End Central Banking Power | G. Edward Griffin & David Webb discussion | BIG PICTURE

Ed, it's so nice to be here at your retreat here in the mountains of California, what a beautiful place, um, thank you so much for having DAV, it's a pleasure to have you here. I've heard a lot about you. I'm a Mover and a Shaker for sure and I'm looking forward to this conversation. Let's have that, okay, so I think we have a lot in common, so, but let's start laying out some things through what, where is what. we're talking about um let's say there's a small group of people who are in a position to receive interest on essentially all the debt that money created in the world um and this is a concentrated group of people who are in that position um and all this debt-based money that has been created, they have created it essentially out of nothing, out of nothing, um, that's essentially the situation we're in, I think that's a pretty good summary, every

central

bank in the world creates the money in the world and they participate in every transaction every time someone buys a pack of gum, there is a little bell that rings somewhere in the cash register at the Central Bank and they get a little piece of the action, so yeah.

They are in the middle of almost every productive exchange in the world that produces services or products and that is a lot, but this is also the scale of what they are receiving in interest payments on something that was created. Well, it was when I was trying to find a way to describe that in the early days I came up with the idea of ​​imagining a river of gold constantly flowing in One Direction, a river of gold. gold is so broad that you can't even think about it let alone see it, yes, and then you're probably getting close to what we're talking about, yes, because it's global, cumulative and continuous, and not every transaction is a bubble pack . gum, many of those transactions are huge, uh, purchases and construction projects, etc., involving hundreds of millions or billions of dollars and wars, of course, create the necessary destruction that requires reconstruction and that is largely measure a part of this, if you add all that up and it is a river of gold and it comes from the little man in little pieces and it is aggregated and it is the tributaries gathered into the

central

banks and, as you mentioned, those central banks are controlled by a relatively small of people, so it's more aggregated and where it ends we can only imagine, but I think an important part of that understanding is that these people don't use that river of gold entirely for their own pleasures or aggrandizement or whatever they use, the they spend most of it. most of it in acquiring control and

power

over the world, they use that money, it's not just a profit for them, it's a business expense, so to speak, because their true goal is not to simply earn more. money they have all the money they can spend the real objective today I think is to control all human beings on the planet and that is where that river of gold is going and the scale of the resource they have is beyond any certainty. cash flow resource of any industry, oh way beyond that, because it's going on, it's essentially all human activity that's going to make these payments in this Con control structure, um, that's it, it's so simple once you understand it, but it's so big and seems so strange to the average person that they can't imagine it or think it must be imaginary, it can't be anything like that, we certainly know, if something that big was in the room, We would know exactly how.

How big does the elephant have to be before you can see it and the answer is it has to be bigger than the room and then you don't see it, you're in it instead of seeing it? Yes so is it fair to say that the elephant Governments don't control this resource, it's the other way around, yes it didn't start that way but you can always predict that it will because governments need money and the only way they can Obtaining it is through taxes. their subjects, which is unpopular and in today's world governments must try very hard to be popular governments, otherwise they tend to be replaced by opposition forces that may pretend to be popular governments and benevolent governments, which is why they don't like it as much the tax structure, but They love the structure of Fiat money and the devaluation of the purchasing

power

of existing national currencies because it is a hidden tax that goes directly to them and not one person in a thousand on the street understands how it works, so there is no there's no animosity or uh uh anger on the part of the public because they don't understand that they're being looted so it's their favorite method of uh paying for everything yeah and they have no limit yeah if it weren't for this uh this flipping through the surface of each transaction and going into an element of society that has had no significant role in producing anything constructive except simply skimming through all these little bits of the action, so to speak, if all that were left behind. to seep into society itself in the goods and services and standard of living of the average person that I can imagine, we would be living in a utopia right now of material convenience and wealth and there would be poverty. be almost a word that you have to look up in the dictionary because I think it would be eliminated.

The natural instinct of human beings to be charitable could be exercised so freely that you have all the surplus if you see someone you would need, you would certainly want to help them, you would have a lot of your own and you know that only people who have more than they need can helping those who have less than what they need, so the goal is to help those who have less than what they need. what they need is to get more people on the other side who have more than they need, so by helping them you are indirectly helping even the guy at the lower end of the scale, most people don't see that they think you have to take the haves and give it to the have nots and that of course is just a formula for failure so I think if this wasn't removed from all of these transactions you're right it would be a tremendous benefit that we can I can't even imagine that life would be much more prosperous than it is now.

Some people might argue that maybe that would be a bad thing because maybe we would become even more materialistic than we are. I don't see it that way. I think some of the most genuinely spiritual, charitable, intellectual people I know are very rich, but they don't, they don't use their wealth in that way to get more wealth and have a bigger house and maybe a bigger house. yacht or something, they actually do a lot of good, spend their money to help others in need, or they will pursue an education that improves their understanding, maybe they invent something because of their ability to take the time to research. and invent.

I don't think that's necessarily a boomerang. I think it's a question of personal abilities and tendencies. I believe that bad people will be bad people, whether they are rich or poor, and good people will be good people, whether they are rich or poor and that is my personal bias. I hope I'm right about that, but I think it would tend to be that way, so there is the possibility of benevolent use of the resource, but in reality it seems to cause harm and deprivation. It's unfair to say no, I think it's an obvious truth, you can see it, but the question remains: why is it like this?

I feel that it is because the system that has evolved under which we now live has been so twisted that only those with this temperament are able to rise to the top if it were some kind of fair environment and would acquire success and authority due to their ability to produce goods and services or make life easier and better for people, um, those, the people who have those instincts would rise to the top, but the system we have now is basically based on fraud and mythological deception, legalized looting, um control over human beings just by this sheer power to control them, none of those, those, none of Those results are a product of proper motivation and attract only people who are capable of playing the dirty game to get to the top, so I think that's basic and could be an important part of that.

I don't think it has to be like that. not only because everyone who is able to get to the top is necessarily bad, but when the method by which you get to the top is bad, yes, then that filters out the good people and only the bad ones will follow that guy, Is it somehow different? or more extreme than it has been at other times in your life, it is definitely different, even the change is so drastic in my life in just one life that I can see it and certainly someone who would be reading about it in a history book or something That's how I would see it. which was quite drastic and again I think it is due to the social acceptance of the system itself.

What people are convinced is normal or right, good or bad, has changed through a process that I could only call psychological warfare and um societies have changed cultures have changed values ​​have changed most of the rays are different from when I came to this planet and that does not necessarily mean that everything that existed at that time was excellent because that would not be true but they certainly were at a higher level of ethics, I think of the one you are at now, you achieve success , say in the corporate world, for example, not because of their ability to produce goods or services with higher quality and lower cost than their competitors, but because they have political influence and bribe politicians to pass laws that hinder their competition, for example so success is now awarded to those who play the dirty game rather than those who play the Honorable's game.

So naturally, who is rising to the top, but the dirty one. players of the game, so again, it goes back to the system, but that didn't just happen, there was and is a group of people who really want to play the dirty game, it's not just that it happened and then they took advantage of it, they do. I want to change it in that direction and I have achieved it now. This is a harder question for me to answer, why would they do that? I don't know the answer, maybe it's just that there's a certain difference from one group of people to another, I don't know, so we put unlimited funds into them, well we put unlimited funds into them because they make promises to us and we're enough stupid to believe his promises that the world's limitless problems can only be solved.

It will be solved with unlimited funds in your hands, yes, and we think well how else these problems are going to be solved, so we fall for the lie and believe that because they say they want to help us, we believe that they mean it and uh. so we give them the money, unlimited funding and power they ask for, let's say it was a mistake, what could be done about it. You have touched on a very central issue that is rarely discussed. I have observed that it is rarely discussed and when I try. to bring it up, sometimes I'm surprised by the disinterest there is in the topic, yes, because we're going to move on because the answer to the question is really quite mysterious, well, what is that problem?

Let me tell you something. a little bit about my journey in all of this when I first became aware of these things, which was the year 19 60 uh of course I didn't know anything about world events, I had no interest before that etc. so I'm starting a cleanse. whiteboard but suddenly I see that things are not going well and I start to realize what you just said that there are people who are making decisions for me and for us and I think maybe they are not telling me the truth. because they always seem to fail in their promises and what comes out on the other end makes the problem worse and they become more powerful and richer. hm, you know there was a trend there and I could see that, but that's all I had to do. and so for a long time in the year from 1960 to about 19 oh, probably in the 80's, I was following the Mantra of many others who were on the same path that the problem was power and of course the famous quote of Lord Acton was famous among us also with power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and it is true, so if you do not investigate further you think, oh, we find that the problem is power, the solution, therefore, is elimination of power, unfortunately, that is not a possible solution, the answer is Who will have the power?

Will there be limitations to that power? What could those limitations be except another power? Well, those are questions that are very difficult to answer. Who can you trust when your gut really tells you? I can't or I shouldn't I can't but I shouldn't trust anyone in problems of this magnitude because all you have to do is make a mistake, you know, do you trust the engine of your plane or do you keep it and watch? Every time you take off you don't trust anything that involves things as precious as your life and your freedom, and yet we are taught that you should trust what you know as if it were some kind of automatic virtue, well, I did.

I didn't understand any of this at the time, so I was part of the minions preaching the solution. We must also do what we can to eliminate power, reduce it gradually and because as long as there is power out there we are going to be in trouble and the idea that you can actually seek power, political power, economic power over others is unthinkable because Lord Acton speaks to me again, so I reject the power. Waspreaching that we ourselves should not seek power was my response and we should discourage others from doing so and then one morning, David, I was apparently thinking about this subconsciously in my dreams or something because I woke up just as the sun was starting to set. shed a little light in the sky.

I remember looking out the window. and when I came to consciousness I sat up in bed, remembered like it was yesterday and said, oh, I get it, we lose and that's the idea that we lose because we have no power, you can't, I did. I realized that you cannot overcome Peerless Power or Higher Power and as long as we remain passive and support the idea that we should not have any power, we will lose it now, which leaves open the question: is there no way to win? How can we prevent power from subverting us if we were to achieve power and I suddenly realized that the analogy was like having weapons.

Gun control. Now the argument against guns is that guns are dangerous. People are accidentally killed by guns. Crimes are committed with weapons. Young children die from gunshot wounds. Well, the only thing more dangerous than having guns is not having them because then you can't defend yourself against those who do have them. Wow, what a thought. You know, that means we have to find some way to handle weapons safely so that weapons can only be used for evil purposes not accidentally but by conscious design, but people with guns who are not evil people will be able to more than handle those few who will use weapons for illegal or inappropriate purposes, it is a question of balance or priority. one side facing the other I realized that and I went back and started rereading all those history lessons and remembering what I had learned when I was studying Lenin.

I read all the complete works of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. hanging out at the communist bookstore and reading his books and participating in his group sessions, his recruiting sessions really, and I read all of his literature. I read, you know, Marx's DUS Capel D Capel and the Communist Manifesto and I read Lenon. I read that right. Go. That's another story that I discovered and I read all these things that were basically the same basic arguments and Lenon was very instructive to me. I'm actually going to answer your question, believe it or not. I think this could be useful.

Other people are struggling with this same transition I had to go through. Lennon was very prolific and writing the complete works of him is so boring because he says the same thing over and over and over again the basic message he delivered. it's something like that comrades it doesn't matter what you think or what you say or how good a debater you are that none of that makes any difference the only thing that really counts is getting to power yes, once we get to power we can if If someone doesn't agree agree with us, we can shoot them, yes, so I think the problem is concentration of power rather than distributed power.

Well, I would go one step further. I'll come back, let me get back to that if I can, because, um, I will. just understand it, I'll just tell you that yes, it is distribution, but it is something else that it involves and that is, um, limitation, limitation, for what purpose, very few people talk about it, okay, let's talk about it. I'll leave this other thing aside because this is maybe even more. important um you and I were talking earlier about the question of what is appropriate respect for property why would we want to defend property and so on um and my answer to that question was not all property some property and Define the difference between essential property and convenience property and essential property is what is worth fighting for, if necessary you fight for your life and for your freedom, if someone is trying to kill you or enslave you, in most people's minds you have everything the right, at least, to use the Force. against them Unlimited Force to preserve their life and freedom and therefore can delegate that authority to use Force against another person.

You can delegate that to the state, but just for those two purposes, it's not distributed at the county level or at the national level. so you are limiting it to the purpose for which that Authority is issued in the period of defense of life and liberty and putting limits on that, so that is the response that must, whatever the solution is, must involve the understanding of that the use of coercion in the state should be limited to the defense of life and liberty and nothing more, the rest is all voluntary and it's not that you can't do things.

Vol, you could still build roads and have the state build them if everyone agreed and wanted to donate. that and so on or put up a toll booth or something like that, but you don't go out and send a policeman to the door and say you didn't pay your taxes for that toll road and we're going to put you in prison for that, okay, like that that's all. I agree with you on the distribution of power, but also on the selection of what it is used for and that is what is missing there, that people tend to think well, these bad people in office just replace them with good people, we will still have the same power to do whatever we want, the same ability to tax whatever we want, so whatever we think is good, we'll be able to tax people for it, that's the mistake. well, but if you have a resource in society or a resource of humanity and if there is a mechanism to capture that resource and direct it by a small group of people, that is one model, another model is that this resource of humanity is distributed and um, it can be used by many autonomous agencies, individual agencies, groups of people and it can be used for good or bad, the big difference is if it is distributed and someone is using it because they will bear the consequences of that and the people who are involved with them the problem is when all that resource is concentrated and there is the possibility of it being used for evil.

Yes, that's the problem you mentioned now that it's here, what do we do about it? We have to dismantle it, yes, now we have a special problem, it is not just preventing it from happening, we have to dismantle it and it has already happened, yes, they already have the weapons and the chemical weapons and the controls and everything and the power banks, they are everything, so How do we overcome that without equal and opposite power? And that's the critical thing, this is what people can't, this is really what I think we urgently need to talk about, are we?

We're all suffering from Stockholm syndrome, which is that there's nothing we can do about it, so we'll just accept it and support the system, no matter how bad it is, but we're getting to a point where I think we can't do it anymore. do that and um uh so it's very difficult to imagine how it can be changed peacefully and legally um but then but we have to imagine how that could be done how simply it could be done I think we're kind of stuck in this mentality that it can't be done, nor we can't even talk about it, so what, I know you know you were the first person, one of the first people, to file a case to dissolve the Federal Reserve System to um, roll back the Federal Reserve Act um, could that really be done right?

That's the crux of the matter, yes, it can be done, but not without power, you already have to have political power over Congress, for example, you would have to have Congress. you would need an act of Congress and that means you have to have power. You're not going to get congressmen to do what you want unless you have the power to make them do what you want. You have to have the V. you have to control the political parties, the media and so on or it's not going to happen well and that's the power I'm talking about yes, we have to have power yes, in fact, when I created the International Organization Freedom Force I chose to have a you I know a slogan, a motto and I thought, let's make it good, so I came up with an expression that we had to convert to Latin to make it sound a little historical, let's see if I can remember the Latin, now it's um imp. impotente defende libert which translated is those without power cannot defend liberty and that is what we are talking about we cannot get Congress to abolish the Federal Reserve System until we have enough power of some kind Force Congress to do that, of course, It starts in one's own mind, yes, it starts with the individual, that's right, it starts with the individual and yes we are really entering a point in time where there is no alternative, but people have to wake up and pay attention to what is happening and therefore this is happening more and more at the individual level eh, I would like to think that this can start at the local level, it does not start from the top AB because the federal level controls the EU level, the system of the EU is completely irresponsible, it has to start changing things at a local level, you really know it's not just a matter of talking about it, it's actually starting to change things and one wonderful thing we have to work with is the States, you know, at the state level in the United States.

You are very lucky and that is quite difficult, but at least it is better than the national concept. Yes, well, you are exactly now. We are on the same path. I'm sure that's why there really is an answer to your question. And part of this is that we have to start at the local level and generate popular support for what we want to do and that will give us the political voting power and the pressure that must be brought to bear against these people in Congress who suddenly realize that . It doesn't matter how much money they get in donations, if the will of the people is not going to support them, they are out, yes, and that is political power and it comes from scratch, as you just suggested, yes, so that is a key element. where we should start our fight not at the national or international level but at the grassroots level by forming committees or groups we call them campuses in the Red Pill University these are campuses we call them like that these are the people who are fully aware and dedicated and willing to come out as the counterpart on the other side that makes all the noise and they have organizations, you know, of course, they're well funded, you know, George Soros spends a lot of money on black lives and uh and antifa and things like that, but those are groups powerful people who exert political pressure against Congress and the Senate and that is where it all begins.

We have to have groups like that that are willing to get up and make noise. Now I'm not defending. go burn things or destroy things, but you have to be there on the spot and be visible and very firm about where your position is, yeah, and it starts there, okay, this is very important because it's happening, it's like that, as I understand it. It's, um, legislators at the state level, there's not a lot of money or glory in that, so these people are normal people, um, um, um, I guess you'd have to say they believe in what they're doing because there's no glory in it. .

I know there are uh I guess I'm not sure they get paid a lot to do very little in most cases yeah and they don't have staff uh they don't have support they have to work a job uh to really support. their families while doing this, so, by the way, that's ideal, in my opinion, perfect, yeah. I think they're very different than the people in Congress and certainly the Senate, the people at that level, so we have the potential to work with real people, people who are doing things for the right reason, but they have to do it. , they have to see and understand what they are facing, but things may start to change at the state level. so I want to tell you what's happening now and talk a little bit about it, you know, I've worked on these changes in property rights around securities, I think stocks and bonds, uh, and subversion of these property rights. that in a case of insolvency of financial institutions, people can lose their investment properties, including pension funds, including pension funds, including, will be quite widespread, these assets can be taken, even if people have not asked lent money against those assets, there is someone else. some other entity has used your property and taxed it, so the system is set up this way and people are starting to become aware of this as we have talked about property being absolutely fundamental to humans and even more beyond humanity in mammals and birds.

You know, in terms of being able to reproduce, being able to have a ter, the territorial imperative is universal, yes, it's ours, it's mine, etc., and the family has a lot of that built into it, yes, if our property is attacked. ability to have property, it really is fundamental to attack the human person, our life, our ability to reproduce, it is that fundamental, yes, um, so they, um, there, um, the laws that were changed to make this taking of ownership, um, these changes were made over decades and it is irrefutable that this has been done and in a way that is a blessing for us because it is very clear and it is not going to disappear as some kind of proof of what has happened.

In fact, it is something that people can see and understand that this is the case, which is why a process has been started first in the state of South Dakota and on Monday a bill was introduced in the state of South Dakota. South to challenge this and roll back the law to regain the property rights of the people in the state of South Dakota over their values ​​um and uh this is the beginning maybe of something that can then continue in other states and that is beginning tohappen Also, do you agree that this is a vector that could lead to profound change?

How important do you think this effort is that is just beginning in South Dakota? David, that's the reason you and I are here is because you know the answer to that question, but the audience doesn't know what my answer to that question is. I totally agree with that. I am very excited. I'm almost as excited about this as you are because I don't understand it as well as you do, but I understand the basics that this is a fundamental change that was about to be made and that you are the one who stepped forward and reported the matter and that whistle is getting louder and louder and louder people are blowing their own whistles and the crescendo of that strident sound is getting louder and louder and I'm very excited and encouraged by the possibility and now perhaps bordering on the inevitability that this will grow quickly and wildly. in a powerful, powerful notice, the word powerful movement that will give us the power to influence legislation and many other things as well, but the power will come from this understanding that, thank God, you are the one who triggered the whole thing and I started it , so I'm all for it and I want to thank you publicly again for doing this, count me in, that's my message is yes, yes and yes, and count me in, yes, yes, well, you know, I have to say my part in this I've felt like I'm just cooperating all the time I don't really feel like it's something I'm doing I'm cooperating in what I see and then I say something about it and then it takes on a life of its own, well I think it's an admirable attitude, it's humble and It's true, I get it, I feel the same way, it's so much bigger that it's bigger than us, thing B, yeah, but you're still playing a role in it and if everyone would do what they could, I mean, that's important to knowing that you really have a lot more personal power than you know, yeah, you never know when the spark will light in something that sweeps the prairie, well, how do you say that phrase?

There's a spark in men's minds that causes the prairie fire or something, yeah, okay, it's a little bit like, uh, I think there are parallels to the first American Revolution at the time we're going through, certainly There is going to be some kind of profound change and I think a lot of people feel it or know it on some level, so I think it's very important for people to know that there are concrete steps that are starting to be taken in the United States. It is important that people research that this bill to amend the Uniform Commercial Code in South Dakota and support contact with legislators in South Dakota is vital in the coming weeks, but even beyond that awareness of this action will it can pick up in other states and that will continue, but let's say there's a uh, Ed Dow uses this term force multiplier, which means one person can't do much of anything, there has to be a multiplier. effect and that happens when other people um it's the prairie fire other people pick it up make it their own and run with it and that's starting um it becomes a distributed power and uh but they um do you believe that? people are now coming to some kind of common ground in terms of their understanding of the problem and their hopes are that things will converge in terms of is there a convergence happening for people now in terms of realizing that there is a problem, perhaps are you starting to understand? what is the problem and a convergence instead of a diffusion and people arguing, people start to have a convergence in terms of their hope for themselves and humanity and that is not in conflict, actually well, again, I think which is a self-fulfilling response.

Mind you, it's obvious that this is reaching a lot of people and it's reaching fast and as it should because it affects everyone except that very small minority at the top who will benefit from all of this and even those who had great successes. wealth thought they could overcome it because they can buy their way out of almost everything and they are realizing that no, they are not exempt either and that U, so that is causing a rapid awareness and growth in resolve to do something about respect, but it touches on The real problem when you said if they are realizing the problem and understand the nature of the problem.

Those are two different things. One of the things that worries me the most is that I am afraid that our opponent, our enemy, let's call it whatever. I think he has thought about this a long time ago and has anticipated that there will come a time in the process of consolidating his power when there will be waves of rejection and people will realize that we better do it. something about it and there will be this willingness and this growth in the pushback, so I put myself in the position of what would I do if I were them knowing that this was going to happen and of course the response.

It is very clear that this is what the military does when they build strategies for what happens if nothing happens in the world that the military has not already anticipated? Well, what would we do if this happened? I think they have buildings full of strategists who are building scenarios of what you do, you don't have to worry about it by the time you've figured it out, maybe you've even had some practice doing it, so I know for sure in my mind That this emergence of consciousness was anticipated by the opposition, so what would you do if you were sitting around your boardroom table?

I would say: well, let's take a look at plan 7B, take it out and read it again. Oh okay, let's use that one and I think 7B is probably like that, if you can't stop it then overpower it with some other problem, in other words let's unleash a world war or have an EMP attack that knocks out the electricity, have people fighting and rioting in the streets for something we do. something really dramatic, we're going to put an atomic bomb in Cincinnati and now that's going to be enough because everyone's going to say, "My God, we're in an atomic war, we're not going to worry about property rights, we're worried about surviving now, that's what I would do". do and I'm going to throw it away for what it's worth because our enemy is of that nature, they would do anything to preserve their power and perpetuate it, so if we pretend we don't know what we're doing, we're making a big mistake, sure now the rest of that story is that, even if that wasn't part of the

picture

, people are realizing that this is a threat to their private property and they're upset, but do they understand why they're after their private property?

Is it just because they want the property and it's selfish or is there an ideological reason and of course there is an ideological reason as well? Yes, and what I don't see and I think it's one of my responsibilities is to help people realize it. that there's something even bigger that encompasses that and that's this ideology of collectivism that's at the root of everything, if you peel back the onion layers enough, you'll see, oh, it's this ideology called collectivism, the idea that the group is more important than the individual and that the individual must be sacrificed if necessary for the greater good of a greater number, that is the core of it and all these atrocities that are being committed are done on the basis of that justification, it is for the either older or you have to take that vaccine. because it is not because of you but because of your grandmother or something like the great or good of society is always that we will have this war because if we do not have the war well, it could be even worse and U and it goes on and on and on So I want you to people understand that the enemy really isn't just this guy who's trying to take away your property rights because he's a dirty son of a bitch and get rid of him and replace him with someone you can trust, no, who you have to look up to. their deepest motives are these collectivists are these ideologically motivated people and in all the cases in which I have had the opportunity to observe the promoters and agitators of this opposition that we are talking about they believe intensely in the principles of collectivism and that is what that motivates them and to be clear, these are the people who control the central banks, they are clear, yes, they are also the people who created that ideology in the first place, so they are not what we would really consider capitalists, no.

They are the opposite, yes, no, they are not capitalists, they may be very rich, but that is not the definition of capitalism, the richest people in the world are the despots, so going back to what you just said, this is rushing doing something now. and the people behind this it seems like we're entering into an increasingly intense hybrid war globally and people would say, Well, when is that going to start? Well, you're already on this, you have hundreds of thousands of innocent people who have been murdered in Ukraine, at this point, who have been caught in the middle of this, you have the horrible destruction that is taking place in Gaza currently, this comes after years of strange things happening during covid and it may be a long time before.

We understand what all the objectives of that initial stage were, we already see the declines, so we are in this, we are in this in a big way and, therefore, it is urgent to understand what is behind this and what is going to happen. get worse and better also the other thing I mentioned that I didn't fully develop is the fact that knowing there would be pushback, another part of our opponent's strategy would be to provide leadership to the opposition controlled by the pushback actors that they know. that we'll look for people to stand up and lead against them so they don't stand around waiting let's say I wonder who they're going to elect, they put their own man or woman out there and he says all the right things, he says follow me we'll get rid of these dirty bankers , we will solve this problem and people say, well, thank God, you know, and they follow them, but they are programmed to be defeated, that's something that people don't like to think about. about oh, they wouldn't do that, of course they would.

This is war. They would do it in the blink of an eye. They do it on the football field with a work of the Statue of Liberty. Why wouldn't they do it in Warfare, for God's sake? Yes, but if it's a time when there's suffering and people are under threat, that's it, that's it, people change because of it, obviously, you know that's something that you would never wish for yourself or anyone but the people. . It happens at a time like that and people develop conviction and the more threatening the situation becomes, there is an initial period of fear of not being able to face things, but then eventually people individually start to face things and if that Maybe, someone said, you know, of course, a lot of people shut down from being overwhelmed with conflicting information, they can't make sense of things, but once people start seeing what's happening differently, they've gotten through the membrane. to the right side of the membrane and they don't come back, they are just accumulating the number of people who have had this experience and they may not have understood, none of us understand everything, that's for sure, but if that is happening and there could be You know , it will be a rapid social change in a period of a few years, so the World Economic Forum's plan is to have a completely different world by the end of this decade. 2030.

Humanity's plan, of course, has to be to have no different alternative. In the version things are going to change, but to do something different, so if it seems that it is imperative to cut funding to all these myriad scops and all kinds of things that focus on harming people, it really is that simple like that to stop the financing um if that could if we could develop a resolution for uh and the control of the Central Bank somewhere in the world um and that could start that has to start that way oh it has to start that way yeah, yeah Well, I totally agree, you know, but I keep coming back to the question of how do we do that and we have to have the power to do it, not only is it easy to say that we have to do this somehow, but somehow it has to come . from the state level or from the national level.

The national level has to rise, which means it comes from the community level. Yes, you have to have people here in your county that you know there are 120 people that you can call. on the phone and that you said we had something important to accomplish in a meeting tomorrow night yes, they will be there yes, but it can also proceed in parallel everywhere yes, I'm not talking about one county, I'm talking about all of them, that is What has to happen is that it is happening in parallel in many places at the same time, yes, and that means that there has to be some kind of coordination and direction, but it can't be authoritarian, it has to be. volunteer well, there is a model, people see something that has worked and then they can be inspired by that yes, that's how we did it yes, wouldn't you like to try it? yeah, yeah, that's what they're trying to do in South Dakota. right now wow and that's what we should do everything we can to support that's very exciting so let's say things could change at the state level and then a change could be forced at the congressional level and there over a period of just a few years here's a massive social shift towards uh um um ending the Federal Reserve Act and replacing it with something else, you know, a lot of people, Stockholm syndrome okay, everything would collapse if you did that, if you ended the BookingFederal, we couldn't do that because this is what they want you to believe you can.

If you don't need us things would be bad, if so, help people understand that if that could happen, let me ask you if you had the authority to do that to end the Federal Reserve System, how would you do it? a way to do it so that there is no collapse and that everything can actually improve essentially immediately. Well, my answer to that is that I don't know any way to solve this problem as deep and as tense as it is now. without paying pretty serious prices for it a lot of discomfort pain Agony I think the best analogy is uh, it would be a drug addict trying to kick the habit, a serious drug addict, he, if you cool him down, he would probably die, it would destroy him.

I have heard that is the case in many cases so you have to relax somehow, well it is not necessary but I mean it could be very destructive but the point is that everyone is looking for a painless solution and there is no one. painless solution. We've come so far that it's going to be painful no matter what happens, but hey, let's say if you have a business that's not working, you're losing money. One way to fix it is to stop doing the things that don't work. If it doesn't work, you stop, you stop, you stop doing the things that don't work and you start doing the things that do, uh uh, focus on those things and we're in a situation where a lot of what's being done is actually It's hurting people and hurting the economy. and um uh it's, I'd like to think that there's a chance that if you just um um have a different means of controlling this system so that the things that are harming people just stop, there will be immediate relief for people.

I would like to think that too, but I don't believe that at all. I think, let's be specific, we are talking about the Federal Reserve System, yes, Central Banking, but the Federal Reserve is also financing many things and indirectly does so. possible, so how can the Federal Reserve System be righted and turned into a beneficial institution? I don't think it's possible because it wasn't designed to be a beneficial institution, it was designed to be an instrument of plunder, yes, and how? How do you take one? I don't know an analogy, how do you take a gun and turn it into a cow or something?

Well, okay, there is a transition period. All I'm suggesting is that initially it's better just because you Look, the next day, um uh, let's say the violence starts to end, you know things like the different programs that we're hurting people to stop them, you could have something like, um, end the tax system, which is primarily a form of harassment. people and take resources away from them, um, you know, we can, people can talk about what would replace that, but there can be sort of a series of things that can be done that can improve things quickly, but in terms of the federal government.

Reserve, yes, there would have to be a transition and, one idea, Bill still says that in his article The Money Masters he talks about the idea that the Treasury would simply issue money to pay off debt based on the Fed as it comes due or more aggressive way. and that could be a transition period in which at least interest is no longer paid to the Federal Reserve on that debt. Now basically with one hand you are redeeming the debt and with the other hand issuing currency to replace it, that makes I understand that the motive behind this is to try to make this work, yes, to avoid as much agony and destruction as possible, but I think, I mean, I'm quite familiar with Bill's work and he's always been an advocate of fiat currency, yeah, and to me it makes no difference whether the scam is run by private banks or the government, it's still a fraud.

I don't care who, who, who participates in Fractional Reserve.

banking

, whether it's the government or the bankers, I don't care who makes money out of nothing, whether it's the government or the bankers, it's the fact that someone is making money out of nothing and charging interest. I don't care who it is. I don't think the private sector is any less trustworthy than the government sector, so first of all, I reject that whole idea because it doesn't really change anything, but a lot of people would say, "Oh, that'll do, they're the dirty bankers, you know." , Yeah". we just take away the interest that we are paying them, everything will be fine and no, no, the interest in the first place is not the main factor the interest that the government pays to the Federal Reserve as you know, I am sure that much of it is refunded, Most of it is refunded because the Fed is left with only what it needs for its own operating expenses, which is a lot.

I don't know what the number is, yes, a hug. a good deal, all your expenses are covered, yes, but whatever it is, it is not totally safe and much of it is reimbursed, but that is not where the danger lies, it is much greater than that. I would gladly pay the interest if it would help. a productive function, you know, a beneficial function, so I don't see that as a solution at all. I think we have to bite the bullet and say: uh, drugs are the problem of addiction, it's not who sells the drugs, okay, it's a The problem of who is going to control it is it possible that governments are so corrupt and insensitive to the interests of the public because of the power of money that controls everything, so if that stops, this is one of the things that could improve immediately, that the people in the government and, you know, even the universities, even academics, could overcome their monetary incentives to do what they are told to do and people could start doing things for the right reasons.

Well, my answer is no, I don't. I think it would work because I think people won't, won't start doing the right thing for the right reasons, uh, because they could, they could do it now, but you were saying they don't have the money to do it right then. They aren't going to have the money anyway if we reform the system, so those things don't care about doing the right thing, let's start with that, that's not why they are there, they have other fish to fry and they want to be alike. They are doing the right thing, but what they are doing now is what they want to do and they want to continue with it anyway.

I just don't see as long as we condone bad practice and just say, let's find a better way to do the wrong thing uh, we're not moving in the right direction, but if the power of money is like that, um, let's go back to the founding fathers when there was a finite monetary system based only on metals and the entire government. what he was doing was appropriate you know, fixing weights and measures and and uh then there was no uh uh there was no

banking

power that controlled the government at that time um now it's not perfect, it's a pitched battle, it's always like that a free fight for all, um, but isn't that what we're trying to get back to that kind of free for all where there's distributed power, there's no money power controlling the government? government, you know, you, you, there's always me, I know what you're saying, that you want a protector, you want a protector, it's a question of what that term means, yes, but it's not if, if, if, the power of the money stops.

Can't the government or the protector begin to function properly only if there are good people in it, only if it has the right to have honest people in the legislature, something we don't have at the moment, but who have been attracted there by the government? Cor the power of money, yes, but they are there, how do we get rid of them? I guess it's implied to me that all those people would leave because they're not going to get paid anymore, they're going to get paid. I mean, are you suggesting that we? leave the Federal Reserve in place no, no, I'm saying the control of the Federal Reserve ends, so who is the control of the Federal Reserve?

It's there, it would have to be fine, the Fed would not continue Be clear, you and the Federal Reserve Act, but you still have all the infrastructure that has existed from day one, you still have the infrastructure that has been created around this and you need a transition period to move that towards you, maybe you know that. Then you can move to a finite money system, but it seems to me that when I say that the control group would disappear on the first day, it's like when you have a um uh, you know the CEO of a company. that's running a mck and the board in this case the public said let's say, you're relieved of your position, you can go to the beach now that you're done, you know that would be the case with the people behind this now.

I know you. They're saying they're not going to do so well, people, the people don't have any control over the FED, they're not the shareholders, so you'd have to get to the point of, actually, through Congress, I know. It seems difficult to imagine that I can understand where you are going and I sympathize with the objective and I have thought about it a lot but I have just come to the conclusion that this is a totally corrupt system. It was designed to be totally correct and I don't think you can change it. I think what we should do is just abolish it and now there could be a lot to say if there is a way to abolish it slowly so that the impact is not all at once, it would be very difficult, it's like an addict going cold turkey, yeah, and it could be more than the country could bear.

I recognize that maybe there is a way out of this, but hey, there is. things like you know Lincoln's greenbacks, you know there are things that you do to um uh save society and then uh, health can come back so that the debt can be paid, you can transition to something, it's theoretically possible, but I don't think there's much historical evidence that those things actually happen, they're usually offered as an excuse to delay and uh. and more time to recover and continue the war, but I'm all for it being done, I would say yes, I'll probably reluctantly accept it, but I just don't see that happening and, um, no, no.

I am very optimistic about finding a group of good men who can resist the temptation of money and power well, which is why it needs to be distributed, whatever it is, except the ideas that the founding fathers had that it was finite money based on metals . system um, I mean, what I'm imagining is that we don't have to go back to, you know, carrying, you know, pieces of metal, you know, the electronic electronic payment system is a good thing, well, if you could eliminate the third party risk. Well, this is what I'm passionate about, that, that the FED points out that the Treasury basically issues the money to pay the debt, as it comes due, so that there doesn't have to be an implosion, but then, that debt based on the Treasury is backed by uh silver uh uh I'm moving away from your ideas silver gold may be a secondary metal as a monetary asset but it floats uh towards silver um you still have the payment structure so you have uh um depositories for the metal that are exchangeable in uh , they can be transferred electronically, they can be transferred, they can be used with a certificate, but there is a 100% endorsement and then there is a tax, a very small transaction tax on electronic transfers for convenience, something like a tenth part of a percentage. so there is no need for income tax and you are backed by Metals Bas and run on a completely transparent and understandable rate based system.

Well, I'm getting an idea of ​​all these ideas. I think they have a lot of merit. but none of them can come to fruition until Congress completely changes oh yes, it would have to change completely, it won't change as long as there is the FED producing the money, so it's a chicken and the egg, chicken and the eggs problem. eggs, yes, you. you have to reform the system before you can reform the system um, but there is no alternative, well there is, but it's ugly, but at least it's possible, just despise the Fed, well, now just demolish it.

Okay, it's gone, yeah, and it doesn't have to be replaced with anything when you have cancer, you don't say you would replace it with another cancer, another cancer, so what would that look like, how would that work, how would it, Let's say as a fact? that there has been such anguish in society over a period of a few years that there is a mass participation that there needs to be a change and there is a convergence of understanding that it has to happen, suppose something like that is going to happen, well , okay, if you assume that I'm a little scared because I think the public would be angry with the first thing offered and that could be Bill Still's proposal, trust the government to turn this whole thing around.

Same operation, just move the treasury, just take out the private bankers, that's the problem, yes, everything continues, otherwise the same, like the Bank of England bank, okay, it's the same in England as here in the US, it's just that we have two identities instead of one private versus one public. Well, we could understand people. I think people are starting to understand that there doesn't need to be a fiat-based system, you can move to be backed, but you still want, you still need electronic payments, for society to function, there's nothing inherently wrong. bad, in that, there is nothing wrong with certain risks involved with the system that we maintain, we maintain the infrastructure. we have um but um uh uh yes the Fed the FED would cease to exist it has been we agree that it has to cease to exist it seems to be ahuman imperative now is and If it can happen, if that happened with the Federal Reserve, the whole world will change, well, you know, the forces that exist would not allow that to happen without great resistance, yeah, and it will be like a bid when he tried stay with the last bank. yes, from Us Alive, but they did it, but well, Jack Jackson did it, yes, but almost, I mean, Jackson was almost left with nothing, yes, it hadn't been because of some accidental revelations that became public, yes, but that had not happened. the public would have blamed Jackson for all the difficulties that were going on, yeah, and um, Jackson would have been knocked out, yeah, and I think right now, with the control that they have over the media, there's no question that an effort honest to eliminate the Fed would be labeled as the cause of all the problems that were happening and they would probably add a few more to the list that they didn't have and the public would fall for it, that's the problem, well maybe right now, Yeah. right now, but what about after another two or three years of escalating hybrid warfare and difficulties?

Well, now we can talk, yes, something has to happen in those two years, we have to become more powerful, we have to have more power, yes, more. influence on public opinion because that is where a public opinion all begins if the masses, even if they are not going to participate in the reform, have to accept it, have to support it at some level, yes, otherwise, they will also be. It is easily motivated and there will be, you know, firing squads of citizens out there, they will be looking for people like us, thinking that we were the ones who caused the problem, yes, so we must have the understanding of the Mass at some fundamental level. that what we are doing is good and worthwhile, yes, but I am getting down to work.

I completely agree with you about the 3%, you know, it's just a small percentage of people who need to start having some kind of convergence. of understanding what needs to be done and then, um, it's like that, it's not really that everyone needs to understand it, certainly not everyone needs to understand it, but the larger group has to respond to the mottos that they have to understand it. at a slogan level I think that's enough, that's powerful if you can get people to respond to a slogan like enough is enough, yeah now we're talking about reaching the masses at some visceral level, yeah anyway that's my thought.

I could not. It's easy to be wrong, this is uncharted territory, as you rightly point out, yes, a challenge like this has never arisen. I don't think in a story that deep, I mean that it involves so many psychological components, yeah, it always has. quite militaristic and economic, but now it's psychology, yeah, and um, you know, I think and a lot of other people say it, it's spiritual now because there's no alternative, you can't help it now because and what do I mean by that? is that it is something so difficult and really horrible to face that it is necessary to transcend that in some way you cannot hide from it no, you know you have to do it, so the spiritual part is a kind of acceptance of what is and power to somehow pass that on to something else, yeah, well, I guess I can't think of the saying, but I know what the impact of the saying is: when you get closer to death, you will become more religious or something, another saying like CH, a Chinese person who converted to Christianity never dies because when he gets close to death he goes back to his Buddhism or something, you know, so yeah, I guess that's true, you're ingrained beliefs for most of your life go up to four when there is a big trauma, a big problem when you think you are facing death.

Everyone says God. We are in contact now. I know I haven't talked to you lately, but yeah. those kind of ordinary things and then you start thinking about the Hereafter and those things that you didn't have time for when you were young and healthy yeah, yeah, um, yeah, well, I think we've been in a time of um um where socially has been quite narcissistic, you know, the figures that are considered role models for us, that's what it's all about and um um, what passes for morality is that you have to be careful number one uh and uh um, as they say, don't be a floor matat take care of yourself as if that's the first thing you should do well, there is some merit in that, you can't, you can't take care of others until you are solid on that basis, there is some merit in that, don't exclude everything Else, yes, there it is, of course, there is a basis for it, but socially it is these things, narcissism and egocentrism, it has reached a kind of extreme, it is a society of six where people do not um.

Well, like I say, most people can't accept their own death because the whole universe revolves around their Persona, you know, that's it and that's it, but it's um clearly not, uh, I think it's actually a kind of madness that everyone the entire universe revolves around any one individual, any of us should be able to see that, as in the case I believe, and that then a change can occur where people realize that they don't end in their own skin, actually um uh they are part of something much bigger than themselves um and there's something really powerful about that to break through this um uh very uh kind of distorted self-focus on anxiety around oneself to be a part of. something much bigger, well, you know.

David, I went through that myself. I may have mentioned it to you before, when I took my first red pill before that moment. I'm a young guy, I'm newly married, I have a wife, a baby to support and I was totally materialistic and self-centered and everything about me, my family and the world didn't matter and then I realized that, wait a minute, the Future was not as certain as I thought. It made me think that maybe I had to do it. something about it and that was the fundamental point I had. I realized I had to do something about it, yeah, so I think what you're talking about, that's exactly what I'm talking about, what you did, what you did.

I had that change a long time ago, but I guess what I'm pointing out is that that can happen socially, yes, and hopefully it will, that's, that's what I mean by this entering into a spiritual period, it's that kind of thing. guy. of a change for people and it only comes with some difficulty for people, how sad but true, yes, yes, but we will achieve it one way or another, so these changes will happen for people, yes, and it will be a change social. change is okay too, I love these topics, some are hard to answer, it's hard for us, it's hard for me to say, I don't have the foggiest idea what the answer to that question is, but in most cases, that It's the truth, yeah, it's um, yeah. we will see, we will see, we will get, we will experiment and we will play with the idea and someone along the way will drop an idea on us and we will wonder: why didn't I do it?

Think about that, yes, and it will be one more piece of the puzzle, yes, and now we are all motivated to put the puzzle together and solve the mystery, yes, and we will, yes, anyway, Ed, thank you very much. It is a great honor for me to be here with you in your house and to be able to have a conversation like this and the other conversations we have had, yes, I hope we do it many more times, David, and thanks to you I was able to do it. Repeat it once more to know your fundamental role in the beginning of this ball.

This is a big change you've started and I know you're very humble about it, but I know a lot of people could do it. You started it but you did it, that's good, thank you, thank you, thank you Ed and I, um, I think, I think you started it quite a while ago, wait a minute, don't blame me because we can argue about who started it, yeah, then, then. we have to except the responsibility of oh no, it's okay, thank you, thank you very much, it's okay, bye-bye