a glimpse of a teapot floating in the space between Earth and Mars. Though such a teapot might exist, atheists such as Richard Dawkins can say that the existence of God is just as unlikely.

However, Russell’s teapot analogy contains a fallacy, namely a fallacy of reduction. To make his analogy work, Russell first had to assume that all unfalsifiable claims, such as the existence of God or of the cosmic teapot, exclusively pertain to the physical world. But the assumption that reality is strictly material is itself an unfalsifiable claim.

Since we cannot observe any physical entity sitting on a throne somewhere in the universe, we may conclude the existence of a material God is highly unlikely, like the existence of the floating teapot. A non-material god, however, a spiritual being, can easily escape Russell’s analogy. Russell didn’t prove God’s existence is unlikely, he only proved God is not a teapot—God is not material.

Keeping this in mind, we can now turn Russell’s analogy on its head, and in favor of religious people’s beliefs:

To make the laws of physics work out, scientists have had to assume the existence of invisible matter and energy, called dark matter and dark energy, which they say constitute about 95% of the universe.

Ergo, in the space between the Earth and Mars, scientists must assume the likely existence of invisible matter and energy. And therefore, the existence of an invisible god is equally likely.

Links Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Discord, Telegram, Apple Podcast

Subscribe www.jmk.info | Linkswag linksw.ag

Get full access to Conrad Speaks at www.jmk.info/subscribe

The history of the meme … shows that it is the expression of a World View, a whole philosophy of life which believes that natural selection is the algorithm that explains not just biological evolution, but emergent order of every kind, Universal Darwinism. (C. Hallpike)

According to the dogma of materialism, everything in existence in the world must be matter in motion, progressing itself toward some economic utopia. It is the belief in Universal Darwinism, a mechanism of evolution and selection that operates on the (sub)atomic level. It is a concept of reality that denies the need for a mind, a consciousness, a soul, a free will, or a God. And this belief is the foundation for what we call modern science.

Having done away with God, scientists now believe an unstable nothingness gave rise to our universe, some 13.6 billion years ago. Scientists consider the universe a strictly material reality governed by the unchanging laws of physics and their fixed constants. They believe these laws apply universally and everywhere, and that trained experts can discover what the laws are. In order words, scientists believe they can uncover our universe’s blueprint, the Theory of Everything.

But why do scientists believe our universe must be a purely physical universe made out of matter in the first place? Why can’t our universe have come from nothing as a mental illusion, a thinking mind? Wouldn’t it be ‘easier’, in a sense, for the nothingness to create the illusion of material reality rather than to produce an actual physical universe? What evidence have scientists found that our world isn’t a mental fiction, a universe governed by changing rather than unchanging laws?

Scientists don’t have the answers because they don’t ask the questions. They capitulate by virtue of physicist Stephen Hawking who wrote in The Grand Design, “There is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality.” Hawking meant that any view of reality must rely on unprovable assumptions. Therefore, the logic goes, it doesn’t matter which model of reality scientists choose as long as they all consent to the same one.

If, by definition, the natural sciences cannot know what reality is, then what is science? What is the value of a science that cannot assess the true nature of the reality whose secrets it supposes to unlock?

The problem is that a mental or spiritual universe that can think for itself may behave qualitatively differently than a strictly material and mechanical universe. The scientific universe, the laws of physics are real and unchanging. In a spiritual universe, the laws of physics themselves keep evolving, namely a universe advancing itself through a process of trial and error, constantly imagining and reimagining itself.

Having free will matters. Indeed, it is up to modern scientists to proclaim rather than to discover their grand design of the universe. By relying on proclamation more than on observation to prove themselves and their theories right, scientists ignore that they have created a self-reinforcing consensus, a gigantic circular argument.

Until very recently, for example, scientists had no clue what gravity was. In 2012, CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, announced they had found proof for the existence of a certain particle called the Higgs boson, or the “God particle” that supposedly makes gravity possible. Data from the Large Hadron Collider, a device used to detect the Higgs boson, showed “the footprint and shadow of the particle, even though it has never actually been glimpsed.”

Really? Note that ‘glimpsed’ still means seen by the measuring instrument, and only indirectly, not directly. No scientist, no human being, has ever seen the Higgs boson. The human eye cannot see anything smaller than large molecules. We are, therefore, told to “trust the science” and to assume the Large Hadron Collider has indeed detected the existence of a certain particle.

The question I pose is: Did CERN staff members really observe a new particle and concluded it was behaving as the hypothetical Higgs boson? Or did they, at best, first hypothesize a specific particle’s desirable existence, then built a machine around their desire that happened to produce a fitting observation?

Yes, that’s exactly what I believe happened. Research staff went looking for an observation to prove a particular theory right; they didn’t, however, develop a theory in response to an observation. And so, the scientists at CERN have had to sidestep the scientific method in order whip up the illusion of a result that exists only in their own imagination.

There’s a reason why the so-called discovery of the Higgs boson is believed to be of such great importance. And that is precisely because time, space, and movement appear not to be qualities of any physical universe at all, but rather mental projections or mental interpretations. Is time, for example, a physical particle? Is movement somehow controlled by a particle?

In order to make the universe appear perfectly material, scientists had to somehow invent a particle to represent gravity, and therewith, motion and time. Without a Higgs boson, the universe simply isn’t physical.

As proper materialists, then, the researchers at CERN first assumed all reality has to be material in nature. But since gravity, or motion, appears to be some ephemeral force, a cheat had to be invented. How can planetary gravity relate to a strictly material world? Scientists not in the mood to question materialism postulated the existence of a material particle representing gravity, the Higgs boson. And next, they built a machine around this belief system with the preconceived intention of proving the existence of such a particle by generating the required observation.

The scientists at CERN knew precisely what the missing boson was supposed to behave as, even before it had ever been observed. They had theorized about it for decades. And so, scientists built an instrument, the Large Hadron Collider, to generate a certain observation needed to prove the theory.

As long as the LHC machine was producing undesirable outcomes, the data could be dismissed as ‘errors’. As long as the machine couldn’t detect a Higgs boson, it was believed to be ‘malfunctioning’ or ‘miscalibrated’. But when, one day, the apparatus finally produced the desired observation, it was, all of a sudden, working ‘properly’, the specific calibration was ‘correct’, and the data were ‘just what we expected’!

I am of the opinion that the staff at CERN have committed a gigantic fraud by having built a machine that produces desirable outcomes but doesn’t actually prove the existence of anything. Scientists have come to believe in the existence of a God particle through the arbitrary inference of their data, of interpreting random noise.

This is what I call the science deception, for it stems from a teleological approach, namely: with the end in mind, and to generate observations that fit one’s theories, instead of fitting better theories to one’s observations!

That’s not how objective science is supposed to work. Objective science starts with observations, not with men theorizing about the existence of desirable particles to verify a materialist worldview. The construction of the Large Hadron Collider was a religious ritual no different from constructing a cathedral in order to prove God must have had a hand in its design.

I ask: What if our universe isn’t some giant physical machine ruled by laws and constants, but rather a thinking mind that makes itself up? The laws would no longer be unchanging, and the constants no longer fixed. It wouldn’t need a perfect plan, a Theory of Everything to get started. Rather, we would need to look for a Personality thinking itself up.

Why, then, do scientists believe the laws of physics relate to a material reality at all? When have scientists proven that our universe is physical by nature, and not rather spiritual or mental? Why do scientists say everything in existence is matter in motion? Well, scientists don’t know why. Their physical instruments and science’s methods cannot be used to prove the universe is either material or spiritual.

Instead, scientists have, since the mid-nineteenth century, merely been proclaiming the unproven assumptions of universalism. Science is based on the mental gymnastics of the scientists, on inference and extrapolation—on belief—and not necessarily backed up by any observation or measurement. So, modern science receives the hallmark of a religious belief system.

Scientists around the world will continue to ignore anomalies in their data for as long as possible, namely to maintain a certain consensus and to protect their careers. Scientists never question their most fundamental assumption, which is the dogma of materialism. Scientists don’t know what time and space and movement are. They assume.

What does it say about the true nature of reality that it does not disclose itself to physical instruments? It says that reality isn’t strictly physical. Scientists don’t know whether reality is material or spiritual or a mix of both because their physical instruments can only measure the physical. In a spiritual world, the laws of physics would soon appear to be no more than temporal illusions, a Fata Morgana.

Restricting one’s scope of reality down to its strictly measurable components (space and time, matter and motion), while disregarding spiritual realities (soul, will, consciousness, God), has undoubtedly increased our economy’s efficiency.

In more than one sense, our species has gone the way of Goethe’s Faust. We have arrived at the age of material wellbeing but have neglected our spiritual lives in favor of wealth and profits. The transformation of mother earth into a giant gas station for human consumption is nearing completion.

It is time to assess and reassess the known limitations of scientific research, namely that science is an exclusively materialist way of looking at the universe, and that its methods cannot be used to determine whether a spiritual dimension might exist.

Links Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Discord, Telegram, Apple Podcast

Subscribe www.jmk.info

Get full access to Conrad Speaks at www.jmk.info/subscribe

A lot of people nowadays take an interest in Norse mythology. Many first acquainted themselves with the topic through J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings trilogy. But upon closer look, this work of fiction has absolutely nothing to do with the myths of the old Norsemen. LOTR is, in fact, a woke atheist’s reckoning with European religion.

People who take LOTR for what they think it is—the alleged heathen lore of the Northern Europeans—may be shocked to find out Tolkien’s fantasy world is quite the opposite of the life described in the Icelandic sagas or in other extant sources of Norse literature, such as the Eddas. The Eddic manuscripts at least contain some genuine heathen mythology, and that is despite their Catholic authors’ attempts at rewriting /our history/.

For instance, when we read in the poetic Edda of the coming Ragnarök, the time when the fate of the gods is decided upon, we are reading Christian lore meant to help put an end to the polytheistic worship of Odin, Thor, Freya, and the other Aesir gods in favor of the new One God of Christianity. Lord of the Rings simply takes matters one step further by casting the one ring that rules them all into the fire from which it came, destroying the belief in God altogether.

LOTR, then, is about the victory of scientific atheism over both polytheism and monotheism.

The popularity of the Lord of the Rings trilogy among our ring-wing scene has always baffled me. J.R.R. Tolkien’s work may perhaps borrow the landscape and some of the names of the North—such as the dwarf named Gandalf from the Eddas— but at the heart of Middle Earth lie only messages of moving Judeo-Christianity closer to atheism, of a peculiar Middle-Eastern hatred of the men of the North, of anti-Nordicism, and of matriarchy and domesticated men.

There’s just so much wrong with LOTR. On a deeply psychological level, the franchise has been surgically effective at warping European men’s minds. The film takes the reader on a journey from the perspective of children, the Hobbits. Gandalf, at first, plays the role of good father to Bilbo and Frodo, and he plays the bad father to Peregrin Took, whom he often threatens to kill or otherwise wishes him dead for Took’s f**k-ups.

Whatever childhood you’ve had, there’s something in LOTR for you to identify yourself with. And that is a big part of the scam. You’re being led to the slaughterhouse by having your emotions played.

In Peter Jackson’s cinematic rendition, in the first installment, The Fellowship of the Ring, the relations between the leading characters are mostly male, since straight adult couples hardly appear. The elven women Arwen and Galadriel pose as supreme female beings, as older sisters or grandmothers, but not as sexual interests yet, whereas Aragorn and Boromir, Frodo and Sam, and perhaps even Legolas and Gimli can’t stop looking at each other.

Though Peter Jackson made Arwen’s and Aragorn’s love story central to the film, it isn’t really part of the book. Either way, it’s just messed up. None of the sexlessness we find in LOTR exists in Norse mythology. In one of the sagas, the god Odin dresses up as a sailor and has a threesome with Thor’s wife Sif and her sister, whereas the goddess Freya is known for sleeping around with mostly anyone she can find in Asgard.

That doesn’t mean the Norsemen didn’t have morals—they did, and they used the gods as examples of how not to behave. But Lord of the Rings wasn’t designed for adult audiences, rather for teenage boys. Mature sexuality would have broken the spell. Basically, anyone who’s fallen for the psychological sham that is LOTR and now considers themselves a right-wing heathen might as well start calling themselves soy-boys.

What do the rings in Lord of the Rings even stand for? In ancient Northern Europe, the rings stood for cattle. Yes, people used to measure their wealth by the number of cattle they owned. And later, when people started moving into towns and cities, people sold their cattle for gold and silver, and wore the proceeds as rings around their fingers or wrists.

Thus, the rings worn by Germanic peoples used to represent private property. In LOTR, the rings also represent a religious belief in gods. The rings represent polytheism. The one master ring represents monotheism, European Christianity. The destruction of this one ring, i.e., the destruction of Christianity, represents the arrival of the age of atheism.

And that is the whole point of Tolkien’s work—to erase European Christianity and promote atheism.

Now note the order of proximity to atheism—three rings for the elves, seven for the dwarves, nine for the humans. This suggests Tolkien believed humans ranked below the dwarves, and Hobbits, who have the one ring of power, rank even above the elves. In Norse mythology, the dwarves are below the humans. Whence this reversal of class hierarchy?

And why does a Hobbit receive the one ring to rule them all? Because children don’t yet believe in God. In Tolkien’s world, the childlike creatures of Hobbiton are immune to religion as well as to notions of private property. Children, then, must pave the way toward the age of atheism, for “where our hearts truly lie is in peace and quiet,” say the domesticated halflings.

The message is: People should be more like Hobbits, childlike sheeple more easily controlled by our globalist domesticators.

Often, the opening scenes of Hollywood movies will give viewers the key to understanding the rest of the film. So, pay attention, then. The Fellowship of the ring starts with a female narrator, I presume it’s Galadriel, the Lady of Light (or of the Enlightenment?), describing what she feels “in the water, in the earth, in the air.” She speaks with a sensual voice intended for children’s bedtime stories. And then we cut to a ring being forged in fire.

Do you not see? Water, earth, wind, and fire. In classical Hebrew or Hassidic thought, from the book of Tanya, these four elements represent elements of the soul. Fire stands for hate and greed, and as the saying goes, men must fight fire with fire, so the one ring Sauron forged in the fires of hate must then be destroyed by those same fires.

Peter Jackson has the narrator say: “Nine rings were given to the race of men who above all else, desire power.” Ha! Those evil shitty white men and their desire for power! They’re just being greedy, because they like to hold on to their private property and their traditions. Just let it go, and throw your evil culture away.

Note that Galadriel, the Lady of Light, is later tempted by the ring, but she successfully resists, hinting that women and children are not swayed by power and greed, only men are. Where have we heard that line of thought before? It’s elementary feminism.

LOTR is about fighting the hate and greed in men—but only from the domesticating Hebrew perspective. Men who care for living in their own nations, with their own people, and who would defend their women and children, are seen as evil. Men with such fiery characters that they would fight for their people’s freedom, such as the orcs, the goblins, Saruman, and Sauron, the so-called bad guys, are considered ‘mentally ill’. If only the evil men—for they’re all men, and no women—bettered their ways, then there’d never be war again.

So here, right at the start, we’re just five seconds in, we’ve got the whole plot: Someone immune to greed must bring the ring of hate back to its source in order to destroy it. That’s it. That’s the whole plot. The bad men fight for their freedom, whereas the good ones listen to mommy Galadriel. Stop being greedy, give up private property. Stop being angry, give up your religion.

The opening scene further informs the viewer we are not going to watch anything to do with Norse mythology, but rather with a story about the domestication of Northern Europeans’ wilder hearts. It’s about the victory of naïve hobbits over evil men, the eradication of all things conservative or traditional.

Call me crazy, but at this point, I wouldn’t be surprised if the American CIA funded J.R.R. Tolkien’s studies after World War II, namely to help erase any last memory of actual Germanic mythology. Lord of the Rings is only Northern in appearance, but at the heart of the story lies a shire full of progressive lore.

It’s interesting that the narrator also says the “Ring of power … has a will of its own.” Yes, having free will, as opposed to seeing oneself as a mindless gear, is the foundation of freedom. Without a free will, you cannot live free; but with a free will, you cannot be domesticated.

In conclusion, the Lord of the Rings trilogy is not an modern expansion of Norse mythology but rather a handbook of how men of the North ought to be stripped from their religious beliefs in order for an atheist matriarchy to establish itself in all of Middle Earth. In other words, it’s about globalism.

The best thing anyone can do with this trilogy is to cast the books into a fire.

Links Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Discord, Telegram, Apple Podcast

Subscribe www.jmk.info | Linkswag linksw.ag

Get full access to Conrad Speaks at www.jmk.info/subscribe

Afghanistan has fallen, and mostly single men are suddenly leaving for Europe. Again. It’s the same recipe we saw in Syria after 2015: Western secret services somehow create a conflict resulting in the collapse of a nation, and then the European Union decides to permanently welcome millions of migrants.

Great. As I’ve told you before, the mass migrations to the West are part of a bigger plan, namely the establishment of the Global Open Society under one World Government. Unelected bureaucrats have apparently chosen Northwestern Europe as the starting point to realize this far-left Utopia. Here, in the traditional homelands of the Germanic, Anglo, and Celtic peoples, we are told to blend together with millions of newcomers into a new and diverse species.

Why are we allowing this to happen? Who are these treasonous leaders in charge of planning our people’s genocide? And more importantly, how did the subversion of Western minds succeed? If Westerners want to make a last stand before globalism, they’ll first have to study what the “Open Society” is all about, and what its supporters are trying to achieve.

Arguably, the attack on the West became socially acceptable when the Viennese philosopher of science Karl Popper (1902-1994) argued for the deconstruction of all Western thought since ancient Greece. In his book The Open Society and Its Enemies, he claimed that the ideas proposed by the Greek philosopher Plato (428-348 BC) had led the West straight to pogroms, Crusades, the Gulags, and the Holocaust. Plato’s crime had been to argue for a perfect state, his Republic, a nation founded on inequality.

Popper’s book, however, convinced the new global intelligentsia otherwise. They were now saying that Western civilization was inherently evil and, therefore, deserved to be erased in favor of some Utopian ideal called the Global Open Society. This idea for an open society originally came from a French mystic named Henri Bergson (1859–1941) who was living in Paris around 1900, at the height of the industrial age, but even he borrowed the accompanying worldview from a far older, Middle-Eastern sect as, for example, laid out in the works of Philo Judaeus of Alexandria.

But Henri Bergson had been the first to coin the phrase ‘open society’ in 1932 in his book The Two Sources of Morality and Religion. His writings promoted a transition from an allegedly ‘inferior’ tribal or religious morality to a so-called ‘superior’ open or rational morality. In his view, the very idea of nationhood, of peoplehood, of any sort of political, social, or religious group sovereignty, had to be abolished to make way for a new universal humanity.

Popper weaponized Bergon’s idea, and Popper’s student, known to us as billionaire financial predator George Soros, before changing his name from György Schwarz, began to wield it.

Through mass migrations, and mass miscegenation, the women of Europe are imagined to give birth to the New Man of international socialism, in appearance resembling that of ancient Egypt, whereas European man has been scheduled for his deportation to the Gulags.

To this end, already, we see the push to abolish our police forces for being “too white”. Nobody cares if the police in India are “too Indian”. And then what? The abolition of our standing armies for being too male? Right after the push for more diversity in board rooms (but only for Western companies, of course), the incessant mockery of European men acting stupid in commercials, and a radical-left, blue-checkmarked opposition openly wishing death upon the European family.

All of this is a strategy of war and genocide, but our enemies have not declared war openly. Instead, they are using their control of mainstream media to keep deceiving us all is still well, and that people who think otherwise are conspiracy nuts. But we are at war, and the enemy is advancing. In fact, in Europe at least, the enemy has been in charge ever since the revolutions of 1968. And it was around that time the borders were opened to immigrants from North Africa, Turkey, and the Far East, pouring into our homelands.

The doctrine of open society, then, is presently being realized. Sometimes also referred to as the renewal of Europe, or Europe’s rejuvenation as Pope Francis called it, is, simply put, an attempt to tame the European spirit, to domesticate European man, and to subsequently replace us. The phrase ‘Build Back Better’ might as well refer to European DNA being reconfigured, because that’s what’s going on.

Karl Popper perhaps rightly feared “those reactionary movements which have tried, and still try, to overthrow civilization”. He’s right, but by ‘civilization’ Popper meant Bergson’s idea for the global open society, for international communism. And indeed, I am one of those reactionaries arguing for the victory of freemen over humanity’s slavery.

Intellectuals worldwide have since lauded Popper’s attack on Western thinking, promoting it as the new academic standard, casting out even those timid souls who dared to sputter but a word of objection. Most in academia have fallen in line, and those rare individuals who revolted with a conscience have quit.

Popper, for example, condemned both fascism and communism, but shamelessly pinned the origins of both regimes on 2,500 years of developments in Western thinking, as though all Western roads led to Auschwitz. Popper is quoted writing, “I am, rather, bent on destroying what is, in my opinion, most mischievous in Plato’s philosophy,” for Popper believed it was through Plato that the Germans of the 1930s found inspiration to resist the New World Order.

It’s not that the British Empire saw in democratic Germany a threat to its global power, at the time still ruling over 70% of world’s population—oh no!—nor is it so that the Soviet Union under Stalin always meant to colonize Europe and seize Germany’s high-tech industry. No, no!—It was Germany’s fault for resisting.

Popper’s attack on Western philosophy was a sham, yet it has influenced generations of politicians and scholars to embrace a hatred for the West, the whole West, and nothing but the West. His student, George Soros was so impressed, he decided to further improve upon the anti-Western theme. And Soros later founded his Open Society Foundations, an activist network around the world that seeks to destroy our civilization—and along with it, erase our peoples.

The renewal of Europe is a euphemism for Eurocide, the genocide of European peoples.

George Soros made his billions by plunging millions of people into poverty and starvation, yet, in an interview with CBS News, he said, “I am basically there to make money. I cannot and do not look at the social consequences of what I do.” That is the sort of emotionally detached despotism humanity hasn’t seen since Gilgamesh and Hammurabi. I can understand why British activist Sam Gerrans once called Soros a “psychopath’s psychopath.”

Soros and his minions are on a quest to mold humanity into their own absurd ideal in order to realize the dream of a global open society “in which people are free to hold divergent opinions, and the rule of law allows people with different views and interests to live together in peace.” Well, that sounds just like what we all want, except, in a global open society, people may only hold preapproved opinions that don’t go against the regime, and those who do oppose the global truth doctrine must, therefore, be considered morally deficient and sent off to the Gulags.

No, in the free society we imagine, we, the people, get the decide who we are and who we want to live with. If there are still brave men and fearless women left in this world, their best time to break away from this totalitarian nightmare is today. We mustn’t assume globalists will ever leave us alone. Their politics is their religion. If we don’t stand up against globalism and secure freedom for our peoples, we may never have to make a stand for anything ever again.

It’s now or never! Wake up!

Links Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Discord, Telegram, Apple Podcast

Subscribe www.jmk.info

Get full access to Conrad Speaks at www.jmk.info/subscribe