Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 27, 2020 - American Countdown - Barnes

01:46:58

20200527_Wed_Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The British are coming!
	Welcome to another edition of American Countdown.
	Tonight, sort of a special edition of a conspiracy court putting on trial two potential theories that are bouncing around related to the pandemic.
	One is whether COVID-19 could have been a bioweapon at least at one time.
	Maybe released accidentally, maybe released in an experiment gone awry, maybe released deliberately.
	So we'll look at that and we'll be talking to Dr. Francis Boyle about the risks that are attendant to bioweapon labs around the world, in particular the one at Wuhan.
	In the same, in the latter half of the show, we'll be discussing whether or not central banks are manipulating the pandemic to create more power for themselves, even if at the expense of short-term prosperity.
	In that context, we'll be reviewing a book and a documentary called The Princess of Yen.
	How that precisely was done or appears to have been done in Japan.
	There are other examples of it over time.
	Whether or not the central bank cares more about power, like many central planners do, than they do about even prosperity.
	They're willing to sacrifice short-term prosperity for their own long-term power.
	We'll be talking in the second hour with George Gammon about the risks attendant to that potentiality in the current pandemic-driven environment, where central banks continue to seize more and more power.
	But first, as to the context of the issues of the COVID-19 potentially being a bioweapon.
	To put this in context, chemical weapons were first sort of meaningfully discussed as a tool of state during the Civil War.
	Both the Southern and Northern Armies were exploring and experimenting with the possibility of trying to use biological weapons as a tool of warfare.
	However, they never developed them to the point that they actually were used during the Civil War.
	But the concern in the industrial era, which was also the explosion of industrial chemicals and a new form of chemical creation and production, led to a convention at the end of the 1890s to try to prohibit chemical weapons.
	But notably, the United States chose not to be a signatory because they considered it a potential tool in their own arsenal.
	Later, in World War I, would be the first time chemical weapons would be utilized.
	Mustard gas in particular.
	Not only would it be used by the Germans on the battlefield, but the United States, as would later be disclosed decades later, experimented on U.S.
	soldiers concerning its potential effect.
	The chemical experimentation took an entirely new level in World War II, when it was not used very often on the battlefield, except for Japan against the Chinese, but it was used against civilian populations, as biological experimentation took a whole new level under Nazi Germany.
	Now, there are already aspects of that in the United States.
	The United States eugenics-driven movement led to sterilizations of over 70,000 people over a 40-year time period.
	But that wasn't the limitation of experimentation that took place.
	The horrific experimentation that took place in Nazi Germany was actually continued in certain respects by many of the scientists being connected to it and involved with it, later coming to the United States or the Soviet Union, and the United States under Operation Paperclip.
	That would in turn lead to the CIA, originally the Office of Strategic Services, the OSS, becoming the CIA, the Central Intelligence Agency, in 1947, under the National Security Act, that would also later create the National Security Agency, beginning to use a wide range of experimentation.
	The U.S.
	Army itself would be involved with this.
	This would include the famous MKUltra project, where everything from LSD to psychedelic mushrooms were tested on unsuspecting, unwitting individuals.
	But that would not be the limitation of the kind of experimentation that took place in the biological weapons atmosphere.
	The CIA was exploring a biological tool that they could use to control populations, control people, but also as a potential weapon, as the Army did.
	The Army ended up actually using the entire city of San Francisco in one experiment, used housing projects in St.
	Louis in another experiment, used places in Minneapolis as another experiment, used the subways of New York City as another experiment.
	Meanwhile, various radioactive experiments were taking place in the plutonium project that wasn't disclosed until this last century.
	This actually since 2000 when a reporter just stumbled across it when she was looking at experimentation on animals and found out in fact unbeknownst to many of the public the US government had been doing it on human beings.
	This goes beyond the kind of experimentation that was happening in places like Las Vegas where they would put off nuclear weapons and then invite the public to come out and watch knowing of the risk to them of doing so.
	And that goes beyond, in fact, the human experimentation that was taking place with soldiers being exposed at a very close level, knowing that was the purpose of the exposure.
	That would only be discovered decades later, when people died prematurely from the exposure that occurred.
	So there's been a long history of governments using biological tools to experiment on its domestic populations.
	It has not ceased or stopped, even despite the Nuremberg Code of 1946 that said you cannot experiment on people without their informed consent.
	You can't do any kind of biological experimentation.
	Alan Dershowitz should take note of that the next time he's arguing about the constitutionality of forced vaccines, because the U.S.
	is a signatory to the Nuremberg Code of 1946.
	But it's not the only such code.
	There's also the Geneva Convention of 1925, the Chemical Weapons Treaty that the U.S.
	became a signatory to in 1975, and the additional Chemical Weapons Conventions in 1993.
	So we're not supposed to be creating these biological weapons.
	So how has the world been getting around it?
	Well, they call it bio-safety.
	They call it bio-defense.
	This allows them to claim that they're simply doing research on various weapons like anthrax and other chemical weapons and biological weapons solely for defensive purposes.
	But the problem with that, as Francis Boyle will get into tonight, is something called gain of function.
	Gain of function only has one purpose.
	To be a weapon.
	Not to be a defensive tool.
	Not to be a defensive tactic.
	But to weaponize biological viruses in such a way that in fact they can become more deadly, more transmittable, more it can spread easily amongst domestic populations.
	There are bioweapon labs.
	They even have levels of security attached to them.
	They call them bio-safety.
	It's actually BS, believe it or not.
	BS Level 1, BS Level 2, BS Level 3, and BS Level 4 being the particularly gain-of-function laboratories experimenting on very dangerous biological weapons.
	Often these weapons have leaked out in various ways, or you can get what happened with the anthrax case here in the United States in the early 2000s, where according to the government's own evidence, somebody within the government, there's dispute as to who it was, because one of the main targets committed suicide before he could be fully investigated, deliberately sent anthrax to politicians and public officials because he was mad that the government wasn't going to spend more money on his bio-safety research.
	There have been other instances across the world of leaks of dangerous safety issues, particularly in places like China, of related biosafety, but also have occurred repeatedly in the United States.
	The issues around biosafety research, biosecurity, really bioweapons and bioterror research, is such that the public and generally the politicians don't want it discussed or debated too much.
	That may be part of the incentive and motivation for large parts of the world, independent of and separate from China, to not want the biosafety lab in China identified as a potential source of this particular COVID-19.
	The evidence for it, starting with a documentary from Epoch Times, documented in detail all of the peculiar actions the Chinese government took that more strongly suggest a biosafety lab leak of the COVID-19 virus than it originating from a bat sold at the seafood market in Wuhan.
	In part, that is because there's no evidence they were actually selling bats in Wuhan, according to various reports there.
	That's step one.
	Step two is the fact that the major biosafety lab experimenting, admitting to experimenting, on gain-of-function viruses, trying to take particularly bat-related viruses and making them more susceptible, more transmittable to humans and others, was taking place at the Wuhan lab, established and fully built in 2017.
	So, the third part is that the location of Wuhan for an initial outbreak was unusual in the history of viruses in China.
	These kind of viruses typically come from either the south of China or further west in China, closer to where there is more common things like bat diets and things of that nature.
	That did not happen here.
	Wuhan was an unusual location for the origin of this virus.
	Beyond those three pieces of evidence, the fourth piece of evidence was there was particular experimentation on this kind of virus, trying to combine aspects of SARS with aspects of HIV, with aspects of bat viruses to create a particular lethal bioweapon.
	Given that kind of research, and there were genome studies that supported that COVID-19 appeared to have all of those attributes, still in question and controversy today, still debate as to what happened.
	But there were, in fact, studies and, in fact, scientists who were saying they saw it, they witnessed it in India and France and China.
	Then there's the fifth step, the fact that the Chinese government took unusual actions.
	They end up taking military takeover of the Wuhan lab after this happened.
	The Wuhan lab did not lead the effort to deal with the pandemic, which was also atypical since they were supposed to be the most skilled and most equipped, and their entire purpose is supposed to be biodefense to deal precisely with this kind of pandemic.
	Then they're taken over by a military related official.
	And then all of a sudden there's concerns in China about passing biosafety legislation.
	So all of this happens when the sixth step takes place.
	Massive censorship.
	Censorship about every doctor talking about it.
	Every report coming out.
	Samples were supposed to be destroyed.
	Information not shared.
	All of which strongly suggested that China had something to hide.
	And in that broader and deeper context of that taking place, we have the reports that in fact State Department cables came out.
	According to the report in the Washington Post, no less, State Department cables warned of safety issues at the Wuhan lab studying bat coronaviruses over the several past years.
	In addition, in fact, two different whistleblowers within China would identify the lab as the source or likely source of the virus.
	There was even a graduate student who was part of the lab who the various Chinese social media reports were coming out being spread across China that this individual may have been patient zero The Chinese government refuted that information, but then went about deleting any record of her history, her academic history, what papers she worked on, or anything else.
	All of a sudden it vanished from the public square.
	In this same context, there has been connections to people here in the United States concerning the activities in Wuhan.
	That includes Dr. Fauci.
	Because of the concerns in 2010, 2012, and 2015, the lady they call the Bat Lady of China, because she is the prime studier of bat coronaviruses and has been trying to make, weaponize them to be able to show they can spread and cross species, they can become more dangerous and more infectious and more lethal, including showing that she could Get cross-species transfers to mice with no defense against it?
	And then they were going to start studying primates several years ago?
	When she did her final report in 2015, there was enough public outrage and concern within the scientific community about this change of function research period, because it had all the hallmarks and attributes of being a weapon, not a defense mechanism, that the U.S.
	government was forced and obligated between 2012 and 2015 to ban funding of gain of function research.
	Some of that was happening here in the United States in cahoots with people in China.
	Despite that, as in fact, the New York Post reports, Dr. Fauci backed funding for the controversial Wuhan lab concerning the origin of this virus.
	Fauci's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases that he was the leader of shelled out a total of 7.4 million dollars to the Wuhan Institute of Virology lab where these studies were taking place.
	Indeed, the National Institutes of Health had shut down all funding to the lab previously, and that raises serious concerns.
	It led Judicial Watch to file a suit to seek, under the Freedom of Information Act, all records relevant to what Dr. Fauci and his agency was doing in that connection.
	But that's not the only connection to Wuhan and various American political officials controversially connected to political issues related to this pandemic.
	The Wuhan University has been a major beneficiary of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, as reported by the Gates Foundation itself.
	In addition, Duke University, which would pop up on the radar screen when one of its prominent virologists ended up trying to defend the Wuhan lab, admitted she had worked at that Wuhan lab and tried to act as a Facebook fact-checker to prevent reports concerning safety issues at that lab, saying it was, quote, fake news.
	Well, Duke has much deeper ties.
	The Duke Kunshan University is a joint effort in Wuhan with the same Wuhan University.
	The Gates Foundation has been providing donations too.
	In fact, in that capacity, there's even articles that talk about How important and how great the work at the Wuhan University and Wuhan-related laboratories are by both the Gates Foundation and Duke University.
	Indeed, Gates in general has been a supporter and patron of the Chinese government, has defended the Chinese government notoriously, both he and his wife, during this pandemic issues against everyone else, while he's been critical of President Trump, has praised China.
	And in fact, if you can go to the Gates Foundation own website, bragging about all of the work they do in China.
	You can go to the Duke's Chronicle publication talking about Wuhan is home and its doctors are family.
	But this goes to a longer notorious history of human experimentation by governments and politicians who see people as cattle, not as individuals.
	They see people as a tool of power, not as a means of protection.
	Indeed, for some of this work, you can just go to the Freedom of Information Act page at the CIA itself.
	And there you'll find, just type in MKULTRA and you'll find out, you'll see all of the underlying original documents and it goes on for page after page after page of link after link after link to document after document after document concerning the activities of the CIA and mind control and biological human experimentation.
	To give just one example of that, let's take a look at a video documentary that was done by ABC News some years ago, back when they were still independently covering intelligence agencies like this.
	Let's take a look at video clip number three.
	This is the story of a 30-year search by U.S.
	intelligence agencies to perfect mind control.
	Some of those engaged in that search have agreed to talk about it for the first time.
	One said, I think every last one of us felt sorry to attempt this kind of thing.
	We knew we were crossing the line.
	The search would be endless.
	From brothels, an agent says, we learned a lot about human nature in the bedroom.
	To the mystical rites of a magical mushroom ceremony performed by an Indian shaman.
	To a Spanish bull rape.
	The bull has had electrodes implanted in the brain and is controlled by a scientist.
	there would be victims.
	Sir Jess.
	One intelligence agency tried to peel this man's mind back to reveal its deepest secrets.
	Good dog.
	I lived through it.
	I lived through it.
	This man worked on some of these programs.
	He would write of his work, it was fun, fun, fun.
	This is the story of the search for mind control.
	ABC News Close-Up, Mission Mind Control.
	We are not professing to tell you the complete story of these activities.
	We are professing to tell you the complete story that we know.
	But these records that we've uncovered don't tell the story, they tell pieces of it.
	This is a story that has been told in bits and pieces.
	This is an attempt to pull most of it together.
	We know we don't have the full story.
	We do, however, have some striking new revelations and insights.
	The story begins here, just off the nation's front yard, the Mall.
	The buildings behind me were the headquarters for the World War II Office of Strategic Services.
	It was here that the first halting steps toward mind control began.
	The shaper and molder of OSS was General Wild Bill Donovan.
	He said of his group's work, We may have made mistakes, but we were not afraid to try things that were never done before.
	In this anything-goes atmosphere, Donovan appointed this man, Stanley Lovell, a Boston industrialist, to break new ground in many scientific and technical fields.
	Donovan called Lovell his Dr. Moriarty, after the fiendish professor in Sherlock Holmes.
	Lovell liked the name and posed for the Saturday Evening Post photo.
	He later wrote of his OSS job that it was, quote, to stimulate the Peck's bad boy beneath the surface of every American scientist and to say to him, throw all of your normal law-abiding concepts out of the window.
	Here's a chance to raise merry hell.
	It was in this atmosphere that the search for mind control began.
	This bizarre man would be an active participant in that search over the next two decades.
	His name is George White, an OSS captain who had formerly been with the Bureau of Narcotics.
	In his diary, seen here publicly for the first time, White left a legacy of the darker side of American intelligence work.
	He received his early OSS training at the British-run school at Oshawa, Canada.
	The same school where Ian Fleming, the creator of James Bond, was trained.
	White referred to the school in his diaries as the Oshawa School of Mayhem and Murder.
	Mike Burke, former OSS colleague of White's and now president of Madison Square Garden Center.
	Very compelling fella.
	Mysterious fella.
	Almost mystical fella.
	He was fascinating because you didn't, you knew something about him and not enough about him to really get a fix on him.
	He also knew a great deal about the swifter elements of society, the gamier side of life.
	And he was very impressive in his technical knowledge of the underworld, so to speak.
	He said, one of our men gets beat up, he says, you have to act real fast.
	And teach these guys a lesson.
	Charles Siragusa, a former narcotics officer and friend of White's.
	He said, I'll come around and break your kneecaps.
	And with that, one guy laughed.
	And George White always had a little billy with him.
	And this one guy saw us naked, George White turned around and whapped him across the neck with it.
	Then he picked up a pool stick and started beating everybody up.
	He made his point.
	And he made his point.
	George White was not a man of understatement or subtleties.
	His boss at OSS, Stanley Lovell, referred to him as deadly and dedicated.
	In this note from White's diaries, it says, Call Lovell regarding TD.
	TD was a rather transparent cover for Truth Drug.
	George White worked with the Truth Drug Committee here at St.
	Elizabeth's Hospital in the nation's capital.
	They experimented with mescaline, scopalamine, and marijuana on unwitting victims.
	The committee soon learned there was no easy panacea, no truth drug at this stage.
	But White and later colleagues would not stop trying.
	The goal remained the same.
	As this 1952 CIA memo says, the aim is controlling an individual to the point where he will do our bidding against his will and even against such fundamental laws of nature as self-preservation.
	Dr. James Moore, a University of Delaware chemist, secretly served the CIA preparing deadly chemicals on short notice.
	Moore was instructed to get close to Wasson and accompany him on another trip to Mexico to get the magic mushrooms.
	Internal documents show the CIA felt a drug derived from the mushrooms could remain an agency secret.
	What in the world were they looking for with the magic mushrooms?
	I think the best answer to that is that they were looking for fundamental information on compounds that were, would be capable of causing Changes in behavior, changes in mental attitude.
	Did you ever consider what would have happened if any of these substances were given to, say, unwitting people?
	Oh, I don't remember having considered that specifically.
	I... What if you... I trust perhaps you've thought about it.
	Well, I haven't worried about it.
	I...
	Your question again, what would I have thought had I known that any of these substances would have been given to unwitting persons?
	You mean a hostile agent of another government?
	No, I mean... That was probably one of the things I had in mind.
	I mean testing it out on an American citizen.
	I guess I must seem very cold-blooded about this, but I don't recall ever having been very much preoccupied with that but I don't recall ever having been very much preoccupied with But many drugs were tested in this way.
	A decision was made at the highest levels of the CIA to do testing on unwitting Americans.
	As one CIA document says, such testing would be operationally realistic.
	A former CIA official who worked on these programs describes for the first time how the decision was made.
	He did not wish to be filmed or recorded.
	Thus his remarks are read by someone else.
	I think every last one of us felt sorry to attempt this kind of thing.
	We knew we were crossing the line.
	Every decent kid knows he shouldn't steal, but he does it sometimes.
	We knew damn well we didn't want anyone else to know what we were doing.
	The decision was made to do testing on unwitting victims.
	It was decided they should be on the fringes of society because they were most vulnerable.
	It was the borderline underworld.
	Prostitutes, drug addicts, and other small timers who would be powerless to seek any kind of revenge in case they found out.
	and helplessly experimenting on their population now for decades?
	Why should we expect less of the Chinese government in terms of wanting to develop biological weapons to give it an advantage when it has a military disadvantage, as it itself has admitted, in the military sphere, particularly as it relates to the United States?
	If the U.S. government was willing to do this for decade after decade after decade, then why wouldn't the Chinese government be interested in the same capability and the same power?
	In this context, it's useful to remember what even the U.S.
	government was capable of.
	Let's take a look at video clip number two.
	Fog is famous, especially in the summer when weather conditions combine to create the characteristic cooling blanket that sits over the Bay Area.
	But one fact many may not know about San Francisco's fog is that in 1950, the U.S.
	military conducted a test to see whether it could be used to help spread a biological weapon in a simulated germ warfare attack.
	This was just the start of many such tests around the country that would go on in secret for years.
	The test was a success, as Rebecca Creston explains over at Discover Magazine, and one of the largest human experiments in history.
	The unsuspecting residents of San Francisco certainly could not consent to the military's germ warfare test, and there's good evidence that it could have caused the death of at least one resident of the city, Edward Nevin, and hospitalized ten others.
	This is a crazy story, one that seems like it must be a conspiracy theory.
	An internet search will reveal plenty of misinformation and unbelievable conjecture about these experiments, but the core of this incredible tale is documented and true.
	Indeed, this has been a common pattern.
	Let's take a look at video clip number one, which is just the introduction to an old History Uncovered series about the long, detailed documented history of governments willing to do this.
	Let's take a look at video clip number one.
	Declassified documents reveal that from the end of World War II through the Cold War, hidden under a veil of secrecy, the U.S.
	government performed military tests on large populations.
	In the late 40s and early 50s, patients were injected with a radioactive substance while in their hospital bed.
	See, my father never told me.
	I never knew that this happened to him.
	Soldiers were exposed to radiation to test their performance in a nuclear war.
	In the 1950s, the Army released bacteria and chemicals at sea, in the air, and underground.
	I found out that four of my pals that lived directly across the street from me had all died of cancer.
	These are four separate families.
	In 1995, a presidential advisory committee confirmed that for more than three decades, hundreds of thousands of Americans have been unwitting participants in human experimentation.
	The change of function capability at bio-safety so-called research labs present an ongoing continuous risk.
	And can we imagine that a Chinese government that has been willing to imprison religious and political dissidents, even using them for organ transplants in a black market of organ transfers across the world,
	Is the kind of government that would not be interested or involved or invested in various change of function bioweapon research that may in fact have either been accidentally or deliberately leaked in some manner by the Wuhan lab and that that is the source of this and then what it should do is lead us to question whether we should have these labs anywhere in the world.
	And maybe that's why the Western world doesn't want to discuss it in full debate or dialogue, and wants to suppress information related or relevant to it, becoming complicit in what China was up to.
	Up next, when we come back after the break, we'll have Dr. Francis Boyle, someone who has studied this issue for quite a long time, a world-renowned professor in this field of human rights and human dignity, and what we can do to both investigate further and take the action necessary to procure a second pandemic like this from reoccurring from these kind of bio labs.
	So join us right back after the break.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	I'm privileged and honored to have with us for this half hour Dr. Francis Boyle, one of the great human rights activists and advocates throughout the last half century on behalf of causes literally all around the world, helped craft and create legislation to try to curb the risk of bioweapons in the United States in particular, but also throughout the world.
	With multiple degrees from Harvard Laws, now a law professor, the University of Illinois has written many books and articles on this subject, has been outspoken in a wide range of issues that concern matters of human relations and human rights, particularly in this environment that poses particular risks in the bioweapon development area.
	He has worked with Amnesty International, American Friends, and a wide range of others.
	Glad to have you with us, Doctor.
	Well, thank you very much, Robert, for having me out of my best to your viewing audience.
	As usual, I always appreciate these interviews on informs.
	Absolutely.
	Can you explain to us what your perspective is coming at this issue in terms of looking at biosafety research and its risks that it poses?
	Sure, Robert.
	Well, what we're seeing now with this COVID-19 pandemic It is exactly what I tried to prevent going back when I drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act in 1989 that was passed unanimously by Both houses of Congress.
	I saw this coming at the time, I hate to say, which is why I acted preemptively.
	Clearly, I discussed this before with Alex Jones, the COVID-19 is an offensive biological warfare weapon that, in my opinion, leaked out of that Wuhan BSL-4, which is really China's Fort Detrick.
	And it shows you how dangerous these BSL-4s really are.
	Right now, we have 12 of them here in the United States, and they should all be shut down immediately, doing research, development of biological weapons, First, every bit as dangerous as what happened there on Wuhan that set this pandemic off, that as of today has killed at least 100,000 Americans.
	Second, as I've also established, that COVID-19 came from The BSL-3 at the University of North Carolina.
	And there they were working with SARS, which is a weaponized coronavirus, and then they gave it gain-of-function properties, which made it more lethal and more infectious.
	And of course that technology was transferred to Wuhan because there was a Chinese scientist right there on the staff who had bought and paid for entry into the University of North Carolina.
	So that shows you the dangers of these BSL-3s.
	And so my conclusion is all these BSL-3s must be shut down immediately.
	Indeed, the University of North Carolina is still doing their and engaged in this hideous Nazi-type research.
	And, you know, if you just call up The BSL-3s around the country, all the people who have been attacking me, all these microbiologists, etc., since I first went public with this on January 24,
	Uh, it turns out they all work at BSL-3s, and they're up to their eyeballs in hideous Nazi biological warfare death science-type work, and they're simply trying to protect their own careers, their own labs, But go to some of these sites.
	Stanford has a BSL-3.
	Johns Hopkins has a BSL-3.
	This favorite house scientist in the New York Times, Ebright, he's sitting there.
	There's a BSL-3 at Rutgers, and they're up to their eyeballs in every type of hideous biological warfare Weapon you could possibly imagine, including SARS.
	And COVID-19 is SARS on steroids.
	So all these people who have attacked me, all you have to do is a little due diligence research and you'll find out they're all doing this stuff.
	They're protecting their turf, they're protecting their money, they're protecting their labs.
	They're protecting their careers and in respect to everyone involved in that COVID-19 at the University of North Carolina.
	And by the way, that was bought and paid for by the National Institutes of Health and NIAID under Tony Fauci.
	They all risk criminal prosecution under my Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act and life imprisonment, which I deliberately put in there to try to get these people's attention and to stop it.
	And indeed, after it was passed, I published notices in scientific publications, including the prestigious Science Magazine, warning to all life scientists, if you get involved in this type of work, you face life imprisonment under the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act.
	Unfortunately, no one listened.
	What you can do And I do recommend, there is an excellent documentary you can find by Cohn and Nadler called Anthrax Wars that goes through all the dangers of the BSL-3s and BSL-4s.
	It's about an hour long.
	And I served as a consultant on it, and I was in there.
	I think it must have come out about maybe 2009 or something like that.
	And at the end of it, I say quite clearly, this is a catastrophe waiting to happen.
	Those were my exact words.
	And those are the last words of that documentary.
	So it was predictable.
	I predicted it.
	Uh, and, uh, unfortunately it has now come to pass.
	And if we want to, uh, I mean, we can discuss what, where we go from here with the, uh, COVID-19, but in the meantime, we just have to, the American people must man.
	And President Trump can do this with an executive order tomorrow, if he wants to.
	We must demand that President Trump, by means of an executive order, immediately shut down BSL-3s and BSL-4s.
	I've been up against these so-called white scientists, which are really death scientists from past generations.
	There is no legitimate scientific or medical reason For having any of these BSL-3s or BSL-4s.
	They must all be shut down and President Trump can do it tomorrow by an executive order.
	Someone could just sign it for him.
	They're all paid for by the United States government.
	He could just shut them down and put all these death scientists out of work.
	The last time I looked into a The figure here was 2015, you can find an internet essay I wrote, and there were about 13,000 so-called life scientists involved in biological warfare work.
	Well, we need to stop this.
	And putting aside, you know, malice, accidents happen.
	All these labs, certainly the BSL-3s and the BSL-4s, A leak that Black West African Ebola pandemic, that came directly out of the US BSL-4 in Kenema, Sierra Leone.
	Swine flu, That was a, as I discussed with Alex Jones, that was a chimera.
	There were three elements fused together by means of DNA genetic engineering.
	I couldn't trace down precisely what lab did that, but it was clear there was nothing natural about it.
	The anthrax attacks of October 2001.
	That came directly out of Fort Detrick, and I blew the whistle on that the first weekend in November 2001.
	It was clearly a super weapons-grade biological warfare weapon that could only have been manufactured in a U.S.
	BSL form.
	And that anthrax stockpile, that super weapons grade anthrax stockpile that was used in the Amerithrax attack, it's still out there somewhere.
	It could be at Belgway, it could be at Aberdeen, it could be at Fort Detrick, I don't know where it is.
	But all this has to stop.
	It's just too dangerous.
	And it's going to blow back on the American people as COVID-19 has already done.
	This is a blowback.
	And there was no excuse for any of it.
	And that's what I've spent You know, all my career since 1985, when I first called for implementing legislation for the Biological Weapons Convention at a Capitol Hill briefing I did for the Council for Responsible Genetics, that's what I've been working on since then, even before then.
	So, Robert, you're a lawyer.
	What is your response to all that?
	Well, I have an additional component.
	I find that most people don't know that these labs really exist in the way that they do.
	The impression is given to the public that these are just defense labs trying to develop vaccines.
	Not that, in particular, the thing that I found that's inexplicable as defense labs is why they're doing change-of-function research.
	Sure.
	And that particular, my understanding is if you're at a level three or level four, you have the ability to do change of function research.
	When I mentioned it, most people don't even haven't ever even heard of the phrase.
	Could you explain to people what change of function research is and how inherently it can almost only be offensive in nature?
	Sure.
	They they take a currently existing biological warfare agent like SARS.
	And SARS is a weaponized coronavirus.
	This is exactly what happened at that UNC lab in North Carolina.
	And by the way, if you've seen the documentary Pandemic, Dr. Mikovits agrees with me that COVID-19 came out of this gain-of-function work at the University of North Carolina Laboratory.
	She agrees with me, independently of me, with her own expertise.
	And she used to work at Fort Detrick, so she knows what she's talking about.
	And they tweak it by means of DNA genetic engineering.
	They make it more lethal and more infectious.
	So it became SARS on steroids and that is what, now to do that you have to have a BSL-3 to do it safely.
	So then it goes back to the Wuhan BSL-4 China's Fort Detrick, and they further deal with it there.
	As I discussed before, they use DNA genetic engineering to put HIV in there, and that has been confirmed by the Indian scientist studies, and now by the Nobel Prize winner in medicine in France, who discovered that HIV
	All right, and there are other sources now pointing this out, that there is HIV DNA genetically engineered into COVID-19.
	So, and I traced for Alex how Wuhan BSL-4 got that from work they did in Australia.
	That's all a matter of public record.
	Now we find out, and I guess this is the first time I will discuss this, that there is documentary evidence that the Wuhan BSL-4 applied nanotechnology to viruses.
	Nanotechnology turns it into little bitty particles.
	The amerothrex It had 100 million spores per gram of that anthrax and that could only be done with nanotechnology and that can only be done safely In a BSL-4, you have to wear a moon suit to deal with something like that.
	You have to have your own air supply.
	So they do this at Fort Detrick.
	There's now documentary evidence they've done it at the Wuhan BSL-4, China's Fort Detrick.
	And so when you put all that together, what I've discussed, the UN North Carolina The HIV and the nanotechnology, I believe you've come up with COVID-19.
	And that also accounts for the report by the MIT scientists that COVID-19 can travel up to 27 feet.
	Right.
	That's what nanotechnology does to you.
	It reduces a particle so small it floats on the air, it floats in the air, it floats above the air.
	Right.
	And that's why it's completely misleading for Fauci and the rest who say, well, this is all due to droplets.
	It's far beyond droplets.
	And again, you have to be in a BSL-4 to do something like that.
	Likewise, we also know by this alma mater, Harvard, the chair of their chemistry department, who specializes in nanotechnology, He had an entire lab over there in Wuhan, applying nanotechnology to biology and chemistry.
	He too worked for Dietrich, where they applied nanotechnology to aerosolize.
	That's what the nanotechnology does.
	It aerosolizes bio-warfare agents.
	And Harvard was a sponsoring institution of the Wuhan BSL-4.
	Harvard knew what was going on here.
	It's disinformation to say that Harvard didn't know what was going on.
	Of course they knew what was going on.
	They were paying for it along with the WHO.
	I mean, imagine if the WHO and Harvard were sponsoring research institutes with Fort Detrick.
	Of course, we'd say this is preposterous, but this is what you can find documented in the professional scientific literature.
	Understand, I've never worked for the United States government.
	I've never had a security clearance.
	I've never had access to secret documents or anything like that.
	I just have to go on what is in the public record.
	And everything I've discussed with you here tonight, including the nanotechnology there at Wuhan BSL-4, can be confirmed from the public record.
	And that, I'm afraid, is what we are really dealing with here.
	This had nothing to do with, you know, animals, Chinese eating bats or something like that, or animals jumping from animals.
	You know, as a professor of international law, China can have whatever type of government they want under international law.
	But, I mean, this is, you know, Chinese communist dictatorship propaganda.
	And yet, if you turn on all the news media, they just had a special tonight on MSNBC.
	All of them are ferreting Chinese communist dictatorship propaganda that this came out of the wet lab in Wuhan.
	So, you know, there's just a lot of money at stake.
	Look at the vaccines.
	Please tell me, how are you going to get a vaccine for this devil's cocktail?
	It is not going to work.
	Oh, I don't see possibly how it's going to work.
	And yet we see this everywhere you turn on the TV, the entire vaccine industry and all its so-called scientists are out there trying to portray themselves as saviors and feeding off the trough, right, of the American taxpayer, NIH, NIAID, you name it.
	Because there's big bucks involved, and pharma is involved, but they all know there is no vaccine for this.
	And indeed, in my opinion, a vaccine would probably be more dangerous than worthless.
	If you look at some of these vaccines they're proposing, they're actually going to give you particles of COVID-19.
	That's exactly how the The Black West African Ebola pandemic set off there from the Kenema BSL-4.
	They were trying out an experimental Ebola vaccine that gave people Ebola.
	There were particles of Ebola in there.
	So, of course, they got Ebola and it got out of control and 13,000 people died.
	So that probably is what's going to happen here and then just put aside all the horrible side effects.
	So I think vaccines, this is a delusion, it's a dream, it's a joke, and it's a fraud from what I can see now.
	I think the best we are going to be able to do, and I'm just giving you my good faith estimation here, Robert.
	I'm prepared to keep my mind open on this, is therapeutics, like we have done with AIDS, since HIV is in there, or cancer.
	We spent an entire generation Trying to get a vaccine for cancer.
	There's no vaccine for cancer, and there's not going to be one, and everyone's sort of given up on that.
	They've tried to get a vaccine for AIDS.
	Well, so far I don't think they have one.
	And so this is a fruitless endeavor, and it's extremely dangerous for the American people to be buying into this vaccinology.
	So, that's my assessment.
	I do believe therapeutics are possible, like we have done with cancer.
	They dramatically reduce the incidence of cancer here in America, and also with AIDS.
	Therapeutics have done that.
	So I think there are valid medical means to try to bring this thing under control, but vaccines is a delusion.
	And you see the agenda here that, you know, Bill Gates and, you know, Mr. Vaccinologist, and he's a eugenicist, he's admitted he wants to reduce the population, and they're talking about, you know, vaccine passports, And you have to have a vaccine if you want to do this, that, or the other thing.
	These antigen tests are a joke and a fraud.
	Obviously, they don't work.
	There's no guarantee of anything.
	People get reinfected with COVID-19.
	They recover and then they get it again.
	So, you know, we're dealing with something That has never been this dangerous before, I guess going back to the Spanish flu virus.
	That is what we are up against.
	My opinion, you know, this is basically World War III, and the enemy is in the gates.
	You know, in World War I, World War II, they didn't invade the United States.
	You know, Japan made it to the Aleutian Islands, but that wasn't part of the United States.
	But it's here, and I regret today they're observing the marker of 100,000 dead Americans, and I'm afraid that unless we come to grips with this, by the end of the summer, we're going to be seeing another 100,000 dead Americans.
	I hope I'm wrong on that, Robert, but you've asked me to give you my best opinion, and that's the way I see it now.
	Aside from an executive order that the president could sign, what other legal steps could be taken to try to, or political steps could be taken to prevent this from happening again?
	Well, all these labs are located in states of the union.
	And what I have recommended in other interviews I have given is that the governor of North Carolina Should immediately shut down that UNC BSL-3.
	They should send state troopers over there, get everyone out, surround it with crime tape and post the guard.
	That, I think, needs to be done immediately.
	Because, you know, under the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution, it's the governors of the State of the Union that have the constitutional power and obligation to provide for the public health of the people of that state.
	So my advice would be for every governor in America to find out what are the BSL-3s and BSL-4s in their states and send out state troopers or state police or highway patrol and just shut them down.
	Get everyone out of there.
	Seal them off.
	We're back with Dr. Boyle for another question or two.
	He's been graciously to stay with us.
	Dr. Boyle, where can people find more information to educate themselves about this and about issues related to it?
	Well, I have a book out called Biowarfare and Terrorism that has pretty much everything in there.
	And then in addition on the internet, I think I sent it to Alex or Daria, I gave a written response to an investigative reporter, Sherwood Ross, that he entitled, 13,000 U.S.
	Death Scientists Hard at Work.
	You can find that with Google.
	And that brought the situation up to date until late 2015.
	So, those would be two good sources to start out People who want to read this and understand more of what they can do and the importance and critical nature of it.
	In that respect, could you also summarize the problem that there's been repeated reports of leaks from these biosafety labs of things getting out that aren't supposed to get out?
	Could you give a summation of that?
	Because a lot of that information is suppressed in the institutional press.
	Yes, of course.
	Lyme disease leaked out of the biological warfare complex on Plum Island, off the coast of, I guess, Long Island.
	And Plum Island, that's run by the Department of Agriculture.
	They have always been involved in research, development, testing of biological weapons.
	For the Department of Agriculture, with respect to animals and plants, that work still goes on today.
	Indeed, they're going to be transferring Plum Island out to Kansas, in the heart of America's beef industry and wheat industry.
	Not only did Lyme disease leak out of there, West Nile virus that plagues the American people, that leaked out of there.
	The Ebola pandemic in West Africa, that leaked out of the Tenema BSL-3.
	Zika mosquitoes, that didn't leak, that was delivered.
	That is a DNA genetically engineered mosquito that produced all those babies with encephalitis that was deliberately released in Latin America.
	That came out of a lab too.
	Indeed, as far as I could figure out, out there in Colorado, Fort Collins, Colorado, they have a lab And that lab has historically been involved in the weaponization of insects.
	So, you know, if you look at most of these epidemics, pandemics, they do not just jump out of nature.
	They even take AIDS.
	The London Sunday Times Which is a most credible source recorded years ago that AIDS started out as a retrovirus vaccine by the WHO that they tested out black people in Central Africa, probably as part of cancer.
	And that you can read the book by Dr. Len Horowitz Who will tell you the same thing, that AIDS came out of US and WHO cancer programs.
	Right.
	It's terrible.
	This was done deliberately.
	The Zika.
	So, this is what, you know, confronts us.
	But Robert, before we run out of time, I did want to comment on one extremely important issue That I have not discussed anywhere before, and that is this.
	It was recently revealed that the U.S.
	intelligence agencies, all 17 of them, did not inform President Trump of a problem at Wuhan until January 23.
	That is in the New York Times for May 22.
	And let me just read you the type of briefing he was given.
	The briefer did offer limited information in that briefing, compared the virus to SARS, a less contagious coronavirus that was more quickly contained.
	Well, that's shocking!
	That 17 U.S.
	intelligence agencies did not tell President Trump until January 23 that there was a problem with Wuhan and it was no more dangerous than SARS?
	Robert, to be honest about it, on the morning of January 24, I put out a worldwide alert all over my mainstream news media And internet sources saying that this was a DNA genetically engineered biological warfare agent involving gain of function property.
	Now, I didn't do it sooner because I was starting classes.
	I figured there was a problem as of January 27, but I put out that alert as of January 24.
	I sent it to RIA.
	The RIA I circulated all over the world.
	Now, what's going on here?
	Here is a law professor sitting in his office.
	Who reached this conclusion as of the morning of January 24 and that it was more dangerous than sucked.
	Why did 17 U.S.
	government intelligence agencies tell President Trump on January 23 that it was only sucked?
	What's going on here?
	All they had to do, these intelligence agencies, was look into Fauci's computer and the NIH computer back in November when it was first reported that there was a case of someone reporting to the hospital in Wuhan with pneumonia symptoms.
	It was clear there was a problem at that point, November 16th.
	You mean to tell me the 17 U.S.
	intelligence agencies didn't know about this?
	What are we paying these organizations ten billion dollars, billions of dollars for every year?
	When that came out, all they had to do was look into the Fauci NIH computer and they would have seen, aha, And we funded the Wuhan BSL-4 to do this type of work, and obviously it was far more dangerous than SARS.
	It was SARS on steroids with gain-of-function properties, and yet they withheld this information from President Trump until January 23.
	President Trump said, quote, on January 23, I was told that there could be a virus coming in, but it was of no real import, unquote.
	Well, someone should have told President Trump no later than I would say the third week of November exactly what I have been saying.
	That this is an offensive biological warfare weapon involving SARS and gain-of-function properties.
	At least they could have found that in Fauci's computer and the NIH computer.
	They did not tell this to President Trump.
	If they had, President Trump could have called up President Xi and said, I want you to shut down Wuhan immediately.
	And if you do not, I will shut down the United States to all travel from China.
	Okay.
	But they did not tell President Trump, they admit, until January 23, two months later.
	And why did they tell him on January 23?
	Because on January 23, China announced it was shutting down Wuhan.
	So they had to tell him something.
	And they told him as little as possible.
	So of course, they didn't.
	The 17 US intelligence agencies Did not tell President Trump the truth.
	Did not advise, on time, did not advise President Trump how existentially dangerous this Wuhan coronavirus was.
	If they had told President Trump, I think he could have demanded everything be shut down, closed this country off, and we would not have at least 100,000 Dead Americans today.
	And I lay the blame here directly on the shoulders of the 17 U.S.
	intelligence agencies, including that CIA briefer that did not tell President Trump the truth until it was too late to do very much at that point.
	I'm not here to excuse any of the blunders That have happened since January 23.
	Because if President Trump has never been properly advised by Fauci and Redfield and Birx and the rest of them, who are up to their eyeballs in this, then of course we're going to have massive confusion here.
	And the American people, we are not going to be able to deal with this COVID-19.
	But the truth was out there.
	And I'm sure these U.S.
	intelligence agencies had it.
	Fauci had it.
	The CDC had it.
	They all had it no later than the third week of November.
	And they did nothing.
	Nothing at all.
	And this was not just an intelligence failure in my purpose.
	I think it was deliberate.
	I think it was deliberate because the CIA also was up to its eyeballs in offensive biological warfare work that came out in the book Germs by the two reporters from the New York Times.
	So I think it was a cover-up and it's still being covered up And Americans are still dying.
	And I regret to say, I think we might have another 100,000 Americans dead by the end of the summer.
	There's no doubt that risk continues as long as biological experimentation on either weapons or human beings is allowed to occur anywhere in the world.
	Thanks, Doctor, for being with us.
	Well, thank you very much for having me on, Robert.
	My best to everyone there at InfoWars.
	Absolutely.
	Thanks a lot.
	Absolutely.
	In addition, not only is the issue related to what was really happening in terms of the risk that Wuhan's lab presented of a potential bioweapons release, but they're not the only political actors who may have their own incentive and interest involved in these kind of matters.
	We're seeing around the world the central banks utilizing this pandemic as an excuse to seize or shift power economically and politically.
	There's talk and discussion of a wide range of topics, whether it involves how currencies operate, whether we have digital currencies, how reserves are operating, the ability of the Fed to buy up mortgages, the ability of the Fed to buy up corporate debt, the ability of the Fed to even buy corporate securities.
	And that's just the U.S.
	central bank.
	Other central banks have their own activities.
	There was a good theory developed some years ago by a Japanese, by an economist who was in Japan, that led to a book and then a documentary series or documentary movie called The Princess of Yen.
	The predicate was that in fact China's central, the Japan, Bank of Japan, may have deliberately induced part of what has long has now become the Long Recession in Japan.
	The theory was that the central bank preferred power over short-term prosperity.
	And so even if they induced a bubble that would in turn induce a malaise in the Japanese economy, that was okay if as long as it would restructure political and economic power to make them, the Bank of Japan, an independent central bank with more power.
	We'll show some excerpts of that documentary later on in the show.
	But what the person who introduced it to me is someone who has been consistently accurate in a wide range of predictions and forecasts at providing actionable and accessible information in this complex economic world, particularly when it relates to banks.
	One of the theories of the Princess of Yen is that the bankers often relied on technical language that could confuse the general public so they had no idea what was really going on.
	One of the people that's best at breaking down that technical language and making it accessible to ordinary people where you don't have to have an economics degree or degree in banking, central banking lingo, in order to understand what's going on has been George Gammon.
	George Gammon's been on the show before, made various predictions that we talked about and discussed.
	His YouTube series continues to be one of the best.
	I watch it regularly and provides information that's actionable and accessible for ordinary people and ordinary investors.
	Everyday folks who are just interested in what's really going on in our financial system.
	George, glad to give you with us.
	I'm happy to be here, Robert.
	Good to see you again, buddy.
	Absolutely.
	So could you talk about, there's different sort of overarching theories out there, but one I wanted to get into was, I've been a little baffled by President Trump talking about wanting to go to negative interest rates.
	And given the history of negative interest rates being problematic for a wide range of reasons, which you go into in your videos, what do you think President Trump thinks he would benefit from negative interest rates?
	I don't know if he understands negative interest rates well enough to know what he's actually asking for.
	I think he's just looking at it from a standpoint of, hey, we've got all this debt, call it $25 trillion, the government, so why wouldn't we want negative interest rates?
	It just makes sense.
	I think from the standpoint of the central banks, they could be looking at it from a different standpoint and potentially even using Trump as kind of one of their useful idiots.
	And it goes back to the book you're referring to, The Princess of the Yen, by Richard Werner.
	And I'd suggest everybody checking out the book and the documentary.
	It's on YouTube.
	But his premise, to your earlier point, is that the central banks try to create a crisis Because they know in crisis, that's the only time they can get the general population to change.
	So whether it's to bring on a group like the IMF or the World Bank to give them more power or to consolidate power with the investment banks and the primary dealer banks around the Federal Reserve or the Central Bank of XYZ country, they create these massive bubbles, these debt bubbles,
	Because they know once the bubble explodes, once it bursts, just like we had in 2008, then you bring on this crisis, which then can prompt the change in whichever direction the central bank wants.
	Exactly.
	I mean, there's evidence of it.
	I mean, there was an argument about it in Greece that that was in part what happened in Greece.
	There's arguments about it happening in Japan, arguments about it happening in Singapore and Asia that led to the bubble in 1998, and a discussion of it just in general.
	It's a wide-ranging discussion of the IMF.
	Can you talk about how the Federal Reserve may be, and other central banks, may be using the pandemic as an opportunity or crisis to shift power and resources?
	Sure.
	Well, first of all, we all know they've done QE infinity.
	So they started with QE 1, 2, 3.
	Then they went to a QE 4, which they didn't really admit to.
	So everyone in the FinTwit universe was calling it not QE because Jerome Powell just wouldn't say, you know, we're printing all this money, but don't call it quantitative easing, whatever you do.
	So now they've come out and just said, OK, fine, we're explicitly doing quantitative easing and we'll do as much as necessary.
	So what this has done is this has created a tremendous amount of bank reserves in the system.
	To give you an idea, before the pandemic, the bank reserves in the system held at the Fed about $1.3 trillion.
	Now we're up to almost three trillion dollars.
	So why does that matter?
	Because currently the Fed is paying banks to hold reserves with their accounts held at the Fed.
	But if they take interest rates negative, it will become an expense for those same banks.
	Well then what they've recently done is they've dropped reserve requirements down to zero.
	So the banks don't have to hold any reserves against their loans or their balance sheet whatsoever.
	So why this matters is because if you look at an investment bank like JP Morgan or Goldman Sachs, usually their business model requires fewer reserves.
	So if the Fed is coming in doing quantitative easing infinity, taking the bank reserves up, and then if they were to take interest rates negative, this could create an additional burden on the retail banking sector.
	If it creates an additional burden on the retail banking sector, a lot of them could go out of business, which would do what?
	Consolidate power around the primary dealer banks and the Federal Reserve.
	Wow.
	So in that context or in that capacity then, so effectively what the Fed could be doing is putting in a sequence of policies that could further concentrate financial power in the country.
	Correct.
	Wow.
	And the other risk that there is already present, though they haven't exercised it, they've just been sort of been an implied put, is their ability to buy up corporate securities, corporate debt, municipal debt, and the rest of it.
	If you combine it, could the Fed effectively use this to consolidate a wide range of economic and banking and financial power across multiple sectors of the economy?
	Yes, because if they We're to purchase assets.
	Let's say they start purchasing stocks.
	That means that the equity of all of these companies in the United States is going on to the Fed's balance sheet, meaning they own it.
	So, who knows where there's a limit?
	I doubt there is.
	But they're starting to buy corporate debt through ETFs.
	They're even buying high-yield corporate debt, in other words, junk bonds.
	So, I think the next step, if we have another downturn in the stock market due to a second wave of the coronavirus, whatever, whether it's planned or not, That's a whole other topic of discussion.
	But once they have another crisis in the stock market, assuming they do, we go into recession slash depression, then they're going to come back in with guns blazing.
	And I think the next step is they could very well buy stocks, in which case, again, those equities go on to the Fed's balance sheet.
	And then where's the limit as far as the bailouts?
	Well, what if they start bailing out states?
	What if they bail out the pension funds?
	And then pretty soon you not only have the Fed consolidating banking power because they're putting other banks out of business, like retail banks and community banks, but then you have them buying up all of these assets, dollar-denominated assets, and just growing and growing and growing as far as their scope of power.
	And in that capacity, because you mentioned that there's a debate out there about whether or not this is a function of sort of economic incompetence, a sort of cultural mindset, or whether it's corruption.
	I always say the worst combination, I don't mind dumb people, I don't mind criminals, but you combine the two, you don't get a good combination.
	To a certain degree, we have aspects of public policy that can reflect people who both may have malevolent intentions and may not be the most competent people in the world.
	But could you describe sort of what the different debate out there is in terms of predicting future conduct about what's motivating some of this behavior by central banks?
	For sure.
	So we outlined Professor Werner's opinion of central banks and what they could be doing.
	And to be very clear, Professor Werner hasn't outlined the scenario that I did about the quantitative easing and the bank reserves, but he has Expressed a lot of concern about negative interest rates and banning cash that that's a power move from the central bank.
	So he's definitely on record saying that.
	So that's the side of the argument.
	That's the that's kind of the central banks are.
	Are seeking power.
	This is a game plan that they're trying to execute.
	That's on one hand.
	On the other hand, you have people like someone I really enjoy interviewing.
	His name is Jeff Snyder.
	He's absolutely brilliant.
	He knows the system inside and out like no one I've ever seen.
	But his opinion is that the Fed is just totally incompetent and they really don't have a mechanism For buying up assets, they'd like to say they do, and they like to lead us to believe that they have control over the short-term interest rates, long-term interest rates, and the stock market going up and down.
	But because there's such a massive bureaucracy and they're held to these Keynesian models, they really can't control what they say they can.
	So what happens is Jerome Powell goes out on shows like 60 Minutes and talks up the market, says they're going to print limitless amounts of money.
	He basically says whatever he needs to to make the market think as though there is a Fed put.
	And his idea behind this is if the market thinks there's a Fed put, then they're going to start buying stocks and that's going to create the wealth effect that I'm trying to achieve.
	In addition to that, it'll most likely or hopefully from the Fed standpoint, create inflation in the real economy.
	Why do they want inflation?
	Because it's a way to bail out the federal government.
	The only way out of their debt problem is through default or inflation.
	That's why the Fed has set all these inflation targets that don't make sense when you think about the cost of goods and services for the average Joe and Jane going up.
	Why on earth would that be a good thing?
	Because it goes back to creating inflation to bail out the federal government.
	So this is the kind of incompetent side of the point of the coin where the argument is this is all just a psychological pretty much everything the Fed does is to manipulate the psychology of the markets to do their bidding.
	And if we were looking at evidence, what evidence can we look for either at the risk of incompetence, a theory of operation, or that this is intentional malevolence or a particular strategy or scheme?
	Sure.
	Well, on the side of incompetence, you can look at, first and foremost, a chart of quantitative easing compared to interest rates on the 10-year.
	So the whole point of quantitative easing is to bring interest rates down.
	They, the Fed, thinks that if they can bring interest rates down in the real economy, that will somehow stimulate growth or inflation.
	But what you'll find if you look at a chart, every time they've done quantitative easing in the past, QE1, 2, and 3, interest rates on the 10-year actually went up.
	They didn't go down, so it caused the opposite effect, but yet they continued to do it.
	And I could go down a laundry list of things the Fed has done where their intention is X, but the result is Y.
	So and so that would be an argument for the incompetence component.
	And also, I'd add that it's pretty obvious that the U.S.
	economy is built on three things, asset bubbles, debt and confidence.
	And I think the Fed knows this well.
	That goes to their or that would explain why they're so focused on the psychology of the markets and the general public as a whole.
	Now, going over to the other side, as far as it's more of a game plan that they're trying to consolidate power.
	If you go back to.
	Well, you can go back to the 1920s.
	And if you I'm sure you've watched the documentary.
	You've seen a lot of these collapses where they've tried to institute change.
	And it happened.
	And I'd have to go back to my videos and my notes, but it's happened several times in the past, and every single time you've got an entity that comes in that tries to manipulate the entire economic environment, such as the 1990s and the Asian crisis.
	You had the IMF come in, bail them out, but they stipulated all of these rules that allowed some of the big investment banks, like Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, to come in and buy assets in the whole of Asia that they otherwise wouldn't have been able to buy.
	So you go back and forth, and I think there's great arguments on both sides.
	I think to a certain degree there's an argument that in fact, that we'll talk about with George when we come back after the break, that there's both is at play.
	That to a certain degree you have people who do not have the best intentions of ordinary people, who have their using crises as moments of opportunity, but don't always have the best skill sets or intellectual capability or full understanding of real-world economy to actually achieve what they're out to achieve, at least in ways that benefit the ordinary person.
	So I'll ask about George about that when we come back right after the break as we discuss whether or not the Fed and central banks is making your life even more difficult than necessary by using this pandemic as a pretext for a power grab.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	We're here with George Gammon.
	If you follow his YouTube channel, George Gammon, spelled like Mammon.
	Sort of.
	Almost.
	But you can follow him there.
	You can follow him on Twitter.
	You can also follow the podcast Rebel Capitalist.
	It has great information that is both actionable and accessible to ordinary people.
	You don't have to be an economist or an investor even to understand it and use it for your personal benefit, particularly in this unique time of pandemic economics.
	George, in that respect, what can people sort of do to prepare for some of these things that are coming down the pipeline to better protect themselves in terms of what the central banks may be up to?
	Well, first and foremost, education.
	You've got to understand what's going on.
	And I know people don't like to do that because they kind of like to ignore it and they don't want to put any work into it.
	But just understand what the central banks do, the Federal Reserve, and try to look at both sides that we're just talking about.
	So you form an opinion as to whether you think this might be a game plan or this might be due to incompetence.
	So you can look down the road three years, five years, 10 years, and decide what decisions you can make right now for your financial future and the future of your family that yourself 10, 15 years down the road will thank you for.
	Right?
	So I think first and foremost, you got to own some gold.
	You got to own physical gold.
	And then or silver, but I kind of like gold as an insurance policy, especially if we're going into a wave of inflation, knowing that that's what the central banks want to pull off to reduce the debt load of the federal government.
	You kind of put yourself in their corner, so to speak.
	And then for the average person, if they have a home and they've got a loan against it, just make sure you've got a 30 year fixed rate mortgage.
	Because basically, if you have a fixed rate and assuming that we do get some inflation that exceeds the rate of your rate of interest, then that's a transfer of wealth from the bank to you because you're paying back the loan with cheaper dollars.
	So I think those two things are the easiest things that the average person could do.
	Maybe own some Bitcoin, but I see that more as a speculation.
	Instead of a insurance policy.
	Sort of a speculative hedge.
	Do you think things are going to get crazier or return to normal in terms of Fed policy and central bank policy in the near short term?
	Oh, crazier.
	Yeah, that's the easiest question you'll ask me all night.
	Because you've got to say, going back to normal, before 2008, the Fed's balance sheet was at $800 billion.
	Now it's almost $7 trillion.
	Plus, what is a normal interest rate?
	Well, maybe 5-6% when you look at the United States historically.
	So think about where we are right now at the zero balance, so 0% interest rates, and how long
	We've had to keep interest rates artificially low and what happened when the Fed tried to do quantitative tightening mean meaning they tried to reduce the size of their balance sheet or what happened when they tried to raise interest rates they could only get to a certain level where the market and the economy just waved the white flag so we cannot take it anymore and that was with the Wow.
	balance sheet at $4 trillion.
	How much worse is it going to be now, or how much harder is it for the Fed to go back to quote-unquote normal now that the problem is 10 times worse?
	Their balance sheet has almost doubled, and they've doubled down on taking interest rates back to zero.
	Wow.
	So any hope that there will be a degree of political resistance or political self-education that will rein in the centralized power of central banks? - No, because I think it's good.
	They're going.
	Okay, so if you think through politically what's most likely to happen if we get another downturn in the stock market, and we're going into a recession.
	I mean, that's just a given.
	It's just a matter of is the recovery going to be this V-shaped recovery, an L-shaped recovery, or how it's going to look.
	So, assuming that we have caught 15% unemployment, and regardless of who gets in the office or who is in the office after the election, It's very likely that they continue the unemployment benefits.
	They continue with a UBI, universal basic income, helicopter money, MMT, whatever you want to call it.
	It's going to be getting more money into the back pocket of the average person.
	Now, initially, this could be a good thing.
	Long term, as you know, it'll most likely make things worse through inflation of food prices and your insurance taxes, medical, college tuition, just the things that the average people buy.
	But going back to why this could be a problem long term is if if the government goes down the path of UBI and they try to create this type of inflation, then what's going to happen is that the Fed won't be allowed to raise interest rates.
	They won't be able to normalize, and it makes things much, much worse in the long term.
	And that's what this is all about, Robert.
	It's about kicking the can down the road.
	And whether it's the government, the Fed, that's been their MO, and that's what's got us to this problem in the first place.
	And what could be the consequences for the ordinary person if the Fed is able to concentrate its economic power?
	In other words, if it's able to take out some of the smaller bank operators, the retail and community banks, able to effectively have more influence over mortgage securities and corporate bonds, and even corporate securities or municipal bonds even, well, what could that look like for the ordinary person politically and economically?
	Well, they, whoever has power, would have more control over who gets the loans.
	So, as you know, money is lent into existence.
	That's how we have the M2 money supply, the broad money supply.
	That's how it it's it either expands or contracts by debt and by loans being put into or more loans out there in the real economy or by loans being paid off.
	So if the central banks or whomever has control over who is getting the lending, then you have this Cantillion effect When whoever is kind of the crony capitalism, whoever is closest to the banks or the Fed, they're the ones that are going to be getting the money and they're the ones that are going to be doing phenomenally well while everyone else suffers.
	And also they can control not only who is getting the money but where it's being spent.
	So, if you've got a great business idea, you go to your local community bank now, they know you by first name, they know that you're going to be a good entrepreneur, then they're willing to extend credit to you.
	But if you've got to go to J.P. Morgan or Goldman Sachs to get that loan, what's the chances of the average Joe on the street getting the loan to start the subway or the gas station or the dry cleaner or any of these other services that we need?
	It's very, very low because it just doesn't make a lot of sense for these big banks to do it because it takes the same time and energy for them to do a $10 billion loan as a $10 million loan.
	And where are they going to make the most money?
	Where are they going to make the most fees?
	So it ends up being sort of like what happened with the Paycheck Protection Program and sort of like a Soviet-style economy where the politically connected and the politically protected get a disproportionate share of the resources developed by any particular society or economy.
	And that sort of just worsens and intensifies.
	And one of the things I thought, sort of as a last question, the Princess of Yen, I thought, what it really went to was I was trying to explain to people Why don't Democratic politicians recognize that certain of their shutdown policies will backfire over time?
	Why doesn't the central bank realize the risks of what they're doing and they're up to?
	And I pointed out there's something inherent in central planning that leads people to prefer power, even if it comes at the expense, potentially, of public prosperity.
	And that seemed to be one of the better arguments in favor of the thesis of the Princess of the Yen, was that they seemed to care far more about whether the central bankers, whether they were independent and in control, than even if the economic consequences that came from the bubble that they created.
	Any thoughts on that?
	For sure.
	It goes back to Milton Friedman.
	And Milton Friedman had a thesis that one of the main reasons we don't want centralized power is because eventually the person you don't want to have that power will.
	Because it attracts the people that are morally bankrupt, for lack of a better word.
	And it attracts people who don't have a problem asserting control and power over other people.
	So if you have someone who is willing to do what it takes to be a good politician, if you think about what that means from a moral standpoint and an ethical standpoint, it's probably someone we don't want having power over the country or policy of any sort.
	So going back to the Fed and the federal government, the more power they have, this is the bottom line, the more power they have, the more power we give them, the more corrupt the people in charge will be.
	Exactly.
	It reminds me of an experiment in high school, at a governor's school program, where they actually used a fake currency to create it.
	But the whole mindset was, there's going to be four of us in this room who are going to have the power over the other 96 of us.
	And that was the sort of Milgram experiment of high school, if you will.
	But I remember thinking, what's the likelihood that those four people are the right people to have the power over the rest of us?
	Who's going to really seek it?
	Who's going to want it?
	Who's going to end up getting it, obtaining it?
	And it doesn't end up being the best people.
	So, you can get more insights like that from George's Rebel Capitalist podcast.
	Go to YouTube at George Gammon.
	Follow him on Twitter at George Gammon.
	Thanks, George, again for being with us.
	Thanks for having me, Robert.
	Absolutely.
	That is sort of the structure that has happened with central banking systems and central planning governments.
	The more power they have, the more the wrong people will have that power and the more they will wield it and use it against the interest of ordinary everyday people in an anti-democratic manner.
	Let's show part of the documentary film that we were just talking about that goes into some of that in terms of what happened to Japan.
	Japan went from a surging economy to a flatlining economy to a depressed economy.
	In fact, it hasn't recovered from the Long Recession.
	They called it the Long Recession 20 years ago, and they still have it.
	Let's look at part of The Princes of the Inn, video clip number four.
	Satirical cartoons of MacArthur and mention of occupation censorship were strictly forbidden.
	The Commission finds you guilty as charged and sentences you to death by hanging.
	Yamashita himself thanked the Commission for the fairness of his trial.
	Prime Minister at the time of the war in the Pacific, General Tojo, remarked during his trial, none of those Japanese would dare act against the Emperor's will.
	The cross-examination was immediately cut short.
	And a week later, Tojo dutifully stated that the Emperor had always loved and wanted peace.
	General Hideki Tojo, who assumed official responsibility for the conduct of the war and did everything possible to exonerate his Emperor.
	MacArthur would later remark to the U.S.
	Senate that in terms of modern civilization the Japanese were like a 12-year-old boy you are interested in the unknown the mysterious the unexplainable the That is why you are here.
	When the war was over, bank loan books had deteriorated.
	The assets the banks held were mainly war bonds and loans to destroyed industries, were nominated by the US occupation.
	Eikichi Araki was appointed the first post for governor of the Bank of Japan.
	But soon after taking up this post, he was indicted by war crimes prosecutors and had to resign.
	Then, in 1951, after a general amnesty on suspected war criminals filling public offices, he was made ambassador to the United States.
	On returning from his post as ambassador in 1954, Araki was again made governor of the central bank.
	After the 1951 amnesty for war criminals, Much of the Japanese wartime bureaucracy was returned to their wartime positions.
	This included wartime politicians and most Home Ministry bureaucrats who had been in charge of the Thought Police, a number of which moved to the Education Ministry.
	His Japanese wartime colleague was Prime Minister of the country.
	Although Kishi became a defender of democracy after the war, before and during the war, He had described himself as a national socialist.
	With money from crime syndicates, industrial corporations and CIA slush funds, Kishi built the Liberal Democratic Party into a powerful political machine.
	In Japan, many of the most important post-war economic and political leaders came from an elite group of wartime bureaucrats The very same people who had pushed Japan into the war.
	The Liberal Democratic Party stayed in power for almost 40 years.
	Welcome home, in Japanese, to these American soldiers.
	After a tour of duty in Korea, they are returning to their base in Japan, where once, a short time before, they were stationed as occupation troops.
	And how do they return?
	How are they received by the people whose land they occupy?
	Not as overlords.
	Not as antagonists.
	Not as men who are distrusted and feared and resented.
	but as friends.
	In Tokyo's
	central Chioda board, The Ministry of Finance had its headquarters.
	From here, the ministry controlled most aspects of economic life in Japan.
	The Ministry of Finance was the most powerful ministry, and the Bank of Japan had to report to the Ministry of Finance.
	Ministry of Finance officials elicited deep and hushed exclamations of awe and respect.
	And former ministry bureaucrats obtained influential posts as heads of private and public institutions.
	But in one area, the ministry did not have actual control.
	And that was the quantity of credit creation and its allocation, which was decided by the Japanese Central Bank, the Bank of Japan.
	They told the Ministry of Finance and the public and the journalists We run monetary policy through interest rates.
	And they let the Ministry of Finance reign in their interest rate policies.
	But the rule was done through not interest rates, which is the price of money.
	It was done through the quantity of money.
	It worked this way.
	It's called window guidance.
	The Bank of Japan just told the banks how much they were going to lend, they will have to lend in the coming quarter, and who, which sector of the economy to lend to.
	It's credit allocation, credit control.
	The Bank of Japan gave quarterly instructions to individual banks on the value of loans and which industrial sectors they should be allocated to.
	All loans were broken down in sectors and sub-sectors.
	and large-scale borrowers had to be listed by name.
	The Bank of Japan could decide which project should be encouraged and which should be discouraged by dictating to whom and for what banks could issue loans.
	This was the war economy system, adapted to the production of consumer goods.
	The 95 million people of Japan now enjoy a national income second only to the United States and the more prosperous nations of Western Europe.
	In the banking sector, window guidance acted as the cartel control mechanism, because the Bank of Japan could dictate the number and value of loans that banks issued.
	As a result, bank rankings never changed during the post-war era, except after mergers.
	According to one banker, if it were not for window guidance, we would compete until Harakiri.
	The U.S. current account deficit surges to its highest level in nine years.
	The size of the increase took many economists by surprise.
	While cartels controlled competition within Japan, there were no such limits when it came to international markets.
	Japanese corporations soon became dominant in many markets in the world.
	In America, formal congressional hearings were held under the title, Japanese Productivity Lessons for America.
	Leading economic theories indicate that only free markets can lead to success.
	But Japan rose within decades to become the second largest economy in the world.
	Without relying only on the invisible hand of free markets, Japan's post-war economy was a fully mobilized war economy, with production shifted from weapons to consumer goods.
	Whenever the Ministry of Finance would inquire about the Bank of Japan's credit creation and allocation policy, Bank of Japan's staff would engage in complex discussions full of technical jargon to make the process appear impenetrable to non-experts. Bank of Japan's staff would engage in complex discussions full In November 1965, the first batch of Japanese government bonds came onto the market.
	From now on, when politicians wanted to spend more, they would no longer put pressure on the Bank of Japan, but instead exert it on the Ministry of Finance.
	So the Ministry would ultimately preside over an ever-increasing national debt mountain.
	The
	1980s was an era of financial deregulation in the industrialized world. - Most industrialized countries lifted their restrictions on the movement of capital.
	In Japan, Tadashi Sasaki, a former governor of the Bank of Japan, called for a five-year plan for the transformation and liberalization of the Japanese economy.
	Then, in 1986, the Advisory Group on Economic Restructuring, headed by the former Bank of Japan governor, Hiroo Maikawa, proposed a ten-year economic reform plan designed to make the living standards of Japanese more comparable to those enjoyed proposed a ten-year economic reform plan designed to make the living standards of The proposal stated that...
	The time has now come for Japan to make a historical transformation in its traditional policies on economic management and the nation's lifestyle.
	There can be no further development for Japan without this transformation.
	The report read like a wish list by US trade negotiators.
	It started with calls for administrative reform and the abolition of bureaucratic powers.
	The goal was the transformation of the entire body politic, the abolition of the war economy system, and the introduction of a US-style free market economy.
	Those members of the advisory group who uttered dissent We're relieved of their duties.
	Reports in the press were highly critical.
	Observers recognize that what ended up happening is the Bank of Japan, just as it had helped people rise in Japan, helped sink Japan in the name of more power for itself.
	The Princess of Yen.
	That's the name of the documentary.
	That's the name of the book.

▲