All Episodes
Previous Next
April 10, 2022 - RFK Jr. The Defender
39:43
American Secrets with Sean Stone

Filmmaker Sean Stone discusses American Secrets, Russia, and Ukraine with RFK Jr.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody, today's guest is my friend Sean Stone.
Sean has done a million things on every important subject that I care about, from pollution to transhumanism to the rise of totalitarianism to censorship and on and on and on.
He has directed the documentaries, among many, many, many other accomplishments, which I'm not going to read out his whole CV here because it's enormous, but he's directed the documentaries, A Century of War, Hollywood DC, and Meta Human with Deepak Chopra.
He also produced the documentary, The Paradigm of Money, about Wall Street corruption and collusion with the U.S. government.
His limited docu-series, Best Kept Secret, explores the dark side of the Western elite's manipulation and control of humanity.
His short film, Singularity, is a dystopian warning about a plague that leads to a totalitarian surveillance state, so that was pretty prescient.
Sean is host of the reality show, Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura.
The interview program, Buzzsaw, formerly on Gaia TV. And the RT news show, Watching the Hawks.
And I think that's where I first met you.
Of course, I've known your father, Oliver Stone, for many, many years.
And you, the apple, did not fall far from the tree.
And I'm hoping to have him on here.
I talked to him yesterday.
I'm hoping to have him done it when he gets back into the country.
Let's talk about RTTA because I think both you and I are deeply concerned about the rise of the surveillance state and an ancillary to that, which is the use of mass propaganda.
And really, the The very worrying phenomena that we have, a generation of young people in this country that does not seem to be equipped to defend themselves against propaganda.
Susceptible to manipulation, are very easy about compliance, are kind of the opposite of the college generation of the 60s, which was defiant, which was skeptical, which was uncompliant.
And we have a generation of cancel culture of people who appear to be, you know, easily retreating into authoritarian society.
The warm embrace of safe totalitarian systems and orderly totalitarian systems, which I think you and I grew up with a profound fear and cynicism and skepticism about the growth of those bodies.
So let's begin by talking about The expulsion, essentially, of RT America, which is Russian TV, which is, at some level, a propaganda project by Putin.
But at the same time, it was a place where you could go and really see narratives that challenge the official orthodoxies in the United States, which is critical in a democracy.
My father said, My uncle believed that all speech should be uncensored and that we ought to, our ideas here in this country ought to welcome challenge, we ought to welcome debate, we ought to, if we could not triumph in the marketplace of ideas and we didn't deserve to defend those systems.
Here we have this kind of unity that's propagandist, a monolith coming from CNN on the one hand and Fox News on the other, both of which are owned by BlackRock, which also controls all these military industrial...
Amazing, isn't it?
It's really remarkable.
...now going to get 13.5 billion, which we are going to give to Zelensky, and they're going to give it back.
Right, right.
BlackRock, you know, which is barraging us with this propaganda wall.
It's not new, though.
Let's hear it, because I just talked a lot more than I thought I was going to.
Well, it's such a big thing to unpack what you said.
I mean...
I remember seeing a study a couple of years ago, maybe 2020 it was, and they were surveying, maybe it was before 2020, because obviously there was a shutdown, but they were surveying college students and there was this sort of unprecedented amount of people saying the First Amendment should not be total free speech, you know, it should not be totally free, that there should be some level of restriction on it or, you know, censorship.
And especially we've seen that grow when it comes to, I've seen studies showing that Democrats in particular are in favor of Governments and or big corporations, big tech, basically, the Democrats tend to be more in favor of censorship, you know, against misinformation.
It's remarkable.
Stunning.
Yes.
Yes, and as you mentioned, I mean, I came of age in the 90s, you know, late 80s, early 90s.
I remember very well the propaganda of I think?
Basically, being given the biological chemical weapons that ultimately were used, they were given, obviously, by us in Western Europe to fight the Iran.
Obviously, there was a lot of collusion between us and Saddam since the early days.
In fact, he was arguably a CIA puppet at the beginning, and certain aspects of his policies were, how do you say, our government was blessing them all the way through the Iran-Iraq war.
And then, of course, the narrative shifted by the time of the Kuwait invasion, again, a lot deeper than what they tell you on television, a lot more issues involved, including slant drilling, you know, the Kuwaitis involved in slant drilling into Iraq, and Iraq basically having this huge debt that they owed the Arab world and the West for fighting this war,
presumably they thought on behalf of the Arab world against Iran, and all of a sudden their allies, presumable allies, turned against them, and they Iraq was left in a very difficult position, and Islam had this weaponry and this artillery that had been sold to him, and the Americans said, hey, we take no issue.
Remember, April Gillespie, the diplomat, said, oh, we have no issue between, we take no side or take no issue with your issue with Kuwait, basically, and it's a tacit Agreement, not, you know, that's again, this is one of many factors.
So I just remember the propaganda sold to us.
We basically, Rumpusfeld's direction, we basically greenlighted his invasion of Kuwait and then went to war with him over it.
Right, right.
I wanted to say one thing at the outset of this.
Neither you nor I think that Vladimir Putin or Saddam Hussein are good guys.
Sure.
That has nothing to do with that.
What I think both of us feel that we need to look at is this pension of America to be the police person of the world.
We go from emergency to emergency, crisis to crisis, war to war.
We've been out of Afghanistan for, what, three months, and it's the longest war in our history, and now we're going back to war again.
And a lot of this propaganda assault is very reminiscent of what happened with Saddam Hussein.
And after that, all the New York Times, the Washington Post, they all had to apologize.
not looking skeptically at the runway to the war, at this yellow journalism and partaking part in it and getting us involved at which that point in history was regarded as the worst foreign policy blunder in American history.
It cost us $3 trillion and killed more people and died at the World Trade Center.
It had nothing to do with it. - Yeah, I don't know that Iraq is worse than Vietnam.
I think that's arguable.
I think even arguably the First World War, I think is actually our biggest, I would argue our biggest foreign policy was the First World War because they were all empires.
At the end of the day, it wasn't like the German Empire was worse than the British Empire.
The British Empire had a quarter of the planet under their rule.
They killed You know, in terms of their policies and their, you know, whether it was in India with famines or in Africa with their, you know, extraction, exploitation policies.
I mean, these were not kind empires.
The British was not a sweet empire.
We just happened to have JP Morgan had the, you know, had lent, I don't know, hundreds of millions of dollars at the time.
I mean, essentially billions of dollars in our current currency to the British and the French to fight the war.
And we had to make sure that they didn't lose it.
But fundamentally, I don't think that we should have been involved in that conflict.
I think America, according to the tradition of the 19th century, going back to Washington, no entangling alliances, recognizing that Europe is full of various faction and we are not to be holden to the British Empire.
That was really our origin.
And yet here we are since World War I, very much enmeshed with the British imperial policy.
And the British imperial policy, you mentioned Russia, has been anti-Russian.
Going back at least to the Crimea war, arguably before that.
But the British policy was very much always to destabilize Russia because Russia was the great land power of Eurasia, you see, and because they called it the world island, you see.
You see, if Germany, Russia, and China ever got together economically, that's How many billions of people?
That's wheat, that's natural resources, oil, everything that they need as far as to sustain themselves.
And so the British policy actually since the turn of the 20th century was to keep those guys at odds, to keep the neighbors vying against each other, to really distrust any major land powers so that they could use maritime trafficking transport of goods.
They've always been opposed to the idea of a new Silk Road, for example, you know, bringing rail traffic and goods across Eurasia from China.
So what again, I'm just contextualizing this anti-Russia thing that we've gotten so much in our blood since the beginning of the Cold War.
But this is very much the British policy was always anti-Russia.
We don't have anything against Russia because we're actually very similar to Russia.
Mass multicultural country.
I mean, is Russia more autocratic than the U.S.? Yes.
Historically, it's true, more autocratic.
But as far as the people, the intellect, the culture, the multiculturalism, the intelligence, I mean, it's very similar.
It's land, you know, this land power.
It's very similar to America.
So this idea of us being so anti-Russian has very much been ingrained into us by Russia.
A lot of dogma and fear, as we saw through our lifetime, fear of the communists.
And as your uncle understood, we have to negotiate with these as partners.
And what I saw in the last decade, really, has been not treating Russia as a partner, really going back to the 1990s, you could say, when the Soviet Union collapsed.
And we kind of looked at Russia as this...
We can power.
Oh, Russia, we can do what we want.
We can take all the NATO countries.
And even George Kennan warned in 98, he said to Thomas Friedman in an interview, he said, what Clinton is doing is treating Russia as an enemy.
He said, I don't understand why we're treating Russia as an enemy anymore.
The Cold War is over.
We don't need to treat Russia as an enemy, as an occupying, we don't need to be an occupying power here.
We need to work to basically bring Russia into, you know, the Western sphere of economics, of You know, democracies, but not just to exploit them.
And there was a lot of that that took place in the 90s as far as, you know, Jeffrey Sachs and others going there with shock therapy, you know, a lot of looting that took place of Russian resources, of the ruble, you know, a lot of oligarchs basically being born from that time period, and Russia was a wrecked country.
What Putin did basically from 99 forward was restabilize Russia.
Even though he's been an autocrat, he's been able to give Russia stability in a way that having governments every four years probably wouldn't have done.
And that's not to say they don't have a parliament.
They do have a parliament.
They do have various political parties.
They have opposition.
He stabilized it in a way that brought them back to prominence and power that didn't exist.
And that's why what we saw in the last decade of American arrogance, to treat Russia with so much arrogance to say, we can bring NATO right up to your border.
We can go into Georgia.
And Putin said no in 2008.
Remember, there was a brief war.
He said no.
And in 2008, he said, don't bring it into Ukraine.
These are border countries.
It's like Mexico and Canada would be for the United States.
If Mexico made an alliance with China and Stopped dealing with America, we'd have problems, right?
So that was Russia's attitude.
And rather than respecting Russia as a partner, as a great power would, saying, okay, Russia, you're a great power.
That's your neighbor.
Look, we don't need NATO there.
Ukraine can be a buffer state, can trade with both sides, can trade with the West.
We don't need a Western-installed, Western-controlled government in there.
But no, we didn't do that in 2014.
And ever since then, there's been a war in the Donbass region against Russian separatists and, you know, a lot of Russian-speaking people in that region that are probably majority pro-Russian.
So there's been problems ever since 2014.
So we haven't respected Russia.
And I think this is much more the Anglophile approach, the Anglo-imperial model of Basically, try to keep Russia unsettled, try to have conflict around Russia as much as possible, as opposed to the American, the peace faction, the American, you know, the Kennedy version, which is, hey, let's talk to them, let's negotiate with them as a great power, let's treat them as a great power, let's respect them.
And if there's mutual respect, I think we can get a lot further.
How do you explain the fact that Russia has under Putin and completely incapacitated economically, that the only exports, there is nothing that you buy in this country or almost any other nation in the world that says made in Russia?
How come with this?
Population that's extraordinarily brilliant, particularly in engineering and mathematics and physics.
A country that is the largest country in the world, that has the greatest land mass, that has its abundance of resources.
How come the only exports they have are oil and gas and minerals?
It's a third world country and why I wouldn't be able to industrialize.
Well, wheat.
Don't forget about wheat.
Grain and wheat.
I mean, they do export grain and wheat.
You know, it's difficult to say because a lot of our models of economics are based on this idea of export.
America doesn't export anything.
We export dollars.
We sell people dollars because they need dollars to buy oil.
America is a great export country.
Obviously, our economy is built around consumerism, but we have technologies.
We have internet, IT. We build entrepreneurship.
We have culture, too.
We have TV. Yeah, we have influence.
Exactly.
Our final readout, because we used to have electronics.
We used to make stereos and television sets and automobiles in the world.
We still make automobiles for export.
Yeah, I mean, I don't know what the deal is.
I know under Trump, there was sort of a little bit of a resurgent.
But listen, I remember hearing that Moscow was ranked in one of the top megacities in the world.
Just this past year, or in the last couple of years, it's been ranked in the top 10 cities.
So obviously, Russia is doing something right.
It's not a backwater, is the point.
You know, I haven't been there.
I've been there to Moscow.
I've been there to Kazan in the East.
I've been, I haven't been to St.
Petersburg yet.
But just again, like seeing, you know, they have, there is money.
It's more, it's, I felt when I was in Moscow, I felt closer to being like in a Paris or something, as far as the culture, the attitude, the economy was concerned.
The texture of the city.
So it didn't feel like these are impoverished people, right?
So I don't know.
I don't know how to...
I'm not an analyst.
I don't know exactly what their economy is based on.
I'm not that familiar with Russia, but I do know that these people weren't starving.
And talk to Russians, they're like, the 90s, we were starving.
The 90s, we were waiting in line to get bread and food.
We couldn't, you know, we had nothing.
And now it seemed closer to what you would consider like a modern Western or Central European city than not.
What would your solution in the Ukraine be at this point?
Gosh, I mean, how would I negotiate the Ukraine situation?
I would honor that I would basically push Zelensky.
I would not be sending him weaponry.
I mean, this is exactly like, this is all you're doing is fomenting more casualties, you know, more civilian casualties.
I would say, listen...
First of all, it's understanding clearly what Putin's demands are.
If we're talking about denazification as a battalion, various neo-Nazi battalions that Facebook all of a sudden says, okay, those Nazis are okay, right?
Historically, we don't like Nazis, but these Nazis are okay.
No, there are real neo-Nazi battalions that have been incorporated into We're good to go.
Nazism was about the idea of the master race and then the various sub-races, including Jews, including Blacks, including Slavs.
And that's what, there are these neo-Nazis that are, you know, obviously I'm mentioning the Azov Battalion and other groups, that ideology, because remember a lot of these guys are ancestors, their parents were involved in Joining the Nazis during the World War, you know, a lot of these Ukrainians joined the Nazi Party.
There was Stefan Bandero has become a national hero who was a Ukrainian Nazi, I mean, targeting Poles and Russians and Jews.
It's remarkable that this is so blatant in aspects of modern Ukrainian ultranationalism.
And yet people are just in denial about it because they are so anti-Russian in their own regards and their own psychology of being, again, caught in this Cold War mentality that Russia is the bad guy, Russia is the boogeyman, Russia is here to take over the world, which really, I mean, as my father did in his untold history, pointed out what Russia did, even as as my father did in his untold history, pointed out what Russia did, even as expansive as they were at the end of the Second World War, Stalin never really broke his treaty with Churchill as far as the countries that they agreed upon, Churchill and he agreed upon carving
He's an imperialist.
The British had an empire.
As I mentioned, a quarter of the world was under their control.
You know, America was an empire.
We had the Spanish Philippines.
Thankfully, Roosevelt was an anti-imperialist, so we started that policy of getting rid of this empire.
But the British weren't interested in getting rid of empire.
So they were interested in cutting a deal with the Soviets.
You get Eastern Europe, a little bit of Central Europe.
We get influence in Greece and Turkey and all these other countries.
And this was pure balance of power, empire.
Stalin turned against Molotov and some of his other top aides when they tried to ferment or support the communism movement in Greece because Stalin Stalin said that.
And by the way, Stalin is one of the maybe three worst people in human history.
Before Hitler, he was the greatest mass murderer.
He starved to death.
deliberately, purposefully, 3 million people in the Ukraine, and another million people were shot or gassed after that.
You know, as you point out, it's a very complex history, Stalin and Hitler divided the Ukraine into two parts, divided by the Ribbentrop-Molotov line, and Hitler essentially killed everybody who could not live with Nazi paradigm on and Hitler essentially killed everybody who could not live with Nazi paradigm on the western side of that line, and Stalin killed everybody who was an ethnic Russian on the east side of that line, and we're living now with the legacies of those divergent and
And we're living now with the legacies of those divergent ideologies, ethnicities, and attitudes.
And it's part of the complexity that, you know, I think that we should talk about.
I don't know what we should do in the Ukraine, but I know that it offends me that...
We're being carried by this wave of propaganda with very, very little understanding of, you know, what the historical antecedents are.
Also, the Joint Chiefs and the CIA almost brought the world to war in 1962.
Because the Russians, in retaliation for us putting Jupiter missiles in Turkey, the Russians had put missiles in Cuba, which was 1,100 miles from Washington.
And we said, you can't do that.
We'll go to war with you if you try to do that.
And now we've got military installations now in countries which were former Soviet satellites that we promised when Gorbachev broke up the Soviet Union.
You know, one inch to the east and we broke that promise.
We need to recognize some historical antecedents of this conflict and not just submit to this easy propaganda trope that Putin is like Hitler.
Putin is like Saddam Hussein.
He's evil.
He's bad.
We need to destroy him.
We need to maybe undo what President Kennedy did with Khrushchev.
I've got to put myself in his shoes.
We need to deal with that as a nation.
We need to debate it.
I totally agree.
By the way, you mentioned the Molotov-Ribbentrop, but that was Poland, not Ukraine.
Ukraine was occupied by Nazis, and that's where a lot of the alliances came from.
It was certain Ukrainians joining the Nazis during that time period.
Yeah, I mean, we're basically, you know...
But Stalin and Hitler divided up the Ukraine.
I mean, they controlled different parts of the Ukraine during different parts of the war.
It wasn't an agreement.
It was when the Nazis were invading Russia.
That's when they got into the Ukraine, was in that time period.
Because remember, Ukraine was historically Russia.
It's historically Russia.
It's also been historically part of sort of the greater Polish or Lithuanian.
Thank you very much.
That's why you end up, I think, in some ways with some of the Ukrainians going with the Germans during the Second World War under the occupation.
But no, it wasn't a formal agreement in that sense.
That was already once Hitler.
They did divide Poland, but this was after Hitler invaded East, right?
And he was moving East.
That's when he took Ukraine.
Well, the point is, Ukraine is a multicultural country.
And I think that's something that even Ukrainians are struggling with, as people will see in the Ukraine on Fire and the Revealing Ukraine, the sequel that my father made.
Where you see this post-2014 ultra-nationalism resurgence in Ukraine, basically being so anti-Russian.
And yet, again, a lot of their, it's like, it would be like if, you know, if we had a government that was basically anti-Mexican and basically starting to really, to really become, to foment an anti-Mexican sentiment across the country, right?
And let's say this was exacerbated, obviously, because the fighting started, there were separatists in the East that, yes, they were supported by Putin, but they were also, you know, Ukrainians who were Russian and said, listen, we want to be separate from this ultra-nationalism that we see resurgent, that seems to be anti-Russian.
in the West, and there's been a war ever since then.
60,000 casualties, let's not forget.
So people are crying here over the Ukraine.
It's like, well, where were your tears for the last eight years?
A lot of people didn't even know about this.
And I think this is the point of propaganda, how much it's really what the media tells us.
And we can't discount the fact here, too, that, as you know, the moment that our country, which has been in literally in a tyrannical fashion, forcing people to take an experimental injection, forcing people to wear Forcing children to wear masks for eight plus hours a day, depriving them of their very basic right to oxygen.
Our country that so hates freedom, if you stand up for freedom and they say you're a white supremacist for standing up for the freedom against masks or injections, at the moment that they dropped mandates, they turned around and said, now fight for the freedom of Ukraine.
Americans need to stand up for the freedom of Ukraine.
Can we not see the propaganda that's at work here?
We can't stand up for our own freedoms, but we have to stand up for Ukrainian freedoms.
Have you ever seen in your lifetime every major corporation saying, I stand with Yemen, I stand with Libya, I stand with Iraq?
Of course not.
We didn't stand with any of these countries when they were being bombed or the people when they were being bombed.
I ask people all the time, you're crying for the Ukrainians that have been killed, which is a tragedy.
anywhere civilians are killed in every war, but you're talking maybe a handful, a few thousand.
How many people have been killed in Yemen in the bombings of the last few years?
Almost half a million.
And again, 60,000 casualties in Ukraine before this invasion from Russia.
Were you crying for them then?
This is my point about propaganda and how the media knows and the narrative makers in Washington and the policy creators and the Council on Foreign Relations and their offshoot, the various think tanks and foundations that are influencing a lot of what we see, right?
What's propagated.
And obviously, it is for a military-industrial complex that is tied to Wall Street, that is tied to all the major international corporations, right?
There is an agenda at work.
And so that's why I mentioned, you know, the first Iraq war.
It's like starting to realize, dispelling my own illusion, my God, America's not the good guy in the world.
You know, I think in our constitution, we're the good guy.
I think that we have a beautiful principle.
But do our policymakers represent that?
To the Bidens and the Pelosi's and the Bushes and the Cheney's and the Clintons and the people that have been literally in power for 20, 30, 40, 50 years?
Are they not autocrats, political autocrats, just like Putin?
Oh, they get elected?
They just get elected every time?
Is that it?
They're just so wonderful at how they run things.
We just keep putting them back in office.
Well, then that tells us we really have to ask ourselves what we're doing, what we're thinking.
We're stuck with such rotten representatives.
How does globalization and transhumanism fit into this picture?
Because it's ultimately about control.
Just give us a definition of globalization.
Globalization is, I think, you know, it's an arguable definition.
I think that we've been globalized since the days of Alexander the Great, you know, since the days of the Persian Empire, right?
The idea of bringing peoples together across the planet through trade, through nations like the Persian Empire, which accepted different religions and accepted, you know, different ethnicities into a multicultural empire.
Alexander, very similar, the Roman Empire.
Roman Empire, obviously, more based in conquest.
I mean, they're all based in conquest, right?
But The point is that these empires, they're trying to control as much of the world as possible.
What happened at the end of the 19th century is that the British Empire, which at that time was really the greatest power the world had ever seen, as I mentioned, a quarter of the world's population, a quarter of the world's landmass under its control, and markets and controlling the sea lanes and the shipping and the traffic and the banking.
The British Empire realized that they came to their Vietnam crisis during the Boer War, and they realized we don't have the martial power to enforce it.
I mean, even in India, they had been using things like the British East India Company and mercenary armies and things like this.
But during the Boer War, they realized even just fighting these Dutch settlers and trying to get control of the mines, the gold and diamonds, right?
The great De Beers, everyone's heard of De Beers, and all this started with blood.
It started with slavery.
It started with concentration camps.
These just came out of the Boer War.
And the British experience was, wow, we can't police this empire.
We have to make it an ideological empire.
We have to bring...
This is where the Rhodes Scholarship came derived from this because Cecil Rhodes, who was the founder of De Beers and other things, he basically was saying we need to bring America back into our fold.
We have to bring America back into the empire, but it has to be an empire more of mind and law, legal structures and things like this, right?
So what is the modern New World Order was transitioning away from the idea of the British Empire to a more Commonwealth structure based in laws, contracts, agreements and international powers superseding nation states.
So then you ultimately get, after World War II, you get what?
The IMF and the World Bank and all these, you know, and these sort of these international bodies that are basically there, presumably to lend money, but oftentimes in predatory fashion, as we've seen.
I mean, John Perkins is a great book, Conspiracies of an Economic, Confessions of an Economic Hitman.
About how, you know, how countries would be manipulated by IMF policies and CIA obviously oftentimes getting in there, sometimes assassinating leaders who get in the way.
But again, moving these countries into more globalized structures, right, to the place where the idea is to take away power.
So why do you, people ask me all the time, how is it possible to control it so readily?
Well, that's the question.
How is it that all these governments are following lockstep with the same policies pretty much dictated by the WHO, you know, maybe like, you know, CDC and whatnot.
But, you know, why is it they're all following the same orders, essentially?
Not across the board.
Obviously, there are countries that, as you know, issued ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine and made that available.
But for the most part, there's been a lockstep of response, right, to how we're going to deal with this.
We're going to lock down.
We're going to force masks.
We're basically going to keep you six feet apart.
We're not really going to treat this as far as the ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine or other things that are available to treat it.
We're not really going to treat it.
We're just going to respond.
But how is that possible unless you have international globalist structures in place to essentially mandate it?
And coming, you know, a mixture from the private sector, the foundations, the Gates foundations and others that are helping to Sponsor the education process for this movement.
But essentially, it is more of a globalized response, which already indicates global systems of power.
And oftentimes, we've heard some presidents, for example, in Tanzania, I remember, and others, who are questioning the CPR testing, questioning the PCR testing, saying, this doesn't seem legitimate because I PCR tested a fruit and a goat, and they both tested positive for coronavirus.
And what happened to him?
He died.
And the other presidents seemed to indicate that they were actually being bribed, again, by international structures, saying we were offered millions of dollars in loans or money for our country if we followed these measures.
So that's why I say globalization has this great dark side.
There's a beautiful side of connection, being able to meet our counterparts across the planet, to trade in goods.
But the dark side is these conglomerate international corporations, as we know, that are getting more and more powerful, wealthier and wealthier, They have no allegiance to America or to the country that they started in, right?
Because they're offshore and their finances are international and they don't really pay taxes in their country.
And so that's really the dark side of what we're seeing is these global controls tied very much between governments, big corporations, big foundations, and how they're able to dictate from beyond our constitutional promise, which is that those powers, those rights, those things we don't enumerate for the federal government are supposed to be reserved to be the people.
And they're not.
Yeah, in my book, I talk about a slew of deaths among young African presidents, all of whom had opposed the WHO imposition.
And I don't say they were murdered, but it is peculiar that all people, virtually all the African presidents who resisted WHO died suddenly and inexplicably.
Talk about how transhumanism, this kind of ideology of transhumanism that is now so popular in Silicon Valley and with the World Economic Forum.
It's actually getting traction as something that has a beneficial outcome for humanity.
Right, exactly.
Well, as Klaus Schwab, I think, explained it the best.
He said it will be possible to merge your physical, your digital, and your biological identity.
That's the phrase, to merge them.
What is transhumanism by that?
Essentially to merge technology that we are using currently outside of ourselves, right?
In the various forms of apps, you name it, the computers, things like this, merging that more and more into the physical body, whether it's a neural link, almost like a Bluetooth interaction between yourself and the technology that you can operate telepathically, right?
But essentially, this process of merging the technology into our physical forms, they call it, you know, transcending what it is to be a biological human to start gene editing and things like this, which...
As if this is a good thing.
Yes, that's their perspective.
It's also about controlling the population.
It's literally about how do we organize this mass of people?
And that's why some of these agendas talked about, I think, agenda 21 and things like this, the UN agenda 21 is all about putting people into smarter and smarter cities, right?
So that they can be more order and control within a grid.
And rather than having this disorderly population, that's, you know, maybe rural, that's maybe in small towns and, and, and scattered across a large population.
If they can gather the population into smart cities where everything is, as we know, more easily monitored, surveilled, you know, the energy expenditure, everything can be monitored and then controlled more readily.
Then they look at it as being more conducive to their agenda, which is ultimately what?
To one theory, you know, that they would like us to basically to control our patterns of behavior, our patterns of consumption, right?
If you think about it from the elite perspective, you want to, you know, if you're making money on people, well, you want to continue to make money on people.
So you want to control what they consume, right?
And how much they consume of it, that kind of thing.
There's an argument that's actually, if you are an elite and you really believe, and this is the argument I get into sometimes with some of them, is like, there's this belief that they know better, that they basically really believe, you know, we've made money, or we come from bloodlines that have made money, and we've gone to good schools, and we've, you know, we're essentially, we know what needs to be done for the future of humanity, and we're here to decide it for you.
Which is very antithetical to certainly the American principle, you know, the constitutional principle of, no, God gives each of us a spirit and a life, and we really are, you know, not pure individuals, but we're here basically with an individual spirit, and we're here as entrepreneurs, and we know this middle-class American dream ethos that's come with it.
It's to say, no, we actually can figure things out for ourselves and we can actually create alternative systems if you allow free markets to exist.
But the elites, as much as they say free market economics, I don't believe for a second that they actually believe in free market economics.
I think that they hide behind that.
Corporate social is one of the greatest things we've seen throughout our whole life.
It's how much money these major corporations, in fact, in my paradigm of money documentary, I interviewed this guy who represents small and medium businesses.
He says, you don't realize how much money that's earmarked for small businesses actually goes to big corporations.
It's insane how much there's corporate welfare that goes on.
And just the nature of our globalist structures is more conducive to the global corporation.
Because if you can have your supply chain in India, you can pay people half or a third of the price you'd pay someone in America.
It's great for the corporate, corporate bottom line, but how does it affect real wages in America?
They haven't grown since the 70s as far as I've checked, last I checked.
Real wages haven't gone up because we're not making comparable what used to be good blue collar union type of wages in America.
I remember this all through the 2000s when I was in college and I was sitting there going, reading the newspaper, we just lost 30,000 jobs in Detroit, but we got 50,000 new service sector jobs.
I go, great, so you were paying someone 30 bucks an hour, now you pay them 10 bucks an hour.
How is that helping that person?
That's great for your corporate bottom line for Wall Street and the speculators, right?
If you're invested in that company, I'm sure you're doing well, but how is it helping me to lose a job that was paying me good wages so I can get another job in the service sector that's paying me a third of the price so that you can go pay, because you're a big corporation, you can go pay someone in Vietnam or China to do it for, again, a third or a quarter of the price so you make all the profit.
That's what's been really going on.
I did my Best Kept Secret docuseries about the sociopathic nature of Many of our elites and how they operate and their worldview and how much they are willing to manipulate and control.
I mean, look, MKUltra was a government-sponsored mind control program, but it used who?
It used doctors and scientists and big foundations in the private sector to do this horrible treatment of humans.
And universities.
I mean, huge universities.
Yeah, exactly.
Saving millions from the CIA. Yeah, and so we can't kid ourselves that just because someone's in a white lab coat, they're a good guy.
I mean, no, there are plenty of sociopaths in all spectrums, and especially at the top levels, as we all know, that don't have compassion for humanity.
They're looking at humans as this sort of this thing, this virus, even as they said in The Matrix, you know, we're a virus to a lot of them.
And we need to be moved around, pricked, prodded, sometimes killed, imprisoned.
I mean, it's like there's a sociopathology to a lot of the rulership.
And just Gates, I mean, for example, why did this guy befriend Epstein?
People have to ask themselves that.
What would bring him to Epstein's door?
Bill Gates, one of the richest men in the world, is not looking for money from Jeffrey Epstein.
Let's not kid ourselves.
Epstein was also very fascinated by a lot of these concepts of transhumanism, the idea of the power of the genes, you know, and how he, again, we talked a little briefly about this idea of genetic modification.
Eugenics didn't come from Germany.
Eugenics came from here.
There's a great book by Black about Edwin Black, War Against the Weak, I think it's called.
And it's about how the first eugenics conferences took place here.
They were sponsored by the various Anglo-American factions in Britain as well.
There were a lot of very elite people that were interested in eugenics and the idea of breeding and good breeding, right?
So Nazism didn't involve its eugenics concept out of whole cloth.
A lot of it was derived.
And at the end of the war, they realized eugenics is a bad word.
Let's call it genetic research, genetic modification, right?
Genetic modification of crops.
And guess what?
They're bringing it to humanity.
I don't see why people think that's so far fetched when we have no problem genetically modifying the crops we eat or potentially genetically modifying the animals that we're raising to eat.
And, you know, why is it a frustration to the imagination to genetically modify humans?
But what is that going to create?
There are a lot of elites that are very happy to genetically modify their kids, like Gattaca.
I want to create a perfect child.
Someone told me the other day, I want to genetically modify my children to be as tall and as smart and good-looking as possible.
I'm like...
You don't know what you're doing, though.
I mean, you think that's perfected.
You don't know the cause and consequence because, again, life is more, as there are great biologists like Bruce Lipton and others talk about this, life is more than just the blueprints that you're given.
It's obviously, you know, there's so many other factors that go into it.
It's environmental, right?
It's You could say spiritual.
It's emotional.
And one of the consequences you're going to create, diseases you're going to create as a result of this manipulation of biology.
We don't even know.
It's like Dr.
Frankenstein.
We don't know what's going to happen here.
But we're at the cusp of something really huge happening.
And I brought that up because Epstein was interested in these things.
And maybe that's where he and Gates were connected.
I don't know.
Where can our listeners follow you or find you?
Yeah, honestly, I think the best place is seanstone.info, my website, because it links to really all my documentaries, my channels, my book.
It's really easier for people to go to seanstone.info.
John Stott, it's been a pleasure talking to you, and I hope that we can get you back.
I think we just scratched the surface of your knowledge about these extraordinary knowledge about the issues that are more important to us today than probably at any time in history and more important than any other issue right now for Americans to understand what the enemy is.
Yes, exactly.
Yes, they're close.
It's just a propaganda.
Exactly.
The enemy is closer to home, and that's the point.
We have to recognize them at home.
Otherwise, we just waste their energy with looking abroad.
We have to start here.
Thank you, John.
It's a pleasure.
▲
Export Selection