Breaking History Ep 138: Empires, Assassinations & The Architecture of Permanent War
In Episode 138 of Breaking History, Gordon and I examine the historical architecture behind modern geopolitical instability, tracing patterns of regime change, political assassinations, and intelligence operations that shaped the 20th and 21st centuries. The discussion explores how covert power structures, financial interests, and ideological movements intersect to influence global events.
We analyze case studies highlighted in the episode, connecting past interventions to current flashpoints and questioning how historical narratives are constructed — and who benefits from them. We revisit the role of intelligence agencies, media coordination, and strategic destabilization in maintaining what they describe as a system of permanent conflict.
Throughout the episode, Gordon and I emphasize the importance of historical literacy, arguing that understanding the continuity of policy and power is essential to interpreting today’s headlines. Ep. 138 challenges listeners to reconsider conventional timelines and to see modern crises as chapters in a much longer story of imperial strategy and global control.
Or watch on Rumble here, or Odyssee here
Bio: I am the editor-in-chief of The Canadian Patriot Review, Senior Fellow of the American University in Moscow and Director of the Rising Tide Foundation. I’ve written the four volume Untold History of Canada series, four volume Clash of the Two Americas series, the Revenge of the Mystery Cult Trilogy and Science Unshackled: Restoring Causality to a World in Chaos. I am also co-host of the weekly Breaking History on Badlands Media and host of Pluralia Dialogos (which airs every second Sunday at 11am ET here).
"Labor for all, the opening of Credit for all; Leisure for all will be our bogie for the illusory creation of a new social class: the "Middle Class". Because once our objectives are reached, the "Class" in the middle, between the secular poor, and we the rich, we will definitely remove by cutting off all means of survival."
"Thus it will be possible to sharply increase the burden of the State by multiplying without any limit a body of intellectual public servants. Insured for years in advance of material security, they will be consequently perfect for executors of "Government Authority", in other words of "Our Power".
"Thus creating an impressive body of officials who will in itself (a Government within the Government), irrespective of the political party that is in power. This anonymous machine can serve us one day means of leverages when the moment comes to accelerate the economic collapse of the Nation States, because these will not be able to indefinitely sustain such mass salaries without having going into debt beyond their means."
The Toronto Protocols of the Canadian Freemasons. 1995
Hi Matt, this isn't related to the show but I have to ask you this since you are the pre-eminent EIR expert these days... I am reading Dope Inc. right now, was able to find a copy, its the third edition.
There is a paragraph on page 136 of the third edition that is so wrong on so many levels, that I have to question the integrity of the harder to source material.
Or, I have to wonder if counterfeit copies with glaring errors have been put into circulation to discredit the book. The offending passage is:
"These three British-spawned cults agitated nationally for Prohibition. While the WCTU and the Anti-Saloon League staged well publicized raids against saloons, the more sophisticated Fabian settlement house social workers of Jane Addams used the unique conjuncture of the recently passed Seventeeth Amendment certifying women's voting rights in national elections and the concentration of much of the adult male population on the war effort to vote up the Eighteenth Amendment making Prohibition the law of the land. The amendment was fully ratified by 1917; however the Volstead Act that defined the federal enforcement procedures was not scheduled for implementation until January 6, 1920."
I don't know how they could get this so wrong with so many editors and it being the third edition, that no one spotted this seems incredible.
Of course it was the 19th Amendment that granted suffrage, not the 17th, which was the direct election of Senators. This mistake here destroys the premise of Addams being the sophisticated champion of temperance.
She simply was not. The ASL was. And they were way more than agitators staging saloon raids. At one point they DID engage in that, but they changed tactics in 1910 after Carl Etherington, a deputized 17 year old, was dragged from his jail cell, beaten and lynched for his actions during the weekend raid.
The ASL pivoted to election engineering and they were quite sophisticated at that. The three election cycles leading up to passage of the 18th were heavily influenced by the ASL. It was a big deal at the time, this was a new political beast, the original single issue pressure group that could change the face of congress. They were the prototype, they changed how DC worked.
Wayne Wheeler WROTE the 18th amendment and he wrote the Volstead Act as well. Not Jane Addams, not suffrage, not the WCTU. The ASL and Wheeler did.
Furthermore, the 1916 elections were not effected by suffrage (though it should be noted suffrage had been granted in 20 states by the time the 19th was passed) and Men were not absent from the vote due to mobilizing. This is a completely inaccurate representation of the conditions of the time.
And more, they get the ratification date completely wrong and they seem to not have read the amendment. The 18th was finally passed by both Houses in December of 1917, first passing the Senate in August, then the House in December, and the Senate confirming the alterations a day later.
Their confusion is confusing. The very first line of the Amendment is: "After one year from the ratification of this article..." It was ratified January 16th, 1919 and went into effect a year later. This is basic history they are getting wrong. They didnt even get the date right, stating January SIXTH 1920.
The offending paragraph would gotten an "F" if I had submitted that into my High School history class. And it's not the only mistake I have noticed.
On page 98 they write: "President Franklin Roosevelt was persuaded by the American friends of John Maynard Keynes to force a devaluation of the dollar in 1932..."
Thats a clear one, FDR didnt take office until March of 1933, so what gives here?
Considering the radical connections they are making within an obscured history, it is hard to feel confident in these conclusions when such basic, known and unobscured history gets so bafflingly mangled.
Which is why I entertain the possibility of counterfeit copies with obvious glaring mistakes being injected into circulation.
Does your copy of the book contain the above paragraph? And if so, I am curious as to how such a contortion could make it past a hundred editors and two reprints.
I have a lot of respect for your work, I enjoy Breaking History a ton, you guys do a great job, I hope my tone is coming through here as academic and not confrontational. I really am bewildered by that passage.