ShadowRing (2015) Movie Script

Who runs America?
I guess that's the $10,000
question, isn't it?
Here's the $10 billion question.
America and most
countries in the world,
are run by a very small
percentage of the population.
Obviously, the
people in government,
aren't always the ones getting rich,
so then you have to ask,
where the ones behind it
that are really getting rich,
that are enjoying the
benefits of this rip-off.
What happens if we slice
through the back of that ... ,
set aside the system, you know,
how you approach the power of
the United States of America,
how you lobby for a bill, how
anyone can become president,
how anyone can appeal to the people
and ask for them to be
voted in the office?
What happens if you go behind the scenes,
and just open the panel door
and see how the system power really wired.
The interests of the American public
have no bearing in the
direction of the country,
in the policy decisions.
It doesn't matter which party
we're talking about either.
Publicans, Democrats,
it's all the same thing.
There is no voice for the people.
I think we're being controlled
by a relatively small group
of extremely powerful individuals
that are pretty much pulling the strings
by both major parties,
as well as the economic
and financial institutions.
We're supposed to have the people
being represented by the Congress,
and this is a check and balance system.
But instead you have all
branches of government
owned by major corporations.
The folks who run America are the people
who operate behind the scenes to make sure
that the person who is in the
seat of president and Congress
and the people who we elect
are the people that will do their bidding.
I think what you see is what it is,
and who runs America are the
banks and the multinationals.
It's as simple as that, as I see it,
they're the ones that have
made all the decisions
that have put us in the
place that we're in now.
In 1937, Ferdinand
Lundberg who'd been a writer
with Wall Street Journal and
other financial publications
wrote a book called
"America's 60 Families."
And in that book he documented
that the country was
being run by an oligarchy
of the wealthiest families,
including the Mellons, and
the Du Ponts, and the Morgans,
and the Rockefellers, and the Warburgs.
And he showed that they
were running the country
as an invisible government
behind the democracy
that we see upon the surface.
In fact, a study by Princeton University
has come out saying that the United States
is more of an oligarchy than
it is a Republic or democracy.
Why?
Because the public has
no say in the policies
and in the system that's
been set up by politicians.
Go back to 2008.
Financial crisis is going on.
Henry Paulson, US Treasury Secretary,
where did he come from?
Goldman Sachs, right. CEO.
Gets in front of the American people
and tells us that he's going
to save us little people
with the problems we have
in the real estate market.
In order to do that,
we have to bail out the too-big-to-fails,
Too Big To Fail, four words,
shows you who's running the country.
Capitalism has no such
thing as too-big-to-fail.
It's fascism.
It's a multinational fake out.
We bailed out the banks.
It's the unseen people
that I'm more concerned about, really,
because there's got to
be someone somewhere
that creates the agenda that
all these people must follow.
In the late 19th century,
wealthy monopolists,
most prominently John D.
Rockefeller and JP Morgan,
were growing an economic
and political power.
Americans were increasingly alarmed
at Wall Street's domination
of both the Democrat
and Republican parties.
This sled in the 1890s to the formation
of the grassroots Populist Party.
The Rockefeller and Morgan axis
decided to distract Americans
with the new enemy: Spain.
The choice was not coincidental.
Spain ruled Cuba, which
by the 19th century
had become the world's richest colony
and largest sugar producer.
National City Bank
coveted Cuba's white gold
as a complement to
Standard Oil's black gold.
The Yellow Press led by
William Randolph Hearst's
New York Journal began
inundating Americans
with fabricated tales
of Spanish oppression.
Spaniards feeding Cubans to sharks,
roasting Cuban priests,
slaughtering hospital patients
where no hospital even existed.
The decision to send the Maine to Havana
was made at a secret White House meeting
of which no minutes were kept.
The Spanish government was
not expecting the Maine
when it sailed into Havana harbor.
Captain Charles Sigsbee,
captain of the Maine said.
"It became known to me afterward
that the Maine had not been expected
even by the United States Consul General."
By what oversight
was known in Havana
notified of the battleship's arrival.
However, no shooting erupted.
The Spanish permitted the Maine to dock.
For three weeks the Maine
sat in Havana harbor.
In the meantime, the Yellow Press drove
anti-Spanish feelings to fever pitch.
William Randolph Hearst paid bribes
to have the correspondence
of the Spanish ambassador spied upon.
One letter critical of McKinley was stolen
and reprinted in Hearst's
journal under the headline
"The Worst Insult to the
United States in Its History."
Two days later a horrific
explosion tore apart the Maine.
266 men were killed.
A U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry
attributed the explosion
to an external device, but was
unable to assign any blame.
The Yellow Press had no reservations.
The bombing, they claimed,
was the work of the Spanish government.
Americans were goated into
war with the battle cry:
"Remember the Maine!"
Here Spain is depicted
as a semi human brute,
its bloodied hand on
the grave of the Maine
and its foot trampling an American flag.
The war was immortalized
in American public memory
by one sided Naval victories.
Teddy Roosevelt and his Rough Riders.
And the charge up San Juan Hill.
But did Spain really sink the Maine?
All Spanish documents revealed
that Spain wished to avoid
war with America at all costs.
Her mostly wooden navy
could not hope to compete
with the modern U.S. Navy,
which consisted
increasingly of steel ships.
Admiral Cervera who commanded
Spain's Atlantic squadron
warned his government of.
"Our lack of everything
that is necessary
for our naval war,
such as supplies, ammunition,
coal, provisions, et cetera.
We have nothing at all."
The provocative
act against America,
such as sinking the Maine
was clearly the last thing
desired by the Spanish.
But who did want to sink the Maine?
Detectives often solve crimes
by examining who profited from them.
To help finance the war,
the Rockefeller's National City Bank
loaned the US government $200 million.
No income come tax then existed.
To help repay the loan, a
telephone use tax was levied
on the American people.
It remained in effect for over a century.
The loan was negotiated
by Assistant Treasury
Secretary Frank Vanderlip.
After the war National City Bank
made Vanderlip its president.
In that capacity, as we
will see, he participated
in the infamous Jekyll Island meeting,
where the Federal Reserve
Bank was secretly created.
Mark Twain wrote.
"When the smoke was
over, the dead buried,
and the cost of the war
came back to the people,
it suddenly dawned on us
that the cause of the Spanish-American War
was the price of sugar."
The Rockefeller-Stillman
National City Bank
benefited most directly from it,
for Cuba soon afterward became dotted
with National City branches,
and the Cuban sugar industry
gravitated into National City's hands.
The Spanish American
war was the first war
that persuade Americans, that
the purpose of our military
was not just self-defense,
that we had to go overseas
and fight wars on other people's behalf.
And that became a pattern
that continued ever since.
So without William Randolph
Hearst who championed this
and who maybe was one of the
people that stood to gain
from the new possession gain
from the Spanish-American war,
without him and without
Hearst's newspapers,
there would have been no
problem with the Maine.
The phrase "false flag," I think,
is becoming more and more
familiar to more Americans
than it used to be.
First time I ever heard that phrase,
it's probably about 20 years ago,
and I thought, "What does this mean?"
I think many Americans are
still in that category,
"What does that mean?"
Well, first of all, so people understand
what we're talking about with false flags,
that goes back to the days
of the old sailing ships
and everybody had their country's flag.
And the idea was, you
know, it took a long time
for two sailing ships
to approach each other.
And so they wanted you to get
up close so they could attack,
and so they would put another
country's flag up, you know.
Say they were pirates,
they'd put a British flag up
and then get right next to you.
Then they'd run up the hard
flag and board your ship.
So that's where it became
known as the false flag.
The event seems to be something
other than what it truly is.
False lags when you
cover them, first of all,
it's a tough term to even use, right?
'Cause as soon as you say "false flag,"
we've started conditioning people to see
that as conspiratorial.
And when anything's conspiratorial,
that means it's not true, right?
Because if you listen to most media,
a conspiracy theorists or conspiracies
are all urban legends, right?
They're all myths.
When in fact, there are
many, many conspiracies
all throughout American
history and world history.
Even controversial to
say that the United States
has used false flag because
it's now documented.
It's a part of history,
General Smedley Butler
wrote a book after World War I
that I've read,
and I know many of your
viewers have as well,
"War is a Racket."
And indeed, in many ways it is.
And I think that we have
noticed over the years
that some of the events that led up to war
were not accidental.
I found myself going back
and looking at World War I,
World War II, the Vietnam War, everything.
Could we have been lied
to about everything?
and that was my fearful
kind of approach to this,
is that even possible?
I would say they always
follow a specific formula
of create as much fear
and trauma as possible.
And then, in that
traumatization of the public,
they're eliciting a specific
psychological response.
And that response is a cry for protection.
False flags have
always been necessary
to generate the kind of fear of outsiders
or the imagined enemy
that governments need
in order to support the
ridiculous policy of war
in the first place.
Stage one is brute force.
Stage two is staging something
or creating an external enemy
so that you then become the rescuer
and people do what you
say out of sheer fear.
And then stage three is
really getting to the point
where you don't even
require enemies any longer,
where you can simply convince people
through psychological manipulation
to do the thing that you want them to do.
1915, World War I is underway.
Britain is at war with Germany.
America has not yet joined the conflict.
May 7th, a British ocean
liner, RMS Lusitania,
is on her way from New York to England.
Nearly 200 Americans are
among the passengers.
2:10 PM, off Ireland southern coast,
a torpedo from a German
U-boat strikes the Lusitania.
More than 1,000 onboard lose their lives.
On both sides of the Atlantic,
the public is told the
German sank the Lusitania
simply to kill women and children.
The tragedy fans outrage and moves America
closer to declaring war.
In propaganda, Germany
replaces Spain as the ape.
And look, as nearly every conflict
U.S. has been involved
in in the 20th century
has been based on a
false flag pretext event.
And the Lusitania is no different.
That's how they got us in a World War I.
At the time, statesmen, senators,
the American people in general
wanted to mind their own business.
They had a great industrial
engine inside the United States.
They were able to freely
trade throughout the world
and had no reason to
engage in World War I.
It wasn't their business.
But unfortunately the money powers
had other interests at hand.
At that point in the war,
passenger ships and merchant men
would be armed and been given
orders to ram submarines,
that submarines had no choice,
but to fire without warning.
Why did the Germans
really sink the Lusitania?
Because her hull was
loaded with munitions.
6 million rounds of rifle ammunition,
over 50 tons of shrapnel shells,
and more than 60 tons
of military explosives,
including aluminum powder and gun cotton.
The Lusitania was struck
by a single torpedo,
followed moments later
by a massive explosion.
The mighty ship disappeared
beneath the waves
in just 18 minutes.
At the U.S. hearing
investigating the incident,
a critical piece of evidence went missing.
President Woodrow Wilson ordered
that the Lusitania's original
manifest listing her munitions
be hidden in the archives
of the U.S. Treasury.
Even more significant,
evidence that Lusitania was
deliberately sent to her doom.
The Lusitania was hauling
munitions to the British
that were gonna be used
against Germany in the war.
And so the Germans took
it out of the game.
Prior to the incident,
Winston Churchill,
then head of the British Admiralty,
had ordered a study done to
determine the political impact
if the Germans sank a
British passenger ship
with Americans onboard.
President Woodrow Wilson's top advisor,
Edward Mandell House, was
in England at the time
as Wilson's emissary.
In the morning on the
day the Lusitania sank,
House met with Edward Gray,
Britain's foreign minister.
House recorded.
"We spoke of the probability
of an ocean liner being sunk,
and I told him, if this were done,
a flame of indignation
would sweep across America,
which would in itself probably
carry us into the war."
House and Grey then
met with King George V
at Buckingham Palace.
House wrote.
"We fell to talking,
strangely enough,
of the probability of Germany
sinking a transatlantic liner.
The king said."
"I suppose they
should sink the Lucitana.
With American passengers on board."
That afternoon, the
Lusitania was torpedoed.
The British Admiralty had been well aware
of a U-boat's presence
in the South Irish Sea.
From decoded intercepts of
German Naval communications
and reports of the sub's
activity in that region,
contrary to protocol,
no warships were sent
to escort the Lusitania,
even though four destroyers
were lying idle in the
nearby port of Milford Haven.
Commander Joseph Kenworthy,
then in British Naval intelligence, wrote.
"Lusitania was sent at
considerably reduced speed
into an area where a U-boat
was known to be waiting,
and with her escorts withdrawn."
To leading books in this affair
are "The Lusitania" by British
historian, Colin Simpson,
and "Room 40" by Patrick Beesly.
Beesly, considered the leading authority
on the history of British
Naval intelligence, wrote.
"I am reluctantly
driven to the conclusion
that there was a conspiracy deliberately
to put the Lusitania at risk in the hope
that even an abortive attack on her
would bring the United
States into the war."
When the ship was blown up
containing American passengers,
it became the reason they
entree into World War I.
It was an outrageous and
insidious enough event
that Americans were reluctantly able
to muster themselves and enter the war.
I think the most stunning example
where there is so much historical evidence
that no one even challenges anymore
is the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Every time that
anniversary comes around,
we focus on Pearl Harbor day,
because we want people to know the truth
and want them to stop
buying into the lies.
December 7th, 1941,
the Japanese Navy attacks
United States fleet
at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii,
sinking or heavily damaging
18 naval vessels and leaving
over 2,000 Americans dead.
This is the event that propels
America into World War II.
I had pretty much the same
views that most Americans have,
and that it was a dastardly attack.
As president Roosevelt said,
"it was a day of infamy," you know.
And it goes down in history now
for having been such a sad, sad time.
December 7th, 1941,
a date which will live in infamy,
the United States of America
was suddenly and deliberately attacked
by naval and air forces
of the Empire of Japan.
Congress declares war.
But the public wants to know
why America was caught off guard.
President Roosevelt appoints a commission
to answer this question.
The Roberts commission was
headed by Owen Roberts,
a Supreme Court Justice
friendly with Roosevelt.
The Roberts commission declared
that Washington officials
had discharged their duties
in an exemplary fashion.
The fault for Pearl Harbor, it concluded,
lay with their commanders in Hawaii,
Pacific Fleet Commander,
Admiral Husband Kimmel,
and General Walter C. Short,
the army commanders in Hawaii.
It's alleged, these men failed
to take adequate defensive
and surveillance measures.
The words, "their election of duty"
blazed on headlines across the country,
Kimmel and Short we're
flooded with hate mail
and received multiple death threats.
It was claimed their
negligence caused the deaths
of thousands of Americans.
Some members of Congress
said the pair should be shot.
Kimmel and Short, however,
protested the Roberts Commission findings.
Roberts had run an unusual hearing.
Initially, evidence was
heard without being recorded,
statements not made under oath.
Kimmel and Short were denied
the right to question witnesses
or have fellow officers
serve as legal counsel.
The Commission's report
omitted significant testimony.
But we know behind the scenes
that FDR knew quite a bit
more, he was warranted.
And even behind that FDR
shadow cabinet of advisors
and the Council on Foreign Relations
were provocating things behind the scenes.
The American people were
never meant to know the truth.
In 1944, a
congressional resolution
mandated the trials.
That August, the Navy Court of Inquiry
and the Army Pearl Harbor Board convened.
At these proceedings, the
attorneys for Kimmel and Short
presented proof that Washington
had complete foreknowledge
of the Pearl Harbor attack,
but had withheld this information
from the commanders in Hawaii.
We needed one thing,
which our own resources could
not make available to us.
That vital need was the information
available in Washington from
the intercepted dispatches,
which told when and where
Japan would probably strike.
It is my conviction that
action for the Navy Department
at any one of these significant dates
in furnishing me the information
from the intercepted messages
would have altered the events
of December 7th, 1941.
Outrage, the Navy court
exonerated Admiral Kimmel
and laid the blame
squarely on Washington DC.
The Army Pearl Harbor Board concluded
Washington had full
foreknowledge of the attack.
Its report closed with these words.
"Up to the morning of
December 7th, 1941,
everything that the
Japanese were planning to do
was known to the United States."
But the American people
did not learn the results.
The Roosevelt administration
ordered the trial verdicts
to be made confidential.
He discovered later
that his own superiors
had gone to great lengths to make sure
that he, Admiral Kimmel,
did not have the information
that was available in Washington.
Why was the fleet in Pearl Harbor
when Franklin D. Roosevelt
or the U.S. Pacific fleet
to move from the West
Coast to Pearl Harbor,
the fleet commander J.O.
Richardson went to Washington
and he protested this decision.
He said, "Mr. President,
our ships would be boxed in
like sardines in Pearl Harbor.
Hawaii is approachable from 360 degrees
by potential attackers.
We'll have to resupply across
2,000 miles of Pacific."
The only reason President
Roosevelt could give Richardson
for putting the fleet in Pearl Harbor was,
he said it would deter
Japanese aggression.
Well, as of December
7th, 1941, everyone knew
that putting a fleet in Pearl Harbor
did not deter Japanese aggression.
A breakthrough came in 1982,
with the publication of
"Infamy" by John Toland,
the Pulitzer prize winner
known as the Dean of
World War II historians.
By the time of Toland's book,
witnesses and information had emerged
that had been previously unavailable.
How did Washington know
Pearl Harbor was coming?
First, through decoded
diplomatic messages.
The Japanese used a code called Purple
to communicate with their
embassies and major consulates.
Its complexity required
enciphering and deciphering by machine.
The Japanese considered
the code unbreakable.
But in 1940, U.S. Army
cryptanalysts cracked it
and devised a facsimile
of the Japanese machine.
As the result, U.S. intelligence
was reading Japanese diplomatic messages,
often on a same-day basis.
Copies of the deciphered texts
were promptly delivered
to President Roosevelt
as well as Army Chief of
Staff General George Marshall,
and Secretary of State Cordell Hull.
These messages revealed
that the Japanese planned
to rupture relations with America
and had ordered their Berlin embassy
to inform the Germans, their allies, that.
The breaking out of war
may come quicker than anyone dreams.
We were not gonna go back into Europe
because it cost so many
American lives and World War I,
which was already dubbed
the War to End All Wars.
Why would we possibly go back again,
when the American people knew full well
it wasn't in their interest?
Pearl Harbor was absolutely necessary
because, like all Democrats, FDR ran
on a non-intervention and no war platform.
There's absolutely no way that
the people would have again
been sucked into this meat grinder.
So although that is not
classically a false flag,
because the Japanese
actually did the attack,
it fits under that umbrella,
because we find out
that the U.S. government
wanted the Japanese to attack.
They left certain ships
all next to each other,
so they could be more easily
hit and got the more expensive
and newer and more
capable ships out of there
so that they would not
become collateral damage.
Brigadier General Elliott Thorpe
was the U.S. military observer in Java,
then under Dutch control.
In early December 1941,
the Dutch army decoded a Japanese dispatch
forecasting an attack on Hawaii.
They passed the information
to Thorpe, who was so alarmed,
he sent Washington a
total of four warnings.
Finally, the War Department ordered him
to send no further warnings
regarding Pearl Harbor.
Dusko Popov was a Yugoslavian double agent
whose true allegiance was to the Allies.
Through contact with the
Germans, Popov realized
the Japanese were planning
to bomb Pearl Harbor.
He notified the FBI,
subsequently FBI Director
J. Edgar Hoover stated,
that he had passed this
information on to Roosevelt.
Iowa Senator Guy Gillette and
Texas Congressman Martin Dies
also later stated they had
received advanced information
concerning the attack, which
they shared with the president.
Roosevelt told them to
leave it in his hands.
In "Day of Deceit: The Truth
about FDR and Pearl Harbor"
Robert Stinnett proved
from documents obtained
through the Freedom of Information Act
that Washington was not only deciphering
Japanese diplomatic messages,
but Naval dispatches also.
The most significant was
sent by Admiral Yamamoto
to the Japanese First Air
Fleet on November 26th, 1941.
"The task force,
keeping its movement
strictly secret and
maintaining close guard
against submarines and aircraft,
shall advance into Hawaiian waters,
and upon the very opening of hostilities
shall attack the main force
of the United States fleet
and deal it a mortal blow.
The first air raid is planned
for the dawn of x-day.
Exact date to be given by later order."
Whether we're looking at
something like Pearl Harbor,
which is now an admitted false flag event,
or it's an event that was
clearly allowed to occur,
it was known about
and no action was taken
to prevent it or stop it,
so that could qualify
as a false flag event.
When you're looking at an event
that like the Gulf of Tonkin,
which was a fake false flag event,
it was something that
we were told occurred
and actually didn't even occur,
this has been called by some researchers
like David Ike, for example,
as "no problem-reaction-solution,"
you don't even have to have
the actual physical event take place.
You only need the perception
of it to take place.
In retaliation for
this unprovoked attack
on the high seas, our
forces have struck the bases
used by the North Vietnamese patrol craft.
In many cases, these
individuals who plan these events,
they're playing chess,
while we're not even playing
checkers yet, you know?
We have to understand what they're doing,
the event isn't as important
as the underlying psychology
that the event is done to elicit.
And until we understand that pattern,
we're not going to be
streetwise to the technique.
In the event of a further
attack upon our vessels
in international waters we are to respond
with the objective of
destroying the attackers.
Look at those Vietnamese,
man, up in North,
we've got to stop them right away.
If we don't stop those
communist North Vietnamese,
they're gonna take over South Vietnam,
then Thailand, and
Laos, and then Cambodia.
And before you know it, those
dominoes will be falling
until they hit the shores of California.
Now you could stay, I sound like a lunatic
for saying something so stupid,
but that's what was being said back then.
And I know firsthand,
because I was prime
draft age of that time.
These guys are professionals at that
and they know how to take advantage of it.
And of course, one of the most
horrible ones in our lifetime
was in August of '64,
when Lyndon Johnson
faked the Gulf of Tonkin.
In 1964, Congress passed
the Tonkin Gulf Resolution,
authorizing president Lyndon Johnson
to escalate the Vietnam War,
to which he committed hundreds
of thousands of troops.
The justification given for the resolution
was two alleged attacks on U.S. destroyers
by Vietnamese torpedo
boats in the Tonkin Gulf,
August 2nd and August 4th, 1964.
Johnson described the first
attack as an unprovoked assault
against the routine patrol.
Actually, the destroyer was supporting
a South Vietnamese military
operation against the North.
The second attack never occurred.
Admiral James Stockdale,
recipient of the
Congressional Medal of Honor,
was then a pilot stationed
in the Tonkin Gulf.
Later shot down, he spent
seven years in a POW camp.
After returning home, he
summarized his experiences
in his book "In Love & War."
Stockdale was called to the scene
of the alleged August 4th attack,
but saw no Vietnamese boats
during one and a half hours of overflight.
Well, I was over those destroyers
for over an hour and a half
below 1,000 feet, lights off,
watching everything they did.
I could hear them
chit-chatting on the radio,
the Maddox and the Joy.
They seemed to have some
intermittent radar targets.
I took it upon myself to get out there
where they thought the boat was,
and tried to kill it if they didn't.
But it was fruitless.
And I'd go down there
and there was nothing.
"I felt it was a bad portent
that we seem to be under the control
of a mindless Washington bureaucracy,
vain enough to pick their own legitimizes
regardless of the evidence."
Today, very few people
dispute that the Tonkin Gulf
incident didn't take place.
Later, it was revealed
that the Tonkin Gulf resolution
was written before the alleged incident.
The document was simply awaiting
on an excuse to activate it.
The whole Gulf of
Tonkin incident, a lie,
a lie by slimy little
people like Robert McNamara,
and LBJ, and every one of
those people knew was a lie
and they sacrificed the lives
of 60,000 American boys,
destroyed the lives, limbs, and minds
of hundreds of thousands of others,
killed over 3 million Vietnamese,
napalmed it, agent oranged it, on lies.
They died in a just cause,
for defending freedom,
and they will not have died in vain.
The main justification
currently given for the Iraq War,
bringing freedom and
democracy to the Iraqi people,
was not the original reason presented.
"The next mushroom cloud you see,"
maybe you want a Saddam Hussein's weapons,
you remember that one?
Last November 8th, this
council passed Resolution 1441
by unanimous vote.
The purpose of that
resolution was to disarm Iraq
of its weapons of mass destruction.
It was claimed, Saddam
Hussein possessed weapons
of mass destruction, or WMDs,
threatening world security.
This council placed the burden on Iraq
to comply and disarm and
not on the inspectors
to find that which Iraq
has gone out of its way
to conceal it for so long.
There is only one truth
and therefore I tell you
as I have said on many occasions before
that Iraq has no weapons of
mass destruction whatsoever.
After the invasion,
Chief U.S. Weapons Inspector David Kay
acknowledged months of searching
that turned up no weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq.
In his opinion, they hadn't existed there
since the 1991 Gulf War.
Why aren't there any war
crime tribunals to these people?
Who knew what when?
Either you're with us or
you are with the terrorists.
In interview with Scott Ritter,
who was the UN's Chief
Weapons Inspector in Iraq,
who affirmed that there were
no weapons of mass destruction
in Iraq after the
original Gulf War of 1991.
Weapons of mass destruction.
I thought, you know,
who could believe this?
I mean, who is believing this
yellow cake from Niger story
and the whole thing?
And still no accountability for the fact
that we went into another country
looking for weapons that weren't there
and we killed half a million people.
One thing that the Bush administration
did a very good job of
with the help of media
was to shift the focus away
from any reality of weapons, terrorism.
So what they did was the
administration immediately shifted
to "we're bringing democracy."
Now, look, I didn't...
Part of the reason we went into Iraq was,
the main reason we went
into Iraq at the time
was we thought he had
weapons of mass destruction.
It turns out he didn't,
but he had the capacity
to make weapons of mass destruction.
But I also talked about the
human suffering in Iraq,
and I also talked the need
to advance a freedom agenda.
And still to this day, there are people,
especially neo-cons, who
believe that argument,
that all these wars that
we've had in the Middle East,
which have again, turned the
Middle East in the chaos,
that have handed it over to Al
Qaeda so that we can go back,
I guess, and fight them again later there,
it was done so that freedom
could come to an oppressed people.
Colin Powell, who made
such definite assertions
before the UN, has admitted
his claims were based
on faulty intelligence.
Oh, the little lying Colin Powell,
putting a phony information
in front of the UN.
He said Saddam Hussein's mobile weapons
of mass destruction labs.
It's one lie after another.
Looking at these wars,
Spanish-American,
World War II, Vietnam and
Iraq, one could soundly argue
that an each war American involvement
was based on a deception, false pretext,
or to put it charitably, mistaken pretext.
One lie after another,
keep pouring them out.
These are sick people,
and nobody wants to call a spade a spade.
Could this really be
one giant coincidence?
Patterns of this scale generally
do not happen by accident.
To find the answer,
deeper questions remain.
When our country was founded,
it was founded by an elite group,
the founding fathers
were the educated ones,
the ones that had land, the
ones who had studied in Europe,
the ones who had read
history and philosophy.
And thank God it was that way.
It's still true in America today.
But the elite has changed.
The great debate of
whether or not we're founded
on our lineage and our heritage
of the Constitution and Bill of Rights
or from a hidden interest.
Who runs the country?
Well, the political
parties run the country,
but we all know the political parties
actually don't do anything on their own.
I think the reality is
that we're probably ruled
for the most part by an oligarchy.
People still elect members of Congress,
but beyond that, once
someone is in Congress,
the special interest groups take over,
the lobbying firms take over,
very wealthy families take over,
and the people have absolutely no voice.
A super elite, very powerful,
very wealthy individuals
who have, I'll use the
word, conspired together
to take advantage of the
opportunities afforded them
in their positions of power and influence
to pretty much determine the direction
and the course of our country
irrespective of the wishes
of the American people.
I think in any culture in any country
you can look to who has the money,
the people with the money
typically tend to wield the power.
And the best way to do that
is to do it from behind the scenes,
because then, if people become angry
with the way power is being wielded,
they don't come after you,
they come after the puppet
standing in front of you.
We all know about a lot of
wealthy people, Warren Buffett,
and Donald Trump, and you know,
but these are the guys
that you hear about.
The people, they got lots of money, yeah,
but the people with the real power,
you don't even hear their names.
We start seeing all of these
names of large corporations
that come together over and over again,
and then they get intertwined
into events that take place.
And then we start to see there's a pattern
and there is a real agenda.
In "America's 60 Families,"
Ferdinand Lundberg wrote.
"The United States is owned
and dominated by hierarchy
of its 60 richest families,
functioning discreetly in
a de jure democratic form
of government behind which
a defacto government,
absolutest and plutocratic,
has gradually taken form.
This defacto government
is actually the government
of the United States,
informal, invisible, shadowy."
Among the 60 families
Lundberg named
were the Rockefellers,
Morgans, Mellons, Vanderbilts,
Du Ponts, Astors, and Warburgs.
Through inherited fortunes,
they remained entrenched in power
from one generation to the next.
These families frequently acted in concert
to pre-select presidential candidates
of both Republican and Democratic parties.
And as Lundberg documented,
"the quiet sweeping ownership
of America's major newspapers."
For the last several
decades, let's admit,
the powers that be a
pretty much been the ones
that have really made the decisions
irrespective of the will
of the American people.
This power structure
has been called "the establishment,"
syndicated columnist
Edith Kermit Roosevelt,
granddaughter of President
Theodore Roosevelt described it.
"Establishment
is a general term
for the power elite in
international finance,
business, and government,
who wield most of the power,
regardless of who is in the White House.
Most people are unaware of the existence
of this legitimate mafia, yet
the power of the establishment
makes itself felt from the professor
who seeks a foundation grant
to the candidate for a cabinet
post or state department job.
It affects the nation's
policies in almost every area.
In America, in principle,
power is supposed to belong to the people.
Voting sustains the public
perception that it retains power.
However, the establishment
has ways of getting around
our electoral system.
First, through their influence
within the major parties
as well as the media, they
can usually predetermine
the democratic and Republican
nominees for president.
For years I would tell
people, if you don't go vote,
you haven't got any right
to gripe about what goes on,
'cause you're just not
even part of the process.
But I've quit saying that because now,
even if you do go vote, in many instances,
it doesn't really matter.
I love the baloney
that they keep shoving out every election.
"Now, if you don't vote, then
you get what you deserve."
No: if you vote, you get what you deserve.
A lesser of two evils?
What sick person would vote
for the lesser of two evils?
In 1976, Jimmy Carter
was elected president.
Seven months before the
democratic convention,
the Gallup Poll reported less than 4%
of registered Democrats
favored Carter for president.
Outside Georgia, where he was governor,
few people knew who he was.
What happened?
There's a new mood in America.
We've been shaken by a tragic war abroad
and by scandals and
broken promises at home.
Carter received a media blitz,
including adulatory pieces
in the New York Times
and the Wall Street Journal editorial
declaring him the best
democratic candidate.
The TV networks inundated
the public with his image.
Before the nominating convention,
his picture appeared on
Time's cover three times,
in Newsweek's cover twice.
Times cover artists were
instructed to make him look
as much like John F. Kennedy as possible.
How did Carter acquire
this media following?
It began with dinner at the
Tarrytown, New York estate
of David Rockefeller.
Present was Zbigniew Brzezinski
who helped Rockefeller
found The Internationalist
Trilateral Commission
and whom Carter would later appoint
National Security Advisor.
Senator Barry Goldwater
said of this meeting.
"David Rockefeller
and Zbigniew Brzezinski
found Jimmy Carter to be
their ideal candidate.
They helped him win the
nomination and the presidency.
To accomplish this purpose,
they mobilized the money power
of the Wall Street bankers
and the media controllers."
Carter thus received
the nomination.
A similar process has anointed campaigns
of other major party presidential nominees
of the last few decades.
The people have no real say,
including in who is elected
to office in this country.
I mean, consider this:
in the United States,
about 50% of the population
are no longer affiliated
with Republicans and Democrats.
So 50% of the population
is not voting for
Republicans or Democrats.
Tell me which national
election member of the House,
member of the U.S. Senate,
a president has been elected
in the last 100 years,
who was not a member of
one of those parties?
Now, how is it possible
that half the country
isn't voting for Republicans or Democrats,
because they're not
affiliated with those parties,
and yet those are the only two
options that we still have?
In that, I think, that
demonstrates to people
how corrupt the system is,
because you are literally kept from having
any other option and any other choice.
Because of the manipulation
of the mainstream media,
public education, most of
the entertainment world,
as well as the political world,
so many of the American people are sedated
and they do not engage in the areas,
in which they could make a difference.
The good news is I think
we're hitting a tipping point,
where the people...
You're now hitting
critical mass, obviously,
when you have 50% of the country,
that's no longer a part of it,
where, you know, it just takes
a very small minority now
to really push things in
a different direction.
We had George Bush
trying to get reelected.
And John Kerry was his adversary, alleged.
As it turned out, there was a
massive electronic vote fraud
in one of those swing states, Ohio.
It turned out that John
Kerry actually won.
It was given to Bush.
A year or so later, there
was a young law student
down in the university of Florida,
and John Kerry is speaking down there,
and the law student had the ...
to go over and get in
front of the microphone
when they asked him, when
they opened it to questions,
and he asked John Kerry,
how come he didn't make
more of a squawk about this.
And he says you won the 2004 election,
isn't that amazing?
Isn't that amazing? You won in 2004!
It was, obviously, they won it.
Would've made the difference
between not only him being president,
but with the different party would be in,
and it was a very powerful question.
You know what the response was?
John Kerry gave a little nod or something,
because the next thing we know,
there's a goon squad of about six
that come and drag the young law student
right out of the auditorium.
However, the establishment has
an even more powerful means
of influencing the will of the people.
The most important is the
Council on Foreign Relations,
or CFR, headquartered in New York City.
Though virtually unknown to the public,
the Council dominates cabinets
of both Republican and
Democratic presidents.
When you look at where
the wires are connected
to the centers of power, you
will find again and again,
that places like the Council
on Foreign Relations,
don't just float ideas.
They provide solutions.
If you often find
members of the Council
on Foreign Relations
being appointed to various
positions in government
or industry for that matter,
and you see them in the revolving door
going back and forth between
business and, you know,
regulatory agencies and stuff like that,
the big question is how
substantive is the CFR
on global affairs?
Since its founding in 1921,
the CFR has produced
21 Secretaries of War and Defense,
19 Treasury Secretaries,
18 Secretaries of State,
and 16 CIA Directors.
And what is the Council's goal?
The Council on Foreign Relations
is a fairly interesting entity to me.
And the reason for that is
because they have so many members
of the CFR who are in the media.
I think the CFR exerts
tremendous influence
over our government, our media
and our centers of education,
more so than most people
would want to admit.
The Council on Foreign Relations
is a very important nexus point,
but it's just a vehicle for
the larger aims of those
who have an agenda, but
it's an important vehicle.
It's a ring of power that is an engine
to encircle the whole world.
You know, once in a while,
there'll be a spokesperson
in a major media and he'll
be introduced as such and so,
and they'll give credentials,
and they'll mention a member
of the Council on Foreign Relations,
but it sounds so innocuous,
it's just passes,
oh, some council that deals
with foreign policies,
... remember that.
The number one thing people need to know
is that when you have
so many members of media
who are a part of those
organizations or that organization,
you have lost the ability
to have anyone criticizing
globalist agenda or globalist viewpoints,
because they are members
of an organization
that pronounces its view
is to create globalism.
They have seized upon foreign
policy, economics, and trade
to get around the bounds
of the constitution
and put their global
system on top of America.
When I wrote "The Shadows of Power,"
the main concern I had was
that maybe I'd gone too far
in attributing our foreign policy
to this visible government.
Now it's 26 years later,
we've had the arrival of the internet.
I've had access to information
I never had access to
at the time I wrote that book.
And my conclusion is that
it's not that I went too far,
but I didn't go far enough.
When the Council on Foreign
Relations was formed
and the decision was made at a dinner
at the Majestic Hotel in Paris in 1919,
after the bankers got the word
that the Senate had rejected
the Versailles Treaty,
so we weren't going to become embroiled
in the League of Nations,
so there was an organization
created, it was in Britain,
it was the Royal Institute
of International Affairs,
in America it was a Council
on Foreign Relations,
like sister organizations.
These round table groups
were put into formation
to steer nations and steer their policies
rather than control them overtly
through direct leadership.
They worked through secret maneuvers.
The Cecil Rhodes Secret Foundation Trust
had been involved not
in a nation building,
but in a nation manufacturing
in the Southern part of Africa.
And now they wanted the entire world.
Now, how do they control
American government policy?
The number one way is by
serving as a recruiting ground,
the recruiting ground for
cabinet level positions.
You've probably noticed
that a lot of people in U.S. cabinets
come from the big
multinational corporations.
How does that happen?
Well, the Council on Foreign Relations
will invite executives
from Citibank or Exxon
or Halliburton and
Bechtel into the Council.
... maybe a study
group, attend some dinners,
hear some speeches by
people like Henry Kissinger
or Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Now they become experts on policy,
and now you see them showing
up in the State Department
or another major department.
When you have one organization
controlling the cabinet
with a uniform viewpoint,
whether the president
is Republican, Democrat,
naturally you're gonna
get uniform policies.
Here are some of the prominent members
of the CFR, Council on Foreign Relations:
George Herbert Walker Bush, Bill Clinton,
Sandra Day O'Connor,
Dick Cheney, Les Aspin,
Colin Powell, Robert
Gates, Brent Scowcroft,
Jesse Jackson, Sr., Mario Cuomo,
Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, David Brinkley,
John Chancellor, Marvin
Kalb, Diane Sawyer,
Barbara Walters, Cyrus
Vance, Paul Volcker,
Henry Kissinger, George
Shultz, Bruce Babbitt,
Howard Baker, Samuel Berger, Elaine Chao,
Dianne Feinstein, Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Chuck Hagel, Gary Hart, John
McCain, George Mitchell,
Bill Moyers, Jay
Rockefeller, Donna Shalala,
Strobe Talbott, Fred
Thompson, Robert Zoellick,
Richard Nixon, Hubert
Humphrey, George McGovern,
Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, John Anderson,
Walter Mondale, Michael
Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry.
On and on.
I mean you notice, first of all,
that you're talking
Republicans and Democrats,
conservatives and liberals.
You're talking people in every area
of government and news media.
You're talking education establishment.
You're talking basically
the key establishment
institutions of the country
are all infiltrated
with Council on Foreign Relations members.
Why is this institution so powerful
that no matter whether it's
a Republican or a Democrat
in the White House,
they are going to fill
their administration
with members of the CFR?
Admiral Chester Ward,
former Judge Advocate
General of the U.S. Navy,
was a CFR member for 16 years.
Before resigning in disgust,
he stated the Council's objective.
"Submergence of U.S. sovereignty
into an old powerful one-world government,
this lust to surrender the sovereignty
and independence of the United States
is pervasive throughout
most of the membership."
This is a man who was also invited
to become part of the CFR and
was a member for a few years
until he recognized what
the CFR was all about.
After finding that out,
he withdrew his membership from the CFR,
and then he did his best to
inform the American people
as to what the CFR was all about.
The Council's
journal Foreign Affairs
has pushed for world
government for over 90 years.
In its first year of
publication, 1922, it declared:
"Obviously there's going to be
no peace or prosperity from mankind,
so long as it remains divided
into 50 or 60 independent states.
The real problem today is
that of world government."
When you put all of that together,
you recognize that the CFR,
the trilateral commission,
is nothing more, but an elaborate attempt
to, as they say themselves, make an in run
around national sovereignty,
diminish the independence and
autonomy of the United States
and merge it into this
global governing institution
that they, of course,
foresee themselves running.
Oh my goodness, we're going toward
everybody having a little bit
and nobody having a whole lot
except for the elite.
And we're going towards seeing
all of our jobs taken away
and put into another country.
That's your world government for you.
That's not benefiting the
people in this country.
So I absolutely, you know,
I abhor the idea of world government
and I'm afraid that what we're gonna see
is the demise of many of our countries
in the attempt to formulate
this one big structure.
And it's obvious to see, okay,
there are these very
rich and powerful people
meeting at, you know,
under the guise of the CFR
or the Bilderberg Group or
a bunch of other things,
but it really doesn't matter.
The fact is the superclass
exists. That's the problem.
So whether it's a Brussels,
whether it's a World Trade Organization,
whatever it might be, it's
still built on the premise
of how do we steal the most
amount of money that we can,
put it in the hands of the fewest
and tell everybody else what to do.
It's not primarily driven
by political ambition.
It's driven by economic ambition.
And just the fact that I mentioned that
might change the flavor
of the conversation,
because talking about economics
is a little bit different
than just talking about politics.
And one of the reasons, again,
that the American experiment
here is not working too well right now
for as Congress is concerned,
is because Congress is
not an economic animal.
It's a political animal.
What is world government?
Simply stated, one
regime ruling the planet.
I don't think anything's
intrinsically wrong
with the one world government.
In fact, I think, obviously,
we are just one humanity,
and eventually we're gonna get to that.
You know, I can see perfectly well
that there'll come a time
when somebody's gonna say,
"Hey, where are you from?"
You're gonna say, "I'm from Earth." Okay?
But the problem is, are we
gonna do this voluntarily
and are we all gonna agree
that we're gonna have a world government
and that we all have some
sort of representation
and the thing's done equitably
and fairly, you know,
or are we gonna have a handful
of wealthy, egotistical,
sometimes psychopathic people
who want to control the world,
who are gonna force it off on us?
And unfortunately, this is
what's happening right now.
I think with any subject
of a new world order
would have to be concerned with is
who basically is gonna
end up calling the shots.
Obviously, most people
aren't thinking it
all the way through.
What they have to realize
is that there's a difference
between just saying we
should have world government
to put an end to war and then
asking the next question,
but wait a minute, what
kind of world government
will this be?
It might even be worse than war.
Countries act as a check
and balance on each other.
If one nation becomes despotic,
another nation can rise up and stop it.
If you had a one world government,
it would set up the most
unrestrained tyranny in history.
Already in the United States
with a population of over 300 million,
you may be able to meet
your representative,
but your likelihood of
knowing your representative
as an average citizen is next to nothing.
You may not even know who he or she is.
It only works in utopia.
And so while this is something
we might all strive for,
without a massive shift
in global consciousness, it's impossible.
Such a development
is less remote
than it may sound at first.
It is being established progressively now.
Modeled in Europe where
once mighty nations
that oversaw empires
such as Britain and Spain
are becoming more like
provinces of a European Union.
Parliaments of EU countries
grow increasingly subservient
to the European Parliament.
Laws are becoming more
uniform throughout the Union.
National currencies are
consolidating into the Euro.
The European Court of Justice
can issue arrest warrants
against citizens of member countries.
Advocates of world government
are planning a universal
version of the EU model
for the entire planet.
When you give up your identity
as an individual nation,
what you're essentially doing
is giving up the identity
of your people and the
individuals within your society.
Now they're just part of this
kind of globalist worldview,
and they don't have value anymore.
So when we see what's
happening in the Veneto region,
when we see Scotland now saying
that they are looking for independence,
when we see Catalonia saying
they want independence,
if you believe in individual liberty,
you should celebrate those movements,
because what those entities
are essentially saying,
as people, as individuals,
we believe that we're
more than just a member
of your larger European Union,
your larger global union.
And instead we want to be able
to create goods and services,
be paid for our labor,
be paid for our work,
and if we have to pay taxes,
we should see a return on those taxes
within our own communities.
In a globalist world, you
never see that return.
Globalists justify
world government
by promising peace and prosperity.
Their traditional argument has been
that nothing is worse
than war, and wars occur
because the world is divided
into nations who keep fighting.
They say, if we replace nations
with the world government,
war would end, and mankind
would live as one happy family
in peace and prosperity.
However, this pretext is flawed.
Rudolph Rameau Professor
Emeritus of Political Science
at the University of
Hawaii, published a study
demonstrating that in the 20th century,
six times more people
were killed by their own
governments than by wars.
In other words, wars are
not the deadliest thing.
Governments are.
What we know from the 20th century
that in nation after nation after nation
governments that became
extraordinarily powerful,
had a very disconcerting tendency
to kill their population.
So you can look for example,
in the Soviet Union,
under Stalin, 60 million people killed.
You can look at China, under Mao Zedong,
some estimates say, well, over
100 million people killed,
some even say 200 million people killed.
You can look at Nazi
Germany as the example
that probably most
viewers are familiar with,
example after example,
even ones that most people
haven't even heard of.
The problem with world
government is the same problem
as with any government:
government is controlled by force.
The more you concentrate
that power, the worse it is.
And you could make the
case that world government
might be only as bad as local government,
but obviously the bigger,
the more concentrated
that exploitation racket becomes,
the greater chance
there is for corruption.
All human authority is
jurisdictional and limited.
So whenever you violate
that and you create
a regional government and then
a multi-regional government,
and then a global government,
by very nature you have
squelched and expunged
the fundamental tenets
and principles of liberty,
natural rights, freedom, sovereignty,
under the states,
individuals, it's all gone.
If we had a world government,
who would run it?
Globalists like to point out
that international alliances
have defeated dictators
like Saddam Hussein.
But what if a man like Hussein
took over a world government?
Today, if a tyrant enslaves a nation,
its people may hopefully
escape to another country.
But if a dictator ruled
the world government,
where could anyone escape?
America's Founding Fathers
recognized the dangers
of concentrating power.
They therefore split government
power into three branches.
And the Founding Fathers' original vision,
the power of the entire
federal government,
would be held in check by the states.
Decentralization of power
has spared Americans
the oppression of
totalitarian dictatorships
that other nations have known.
James Madison, known as the father
of the U.S. Constitution said.
"The accumulation of all power,
legislative, executive, and judiciary,
in the same hands, may
justly be pronounced
the very definition of tyranny."
If we follow the money
to see who is behind the
Council on Foreign Relations,
it becomes clear that the U.S.
foreign policy establishment
is intimately linked to Wall Street
and the banking establishment.
Americans know they have inflation.
In 1962, a postage stamp
cost 4 cents, today 49.
A candy bar cost a nickel in
1962, now around a dollar.
Since 1913, the dollar's purchasing power
has declined over 95%.
Inflation is not inevitable.
This graph depicts American
price levels since 1665,
There was no net inflation
for the first 250 years.
Inflationary blips occurred
as during the American
Revolution, War of 1812,
and Civil War, when United States
printed large quantities of money
to pay for those conflicts.
Increasing the supply of
money diminishes its value,
making prices rise.
But notice, after the
wars money always returned
to its normal value.
A dollar was worth the
same in 1900 as 1770.
During World War I, our currency inflated,
but instead of resuming to
its normal value afterwards,
American dollars, stable for 250 years,
began rapidly and
permanently losing value.
This change came from one factor:
creation of the Federal
Reserve Bank in 1913.
The Federal Reserve is
the most important part
of the American government's
racket of exploitation.
And that's important to remember
that it's not about the wars,
it's not about the police state,
it's not about the business regulations.
Those are all how. The
why is power and money.
Time to pay attention,
because the Federal Reserve
has taken over the engine of the country
and completely made it subservient
to interest other than the actual country.
First off, it's not federal,
and second off, it has no reserves.
Okay?
So the whole thing's
a fraud to begin with.
The Constitution gives the Congress
the power to coin money.
But we've lost that by giving our power
to a private corporation.
Janet Yellen is current chairman
of the Federal Reserve Board.
She was preceded by Ben
Bernanke and Alan Greenspan.
The fed chairman has been
called America's economic czar,
largely because the chairman and board
set U.S. interest rates, which
impacts the stock market.
If interest rates rise,
CDs and other interest bearing securities
appear more profitable, causing money
to flow away from the
riskier stock market.
However, when interest rates fall,
investors tend to favor stocks.
Janet Yellen, the fed
chair, the new fed chair,
is going around saying that she
will continue these policies
of this quantitative
easing, as it's called,
which is essentially just
the printing of money.
And they're gonna continue it
until they can get the
unemployment rates down.
And she gives examples.
She's talking like a president now,
giving an examples of the young woman
that she's met in this
community who struggles
because she worked multiple jobs.
She's a single mom, and
it's very difficult for her.
Yeah, well, I'm sure it
is difficult for her,
but what no one ever tells you in media
is that the reason that
we have so many people
struggling in this country
is due in large part
to the Federal Reserve bank.
People who are closest to the money
are the ones who get the greatest benefit.
So whoever has had their hands on
not just the Federal Reserve,
but the whole infrastructure around it,
the global banks that are peddling
the Federal Reserve notes and the bonds
and the treasury bills and so on,
the Goldman Sachs of the world,
the JP Morgans and so on,
these companies and these individuals
have consistently gotten rich
beyond anybody's wildest imagination.
The rest of us consistently
have gotten poorer
beyond our wildest imagination as well.
So that the value of the dollar today
is somewhere around 1.5%
of what it was in 1913.
You know, the United States dollar,
the Federal Reserve note dollar,
has lost 98% of its value
in the last 100 years.
So if number one, your first mandate
is to protect the value of
the currency, you failed.
The second mandate on
unemployment, as I mentioned,
when the fed chair is
talking about this family
that's in need and she wants to help them,
how does the Federal Reserve help them?
By holding interest rates low?
That doesn't help families,
that doesn't put food on my table.
If anything, it makes it more difficult
because there are more
people out there saying,
"Well, then you should
go get a loan right now,
borrow more money right now."
As it's been stated
in history, you know,
whoever controls the money, controls.
Again, it goes back to the money.
It's not a world government.
It's the bankers in charge.
And again, the distribution
of wealth right now
in the United States, as everyone knows,
is worse than it was at the
Gilded Age over 100 years ago.
They are creating
currency out of nothing
with absolutely no value
to it, promising us that,
number one, this will
lead to greater wealth
across the nation, which
it's proven to cannot do,
and number two, it will
also create employment,
which it cannot do.
The Federal Reserve has the power
to issue and create currency,
but this gives it an inside
track to give money at very low,
if any interest rates to its member banks,
to the members of the oligarchy
who control that bank.
Meanwhile, it loans money to
the country, add interest,
making incredible profits
and making certain
that the United States can
never be sovereign again
so long as the Federal Reserve exists.
Thomas Jefferson in a
letter to one of his friends
after he was out of office, he said,
"Whenever public servants
are paid by something
other than what the people produce,
the roles of master and
servant are reversed."
With the central bank,
everything becomes consolidated
in the hands of the few,
goes back to, again, four
simple words, Too Big to Fail.
Central banks, look what they've done.
They robbing the people right
in front of everybody's eyes
as we speak.
The Fed was established
when Congress passed the
Federal Reserve Act in 1913.
The original legislation was introduced
by Senator Nelson Aldrich,
a front man for the banking community.
Few Americans today recognize his name.
Nonetheless, many have
heard of Nelson Rockefeller,
who was Gerald Ford's, vice president
and long New York's governor,
one of America's richest men.
His full name, Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller,
named for his grandfather Nelson Aldrich.
Aldrich's daughter married
John D Rockefeller Jr.,
and his son Winthrop became chairman
of the Rockefeller's Chase National Bank.
When Nelson Aldridge
spoke in Capitol Hill,
insiders knew he acted
for the Rockefellers
and their allies.
The legislation Aldrich introduced,
which became the Federal Reserves basis,
was crafted by several of
America's richest bankers
at a secret nine-day meeting in 1910
on Jekyll Island off the Georgia coast.
At that time, Jekyll Island
was an exclusive retreat
for the wealthy elite.
In attendance were agents
from the world's three
greatest banking houses,
those of John D Rockefeller,
JP Morgan, and the Rothschild.
Acting for the Rockefellers
were Senator Aldrich
and Frank Vanderlip.
Representing the Morgan
interest where Benjamin Strong,
head of JP Morgan's Bankers Trust Company;
Henry Davison, senior partner
in JP Morgan and company;
and Charles Norton,
head of Morgan's First
National Bank of New York.
The most important figure
who ran the meeting
was the Rothschild's agent, Paul Warburg.
Paul Warburg belonged to
a German banking family
associated with the Rothschilds,
the world's most powerful banking dynasty
who had grown rich by
establishing central banks,
that loan money to European countries.
It's patriarch, Amschel
Mayer Rothschild said,
"Permit me to issue and
control the money of a nation,
and I care not who makes its laws."
In 1901, Warburg immigrated to America
intending to establish
a similar central bank
in the United States.
He became a partner in Kuhn, Loeb & Co,
the Rothschild's banking
satellite in New York City.
Who controls the Federal
Reserve is pretty secretive.
But for the most part, we
understand who controls it.
And we know many of the
families specifically involved,
and that's what's known as
the Eastern Establishment.
Many of the banking houses
that have come to dominate
the 20th century, and of
course the robber barons
who became monopolous of the
major industries of the U.S.
The Rothschilds
had long been allied
with America's two
foremost banking families,
the Rockefellers and Morgans,
providing the seed money
for John D Rockefeller's
Standard Oil Company and
helping bail out JP Morgan
when his firm was financially distressed.
The access of Warburg, Rothschild,
Morgan, and Rockefeller,
and their Wall Street confederates
became known as the Money Trust.
President Wilson named
Paul Warburg vice chairman
of the Federal Reserve board.
Benjamin Strong was appointed
to run the New York Fed,
the system's nucleus.
The men who had secretly planned
the bank now controlled it.
At the time, Congress and
the public had no inkling
of a Jekyll Island meeting.
Paul Warburg's annual salary at Kuhn Loeb
had been $500,000,
equal to well over 10
million in today's dollars.
He relinquished that for
a Federal Reserve position
that paid $12,000.
Warburg knew it would
be far more profitable
to control America's interest rates
and make the stock market
rise or fall at will.
Congressman Charles Lindbergh, Sr.,
father of the famous aviator,
helped lead the fight against
the Federal Reserve Act.
In 1913, he declared on
the floor of the House.
"This Act establishes
the most gigantic trust on earth.
Invisible government by the Money Power
proven to exist by the
Money Trust Investigation
will be legalized.
The money power overawes the legislative
and executive forces of the Nation.
I have seen these forces exerted
during the different stages of this bill.
From now on depressions will
be scientifically created.
The new law will create inflation
whenever the trust wants inflation.
If the Trust can get
a period of inflation,
they figure they can unload stocks
on the people at high prices
during the excitement,
and then bring on a panic and
buy them back at low prices.
The people may not know it immediately,
but the day of reckoning is
only a few years removed."
The day of reckoning,
Lindbergh predicted,
came with black Thursday
and the Great Crash of 1929.
The crash wiped out
millions of small investors,
but not the Money Trust.
Warburg, Rockefeller,
Morgan, Bernard Baruch,
and other top insiders had
already exited the market.
Although friendly biographers
attribute their perfectly timed departure
to their fiscal wisdom,
fiscal foreknowledge
of the Federal Reserve
policy they controlled
rigged the game in their favor.
The Federal Reserve nearly
doubled the discount rate
between January and August of 1929.
The bankers also pressured stocks down
by heavily selling the market short
and massively calling loans on investors
who would borrow to invest in stocks,
forcing the borrowers to sell
stock to repay the loans.
These tactics converged,
generating a snowballing panic
that would bring the entire country
into the greatest financial
depression since the Civil War.
Congressman Lewis McFadden,
chairman of the House Committee
on Banking and Currency
from 1920 to 1931, had this to say.
"It was not accidental.
It was a carefully contrived occurrence.
The international bankers sought
to bring about a
condition of despair here,
so that they might emerge
as rulers of us all."
Afterwards, the Money
Trust return to the market,
exactly as Congressmen
Lindbergh predicted.
They bought up stocks
that one sold for $10 per
share at $1 per share,
widening their ownership
of corporate America.
Well, the Fed effects prices
by devaluing the dollar.
So every time you devalue the
dollar by a little bit more,
it costs that much more
to purchase a good.
When I talk to people who are struggling
with the value of their money,
and they talk about the need
for minimum wage to be higher,
for instance, because they say,
"Well, we've got to make more,
we're not making a living wage."
What they never seem
to connect is the fact
that part of the reason they
don't make a living wage
is because the value of
what they're being paid
continues to drop.
It's not what the young
people are doing wrong.
It's what's been done to them.
When great-grandpa came here in 1900,
there was no income tax back then.
People today are spending
about half their income
on taxation as to when you
take your federal income tax,
state income tax, real estate
tax, social security tax,
sales tax, excise tax, utility tax,
you are paying about half
your income in taxation.
Now it doesn't make sense.
If you pay half your income to taxes,
you'll need two jobs to maintain
the same standard of living
that one job used to pay for.
So if you understand
who these people are
and you understand what their mission is
and how they think and
what the ideology is,
then most of the mysteries
of the modern world of
"how come we're getting into this mess?"
or "Why are we doing this and so on?"
they become easy to answer.
If you don't understand that
little twist of that word,
really run America, it's not the voters,
then all of these things
remain a mystery to you.
Who's the guy that deregulated
the Glass-Steagall Act
and the banking acts that
were put together in 1933,
following the crash of '29,
because of what Wall
Street and the bank did?
Robert Rubin on the
Clinton, where was he from?
Goldman Sachs.
Who's the head of the
European Central Bank?
Mario Draghi.
Where's he from?
European director of Goldman Sachs.
Who's the fellow that's
running the Bank of England?
Mark Carney? Oh yeah, him.
Where's he from?
Goldman Sachs.
And it's the bankers,
it's the heads of
international corporations,
it's the existing power
structure, and people say, "Well,
if we don't have government,
we won't be protected from
the evils of rich people."
It's like, no, I'm sorry.
When you have a government,
what you have done
is put an army of enforcers
at their disposal.
The United States is run
like a major corporation.
The 20th century in the United States
has been one of centralization,
as it has been around the world.
It's partly due to the rise of technology.
And it's partly due to the consolidation
of these banking powers.
So who really runs America?
The global money paradigm
really runs America,
but the people, if they have consensus,
and I think we can give several examples,
the global food revolution
is certainly one example
where you see people
from Occupy Wall Street
and people from the Tea Party,
people from all different
segments of society
coming together to say,
"We want clean food."
And you notice that this is maybe
one of our most successful endeavors.
So I'd like to think the truth is,
is that the people in
consensus run America,
but if we don't do it and we
don't spend time doing that,
then the global money
paradigm runs America
like they run everywhere else.
So it's killing everybody.
It's costing everybody to live more
and everyone's earning less.
The numbers don't lie.
The numbers are there
for everybody to look at.
Median household income
is below 1999 levels.
Kids with college degrees,
half of them have jobs
that only require a high school education.
They're robbing us right
in front of our eyes.
And you have slime-ball politicians
and presstitutes on these business shows
that keep the lie going: Too Big to Fail.
What's gonna kill the
dollars, when people realize
that it's a system of exploitation
that funds oppression,
that funds wars, that
funds the police state,
that funds all the regulations
that are keeping you
from being able to conduct your business
the way that's gonna make you
happy, and they abandon it?
That's what's gonna kill the dollar.
Hey, the power's in our hands.
Now that we know what the game is,
the game is there loaning
our own money at interest
and putting us in debt so far
that this country will crash.
Bad austerity will come to this country.
This is right off the IMF's
world bank's plans to go in
and wreck countries.
The chickens have come home to roost,
but don't call for the end of the Fed,
unless you have a pretty clear
idea, some kind of consensus
of what we're going to have in its place.
The Federal Reserve itself
does not have absolute autonomy
to act as it wants
within the global system.
It acts according to
the international body
of the Bank for International Settlements.
The Federal Reserve by default inherits
some of that secrecy, if you will,
and we'll never know what
happens, what really goes on
inside the Bank for
International Settlements,
much less the Fed.
What can be done about it?
Well, not a whole lot, unless
Congress gets off their hands
and does something about it.
The most significant mechanism
for forcing the U.S. dollar
on the American people and all the world
is the World Reserve currency
is through requiring it
for payments of taxation.
And you can't pay your taxes,
even if you're engaging in barter,
you're supposed to be
reporting all of that,
you're supposed to be paying
your taxes in U.S. dollars.
So there's an inherent demand for that.
There are certain things you
can only use dollars for,
and therefore it becomes
the dominant currency.
And there are some things
that you really can't avoid it for.
You know, if you want to
park on the street here,
you know, you got to
put coins in the meter.
If you are doing something in your life
that exposes you to a tax liability,
that means you've given
the government an excuse
to steal from you
that is generally accepted
by their enforcers.
Yes, I understand,
there's no way around it,
but there's a very simple way
that you can opt out of the
system by doing as much as your,
you know, economic
transactions as possible
in non-dollar denominated currencies,
either gold, silver, or
what's really exciting now
that's opening things
up is cryptocurrency,
Bitcoin being just the first of many.
In January 1919,
two months after the
armistice, the delegates
of the victorious powers arrived in Paris
for the Peace Conference
to draw up the terms
to be offered to the defeated countries.
In all, the representatives of 27 nations
attended that conference.
Who did Wilson appoint
to head the American delegation
to the Peace Conference?
Paul Warburg, who'd
also named vice chairman
of the Federal Reserve.
How could Warburg, a recent
immigrant, be the only person
qualified for this critical position?
Who did Wilson bring to Paris
as chief economic advisor?
Bernard Baruch, to whom he made
all of those campaign pledges.
As always, the president
was under the watchful eye
of Edward Mandell House,
the bankers' front man.
Wilson did not invite any
leading democratic party members
to Paris, not one Senator or
Congressman accompanied him,
only the bankers and their entourage.
At this conference, Wilson
presented his famous 14 points,
the most important of them called
for establishing the League of Nations.
Many people think he invented the League,
but it originated with
House and the bankers.
Ray Stannard Baker, Wilson's
official biographer, said.
"Practically, nothing,
not a single idea
in the covenant of the League
was original with the president."
Charles Seymour,
House's official biographer said,
"Wilson approved the House
draft almost in its entirety,
and his own rewriting of it
was practically confined to phraseology."
What were the bankers
seeking in the League?
World government.
The Paris Conference produced
the Versailles Treaty,
which officially established
the League of Nations.
Ironically, though Wilson
had proposed the League,
the United States did not join.
The U.S. Constitution stipulated,
no president could single
handedly make a treaty.
The Senate had to ratify it.
The Senate rejected the Versailles Treaty.
Americans had helped win
the war, but saw no reason
to join an organization
that might infringe on their sovereignty.
When news of the Senate
vote reached Paris,
the bankers reacted swiftly.
They held a series of
meetings and resolved to form
a new organization in the United States.
Its purpose would be to
change the American opinion,
so the nation would
accept world government.
In 1921, that organization
was incorporated
in New York City as the
Council on Foreign Relations.
The Counsel's original roster reveals
that most members were bankers or lawyers
affiliated with JP Morgan and company.
For example, Morgan's personal
attorney, John W. Davis,
was the CFR's founding president.
Morgan's attorney, Paul Cravath
was founding vice-president.
Morgan's partner, Russell
Leffingwell was first chairman.
Since this looked unsuitable
for a foreign affairs association,
the Counsel diversified its
roster by adding professors.
However, these came from universities,
receiving large grants
from the Morgan interests.
The professors, carefully
screened, could be relied on
to attend Council meetings,
then return to the universities
and preach the glories
of global government.
By the late 1920s, the Rockefellers
had brought their people
into the council.
David Rockefeller was the
CFR's chairman for many years
and is still honorary chairman in 2014.
One way the Council
influences government policy
is through publications,
including many books
and especially its
periodical foreign affairs,
a virtual instruction manual
for U.S. foreign policy makers.
Time Magazine has called it
the most influential journal in print.
They do have a publication,
which my husband subscribes too.
We've been reading it
for a number of years,
because of the jaw-dropping
insight that it provides
into what they're thinking.
And they don't mince words in there.
They will come right out and say
that we need to have this form of control,
we need to do this form of manipulation,
we need to convince people of
these certain sets of beliefs.
And you read this, and it's written
in a very high falutin, erudite,
academic kind of a style.
So you have to get past that
to really get to the gist
and the meat of what's being said.
The CFR's most important means
of controlling policy is
supplying cabinet level
and sub cabinet level
personnel to the government.
What policies have the Council created?
Let's take examples
from after World War II.
The League of Nations
had effectively collapsed
with the war's onset.
Its successor was the United Nations,
a bolder step toward world government.
The UN began with a group of CFR members
in the State Department.
Working under Secretary
of State Cordell Hull,
they called themselves
the Informal Agenda Group.
The group drew up the
original plan for the UN,
then consulted three
attorneys, all CFR members,
who declared the scheme constitutional.
Subsequently, they met
with President Roosevelt
who approved the plan
and publicly announced it the same day.
After that, FDR made establishing
the UN his top priority
for post-war planning,
just as the League of
Nations had been to Wilson.
At the UN's founding conference
in San Francisco in 1945,
most of the American delegates,
47, were CFR members.
The Korean War was
designed to empower the UN.
It had been the objection of some people
that the UN could never
actually enforce peace.
And so since the very first
plank of the UN charter says,
it's there to secure peace,
this war was designed
to validate the UN as peacekeepers,
even though 90% of the
troops were American,
it was said to be a UN action.
And it was also a way of
bypassing the Congress.
We have never had a declaration
of war since World War II.
Once we gotten to the UN, that was it.
Harry Truman sent troops to Korea
without so much as
consulting the Congress.
By instituting policies
through, for example,
the United Nations, they're able to say,
here's something we want to
happen to every single person
on planet earth.
And I'll give you an example.
A couple of years ago, Desmond
Tutu, Bishop Desmond Tutu,
came out in support of
a United Nations plan
to number all the children.
Their concern was that not
all of the kids being born
on planet earth were making their way
into a government database
where they were being
numbered and tracked.
And so they came out with
a program called Plan,
the phrase for this
was, their buzzword was,
"write me down, make me real."
America's post-war
program of aid to Europe,
The Marshall Plan, was
allegedly the brainchild
of General George Marshall,
who proposed it in a
Harvard commencement speech.
In reality, it was not
conceived by Marshall,
but by a CFR study group
with David Rockefeller as secretary.
They originally intended president Truman
to announce the proposal
and call it the Truman Plan.
However, after deliberating,
they decided that Truman,
a Democrat, might not win the support
from congressional Republicans.
Marshall, a CFR cohort, was
chosen to reveal the plan
because as a military figure,
he would be misperceived
as politically neutral
and win bi-partisan support.
The strategy worked.
The Marshall event
is one of those things
that people recognize
from the history books,
but you read a basic summary
and you gloss over it,
but it has huge importance
for the building of the global system
that happened in the wake of World War II
when essentially power was up for grabs.
And in fact, had been
negotiated ahead of time.
The Marshall Plan was just
another giant welfare plan.
It weakened America financially.
Certainly designed more for a control
of these little nations
that they were building,
a lot more than it was to help them.
Americans were told the funds
were for Europe's needy.
They were not told however that the goods
their tax dollars purchased
came mostly from
multinational corporations
linked to the CFR.
The Marshall Plan was even more sinister.
Unknown to most Americans,
Europeans paid for Marshall Plan goods
with printing press money
called Counterpart Funds.
CFR member John J McCloy,
appointed high commissioner to Germany,
was in charge of this cash.
He was approached by Jean Monnet,
renowned as founder of the Common Market,
predecessor of today's European Union.
Time called him the Father of Europe.
In 1947, Monnet sent agents to McCloy
who put millions of dollars
in counterpart funds
at their disposal.
This money jump-started the
movement for European unity.
It financed Common Market propaganda
and a European Union Youth
Movement, as well as schools
that would promote European consolidation,
the council of Europe's
first meeting in 1949
in election campaigns
of favored candidates.
Journalist Richard Rovere called McCloy
"chairman of the establishment,"
and "insider's insider."
When he returned to the
U.S. he became chairman
of both the Council on Foreign Relations
and the Rockefeller's
Chase Manhattan Bank.
McCloy was also second
president of the World Bank,
which, like its sister the
International Monetary Fund,
or IMF, was started at the
Bretton Woods Conference.
The Bretton Woods
agreement where the IMF
and World Bank were created,
also created a reconstruction
vehicle for Europe,
which allowed the financial
investments to flow
through the central banks of choice
and flow outward to what
became American firms,
who got most of the
business to rebuild Europe.
It came with strings attached
and most of the European
countries were under the yoke
of U.S. command during
the reconstruction phase
of what was known publicly
as the Marshall Plan,
but privately was
concocted by the Wise Men,
a group of very influential
foreign policy people
who are all members of the
Council on Foreign Relations,
and many of them also
members of Skull and Bones.
World War II was really
about reshaping the world,
giving birth to one version
of the new world order,
which would be remade over and over again.
As with the Marshall Plan,
the motive was never charity.
After World War II, the New York banks
wanted to continue loaning
money to government.
However, what if war torn
nations had difficulty repaying?
A fall guy was needed to
guarantee the loans: taxpayers.
The World Bank and IMF gave carte blanche
to the private banks who could
now make virtually any loan,
however foolish to foreign governments.
If the government could not
make an interest payment,
the IMF or World Bank would bail them out
with taxpayer money.
Billions of 1944, '45,
'47 taxpayer dollars
were poured into the
construction of Europe,
untold sums of money that
flowed through the central banks
and out to the fascist partners of choice
who would get the bids and the
contracts to rebuild Europe,
while the Council on Foreign
Relations policy people
helped to rebuild Europe along the lines
that they wanted to see:
economic controls, wage controls,
industrial agreements, and
what became the footprints
and baby steps and building blocks
of the European Union that we see today.
Jesse Helms, former chairman
of the Senate's Foreign
Relations Committee said.
"The New York banks have found
important profit centers
in lending to countries
plunged into debt.
This has been an essentially
a riskless game for the banks
because the IMF and the
World Bank have stood ready
to bail the banks out with
our taxpayers' money."
Furthermore, the
World Bank and IMF
often attached conditions to these loans.
They made the man of voice
in government policy.
For example, they might
dictate that a country
privatized industries to
multinational corporations
before money comes through.
The World Bank and IMF
are instruments of profit and control.
And the U.S. foreign
policy based in Washington
enabled it all the way and
put the key people in position
to outright rule Europe
until it was rebuilt
along the designs of not God, not man,
not national governments, but
the emerging world government
based in the Council on Foreign Relations
and their money powers.
I look at the World Bank
and the IMF more or less
as the next stage of the evolution
of international banking.
The Bank for International Settlements,
along with the World
Bank and along with IMF,
have long been viewed as
the engine of globalization.
These have been the troika, if you will,
that have impressed policies
on countries all over the world
to tow the globalists' line.
We're told that this is necessary
in order to regulate trade or
in order to pacify nations,
that would be making war against us.
But in fact, what this is
about is creating debt.
People talk about the one
world government or globalists
as if we're just going
to create one nation
that all has the same name.
But I don't think that's even necessary.
We have banking systems
that control the trade,
they control what people do for a living.
You know, there are people who were living
in African nations right
now, growing cotton
in those nations.
And those farmers are
required to grow cotton
because it's part of the debt payback
that goes to these huge globalist banks
who have made loans to the country,
and they can't compete with, you know,
other countries around the world.
The farmers wanted grow something else
because their margins are so small,
and they're not allowed to
simply because of the debt
that is owed by their nation.
Now is a difficult one:
Could the war have been won?
Well, you know, you probably
know some Vietnam veterans,
and a lot of them were
harmed during the war,
there's issues with
things like Agent Orange.
A lot of them are sour
because there's just a lingering confusion
about what really
happened during that war.
Every war is won by the
people who profit from it.
It has always been the case
because "war is a racket,"
as Major General Smedley Butler said,
"always has been, always will be,
poor men dying in rich men's wars."
The Vietnam war was won by
those who made billions from it.
Every war we've had, at
least, since World War II,
there was not a clear objective
as to what we were doing
as a nation in going there.
What was the objective in Vietnam?
I'm not sure most people
even still know today.
You can't win a war unless
you know what winning it means.
We tend to think that the
purpose of the Vietnam War
was to fight the Vietcong,
to fight the communists.
It wasn't.
If that were the purpose of the war,
we could have won it quite easily.
But the real purpose of the war
was much more complex than that.
Since World War II, it's very clear
that every conflict we've been involved in
doesn't make sense in
terms of a clear objective
of how to win, or why we
win in the first place,
what we're hoping to accomplish,
other than if you were to say,
our goal is empire building.
Now, if we had wanted to
conquer the Vietnamese
and ultimately occupy their nation,
at least that's an objective
that has a clear end game to it,
but we didn't seem to want to do that.
So what were we actually doing?
The reasons behind
it seem very confusing,
unless you know about the banker issue,
unless you understand
how the engine of America
has been hijacked by the banking powers
and its nebulous ill-advised policies
directed by the Council
on Foreign Relations.
Perhaps no 20th century event
impacted America more
than the Vietnam War.
The war, which lasted 14
years and ended in defeat
was called unwinnable by
the establishment media,
who blamed the U.S. military,
claiming they had underestimated
the communist forces under Ho Chi Minh.
That war was part of the proxy wars
that happened all around the globe
in the name of fighting communism.
But it was also a means of reconstructing
the Asian Pacific sphere of influence
to make it safe for globalism.
Again, the whole world had to be made over
and brought up to standards for globalism,
China being such a major
power, Japan, more or less,
under the yoke of the
post-World War II agreements,
and Vietnam down there on the triangle
had to be basically reformed.
That was the real reasons for the war.
What we were told as Americans
was not that we were
fighting for our freedoms,
not that we were stopping an evil
that would take over the whole planet,
but that we had been attacked
on a ship, the Gulf of Tonkin,
incident that we now know
clearly in history didn't happen
the way we were told at all.
The media, his memory was short.
After World War II, U.S.
foreign policy dictated
that France leave Vietnam.
United States initially
supported Ho Chi Minh.
In 1945, the OSS, forerunner of the CIA,
trained Ho's army and
provided him with guns
and 20,000 cartridges, which
he used to fight the French.
The U.S. press glorified him.
In 1946, Newsweek compared
him to George Washington.
In 1954, with its troops
hemmed in by Ho's forces
at the critical battle of Dien Bien Phu,
France begged the United
States to intervene.
An aircraft carrier strike
would have averted disaster,
but the U.S. government refused.
Following the French pull-out
and the division of Vietnam
into the North and South,
U.S. foreign policies' next objective
was removing emperor Bao Dai, the one man
capable of uniting the country.
Bao Dai exclaimed.
"If your country had
given me one 1,000th
of the sum they spend to depose me,
I could have won that war."
Through a rigged
plebiscite, Ngo Dinh Diem,
the CFR's choice, was installed
as South Vietnam's president.
The South Vietnamese
hated the oppressive Diem
who drove many into the communists' arms.
In the meantime, CIA Colonel
Edward Lansdale, CFR member,
oversaw the disarming
of three powerful anticommunist
groups in Vietnam:
the Cao Dai sect, Hoa Hao sect,
and Le Van Vien's private army.
Having sponsored Ho Chi Minh
and destroying French imperial
and local opponents at every
level, our CFR policymakers
now launched the tragic conflict.
World War II.
USA fights on two fronts,
Europe and the Pacific.
The Germans and Japanese
were tough and well-equipped,
yet we crushed both military
empires with our Allies' help
in just three and a half years.
On the other hand, we spent 14 years
of fighting little North Vietnam and lost.
Something is terribly
wrong with this picture.
Defense Secretary Robert
McNamara forbid the air force
to strike over 90% of
the strategic targets
it wanted to hit.
As a CFR member, he left
the Defense Department
to become president of the World Bank.
Then, there were the rules of engagement,
not declassified until 1985
when they consumed 26 pages
of the congressional records fine print.
According to the rules, American soldiers
were not allowed to shoot first,
but had to wait until fired upon.
If a pilot saw Mig on the
ground, he could not attack.
He had to wait until it was airborne
and showing hostile intent.
If a surface to air missile launch site
was under construction,
he couldn't bomb it.
He had to wait until it was operational.
If we had fought World War
II under such restrictions,
we would have lost.
To me, at least, it's clear
that the purpose of the war
was not to defeat communism in Vietnam,
because they could have
done that quite easily.
But as everyone knows by now,
they deliberately put
handcuffs on our military.
Make sure you don't go too
far into the enemy territory.
You don't counter attack. You
don't bomb the supply lines.
You just powder puff
war all the way along.
We call it powder puff war
because it wasn't aimed at victory,
but that's probably not doing it justice,
because there was so many
lives tragically lost.
It was a bloody war, really,
but it was not fought to win.
In 1968, journalist Lloyd Milan
interviewed nearly a dozen
retired high ranking
U.S. military officers,
each queried separately said
the war would be won in weeks
or months with the restraints lifted.
This would allow the war to
be carried out aggressively
against the North.
The media claimed the war was initiated
by right-wing anti-communists, or Hawks.
The first U.S. combat troops
went to Vietnam in 1961.
President Kennedy authorized
sending about 10,000 men
on the advice of the State
Department's Walt Rostow
who had just returned
from a fact finding mission to Vietnam.
Although the press
portrayed Rostow as a Hawk,
his father had been a Marxist
revolutionary in Russia.
Two of his aunts belong to
the U.S. communist party.
His brother, Eugene Debs Rostow
was named after a socialist
party leader, Eugene Debs,
and the Eisenhower's State Department
rejected Walt for employment
three times as a security risk.
The Kennedy administration
could only get them in
by firing Otto Otepka,
the State Department's head of security.
In a book published
the year before his advice
to Kennedy, Rostow wrote.
"it is a legitimate
American national objective
to see removed from all nations,
including the United States,
the right to use
substantial military force
to pursue their own interests.
Since this residual right is the root
of national sovereignty,
it is, therefore, an American interest
to see an end to nationhood
as it has been historically defined."
This statement
summarized the outlook
of the Council on Foreign Relations,
to which Rostow belonged.
Johnson had to give some very awkward
and rather embarrassing speeches,
convincing America why Vietnam,
why he was sending their
sons, their brothers,
their fathers off to war.
As earlier noted,
Congress authorized President Johnson
to intervene in Vietnam through
the Tonkin Gulf resolution,
written before the two alleged
attacks on the U.S. Navy
in the Tonkin Gulf.
Admiral Stockdale testified
that the second attack never happened.
The premature resolution was
written by William P Bundy,
Assistant Secretary of State
for Far Eastern Affairs
and member of the CFR.
Like Rostow, Bundy was
portrayed as a Hawk.
Yet in the 1950s, Bundy
headed the defense fund
for Soviet spy Alger Hiss.
After Bundy left the State Department,
David Rockefeller appointed him editor
of Foreign Affairs journal of the CFR
and America's leading opponent
of national sovereignty.
In 1964, President Johnson
successfully ran for reelection
against Republican Barry Goldwater,
whom the press branded "a warmonger."
After the election, Johnson himself
suddenly began escalating the war,
committing hundreds of
thousands of troops.
He made the decision at the
urging of a secret clique
called The Wise Men.
14 senior advisors, 12
of whom were CFR members.
The Wise Men included a
number of important council
on Foreign Relations members:
Averell Harriman, Robert
Lovett, and John Jay McCoy,
all three of them Bones
men and all three of them
very closely tied to the
banking powers of New York City
and to the Rockefeller family.
John J McCloy's resume
reads like a true globalist.
He was a Skull and Bones member.
He was a member of the
Council on Foreign Relations.
He was in the staff as an
under secretary of state
during World War II.
And he would later go on to
head the Rockefeller Foundation.
He was the president of the
Council on Foreign Relations
for a solid decade.
And he was head of World Bank.
The leader of the Wise Men
who led the demand for
escalation: Dean Acheson.
Even before the United States
recognized the USSR in 1933,
the murderous dictator, Joseph Stalin
selected young attorney Acheson
to represent Soviet interests in America.
Truman's secretary of state
Acheson surrounded himself
with communists and security risks,
such as John Stewart
Service, John Carter Vincent,
and Laughlin Curry.
He promoted Service even
after the FBI caught him
passing government secrets
to communist agents.
Acheson's law partner was Donald Hiss,
brother of Soviet spy, Alger Hiss,
and a member of the communist party.
In short, the men who
maneuvered us into Vietnam
were not anticommunist,
but soft on communism
or even pro-communist, nor
were they flag-waving patriots.
They were globalists
who oppose nationalism
in favor of world government.
Part of it was to train an
international military force
to get the world used to
thinking of solving conflicts
through international
group, such as the UN,
and to develop those mechanisms.
Nearly all key policy planners
during the Vietnam war were CFR members.
The same clique that
involved us in the war
offered the rules of engagement
and other restrictions preventing victory.
Clearly, Vietnam was not a
blunder, but happened as planned.
So Averell Harriman, Robert
Lovett, John Jay McCoy,
and their associates like George Kennan,
manipulated policy around the Vietnam War
and most of the other conflicts
that we saw during the middle
years after World War II.
All of them mired in confusion,
lies, manipulated data,
cables, communications that
are presented to being framed ,
skewed manner to goat America
into the policy decisions
being made in New York
City, not in Washington DC.
One of their goals
successfully implemented
was to provoke an American
political slide to the left
in a fewer of anti-patriotism,
epitomized by the
burning of American flags
on college campuses.
Destroying patriotism is prerequisite
to absorbing nations into
a one-world government.
But we lost the jobs.
We lost the wealth.
Our middle-class now has
been decimated in America.
It's getting smaller every year.
People are getting poorer every year.
Our opportunities for success
are dimming every year.
And we waved to the factories
and to the industries
that moved overseas and
say, gee, that's too bad.
The North American
Union is just one proposal
that some people see as an opportunity,
that's gonna enhance
their use of the racket
to rip people off.
You're not gonna get a
world government overnight.
What's going to happen is you
will get regional governments.
And of course, we've seen this
with the creation of the EU,
and all of the trauma that goes with that,
that they've been experiencing over there
of trying to bring
together multiple countries
under a single currency, under
a single economic system.
Whenever people start talking
about North American Union
and linking us up, then I
think, well, what's next?
Then, a South American Union.
And then we join with the EU.
And then before you know it,
you actually have wound up
with your global government.
When they consolidate
and centralize power
and decision-making processes
in these regional communities,
it's going to be a very much
simpler process for them
to then consolidate power
from those regional areas,
because there are only be a few of them.
And then to bring that
together will be child's play
in comparison to trying to bring together
hundreds of countries worldwide.
North American Union
is a specialty dangerous
as are, again, many of
these free trade agreements,
like the TPP.
Why?
Because they trump our constitution.
What they have to do
is they have to line up the
regulations and countries
to mesh together, to not fight each other.
So you see this going on in Europe,
you see this going on in Asia,
you see it going on in
the current negotiations
with the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, for instance.
The TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership,
aims to say that any American law,
including any constitutional law,
is suspended in place of the TPP.
That includes corporations
operating in the United States.
They would fall under
the authority of the TPP
before they would fall under the authority
of the U.S. constitution.
That's a huge problem.
Same thing with the North American Union,
would we then have some agreement
that trumps our constitution?
"It's about regulation."
You say, "well, why?"
Just because they want to
get them meshed together
and lined up together so
they can inter-operate
without national boundaries
and national issues.
I think, that's the moment
when America announced
through then-president George W. Bush,
that we were at war with terror,
I think it was actually
a truthful statement,
but it was a terrible
moment for the country,
but the terror wasn't what
they claimed that it was.
$60 billion worth of
spying on We The People?
It's not about protecting us
from al-Qaeda or al-Nusra or al-Capone.
The war on terror, in my opinion,
has become a war on the Bill of Rights.
The war on terror is
impacted the freedom
on the people of the United States
and the people of the
entire world using fear.
The revolution apologizes
for shitting all over your apathy.
What people have to understand
how this process works
is fear is what always
shuts consciousness down.
The war on terror is to keep the people
in fear and hysteria, because
fear stops everything.
And what are you willing to give up
in a war with your own fear?
How does the
war on terror fit in?
The Department of Homeland Security
has given the U.S. government
unprecedented power
to intrude on citizens' private lives.
The ostensible purpose: combat terrorism.
We all oppose terrorism, but many wonder
how that word might eventually be defined.
The legislation that came
out of the war on terror
has been disastrous
for the American public
and for freedom in general,
especially that part of it,
which is completely
run privacy in America.
Another way to look at it is
creation of a total surveillance society.
When we lose the
fundamental right to privacy,
you could make the argument
that really we have no freedom at all.
Virtually every piece of our
electronic correspondence
is being recorded and monitored
by some branch of the federal government,
all in the name of national security.
What the war on terror has done is said,
"What will you trade in order
to not feel afraid anymore?"
And unfortunately, as a
nation, we said, "everything,
we'll trade everything."
And put you in jail,
hold you indefinitely
under the Patriot Act.
And now what is all this?
It's all based on the war on terrorism.
And when did that get started? With 9/11.
And nobody wants to look at 9/11,
but if you look at it hard enough,
you realize that the whole
official story is full of holes.
And so what has happened
in a very incremental way
is turning everyone into a
terrorist for whatever reason.
We would just heard Senator Reid say
that the people that went to
the Bundy ranch are terrorists.
The military are acting like terrorists.
We're acting like terrorists.
If you don't agree with
your whatever, a dog catcher
or a water meter reader or
whatever, you're a terrorist.
So again, we're back to the same thing
as with the communists,
which is today a terrorist,
it's just anyone who disagrees with you.
And it is polarizing
and fragmenting society.
The concept of homeland security
did not originate after
the Twin Towers attack,
but with the 1998 proposal by
the United States Commission
on National Security,
which had 12 members,
nine of whom belonged to the CFR.
They recommended a national
Homeland Security Agency,
the very phrase President Bush
used nine days after 9/11.
What connects the trade
agreements and war on terror?
Both are being used to
justify North American Union.
In 2004, the CFR's Robert
Pastor wrote in Foreign Affairs
"security fears would serve as a catalyst
for deeper integration.
The Department of Homeland Security
should expand its mission to
include continental security,
a shift best achieved
by incorporating Mexican
and Canadian perspectives and personnel
into its design and operation."
Pastor is thus suggesting
that security concerns
warrant combining NAFTA's
economic partners,
America, Canada, and Mexico,
into a continent wide
Homeland Security Department.
In March, 2005 in Waco, Texas
President Bush met with
Mexican president, Vicente Fox
and Canadian prime minister, Paul Martin
to discuss integrating
their three countries.
The Bush administration's
open borders policy
and its a decision to
ignore the enforcement
of this country's immigration laws
is part of a broader agenda.
President Bush signed a formal agreement
that will end the United
States as we know it.
And he took the step without approval
from either the U.S. Congress
or the people of the United States.
At the time of the Waco meeting,
the CFR produced the document,
"Building a North American Community,"
which called for the creation by 2010
of a community to enhance
security, prosperity,
and opportunity for all North Americans.
Regional alliances, like the EU and SPP,
are not the end game.
Simply stepping stones to
a one-world government.
Leading establishment
figure, Zbigniew Brzezinski
said in 1995, "We cannot
leap into world government
in one quick step.
The precondition for genuine globalization
is progressive regionalization."
Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin
recognized this principle
as integral to communist
plans for domination saying,
"Populations will
more readily abandon
their national loyalties to
have a vague regional loyalty
than they will for a world authority.
Later, the regionals can
be brought all the way
into a single world dictatorship."
So here's an interesting story.
During 2012, all the
presidential candidates,
all their surrogates were coming to Ohio.
And I had the privilege
of being able to interview President Obama
and also the privilege
of interviewing Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.
And it was during the Mitt
Romney, Paul Ryan interview
when I went into interview,
then you get five minutes
with the candidate and
then you go into the room.
It's basically a stream of media
coming in and out the whole time.
What's fascinating is,
I went into that interview
with Romney and Ryan
and I sat down on a bar stool
and they were both on bar
stools in front of me,
you know, the backdrop behind them,
and what was a little
bit different about this,
it's while there were a
lot of people in the room
and that always happens, there
was one guy in particular
on a sofa behind me who was
sitting there as I walked in.
And so I sat down and
we start the interview.
Now what's a little bit
different about this
is typically when you're
interviewing someone,
it's a one-on-one interview.
In this case, it was two-on-one.
And so I would, you
know, ask one a question
and then to the other one back and forth.
What was really interesting to me was
as I was talking with them
and interviewing them,
I would notice out of
my peripheral vision,
I'm talking with Congressman Ryan
and I could see governor
Romney looking past me
at the guy on the sofa, behind me.
And then when I would
turn to Governor Romney
and I would interview him,
I could see Congressman Ryan doing this.
And if you go back by the way,
and you watch the actual full interview,
I would tell people,
just go back and watch not
the guy I'm talking to,
watch the other candidate
and how they're looking
past me at this guy.
It was almost like
they're doing, you know,
baseball signals at each other.
And so they're, you know,
kind of go through this.
We do the interview, we're all done.
Then after I left, I was really interested
in who the guy was on the sofa behind me.
And so I stopped one of the
press people on the way out
and they said, "Oh, by the way,
who was the guy on the sofa?"
And they told me his name,
which at the time didn't mean anything.
And then they said,
"Oh, he's with the Council
on Foreign Relations.
And he's advising the candidates."
And when he said it, now
that got my attention,
because they said it
as if it was a very positive thing, right,
which is, oh, you know, Governor Romney
needs more experience on foreign
issues and foreign affairs.
So it's a good thing.
In my opinion, of course
it was, oh, great,
so you have someone from
this globalists think tank
who is basically sitting
behind me during an interview
and letting them know what
they should and should not say.
So it was kind of an
interesting experience.
The freedom of the press
and the freedom of religion
were supposed to be
two of the greatest vanguards
of liberty for the country
according to our First Amendment.
The purpose of the broadcast media
or the controlled
formerly mainstream media
has always been to be a propaganda
tool for the government,
for the superclass.
And you can see how this works
in a very simple sense in
America with the White House
and access to the White House press room.
If you don't tow the line,
if you're not official corporate media,
doesn't matter how big your audience is,
were going to control the conversation.
If you can be an appropriate
mouthpiece for government,
if you're not going to challenge
the paradigm of statism,
we will give you access.
Americans today are
disenfranchised and disempowered,
because we don't have enough
of the relevant information.
Read the quotes of Katie Couric,
saying that they got pressure
from the administration.
I can't think of a worse scenario
for the future of freedom.
If this documentary is true,
why are its claims almost never discussed
in mainstream media?
After all, the constitution
mandates freedom of the press.
How could so many news organizations
fail to notice the
stories we've discussed?
That's because the information
we do get has been filtered
and framed in particular ways,
it can be easily seen
in the mainstream media.
You have a mentality
within your newsrooms,
in which people really
do honestly believe,
if networks don't talk
about it, it's not a story.
So if Fox isn't saying
it, if NBC is not saying,
CNN or ABC, if they're not
saying it, it can't be true.
Although America has
a free press in principle,
this is not to guaranteed
accuracy of the press.
To achieve its objectives,
the establishment always knew
it needed to control the media,
the primary molder of public opinion.
Do you have any people
being paid by the CIA,
who are contributing
to a major circulation - American journal?
We do have people who submit
pieces to American journals.
The national news media is,
for all intents and purposes,
a totally controlled medium.
A free and independent
press at the national level
just does not exist.
Do you have any people
being paid by the CIA
who are contributing to
the national news services
AP and UPI?
Well again, I think we're
getting into the kind of detail,
Mr. Chairman, that I'd prefer to handle
in executive session.
You know, people will say,
why isn't the media doing their job?
I beg to differ.
The media is doing exactly
what they are designed and paid to do.
They are steering public
perception in the way
that the people at the
current positions of power
want the public perception to go in.
Not continuing section 2.15-
Let me interrupt you.
Congresswoman, let me interrupt
you just for a moment.
We've got some breaking news out of Miami.
Stand by if you will.
Right now in Miami, Justin Bieber-
They are the mind molders.
They are the opinion molders of America.
And if you ask a guy some
of the technical questions
like you've asked me in the
last few minutes on the street,
you'll hear him reciting
something that Rush Limbaugh
or somebody else said on a radio or TV.
In the 19th century, August Belmont
was a Rothschild financial
agent in the United States.
With JP Morgan, Belmont
helped finance Adolph Ochs
who purchased the New York Times,
then a tiny newspaper with
a circulation of 9,000.
International banking behind
him, Ochs transformed the Times
into the world's most powerful newspaper.
Ownership past from Ochs
to his son-in-law Arthur Hays Sulzberger,
member of the CFR, and
to Orvil Dryfoos, CFR,
then to Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, CFR.
Well, I think there's
a couple of things.
You ignore the story because,
number one, it doesn't fit
with their own personal worldview.
There are too many people
with the same worldview
sitting in those positions.
I don't blame Brian Williams
for not being interested
in covering a story that challenges
the globalists thinking of
the CFR, I really don't,
because he's entitled to
his own belief system.
The problem is when Brian
Williams then prevents any stories
that challenge his worldview
from being a part of that newscast.
And when Brian Williams does
it, then Diane Sawyer does it,
and so does Scott Pelley,
and it goes on and on and on.
And then when all the networks say,
"Well, let's ignore those stories,"
all the local TV stations
around the country say,
"Well, they're not covering
it, so it must not be a story,
because those guys are
the most professional,
most legitimate media."
The Times' editorial policy
has consistently paralleled
the establishment's agenda.
When members of Congress opposed
Paul Warburg's nomination
to the Federal Reserve board,
the Times lobbied on his behalf.
When communist Fidel Castro
was trying to seize Cuba in 1959,
a series of articles by
New York Times' reporter
Herbert L Matthews,
CFR, persuaded Americans
that Castro was the
George Washington of Cuba.
By 1962, Castro had Soviet
missiles pointed at America.
During the Vietnam War, the
Times demoralized the public
by publishing an alleged
expose of the war's origins,
the Pentagon Papers, a leaked
Defense Department study.
Leslie Gelb who oversaw the study,
went on to be the Times
correspondent and editor.
So will Gelb do an expose of the CFR?
It's not likely anytime soon.
He was the council's
president for 10 years
and remains President Emeritus.
If you're one of those CFR
members of the news media,
if you're Brian Williams,
who's a member of the CFR,
if you're Erin Burnett,
who's a member of the CFR,
if you're sitting there in
your newscast that night,
and some story comes
across about, you know,
we should look into the
Federal Reserve Bank,
you're probably not gonna do that.
You're going to ignore that.
If people are protesting
the Federal Reserve Bank,
are we gonna talk about that?
No, we're not going to.
Innumerable
times executives, editors,
and reporters have been CFR members.
The Times won't expose the CFR,
because they both belong
to the same hierarchy.
A similar picture can be sketched
of other major news organizations.
Media diversity is an illusion.
People get cough up in debating if MSNBC
has a better perspective
than Fox News, or ABC, NBC.
These are a very narrow
window of information.
"Here's your news, here's
the report on what's happening
through the Republican lens,
through the Liberal lens,"
but they're not getting down to the roots
and down to the basics and saying,
here's the true fundamental
problems in society,
and here's the true solutions.
There is this illusion in
America, we have a diverse media
because we have so many diverse outlets,
and a person might say, "well,
I know this story is true
because I saw it on America Online,
and then I turned on my television
and CNN said the exact same thing.
Then later in the week,
I got my Time magazine
and it said the exact same thing.
Now, you know, when a
story has been confirmed
by independent news outlets
like that, it must be true."
Well, here's the problem:
until the recent AOL
spinoff, America Online,
CNN, and Time magazine were all owned
by one corporation, Time Warner.
At the national level,
it's a surprising small number of people
that control the vast majority
of the national news media.
It's no surprise that you're
not gonna see any of this
in the mainstream media
because the mainstream media
is owned and controlled by
five major corporations.
The New York Times company
owns the Boston Globe.
The Washington Post company owns Newsweek.
Disney owns ABC.
CBS own Simon & Schuster.
Time Warner owns AOL, CNN,
Time, Warner Brothers Studios,
HBO, New Line Cinema,
Sports Illustrated, People,
Fortune, Money, and dozens more.
News Corporation owns
the Wall Street Journal,
Fox Television, London's
The Times, Barons,
HarperCollins, Zondervan, Hulu,
and the New York Post and
scores of other media outlets.
When you have one corporate owner,
you can get one viewpoint.
You don't get a diverse view
unless you have diverse ownership.
I got a communication from someone
who's in a three-letter network,
head of a news department for
that three-letter network,
and said, "My family
member is in Iraq now,
and I was so disturbed at
what you said last night
about depleted uranium.
I don't want to believe this is true."
And I said, "It is."
I gave the evidence, the
information, and he said,
"Yes, I've been up all night
studying it. You are right."
He said, "I wish I could
tell the people this."
And I said, "And why can't you?"
And he said, "It's not part
of the political paradigm."
Most of America's major media
is owned by around a dozen
multinational corporations.
These in turn have directors
that interlock through
membership in the CFR.
Thus, the establishment can guarantee
the public receives a uniform viewpoint.
The mainstream media will
not cover many of these issues
because of, in part, because of the people
who pay to sponsor their television shows.
When you have major corporations
that are doing pretty disgusting things
to the mainstream public
paying to have TV exist,
they're not gonna want the commentators
discussing about the things they are doing
and how they're awful.
You're not going to see the
truth in mainstream media.
And in fact, you're going to
see disinformation agents.
You'll see people like
me smeared in the media.
If it comes out at all,
the information that we're talking about,
you're going to find
that it's marginalized.
Once a year, the world's
elite from government,
banking, industry, and media
hold an international summit
called the Bilderberg Conference.
The meetings are close to the public.
In 1991, speaking before the Bilderbergs,
CFR chairman David Rockefeller
described the media policymaker marriage.
"We are grateful to the Washington Post,
the New York Times, Time Magazine,
and other great publications,
whose directors have attended our meetings
and respected their promises of discretion
for almost 40 years.
It would have been impossible for us
to develop our plan for the
world if we have been subject
to the bright lights of
publicity during these years.
But the world is now more sophisticated
and prepared to march
towards a world government,
which will never, again, no war,
but only peace and prosperity."
But I don't think we're
buying into it as much anymore.
I think that the advent of new
media, I think the internet,
social media, the ability for
people to talk to each other,
communicate, share information
like at no other time
in human history really
renders a lot of the propaganda
that we face unusable.
It's very tempting when you
look at the short-term trends
in the American government and
the application of technology
and organizations like the NSA
to think that we're heading
towards a totalitarian surveillance state,
but technology is
fundamentally empowering,
and with all the technology
that's on the horizon right now,
we see Google glasses
and exciting innovation,
but really just scratching the surface
of what's about to happen
with computers in our brains,
if not just in our contact lenses
are better integrated
with our lives in general,
and the profusion of cameras in society.
These are good things
in and of themselves.
The question is really who
controls these technologies,
and it is scary when government
controls these technologies,
but I'm very confident that
technology also empowers
greater awareness and is
gonna lead people to realize
that non-coercive, voluntary,
peaceful relationships
are superior to violent coercive ones
that are the reasons we have to be afraid
not of the technology itself,
but of the application of it.
So it's really important to
be aware of that distinction
when fighting back and making sure
that we're not making people
afraid of the technology itself,
but that they know what is
correct to be afraid of,
which is the government control
and usage of these technologies
as mechanisms of greater control.
But the technology
fundamentally empowers us
to better control our
world, our environment,
to be more empowered human
beings as individuals.
And that is a great
thing to be celebrated.
If anything, it's gonna lead
government to be obsolete.
We are the individual
people of the United States.
We need to exercise our rights.
Nobody's gonna come in on a white horse
and rescue you or save the day.
This is your job.
This is an informed electorate's job.
It's our job to inform
our elected officials
that we refuse to be a part of this plan.