Today, Dan and Jordan embark on an adventure that is probably a very dumb idea: covering the entirety of Alex Jones' very stupid "documentary" Endgame. Dan found approximately 130 specific instances of Alex either lying or "playing with the truth," so this could take a while. In this first episode, the gents learn that Alex doesn't know what "quote" means, but he does love Nazi propaganda films.
For everybody who's checking us out and watching this who doesn't listen to our podcast, we do a podcast where we cover Alex Jones and deconstruct a lot of the bullshit that he says.
And today we are rewarding or punishing our listeners one way or the other.
Oh, some of the narratives that we're going to run into, some of the things Alex Jones says that we're going to discuss, we have discussed on past episodes of the podcast.
And then the other thing is that Alex Jones, I mean, he talks a lot about how he came up reading encyclopedias that his dad had, and he loved encyclopedias.
So all I'm doing is trying to garner a healthy level of pity before we get into this to say that I had to dig through that mud to get to a lot of this stuff.
It turns out that what he was talking about was that there was a massive change that needed to happen in the world because you had masses of undereducated, underemployed youth and the problem was only going to get worse.
It was going to necessitate It was just inevitable.
We'd have to change if we were going to have any hope for most people to be able to continue living.
And when that change comes, many will resist it.
But what Alex is doing here is that he's cutting pieces of the quote out while he's reading the quote.
Here, from the actual text of H.G. Wells' book, you'll hear what he's cutting out.
Quote, So what he's saying here is he's...
What Alex is...
Conveniently cut out are the people who specifically H.G. Wells is saying will be against this new world order of equity where people are able to survive.
These people, specifically Maharajas, which is kings, millionaires, Pukka Sahibs, which is a term that colonialists made people call them.
The British, in particular, when they colonized Burma, they made the Burmese people call them Puka Sahibs, which basically translated to pure white gentlemen.
And pretty ladies, you know, that's just a term of the time for, like, social elite, high class dames.
And you've got to understand H.G. Wells is also British, so lady isn't just woman, it's a term of...
And he's very cryptic and spooky about it, and that he has some guy from Europe, who he doesn't know who it is, who sends him a list of attendees every year.
So for many years, Jim Tucker has written for a publication called The Spotlight, and that is a publication that the Anti-Defamation League is referred to as very anti-Semitic.
Their editorial position is one of Holocaust denial.
So in 1985, William F. Buckley brought a $16 million defamation lawsuit against the spotlight, and the judges found that at least two of the charges raised by Buckley constituted libel.
The first one was that the Liberty Lobby's charge that the National Review had promoted the right of militant sex deviants to molest small children by publishing both sides of the home.
And then the second one that constituted libel that this Spotlight publication was involved in was that they repeatedly claimed that the National Review had surrendered its editorial independence to Zionist financial power through a deal with the ADL.
And they found that there was no proof of that and that that constituted libel.
I just don't like it that people, whenever they do this type of shit, I'm already angry.
We're a minute and 57 seconds in.
Ladies and gentlemen, get ready for the 12 and a half hour long episode of the Dumbass Endgame documentary.
Yeah.
But I hate it whenever people are just like, oh, yeah, it's the Southern Poverty Law Center that has been brokering this deal between Iran and the secret patriots within the government.
You're like, well, just look at what they do.
Like, pick somebody who does that.
Like, if he said Goldman Sachs is negotiating the deal, I'd be like, yeah, Goldman Sachs negotiates those fucking deals, not the Anti-Defamation League.
The New World Order that Bush was talking about is basically this.
For decades, the Cold War had been creating unsustainable tension between the US and the USSR, which made it pretty much impossible for the UN to function properly.
The two largest powers in the group were at odds with each other, and they would constantly look to face off with each other in proxy wars.
Bush announces in that speech that he had engaged in talks with Gorbachev in Helsinki.
Quote, Yeah, it is pretty funny in hindsight.
A new partnership of nations has begun, and we stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment.
And then he gets into the point where he says the new world order.
You know, they could have saved a ton of problems with the conspiracy communities if people had just been mindful and said, like, fresh international paradigm.
As opposed to New World Order.
You know what I'm saying?
It would have been so much easier if they just used those terms.
So that was Gary Hart, and I only want to pause here really quick because I think that using Gary Hart as someone who's pointing the finger at the Bushes...
He was the front-runner on the Democratic side, and at that point, it had been like 100 years since an incumbent VP had been elected president, and so it seemed really likely that he had a fast-track to the presidency, and George H.W. Bush screwed him over royally.
And so he probably just hates him.
Also, in 1998, Bill Clinton put Gary Hart on a national security board that did a study.
It was a bipartisan U.S. Commission on National Security in the 21st century.
So he has a lot of awareness of national security issues and what have you.
He probably had access to those warnings that, you know, bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S. again, because in the lead-up to September 11th, he was going around being like, everyone, you need to take this fucking seriously.
Erected by a secretive group, the Georgia Guidestones are a testament to the elite's plan for a world religion, global laws, for the global court and army to enforce it.
So for those of you who don't know what the Georgia Guidestones are, they were built in 1980, and the funding came from a guy who was using the nom de plume, the fake name R.C. Christian, which has led a bunch of conspiracy theorists to believe that he was a member...
So R.C. Christian, when he came and, like, talked to the Quarry people, he said that he represented an organization that wanted to help create Age of Reason.
And so a lot of people have speculated that there's two possibilities.
I believe that there's two possibilities that are possible at all.
The first is that it's a well-funded performance piece of art.
Or two, I think it's entirely possible that this guy going by the name R.C. Christian was a front for a sort of apocalyptic group that believed that disaster was imminent and knew that this land in Georgia was not going to be flooded immediately by rising waters.
But the more likely thing is like this is the way I would I would assess it.
They erected this monument to serve as a message to future survivors of this disaster that they saw coming so that these survivors could avoid some of the things that got us into trouble and hindered our ability to save ourselves from whatever disaster was coming.
Okay.
Misguided or not, it seems like that might be the motivation.
So one of the things that's also important to keep in mind is that R.C. Christian, pretty soon after the building of the Georgia Guidestones, bequeathed them to Albert County, Georgia, who currently owns the monument.
But the fact that the county owns it now means that if people really did believe it was some work of satanic nonsense, like Mark Dice and Alex Jones, definitely believe.
Anytime Alex's credit is he's a published, I'm like, give me a name and then give me the one thing and then tell me exactly how many hundred copies it's all.
Because it didn't fucking sell a goddamn thing and this guy's a lunatic.
Information about Michael Kaufman online is pretty scarce.
He did die in 2017.
According to InfoWars...
Websites like him, like Alex Jones' websites, he is responsible for getting the word out about Agenda 21 and the globalists' plan to take over the United States land.
That was when my eyes were opened to the fact that it was politics driving the science and not the other way around.
Now, I would say that the most likely real-life explanation here is he did a terrible job on this study, and that the advisory board told him he needed to redo it because he forgot a variable or something along those lines, because acid rain is an actual problem.
I think more likely this story is apocryphal and not real.
I think he's just talking shit.
Because the pH balances of soil, all sorts of shit, is really thrown off by acid rain.
So the idea that he was told to falsify his findings about acid rain is completely unbelievable, except possibly as a situation where the paper company he was working for wanted him to change his findings, but that doesn't make sense because they would be more interested in what he actually claimed to have found, that acid rain wasn't a problem, because then they could pollute more and all that shit.
But also he used to put out a newsletter, the Ron Paul Report, that frequently contained really fucked up stuff.
Here's one example.
About the L.A. riots, he said, Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after the rioting began.
My assessment is that either this is him lying about what he's written in the past or a completely unacceptable level of awareness to have about something that has your fucking name on it.
You go back throughout all of history, the Roman Empire, the Soviet Union, Hitler during the Nazism was always saying that it's going to create utopia for the average person.
One of them, Genghis Khan, was incredibly successful.
You know, one of the big reasons why is because He allowed himself or the Khan Empire to be absorbed by local populations and took them on and allowed their cultural traditions to reign.
So if Alex just wants to say that, like, banks fund munition businesses and stuff like that, or they have investments in that, like, I'm not going to fight you on that.
If you're not watching this video, when he said sophisticated, it was three paintings of a guy at a door with his hand over his ear like, what's going on here?
June 1815, agents of the British arm of the Rothschild family looked on as Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte fought desperately to save his army from the jaws of a British Prussian pincer attack.
A Rothschild agent was able to get the news of Napoleon's defeat at the hands of Lord Wellington to Nathan Rothschild, a full 20 hours before the news reached London.
As it turns out, the entire idea of Nathan de Rothschild having early information about Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo, using said information to crash the stock market, then buying up everything at a reduced price is an absolute instance of anti-Semitic propaganda.
A pamphlet written under the pen name Satan began circulating around Europe.
The pamphlet told the story of how Nathan de Rothschild was physically at Waterloo and saw the crushing of the French army firsthand.
He knew he could use this to his advantage, so he did everything that he could to rush back to England, paying copious amounts of money to a fisherman to take him through a storm to do so.
He manages to arrive in London 24 hours before the news of the French loss and use the information to make 20 million francs.
Satan was the pen name of George Darren Vale, an enemy of the Rothschilds, specifically, and Jews in general.
The pamphlet was written in 1846, and Nathan had died in 1836, so he was not around to deny the claims.
So, even though Nathan had died ten years before this pamphlet was written, it's still possible to look at the claims made and determine if they're false.
It can be proven that Nathan was not at Waterloo.
He was absolutely somewhere else.
And that there was no stock market crash for him to exploit when the news of Napoleon's defeat had come in.
I'll post links to graphs that show the progress of the stock market around the time.
So as pieces of this story from the Satan pamphlet were debunked, the story began to change.
For example, when it was proved that Nathan could not have been at Waterloo that day, the story became that he had a quick messenger who got him the information.
So you get around these little things.
It's much like what Alex did with Loose Change, where when pieces of his Loose Change documentary got debunked, He just changed them into something else.
The evidence that people cite to verify this conspiracy is incredibly thin.
There's a London Courier newspaper article from June 20th, 1815, which is two days after the Battle of Waterloo, which states Rothschild has made great purchases of stock.
However, this is a forgery of the original newspaper.
Those words do not appear in the real surviving copies of the newspaper, but instead originate in the writing of a Scottish historian named Archibald Allison from 1848, two years after the Satan pamphlet circulated.
So, however, there's one piece of real shit, right?
A month after Waterloo, a bank employee in Paris wrote Nathan a letter that said, I'm informed by a commissary white that you have done well in the early information which you had.
Now, to put that in context...
Fresh evidence has surfaced, which allows us to finally put the story in its proper context.
Newspapers published in the week of Waterloo make it clear that the first person to bring authentic news of the victory at Waterloo to London was not Nathan Rothschild.
Rather, it was a man who had learned of it in a Belgian city called Ghent and made a dash to England.
It was published in at least three newspapers that afternoon.
We also know that the news report written for one of these papers referred to Nathan Rothschild receiving a letter from Ghent from one of his information sources who had heard Mr. C of Dover talking, reported the victory, and of him passing the news on to the government.
That's the first thing that he did.
Though this was noted alongside reports of two other similar letters that other people who aren't named and vilified by history...
But in the thin market of the period, it could not have been enough to accumulate holdings sufficient to earn him the millions that the Satan pamphlet wrote about.
Nor did he manipulate the market to double his gains.
For, contrary to legend, there was no slump in stock prices that Wednesday.
Nathan Rothschild may have done well in the purchases of stocks that rose sharply following the confirmation of the victory, but his gains were dwarfed by those of numerous rival investors who, without any advantage of early information, had bought key government securities earlier, more cheaply, and in quantity.
200 years on from the Waterloo, then not much is left of safety.
It's just possible to see the factual elements upon which a vivid myth was built.
So he retells the story of Nathan Rothschild manipulating the British market for his own gain, wherein Bill asserts that Nathan's courier, who brought him the information about Waterloo, was named Ruthworth.
The only historical reference you can find for the name Ruthworth in this context is he is the name of the courier character in the 1940 Nazi propaganda film The Rothschild's Share at Waterloo.
Since about 1800, they have funded both sides of almost every war.
And of course...
They're getting the interest off of the loans that they've given the various governments and the wars that they have actually helped stimulate and create.
Real quick, I want to just pause again there real quick to really put a button on what they're saying.
Like, the idea that there are banks that make a profit off of selling and investing in munitions companies and stuff like that is very real, and that's something that needs to be dealt with.
I agree with you principally, but the thing that I wanted to bring up is the effect of what they're doing is pitching this narrative wherein the two belligerent actors in a war aren't really to blame.
It's these not-Jewish banks who are manipulating them into fighting so they can be put into debt or whatever.
And I just want to be super clear about this.
This is out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
This is actually a very famous mistake that a lot of people have made.
That photo is not Gavrilo Princip.
This is from a book called The Trigger, Hunting the Assassin Who Brought the World to War by Tim Butcher.
The picture is not Gavrilo Princip.
It fits so well with the narrative of a desperate assassin that countless historians, reporters, broadcasters, and filmmakers have claimed that the subject is Princip.
It is not.
The subject of the picture is actually an innocent bystander, a man named Ferdinand Baer, who was caught up in the sweep of arrests following the shooting.
This is very easy to find in the fact that Alex Jones is presenting it in here as Princip is embarrassing.
So most of the claims that the Black Hand was deeply involved in the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand come from testimony provided in the treason trial against Serbian military intelligence chief Dragutin Dmitrijevic.
who historians believe was exaggerating the role that the black hand Yeah,
seep and his accomplices with some weapons and allowed them to travel freely to uh sarajevo gavrilo and his crew were the ones who planned it and they were not part of some massive international conspiracy so it was more like they just went to them to buy guns yeah they were motivated by a hatred of the austro-hungarian empire who had been oppressing and destroying their homeland not unreasonable the situation in late 1800s early 1900s was a complete mess in the
Never heard that story before?
Never.
Never.
At the time of Princip, the South Slavs had recently been part of the Ottoman Empire, but their land had been taken over by the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the 1870s.
Meanwhile, Serbia had gained its independence from the Ottoman Empire in the late 1860s and had abolished feudalism.
So it sat there as like this shining example of self-rule that was possible if only one fought for it.
So as he traveled the country on foot in order to reach the train that would take him to Sarajevo, where he went on to get an education, he witnessed the feudal plight of all of the neighboring communities, be they Croat, Serb, or Muslim.
Everyone's plight was connected and was the result of the oligarchs, the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
In college, he met with a bunch of radicals, and having witnessed the relative freedom of Sarajevo, they planned to free their homes from the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
I think assassinating a leader is still wrong, but it is fascinating to look at, like, you have one kid from a small town who went, got radicalized, assassinated a leader, triggered a world war that ended up being so mishandled it led to a second world war.
Right.
It's insane, the chain of events that were set in place by just oppressing one family.
Oh, also, just real quick, neither him nor Michael Kaufman ever proves any of the things that they're asserting about World War I being specifically to get countries into debt and control them.
That's not in the bibliography anywhere, it's just asserted.
Also, if it was, the aftermath of World War I would prove that was a terrible idea because of that idea that we put everybody into debt caused World War II.
Like, the reason that we didn't have a World War III was actually more likely because we forgave so much debt that the Germans and the Japanese had accrued over the time and said, you know what?
We're going to do a clean slate.
You guys start over, and in fact, we're going to help you rebuild.
It turns out that if you want to not fight world wars, you don't...
Punish the people who had nothing to fucking do with it.
It's not like the German people are like, oh, sanctions are really working out to keep us from fighting a war.
The complex world that was going on pre-World War I and all of the many factors that led to the tragedy of a very unnecessary world war, it's insulting to them to say, like, no, it was just a bunch of weird elites wanted a League of Nations.
President Woodrow Wilson, who had spearheaded the establishment of the private Federal Reserve System in the United States in 1913, strongly supported the establishment of the League of Nations.
It matches up with an apocryphal story about Woodrow Wilson, wherein a campaign manager-type fella is walking down the street and he sees him and he says, You look like...
The USSR didn't join because they were a totalitarian government and were not invited.
They would be added to the League later, but were kicked out in 1939 because they invaded Finland.
As for Germany, the rest of the world blamed Germany for starting World War I, so of course they weren't allowed to join the League of Nations when it was formed after World War I. Which was a bad idea!
They were admitted in 1926, but Hitler withdrew in 1933, shortly after he became Chancellor, and we know where that went.
And he's like, what we need to do is get away from all of these international treaties and all of this stuff.
And we need to make sure that we're not...
In any way responsible for their actions or anything like that, usually that's like a power grab and then it will eventually be pushed outwards, right?
Frustrated by the U.S. Congress blocking the League of Nations, British intelligence, with the help of the Rockefeller family, set up the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City in 1921.
The Council recruited the best and brightest of American life to support the growth of the Anglo-American Empire.
The CFR's stated mission is to abolish all nation states in favor of an all-powerful world government.
Actually, their stated purpose on their website is very clear.
The Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher dedicated to being a resource for its members, government officials, business executives, journalists, educators, students, civic and religious leaders, and other interested citizens in order to help them better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other countries.
CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.
CFR carries out its mission by maintaining a diverse membership, including special programs to promote interest and develop expertise into the next generation of foreign policy leaders.
They go on to explain that after the difficult negotiations of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, a group of diplomats, financiers, generals, and lawyers concluded that Americans needed to be better prepared for significant responsibilities and decisions in world affairs and sought to be that educational voice.
Well, one of the things that really scares a lot of these conspiracy weirdos like Alex about this, like, destroying borders and uniting one-world government, is they often cite this 2006 op-ed posted on the CFR's own website, written by the president of the council himself, Richard Haas.
The basic argument is as follows.
The world's 190 plus states now coexist with a larger number of powerful non-sovereign and at least partly And often largely independent actors ranging from corporations to non-governmental organizations, from terrorist groups to drug cartels, from regional and global institutions to banks and private equity funds.
The sovereign state is influenced by them, for better and for worse, as much as it is able to influence them itself.
The near monopoly of power once enjoyed by sovereign states is being eroded.
Not by some sort of evil, nefarious plan, but just by the rising power of...
Well, inasmuch as we're able to communicate better, there's a freer flow of literally everything across the entire world, and it takes away from the power of states to be able to...
Or if you let your people go overseas and experience it themselves, like what happened with Gavrilo Princip going to Sarajevo.
So he goes on, he talks a bit about this idea of needing to redefine what a lot of our national ideas are.
This is a quote from his op-ed.
Our notion of sovereignty must therefore be conditional, even contractual rather than obsolete.
If a state fails to live up to its side of the bargain by sponsoring terrorism, either transferring or using weapons of mass destruction or conducting genocide, then it forfeits the normal benefits of sovereignty and opens itself up to attack, removal, or occupation.
The diplomatic challenge for this era is to gain widespread support for principles of state conduct and a procedure for determining remedies when these principles are violated.
The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for an era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.
The basic idea of sovereignty, which still provides a useful constraint on violence between states, needs to be preserved, but the concept needs to be adapted to a world in which the main challenges to order come from what global forces do to states and what governments do to states.
That's a very, very reasonable position put out very clearly by the leader of the Council on Foreign Relations.
So if you understand what he just said, he said by 1930, this powerful world-controlling group had split into the Fabian Socialists, the Fabian Society, and fascists in Europe.
So from an 1883 meeting articulating their goal, quote, We, recognizing the evils and wrongs that must beset men so long as our social life is based upon selfishness, rivalry, and ignorance, and desiring above all things to supplant it by a love based upon unselfishness, Love and wisdom unite for the purpose of realizing the higher life among ourselves and of inducing and enabling others to do the same.
And we now form ourselves into a society to be called the guild or fellowship of the new God, that sounds a lot like cosplay.
So the Fellowship of New Life was very strictly about internal transformation of the individual.
So when some members wanted to get involved in politics and external affairs, it was decided that they needed to start a new group to do that, and that was where the Fabian Society started, which ended up being the Fabian Socialists.
He became very, very incredibly nationalist, and his fascism went along with that.
And the Nazis grew out of the German Workers' Party, who were, from the jump, a bigoted, anti-Semitic, virulently nationalistic organization.
They hated the Socialist Democratic Party of Germany as well as the Communist Party of Germany.
They thought they were fighting Bolshevism and international Jewry.
By the time Hitler joined up, they were fully anti-democratic, anti-Marxist, anti-liberal organization.
Over Hitler's own objections, the party changed its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party, specifically in order to trick left-wing workers into supporting them.
Supporters of the fascists in the United States and England believed that the military should be used to quickly transform the world into a new world war.
The war hero testified to the McCormick-Dickstein committee in Congress that some of the most powerful men in America had tried to recruit him to lead a military coup so they could set up national socialism in the United States.
unidentified
The End I appeared before the congressional committee The highest representation of the American people under subpoena to tell what I knew of activities which I believe might lead to an attempt to set up a fascist dictatorship.
I was supposed to lead an organization of 500,000 men which would be able to take over the functions of government.
So Smedley Butler was approached by two dudes named Gerald McGuire and Bill Doyle, who are members of the American Legion, who were trying to enlist him on behalf of Wall Street financiers who hated FDR.
They started by appealing to him, because he was a veteran, that they were like, we want you to give a speech to the American Legion convention.
But Butler got suspicious when the speech they wanted him to give was mostly about how they needed to bring back the gold standard.
So he's like, hey, that doesn't seem like what we need to tell these veterans.
He got really suspicious, so he strung them along and insisted on meeting the bank roller of their operation.
We met him, and it's a guy named Robert Sterling Clark, who is the heir to the Singer sewing machine fortune.
Clark was concerned about the destruction of the economy, and he said that he was willing to spend 15 of his $30 million to save the other 15. That's not good math.
So it was finally revealed to Butler that the real reason they were approaching him was that they wanted him to lead an attachment of 500,000 veterans to Washington to overthrow FDR.
He did not go along with it, instead reported the plot to Congress.
In their investigation, the House found that it appeared that his testimony was credible, but there was no evidence whatsoever that merited anything further than compelling McGuire.
to testify, at which point he denied everything.
No one was charged and the House Committee refused to subpoena many of the other people alleged to be involved because their involvement was based on hearsay and second-hand information at best.
So it's a really interesting moment in American history, but the more you look at it, the more it looks like the opposite of what Alex thinks it is.
Well, Maguire told a reporter, quote, Of Alex Jones' fake countercoup that the Patriots did to try and put Trump into power, which puts him on the exact wrong side of this.
He was forced to abdicate because he wanted to marry a woman named Wallace Sampson, who was an American socialite who had been previously divorced twice, and that was not allowed.
He became the Duke of Windsor after he stepped down.
His brother granted him a title.
But he was definitely a Nazi.
But that really only came to the surface after he had actually abdicated.
In late 1937, he visited Germany and met Hitler at the Ober Salzburg resort.
It appears that at the meeting, he was convinced by Hitler that it was in everyone's best interest to side with the Nazis over the communists, and there was nothing to be gained by sitting out and waiting for one side to destroy the other.
However, it's clear that he was never a, quote, full Nazi.
He took residence in France, and in 1940, when the Nazis invaded France, he and Wallace fled to Portugal.
He never rose past having pro-Nazi inclinations, which is horrible on its own, but it wasn't the reason he abdicated.
The reason people think this is the case is because the situation seems so bizarre that someone would step down as the king because they loved someone and wanted to marry them.
It's just so stupid that the reason that the king is the head of the Church of England is because he wanted to do worse crimes than what the king had to step down.
Second thing I discovered in my research is that the reason John D. Rockefeller had this land is because his son Nelson Rockefeller put an option on it because there was a guy named William Zeckendorf Sr. who owned the land, right?
So he owned this land, this 17 acres in Manhattan, and his original plan for what he was going to do with it was he was going to create a self-contained city in Manhattan.
So what he was going to do, he was going to build 200 walls and an enclosure.
Shortly after the elite established the United Nations as their base in the United States, the newly formed World Council quickly began work on the next phase in their plan, the incremental formation of continental superstates.
You can't say their true intentions without proving it.
Because you can go find the Treaty of London from 1949.
I read the whole thing.
It's a completely benign document.
It even contains such horrors as this.
This is very scary.
Every member of the Council of Europe must accept the principles of the rule of law and of the enjoyment by all persons within its jurisdiction of human rights.
We destroy each other and then the people who are left to pick up the pieces are like, well, it's a good idea to collaborate.
We start to build stuff again.
And then when we're in a comfortable enough place where the war is far enough away for most people to have forgotten about it, then you start getting rabble rousers like an asshole like Alex Jones or like all of those guys who are going to say, well, you know.
And that winds up leading to that other side of that fucking conflict that's going to last for goddamn ever.
And then after everybody's done with that, the people who are left to pick up the pieces are going to try and put together everything.
They're going to come together.
They're going to try and build something that's going to be comfortable for them enough.
And then once enough time has passed and many people have forgotten about the fucking horrors of the past, then they're going to start this whole fucking shit over again, Dan.
And then the teacher maybe sat you down and was like, hey guys, you're good at this.
You're good at this.
Why don't you guys work together on stuff?
And you start working together and you realize that you're getting something done together and all of a sudden you realize you don't actually hate this person that you're in a group project with and you grow through it.
I read the entire speech that he gave, and he went on to say, Mr. Chairman, I'm here to testify in favor of Senate Resolution 56, which, if concurrently enacted with the House, would make a peaceful transition of the United Nations into a world federation, the avowed aim of the United States policy.
The passage of this resolution seems to me the first prerequisite towards the development of an affirmative American policy which would lead us out of the valley of death and despair.
See, his concern was that the way things were looking in the mid-50s and the Cold War, so many of the world's alliances were based on negative policy.
He went on to say, Warburg goes on to say that the resolution requires literally no further steps from the United States.
It is a broad declaration of purpose and nothing more.
Later, he was questioned about the speech, and the subject of disarmament came up.
And he said this that I thought was really interesting.
I enjoy it.
It's a good way to look at it.
I've never seen any hope in disarmament or limitation of armaments by agreement between sovereign nations or states because all of the treaties between the sovereign nations and states are such that anyone can break them at their convenience.
And the result, the only result is that you give a head start to the aggressor.
Back to this question of the UN and this hearing that Warburg was in.
The Deputy Undersecretary of State for Policy Matters, Dean Rusk, had this to say.
When we turn to the United Nations and its charter, we're conscious of the dominant role which support for the United Nations has played in our foreign policy.
The purposes and principles written into the Charter of the United Nations are, in essence, a summary of the foreign policy of the American people.
We should not underestimate the importance of the fact that these principles, so congenial to us, have been subscribed to by 58 other governments.
The worldwide acceptance of principles which are central to our foreign policy is a tremendous asset which the United States must carefully nourish.
Which is also something that most people don't talk about a lot.
Most of the UN foreign policy is our foreign policy.
That still makes sense for an Alex Jones to hate the United Nations, because if their foreign policy is our foreign policy, well, he hates our foreign policy, too.
So it was mostly about the Soviet Union and whether or not trade would be possible and if we would be able to get behind the Iron Curtain and stuff like that.
Once the EU was established, under the guise of trade deals, a North American union and Asian union would be formed.
The three interlocking super-shows.
states form the core of the global government, while the United Nations would serve as a world regulatory and enforcement body over the third world subregions.
The Bilderberg Group consists of the heads of all of the managing roundtable groups that steer individual countries.
I want to talk really quick about Bilderberg and one of the arguments that Alex is central to his worldview, and that is that they insist on operating in secret, and yet he has tons of fucking articles about them.
He ended up getting interviews with like two or three of the players in the Bilderberg group who were at the meeting in Portugal.
And they explained to him very politely.
Candidly, the reason that they prefer secrecy and don't want reporters to come is because the people who were there would never speak freely if they knew that things were going to be recorded or they were going to be released.
Their stranglehold on information has begun to slip.
unidentified
On the outskirts of the national capital today, black limousines with darkened windows converged on a hotel where private security guards imposed ironclad control.