Catherine Austin Fitts discusses North Korea's nuclear program as a tool for U.S. balance against China, linking the 2016 election to the Clinton campaign's failure and deep state opposition via the Anthony Weiner laptop scandal. She contrasts "empire globalists" viewing America as expendable with "America First" advocates, alleging corporate media suppresses truths about pedophilia scandals while promoting a Cold War narrative. Fitts warns that losing faith in central banking institutions will lead to force, mind control, and digital slavery, urging listeners to recognize their complicity through financial holdings before facing depopulation or an inhuman future. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
Time
Text
Deep State Pressure on Trump00:01:26
Hi, this is Dark Journalist.
Today I have the exciting Part 2 interview with former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Catherine Austin Fitz.
Now, Catherine's experience as a partner in a major Wall Street firm, along with her years in government, give her unusual insight into some of the major problems that we're facing today.
Now, in Part 1, we focused on the deep state pressure on the Trump administration to play the war card.
In this special episode, we'll look at two possible futures for America one, turning around from a transhumanist future, or two, perpetuating the central banking warfare model.
There is no third way.
Here we go.
Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Catherine Austin Fitz.
Empire Endgame.
Digital Slave Population.
Two scenarios are massive depopulation andor slavery, including using digital technology to basically run a mind controlled, chipped slavery population.
The Dark Journalist Empire Endgame Special Report Digital Slave Population.
Featuring an in depth three part interview with former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Catherine Austin Fitz.
Now, let's go join dark journalist Daniel List.
Catherine, it's great to have you back for part two of our deep state discussion.
North Korea War Tensions Rise00:15:36
Now, I want to start right off the bat with the situation in North Korea and some of the war tensions that we see rising over there.
Now, there's no question that some of the rhetoric coming out of North Korea about bombing everything from Australia to California is a bit premature since their missile technology program lacks the punch for that kind of operation so far, anyway.
We've certainly seen threats from them before.
As far back as 1994, President Clinton sent a warning not to attack South Korea.
Now, there's no question that their nuclear program has become a major concern for people living in the Pacific region.
But what do you think is really going on here?
You know, what's the story behind the scenes that has made North Korea such a foreign policy flashpoint so suddenly?
Traditionally, America wanted to remain the hegemon and felt that they were better off with North Korea and South Korea divided.
You know, South Korea is a big bet for the U.S. to sort of balance off China.
But it's almost like they don't want South Korea to get too big for their bridges.
And if you read the Goldman Sachs speeches by Hillary Clinton, she talks about how they want to keep them separate.
So that has been the U.S. policy.
In the meantime, what's very interesting is what the Chinese don't want to have to do is have to feed the North Koreans.
We just saw some reports, and I haven't been able to confirm them, that when Xi Jinping finished with his negotiations with Trump, he moved 150,000.
Troops up to the border.
Yes.
They're there because he doesn't want an immigration problem.
Oh, okay.
So he doesn't want those people streaming across the border.
He doesn't want everybody in North Korea streaming into the border and he's got to feed them, right?
Yeah, right, right.
Those troops are there to keep everybody in North Korea in North Korea.
So you got the U.S. sailing up here and Xi Jinping saying, oh no, you know.
So, you know.
He knows what's happening in Europe and the United States.
The last thing he wants is a backlash from his population on immigration.
He's got enough problems on his hands.
Right.
So, with robotics coming, do you think he wants to find jobs for millions of North Koreans?
No, definitely not.
Right, exactly.
Now, when you look at the situation developing in North Korea, and we've sent a couple of aircraft carriers over there recently, their missile test launch blew up on them, and now they're making video game simulations of attacking U.S. cities.
All that's not good.
But do you see the possibility rising here of a nuclear confrontation happening in the situation with North Korea?
I have no idea.
I think, you know, the big issue is a technological question as to whether we can keep sabotaging.
You know, my guess if you look at some of the sabotage of their missiles, I think it was probably sabotage.
Can we contain it?
I don't know.
The big fear here is it's not, you know, as soon as they got it, the price is right and Iran's got it.
So, You know, this gets back to the question of nuclear proliferation.
How many people can you afford to have this kind of weaponry?
And if you decide to draw the line, you know, if it were me, I would have drawn the line a long time ago.
Yeah.
So why they didn't over the last 10 years, I don't, you know, it's kind of, I'm not quite sure why they didn't draw the line sooner.
But I think it's fair to say it's a reasonable position to say it's not acceptable for North Korea to have nuclear weapons because then you're talking about putting Japan and the whole South China Sea at risk.
So I really do believe that what Trump said he said to Xi Jinping is true, which is basically, you know, this is your problem, you fix it.
If you want a good trade deal, I'll give room on trade if you'll fix this.
If you don't fix it, we'll fix it.
And I think that is probably what the real policy is.
I absolutely agree, and we'll certainly be watching it closely here.
Now, what I'd like to do is go back for a moment and detail how the war scenario got such a kickstart.
And for that, we need to go back to the 2016 campaign.
Now, Obama was making things very politically tense with Russia, and Hillary was adopting a neocon style approach.
And with the media, she was developing a Cold War 2.0 scenario.
So, the war party thought they had this thing locked in.
You know, Hillary had the pundits, she had the polls.
There was no question she was going to get in.
And when she got in, she was going to bring tensions with Russia to the brink, and we'd have a new Cold War 2.0 scenario to deal with.
Ultimately, their plans failed, and Trump got in.
A surprise, I think, to that part of the deep state.
And then they came up with the whole Trump is a Russian agent scenario, and that failed.
And the alternative media is being influenced.
You know, they're in collusion with the Kremlin.
And they were getting really desperate.
The media, in particular, when they chose the fake news meme and tried to spread that, you could see that they were in deep trouble.
So these are some of the waves we were seeing before this war scenario really kicked in.
Well, here's what happened.
Because I think the way the Trump team won the election, first of all, if you look at the polls, I drove back from California in October.
I think we talked about this.
And wherever I went, Daniel, I was talking to very successful professionals.
Professionals, lawyers, doctors, engineers, entrepreneurs, you know, people who are now they're very self starter.
My subscribers and my audience is very much self starters.
Everybody's voting for Trump.
But what they would all say is, I'm voting for Trump, but please don't tell my wife.
Or I'm voting for Trump, but please don't tell my husband.
Or I'm voting for Trump, but don't tell anyone.
And I haven't told anybody.
You know, and by the time I got back, I was like, well, wait a minute.
I think Trump's going to win the election.
Now, My concern was always that the Clinton forces could rig the machines.
So the question was, what made the machines back down?
I think what happened was the Anthony Weiner laptop.
I mean, I really think Giuliani and New York PD put Trump over the top at the end because they got the Anthony Weiner laptop.
And between the Podesta emails and the Anthony Weiner laptop, they just had the whole pedophilia story nailed and were ready to use it.
It was the nuclear option.
Yeah.
And so I think the, you know, basically the groups behind, you know, both factions said, okay, well, we'll play ball.
And if you look at how Goldman Sachs and Booz Allen Hamilton stock traded, when the courts gave the FBI permission to use the Anthony Weiner laptop for the Clinton Foundation investigation, at that moment, Booz Allen Hamilton's stocks started to trade up, and the next day, Goldman's stocks started to trade up.
If you look at Booz Allen Hamilton and Goldman, the Trump victory was rising from October 31st on.
It was basically the Halloween massacre.
And I think that's when she lost.
And interestingly enough, it was that next week when her campaign canceled the fireworks.
Wow.
So somebody was already trying to economize.
No question.
She lost.
Now, I don't think she really, whether it was facing it or knowing it, she didn't really know that until the night of the election.
But I think Trump won on Halloween.
And it really was, you know, the difference, you know, it really was the multi or the national guys versus the unipolar guys.
Now, what that means is, behind, you know, whatever is going on behind the scenes now, the question is you've got the City of London and the bank and international settlements central banking system.
So that's the central bank side, you know, and it includes the New York Fed member banks and Goldman Sachs, who's basically very much in the table.
So, you've got basically, I'll call that the city side, the central banking side, and then you've got the military that's got to implement this.
And to me, part of the push to get Trump in was you have people in the military intelligence who are very grounded and intelligent about what is feasible.
And they're saying, wait a minute, we have overextended the model and America's going to fail and collapse if we keep trying to do this.
So, you know, the Wesley, General Wesley Clark.
Interview that he gave about, you know, right after 9 11, the Rumsfeld approving the plan, we're going to go get seven, we're going to take down seven countries in five years.
Right.
You know, and if you look at what's just happened and all the U turns in the Trump administration, we're back to that plan.
Right.
Well, this comes from an interview with General Wesley Clark in 2006.
He'd become an opponent of these neocons, even though he had been in the Bush administration.
And he recalled that a few days after 9 11, that a memo came down from Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.
That Rumsfeld had approved a plan to take down seven countries in five years.
We've now bombed Syria.
We have put more troops into Somalia.
I mean, if you look at that list of seven countries, you know, the city of London, and, you know, I don't want to just pick on that group, but it's basically the central banking team is saying we've got to get everybody in the tent so we can do the central global currency.
Because our effort to kind of aggregate everybody into the EU and NAFTA and these other things is kind of breaking down.
Mm hmm.
So, they need that digital global currency.
And of course, Wesley Clark was talking about the seven countries in the Middle East, but North Korea is definitely on that list because they don't.
If you go to the Bank of International Settlements and you look at all the central bank members, there ain't nobody from North Korea.
Yeah, right.
That's a great point.
Now, let's take a look at the group who we can call the North America Retrench People, part of that National Association of Manufacturers.
The America First faction that supported President Trump into victory.
Let's not call them North American retrench.
Let's think of them as we like to win.
Okay.
Okay.
So the team win America people versus the empire globalists.
Let's outline some essential differences between these two groups.
The unipolar team is basically saying we can keep empire going for a little bit longer.
And we'll be fine, the United States will go down.
I see.
So you're basically composting the whole United States to preserve the empire.
Now, exactly where they think they're going to be, you know, maybe they think, you know, Mars will work by the time they run out the United States.
Well, let's just say then to generalize, the Clinton Obama team were working that whole idea.
You know, they wanted to keep empire going and let the United States go down eventually by squeezing the middle class out of existence and building up their overseas resources to make North America then just another zone they control inside of a whole global grid.
Right.
So the global elite.
Preserves the global elite, and this North America as a place, or the United States as a place, just is used to compost.
It's like the, you know, when you send a rocket up, there's a pod that once it, you know, the booster goes away.
So the booster is expendable.
Right, right.
That's how they think of North America, United States.
Right.
And part of it is, you know, it's very interesting to listen or watch them.
They are really in a state of delusion.
It's quite amazing.
And, you know, it's almost the scariest thing that I do is when I listen to them and realize that they have no clue how the money works.
In other words, they don't have a good map of the economics and what's really happening.
So you watched, I didn't watch the whole interview, but Hillary Clinton gave an interview where she talked about why she lost.
Right.
And there was not one reference to herself or any mistake she made.
It was like, Hey, did the Russians make you say deplorables?
Did they put that in your mouth?
That, if there is one thing that lost the election for Hillary Clinton, it was the deplorables comment.
Oh, no question.
Right.
And the truth of the fact that that's how she feels.
Yeah, it was almost like she couldn't hold back.
You know, well, but here's the thing I think she is so divorced from what is really good.
You know, if you could give her a mathematical simulation of time and money and what's really happening, It would completely blow her mind.
She has no concept of what reality is.
That's why, I don't know if you ever heard it.
I've always said if I was a dictator, I'd take a whole group of people, Hillary Clinton among them, and send them to a camp where for five years they had to work as a cleaning lady at Motel Six.
Yeah, great.
And then after the five years, and they would have to support themselves working as cleaning ladies at Motel Six.
And after the five years, they would have to write an essay on what is deplorable.
What is a deplorable?
Because you're talking about a group of people who are extracting subsidy from hardworking, honest people, and they're just extracting, extracting.
And as those people are struggling harder and harder, what they're saying is, oh, they're deplorable because they don't wear airmaids.
Yeah, right, right.
So, well, they don't wear airmaids because you're extracting all their equity and you're making them work harder and harder.
So it's really funny.
You're blaming the people.
As you're composting them, as you're harvesting them, as you're destroying them.
And because the money that subsidized this group was basically stolen illegally.
If you look at the laws relating to U.S. government finances, you're talking about money that was earned at criminal enterprise.
But it's amazing because the elites don't seem to notice.
So let me give you an example.
One of my favorite interviews on the Solari Report is Helen Chapman.
I don't know.
Have you ever seen Helen Chapman?
Brilliant attorney, very successful New York attorney.
Did you have her on?
Not yet, but she did JP Madoff, which was pretty much.
So, so, yeah.
Right.
So, so she was, she had money in Madoff.
And then when Madoff went down, she started to help other Madoff victims and ended up representing a fairly large group of the Madoff victims.
So she's one of the attorneys with one of the largest groups of representation.
And so she has been privy to understanding the information available as to what happened.
Now, from I think the early 90s on, some long period, Madoff had two operations.
Financial Coup D'etat Explained00:15:51
He had a brokerage operation, he had an investment advisory operation.
The investment advisory operation had one bank account, Daniel, one bank account, okay, at JPMorgan Chase.
And JPMorgan Chase saw all the money come in and saw it go out.
So I said to Helen Chapman when I was interviewing her, who was the securities custodian?
And she said, there was none because there were no securities.
Okay, which meant all the money came in and it all went out, but it never went to securities custodian and it never bought securities.
And JPMorgan Chase knew.
Every day, the whole time for, you know, 15 years.
Fascinating.
Okay.
So I said to Helen when she said this, I said, well, that means that JPMorgan Chase was the senior partner.
True.
They had a venture with Madoff and they were the senior partner.
Right, right.
Okay.
So because Madoff couldn't function for a day without JPMorgan knowingly breaking the law under the Bank Secrecy Act.
In other words, you are required to know your customer and you are not allowed to make illegal transactions if you know your customer is breaking the law.
Okay.
Which means the senior partner in control was JPMorgan Chase.
So if 60 billion worth of assets were lost for, you know, hundreds of thousands or I don't know how many people were in Madoff, but a lot of people, Madoff didn't do that to you.
JPMorgan Chase did that to you.
Right.
Okay.
They are absolutely responsible.
And the courts have ruled.
Repeatedly, that they're not responsible, which is just, it's a complete violation of the law.
It's absolutely absurd.
Right, exactly.
So, and Jamie Dimon's running around talking about how he wants to treat his customer like you would want your mother treated.
All right.
Well, Jamie, you know, I'd love to see what you've done to your mother.
So, you know, so we're talking about.
Definitely.
We're talking about a system where.
Where the difference between the reality and the official reality is very hard for most people to fathom.
And that's the question if we want to be free, what we have to fathom is that we have an establishment which has really gone off the rails.
Now, I think the group that supported Trump were trying to bring it back.
And I have to tell you, if you look at what's happened in the first hundred days, we are so much better off than we would have been if the Democrats had won.
Oh, yeah.
So I said to somebody the other day, What are the chances we have nuclear war with Russia?
She said 25%.
I said, What are the chances we would have nuclear war if it was Clinton?
Now they said 75%.
I think those numbers are not unrealistic.
Well, I don't think there's any question.
You know, the neocons had the Democrats, and they were just focused on antagonizing Russia and raising these Cold War 2.0 tensions, which was a terrible strategy.
And now we still have Rachel Maddow on MSNBC.
You know, this liberal network arguing for action against Russia.
I mean, these are liberals acting like Jesse Helms or something.
It's really like Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
It's bizarre.
We have Louise Mensch, this former British MP, and she has a list of Russian agents, including writers from Rolling Stone magazine.
I mean, all she needs is to kind of, you know, get overweight and speak with a 50s Midwest accent.
And she basically could be Joseph McCarthy.
And it's getting really bizarre out there at the Democrats.
There's no question.
Right.
And when Tillerson went to Moscow, you know, I think one of the most positive things that happened, he said, you know, two nuclear powers need a better relationship than this.
And they put together a working group to try and improve it.
Now, if you look at the forces in Washington designed to tear it apart, it could still happen.
Why are, you know, you mentioned this that the press is so, you know, and the Democrats had great adulation for Trump after bombing.
This is surprising, actually, because here they have the perfect opportunity to say, hey, you're a warmonger or whatever.
And they're like, well, actually, he acted like a president.
You know, this is great.
So the Democrats, you know, I was saying they were having the Cold War 2.0 thing, but it sounds more.
Like the World War III scenario is what you're talking about with them.
Here's their problem.
If you look at their constituents or them, everybody makes money from the central banking warfare model.
And the shrieking you were here from Washington was the sound of people's cash flows disappearing.
So they see their cash flows going down and they start screaming.
Now, think of this as a parasite.
The tapeworm, every time you have war, the tapeworm gets a huge injection of food.
So they're feeling satiated and happy their cash flows are rising.
And of course, that's bad news for freedom and everything else.
But everyone is on the dole.
If you want some historical examples, because it's much easier to see if you go back through history, watch two documentaries.
Watch Sputnik Fever and watch them turn the shriek of meter on Eisenhower and he beat them back.
I watched that and it really.
Eisenhower was an amazing guy.
And it was all the Russians, Russians, Russians.
And it was the military industrial complex trying to justify trillions of dollars for their team.
That was number one.
But then the second thing is coming into the Iraq war, we are watching a tsunami in Washington pushing for war.
It's the same tsunami we saw pushing for the Iraq war.
Yes.
Because that was a huge fight.
America knew bad news, don't do it.
You know, you were up against 80% of the population saying no, And, uh, watch Shut Up and Sing about the Dixie Chicks and what was done to the Dixie Chicks.
Oh, yeah.
Oh, yeah.
No, it's a great documentary because they basically said not only did they say, you know, did they come out with an anti war statement on the stage in London, right, you know, on the Million Man March, but, but then they wouldn't back down.
Wow.
They wouldn't back down.
They basically said, you know, F you.
And, uh, And you watch what was done to them and you watch the machinery.
And this is why I keep banging the drum about entrainment and subliminal programming, but you see that whole media entrainment working on people.
And it's very scary because you're weaponizing the population against someone.
I had it done to me.
It's unbelievable.
Oh, there's no question.
And I think they use this on President Trump, and especially when he was running during the campaign, but also after he got in, like we've never seen it used before in American politics.
If you look at how well Trump has stood up to the shriek of meters so far, you know, he's done, you know, as critical as you may want to be for some of his U turns, just understand he's done a better job than 99.999% of the population could ever do.
I mean, it's remarkable.
Yeah, I agree with that.
Well, first, he did an amazing job during the campaign bringing up the right issues, not letting the media get the upper hand with.
Their fake news and also really responding well to the Clinton dirty tricks.
And when he won, there were so many efforts by the CIA and others to taint his election.
You know, the fake British Russian dossier and, you know, a number of things that just didn't work.
And then they also regularly assassinated his top aides, Flynn.
You know, they went after Bannon, they went after Conway and others.
And there's no question that it's really been the deep state versus the Trump presidency here.
Which really leads me to this question, which I think is vital.
And that's why are these media institutions, these intelligence agencies, these political parties, and these deep state forces making themselves look ridiculous trying to take him out before he even did anything, trying to make him a Russian agent and trying to make him a bigot and all these other things?
Why would they risk so much of their own capital to take him down?
What is it they're fearing?
With Trump, besides the end of the global empire?
Well, I think the fear of the pedophilia thing is off the charts.
I think it's the pedophilia is the thing that blows the whole establishment system, and I think they're very afraid of it.
So, whatever is on that Anthony Weiner laptop, I mean, if you just look at the Podesta emails, so I don't know if you noticed this, but apparently Obama has disappeared to Tahiti.
Yes, very strange.
That was quite a getaway.
He is back now.
But that was a really long stretch there where he just was completely out of the country.
So, when the whole Syria war thing starts, Obama, who started his foundation, is going to lead this whole big policy thing in Washington.
Suddenly, he's gone to Tahiti.
He's gone.
It was strange.
You know, and the only reason I believe that is apparently the judicial watch server is trying to serve him, and you can't serve Obama.
He's in Tahiti.
What's that about?
I think it's going to be interesting to keep an eye on how he shapes his public profile going forward in the coming days.
I know he's getting an award actually not too far from here at the Kennedy School at Harvard soon.
So he will be re emerging.
So we've discussed his strange exit from the presidency.
Now let's discuss Trump's strange entry into the presidency.
Now, as we've mentioned, he has gone after some major campaign issues here in the first 100 days.
Right.
But a number of us have been watching as a series of Goldman Sachs.
Employees get high profile jobs in his administration.
I certainly understand the New York connection in all this, but is this a bad trend or just political deal making?
Well, but it's deeper than that because, you know, it's interesting because I have a lot of respect for the ability of Mnuchin and Cohen.
I mean, Cohen and Blankvine, if I'm right, working with Rubin.
You know, in the administration basically engineered the financial coup d'etat.
Yeah.
And if you look at the engineering of it, the suppression of the gold price, the strong dollar policy, it was a remarkable, from a financial standpoint, it was a remarkable thing that they did.
Now, you know, if you look at how many laws were broken, it was clearly a criminal enterprise, but it was a criminal enterprise authorized at the highest level of the national security state, and we still don't know exactly why they did it or how.
But, you know, this thing of financing two civilizations from one without one knowing it, from a financial standpoint, it's quite an extraordinary thing that they've done.
So, if Mnuchin and Cohen turn out, Not to be Titanic Turners, this could be a quite remarkable administration no matter what is going on currently.
So I haven't given up hope for Cohen and Mnuchin.
Oh, no.
Right.
Oh, there's potential to refocus a number of things, political, no question.
And I do like how you presented that in the annual wrap up report because there is this idea that since some of these guys know where the bodies are buried relating to the financial coup of 2008, that they are exactly what Trump would need to get a handle on so much of the missing money.
Right.
So here's the thing.
If you're doing neurosurgery, you want your neurosurgeon to have a good understanding of anatomy.
So we're in the same situation.
So I think Mnuchin, and Mnuchin's dad ran the equity desk at Goldman Sachs.
Now, Cohen and Mnuchin came up the fixed income side.
Mnuchin switched to equity.
But part of what we have to have is a switch from debt to equity.
We have to get off the debt growth model and onto an equity model.
And these are guys that have the knowledge and skill to do it.
So I haven't given up on them.
At all because you know, you can be one thing when you're on Wall Street going to the top and going to government and decide, okay, now I'm gonna, you know, I'm gonna leave my inner piggy behind and I'm gonna become a Titanic Turner.
So that's my hope for them.
But you know, you've got to do all of that turning the derivatives and other positions as you go.
And that's what's so hard about the switch.
How do you get from here to there when everything's got to stay secret?
And that's why I think it's always, I've always hoped that the independent media could bust that secrecy.
You know, because if you're on the inside, you can't do it.
It's got to be done from the outside.
And it's got to be done in a way that says, oh, you know, let's go to a more positive vision of the future other than depopulating us with a nuclear war with Russia.
Oh, yeah.
So the impression that I get is that President Trump is leaning toward getting in there and figuring out what happened in the coup of 2008 and where the missing trillions went.
Yeah, let me just step back and say one thing about Trump.
If you are the president of the United States, you have to have an 80% consensus of the population to make a change.
And right now, Trump's problem is the population, all of us, whether corporate, investor, general population, is not willing to be reasonable.
And it's certainly not willing to be economically reasonable.
And it's not just them, it's all of us.
So let's use healthcare.
Healthcare is one of my favorites.
So pharmaceutical companies are not willing to be subject to market forces, insurance companies are not willing to be subject to market forces.
The general population is not willing to be subject to any rules or discipline about a healthy diet or a healthy lifestyle, right?
And it, you know, don't even start me on the whole medical industry.
So you have, if you look at the entire ecosystem around the ecosystem, you know, to a certain extent, the only way to make a sensible healthcare system is to say, okay, for the next five years, everybody pays cash.
Because that would bring us back to reality very, very quickly.
But if you look at a history of, You know, civilizations and rising, falling, sugar addiction will kill a civilization.
It will destroy a civilization.
Now, Switzerland has paid $6,000 a year for their health care.
We pay $9,000 a year.
Right.
Okay.
And I assure you, you know, go toodle around Switzerland, they're a lot healthier than we are.
Yeah.
So now the Europeans pay a lot more for food per year on their family budget than we do, which is why I say you can pay it on the front end and back end.
But the reality is, if you're Paul Ryan or Donald Trump and you're trying to broker an economic deal on health care for the country, How are you going to do that when the entire ecosystem, both corporate, financial, and general population, is not willing to change and behave in economic ways, whether in business or in their management of their own health?
Well, it's a great point.
Truth vs Transhumanist Dystopia00:03:10
And we'll pick up on that on the other side of this break, along with the looming fact that entrainment and mind control are the ways and means that many covert groups have decided work best on us.
And the alternative to Trump's America First attitude.
Really is a dystopian vision of transhumanist policies that will allow the empire to become even more anti human.
Last round here of part two coming up with Catherine Austin Fitz.
You're watching Dark Journalist.
Stay with us.
Dark Journalist.
Go for Truth in 2017.
The deepest questions.
The biggest secrets.
The darkest mysteries.
Dark Journalist.
Go for Truth.
With top guests like Graham Hancock.
Graham, how do we as a society escape the grip of the deep state in the 21st century?
Rather than spending trillions of dollars every year on building up our armies and our weapons of mass destruction and creating a climate of hatred and fear and suspicion, we should be uniting as a human race.
Catherine Austin Fitz.
Catherine, what is the issue that's holding us?
Back and destroying prosperity.
We have a system which has got a negative return on investment, it's killing human productivity, and where it's going is inhuman.
Linda Moulton Howe.
Linda, you've been fighting against secrecy your whole life.
How are we doing in this battle?
There is a kind of energy and synergy that you and I have because we are both trying so hard in so many facets to get to the bottom of what is the truth.
Dark journalist.
Go for truth.
Visit darkjournalist.com and subscribe now for a special spring discount, available for just $39 for one full year.
You'll receive exclusive member benefits, including access to the complete high quality audio archives to stream or download at your convenience, and subscriber only content, including bonus show material.
Sign up for our free newsletter to stay updated on the latest shows.
Dark Journalist, this is the year, now is the time.
You know, we need dark journalists, so just keep doing what you're doing.
Join us now and go for truth.
And we are back.
This is Dark Journalist, and I'm speaking with former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Catherine Austin Fitts.
Now, Catherine worked in the Bush Senior Administration and also under President Clinton.
Her skirmishes while trying to bring transparency in government are really a great study in accountability versus greed.
Of course, she's also a financial expert, and you can go to Solari.com to find a number of things that she offers there.
You know, I think her quarterly wrap up.
Reports are essential reading just to get a handle on things locally and around the globe.
And it's just amazing stuff.
Now, Catherine, I wanted to finish off something that you were saying about health.
And I've heard you basically say this before, which is that our health has largely been politicized so that being healthy actually means something different.
Right.
Well, and the other thing is we don't need healthcare insurance, we need healthcare.
Independent Media Under Attack00:15:39
Yeah.
I mean, layering in insurance just adds a whole markup that we don't need.
You know, and then in fact, we don't need health care.
We need health.
Now, if you look at what we're doing, so if I spray my population with heavy metals every day, day in, day out, don't you think that's going to raise health care costs?
Yeah.
Yeah.
So, I mean, if you especially in secret, yeah.
Well, that's why this, you know, if there's anything killing the U.S. federal budget, it's secrecy.
In 2013, I was getting a whole lot of questions.
About the budget.
So I thought I would sit down and write, you know, the basic problem with the budget, you know, financing two civilizations, people in a state of denial, plugging the hole with debt as opposed to changing.
It's called Coming Clean Beyond the Fiscal Cliff, and it's still.
Oh, I have it, yes.
You know, it's the same issues today.
So here's why you can't blame Congress for this Congress cannot broker, and the president cannot broker consensus if the country doesn't have a consensus.
And the country can't have a consensus if it's in a state of complete denial.
Yeah.
And I'm telling you, this country, we are in a state of complete denial.
Well, this is really the crux of the matter, in some sense.
This denial that things happen as they do in our public world, often due to covert forces using hidden means.
But, you know, if we track the culpability for things that we see, like drug trafficking, for example, how can we assign responsibility when we're talking about black budget operations?
The president is not doing the narcotics trafficking in every neighborhood in America.
Right.
And yes, are the U.S. intelligence agencies and enforcement agencies responsible?
Yeah.
Is the US military culpable?
Yeah.
But if you look at who's doing the narcotics trafficking and who's facilitating the money laundering in my county, in your county, you know, this is a bigger operation than the auto industry.
Yeah.
Pull out your phone book and look at how many people are involved in autos, you know, auto parts, auto repair, you know, auto distribution.
Okay.
So we're in it.
I'm telling you, the deep denial is real.
Wow.
Well, that is pretty intense.
Okay, well, let's look at it this way.
Let's say that our only tool for breaking this denial is the kind of awareness that you're talking about that we can bring in alternative media, dark journalism, independent analysis.
Let's look at how we get to this kind of larger public awareness.
What kind of an independent media could do that?
What would it look like?
Generally, the strength of the corporate media has been resources that are held to a high standard of fact finding.
Where facts are called for.
Yeah.
Okay.
So I subscribe to the Financial Times.
I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal.
I subscribe to The Economist.
I'm an investment advisor.
I need to know what the official line is, you know, but I would say they do a very good job of sleuthing out and doing a lot of analysis because they have the kind of intellectual resources to do it.
And so I find them very strong on certain kinds of subjects.
Where the corporate media fails is in.
Material emissions.
So, as long as you're operating within the official reality, you know, so if I want to know about the Westinghouse Toshiba Southern Company fight over the nuclear reactors, they're great about sleuthing out a lot of information and getting a lot of data and handling the complexity of it.
If I want to find out what happened to 9 11, they're completely useless because the official story is you can't touch that.
You know, the official story is a bunch of Devout Muslim who drink and hang out with babes in bars.
Yeah, right.
You know, turn planes at high speed and do that all by themselves with $400,000 financing.
You know, I couldn't run my company in Washington for two weeks with $400,000.
So, you know, these are pretty amazing guys.
Yeah, right.
So, where they fall down is material emission.
They're guilty of massive material emission.
And where the independent media is strong is collecting up and sorting through information on material emission.
Now, the problem is.
You know, the independent media has not been good at saying my favorite three words I don't know.
Right.
You know, so when we don't have the resources or the access for, you know, to information that we need, you know, we're good at sort of collecting it up over time between all the different efforts, but it's kind of a pattern recognition neural network, if you will.
So it's very organic and messy.
We're not good at saying, look, we don't know, we're engaging in total speculation here.
And, you know, so one of my favorite expressions is Joseph Farrell's, you know, high octane speculation.
And he's very good, you know, he's an Oxford scholar.
So he knows you can't wait.
I worked on Wall Street, and the guy with 3% information was rich compared to the guy who had 1% information because we never had 100% information.
We had to do an act on 3%.
And so your edge was getting 3% when the other guys had 1%.
Anyway, so we have to engage in speculation, but we need to describe it as such.
And the reality is the independent media has been going through a process where.
They're trying to present all sorts of certainty that is just not founded in the evidence we need.
Well, it makes all the difference.
To me, there are strengths and weaknesses in both.
And so I think, to me, the number one mistake you can make is material omission.
George Orwell said, you know, he had a great comment on.
Material emission is the greatest lie.
So I like the independent media because they're not engaged in material emissions, but they can create quite a mess and they can go way off the rails.
Now, if you look at the corporate media like CNN, I don't know if you've seen the latest picture.
There's a picture going around the internet of a pipe coming out of the toilet on the second floor and coming down and plugging into the TV, and it says CNN Network News.
Oh, yeah.
Well, that says it all right there.
Right.
So, CNN is just so.
It's, well, you feel like you're watching The Onion do a spoof on CNN and you realize, wait, no, this really is CNN.
So, you know, CNN is just writing fiction.
I mean, they've just become sci fi.
Absolutely.
And we can certainly add The Washington Post to that, too.
My experience with The Washington Post is The Washington Post is a criminal enterprise.
You know, I will tell you my personal Washington Post stories.
But I used to sit in my office in Washington and I, you know, I was a budget.
I was dealing with money.
So I was running the second largest property disposition operation in the country, the largest mortgage insurance operation in the world.
Every day is budget, money, budget, money, budget, money.
And I'm like looking at the federal budget and negotiating with OMB on the budget.
And then I'm reading the Washington Post and there's, you know, they're like yakety, yakety, yak.
And I realized this is completely like a distraction.
It's just a movie, it's got nothing to do with.
You know, reality's in the budget, and this is just, yeah, It's just.
Well, they came up with that proper not list of journalists, independent journalists, alternative media sites that were in collusion with the Kremlin.
And it turned out proper not, they published this in the Washington Post.
And it wasn't the Washington Post was taking big ad revenues from the Russians?
They were, and they were advertorials from the Russians.
So, making a lot of money.
And they never mentioned that.
No, they never mentioned it.
But Proper Knot, when I did a little investigation on them, their tagline was serving the public with transparent something since 2016.
Cook that one up.
So they just created Proper Knot out of whole cloth, just out of the blue.
And then, six weeks later, the Washington Post said, Well, when we did that article, we relied on a company called Proper Knot, and we can no longer verify that they have accurate information.
Well, there goes your whole story.
And so technically, I think all 200 of those sites could have sued the Washington Post.
But they had sites on there.
I mean, they had Zero Hedge, of course, on there.
But one of the sites was like UFO Explorer.
I mean, they were just going after, you know, really odd stuff.
And that told me that they wanted to test out the whole maybe the way to get rid of the alternative media is to say they're all a bunch of Russian backed guys, just like the whole Trump thing.
You know, this was their weird plan.
And it was a really weird plan.
I mean, it came like out of the dungeon of the CIA.
Our challenge is, and this gets back to the red button problem that I've always talked about, you know, what the media wants and what the audience wants is the story of I am good.
No question.
You know, it's the emperor.
The emperor has no clothes.
You know, I look great.
And we are literally having, it's becoming impossible to look at ourselves.
You know, so you can literally go to a march where people are saying they in Washington are bad, but meantime they got a JPMorgan Chase credit card in their pocket and they're banking at Citibank.
And, you know, if I were to go through their income sheet and balance sheet, they're getting a scholarship from a university.
Whose endowment is financing it by doing all the shenanigans they're marching against and they refuse to look at themselves.
Right.
You know, it's like every time I hear Elizabeth Warren, you know, shriek about something, I'm like, hey, babes, you know, your check comes from the Harvard endowment.
Who do you think is doing this?
Have you come clean yet?
You know, look at her finances, look at her holdings.
Nobody's coming clean.
So, You know, go through your own money and look at your own complicity and just come clean in and of yourself.
I don't know.
The media keeps trying to tell us the story of I am good, but look, they've lost, they've literally lost their own minds because they can't tell the difference between.
I mean, for the Washington Post to forget to mention the fact that they're taking ass from the Russians.
Yeah, right.
It's like where they're accusing all of these, you know, independent media of, you know, Shilling for the Russians.
Well, how dangerous is that anti Russian, anti Putin push they have going on?
I think it's very dangerous.
I think this is exceptionally, what is going on is exceptionally dangerous.
You cannot rule a planet by force alone.
And if you look at the sort of the push that we're on right now, we're saying we can run it with force, we can run it with mind control, we can run it with legal.
Force.
We can run it with military and physical force.
We can run it with false flags.
We can run it.
You know, Mattis said in his testimony described, you know, the more we fail at soft power, the more bullets I have to buy.
So we are failing at soft power, and Trump was starting to return us to some kind of hope of winning at the soft power game.
If you look at the U turn he's taking, it looks like we're back to diving off the board.
And Unfortunately, we are conceding a lot in soft power.
Russia has played the soft power card beautifully.
Oh, there's no denying that.
And here's why facts matter.
Facts matter.
And the law matters.
And right now, you have the Russians doing a much better job on the international stage of promoting that notion.
Now, The central banking warfare model depends on financial liquidity.
Financial liquidity depends on a belief in the rule of law.
The minute the general population stops believing in the rule of law and you depend entirely on force, your price earnings ratios are going to shrink from 15 or 20 down to one.
So you're talking about a serious financial liquidity problem.
And if you look at what's happening with the economy, Daniel, what I see everywhere all over the world is people pulling back and pulling back and pulling back.
And they're trying to get away from something which is inhuman.
So, to me, the big question here is not about the US administration or the war.
The big question is are we going to have a human or inhuman civilization?
That is the question.
And right now, the central banking warfare model team does not see a way of getting from here to there without promoting an inhuman civilization, including using digital technology to basically run a mind controlled, chipped, Slavery population.
You know, when the various people say this is, you know, they want slavery, it's true.
This is the real issue.
Yeah.
The real issue, and I didn't use it for my variables in the scenario design because I thought it was too abstract.
Okay.
But the real issue here is are we going to be a human or inhuman civilization?
And if we're going to be an inhuman civilization, then you can kiss financial liquidity goodbye.
Because You're going to destroy the entrepreneurial and innovation impulse of most of the population.
Now, if you think you can do this with, you know, 100 million people globally or 500 million people, which they may believe they can.
Yeah.
But then you're talking about, you know, so two scenarios are massive depopulation andor slavery.
Not very good options.
You know, so that's where force gets you.
You can't run a planet this big with fake news, fake science.
Fake intel and rules.
It's just not, it's never operationally.
It just, I've built and run businesses.
It's too complicated.
It's too hard.
It doesn't work, even with robots.
You were talking about, you know, this is the kind of plan that billionaires who've had too much wine come up with.
Join the Fight for Truth00:01:42
No doubt Bill Gates is in his robe and in his internet living room dreaming of robot bodyguards and he's going to need them.
Now, Catherine, just amazing.
And we'll end part two here.
In part three, That's where we'll go deep into the full transhumanist dystopic vision that's already underway and what's really at stake here.
Now, we let part two here out to the public because of all the geopolitical things going on, North Korea, et cetera.
Part three is for subscribers only, and you can actually become a subscriber at darkjournalist.com.
Now's the time to become a member and stay informed.
Catherine's latest Solari report, The Global Harvest, at solari.com.
Catherine, just amazing information.
Thank you so much for coming back.
It's great to see you.
It's great to see you.
Take care of yourself.
You know, there's a lot of.
Yes, a lot of.
There's a lot of central banking model leadership running around where you are.
Oh, that's a great point.
Thank you for joining me for this fascinating episode on Empire Endgame Digital Slave Population with former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Catherine Austin Fitz.
You can find more deep interviews, special reports, and documentaries at www.darkjournalist.com.
You can also subscribe to our YouTube channel to receive the latest videos.
See you soon.
Subscribe to our newsletter at darkjournalist.com to stay updated on the latest shows.