All Episodes
Previous Next
April 17, 2014 - The Unexplained - Howard Hughes
01:05:28
Edition 154 - Catherine Austin Fitts

Ever wondered how the world and its economy really works? Catherine Austin Fitts willexpain...

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Across the UK, across continental North America and around the world, on the internet, by webcast and by podcast, my name is Howard Hughes, and this is The Unexplained.
Thanks very much for coming back to me and for your ongoing support and for the very, very good feedback we've had about the last edition of the show, which was Courtney Brown and this truly remarkable remote viewing project involving the Great Pyramid of Giza.
As Courtney said, and as I agreed during the show, we need to talk about the technical details of remote viewing some more and also talk about more of his projects.
So I promise you that we'll get Courtney Brown back on the show.
And thank you very much for suggesting this man and his work, because I think it was a very valid show.
This time around, we have another guest who you've suggested through your emails and somebody of remarkable accomplishment.
Possibly one of the best qualified and most accomplished people we've ever had on this show.
Her name, Catherine Austin Fitz.
She's behind an organization called Soleri and the Soleri Report, which you may well have seen on YouTube, various other places, her interviews, and her thoughts.
She's very hard to pigeonhole.
She's not only a financial analyst, not only a commentator on world affairs.
I don't think I would call her a conspiracy theorist, although some of the topics she touches are those that are touched by conspiracy theorists, like 9-11, for example.
She is a truly remarkable woman, and I was delighted when I emailed her people and they agreed to come on.
So we're going to go to Tennessee in just a moment and talk to Catherine Austin Fitz, who is a mainstay of Art Bell's Coast to Coast AM, which is where I first heard her.
And I remember being transfixed whenever I heard her and Art talk.
So you can see that I'm quite excited about this.
Thank you to Adam Cornwell at Creative Hotspot in Liverpool, who's been a very busy guy lately because he sent me some web traffic statistics just the other day about this show, about downloads, page views, and all that other stuff that he understands, and I kind of understand.
But the headline on it all is that this show is growing enormously.
And I'm talking about exponential growth on growth on growth.
If the charts mean anything at all, it means we're doing really, really well.
So please help me to fuel this show.
If you can make a donation to it, let's do that.
And let's take it to where it needs to go.
And that's more shows, live shows, and all the things we've always wanted to do since this show used to be on the radio and then went across to the internet.
And it's my personal project, a small show reaching the world.
Still a great thrill to be doing that.
And thank you very much for making all of this possible.
Okay, Catherine Austin Fitz.
Let me tell you a little bit about her before we cross to Tennessee and talk with her.
She served as managing director and member of the board of directors of the Wall Street Investment Bank, Dylan Reed & Co., incorporated as assistant secretary of housing and federal housing commissioner at the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
So she was right at the heart of the first Bush administration, George Herbert Walker.
Bush, we're talking about, and was president of Hamilton Securities Group, Incorporated, an investment bank and financial software developer.
She has a BA from the University of Pennsylvania, an MBA from the Wharton School, and studied Mandarin at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
She publishes a column, Mapping the Real Deal in Scoop, New Zealand.
Look that up.
I've been doing that lately, and I've been amazed by some of the stuff she's written there.
What an accomplished person.
So a real privilege to be able to talk to Catherine Austin Fitz.
Thank you very much for your support for the show.
Please keep the donations coming.
Keep your emails coming with guest suggestions.
You suggested Catherine Austin Fitz.
So thank you for that.
Go to www.vonexplain.tv.vonexplain.tv.
That's the website.
Click on the link to send me any email feedback or suggestions and ideas.
And if you want to make a donation, there's a PayPal link there to do that.
Let's get to Tennessee now, which is six hours behind London, UK, and talk to Catherine Austin Fitz.
Catherine, thank you very much for coming on here.
Well, it's really a delight to be with you today.
Now, Catherine, your story, I've been trying to apprise my listeners of your life story, and it's really difficult because you have done so many things.
You've ascended the great heights of government, former assistant U.S. Housing Secretary under the George H.W. Bush administration, and a whole raft of other things, including learning Mandarin Chinese.
You're a woman of many parts, which makes you very difficult to categorize.
Not difficult, but difficult to get.
I've had very few.
You know, I went to Wall Street, then I went to Washington, then I started my own company, then I had a bit of a squabble with the people who run the world.
You know, I had a fight with all the money on the planet, and then I started an investment advisor, and that's it.
Well, that sounds really easy, but it takes 20 years to get there.
And also, the idea that you had a squabble with the higher echelons of government is an idea we have to explore.
Why was that?
Well, I don't think it was with government.
I mean, government did the hard work.
But the reality was, I was publishing software tools and financial vehicles that if they had been allowed to propagate, would have stopped the housing bubble.
And the housing bubble was critical to the plans to rebalance the global economy.
And so, literally, you had the Fed, the Treasury, and all the money on the planet saying, no, you can't do that.
So, you clearly, then, from that description, you knew something that they also knew, but they didn't want the rest of us to know.
Is that so?
Well, I would say that I understood pretty intuitively, and because we'd built the databases and done the research, I understood what was causing markets to not work in communities.
In other words, I understood that you could create more equity value helping communities succeed than bringing in drugs and rounding people up and putting them in prison.
But the reality is, if you want to centralize money and you want to get money quick, the drug and prison model works well.
Okay, so this is big control versus community-level control.
Is that correct?
Well, it's markets versus police state.
In other words, if I want to harvest a place and get political control, I bring in drugs.
You know, I get your kids buying and dealing the drugs.
Then your business is overwhelmed by the crime or the running, have to get up in the middle of the night to get your kid out of jail.
And then I can come in and move in and get your market share cheap, financed with the cash I made selling drugs to your kids.
So think of it as a leveraged buy-out of a place.
And it's been a fantastically successful model internationally.
It's a global model.
It's not just a model in the United States.
But the sort of leveraged buyout of places is fantastically profitable.
So not only do I get control of the local market share, but then I get control of the political engineering I need to control the government budgets, both locally and federally or nationally, because remember all politics are local.
So bottom-up local control comes about by engineering a profitable takeover of places, one market and sort of government at a time.
And it's very much, you know, there's very much a financial angle to this.
So, you know, the whole planet is being harvested with this model, and the model continues because it's been so successful.
Now, those who in government stand up and say, and those officials in large organizations who stand up and say, we are very much at the forefront of the war on drugs.
They are the scourge of our planet, and we are determined to stamp out not only the drugs, but the people who deal in them.
Are you saying that those people are hypocrites?
They're not telling us the truth?
Well, it's more complicated.
Generally, what you find with people in those positions, some understand what's going on, some don't.
And some are playing to their constituents.
So constituents who've seen drugs brought into their neighborhood are appalled and overwhelmed by them and are angry and want them stopped.
So they could be playing to the crowd.
They could be just trying to keep the prices up.
I mean, part of the, if you look at the pharmaceutical business and the illegal drug business as one business, which I do, and you look at, you know, sort of what's illegal and what's legal as really a pricing and marketing and branding strategy by one industry, which I do, what you realize is you're optimizing the harvesting of that community.
Because for a variety of reasons, you can get government money or sort of the health care system to pay for one set of drugs, and then you can get, you know, you can maximize, take the other drugs, make them illegal.
Now, what's interesting is if you look at the drugs that are legal, by and large, they're the ones you can't control through pharmaceuticals.
So you can't patent marijuana.
Well, with GMO, I'm sure they're going to try.
So the ones you can't patent and run through the FDA, so to speak, you keep it legal, and then it's a matter of optimizing the price.
So the gentleman in question may be just trying to optimize the price, or he's trying to keep the game going.
Because if you look at control, a lot of the control of society has been built through the laws promulgated with the war on drugs.
And, you know, so part of your political takeover of places is you get the body politic to pay for a lot of the controls and agree to a lot of controls on the theory that they're going to get rid of drugs.
There's a wonderful book.
I don't know if you're familiar.
He's a British professor.
Michael Woody was wrote a wonderful book called Organized Power, American Power, Power and Organized, well, I don't know, it's Organized Crime and American Power, something like that.
And really traced the history of the drug laws up through, you know, from the national level up to the UN and around and realized, oh my God, they're using these laws to really propagate a form of global control.
And was it the same story in the 1930s with the war on alcohol, with the war on booze?
Right.
Well, if you look at where all these things came from, Dan Russell has a great book called Drug Wars that takes you from the prohibition and the alcohol through the drugs and really shows you this sort of leveraged buyout and harvesting of places using all that whatever.
So I think it's very important if you want to look at what's really going on and understand where the solutions are, you need to look at sort of a century of layers of politics and laws and regulations around this stuff and realize how expensive it is to, if we were just going to have a market economy without most of that regulation, I assure you we could solve a lot of our economic problems.
Now, you were within the portals of government.
We said that you were the former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Housing in the George H.W. Bush administration.
What you've just talked to me about is the antithesis of a lot of things that government appears to stand for.
And I've just used the word appears very pointedly and very deliberately.
Was it a gradual process that you came to believe that this stuff was so, or was it an all of a sudden realization?
Well, here's the one thing I would say.
It's very important to remember, government is not run by government.
Government is run from behind government, from behind the scenes.
And so before we say that this is government doing this, we need to sort of look behind the scenes and see where the real decision-making lies.
Because what you don't want to do is you don't want to kill the puppet.
You know, all you'll get is a new different kind of puppet, and the game will go on.
Look at the new boss, same as the old boss.
Right.
Right.
So there's a structure.
You know, the government has been used in a variety of ways, but the decision-making is, you know, is oftentimes not in government.
That's not to say it's not important to get good people.
You know, the higher quality people you have in government, the better.
But I don't want to pin the tail on the government donkey because it doesn't belong, you know, there alone.
It's a system.
But you just said, and I'm sorry to interrupt, that the higher quality of people you get in government, the better.
I don't understand that when you say the real decisions are being made behind those people.
Well, because what happens is, you know, when, you know, I call the, I have a nickname for a centralized political system.
So let's describe the governance system on planet Earth as being run by a fellow called, I will call him Mr. Global for purposes of making it easy.
You know, so when Mr. Global makes a decision and executes among people who are corrupt and incompetent, you get a much uglier result than if they execute among people who are competent and have integrity.
Not to say that we like the policy, okay?
But you will always find, or almost always find, a more human and more intelligent and less destructive execution with a higher quality of people.
So these high-quality individuals execute those policies.
They are the same policies, but they do them with more finesse and more humanity.
That's the only difference, yeah?
Yeah.
Hideous does that sound?
Well, it does.
I mean, not only is it hideous, but it's also frightening.
Well, here's the thing.
If you look, let me tell you one of my favorite stories.
Have you heard me tell the Red Button story?
I read a little bit about this while I was doing research, but tell it on me.
So in the summer of 2000, I was speaking to a wonderful group of people called Spiritual Frontiers Foundation.
They have a conference once a year to talk about how they can help our society evolve spiritually.
And so I was asked to give a presentation called How the Money Works in Organized Crime, which later became a very famous article, Narco Dollars for Beginners.
And it was designed to be a light, funny introduction to the cash flows of organized crime, particularly the drug business, and how it intersected with Wall Street and Washington.
And so I'm in the middle of the speech, and I'm explaining the U.S. Congress held testimony regarding intelligence agency drug dealing through South Central LA.
It was called the so-called Dark Alliance allegations.
So during that testimony, a reporter asked, who I was helping with research, asked a Department of Justice spokesperson how much the U.S. economy launders of all dirty money.
And they said $500 billion to a trillion.
So I'm explaining this in the context of U.S. congressional hearings.
And I said to this wonderful group of people, what would happen if we stop being the global leader in money laundering?
If the U.S. financial institutions stop laundering $500 billion to a trillion dollars a year.
So we had a little interactive conversation, about 100 people, and they said, well, we'd have trouble financing the government deficit.
And, you know, we might not be able to sell more treasury bonds.
And, you know, that money would go to stock markets around the world instead of coming to the New York Stock Exchange.
And so, you know, the market might go down.
And I said, okay, well, let's pretend there's a big red button up here on the lectern.
If you push that button, you can stop all hard narcotics trafficking in your neighborhood tomorrow, your city, your county, your state, thus offending and shutting off that money flow and thus offending the people who control $500 billion to a trillion dollars a year of all, you know, illegal money laundering and running through the United States and who, you know, and the accumulated capital thereof from the last hundred years.
Who here will push the button?
And out of 100 people dedicated to evolving our society spiritually, guess how many would push the button?
Probably about 10.
One.
I said to the other 99, why would you not push the button?
They said, we don't want our government checks to stop.
We don't want our taxes to go up.
And we don't want our retirement savings to go down in value.
So the way this all works is that there's a bunch of people.
There is an elite, and the elite has its fingers in its ears, and it's going, da, da, da, da, da, da, da, I don't want to hear.
While all of this terrible stuff is going on, and the people who pay the price ultimately for it are the victims of a badly directed economic system, that's you and me.
Well, let's start off with the premise that we don't know what's going on.
In other words, one of my favorite radio shows has a tagline, Navigating the Ocean of Uncertainty.
I like that a lot.
So I think, you know, the title of your show is The Unexplained.
So I think we are, you know, you and I are two people who are trying to get to the bottom of the ocean of uncertainty.
And it's very important when you're trying to get to the bottom.
You know, one of the dead ends of getting to the bottom is to try and explain everything by they are bad.
Okay?
Not to say that people aren't behaving in ways which you and I don't find disgusting and we want nothing to do with, you know, and we think are criminal and we think they ought to go to jail.
I'm not disagreeing with any of that and I'm not trying to condone that behavior.
What I'm saying is we're not going to get to the bottom of what is going on by explaining they are bad because the question is, why do we have systems where people who are like that rise to power?
You know, what we're watching globally is the pigs are rising to power.
The incompetent people are rising to power.
The violent people are rising to power.
Why is that so?
And why do we have, you know, I've studied the history of sort of covert operations in the United States and the development of the black budget.
One of the things you find when you study the black budget is a whole lot of people who are not bad people, who are good people, really felt that bringing drugs in and opening up the United States to the narcotics trafficking in size was the best of a bad, a series of bad alternatives.
How can that ever be so?
Well, what they said is we need tremendous amounts of money for secret projects.
You know, we have, it's the end of World War II.
We have 50% of the resources, 6% of the people, we cannot keep this going without massive covert operations.
We cannot manage the globe.
Because remember, America is a democracy, which has put us in a position of saying we're doing one thing and, in fact, doing another, because you have 6% of the people who want 50% of the resources and want to feel good about themselves.
So the way I say it is, at the end of World War II, we had Goldwater come in and say, okay, we've got 6% of the people with 50% of the resources.
We're going to have to bang some heads.
And people said, oh, no, we don't want to bang heads.
And then Jimmy Carter got elected and he sat in front of the fireplace and shivered and said, okay, we've got 6% of the people, and we've got to cut back and use less of the resources.
And the American people said, oh, no, we don't want to do that.
We want our check.
So the Bushes came along and said, you know something?
Here's your check.
You're great Christians.
Don't ask questions.
And the covert operations and the black budget just skyrocketed from there on out.
But that doesn't control the world, though, does it?
Because there were other people in other parts of the world who had a different view of the way the world should work.
Until 1990, thereabouts, we had a thing called communism, for example.
They've still got it in Cuba of a kind.
The wall came down, and the United States and the mob went into Russia and raped the place.
And that's part of why you see the squabble going down in the Ukraine the way it went down.
You know, the Russians lost 27 million people in World War II, and then they got raped in the 90s.
Probably lost as many people, if the truth be told.
And, you know, because economic warfare can kill more people than war.
And, you know, and so now they've, you know, they're saying, we've had it.
You know, we're angry.
This is not about money.
This is about sovereignty.
We're tired of being raped.
So you have people all over the world who have been at the, you know, I mean, I turn to Americans and I say, look, you know, you now find yourself being harvested locally the way we've harvested the emerging and, you know, and frontier markets for years.
And so we're in a position, Howard, where for 500 years we've had what I call the central banking warfare model, which is, you know, the central banks in the developed world print money and the military forces them, everybody to take it.
Part of the black budget is about building the weaponry we need to continue to keep the central banking warfare model because now we're looking at a world where a lot of the most powerful weaponry is invisible and not understood by the general public.
And so the central banking warfare model got to the 90s and we've made a decision.
The developed world G7 made a decision to rebalance the global economy.
And so now we're going to a world where there's one model.
I mean, you've got the social media companies planning on putting up drones and satellites that's going to put everybody on a cell phone.
I mean, imagine when we have 4 billion people who don't have running water or toilets, but they've got cell phones.
So, you know, we're planning on moving to a one-model world.
And that is a big and shocking change because, you know, the developed world has been existing basically subsidized by the emerging world.
And if that's going to change, then everybody's got to have to come back to facing, dealing, and re-engineering the red button problem.
Gee, that's not going to be the people with 6% of the resources.
I didn't honestly think this conversation when I planned it out, and I've got notes here on the back of an Envelope all written in red, and you've amazed me.
You talked about black budgets and the fact that a lot of stuff is being financed that we don't really get told about.
I don't know whether you saw on the wires, I'm sure you did about a week or so ago, probably not even that.
And it has certainly astonished me that the U.S. has been flying this spacecraft that looks a little bit like a cut-down version of the shuttle.
It's a military thing.
It's been up there unmanned for 500 days, they said.
But we don't know what it's there to do because we're just the people.
I mean, one of the questions, is it there to stop the Russians from going into the Ukraine?
Well, they don't seem to be doing very good on that score up to now, do they?
Well, you know, here's the question.
Would the Americans muck around?
If you look at what we've been doing, Ukraine is one of the great baskets of the world, and obviously food prices are rising, not to mention all the gas transmission and gas issues.
Well, gas is huge for us, of course, here in the UK because we used to have our own gas.
We don't have nearly as many of our own resources.
So at the moment, we're buying this stuff in.
Right.
Right.
And if you see, my guess is John Kerry is running around Europe and China promising lots of energy.
So he's promising LNG to Europe and he's promising fracking technology because fracking is coming to the UK and it's going to come to Europe too.
A lot of people fighting it though, Catherine.
Right.
Because of the deleterious effects that we don't tend to get told about.
Well, here's the challenge that you've seen in the United States.
On one hand, they're fighting the fracking.
On the other hand, they're insisting that the dollar stay high.
And they don't realize that that's a double bind.
In other words, we have a general population who doesn't understand how the money works.
And because they don't understand how the money works, they don't understand that the direction they're sending back to the leadership puts the leadership in an enormous double bind.
So remember, the economy, both in the UK and the United States, has been organized to help countries with 500 billion people out-compete countries with 3 billion people.
And so you're talking about a minority trying to essentially stay on top.
And that's what the central banking warfare model has been about for decades, centuries.
So they're trying to compete successfully geopolitically, and so what they're doing doesn't make sense to the general population.
So you've seen, for example, in the United States, great effort to wipe out and destroy a small business or to abrogate and consolidate control of land, whether for energy purposes or agriculture purposes, because they're trying to build a juggernaut that can compete globally.
You know, they're scared globally, and they want to stay on top globally.
And so everything's being organized around that.
And the problem is it's over time it's destroying a great deal of sort of productivity and the local people don't understand.
And so if you're a British citizen, you don't want the fracking to come in, but you want your pound.
You know, if your pound could buy a loaf of bread yesterday, you want it to be able to buy a loaf of bread tomorrow.
And they're struggling with the balance of payments and all the things that keep the currency valuable.
So we're saying that the reason that fracking has appeared seemingly from nowhere in this last five years and is now being sold to us actively by the government that is offering incentives to local authorities who want to have fracking in their area, the reason that's happening is to maintain the status quo.
Back 40 years ago, 50 years ago, America was flogging the world J.R. Ewing-style oil.
Now, to stay on top, America has to flog the world fracking.
The technology is American.
Well, it's not just the U.S., it's the whole developed world.
In other words, by building more energy self-sufficiency, the developed world is buying themselves a couple more years.
What happens after the couple more years?
Well, that's the big question.
If you look at, you know, I would argue if you look at what's flying around the planet, somebody has what I would call breakthrough energy technology, not to mention what I think can be developed with renewable energy.
So I think there are solutions to energy.
The challenge of introducing them is right now the G7 is dependent on global currencies that are essentially on the Petro standard.
So right now the currency operates around gas and oil.
If you're going to move away from gas and oil, either with renewable energy or with nuclear energy or with breakthrough energy, whatever you want to believe works, then you've got to come up with a solution that gives you an asset class that can back a digital global currency, which is where I think G7 wants to go, is my guess.
And so, you know, I believe, Howard, one of the reasons we've seen this effort to push the patenting of seeds and control of the sort of the industrialization and control of the seed supply and the food supply is so that you have control of agriculture as a backing on a new global currency because you can't, you know, oil's not going to do it.
It's clear the days of oil are, you know, we're not going to end up in the next century doing oil is my guess.
And what about these people who've invented digital currencies, like the Bitcoin people?
Now, Bitcoins have been going up enormously in value.
I don't think they're appreciating quite as much as they were.
And this is a currency based, as currencies perhaps somewhere in the past, on people's confidence.
Well, all currencies continue that way, but based on confidence, isn't it?
Right.
Well, it's a fiat currency.
If you go back in banking history, for example, in the early years of many, many, most of U.S. history, local banks created currency.
So, you know, airlines with frequent flyers create currencies.
I mean, it's just a private, it's a private fiat currency.
But we're being sold Bitcoin as the people's currency.
Is it likely that Bitcoin and things like it could...
So you don't think that they're going to succeed?
First of all, I don't think that people created Bitcoin.
I think Bitcoin came out of the defense establishment.
I think Bitcoin is a prototype, and what G7 has to figure out is how do we go to a global currency?
So, Bitcoin, whenever they want to invent something on a very emergent basis, you try lots of stuff, you try and make it look like it's coming from the people, you get people to promote it like it's coming from the people.
I'm not familiar in great detail with the currency Iceland has come out with, but I think if you look at the Iceland model, that's what G7 most wants.
They want the ability to rewrite everybody's constitution and come out with a currency that has a complete digital record of every place it's ever been and everybody has ever had it.
So this move towards what you called a few minutes ago a digital currency and the Bitcoin alleged revolution, they are one and the same thing.
They've been introduced by the same people, and this is how they float ideas past us.
Yeah?
Right.
So this is, you know, this is the equivalent of a financial trial balloon.
You know, to me, the people's currency is something, you know, a coup grant is the people's currency, even though it's created by, you know, it's created by government.
I can put it in my pocket, walk down the street, do a deal with somebody with it, and it's completely private.
Nobody knows.
It doesn't go through a bank.
You know, now that is a people's currency.
I once knew a man who had a fruit machine, you know, a gaming machine that paid out Kruger Rands.
I think he was a very wealthy guy.
What a wonderful idea.
If you want to understand the global economy today, what I will tell you is, if you haven't watched this, Howard, you absolutely need to do.
The single most intelligent, prescient, informative video today describing the world economy is an interview that Sir James Goldsmith did in 1994 with Charlie Rosa.
It's up on the internet.
If you come to my blog and just do a search for Sir James Goldsmith, he came to the United States to warn and try and persuade Congress not to pass the Uruguay Round of GATT, creating the World Trade Organization.
And he described, if we did this, exactly what would happen.
And it is absolutely, you know, the man was a genius.
And it's, you know, but he was a genius with a great moral character.
And it is the single, if people say I can only watch one thing to understand the global economy today, I would say that's it.
Jimmy Goldsmith.
Never thought he would be the answer.
One of the titles of one of your many presentations that I've seen cropping up on YouTube is U.S. Insecure Empire.
What does that mean?
Well, I think the U.S. is when you run, when you try and run an entire planet on a model by force, that is a very tricky thing to do because you have 8 to 9 billion people and people don't like being pushed around.
So if you're running a global system in this kind of situation with this much change that's this fluid, and you're trying to implement a model top-down and ultimately it depends on force, not to say that that force is visible in a clear way.
I think it's very nerve-wracking.
And I think the general, the leadership is very, very nervous about the idea of what's going to happen when you bring 9 billion people online communicating directly with each other.
Well, we had a little taste of this about how many years ago is it now?
It's four years now, this summer, where we had riots in London and they started spreading around the country.
And we had a crazy, boiling, hot summer week where the government was out of control.
The government did not have control over what the people on the streets were doing.
They were torturing places, businesses and homes were being destroyed.
And it really looked like some kind of movement.
I'm going to tell you something.
Were those real riots or were they seeded and fueled by covert operations?
Well, that's a very, very good point because we know that the powers that be and the security services have people implanted, embedded with all sorts of groups in society.
So who knows?
But it was allegedly down to the poor treatment of one person that started a popular uprising against the poor treatment by police of one person, which then ignited other grievances that then connected other people who were all linked by cell phones, and the whole thing went up in flames.
Well, here's what, you know, I would be very careful because to me, the cell phones are functioning.
One of the best Lear reports we ever did, I did an interview with Adam Trombly on the applications of entrainment technology.
What cell phones are doing is introducing massive amounts of entrainment technology into the general population.
And, you know, I've seen more than a few situations where I feel like the folks who are running those systems are basically saying to somebody, see, do what we say, or, you know, we'll entrain and send your population off running to the right or running to the left.
And I don't know if you've ever been in a situation where entrainment's been used on you, but it's very, you know, this is extraordinary technology, and we are struggling in a situation where the mind control technologies available to be delivered through the telecommunication systems are very, very significant, scary.
And the thing that makes them the most scary is the general population just can't fathom that such things exist.
Catherine, I'm sorry to interrupt.
It sounds like I keep doing that, and forgive me for this.
It's just so perfect.
I invite you to interrupt.
So many places I want to go with this.
But if you look at Facebook, which could be such a valuable tool for people to share information and connect with each other and make this a better world, most of the stuff you see is complete banality.
It is pictures of people's babies and dogs and cats and where they went for dinner and all the rest of it.
So if that's a way to control people, it's just making them apathetic by the look of it.
Well, Here, I don't think it's a way to control people, and I'll tell you what I think Facebook is at the root.
When I built an investment bank in Washington during the 90s called Hamilton Securities Group, and my chief financial officer came to me and he said, look, we really have to have a formal personnel system.
And I said, you know, I was sort of crumpy about it, because I think a lot of it is just about sort of control and rules.
So I said, okay, here's what we're going to do.
I'm going to require everybody at the end of the year during their bonus, you know, their personnel evaluation bonus to write up the evaluation on the internet.
We had a company, Intranet, and I said they have to do a website for themselves.
So everybody has to learn HTML.
We're all going to do a website.
We all need to learn HTML anyway.
So we'll all do an individual website on ourselves, and we'll just put up our evaluation, and then we'll stitch them all together, and that'll be our personnel system, and every year we'll just have everybody update their own file.
So if you're going to run a global economy with a digital currency and digital systems that give you complete invasive control, you can either pay government contractors to update and keep a file and try and develop artificial intelligence to update and keep the file, or you can just create a business where you make money having people update their own file.
Oh, my God.
And is that why, for example, with Facebook, there have been lots of so-called enhancements over this last year or so?
And you look at it.
I looked at my own Facebook profile a little while ago, and I found it had made all sorts of assumptions about which jobs I'd joined and left and when I'd done it and things that I'd done.
And they weren't entirely accurate.
But somehow, via postings that I put up there and things that other people have said and photographs and all the rest of it, they put together a timeline about me.
And it's not entirely my creation.
Right.
What it is, is your intelligence file is now being maintained.
You know, in other words, the intelligence agencies are now making money updating your file.
In other words, they're not paying somebody to update your file.
They found a way, you know, and what they're going to do is, I mean, this is going to be a very profitable exercise because they're going to have the network updating its own files and they're going to be selling advertisements.
Right.
It's a for-profit intelligence archive.
Oh, God.
What a terrible, terrible thought.
And I have to say, I felt really uneasy about this, and I thought, is it time for me to come off this platform?
Trouble is, everybody else is on it.
Well, here's the, I'm not on Facebook.
And, you know, I finally was persuaded by some of my subscribers that I needed to go on Facebook.
And so I started to go on Facebook, and then my Facebook page got hacked.
I said, wait a minute, I'm not creating a trap for them to, you know, basically torture my, you know, my network.
So I just went off of it.
So no, I don't think you have to be on Facebook.
I really don't.
In other words, that's something I'm going to be thinking about because I was genuinely very disturbed to see that all these assumptions about what I had done they'd all been put together somehow and I'd never input the data in that form in there and they were not quite right.
They were, in fact in some cases, they were pretty well wrong.
And I thought to myself, which algorithm of which computer did this about me and my life?
Well, here's, you know, we're going to have to get very thin skin, I mean very thick-skinned because the Internet, you know, one of the ways to manage a society in this sort of situation is divide and conquer.
And so we see a tremendous amount of divide and conquer on.
My guess as to the number of defense contractors who are paid to get on the internet and post disinformation and rotten information about people, I mean, I think it's a huge business.
But part of it is to keep the dialogue mean.
You know, and the meanness of the dialogue continues to go up, up, up.
And I think a lot of that is encouraged.
You know, if you watch TV in this country, you see a tremendous effort to teach people how to denigrate each other and themselves.
And all of that is part of the divide and conquer.
So I think if we're going to use the Internet, we're just going to have to have a thick skin about it.
I keep a copy of Rudrud Kipling's if by the side of my desk if I ever, you know, if I start to get thin-skinned, it's okay.
Because you can't, you know, we're not going to be able to worry about what people say about us.
We have to worry about the facts, and we have to, you know, we have to make our contribution and worry about the performance and not get distracted.
And that gets us to the topic of soft weapons because one of the most effective toolkits in the Western and the G7 bag of tricks to control is soft weapons, which is targeting your brand, targeting your image, targeting your name.
I could talk about this for, if we were going to make an encyclopedia of soft weapons, I assure you it would go on for hundreds of thousands of pages.
It's a near-infinite set of recipes and menus about how to use online systems and information systems to torture people and destroy them.
And that's what's so interesting.
It was very interesting to see when the sanctions went on, targeted at a group of Russian officials, the whole Duma voted and they said, you know, we all want to be sanctioned.
Sanction is all.
And it was basically saying, you know, take your soft weapons and go jump in a lake.
We've had it.
The whole thing is so perverted.
You know, it's funny.
I don't know.
I've been the target of entrainment and I was in a speech once where entrainment technology was being used.
And it's, you know, you walk away from the experience and you say, this is so nuts.
But that's because you have the critical faculties, if I can say it, and the intelligence to be able to resist it, isn't it?
Other people can't resist it.
Well, you can't resist it if you don't know it exists.
So I'll never forget walking in.
It was the first time I'd experienced it in the context of a speech.
And I had believed that it was being used in the context of speeches because I had been studying what had happened at Enron, and it was the only way I could explain the analyst's presentations.
You know, Enron would give a presentation that was, you know, it was okay, but it wasn't that great.
And the analysts would walk out, you know, high and saying, oh, they're fabulous.
And you read the description, you say, oh, they were using entrainment technology.
That's what was happening.
And so, you know, I walked into the speech, and it was very interesting, Howard, because I said, oh, my God, they're using entrainment.
I have to be very careful about what I think.
And I was trying to take notes.
Dick Army spoke and then George Tennant, the former head of the CIA, spoke.
And I was taking notes and at one point, the guy was saying something, I forget whether it was Army or Tennant, but he was saying something really stupid.
And he hit a note, and the whole crowd started sort of clapping and cheering.
And I dropped my pen and turned to the guy next to me and said, isn't he wonderful?
And then I looked at my hands and I said, what am I doing?
He's not wonderful.
This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
But I wouldn't have been able to do that.
You know, what was amazing was I knew they were using entrainment.
I still fell, you know, I fell for it over a 15-second period.
I then caught myself and backed out of it.
Now, what was interesting is I got up and asked a question that was not a friendly question.
And the crowd, it's like it brought the crowd out of a trance.
If you have one person who will stand up and, you know, snap out, you can snap it out.
But that's why it's imperative that each one of us in the general population know that this stuff exists, that it can be being used in a, you know, you can have a group of people riding and it can be used on their cell phones.
It can be used in the general population.
It can be used on TV.
You know, we just need to know it can be used on the, you know, you and I can be doing a radio show.
It can be used on the phones.
So we just need to know that this stuff exists.
And this is about implanting suggestions.
Yeah.
Now, my understanding of how it works, and if you want, I'm happy to arrange a complimentary subscription for the Solari report so you can listen to the interview with Adam Trombley, which is the best sort of general introduction I've heard on this.
And what it does, there are two things going on.
One is that it helps you feel, it sort of opens up your chakras, your pleasure centers, and it makes you feel good about the world.
So you know how people believe things are true by how they resonate, or they believe that they have a good relationship with somebody because it resonates.
So it creates a false resonation.
And then as you're open to suggestion, then the programming comes in by a variety of means, which I don't completely understand.
But anyway, so yes, you're influenced, you're suggested, you're made to like people who you normally wouldn't like.
You're made to feel that certain things are okay, you could go along, you know, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And it does a lot more with pleasure than with sort of suggestion is my understanding.
I worry a lot about the media because I've worked my entire life in the media and now I'm starting to feel, even though in myself I feel quite young and I've, you know, I've experienced a lot of stuff and done a lot of great things in entertainment radio and news radio over the years.
But what I'm starting to find is a spirit of conformity.
You know, you go onto news desks and you do various things and people in this last five, ten years or so seem to be more pliant, pliable.
They don't seem to be quite as willing to kick against authority and ask questions in the way that they used to be.
And I find that a bit worrying.
There is a kind of status quo developing and it's concerning.
Now, maybe this is just because I'm getting older and the older I get, the more rebellious I get.
Maybe that's what goes with the territory.
The more you know.
I'm hoping that that, you know, I'm kind of hoping fingers crossed that that is.
That's what they like to bring in new people all the time.
I used to watch it on Wall Street.
You want fresh, energetic, excited people who have not a clue what's really going on.
And as long as the job is done, that's fine.
And as long as no boats get rocked, then that's equally fine.
Well, we're in a terrible situation, Howard, where for a variety of reasons, on many things there's an official story, and you've got a large constituency of people who don't want to leave the official story, you know, good reasons and bad.
And so we are into the Orwellian situation of doublespeak.
So increasingly people in major media see their job as operating within the official reality and promoting doublespeak.
So the question is, how can I come up with a story that people will find really interesting and attract a lot of readership or viewership that won't rock the boat upstairs?
And it's very hard to figure that out because you don't understand the model.
You don't understand enough about what's going on.
And so, you know, there's sort of a Pavlovian process where you just watch other reporters get killed or shot or fired and, you know, were blown up in their cars.
And you say, okay, well, I know to avoid those stories.
But, you know, here in the UK, we've got a few veteran broadcasters.
And in the U.S., you have your veterans as well.
I know he sort of semi-retired a while back, but people like Dan Rather, the old CBS generation.
And the young generation, look at those people.
We've got some of them on television here in the UK, not very many, and the number goes down every year.
And we say, weren't they great?
Didn't they crusade?
Don't they ask all the hard questions?
Not realizing that we need to be asking where the people today are who will also quiz and quest and ask those hard questions because there don't seem to be quite as many of them.
Well, I think those people exist, but they're not in the corporate media.
But they're not in the media that's owned or controlled by government and corporations.
So this digital sector, for want of a better term, which I am using at the moment to communicate with you and you are using to communicate with me, is this a conduit of hope for liberation, assuming the people are enslaved and entrained, is what we are doing now a way out of this?
Well, what we're creating, what millions of people all over the world are creating is they're creating a much more open, robust media.
So, you know, one of the reasons I had frightening experiences with the Washington Post and New York Times, you know, that were, you know, my guess is if the, you know, criminal law was applied, they were way off the charts.
So I just found them acting in the most, you know, without comple, just, just, you know, words cannot express to you how immoral I found and unethical I found their actions.
Anyway, so, but that was sort of what clued me into the fact that the major media was not to be trusted, particularly on very important issues and were serving sort of an agenda that had nothing to do with transparency or the truth.
So I went through that and the next thing I knew, I just said, I'm only going to work with reporters who tell the truth and who function openly and honestly.
And I started helping them with research.
And the next thing you know, some of them had websites, and they said, well, can I publish the email you just sent to me?
And that went on and on and on.
And finally, everybody said, would you start the Solaria report so we can do this regularly?
And so that's how I ended up in the media business.
I mean, who would ever thought, I would have told you I was the last person on the planet to start a media business, and yet I now have a media business.
And it's because there's a market for somebody who's really trying to navigate the ocean of uncertainty, if you will.
And I think there are a lot of great websites out there.
Now, I think there are a lot of websites that are just disinformation and drivel.
So it's a very mixed bag.
And I'm of the philosophy that, you know, what I've seen are many, many intelligent Americans and people around the world who don't watch television and don't ingest corporate news.
And they have, you know, what they will tell you is, look, just tell me what you know, just tell me what you think, bring the best that you can.
I'll sort it out.
I don't need you to decide what's true or not.
I can do that.
And so I think the market can figure out what's fact and what's not fact.
But what we've got on the internet is we've got a soup of everything from good stuff to dreadful stuff and lots of disinformation.
But I do think that the general global population ultimately will emerge something that is healthy.
And what about the situation we find ourselves vis-a-vis big business, large organizations in countries like yours and mine?
Here, it seems That everything's been centralized, agglomerated, conglomerated.
If I tell you a simple story about my utilities where I live in London, 20 years ago, I could phone an office that was literally walking distance from where I live, and I could talk to an operator at that office, and I'd get an answer.
Now, first of all, I go online, and I'm discouraged from phoning anybody.
That's not the way that it works.
They don't want you to phone anybody.
They want you to use some digital tool to connect them or log onto your digital account.
In one respect, I'm going to defend them, which is they're trying to bring the price down.
Hey, well, you know, I can tell you in terms of utilities in the United Kingdom, they have manifestly failed, and they're now in the process of having the squeeze put on them by politicians as we come up to an election next year because we have expressed our misgivings about these companies with the politicians, not because the politicians wanted to clamp down on them, but everything is more expensive.
It's not working that way.
Right.
Well, if you look at the economics of generally what's been going on, you have companies, and they're good companies and they're bad companies.
So I don't want to, you know, I'm a great believer that we need companies, so I'm kind of a company person.
Well, I agree totally, but we need good companies, like you say.
Yeah, we need good companies.
But the pressure on companies to reduce costs through automation is enormous, and it's only just begun.
Because if you look at the automation that's coming over the next 10 to 20 years, it's, you know, we're only 10% of the way in this.
Way do you see the automation that's coming?
So now, part of the problem is I think a decision has been made.
Mr. Global has made a decision.
He wants to automate everything, and that's part and parcel.
Part of that is to serve central control.
Now, part of it, if you're running a company, is it's the way to reduce expenses.
And so you keep automating, automating, automating.
And of course, the problem is it lowers expenses for the corporations, but as everybody leaves and is unemployed, it raises expenses for government.
And if you look at the whole financial ecosystem, it's more expensive, not less.
But everybody's running around saying, oh, we have to do this because it's more productive.
So it's a system that has its own seeds of destruction within.
Well, destruction is a heavy word.
Right, because I think the question is, how can we use, as a society, automation intelligently and do it in a way that makes us more human, not less?
And there is a way to do it.
We're not doing it now.
So let me just step back.
This is going to seem like a non-sequitur, but stay with me.
If we financed places with equity, instead of financing them with government debt alone on a non-transparent basis, if we just brought transparency to the government money, what we would discover is there's huge savings to be had from re-engineering the government money so that we incorporate the externalities in the economy.
And if we were to realign the financial ecosystem with our environmental ecosystem, we could create trillions of dollars incentives for us to heal the environment in a way that would make us all money.
I mean, just like you can create a company which makes money having everybody update their CIA file, you can create companies and local venture pools where everybody makes money healing the environment and introducing new technology in a way that can be quite wealth producing for everybody.
That's there to be done.
But the question is, why isn't it being done?
Well, one of the reasons is Mr. Global wants control, which is why I keep coming back to the question is, who in the world is Mr. Global and why is Mr. Global behaving this way?
Because this is not just about the English-speaking people remaining dominant on the planet as the Chinese get more and more powerful.
This is about what the world is going on around in space around us.
We have, I said it the other day, there's a group of us who are having a wonderful conference in San Mateo at the end of June called The Secret Space Program and the Breakaway Civilization.
We have spent a fortune on space.
There's all sorts of things going on in space around us.
We have trillions of dollars of hardware flying around that has, you know, anti-gravity propulsion and all sorts of, you know, it's clearly not running on fossil fuel.
And if you look at just how much it would cost to build that stuff, you know, as money is disappearing from communities and governments and more and more, you know, expensive hardware is flying around in the sky, I keep asking the question, oh, is there a connection?
So, you know, it gets back to the unexplained.
We have some pretty big unexplained.
And the biggest unexplained is who in the world, you know, is piloting, who owns them, who's building them, who's piloting them, and what do they do have to do with the state of play here on planet Earth.
Well, of course, if you wanted to be really outrageous and take a walk on the wild side, you could say, well, maybe there's ET involvement somewhere there.
Well, here's the thing.
I don't know.
You know, this gets back to I don't know.
What I do know is I do know that there are UFOs flying around in space.
I mean, around us.
I mean, the documentation, the evidence, I've seen them.
You know, it's almost hard at this point to find anybody in the United States who hasn't seen a UFO.
You know, they're that present.
Well, I'm in the UK.
I haven't.
I'd love to.
What have you seen?
What have you seen?
I was driving across the Dakotas one night, and it was really funny because I've always been frustrated by this topic because I could never make sense of it.
Because I had no personal experience.
You know, all my experiences with government corruption and good old-fashioned organized crime.
But I was driving across the Dakotas one night, and there were, you know, there had to be at least 100 of them just hanging up in the sky.
It was scary.
It was like an invasion.
I thought, what is this like a condo association?
And, you know, it's 3 o'clock in the morning.
I'm driving across the Dakotas and the trucks are, you know, it's me and the truckers.
You know, and I didn't have a CB radio because what I wanted to say to all the truckers around me was like, are you guys seeing this or is it just me?
And all I could remember is I just kept saying all night, it just keeps getting weirder.
It just keeps getting weirder.
So, you know, for all I know, you know, all of those UFOs came from Area 51.
Because if you look at the amount of money that's been disappearing, you know, it could make a very significant contribution to building all those UFOs.
So, you know, and that's the amount of money.
What's amazing is that we're still as wealthy as we are considering how much we've been financing through these mechanisms.
So I, for one, don't know.
But, you know, I am sick of living in a world where I'm made fun of because I'm asking the question, because the question is absolutely relevant to my community.
You know, I want to be able to live in a community that's not overwhelmed by narcotics trafficking.
And what you discover is if you try and stop Tony Soprano from dealing drugs in your community, James Bond comes down in your head.
Right?
Dear Lord.
Right.
So the reason James Bond comes down in your head has to do with the money that's financing those UFOs.
So, you know, or if you look at the Ukraine, you know, the Americans have to be nuts to do what they're doing unless they have the space weaponry to back themselves up because you're not going to settle this with nuclear weapons.
And do you think the other side know this?
Know what the Americans have?
Are aware of it?
Absolutely.
What was one of the first things that happened with sanctions?
NASA canceled our cooperation with the Russians, and the deputy of Russia has just come out, the deputy premier has just come out and said that Russia intends to put a permanent base on the moon.
Because everybody knows if you're going to go to a global currency, Howard, then what you're going to have is you're going to have drones and satellites globally delivering that internet global service, right?
You know, because you've got to have everybody on the internet.
So you're going to have a satellite and a drone system that is the platform for the digital currency, which is the great power position of all time.
And that's going to be essentially controlled from suborbital.
You know, it's a suborbital platform, but the thing that's going to protect it one way or another is the space weapons.
So who's going to control from space?
I mean, for 500 years, the central banking model has run on the sea lanes.
Who controlled the sea lanes?
Now we're going to a situation where if we're going to have a global digital currency, it's not going to be just the sea lanes.
So the British or the American Navy is not going to be enough.
You're going to have to rule from space, which is why if you look at the U.S. and the U.S. budgets and military budgets, who is it ultimately in the chain of command that runs that?
It's the Navy.
Because in fact, you know, it has ultimately been for 500 years the Navy that was the arm behind that central banking warfare model.
So the future is about the global currency.
The global currency needs to be maintained by communication.
Communication is in space.
We have to protect space.
Right.
Wow.
You got it.
Boy, it took us an hour to get here, but it was worth the journey.
But it happened.
It was a hell of a journey.
Gee, what?
Listen, I, once in my life, got very close to the world of finance.
Had very good friends in Wall Street and in the city of London.
And I used to go to New York and I really got into it all.
You know, I'm an arts guy.
I'm not a finance person.
I'm a broadcaster, a media person.
But I loved the way they live, and I loved their outlook on life, and I really bought into it all.
One of the reasons I went to Wall Street, one of the reasons I loved it was I loved the people.
Yeah, well, that's exactly the experience that I had.
You should, Howard.
You should read my online.
I have an online book called Dylan Reed and the Aristocracy of Stock Profits, and you should read that book.
I think you would really enjoy it.
But the difference between you and them, and I, just by talking to you, you know, you're bringing back memories of a lot of those people that I have known there on Wall Street, I'm talking about.
But you started to question it all, and a lot of them were just loving it.
They were enjoying the power, the great amount of money that for many of them came with it, the things they could do, the things you could experience in New York, the trips you could have, the holidays, the cars, what's not to like.
But the last thing that a lot of them would do, certainly publicly, is question it.
Well, they, you know, everybody has a purpose in this life, and I believe, you know, I'm a Christian, and I believe God, and I have a purpose for my life, and I'm here to serve it.
But one of the reasons I went to Wall Street was I had a theory.
I was going to learn how all the money in a community works so that we could make more money building up communities than destroying them.
That was sort of my childhood experience.
And what I didn't understand until, you know, I kept searching was to understand how the money works in one community, given how accounting and finance and government money is organized.
And the financial markets are organized, you had to understand how the money in all the planet worked.
So, you know, as in the body, so in the molecule, think of a community as just a molecule of the whole planet.
And so, you know, I went to Wall Street with a goal to learn how all the money works.
So my goal was not to make money.
I love money, you know, I love making money.
But my goal was to go around, and I went to a firm that would allow me to go work in lots of different departments.
And then finally, after I, you know, sort of got the 411 on all the different pots of money and all that, I said, okay, I've got to go to Washington because it's being rigged from there.
I've got to learn the government money.
So I had another purpose.
But I found lots of wonderful people.
Wall Street and the financial community, while it was growing, always attracted, in my experience, a very high quality of person.
And then the reality, the reason I said you should enjoy the Dylan Reed story is I described the process by which the sort of the big money and the journey money came into Wall Street, and things really changed.
The tenor changed.
What an amazing conversation, Catherine.
I used to love hearing you on with Art Bell.
And I'm glad I've been able to talk to you finally now.
Thank you so much.
And we have to talk again.
Thank you for having me.
And people are going to want to know more about you because we've only scratched the surface.
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
So if people want to know more about you and your work, where do they go?
Go to Soleri.com.
I publish the Solari report.
You can read all about it at Soleri.com.
We blog every day, and there's plenty of stuff in the archives.
You can access my articles and everything else.
Catherine, thank you.
We will talk again.
Thanks, Eric.
Have a great day.
Well, that was a packed hour, wasn't it?
Catherine Austin Fitz from Soleri.
And I will put a link to her work, and there's a lot of it, on my website, www.theunexplained.tv, and the website designed and created and maintained by Adam Cornwell, a creative hotspot in Liverpool.
Thank you very much for supporting me and this work.
Please keep your email coming.
Please keep your donations coming if you can, because they're utterly vital.
You know, I've said before here, and I'll say it briefly now, a radio career doesn't leave much of us with anything in the way of spare cash.
So literally, any donations gratefully received.
More big names coming soon here.
If you're hearing this on the front side of Easter, then have a wonderful time.
And if you're hearing it at the back end of Easter, I hope it was marvelous for you.
And until next we meet here on The Unexplained, my name is Howard Hughes.
Stay safe, stay calm, and stay in touch.
▲
Export Selection