Catherine Austin-Fitts exposes how FASAB 56 lets unelected officials hide trillions, turning U.S. markets into a facade while HSBC and BIS elites evade justice via sovereign immunity. She links $21 trillion in missing funds to a "breakaway civilization" of intergenerational capital pools, like Harvard’s $50B endowment, and blames universities for failing to produce cohesive leaders—contrasting Russia’s Ukraine success with America’s fractured trust. Warning of AI-driven depopulation and debt collapse, she advocates decentralized wealth systems, from "people banks" to Solari.com’s censorship-resistant intelligence network, urging listeners to reject "the nothing" by rebuilding equity locally before global collapse. [Automatically generated summary]
The House, Republican and Democrat, all of them together, instituted, issued an administrative policy called Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board Statement 56. Yeah, I did miss that.
And what that policy said is, as a matter of administrative policy...
We do not have to obey the constitutional provisions related to financial budgeting and disclosure.
We do not have to obey the laws, and we do not have to obey the regulations.
What we can do is appoint a secret group of people by a secret process to move money out of the financial disclosures of the United States.
And 150, so it's the 24 covered agencies plus approximately 150 governmental entities.
And when you throw in the classification laws and the national security laws, it also applies to the big banks and contractors working for the U.S. government.
Now let me explain what this means as a matter of investment.
When I look at the U.S. large cap stock market or the U.S. bond market, the Treasury market, I have no financial disclosure that has any meaning.
Everything's secret.
I have no idea what it means.
If I pick up the financials of a New York Fed member bank that is running the U.S. Treasury Department's bank accounts, or if I pick up the Treasury financial statements, they're meaningless.
But the absurd thing is, as a legal matter, to take the position that an administrative policy agreed upon by the uniparty can overrule the Constitution, can overrule the laws, and can overrule the regulations simply by,
you know, like, you wave the wand and suddenly, magically, law doesn't matter.
I mean, now you're talking, and you also saw this in the financial crisis.
A decision was made by Eric Holder in the Department of Justice to not prosecute HSBC.
There's a wonderful video on the Best Evidence channel by John Titus about this whole thing.
And basically, what they said is a systemically important...
This is under the BIS.
There's a definition under the BIS, under the Financial Stability Board, of a financially systemically important institution.
These institutions are free to break the law with no...
They're free to break the law.
At most, all they have to do is kick back a piece of the profits to the Department of Justice.
So it's like a formal kickback system.
And what you're saying is that you're taking the sovereign immunity of the BIS...
And through the New York Fed, extending it to the banks that are running these operations.
So what you've done with the BIS, the IMF, the World Bank, the UN, you've created all these different organizations.
And if you look at, we did like 40 in Latin America, you've created an international overlay.
Of organizations that have various forms of sovereign immunity, of course the big one being the BIS.
And so if they are free to break the law, I mean if you look at the financial crisis, what you're saying is these companies can lose trillions of dollars, have it replaced by the taxpayer, and keep on going.
So now is the point of the conversation where I have to ask the obvious question, which is, who are these people?
So can you name some of the people who you believe are making these decisions whose decisions are effectively, as you just said, above the law, have effective immunity?
That sort of runs things is the central banking bureaucracy.
So we've described the BIS and the central bankers.
So think of the planet as a house.
So you have the house, then you have financing the house, that's the mortgage.
Then you have the insurance and you know if you don't have the insurance, then you have the equity in the house, right?
And the insurance layer is very, very important to make sure that the equity is protected.
Right?
Okay.
So you've got the real assets, you've got the banking system, you've got the insurance system, and then you've got the owners.
So in my experience, if you go to the BIS and you look at the systemically important institutions and the members, you know, that's the bureaucracy that runs the debt and the transaction system.
So the, you know, the transactions.
Because the whole thing depends on being able to swap and transact.
The insurance group is very important for the reasons you just described, same as on your house.
And then the question is, who are the real owners?
And that's the mystery.
And I've spent my whole life trying to figure out who are the real owners.
And basically, from what experience I've had, if you know their name, they're not one of the important owners.
Do you know what I mean?
It's intergenerational pools of capital.
Now, here's what's interesting.
One of the most powerful...
Can you summarize it?
Well, you have the Trump administration and the Department of Justice now in a lawsuit with Harvard over who has what powers over Harvard's policies.
But I think the big...
The big fight is not the, you know, in asymmetrical warfare, the fight is never what the fight's really about.
The real fight is about who controls the, so Harvard Corporation, the university is only a portion of the Harvard Corporation.
The Harvard Corporation runs the university and it runs the endowment.
And the Harvard Corporation, in my experience, is one of the most important investment syndicates in the world.
And because they have a tax exemption, they don't have to pay taxes.
They spin off, I think the last time I looked, I don't know what it is currently, but they spin off about 4% a year for the university, which is a lot cheaper than paying taxes.
And it's a great investment because the university provides all sorts of intellectual and human capital to the investment syndicate.
So it's a very...
Brilliant, elegant model, and my theory is it was the model that was really created to sort of compete with the Vatican and the Catholics, who had 2,000 years of, you know, diplomatic immunity and no taxes.
Anyway, so, but it is, the Harvard Corporation is run by a perpetuating board.
So the board members, if a board member leaves, they pick a new board member.
So it's a self-perpetuating board.
And my guess is behind the scenes, if there's a fight, one of the fight is who gets on that board because then you control a $50 billion plus endowment.
And a $50 billion plus endowment, which now has a 39% private equity portfolio.
And these are, you know, I said to, on Money and Markets, which is our weekly show, I said the other week, you know, if this is a monopoly board, that would be part place.
Because it's such a flagship.
In the world of investment, it's such a major leader.
Because that will happen at the same time something else is going to happen.
And these things are going to happen at the same time.
The thing that's going to rock the universities is if you look at how much money it cost you as a father to put one child through college, you know, you're talking about enormous bills.
And if you look at how far the universities have gotten away from providing a great education, it's not a good investment.
So when I was an investment advisor, I used to work with my clients' kids, and we would literally do something.
We have a learning plan on Solari now that came out of this.
I would literally make them price time and money for each course they took.
By course.
And I would basically make them say, look, what do you want to do in this life and what are the skills and tools you need to do it?
And how are we going to go get those tools with the least amount of your time and the least amount of your parents' money?
How are we going to really...
And we would come up with these wild education plans where they would like, you know, go to San Francisco for this audio video course and then they would be next year and...
Budapest, studying at the university.
You know, because you want kids to learn about the world.
And you want them to be, you know, not provincial, stuck in...
So if you're going to run the world, you need Eaton and Sandhurst to provide an administrative class that's tough, clear thinking, has a well-defined mission.
Now we're sure you've heard plenty of those free phone promises from America's biggest wireless carriers.
If those deals sound too good to be true, it's probably because they are very often too good to be true.
They come with layers of fine print requiring you to sign up for four lines, plus activation fees, plus, plus, plus, this, that, the other thing.
You don't even understand what you're signing up for, and by the time you're done, you've paid for that free phone 3X.
It was a pretty expensive free phone.
It's kind of a scam, honestly.
Our wireless company is called Pure Talk, and it's got a much better and much more straightforward offer, and it comes with no strings whatsoever attached.
With a qualifying plan of just $35 a month, you get legitimately the brand-new Samsung Galaxy A26 for free.
It's actually free.
There aren't hidden costs.
You're not signing up the rest of your life or promising to name your kid after them or something.
From virtually indestructible Gorilla Glass to next-generation camera lenses, the phone has basically everything that you want.
All you need to do is switch to PureTalk.
$35 a month for unlimited talk, text, and 15 gigs of data with mobile hotspot, all on America's most dependable 5G network.
Go to puretalk.com slash talker to claim your free Samsung Galaxy with qualifying plan when you switch to PureTalk.
Wireless by Americans for Americans.
Man, there's absolutely so much.
Let me just move back once again to something that you said.
About policymakers, the Congress, the central banks, the White House, giving up on the American model in the mid-90s when the budget deal failed.
I think you said it was 95. I vaguely remember that.
You know, this democratic system or whatever version of a democratic system we have, our system is incapable of self-perpetuating long-term.
It's just too dysfunctional.
And that's obviously true.
It's too corrupt.
Clearly true.
Everyone senses that.
This isn't working.
We're going to get a new system.
They figured that out 30 years ago.
The one kind of brick wall that is looming right in the windshield is the debt meltdown.
Ray Dalio talks about it every single day.
We have too much debt.
People are going to stop buying our debt because it's clearly a bad deal.
And what happens then?
And you suggested the control grid is in part designed to manage the population.
So if you want to move people to a much lower economic footprint, let alone do it on a shocking basis, having complete control is obviously very convenient.
There are ways of doing the control grid nice and we can do it rough.
And what are they planning?
I don't know.
To a certain extent, remember the way, in my experience, the way they govern is they have targets and goals and then, you know, you sort of make it up as you go and sometimes it works.
So I wonder if the AI, if the data center boom, which really is the only sort of crackling, sparkling piece of the real estate market right now, I think it's building data centers, development market.
So like either they're going to build it on coal deposits in Wyoming or, which is going to be kind of hard because they're going to have to say all that.
Climate stuff we've been yelling at you about for 30 years is total bullshit.
And I know for a fact, I'm not guessing at this, that there are people running countries around the world who've thought about, like, what does AI mean for my population?
It means I've got too many people.
So this is something, I know this for a fact, I'm not guessing, that leaders of countries are talking about between each other.
Like, I know that.
And I'm not saying they're committing genocide or whatever, but they know that they're about to be far fewer people.
But if you listen to Sean Parker saying, I'm going to live to 145, or there's an interview where the president's son-in-law says, you know, we're going to be the last generation to die or the first generation to live forever.
So you clearly have a group of people biohacking who think they can engage in massive longevity.
But what I'm saying is, if you truly believe you can do that, and you're not going to allow the general population to do it for environmental reasons, then you would be for depopulation.
In other words, there's a whole set of scenarios I don't care about.
I'm interested in freedom, and I believe that the only way we can be free is through a culture that embraces the divine and builds true wealth, enduring wealth, and living wealth,
Well, it's an integration of living equity with financial equity.
And what I learned being a financial advisor is that everyone had been taught to build financial equity and they couldn't integrate it with living equity.
So you'd work with somebody who was, you know, worth millions of dollars who said they couldn't afford organic food.
I was like, are you crazy?
You know?
The number one thing that causes a diminution of family wealth is health problems and, you know, healthcare fraud and healthcare bankruptcy.
It's like, you know, please take a million dollars out of your bank account and start investing.
You know, doing everything you and your family need to be really healthy, you know, to have perfect water, to have great food, etc.
The other thing I discovered was, you know, everybody was trying to put their money in the national security state instead of helping their kids buy homes and integrating with, you know, building the living equity.
So my mother's family were Quakers.
And you didn't even think about buying stock until you sent all your kids to the best Quaker schools.
So you think it's a, you're dropping so much here, I'm just trying to pause, like tease out certain themes, but you think it's wiser, you know, if you have children and you care about them to help them buy homes than it is to.
They didn't like the idea that I would try and stop the mortgage bubble.
They really wanted to have a mortgage bubble.
And we were doing things to bring disclosure.
It's called place-based financials.
I really believed that if local communities could see how all the money worked in their neighborhood, that we could change things.
So, for example, I would constantly, when I was at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, I would find neighborhoods where we were spending $250,000 per unit to build public housing and $50,000 would buy and rehab a defaulted,
a foreclosed property in the FHA inventory.
And so literally, if you could just within a four or ten block area, you know, take that $250,000 and spend it in the way that was most efficient in that place, you could get four or five homes for the price of one.
And it was really amazing.
When I took those numbers, we did all sorts of due diligence.
This is when I was a contractor to the woman who worked for the guy who ran the $250,000 program.
And I showed it to her and I said, look, we could, you know, New Orleans, Chicago, LA, we could get four or five homes for the price of one.
And she turned bright red and she said, but how would we generate fees for our friends?
Or how would we, you know, pay off foreign countries who flood our political system with donations if, you know, if we're actually spending it to, like, build nice houses for Americans?
Like, repair Redding, Pennsylvania.
We could be spending it in whatever disgusting Middle Eastern place.
Without taking money from anybody else and making it.
So we created a software tool called Community Wizard that would allow everybody on the internet to just come and download the data and start looking at how the money worked in their places in a way that you could see real opportunities.
Okay, so let me tell you two stories.
The litigation starts and literally you go from being very wealthy and very trusted and very...
By the way, your average, like, 23-year-old NBA player who's floating all of his cousins and single mom, he understands that better than your average rich person.
Your obligation is to your family, including with money.
So, he said, she helped everyone, so I'm going to help her.
And it took 11 years, but at the very, no, it was 2006, so that was about nine years.
At the end of the process, when I won the litigation, we got money coming in.
I sat down to either repay everybody who loaned me or gifted me money.
Or almost everybody.
Some had just gifted.
And I counted it up, and what I realized is, I had come into the litigation having loaned a quarter of a million, and then over the next nine years, exactly a quarter of a million had come back.
And it wasn't tit for tat.
I mean, it was different people, different things.
You know, some had got and said, well, I guess she needs it back, and repaid it, or some had just gifted it because they knew I'd gifted.
And literally, I put a quarter of a million out, and a quarter of a million came back.
And Tucker, if it wasn't for that money, I wouldn't be here.
I would never have made it through.
And it was because it was in the people bank, and they couldn't shut the people bank off.
You know, they could do all sorts of things to shut off all sorts of resources and income, but if it's in the people bank, in the people you love and trust...
You know, it comes back.
I love that.
Yeah, it's great.
So when I finished the litigation, I'd had a 401k that I'd had to bust.
It had $500,000 in it.
I paid $225,000 in fines and taxes to get it out.
Well, I don't think they thought, they put my 401k under audit so I couldn't use it to finance the business.
It was dirty tricks.
Anyway, so...
I take the money out.
So my accountant, when we get the settlement money, she said, let's fund up the 401k.
I said, no, I'm never going into business with the U.S. government again.
I mean, it's, I really, you know, one of the most breakthrough moments for me in the last 20 years was when I realized that it was okay to be happy no matter what was going on.
And sometimes you can't be, it's so horrible what's going on.
But I'll tell you exactly when it happened.
I had a wonderful church where I studied spiritual warfare for two and a half years at the beginning of the litigation, and it was that training that saved my life.
But I was at a sermon, and there was a co-pastor who had very long fingernails, and she was very angry, and she was shaking her hands with her long fingernails.
And, you know, sometimes when you're in a big church, and they point right at you, and she said, the devil can have my house, and the devil can have my car, but the devil cannot have my joy.
And it was like, I exploded in my head, and I said, that's it.
So, when Van Gogh, it's my theory when Van Gogh finished a painting that, it's like, wow, you know, it's great.
And you watch these guys do the fraud and destroy, you know, all the mortgage fraud, and it destroys neighborhoods, and it destroys family, and it's just, it's like a lose-lose-lose, and you think, that's no fun.
Breakaway civilization was a term made famous by Richard Dolan.
And it simply described a decision to create a parallel system.
You know, first it started with the black budget, but it grew, you know, call it the national security state.
But to build a civilization that literally was separate and not subject to the laws of the existing ones.
So, if I'm running a company and I want to bring up new systems, I'll...
Bring up the new systems while I'm running the old, and I'll run them in parallel, and I'll move things over slowly, and then at some point I bring the current thing down.
And to me, that's what the financial coup was.
You're moving the money out of one system and putting it in another.
So in theory, $21 trillion is enough at a 5% interest rate to basically finance a private government, if you will, right?
So, when I was at HUD in 1989, it was late 89 or early 90, I was in a meeting with the secretary and we had brought all the regional administrators in for a meeting with the secretary and he was very upset because the regional administrator from California Had implemented something in response to a court decision.
There was a court case in the Court of Appeals, and they decided, okay, you got to go to the right, and so he had implemented that.
And the secretary was having literally like a manic episode, screaming, a huge temper tantrum, screaming at him, and finally this guy said, but Mr. Secretary, it's the law.
And he just exploded with fury, and he said, The law?
The law?
I don't have to obey the law.
I report to a higher moral authority.
And just at that moment, it was like, remember the scene in Eyes Wide Shut when you first walk in on the, you know, the secret society doing their occult ritual?
You know, you had this image of, oh, you know, he literally, he doesn't have to obey the laws of the United States.
He's operating under a different governance structure.
And that, you know, there are many, there's a very famous story of Lincoln when he's talking about his, what he wants to do to implement the reconstruction policies.
And he tells a story about a young child saying, you know, if I throw the fish back, dad will get mad at me, but if I, if I, If it slips from my hand accidentally and you grab it,
then Dad won't be mad at me.
And the implication of the story is that Lincoln has a dad that he can't buck.
And, you know, we're back to the question, who's Dad?
I think it's going to big investments like, you know, building the control grid is a big one.
And one of my questions on the financial coup is, are they literally setting up an endowment so they can run the world on a global governance that's a dictatorship with an endowment?
And if you put my name in on the internet, you'll get...
You know, a copy of this story.
Because it happened to me in 2000.
I was asked by a healthcare practitioner to give a presentation called How the Money Works on Organized Crime.
And it later became a very famous article called Narco Dollars for Beginners.
And it was meant to be a light, funny description of the intersection of organized crime flows with Washington and Wall Street.
So, I have an online book called Dylan Reed and the Aristocracy of Stock Profits that is a case study that teaches people.
It's designed to be like a business school case study that shows you that intersection between illegal cash flows and Wall Street and Washington.
Anyway, so...
I'm in the middle of the speech, and I'm describing the congressional testimony on the Dark Alliance allegations that happened in 1998.
And at the time, I was helping a reporter do research, and she was covering the hearings.
And a spokesperson for the Department of Justice told her, so I'm in the middle of the speech, and there are about 100 people, and the conference where I'm speaking is a conference that...
It happens once a year by this group, and the focus is on how we evolve our society spiritually.
So this is a very spiritually committed group of people who want to evolve our society spiritually.
Okay, so I'm describing the fact that a spokesperson for the Department of Justice told this reporter I was helping that the U.S. economy launders $500 billion to a trillion dollars a year of all illegal money.
So that's narcotics trafficking, that's financial fraud, that's...
You know, everything, it's human trafficking.
And the number is now much, much bigger.
But they were describing the fact that the U.S. economy and financial system is the leader globally in laundering dirty money.
So, I said to this wonderful group of spiritually evolved people, what would happen if we stopped being the global leader in money laundering?
And we had a little conversation.
They said, well, you know, The money would leave the New York Stock Exchange and go to Singapore or Zurich or London.
And we might have trouble financing the government deficit because now we borrow over half of the money currently.
And so our taxes might go up or our government checks might stop.
So I said, okay, let's pretend there's a big red button up here on the lectern.
And if you push that button...
You can stop all hard narcotics trafficking in your town, your county, your state tomorrow.
Thus offending the people who control $500 billion to a trillion dollars a year of all dirty money and the accumulated capital thereon.
Who here will push the button?
And out of 100 people dedicated to evolving our society spiritually, guess how many would push the button?
So I said to them, I said, why would you not push the button?
So we had a little conversation.
They said, we don't want our taxes to go up, we don't want our government checks to stop, and we don't want our 401ks and IRAs to go down.
So if I had voted, there would have been two pushing the red button.
So what I discovered that day, the problem was not that they wouldn't push the red button.
But they wouldn't go into the invention room and have an honest conversation about what the real problem was and how, I call it, how we turn the red button green, how we make money pushing the red button, because then we can push the red button.
And you have to push the red button because you cannot become wealthy liquidating your children.
You cannot become wealthy by poisoning your children and your people.
And yet that's what we've been doing in America for decades now.
And now here's the political problem.
If you're the new president of the United States and you walk into the Oval Office, your political
is going to say to you, Mr. President, the American people just spent billions getting you voted in as president.
And now they want payback.
They want their government contract.
They want their privatization.
They want the coal increase on Social Security.
They want a community block development grant.
And you're going to turn to your secretary of treasury and he says, well, you better be nice to the people who control $500 billion to a trillion and the accumulated capital they're on.
And, of course, the number is much bigger now.
Now, how are you going to press the red button?
You can't.
And if you look at the history of politics in America, the history is everybody wants their check, and they want the story of I am good.
I'm a good Christian.
I'm not doing any of this corrupt organized crime stuff.
You know, I'm just voting.
You know, so I say it this way.
When Goldwater...
The end of World War II, George Keenan said we got 6% of the people and 50% of the resources and we're going to have to be tough if we keep this going.
So Goldwater ran for president and he said we're going to have to drop a lot of them.
And the American people said, "Oh no, we don't want to do that.
We're good Christians."
We don't want to cut back.
And so the Bushes came along and said, you know something?
You all are good Christians.
Here's your check.
Don't ask questions.
And that's where we've been.
Everybody wants the story of I am good.
And the problem, you can...
You can push the red button, you can turn it green, but it has to be done one neighborhood at a time.
You need to take all the money into place, and instead of spending the government money to centralize control, and on the control grid, you need to re-engineer it to build real wealth.
And you've got to decentralize the economic power.
If you centralize and you create lots of billionaires, you're going to shrink the pie, and that's what we've been doing.
And we've been making money from poisoning each other.
If people want to learn more about your research and your views on things, if they want to know about the 11 years you spent fighting the feds for blowing the whistle on them, where do they get that information?
So if you want to get to know us, you can come in and you can learn tremendous amounts from the free stuff.
We'd love to have you as a subscriber.
And we have a great group of subscribers.
What happened to me was I fell into this because I had terrible, terrible experiences with the corporate media.
And so I just started doing shows and giving out my email and saying, if you have a question, ask me.
And over many years, the questions would come in.
Publish the answers and, you know, go on and on and went on for free for a long time.
And then finally, I got so many questions that I would just, you know, I finally said I need to hire people.
But we have this global network of subscribers and audience who get on the site, share comments, they're brilliant, and we help each other figure things out.
And we've literally become an intelligence network.
You know, and it's all people who want to be free, and they all understand one can't be free unless we're all free.
You know, this is an all or nothing thing.
They either get the control grid or we're free, and the only way we're going to be free is if everybody's free.
It's an all or nothing deal.
And there are a lot of people now who understand this and are gathering.
You know, so I have many subscribers.
I just know from what they say.
I have many subscribers who are your subscribers because they feel and I feel you're on the same journey.
Yeah, I'm just not a very systematic thinker, so my instincts tell me that you're telling the truth, and of course I agree completely with your orientation.
So it turns out that YouTube is suppressing this show.
On one level, that's not surprising.
That's what they do.
But on another level, it's shocking.
With everything that's going on in the world right now, all the change taking place in our economy and our politics, with the wars on the cusp of fighting right now, Google has decided you should have less information rather than more.
And that is totally wrong.
It's immoral.
What can you do about it?
Well, we could whine about it.
That's a waste of time.
We're not in charge of Google.
Or we could find a way around it, a way that you could actually get information that is true, not intentionally deceptive.
The way to do that on YouTube, we think, is to subscribe to our channel.
Subscribe.
Hit the little bell icon to be notified when we upload and share this video.
That way you'll have a much higher chance of hearing actual news and information.