Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 20, 2012 - InfoWars Nightly News

01:28:44

20121120_Tue_NightlyNews

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	It is the 20th of November, 2012, and we are about to air this amazing interview, over an hour long, with G. Edward Griffin, best-selling author, researcher, and patriot.
	And this is the Collectivist Conspiracy with G. Edward Griffin.
	Tomorrow night, Charlotte Isserby, The deliberate dumbing down.
	She was the number two at the Department of Education under Reagan, and she blows the whistle on the dumbing down tomorrow night.
	Then Russell Means, welcome to the reservation, Thanksgiving evening, and Rosalind Peterson, the chemtrail cover-up Friday.
	And then next week we're back with full Infowars Nightly News.
	But I want to thank all of you for tuning in each night and for your support.
	Here is an amazing interview and breakdown with G. Edward Griffin, the collectivist conspiracy.
	I'm Ed Griffin.
	I'm a writer.
	I write controversial works.
	I think they're very important works.
	I deal with such topics as banking history, health issues, United Nations, U.S.
	foreign policy, kind of topics where people get all heated up because they have strong opinions.
	But I consider myself to be a researcher and I try to be a historian as best I can.
	So I deal with facts, mostly, not in opinions.
	I've been doing this most of my adult life.
	I started becoming interested in issues of this nature in 1959, and by 1960 I was really revved up to it.
	I left my employment with a large insurance company and went in full time in doing writing and speaking on these topics.
	The growth of the Tea Party movement and the left-right paradigm, they're all sort of intertwined, and yet there are very separate intellectual threads that need to be followed in all of that.
	I think, first of all, it's important to talk about and understand this left-right paradigm.
	What is this all about?
	Most of us, including myself for certain, in my younger years I was brought up thinking that you had to choose, if you were smart at least, you would have to choose politically between being on the right or the left.
	You had to have a political view and I thought that in those days I thought that the extreme right would be something like fascism or Nazism and on the extreme left of course you would have Communism, or socialism, just a little bit short of that.
	So that was the paradigm that I was taught, and it seemed to make sense at the time.
	But as I became more involved in these issues and learned more about them, I began to realize that the basic philosophy between the so-called extreme left people, and communists and socialists, and the so-called philosophy on the right of the fascists and the Nazis was really the same.
	How can this be?
	They're supposed to be opposites of each other.
	And then I began to realize that there is something more common to all of these philosophies that was left out of my training and education.
	And that was the ideology of collectivism.
	I began to realize that the thing that was common to them all is something called collectivism.
	Now that's a word that It's not very well used.
	It's not very entrenched in the vocabulary of most people today.
	But I found out that it was a very commonly used word about a century ago.
	People wrote a lot about collectivism, and the opposite of that would be individualism.
	Those are two words that are sort of abandoned today, but in my view, I think they need to be recaptured and understood and used more.
	And I realize that communism and fascism, the so-called opposites, are merely variants of collectivism.
	They're the same thing.
	They believe that the group is more important than the individual, for example, and the individual must be sacrificed, if necessary, for the greater good of the greater number.
	They believe that the state should be all-powerful, and that the people should obey the state for the greater good of the greater number, and all of that sort of thing.
	They believe that rights are granted by the state.
	They're not part of the human being.
	They're not God-given.
	They're not entrenched in his body and soul.
	They have to be granted by the state.
	All of these things, and you look at them one by one, communists and fascists and Nazis and socialists, they all believe that.
	So wherein lies the conflict, you see?
	And I began to question that.
	And I realized that it's partly a trick.
	In fact, I think it's a huge trick, it's a great scam, because people even today are thinking that they have to choose between the right or the left, not realizing that no matter which way they go, they've accepted basically the same ideology underneath.
	Now it's true that the leaders of these groups, like the Stalins of the world, and the Adolf Hitlers of the world, and the Mao Tse Tung's of the world, and so forth, the leaders of these groups on left and right, will fight each other.
	And they will go to war with each other, and there will be tremendous battles, as we saw in World War II, for example.
	But what are they fighting over?
	Ideology?
	Not at all!
	Because they agree on ideology.
	What they're fighting over is dominance.
	Who is going to rule?
	That's all they're fighting over.
	And once you get that picture, historically, it's not too difficult to see that that's the same thing going on even today, as certainly going on in American politics.
	We have the left versus the right sort of embodied today in the Republican Party supposedly on the right and the Democrat Party supposedly on the left.
	Now here's a choice, isn't there?
	Well why is it if this is such a choice that we go from Republicans to Democrats and then four years or eight years later we go back to Republicans again and we keep doing this.
	We've been doing this since World War I. How come the country keeps moving in the same direction all the time?
	Deeper and deeper And deeper into collectivism, regardless of which party is in in favor, because they both believe in collectivism.
	They both believe in big government.
	Their slogans are different.
	Their leaders are different.
	But the poor voter out there trying to make sense of all this is he's tricked.
	He's stuck.
	He's trapped.
	And so this is the important thing to, I think, understand that this left-right paradigm is a political ploy.
	It works very well for those who know what they're doing.
	We find that the Republican Party and the Democrat Party both are pretty much in the hands of a relatively small group of people.
	With a membership of about 4,000, it's called the Council on Foreign Relations.
	These are the people that are really pulling the strings in both the Republican and the Democrat Party.
	And they've even written about it.
	There's a fellow by the name of Carol Quigley, who's a former history professor at Georgetown University.
	By the way, he was the mentor of William Clinton.
	When Clinton was a student there.
	And he wrote several books about this group of people and their origins and their roots coming from Europe and England in particular.
	And he comes to a very interesting point in one of his books where he says, okay, this is the way the real world is.
	He said, how is it that we, collectivists, we elitists, how can we rule the world When at the same time we want to let the average person think that they're living in a, quote, democracy.
	They're living in a system where their vote counts.
	They're living in this world in which they feel that they must participate in their own political destiny.
	This is a carefully nurtured myth.
	That they want to create so people will be content with no matter what happens to them, they'll say, well, I voted for it or I did it.
	This government is my government.
	No matter how bad it is, it's responsible to me.
	And as long as people have that image, then they don't complain so much about how bad it gets because they did it, they think.
	So Quigley deals with this question, how do you let people think that they're directing their own political destiny, when at the same time we, the elite, we are the ones who must direct their political destiny without them knowing it.
	How do you do that?
	And he answers the question brilliantly.
	He said, it's very simple.
	You've got to have two major political parties, and they'll both have the same major goals, the same basic fundamental principles.
	And they'll argue with each other on the surface with slogans and leadership and style and all of that sort of thing.
	He said, but we will control them both.
	There's the strategy.
	There's the whole scam behind this left-right paradigm.
	When you understand this history and this reality, you look at it and you say, well, yes, we've got a left wing and a right wing, but they're just opposite wings of the same ugly bird.
	And that bird is called collectivism.
	So how does that apply to the Tea Party movement that we see today?
	There it is.
	I mean, that's the blueprint.
	The Tea Party movement seems to have been a very genuine, spontaneous movement arising from people who were unhappy With both the Bush administration and the candidacy of Obama.
	They didn't like either one of them.
	They were people who understood more or less, maybe not intellectually and historically, that there was collectivism in both parties, but they understood that something wasn't right and they didn't want more of the same.
	And so the Tea Party movement You know, just think about it.
	What does that mean?
	It goes back to the historical episode where the colonists in Boston dumped the Tea Party into the Boston Bay because it was a protest against the taxes and the restriction of liberties and the Stamp Act and so forth on the part of Great Britain against the colonies.
	And so the Tea Party movement really was a rebellion against big government.
	No matter what camp it came from, whether it came from the Republicans or the Democrats.
	Well, it didn't take long, especially when the Tea Party movement began to gain momentum, and I was privileged to see that because I was invited to participate in some of these early events, and I remember the first event I went to, and maybe they had a couple hundred people, But they were all, you know, dedicated to the principles that made this country great.
	Had nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats.
	Had to do with political philosophy.
	The concept of limited government and the people being in charge, not the government in charge.
	So I saw it start in a small fashion like that.
	And then over the next couple of years it grew and grew and grew until finally it was a very large movement.
	And at this point the political parties The leadership of the political parties began to take very careful note of it.
	They said, wait a minute, this is something we should be doing, because they're experts at orchestrating movements and letting the people think that it's their movement, you see.
	This was a genuine, grassroots, spontaneous movement.
	It had nothing to do in the beginning with political parties.
	Well, the leadership of the parties couldn't let that be, so they both looked at it very carefully, and the Democrats decided that because of the nature and the slogans and so forth, it didn't fit well.
	So they began to attack it.
	They began to try and make it look like it was a bunch of Idiots and wackos and tin hat people and all this sort of thing.
	And the Republicans thought, hmm, this is something we can use.
	And so they started to go into it as best they could and take it over.
	That was their goal to cop it for their for their program.
	And so here we are today looking at this process underway.
	They're still trying very hard to convert the Tea Party movement into a Republican front.
	And I'm sorry to say that they have achieved some success in that direction, primarily because of some very well-known people who are closely aligned with the Republican Party.
	We're talking about the candidate, of course, Sarah Palin, who is a Republican from top to bottom, and she represents this right-wing image.
	She fills the bill perfectly.
	She's this Republican right-wing collectivist.
	And she can speak with great fervor and great emotion and great meaning against the extremes of the Democrats, those bad left-wingers.
	And she does a good job of it.
	And everything she says is true.
	But she doesn't speak out against those bad right-wingers, you see, because she's part of that group.
	Her mission is not to bring about a restoration of the principles of America, but to get the Republicans back into power.
	That's her mission.
	And, of course, we have people like Glenn Beck, who have the power of the Fox broadcasting system behind him.
	That's tremendous power.
	And he's always speaking against those bad left-wing Democrats with great conviction and great fervor and great truth.
	Nothing wrong with what he says.
	What's wrong is what he doesn't say.
	He'll never attack somebody from the Republican Party.
	We've got people like Rush Limbaugh, who plays the same role.
	He's very good at exposing the Democrats.
	He's very good at pointing out the absurdity of the left-wing philosophy.
	But he'll never say anything bad about a right-winger or a Republican.
	So there you have it.
	Of course, on the Democrat side, you've got the same The same team.
	You know, these are the cheerleaders and the players.
	They work together.
	And the average voter gets caught in the middle of this.
	He hasn't any idea what's going on.
	He just thinks that the debate is such that he has to choose.
	Who are you going to vote for?
	Are you going to vote Republican or are you going to vote Democrat?
	And so as long as they're in that role, they're like a tennis ball in a tennis match.
	They get hit back and forth across the net.
	First, they're on the right.
	Bing!
	Then they're back on the left.
	Bing!
	Back there on the right.
	They're Republican.
	They're Democrat.
	And the game goes on and on and on.
	And although it's possible for the players of that game to win, the tennis ball never wins that game.
	So I think it's time for people to stop being tennis balls in this game and just get out of the game completely.
	There are certain issues that people on the left and the right in American politics will never discuss.
	And the reason they won't discuss them is because they agree mutually.
	The Democrats and the Republicans agree on something so they don't want to talk about it in public debate because it reveals the fact that they're basically the same.
	They only talk about things in which they disagree.
	Turns out that the things in which they agree The things in which they disagree are relatively minor.
	So the things in which they agree are, for example, our foreign policy.
	They both agree that the desired goal, eventually, is to move the United States into world government.
	Not just any world government, But a world government based on the model of collectivism.
	In other words, big, powerful, centralized world government.
	If it were a world government based on the principles of freedom and freedom of choice, freedom of culture, low intervention, if no intervention in the lives of normal human beings, it might be a wonderful thing, but that's not the kind of world government the left and the right have in mind.
	They're talking about total world government, with all major decisions being made at the top, And people at the bottom being essentially living in a feudalist society, just serfs and peasants basically in a high-tech feudalism.
	And the left and the right both agree with that goal and so they never discuss it in public debate.
	Another thing in which they agree is the dominance of the banking system in our economy and to a large extent in our politics.
	They both agree that the banks are supreme, that the banks must be protected, that the banks must be funded, they must be bailed out, they must not be allowed to fail.
	When the banks make bad loans to third world countries, or if they make bad loans to large corporations, both the Republicans and the Democrats agree that we must come in with taxpayers' money.
	Either tax money or inflation money.
	And we must bail out the banks.
	And we do that, they both agree, by giving the money to these corporations and giving the money to the third world countries so that they can continue to make interest payments to the banks.
	So those are two major issues.
	I would say perhaps the largest issues we could possibly face.
	And so we find that Republicans and Democrats are in agreement on that.
	You might add one third, another third topic if you wish, and that is our role in the Middle East.
	Both parties talk alternately about how we've got to end this war in the Middle East, pull our troops home, you know, and all that sort of thing.
	But that's just rhetoric.
	You notice we go from one party to the other.
	The war continues, the war grows, the funding continues.
	So there we have three major issues, perhaps the three largest issues of all.
	And there's no debate between Republicans and Democrats as to what to do.
	Though there may be some debate in rhetoric, they may give speeches, but when it's time to vote in Congress, there is no division between them at all.
	And this itself should be the biggest giveaway as to what the reality of politics is today.
	If anybody has got their eyes open, they ought to be able to see it just by examining those three issues.
	I do believe that when Ron Paul ran for president, and to everyone's amazement, achieved such great support, in spite of the roadblocks that were put in front of him, and in spite of the total disinterest on the part of the major media, so that he was practically unknown to large segments of the people.
	Parenthetically, I would say that if the media had given Ron Paul anywhere near the same exposure they gave to the Republican and Democrat, I mean the old-style Republican and Democrat party candidates, I think he probably would have been elected.
	But anyway, that was sort of a phenomenal event that somebody who did not have the endorsement of the establishment And who spoke so clearly on issues.
	The very issues that we were talking about, the issues of the war, the issues of the economy, and bailing out the banks, and the Federal Reserve System, and the issue of national sovereignty, these are issues that mainstream Republicans and Democrats don't want to touch, because they agree on that.
	Ron Paul disagreed with what the Republican and Democrat Party were doing on that, and so he spoke about it.
	And the fact that In spite of the fact that he was the only one talking about these issues, he got so much support.
	Tells me that there is a latent power, there's a latent awareness on the part of the American people just waiting to be tapped.
	I think those who are controlling the two-party system are very much afraid of that.
	They don't want that to be tapped.
	And that's why they are working so hard now to put controls on the Internet, because the message that Ron Paul was delivering was primarily delivered over the Internet, not through the major channels of communication.
	So now we see almost daily efforts On the part of the mainstream political figures to concoct different ways and different reasons and different excuses for putting controls on the Internet.
	They're going to license people so that you can't even have a blog, they say, unless you have a license from the government.
	They want to put filters on the search engines so that you can't even look up certain words and things like that.
	Actually, I think what they're trying to do here in this country is pretty much imitate what they're already doing in China, for example.
	They really admire that system in China.
	Our own figures here in this country, although they may speak with scorn about a closed society in China, they're doing everything they can to imitate it.
	So that's one of the realities we have to look at.
	So what does this mean for the future?
	I think that as long as the Internet can be kept open and free, It bodes very well for us because I think we do have, at last, a chance to get around the mainstream media.
	But I think that if the governments of the world, and particularly in our own government, if they're successful in putting legal restrictions on and clamping down on the Internet, I'm afraid that the chances of a I believe that getting a man in the White House is not as important as it would seem at first.
	In fact, I think it's almost counterproductive because as long as we focus on getting a man in the White House, there's the underlying assumption that that's all we need to do.
	Americans are of that nature.
	They want quick, simple solutions to problems.
	They want to know who you're going to vote for.
	That's it.
	Because they think that they can discharge their responsibility of citizenship by going to the polls every two years and maybe spending 20 minutes and putting a little mark on a piece of paper and walk on and say, OK, I've done my job.
	I've defended my country.
	Doesn't work that way.
	Because by the time you go to the polls, and you put your pencil mark on the paper, or punch the lever, whatever you do, the decisions are already made.
	The candidates have already been selected.
	And the work goes on there.
	It's who selects the candidates that the people vote for.
	Who frames the issues that the people vote for.
	Voting is nothing.
	It's all done before that stage.
	So, as long as people think in terms of who we're going to vote for, what man are we going to get into the White House, they're looking in the wrong direction.
	They don't realize the scope of the problem.
	So, I'm not saying we shouldn't have the right man in the White House.
	That could be very important.
	What I am saying is that the task is much bigger than that.
	People need to become active in politics.
	They need to become active in their communities and in disseminating information and helping to create public opinion and awareness on the issues so they would be possible for the right man to be elected.
	Right now, you know, Ron Paul probably would have more support If people understood more about the Federal Reserve System.
	When he started to speak about it early in his campaign, most people were saying, huh?
	What's all that about?
	But because of the Internet, and because of the distribution of so much material on the Federal Reserve System, including my book, which probably played a small part in that, there was a substantial number of people who did understand that, hey, wait a minute, the Federal Reserve System isn't a government agency, it's a cartel, it's a banking cartel, and it's working against the public interest.
	When there was enough people that could say that and understand what they were talking about, all of a sudden the momentum began to move toward Ron Paul instead of away from him.
	Yes, people still said, I don't know what he's talking about, but more and more people were saying, I do know what he's talking about, and he's right on target.
	And you reach a critical mass.
	With that, when enough people start saying, yes, yes, he's right, then the others who don't know anything are listening, saying, what are they talking about?
	And now they take an interest.
	So I think that we're almost at the point now of this tipping point or the critical mass where people do understand the scam behind the Federal Reserve System.
	I think if Ron Paul and other candidates would just continue, continue emphasizing this issue alone, I think it could make the difference.
	It could be the difference between recapturing the country and not doing so.
	Back to the old line political figures in the Republican Party, it is true.
	When you compare that with Obama, Obama came to power riding this crest of beautiful rhetoric about change and making a difference and taking America back and all of that sort of thing, and people responded to it emotionally.
	That was it.
	There was no substance, but it sounded good.
	And they were mad.
	They were mad at the present regime.
	They didn't like the Bush administration.
	They were angry.
	So anybody that spoke about change, well, that was their man, right?
	Okay, here we are.
	Another cycle is passing, and people are now mad.
	But this time, they're mad at the Obama administration.
	So, the same political trick is being played again, but this time on the part of the Republican Party.
	The Republican candidates now are issuing great emotional, heartwarming statements about loving their country and restoring the Constitution, taking our country back, bringing about change, reducing government, and so forth.
	And you look at who is saying these things.
	I mean, people like Newt Gingrich, for example, if you look at his voting career, he voted against the Constitution more often than not throughout his whole political career.
	He's great at giving speeches.
	He uses all the right trigger words and phrases.
	But here's a guy talking about taking back the Constitution when he himself has been one of the great attackers of the Constitution by his votes in Congress.
	So it's come to the point where people have to stop listening to the rhetoric.
	And start looking at the actual voting record of these people.
	I don't care whether it's Republican or Democrat, that's not the issue.
	It was Lenin who said it so well.
	Lenin said, words are one thing, actions another.
	Of course, when Lenin wrote that, what he was telling his followers is that, tell them what they want to hear.
	Don't worry about telling a lie.
	They want to hear lies, he said.
	Words are one thing.
	Tell them what they want to hear.
	Get elected.
	Come to power.
	When you're in power, he said, then do what you want to do.
	Words are one thing.
	Action's another.
	So he was advocating lying.
	Well, believe me, professional politicians understand this same technique.
	They would never come out and advocate it in public.
	They'd deny it.
	But look at their records.
	Don't listen to their words.
	Look at their actions.
	And then you'll know what kind of a game they're playing with us.
	Well, both Republicans and Democrats, both left wingers and right wingers, use this tactic of trying to discredit their opposition.
	And they're very good at it.
	And they know that if you come to the point where there is a serious debate underway about a serious issue, The best thing is back away from the debate.
	Stay away from the issues because they will lose.
	So they start attacking their opponent's character or their intelligence or they try and look for something in their past to make them seem like they're evil people.
	And it's called demonizing.
	You demonize the opposition.
	This is an old tactic that's been going on for a long, long time.
	And yes, I've seen it Over the years, where they have taken a group like the John Birch Society, which is just an educational organization, but it was an educational organization dealing with principles and real historical facts, and they pretty well succeeded in convincing everybody in America that the Birchers were a bunch of
	At the least, they were a bunch of little old ladies in tennis shoes, but at worst, they were a bunch of Nazis and fascists and racists, and they were even called communists.
	It doesn't make any difference.
	You just call them some name, and if you keep doing that often enough, and in major channels of communication, most people will believe it.
	So that's a tactic that's well used and I think we have to be alert to it.
	Also we have to be alert to the fact that the people that we're talking about, these elitists, it's hard to find a better word, but the ones who want to really control this international collectivist government, they are not dumb.
	They have a lot of money, and they have think tanks that work out strategies.
	And one of the strategies they have always used is to lead their own opposition.
	And they try to lead their own opposition because, first of all, they know there's going to be opposition, so why wait around?
	Why wait around for real opposition to develop if you know what's going to happen?
	Send your own people out there and let them pretend to be your opposition.
	And everybody will follow them, especially if they're well-funded.
	And if they give the right speeches and say the right words, you know, those nice campaign speeches, for example.
	But they're really controlled by the very people they're speaking against.
	I came across that when I was doing research for the Federal Reserve System, because I realized that in the early days, the very bankers who put together this cartel and drafted the Federal Reserve Act, it was their bill.
	When it came time to promote it to the public, They funded and actually delivered their own opposition.
	Some of these bankers went forth and started giving speeches and interviews to newspaper reporters saying, oh, this bill is bad.
	It's bad for America.
	It's going to damage the economy.
	And they knew that the average person reading that in the newspaper would say, oh my, my goodness, Maud, listen to this, these bankers don't like the Federal Reserve Act very much, hmm, must be pretty good, you know?
	So they play this game.
	So we know that this is still going on today, and for example, in the Tea Party movement, if they want to discredit it, If they can't control it, okay, let's say if one of the parties can't control it, they'll have to discredit it.
	So they will, and I believe already have attempted, to send people into the Tea Party movement who are real wackos, or pretend to be real wackos.
	Or if they're real wackos out there, they make sure that they're brought in to the Tea Party movement.
	And every time there's a media crew going out there with their cameras taking pictures, do they take pictures of the 10,000 middle-class Americans who know what they're talking about?
	Or do they pick the two or three wackos over here with tinfoil hats?
	Or the guys with the swastikas on their arm and so forth?
	That's where they focus, you see.
	And I believe that some of those people are probably sent in there on purpose, just to demonize and discredit the movement.
	This is hard for most Americans to believe because they don't realize that this is really hardball.
	This political game is hard ball, and they don't realize that it is a game and that there are professionals playing it.
	It's a matter of historical record that the group of people that sometimes we call capitalists, the big super wealthy families, No, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, and the heads of the big corporations in America, AT&T, Ford Motor Company, and so forth.
	People think of them as the super capitalists.
	It's a historical fact that many of these people have provided the funding, the essential funding, to help bring to power regimes such as Hitler's regime that was well funded by American financiers and British.
	And also in Communist Russia, the group, the Leninist group, was well funded by American and London bankers.
	And so it's tempting to say, well, they created their own opposition.
	And I think that's partially true, but I wouldn't go that far.
	I think what these people do is they look around and they see what kind of native opposition is out there, and or what kind of native groups are growing, movements are growing, that they really want to control.
	Maybe they don't necessarily create them, But they see which ones are coming to the front, and those are the ones they move into.
	And if you have enough money, you know, millions and millions of dollars, it's not too difficult to gain influence over almost any new group that's struggling against its opposition and looking for money.
	So they've played this game.
	They played it in both the Soviet Union and in Nazi Germany.
	I think they're doing the same thing in America.
	I think that's one of the things going on now with the Tea Party movement.
	I don't think they created it at all, but they see it as something that has the potential of being a powerful movement, and so they are putting their best attention and a lot of money into it to see if they can't capture it for their own uses.
	Another tactic, isn't it, that the opposition knows that the American people, any people in the world, will gladly give up their liberty and their comforts If it's in their mind a means of gaining security protection against a dreaded threat of some kind.
	That's why regimes that are struggling to hold the loyalty of their people are very dangerous regimes because instinctively they know they have to go to war.
	They know that in time of war the people will rally behind their leaders no matter what because we're at war.
	And if we lose this war, we'll be invaded, we'll be conquered by some dreaded enemy.
	And so, throughout history, governments that are weak, or losing influence over their own people, traditionally start wars.
	Or they manufacture false flag operations against themselves.
	They create their own enemies.
	They want to be victims so that they can rally their citizens behind them and anybody who wants to continue criticizing these leaders is then branded as being unpatriotic or possibly even branded as a traitor.
	So it's an old ploy.
	It's been done throughout history.
	Machiavelli wrote about it.
	Everywhere you look in history you see this ploy being used.
	And is it being used today in America?
	Absolutely it is, I'm sorry to say.
	It's interesting to me how organizations as innocuous sounding as a tax-exempt foundation can have such tremendous clout in determining the nation's politics and its foreign policy and its economic policy.
	Turns out that organizations, these big ones, like the Rockefeller Funds and the Ford Foundation and these big tax-exempt megaliths, the general impression of them is that they do good works.
	I mean, they're supposedly doing charity of some kind or educational projects.
	Boy, what a difference there is between that image and the reality when you look at some of them.
	They spend a great deal, if not most of their money, promoting certain projects which, although they can be described as philanthropic, are really very, very political in nature.
	The Ford Foundation in particular comes to mind because Although they spend millions and hundreds of millions of dollars supposedly to improve the social condition and the economic condition of minority groups.
	When you see where the money goes, it goes almost always to very radical minority groups.
	They're not even minority groups anymore.
	They're radical political change groups.
	The ones that are trying to bring about very destructive movements inside the United States.
	All of the radical Latino movements.
	And I'm not just talking about Latino, I'm talking about radical movements.
	Like overthrow the United States.
	That kind of a movement.
	Like cut off Texas and return it to Mexico.
	That's the kind of movement I'm talking about.
	And they're all funded by the Ford Foundation, all tax exempt money.
	This has been going on for decades.
	And you come eventually to the conclusion that the directors of the Ford Foundation know exactly what they're doing.
	They're not making a mistake and continuing to make the same mistake for decades.
	They know exactly what they're doing.
	And what they're trying to do is to They're trying to divide America.
	They're trying to weaken America.
	They're trying to bring America down so she is no longer a powerful force in the world, so that she's reeling and she's kneeling and she can be comfortably merged with all the other nations of the world.
	And she'll be willing to give up her culture, her freedoms, her judicial system, economic system, in gratitude in order to be saved from some kind of internal chaos and revolution and being starved and so forth, starvation and in gratitude in order to be saved from some kind of internal chaos and revolution and being starved and so forth,
	So all of this is being done, not all of it, most of it is being done under the aegis of tax-exempt foundations.
	What a beautiful cover!
	But this has been going on for a long time.
	There certainly has been a change in the function of the American government.
	In the beginning it was set up with a definite system of checks and balances and the executive and judicial and legislative branch were supposed to be fairly equal so they could check each other.
	There's been a change, gradual change, over the years starting primarily with World War I.
	When there was this great crisis, we had to defend ourselves against foreign enemies.
	And ever since then, one crisis after another has added to the impetus for us to change our form of government, supposedly to make us more secure.
	So we've given up that checks and balances concept.
	Gradually, it's been reinforced by Supreme Court decisions, it's been reinforced by new legislation, and it's been reinforced by the media, and primarily reinforced by the apathy of the American people, if not their total ignorance of the way it should be, because they don't teach this in school anymore.
	So it's happened.
	No matter how it's happened or who's responsible, it has happened.
	So that now, we do not have checks and balances between three forms or three branches of government.
	A realistic appraisal is that we have a dictatorship.
	It's a democratic dictatorship.
	And most of the power resides in the hands of the President of the United States.
	Originally, the President was supposed to be like the President of any corporation.
	He took orders from the Board of Directors.
	And he didn't determine policy, major policy at least, maybe minor policy, but the major decisions were made by the board of directors.
	And his job was merely to implement those policies.
	That's the way it used to be in America.
	The president was a relatively unimportant person.
	He was selected by the states and he was to implement policies of the Congress.
	Today that's not the case.
	Today the president is basically the same as a king.
	We don't call him a king.
	We don't say, Your Highness.
	We say, Mr. President.
	But he has almost unlimited powers, the same as any great ruler of history.
	And Congress, although we still think of it as being an important body, pretty much steps back and lets the president do whatever he wants to do.
	Congress, theoretically, has the power of the purse, because they can vote the money to fund the projects of the President.
	But even that has been circumvented, because now the President has worked, and not just the current President, but this whole process, has worked out ways and means by which, in partnership with the Federal Reserve System, they can create funding without Congress.
	So now the President has special funds for this, and special funds for that, and secret funds for this.
	The President can, with a stroke of a pen, just create all kinds of money without Congress even having any say-so in it at all.
	So we come to the sad conclusion that the United States is no longer the country it was.
	And the question is, what are we going to do about it?
	The old methods of writing a letter to your congressman.
	Don't work anymore.
	It's time for a fundamental change.
	And that's not going to happen, though, until more and more Americans, first of all, wake up to the reality of their present plight, that we're still living in a dream world, still reading in our history books, you know, looking at pictures of George Washington's white socks and so forth, and the signing of the Declaration, and we think it's still that way.
	It's not that way, folks.
	So, people live in this dream world.
	The first step is to realize what we're really living under, what kind of a system we're really living under, and then to go back and figure out what kind of a system do we want to restore.
	And I think restoring The concepts in our original Constitution is a great step forward, not backward, but forward.
	We've been going backwards toward monarchy ever since World War I. We have to go forward now to the past, if I can coin that phrase.
	But that's not going to happen until a large number of Americans understand that it has to happen.
	So that's... What is that?
	An optimistic or a pessimistic view?
	I think it's an optimistic view in the long run.
	It's a pessimistic view in the short run because nothing like that is going to happen by November.
	It's not going to happen in the next election.
	Americans are always focused on, well, how can we make this happen quickly so I can go back to my golf game?
	You know, I don't want to spend a lot of time on this.
	I'll become active maybe for a few months and I'll vote for a candidate or something, but don't drag this thing out, please, because I'm too busy.
	They want to know how we can turn this all around by the next election.
	Can't be done by the next election.
	But it can be done.
	That's the optimistic part.
	I think if we have a realistic view of the political process, we know that it takes sometimes a generation or two for really important changes to happen.
	And if we understand that and accept it, and accept our role in being responsible for making it happen, then you can go to sleep at night and say, by golly, I'm really doing something about this, and I am making a difference, and it will happen.
	I don't know when the administrative branches of government became totally dominant.
	All I know is that it was a little bit at a time, and it was sort of like a jerky motion.
	Every time there's a crisis, every time there's a war, every time there's a terrorist attack, If there's a banking crisis, no matter what the crisis is, this movement toward totalitarianism accelerates.
	And then it slows down until the next crisis comes along.
	And I don't know if I could say at what point that happened, but I can say that it did happen, and it's even continuing today.
	Yes, I did see the clip in which Hillary Clinton says that, I think she was saying it was nice to be so close to the headquarters of the Council on Foreign Relations because she didn't have to go very far to find out what to think and how to act on certain issues or something to that effect.
	And I'm sure she's been embarrassed by that statement and probably has issued some kind of a qualifying statement that, well, she didn't mean it quite that way.
	But the fact of the matter is, I think she did mean it.
	Most people know, in politics, they know that the Council on Foreign Relations is the center of all of this.
	That's where the power is.
	And you just don't get the green light to move up in politics unless the switch is thrown in the building there at the Council on Foreign Relations office.
	That's why all of the major candidates for office appear at the CFR conferences and you can see video clips of them on the internet now and then.
	They're giving speeches, sometimes before large audiences and sometimes before small groups.
	But it's clear to me that they're brought in and they're Treated very nicely, and then they're asked some questions to see how they think, and how they would act under certain circumstances, and what is their view on this policy and that policy.
	And if their answers are acceptable, they get the green light.
	Counsel says, okay, this is a man that we can trust, that we can support.
	If they give the wrong answers, I don't think they're ever going to get any kind of a green light.
	And so, people like Hillary Clinton know, even at that Elevated position.
	Hillary Clinton, you'd say, was one of the big movers and shakers.
	Compared to the Council on Foreign Relations, she's not.
	She's a small fish.
	And she knows that she's got to get the approval of the CFR.
	I think that the people who are monitoring this are, they have to be concerned over the growing awareness on the part of the American people.
	The question though is, are they worried about it?
	I don't think they are because we know that they thought about it long before it ever happened.
	These people are not stupid.
	They knew that there would be opposition to their plans as they reach the end of the game.
	They know that as people begin to lose their economic freedom and they know that as one crisis after another It descends upon them.
	There's going to be opposition.
	And so they planned on this a long time ago.
	And I think what we're really looking at is... I think Alex Jones called it the endgame.
	We're approaching the endgame and they have a plan for that.
	And that is to institute martial law.
	Because as people become upset, They go into the streets, they demonstrate, and eventually they become unruly, eventually they become violent, and eventually they start breaking windows, eventually somebody gets hurt, eventually somebody gets killed, eventually there's martial law, and that really is what they really want, because they want an excuse for martial law.
	All collectivist systems eventually deteriorate into a police state, because it's the only way you can hold it together.
	So are they worried about people becoming aware?
	I think they are not because they've been planning on it.
	Let's say it this way.
	They're certainly not surprised by it.
	The movement toward world collectivist government has been going on for quite a while.
	It's impossible to establish its absolute origin, but it certainly was part of the literature at the turn of the last century.
	And there were groups and organizations forming in various parts of the world at that time.
	That had that as its goal.
	One of the most interesting groups was one put together by Cecil Rhodes.
	It was formed by his will when he passed away.
	His vast fortune went to the creation of a secret society, and actually what it was.
	He said, we've got to keep this a secret society.
	And all of the Rhodes money went in that direction.
	It was from that that the Council on Foreign Relations sprang in this country.
	There were similar organizations in other British dependencies.
	And they all had as their goal the creation of a unified world government based on the model of collectivism.
	So there was this milieu of political and intellectual movement starting over a hundred years ago.
	But it certainly has gained momentum through World War I really got up to speed and then finally in World War II all of the major players on the world scene were talking
	About world government they've tried to do the League of Nations that failed finally they created the United Nations that stuck and so now they're just trying to pump up the United Nations into the the framework of the Global government that they have always envisioned and this has been a a A thing that goes beyond one generation.
	It's transgenerational.
	In other words, it's not just one person's vision.
	The people that started it are long gone, but those who inherited it continue this dream.
	To them, I'm sure they look at it as a wonderful thing.
	They see it as an end of nationhood, as it has been historically defined.
	They see that as advantageous, they say, because it'll put an end to war.
	and so forth, and they can sell the idea as a great step toward brotherhood and a unified globe and so forth.
	They use all of these things to make it sound good, but when you start examining the actual policies that they're instituting, it's not so hot.
	It's based on the principle of collectivism, as I've said several times, and that means it's all powerful government.
	It's a tyrannical government.
	It's the same kind of a system that Adolf Hitler had in mind, and we fought a war to destroy him and his system.
	The same kind of a system that Joseph Stalin had in mind, and we fought a Cold War and did a lot of other things to make sure that that didn't happen.
	The same kind of a system that Mao Zedong had in mind, Benito Mussolini, all of the great collectivists of history have had this unified global government based on the model of collectivism as their goal, and we fought against it.
	Until recently.
	Now we are actually the greatest advocates of it ourselves.
	We don't call it tyranny.
	We don't call it fascism or Nazism or communism.
	We have a better name for it.
	The name they have chosen is the New World Order.
	That's their favorite phrase for it.
	But when you examine its nature and its essence, it is a collectivist system, powerful government, little people at the bottom taking orders.
	So this is the concept.
	It's been Under evolution for over a hundred years, it looks like it's coming within sight now.
	We've seen the nations of Europe amalgamate into the European Union.
	The sovereignty of all of the European nations has been pretty well lost now to the European Union, and they've always said that was a stepping stone toward the creation of a true world government, is to unite the smaller governments of the world first into regional groupings, such as the European Union.
	They have one in mind for Asia and Africa, and now they're talking about doing the same on the North American continent.
	Call the North American Union and it'll be a merger of the United States, Mexico and Canada.
	A process that they deny that is underway but it is definitely underway and it's been underway for over a decade and if you examine some of the laws and administrative rulings that are coming out of the Federal government at all levels, they often use the word harmonization, meaning they're going to harmonize, or attempting to harmonizing, our laws with the laws of Canada and Mexico.
	So this process is well underway.
	We have seen the euro, a replacement of national currencies in Europe, a single regional currency.
	Now they're talking about the same thing here in the United States.
	Get rid of the U.S.
	dollar.
	Get rid of the Mexican peso and the Canadian dollar and create a new currency for the three.
	They'll probably call it the Amaro.
	That's the name they seem to be favoring at the moment.
	Step by step, this Structure of world government based on the model of collectivism is being erected every day.
	You can look in your newspaper and see evidence of another brick that's been put in place.
	Another timber has been put in place.
	It's going on and on.
	So, is this a good process or a bad process?
	Is it an inevitable process?
	Well, first of all, I don't think it's inevitable because it has to be done by people and people have to want to do it or not want to do it.
	It's well advanced because the people that are in charge, the people we elect, the people who are running our own government, the people who are running the governments of these other nations, at the top, these people are all for it.
	So that's why it's happening.
	At the voter level, I don't think most people even know that it's happening.
	And if they did, no, they'd probably say, I don't think this is a good idea.
	So the trick has always been how to make this happen without getting the American people or the people in Britain or France or Germany or Mexico or Canada too much alarmed about it before it's too late.
	That has always been the strategy that they have followed.
	So that means they have to deny that it's happening.
	It means they have to do it behind closed doors.
	That means they don't bring it up for a vote in Congress.
	They do it administratively.
	Rather than legislatively.
	And all of those strategies and tactics are being used.
	Is it a good thing or a bad thing?
	In my view, it's a very bad thing because I think collectivism is the graveyard of civilization.
	It's certainly the graveyard of freedom.
	If you just think about it, no collectivist system in the world has ever been the kind of a place where freedom was prosperous.
	People always wound up in a gulag or some kind of a concentration camp if they disagreed with their leaders.
	All of these factors, I think, need to be understood in order for us to come up with an intelligent plan of what to do about it.
	Because all of this is academic, unless we come up with a plan of what to do about it.
	And the first step in knowing what to do about it is knowing what not to do about it.
	And by that I mean what not to do about it is to fall for this left-right paradigm where both the right wing and the left wing are both pursuing this objective but fighting each other.
	And if we get caught up in that trap, we'll spend all of our time fighting the leftists or fighting the rightists.
	And it doesn't make any difference because no matter which side you're on in that battle, you still are promoting this globalist government strategy.
	So the first thing to know is don't get trapped in this left-right paradigm.
	The next thing is to know what you want.
	It's not enough to know what you don't want.
	Of course we don't want tyranny.
	Of course.
	But what do we want?
	Well, the average person would say, I just want to be free.
	And you'd ask that person, well, what is freedom?
	Well, that's a good question, isn't it?
	What is freedom?
	A lot of people think that freedom is merely not being in jail.
	That's their definition.
	If you're not in jail, you're free.
	It doesn't make any difference if you're not free to live where you want to live, or hire who you want to hire, or travel where you want to go, or spend your money the way you want to spend it, or write what you want to write, or go on the internet and say what you want to say.
	They don't think that's important as long as you're not in jail.
	They call that freedom.
	I don't think that kind of a definition of freedom is worth fighting for.
	So we have to know what we want.
	What is freedom?
	That's the reason that We created Freedom Force International because our movement there is attempting to define that.
	We have defined it.
	We have the creed of freedom, which is, in our view, a very positive statement of what freedom is.
	And we have the commandments of freedom, the things that thou shalt not do, for example.
	Very simple things, but all of the great movements of history have always started with simple concepts.
	The freedom movement in America and in the world right now is in very serious need of some simple concepts, some simple principles, some ideas that you can believe in.
	You know the old saying is, if you don't believe in something you will fall for anything.
	It's very true.
	And so the first step toward reversing this drift toward global, collectivist, tyrannical government is to know what we believe in.
	What is freedom?
	And be able to define it, to be able to defend it, to be able to argue against the collectives and say this system is better than that for this reason, this reason, and this reason.
	And then finally, the ultimate question is, well, who's going to do this?
	It's easy to become despondent, discouraged, and say, well, nobody cares.
	My neighbor's out cutting his grass.
	He's a good guy.
	We talk about baseball.
	We talk about the weather.
	We can talk about the latest movies.
	But he doesn't want to talk about politics.
	He doesn't care about the economy.
	He just doesn't want to become informed, and he certainly doesn't want to take any personal responsibility for monitoring and changing the system.
	So how are you going to fight this great drift toward global government with all of these powerful people at the top?
	And nobody on the street cares.
	The answer is that all movements of history have always been determined by less than 3% of the population.
	You don't need everybody out there.
	In fact, it'll never happen.
	It'll never happen.
	It never happened before in history, and it won't happen now, and certainly won't happen in the future.
	3% or less of the population are always the movers and the shakers.
	If you can reach 3% of the people who really care and who really have the mindset and who are willing to make the sacrifices and the dedication to this task, it can be done.
	And the guy next door will continue to push his lawnmower and he'll go whichever way the system goes.
	It's always been that way.
	So we don't need to be discouraged by the fact that not everybody is taking an interest.
	Our job is to find that 1, 2, or 3% of the people who do care Get the message to them, join forces with them, and then we have to come to power.
	Coming to power means we have to get into politics, we have to get back into the media centers, we have to communicate this information to everybody we can, we have to let our voices be heard in the great power centers of society, the political parties, the labor unions, the church organizations, the media centers, and so forth.
	This is where we, the 3% or less, Must go to work.
	This is where we're going to find the battle.
	This is where we're going to engage the enemy.
	And this is where we're going to recapture all the respective countries of the world.
	There is this false competition between the left and the right perspective.
	We've got the masked raider with the black mask there in the wrestling ring.
	And then the guy comes in with the blue cape.
	And they go into this great phony wrestling match.
	And it's a great show.
	It's a great show, and they got cheerleaders, the commentators, you know, on the left and the right, and the public enjoys the game.
	They like watching the match.
	It's exciting, isn't it?
	I mean, they throw each other out of the ring, they beat each other up.
	He's up.
	He's down.
	Oh, he's winning.
	No, he's losing.
	Well, he lost this match, but he'll be back next week.
	Stay tuned, folks, for the next match.
	A grudge match is coming back and so forth.
	This is American politics that we're talking about.
	Both of these professional wrestlers They beat each other up a little bit in the wrestling match and they go in the locker room and they pat each other on the back and go out and have a beer together and say, well, that was a pretty good show.
	What are we going to do next week?
	This is American politics.
	And we have our cheerleaders, you know, the news commentators and the talk show hosts on the left and on the right.
	And they frame the debate.
	They won't let the American people debate the real issues.
	They won't let them even think about the real issues, which are, are we going to keep American sovereignty or not?
	Are we going to let the Federal Reserve System, which is a banking cartel, continue to run our government or not?
	They won't let us talk about those things.
	So that's the problem.
	As long as we depend on the phony wrestlers and depend upon their well-paid cheerleaders in the media to keep us focused on secondary issues, we're never going to get out of this mess.
	So the first thing is to recognize the problem, see who the opposition is, and then walk away from them.
	Well, I think the kind of show that Glenn Beck puts on is, first of all, it's very entertaining and he does a good job of it.
	I have a little trouble with his television persona.
	I don't really go for it very much, but a lot of people do because he seems to be so sincere and so emotional and so patriotic and he loves his country and so forth.
	And that sells pretty well.
	Am I questioning his sincerity?
	Yes, I am.
	Because I know it's a show.
	And I know that if he were really as concerned and patriotic as he presents himself to be, he would be exposing criminal activity on the right as well as on the left.
	Then I would know he was sincere.
	But because he is so well-defined, right down the middle, he attacks only those on the left and lets everybody on the right get off scot-free, I know that this is a phony wrestling match.
	We have to realize that the Fox News Network is part of the Rupert Murdoch empire.
	And like so many of the other great media centers, like ABC, CBS, NBC, they're all in the hands of members of the Council on Foreign Relations.
	Murdoch himself is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
	So what does that tell you?
	It tells you that there is an agenda.
	These people have an agenda.
	And they boast of it.
	It's not hard to find out what it is.
	The agenda is world government.
	The agenda is world government based on the model of collectivism.
	So we know that Murdoch would not allow a consistent program or movement within his network channel to exist unless it furthered, at least in his mind in some way, it furthered that agenda.
	So, we know that this is a rigged game to start, so how does that fit?
	So we've got the Fox network over here, which represents the right wing of this right-left paradigm, and we've got other Other groups over on the other side, which I won't mention them because there's so many of them, but they represent the left wing of this paradigm.
	It depends on who you're listening to, which channel you're looking at, you get this cheerleader effect.
	These are the good guys on the right, and everybody on the left is bad.
	Or the other way around, everybody on the left is good, and everybody on the right is bad.
	And this is no accident.
	The Fox Network fits the role of Being the cheerleader for anything on the right, which means, currently at least, the Republican Party.
	And they do a great job of that.
	And when Glenn Beck draws the chart showing the lineage and the connection to the Communist Party and all of that, I have no doubt that that's true.
	But why doesn't he do the same thing for the Bush family, for example, showing its connection to the Nazis in Germany and the banking connection where they funded the rise of Adolf Hitler?
	Why doesn't he do that?
	He'll never do that!
	And he would ridicule anybody who would bring it up.
	He would call them a conspiracy theorist or something like that.
	That's the role he plays, and he plays it very well.
	So in order to drive this ping-pong ball or this tennis ball back and forth over the net, going from Republicans to Democrats, Democrats to Republicans, you've got to have people who are expert at criticizing the other side.
	I mean, that's part of the game.
	You can't have an open and objective analysis on the news, otherwise people would say, hmm, I guess both parties are lousy.
	You can't have that, because that's not how the game is played.
	So you've got to have people assigned to expose and oppose the left, and other people over on the left that oppose and expose people on the right.
	And so it's necessary always to have People who can voice serious opposition and criticism of the other side.
	And it depends on who's in office.
	Because they're all bad.
	It's always easy to find something to criticize.
	They all lie.
	They all make promises they don't intend to keep and, in fact, do not keep.
	They're all involved in all kinds of scams and swindles.
	And there's dishonesty involved.
	I mean, that's politics.
	They all are like that.
	Maybe I'll make a reservation for one percent.
	I don't know.
	Ron Paul probably isn't like that, but you just can't count on it being any other way.
	And so it's easy when one party is in power.
	They give him a little honeymoon time to let it be known that, no, they're not going to change anything.
	And then the other side ramps up and says, oh, look what what they did, how bad they are.
	And and so the voters are thinking, oh, yeah, we got to get rid of him.
	And so they get all whipped up like they are now.
	People in the Republican Party calling for take back our country, restore the Constitution, get the CIA out of our bedrooms and off of our computers and so forth.
	All these good lines.
	They don't mean a word of it.
	They're just playing to the sentiments of the voters.
	And so all they want to do is bring now the next Republican candidate forward and people won't even look to Closely at the Republican candidate, because they'll be so filled with contempt and hatred for the Democrat, I mean, for Mr. Obama.
	They'll say, I don't care who we put in, anybody would be better than that.
	Of course, that's how Obama got in.
	They said, well, I don't care about Obama.
	I don't care what you say.
	Anybody would be better than Bush.
	And this goes back and forth.
	And Bush got in.
	Well, anybody would be better than Clinton.
	American politics is the politics of hatred.
	It's not who you love or who you like, it's who you hate.
	That's what it's all about today.
	And it's a strategy that seems to be working pretty well.
	It always comes as a shock when people realize that some of the greatest mass murders of history and greatest tyrants of history were actually supported and funded by very wealthy financiers and forces in the United States and in Great Britain.
	They sometimes go very closely hand-in-hand.
	Everybody knows about the rise of Hitler, but they don't realize that the Nazi Party was funded by Many of the banking dynasties that still exist in the United States, they funded him.
	Large corporations.
	They went into partnership with some of the German corporations.
	They called it IG Farben.
	It was a cartel.
	And they put up tremendous amounts of money as investment into the Nazi war machine.
	They put money behind Adolf Hitler's political party, the Nazi party.
	They even sent one of their public relations experts, I believe his name was Ivy Lee, over to Germany to interview Hitler and analyze him and to groom him and to make suggestions of how to improve his public image.
	They were intensely interested in promoting the Nazi regime.
	That's a matter of record.
	It's not a question of opinion.
	You can like it or dislike it.
	It's a matter of record.
	But this always happens.
	When Mao Zedong came to power, he couldn't have come to power had it not been for very powerful forces inside the United States.
	At the end of World War II, You know, the Japanese had been driven out, but there was a large division in China.
	The Nationalist Chinese under Chiang Kai-shek held a large portion of the country, and another section was in the hands of the Communist forces, Chinese forces, under the leadership of Mao Zedong.
	And the Nationalist forces and the Communist forces were bitter enemies.
	Even though they had fought, more or less, together against the Japanese, they both knew that when the war was over, only one or the other would be able to survive.
	And so they were preparing to fight each other.
	That was not in the best interests of the people in Washington, D.C.
	They didn't want that to happen, and they put pressure on the nationalist Chinese, Chiang Kai-shek's government, to accept the communists into their own government in key positions, what they call a coalition government.
	And they wanted them to go into very key positions.
	In other words, in control of the military in particular.
	Well, that's the end of the game, you know.
	The Nationalists didn't want any part of that.
	So General George Catlett Marshall, who was in charge of all of the military operations in the Asia Theater at that time, simply cut off the flow of ammunition and arms to the Nationalist Chinese and made sure that all of the Military equipment that was left behind by the Japanese.
	was delivered to the Communist Chinese.
	And with those two acts, there was no question that Mao Zedong's forces, which was now, by this time, much better equipped than the Nationalist forces, that they would be victorious.
	And that is how it came to be.
	And George Marshall even boasted afterwards, he said, with the stroke of my pen, I now disarm 30 divisions of Chiang Kai-shek's army.
	So that all came out of the United States.
	That was the decision of the so-called capitalist forces in America that the Chinese communists would now take over China.
	So all of these things are contrary to the conventional knowledge of what happened in history.
	But as I said before, none of it is really difficult to find.
	It's a matter of recordable.
	It has been recorded history, and it's not even a question of opinion anymore.
	So the bottom line is what?
	The bottom line is that some of the most brutal and totalitarian regimes of history have been funded by people of great wealth.
	People who we used to think of as capitalists and sometimes still call them capitalists.
	Why?
	Because they have great wealth.
	And what we don't realize is just having great wealth is not the real issue here.
	It's what you do with that wealth.
	And how did you acquire that wealth?
	A free enterprise capitalist would be one who acquires his wealth through competition and free enterprise and producing products and services at a better quality and a lower cost.
	A monopoly capitalist would be one who acquires his wealth by purchasing the loyalty of politicians and the passing of certain laws to throw the weight of government in his favor and to put obstacles in the way of his competition.
	So there are two kinds of capitalists, if you're going to use that word, and we have to be very clear.
	The capitalists we're talking about that have supported the totalitarian regimes are not free enterprise capitalists.
	They're monopoly capitalists, and they believe in the concept of collectivism.
	The issue of bank bailouts is a very simple one.
	You can make it complicated, but at its core it's a very simple issue.
	And that is that the banks who own the Federal Reserve System, it is a cartel of banks, have great influence over our federal government.
	And when the banks got in trouble and were about ready to go bankrupt, Most of them, if you looked at their balance sheets, they were technically bankrupt because they had made so many bad loans to third world countries or large corporations.
	And these countries and corporations were no longer able to continue paying interest on these loans.
	The bank was coming to the point where they had to write these loans off as bad loans.
	That would have destroyed the banks.
	They would have gone under.
	They were going out of business.
	So, they went to their friends in Washington and they said, look, we need to save America.
	They didn't say we need to save the banks.
	They said, we need to save America.
	If the banks fold, well then, who knows what will happen.
	America will go down.
	And so their friends in Congress voted these Billions and finally trillions of dollars to make all of this happen, to bail out General Motors and Ford and various countries and the banks themselves.
	And it was offered to the American people as a great move on behalf of America.
	This is how we were going to save America, by saving the banks.
	It almost worked, except for the fact that by this time enough people were aware of the game.
	They knew that the Federal Reserve System was creating money out of nothing, and they knew that that would result in their having to pay the bill, either in the form of taxes or through inflation, ultimately in the form of inflation, because the politicians are not willing to increase taxes as much as they should because the politicians are not willing to increase taxes as much as they should in order to pay for these expenditures, so they always keep the taxes
	But they collect it through inflation, because by pumping this new money into the economy, it waters down the purchasing power of all the money that's there.
	So when the voters realized that they were going to pay these bills, It wasn't the government paying these bills or bailing out the banks.
	It was the citizens, the consumers that were bailing out the banks.
	When they realized that, they got angry.
	And there was a great movement against it.
	A lot of anger, and especially when they found out that some of these executives were, you know, getting million dollar bonuses for bankrupting their banks and so forth.
	There was a lot of heat.
	And by the way, I think that the whole issue of bonuses, as important as it is, was a side issue.
	I think that that was one of those tricks that the media uses to distract the public attention from the real issue.
	The real issue was the fact that the Federal Reserve and Congress was creating all of this money out of nothing to bail out the banks.
	That was the real issue.
	It was going to bankrupt America.
	It was going to drive People out of work, out of their homes.
	It was going to destroy America.
	But did they talk about that?
	No.
	They talked about how bad it was that the president of some bank got a million dollar bonus.
	And that's where all the attention went for quite a while.
	So that was a side issue, at least in my view.
	So there we have it.
	What can you say?
	Even though the people are upset about it, it didn't make any difference because the people do not control their government.
	They think they do, but they don't.
	Their politicians are beholden to the banking fraternity, to the Federal Reserve, to the banking cartel.
	That's where the power resides today.
	And if you need to Have any proof of that?
	All you have to do is just take a look at the recent history of the bailout of the banks against the will of the majority of the American people.
	Against the anger of the majority of the American people.
	And nevertheless, Congress went right ahead and did it.
	The President of the United States endorsed it.
	Everybody was for it at the top.
	But at the bottom, the people did not want it.
	So how is that possible?
	If the people control their own government, could that happen?
	No.
	It's proof positive that the people of the United States have lost control of their own government.
	The anger over the bailout of the banks has been a strong fuel for the Tea Party movement.
	But the question is, will the Tea Party movement be able to do anything about it?
	And the answer is, no, not unless they replace those people in Washington that made it possible.
	A Tea Party movement has no value unless it has the effect of replacing the people in Washington who brought about the financial crisis.
	And that means all of them.
	It doesn't mean just Democrats or Republicans.
	It means all of them.
	And so the Tea Party movement, I'm afraid, now is-- there's an attempt to have it become a mouthpiece for the Republican Party and make it look like everything that's happening in the economy and the bailing out of the banks is all the result of the Democrats, and it's not.
	They certainly play a major role in it, but it's all been going on for decades and the Republicans have played a major role in that.
	And some of the very Republicans who are standing up today and saying, we should, you know, we should just put an end to this bail out of the banks.
	They're the ones that voted for it in the beginning, but nobody's checking their voting record.
	So yes, the anger of the American people over the bailouts is fuel for the Tea Party movement, and that's good.
	But now the rest of the story is, will the Tea Party movement be able to remain independent of the political influence of the Republican Party?
	Yes, the film, What in the World Are They Spraying?, I think is going to be a very important film and it's going to shock a lot of people.
	They are spraying something.
	I think everyone's innate intelligence tells them what they see in the sky, those crisscrossing and these white trails that go to horizon to horizon.
	That's not just ice crystals forming at the back end of a jet engine.
	It's true that jet engine does produce ice crystals at high altitudes where the temperature is cold.
	But those ice crystals are absorbed into the atmosphere very soon.
	You can see them trailing along right behind an airplane as it flies across the sky.
	There's a little trail of white smoke and it just follows the plane and disappears.
	That's totally different from these billowing fumes of smoke that go from horizon to horizon and spread out and by the mid-afternoon the sky is milky white.
	So what are they spraying?
	We know now what they are spraying.
	And it's a result of a new industry, relatively new industry, springing up called geoengineering.
	There's a group of scientists and political figures and corporations who are planning to make a great deal of money and achieve other goals as well, other agendas as well, in changing the nature of our planet.
	They say they're doing this because they want to stop global warming.
	That's their main excuse.
	I should go on record right now by saying I think that global warming is a total myth, but that's not the issue right now.
	Even if it were true, they claim that they're trying to stop global warming, but what they're really doing is creating something far more devastating than anything global warming could do.
	They claim that they want to control the weather, They claim they want to improve crops.
	They claim that they want to change the nature of the soil and the water for the betterment of mankind.
	Always, of course, for the betterment of mankind.
	They're always doing it for us, you understand.
	It's a big industry.
	And they say that it's just in the talking stage right now.
	They say we're talking about spraying aluminum and barium into the atmosphere.
	And they say we need to do studies to see if there are toxic effects and so forth.
	And they're saying all the right things as though they're deliberating it.
	But the evidence is abundant now that this has been going on for over a decade.
	It's been going on.
	It's going on right now as we speak.
	And we now have the proof that not only is it going on, but the effect of it is devastating to the planet.
	It's devastating to plant life.
	It's destroying crops.
	It's devastating to wildlife.
	And it's devastating to human health.
	People are becoming very sick because they're breathing in these toxic substances.
	So we now know what they're spraying.
	We can identify it.
	There have been many laboratory tests taken of not only the soil and the water, But from the rainwater and from the snow.
	Now this comes from the sky.
	You can't say it came up out of the ground.
	And these tests have been taken from atmosphere and rainwater and snow in areas that are hundreds of miles away from industrial centers.
	So you can't say it's being blown there from a smokestack or something like that.
	And what they're finding is an alarming high level of toxic substances.
	Aluminum and barium in particular.
	The very chemicals that the scientists are saying, I wonder what would happen if we were to spray aluminum and barium into the sky?
	I wonder.
	That's what they're finding coming out of the sky right now in huge quantities.
	On Mount Shasta, for example, you should find no aluminum whatsoever in snow up there because it came from the sky.
	There's no aluminum in the sky.
	In an area like Manchester, pristine Northern California wilderness.
	There's a requirement by government that if aluminum levels reach, I think it's 1,000 parts per billion, that requires direct intervention on the part of the EPA.
	Because it's considered to be extremely dangerous and toxic.
	1,000 parts per billion.
	Now there should be no parts per billion in that snow, but when they tested they found 60,000 parts per billion.
	So in other words, it's 60 times higher than the highest allowable on the snow on Mount Shasta.
	Extremely toxic.
	Hikers are drinking that stuff.
	They're going to kill themselves, or they'll lose their minds, or something like that.
	And we find this all over, not just in Mount Shasta.
	We've found high levels in beautiful islands of Hawaii, where they've been spraying a lot.
	And you take the samples out of the rainwater.
	This stuff is coming from the sky.
	And it's exactly the same stuff that scientists are talking about.
	What would happen if we put it into the sky?
	The evidence is abundant that this process is going on right now, and to make matters worse, they're spraying us with toxic stuff, but to make matters even worse, they're lying to us about it.
	And that's the message in our film, What in the World Are They Spraying?
	Visit InfoWars.com and PrisonPlanet.com.
	When you're on the site, you can also tune in 24 hours a day to my daily radio broadcast.
	There's also a free iPhone app to listen to the syndicated radio show when and where you want.
	Alex Jones here with a message that could revolutionize health in this country.
	Going back about a year and a half ago, I began to learn about the incredible health effects of longevity products.
	Erin Dykes lost 92 pounds.
	We're going to show you some before and afters.
	Aaron, break down what happened.
	Your story.
	I've worked really hard with diet and exercise to try to lose weight, but I just didn't get the results.
	It just didn't happen.
	Then I saw what you were doing with Infowarsteam.com.
	I wasn't even trying to lose weight, but I got it because I wanted to feel better energy.
	I wanted that nutrition.
	Didn't even understand I don't understand how that could kickstart my own weight loss goals, but the products did that for me.
	I found myself suddenly losing weight, more energetic, wanting to exercise, wanting to eat the right foods, and they don't even advertise it as weight loss!
	I want to challenge our radio listeners to go to InfoWarsTeam.com, sign up as a distributor, and get wholesale pricing discounts at InfoWarsTeam.com.
	Alex Jones here with a message to fellow freedom lovers.
	The prognosis for the entire planetary economic system runs from bad to worse.
	The globalist model is to shut down societies and starve patriots out until they acquiesce to the global takeover.
	That's why we've assembled the most vital and important preparedness items at InfoWarsShop.com.
	These are items that I did research on, that I personally use.
	You've got the LifeStraw, so you can turn fetid water into safe water anywhere you go.
	The KTOR Hand Crank Generator, to charge up key equipment during power More outages are out in the field.
	Strategic Relocation 3rd Edition by Joel Skousen.
	When Disaster Strikes by Matthew Stein.
	Therosafe used by Homeland Security to protect yourself during any radiological event.
	Hand Crank Shortwave AM FM Radios.
	Everything that we've researched and found to be the best is available at InfoWarshop.com and your purchase makes our Info War possible.
	We're getting prepared.
	Are you?

▲