All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 6, 2011 - InfoWars Special Reports
58:19
20110106_SpecialReport-2_Alex
Source
| Copy link to current segment Download episode

Time Text
Here is our sit-down interview with Joel Skousen, editor of World Affairs Brief.
Skousen was the chairman of the Conservative National Committee in the 1980s, and the executive editor of Conservative Digest.
Skousen talks about the hidden power structure who control the politicians of both parties from behind the scenes, the nature of the manipulated press, the reality behind the Tea Party, and the ongoing conspiracy to complete a One World Dictatorship.
I'm Joel Skousen, editor of World Affairs Brief.
I'm a political scientist by training, was the former chairman of the Conservative National Committee during the Reagan administration, and have been active ever since in trying to alert people to what's going on in the world.
Today I'd like to start off by talking about the reasons that a dialectic philosophy of conflict is used by the opposition, at least the opposition to liberty.
I think this is very important to understand that there is real systematic good and evil in the world.
It isn't just a happenstance that someone turns out to be evil.
There is systematic evil in the world, meaning it's self-generating, it continues,
it picks people to follow along.
Goodness, in contrast, is not that way.
We try to raise good children, but we essentially allow people to follow the path
that they want to follow.
But evil isn't that way.
Evil wants to progenitate and it uses certain techniques to do this.
And one of them is the dialectic.
The dialectic is where you create crises in order to induce good people to do things or accept things that they wouldn't ordinarily do.
The reason for this, that you need to deceive people, and in all of this we're talking about the Tea Party deception, we're talking about the deception of political parties, we need to understand that deception is something that has always been with us in the world and always will because of this systematic battle between good and evil.
But there is a systematic good as well and that is the role of conscience in people.
And it's because certain people can sense that something's wrong.
That evil has to use deception and dialectic in order to get people to do things in spite of conscience, in spite of sensing that something's wrong.
In essence, when you create a big enough crisis, there's a feeling of panic.
We have no choice.
We have no power to resist.
There's this feeling of futility.
So even though people can sense what's right in conscience, They don't act according to it or they follow along the path of least resistance because of the severity of the crisis.
That's the reason why evil uses crises to change the world.
When I was growing up, I was first exposed to the writings of my uncle, W. Cleon Skousen, who wrote The Naked Communist.
The most dramatic story in that book, and I still highly recommend it today, the most highly prized story in that book is The Fall of China.
To Mao Tse Tung.
And it was clearly outlined in the book how our own State Department, in league with George Catlett Marshall, who was head of our armed forces during World War II, actually set about to destroy the power of Chiang Kai-shek to win the battles against Mao Tse Tung.
They set him up for failure.
They withdraw armed support from him so that he basically could not win against Mao.
And I thought to myself, what's going on here?
Are these communists in our government?
Was Catlett Marshall or was George Marshall a communist?
Were the State Department people communists?
So as I began to research this and talk to my uncle about it, I found out that they were not communists.
There were communists in the State Department, especially the second floor, which had to do with foreign policy, did have some communists in it.
And then there was the story of Alger Hiss, Who was accused of being a communist.
In fact, he did join the Communist Party.
But there was something strange about Alger Hiss in that he was highly protected by the establishment, those that weren't communists.
Whitaker Chambers is the one who outed Alger Hiss.
Whitaker Chambers was a dedicated ideological Marxist communist.
He repented of that.
Changed.
Decided to tell all.
He was very, very honest.
He was vilified for his honesty and he's the one who named Alger Hiss.
But the establishment came out for years.
I mean, Alger Hiss went to prison eventually on perjury.
The establishment never gave up on Alger Hiss.
They always continued to support him.
And one day a light came on in my mind and I realized I think Alger Hiss was in fact a globalist.
He's part of this broader conspiracy, was not a communist, but that in fact he joined the Communist Party to help facilitate Communist Party infiltration into the State Department, into the Roosevelt and Truman administrations, which is exactly what he did.
But when he wrote the United Nations Charter, it became very clear this was more than just a communist, this was a globalist.
Using communism to facilitate the goals of globalism.
And so when I finally had this new paradigm, this perspective, and this is something that no one else has ever written about, to my knowledge.
Everyone in the conservative movement thinks that Al Jahias was a communist.
But it doesn't explain why the non-communists were defending him so vociferously.
As I began to look historically at what was happening, as nation after nation was falling to communism.
Later on, of course, they destroyed Batista of Cuba in the same way that they did of Mao Zedong in China.
They pulled out military support.
It was the second level of the State Department.
We had planted reporters like Herbert Matthews in the New York Times who would write these knifing, derogatory articles about Batista and these articles about how Fidel Castro was this reformer, how he
was a person who was the people's man.
He did the same hatchet job on Mount Saitung. Later on, Drew Pearson carried on with Jack Anderson in the
Washington Mariground.
They were primarily responsible for bringing down
Anastasio Somoza of Nicaragua, allowing the Sandinistas to come to power. Anastasio Somoza
had his flaws certainly.
He was a strong man, but he was pro-Western, very much for free markets.
He was clearly an ally of the West, and we destroyed him.
Why?
They wanted the Communists to come to power.
Because they were communists?
I don't think so.
I think it's because the globalist view is that we can use communism to break down the existing social order.
We can use communism to create even more horrific crimes.
And then we, the globalists, a moderate form of socialism, That intertwines predatory capitalism, mercantilism with socialism.
We can come into the rescue, save people from communism and give them our version of the New World Order, which people will then tend to accept.
And they would not accept were we not to have the horrors of communism to pave the way.
So that's what I feel is the important thing to realize is that communism, socialism, Fabian socialism, and there are tens of other variations of enemies to the free market are all promoted to one degree or another.
In the same sense, The conspiracy has had the necessity of morphing into different organizations to be able to cover itself from discovery.
We can go back.
I think the conspiracy has been with us since the beginning of time.
But when we begin, whether it's from Cain and Abel or we talk about the Illuminati, starting in 1776. How ironic you know that there's this
interplay between the movement of freedom in 1776 and the rise of a counter movement. It's almost as if
Satan and God or Satan follows and sees what God is trying to do to promote liberty and has a
counter strategy in everything that comes about.
There are key dates in history like 1776 when you had a massive liberty for movement whereby for the first time in history you'd had some very principled libertarian oriented people come into power.
And at the same time you have this rise of the Illuminati.
It got exposed.
I believe it went underground and then began to use another organization, the Masonic Lodges, to take its place.
When that became exposed, they dropped out the lower levels of the Masonic so that they became rather as good old boy clubs, and they're still in use today.
You can go into certain parts of Texas And you talk to people and there are most people within a certain county are members of the Lodge.
And they know that if they get a traffic ticket they can flash the ringer and they can get some type of mutiny.
Now it isn't really illegal, it isn't anything to do with these broad range conspiracies.
But it is a good old boys network and it allows people to rise within those networks and to be able to, and the higher ups within those to see, all right, who's corruptible?
Who's predictable?
Who can we bring along to a higher order or understanding?
So it's my opinion that the Masonic level only participates in broad-range conspiracy issues above the 32nd or 33rd level.
In the United States, in Europe, it's a different story.
In Europe, the Masonic Lodges have been much more deeply involved in conspiratorial, globalist, and New World Order issues.
And we find the Masonic lodges are still very powerful in Italy especially, in Spain, Germany, and France.
So what I'm saying or viewing is that conspiratorial forces morph into different forms, they use different crises, and above all, they are able to imitate and co-opt goodness In a variety of ways.
It's important that this is not, to understand this is not a monolithic conspiracy of power.
There are competing blocks.
There's always competitors.
Just like in the drug trade, the United States runs its own dark side drug trade to finance black operations.
And higher-ups within the DEA and CIA are aware of these things.
But there are always competitors coming up in the drug trade, trying to piggyback onto this very, very lucrative profession.
And so it is this conspiracy.
A conspiracy power has to give certain rewards to people.
And that's why wealth is always a part of it, the inducement of wealth.
It is not true, however, and I want to clarify one thing.
Oftentimes in conspiratorial literature, such as in Alan's book or even in some of my uncle's book, you talk about the wealthy international bankers.
Well, it is not true that every single international banker is involved in the conspiracy.
It is not true that every wealthy banker is part of it.
It is true that everyone who's part of it is wealthy.
But it is not true that all big business is part of it or that all big banks are part of it.
Almost all are now because they don't like competition and they tend to try to co-op.
But there is this continual competition of power.
In the world scene, I believe that there are three predator senators of power.
I believe the most powerful And the longest running structure of conspiracy to undermine liberty is what we call the Anglo-American Power Center.
Centered primarily in London, but now has got most of its power transferred over to New York and the United States just because that's where most of the wealth is.
The other power is Russia and the other power is China.
I believe that they are competing.
They're temporary allies because they know that eventually they're going to be in a war with the Anglo-American establishment.
But eventually they will have to fight it out among themselves.
And I want to say this about three competing senators of power.
That there has been a significant piece of disinformation which has been put out within our movement.
That started with the Rowan Gaither quote.
This is the quote that my uncle was the first one to publish this in his book, The Naked Capitalist, by W. Cleon Skousen.
He talks about Norman Dodd, under a special house committee, going to interview Rowan Gaither of the Ford Foundation, and asking him, why is it that the foundations are always promoting Communism and other socialist aspects within the UN and elsewhere.
And he said to Norman Dodd, he said, the powerful forces behind our foundation want to have the Soviet Union and Russia meld itself peacefully into one major organization, one peaceful country.
This, in my opinion, was disinformation.
In the first place, Rowan Gaither, who was an insider, never would tell the real reason for a conspiracy.
He would give a plausible reason that would allow Norman Dodd to walk away and something that has deceptively deceived many conservative organizations for many years including the John Birch Society which has done many wonderful things.
But it's influenced the Birch Society because of this one quote they have felt for many years that there would never be war between Russia and the United States because the Russians were puppets of the Anglo-American establishment.
This is what the Ron Gaither quote has led to.
That if in fact that the foundations and the powers that be behind the foundations are in control, and that they're controlling both Russia and the United States, there wouldn't be war between them.
In fact, in my analysis, this is not true.
What is true is that Russia is a separate independent predator, but the Anglo-American establishment, using Hegelian conflict creation dialectics, want to build Russia so that it will attack, because the war itself is useful and that Russia will be eliminated in the process of the war.
And that's how I think it's going to play out.
Competing centers of predator power.
And even though they may be temporary alliances, even though one may help another,
it's not because they control the other, but in fact, they are inducing them through that aid
to someday strike the West.
I'd like to talk a little bit about what our vulnerabilities are as a people,
as conservatives of liberty, trying to understand or protect ourselves
against being co-opted.
Bye.
People on our side of the spectrum need to understand how to recognize Wolves in sheep's clothing.
And the various other types of deception that's going on.
This is the most difficult thing for good people, in my estimation, to see.
Is to see that someone, because we're, you know, good people tend to think that everyone else thinks like they do.
They do not understand systematic evil.
They do not understand deceptive evil.
And they tend to explain it away.
But it's important for people to realize that it's not just real evil wolves in sheep's clothing.
There are all different types of deception going on.
The first step is to recognize when someone is parroting or repeating the establishment line.
In other words, good people have to, and I'm trying to take this out of the issue of understanding the right or wrong of what they're saying.
This is how deception occurs with good people.
They see he's saying the truth, therefore he must be good.
It works, therefore it must be right.
Neither of those propositions are true.
Things can work.
Using false philosophies, using false mechanisms, using deception.
People can say the right things for the wrong motive in order to promote themselves in ways of which will further deceive them.
That's what disinformation is all about, is giving a certain portion of truth so that you can drop in major areas that are false.
So it is not enough to judge what is being done by whether or not it's true or false.
One must learn to recognize what is an establishment line of attack, an establishment direction, and learn who is parroting that.
Because real truth never goes very far along an establishment line without diverging from it significantly in truth.
That is why the establishment always says our position is extremist.
Because we diverge from their establishment line on significant points, which they always label extreme.
That's the way they get people to disregard truth that diverges from the establishment line.
This happens whether it's establishment medical protocols.
The best truths are outside those protocols.
That isn't to say that everything within the establishment is false.
Far from it.
Most of it is right.
Most of it is good.
But it's leading through the exclusion of critical truths.
It's leading people in a direction that will keep them blind and keep them from seeing the crucial truths.
So, once you see someone parroting the establishment line, you have to ask, is he part of the establishment or is he not part of it?
I'm going to take you through a truth diagram here of yes or no and then where to go from that.
If a person is not part of the establishment, but he's parroting the establishment line, he's usually being used because of several reasons.
One, either they're too ambitious.
I put Mitt Romney in that category.
Mitt Romney is not a corrupt individual, but he's someone bending over backwards so badly to please the establishment because he wants to be accepted by them.
He wants to rise.
He wants to be president.
So good people can get themselves into a real hole in terms of doing what's right by being too ambitious and wanting too badly to please the establishment.
They can be predictably liberal or moderate.
There are certain people who have an innate sense about right or wrong.
There are certain people who have an innate sense about what's establishment and what's popular.
And they seem like a compass to seek only for those things which will make them more popular.
We see that with kids in school.
There are people who are outsiders.
They're always pushing the edge, whether for good or evil.
And there are people who are right there in the middle of the road.
They're afraid to do anything that will be criticized.
Now, that's a problem, for example, if I can give an example of Glenn Beck.
Glenn Beck got into a lot of problems with drugs and alcohol because he started off in life trying to please people.
Into rock music, he became a DJ.
DJs are noted for their people-pleasing tactics.
Everything about their demeanor as a DJ is pleasing people.
He's got Glenn Beck into trouble.
And even today, even though he is branching out and becoming a strong voice against the establishment in certain areas, His fear of being criticized keeps him from, even though his research takes him closer and closer to conspiracy.
He's now talking about Carol Quigley in his book, Tragedy and Hope, which talks about the Anglo-American conspiracy without confronting that yourself.
And Glenn Beck is having to confront it in his own mind.
And yet, because of his fear of criticism, he has so eschewed the concept of 9-11 truth Or of the birth certificate problem with Obama, that he's unwilling to go back and admit that he may be wrong.
Now, he's a work in progress.
I'm not saying that Glenn Beck will not someday overcome that, but I'm saying right now, here's a good example of someone who is a good person, who is on our side, who's trying to do things within certain limits, but steers away because of the fear of the negativity associated with conspiracy, which is very
purposeful on the part of the media to denigrate and to vilify anyone who dares utter the
concept of conspiracy, that it's keeping him from being a clear voice in this movement.
Sarah Palin, for example, in my estimation, is too predictable.
She's ambitious.
There has to be ego in anyone who promotes themselves to the degree that they do.
I think the latest article, for example, in Vanity Fair by Charles Gross is indicative.
When you have a person who lashes out in anger and who has a great deal of pride and who becomes uh... dismissive of other people that's got a problem with uh... uh... predictability that the establishment can use oftentimes the establishment uses corruptibility of people which i'll get into on people who are part of it but to a certain extent certain conservatives who start out on the good side they view that they can become corruptible uh... and uh...
I think Rush Limbaugh, for example, started out on the right side.
He was very conservative.
He was very pro understanding of conspiracy.
He warned openly and almost constantly in his radio shows about conspiracy.
At some point they offered him, made an offer that was too big to pass up.
Something like three million dollars to go over and become part of the big radio networks.
But at some point during those negotiations, I believe someday we'll find out If not in this life on the other side that they gave him a message that part of the deal is that you can't push this conspiracy stuff anymore because literally the first or second show out of the gate under the new radio network he began not only to not just to say which would have been legitimate had he said I have my doubts about my previous thoughts about conspiracy I'm still open but I have doubts about this and because
Conspiracy is something we never have all of the answers about.
But no, he didn't take that moderate position of saying, I have doubts now.
He took the position of vilifying and denigrating and attacking anyone who called up.
And most of his listeners had been used to talking about conspiracy.
They called up thinking, I'm going to talk about the same conspiracy I talked to last week with Rush.
And he began to attack them and blow them away.
The same thing happens with Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly.
Now they're very, very good about attacking Democrats.
They never attack Republicans.
Glenn Beck will attack Republicans.
He did attack President Bush when he went outside the Constitution.
Hannity and O'Reilly will never attack a Republican.
Whatever it is, the Democrat is open game and that's why they have a great time during a Democratic administration like Obama or Bill Clinton.
But their true colors come out of my opinion when they come up with a conspiracy issue, whether it's the Obama birth certificate, and they literally will lash in, break up, interrupt their phrase, won't let them finish a phrase.
They will not let anyone competent finish a phrase about conspiracy.
And that's an indication that they have no intention whatsoever of allowing an open discussion of that, no matter how reasonable it may be.
So what I'm trying to say is because a person parrots an establishment line, that is not an indication that they are part of a conspiracy against truth.
There are reasons, as I said, of being used on the good side.
Now let's talk about the various different types that are on the bad side, those that are part of it.
One of the problems that we've had in analyzing The issue of conspiracy is the tendency of people to succumb to the concept that if you're close to conspiracy, you must be fully a part of it.
And it isn't true.
And it allows the people who want to bash conspiracy theory to say, this is simply ridiculous.
A worldwide conspiracy to take down Liberty would require that hundreds of thousands of people be knowing about this conspiracy.
You'd never keep it a secret.
We have a professor up at the University of Utah who makes that very case.
It is very convincing that you could simply never have a conspiracy this big.
Well, he's wrong on several counts.
The first one is the assumption is that everybody in a conspiracy knows everything about the conspiracy.
It's simply not true.
It's very compartmentalized.
Just because you're in the CIA doesn't mean that you know anything about what goes on in the various other compartments of the CIA.
And the conspiracy is always very tightly compartmentalized.
Everybody who's on the wrong side knows there's a control system and has decided that he will still stay in it and go along with it and not fight against it.
Now that to me separates the difference between those who are useful because they're naive, because they're too ambitious, because they're going along with the crowd, Uh, and those that are actually part of it.
Those that are actually good, if they knew there was a control system, they would say, I don't want any part of that.
And that's why they must be kept from it.
That's the reason, for example, why they didn't want Mitt Romney in there.
Self-made millionaire, had the power to put himself in front of the people without the Kingmaker system designating who will be running for office.
If you'll notice, that's how they manipulate the political process in large part.
When it gets close to an election, the media will start to say, these are the top candidates, according to the experts on the Democratic side, and these are the top candidates on the Republican side.
Says who?
I'm a political scientist.
In 1989, when they were getting ready for the election, they said the top candidates on the Democratic side include Bill Clinton, the governor of Arkansas, I said.
Bill who?
I mean, Bill Clinton was a nobody.
Who's the governor of Arkansas in terms of national politics?
He was nobody.
And all of a sudden as a political scientist, I realized they're promoting Bill Clinton.
Because there's no way that he is a national figure.
It never has been.
And sure enough, they were.
That's why, for example, when they wanted to promote George Bush, they made him, first of all, governor of Texas.
Because he was a worthless, very loose, shaggy-haired businessman in Dallas who never read a newspaper, was never interested in foreign affairs, and they had to produce this guy and mold him into something.
But the process is a little bit corrupting.
It's been corrupting to Sarah Palin.
Sarah Palin's been corrupted by the money, the good press, the jet that has been provided at her service, the multi-million dollar book deals, the lavish clothes that are now part of her lifestyle.
All of that's had a corrupting effect.
Why?
Because who wants to go back to the days when you didn't have any money?
Who wants to go back to the day when the press was crucified and you had investigations after investigation that were costing you all this money and legal fees?
No, this is the good life I'm living now.
Look, I've got all these speeches.
I'm able to be effective.
She doesn't realize that she's being used.
And that there's a subtle pressure among her advisors that were she to take certain positions, you would lose this funding, you'd lose the jet, you'd lose the book deals.
And so that's how the corruption of the process occurs.
Mitt Romney, he's being corrupted by, you will not be accepted by the press, you will not get elected unless you take moderate positions.
And because his ambition is too high, he is willing to take those moderate positions.
But ultimately, the reason why they do not want Mitt Romney versus Newt Gingrich is that Mitt Romney is not part of the system.
He does not know that there is a control system.
And thus, if he were to be elected, he would see too much.
He would see too much of the dark side operating, especially as he would say, no, we're not going to do this to his advisors and advisors say, oh, we've got a problem.
The president doesn't want to do this.
We're going to have to lean on him.
They don't want to have to lean on a president.
The last time they had to do that was Ronald Reagan, who was not part of the system.
They felt like they could deal with him because they got an agreement to accept George Bush as his vice president, who would essentially control the Reagan presidency.
But nevertheless, in meetings, Reagan didn't want to go along.
He was resisting, and they got together and decided they had to lean on him.
And eventually they had to throw an assassination attempt at him.
And after that, he was much more compliant.
And his wife, Nancy, was especially compliant.
In fact, got into astrology and many other things to try to ward off this evil of the assassination against Ronald Reagan.
So it's very important for conservatives to understand of those who are parroting the establishment line, who's part of it and who's not part of it.
Now, of those who are part of it, let me run down the four major classifications which I view.
One, there are those that know there's a control system but have been told or think that it's benevolent.
These are what Stalin and Lenin used to call the useful idiots.
These are the people who simply will not see because they want to please so much, but they actually have seen enough to know that there is a control system, but they've decided, it's benevolent, I'm not going to buck it.
And they go along with it.
The second level are the people, and I'm going to reverse these, that's really what I would consider the fourth level.
The first level are the real controllers themselves.
A lot of people say, you know, who are the real people behind the scenes?
Who are pulling the strings?
Well, I think we know a few of them.
But remember, it's not important to know who's at the top level.
Because in the first place, they're not about to give you the ammunition to allow you to throw them into jail.
They don't normally take any positions of power openly.
They stay behind the scenes.
They are all wealthy.
They all have a hidden power.
They've all had somewhat productive lives in either big business or in international banking, and I can name a few that I know not from absolute knowledge but from induction.
You can induce from a variety of patterns of activity who has to be very high in a controlling estimate.
I'll put David Rockefeller, for example, very high on the left.
How do I know that?
Well, he actually has admitted in a book Fairly recently, that if there is a New World Order conspiracy to do this, and I've been accused of this, then I freely mean I do want a New World Order.
All right.
That doesn't say that he's controlling in a satanic or evil sense.
He has not admitted to that.
I think there is an ultimate satanic criteria involved in getting to the highest levels.
However, there's other indications that Rockefeller is part of it.
For example, In previous administrations, he has showed up even during the Ronald Reagan administration, he showed up at a White House economic dinner of which he was not invited.
Now, how do you walk into the White House to a special dinner, which everyone is by invitation only, council of economic advisors and 20 or 30 other people, and he walks in and sits down to a table by Robert McNamara.
And he's overheard saying to them, by a personal friend of mine, so I know this is accurate, he was overheard saying to Robert McNamara, who was head of the World Bank by then.
Remember, Robert McNamara was part of John F. Kennedy's whiz kids, and he was Secretary of Defense, then moved on up to be World Bank.
And he was overheard saying to Robert McNamara, remember Bob, don't say anything more or less than what I told you.
So here's David Rockefeller walking in uninvited into the White House and giving orders to the person who's head of the World Bank.
Now that tells me something about the level of control.
And he said his phrase in the sense that, remember, don't do anything more or say anything more or less than what I told you.
That indicates I'm in a position of power above you.
And he is.
Now another example is Dwayne Andreas of Archer's Daniel Midland, a major international agricultural company very much involved in promoting Red China.
And Russia and other things.
And this is very typical of globalists.
Globalists are promoting and shielding Russia and China from criticism so that they can grow in power militarily and influence within the world.
That's part of the Hegelian dialectic.
He was on a golf course.
Once again a personal friend told me this.
He was playing on the same green with them.
He was arguing with his golfing partner about who was going to be the The next Republican nominee for president.
And this was, uh, uh, during the Clinton administration.
And finally the guy was giving him all the reasons why such and such a person was going to be the Republican nominee.
And, and Andreas finally shut him off and said, uh, listen, it's going to be George W. Bush.
And let's not argue him any more about it.
He said it was such finality that this, my friend who was listening on realized this person knew.
This person was an insider sufficiently open to the Kingmakers.
And this was before George Bush was even close to gaining the nomination.
He was just in that list of people who the media was putting out was going to be potential runners.
So these are things which let me indicate that people are on the inside at a very, very high level.
Now the second level under these top level controllers, once let me go back, it doesn't really matter who's at top.
What we have to understand that there is a control system and that certain people are taking orders down below and we can see the orders coming down.
We can see the pattern of control coming down and so we know it has to be controlled from someone up above.
So it isn't necessarily It's important that we find out who they are because I don't think there's any way to prosecute them for being in that position unless you find them something illegal.
But it's important to watch how those orders roll downhill and who is taking the orders because at some point we do have the right to unelect people who are taking the orders and we want to be able to find out who's doing it because some of those people who are taking orders will appear To be on our side.
And that's what we have to be careful of.
So for example, at the second level.
We have people like Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft, Strobe Talbot, Sandy Berger.
These are people who are actually involved in the planning and implementation of conspiratorial endeavors.
Henry Kissinger undermining Taiwan, undermining Vietnam.
We won the war in Vietnam.
We actually, the bombing brought North Vietnam to the table and Henry Kissinger gave it away.
And part of the deal in giving it away was that he was going to allow South Vietnam to come under Vietnam, but you have to give us, he said, three or four years so that we don't look like we're guilty of having given it away so soon.
And they did give them three or four years before they invaded South Vietnam and captured it.
They also agreed in secret talks, Henry Kissinger did, to allow Red China to Ascend to the seat held by Taiwan as a representative of China.
All of that was negotiated for in secret.
So Henry Kissinger is part of this second level, and I personally think that he's now part of the top level.
I think he's moved up, but at that time he was a second level implementer and planner.
Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Now this is very interesting that these people play Team A and Team B tactics.
In other words, Brzezinski went over Instead of playing for the Republican side, he was playing, as he did before, during Jimmy Carter as his advisor, advising the Democratic side.
It's interesting, when they position themselves to switch sides, they start recanting previous positions that they have taken previously in other writings and other books.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, for example, was a great apologist for the Soviet Union, was always trying to make the case that the Soviet Union was never as dangerous as it was.
And then when he got out and began to, you know, and it became very dangerous, he started to recant.
Then he changed, once the phony fall of the Soviet Union had gone into position, he changed his position again.
So these are people in the second level who are very, very dangerous.
The third level is the largest level.
These are the useful Hired guns, hacks, shills for the government.
These are people who have one unique characteristic besides the fact that they know there's a control system.
They have been corrupted.
Now the fourth level down there, the useful idiots who know their control system but they've been told it's benevolent, they're naive enough to believe that.
You can take a lot of good people who are predictable academics, who are predictable liberals, you can put them into position, you don't have to tell them there's a conspiracy, they'll do their liberal thing and they'll get the job done.
They see enough sometimes to know somebody's controlling things, but they wipe it out.
They want to stay in position.
They don't want to buck the system.
They don't want to lose their job.
They're relatively harmless, and we must be careful not to denigrate those people in the same way that we denigrate the people in this third level who know there's a control system, knows there's evil about it, and they personally are corrupt.
I had a personal friend who was a member of the CIA, went overseas and had a prostitute show up at his hotel room one evening.
He rejected what she was wanting.
She said, no, no, you don't understand.
I'm here paid for by the agency.
I'm here, it's free of charge.
You don't have to, you know, resist my invitations.
And he, being a good moral person, resisted that.
Other people to receive prostitutes that same evening at their hotel room either and most had succumbed.
The ones who succumbed saw their careers enhance and they became, got promoted.
His career never went anywhere.
So there are these periodic tests that go forward to see who's going to be corruptible.
Moral corruption is extremely important because it tells whether or not a person will in fact have a fit of conscience and not be able to go along with what they see or whether or not they can be turned and bent.
And there are many other tests that go on later on because certain people can be corrupted morally but they'll draw the line at betraying their country.
Other people will betray even their country.
And for years it was known that homosexuality, for example, made a person vulnerable to espionage and betraying a country.
But this is important to understand who are the people who know that there's a system, are part of the system, And those are the most dangerous people, because I think Gingrich is part of that.
I think he knows there's a control system.
I think he's part of it.
And when they take the role of being a conservative Republican, when they take the role of writing a book about God and America, it's a supreme form of blasphemy, almost as bad as Bill Clinton raising the name of God and claiming to be a born-again Christian, or even George Bush with his dual allegiance to his skull and bones.
Obviously they use rewards where possible, the offer of advancement, promotion and power.
and at once claiming to be born again of people.
These are people we must be very cautious about because these are wolves in sheep clothing
to various, in various degrees.
Obviously they use rewards where possible, the offer of advancement, promotion and power.
They offer subtle threats sometimes when, as happens in anything about national security,
when someone in the CIA sees something going on, he starts to ask questions and say, don't go there.
And just usually that kind of a hint, that's not something you should ask about, is enough to make people to acquiesce. However, if you have a principled person who
is bothered by something, and this happens with every whistleblower in the government, they
start to push beyond those subtle hints about don't go there or you don't have a need to know. And they
actually have to be warned off with threats. And those threats can take place directly, threats
to themselves.
They first of all will start to threaten their job.
If that doesn't get in the way and they actually become a whistleblower, they often start to threaten their family.
And sometimes they threaten by pointing out another person who has somehow died by mysterious circumstances where it was ruled a suicide.
And they then explain to them that it wasn't a suicide and find that's a person who wouldn't be quiet, just like you.
And there are various levels of threats which they can escalate.
But at the higher level, for people who are fully corrupted, the Bill Clintons of the world for example, they use the promise of immunity.
It's a very powerful thing.
The promise that we can make sure that the things that we have on tape of you doing don't ever see the light of day.
It's a combination of blackmail and immunity, and they see that all the time happening in government.
They see somebody caught who's on the dark side of government, and they see a telephone going to the judge, and the judge lets him off, or the prosecutor, district attorney, pleads it down.
They see how immunity can be a real benefit to them in life.
So that's some of the tactics of how they keep people at various different levels of corruption in the system.
Both incentives and for threats.
On the good side, for instance, they know how to play the naive people.
They know how to play the people who want recognition.
For example, you take Mike Leavitt, former governor of Utah, or current governor of Utah, or recent governor of Utah, John Huntsman, who's just made ambassador to China.
Now, I can tell you from personal experience, these people are not conspirators in the system.
These people are used because they are desperate to get ahead and they love the recognition that having establishment recognition brings to them in their lives.
Governor John Huntsman was the son of the famous oil magnate of Huntsman Energy.
These people are religious people.
They've made foolish mistakes in terms of their business dealings.
The older huntsman got hooked into a very, very large multi-million dollar investment in Russia, lost his shirt when they changed all the rules.
He was talked into that by establishment people who were trying to build up Russia right after the phony fall of the Soviet Union.
And he got snookered.
John Huntsman is what I call, or Mike Levitt, the perfect Patsy.
In other words, these are the people who are not corrupted, but because they are desperate, they come, for example, a state of Utah with a religious background, for example, of persecution.
So on behalf of their church and their state, They're very anxious to gain the acceptance of the world, thinking that they're doing themselves a personal favor, as well as their church, as well as their government.
So they're very susceptible to being drawn in and rewarded by government.
For example, Time Magazine will do a very favorable article when they take a moderate position, and they see how they treat someone who takes a less moderate position get excoriated in the press.
So they don't have to be told directly We're controlling you with this and that.
They simply use very, very subtle inducements when they recognize people want to get ahead in life and will bend over backwards to do so.
And so I'm sure Huntsman is doing everything the Obama administration wants him to do in terms of kowtowing to China.
So to recap, we have four different levels, I believe, or categories of how the conspiracy is managed In terms of its personnel and how it grows and ascends in power.
The lowest level, the fourth level of people who know and see enough to see that there's a control system but have been told to think that it's benevolent.
And although I won't give you any specific names of who I think is in that area because it's hard to tell who actually knows and sees.
But I know that there have been people and many people in fact who are doing in fact a lot of people in every agency of government see enough to know in fact everyone in politics who gets to be elected sees that there's a control system sees that especially when they go to Congress they start to get the phone calls from the various people in position saying you're expected to do this and we expect this and this of you the pressure starts immediately whenever a freshman goes to Congress they come away Knowing that there's a control system.
And oftentimes they rationalize and say it's benevolent.
So, there's those who control, know that there's a control, think it's benevolent.
Those that know there's a control system but have been corrupted.
And that's the majority of the people who do the dirty work in there.
They're the hired guns and they essentially learn to be predictable.
The second level are planners and implementers.
Those are the heavy hitters, the ones who actually know all that's going on.
The Henry Kissingers of the world, the Brent Scowcrofts.
And the top level are the actual controllers, like David Rockefeller or the Rothschild people.
Or Henry Kissinger, who I believe has gone up to that level.
It's very important to understand the role of political parties in maintaining the status quo.
My major objections with the electoral college system was that it guaranteed a two-party system.
In other words, it guaranteed a winner-take-all.
Whenever you have a winner-take-all of 51%, you guarantee that you will develop within the electorate this mentality.
Unless I have a majority, I have nothing.
And that induces compromise.
Now, for example, in the parliamentary system, that's another political system whereby you have minority parties that you can win and have political power without having a majoritarian position.
There's benefits to that.
The problem with that, of course, is that you have increased factionalization in government.
So you have smaller and smaller factions.
And thus, you have to cobble together a compromise of various different political parties in order to gain the winner-take-all majority of 51%.
Unfortunately, some very unwise and strong arm-twisting tactics takes place in a parliamentary system.
in order to be elected.
So the same corruption occurs.
Our system is winner take all.
You have nothing unless you win a majority position.
And so the third party has always been disadvantaged in the United States in the
sense that we are told you're throwing your vote away because you're taking away
from the lesser of two evils in establishing a third party position.
The third party has always been disadvantaged to get one person in Congress.
You've got to win somewhere at some time, and we can't pool our votes as you do in
a parliamentary system where you can take all the libertarian votes all across the
country and elect at least one candidate because they vote for the party or the
And that's how they make inroads.
And to a certain extent, that would be beneficial to us if the Constitutional Party or the American Party or the Libertarian Party could get at least one representative in it.
The only way we've been able to get one, for example, is have Ron Paul, who's a Libertarian, get elected as a Republican.
It is possible for a third party to win.
That's how the Republican Party came into it.
It was the Whigs before then who were ousted by the Republicans.
They started as a third party.
was young enough in our political history that large changes and upheavals could
occur, and so the Republicans and Democrats became our two mainstream
parties, and it's almost impossible to overcome that now.
It's even easier to run as an independent than it is to get elected as a third party.
And yet, because over time, people within the conservative movement had begun to
realize that they have been co-opted many, many times through the Republicans.
That the Republicans has always been the residual of conservative values within the United States and ever since.
I think primarily the Republican Party first became co-opted in a major way is when Eisenhower was elected in the 50s.
There was a major effort and books were written about how liberals infiltrated, played like they were Republicans in order to sow the seeds of dissent against Robert Taft, who was the major candidate against Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Once again, Taft was viewed as an isolationist.
In the war he was viewed as someone who was against international cooperation, against the United Nations.
Robert Taft was in fact our constitutional conservative of those days.
And he was overcome by the establishment promoting Dwight Eisenhower, who turned out to be not A direct conspirator, in my opinion, but was a controlled president by his brother, Milton Eisenhower, who was a globalist.
Eisenhower had, for example, a long history of succumbing to conspiratorial demands, especially as Supreme Commander in World War II, Operation Keelhaul.
Many of the great evils that he acquiesced to in World War II and the crimes against humanity of which he was personally responsible for, such as the killing of two million German prisoners through starvation and refusing to give them tents and other shelter against the winter, a very purposeful action that is very little known in history.
Since the rise of conservatism of the Barry Goldwater time, there has been a need within the establishment to try to undermine dissent.
The John Birch Society, for example, had to be undermined.
It rose very rapidly to prominence through a house-to-house Conversion and group meeting type of format that had district directors.
It was very effective talking to people individually.
Built a very strong organization and it was targeted for destruction by the media as well as the Communist Party, even though it was mostly our own globalists in the media who wanted to destroy them.
They also had to co-opt Barry Goldwater, and they did so in very subtle ways that I don't have time to go into here.
But he was very much co-opted by his insider status as a former military high-ranking officer in the Air Force, allowing him to have insider access to certain military secrets, even after he left the military.
It's feeling like you're part of the establishment and not wanting to lose that, that is very corrupting to conservatives.
For example, Senator Bob Bennett of Utah, before he was a senator, he was the son of a senator.
He was given the opportunity to run the company of Mullins & Associates, which was a PR company.
It was a flat-out front for the CIA.
They would cut out individuals and put them in as PR agents into his company.
In fact, some of the Watergate burglars were under his employ during that period of time.
But Bob Bennett was not a conspirator.
He was not.
He was just somebody just anxious to please the establishment.
Oh, wow, I get to run a front for the CIA and it's top secret and this is a wonderful opportunity to serve my country.
But that's how they use naive people in that regard.
That's how they co-opt dissent.
I'd like to start off, of course, with a quote from Carol Quigley on the two political parties and how they are co-opted.
He said, the argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies of the right and the other of the left is a foolish idea, acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers, and I might add, the normal American people.
Instead, the two parties, he said, should be almost identical so that the American people can, quote, throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.
Then it should be possible to replace it every four years if necessary by the other party, which will be none of these things, but will still pursue with new vigor approximately the same basic policies.
Now, this is a conspiratorial quotation.
Carol Quigley spent the rest of his life, because he got into trouble writing the book Tragedy and Hope, he spent the rest of his life trying to debunk the idea that he had spawned conspiracy theories by these kinds of statements.
This is as conspiratorial a statement as I've ever read.
It talks specifically about deception and controlling the two political processes.
It's an open admission of conspiracy.
And yet he had the audacity to write two major essays specifically debunking Allen's, none dare call it a conspiracy, my uncle's book The Naked Capitalist, which was written actually as a critique of Carol Quigley's book Tragedy and Hope.
And have the audacity to claim that they were misinterpreting him and misquoting him when in fact the quotes are entirely accurate.
To his credit, he was correct that they made certain generalizations that he had not made.
He had not come out and openly stated that all of the international bankers.
In fact, he made a big deal out of saying, I have never said all the bankers, only some of the bankers.
And that's an example of how we have to be very careful in the conservative movement about excessive generalizations
that lead to the ability of the media to counter.
And Glenn Beck often does this. He'll make excessive generalizations which they'll show are specifically
inaccurate in certain cases and make him look bad.
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.
▲
Export Selection