How the Marxist Dialectic is Attacking You: An Introduction to the Dialectic

“Marcuse is more important than Marx.”

UA President Stephen Coughlin gave a talk to America’s Black Robe Regiment (https://abrr.us/) on what you need to know about how the Marxist dialectic is attacking you.

WATCH:

 

UPDATE 19 JAN: This lecture was BANNED BY YOUTUBE so you know the information is valuable since they don’t want you to know it. Watch it on Rumble:

 

 

LISTEN:

(find UA podcasts on your favorite podcast channel)

 

READ:

AI Transcription (not 100% accurate)

[00:00:00.970] – Bill, America’s Black Robe Regiment

We’re excited to have Steve today. Steve is as I said, he’s a friend. He’s a leading expert in the United States on Islamic doctrine, specifically as it relates to the doctrinal drivers of jihad that affect our national security. He’s also the founder and president of Unconstrained analytics. It’s a limited liability company. And before he’s timer as an intelligence officer in the US. Army reserve, steve Coghlam was assigned to the intelligence directorate of both the joint chiefs of staff and the US. Central command, where he had responsibility for intelligence support to strategic communications and information operations as they related to the war on terror, as well as operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and related areas. Upon leaving active duty, major Congressman was sought out to support Joint Staff efforts along these same concerns. Steve’s attorney with a background in international and comparative law and he understands what we’re going to talk about today, that dialectic, as well as anyone I know. And so I think that is what we’re really struggling against right now in our country. So Steve, I’m going to turn it over to you and we want to hear what you have to say. I think it’s going to be great.

 

[00:01:10.410] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

Well, Bill, thank you for having me and thank you everybody for joining in. I will be honest, I’m in the phase that’s going to ask people to completely reframe how they understand what they’re seeing. And in fact, I’ve been, you know, at various levels of commitment working on something on the dialectic for the last five or six years. In the last two years I’ve made it my my sole mission. Why? Because my conclusion when I brief in certain circles will be if you don’t understand the dialectic, everything you do to protect yourself is actually the ammunition you give to the other side. And there’s really no exception to that. I’m thinking about which pieces I want to show you guys because each piece has something. There’s some where I basically flat out show that Lennon says flat out that it’s not the dialectic isn’t an aspect of Marxism, it is the aspect of Marxism. And then goes on and explains something. One of the briefings I’m putting together is something called The Platonic Nightmare. And the Platonic Nightmare is something that comes from a book by a man named Joseph Pieper who basically explained in a book called Abusive of Language, Abuse of Power, that first you have to take control of the language and abuse the language.

 

[00:02:38.870] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

And it’s through that that you abuse power. You take power. And he called it The Platonic Nightmare because in a way that I think everybody that’s interesting and I’m not talking about being interesting. I’m talking about what he called it the Platonic Nightmare. It is the basis on which everything you see drives what you’re seeing. And so much so that I’m really going to be taking quotes from Marxists, leading Marxists, and show that they specifically point to events that happened in these dialogues. And you could read these dialogues, Platonic dialogues, and say, I don’t agree with that interpretation. And I won’t get into whether those interpretations are correct or not because really all I have to prove is that the people were up against all focus on these dialogues and they have a common understanding of what they mean. So even if they’re wrong in some larger sense, they’re still correct in the sense that they all have a common sight picture. And for people who know what I did when I did islamic law in the Pentagon until I was pushed off because some Brother Associates didn’t want me there. Is I was able to show that no matter whether you were a quote unquote moderate Muslim, whether you were a jihadi in the field or you were somewhere in between, everything that they would say was based on what it meant by a book by a man named Sayed Qutib who wrote the book Milestones.

 

[00:04:11.850] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

And so all you had to do was listen to what they said, find the Quran quotes that interpreted them, find the Quran quotes that they were based on, see how they were positioned by Milestones, Islamist, Islamic law. And you had the entire battle plan right there. Well, in this instance, it will be understand. Haito affects these things. And so what does that mean? It means that the other thing marx, Lenin, Mao, what they all basically talked about was this weird mysticism that underlies Marxism, okay? Because it comes from Hagel, and it’s this Hegellian mysticism. And what we do is we go to Hagel and we show that when he’s speaking about mysticism, it’s a specific type of mysticism. Now, this becomes important because as part of the build and I think there’s a certain person on this call who knows very much what I’m about to say as part of this build, going to adopt a term that I think is very popular among rabbis. I was a Jewish rabbi, but that’s kind of like, say, Jewish rabbi. What other type of rabbi is there but jokingly, it’s stop seeing what you know and start knowing what you see.

 

[00:05:40.640] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

This is not about you needing more information. It’s about the fact that you have been programmed to interpret it in a way that does not give you the ability to process that information in a way that because you can’t process it dialectically, you will be positioning your issue for destruction. And so I take it very seriously when you hear this discussion about Christian nationalism, we’re extremely aware, I’m perfectly willing to explain to people our understanding Christian nationalism. I’m actually not interested in debating it. And that is it’s something that as it’s being an attack mechanism. The attack mechanism is there was a discussion a number of years ago that the most powerful group of pro Israel Americans were evangelical Christians. And so the Brotherhood made a decision that because of that what they were going to do is go after them. So you see a man named Reverend Bob Roberts going around anywhere you want to see, and he’s associating himself brazenly with a Muslim brother domestically, the Islamic movement internationally, including the OIC, to put together these Christian nationalism narratives, but you will never once see anybody in the Islamic community a part of that.

 

[00:07:06.600] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

The other element of that attack is, of course, the far left. And what you’re seeing as it touches you is the far left aspect of that attack. Why am I saying that? Because when you listen to the Islamic movement talk, you will hear them all the time talk about how their attacks are intersectional. Now, an intersectional attack is a Marxist attack. It is a dialectical attack. And what I’d like to do is put a little graphic up here that I use to talk about this, what I want to do here, and I maybe walk through this. Now, when this bill gets going, when this thing starts rolling out, before I go into this, I want to point out that the main attack may not be the Marxist attack. And I want people to think about that, and I want them to think about the fact that you are going to start raising a question, and the question is the dogs that don’t bark. Okay?

 

[00:08:02.730] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

And I want to put it in a context that puts it in a dialectical context. And all the stuff I’ll show you on the first instance will sound strange, but you can make a very powerful argument that the main attack is not the Marxist attack. It’s the one that has the people you voted in never responding to protect you. And not understanding that is as big a part of the narrative as the narrative of what they did in the streets on Antifa. Does that make sense? So what I’m going to show here on the share is two slides from a larger brief, and I might even go into some of it, and I freely admit that I like to joke we have to spend a little time going into spirit theory with our tinfoil hats on, okay? I don’t know if people saw that, but because some of it goes into that area, but we don’t go there unless there’s a specific real reason that will give us the ability to show why it’s important. So do people see my screen.

 

[00:09:23.490] – Bill, America’s Black Robe Regiment

Yes.

[00:09:25.250] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

Okay, I want to point something out here about dialectical attacks. And on the screens, far left, up at the top, going across the skyline, you see this little engine that’s flying across the sky, and it starts with esotericism at all. And we could take this back to 500 BC if we had to. Then you have the French Revolution in 1789, Hegel in 1831, Marx in 1844, Lenin, then Mao, then Marcuse. And I would like to point out that Marcuse is probably the most important person for you to get your mind around in terms of understanding Marxism and its impact on America because it’s the Marxism he unfolded with what’s called the Frankfurt School that is the dominant form of Marxism. And we’re going to see if we can get Cry Havoc brought into publication again as a book for people to read because it’s only about 200 pages and it’s not a heavy read. That explained by a man named Ralph de Toledano to explain how to understand what kind of Marxism you’re seeing today. So what you see here is that engine flies across and what I’m going to do is go to the next picture to make it simpler because I want to map it to what we’ve seen recently, okay?

 

[00:10:45.620] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

Here you have that engine and you had the impeachment of Trump in January 2000, okay? The impeachment we assessed was the complete success because it achieved what they wanted to achieve. And you might be saying, but Steve Trump survived that. I said the goal wasn’t for him to survive the impeachment. That I could argue would have actually caused some problems for them. It was to get the exact outcome they wanted. What is that? That the far left in Congress had secret Star Chamber hearings that were extra legal, okay? They did them in the hipsey. House permit. Select Committee on Intelligence. That’s not a judiciary forum and it’s not a rule of law forum. And they didn’t let people in. Okay?

 

[00:11:33.550] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

So what they basically did was come up with the articles of impeachment that were completely unamerican, completely outside the rule of law. And what made it a complete success is that the Republicans in Congress voted and then went through the impeachment based on extra legal Star Chamber tactics. So from that point forward, he was an American citizen, could be rousted and thrown into jail because the state says so. And who backed it? The Republicans. That’s the dog that didn’t bark for people, that they should have walked away from it. Well, what would have happened if what would have happened had Trump been removed? My answer is this. That would have been better in terms of constitutional integrity than anything else. But what I’m really going to suggest is the reason you didn’t hear that debate was because nobody wanted it. Because what they did was they implemented Star Chamber hearings. Now take a look at that graphic because this is a dialectical explanation of what you’re seeing, okay? When that little aircraft over the top launched its impeachment bomb onto the public down below, it impacted. Down in the impact area is where you’re fighting impeachment, okay?

 

[00:12:55.530] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

If you look straight up, you’ll see that’s the time that they launched the COVID Lockdown. Why? Because once they realized the impeachment bomb was successful and while you’re fighting the impeachment, they’ve launched the COVID Lockdown. So here you are fighting the battle on the ground. And look at it. No matter who wins. You’re fighting a point defense on a threat that’s maneuvering right across you. And you’re responding today on events that they put in motion yesterday as they launch your battle tomorrow. So that all the time you’re saying, we don’t have time to look at the big issue. The only time we have is to take care of that bomb blast? Well, what happens when you spend all your time in the battle today looking at all the dead bodies around you, not understanding that that was only done to put you in position for the next bomb blast, where, again, because you never have time to look at the larger issue. The main event is that aircraft flying across the horizon, dropping bombs today that will get you to respond tomorrow, which if you respond tomorrow, they’ll launch the next day. So you see, no matter how, no matter it doesn’t even matter whether you win or lose those battles in the bomb blast area, if you’re in the bomb blast area and if you’re not understanding, the only thing that stops it is shooting down the plane.

 

[00:14:31.210] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

So once the lockdown happened, if you look straight up, you will see what you’ll see. That that’s when they launched all the activities to get the antifa BLM stuff going. So here it is. American citizens, everybody who’s not a part of the BLM attack is out there in their homes, isolated, literally isolated from everybody else and feeling alone as they get prepared to take the streets in late March. So that when the Floyd event happens. And if you want to go to my web page, you’ll find that I said that it was going to start in Minnesota and it was going to happen exactly the way we said it did. After a year earlier, I put something out called Warning on Racism, saying they were to use the presidential they were to use critical race theory. Let me just say, critical race theory is Marxism. If you disagree, you’re wrong. If you if you do not respond to critical race theory as Marxism, you’re fighting the bomb blast area. Not understanding all those attacks are that. So I say this because whenever you hear a conservative say, we have to fight this battle, but we don’t have time to look at the big battle, they’re always telling you not to look straight up at the main attack.

 

[00:15:50.800] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

So guess what? When BLM hit the streets in late May 2020, whether they went Sydney, Australia, whether Vienna, Austria, whether in Minneapolis, Los Angeles, they all had the same message, they all had the same signage, they all had the same everything, so that they were completely on task and you were responding to everything they were doing. And once those happened, they launched the next event, which is, I will call it Ukraine. Now I’m going to scratch my head and I’m not going to go too far into this discussion, but I really scratched my head about how everybody in the world decided to be pro Ukrainian went into Ukraine as if a good percentage of Soviet leaders worked themselves Ukrainian. As if the Ukraine was not a part of the Soviet Union. Everybody adopted them as the heroes, even as Soros and the Charles Schwab Organization, even as they were making it clear that was their group. So here you have Republicans flying Ukrainian flag. Remember the impeachment, the impeachment of Trump was about what? It was about the fact that he tried to get the Ukrainians to bring charges against the griff that was going on by the Biden during the Obama administration.

 

[00:17:15.840] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

His son was raking in tens of millions of dollars from Crane Corporation. Bursa. Right. And in fact, the Hunter hard drive is what it is precisely because it has a whole lot of incriminating evidence on it, not just about Biden getting grift money from these Ukrainian sources. But guess what? Some prominent Republicans as well. So the entire political establishment wants that shut down. You have and we have the video. You had 24 hours news, I think it’s called, one on one. And what they did was what they did was get press passes to be right at the Capitol Building, 10ft away from doors at the Capitol Building. When Ukrainians stormed the Capitol Building on January 6 and started banging on those doors. They have it. It’s right there. We could give it to you. So here you have Ukrainian news right on the spot where Ukrainians are banging on those doors. You don’t see that anywhere on the news. So I’m not telling you what side to take with Ukraine and Russia, but I am telling you that the uncritical nature about which we adopt that narrative just has me scratching my head. And so I wanted to use those two graphics.

 

[00:18:36.060] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

I could basically go back and show a couple more things here. We’re going to go, well, I think I’ll not do that right now because there’s going to be a large walk into it. But before I go on, because that’s basically how to understand narratives. And it’s going to be called we’re going to call it Euphemistically the Sorcerer Circle. And the Sorcerer Circle was a way to understand how narratives are controlled that go back to the ancient world. And the Sorcerer Circle was such that you didn’t have to have a PhD to explain the Pied Piper, right? The Pied Piper was that somebody’s singing a song and all the children are marching to their doom. Or you have the emperor has no clothes. The Sorcerer Circle was the way people could explain a very simple way of control to people who didn’t need a PhD to understand what the message was. So what was the emperor has no clothes. Here it is. They tell people that the emperor is looking beautiful. He looks perfectly dressed, and nobody’s allowed to say he’s walking through the town naked. Isn’t that like a culture in the Middle Ages that was told that they had to say two plus two equals five.

 

[00:19:55.230] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

What I’m telling you is everything you’re seeing is easy to understand. Very easy to understand. By the way, it’s the World Economic Forum. Okay? Very easy to understand. The minute you take away the false science, okay, that makes it sound scientific and makes it sound hard. It makes it sound like you have to read really thick books. So I’m going to open it up to a questioning right now because what I could do part of this whole discussion, what I was going to say about it was part of the thing about the dialectic we don’t understand the major prime attack is attack on Western religions. And I give you a reason why that is non theological. It’s the philosophical, maybe component to the theological attack. But when I say that it’s going to be something that we today no longer think about and take for granted because Western culture has been this way for so long as a default, people don’t understand that it used to be different, and we don’t understand that there are people who changed it. And what that is is that through the process in the early period during the Roman Empire, when Christianity became the dominant religion, the culture shifted from being an imminent society to a transcendent society. So I understand that that’s like one guy talking about all the gods in the ancient world existed in nature, okay?

 

[00:21:39.060] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

And so all the gods took the form of the idea that they exist in nature. They’re going to try to pull history forward. They’re going to do these things, and that the gods are imminent. In your mind, from Judaism, you have the concept, and I will request to be corrected for those on this forum. John, if I stumble on this. But is the idea that God exists outside of time? He exists outside of his creation? So that the concept of law. I’m taking huge jumps here. The concept of law that emerged from that was, we’ll say natural law. This is in the interest of simplification. So the idea was so long as you obey the laws of God, you man can have your own laws and you can make your own you can organize your own society. So long as your laws, the laws of man people would call it natural law, are obedient to this higher law, you’re good to go, okay? And what you see that comes out of that is this idea that man in the image of God means that you have rights. This is what makes the West Judeo Christian, because it’s all in Genesis.

 

[00:23:09.630] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

Because you were created in the image of God, you have rights that exist inherent in you, that existed before the state and existed ahead of the state, okay? And because you have those rights, you create a constitution in the United States that gives you rights. And those are rights that say that the state cannot take them away because they’re inherent in the person. Okay, so what we have now is what has happened in the last we could draw this back to the French Revolution if you wanted to, but for our purposes, I want to try to keep it immediate. In the last 50 years, american culture has ceased to be transcendent in its orientation, and it is now back to being an imminent society. An imminent society where the number one voice for the will of the gods is the state. And so what you will see is the rise of the creation of states, creating group rights that they manufactured, that they pit against rights of individuals, which are the rights protected in the Constitution. Am I getting ahead of people here at all? Okay, so that every time you see now I’m being simple here.

 

[00:24:32.470] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

It’s not this simple, but if I kind of give a lay down, I think it could be helpful. So what I can do is go through a piece of the divided line. The reason I bring this up is because the main attack is the attack on imminence. So the number one attack on being antichristian is it got rid of the ability to have all power vests in the state. There’s a lot of things going on here that I’m cutting to the quick on. And in this argument, one of the biggest reasons to be angry at Jews is they allowed Christianity to exist. That allowed this to pollute the Western mind that in the theory of these people believed in these gods, most of these gods, as they are understood by these people, never existed. You point out the Germans who talk about their German gods, there’s a history to this. You kind of have to point out that when you say that those Eastern Mediterranean Jews allowed this terrible Christianity with this imminent concept of God to pollute Europe, that most the German tribes were to the east of Israel, so that they would have been the foreign influence.

 

[00:25:58.050] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

There’s kind of a laugh there, because on top of everything else, the narrative itself fails from basic history. So that means that the primary attack is an attack on Christianity. And it means that to understand what Marx was really about, you really have to understand that he came out of these secret societies of which he was fully a part of in the 1830s and 40s, where he was a you could say for a while he was a seeker. He was jumping from one religion to another, and then he fixed on being a Satanist. And his status as a Satanist is not controversial. He wrote about it, and we have that. Okay, why is this important? Because if you leave that, if you overly obsess on that, you kind of warp where you’re going. And if you fixate on the Satanic part of it, you kind of get pigeonholed. And that’s not bad per se, except that it also pigeonholes you in a way that keeps you from grabbing what they were actually doing. That does have its own separate language that if you decide to orient on, you could figure out how to counter. Does that sound okay?

 

[00:27:17.290] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

So what I wanted to say was and that was a direct attack on faith, that the reason they wanted to destroy these Western governments is because they were JudeoChristian and that’s why they needed to be destroyed. And so what I’m doing right now is assembling stuff that makes that very clear. There’s a sense in which it’s not an accident when you see antifa in the street. They’re adopting these dark imagery. And a lot of that dark imagery is indistinguishable in many respects from the same dark imagery that we saw where in the French Revolution, okay? And other events that there’s other events that were like that. So what I’m wondering here is, do you want me to kind of walk through the dialectic to take it all the way to the source? It gets a little difficult here. Or do you want me to go and show you how intersectionalism is Marxism a primer on the whole thing that we could borrow down in? I’ll leave that up to you guys, because I open three things to kind of . . . ..

 

[00:28:28.450] – Bill, America’s Black Robe Regiment

Of if I could Steve, if I could share a little bit about my own perspective and how I kind of came to understand not at the level of detail that I think you understand all these things that you’re talking about, but more intuitively. I came to an understanding that and it really happened in the time of prayer. I was reading the Book of Genesis and studying the story of how Eve submitted to the serpent and believed a lie. And then her husband, who she gave fruit to, he partook of the forbidden fruit, and all of creation, became subjugated to principal. Today we would call the prince of the power of the air or the spirit that now works in the if you go by Scripture, the spirit that now works in the children disobedience man essentially surrender his dominion to the serpent in that act of disobedience. And so in doing that, I also came to believe that all tyranny is empowered in deceit. It has to be empowered by deceit. And if you look at history, you just look at empirical evidence, it does seem that tyranny survives on the lie. And whether you call it dialecticalism, whatever you call it, it’s deceit.

 

[00:29:50.430] – Bill, America’s Black Robe Regiment

Changing the definition of terms is deceit and attempt to deceive. So that informed my understanding of what was going on. When the COVID story started hitting the public, hitting the public through the media, I immediately knew that the entire thing was a complete lie because I assumed that the media would not do an immediate about face and begin telling me the truth when they lied to me incessantly for the previous four years. First four years. The Donald Trump administration. I don’t know if that relates to what you’re asking now at all. It may not relate at all, but maybe just take that and kind of factor into what you might say next.

 

[00:30:40.170] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

Well, no, what I was really saying was I kind of opened a couple of things and I was actually going to look for one quote in one of them just to kind of tie what I’m saying to would you like me to show the source or a circle that shows how that works? What you’re saying the warning is that’s kind of going to be like day two of doing so. It’s a little out of bounds. The number one thing I’m going to working on right now is to show that the claim of science on which the world is being brought down can be taken back to the ancient world. And it’s based on an understanding of certain things that once you see it, it becomes much more simple. But it itself is a difficult conversation or it needs a lead in. All these things will need a lead in. But what I could also do is more basic things, if you would, like how many people here ever saw my introductory one on these things, because I could do that as well.

 

[00:31:43.330] – Bill, America’s Black Robe Regiment

Well, one thing I’ll say is this obviously needs to happen in more than one of these Zoom meetings. I think we could probably have several. So we don’t necessarily have to if we don’t get it today in every respect, we’ll have other times together where we’ll have you back on, because I think this is extremely valuable. So I’d say proceed however you feel inclined to go.

 

[00:32:07.670] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

How about the Platonic Nightmare? And I’m going to talk through some of the more complicated parts. And I’m going to say, don’t worry. If I say we’re going to skip it for now, I’ll say skip it because some of the slides are now a little more complicated than they want to be. But I think it goes to the Platonic, this whole concept of what you’re saying, how to understand the lie and how I’m going to set things up, and we’ll cross our as bad as it could go, self fair. Now, this is still a little abstract for even where I want it to be. So what we have here right now is I think I got it. Here it is. I haven’t got some of the pieces in there, like so what I did is I took something from Eric Vogelin. Eric Vogelin was a German who emigrated to the United States and became a professor of political theory. He was a conservative, and he discussed the fact that hegel in this article, it’s called Hagel a Study in Sorcery. And one of the things that you’re not getting here, I’m going. To give you the background, and I’ll just ask for the purpose of this discussion, accept this is true.

 

[00:33:38.200] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

Don’t accept this true beyond this until you see it and you understand what the argument is. And I can do that. I can do that today. Okay? I could do it instead of this, okay? But like I said, we’re jumping into it that the reason he called Hegel a sorcerer is because he recognized he was a hermeticist. And what he meant by a hermeticist is someone who believes in hermetic Alchemy. And what he meant by that is that he really meant that. Okay. Really meant it. Okay?

 

[00:34:10.110] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

And as such, a leader in Alchemy was called a sorcerer, sometimes called a wizard. And we could go into the Bible and find that term. Guess where else we could go into that and find it? We could go in and find it in Plato’s dialogues. Okay?

 

[00:34:28.510] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

So here the thing that happens, is what hegel was able to do was convince people that because he could have the perfect understanding of the future perfect world, he sees what the future looks like. Think of Star Trek. He sees what the future perfect world is because he sees what it is. He’s allowed today to tell you that he has a scientific understanding of the future perfect world. And as such, he has the right to tell people don’t agree with them that they’re idiots, and if he can get elected to office, he has a right to put you in jail because you don’t agree with his view, because his view is science, and your view is ignorance, because he’s science, and you’re fighting science. Does that sound familiar at all?

 

[00:35:17.430] – Bill, America’s Black Robe Regiment

Yeah.

 

[00:35:19.880] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

I have my screen suppresso. I can’t see people give me the fingers up. This approach was I actually think we could take it all the way back to, they say you could take it way far back, but we could take it at least as far back as 400 BC. This is the first time we could see this play itself out. I think we could go further back and find it in the Old Testament or read into certain events the possibility that that’s probably what happened. What you have is that concept. Now, that concept is called science because he could impose it. Okay, as I go through here, I’m giving you a whole lot of things to consider before I go here, which I have a precursor brief that does that, and maybe I should have done that first, but to your point about how the lie works, okay. So I’m going to ask you kind of go with some of the stuff I understand the first time through. It’s going to be kind of a head scratcher. So what did Vogel say calling Hegel a sorcerer? One more point about that. It was very clear that certain pietist lutheran seminaries in Germany had been penetrated by these hermeticists. And they were known in Germany in a way that’s not understood in American or English speaking countries.

 

[00:36:50.970] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

Histories where they’re kind of ubiquitously known in Germany where they were basically teaching covert hermeticism and they were able to have it look like piatus Lutheranism. And then if you want to go to a larger picture, Christianity writ large. So that in the hermetic concept, god is undifferentiated act who can’t know himself. So he creates nature and he pours himself into nature and there’s super abundance of nature. And now God needs man to pick up the pieces that overflowed. And as man looks at individual pieces, he says that’s a piece of God. And then God under fragile X says, because that person understood that little speck of me. I know that about myself. And now your mission is to keep picking up those specs of pieces. And the more of those pieces you pick up, the more I know of myself. And what hegel did was said that’s God the Father undifferentiated act, and Hegel’s the science of law, the science of logic, that’s that he says when God is undifferentiated Act, God the Father poured himself out. He poured himself out into nature, and that’s Jesus. And well, you know, where the Christians got it wrong, of course, is and that was the science of the science of nature.

 

[00:38:28.240] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

Hagos. Science of nature. I have got the titles exactly correct, but he put the science of nature in it, if you ever look at the titles. But then he wrote Spirit science to Spirit, okay? And in Science to Spirit, he said, well, that’s the Spirit. That’s the Holy Spirit. And what is the Holy Spirit? Okay, this is not Christian, by the way. Okay, well, the Holy Spirit is the spirit that guides the man who picks up the piece to move history forward so that God can reno himself as absolute act at the end of time. That kind of sounds like Marxism where you go to the workers paradise if you build forward. And what I’m saying is this is a religion and if you take away all the political scales on it will look like that. So when the Prussians wanted to unify Germany, they decided that this professor of this weird type of hermetic covert hermeticism looking like Lutheranism would be the exact type of Lutheranism they want to unify Germany around. So they said, hey Go, why don’t you come to the University of Berlin? He came to the University of Berlin. So what you have is the idea that in this Hegelian concept, there are three elements of the Hegellian system.

 

[00:39:45.980] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

One is the dialectic itself. Two is the fact that there’s the control of the concept of science. And the concept of science is that the end of the world is the perfect end state. If you’re powerful enough to impose it, it’s going to be that for the purpose of what they want. And the other one is that the state is God, okay? Now, how ridiculous is that? Well, you’ve been living it. You have been living it. You could say global warming is, but that would require an explanation. But let me give you a different explanation. Fauci comes out and says, mass don’t work. There’s no point in doing it. And he’s he’s the state. He’s the voice of science in the US. State and in the world, as it turns out, because everybody, you know, yielded to him. But then he came out a couple of weeks later, and he said, no, you have to wear a mask. And we responded by saying, look at that. He’s contradicting himself. He’s contradicting himself. And I’m trying to tell people that’s not what he just did. What he did is that if the state is God, I’m right when I said the mask doesn’t work, and I’m right when the mask says it does work. Why am I right? I can force you to wear a mask. And I did. Okay?

 

[00:41:06.820] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

And that meant that the minute they were able to impose their will well, as a practical matter, for the people who got club, the state is God, and Fauci was right. To argue that Fauci was wrong is to say there was a higher authority than the state. Does that ring a bell to anybody, that this will explain things you’ve seen a different way? It institutionalizes a concept. It doesn’t require your assent. It only requires your obedience, okay? And in fact, they don’t care if you agree with it or not. In fact, they don’t care that people who say two plus two equal five are dumb people who say it. It’s when they know the people who know it’s not true say it to keep their job and know they say it. That is the crown jewel for them. The people who obey knowing it’s not true, and those are the people who are the target. So here it is. We’ll go through this whole thing quickly. The movement of dialectical knowledge is the circle that runs back into itself. Presupposing the beginning, it reaches its end. And it’s quoting the sides of philosophy. Once you have entered the magic circle the sorcerer has drawn around himself, you are lost.

 

[00:42:28.090] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

And yet the attack on the dignity of man really occurs because hegel intends his construction not to be a private amusement, but an eminently public proclamation of the scientific truth about the reality of man in society. So we have this little picture here, and it’s a picture of what we’ll call the narrative, the dialectical engine. And inside that positive and negative charge is something at the very center. We’ll call it the narrative. And inside that narrative, outside that narrative, is the real world. Inside that circle is the pseudoreality that’s inside the sorcerer circle. And the goal is to put everybody in there. Bill, this is what you were saying about that. They’re lying, and people are obeying, and they could find the truth. Okay?

 

[00:43:18.640] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

In the matrix world, this is the blue pill domain. It doesn’t even matter if you’re right, if you’re right inside the blue pill domain because don’t just create a narrative to get you falling to chase your tail. So the movement of dialectical knowledge is the circle that runs back into itself, presupposing the beginning. It reaches the end. That’s the arboros, and that has a definite esoteric. Meaning some people replace the word esoteric with occult. But what I want you to see is how many times do you see that symbol? How many times do you see it? And you need to understand this. It has a specific understanding. So once you have entered the magic circle the sorcerer has drawn around himself, you are lost. That’s a picture of the sorcerer circle. And you see this type of stuff exploding all over the place. You see it in children’s television. You now see it in regular television. You see half the science fiction movies that are on Amazon and Netflix are pointing to this. And yet the attack on the dignity band really occurs because hegel intends his construction not to be a private amusement, tends to impose this on everybody.

 

[00:44:39.160] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

So this breaks off from the main brief where I’ve gotten people to a certain point. And you see up in the upper left hand corner of these two men playing checkers. So this is about 4 hours into the brief where I’m introducing this concept. So you see that aircraft flying over and he’s got that dialectical engine that he’s going to drop bombs on the public. Like, you see, the plus is a dialectical attack is to get everything to be yes or no, positive or negative. So you have a belief, let’s just say Christian belief, they will create a made up opposite to collide, to collide, to collide. And they will keep doing it until all of a sudden Christianity becomes a tritted and gets broken down into something that’s irrelevant culturally, okay? That’s 100% of what you need to know about Marxism. It creates a opposite to what they value. So now if you have a constitution that creates rights, well, rights are replaced by group rights. Group rights are what? Privileges granted by the state. Privileges granted by the state that are designed to overcome and overtake rights endowed by the Creator. Everything you’re seeing will fall into place with this explanation.

 

[00:45:55.720] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

So the dialectic, think of the dialectic not as a flat two dimensional concept, okay? You see those people playing checkers there, like you’re playing it on a two dimensional plane. You’re made to think that when you go up against the left or other dialectical attacks, and I will argue that if you listen to Lincoln project rhetoric that comes from the Republican establishment, it sounds almost indistinguishable from the far left. And then what will happen is you will erroneously say their Marxist too. And I’m going to argue well, some might be, but that does not have to be true, because all it has to be is the negative charge, the positive charge. But really, the solar system really looks like this, right? If we just stop that solar system picture let me go back. Does everybody see that moving through space? We have a better one coming up if you just stop that picture. And let’s just do this. Let’s just get rid of everything but the sun moving through space with a positive charge, blue and a negative charge, red. Or here, we still have them P as planet. The sun moving through space on a three dimensional plane, and we’ll redesignate them.

 

[00:47:20.240] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

The narrative, the positive charge, the negative charge. And as they spin against each other, they create a field inside. Interesting enough, there’s science behind that concept, and if you could trap narratives inside that, you keep them from being outside. Okay.

 

[00:47:37.650] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

The mass line narrative and I have a brief on what the mass line is. The mass line are enforcement narratives to get you to obey. Okay, that’s good enough for now. There’s a whole briefing to bring you to mass line. Mass lines exist in political warfare regimes. Political warfare is the Maoist insurgency model. Okay.

 

[00:47:58.830] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

The Maoist insurgency model executes its mission through narrative and force, like Fauchi saying you must wear a mask and then having people on the street attack you because you’re going to kill their mother if you don’t wear a mask. An extra legal narrative, because they didn’t have the legal authority to actually do that. Okay.

 

[00:48:21.750] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

The mask line narrative is a binary circling around the narrative that long and arc. You see that they both contain the target population inside that circle.

 

[00:48:43.400] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

Okay. This is still in build, so it’s still got a lot of rough pieces to it. But I wanted to hit the point you raised, because if we could put that there, I want people not to be worried that tomorrow they’re going to have a hard time explaining what they might like. If you have that sense that you see it’s going somewhere and you know it’s correct, and tomorrow you can’t even explain it to somebody, don’t worry. This is hard to wrap your mind around, and it will take a couple of times. And I’m realizing, as I give this to you, there’s a lot that leads into this that needs an explanation. But I wanted to explain what you were saying about how the lie works. Okay, fair enough?

 

[00:49:21.560] – Bill, America’s Black Robe Regiment

Yes.

 

[00:49:26.040] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

Once you have that containment field, the two things are spinning around really fast. That holds everything in. As things are moving, the pseudoreality is formed. The target, you are contained. Now, think about it. There is the blue charge, and their job is to put on a narrative that the red charge wants to attack, and the red charge puts out a narrative that the blue charge wants to attack, but they both do something else. They both create narratives that sound like they’re true, but they’re not true, to hold their sight inside the circle, too. So MSNBC creates a narrative that keeps their people inside that circle getting mad at the people on the blue side who watch Fox. But lo and behold, the people in Fox create a narrative that everybody who watch NBC wants to attack, and they keep their people inside that. So all of a sudden, you have a presidential election, and Fox basically had Donna Brazile explained to you the 2016 election. But if you pay very close attention to these last midterms, you’ll notice that the red wave that we told people wasn’t going to happen. Okay?

 

[00:50:44.370] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

Remember we had McConnell, McCarthy get money from FTX, ukrainian money to spend on Republicans that they called bad candidates who ended up being, you know, the people who the base kind of wanted. Okay?

 

[00:51:01.300] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

What was their narrative? Oh, we’re all tired of Trump. Now, I got to full disclosure, I’m not a big Trump fan, but I do understand the nature of the narrative. And so they brought people back and held them and what were you watching? Oh, the red wave. We told you what was coming didn’t happen. It must be Trump fatigue. Well, what you need to know is this whole Trump fatigue and the whole Trump narrative is about making everybody who they don’t like a criminal all of January 6. Okay?

 

[00:51:31.100] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

And you can see that Christian nationalist movement is about making Christians seem like they’re becoming undone, they’re coming unglued. And it’s designed to make them look that way, as they are then going to be compared to other January 6 people. Do you see that narrative? And one of the lead spokesman for that in the last congressional period wasn’t in the Democratic Congress, a chairman, a Democratic chairman. It was Liz Cheney. Okay, just pointing it out there. So both hold their people inside, and they get their side to attack the other side. Why is this important? Because in the normal world, you don’t have two poles of understanding that are diametrically opposed. That’s the lead indicator that you’re in a dialectical kill zone, okay? That you’re there and there’s only one side and there is no middle. And then you go and say, jeez, doesn’t the people who pay for ads on MSNBC tend to be the same people who buy ads for Fox? I’m not asking you to agree with any of this. I’m telling you to maybe think about it that way. So this looks like which contains the opposition from both sides within the binary field, and hence the field is purple, right?

 

[00:52:50.600] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

Blue and red creates a purple field. The targeted demographic, including the opposition within that demographic is contained. An opposition that is contained is a controlled opposition. Why is that important? So long as you represent the views you represent inside that circle. You’re fighting a pseudo reality. You’re not actually defending. You’re giving the other side what they need to keep you in the circle as they keep the other side. Hence, in The Matrix metaphor, these are the blue pill players. And remember, in the movie The Matrix, so long as you’re a blue pill player, you are irrelevant. But not only that, if Agent Smith wanted to take you over, he could do it like that. The only real players are the red pill players. And if you look at that picture, the only red pill players are the ones who operate outside that circle. So trapped and constructed pseudo realities by the narratives that attract them and the binary fields that hold them. So here’s a lot of words here. I’m going to pause so people can read it later if they want to hold it because we’re to cover these three things again. Okay?

 

[00:53:58.770] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

Now this is where we’re getting to what you were talking about. Let’s talk about the election, okay? I haven’t updated these for something new. And we’re only going to talk about the blue side, the conservative side, the people who are on our side, okay? We took out the red. We took out the left, we took out the negative. Fair enough. You see a real event. You see a real event outside that circle, you’re in there and contained. You’re that star, okay? A real event that the controlled opposition recognizes. And they respond to that set of targets. The dialectical negation. Controlled opposition is what I’m talking about. That set of targets in a dialectical litigation line of operation that clusters around a pole, a thesis that operates in conjunction with an opposing pole, the antithesis, as part of a constructed binary around a narrative. The attracting pole is designed to attract and contain the target so as to fix it for the purpose of negating it, destroying it as part of a larger intersectional line of effort. The pole exists for the sole purpose of negating the target it attracts. So if you are a dialectical Christian, you are a Christian that seeks as its object the destruction of Christianity.

 

[00:55:27.060] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

And the best type of dialectical Christian is the minister who doesn’t even understand that he is. Fair enough. You don’t even understand it. Or dialectical conservative. Or dialectical republican. Which I think is the dominant leadership of the Republican Party. So what happens is we’ll use the stolen election, right? We’ll say the stolen election, the election that everybody knows didn’t go the way. It should have, okay?

 

[00:55:59.910] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

Everybody has questions. Let me put it this way. Even if you’re not sure the election was stolen because such a huge part of the population believes it does, that created a constitutional requirement to have it investigated, because not investigating it has the effect of delegitimizing the constitutional rule of law it stands for. So it caused the need to investigate. It is not just a partisan political thing. It’s about retaining the integrity of the electoral process that drives the Constitution such that the very act of the Republicans to not allow any investigation was itself part of the delegitimization of the constitutional electoral process, even if they themselves didn’t believe it. Okay, fair enough. So you see that people in the Star, they’re looking right across that containment wall, the controlled opposition, and they see that event. The very next thing that happens is that their boundary is put between you and that real event. And you see their arrows of the event being bounced off, so you don’t see it, and they create a mirage of that event inside the pseudo reality. Makes sense. And now, because you didn’t quite see the sleight of hand, you’re now oriented on that fake, stolen election narrative as opposed to the real event.

 

[00:57:26.880] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

And that’s what has your attention. See those arrows now? You’re now orient on that. You’re no longer recognizing it. And then the attracting friendly poll in the binary is purpose built to emulate the real beliefs of the attractive target, which are then replicated inside a contained pseudoreal construct that facilitates the ongoing manipulation of the target through a programmed period of practice. What a grumpy call Marxism, the philosophy of practice through a programmed period of practice designed for that purpose, all the while imperceptibly, escalating, and intensifying. The complete deracination. You need to get a hold of that word deracination to separate you from the world that gives what you say meaning, okay, the complete deracination of the target set from the reality of its own beliefs. These dialectical events are called dialogues. And the word dialogue comes from the Greek word dialecticos, I believe it is, which is the same as the word dialectic. It’s the same root word as dialectic. Dialogue and dialectic are, as a practical matter, the same word broken into two different uses. And for our purposes, it’s good enough. Now take a look at what just happened here in the next picture.

 

[00:58:49.010] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

The next picture is then they shifted that picture of the pseudoreal election campaign reform to something so that if that little cloud disappears, you can’t see the real event behind it is nothing. See that? There’s nothing to see. Now it’s voter integrity. That’s now what you’re calling it. Okay? Does this make sense to people at all? Do you see where I’m going with this, Bill?

 

[00:59:15.360] – Bill, America’s Black Robe Regiment

Yeah. A lot of slight hand.

 

[00:59:19.800] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

It’s totally a slight of hand. You have to decide to believe it because it can’t stand the light of day. This is true even if the election was valid. So I use that as the example. But let’s just say they did an investigation on election fraud, and people you trusted did a real investigation and they explained it to you and they showed you. Yes, there were a lot of things that went wrong in this election, but at the end of the day, trump lost, this would still be true because they did this instead of doing that, okay? And therefore undermine the integrity of the Constitution of the American people, who now seriously wonder about the integrity of the people who are elected when the Republicans were the main actors in refusing to do any serious election reform. And I think you need to go back and look, for the last couple of years, they were the ones that stopped, not the Democrats. Now we’re only isolated on the blue side, the friendly side. But remember, in these dialectical attacks, there’s the other poll. So what happens all of a sudden, the red side, the MSNBC, says, what election fraud?

 

[01:00:34.470] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

And what are the blue side going to say? We just have to move on. We can’t spend our time doing this. Gosh. Let’s just move on. And that’s the total liquidation of the whole event. And that is programmed from see what I’m wringing my hands? Everything turned out to be not true. Why? Because you were given a series of scenarios to bite on the bright, shiny object instead of actually looking at the real in my humble opinion, we’re not going to answer any lecture fraud issues that come from this. I just use this as an example. So guess what the real issue is? Negated. Completely negated. A real event that the controlled opposition recognizes and responded to. Totally negated.

 

[01:01:26.940] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

It is at this point where a basket of culture defining beliefs have been reduced to a series of attack binaries integrated into a I can’t read it because I have my screen sharing sign here.

 

[01:01:39.390] – Bill, America’s Black Robe Regiment

And integrated into an attack matrix intersectionality that the process of cultural negation is in full motion.

 

[01:01:46.420] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

Cultural negation is in full motion with the two mutually supporting polls always reinforcing the attack. So you see Fox this argument says that Fox and MSNBC are oriented on a constructed narrative and they’re equal opposites. And that’s why I keep telling people to stop watching the 24 hours news. So so there you have those recapping it. So that’s a different way of looking at the solar system. Fair enough. When you talk about the two binaries, you’re not playing checkers against the other side. You’re not even playing chess. Don’t say three dimensional chess. You’re fighting an attack that is in motion, moving as it spins. So we’re responding to the attack as if they’re equal opposites, playing checkers with you. Their only job is to keep you playing checkers with each other, going back and forth. Let me see if I missed something here. So I’m going quickly through here to see if there’s anything here that leads to what I wanted to say, because these are still in build, and I think I’m good with that briefing. It just was giving people other ways to visualize that. Now, the question I have is I wanted to do that because you brought up that as something you were concerned with and this construct is going to be the ability for you to explain what you’re seeing, understand what you’re seeing in a way that gives you the ability to understand the whole picture.

 

[01:03:29.660] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

Because guess what? If my picture is wrong, then you don’t have to argue. There’s another player in there that’s the equal opposite of the one you’re oriented on, but that equal opposite player is the one that is always quiet on your issues, that you elected them to stop. And that should be louder in your ear than what Antifa did in the street. That should be louder because you elected them to stop it. And they not only didn’t their actions, but still attained it. And you will say, according to my circle, that they’re rhinos. And I will say no, they’re not. It takes a lot of courage to show up at their office and look the people voted in the office in the face, knowing when they got elected that if they got elected on health care, they had no intention of ever doing it. This puts them at a level above rhino. And my concern is until people at least entertain that idea, we can’t move forward. And we really did see that with this whole speaker of the House thing going on, didn’t we? Did we actually see that? This gives you a way to understand that now.

 

[01:04:52.160] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

Okay. There’s other things to put. I can only brief one at a time in serial, but when they’re all put together, they’re actually operating in parallel with each other. Does that make sense?

 

[01:05:10.660] – Bill, America’s Black Robe Regiment

I would say I hate to sound like a complete cynic, but maybe just ask you a question. To what degree are the opposing sides working on the same are they on the same team? Are you saying they are?

 

[01:05:26.680] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

Yes.

 

[01:05:27.160] – Bill, America’s Black Robe Regiment

At some level.

 

[01:05:29.330] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

Yes. And part of the Platonic Nightmare Briefing, which is in build right now, is to argue. And I’m putting it together, and I’ll make it clear.

 

[01:05:40.910] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

Is so long as you say unit party, you’re missing the fact that in 360 BC, what they called it is an Oligarchy. And what you see is that the Oligarchy at the top simply let me see something here. Simply is doing what Oligarchies do. I’m going to see something here. No, if I had it up, I would show it to you because I.

 

[01:06:15.300] – Bill, America’s Black Robe Regiment

Know they’re on the same team. Do they realize that they’re on the same team.

 

[01:06:21.460] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

At the top? Yeah, absolutely. They’re an oligarchy. So what that means is you say uniparty. I actually have something that kind of fleshes that out a little bit to give you a different way to look at it. Where is it? I can’t take your time up here.

 

[01:06:43.480] – Bill, America’s Black Robe Regiment

My wife is asking if people can ask questions.

 

[01:06:46.860] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

Absolutely. Go ahead and ask questions, folks.

 

[01:06:50.150] – Bill, America’s Black Robe Regiment

I would just say, if you have a question, go ahead and unmute yourself for as long as it takes you to ask the question. Go ahead, Paul?

 

[01:07:05.520] – Paul

Yeah? Real brief question for you. In a nutshell, would you say our goal is to defeat the Oligarchy? And if so, how do we do that? Well, I’m at the point right now where I’m saying you’re not capable of doing anything.

 

[01:07:28.280] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

I’ll revert to the classic intelligence element and operations intelligence scheme, and that is you cannot fight what you don’t know. You can’t fake it. I think we’ve been making this stuff for such a long time that we don’t realize that we don’t know what we’re doing.

 

[01:07:55.360] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

What I’m doing is I’m talking to you is okay, here we go. Do you want to put something up here?

 

[01:08:04.830] – Bill, America’s Black Robe Regiment

Sure.

 

[01:08:05.780] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

Give you a little taste of the Oligarchy. You want me to do that?

 

[01:08:10.770] – Bill, America’s Black Robe Regiment

Yeah. Judy’s saying she wants me to finish answering Paul’s question if there’s more to it.

 

[01:08:17.350] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

What you have to do is understand, first of all, you could study this and say, that guy’s full of it. We’re not doing that. What I would say is, even if you ended up not agreeing with it, the process I would send you through would have you reorient on what you’re looking at. Is it not true that everything you do, whether you win or lose, you lose ground for the last 20 years, no matter what you do, you’re losing ground. Okay? That means you’re in the circle. Okay, I understand. You don’t understand that circle. And there’s, there’s. And after you understand the circle intellectually, it takes even longer to get comfortable with it in your own skin.

 

[01:09:02.580] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

And then you orient on operational responses to that picture. If you validate the picture, no matter what, even if you walked away not agreeing on the Oligarchy analogy, you would still be in a situation where you would see things differently, and you would still have a tighter way of seeing it. We’re going to go full bore on this and say, this is the way to go. And the reason I’m going to put so much time into it is because even if you don’t agree with that Platonic Nightmare concept, we could prove that the left absolutely is invested in it, and, in fact, it’s their trigger point. And so what I did is I just found something where I kind of showed a little bit of my hand on it. Fair enough. Do you want me to show it to you? Sure. People are here. So this is part of a briefing. I’m cutting into it on slide slide 24.

 

[01:09:59.800] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

And the reason I have it here is just to give you I have tons of things like here to say. Oh, you don’t agree with that? Well, take a look at this. So here’s a slide from Lennon’s book. If I look over to my left? Yes, my left. I see all 40 some odd volumes of the complete collection of Lenin. I’ve got it. And what does he say here? He says the dialectic is the theory of knowledge of Hegel and Marxism. This is the aspect of the matter. It is not an aspect of the matter, but the essence of the matter. Now, essence in the world he’s talking about has the Greek word USA, and USA means being so that you could get into Christian theology about how that term is used to define God.

 

[01:10:54.670] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

So this is the top level understanding of what Mark Lennon is saying. That’s how important it is. And then I go to this famous quote from the inventor of propaganda, Edward Bernays. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of the country.

 

[01:11:19.140] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

Now remember, I have to grab my tinfoil hat because you have to be very careful because people can go too far on this stuff. And then I bring up the quote on the Platonic nightmare from Joseph Peeper. I’m going to give you this quote because I’m going to give you to it from a philosophical point of view. But now then, the very next two slides are going to punch you in the face hard. For those who think this is theoretical, this is not theoretical. The sofist Plato says fabricate a fictitious reality that the existential realm of man could be taken over by pseudorealities whose fictitious nature threatens to become indiscernible. It’s truly a depressing thought. And yet the Platonic Nightmare I hold possesses an alarming contemporary relevance. For the general public is being reduced to a state where people are no longer able to find out about the truth, but also become unable even to search for the truth because they are satisfied with deception to trickery that have determined their convictions. What does people say? They’re living in the Matrix and they’re comfortable with it. Now they are in the Sorcerer’s Circle and they’re okay because life is comfortable.

 

[01:12:32.820] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

So here’s the punch in the face. Yuri Bezmanov. As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him. Even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures, even if I take him by force of the Soviet Union and show him concentration camps, he will refuse to believe it. If we start from here, he’s showing a graphic in the video, right? This is the beginning point, the first stage of subversion the Sorcerer Circle process, which is basically demoralization it. It says for itself what it is. So the moment you bring a country to the point of total moralition, then nothing works anymore. When you’re not sure that it’s right or wrong, good or bad. There is no division between evil and good. When even the leaders of churches sometimes say, meaning the churches themselves are deceived. This concept is Libido Domenendi. And if you look at the very opening scene of The Lord of the Rings, that is the concept of what’s being defined. And I will argue you need to bring that term back into your active memory.

 

[01:14:04.620] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

Libido dominandi, the lust for power, the unadulterated lust for power. And here you have have a YouTube here. How many people have seen this YouTube of George Bernard Shaw calling for the need to create panels to have people justify their existence? Are people familiar with that? I can’t see people. I can see, but how many people have seen that video?

 

[01:14:34.640] – Bill, America’s Black Robe Regiment

I haven’t.

 

[01:14:36.800] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

Okay, let’s see if I could play it here.

 

[01:14:51.240] – George Bernard Shaw

I’m not in anyway being unkind, but it must be evident to all of you. You must all know half the present people at least, who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. And I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly appointed board, just that he might come before the income tax commissioner and say every five years or every seven years, just put him there and say, now if you’ll be kind enough to justify your existence. If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you’re not producing as much as you can do, or perhaps a little more, then clearly we cannot do the organization of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us. And it can’t be a pretty much worth keeping.

 

[01:15:50.520] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

Okay, so what you saw there, did you hear it? I guess you didn’t see it, but it’s that man talking and I think it’s 1920 or something like that. So here you have a man who was a Fabian socialist. So he’s on the left is George Bernard Shaw, who wrote My Fair Lady and all those nice novels that we heard. Okay, so let’s keep it going. And I think I have them quoted here, but those bodies oh, here I’m going to quote Plato’s Republic, but with bodies, disease through and through. He asculptureus made no attempt by regimes to make a lengthy and bad life for a human being and have him produce offspring like to be. As such, he didn’t think he should care for the man who’s not able to live in his own established round on the grounds that he’s no prophet to himself or the city. Doesn’t it just sound like what he just said? No profit to himself or the city? It’s a direct paraphrase. Well, here on the other side of the equation, on the right side of the equation is Prince Philip. In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus to contribute something to the salt, to resolving the population.

 

[01:17:05.720] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

So what you’re seeing resolving overpopulation, so what you see here, and we’re still in, we’re going to the Plato’s Republic, is whether they were elites, the upper class elites on the left or the upper elites on the right, they all agreed. They all agreed that they needed to get rid of people who don’t justify their existence. And now I’m going to put this in context. I want you to understand this context and I want you to think about this picture when you hear things. And even though you’re going to tell yourself, I’m not going to believe this, it’s going to bang through and make sense. It’ll make so much sense, you’ll understand? It could only make sense as if they were talking to this picture. So at the top of the pyramid, you have people of the gold. Let’s quote Plato again. All of you in the city are certainly brothers. We shall say to them in the telling of the tale, but the god in fashioning, those of you who are competent to rule mixed with gold in your birth, this is why they are most honored. Let’s keep going. Let’s add the people of the silver, the guardian class, all the same here, out the rest of the tale.

 

[01:18:20.270] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

All of you in the city are certainly brothers, we shall say to them in telling the tale, but the god in fashioning, those of you who are competent to rule, mix gold at their birth. This is why they are most honored in auxiliaries silver, the people of the silver class. And then finally the iron and bronze and the farmers and other craftsmen. You are the base metals, or in the Greek concept, the hoi poli. Now, if you look at this pyramid, you’ll start to immediately notice that those people at the top, if they’re in control, use the people in the middle. Let’s just use Marxist language, the vanguard of the proletariat, to enforce and impose their will on the people below. Note how Oligarchy simplifies all analysis, right? It removes conspiracy theory. How modern scientific policy speaks, Max, the obviously governing paradigm. Because you see those people of the gold, whether they’re on the left, like George Bernard Shaw, or whether they’re Prince Philip, they believe that the people at the base metal level who do not contribute to the people of the silver, who keep the people of the gold in place, are nonessential populations or useless eaters.

 

[01:19:45.300] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

We call people nonessential with the lockdown and can’t they easily be called useless eaters if the people who are the base metal people don’t do anything to keep the silver and gold going? And do the people at the top of the gold need to tell you the truth? Or do they just need to tell you what you need to know to obey what they say? And could they not create a unit party that breaks into two to control both sides of the narrative? Because take a look at that. Do you not kind of all of a sudden start to see the same thing. Because everything you need to know about Marxism is in the title Road to Serfdom. They want to turn you back into a serfdom class. And for people who want to bulk at me saying what I’m saying, when Margaret Sanger came back completely discredited as eugenicist, helping Hitler do what he does, she created something called Planned Parenthood that sounded awfully cool and awfully nice and all that. And in the initial letter, standing it up in January 8, 1947, the treasurer was Prescott Bush. So I am going to stop here because then we’re going to get into some stuff that I think this goes too far.

 

[01:21:02.210] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

But what I wanted to do for the purpose of this discussion, to answer the question, I think it was Paul who asked this. Or maybe what about this concept of the oligarchy? It cuts through the political science narrative like ship through a goose. Excuse me.

 

[01:21:18.590] – Bill, America’s Black Robe Regiment

Okay, I’m sorry. Steve. The other Steve. Steve asked if you are saying that the entire system has to be burnt down to ashes and then rebuilt.

 

[01:21:31.220] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

I am not claiming anything of the sort, because I am the person who argues that we basically do nothing. What’s the first thing you do when you’re in a minefield?

 

[01:21:42.320] – Bill, America’s Black Robe Regiment

Stand still

 

[01:21:42.850] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

Stop, stop. What’s the second thing you do? Do you get up and start walking and then if you live, survive. And then determine where the mines are? No, you do the intelligence first and the intelligence completely oriented to what? Finding the mines. That what you don’t step on. Because if you do, guess what? You blow up.

 

[01:22:04.070] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

So there is no moving forward on what to do until you do this. First, paint the picture. So that kind of goofy picture. And by the way, I will be ridiculed for a while, I’m going to be laughing up my sleeve when about eight months later, people will say they don’t believe in the Sorcerer’s Circle. And because it answers everything, answers everything, puts everything in place, there’s nothing left. We couldn’t explain that. We couldn’t explain that. And then we talk about oligarchy, okay? And the fact that if those people are on the top, they don’t owe you anything. The only thing they owe anything to the people at the bottom are the people at the bottom support the top. And anybody who doesn’t do that, guess what? No, they’re not essential people. And can you see where nonessential can equal what useless eater, no question, by creative decision of the state, where both sides of the discussion, whether it’s left or right, george Bernard Shaw and Prince Philip, or whether it’s the Bush family let’s think about Lincoln Project, okay? Or it’s the far left abortion rights people. The more you poke holes in it, the more it seems like you have a common narrative.

 

[01:23:27.080] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

And I think that’s what I’m talking about. And I think that it can’t hurt you. You can’t be hurt by going down this road, because at the end of the day, you could disagree with that. I’m going to tell you it will change how you see things. And I will also tell you you will hurt your brain. I’m working on this with some people right now. If I gave you the whole thing over the next three days and you got it intellectually, about three weeks from now, what you will say is, Steve, I get it, but now we have to fight the battle. And I’ll laugh, and then ten months later, you’ll say, steve, it took me a whole year after I got it intellectually before everything started resorting themselves. And that thing about what I said about we still have to act, the answer is you have nothing to act on. And you will start seeing this stuff lines up. And the first thing you’ll realize and I’m jumping another brief I’ve hit some of the points is if the claim of science is a metaphysical claim and they accomplished the task of having that control, people who get to be scientists, people who get to get advanced degrees, all these people who got into the advanced degree programs who will tell you and maybe, truly, I don’t believe that stuff still got in, that they had to bow to that, and so they’re still captured by it.

 

[01:25:06.770] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

And what will happen is I will show at some point how you cannot believe that and be Christian, not as a faith issue, but as a logical impossibility issue. I’m not arguing faith. I’m saying my lane in the road is to give people like you the ammunition to turn that into the issue that allows you to shoot and hit a target and push the other side back. I will say this. As far as I’m concerned, this is correct. And it may take a number of years to kind of get it streamlined and properly proportioned. But that Sorcerer Circle, how many people could see, as I gave it, that it kind of makes things make sense? Raise your hands to those people. I could see how to make things make sense.

 

[01:25:54.960] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

How many people saw that pyramid that comes right out of Plato? How many people saw that? You see this book, Eros and Civilization, written by Marcuse. Marcuse is the number one leader of the America. He’s dead. He’s been dead for about 20 years, I think 30 years, maybe. But he is the architect of the attack in America. He matters. He is more important to know than Marx.

 

[01:26:24.460] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

And I say this because his his title here, Arrows and Civilization, gives you the trigger. The trigger is when you go to the back of the book, and this is how they always do it. I could give you religious texts that do the same thing when they’re going to attack a religion. It’s in the back of the book. He basically makes reference to Plato’s dialogue called The Symposium. And that means that the people who read Arrows and Civilization know that they have to know The Symposium to understand. You can read this and get it at the level you’re able to get it, and you’ll get it to the point that you could write a position paper on it. But what you won’t be able to do is get it and push back this title. And then the fact that it makes one reference to it in the back in a certain way tells you, I’m going to put this book down. I’m going to go read that book and understand that book, and then I’m going to come back to this. And now I know that 80% of the Marxist leaders never had to do anything but look at the title, and they knew what the mission was.

 

[01:27:34.480] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

90% of the Muslims who never had a meeting with Al Qaeda or ISIS when they said something, the first three words coming out of their mouth told them everything they needed to know. Everything else was just making sure that they got it right. This makes sense. So this is what we’ll call binary language and binary retreats. And you don’t know this yet because I haven’t briefed you on it, but it’s one of these things that, as it moves down, you will then be able to see how you could recognize us. If you see a minister talk a certain way or if you see a priest talk a certain way. If you’re Catholic.

 

[01:28:28.980] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

That you will be able to see that they’re talking that narrative. So that, for example, if Marxism exists to destroy the concept of God, it does it’s just a fact. I can read right out of their book to say that, okay, so people who disagree, like ministers who do LGBT and put those rainbows on their church, that’s an intersectional line of attack or critical race theory. That’s an intersectional line of attack. 1 second. How do you know critical race theory is Marxism? Because critical race theory is critical theory, which was written by the Frankfurt School Marxist called Critical Theory. And critical theory was written by Max Horkheimer.

 

[01:29:19.720] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

You can read the book, but all you have to know is that a Marxist wrote a book called Critical Theory. And from that point forward, every time you hear the word critical theory in something, it is Marxism. So the person who will tell you, yes, I know that’s Marxism, but my ministry says, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. That person is absolutely committed to negating the object of his belief. And the best ones for them are the ones that don’t even understand that make sense.

 

[01:29:58.000] – Bill, America’s Black Robe Regiment

Once, Steve, I was talking to you about all that’s being done by the Left to destroy this country, to destroy lies and so forth. And I asked you about all of the propaganda and narrative that’s being pushed on our society that’s being peddled on our society. All that the Marxists are doing is I ask you, is one of the goals of all that they are doing to destroy Christians? And you said to me that is the principal goal of everything they’re doing is to destroy Christianity. I mean, real authentic Christianity.

 

[01:30:38.220] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

Well, it’s to destroy any transcendent religion.

 

[01:30:49.020] – Bill, America’s Black Robe Regiment

Right?

 

[01:30:50.220] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

Judaism, Christianity, evil at some point there’s.

 

[01:30:53.520] – Bill, America’s Black Robe Regiment

A couple of scriptures, one of them in the Book of Proverbs says wisdom is justified of its children, in other words, its existence. It’s it’s that wisdom is right is justified by that which it begets, whether that’s in history or whether it’s in, you know, one person’s life or whatever. So you can argue certain principles on the basis of the fruit that they bear, I believe. And so when you look at American civilization, you look at the greatest, most prosperous, most prolific missionary sending nation in human history. You have to look at how America came about in history. And one of the things I know, the more I study American history and read about what happened in the 18th century, even before the 18th century, is that the clergy and their preaching were at the forefront front of it. They they’re preaching embodied the principles that were articulated in the Declaration of Independence. I mean, you could argue some degree that the declaration was a collection of sermon themes and that the church it wasn’t so much the men we called the Founding Fathers, genius though they were, that made America, but it was the clergy who laid the ideological foundations of American government that led to the nation and the fruit that it’s born.

 

[01:32:26.760] – Bill, America’s Black Robe Regiment

For me, rather than just stop and wait for things to play out the way they’re going to play out, which I don’t know if you’re saying that or not, I think that some of the things that led to the forming of this nation need to increase. That’s why I do the black row regiment. That’s why I challenge other clergy to get involved and play a role in this because, you know, I think that we need to get back to the things that made them, that really made this country. It wasn’t just sort of a happenstance in in world history that America came about. At least at least that’s what I believe.

 

[01:33:03.240] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

Well, I will tell you, I sometimes scratch my head on a couple of things. I would say that the Constitution is not Christian, but the Bill of Rights is. And you will notice that people aren’t looking to get rid of the Constitution per se. They’re looking to get rid of the Bill of Rights. And what do the Bill of Rights do? They ensconced the idea that man is made in the image of God, right? Does that make sense? By creating rights that exist before the state and ahead of the state.

 

[01:33:37.540] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

The Bill of Rights do. And so I think that’s something to keep a focus on, because you don’t really see them, people protesting the Constitution as much as you think, except to say that it is a white privileged document. Remember, that’s the negation of the Constitution, a binary attack, which is a dialectical attack. So I think that there’s a tension even in the Revolutionary War between ministers who did what they did, like you’re saying. And I think there were some other players. It’s not lost on me that the term rights endowed by the Creator can also perfectly fit the demi urge. I scratch my head on that sometimes. I’m not going to go too far into that right now. No.

 

[01:34:27.810] – Bill, America’s Black Robe Regiment

I’ve got a book I want to share with you that basically it’s a short little book that it was written I think what was this normal book written a number of years ago? It was actually 1956. It was written by a man who focused on American founding history, and he wrote basically he took the phraseology and Declaration of Independence and found a lot of the same phrases in specific sermons that were preached during the 18th century. Pretty significant, although I’m sure knowing it was Jefferson, he probably modified the language a little bit so it didn’t sound like pure angelicalism.

 

[01:35:05.820] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

I’m not trying to minimize what the ministers did. I say that I think other players also had other players in the game, too.

 

[01:35:14.800] – Bill, America’s Black Robe Regiment

Right. I would agree.

 

[01:35:18.240] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

Some of them might not have had as good of a who might not have been as above board as they could have been on that.

 

[01:35:29.890] – Bill, America’s Black Robe Regiment

Well, I know there’s probably only the statistics I’ve heard is that about maybe it was 6% of the clergy of the air were staunchly for liberty.

 

[01:35:46.940] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

So I just wanted to say I see David Kern had something here. I don’t know if he’s still here. Okay.

 

[01:35:55.740] – Bill, America’s Black Robe Regiment

David, can you unmute yourself and ask your question?

 

[01:36:01.200] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

The comment says, “everyone who has a political trumpet is part of a dialectical narrative”. What I have said is stop watching the 24 hours news cycle, because all 24 hours news cycles operate on narratives, and they all take any event and turn it to a central series of themes that the same people over and over again talk about, but just as important. The other thing I’ve been saying to some, to people I work with a lot, and of course, it’s like talking to yourself with these people is if your issue is given a lot of airtime on TV, you should assume it’s an op until you can make sure, until you can prove that it’s not. It’s a bright, shiny thing. It’s the mirage inside the circle as opposed to the real thing. And that way you’re at least on guard when these things happen.

 

[01:37:01.040] – Bill, America’s Black Robe Regiment

That’s what’s called the drive by media.

 

[01:37:04.420] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

Drive by media is that the drive by media you know is bad. It’s a drive by media you think is friendly, maybe not be, and it certainly isn’t all the time.

 

[01:37:13.860] – Bill, America’s Black Robe Regiment

Things are not what they see. Well, anyway, we’re a little actually, we’ve gone over by about 45 minutes. I can’t believe does anybody else have any questions?

 

[01:37:23.110] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

Other questions?

 

[01:37:23.900] – Bill, America’s Black Robe Regiment

Yeah, if anybody else has questions, go ahead and ask them in the chat. For some reason, I can’t get this chat to allow me to see what people are putting in.

 

[01:37:41.580] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

So Donna Baker, “in other words, the majority who run for office are seeking money, power, control, and not constitutionally public”. What I’ll say is to that, because I’m a 501, I don’t want to get too far into religion is I think one of the crises we have is that our side does not have the intellectual lift to fight the battle, and they don’t want to take the time to get it. And so I think sometimes we elect people who are all challenged to get out. Thought, not maneuvered. And that’s why you see so often I mean, I’m going to give us I’m going to contradict myself in a second here. That’s why you see so often that within a week of them getting into Congress, they’re completely flipped. And so I think that we’re electing people who don’t understand the nature of the threat. I think that’s the way I’m going to describe it, the way I’m trying to define it, it certainly gives you stuff to look at. But then what I’ll do is I’ll contradict myself. And it’s something I’ve been saying since 2015, is whenever they have elections, congress goes into republicans go into retreat, for example, and they have Frank Luntz give the words that work.

 

[01:39:05.460] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

So the words that work are Republican elected as how they’re going to talk about things. But the words that work in the prevailing cultural narrative are if the prevailing cultural narrative is cultural Marxism, then the words that work are ones that bow to that. And so the minute you accept the words that work as the basis for what you’re going to do, you’re already accepting the Marxist narrative. What you’re basically being told is the condition of getting on a nice committee or becoming a chair is you must enter the circle. Okay? And once you’re in the circle, you’re done. And so I don’t necessarily think that people get in are bad. I think the leadership knows how to flip them in 24 hours, and they do, or they’re just passed off the site, not allowed to do anything. And I think that people know of people who that happened to, if they follow Congress, remember a couple of times they threaten to remove people from their committee chairmanships. I think that it took a long time to get to this bad situation. It’s going to take a long time to get out. And for those people who say, we can’t take time to learn, we have to act now, we are living the experience of that reaction, that action reaction cycle.

 

[01:40:24.420] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

For the last 30 years, and we’re losing. So going back to the original graphic, I showed everybody about the plane flying over and dropping these bombs, and when one hits, they launched the other. So you’re always chasing their narrative. That is, you always addressing the issue presented to you. But the issue presented to you was the people who dropped the bomb, and they held you there till they moved you there, and you’re moving to them. And if you accept their language, you cannot ever get out. In fact, you’re not even allowed to look up and see the plane. So that’s where I’m going. Here’s the paradox of what I’m saying. This is enormously difficult to learn. Once you get it, it’s enormously easy to see. In fact, it retreats into the back of your memory, because now all it’s really doing is rewiring what you see to not react to what you not see, what you know, but to now begin the process of knowing what you see. The two are very much different.

 

[01:41:31.300] – Bill, America’s Black Robe Regiment

Well, I think what you said earlier about avoiding the 24 hours news cycle was probably some of the best council we’ve received on one of these webinars. I would have to agree with that. I would even go so far as to say real America news, which I don’t know if you see that much. There’s some good folks on there, I think a few good people on that, but still, you’re kind of exposing yourself to either side of a narrative. Folks, we’re going to end it there. We’ve gone for thanks for joining us today, steve, thank you so much. We’ll have you back, and obviously the dialectic is something that you spent many years with, and some of the folk

[01:42:27.860] – Stephen Coughlin, Unconstrained Analytics

You bet. Take care.

[01:42:29.300] – Bill, America’s Black Robe Regiment

All right. God bless.