I think in order to understand who they are, we've got to go back to the origins of Marxist schisms.

What happened after the phase of they're not being successful proletariat revolutions,

and even in the case of Lenin and Trotsky, there's significant evidence that they would have never been successful had they not had Western banking and corporate funding.

People like the Warburgs, the shifts

and the Rockefellers were big supporters of the bullshit revolution. So when people now, not just in

alternative media, but in mainstream media, want to now say, oh, it's the Fabians. It was originally,

you know, the World Economic Forum guys, but now it's Fabians, but it all interlinked.

This is institutional subversion and permeation that actually affected most of today's post-World War II Bretton Wood systems.

None of this could have actually been successful.

Had there not been a faux, conservative, faux right-wing, controlled opposition that acted as if they were in a battle with these people,

but would always concede.

People can see it now.

People always say about the civil service, judges, all of these very, very important key parts of society now are being occupied. How do you go up against a beast

like that when you have institutions, the civil service and absolutely everything dominated by

this one think tank? joining me to have a discussion all to do with the Fabians is author, comedian, orthodox

apologist and writer for the Sam Hyde show, Jay Dyer.

Jay, thank you so much for joining me.

How are you, sir?

I'm great, Lewis.

Glad to chat with you.

I'm glad to be following you on Twitter.

I had my buddies call my attention to your feed,

...