(0:01 - 0:08) Hi everybody, I'm Madison Holmes. And I am Maycee Holmes. And you're watching Holmes Squared. (0:08 - 2:04) So welcome back for part two of foreign affairs. On the last episode, Maycee was taking us through a not so pretty timeline about Iran and Iran's oil, how they got taken over, how it got subverted so they couldn't have control over their own oil and own resources. And then we talked about the morality and the importance of energy in a country's development. So and that's just good context for understanding. Because people like to vilify different countries or look at them as this separate entity. That's not a part of our own story. But Maycee brought it full circle back to home how even Alberta not having our own energy in our own hands has put a cap on our potential as Albertans. So the Iranian people have been feeling that for a long time. And they're not the only ones. We'll get into that later. But that's good context. So people can stop looking at countries as villains. And because all of them have been subjugated to the same left hemispheres that everybody else has, funnily enough. So we left off in about 1948. But I know Maycee will probably want to do a bit of a recap, just to label some names and clarify some timelines. And then she will pick us off from that 1978 timeline. And we'll kick off from there. Yeah, so I mean, we were kind of giving a bit of a, I guess I was, I was kind of given a bit of a picture based off of the three part article series that Cynthia Chung wrote that we were talking about last time. For those of you don't know, Maddie, you can maybe just pull it up for those to take a look at what that is. Oh, sure. Yeah. So then part one is Iran's century and a half fight for sovereignty. And then part two is long. The Sword of Damocles over Western Europe. (2:04 - 2:35) And then part three is Oh, drumroll. When your computer doesn't work for you. Yeah. Why Iran's development of nuclear energy will create stability and prosperity in the Middle East. So now, if I'm going to be going into a bit of a recap, I would just say that a lot of this started in I believe it was like 1837. It might have been around that time. (2:36 - 2:42) And so we go all the way back there. And we start working our way up to present. 1837? Yeah. (2:42 - 3:12) Really? Yeah. Well, that was when the Darcy Act and the if I can remember, I didn't have this one written down. That was Darcy got sold. I thought in like 1902. No, but if you go to the first article, so go to the first one, go to the very top of the article. Yeah. It literally says 1872. Yeah. And that was when Nasir al-Din Shah granted the British baron. (3:13 - 4:54) Julius de Reuter. Yeah. Rights to Iran's entire economic estate. So that was when the, I guess, well, I wouldn't say it was Anglo, I mean, maybe starting to become Anglo American, but we'll just say British Empire was primarily dominating Iran's resources at that time. But so we're just going to kind of work our way up. So I'm going to be going through a bit of different timelines of, I guess, political figures and what it is that they were doing to try and bring back a bit more of that recap of what was going on. Because the whole point is, it's Iran's fight for sovereignty, right? That's what we're describing. And then leading into what it is that they're trying to fight against and what it is that they're aiming towards. And so before 1941, when Mohammad Reza Shah was introduced, his father actually, Reza Shah, we talked about him last time. He was the one that was trying to, I guess, battle against British concession of the Anglo-Persian oil company. Because at that time, Britain— Also known as APOC. APOC. Because at that time, Britain had a large influence over Iranian oil. And for a large time after that, they still did. And he was fighting against that. He unfortunately thought that Hitler would free Iran from British and Soviet occupation, actually. Yeah. A lot of people know they condemn him as like the Nazi Shah. (4:54 - 10:16) Yeah. But he was just seeing, I guess, wrongly, Hitler's supposed to be some sort of savior from the Anglo and Soviet occupation that was over Iran at that time. And so he got exiled and he transferred his power to his son, Mohammad Reza Shah, in, I believe, 1941, when Mohammad Reza Shah became the Shah. And so we'll kind of go on for the recap on that, where it was like, Mohammad Reza Shah tried to plead to the U.S. under FDR by writing him a letter to help free Iran and grant them sovereignty, which later led to the creation of the Iran Declaration. And so the Iran Declaration removed foreign occupation, British and Soviet, over Iran. But that didn't mean they had full influence domestically or internationally, because Maddie, if you go to the homesquared thing, I sent a little bit of a link that you could screen share. It's the first link of the two that I sent. She's just pulling it up for you guys. Because I went online and I was searching, I was like, okay, like, did Iran, like, did they not have sovereignty under the Iran Declaration? So if you see here, it says key factors that limited Iran's sovereignty post-Declaration include foreign military presence. Despite the Declaration, foreign troops remained in Iran for several years, influencing political decisions and security matters. Oil politics. The Anglo-Iranian oil company, a British entity, maintained control over Iran's oil resources, a critical economic lever that limited Iran's economic sovereignty. So again, that would be a tiny example of what his father, Reza Shah, was fighting against with the Anglo-Persian oil company. Cold War dynamics. As the Cold War began, Iran became a focal point for geopolitical competition between the West and the Soviet Union, further constraining its autonomy in international affairs. And then coup of 1953, the US and UK backed coup that overthrew Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, exemplified how external powers could directly manipulate Iran's internal political structure, undermining its sovereignty. Which you covered last time. Yeah, which I covered Mossadegh quite, I think, relatively well, because I thought that he was just such a huge figure. And it's hard to like, think, oh, he must have been like such a good, influential figure for them to literally not even give him a proper burial, because they had to bury him under the floorboards. So that way people couldn't use him, I guess, he couldn't be looked at as some type of martyr. So as a recap for Mosaddegh, he was the one who nationalized the Anglo-Iranian oil company, which we just talked about. And yeah, because APOC, so APOC was the Anglo-Persian oil company, founded around 1908, when they hit gold. But it became the Anglo-Iranian when Iran got its name, which was, was that the same time as the Declaration, Maycee? I'm not sure. You could do a quick search on that if you wanted to. Yeah, because I think it was around the 1930s, I thought, but this is before Iran got its revolution in 1979. Yeah, you could just be like, when did Iran get its name? Yeah. Yeah. Let's see. I'm curious. Yeah, I think it was 1935. Yeah. So when Reza Shah officially changed the country's name from Persia to Iran. Oh, interesting. So then it became the Anglo-Iranian oil company. And then that's when Mosaddegh was the one who nationalized that. And then he was the one who defended himself during the Hague and UN Security Council meetings against the British imperialism. And he won. The international community were like, okay, this guy is literally just trying to nationalize his resources and actually have it towards his go towards his country, instead of getting exploited for wars purposes. Because this was, I believe, during the time when British World War One and Two, I believe, were using Iran's oil to fuel their, I guess, war. I don't know war. Hegemony. Hegemony. Words. Anyways. So then, leading to the UK and US led coups, which was mentioned about the 1953 coups, and eventually to his death. So Mohammad Reza Shah, he was the Shah in power when this happened to Mosaddegh, and was when Mosaddegh was sent into exile. But Mohammad, in the articles, he was a complicated character. He was a bit of wanting to take after his father in the sense of creating transportation projects and actually trying to industrialize Iran. But then there were also bad actors surrounding him. And he clearly was what would be considered naive in understanding the larger game around him. Good intentioned, but unfortunately not understanding the full scale of what he was surrounded with. (10:17 - 15:34) So he was the one who was working with the OPEC countries that I mentioned last time towards price stability and making deals with France and Germany for technology in exchange for oil. And so, I have it from just my notes as well, saying that if an Iran-Saudi-Iraq axis established a permanent working relationship with the EMS, which was the European monetary system, it would have assembled an unstoppable combination against the London World Financial Center. So these are some of the things to consider. What were the incentives as to, again, what was the Anglo-American Empire, I guess, not in favor of and working against when it comes to these historical figures? Because this is another thing that we have to understand. So often we are told by the West who the dictators are, but we have to be asking ourselves, what is their incentive to make us hate these people? Yeah, because this all leads up to the thing you alluded to, the the hostage scenario that you ended off on the last time and the complete and utter ceasing of Iranian assets in the West and the oil. Yeah, so that big crash happened. But all of this is leading up to because they weren't getting the control over the resources in the oil that they wanted. And 1979, the Shah wasn't going to renew the 1954 Consortium Agreement. The Consortium Agreement of they adopted the Consortium Agreement, which basically still gave the West. I have something pulled up. Actually, if you go to the Telegram, it's the second link that I sent you. I got this off of Wikipedia. I was just searching what the heck the Consortium Agreement was. If you just want to quickly pull that up and screen share. It's a very brief description, but it basically says the Consortium Agreement of 1954 provided Western oil companies with 50 percent ownership of Iranian oil production after its ratification in 1954, expiring in 1979. According to the Consortium Agreement, 40 percent of Iran's oil shares belong to five American companies. And then we kind of went over that the British damn near had like 54 percent of that. And then it says in spite of numerous negotiations and offers, Mohammad Reza Shah refused to extend the agreement, which originally and clearly postulated that the Consortium had the right to prolong its 15 to prolong it 15 years. And so then it says a year after the overthrow of Premier Mohammad Mossadegh, yeah, the by the United States and the United Kingdom in the 1953 Iranian coup d'etat. So again, even Wikipedia is acknowledging this. The British and American governments began pursuing the reinstated Shah of Iran into negotiations with Britain over the ownership of the Anglo-Persian oil company. The British cabinet had imposed a series of economic sanctions on Iran that prohibited the export of key commodities to Iran. Britain's boycott had become devastatingly effective, with Iranians becoming poorer and unhappier by the day. So it's just this guy was the Mohammad Reza Shah. He was like, I'm not going to be renewing this, which actually that's why I think some people thought that he was an American slash British stooge is because I'm pretty sure he was the one that was meant to. He signed the Consortium Agreement in 1954. He agreed to it. And then over time, this guy did, I don't want to say 180, but he was like, I'm not going to, I'm seeing what it's done. I'm not going to do this, like seeing what it has led to. And another thing that changed his mind, which I saw, and there was a thing that you and I had watched, we alluded to this last time, but it was the Matthew, Cynthia and Gordon Breaking History 104, where she went over a lot of this in her presentation, talked about his evolution. But then I watched Man in My Car, the Mag of Civil War, how Israel and Iran are being used in a deep state fight. And he played a clip from, I can't remember his name, but it was this timeline going through this guy's transformation. And he said, one of the big things that changed for him was in 1967, there was a six day war. I had no idea this was even a thing, but it was a six day war with Israel. And not just Iran, but kind of that whole area, the Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip, this is where Israel actually got to expand its territory because they were relatively, and they're still relatively small, but they actually, within six days, they ended up getting a bunch of little extra territory, if you look on a map, just in a little section here on the coast. And it was that six day war, where Israel ended up, you know, killing a lot of people. And that made Mohammed twitch. He didn't support it. He didn't support what happened in that six day war. (15:34 - 18:52) And initially, he was making deals because he signed the consortium agreement in 1954. And then it was between that, and then making deals with the newfound oil, with Israel, they were supplying in coots. But after that six day war in 1967, he was like, maybe not. And then you saw the shift into the 1970s. Then he does OPEC. And then he also makes a statement in 1973. I think I want Iran to be something different. I think I want this to become their own power. Yeah. Well, I mean, I think that's why it was a bit of a, there might have been genuine grievances towards him in the sense of like thinking he was a British stooge. And then there might have been just again, the bad actors that are set in place to create the revolution against him the minute he started changing his mind. Right? Yeah. And so I have here just saying like, this led to the Iranian revolution of 1979, which was the just for like context of what that was, it was the Shia Islamic revolution that replaced the secular monarchy of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi with a theocratic Islamic Republic led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. And so the Shah had his problems, but they use the CIA and MI6, Israeli and Israeli Mossad backed SAVAK, right, to create the narratives of him torturing and these torture against people and they blamed it on Mohammad. And of course, unfortunately, it says that he did trust the SAVAK, but also that he was getting completely misled. Like there was a lot of misleading him during the entirety of the Iranian revolution, because it was meant to stir international support and throwing him out. Because during 1978, sorry. Yeah, during this time. And so the media press coming out against him, like the BBC played a huge role in, you know, slandering him, Western media was doing that. And then, but as this was happening, it was him refusing as well to renew the consortium agreement. So it's like, that was also like, again, what is he doing to why? Why? Why now? Right? It's like, sure, you can definitely be like, well, man, you shouldn't be backing the SAVAK and what they're doing. Right. And so they use that predominantly. But it's funny, because it's like Western media is slandering the SAVAK and his government for doing a thing. But the SAVAK were literally MI6 CIA, Israeli Mossad installed in the first place. Right. And he didn't know that, like, hence why they were claiming that he was naive. Right. And so then this was leading to the arc of crisis theory, which was being implemented during this time. And that refers to, again, the concept that describes a region characterized by political instability, social fragility and strategic importance, often leading to potential conflicts or crises. And it says this idea was notably articulated by Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1978, who described an arc of crisis stretching along the shores of the Indian Ocean, with the fragile social and political structures in a region of vital importance to us threatened with fragmentation. And I just put down underneath that I just said, this is not a warning. It's a vision. (18:53 - 25:52) Yeah, the, again, for people who don't remember, Zbigniew Brzezinski, him alongside David Rockefeller, and I can't remember the third individual, they created the Trilateral Commission. I think it might have been Kissinger. Yep. Thank you. And that was in 1973, I believe is when the Trilateral came out. So it was right within this timeframe, where we start, we remember after operations, Condor, Gladio, all of these things started to come out that regime changes. So we had to switch, do a rebranding and make it look like now we import democracies. So not so coincidentally, this arc of crisis, which is basically, it's like Maycee said, it's a political aim. It's a it's an outlook. This is what this is what needs to happen. So that was it was like a like the Brookings Institute type goal that we got, we showed you guys in 2009. Yeah, it's not hard to believe, because we've talked about this before with predictive programming. But again, it's like what is being used to basically get the populace's minds ready to go in this direction, right? So that's what the arc of crisis was. It was like, Oh, no, look at the Middle East is so unstable. But it's the same excuse that they were using with even African countries where it's just like, Oh, look, they can't, they can't govern themselves. Look at them. All they do is fight each other, we need to do something about it. It's like, you were the one that instantiated the crisis in the first place. And now you're like, now we need to put a stop to it. And it's like, but you're the one who created the problem. Yeah, no, that's another thing about the Six Day War. It was a fight between Israel versus Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, that whole section, all of these Middle Eastern countries. And there's there's a document that so I listened to those are cute. I listened to these are two episodes. I think it's Breaking History episodes 72 and 73. Yeah. 73 and 74. And it's on the history of Syria. Hold on. Wait, let's read them. So it says Breaking History 73 the Syrian conflict secrets oil and power plays and then 74 the untold history of Syria part two. Yeah. And the key thing why I bring that up is because it faced the exact, literally the exact same issues that Iran, everything you just kind of went through with the oil happened in Saudi Arabia happened in Syria happened in Iraq, all of these same regions, this this Middle East, which is really just South Asia. But they called it the Middle East to separate it from Asia. That way we could in our own minds. And this is something I didn't really think about until Cynthia kind of brought it up. She's like, why do we call it the Middle East? It's to because all of those borders, all of these countries, they were after World War Two, you know, Israel didn't come in till 1948. And then you got Iran with the revolution in 1979. And then you get Iraq, which was also in that timeframe. So all of these Saudi Arabia was 1932. So these borders started to form. And then in that Syria, I think it was the second one after the Treaty of Versailles, Versailles, right? When the splitting was starting to get that too. And yeah, well, that's one of the things you brought up when the borders were starting to get drawn, right? Yeah. So all of that was kind of a downstream consequence. But there's a document called the Yan'an documents like Yan'an plan. I think I have it here pulled up. And this is just it outlines. Yeah, the Zionist plan for the Middle East, again, calling it the Middle East as if it's, you know, not a part of Asia. But the reality is that Asia has a whole history with these people, even looking at things like the Ottoman Empire in its relation to things like the tied together, not advocating for some of the stuff that happened in it. But there's a really big history between those people and the whole Cold War dynamic. They tried to paint it as if, oh, the Soviet Union has no business being here. Meanwhile, things like Azerbaijan and were literally a part of the Soviet Union like there's and the right on the borders. But in that memo, that Zionist plan that came out, I think in 1982. But it says how Israel's whole goal is to use places like Egypt and split up create the borders and divide and conquer Syria, Jordan, Iraq, the whole Middle East, because it makes it easier to control. And it said that was the goal of Israel. And this is not to crap on Israel, because again, it was created. They put all of the Jews there on purpose, it was anti Semites. That's the funniest thing to me, it's the most ironic thing. I have the utmost sympathy for Israel, because people, they're being turned into the perfect villain today. But they didn't choose this. It was the same anti Semites that were really involved with Hitler, that created it, because then they took all of the Jews out of Europe and put them in a single country. Now, well, now they're all centralized. And if you wanted to take them out, because they're painting them as a pretty good villain today, you could, they're all right there. So it's really unfortunate that a lot of the population has been put under this brainwash thing. But what you were saying, just to tie that in was, that was the goal with Egypt, spilling up the whole region that way it could control. Well, yeah, in Cynthia's article, it was saying that it's like Egypt and Israel were meant to also install NATO into the Middle East. But it was also, I think it was Gordon on Breaking History, where he was talking about how, like, even the idea of weaponized religion, it's like what was creating these groups that would later become extremists in their ideology, it's like that was also set up to happen on purpose. Like that was, I believe he was saying that even Anglo-American ties were set in place to, I guess, because you're a poor country, right? So it's just like, again, if you're, this comes kind of back a bit to the economics of things, where it's just like, if you are poor, you're desperate, okay? And that that will mean that people will try to come in and go like, I'll help you for, I'll build schools for you, right? But what the hell are they teaching in the schools, right? And then that starts to instantiate what's going on with like, what history are you learning? So that way, you can be like, oh, you know, who's my real enemy? Because in school, I was taught to hate blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, right? Or even in religion, right? It's just like, oh, okay, like I was given this book. And then in this book, it told me that I'm supposed to go kill so and so and so and so. (25:52 - 29:11) That was Afghanistan, which kind of brings us back to the timeline. Because so with 1979 happening, this, the Iranian revolution, it was funny, because them, the West, backed the, initially, I thought, oh, is that like a genuine thing? Because they were trying to get out of it. But the thing is, the Shah, like you pointed out, Mohammad Reza Shah was starting to do things that the West didn't support. So then they started slandering him, went on the slander campaign. And I thought, it makes sense that they would back the Iranian revolution, because hoping that they could put somebody in there, because democracy is much easier, I think, historically, to like, get your hands in on. Hence, we did the whole episode on all these democracy promoting think tanks and organizations that are really just backed by George Soros and Open Society Foundation. It's easier to get somebody you want in via democracy than it is in like, a monarchist bloodline, because they have to hope and pray that they can get their hands on the next son that's in line, the next heir, versus somebody in a democracy, all you have to do is grab an actor you like, Trudeau, Rhodes Scholar, Netanyahu, University, exactly. And then you can just insert them, skull and bone. Yeah, so I think it's a little bit easier for them to, which are why they would back the Khomeini revolution in 1979. That way, they could get the control, which is not ended up what happening in the end, they didn't get the control that they wanted. Yeah, but they ended up in Afghanistan, there was an invasion. And by the Soviets, and because again, in Afghanistan, they were also facing similar, like, threats, even via oil and crap like that. And they wanted, that's where Osama bin Laden comes in, and some people, a lot of people know that from the 9-11 attacks. But Osama bin Laden was actually brought up via the arc of crisis plan, because the plan was to get into all of these regions for the control, and because it was so destabilized, even though it was them destabilizing it. They felt, and there's even quotes of Brzezinski saying, I know it was a risk, you know, bringing up the religious radicals like Osama bin Laden. But I believe, yeah, he's like, I know it was a risk to invest in these religious, because they brought military support there against the Soviets, they made it seem like it was, oh, we need to get in there to stop the Soviet threat, which was BS. But he said, I know it was a threat to do this thing and supply them with and train them because they did. They trained them for the Afghanistan war. And then that was in part, again, all of this. It's not a coincidence that all of these countries are on Russia's border, because they want to get to Russia. The goal has been Russia, since Russia, they knew it existed. (29:12 - 31:48) So that war led to him and his uprising. That's what you were saying about the schools, you know, after they won the war, because it did spread the Soviet Union thin. It spread the Soviet Union thin, being in Afghanistan. So they lost, had to pull out. And that allowed the in exchange for their services fighting Osama bin Laden and all of those religious groups, the jihad, I think they're called, in exchange were the schools that you said they would educate the they would give Osama bin and all of them the schools that they wanted, but they got to pick the curriculum, meaning they got to perpetuate the religious ideology. And it was those same people, those same trained soldiers and groups that they then had for Al Qaeda later on, because Al Qaeda was in 1988. And the, the, the Iran-Iraq war, and that was from 1980 to 1988. It was like that same timeframe. So it all bleeds in like it's all this one big through line. They use the same people, it was their fault, they brought it up. And so again, they blame in when 2001 and 9-11 happens, people like Saudi Arabia got blamed and Iraq and like these countries got blamed, but we created the entity when we we literally facilitated and fostered the ideation. So we could benefit off of the war, because even the Iran-Iraq war, utter, complete nonsense. I mean, the 2003, there was, I think it was a Scott Horton interview with Tucker. And he said that, you know, the we found later on that the weapons of mass destruction, the nuclear weapons that we use to invade Iraq in 2003, weren't there, but there were chemical weapons, all those chemical weapons, we gave them for the Iran-Iraq war in 1980 to 1988. We supplied both sides, Iran and Iraq, because it's all towards this greater, funny enough, like greater Israel like project, but not even Israel, because that's, that's been the goal for dividing and controlling the whole Middle East so they can get to Russia eventually anyhow. And China. And China, right, eventually, yes. So that's like been that whole goal and aim. (31:50 - 34:12) But no, yeah, and even still like resource grab, sure, but also towards going and targeting larger empires that are, you know, I guess, bringing themselves up in more actually funny enough, again, me and Maddie will be probably touching more later on in our future contents endeavor on just some of the projects that are underway, even in China and abroad, because they were the ones that even in Cynthia's article, when she talks about the last one, they're talking about the Belt and Road Initiative, and Transatlantic Railway. And so a lot of the policies that even Iran in their pursuit for sovereignty, we're trying to pursue, even China and Russia to today working with other Eurasian countries as well, are trying to build towards the whole idea of win-win cooperation, right. But again, we have to be asking ourselves the incentives of, I guess, even basically looking in our own backyard, right? It's like, I have no problem looking towards other countries and kind of like going like, well, what do we not want to mimic ourselves, but we do need to pay attention to what it is that our pattern has been, as more so a colonial power. And then even America, I get the idea of the American Revolution, right, but that does not mean that history has shown that America and Britain were not closely in cahoots later on, right? And then what does that mean? And then how does that get manipulated towards what it's getting manipulated towards today? Yeah, you bringing up, this is one thing that I was trying to think about, because I know in the Brookings Institute document, we talked about the regime change in Tehran being a goal. And I was talking to a lady at one of our political events, and she said, I'm totally for the regime change. And to be frank, I don't know who's in power in Tehran right now, or who they want to replace with him. But I know Tehran is really central, not just to the Belt and Road Initiative, this right here, this land, Tehran's right here, which is the capital of Iran, for people that don't know. But there's also the north-south, you know that- Transportation corridor? Yeah, the north-south transportation corridor. And- It's south. (34:15 - 35:28) And looking at, Tehran is also vital to that one, if I'm not mistaken. Like both Tehran is right somewhere in the middle. Yeah, Tehran's gonna be another one right here, another landing space for the north-south. And these are all initiatives that these countries were putting together so they can surpass the limits to growth. And so in my brain, if anybody doing research, when you're trying to train a research mind, I'd be looking at, okay, who's in power now? Who do they want in? Who's the potential next person in line? And are they for the Belt and Road Initiative and the north-south transportation corridor, or aren't they? If they're not in favor for it, then you know they're probably more likely gonna be in favor of the Anglo-American empire, because they don't want those initiatives to go through. They're, like you say all the time, maritime power. If they get a railway, they don't get to monopolize like they want to. The sea routes, yeah. But also the idea, again, if other countries are acting as good neighbors to each other, it's less dependent on what it is that we've set up as a system with, again, the opium wars. (35:30 - 37:24) That's what the west has been known for. It's like, how do I basically manipulate from afar, right? And so you can't manipulate very well when they, again, don't need you anymore. They don't rely on you anymore, because that's the whole point. That's what an abuser needs, is he needs someone to rely on his abuse, right? The minute that you don't, you're not needed. You can go screw off, right? Like piss off. And that's what the Belt and Road Initiative has actually been proving to show so far towards, I guess, western hegemonic powers, that it's like, no, we can create our own economic destinies. We do not need you anymore. We can create our own trade routes. We do not need to go through yours anymore. It's like, if you try to instigate any sort of economic warfare against us, we do not need you anymore, right? And we are going to figure out how to raise each other up. Now, is it kind of like, oh, but we're afraid that these countries are going to manipulate each other, and it's going to be like, what if they have economic warfare on each other? Like, then we got to do something. It's like, guys, we do that. It's like, we're the ones that do that. And again, Iran-Iraq War, we funded both sides. Exactly. And that's also what we're trying to show as well. It's like the context of like, but what have we done before in the past? It's like, if I was to make the statement, and it's like, oh, yeah, like, the West funds both sides, no one would probably disagree with me. So it's like, well, if you feel like you basically have that bare minimum of like, oh, yeah, everybody knows that. It's like, well, then what are you doing? Yeah, we don't need to we don't need to help anybody along be our democratic processes. Yeah. And I guess I don't know, there was like, there's another tiny little thing that I thought would be, I guess, a good segment to bring up. (37:24 - 39:10) Oh, I saw you were just on that article. That's not a bad article to kind of also um, why the one West funds terrorism. But um, well, it actually just it shows that the West weapon like, so I guess first, funny little tangent, but not really funny, but just a necessary tangent is in one of Cynthia's articles on why the West funds terrorism, it was showing that the Western military was and weapons were being supplied to Syria and Saudi Arabia and to these different terrorist organizations. And we were just talking about both sides being right. Yeah, and Haida and all of that stuff. I ISIS is relatively new. I didn't know it was created in the 2000s. Whereas I had it was 1988. But again, all all massage, CIA, mi six, all, all of that was created by the West. So like, that is basically what the military industrial complex is. And I mean, like, if I was going to kind of go down it, I can just say that chat GPT, deep seek, they kind of gave you a good little thing where they said it's a feedback loop where it's like more warm spending means more profits means more lobbying means more spending, right. And so it's like this perpetual loop where it's like you got defense contractors that are like, okay, it's they're gonna spread production across critical, critical congressional districts ensuring political support, right. So that creates jobs. And then that senators and representatives fight for, let's say, like aid in Ukraine, because it means jobs and votes back home, right. And then you'll have a revolving door between government and defense industry. (39:10 - 42:09) Because it was like many former Pentagon officials, generals and congressmen later worked for defense contractors. Example, former Defense Secretary Mark Esper was a Raytheon lobbyist, retired generals often joined boards of military suppliers. And then that that creates that loop, right. It's like everybody's got incentive and everybody's pockets are in one another, right. And because then also what happens is government benefits from these wars as well, as we were just talking about the resources and the collateral and the banks benefit, right. And then the defense contractors benefit. And it's funny, because then government officials will become defense contractors, right. And so there is a huge, yeah, there's huge profit to gain from from wars. It's like that, if you want to talk about GDP, they're like, why would we need that we literally just like, make weapons? Yeah, go give it to both sides. We get money. We win either way. It's literally their version of win win is that and then we the people pick a side that they've that they've created. They fund both and then we pick Oh, Israel is the enemy or Iran is the enemy or now Syria because they just bombed Syria. They incentivize the public to be in favor of regime change of instigating regime change. And it's funny because it's like we're so I guess against it for other countries doing it to each other. But it's like, but we're the ones that are supporting it. So it's just, yeah, it's gross. Yeah. That was a nice little like wrap up at that then though, like just a summary about how it incentivizes. Yeah, yeah. So well, I mean, it's been 40 minutes. Yeah, I want to go to two over time. So hopefully that was relatively coherent. Yeah, yeah, that was it's a big, it's big, gross swamp. And we're, we're not, it's not natural. Most of it is definitely not natural doesn't naturally occur this way. And people don't naturally do this thing. Yeah, I feel like that would be a good takeaway. Is like, just look at how the the tentacles that are seeping into how does it that Saudi Arabia went through pretty much the exact same thing that Syria went through that Lebanon went through that Iran went through? How is that? How does that just happen? Well, it doesn't just happen. It's manufactured. Yeah. And like, are the enemies that they're giving us actually enemies? And or are the enemies that they're giving us not funded by them? Right? Because again, it's like, oh, we got to hate them. It's like you made them. So we need to be paying attention to that too. Yeah. Yeah. So so that I think is where we can definitely end it off. So if you've made it this far, thank you. I hope you enjoyed. Yeah, thank you, Maycee for walking us through that timeline. And well, without further ado, this has been Holmes Squared.