reSee.it - Related Post Feed
@AAnon55 - 𝙰 𝙰𝚗𝚘𝚗
The FED is a privately owned corporation that has full control of our monetary system (money). Here are FED chairman saying it. Bonus: A Congressmen saying Taxes are voluntary. https://t.co/f3DA3zUlLC
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker emphasizes the importance of maintaining confidence in the voluntary tax payment system. They discuss the creation of the Federal Reserve by Congress in 1913 and its role in coining money and regulating its value. The speaker explains that the Federal Reserve is an independent agency, meaning no other government agency can overrule its actions. They state that as long as there is no interference in their decision-making process, the specific relationship between the Federal Reserve chairman and the US president is not significant. The speaker expresses concerns about legislation that would allow the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to audit and make judgments on the Federal Reserve's policy decisions, as it could undermine the independence of the Federal Reserve and destabilize the financial system and the economy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We have to maintain the confidence in the system because it's a voluntary system of payment of our taxes. I
Speaker 1: Reserve was created by congress in 1913, and it was entrusted with the power branded originally to the congress by the US constitution To coin money and regulate the value thereof. What is the, proper relationship? What should be the proper relationship between the chairman Fed and a president of the United States.
Speaker 2: Well, first of all, the Federal Reserve is an independent agency, and that means basically that, There is no other agency of government which can overrule actions that we take. So long as that is in place and there is no evidence that the administration or the or anybody else is requesting that we do things other than what we think is the appropriate thing, then what the relationships are, Don't frankly matter. What has been going on in the 21st century with the extraordinary changes in globalization?
Speaker 1: My concern about the legislation is that if the j GAO is auditing not only the operational aspects of our programs and the details of the programs, but is making judgments about our policy decisions that would effectively be a takeover of monetary policy by the Congress, a A repudiation of the independence of the Federal Reserve, which would be highly destructive to the stability of the financial system, the dollar and Our national economic situation.
@MaximeBernier - Maxime Bernier
As always, @TuckerCarlson is one of the few North American media commentators who has a clear understanding of the cause of inflation and the lies of governments. https://t.co/3yNdbbnBU1
Video Transcript AI Summary
At the same moment COVID emergency powers waned, leaders began pushing for conflict with Russia, assuming historic war powers and declaring economic war without congressional authorization. The administration destroyed Russia's currency, removed it from the banking system, and seized property without due process, actions unprecedented in US history. Tech monopolies now exert unprecedented control over public opinion, defining who Americans must hate and manipulating crises.
Inflation is so high that even affluent people are worried, and politicians are lying about its causes. Inflation is a function of money supply, which increased dramatically under the Biden administration, but the problem started after the 2008 financial crisis when the Federal Reserve dropped interest rates to near zero and began printing money. This created asset inflation and economic disparity, but nobody could stop it for fear of collapse. The Fed is out of tricks, and the White House is pretending it's not happening or blaming Vladimir Putin.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Good evening and welcome to Tucker Carlson Tonight. You wonder if looking backward many years from right now, historians will notice the remarkable coincidence in timing. Have you noticed? Here it is. At exactly the moment when the emergency powers they awarded to themselves to fight COVID started to wane, our leaders began pushing for conflict with Russia.
And then on the basis of that conflict, they assumed historic war powers. Without even pausing, the Biden administration declared total economic war on a sovereign country. No American had been killed. The United States had not been invaded or attacked. And yet with no meaningful public debate or congressional authorization, the Biden administration destroyed that country's currency, then removed it from the international banking system that impoverished its population.
Then the administration began seizing the property of people affiliated with that country without a trial or due process of any kind without even bothering to explain exactly what crime they had committed. No American government had ever done anything like that before. If there was one thing the US government long stood for, it was the rule of law. The integrity of the system was always the most important thing, but not anymore. That turned out to be an era, and that era is gone.
Because the target is Russia, very few Americans have noticed any of this. They support it. Virtually no one has paused to ask him or herself where this might be going. How long until our leaders do something similar to their domestic enemies here in The United States? How long before they accuse you of collusion or disloyalty or some other hard to define crime, declare you an enemy of the state, and then confiscate your bank account.
Something very much like that just happened in Canada. We don't imagine it could happen here. Mostly, we just don't think about it. What we think about is Ukraine. And that's the other thing that's changed.
The tech monopolies now exert a level of control over American public opinion that has no precedent in all of history. Eliminating section two thirty or whatever piddling reform congress is talking about at the moment, it all seems like a joke at this point. It's too late. The medieval church had less command over society's emotions than Facebook and Google and Twitter now do. For the past two years, you have watched these companies above all define who you as an American must hate.
Depending upon their directive of the day, our citizens dutifully change their social media avatars from BLM signs to mask up slogans to now Ukrainian flags. Each is a crisis, and each new crisis is carefully stage managed from Silicon Valley at the direction of the White House. How does the human brain compete with this? How does it understand it? Well, it doesn't.
Clarity and perspective become impossible. In the hysteria, even the recent past just evaporates. The morning that Russia invaded Ukraine, you may have been talking about a lot of different things, COVID or crime or the Southern border. Not anymore. Much truly for the White House, all of those topics have been forgotten, maybe forever.
No population has ever been more skillfully manipulated than our population is being manipulated right now. But even with the tech monopolies on the case full time, there are limits. Some topics cannot be hidden, and inflation is one of them. Google can delete all the search results it wants, but you still know what hamburger and gasoline cost because you go to the store. You know exactly how bad inflation is, and it's bad.
In fact, inflation is so high right now that even affluent people are worried about it and not worried in some abstract sense like about the long term health of the country, though that too. People who make $250 a year are worried they will not be able to continue living as they do now. You may or may not feel sorry for them, but let's put it in perspective. Imagine if you made $50 a year or $30 a year, as many Americans do. You would be terrified in the face of this inflation, and maybe you are.
So what's causing it? What is the root of the inflation? If you wanna know the answer to that question, the fastest way to get it is to check to see what politicians are denying. Whatever they claim is not the cause of inflation almost certainly is the cause of inflation. And with that in mind, here's Joe Biden telling you that government spending has nothing to do with it.
Speaker 1: We're on track right now. I'm on track to be the first president in history to lower the deficit by over $1,000,000,000,000 in one year. So I'm sick of this stuff. We have to talk about it because the American people think the reason for inflation is government spending more money. Simply not true.
Speaker 0: Now you can say, that's just Joe Biden. Joe Biden's never had a real job. Even before he became senile, he was reputed to be a dim bulb, and he was. But don't kid yourself. In the clip you just saw, Joe Biden knows perfectly well he's lying.
It's simply not true, he squeaks. Really, Joe Biden? How is it simply not true? Notice he doesn't tell you how it's simply not true because, in fact, it is emphatically, unequivocally true. Inflation is a function of money supply.
The more money you have in circulation, the less that money is worth. Even Joe Biden understands that. The month after Biden became present, the supply of US dollars in circulation increased more than it ever had before in a single month, and then it kept going higher month after month after month as the administration and the congress kept the money taps open. And that's why we have historic inflation now because they printed too much money. It's not complicated.
But it's not the whole story. It did not start with Joe Biden, to be fair. In the months after the two thousand eight financial crisis, the Federal Reserve assumed emergency powers to respond to the financial collapse. Now if you're noticing a theme here, the people in charge giving themselves emergency powers in the face of a crisis they created maybe onto something. But in any case, after 02/2008, the Fed dropped interest rates to near zero and then began printing money.
This was supposed to save our economy. And maybe it would have saved the economy if it had ended at some point, but it did not end. It went on to the present day. That's nearly fourteen years. And in the process, what was designed to save our economy destroyed our economy.
Several times over the years, wiser heads at the Fed talked about dropping the emergency measures and reintroducing reality into the American economy, reintroducing market forces. Remember those? But each time they contemplated this, Wall Street revolted in very public ways. Wage growth in the productive economy had stalled, but the market for private jets was booming. So asset inflation became the basis of wealth for many people at the top end.
Buy things, then sell them for more. Make nothing. Now no society can continue like that for very long because it's not inherently productive. It's a shell game. But ours did for more than fourteen years.
And in the process, this country became more lopsided economically than it's ever been. Fewer people owning more of everything. The Fed was fully aware of this. They're not stupid. They knew they were causing these trends and that most of these trends were dangerous and bad for America.
But the truth is nobody could stop it. Fed governors understood that markets would tank if they tried to pull back. So it was really a classic Ponzi. It was criminal mismanagement of our economy, but nobody could stop doing it for fear the whole thing would collapse. And now we're at the end stage.
The Fed is out of tricks. The problem with inflation, and some economists want limited inflation at certain periods. Some people in Davos have been calling for it for years. But the problem with inflation levels like this is there is no simple way to pull them back. The Fed cannot painlessly massage its way out of $7 gallon gas prices.
So when you reach a state as we are now, you really have only two options. You can pretend it's not happening, or you can blame someone else for it. And the White House is trying both. Here's treasury secretary Janet Yellen trying the first.
Speaker 2: We really protected most Americans from severe financial crisis consequences of the pandemic so that they're, by and large, in good financial shape, poised to spend enough to continue propelling solid growth in The US economy, and we're seeing that in the labor market.
Speaker 0: Now you wonder as you stare into a camera and say something like that, if you imagine, if you can convince yourself there's a single human being who believes you, things are great. You should be grateful for our wise stewardship of your economy. Keep in mind, the woman you just heard, Janet Eilen, was the chair of the Federal Reserve for four years. So not to be technical about it, but if anyone is culpable for the disaster we're living through now, it would be Janet Yellen. So she knows she's lying, and she's not even lying very effectively because, once again, Americans understand the state of the economy because they live within it.
They pay for things. So if you're gonna lie about its cause, you're gonna have to do better than just pretending it's not going on. You're gonna have to blame somebody else. And so the White House enlisted Joe Biden's publicist to make a video about Vladimir Putin. Watch this.
Speaker 3: You may have noticed this week that your gas prices have gone up. I wanna talk to you a little bit about why. A lot of it has to do with Vladimir Putin, and there's opportunities to produce more from here. But part of this is on the oil companies. Right now, there are 9,000 approved unused permits that oil and gas companies could tap into now to ramp up production.
That's why the president has been so focused on investing in clean energy technologies so that we can rely on that and not president Putin to set the price of gas.
Speaker 0: I wanna talk to you a little bit about why that's happening. What do you work at NPR now? You don't know anything. You are a publicist. Please stay in your lane.
But she's telling us that, actually, oil companies, which we assume were very greedy and that was the problem with them, in fact, don't want to make money. That's their real secret. That's why they're not drilling for oil anymore because they just don't want the oil because they're oil companies and they're altruistic or something.
@RedpillDrifter - Redpill Drifter
HOW THE FEDERAL RESERVE SCAM WORKS Pro tip: The Federal Reserve is privately owned https://t.co/4R48j2tY2h
Video Transcript AI Summary
The government creates IOUs in the form of bonds, increasing the national debt. These IOUs are then swapped for currency, with the banks selling the debt to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve buys the IOUs with checks that have no actual funds, resulting in the creation of currency. The government spends this currency on various programs and services, while banks multiply the currency through fractional reserve lending. Taxes are then collected to pay off the debt, and the system relies on ever-increasing levels of debt. The secret owners, the world's largest banks, profit from this system. It causes economic disparity and enslavement, but there is hope in educating the public about the system.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The way the system works is that step 1, the government creates glorified IOUs. These bonds increase our national debt and put the public on the hook to pay it back. Step 2, IOUs are swapped to create currency. The Treasury sells the bonds to the banks. The banks then turn around and sell our national debt at a profit to the Federal Reserve, which they probably own.
The Federal Reserve then opens its checkbook that doesn't have a penny in it, and buys those IOUs with IOUs that it writes checks on a checking account that has a zero balance. Then they give those checks to the banks and currency just springs into existence and then the whole process repeats. This results in a buildup of bonds at the Federal Reserve and currency at the Treasury, which is really just a supply of numbers. The Treasury then deposits the members in the various branches of the government, and we get to step 3. The government spends the members on promises, public works, social programs and war.
Then the government employees, contractors and soldiers deposit their pay into the banks. And we get to step 4, where the banks multiply the numbers by magically inventing more IOUs through fractional reserve lending, where they steal a portion of everyone's deposit and lend it out. That currency gets redeposited and then a portion is stolen again. And the process repeats over and over magnifying the currency supply exponentially. Then we work for some of those numbers, Which brings us to step 5, where our numbers are taxed.
We pay tax to the IRS, who then turns our numbers over to the Treasury, so the treasury can pay the principal plus the interest on bonds that were purchased by the Federal Reserve with a check from nothing. Then we get to step 6: The Debt Ceiling Delusion. The system is designed to require ever increasing levels of debt and will eventually collapse under its own weight because politicians always kick the can down the road. They don't want it to collapse on their watch. And finally, step 7, the secret owners take their cut.
The world's largest banks own the Federal Reserve. Those banks make a profit selling our national debt to the Fed. They make a profit when the Fed pays them interest on the reserves held at the Fed, and the Fed pays them a 6% dividend on their ownership of the Fed. This system is fundamentally evil. It funnels wealth from the working population to the government and the banking sector.
It is the cause of the artificial booms and busts of modern economies, and it Causes great disparity of wealth between the rich and the working class. And it is only possible because we no longer use real money, we use currency. But worst of all, it is a form of enslavement. Bond is the root word of bondage. Whenever a government issues a bond it is a Promise to make us pay tax in the future.
Nobody asked you if you wanted to pay tax today for the prosperity we all enjoyed in the last century. Nobody is asking our children if they want to work hard in the future to pay for the prosperity we're enjoying now. George Washington once wrote to James Madison. No generation has the right to contract debts greater than can be paid off during the course of its own existence. By stealing prosperity from tomorrow, so we can spend it today, we enslave ourselves and future generations.
Now this all sounds pretty bad, but there is great hope, for you are the greatest threat to this false monetary system. This system relies on the public being ignorant of its workings. Please share this knowledge with everyone you know, because an informed public that fully understands the system can build a better future for generations to come. And now I leave you with this quote, widely attributed to a former director of the Bank of England. The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing.
The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin. Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, But leave them the power to create money and control credit, and with the flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again. But if you want to continue as the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money, and to control credit.
This is the Federal Reserve in Washington DC. It's located on Constitution Street, and that is just as much of a joke as the New York Fed being located on Liberty Street. Both of them are unconstitutional. Both of them limit our liberty. And they transfer wealth away from us every second of every day To the Federal Reserve, to the government, and to the banking sector.
@gunthertree2 - Blake 🔮
@TuckerCarlson Remember this? https://t.co/z769ZhDMQ0
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0: America's future requires everyone's participation. We are fortunate to have people like George Soros who fearlessly step up when it matters. Please welcome George Soros. It's the first time I feel compelled to get involved in the electoral process in this country.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Not enough for America's future that some participate and others don't. We have been given an extraordinary blessing and at this moment in time, Our country needs us, and we need people like George Soros who is fearless and willing to step up when it counts. So please join me in welcoming George Soros. It is the first time that I feel that I need to stand up And to do something really, and become really engaged, in the The electoral process in in this country
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Remember when Alex Jones confronted George W. Bush and got arrested. Legend. "Shouldn't we abolish the Federal Reserve and the CFR? That's what's destroying this country. You people are being lied to! This country is being taken over by Europe!" https://t.co/lhPiKPoX0J
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 believes that the victory in 1998 will endorse a philosophy that is good for Texas. Speaker 1 questions why the Federal Reserve and the CFR are not being discussed, claiming they are destroying the country and that America is being taken over by Europe. The conversation becomes chaotic and aggressive, with mentions of drugs and a desire to confront someone against a glass.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Politics as far as I'm concerned. The victory will be an endorsement of a philosophy. I believe in my heart of hearts, the victory in 1998 is going to be good for Texas, and that's the most important thing about the campaign.
Speaker 1: Wouldn't, Sir, shouldn't we abolish the Federal Reserve and the CFR? That's the real reality that none of you will talk about. Most of your members. That's what's destroying this country, governor. Don't you stand for America, sir?
What about the Federal Reserve and the CFR? You people are being lied to. This country's been taken over by Europe, And I'm being drugged up. Laugh at it. A public public assembly?
Okay. Where's the car? I got some cuss. Let's take him right here. Up against his glass.
Let's strap him on the glass. Okay. Take it out of the
@TrevorJukes1 - TeeJay
Edward Griffin explains what the Federal Reserve System actually is: "It's a cartel. It's not a government agency, it has the appearance of it being a government agency." https://t.co/bpOQCiDZj4
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Federal Reserve is not a government agency, but rather a banking cartel that has the power of government enforcement. It operates like other cartels, such as those in the banana, oil, or sugar industries. The banking cartel created rules and regulations for their own industry and presented it to Congress as the Federal Reserve Act. Congress passed it into law, giving the appearance that the Federal Reserve is a government agency. However, failure to comply with their rules can result in imprisonment. In essence, the Federal Reserve is a cartel disguised as a government agency.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, you asked the question in your book, the, Creature from Jekyll Island. What is the Federal Reserve, and what is your answer?
Speaker 1: Well, what it is, it's a cartel. It it's not a government agency. It has the appearance of it being a government agency and they went to great lengths to give it that that facade. It does have the power of government because congress voted to give the power of of enforcement to it. But in its essence, underneath it, it's a cartel.
It's nothing different than a banana cartel or an oil cartel or sugar cartel. It happens to be a banking cartel. They got together. They drew up the rules and regulations for their own industry to self regulate their own industry is what cartels do, and then they send it to congress and they took off the the label at the top that said banking cartel may erase that, and they said Federal Reserve Act. Congress passed it into law, and that's why we think it's government agency, is because if you don't obey the rules that they set down for their own industry, you go to prison.
And so it looks like a government agency. But, really the answer to your question is
@dbenner83 - Dave Benner, Nemesis of Neocons
@TuckerCarlson Yes! If only they would have listened to Ron Paul. https://t.co/jfxmlJ0ZxN
Video Transcript AI Summary
Today, the speaker discusses the common debate of being pro-Israel or pro-Arab, but suggests a third option: being pro-American. They argue that the best interest of the United States is to remain neutral and not involve themselves in conflicts they cannot solve. Instead of giving both sides money and telling them what to do, the speaker proposes defunding both sides. They believe that funding leads to unintended consequences and makes the US complicit in the violence. The speaker advocates for a policy of non-intervention, where the US does not dictate actions but can condemn violence equally. They urge against supporting the resolution.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We hear today talk about being having solidarity with Israel. And others get up and and try in their best way to defend the Palestinians and and the Arabs. So it's sort of a contest, should we be pro Israel or pro Arab or anti Israel or anti Arab and how do we how are we seen in doing this? And it's pretty important. But I think there's a third option to this that we so often forget about.
Why why can't we be pro American? What is in the best interest of the United States? We haven't even heard that yet. I believe that it's in the best interest of the United States Not to get into a fight. A fight that we don't have the wisdom to figure out.
Now, I would like To have neutrality. That's been the tradition for America at least a century ago. To be friends with everybody, trade with everybody, and to be neutral unless somebody declares war against us. But not not to demand that we pick sides. Now I have a proposal and a suggestion, which I think fits the American tradition, that we should treat both sides equally, but in a different way.
Today, we treat both sides equally by giving both sides money, and telling them what to do. Not a $1,000,000 here or there. Not a 100,000,000 here or there, but tens of 1,000,000,000 of dollars over decades. Always trying to buy peace. And my argument is that it generally doesn't work.
That there are unintended consequences. These things backfire. They come back to haunt us. So I think we should start off by defunding defunding both sides. I I'm just not for Giving all this money.
Because every time there are civilians killed on the Israeli side or civilian killed On the Palestinian side, you can be assured that either our money was used directly or indirectly to do that killing. So we are In a way, an accomplice on all this because we fund both sides. The policy of foreign non intervention where the United States is not the bully and doesn't come in and tell everybody exactly what to do and put these demands on. If we didn't do that, yes, we could we could have some moral authority to come condemn violence. But should we not Condemn violence equally?
Could it be true that only innocent civilians have died on one side and not the other? I don't believe that to be true. I believe that it happens on both sides, And on both sides, they use our money to do this. I urge a no vote on this resolution.
@BGatesIsaPyscho - Concerned Citizen
🇺🇸🇷🇺 Tucker Carlson in Russia During trip to Supermarket Tucker Carlson explains why he “feels radicalised” against the US Government. Worth 60 seconds of your time. Anyone else feel like this? https://t.co/TqGgVaHmTD
Video Transcript AI Summary
I was initially amused, but then became angry when I realized the impact of corruption on people's lives. We didn't pay attention to the cost of groceries while shopping, but it turned out to be $104, which made me question the importance of ideology. When a country's standard of living is affected by filth, crime, and inflation, people can't afford the groceries they need. It doesn't matter if you're a good or bad person, our leaders have ruined lives. Visiting a Russian grocery store and witnessing the cost of living there has radicalized me against our leaders. And just to clarify, none of this is made up.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I went from amused to legitimately angry. So we were guessing what this would cost. Everybody here is from the United States buys groceries, and we didn't pay any attention to cost as we were just putting in the cart where we would actually eat over a week. And we All came in around $400, about $400. It was a $104 US here, and that's when you start to realized that ideology maybe doesn't matter as much as you thought, corruption.
If you take people's standard of living and you States tank it through filth and crime and inflation, and they literally can't buy the groceries they want. At that point, Maybe it matters less what you say or whether you're a good person or a bad person. You're wrecking people's lives in their country, and that's what our leaders have done to us. States, and coming to a Russian grocery store, the heart of evil, and seeing what things cost and how people live, It will radicalize you against our leaders. That's how I feel anyway.
Radicalized. We're not making any of this up, by the way, at all.
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
Tucker Carlson interviews Mike Benz https://t.co/t54UvEKWLM
Video Transcript AI Summary
America's exceptionalism stems from its free speech, enshrined in the First Amendment. However, this fundamental right is rapidly eroding due to censorship disguised as combating disinformation and malinformation. This censorship, directed by the US government, isn't about truth but about silencing inconvenient voices. Mike Benz, an expert on this, reveals how the military-industrial complex and foreign policy establishment weaponized internet freedom, initially using it for regime change, then turning it inward to control narratives and elections. This involved using social media companies and government-funded organizations to censor dissent, framing it as a national security threat. This has fundamentally altered American governance, potentially leading to military rule. The future of free platforms like X is precarious, facing pressure from the US government and the EU's Digital Services Act.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The defining fact of The United States is freedom of speech. To the extent this country is actually exceptional, it's because we have the first amendment to the Bill of Rights. We have freedom of conscience. We can say what we really think. There's no hate speech exception to that.
Just because you hate what somebody else thinks, you cannot force that person to be quiet because we're citizens, not slaves. But that right, that foundational right that makes this country what it is, that right from which all other rights flow, is going away at high speed in the face of censorship. Now modern censorship, there's no resemblance to previous censorship regimes in previous countries and previous eras. Our censorship is affected on the basis of fights against disinformation and malinformation. And the key thing to know about these is they're everywhere.
And, of course, they have no reference at all to whether what you're saying is true or not. In other words, you can say something that is factually accurate and consistent with your own conscience, and in previous versions of America, you had an absolute right to say those things. But because someone doesn't like them or because they're inconvenient to whatever plan the people in power have, they can be denounced as disinformation, and you could be stripped of your right to express them, either in person or online. In fact, expressing these things can become a criminal act and is. And it's important to know, by the way, that this is not just the private sector doing this.
These efforts are being directed by the US government, which you pay for and least theoretically own. It's your government. But they're stripping your rights at very high speed. Most people understand this intuitively, but they don't know how it happens. How does censorship happen?
What are the mechanics of it? Mike Benz is, we can say, with some confidence, the expert in the world on how this happens. Mike Benz had the cyber portfolio at the state department. He's now executive director of Foundation for Freedom Online, and we're gonna have a conversation with him about a very specific kind of censorship. By the way, we can't recommend strongly enough.
If you wanna know how this happens, Mike Benz, b e n z, is the man to read. But today, we just wanna talk about a specific kind of censorship, and that censorship that emanates from the fabled military industrial complex, from our defense industry in the foreign policy establishment in Washington. That's significant now because we're on the cusp of a global war, and so you can expect censorship to increase dramatically. And so with that, here is Mike Benz, executive director of Foundation for Freedom Online. Mike, thanks so much for joining us.
And I and I just can't overstate to our audience how exhaustive and comprehensive your knowledge is on this topic. It's almost it's almost unbelievable. And so if you could just walk us through how the foreign policy establishment and defense contractors and and DOD and and just the whole cluster, the constellation of defense related publicly funded institutions strip from us our freedom of speech.
Speaker 1: Sure. You know, one of the easiest ways to actually start the story is really with the story of Internet freedom and it switched from Internet freedom to Internet censorship because free speech on the Internet was an instrument of statecraft almost from the outset of the privatization of the Internet in 1991. We quickly discovered through the efforts of the Defense Department, the State Department and our intelligence services that people were using the Internet to congregate on blogs and forums and free speech was championed more than anybody by the Pentagon, the State Department and our sort of CIA cutout NGO blob architecture as a way to support dissident groups around the world in order to help them overthrow authoritarian governments as they were sort of build. Essentially, the Internet free speech allowed kind of insta regime change operations to be able to facilitate the foreign policy establishments State Department agenda. Google is a great example of this.
Google began as a DARPA grant by Larry Page and Sergey Brin when they were Stanford PhDs and they got their funding as part of a joint CIA NSA program to chart how birds of a feather flock together online through search engine aggregation. And then one year later, they launched Google and then became a military contractor quickly thereafter. They got Google Maps by purchasing a CIA satellite software essentially. And the ability to track to use free speech on the Internet is a way to circumvent state control over media over in places like Central Asia or all around the world was seen as a way to be able to do what used to be done out of CIA station houses or out of embassies or consulates in a way that was totally turbocharged. And all of the Internet free speech technology was initially created by our national security state, VPNs, virtual private networks to hide your IP address, tour the dark web to be able to buy and sell goods anonymously, end to end encrypted chats.
All these things were created initially as DARPA projects or as joint CIA NSA projects to be able to help intelligence backed groups to overthrow governments that were causing a problem to the Clinton administration or the Bush administration or the Obama administration. And this plan worked magically from about 1991 until about 2014 when there began to be an about face on Internet freedom and its utility. Now the high watermark of the sort of Internet free speech moment was the Arab Spring in twenty eleven, twenty twelve, when you had this one by one, all of the adversary governments of the Obama administration, Egypt, Tunisia, all began to be toppled in Facebook revolutions and Twitter revolutions. And you had the State Department working very closely with the social media companies to be able to keep social media online during those periods. There was a famous phone call from Google's Jared Cohen to Twitter to not do their scheduled maintenance so that the preferred opposition group in Iran would be able to use Twitter to win that election.
So it was an free speech was an instrument of statecraft from the national security state to begin with. All of that architecture, all of the NGOs, the relationships between the tech companies and the national security state had been long established for freedom. In 2014, after the coup in Ukraine, there was an unexpected counter coup where Crimea and the Donbas broke away. And they broke away with essentially a military backstop that NATO was highly unprepared for at the time. They had one last Hail Mary chance, which was the Crimea annexation vote in 2014.
And when the hearts and minds of the people of Crimea voted to join the Russian Federation, that was the last straw for the concept of free speech on the Internet in the eyes of NATO. As they saw it, the fundamental nature of war changed at that moment. And NATO at that point declared something that they first called the Gerasimov doctrine, which is named after this Russian military general, who they claimed made a speech that the fundamental nature of war has changed. You don't need to win military skirmishes to take over Central And Eastern Europe. All you need to do is control the media and the social media ecosystem because that's what controls elections.
And if you simply get the right administration into power, they control the military. So it's infinitely cheaper than conducting a military war to simply conduct an organized political influence operation over social media and legacy media. An industry had been created that spanned the Pentagon, the British Ministry of Defense and Brussels into a organized political warfare outfit, essentially infrastructure that was created initially stationed in Germany and in Central And Eastern Europe to create psychological buffer zones, basically to create the ability to have the military work with the social media companies to censor Russian propaganda or to censor domestic right wing populist groups in Europe who were rising in political power at the time because of the migrant crisis. So you had the systematic targeting by our State Department, by our IC, by the Pentagon of groups like Germany's AfD, the alternative for Deutschland there and for groups in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. Now when Brexit happened in 2016, it was that was this crisis moment where suddenly they didn't have to worry just about Central And Eastern Europe anymore, it was coming westward, this idea of Russian control over hearts and minds.
And so that was Brexit was June 2016, the very next month at the Warsaw Conference, NATO formally amended its charter to expressly commit to hybrid warfare as this new NATO capacity. So they went from basically seventy years of tanks to this explicit capacity building for censoring tweets that they were deemed to be Russian proxies. And again, it's not just Russian propaganda, this was these were now Brexit groups or groups like Matteo Salvini in Italy or in Greece or in Germany or in Spain with the Vox party. And now at the time, NATO was publishing white papers saying that the biggest threat NATO faces is not actually a military invasion from Russia, it's losing domestic elections across Europe in to all these right wing populist groups who, because they were mostly working class movements, were campaigning on cheap Russian energy at a time when The US was pressuring this energy diversification policy. And so they made the argument after Brexit, now the entire rules based international order would collapse unless the military took control over media because Brexit would give rise to Brexit in France with Marine Le Pen, to Speggxit in Spain with the Vox Party, to Italy exit in Italy, to Grexit in Germany, to Grexit in Greece, the EU would come apart so NATO would be killed without a single bullet being fired.
And then not only that, now that NATO is gone, now there's no enforcement arm for the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, or the World Bank. So now the financial stakeholders who depend on the battering ram of the national security state would basically be helpless against governments around the world. So from their perspective, if the military did not begin to censor the Internet, every all of the democratic institutions and infrastructure that gave rise to the modern world after World War two would collapse. So you can imagine that we
Speaker 0: We may ask you to pause later.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump won the twenty sixteen election.
Speaker 0: So you well, you just told a remarkable story that I've never heard anybody explain as lucidly and crisply as you just did. But did anyone at NATO or anyone at the state department pause for a moment and say, wait a second. We've just identified our new enemy as democracy within our own countries. I think that's what you're saying. They they feared that the people, the citizens of their own countries would get their way, and they went to war against that.
Speaker 1: Yes. Now, you know, there's a rich history of this dating back to the Cold War. You know, the Cold War in Europe was essentially a a similar a similar struggle for hearts and minds of people, especially in Central And Eastern Europe Yes. You know, in these sort of, you know, Soviet buffer zones. And starting in 1948, the National Security State was really established then.
You had the 1947 Act, which established the Central Intelligence Agency, you had this new world order that had been created with all these international institutions and you had the 1948 UN Declaration on Human Rights, which forbid the territorial acquisition by military force. So, you can no longer run a traditional military occupation government in the way that we could in 1898, for example, when we took The Philippines. Everything had to be done through a sort of political legitimization process whereby there's some ratification from the hearts and minds of people within the country. Now, often that involves simply puppet politicians who are groomed as emerging leaders by our State Department. But the battle for hearts and minds had been something that we had been giving ourselves a long moral license leash, if you will, since 1948, '1 of the godfathers of the CIA, George Kennan, at twelve days after we rigged the Italian election in 1948 by stuffing ballot boxes and working with the mob, we he published a memo called the inauguration of organized political warfare, where he said, listen, it's a mean old world out there.
We at the CIA just rigged the Italian election. We had to do it because if the communist won, maybe there'd never be another election in Italy again. So, but it's really effective, guys. We need a department of dirty tricks to be able to do this around the world, and it's essentially a new social contract we're we're constructing with the American people because this is not the way we've conducted diplomacy before, but we are now forbidden from using the War Department. In 1948, they also renamed the War Department to the Defense Department.
So again, as part of this diplomatic onslaught for political control rather than it looking like it's overt military control. But essentially what ended up happening there is we created this foreign domestic firewall, we said, that we have a department of dirty tricks to be able to rig elections, to be able to control media, to be able to meddle in the internal affairs of every other plot of dirt in the country, but this sort of sacred dirt in which the American homeland sits will they are not allowed to operate there. The State Department, the Defense Department and the CIA are all expressly forbidden from operating on U. S. Soil.
Of course, this is so far from the case, it's not even funny, but that's because of a number of laundering tricks that they've developed over seventy years of doing this. But essentially, there was no moral quandary at first with respect to the creation of the censorship industry when it started out in Germany and in Lithuania and Latvia and Estonia and in Sweden and Finland. There began to be a more diplomatic debate about it after Brexit. And then it became full throttle when Trump was elected. And what little resistance there was, was washed over by the rise and saturation of Russiagate, which basically allowed them to not have to deal with the moral ambiguities of censoring your own people because if Trump was a Russian asset, you no longer really had a traditional free speech issue, it was a national security issue.
It was only after Russiagate died in July 2019 when Robert Mueller basically choked on the stand for three hours and revealed he had absolutely nothing after two point five years of investigation that the foreign to domestic switcheroo took place where they took all of this censorship architecture spanning DHS, the FBI, the CIA, the DoD, the DOJ and then the thousands of government funded NGO and private sector mercenary firms were all basically transited from a foreign predicate, a Russian disinformation predicate to a democracy predicate by saying that disinformation is not just a threat when it comes from the Russians, it's actually an intrinsic threat to democracy itself. And so by that, they were able to wander the entire democracy promotion regime change toolkit, just in time for the twenty twenty election.
Speaker 0: It it it I I mean, it's it's almost beyond belief that this has happened. I mean, my own father worked for the US government in this business in the information war against the Soviet Union and, you know, was a big part of that. And the idea that any of those tools would be turned
Speaker 1: against
Speaker 0: American citizens by the US government was, I I think, I wanna think, was absolutely unthinkable in, say, 1988. And you're saying that it's there really hasn't been anyone who's raised objections, and it's just it's absolutely turned inward to manipulate and rig our own elections as we would in, say, Latvia?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, as soon as the democracy predicate was established, you had this professional class of professional regime change artists and operatives. That is the same people who argued that we need to bring democracy to Yugoslavia to get and that's the predicate for getting rid of Milosevic or any other country around the world where we basically overthrow governments in order to preserve democracy. Well, if the democracy threat is homegrown now, then that becomes then suddenly, these people all have new jobs moving on The U. S.
Side and I can go through a million examples of that. But one thing on what you just mentioned, which is that from their perspective, they just weren't ready for the Internet. 2016 was really the first time that social media had reached such maturity that it began to eclipse legacy media. I mean, this was a long time coming. I think folks saw this building from 02/2006 through 2016.
Internet one point zero didn't even have social media. From 1991 to 02/2004, there was no social media at all. 02/2004, Facebook came out, 02/2005, Twitter, 02/2006, YouTube, 02/2007, the smartphone. And so and in that initial period of social media, nobody was getting subscriberships at the level where they actually competed with legacy news media. But over the course of being so initially, even these dissonant voices within The U.
S, even though they may have been loud in moments, they never reached 30,000,000 followers. They never reached 1,000,000,000 impressions a year type thing as an uncensored, mature ecosystem allowed citizen journalists and independent voices to be able to outcompete legacy news media. This induced a massive crisis both in our military and in our State Department and Intelligence Services. I'll give you a great example of this. In 2019, at meeting of the German Marshall Fund, which is an institution that goes back to The U.
S. Basically, I don't want to say bry, but essentially the soft economic soft power projection in Europe as part of the reconstruction of European governments after World War II to be able to essentially pay them with Marshall Fund dollars and then in return, they basically were under our thumb in terms of how they reconstructed. But the German Marshall Fund held a meeting in 2019. They held 1,000,000 of these, frankly. But where they where a four star general got up on the panel and said that the what happens he posed the question, what happens to the U.
S. Military, what happens to the national security state when The New York Times is reduced to a medium sized Facebook page? And he posed this thought experiment as an example of we've had these gatekeepers, we've had these bumper cars on democracy in the form of a century old relationship with legacy media institutions. I mean, our mainstream media is not in any shape and form even from its outset independent from the National Security State, from the State Department, from the War Department. You had the initial all of the initial broadcast news companies, NBC, ABC and CBS were all created by Office of War Information Veterans from the War Department's effort in World War II.
You had these Operation Mockingbird relationships from the 1950s to the 1970s. Those continued through the use of the National Endowment for Democracy and the privatization of intelligence capacities in the 1980s under Reagan. There's all sorts of CIA reading room memos you can read even on cia.gov about those continued media relations throughout the 1990s. And so you always had this backdoor relationship between The Washington Post, The New York Times and all of the major broadcast media corporations. By the way, Rupert Murdoch and Fox are part of this as well.
Rupert Murdoch was actually part of the National Endowment for Democracy Coalition in 1983 when it was formed as a way to do CIA operations in an above board way after the Democrats were so ticked off at the CIA for manipulating student movements in the 1970s. But essentially, there was no CIA intermediary to random citizen journalist accounts. There was no Pentagon backstop. You couldn't get a story killed. You couldn't have this favors for favors relationship.
You couldn't promise access to some random person with 700,000 followers who's got an opinion on Syrian gas. And so this induced and this was not a problem for the initial period of social media from 02/2006 to 2014 because there were never dissident groups that were big enough to be able to have a mature enough ecosystem on their own. And all of the victories on social media had gone in the way of where the money was, which was from the State Department and the Defense Department and the Intelligence Services. But then as that maturity happened, you now had this situation after the twenty sixteen election where they said, okay, now the entire international order might come undone. Seventy years of unified foreign policy from Truman until Trump are now about to be broken.
And we need the same analog control systems we had to be able to put bumper cars on bad stories or bad political movements through legacy media relationships and contacts. We now need to establish and consolidate within the social media companies. And the initial predicate for that was Russiagate, but then after Russiagate died and they used a simple democracy promotion predicate, then it gave rise to this multibillion dollar censorship industry that joins together the military industrial complex, the government, the private sector, the civil society organizations and then this vast cobweb of media allies and professional fact checker groups that that serve as this sort of sentinel class that surveys everywhere on the Internet.
Speaker 0: So can you give us and thank you again for this almost unbelievable explanation of why this is happening. Can you give us an example of how it happens? How just and just pick one among, I know, countless examples of how the national security state lies to the population, censors the truth, in real life?
Speaker 1: Yeah. So, you know, we have this State Department outfit called the Global Engagement Center, which was created by a guy named Rick Stengel, who described himself as Obama's propagandist in chief. He was the Undersecretary for Public Affairs, which is essentially the which is the liaison office role between the State Department and the mainstream media. So this is basically the exact nexus where government talking points about war or about diplomacy or statecraft get synchronized with mainstream media. And may may
Speaker 0: may I add something to that? Is someone I I know Rick Stengel. He was at one point a journalist, and Rick Stengel has made public arguments against the First Amendment and against free speech. And
Speaker 1: so Oh, yeah. He wrote a whole book on it. And he published an op ed in 2019. He wrote a whole book on it. And he, you know, he made the argument that that we just, you know, went over here, that essentially, the Constitution was not prepared for the Internet, and we need to get rid of the First Amendment accordingly.
And he described himself as a free speech absolutist when he was the managing editor of Time magazine. And even when he was in the State Department under Obama, he started something called the Global Engagement Center, which was the first government censorship operation within the federal government, but it was foreign facing, so it was okay. Now at the time, they used the homegrown ISIS predicate threat for this. And so it was very hard to argue against the idea of the State Department having this formal coordination partnership with every major tech platform in The U. S.
Because at the time, there were these ISIS attacks that were and we were told that ISIS was recruiting on Twitter and Facebook. And so the Global Engagement Center was established essentially to be a State Department entanglement with the social media companies to basically put bumper cars on their ability to platform accounts and to and one of the things they did is they created a new technology, which is it's called natural language processing. It is an artificial intelligence machine learning ability to create meaning out of words in order to map everything that everyone says on the Internet and create this vast topography of how communities are organized online, who the major influences are, what they're talking about, what narratives are emerging or trending and to be able to create this sort of network graph in order to know who to target and how information moves through an ecosystem. And so they began plotting the language, the prefixes, the suffixes, the popular terms, the slogans that ISIS folks were talking about on Twitter. When Trump won the election in 2016, everyone who worked at the State Department was expecting these promotions to the White House National Security Council under Hillary Clinton, who I should remind viewers, was also Secretary of State under Obama, actually ran the State Department.
But these folks were all expecting promotions on 11/08/2016 and were unceremoniously put out of jobs by a guy who was a 20 to one underdog according to The New York Times the day of the election. And when that happened, these State Department folks took their special set of skills coercing governments to for sanctions. And the State Department led the effort to sanction Russia over the Crimea annexation in 2014, these State Department diplomats did an international roadshow to pressure European governments to pass censorship laws to censor the right wing populist groups in Europe and as a boomerang impact to censor populist groups who were affiliated in The U. S. So you had folks who went from the State Department directly, for example, to the Atlantic Council, which was this major facilitator between government to government censorship.
The Atlantic Council is a group that was one of Biden's biggest political backers. They build themselves as NATO's think tank. So they represent the political census of NATO. And in many respects, when NATO has civil society actions that they want to be coordinated to synchronize with military action in a region, the Atlantic Council essentially is deployed to consensus build and make that political action happen within a region of interest to NATO. Now the Atlantic Council has seven CIA directors on its board.
A lot of people don't even know that seven CIA directors are still alive, let alone all concentrated on on the board of a single organization that's kind of the heavyweight in the censorship industry. They get annual funding from the Department of Defense, the State Department, and CIA cutouts like the National Endowment for Democracy. The Atlantic Council in January 2017 moved immediately to pressure European governments to pass censorship laws to create a transatlantic flank attack on free speech in exactly the way that Rick Stengel essentially called for to have The US mimic European censorship laws. One of the ways they did this was by getting Germany to pass something called NETTG in August 2017, which was essentially kicked off the era of automated censorship in The U. S.
What NETs.gg required was unless social media platforms want to pay a $54,000,000 fine for each instance of speech, each post left up on their platform for more than forty eight hours that have been identified as hate speech, they would be fined basically into bankruptcy when you aggregate $54,000,000 over tens of thousands of posts per day. And the safe haven around that was if they deployed artificial intelligence based censorship technologies, which had been, again, created by DARPA to take on ISIS to be able to scan and ban speech automatically. And this was this gave I call these weapons of mass deletion. These are essentially the ability to censor tens of millions of posts with just a few lines of code and the way this is done is by aggregating basically the field of censorship science fuses together two disparate groups of study, if you will. There's the sort of political and social scientists who are the sort of thought leaders of what should be censored.
And then there are the sort of quants, if you will. These are the programmers, the computational data scientists, computational linguistics, every university. There's over 60 universities now who get federal government grants to do this censorship, the censorship work and the censorship preparation work, where what they do is they create these codebooks of the language that people use the same way they did for ISIS. They did this, for example, with COVID. They created these COVID lexicons of what dissident groups were saying about mandates, about masks, about vaccines, about high profile individuals like Tony Fauci or Peter Daszak or any of these others protected VIP individuals whose reputations had to be protected online.
And they created these codebooks, they broke things down into narratives. The Atlanta Council, for example, was a part of this government funded consortium, something called the Virality Project, which mapped 66 different narratives that dissidents were talking about around COVID, everything from COVID origins to vaccine efficacy. And then they broke down these 66 claims into all the different factual sub claims. And then they plugged these into these essentially machine learning models to be able to have a constant world heat map of what everybody was saying about COVID. And whenever something started to trend that was bad for what the Pentagon wanted or was bad for what Tony Fauci wanted, they were able to take down tens of millions of posts.
They did this in the twenty twenty election with mail in ballots. It was the
Speaker 0: same thing. May I ask you, I I'm sorry. I just gotta have to there's there's so much here, and it's so shocking. So you're saying the Pentagon, our Pentagon, the US Department of Defense, censored Americans during the twenty twenty election
Speaker 1: cycle? Yes. They did this they oh, they did this through the so so there's the two most censored events in human history, I would argue, to date are the twenty twenty election and the COVID-nineteen pandemic. And I'll explain how I arrived there. So the twenty twenty election was determined by mail in ballots.
And I'm not weighing into the substance of whether mail in ballots were or were not a legitimate or safe and reliable form of voting. That's a completely independent topic from my perspective than the censorship issue one. But the censorship of mail in ballots is really one of the most extraordinary stories in our American history, I would argue. What happened was is, you had this plot within the Department of Homeland Security. Now this gets back to what we were talking about with the State Department's Global Engagement Center.
You had this group within the Atlanta Council and the foreign policy establishment, which began arguing in 2017 for the need for a permanent domestic censorship government office to serve as a quarterback for what they called a whole of society counter misinformation, counter disinformation alliance. That just means censorship, the counter misinfo. But the whole of their whole society model explicitly proposed that we need every single asset within society to be mobilized in a whole of society effort to stop misinformation online. It was that much of an existential threat to democracy. And so it but they fixated in 2017 that it had to be centered within the government because only the government would have the clout and the coercive threat powers and the perceived authority to be able to tell the social media companies what to do, to be able to summon a government funded NGO swarm to create that media surround sound, to be able to arm an astroturfed army of fact checkers and to be able to liaise and connect all these different censorship industry actors into a cohesive unified whole.
And the Atlantic Council initially proposed with this blueprint called forward defense, it's not offense, it's forward defense guys. They initially proposed that running this out of the State Department's Global Engagement Center because they had so many assets there who were so effective at censorship under Rick Stengel's stead and under the Obama administration. But they said, oh, we're not going to be able to get away with that because we don't really have a national security predicate and it's supposed to be foreign facing. We can't really use that hook unless we have a sort of national security one. Then they contemplated parking it at the CIA.
And they said, well, actually, there's two reasons we can't do that. CIA is foreign facing. We can't really establish a counterintelligence threat to bring it home domestically. Also, we're going to need essentially tens of thousands of people involved in this operation spanning this whole society model. You can't really run a clandestine operation that way.
So they said, okay, well, what about the FBI? They said, well, the FBI would be great. It's domestic. But the problem is is the FBI is supposed to be the intelligence arm of the justice department, and we and what we're dealing with here are not acts of law breaking. It's basically support for Trump or if, you know, if if left wing populists had risen to power like Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn, I have no doubt they would have done in The U.
K, they would have done the same thing to him there. They targeted Jeremy Corbyn and other left wing populist NATO skeptical groups in Europe. But in The U. S, it was all Trump. And so essentially, what they said is, well, the only other domestic intelligence equity we have in The US besides the FBI is the DHS.
So we are going to essentially take the CIA's power to rig and bribe foreign media organizations, which is a power they've had since the day they were born in 1947, and we're going to combine that with the domestic jurisdiction of the FBI by putting it at DHS. So DHS was basically deputized. It was empowered through this obscure little cybersecurity agency to have the combined powers that the CIA has abroad with the jurisdiction of the FBI at home. And the way they did this, how did an obscure little cybersecurity agency get this power, was they did a funny little series of switcheroos. So this little thing called CISA, they didn't call it the Disinformation Governance Board, they didn't call it the Censorship Agency, they gave it an obscure little name that no one would notice called the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, whose founder said, we just security we care about security so much it's in our name twice.
Everybody sort of closed their eyes and pretended that's what it was. But it was created by active Congress in 2018 because of the perceived threat that Russia had hacked the twenty sixteen election, had physically hacked it. And so we needed the cybersecurity power to be able to deal with that. And essentially on the heels of a CIA memo on 01/06/2017 and a same day DHS executive order on 01/06/2017, arguing that Russia had interfered in the twenty sixteen election and a DHS mandate saying that elections are now critical infrastructure, you had this new power within DHS to say that cybersecurity attacks on elections are now our purview. And then they did two cute things.
One, they said mis, dis and malinformation online are a form of cybersecurity attack. They are a cyber attack because they are happening online. And they said, well, actually, Russian disinformation is we're actually protecting democracy in elections. We don't need a Russian predicate after Russiagate died. So just like that, you had this cybersecurity agency be able to legally make the argument that your tweets about mail in ballots, if you undermine public faith and confidence in them as a legitimate form of voting, was now you are now conducting a cyber attack on US critical infrastructure by by articulating misinformation on Twitter.
And just like that now what they did then is they Wait.
Speaker 0: So in other words bunch of see it. Complaining about election fraud is the same as taking down our power grid.
Speaker 1: Yes. You could literally be on your toilet seat at 09:30 on on a Thursday night and tweet, I think that mail in ballots are illegitimate. And you were essentially then caught up in the crosshairs of the Department of Homeland Security classifying you as conducting a cyber attack on U. S. Critical infrastructure because you were doing misinformation online in the cyber realm and misinformation is a cyber attack on democracy when it undermines public faith and confidence in our democratic elections and our democratic institutions.
They would end up going far beyond that. They would actually define democratic institutions as being another thing that was a cybersecurity attack to, to undermine. And lo and behold, the mainstream media is considered a democratic institution. That would come later. What ended up happening was, in advance of the twenty twenty election, starting in April of twenty twenty, although this goes back before, you had this essentially never Trump, neocon, Republican DHS working with essentially NATO on the national security side and essentially the DNC, if you will, to use DHS as the launching point for a government coordinated mass censorship campaign spanning every single social media platform on earth in order to pre censor the ability to dispute the legitimacy of mail in ballots.
And here's how they did this. They aggregated four different institutions, Stanford University, the University of Washington, a company called Graphica and the Atlantic Council. Now all four of these institutions, the centers within them were essentially Pentagon cutouts. You had at the Stanford Internet Observatory, it was actually run by Michael McFaul. If you know Michael McFaul, he was The U.
S. Ambassador to Russia under the Obama administration, and he personally authored a seven step playbook for how to successfully orchestrate a color revolution. That is, and part of that involved maintaining total control over media and social media, juicing up the civil society outfits, calling elections illegitimate in order to and mind you, all of these people were professional Russiagaters and professional election delegitimizers in 2016. And then well, I'll get to that in a sec. So Stanford University, nominally, the Stanford Air Observatory under Michael McFaul was run by Alex Stamos, who was formerly a Facebook executive, who coordinated with ODNI and the with respect to, Russiagate, you know, taking down Russian propaganda at Facebook.
So this is another liaison essentially to the national security state. State. And under Alex Stamos at Stanford Internet Observatory was Renee de Resta, who started her career in the CIA and wrote the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian disinformation. And there's a lot more there that I'll be I'll get to another time. But the next institution was the University of Washington, which is essentially the Bill Gates University in Seattle, who is headed by Kate Starbird, who is basically three generations of military brass, who got her PhD in Crisis Informatics, essentially doing social media surveillance for the Pentagon and getting DARPA funding and working essentially with the National Security State then repurposed to take on mail in ballots.
The third firm, Graphica, got 7,000,000 in Pentagon grants and got their start as part of the Pentagon's Minerva Initiative. The Minerva Initiative is the psychological warfare research center of the Pentagon. This group was doing social media spying and narrative mapping for the Pentagon until the twenty sixteen election happened and then were repurposed into a partnership with the Department of Homeland Security to censor 22,000,000 Trump tweets, pro Trump tweets about mail in ballots. And then the fourth institution, as I mentioned, was the Atlantic Council, who's got seven CIA directors on the board. So one after another, it is exactly what Ben Rhodes described during the Obama era as the blob, the foreign policy establishment.
It's the Defense Department, the State Department or the CIA every single time. And of course, this is because they were threatened by Trump's foreign policy. And so while much of the censorship looks like it's coming domestically, it's actually by our foreign facing Department of Dirty Tricks color revolution blob who are professional government toplers, who were then basically descended on the twenty twenty election. Now they did this. They explicitly said the head of this election integrity partnership on tape, and and and my foundation clipped them and it's been played before congress and it's in, you know, a part of the Missouri v Biden lawsuit now.
But they explicitly said on tape that they were set up to do what the government was banned from doing itself. And then they articulated a multi step framework in order to coerce all the tech companies to take censorship actions. They said on tape the tech companies would not have done but for their pressure, which involved using threats of government force because they were the deputized arm of the government. They had a formal partnership with the DHS. They were able to use DHS's proprietary domestic disinformation switchboard to immediately talk to top brass at all the tech companies for takedowns.
And they bragged on tape about how they got the tech companies to all systematically adopt a new terms of service speech violation ban called de legitimization, which meant any tweet, any YouTube video, any Facebook post, any TikTok video, any Discord post, any Twitch video, anything on the Internet that that, undermine public faith and confidence in the use of mail in ballots or early voting drop boxes or or or ballot tabulation issues on Election Day was a prima facia terms of service violation policy under this new delegitimization policy that they only adopted because of pass through government pressure from the Election Integrity Partnership, which they bragged about on tape, including the grid that they used to do this and and simultaneously invoking threats of government breaking them up or or government stopping doing favors for the tech companies unless they did this, as well as inducing crisis PR by working with their media allies. So and they said the government DHS could not do that themselves, and so they set up this this basically constellation of State Department, Pentagon, and and IC networks to run this pre censorship campaign, which by their own math had 22,000,000 tweets on Twitter alone.
And mind you, they did this on 15 platforms. This is hundreds of millions of posts, which were all scanned and banned or throttled so that they cannot be amplified or they exist in a sort of limited state purgatory or had these frictions affixed to them in the form of fact checking labels where you couldn't actually click through the thing or you had to it was it was an inconvenience to be able to share it. Now they did this seven months before the election because at the time, they they were worried about the perceived legitimacy of a Biden victory in the case of a so called Red Mirage blue shift event. They knew the only way that Biden would be able to would win mathematically was through the disproportionate Democrat use of mail in ballots. They knew there would be a crisis because it was going to look extremely weird if Trump looked like he won by seven states in you know, and then three days later, it comes out actually the election switch.
I mean, that that would put the election crisis of the Bush Gore election, on a level of steroids that the national security say said, well, the the public will not be prepared for. So what we need to do is we need to in advance, we need to pre censor the ability to even question legitimacy. This took out Wait.
Speaker 0: Wait. May may I ask you to pause right there?
Speaker 1: Key influences, bro.
Speaker 0: So what you're saying is what you're suggesting is they knew the outcome of the election seven months before it was held.
Speaker 1: It looks very bad.
Speaker 0: Certainly what they did. Yes, Mike. It does look very bad.
Speaker 1: You know, and especially when you combine this with the fact that this is right on the heels of the impeachment, the Pentagon led CIA led impeachment. You know, it was, Eric Cimarello from the CIA, and it was the Vindman's from the Pentagon, who led the impeachment of Trump in late twenty nineteen over, you know, an alleged phone call around withholding Ukraine aid. This same network, which came straight out of the Pentagon hybrid warfare network military censorship network created after the first Ukraine crisis in 2014, were the lead architects of the Ukraine impeachment in 2019 and then essentially came back on steroids as part of the twenty twenty election censorship operation. But, you know, from their perspective, I mean, it certainly looks like the perfect crime. These were the people DHS, at the time, had actually federalized much of of the National Election infrast administration through this 01/06/2017 executive order from outgoing Obama, DHS head, Jed Johnson, which essentially wrapped all 50 states up into a formal DHS partnership.
So DHS was simultaneously in charge of the administration of the election in many respects and the censorship of anyone who challenged the administration of the election. This is like, you know, putting essentially the defendant, of a trial, as the judge and jury of the trial. It was very
Speaker 0: But but you're not describing democracy. I mean, you're describing a country in which democracy is impossible.
Speaker 1: What I'm essentially describing is military rule. I mean, this is I mean, what what's happened with the rise of the censorship industry is a total inversion of the idea of democracy itself. Democracy sort of draws its legitimacy from the idea that it is ruled by consent of the people being ruled. That is, it's not really being ruled by an overlord because the government is actually just our will expressed by our consent with who we vote for. The whole push after the twenty sixteen election and after Brexit and after a couple of other social media run elections that went the wrong way from what the State Department wanted, like the twenty sixteen Philippines election, was to completely invert everything that we described as being the underpinnings of a democratic society in order to deal with the threat of free speech on the Internet.
And what they essentially said is, we need to redefine democracy from being about the will of the voters to being about the sanctity of democratic institutions. And who are the democratic institutions? Oh, it's us. It's the military. It's NATO.
It's the IMF and the World Bank. It's the mainstream media. It is the NGOs. And, of course, these NGOs are largely State Department funded or IC funded. It's essentially all of the elite establishments that were under threat from the rise of domestic populism that declared their own consensus to be the new definition of democracy.
Because if you define democracy as being the strength of democratic institutions rather than a focus on the will of the voters, then what you're left with is essentially democracy is just the consensus building architecture within the within the democratic institutions themselves. And from their perspective, that takes a lot of work. I mean, I mean, the amount of work these people do I mean, for example, we mentioned the Atlantic Council, which is one of these big coordinating mechanisms for the oil and gas industry in a region, for the for the finance and the JP Morgans and and the BlackRocks in a region, for the NGOs in the region, for the media in the region. All of these need to reach a consensus, and that process takes a lot of time. It takes a lot of work and a lot of negotiation.
From their perspective, that's democracy. Democracy is getting the NGOs to agree with BlackRock, to to agree with the with the Wall Street Journal, you know, to to agree with, you know, the the community and activist groups who are onboarded with respect to a particular initiative. That is the difficult vote building process from their perspective. At at the end of the day, a bunch of, you know, populist groups decide that they like a truck driver who's popular on TikTok more than the, you know, carefully constructed consensus of the NATO military brass, well, then from their perspective, you know, that is now an attack on democracy. And this is what this whole branding effort was.
And, of course, democracy, again, has that magic regime change predicate where democracy is is our magic watch word to be able to overthrow governments from the ground up in a sort of color revolution style, whole of society effort to topple a a a a democratically elected government from the inside. For example, as we did in Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych was democratically elected by the Ukrainian people, like him or hate him, I'm not even issuing an opinion there. But the fact is, is we color revolution him out of office. We January 6 him out of office actually, to be frank. I mean, with respect to the you had State Department funded right sector thugs and, you know, dollars 5,000,000,000 worth of civil society money pumped into this to overthrow a democratically elected government in the name of democracy.
And they took that special set of skills home and now it's here perhaps potentially to stay. And this has fundamentally changed the the nature of American governance because of the threat of, you know, one small voice becoming popular on social media.
Speaker 0: May may I ask you a question? So into that that group of institutions that you say now define democracy, the NGOs, foreign policy establishment, etcetera, you you included the mainstream media. Now in 2021, the NSA broke into my private text apps and read them and then leaked them to the New York Times against me. That just happened again to me last week. And I'm wondering how common that is for the intel agencies to work with so called mainstream media like the New York Times to hurt their opponents?
Speaker 1: Well, that is the function of these interstitial government funded nongovernmental organizations and think tanks like, for example, we mentioned the Atlantic Council, which is, NATO's think tank, but other groups like the Aspen Institute, which draws the lion's share of its funding from the State Department and other government agencies. The Aspen Institute was busted doing the same thing with the Hunter Biden laptop censorship. You had this strange situation where the FBI had advanced knowledge of the pending publication of the Hunter Biden laptop story. And then magically, the Aspen Institute, which is run by essentially former CIA, former NSA, former FBI and then a bunch of sort of civil society organizations, all hold a mass stakeholder censorship simulation, a three day conference. This came out and Joe Roth was there.
This is a big part of the Twitter file leaks and it's been mentioned in multiple congressional investigations. But somehow, the Aspen Institute, which is basically an addendum of the national security state, got the exact same information that the national security state spied on journalists and political figures to obtain and not only leaked it, but then basically did a joint coordinated censorship simulator in in September, '2 months before the election, in order, just like with the censorship of mail in ballots, to be in ready position to pre censor anyone online amplifying
Speaker 0: Wait a second.
Speaker 1: Story that had not even broken yet.
Speaker 0: The Aspen Institute? So, I mean, which is, by the way, I Yes. Spent my life in Washington. It's kind of a I mean, Walter Isaacson, formerly of Time magazine, ran it from former president of CNN. I had no idea it was part of the National Security State.
I had no idea its funding came from the US government.
Speaker 1: You know, this
Speaker 0: is the first time I've ever heard that. But given assuming what you're saying is true, it's a little weird that Walter Isaacson left Aspen's to to write a biography of Elon Musk. Strange or no? Yeah.
Speaker 1: You you know, I don't know. I I haven't read that book. I I from what I've heard from people, it's a relatively fair treatment. I, just total speculation, but I suspect that Walter Isaacson has struggled with this issue and may not even firmly fall in one particular place in the sense that Walter Isaacson did a series of interviews of Rick Stengel, actually with the Atlantic Council and in other settings, where he interviewed Rick Stengel specifically on the issue of the need to get rid of the First Amendment and the threat that free speech on social media poses to democracy. Now at the time, I was very concerned.
This was between 2017 and 2019 when he did these Rick Stengel interviews. I was very concerned because Isaacson expressed what seemed to me to be a highly sympathetic view about the Rick Stengel perspective on killing the First Amendment. Now, he didn't formally endorse that position, but it left me very skittish about Isaacson. But what I should say is, at the time, I don't think very many people, in fact, I know virtually nobody in the country, had any idea how deep the rabbit hole went when it came to the construction of the censorship industry and how deep the tentacles had grown within the military and the national security state in order to buoy and consolidate it. Much of that, frankly, did not even come to public light until even last year.
Frankly, some of that was galvanized by Elon Musk's acquisition in the Twitter files and the Republican turnover in the House that allowed these multiple investigations, the lawsuits like Missouri v. Biden and the discovery process there, and multiple other things like the Disinformation Governance Board, who, by the way, the interim head of that the head of that, Nina Jankowicz, got her start in the censorship industry from this exact same clandestine intelligence community censorship network created after the twenty fourteen Crimea situation. Nina Jankovic, when her name came up in 2022 as part of the Disinformation Governance Board, I almost fell out of my chair because I had been tracking Nina's network for almost five years at that point when her name came up as part of The UK inter cluster cell of a busted clandestine operation to censor the Internet called the Integrity Initiative, which was created by the UK Foreign Office and was backed by NATO's political affairs unit in order to carry out this thing that we talked about at the beginning of this dialogue, the NATO's sort of psychological inoculation and the ability to kill so called Russian propaganda or rising political groups who wanted to maintain energy relations with Russia at a time when The US was trying to kill the Nord Stream and other and other, pipeline relations.
Well,
Speaker 0: they did that.
Speaker 1: Marine Le Pen imprint. They they Nina Jankovic was a part of this this outfit. And then who is the who is the head of it after Nina Jankovic went down? It was Michael Chertoff. And Michael Chertoff was running the the Aspen Institute cyber group.
And then this and the Aspen Institute then goes on to be the censorship simulator for the Hunter Biden laptop story. And then two years later, Chertoff is then the head of the disinformation governance board after Nina is forced to step down.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Our close friends are
Speaker 1: Of course, Michael Chertoff was the chairman at bay. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Of course. Yeah.
Michael Chertoff was the chairman of the yeah. The the largest military contractor in Europe, BAE, military is so So
Speaker 0: It's all connected. You've blown my mind so many times in this conversation that I'm gonna need a nap directly after it's done. So I've just got two more two more questions for you. One short, one a little longer. Short one is for people who've made it this far an hour in and wanna know more about this topic, and by the way, I hope you will come back whenever you have the time, to explore different threads of the story.
But for people who wanna do research on their own, how can your research on this, be found on the Internet?
Speaker 1: Sure. So our foundation is foundationforfreedomonline.com. We we publish all manner of of reports on every aspect of the censorship industry from what we talked about with the role of the military industrial complex and national security state to what the universities are doing to, I sometimes refer to as digital MK Ultra. There's just the field of basically the science of censorship and how and the funding of these psychological manipulation methods in order to nudge people into different belief systems as they did with COVID, as they did with energy and every sensitive policy issue is what they essentially had an ambition for. But, so, my foundationforfreedomonline.com website is one way.
The other way is just on x, my handle is mikebencyber. I'm very active there and publish a lot of long form video and written content on all this. I think it's one of the most important issues in the world today.
Speaker 0: So it certainly is. And so that leads directly and seamlessly to my final question, which is about x. And I'm not just saying this because I post content there, but I think objectively, it's the last big platform that's free or sort of free or more free. You post there too. But, you know, we're at the very beginning of an election year with a couple of different wars unfolding simultaneously, in in 2024.
So do you expect that that platform can stay free for the duration of this year?
Speaker 1: It's under an extraordinary amount of pressure and that pressure is going to continue to mount as the election approaches. Elon Musk is a very unique individual and he has a unique buffer perhaps when it comes to the national security state because the national security state is actually quite reliant on Elon Musk properties, whether that's for the electrical, the sort of the green revolution when it comes to Tesla and the battery technology there when it comes to SpaceX. The State Department is hugely dependent on SpaceX because of its unbelievable sort of pioneering and saturating presence in the field of low Earth orbit satellites that are basically how our telecom system runs, the things like Starlink. There are dependencies that the national security state has on Elon Musk. I'm not sure he'd have as much room to negotiate if he had become the world's richest man selling at a lemonade stand.
So there's and if the National Security State goes too hard on him by invoking something like CFIUS to sort of nationalize some of these properties, I think the shockwave that it would send to the international investor community would be irrecoverable at a time when we're engaged in great power competition. So they're trying to kill they're trying to sort of induce, I think, a sort of corporate regime change through a series of things involving a sort of death by a thousand paper cuts. I think there are seven or eight different Justice Department or SEC or FTC investigations into Elon Musk properties that all started after his acquisition of X. But then what they're trying to do right now is what I call the Transatlantic Flank Attack two point o. You know, we talked in this in this dialogue about how the censorship industry really got its start when a bunch of state department exiles, who were expecting promotions, took their special set of skills in coercing European countries to pass sanctions on themselves, to cut off their own leg to spite themselves in order to pass sanctions on Russia.
They ran back that same playbook with doing a roadshow for censorship instead for sanctions. We are now witnessing, you know, transatlantic flag attack two point zero, if you will, which is because they have lost a lot of their federal government powers to do this same censorship operation they've been doing from 2018 to 2022, in part because the House has totally turned on them, in part because of the media, in part because Missouri v. Biden, which won a slam dunk case actually banning government censorship at the trial court and appellate court levels, is now between this before the Supreme Court. They've now moved into two strategies. One of them is state level censorship laws.
California just passed a new law, which the censorship industry totally drove from start to finish around require they call it transform platform accountability and transparency, which is basically forcing Elon Musk to give over the kind of narrative mapping data that these CIA conduits and Pentagon cutouts were using to create these weapons of mass deletion, these abilities to just censor everything at scale because they had all the internal platform data. Elon Musk took that away. They're using state laws like this new California law to crack that open. But the major threat right now is the threat from Europe with something called the EU Digital Services Act, which was cooked up in tandem with folks like NewsGuard, which is run by which has a board of Michael Hayden, Head of the CIA, NSA, four star general. Rick Stengel is on that board from the State Department's Propaganda Office.
Tom Ridge is on that board from the Department of Homeland Security. Oh, and Anders Fogh Rasmussen is on that board. He was the General Secretary of NATO under the Obama administration. So you have NATO, the CIA, the NSA, four star general, DHS, and the state department working with the EU to craft the censorship laws that now are the largest existential threat to x other than potentially x advertiser boycotts because there is now disinformation is now banned as a matter of law in in in the EU. And the EU is a bigger market for x than The US.
There's only 300,000,000 some people in The US. There's 450,000,000 in Europe. X is now forced to comply with this brand new law that just got ratified this year, where they either need to forfeit 6% of their global annual revenue to the EU to maintain operations there or put in place essentially the kind of CIA bumper cars, if you will, that I've been describing over the course of this in order to have an internal mechanism to censor anything that the EU, which is just a proxy for NATO, deems to be disinformation. And you can bet with 65 elections around the around the globe this year, you can you can predict every single time what they're gonna define disinformation as. So that's the main the main fight right now is is dealing with the Transatlantic flank attack from Europe.
Speaker 0: I've said this five times, but that's just one of the most remarkable stories I've ever heard, and I'm grateful to you for bringing it to us. Mike Benz, Executive Director of the Foundation for Freedom Online, and hope we see you again.
Speaker 1: Thanks, Tucker.
Speaker 0: Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization. Societies are defined by what they will not commit. What we're watching is the total inversion of virtue.
@myhiddenvalue - Not A Number
💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰 Quick 30min documentary on how Rothschild, Rockefeller, and Globalist Elites created the U.S. Federal Reserve system (non-gold backed fiat paper money). https://t.co/nRTZy4MquW
Video Transcript AI Summary
This video reveals the system responsible for inequality in the world today. The government borrows currency by issuing bonds, which are glorified IOUs. The banks buy these bonds and sell them to the Federal Reserve at a profit. The Federal Reserve then creates currency out of thin air by writing checks that have no funds behind them. This currency is used to buy more bonds, and the process repeats, enriching the banks and increasing the national debt. The system relies on ever-increasing levels of debt and is unsustainable. The Federal Reserve is a private corporation with stockholders, and the system is a form of legalized theft. The video encourages viewers to educate themselves and others about the system and join the discussion for a better monetary system.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You are about to discover the system that is ultimately responsible for most of the inequality in our world today. The powers that be do not want you to know about this. As this system is what has kept them at the top of the financial food chain for the last 100 years. Learning this will change your life because it'll change the choices that you make. If enough people learn it, it'll change the world because it'll change the system.
For this is the biggest hidden secret of money. Never in human history have so many been plundered by so few, and it's all accomplished through this, the biggest scam in the history of mankind. They say that money doesn't grow on trees, but the truth is that the modern banking system creates currency far faster than trees can grow. Most people don't have a clue how currency is created. Economists and bankers make it sound so complex that people think they can't understand it.
But I'm going to strip our monetary system down to its essence so that you can see the scam behind the curtain and just how it affects you. Every modern society creates currency in pretty much the same way. But since the US dollar is the majority of the world's currency, I'm gonna use the United States as our example. It all starts when some politician says, vote for me, and I'll make sure the government provides you more free stuff than my opponent will. But there's no such thing as a free lunch.
So to provide that supposedly free stuff, the politicians vote for the country to spend more than its income. This is called deficit spending. To pay for that deficit spending, the Treasury borrows currency by issuing a bond. So what's a bond? If you think about it, a bond is really nothing but a glorified IOU.
It's a pretty piece of paper with numbers printed on it that says, loan me a $1,000,000,000,000 today, and I promise over a 10 year period, I'm gonna pay you back that $1,000,000,000,000 plus interest. But what you need to understand is that treasury bonds are our national debt. These glorified IOUs are to be paid back by you and I and our descendants through future taxation. Therefore, when the government issues a bond, it steals prosperity out of the future so that it can spend it today. The treasury then holds a bond auction, and the world's largest banks show up and compete to buy part of our national debt and make a profit on it by earning interest.
You'll notice that as we move through this process, the big banks are there taking a cut every step of the way. This isn't by chance as you'll see shortly. Then through a shell game called open market operations, the banks get to sell some of those bonds to the Federal Reserve at a profit. To pay for the bonds, the Federal Reserve opens up its big old checkbook and writes bad, bogus, counterfeit checks that should balance because they're drawn on an account that always has a zero balance. There isn't 1 penny in there.
To quote from the Boston Federal Reserve, when you or I write a check, there must be sufficient funds in our account to cover that check. But when the Federal Reserve writes a check, there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money. The Fed then hands those checks to the banks, and at this point, currency springs into existence. The banks then take that currency and buy more bonds at the next Treasury auction.
But what is a check? A check is also an IOU. When you write a check, you're making a note that says, here's my IOU for cash. All you have to do is go to the bank and pick it up. Now it's very, very important that you understand this process because we're going to come back later and show you the devastating effect this has on you.
The treasury issues IOUs, bonds. The banks then buy those IOUs with currency. The Federal Reserve then writes IOUs, checks, and hands them to the banks in exchange for the treasuries IOUs, the bonds, and currency is created. So what's really happening is the Federal Reserve and the Treasury are just swapping IOUs using the banks as middlemen and abracadabra presto currency magically springs into existence. This process repeats and repeats over and over again, enriching the banks and in getting the public by raising the national debt.
The end result is that there's a buildup of bonds at the Federal Reserve and currency at the Treasury. This process is also where all paper currency comes from. The Federal Reserve and the government mistakenly call it base money because they didn't watch episode 1 of this series, and they don't know the difference between money and currency. But I will correctly refer to it as base currency because it is not money. It is currency.
And as we've learned, there is a big difference. Money has to be a store of value and maintain its purchasing power over long periods of time. We learned in episode 1 that earlier in our history, our paper currency was just a claim check. It was a representation for real money of intrinsic value, the gold and silver that was held on deposit at the treasury. You could walk into any bank and slap your currency, like, say, a $20 bill on the counter and redeem it for real money, a $20 gold piece.
But now this base currency that's piling up back here is really nothing but a receipt or a claim check on an IOU that bond. So it's really nothing but a supply of numbers. The Treasury then deposits the newly created currency into the various branches of the government, and the politicians say, hey, thanks for that. And the government does some deficit spending on public works, social programs, and war. The government employees, contractors, and soldiers then deposit their pay in the banks.
Now this may come as a shock to you, but when you deposit your currency with the bank, you're not actually depositing it into an account to be safely held in trust for you. Instead, you're actually loaning the bank your currency and within certain legal limits, they can do with it pretty much anything they please. This includes gambling in the stock market and loaning it out at a profit, of course. Now, this is where the machine of currency creation really gets cranking, because this is where something called fractional reserve lending comes into play. Fractional reserve lending is exactly what it says.
The banks are allowed to reserve only a fraction of your deposit and loan the rest out. Although reserve ratios may vary, I'm going to use a 10% reserve ratio as our example. If you deposit $100 in your account, the bank can legally take $90 of it and loan it out without telling it. The bank must hold $10 of your deposit in reserve just in case you want some of it. These reserves are called vault cash.
But why does your bank account still say you have $100 if the bank has stolen $90 of it? Because the bank left IOUs it created called bank credit, in its place. Now I know this sounds crazy, but here it is in black and white from the Fed. Commercial banks create checkbook money when they grant a loan simply by adding new deposit dollars in accounts on their books in exchange for a borrower's IOU. These are nothing but numbers that the banks type into their computers.
And even though these bank credit IOU numbers are very different from base currency numbers, because they only exist in computers, they are still currency. So now, there is $190 in existence. Now the reason people take out loans from the banks is to buy something. They're going to buy a house or a car or something like that. So the borrower takes the $90 that the bank loaned to him from your account and he pays the seller of the item.
But then the seller deposits that currency into his account, and his bank loans out 90% of that and leaves bank credit numbers in its place. So now there's $271 in existence. This process repeats and repeats until under a 10% reserve ratio. An initial deposit of just $100 can create up to $1,000 of bank credit, all backed by $100 of bulk cash, just 10%. But as I said, reserve ratios vary wildly.
On some deposits, it's 10%. On others, it's 3%. And on some forms of deposits, reserve requirements are 0. The result is that the expansion of the currency supply by the banks is far greater than even this and then it gets redeposited and relent, redeposited and relent, redeposited and relent over and over again creating bank credit all the way. This is where the vast majority of our currency supply comes from.
In fact, 92 to 96% of all currency in existence is created not by the government, but here in the banking system. Now massive amounts of currency spewing into society may at first sound like a fun idea. That is, until you remember one of the most important hidden secrets of money from episode 1, That the prices of everyday goods and services act as a sponge on an expanding currency supply. The more currency we have, the more prices rise. This is where inflation comes from.
The true definition of inflation is an expansion of the currency supply. Rising prices are merely the symptom. So our entire currency supply is nothing but a couple of bucks whipped up in this hocus pocus scam where the treasury and the federal reserve swap glorified IOUs and a bunch of numbers that the banks just type into their computers. That's it. That's our entire currency supply.
It's nothing but a supply of numbers. Some of them printed, most of them typed, and there is nothing else. But if you thought that was crazy, get ready to enter the twilight zone of modern economics. We work for some of that currency supply. True wealth is your time, but we trade away moments of our lives hour by hour, day by day, and year by year for numbers that somebody printed on pieces of paper or just typed into a computer.
Now those numbers represent our blood, sweat, tears, labor, ideas, and talent. We are what gives the currency its value. But here comes the really cool joke. We work hard so that we can save some of that currency so that we can pay the tax collector in the United States, known as the IRS. They then turn it over to the Treasury so that the treasury can pay the principal plus interest on that bond that the Federal Reserve bought with a check drawn on an account that has nothing in it.
Now let's do a recap on this section because this is where the system begins to rob you and I on a massive scale. Much of our taxes are not used for schools, roads, and public services, but to pay interest on bonds that the Federal Reserve bought with a check drawn on an account that has nothing in it. The Federal Reserve is committing fraud, but here's one of the biggest secrets of them all. Before the establishment of the Federal Reserve, there was no need for personal income tax. The Federal Reserve was created in 1913, and that very same year, the constitution was amended to allow income tax.
Do you really think this was just a coincidence? Ask yourself how much income tax you've paid over your lifetime. Much of it has been silently siphoned away into the hands of those who own the system. Yes. This system has owners.
Who they are is an even bigger secret that we'll get to shortly. But first, we need to understand the mumbo jumbo of the so called debt ceiling. It's all based on a huge paradox. There was interest due on that bond, and there was interest due on every one of those loans that the banks made. That means that there is interest due on every dollar in existence.
Let me ask you something. If you borrow the very first dollar into existence and that's the only dollar that exists on the planet, but you promise to pay it back plus another dollars worth of interest, where do you get the 2nd dollar to pay the interest? The answer is that you have to borrow that one into existence and promise to pay it back with interest as well. So now there are $2 in existence, but you owe 4, and so on and so on. The result is there's never enough currency to pay the debt.
There is always more debt in the system than there is currency in existence to pay the debt. Therefore, the whole system is impossible. It is finite. It will come to an end one day. What would happen if the government stopped borrowing to do deficit spending?
Are the payments on those treasury bonds going to stop? What would happen if the public stopped borrowing and going deeper into debt? Are your house and car payments going to stop? No. There is a payment due every month on the principal plus the interest on every dollar in existence, and those payments do not stop.
If we stop borrowing, then no new currency is created to replace the currency that we used to make those payments. Whether you're making a payment on a loan or paying tax to make a payment on a bond, the portion of the payment that goes to pay off the principal extinguishes that portion of the debt, but the debt also extinguishes the currency. Currency and debt are like matter and anti matter. When they meet, they annihilate each other. If we just pay off the principal only on all the loans and bonds that exist, the entire currency supply just vanishes.
So if we don't go deeper into debt every year, look what happens. The whole thing goes into a deflationary collapse under the weight of those payments. Politicians and pundits alike talk about balancing the budget, paying down the debt, and living within our means. They don't understand that that is deflationary. It is impossible to do under our current monetary system without collapsing the whole economy.
This is why any talk of a debt ceiling is not only ridiculous, it's delusional. The system is designed to require ever increasing levels of debt just to continue. And that's why politicians will always kick the can down the road and raise this so called debt ceiling over and over again until the whole system finally collapses under its own wave. In other words, they don't want it to collapse on their watch. The founding fathers of the United States knew the dangers of central banking and fought to free themselves from this very thing.
The revolutionary war started out as a tax revolt, but now we must pay tax just to have a monetary system. Having just suffered through the hyperinflation of the continental dollar, which was printed into oblivion to finance the revolutionary war, they understood the dangers of fiat currency and debt based monetary systems. So to protect future generations from institutional theft and out of control government, they wrote into the constitution that only gold and silver can be money for the simple fact that you can't print them. Our current system is not only unconstitutional, but it robs us of the liberty and prosperity our forefathers fought and died for. We are all feeling the effects of ignoring the constitution right now.
By forcing more currency into circulation, our purchasing power is diluted. Inflation is a slow and insidious stealth tax that is simply the result of this debt based monetary system. This system empowers and benefits those who create the currency and receive it first as they get to spend it into circulation before it has an effect on the economy. They're stealing purchasing power from you and transferring it to the banks and the government every hour of every day because of this false monetary system. And it's not like the people at the top don't know this.
To quote the Fed Reserve, the decrease in purchasing power incurred by the holders of money due to inflation imparts gains to the issuers of money. This is a fraud. It is a pyramid scheme. It is a Ponzi scheme. It's a scam, and it's a lie.
Our entire monetary system is nothing but a form of legalized theft. But here's the biggest con job of them all. The Federal Reserve is not federal. It has stockholders. There is no federal agency that has stockholders.
What's a stockholder? A share of stock represents a percentage of ownership in a corporation. So the stockholders are the owners of that corporation. Therefore, the Federal Reserve is a private corporation with owners. And you can see it for yourself if you go to the Federal Reserve's website, and it will say, the stockholders receive an annual dividend of 6%.
Now we know that the stock in the Federal Reserve was originally issued to the largest banks in the United States. But because of mergers and acquisitions through the years, you can't actually trace who owns the stock in the Federal Reserve. That's a very closely guarded secret. My guess would be that the owners are those primary dealers, the banks that get to make a profit by selling part of our national debt, those bonds to the Federal Reserve who buys them with a check for nothing. Then we pay tax to pay the principal and the interest on those bonds so that the Federal Reserve can pay the banks a 6% dividend.
Don't be alarmed if you don't quite comprehend the deception of this system at first glance. Very few people do. It is purposely complex. The economist John Maynard Keynes once wrote, by this means, government may secretly and unobserved confiscate the wealth of the people and not 1 man in a 1000000 will detect the theft. I believe that presented correctly, anyone can understand this system regardless of how complex it is.
So let's do a recap and break it down even more. The way the system works is that step 1, the government creates glorified IOUs. These bonds increase our national debt and put the public on the hook to pay it back. Step 2, IOUs are swapped to create currency. The treasury sells the bonds to the banks.
The banks then turn around and sell our national debt at a profit to the Federal Reserve, which they probably own. The Federal Reserve then opens its checkbook that doesn't have a penny in it and buys those IOUs with IOUs that it writes checks on a checking account that has a zero balance. Then they give those checks to the banks and currency just springs into existence, and then the whole process repeats. This results in a buildup of bonds at the Federal Reserve and currency at the Treasury, which is really just a supply of numbers. The Treasury then deposits the numbers in the various branches of the government, and we get to step 3.
The government spends the numbers on promises, public works, social programs and war. Then the government employees, contractors and soldiers deposit their pay into the banks. And we get to step 4, where the banks multiply the numbers by magically inventing more IOUs through fractional reserve lending, where they steal a portion of everyone's deposit and lend it out. That currency gets redeposited, and then a portion is stolen again. And the process repeats over and over, magnifying the currency supply exponentially.
Then we work for some of those numbers, which brings us to step 5, where our numbers are taxed. We pay tax to the IRS who then turns our numbers over to the Treasury, so the Treasury can pay the principal plus the interest on bonds that were purchased by the Federal Reserve with a check from nothing. Then we get to step 6, the debt ceiling delusion. The system is designed to require ever increasing levels of debt and will eventually collapse under its own weight because politicians always kick the can down the road. They don't want it to collapse on their watch.
And finally, step 7, the secret owners take their cut. The world's largest banks own the Federal Reserve. Those banks make a profit selling our national debts to the Fed. They make a profit when the Fed pays them interest on the reserves held at the Fed, and the Fed pays them a 6% dividend on their ownership of the Fed. This system is fundamentally evil.
It funnels wealth from the working population to the government and the banking sector. It is the cause of the artificial booms and busts of modern economies, and it causes great disparity of wealth between the rich and the working class. And it is only possible because we no longer use real money. We use currency. But worst of all, it is a form of enslavement.
Bond is the root word of bondage. Whenever a government issues a bond, it is a promise to make us pay tax in the future. Nobody asked you if you wanted to pay tax today for the prosperity we all enjoyed in the last century. Nobody is asking our children if they want to work hard in the future to pay for the prosperity we're enjoying now. George Washington once wrote to James Madison, no generation has the right to contract debts greater than can be paid off during the course of its own existence.
By stealing prosperity from tomorrow so we can spend it today, we enslave ourselves and future generations. Now this all sounds pretty bad, but there is great hope for you are the greatest threat to this false monetary system. This system relies on the public being ignorant of its workings. Please share this knowledge with everyone you know because an informed public that fully understands the system can build a better future for generations to come. And now I leave you with this quote widely attributed to a former director of the Bank of England.
The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin. Bankers on the earth take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money and control credit. And with the flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again.
But if you want to continue as the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money and to control credit. This is the Federal Reserve in Washington DC. It's located on Constitution Street, and that is just as much of a joke as the New York Fed being located on Liberty Street. Both of them are unconstitutional. Both of them limit our liberty, and they transfer wealth away from us every second of every day to the Federal Reserve, to the government, and to the banking sector.
You are now among the 1000000 who can detect the theft of your prosperity. So the big question is, what can you do about it? 1, watch this video until you can describe and teach it to others. Those who understand this system can make preparations for its unavoidable collapse and protect themselves. History shows that those who don't will probably be wiped out.
2, share this video with everyone, especially those you care about. All it takes is a mouse click or 2 to get this message in front of 1,000,000. Post this video on Facebook, tweet it, email it to loved ones. Please share it wherever you can. 3, join the conversation.
The current world monetary system is based on a 300 year old design meant to enrich a few at the expense of the money. There must be a better way. At hidden secrets of money.com, we've created an open source platform for the design and development of a new world monetary system. We are calling on every economist, every student, every college, every bright mind, and anyone who cares to join the discussion. In educating ourselves and each other, we can prevent the further loss of our freedoms and maybe, just maybe, win some of them back.
Speaker 1: I think, your episode 4 is very beneficial, very helpful. It's gonna introduce these ideas to a lot of people. And like I've just been talking about, we have to change people's mind. And the more they understand it, the better. And I think we're at this point now where more people in the last several years, 4, 5 years, have thought about the Fed than they ever have in the last the previous 95 years.
So I think an explanation and diagrams to show it is very helpful because quite frankly, they're not gonna get it in their grade school. They're not gonna get it in their high school. They're not gonna get it in college unless they're in a very rare circumstance to understand how, how this works.
Speaker 2: You know, for years before I got involved in, really studying gold and some of the things I write and talk about today, I was a monetary economist for decades. You know, in your video, you talk about the primary dealers. I was chief counsel and chief credit officer, one of the largest primary dealers for 10 years. So I had an inside seat on the Treasury market and have the privilege of working with several, former vice chairman of the Board of Governors, Manley Johnson and David Mullins, going back to the eighties nineties. So I'm very immersed in what you were talking about.
I thought it was extremely accurate, extremely clear. I didn't think you were stretching on any points. It was it was really like something out of a PhD course, except that it was very easy to understand. I think it's accessible. I think we're seeing a little bit of a revolution in communications in the following sense.
You know, as you point out, the Fed was created in 1913. Well, in 1913, there was no web. There was no YouTube, no Twitter. There's really no one to kind of stand up and oppose the Fed or call them out, if you will, or really get into a discussion that everyday Americans could follow. That's not true now with social media and everything else.
You can reach out to 1,000,000 and tens of millions of people and tell them what's going on. I think you've done that. You've done it successfully. I applaud it. I think this is a great video.
I look forward to seeing it again. I know millions of people will enjoy it.
Speaker 3: Well, as we know, the Federal Reserve believes it can create money out of thin air, not realize money is supposed to represent real products and services. And what people don't realize is when the Fed does that, in effect, as Keynes pointed out, it's a form of taxation. It's a form of confiscation. And because people don't see it, the politicos get away with it, but it also undermines social trust. It just is corrosive throughout society.
We're going to have a lot of turmoil in the coming years, but it's gonna be the kind of turmoil that leads to positive things. So, don't despair. Get out there and fight because, the tide is gonna turn. This is gonna be the status last stand.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 4: This episode of Mike Maloney's hidden secrets of money was brought to you by goldsilver.com and the new Silver Pegasus round. To learn how to protect your family and turn the coming economic storms into opportunity, visit goldsilver.com.
@NetworksManager - Bruce Porter Jr.
Do you want to get rid of the central banking cartel? https://t.co/V01U5QpAsu
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Federal Reserve is not a government agency, but a banking cartel disguised as one. Congress gave it enforcement power, making it seem like a government entity. In reality, it's a group of banks that self-regulate by setting industry rules. These rules, passed as the Federal Reserve Act, give the appearance of government authority. If not followed, individuals can face imprisonment. In essence, the Federal Reserve is simply a banking cartel.
Translation: The Federal Reserve is a banking cartel that appears to be a government agency but is actually a group of banks regulating themselves.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, you asked the question in your book that, Creature from Jekyll Island. What is the Federal Reserve, and what is your answer?
Speaker 1: Well, what it is, it's a cartel. It it's not a government agency. It has the appearance of it being a government agency and they went to great lengths to give it that that facade. It does have the power of government because congress voted to give the power of of enforcement to it. But in its essence, underneath it, it's a cartel.
It's nothing different than a banana cartel or an oil cartel or sugar cartel. It happens to be a banking cartel. They got together. They drew up the rules and regulations for their own industry to self regulate their own industry is what cartels do, and then they send it to congress, and they took off the the label at the top that said banking cartel may erase that, and they said Federal Reserve Act. Congress passed it into law and that's why we think it's a government agency is because if you don't obey the rules that they set down for their own industry, you go to prison.
And so it looks like a government agency. But basically, the answer to your question is it's a banking cartel.
@iluminatibot - illuminatibot
Alex Jones being based and redpilled https://t.co/ZEzkRgWyZZ
Video Transcript AI Summary
This is about society destroying normality and basic human biology. People in demon outfits are pushing inclusivity, even around children. Men in goblin demon costumes are getting too close to kids, which no species would allow. This needs to stop now.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: All this is is a societal wrecking ball to destroy any semblance of normality, any semblance of basic human biology that you see in the bees and you see in the birds. Imagine if somebody in a demon outfit showed up next to a baby, baby giraffe and said, hi. I'm a demon. Be inclusive. Don't be mean to me.
Let me wear demon horns and come up and look like a complete alien from another planet. Let a space alien and by the way, this is a program. They dress up like space aliens all over the United States and all over the world. I told you. In horrible demon psychopath outfits that make Pennywise look beautiful.
And they show up, and they have their way with your children in demon outfits. I mean, if you've got men that look like 400 pound goblin demons with your children, there's nothing you all put up with. There isn't
Speaker 1: a species on the planet that would let something that looks like a space alien get up close to its kids, but only in America does it happen. And I'm sick of it. I'm tired of it right now. I had to handle it more.
@realstewpeters - Stew Peters
Watch @IvanRaiklin become red-pilled on the JQ in real time. https://t.co/dkYgSvXXz9
@iluminatibot - illuminatibot
Old crusty POS David Rockefeller’s 1991 speech will give you the chills. https://t.co/xUMPteqmJ1
Video Transcript AI Summary
An individual praised media allies, noting a broken confidence that words would not leave the room.
The speaker expressed gratitude to publications like the Washington Post and the New York Times for their discretion over 40 years, which enabled the development of their plan for the world. They stated the world is now prepared to march toward world government.
The speaker claims these men aim to create a world system of financial control in private hands to dominate each country's political system and the world economy, seeking total and quiet control of the entire world, with the CFR as their most visible conduit.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Praised his media allies, but his confidence that his words would not leave the room was later broken.
Speaker 1: We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine, and other publications whose directors have attended our meetings and restricted our policies of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the right fighting of publicity. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march toward the world government.
Speaker 0: It reveals that these men aim to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. In short, they seek total and quiet control of the entire world. And the c f r is their most visible conduit for carrying out that agenda.
@myhiddenvalue - Not A Number
It's happening 🔥🔥🔥 Thomas Massiejust introduced the Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act, HR 8421 https://t.co/ueHEX8r7kd
Video Transcript AI Summary
It's time to end the Federal Reserve. Representative Thomas Massie from Kentucky has introduced the "End the Feds" bill, HR 8421, aiming to abolish the Federal Reserve Act. He believes that the Federal Reserve is responsible for crippling inflation, having created a trillion dollars during COVID to fund unprecedented deficit spending. This has devalued the dollar and led to high inflation, effectively acting as a hidden tax on Americans. The national debt has soared to $34 trillion due to continuous money printing. To support this initiative, contact your state representative and express your support for Massie's bill. Stay updated by following him on social media and sharing this message.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It is time to end the feds. And from a unanimous vote from the ex community to end the feds at 87%, US Representative Thomas Massie from Kentucky, the bluegrass state, let's go, 4th congressional district, has just introduced a bill called in the feds, Federal Reserve Board Abolish Act, HR 8421. This bill would remove the Federal Reserve Act of 13 that was introduced into law. And the reason why he introduced this bill is because he understands that Americans are suffering under crippling inflation, and it's the Federal Reserve that is to blame. During COVID, the Federal Reserve created 1,000,000,000,000 of dollars out of thin air and loaned it to the Treasury Department to enable unprecedented deficit spending.
By monetizing the debt, the Federal Reserve devalued the dollar and enabled free money policies and caused high inflation we see today. If we really want to reduce inflation, the most effective policy is to end the Federal Reserve. Did you know that inflation is just another form of taxation? And it's true because if you understood how the money really operated, then you would know that we have lost over 99.7% of our purchasing power since the creation of the Federal Reserve. They're one of the many reasons why the US national debt is at a staggering $34,000,000,000,000 because they just keep on printing the money, taking care of themselves on the back end while We The People are the ones that are suffering.
So this is where We The People from the United States of America come in to help. Contact your state representative. Let them know that you are in support of Tom Massey in the fed bill, h r 8421. Make sure you give him a follow on x so you can keep up with the bill. Like this post, share it, hashtag in the feds.
And this is why it's so important to know what you hold. Let's go.
@wenzhang115 - Michael Zhang
@BGatesIsaPyscho Ron Paul said this in 1997 https://t.co/H7ewICT1iD
Video Transcript AI Summary
The creation of new dollars has led to a higher cost for gold and a depletion of our gold reserves. Congress allows this because they prioritize spending, often resulting in Americans working over half the year just to support government expenses. With limited options to raise taxes, Congress resorts to borrowing and creating money out of thin air. This process involves issuing treasury bills to the Federal Reserve, which can generate billions instantly. Such actions debase the currency, affecting its value and altering interest rates, ultimately harming the economy and living standards. The responsibility lies not only with the Federal Reserve but also with Congress, which drives this monetary manipulation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: By that time, we had created so many new dollars that that, the market knew that it took more dollars to get one ounce of gold. But in the process, we gave up a large portion of our of our gold that was present in our in our treasury. But why would, the Congress allow this? And why would they permit it? Well, I think the reason is is Congress likes to spend money.
And they like many here like to tax and they've been taxing. But currently, today, the average American works more than half the time for the government. If you add up the cost of all the taxes and the cost of regulations, we all work into July 0 just to support our government. And most Americans aren't that satisfied with what they're getting from the government. So the taxes can't be raised much more.
So they can go out and borrow money. Federal's, the congress will spend too much because there's tremendous pressure to spend on all these good things that we do, all the welfare programs, and all the military expenditures to police the world and build bases around the world. Takes a lot of money. And there's a lot of interest behind that to spend this money. So then they go and they spend the money.
And lo and behold, there's not enough money to borrow, and there's not enough tax money to go around. So they have to have one more vehicle. And that is the creation of money out of thin air. And this is what they do. They send the treasury bills or the bonds to the Federal Reserve and with a computer, they can just turn a switch and create a billion or $10,000,000,000 in a single day.
And that debases the currency. This diminishes the value of the money and alters interest rates and causes so much mischief that if people are concerned about the economy or their standard of living or rising cost of living, this is the source of the problem. So it's not only with the Federal Reserve manipulating, the money and the interest rates, but it's the responsibility falls on the Congress as well because the Federal Reserve serves the interests of the Congress in accommodating the
reSee.it AI Summary
Elon Musk and Charlie Kirk are advocating for Ron Paul to become the next Chairman of the Federal Reserve. This would be a significant turn of events for Paul, who has long pushed to eliminate the Federal Reserve and the IRS, emphasizing his stance on reducing government power.
@WallStreetApes - Wall Street Apes
NEW: Both Elon Musk and Charlie Kirk are calling for Ron Paul to be the next Chairman of the Federal Reserve This would be the ultimate retribution for Ron Paul Ron Paul has been calling to ‘Eliminate the Federal Reserve and eliminate the IRS’ for decades ‼️ “You say that you would eliminate the IRS, the CIA, the Federal Reserve”
Video Transcript AI Summary
Cutting taxes and spending is the solution. Eliminating agencies like the IRS, CIA, and FBI may seem drastic, but pre-9/11 intelligence failures demonstrate bureaucratic inefficiency, not a lack of funding. Increased spending hasn't solved the problem; intelligent interpretation of information is key. Expanding presidential power is concerning; sacrificing liberty for security leads to the loss of both. The push for national ID cards, warrantless searches, and secret prisons is un-American. We must use presidential power to restore order and protect our liberties.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Your answer is to cut both taxes and spending. You say that you would eliminate the IRS, the CIA, the Federal Reserve, the Department of Homeland Security, Medicare. I know that you used to wanna end the FBI. I'm not sure whether you still support that idea, sir. Perhaps you can tell us, but if you get rid of the CIA, let alone the FBI, how would president Paul have any idea, any intelligence of what our enemies, foreign and domestic, are up to?
Speaker 1: Well, you might ask a better question. Before 09/11, we were spending $40,000,000,000 a year, and the FBI was producing numerous information about people being trained on airplanes to fly them but not land them, and they totally ignored them. So it's the inefficiency of the bureaucracy that is the problem. So increasing this with the Department of Homeland Security and spending more money doesn't solve the problem. Yes.
We have every right in the world to know something about intelligence gathering, but we have to have intelligent people interpreting this, information. But, you know, just going, for increasing presidential powers as been it's been discussed is rather disturbing to me. This whole idea that we're supposed to sacrifice liberty for security, we're advised against that. Don't we remember that when you sacrifice liberty for security, you lose both? That's what's happening in this country today.
We have we have a national ID card on our doorsteps. It's being implemented right now. We have FISA courts. We have warrantless searches. We've lost habeas corpus.
We've had secret prisons around the world and we have torture going on. That's un American and we need to use the power of the presidency to get it back in order in order to take care of us and protect this country and our liberties.
Speaker 0: Thank you, congressman. Let's see what the.
@ricwe123 - Richard
Tucker Carlson interviewing Jeffrey Sachs..... https://t.co/mdYIr1j3xl
Video Transcript AI Summary
I met Prime Minister Orban 36 years ago and saw his vision for a new Hungary. The Ukraine war stems from the US's 1994 NATO expansion project, despite promises to Gorbachev. This was a deep state project that every president after Clinton was a part of.
Yesterday was historic because Trump and Putin spoke, and the new defense secretary admitted Ukraine won't join NATO. This is the basis for peace. For 30 years, America has been playing a game of risk, seeking world hegemony. Marco Rubio acknowledged a multipolar world.
The US must stop attacking others and respect other countries. With mutual respect, we can achieve a golden age, investing in technology instead of war.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to, introduce someone who I consider one of the smartest people I know and whose understanding of the world is matched only by his ability to synthesize huge themes, and illustrate them with precise detail, someone who's traveled the world for forty years, a man who not only writes about leaders of the world but knows them personally, professor Jeffrey Sachs.
Speaker 1: Thanks. Alright. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Jeff. Thank you. So how long I just you were telling me backstage, I didn't realize this, for for those who enjoyed prime minister Orbanet. I'm one of them. I was tell us when you first met the prime minister.
Speaker 1: We met, forty six years ago. Thirty six years ago. 1989.
Speaker 0: He was just getting out of jail at that point.
Speaker 1: No. Yeah. They were just opening up, and, this young guy was starting a political party. And he gave me a call, and, we sat in our my backyard in, in Boston for a few hours. And I thought, okay.
This guy's gonna be prime minister for most of the next, thirty six years. It's very, very impressive then, and it's very impressive now.
Speaker 0: So you said that. You saw in him and it's not just about him, but it's about what are the markers of enduring leadership, what makes, you know, this politician impressive while most of them are not impressive. What did you see in him? What do you see in leaders like him who have been successful?
Speaker 1: This was 1989. It was even before the Berlin Wall Fell, but Hungary had cut the barbed wire. So people were that was the beginning of the end in 1989 of the Soviet domination of of Eastern Europe. And, this young guy said, I'm gonna make a political party, and I'm gonna be a leader, and I'm gonna make a new Hungary. And, what he showed was vision that, look, we're a great country.
We've been held back for the last forty five years. I'm gonna help lead the way. And it was a, Fidesz, young democrats, I think was the translation of it, and he just had the idea. We're we're gonna move forward. He was a kid, and, we were all kids then.
And, you could see that there was energy, vision, foresight, and and it proved right.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And a toughness. So you heard his analysis, I think, of where we are, with the war in Ukraine election of Trump on the basis in part of, you know, his promise to to try to end this if he can. You saw the new secretary of defense say, no. We're not gonna support Ukraine's entry into NATO.
Where are we now?
Speaker 1: You know, yesterday was the most, important day for peace in maybe decades, actually. This war in Ukraine resulted from a very bad idea of The United States taken in 1994. It's a project. The project, was a project to expand NATO forever anywhere. Just keep moving east.
Keep moving not only to the first wave, which was the prime minister's country Hungary, Czech Republic, and Slovakia, but then move eastward closer to the former Soviet Union, into the former Soviet Union, surround Russia in the Black Sea region, go all the way to a little country in the South Caucasus, Georgia. It was mind boggling. Clinton signed on to that in 1994. It became what we call the deep state project, meaning it didn't really matter who the president was. Each president would come and basically would be informed.
NATO's moving eastward. You're part of that process. So Clinton started it in 1994. And as prime minister Orban said, he mentioned briefly, in 1990, on 02/09/1990, in unequivocal, clear as can be terms, The United States had said to president Mikhail Gorbachev, NATO will not move one inch eastward. And if you have any doubt about it, all the documents are now online, available.
You can scrutinize everything. Hans Dietrich Genscher, the US the German foreign minister said the same thing, same day. He's on tape actually explaining, no. No. I don't just mean within Eastern Germany.
I mean anywhere to the East. Clinton, being Clinton, and the US deep state being the US deep state started this project in 1994. They already had the idea by the way in in 1991, '90 '2 as soon as the Soviet Union ended. Now we move. Now we move eastward.
Now we control everything. Now we are the sole superpower. So this has gone on for thirty years and each president got into it under George Bush Junior, seven more countries were added, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, and Romania Nine in 02/2004. Then in 02/2007, president Putin said at the summit that's taking place right now, the Munich Security Summit, said stop. You told us no expansion, not an eastward expansion, even an inch, you said.
You've now done 10 countries. Stop. Perfectly reasonable. Stop. I don't think our president Donald Trump would much like to see China and Russia building their military bases up from Central America.
You know, this was how the Russians saw this. Why are you coming to our border when you told us you weren't gonna move? And there was one other thing that was very important in this, which is probably the most decisive thing and almost not even recognized. In 02/2002, the US did something really, really, really destabilizing, and that is it unilaterally left the anti ballistic missile treaty. That was a core strategy to stop a nuclear war between the two superpowers because what ABM had done for thirty years was to say, we each have deterrence.
You if you strike us, we can strike back. We'll limit our anti ballistic missiles so that both sides maintain deterrence. In 02/2002, the United States unilaterally, unprovoked, walked out of the ABM, said, no. No. We're not gonna do it anymore.
We're going to put anti ballistic missile systems into Russia's bordering territories. The Russians said, are you kidding? The US said, what's your problem? We do what we want. So in 02/2007, Putin stopped already.
In 02/2008, George Bush junior doubled down as Americans typically do and said, okay. Now we're moving to Ukraine and to Georgia. That was, why this war occurred. But Ukraine had one more sliver of, of life, and that was that they elected a president in 02/2010 that didn't want to be part of NATO, and the public didn't wanna be part of NATO. Why?
Because they knew this is very dangerous. Why get into this provocative situation? His name was Viktor Yanukovych. Americans don't like neutrality, but Yanukovych was trying to be neutral between the two sides. And The US played a rather unfortunate role on 02/22/2014 in a violent overthrow of this person.
And, that's when the war started. And it's been now ten years, and no president has, told the truth until yesterday, by the way. Yesterday is a historic day because the a call took place between president Putin and president Trump. It was the first call. We don't know if there had been a short call beforehand between the two of them, but there was no call by Biden and Putin.
With war going on for three years, no call. And now there was a call, and the readout from the American side was excellent. What president Trump said in the call was we respect Russia. We hear Russia's concerns. We fought on the same side in World War two.
Nice point, by the way. True. Russia lost Soviet Union lost 27,000,000 people in World War two and was an ally of The United States. A fact that wasn't mentioned for years and years and years by president Biden. And then the defense secretary head set the new defense secretary said yesterday the truth for the first time that Ukraine is not going to join NATO.
This is the basis for peace. This is absolutely the basis for peace, and they couldn't tell the truth for three decades. They could not admit what any of us knew because I've been around this region for thirty six years in detail. I sat with Boris Yeltsin. I sat with Mikhail Gorbachev.
But the Americans would not tell the truth publicly until yesterday that this was so provocative. It was a game. They thought they'd win the game. I don't know how many people here play or played in their childhood the game of risk. The game of risk was a big game for me.
You wanted your piece on every part of the world map. That was the game when you took over the whole world, world hegemony we now call it. You won. They're playing that game until this administration. So the two most import three important things have happened in my view in this administration so far.
First, our new secretary of state Marco Rubio told the fundamental truth. We are in a multipolar world. First time the sentence was uttered. He told the truth. What does it mean?
The American mindset for thirty years was we run the show. Marco Rubio said, well, we don't run the show. We live with other powerful countries. Great start. Second and third were the two events yesterday.
So I'm feeling about peace that this is really something that happened yesterday. If if they follow through, we know what Washington is like. There is every crazy idea swarming still. A project of thirty years doesn't go down and so visibly. And, of course, Europe is in a and so visibly.
And, of course, Europe is in a tizzy because Europe signed on to The US project. All these politicians in Europe are there where they are because they were part of The US project. And now The US is reversing its project, and you didn't tell us and you didn't what are we supposed to do? We're way out there. And so they're completely befuddled.
And I have to say, I told them personally, many of these leaders, and I mean personally, one by one for years, you are gonna get trapped this way because this project doesn't work. It doesn't make sense. It's a game for the Americans, but it's life and death for the Russians. So it cannot be won by the American side. It's impossible.
And I tried to tell them, and nobody in Europe either had the clarity or the guts to see it except the person that preceded me in this seat, prime minister Orban, because he was completely clear about this from the first day. Now others are starting, but even till today, the Europeans can't get it because they're so deeply invested in something that makes no sense. They should have said, Russia's big. It lives near near us. Let's cooperate.
That's how you do it.
Speaker 0: Your online activity is being watched and not just certain things you search on your private browser. Everything is being watched. Shady big tech companies are constantly hawking your information because their profits depend on it. They get rich by invading your privacy then selling your data to anybody who's willing to pay for it. It's scary, and people need a way to escape from its grasp, and that's where ExpressVPN comes in.
With ExpressVPN, 100% of your online activity is rerouted through secure encrypted servers, making it impossible for data brokers to see what you do online or buy and sell that information. Now, unfortunately, we live in a world where companies will do anything to invade your privacy, and they're doing it right now. ExpressVPN is a way to shield what is sacred to you from rapacious data brokers. Right now, you get an extra four months for free when you use this show's special link. Go to expressvpn.com/ducker.
We recommend it. I think one of the reasons we wound up in this position, we meaning The United States, but also Europe, is there's a habit of speech which reflects a habit of mind, which is an unwillingness to engage with ideas and instead resort immediately to attacking the other person on the basis of motive. And you saw this with Orban. You're a Russian stooge or whatever and was especially hilarious as he explained. No.
It's the opposite of a Russian stooge. Of course. Lifelong. His country was occupied by the Russians. But you do see it also in The United States, and it
Speaker 1: makes it kind of impossible to have a rational conversation
Speaker 0: about any I know you've been the the butt of this too, not whining about it, but it's like Yeah. Is there even a culture in our foreign policy establishment of having rational conversations
Speaker 1: to the point where we
Speaker 0: can solve problems like this?
Speaker 1: You know, we've talked about, I think, an uncle of yours, who's, one of my favorite politicians of American history, j William Fulbright. And, he wrote a book in the nineteen sixties called the arrogance of power. And I was a a kid then, and I read that book like it was the coolest thing imaginable. This was the chairman of the US foreign relations committee saying, we're too arrogant to think clearly. That was amazing.
He was an amazing person. Now I think that's the fundamental problem. I'm not sure we're properly over it, but I have to say that, in nineteen ninety, ninety one, we had the chance for global peace, really for global peace. That doomsday clock of the atomic scientist which I like to refer to so much, which measures how close or far are we from nuclear war, was the farthest away it was ever in its history because the cold war had ended. So I was there as a as a young economist who actually knew something about economic stabilization, and I made proposals.
And, interestingly, just as a footnote, I advised the Polish government in 1989. I just long story, but suddenly as a kid, I happened to be there, and I helped write their plan. And I, everything I recommended for Poland was immediately accepted by the White House. It's a very odd thing. In fact, I went one day, I had an idea of mobilizing some finance to help Poland stabilize, and I called the Polish finance minister, said, do you mind if I try to raise a billion dollars for you today, which was a lot of money in in those days.
And said, if you raise a billion dollars, that would be great. So I called Bob Dole, our senate majority leader, whom I knew because of the Poland, work that I was doing, and he invited me immediately into his office. And he said, come back in an hour. So I came back in an hour. This was, September 1989.
And who was sitting there? General Brent Scowcroft. Oh, okay. He was the general who was our national security adviser. I was a kid.
So it was a little bit interesting moment. And he senator Dole said to me, explain to general Scowcroft your idea. So I handed him the paper, and this is how you do financial stabilization, and here's how you stabilize the currency. And Scowcroft looked at it and said, well, will this work? And I said, general, this will work.
And, Dole led me out of the office and said call me back, later in the day. So at 5PM, I called, and Dole said the White House has called. You have tell your friends you have the 1,000,000,000. So I raised a billion dollars that day. It was good.
So no. No. That nothing to do with me, because, it was the right idea. The Polish stabilized. I did a good I did a good thing.
I was a technically, equipped, sophisticated manager of a financial stabilization or not manager, but advisor on the financial stabilization. Okay. Then in 1991, I recommended the same thing for Gorbachev and for this creaking, collapsing, Soviet Union. Gorbachev wanted to have elections in all of the republics, and he wanted to democratize and stabilize. So okay.
I know something about that, mister president. And so we met, in, the Harvard Kennedy School, and, there were, one, two, three, four, five of us, a little team. One of them was the chief economic advisor of Gorbachev, Grigor Yablinski. One was the dean of the Kennedy School. One became a very senior diplomat, Bob Blackwell, that I deal with.
One was a very senior economist at, MIT, Stanley Fisher. We wrote a plan for how, the Soviet Union could stabilize, and I did the chapter on the financing. Basically, the same thing that I had said for Poland. Okay. It was completely rejected within about twelve hours in Washington.
Okay. I hated this for the next thirty years, I have to tell you, because we just could not take yes for an answer. Couple of months ago, someone sent me from the archives, the first time that I'd ever seen it, the National Security Council minutes rejecting the proposal. Fascinating to read because that's your life before your eyes watching this. There was a guy named Dick Darman who was a former colleague of mine.
The technical term, I don't I don't think I can say it in mixed company, actually. So I I I won't say what I would say about him.
Speaker 0: But it's an unpleasant English word.
Speaker 1: It's really nasty. Too nasty for polite company. He says in this thing, we should do the minimum necessary so that there's not a collapse, but nothing more. And, he quotes Machiavelli and, you know, we're not interested and we're not gonna do this. And it's it's really watching stupid people taking important stupid decisions.
Fools. By the way, they never called to say, can we discuss stabilization? This guy knew nothing. They don't understand anything. They don't care.
So what were they doing? They actually reached a conclusion at the end of the meeting. We're gonna do the minimum possible. I mean, minimum, minimum. It's not our business to help.
We're not gonna do any of that. That's arrogance of power. We don't have to do anything. Why? We're The United States.
We don't have to do anything. They didn't even look. The stakes for the world were very high. You could have a thirty minute phone call to understand financial stabilization. You could say in history, when countries are destabilized this way, here's how stability has worked.
That was my specialty. That's what I knew and taught at Harvard and knew knew a lot about. But they're so arrogant that it's not even to discuss for a half an hour any of this, and they didn't, and they took a terrible decision. And by the way, my point is not that that led on to this and this and this. No.
They took terrible decisions for the next thirty five years. This could have been stopped at any moment. Not one thing led to the next thing. No. One stupid decision, then the next one, then the next one, then the next one.
You have to learn to behave. The way you behave in this world is mutual respect. The way you behave is thinking you're not gonna be more secure if they're completely destabilized. That's what you have to understand. And that is not so hard to understand.
We teach it to our kids. At age four, we start teaching that. And then suddenly, if you want your passport to Washington, you have to forget it at age 40 or something. And that's how they behave. So that's my feeling about this, that it's just a kind of arrogance.
And you can see it in this writing which I find fascinating to go back and watch this tragedy unfold. Nineteen ninety seven, another wonderful moment if you wanna just watch hubris and tragedy. Very good book, good in that it's insightful, terrible book in that it's all wrong by Zvi Brzezinski. And many of you have probably read it called the Grand Chess Board, and he could have called it the game of risk. It would have been a little bit more accurate, but it was about how to make American dominance in the world.
And he has a chapter about expanding NATO to Ukraine. Exactly that. He's and he talks about Europe and NATO expanding eastward. And the question that he asked in 1997 is, what can the Russians do about it? Because they're weak.
And he answers meticulously. He considers, would Russia ever ally with China? Impossible.
Speaker 0: He can That'll that'll never happen.
Speaker 1: That'll never happen. Could Russia ever ally with Iran? No. Impossible. That will never happen.
So you watch like we watch now the Chat GPT thinking out loud. It's all there. It's all wrong, and it was all American policy for the next twenty five years. That's tragedy.
Speaker 0: May may I ask a question, though? Like, a kind of thematic fundamental question. So, great empire, one of it you know, empires tend to be arrogant. I think that's a feature of empires.
Speaker 1: That is it.
Speaker 0: But a an enduring empire shows stability. Its goal is stability. Because it understands exactly what you said I thought so nicely. It doesn't help you if your neighbors are in chaos. It doesn't it doesn't help you.
It's against your own interest. So that's such an obvious insight. The Roman Empire was based on it. The British Empire was based on it. Ours is the only empire I'm aware of that has kind of intentionally sowed chaos, and and I don't understand where that thinking comes from.
Leaving aside, the moral question is, is that right or wrong? It doesn't work for you. So why have we done it?
Speaker 1: You know, the Roman Empire is always a great story for us, and I compare the Ukraine war to the battle of the Teuttenberg forest, which is AD nine. Yep. And in AD nine, the Roman Empire reached its limits, on the Rhine. It never it tried to conquer the Germanic tribes, in September. They were defeated under Augustus.
And there were sporadic border things from then on, but they never tried again. They had hundreds of years where that just was wasn't their business. It was very, very smart. Hadrian, in the first, second century AD was the emperor at the maximum extent of the Roman Empire, and he basically wanted stability across the the the border lines. And this was the prudence of the empire.
It wasn't Alexander, you know, was very different three, four hundred years earlier. He wanted to conquer the whole world. There was no limit. Finally, his soldiers told him, if you go any further, we're killing you. We we've got to go home because they were already at the beyond the Indus River.
But the Romans said no. We're gonna put some boundaries, we're gonna keep the borders, and we're gonna not go beyond our means or our needs. I hope what happened yesterday was a a good example of that. What Trump and, Hegseth did yesterday, if they follow through, if the deep state doesn't undermine it, if it's some crazy thing doesn't happen, said, we don't need to be in Ukraine with NATO. We don't need to be.
It's for us, it's nothing. And it doesn't mean that Russia's now gonna invade Western Europe. That's crazy. This was a project going the other direction. So it's basic prudence, and that's what a great power should show, prudence.
Speaker 0: What are the chances that some you said unless the deep state doesn't make some crazy thing happens. I would note that for a good part of the presidential campaign, the deep state was telling the candidate Donald Trump that the state of Iran is trying to kill you, which as far as I know was totally untrue, by the way. But they were telling him that in order to prepare him to attack Iran, which they're still trying to do. So we know that this kind of deception is just a feature of it. How hard will people invested in the Ukraine war go?
Yeah. What to what lengths will they go to continue this, do you think?
Speaker 1: First of all, the the main job of The US President, of a of a successful US President, is to put the foot on the brake. This is if you look in history, the good presidents know when to stop. Eisenhower was such. Kennedy was such. Reagan understood this, and all our recent presidents did not up until now, basically.
Speaker 0: Well, troop Truman in Korea, George H W Bush in Kuwait. I mean, also true.
Speaker 1: No. That they fought too many wars in my Yeah.
Speaker 0: But they but they did stop.
Speaker 1: And No. But they stopped, but they, made too much Iraq Two Thousand Three. I mean, there were just too many too many wars. So the question is, can we learn, and can the president keep the foot on the brake? If he does, he will have a extremely successful administration.
He, I think, understands that all of Netanyahu's pleading and this has been thirty years also, this another project to go for The US to go to war with Iran is just the worst idea imaginable, would be a disaster. And so I think president Trump understands that. I think he understands that a war with China would be a complete disaster, which it would be, though there's a lot of war parties around on that. The funny thing about our time right now, not funny, the the the wonderful thing about our time right now is that we're in the midst of the biggest technological boom in the history of the world. So so many good things could happen in the next ten to twenty years.
President Trump has used the expression which I fully subscribe to, a golden age. We could have it. A golden age is not war. A golden age is investing in all this wonderful technology so that we can have health care that works, education systems that work, infrastructure that works. It would be nice if The United States even had one kilometer of fast rail, just saying.
China just completed its fifty thousandth kilometer of fast rail. We we don't have one. I can't even take the train reliably from, New York to actually from Washington to New York. Last time it took the Accela, it broke down in the middle, and I I had to change to a local in New Jersey, which does not happen between Shanghai and Beijing, by the way. Just saying.
Speaker 0: But you missed the countryside. I mean, that is part of it, though.
Speaker 1: That's it.
Speaker 0: Not a lot of incentive to stop in New Jersey, and now they're giving you one.
Speaker 1: There I was. I felt so privileged. Right. And there was the local right on the next Exactly. Exactly.
Waiting for us.
Speaker 0: And you wouldn't have been in Passaic otherwise. So Exactly. Lucky you.
Speaker 1: You count your blessings. Right?
Speaker 0: So the whole point of market capitalism is consumer choice. You have a choice between products and services, and the competition between companies makes the goods and services better. That's the core idea. Unfortunately, there are an awful lot of monopolies out there. Monopolies are not good for consumers.
They are not good for you. And one of the places where there's effectively a monopoly is in wireless contracts, but it's not a complete monopoly. You're probably paying way too much to use your cell phone, but now you have a choice. You don't have to pay a hundred bucks a month just to get a free phone. That's not a good deal.
There's a company called PureTalk, which we use, that has no inflated prices. With a qualifying plan of just $45 a month, you can choose a free phone, an iPhone 14 or a Samsung Gallery, then you get unlimited talk, tax 25 gigs of data, which is enough for most people, a mobile hotspot, all for that low price, and it's got the most dependable five g network. So you get your free iPhone 14 or Samsung Galaxy by visiting puretalk.com/tucker, and you switch to Pure Talk today. America's wireless company, Pure Talk. It does feel I'm glad that you are saying this because it does feel like we're not even a month into the Trump administration.
I don't think anybody agrees with, you know, everything of anyone else's program, but, clearly, this is a massive departure from what we had, much more than I thought. I feel like I'm I watch pretty closely. I'm amazed by the ambition of what they're doing, and it does feel like the only way to stop this. Tulsi Gabbard just confirmed yesterday as the director of
Speaker 1: National Intelligence. Very big deal. It's unbelievable. It's a very big deal.
Speaker 0: Tulsi Gabbard's right in the president's daily brief. Tulsi Gabbard is in charge of a lot of declassification efforts. Like, the whole thing is unbelievable. The only way to stop this is with a war. I mean, that's my kind of simple reading of it.
Do you agree with that?
Speaker 1: I think that is exactly entirely the point. And if, and we had news today, please, inshallah, that, the ceasefire will continue on Saturday because more hostages will be released, more exchanges will take place, and there won't be a return. Really, If it happens and an outbreak of war is stopped, because it has to be stopped, this will be such a blessing, not only for this region, but I have to say for our country too, The United States.
Speaker 0: I agree.
Speaker 1: And so this is really the key moment, and I think Trump's instincts are there. And what he says, we didn't even hear Biden or other presidents say, president Trump said many times about Ukraine, too many people are dying. You didn't even hear those words. I mean, the idea that war involve by the way, maybe a million Ukrainians dead or seriously wounded. We're gonna find out in the next months because finally we'll see what reality is, not what the propaganda is, but it's horrible what's happened.
So that instinct is essential, and there are several places where everything could be derailed. This region is one of them. Ukraine is another. South China and East China Sea is is the third. And if the president gets it and has the basic idea we live together in respect with other countries, the golden age will come.
Speaker 0: I I think and I'd love your view of this. I think of all the amazing things I've seen in the last three and a half weeks, maybe the most amazing is the emergence of Steve Witkoff, who I I just I will say I know personally and and like enormously, but he was a real estate guy. K? All of a sudden, Trump appoints him an envoy sort of over and above massive stable diplomats. We have professional diplomats at the state department to go do, you know, effective ceasefire here in this region and then sends him over to Russia, and he winds up meeting Yeah.
With Putin apparently for several hours. And then all this stuff happens. You've been around diplomats your entire life. You've functioned as a diplomat. What do you think of
Speaker 1: that? Look. He did the single coolest thing since this administration started, I I have to say, which was, Trump made this cease fire. There's no question about it. Biden would never I mean, he didn't make the ceasefire because we don't know where Biden was mentally anyway, but his team was completely incompetent.
Horrible. I'm sorry to say it. It's very terrible.
Speaker 0: A lot of the rest of us did notice that.
Speaker 1: Yes. It it wasn't a completely it wasn't a completely closely held secret, let's say. So Trump said, we gotta have a ceasefire before my inauguration. And he sent Witkoff. And, Witkoff said to Netanyahu, I'm coming to meet you tomorrow.
And Netanyahu said, no. No. No. Tomorrow is Saturday. I can't meet you.
And Witkoff said, I'll be in your office tomorrow at one, and, told him, I don't care anything. I'm there. We're gonna have a a discussion. And out of that meeting came the ceasefire. Now the ceasefire looks maybe like it will hold this weekend.
Believe me, in Israel, they want war everywhere for a lot of reasons. But the president's job from my point of view of American interest and the world interest and this region's interest, everybody's interest. No more war. Stop this now. So if Witkoff can keep that track record, that would be the heroic success.
Speaker 0: But what does it tell you that Steve Witkoff, who I will say, again, I'm biased because I really like him, he's got a great personality, super energetic, very straightforward, believable, but zero training in any of this. Like, not he's a real estate guy. And he pulls this off? Like, what does that tell you about our professional diplomatic corps?
Speaker 1: I'll tell you one thing it it tells you. Trump can make peace if he wants to make peace. I mean, he needs he needs a capable guy that can go and read the riot act and say this is no joke, and we're gonna have it. And that is basically what good diplomacy is. And again, in The US system, of course, we've got the deep state who tell presidents what to do.
We've got lobbies. We've got all all sorts of things, but a president's true job is to lead. And if you don't have a president compasementus, like I think we didn't have in The United States, you get war breaking out everywhere like we had, in the last two years. Or if you have a president that is poorly directed or poorly, you know, really doesn't get it. And Clinton was an inconsequential president in my opinion because he is so easily swayed.
He lets he he just made so many lousy decisions. George Bush Junior listened to Cheney who was really a nonstop warmonger and so on. If a president gets the idea, I want peace because this war is really destructive of everything else I'm trying to do, then you can have peace, actually. It's possible. No one is gonna attack The United States, so peace depends on us.
No one is attacking us. China is not about to invade The United States. Russia's not gonna attack The United States. Mexico and Canada are not gonna attack The United States. Panama's not gonna attack The United States.
Greenland's not gonna attack The
Speaker 0: United States. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry to make I don't wanna go the whole list, but I'm just confident about this. So if the president wants peace, he'll get it. If he gets peace, believe me, he'll get all the other things that he wants, like low inflation, being able to pass the budget that he wants, getting his tax policies that he wants. But if there's war, he ain't gonna get any of it. That's the basic point.
And, you know, I voted democratic in '9 in, 2020. I voted for Biden. And Biden I've had a lot of experience with governments over the last forty five years, so I watched them, and I I think I understand a lot of of them. And Biden, in the first days, said stupid things about foreign policy. The world is divided between this and this and blah blah blah.
And he's saying, oh my god. What is the guy is doesn't get it. And in fact, he didn't get it at all, and I told many democratic leaders when they still talk to me. Now if they don't talk to me and I don't talk to them, You're gonna you're gonna do something completely almost impossible in American politics, which is you're gonna lose on the basis of foreign policy because Americans don't vote on foreign policy. And I said, your foreign policy is so bad.
This is gonna bring you down. And in fact, the democrats lost their heads in this, and they were so intent on defeating Trump that no matter what Biden said, well, we have to back him up a % as he led them off to war and complicity in the war here and the Ukraine war and tensions with China and all the rest. And they created a milieu of so much unhappiness in The United States, Anxiety, higher inflation, big budget deficits, that the public said, no. We don't like this. This is so they did really the impossible.
Speaker 0: But they brought Liz Cheney over to the coalition.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Exactly. And then what's ironic is, you know, this wonderful person who was confirmed yesterday for, the, head of director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, who's really smart by the way, very honest, very meticulous. I know her extremely well over many, many years. Totally up and up, so I'm delighted she's gonna be briefing the president each day.
I couldn't think of a better person. All the democrats voted against her. This is crazy. She was their colleague for decades. She stood up for things that they should be applauding her for.
Every one of them voted against her.
Speaker 0: She was the vice chairman of the DNC Exactly. Seven eight years ago.
Speaker 1: Exactly.
Speaker 0: So, I guess the question is the opposition you've alluded to the deep state, but there's also the out in the open state. You know, the the congress, for example, the other party, the Democratic Party, does Trump's success, not just in the election, winning the popular vote, but in affecting peace, which is actually popular with people, does that change their views on foreign policy? Like, does he bring people with him, or does he stand alone between the two parties as he did in the first time?
Speaker 1: Look. This is very early days because we're just a little over three weeks into this. But if yesterday turns into policy, which it could, and the Ukraine war ends soon, which it could, You're gonna see everybody changing their views. Oh, I didn't support that. Peace is great.
The European leaders are gonna be saying the opposite of what they're saying right now. Look. In a hundred politicians, anyway, rethink, the rest line up somewhere tactically. So, yes, they will change their view. They'll complain about other things.
That's their job. They're in the opposition, but this war was a disastrous, stupid project that went awry, should have ended, makes no sense. And if Trump pulls it off as he can, if he's resolute now and clear minded and Witkoff does his work, because he'll be the one to do it, it looks like, and he does his work, then this won't be talked about or complained about. This will pass into history as just another one of those blunders. I mean, we don't talk about the two thousand three Iraq war or the twenty years waste in Afghanistan or so many Libya, so many completely ridiculous projects that America has been involved in for no conceivable reason other than these, weird game of risk ideas.
We gotta own that space on the board. Turns out the world and that game board are are rather different. But if Trump pulls this off, what he needs, I think, and what we need to understand is the American scene, it ain't great in general. The budget deficit is enormous. The fragility of society is is actually quite significant.
There is lots of depression, lots of violence, lots of problems that haven't been addressed for thirty years. Big, big budget deficit, huge, can't be solved with all due respect to Elon. It's not the budget deficit has very little to do with the size of the civil service. That's not where the budget deficit comes from. That's not where the spending comes from.
Spending comes from seven fifty overseas military bases, from wars, from massive outlays, of course on pensions, on health care, on interest payments, on the debt, and so forth. So war derails all of that. We're not with a buffer. We're not where the US dollar is king forever. It's almost the opposite, by the way, although it's not so clear to people.
But ten years from now, it's gonna be completely different international monetary scene from the one that we have now because the renminbi is gonna play a completely different role. And the way that international settlements will be done is completely different. You can if you watch like I do, you see all of the stitching together of a new system taking shape. So The US does not have this great room for maneuver, and it's all a game, and we can do this, and we can do that. The president needs to be really accurate right now, really accurate, and understand.
Also, not don't overplay the hand. The world's not desperately waiting to get into The US market as I think he thinks, that these tariffs give all this leverage. No. The US is not the big deal that maybe some people imagine right now. So we gotta get our act together, and you can't get your act together in war.
That's that's the bottom line.
Speaker 0: Professor Jeffrey Sachs, thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Great to be with you, Steve. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That was great. Thanks. So in September, we went across the country, coast to coast, 17 different cities on a nationwide live tour, and it was amazing. We brought the entire staff with us like we always do because we all work together for so long and enjoy traveling together.
And one of our producers is a documentary filmmaker, and so he decided to make a documentary film about our trip a full month of so America was some of the most interesting people around. Different people join us every single night. John Gino and Russell Brand and Bobby Kennedy and JD Vance and Donald Trump, etcetera, etcetera. We had the best time, and the fruit of that is a documentary called On the Road, the Tucker Carlson live tour, which is available right now on TCN. On the Road, Tucker Carlson live tour is hilarious.
You will like it.
@KMGGaryde - Gary D
Tucker Carlson says the quiet part out loud! 🔥 https://t.co/X6jMgR16CB
Video Transcript AI Summary
Jeffrey Epstein was murdered in the most secure federal lockup in the country, yet there was no real investigation. Attorney General Barr lied about it. Where are the tapes from Epstein's properties? The fact that we can't see them suggests a massive blackmail operation run by intel agencies to control famous people.
If someone can kill Epstein in a secure lockup and get away with it, that's a powerful, dangerous force. It's important to talk about it though because we need transparency and honesty. Crimes like this make people feel impotent and paranoid, leading to a society where no one believes anything. We need a country where things are what they seem, where people are honest and admit mistakes, not a place of crazy deceptions and murders.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Bottom line is Jeffrey Epstein was murdered, and not only murdered, but he was murdered in the most secure federal lockup in Midtown Manhattan in the country. Okay, not just in federal lockup, but in the most secure part of federal lockup. So how did that happen? Well, he was clearly murdered by another inmate, you can't get any answers to who the other eight inmates on his block were. There was no investigation into his death, they've never released it, and the attorney general at the time, Attorney General Barr clearly knew that this happened, and I've said that in public and he's attacked me for saying that, but it's just a fact he lied about it.
And so what is that? What is that? Think about that for a minute. I don't know the, I mean, there's a lot I don't know, I don't pretend to understand really anything, I don't understand anything, but I know lying when I see it, and they're lying about Jeffrey Epstein, if they're not, where's the investigation? And there hasn't been one, and so that's pretty heavy duty.
Where are the tapes? Where are the Epstein tapes? You know, it was so funny, they released a tape, a guy I know actually released a tape of Jeffrey Epstein talking about Donald Trump and saying we were friends once and I don't like Trump, and okay, this was like the October surprise was to derail Trump. And everyone's like, how can you do that? I thought, I'm so glad they're doing that.
So let's talk about Jeffrey Epstein. Like where are the videotapes from his home in New Mexico, from his Caribbean island, from his place on Fifth Avenue, there are always videotapes now in federal hands, why can't we see those? And we can't see them of course, because it's like a massive blackmail operation run by various intel agencies designed to put famous people under the control of governments. Of course, that's what it was. Obviously, and everyone knows that, but no one can say anything about it.
And as a friend of mine said, we were talking about this one night, and he goes, you know, kind of if you think about it like if you're able to kill somebody in the secure block in federal lockup in Manhattan and get away with it, probably not someone you wanna dick around with. Like, that's a powerful force, and that's a fair point, but it's still worth saying out loud because it's worth living in a transparent, honest country. It's bad to have rot like that. It's bad to have crimes like that committed in front of our faces. We can't do anything about it.
It makes everyone feel impotent. It makes everyone paranoid. It makes everyone feel like nothing's on the level. We wind up with a society where no one believes anything. And I feel like that's where we are.
The number of people I know who are like, wow, I've become a really deranged conspiracy theorist who doesn't believe in the moon landing. I must know 100 people who said that to me in the last two years. This is and trust me, if you don't feel that way, you're just not admitting it because you do feel that way if you're paying attention. And that's a bad way to feel. I don't think I don't you don't want a country like that.
You want a country where things are pretty much what they seem to be, where people are honest, they're straightforward. When they make a terrible mistake, they admit it. You want a country that is like the family that you have or want to have, where people are just direct with each other and kind to each other, and not everything is some crazy multilayered deception designed to you know, screw you or kill Jeffrey Epstein, like that's so dark.
@mario4thenorth - Mario Zelaya
The video Mark Carney doesn’t want Canadians to see. Tucker Carlson ripping into him in 2022. https://t.co/JUBy92slFB
Video Transcript AI Summary
Mark Carney, a former Goldman Sachs executive, believes anyone who sent money to the Canadian trucker convoy is funding sedition and that foreign funders interfered in domestic affairs from the start. Carney says those helping to extend the occupation must be identified and punished to the full force of law, and people who sent money should be prosecuted. He claims the constant blaring of horns will bankrupt businesses. Justin Trudeau has ordered police to shut down the protest by seizing the truckers' fuel.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: His friend Mark Carney has been speaking for him. Carney is a former Goldman Sachs executive who many believe will replace Justin Trudeau if Trudeau ever decides to give up power. In a recent op ed, Mark Carney vented his rage at the impudent truckers in Ottawa and anyone who sent the money on the Internet. Quote, anyone sending money to the convoy should be in no doubt, Carney wrote, you are funding sedition. Foreign funders of an insurrection interfered in our domestic affairs from the start.
Got that? It's not a protest. It's sedition. It's an insurrection. Clearly, Mark Carney's been watching a lot of CNN up there in Canada, and that's why he's concluded the truckers should be crushed by force.
Quote, those who are still helping to extend this occupation must be identified and punished to the full force of law. People who sent the money should be prosecuted. If they're not prosecuted, Mark Carney Fierce quote, the constant blaring of horns at all hours will bankrupt our businesses. Are you laughing yet? So the very same finance ghouls who cheered lockdowns for two solid years are now deeply concerned that small businesses might be hurt by the trucker protests.
Hilarious. It'd be interesting, by the way, to poll small business owners in Ottawa to see what they think. How do they feel about the truckers? Somehow you know exactly what those results would be, but no one's doing that poll, of course. Instead, they found an easier way.
Justin Trudeau has just ordered police to shut the whole thing down. How do you do that? How do you stop a truck protest? Simple. You seize their fuel.
That's exactly what police in Canada are doing.
@RichardGage_911 - Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
[RG911Team] What made Tucker Carlson turn against the Republican establishment? Ted Cruz probably doesn’t know… but we do. It had something to do with 9/11… https://t.co/QHTgkmVdhv
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11, which was not hit by a plane. A video clip shows the building's collapse, described as reminiscent of a controlled demolition.
One speaker recalls news reports announcing the building's collapse before it happened. Another speaker, with a background in fire protection and insurance, states that a 47-story building doesn't typically collapse due to fire.
One speaker admits to previously attacking 9/11 conspiracy theorists but now questions the official narrative, particularly regarding Building 7. An Alaskan structural engineering professor's four-year study allegedly debunks the NIST analysis of the collapse. Molten steel was reportedly present in the Twin Towers. The symmetrical nature of Building 7's collapse is questioned, with one speaker suggesting it resembles a controlled demolition.
One speaker suggests they broadened the Overton window on the topic because they were part of the cover-up and feel guilty.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Alleging not simply a cover up by the US government, but by the entire American media. It's totally implausible. Like, we would report that if that were true. Tucker, not quite entire. One thing to hold on to.
How you make this these claims or appear to make these claims. Do you have any
Speaker 1: Let's go to the top here. Sure. Sure. Let's start with the collapse of Building 7. Can you roll the video clip that I sent to you?
Speaker 0: Okay. I'm not sure if we can. Building 7 was not hit by an airplane. No. I've seen conveniently.
I know. And if there's any evidence that the government's behind 911, what's I I believe anything if there's evidence, but there isn't evidence. So knock it off.
Speaker 2: That's seen Building 7 collapse, the Solomon Brothers Building?
Speaker 0: No. I wanna show you that right now.
Speaker 3: Now here, we're gonna show you a videotape of the collapse itself. Describe that feeling. Go to videotape the collapse of this building. It's amazing. Amazing.
Incredible. Pick your word. For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately store destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.
Speaker 0: Was this after the collapse of the other two?
Speaker 2: Yes. So she's saying it's fallen, Building 7.
Speaker 4: Familiar New York skyline, a symbol on by the mayor Rudy Giuliani, much earlier today, because of the course, the dreadful collapse of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. But, New York very much a city still in chaos. The phones are not working properly.
Speaker 2: They announced Building 7 fell twenty five minutes before it did, and then Lyden said this wasn't real and later admitted it. And we have the up close footage of CNN. Police saying, get back. They're gonna bring it down.
Speaker 0: Walking back to the building about to blow here. Alright, guys? We are walking about to up. We're
Speaker 3: It's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by world place dynamite in Michael Brown.
Speaker 2: What do you think of that?
Speaker 0: You know, I'm not a structural engineer. I think it's upsetting to watch it. I remember when that happened. I mean, look, I have no idea. I I don't know any I mean, I I don't understand how buildings collapse.
I don't understand how Building 7 collapsed. What what actually happened with Building 7? Like, that is weird, right? It doesn't
Speaker 5: what is
Speaker 0: that? If you were to say something like that on television, they'd flip out. They would flip out. You should, like, lose your job over that. Why?
Why? But it's an entirely fair question. It is not crazy to ask how did those buildings collapse in the way they did, particularly the building that was not hit by a plane. Like, what was that? And you get to a certain point where you realize people are lying right to your face.
What began to make me wonder, and I have no idea what happened to nine eleven, but it's very clear that there's a lot of lying around it, was the collapse of Building 7. And all the wackos would be like, Building 7, Building 7. I'd be like, shut up, wackos. And then if you just sort of look at it, you're like, well, that is very weird, actually. No plane hit that building, and it does this happen a lot when buildings catch fire?
Right. Okay.
Speaker 5: Besides being a firefighter, I worked for the INA, largest insurance company in North America. I was responsible for training their fire protection arson people for eighteen years. That doesn't happen. You never have a 47 story building just collapse, which this is. By the way, I never
Speaker 0: questioned anything about nine eleven, and I actively attacked people who did. I'm ashamed of that, but that's a fact. I did it on tape more than once. Because my feeling was, well, you know, like, that's divisive or whatever. I was a child and an idiot.
Now that you've looked into it and you said you don't have a coherent theory as to what it was, but you've got a lot of questions, which questions trouble you the most?
Speaker 6: Well, starts with Building seven. Yes. Where you look at that and it just yeah. I mean, this this is really weird. You know, it it does come down just like a, you know, building demolition type of project.
You you get a documentary of this Alaskan structural engineering professor that does a four year study on it. Pretty well debunks NIST analysis. Again, you don't have to be a structural engineer to say this really doesn't make sense. When you start putting together at what temperature steel melts, They had molten steel in the the Twin Towers, and I'm not sure we had a number seven. But if if one column said in one column expanded, went off kilter, and that's what brought the whole thing down, well, it wouldn't come down so symmetrically.
You wouldn't have a free fall. You know, why have you been so instrumental in broadening the Overton window on some of these things? And and, of course, the Overton window is is is all is all about this is what you can discuss without threat or without, you know, risk. And but you gotta go beyond that. So
Speaker 0: because I was part of the cover up, and I feel guilty about it. That's why. And I'm trying to atone for my previous sense. That's the real reason.
@ballbr - Fishy
Here is @TuckerCarlson over 20 years ago calling out Pat Buchanon for his antisemitism and paranoia about jews https://t.co/mDGwGnTEXM
Video Transcript AI Summary
Pat Buchanan raises important issues, such as American military sovereignty, but does so in a way that discredits them. When attacked, Buchanan claims a cabal controls American politics and dislikes him for speaking truth to power, casting himself as a victim.
While questioning America's relationship with Israel and criticizing its lobby are valid, Buchanan is labeled antisemitic due to his relentless focus on topics related to Judaism. He attacks Goldman Sachs but not Morgan Stanley, and while he hasn't explicitly stated dislike for Jews, he has defended accused Nazi war criminals, attacked Israel, criticized American Jews for supporting Israel, and implied they push America into wars.
There is a pattern of Buchanan needling the Jews, which suggests thematic antisemitism. Buchanan discredits conversations about immigration and the Israeli lobby by giving the sense that he has another agenda, believes in conspiracies, and thinks Jews are a sinister force trying to affect American politics.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I mean, this is part of the sad thing of Pat Buchanan as far as I'm concerned. And just to restate, I mean, Pat does raise issues that I think are important. I mean, I think that, you know, the sovereignty of the American military, etcetera. I mean, these are not just crank issues. But, unfortunately, Pat Buchanan raises them in a way that I think is discredited.
And when attacked, he can always fall back on the line, well, the, you know, the tiny cabal that controls American politics doesn't like me because I speak truth to power. This is actually, incidentally, almost verbatim what he said the other day, that I offend the plutocracy, that I'm a wanted man by the inside the Beltway people, and in in in in every sense cast himself as a as a victim who is sort of a Karen Silkwood of politics, someone who's, so truthful that he's being hunted down by the, by the conspiracy that runs Washington. I mean, it's it's all a bit much. Maybe Pat Buchanan just says things that are kinda kooky, and that's why he's being criticized. It's perfectly valid to to question America's relationship with Israel.
Israel has a lobby. It's perfectly fair as far as I'm concerned to beat up on Israel's lobby. But that's I don't think that's the reason that Buchanan is being labeled an anti Semite. It's this kind of as I've said, this this relentless this relentless bringing up topics related to Judaism. I mean, famously, Pat, you know, always beats up on Goldman Sachs, but never Morgan Stanley.
I mean, it's it's really hard to there is no point at which Pat Buchanan has held a press conference and said, you know, I really don't like the Jews. I think they're a sinister force in America. But I think, and it took me years to come to this, to this position. I mean, I'm not throwing the the term anti Semite around. But you you reach a point when you say, gee, you know, here's a guy who, has gone out of his way to to defend to Mianjuk and other accused Nazi war criminals who's constantly attacked Israel, who's attacked American Jews for supporting Israel unduly, who's implied that American Jews push America into wars in which non Jews die.
There really is, and again, I'm not hysterical on the subject, but I I I do believe, that there is a pattern, with Pat Buchanan of needling the Jews. Is that antisemitic? Yeah. I mean, after a while, conclude it is, in some sense, antisemitic. I mean, Pat Buchanan obviously has a lot of personal and affectionate relationships with people who are Jewish.
So on a personal level, perhaps he's not. But on a on a different, maybe thematic level, I think he probably is. I think that people should be allowed to have differing views on immigration. I think people should be allowed to point out the fact that there is an Israeli lobby, and, yes, it's powerful and debate the merits of that, I I guess. I don't think they're strictly speaking anything wrong with that.
But, again, I think Pat Buchanan is part of the reason it's so hard to have that conversation because he discredits it by his by his presence, because he, gives people who watch him carefully the sense that he has another agenda that has to do with personal dislike and that he believes in conspiracies and and that he believes that the Jews are this sinister, secretly organized force, trying to affect American politics. And those aren't discussions I think normal people, sober people should be having because I think they're ludicrous.
@OppCostApp - Opportunity Cost
The greatest scam in history... The creation of the Federal Reserve: https://t.co/24PsEZb38C
Video Transcript AI Summary
In November 1910, seven bankers met secretly on Jekyll Island to plan America's central bank, which they decided to call the Federal Reserve. Their goal was to control the money supply, create economic booms and busts, and profit from both by creating money from nothing and loaning it to the government at interest.
This system would devalue existing dollars, acting as a hidden tax. Removing the gold standard would enable governments to print money for endless, profitable wars. The bankers planned to control the Federal Reserve by influencing presidential appointments and controlling the 12 regional banks through New York banks.
They aimed to pass the legislation on December 23, 1913, when most of Congress was home for Christmas. One banker would publicly oppose the bill to create the illusion of Wall Street opposition. They would also fund university chairs and textbooks to promote their system as economic science, leading to generational debt for Americans.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Jekyll Island, November 1910. Seven bankers meeting in secret to create America's central bank. We just can't call it that. The nineteen o seven panic nearly destroyed us. Banks failed.
Fortunes vanished. We wanna control America's money supply, create booms, trigger busts, and profit from both. And how will we do that? We'll create money from nothing, loan it to the government, and charge interest. Legal counterfeiting, my friends.
But there's a cost. Every dollar we print steals value from existing dollars. It's a hidden tax that flows directly to us. And it gets worse. If we ever get off the gold standard, governments can print money for wars.
Endless wars become possible and profitable. Since Americans hate central banks, we'll call it the Federal Reserve. Sounds governmental, doesn't it? It's not. The president will appoint board members, but we'll pick who he appoints.
We'll have 12 regional banks. Looks decentralized, democratic even, but New York banks control them all. That's us. You're probably wondering how we're gonna get this through congress. 12/23/1913, most of congress home for Christmas.
Perfect timing for passing unpopular legislation. I'll publicly oppose our own bill in congress. They'll pass it thinking they beat Wall Street. We'll fund university chairs, write the textbooks, they'll teach our system as economic science. Beautiful.
Every American born after this will inherit debt on money we created from nothing. Generational servitude. The Federal Reserve. Not federal, no reserves. But everyone will think it's their government protecting them.
Good afternoon.
@SpeakWithDeeDee - SpeakWithDeeDee
Regardless of what you think of Tucker Carlson, he was spot on here. https://t.co/421pWlDTLt
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speakers identify TikTok as the “most important purchase” and name X as the other key platform, stressing the need to talk to Elon. They describe an on‑camera remark by a foreign leader as “censoring Americans” and include “This guy runs a country of 9,000,000 people that's totally dependent on our tax dollars to exist.” They argue this underscores the push to “force a TikTok sale” through Congress. They insist “the only reason we have free speech in The United States right now is because of Elon Musk.” They also claim “Free speech is central to the entire idea of America” and contrast it with “not our market economy” but “freedom of speech.” They contend the censorship drive aims to silence opposing views in the United States and emphasize engaging Elon to address the issue.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And the most important purchase that is going on right now is glass Followers. Five followers. No. Box?
Speaker 1: TikTok. TikTok. TikTok.
Speaker 0: Number one. Number one. And I hope it goes through because it's it can be consequential. Mhmm. And the other one what's the other one that's most important?
Oh, Alex. X. Mhmm. X. Oh.
Speaker 1: Successful. Very good.
Speaker 0: And, you know, so we have to talk to Elon. He's not an enemy. He's a friend. We should talk to him. Now if we can get those two things, we get locked, and I could go on on other things, but that's not the point right now.
We have to fight the fight.
Speaker 1: It's almost unbelievable that he said that on camera. Imagine. This is a foreign leader bragging about how he's censoring Americans. Again, this guy runs a country of 9,000,000 people that's totally dependent on our tax dollars to exist. And here he is on camera, he's a sophisticated guy.
He of course, he knows that he's being filmed saying, anyone who opposes me in The United States who opposes more aid to Israel or opposes getting sucked into war with Iran, which does not serve American interest, that person is not simply mistaken or wrong. I'm not gonna bother to explain why that person is wrong. That person is a Nazi, part of the woke Reich, a Nazi. And the only way to fix it is by preventing Americans in the last country on Earth with guaranteed freedom of speech, prevent Americans from hearing the other side. And so we push congress to force a TikTok sale, which is true, by the way.
And when that happened and various members of congress, like, no. Really, it's about China. There were people in line who said, no. I think it's really about Israel. You you you kinda wish it was about China.
Here he is just admitting. No. No. No. We pushed the US congress to censor in The United States to commit censorship in The United States because we think it's bad for us, and we need to talk to Elon.
The only reason we have free speech in The United States right now is because of Elon Musk. By way, a naturalized American, a foreigner who looked at The United States and said, what's great about that country? People can say what they believe because they're not slaves. They're not subjects of the state. They're citizens of a nation that they own.
Free speech is central to the entire idea of America. In fact, it's really the only thing that sets us apart from any other country on Earth. It's not our market economy. It's freedom of speech.
Speaker 0: And
reSee.it AI Summary
I remember hosting the legendary Ron Paul before gold caught the mainstream's attention—an icon and a truth-teller. My work lets me sit with early, honest voices. This is a moment, @RonPaul. The world is watching gold. Watch this epic exchange between Bernanke and Dr. Paul.
@GoldTelegraph_ - Gold Telegraph ⚡
I remember having the legendary Ron Paul on for a conversation... before gold caught the mainstream's attention. An icon and a truth-teller. My work allows me to sit down with people who were early and, most importantly, honest. This is quite a moment, @RonPaul. The entire world is finally watching gold. Watch this epic exchange between Bernanke and Dr. Paul.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 raises the question of remonetizing gold, asking if the administration could do it through a gold-backed treasury instrument as Judy Shelton suggests, or by marking gold to market at 2,900 an ounce on the balance sheet.
Speaker 1 says gold should be returned to the people. He recalls asking Bernanke in committee, “Is gold money? Do you think gold is money?” Bernanke replied, “No. It’s not money. It’s an asset.” He notes that central banks hold gold as a form of reserves, not because it is money, and compares it to diamonds or a tradition that some still regard as money. He asks why the central bank owns it and why they are buying it if it’s not money. He adds that the founders understood this, and mentions problems with the continental dollar and runaway inflation. The evidence, he says, is strong, yet it serves special interests rather than the common person, middle class, or the poor, who are affected when money is printed.
He reflects on the 1960s warnings from economists about Bretton Woods and the inability to sustain it as printing continued. The day that hit him most was August 15, 1971, when they decided the United States was broke, that money was no longer honored, and that foreigners holding dollars would not be reimbursed with gold. This marked a big issue and ushered in a new age of monetary policy. He explains that there are no restraints on spending and deficits, that both parties are involved and given license to wars and runaway welfare, and that corruption could grow in the justice department, harming the people.
He notes that gold reaching $3,000 would still be shocking, and while he might have expected higher since 1971, it remains surprising. He believes the current system is over and something has to happen. He warns that the question of timing is uncertain; any time could be the moment, though it may not be tomorrow. He anticipates continued price inflation and more trouble within the country because a system that distorts wealth distributes it unfairly—wealthy people become richer, the poor poorer, and the middle class wiped out. He observes the middle class has been conditioned by the economic and educational system, with average people saying they need money and asking for checks, noting that money created “out of thin air” is the real problem, leading to distortion and a political tragedy where the rich get richer and the people get angrier.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Do you think this administration could finally remonetize gold either through a gold backed treasury instrument as my friend Judy Shelton suggests or by simply marking it to market at 2,900 an ounce on on the balance sheet?
Speaker 1: Yeah. It should be. The the gold should be due returned to the people. You know, one day I asked Bernanke in committee. I said, is is gold money?
Do you think gold is money? No. It's not money. It's Even if it has been money for six thousand years, somebody reversed that and eliminated that economic law. Well, it's it's, you know, it's an asset.
I mean, it's same the would you say treasury bills are money? I don't think they're money either, but they're financial assets. Why do central banks hold it? Well, it's a form of reserves. It's a form they hold diamonds?
Well, it's tradition. Long term tradition. You know, some people still think it's money. I yield back. My time is up.
And he paused. He said, no. And I said, well, why does the central bank own it? And right now, why are they buying it if it's not money? No.
And the founders understood this. They had their problems with the continental dollar and runaway inflation. The evidence is so strong that, it's amazing that they have to get around it, but that serves us as a special interest. It doesn't serve the interest of the common person, middle class or the poor, which is always the reason why, well, we don't have quite enough money. We need to print the money.
It won't crash anything now even though later on it might. So they do that as a political stunt, but it gets caught up because I started getting interested in this subject in the sixties. And in the sixties, there was warnings by the good economists to watch out. You know, this this $35 on an island said Bretton Woods is guarantee they can't do it. They're printing and printing and printing.
So I really watched that. So the day that was really, really hit me because I expected it and knew it, but it still was so shocking. 08/15/1971 because they decided, no, we're we're broke. Our our money is no good. We don't honor the money anymore.
We'd already taken it from the American people. Now we're taking it away from the very significant right of foreigners who held dollars, that, we won't ever reimburse them with gold. And that was a big issue, and I, you know, didn't know exactly what would happen, but it ushered at a new age. The the new age and the modern age now of monetary policy and why we're here is the fact that it was declared in 1971 that we no longer would do it. There are no restraints on spending and deficits and both parties would be involved and both parties are, and that we give license to more and more wars.
And, it would give license to runaway welfare. It would give license to those who could become corrupt in the justice department and and also run run a system where the people, you know, suffer the consequences of the people in charge. And we've seen all of that, but it's coming to a climax. And if it weren't so bad, it could be exciting. It fascinates me, the way it's going.
But even when gold hits $3,000, it's still just shake my head up. $3,000. Even though, if you would have asked me that 25 by well, in 1971, I would say, yeah. I could. Can you get much higher?
I still say that. But when it happens, it's still it's a bit shocking. You don't actually did go up that much. The system the current system is over. Something has to happen.
But, a lot of people say, well, when when is that gonna happen? I better adjust my way. I said, just assume it could be any time. And we I I every day, we're one day closer to it, but I don't think it is gonna be tomorrow. I think we're gonna have still a lot of this price inflation going up and a lot of more trouble within our country because a system like this, causes a maldistribution of wealth.
The wealthy gets wealthier, they get wealthier, and the poor get poorer. The middle class gets wiped out, and that's that's where we are. And yet, the middle class has been so conditioned by the economic system and as an education system, what are the what are the average housewife people say? They'll come they'll come to my office and say, we need money. We we need you to send me money.
Send me a check. Of course, that that money out of thin air is is what the problem really is. It's distortion and the tragedy, the political tragedy, the rich get richer and the people get angrier.