Member Training – Pilgrims Failed Communists?

Member training from November 24th, 2025.

Tonight, we walk through the real story of the Pilgrims—not the polished myth pushed by so-called conservative outlets—and shows how their early failures had nothing to do with “socialism” and everything to do with banker-controlled indentured servitude imposed by London investors. I explain how this false narrative is intentionally used by CFR-approved organizations to make the public distrust any form of voluntary, faith-based communal living while nudging us toward the managed, globalist economic system they actually want. By contrasting the Pilgrims’ imposed system with successful voluntary communities like the Amish and Hutterites—and by grounding the discussion in scripture, natural law, and the writings of Bradford and Pufendorf—I show how unity of faith, purpose, and social expectations determines whether a community thrives or collapses, and how the real enemy is not cooperation, but the naked capitalist conspiracy masking itself as our only path to prosperity.

Help support ad free content with a one time donation or becoming a member today.

TRANSCRIPT

Heavenly Father, we're grateful to meet together once again tonight to discuss the things of truth and liberty, and we pray for the Holy Ghost to be with us to attend our discussion here. Please open our minds and our hearts. Help us to learn new things and to find ways to apply them in our lives. Help us to find people that we can share this information with and to help to spread this knowledge far and wide. We pray for those who are not with us yet that they'll be able to join us before this evening is over. We say it's in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

We have the rebranding of Killing No Murder, The Righteous Sword Against Tyranny. And it argues the government exists as a covenant with the people and God, and that when rulers break that trust and destroy liberty, obedience to God may require resistance to men. The author's reasoning drawn from scripture, natural law, and the moral duties of conscience later echoed in the thought of the American founders. This new edition that we've got is different than the one that we had published before in a couple of major ways. The first one is the branding because we are launching this new Liberty Classics series where we are reprinting books that are the type of materials that helped guide the Founding Fathers away from the idea of the divine rights of kings. into what we see as where government's role is to be a servant of God and that the people's job is to resist government when they get outside of those bounds. And so this is the first one in the series.

We have several more that will be just next week. I think we'll be having another one that we'll be able to announce. And then a couple weeks after that, and I think either by the end of the year or by early January, We'll probably have a half a dozen in this Liberty Classics series available for you to be able to get. And so with this, you can see the branding or the, I don't know what you would call it, the stylized. And so that way, it'll look really nice on your shelf. You'll be able to identify the series of books easily. Like, okay, there's my Liberty Classics. And you'll be able to go right to it. And you'll know that it's all part of that series. And so we're really thinking it'll be really helpful for you as well. And it'll be something that you'll be proud to share with others. I really appreciate Samantha for her efforts in designing the covers and working with us on that. Some really neat things that we've got with that. It's going to be, it's in paperback. It's an ebook and an audio book.

So we have at the Tree of Liberty Society at our website, at our shop. You can buy it directly there. And you can get any one of those mediums. Right now at Barnes and Noble, you can get the Nook version. So like your e-book version or the paperback version. And then currently on Amazon, only the Kindle edition is available. But shortly, the physical as well as an audible version will be available soon as well. And when the audible version is available, it will also be available on... Apple's version of that as well. And so being able to get a good distribution of the multiple formats of this book. And so however you like to read books, if you're like me, I get all three versions for different reasons.

Or if there's just one of those, you're like, I'm never going to read it, so I just want to listen to it. Whatever it is, I hope that there is a version for you. so that you will consume the information in this because this book is really paradigm shifting and it is vital for us to be able to read and to really internalize and so encourage folks to for all of us to be able to get a copy as well as to share it with with others and so we're going to be putting up a bundle deal where as new books you know we you'll bundle it with uh with invasion right now or when additional uh parts of the liberty classics library comes out uh you'll be able to bundle them together as well and so um just to encourage folks to be able to get get copies of these and get copies for others it's important that we don't just hoard this information to ourselves that we are actively engaged in helping others to understand this through distribution and so I'm just going to play a real short clip from the introduction of the audiobook, just so you have an idea.

So you're like, just kind of a sample, just so you know what it sounds like and what to expect. Foreword by Ben McClintock. Treason when written, killing no murder, is treason against any tyrant of any age, as it clearly lays out the duty of any God-fearing person. Not only living under a tyrant, but the duty even under a would-be tyrant. So just as a FYI on what it sounds like and what you'll be expecting. Does anybody have any questions on the book? Ben, can you talk a little bit more about how different it is from Killing No Murder? Is there chapters that are completely... Oh, sorry. Yes. Yes. So besides the cover, I forgot about that other change. So it has the original wording.

So it's written in the 1600s English. So we found that it is... that is a little bit difficult for people to get used to. And so we have the original wording, and then we have a new modern translation, kind of a more modern English, make it easier to understand. We've also put together a glossary of key words, as well as appendices, where there are the stories that are referenced in the book, though we've put those stories in the scripture stories, scriptures from the Old Testament and from the Bible. And so we put there as a reference. And so with the original, with the modern translation and those appendices, there's a lot of meat and a lot of good stuff to be able to not only be able to internalize it, but really get a bigger picture of what's going on. So in summary, you're not changing the message.

You're just making the message easier to understand. Exactly. Easier to dig into. And I encourage you. if the first time that you read it you're like okay i need to read the uh the modern translation totally fine you know whatever gets you to consume it but i would hope i would encourage you to work towards being able to internalize the original wording just you know there's you just you can't get you you can't get the full picture without reading the original so you know don't uh don't not read it because it's harder to understand But at the same time, work towards making it so it is something that you can't understand. Anything else? Okay. Appreciate that. Let's just get into what we're going to be covering in training tonight. So the question is, are pilgrims really an example of the failures of socialism? This is, you know, that we've got Thanksgiving coming up this week. I thought this would be a good timing to cover that because this is something that so-called conservative outlets have. published about a lot over the years lots of and i'm going to cover that right here but everything that we do of course is to be able to overcome our lack of knowledge and I was just meeting with someone this week, actually, this last week, where they're into liberty and they're told by others that they don't know anybody that knows more than them about the principles of liberty. And then I shared with them some of these books and they went through it and they're like, holy cow, I don't know anything about liberty now.

They realized how much they didn't know. And so it's important that we are always working to make sure that we are increasing our knowledge and that we're not perishing because of our lack of knowledge. And then, of course, what we're doing is we are building the understanding of and adherence to the principles that have built free nations, exposing the satanic conspiracy, and building effective resistance to that conspiracy. Okay, just checking the phones because I thought I heard some noise. So if you've got some background noise, make sure you mute your computer. Okay, so with this, we have the Heritage Foundation had an article called Pilgrims Beat Communism with the Free Market.

You have the Daily Economy, the pilgrims tried socialism and it failed. And then you have another publication called The Stand, the pilgrims tried socialism, it didn't work. Cato Institute, how capitalism saved the pilgrims. The New York Post, how socialism nearly killed the pilgrims. And so, you know, if you just do a search for the word pilgrims and socialism, you'll come up with just an infinite amount of articles that cover this topic. And as we go through, though, that, you know, the Council on Foreign Relations has people on the board of these organizations.

They have individual and their sister organization, the American Institute, the American Committees for Foreign Relations. approve these organizations as organizations that they can have speak to them. And so these are groups of people that are promoting the internationalist and globalist agenda. They are the acceptable narrative from the so-called conservative side of the issue. And so they're out there spouting the CFR approved line. So that seems right here we have the New York Post. Their article says that the Pilgrims made Thanksgiving possible. They left the old world to escape religious persecution. They imagined a new society where everyone worked together and shared everything. In other words, they dreamed of socialism. Socialism then almost killed them.

Then Cato, when the Pilgrims first arrived, they tried to live communally according to the spirit of the Mayflower Compact. What crops they grew were put in the common storehouse and then apportioned according to each. So they're telling a very similar story. And we have the Heritage Foundation. On the brink of extermination, the colony's leaders changed course and allotted a parcel of land to each settler, hoping the private ownership of farmland would encourage self-sufficiency and lead to cultivation of more corn and other foodstuffs. And Cato says Bradford had decided that each household should be assigned its own plot to cultivate with the understanding that each family kept whatever it grew.

The change in attitude was stunning. OK, so just going through very similar narrative, telling the very same, very similar stories. And and so it's a very unified message on what they're saying, what happened and what led to a change of fortune. You know, what went from, hey, we're about to starve to, hey, we've got a very different change in attitude that is allowing more food to grow. OK. So why would CFR outlets, why are they pushing so-called anti-communist narratives? Why would they be doing this?

Why would they put out articles that are supposedly saying, look how bad communism is and look how good the free market is and how we need to move in that direction because that saved the pilgrims. Why would they do that? Mark, go ahead. Because it helps to act as cover that they support capitalism freedom. when they support Marxism on a consistent basis through their candidates and through the policies. And that's the number one disinformation tactic they use, opposition or loyal opposition, as you talk about. Yeah, so for cover, I think that's a good option in there. But I also think, and I think we'll be able to show that it's actually much deeper than that.

But I definitely think that that is definitely part of it, for sure, because of being anti-communist, you know, now they can be trusted as so-called conservative, liberty-minded organizations. But so that definitely is part of it. But it's actually much deeper than that, as we're going to get into. So as we look at the Council on Foreign Relations, their official publication, Foreign Affairs, even going back to the 1940s, where they had articles that were anti. Soviet Union, anti-communism, pro-capitalism. You have in the 60s the same thing, the rise and fall of scientific socialism. And then even more recently in 2020, they had an article that argues that capitalism is enduring despite the revived threat of socialism.

And so they themselves, not only amongst their controlled publications, but they themselves are writing publications and articles that are supposedly anti-communism okay so now you know that that doesn't mean trying to show you that the globalists are anti-communists i'm not that doesn't make me some secret communist revolutionary right i think what's pretty safe i've got a good reputation for um not being pro-communist And so by exposing the internationalists, the conspiracy, as writing articles that are supposedly anti-communist does not make me pro -communist. Ben, I'll be right back. Okay. Michael's here. So we have Carol Quigley's Tragic Hope, very important book as an admission from an insider, Professor Carol Quigley. wrote this book and said, you know, I was able to study the writings of the conspiracy.

And the only thing I disagreed with them on was that they wished to remain a secret. And he talks about communism as well. The goal was never communism. He says in the book, he says, in the Soviet Union especially, the high speed of industrialization in the period of 1926 to 1940 was achieved. by a merciless oppression of the rural community in which millions of peasants lost their lives. The effort to copy the Soviet method in communist China in the 1950s brought that area to the verge of disaster.

So this conspirator that is writing about the benefits of the conspiracy is saying that communism doesn't work. that communism brought the area to the verge of disaster and that it led to massive loss of lives and that it was without mercy and oppressive. He's not saying this is a good thing. He was genuinely saying that it was a bad thing. But then later on in the book, we read that there does exist and has existed for a generation an internal Anglophile network which operates to some extent in the way the radical right believes the communists act.

So they're saying that his network that he's talking about, these roundtable groups, they operate in the way that the radical right, so-called radical right, Believes the communist act. So they're like, yeah, we operate in that way. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the roundtable groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the communists or any other groups and frequently does so. So they'll work with anyone to get their agenda accomplished. Okay. He's not pro-communist. You go through the book and he is not pro-communist. he talks about how oppressive it is and and but he admits that yes they work with the communists though and he's got no problem with that mark go ahead yes when i read that I thought that maybe he didn't have it completely figured out because there's a tremendous amount of evidence the communists is just a wing of the grand conspiracy.

And it's not just they're working with them as though there's an outside entity, two entities, but they really are the same entity. One is just part of the greater conspiracy. What are your thoughts on that? I'm going to get my commuted here. Let's see here. Okay. So yeah, that's, yes. And I know that that is a popular idea. It's not an idea that I subscribe to. I think that the communists are a lower level of the conspiracy, that they are a tentacle of the conspiracy, as he says here, that they use them, but they are not a high up part of the conspiracy, though, that they are a tentacle that the conspiracy uses to get their programs implemented. if that makes sense.

But most of them, as you get the testimonies of, what's her name, Brown and Manning Johnson, how the regular on-the-street communists don't know that the upper levels are actually in league with the capitalists like the Rockefellers. And so to me, those just lend more to what he's saying here as it's a... a tool for them to use, but it's not the same thing. Go ahead, Mark. Yeah. If that's true, we need to acknowledge that the communist has done in the 20th century, did the heavy lifting for the conspiracy. Absolutely. The indications are they murdered over 200 million people, enslaved at one time, half the population of the world. So they were.

They were the doers of the evil, whether they're just the minions carrying out the orders of people higher above. And I believe that's true. But we can't under understate the evil that came from communism. Oh, 100 percent. Absolutely. And I think that they recognize that. And I think I'm going to get to a little bit later, but just to touch upon it, since you bring it up, they recognize that that kind of oppression leads to too much opposition. We know from their UNESCO documents that they want to kill several hundred thousand people every single day. But to outright just do that through just concentration camps, prison camps, work camps, that kind of a thing, it leads to too much opposition.

And so to be able to implement their programs, they're developing ways that make us more docile and less likely. to want to resist so we'll get into that in a little bit but so their goal was never communism we're going to look at that again a little bit further um in the in the book the perestroika deception um antonoli anatoly galitzin um he wrote another book new lives for old he's got um and then the anglo-american estep no i'm sorry that's that's carol quigley but uh new lives for old and the perestroika deception are really important to be able to understand. Anatoly Galitsyn, he was a defector of the Soviet Union, and he wrote these books that showed what the program of the upper echelon of the communists were, because as I just laid out, is that it wasn't about building a world government under the Soviet Union. He says in here what was told in by the H. Rowan gather to a congressional committee with Mr. with what's his name? Dodd.

Having a blank on his first. Norman. Norman Dodd. Yes. He says, Mr. Dodd, all of us who have a hand in the making of policies here have had experience operating under directives, the substance of which that we use our grant making power so as to alter life in the United States. that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union. So their role in Anatoly Golitsyn says virtually the same exact thing in the Perestroika Deception, that what Gorbachev was doing in the 80s of this perestroika, of this relaxing of the tyranny in the Soviet Union was really a ploy. And he even said that they would actually pretend to fall. And that communism would go away in Russia.

And so that it could provide for the roadmap and pave the way for what is said here in the 50s to a congressional committee by the head of the Ford Foundation of what their job is. So this wasn't something that just came out in the 80s. This was part of their long-term plan was not to build global communism on the Soviet Union, but to be able to build a system. where we became more and more centralized power. And then the Soviet Union became supposedly free enough. And so we come to a point where we have supposedly enough freedom where we're like, well, we don't think that it's worth resisting. But it's also the conspiracy has, in effect, total power over our lives. OK, so the goal was never really. And so when we see the CFR putting out articles that are anti -communism, it's because they didn't really want us to merge wholly with the Soviet Union under global communism. They didn't want that. They never had that as their plan. Because the conspiracy knows that communism doesn't work. Yeah, Mark. Well, you say the goal isn't communism, but everywhere you read in the books you even cited.

The goal is one goal is clearly totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is ownership and control of the means of production and all resources, including human beings, which will be controlled and there'll be slaves. So doesn't that pretty much amount to communism? It affected. So it's it's what they it's what and I think that's really what they're saying there is that it's it's a it's a version of it. That is not the, you know, what's it called where the, it's not like Mao or it's not like Stalin where, because that leads that they found those were test cases to see how much. resistance that they would get and they recognize that they could not maintain their authority with that kind of authoritarianism being trying to control and outright fear tactics to get people to be in compliance but they had to appear to be softer whereas but the end result is exactly the same but we feel like the oppression is more voluntary and so that we are less likely to resist. So they implement the same programs where we, but in a way that we don't resist. Yeah, that seems to make sense to me.

Another way of saying that the means to the ends is a little different, but the ends is still the same thing. Totalitarianism. Correct. Yep. But almost like a voluntary totalitarianism. Yeah. And so we see that happening. People are putting themselves into a slave. Exactly. Right. We don't see, you know, well, we don't even have free elections in the United States, but in China, they don't have free elections, but their economy and basically the United Arab Emirates and Russia today, all three of these countries essentially have the same type of economy where it is heavily controlled by the state, but the individual in those societies.

They're able to make enough money where they feel like that they're able to prosper, that there is something that they can do. They don't feel like that they're in this mundane life where there is no hope for them to be able to get out of their poverty. They see a class of people that are able to work their way up. And so the people in the lower classes feel like that there is hope for them to make their way up and be successful as well. And so they implant this system of hopium where they believe, you know, this constant hamster wheel where they get the people to believe that there is something that is going or even, you know, that there have been people that have gone from poverty to having money, but it is still under this totalitarian system. But that they're okay with it because they are able to have the fun toys.

You know, they're able to have... Maybe not their big houses, but their fancy houses and their fancy cars and the fancy things that they can fill their home with. And so they have this belief of they're fat, dumb, and happy where as long as there's the beer in their fridge, they're okay. And so they're managed economies with semi-private profits. It's almost closer to fascism than it would be to communism. Because, yes, you know, you are told who you can hire and who you can fire, what kind of, you know, building you can have or how to build your building. But, you know, you're allowed to innovate and find new ways to make money. And so you feel like, hey, you know, this is just like dealing with the mafia.

It's just the price of doing business. And as long as the price is cheaper than the profits that you make. then you're willing to put up with it and so that's something that the conspiracy is always uh toying with and messing around with what what can they get away with without you resisting and so they'll go two steps forward and then go one step back and so that they can find out what it is that you will be upset with and so that they can say okay we'll just we'll put in our tyranny as long as you know and then but and you'll accept it because We're giving you X amount of freedom still. You're able to feed your family. You're able to put a roof over your head.

And so you're you're OK with the other tyrannies that we put out there. And so that's really this is these places are, I believe, the example that that we are looking to what they want to really eventually do in the United States, even though it's not really fully implemented in these areas. they are further ahead in the implementation of the tyranny than we are in some ways. Also, they're lying about the pilgrims because the pilgrims didn't really have socialism and communism because socialism and communism is first and foremost anti-God. The pilgrims were the antithesis of anti-God. They could not have done to the pilgrims. that they were able to do in China or the Soviet Union or the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia could never have happened with the pilgrims because they were not anti-God.

The next thing is in communism, there's no leaving, right? They build up walls like you saw in Berlin. You're not allowed to escape North Korea. The travel out of China is heavily regulated. Cuba, you're not allowed to leave. In communism, there is no leaving. The pilgrims always had the, they was voluntary, always voluntary. Under communism also, you have the ruling elite versus everyone else. With the pilgrims, you did not have William Bradford living in the lap of luxury while the rest of the pilgrims were living in squalor. And so to compare what the pilgrims did to communism is a lie. And it's a lie because for a very clear reason that I'm going to get into as we get further on.

But I want to make it clear that by linking what the pilgrims did to socialism and communism is an intentional lie to get us to reject leaving the system. So what was the real cause for the pilgrims' failures? If they weren't really communists, really socialists, Why did they have their failures? And why did they need to be saved by the Indians and by a change of the way that they did things? Because they did. It is true that they started off with one system and when it wasn't working, they had to change to another system. But if it wasn't communism, wasn't socialism, what was it? And so really it was indentured servitude. That's really what it comes down to.

And this is a part of the pilgrim story that you don't really, you're not told in the Charlie Brown Thanksgiving special. It's not something that was talked about in any of these articles about the failings of the pilgrims. So it's not free to just grab a boat that is going to be seaworthy to go from the old world, from Europe. to New England. And so you had to have wealthy merchants that were willing to sponsor trips. And there was an organization called the Company of Merchant Adventurers of London. And this basically what would be today may be considered venture capitalists. You're Goldman Sachs of the 1600s or 1500s. is basically what they were. And so they were the ones that fronted the capital to be able to bring the pilgrims, what we think of as the pilgrims, to New England. So they funded the voyage.

And they put over certain requirements. over the pilgrims for repayment of the debt of getting them to New England. The first one was that all land, labor, and products belonged to this venture capitalist organization for seven years. So everything that they did was completely under the ownership of this business. Next, pilgrims received equal shares regardless of the work that they did. And so this is, I think, the part of where they get confused with, where they start equating it with communism. So no matter how much work you did or did not do, you still received equal shares with everybody else. Private gardens, private trading, and private property were forbidden. And so here we have... The ability to be able to feed yourself, the ability to trade with others was completely prohibited because why?

Because everything belonged not to this cooperative, but it belonged to this venture capitalist organization. And so you were not allowed to because you didn't have anything. Everything belonged to this company. And the pilgrims were expected to work for the benefit of the investors. not for themselves. So all of their labor was not to say to really feed themselves. All of their labor went to this company over back in England. And so this is not, and I'm not defending, I am the last person to defend communism, but this is not communism. And this is not, this isn't free market capitalism, right? This is what we would compare to what Kleon Skalsen talks about in The Naked Capitalist.

This is what the conspiracy, this is the roundtable groups, and this is the bankers. This is the system that they promote. This is the system that they're trying to implement worldwide and a variation of it where they get to control everything. They get the benefits. They get the profits from everything while everyone else gets their universal basic income and owns nothing and is happy about it. So, right, this is not what is promoted in any of these supposed arguments of why the Pilgrims failed. This is something completely different. And what they're trying to do is they're trying to poo-poo the idea of cooperation and communalism and getting out of the system that they are creating. So we're going to look to, in fact, the history of the Plymouth Farm Plantation. by William Bradford? What was his angle?

What did he say led to this success? Was it actually this, you know, just free market capitalism that led to it? Or was it something else? Okay. He says, quote, at length, after much debate of things, the governor, with the advice of the cheapest among them, gave way that they should set calm every man for, should set corn, sorry, set corn. every man for his own particular and in that regard trust to themselves in all other things to go on in the general way as before and so assigned to every family a parcel of land according to the proportion of their number for that end only for present use but made no division or inheritance and ranged all boys and youth under some family This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been, by any means the governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble and gave far better content.

The women now went willingly into the field and took their little ones with them to set corn. which before would allege weakness and inability, whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression. So this is not like some turnaround from this Soviet-style communism into this early, late 1700s, early 1800s American free market capitalism. This is something... This was still in the realm of communalism, where you were given a home to live in, but it was not for inheritance. You didn't give to give it to your kids. It was still owned by this mercantile company. And so they just kind of... move things around a little more. And so that they, everybody was given an incentive or a, you know, they weren't, they didn't feel oppressed anymore to go to work.

They willingly went to work, which what they did before would have, he says here, would have been brought through great tyranny and oppression to get these people that wouldn't work to get them to start working again. Okay. So what actually happened before, as we said before, this private corporation was forcing them to say, okay, no matter how much work you did, you got the same amount of fruit or of income out of this, whatever that income was, whether it was food or money or whatever it was, it was the same. But we had here the ability to be able to have more innovation and choice. And so that they were willingly doing things, but it still wasn't this idea of, free market, ownership of property, where you were able to pass it on to future generations. It was still owned by this outside corporation.

Okay, so I think that that lays out really well that what is being sold to us about what fixed the situation was something that it wasn't. Okay, so what were other issues faced by the pilgrims that led to the problems that they had? Okay, and Simon, yeah, go ahead. Real quick, you mentioned that there was a seven-year period in which they didn't own anything. Was there a point where they paid it off, or was this kind of a lease-to-own agreement, or was I mistaken? So for that seven years, everything that they gathered and that they built belonged to that company. So after that seven-year period, they didn't own those houses. They were able to move on.

So what they were doing was they were... building this community and setting up this, basically the ability of this land to grow food. So then the next, you know, so somebody else could come in and have it already be established, but they didn't get to own it afterwards. It wasn't theirs after the seven years. They just, after the seven years, didn't have to work for it. They didn't have to work for the corporation anymore. Does that make sense? Yeah, thank you. Yep. Mark, go ahead. Yes, on indentured servitude, some of them are various lakes. they were all seven years there among the pilgrims. Some were four years, some were six years, some were seven. I think they were even eight years. But the question I had, because my reading of this history, they weren't all indentured servants, only some. And I don't know what the percentage was, but I was led to believe it wasn't all or maybe most of them. Do you have any idea what percentage of the pilgrims were indentured?

I don't know the exact percentage, but it was those that couldn't afford it. It was a majority. It was the vast majority of them couldn't afford it. That's why they were all in this community that was owned by this mercantile company. Even William Bradford, as being in charge of it, he had to be there because he was working for that corporation. Yeah, and it is a contract that they sign. And you lose a great deal of your freedoms. Not all of them. You still have some rights. This is really a condemnation of indentured servitude. But the individual had to decide it was better to be enslaved to some extent for a period of time to make it to America than it was to remain where they were.

Sure, yeah. But they had to change things because what they were doing didn't work. Even if it was under a contract, they couldn't do what the corporation was telling them to do and still live. They would have died if they kept doing the things. the way that the corporation told them to do it. Does that make sense? And I like your point about bringing to our attention, it was partial freedom they were given, very much like Red China, where you're still living under fascism, there's still a totalitarian system, and any time they can take away any kind of economic liberties they have, but they did. So it's a partial implementation of liberty, and that partialness was a... The benefit was great enough to lead to the profit motive. And that's what he created is the profit motive of a free market system, which caused the motivation to change. And I'm going to get into that because it didn't actually need to be that way. I hope to convince you of that. But Simon, you had your hand up for a second.

Yeah, I forgot what I was going to ask. Sorry. That's OK. Just if you remember, go ahead and raise your hand. So the other issues that caused the problems that we're talking about was that they were not unified in faith. We had some that were separatists and others that were not. So you had this amalgamation, not amalgamation, you had this melting pot, right? This balkanization of individuals coming together into one place, being forced to live together, and they didn't have a unified religion. Yes, Simon. No, I remember. Sorry. It seemed like the quote from William Bradford said that at one point they nullified to some extent the contract to say we have to be able to survive. And they allotted some land amongst themselves and trusted each other not to turn each other in. Am I hearing that correct?

Not really a full nullification because they... still didn't own it and they still had to give it over to the corporation once the seven years was up but uh basically they were like hey we're you know x amount of months away from anybody we we if we're going to live we're going to adjust this to be able to con to be able to make this into a way that we will be able to survive otherwise we're all dead so in some sense it was a nullification um because they didn't go exactly according to the rules of the contract that were set forward but at the same time they didn't um they were still um having to give all of the profits to the corporation um at the end of the seasons does that make sense yeah thank you yep okay so the first thing was they were not unified in faith uh they had separate cultures uh it wasn't you know it wasn't like some wasn't just one uh church community coming together But these people had different culture, they had different customs amongst each other, and they had different family structures amongst themselves. Another problem is that they had different social expectations.

You had the separatists who worked for their own mutual benefit, and you had others that would only work for profit motive. You did have a segment of the population that needed to say, okay, I don't care about you. I'm not going to work to help you. I'm only going to work if I'm benefited for it. And so you had a clash of different values. And so if you have a group of people that are all for the profit motive, that would work really well together. Everybody profit motive working together would work. And I'm going to get into the same thing. If you have a group of people where they're all motivated by mutual benefit, if they're all together on that, That will work very well.

But when you have a mixture of people where you have some of them that want to work for the mutual benefit and you have others that will only work for their own benefit, that is going to be a problem. That does not work. And so you have these three were the main cultural issues that they had amongst themselves that led to the disaster that they had that Samuel Pufendorf predicted. This is or just natural law that was. that says this is what will happen as laid out by Samuel Poovendorf, recognized by Samuel Poovendorf. He says, among those which join together to form a government in a country, it is absolutely requisite that there be a perfect consent and agreement concerning the use of the means of government. If they do not agree with themselves but are divided and separated in their opinions, they will be divided into parties and will clash.

And then you have Orson Spencer who said, men of congenial interests should separate themselves. from those of adverse interests and pair off each to each. The promiscuous intermixture of heterogeneous bodies for the purpose of unity and strength is alike distant both from pure religion and sound philosophy. So right here, this is laying out exactly the main underlying principle of why they had the problems that they had is because they were not unified in these things. They had key distinguishing differences. in different areas, not just religion, but in their motive in doing effort and in what they expected from their neighbor. All of these differences made it. And so they could not be successful because you had these different cultural ideas coming together and clashing as all of these people that know natural law said would happen. Mark. Yes, I can understand religious clashing, philosophical to some extent, but my big question is why. They're making an assertion here, but I don't see the reasoning behind it. If only part of the people are operating by profit motive, then part of the communities kind of benefit from profit motive. Because in profit motive, Marx capitalism, it only benefits the people.

The motive is to produce something, whether it's a good or service, for the others to purchase. That meaning that's what they purchase and create that which people want. And so it benefits the community. Profit motive benefits partially. A complete profit motive benefits more, generally speaking. So I don't even understand how that could be harmful because some people don't like the profit motive. Well, so in the beginning, it was harmful because there was no profit motive whatsoever. And so you can see that now when the profit motive was added, those that were motivated by profit motive were then motivated to do work, right? Right. So when you but when you have a group of people that find that to be religiously objectionable, trying to work together with that, it would cause other problems that led.

You know, it wasn't just the religious. It was the other motives as well. But could the problem be they won't want to purchase from the people that are working for profit? You know, boycott them. I can't understand how they would try to hurt the profit motive person. They wouldn't hurt them. They just. It was harder just to work together. It was like a societal clash as opposed to something that led, because obviously it improved things once they got people that wouldn't work before to start working. But when you have these societal clashes, it just causes for an overall problem when they're forced to work together. When you've got people that find this one thing morally objectionable, and then the other person says that. It is morally objectionable to do what the other person's doing. They both find each other's activities morally objectionable.

You're going to have a societal problem, not just an economic problem. Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. I should have raised my hand. I'm sorry. Just take your turn. We're going to go to Simon. Simon, go ahead. You're next. Well, I've seen this in my own life in the community I live in. to start growing or start using uh correct principles to create large profits and then there's a large there it was founded upon the idea of mutual growth and and it what it does is as one person starts to get wealthy because that's his motive you have looking across the aisle and a lot of people just giving up and or jumping ship to one other side and you have jealousies massive amounts of uh backstabbing people looking like why should i why should i help so and so they're they're not really on my side it creates a whole lot of personality conflicts as well as principally it just it doesn't work to mix the two together yeah absolutely Yeah, my thought is boycott is probably the only realistic way they could harm each other. But that underlies what we see in today's society. Many Americans are socialists and believe that capitalism, a profit motive is a bad thing.

So that's an ideological thing. But my point is nobody hurts, is harmed by capitalism. Because the capitalist is producing that which what people want. So if a person has a large profit, say they get wealthy, they don't hide their money under the mattress. They invest it so more and more people can benefit. More jobs, more industry. I mean, I can't see any downside if you really understand capitalism. Or you get the Rockefellers where they create monopolies after they get their wealth. Right, but that's not capitalism, is it? Well, but it's using capitalism to get to that point. It's the naked capitalism. No, but it's really important that people know that it's the antithesis of capitalism, what the Rockefellers did. They monopolized using government, using force. In capitalism, there is no force. It's voluntary exchange. Okay. Micah. Me. Micah's next, and then Carmen. So, I know Mark is saying that it's like... you know, the capitalist economic system that, you know, can only produce goods and services that people want. I believe that I'm paraphrasing what he said. You know, and it's only a market driver. I really don't agree with that, even if you're removing, like, the Rockefeller monopoly and stuff. You know, don't get me wrong. I'd, like, you know, if I had to choose between capitalism and... you know, raving communism and socialism, going to capitalism. But I think they all go to the same place.

And the thing is, is, you know, like, let's take Jay Branson. So the guy is a billionaire. And what does he say on all his podcasts? He's like, we pay, you know, above market rate. And like all his employees got $1,100. And so I go, he's like, you know, and he's like, well, you can't like that. I was like, you're like, you're literally a billion. Like, what do you mean you can't like that? And so the question, so in script, there's limits. And then the scripture says that the earth is here, you know, for the service of God's children, you know, service of us all. And so, and I'm not like, I don't really want to like hate on Dave Ramsey. I think he's done a lot of great things and stuff. But the reality is, is you come down and you go, you know, what does somebody do with a billion dollars? I go, well, there's only one thing you can do with a billion dollars, and that's make more money. Like, you could, sure, I could, you could give me a billion dollars, and I could figure out how to spend it all in a year, but I could not ever use all of that stuff I spent. I could, I could not use a billion dollars worth of Jetsons.

Like, it's impossible. Like literally the only thing you can actually use that much money for is just to make more money. And so I don't, it's just because of the way that people are, it's just what capitalism does is it basically just concentrates power, you know? And so at a smaller level, I think it's, it's got a lot of benefits, but once it really starts scaling and stuff, there's a really huge opportunity for things that are really bad. Okay. Carmen. You talked about the clash of different values and how these people came together and then they added the profit motive, you know, was added and it became a good thing that it helped them. But then you had a lot of people who were accustomed to being their own bosses. And when you add a profit motive to it, somebody's got to be boss. And not everybody likes that.

Not everybody can work for anybody else. So, you know, you got problems there that are built in that, you know, they just come with the territory and you got to deal with them. But, you know, I didn't hear the rest of it. I was a little indisposed for a little while there. But I think of that because I know people who. are much better at being their own boss. And you put them in a situation where they have to work under somebody else and follow orders and stuff like that. That's not going to wash. Yeah. Okay. Hey, Mark. Hold on, Mark. Hold on. Wait, wait, wait. We are over our time. And so I just want to make sure. If you have something that is kind of like just going back and defending the original position, let's save that for the open forum. Okay. If that's okay, let's do that. And then I'm just going to, just so we can get through this instead of just doing the same thing over and over again. Can I go back to another subject then? Real quick, yeah. No, I'll save this for the Q&A or afterwards.

But Galenzi, by the way, was the highest level defector from the KGB. to America. He was really, it's really important to take seriously what he's saying. He knew the plans. He was at the highest level of any defector from the Soviet Union. Yep, absolutely. Thank you. Okay, so what's the Christian economic ideal? What do we learn from the scriptures regarding economics? Especially with, you know, in this context. So go to Acts chapter 2. Verse 44, it says, And all that believed were together and of all things common, and sold their possessions and goods and parted them to all men as every man had need. We go to Acts 4. It says that neither was there any among them that lacked, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet, and distribution was made unto every man. according as he had need.

And we go to Acts 5, it says, but a certain man, so this is now getting into an account of an individual or a couple, Ananias and Sapphira, Sapphira, Sapphira were, that had entered into this agreement to be a part of this community and they sold their possessions, but they kept back a part of the price of what they sold. His wife also being privy to it, so she knew about it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles' feet. Okay, so he sold his stuff to be able to care for others and be a part of this community, but he didn't give everything to the apostles that he earned from selling those goods. But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost and to keep back part of the price of the land? While it remained, was it not thine own? And after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. So Ananias had his agency.

He had the liberty to be able to sell it and keep it all for himself or to not sell it and just not to be a part of this. But he pretended to be a part of it and sold it and then gave part of it. So he lied and he did not comply with the covenant that he made to give up everything. And so as a result of that, him and his wife died. Then we go to 2 Corinthians. For I mean not that other men be eased and ye be burdened, but by inequality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want. that their abundance also may be a supply for your want, and that there may be a quality. As it is written, he that had gathered much had nothing over, and he that had gathered little had no lack. Okay, and then in Manate to Cal, a new book that we're going to be releasing very soon, it lays out these biblical principles as well.

When it says, by the law of God in nature, the poor have a right in our estates. and ought to be maintained and not forced to beg or steal, as many thousands are at this day. And for us to give these men what they demand, meaning the government, to support their lusts, if we can tell how to avoid it, is to deprive the poor of their right, and so rob God of his due under a pretense of giving Caesar that which is not due to him. So we have the Christian ideal found in the scriptures. and so i really believe that this is kind of like we have you know there's always the false dichotomy republican versus democrat and i think that we have uh naked capitalism versus naked communism as another example of false a false dichotomy whereas um you know as as a in a society the founding fathers decided to establish uh the free market system um started off as a way to be able to ensure the most prosperity until it got to a point where it came to a point where we are today because of the conspiracy.

But what they're trying to do with these articles about blaming or accusing the pilgrims of being something that they were not is to get you to believe that anything that the conspiracy doesn't control fails. It fails. If the conspiracy doesn't control it, it's a failure. And that anybody that tries to get you to do something, the conspiracy isn't backing, is a cult leader, right? So they are pushing this happiness and ease and security of the digital ID and how the digital dollar is the future of money and how isn't this great? It's going to make things so much better, so much less fraud, so much less theft. People can't steal from each other. This is so their system is what is going to be succeeding. And anything outside of that is basically along the lines of Jim Jones, where, you know, you're basically a part of a cult and you're trying to kill people because you don't want to be a part of the system. That's those are the dichotomies that they're selling us to. So they don't want you to think about successes of being apart from the system and of people working together as we see to the best of their ability.

Whether you think that it's according to those scriptures or not, it's what they felt was according to those scriptures. And so I want to show you those successes of people that do engage in this voluntary communalism that is very different than what the pilgrims did in the very beginning and then what it turned into. So we have groups like the Mennonites, the Hutterites, the Amish, and Anabaptists. They succeeded for these reasons. I'm going to explain to you why they succeeded. where the the early examples of the pilgrims failed right so they succeed because they chose the communal living for their religious reasons it wasn't imposed by them by bankers and members believed that communal labor fulfilled their scriptural obligation so they were united in this religious purpose in what they were doing economically and that they had a strong internal cohesion They shared a theology. They shared their practices. They shared a cultural identity. They were all, all these people, you know, the Amish and the Hutterites, they're not the same. They're separate, but all the Hutterites are the same.

They have these cultural identities, their practices and their theology and of discipline and of social expectations of each other. The social expectations in the Mennonites is different from the Hutterites and different from the Amish. And also the cohesion replaces external incentives. When you have this cohesion, you no longer need those other things to motivate you to act. Additionally, they own their property collectively. There was no outside profit extraction for it. They didn't have the London investors. There was no seven-year stock company in either of these things. They weren't paying for somebody else to own this property. They owned it together. It was theirs, or it is theirs currently. All benefits stayed within their community. All the benefits that they did, they didn't have a portion of it going back somewhere else.

They weren't having to send a check to Goldman Sachs every month. The next thing is they had well-defined roles and expectations. Everyone knew the work that they were expected to do, what they are expected to do, I should say, how the resources are going to be shared, what the behavior is required. And then the next thing is that they could expel members who didn't pull their weight. So in communism, right, if you don't, in socialism and fascism, if you're not pulling your weight, you go to a work comp. You're going to be executed. There is no escaping. There is no being cast out. In these communities, if you don't live up to the standards that are expected, they're not going to kill you. They're not going to send you off to some work camp. They're just saying like, hey, you're not living up to the contract.

You can't be a part of this anymore. Go have fun somewhere else. This is voluntary entry. Nobody forced you to do this. And you could be expelled if you did not comply with the rules that you agreed to. in the very beginning okay so those are some key differences in what uh why we have because the conspiracy wants you to think that communal people working for each other's benefit and not not working for the profit motive um not working for the system that they want you to work for because there is a certain part of the um because under their system a portion of it needs to be based on the profit motive otherwise you will not put up with their slate their enslavement and so they they need you to have a partly you know a part desire to have profit motive so that you will accept the rest of the tyranny whereas if you are going to find a people where you're not going to be a part of their tyranny and you're going to work with people where you have all of these mutual um cohesive social, religious, and economic cohesion, they're not going to be able to control you.

And you're not going to have to be a part of their enslavement. And so the pilgrims know they were not a part of an example of failed communism. They were never even communist to begin with. And so what they were an example of was the failures of naked capitalism. And so with that, because we are over time. I am going to end the meeting, and then we can do, if anybody has any comments, thoughts, questions, whatever you want to discuss as we go through, we'll do that in the open forum. Let's go ahead and close up, though.

Father in heaven, thank you so much for this opportunity to gather. We're so grateful for the lessons that's been prepared. Please go with us this evening. Bless us with thy spirit. Thank you so much for The lessons that we've been taught. Thank you so much for thy goodness unto us. Please watch over and protect us. We pray in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.