Catherine Austin Fitts | NARRATIVE #62 by Robert Cibis

He said it's like a beauty contest where the judges are trying to figure out not who's the most beautiful, but who the other judges will think is beautiful. Ah, I see. Yeah. When I was on Wall Street, I was known among that world as somebody who was good at certain things. And then when I worked in Washington, I started a company that was very successful. I was known for, you know, so in those money worlds, I was known. Then I had a very long and very fractious and well-known fight with the Department of Justice and the U.S. government over the mortgage corruption. And that caused me to be known in certain worlds. And then I started, it's funny, I had a huge struggle with one of the biggest newspapers in the United States when I was in the Bush administration and decided they were a criminal enterprise.

And then when I had the company in Washington and it was sort of cleaning up the mortgage fraud, I decided that the biggest Washington paper was also a criminal enterprise. And I made a decision from now on, I'm just going to talk to people. I'm not going to talk through the media, I'm just going to talk directly to people. And I'll answer their questions. And I started doing radio shows and people would ask me questions and I would email them back and forth. And those questions evolved into two businesses. And it was through that process of answering questions, doing radio shows, answering questions, and then evolving two businesses, one of which is the Solari Report, which I would have told you in a million years, I would have bet you a million dollars, I would never publish anything.

That was impossible. Anyway, but it came from answering questions. And so there were many networks of people who knew who I was. But I would not say I was anywhere near as known, particularly in Europe, as when the Planet Lockdown interview went viral. And for some reason it resonated. I'm not quite sure why. Because it was a collection of discussions of things I'd said many times before. So in one sense there was nothing new. I'd written a story, an article in 2020 when the pandemic began, called The Injection Fraud. And it reflected many, many years of working as an investment advisor, helping families who were struggling with health care fraud and malpractice and particularly vaccine injury. And I wrote it not from the standpoint of health, but from the standpoint of family wealth and what vaccine injury does to destroy family wealth. And that really resonated because people began, you know, I had one wonderful subscriber who said not recently, she said, it wasn't until I understood the money and the science together that it made any sense. The corona crisis is not a medical crisis or not only a medical crisis or a medical science crisis.

It's not just big pharma who is, you know, profiting from the people, but it's also a financial crisis or financial action at least. So I would describe it as a change in the governance system. So it's a change in control and it's a change in how the governance system is managed. It's towards much tighter central control. But as part of that, it is a consolidation of a financial coup that started two decades ago. And you're watching a profound reengineering of the financial system as part of that change of control. Because in fact, the financial transaction system will be one of the primary tools to control people at a very intimate, frightening level. I think if we spend this discussion just understanding this sentence.

Yes, but it will be a gruesome conversation. Yeah, let's just repeat this slowly. So we have a financial coup, which is in the making for 10 to 20 years or so. Yeah. So it's been going on for a long time, but it really kicked off strongly in October 1997 and has been going on ever since. How do you know this? So can we just give us like three or five minutes to understand why you have that insight? Uh-huh. Yeah. So I, as a young child, I came to the conclusion that the only source of reliable intelligence on what the adults were up to was mapping out the money. In other words, what I, I grew up as a child going back and forth between many different cultures. And even though everybody spoke English, they all spoke different languages.

And there were very different protocols on who would be honest about what. And I finally realized if I could just map out the financial transactions that were going on and the financial ecosystem of a situation, that's how I could, you know, because the adults were lying to themselves. They were lying to each other. It was sort of a multiple personality disorder world. And so I started to map money. And my theory was I was going to map out the money in a neighborhood and figure out why a neighborhood couldn't be wonderful if you could get the money working with the people right. And what I didn't understand as a child was to understand all the money in one little neighborhood. You have to understand all the money on the planet.

So you had to understand global markets to understand what was going on in the neighborhood. So anyway, so I kept, and professionally, I kept moving into jobs that would help me understand how the money works. So I started a firm when I left the Bush administration. And I had discovered relational database technology. And what I realized is I can pull all the money in the planet into databases, and then I can look at it contiguous to environmental ecosystems. So I can map out the financial ecosystems contiguous to the living ecosystems. And when I did that, it was completely revolutionary. It helped me understand in very important and profound ways how the financial system really worked and how it related to people and living things and the environment.

So it was that backdrop. Can you be a bit more specific? I'm just, I can't really grasp it. What would an ecosystem look like? So I came into the 90s with this remarkable understanding of how money worked both globally and place by place. Because think of the planet as a body, and every community is a molecule. And the health of the body relates to the health of the molecules and vice versa. Okay. So I come into the mid-90s with this understanding. And part of this was understanding deeply how the U.S. federal budget works. Because most of the money in the U.S., whether private or public, is channels and controlled through the federal budget and regulation. Okay. And I was part of a group of people in the Bush administration who got laws changed to require audited financial statements by the government.

So every year you pay your taxes and you say, here has my money worked. And the idea was, according to the Constitution and the law, you're supposed to get something back that says, here's, okay, here's what we did with your money. So, you know, it's a fundamental principle, no taxation without representation. Okay, so a process began in 1990, fiscal 1998, which starts in October 1997, whereby they started to report that they weren't going to give audited financial statements and that vast amounts of money were disappearing. It was literally, you know, it'd be down in the footnotes, but it was there. So in the spring of 1997, I was doing a presentation to the largest pension fund leaders in the country, in the United States, including the president of the largest pension fund.

And I showed him a simulation of how we could re-engineer the federal budget in the Philadelphia area where I'd grown up and dramatically improve wealth and lower the government deficits. And he looked at me and he froze, wonderful man, and he said, you don't understand, it's too late. I said, what do you mean it's too late? He said, they've given up on the country, they're moving all the money out starting in the fall. Now, when he said that, I thought he meant they're moving, they're shifting allocations in the portfolios and they're moving the money that can be moved legally. I was wrong. What happened at the beginning of fiscal 1997, fiscal 1998, October 1997, is vast amounts of money started to disappear from the U.S. government. And so as the debt rose, money disappeared. And that's what I call the financial coup.

It started then, and as of 2015, over $21 trillion of undocumented adjustments in the U.S. government. And at that moment, when that $21 trillion was a professor, an American professor did a survey of two of the agencies where most of the money disappeared from, including the place I used to work. And at that time, there was $21 trillion of outstanding treasury debt and $21 trillion of undocumented adjustments from 1998 to 2015. This sounds so unbelievable that I think we have to make a slow motion for people who hear this for the first time. So you said that even the Wall Street money is closely linked to the federal mechanics. So this already is quite new to me because, you know, we have this image of, oh, it's all about deregulation.

And even, you know, Bush senior politics and Reagan and all this deregulated so much that, you know, industry does, you know, financial industry does what they want. So this is like the first question, Mark, and I have two others for what you just said. But maybe we can respond to this. Now, during this financial coup, what happened, and it started in the 80s, was the government operations were increasingly executed by private corporations and banks. So that literally, so for example, when I became Assistant Secretary of Housing, I would try and get the fundamental data that I needed about our operations to make sure we were obeying the law. And the defense contractor that ran the payment systems would refuse to give it to me. And it was a war that went all the way to the White House, and I had to get White House support to get the data I needed to even understand.

So this contractor is like a private company? It's a private corporation, and it controls and operates the payment and information systems. But this private corporation gets public money. Absolutely. Huge contracts. And then they don't even do the audit. Right. So, for example, Amazon never made a profit until they got huge cloud contracts from the CIA and the U.S. intelligence agencies. And that's when they started to make a profit. So, in fact, you know, most people look at the U.S. government and see, you know, 24 different agencies. What I see is a small number of banks and defense contractors who are controlling and running all the information systems and all the payment and financial systems and controlling the bank accounts.

And literally what you're watching is a government that no longer has information sovereignty and financial sovereignty. There is no sovereignty there. Even though in the books money goes through the bank accounts of the government, doesn't it? Yes. So, the U.S. government, through a series of laws and through a series of administrative dictums, now reserves the right to keep all of their finances secret. Okay. So, you see, I'm a bit surprised. Can you describe the clash of narratives in my head somehow? What is the one narrative and what is the other one you're describing to me? So, I know exactly what the problem is. When I first went to Washington, I didn't own a television. But I had a friend who said, you can't work in the Bush administration without a TV. So, she got me a TV. And so, for a brief period of my life, I watched the Sunday political show, you know, how they get on and they talk, talk, talk, talk. Okay. So, I'm a money person and I'm trained whenever I do a job to have mastery of how the money works.

So, I was deeply involved in both the federal budget, but in all the housing and real estate and mortgage. My job was to run the, you know, all the stuff the government did in the mortgage market. So, I'm watching the federal budget and I'm watching all the mortgage credit and the treasury credit. So, I'm watching the money. And one thing you understand if you watch money is our world is built with transactions. So, we have ideas, we have visions, but then to implement those, we organize and we implement transactions of both time and money. Okay. So, I'm watching all the transactions and the transactions don't lie. You know, if all the money is going to Rome, you can see all the money is going to Rome. So, but then everybody gets on the talk shows and they go yakety-yakety-yak and here's why we're doing this and here's why we're doing that.

And what you realize is this world has nothing to do with this world. This world is going to Rome and this world is talking about we're all going to Paris. No, we're not. We're going to, you know. And so, what you realize is there's an official reality and then there's reality train tracks, which are different. And it's a little bit, I've never been to Disney World, but I've had many friends who've gone and I've seen the videos. You know, at Disney World, there's a whole parallel existence underground of people engineering all of this, you know, and doing all the transactions and the scheduling and the work. And then there's this beautiful world upstairs with Minnie and Mickey and everybody's happy, right?

And our world is a little bit like that. You have the, you know, the plumbing under the ground and everybody's engineering the transactions and doing all of this. And then you have Minnie and Mickey. And so, there's a reality and there's an official or there's an official reality and there's a reality. And if you're a money person, you live in both worlds together. Okay, and this is why you have been talking about personality disorders, because you have to cope with having several stories which are contradictory in your mind. Well, it's a little bit like going back and forth between many cultures. So, I travel a lot. And when you go back and forth, or when I was a child, I grew up, I went back and forth between many cultures.

And different cultures have different values and they have different narratives and different stories. And it's a little bit like going back and forth. And unfortunately, you know, if you're the average American between World War II and sort of now, as the national security state got bigger and bigger and bigger, you have a military and a global governance system that's running the world and their primary business is war and organized crime. But you want to believe you're a good Christian. And the way you resolve that is everybody gets a little bit more money as a result of the war machine. But then they also get a story of I am good. Okay, so I get the check and I'm good. And it works, you know, because then you can only do your job from Monday to Friday and you don't have to, you know, you come to church and you're washed in the blood and you feel good about yourself and then you go back out.

How does the story I am good sound like? And what is, what is, how is it told? We're going to war in the Middle East to save democracy. Yeah, good example. We're good. We're people who help save democracy. We're good guys. So let's go back to the money disappearing. How can you say that? I mean, how does it look like when money disappears? So let me give you, if you go, I have two websites, missingmoney.solari.com and hudmissingmoney.solari.com, where we've documented this up to the wazoo. Okay, so it's highly documented and you can find all of it. What happened the first time I discovered was when 59 billion went missing from HUD. I think it was fiscal 1999. And my attorney discovered it. I didn't discover it. She was reading the testimony.

HUD is Housing and Urban Development. Yeah, HUD is Department of Housing and Urban Development. So we were reading some of the congressional testimony, and it came out that 59 billion had gone missing, which was the reason, yet again, they couldn't produce their audited financial statements. And they weren't going to bother to figure it out. And my attorney and I looked at each other, and this was more money than their entire budget. And the mortgage fraud at the time was off the charts, the mortgage fraud that led to the financial crisis. So we knew something was very significant. Anyway, so we started to dig in, and what we were discovering was huge amounts of money were disappearing from HUD and the Department of Defense.

At the same time, the private equity firms in Washington, who had little track record and experience, were suddenly blessed with billions of dollars flowing in to invest in China and Asia. And so we're looking at the money disappearing here, and then suddenly all these companies associated with the same people. You know, their boards had the same people as the boards of the contractors who are running these financial systems at these agencies. So we're watching the same people as money's disappearing at the agencies they're running. Their companies are suddenly getting these huge amounts of mysterious money. So we started to look at that, and I got a reporter interested in helping me follow the missing money.

So she started to write these fabulous stories about the missing money, and she had a whole series going. And we were finally going to rope it up into a huge cover story in her weekly magazine that would go to all the congressmen and senators. And we were just coming into the big headline. It was going to be the following Friday. And that Sunday I went to church, and we would always get occasionally very political sermons. And we got a very political sermon that indicated we were going to go to war in the Middle East. So I came back. It was September 7, 2001. And I called the reporter. I said, we're going to war in the Middle East. She said, that's funny. I haven't heard a thing, because usually if I got a sermon, she'd get a leak.

And she said, I haven't heard a thing. I said, I'm telling you, we're going to war in the Middle East. First we're going to Afghanistan, then we're going to Iraq. It was like Wesley Clark's, you know, seven countries in five-year plan. And so, but we're totally focused on getting this article published, which was going to be like the 13th of, it would come out on Friday. And she calls me back on Monday. And she says, you're not going to believe this. Donald Rumsfeld just had a press conference and admitted that there's 2.3 trillion missing from the government. I said, it's a modified hangout. They're trying to, because in fact, the number at that point was 4 trillion. I said, they're just trying to get ahead of your story on Friday.

She said, nothing's going to stop this story from going now. Big mistake to ever say that. Tuesday morning, she calls me back and she said, planes flew into the World Trade Center. And she said, we're being attacked. I said, no, we're not. They're destroying all the records. You know, because all the records of the financial fraud related to them. So the missing money at that point was $4 trillion. All the financial fraud was in building number seven. And at the Pentagon, the office they hit, at the Pentagon was the office that was doing the investigation on the missing money. So I said, no, they're not. You know, they're blowing up. This is what happens. Whenever you have huge financial frauds, the buildings with the records tend to blow up.

It's very common practice. Anyway, so I said, listen, this has got nothing. And, of course, the story gets canceled and the DOD gets another 48 million whatever. Anyway, so I'm sitting there steaming. And it was the first time I wrote a big money article. I wrote something called Qui Bono and published it immediately saying, official story is a bunch of hooey. And, you know, where's the money? Anyway, so I'm the next day, because you remember, I got the news in church that we're going to war in the Middle East. I was riding my bike around the town common, and I realized, ah, prayer service Wednesday night. And I walk into church, and I sit down, and, of course, the whole congregation is there, because everybody's obsessed with this whole thing.

Meantime, right before I go in, one of my cousin's farmhands walks up to me, and he says, what do you think? We think it was the Bushes. What do you think? The African-American community was much more sort of skeptical. I walk into church, and the preacher gets up, and he says, we're all waiting, and he says, George W. Bush was anointed by God for a time such as this. And I put my head in my hands, because I love my family. I love my community. I started to pray. I said, just, you know, I need divine intervention here, because you can't just mouth off. You know, you can't. So I'm just sitting there praying, asking for divine intervention. And suddenly, my pastor says, Austin, my middle name, what do you think? You worked in Washington.

And for a pastor at that moment to ask me what I thought, that is divine intervention. So I thought, well, you ask for help. You have to perform. So I took a deep breath. I knew this was going to be expensive. And I said, well, Brother Keith, in my experience, the Bush family is anointed by financial fraud, narcotics trafficking, and pedophilia. And the whole church, just my cousins, just went, oh, God, what are we going to do? And he looked at me. He was so stunned. And he said, if that's the case, we're lost. It's hopeless. I said, don't be ridiculous. We have a governor. His name is God. We don't need the Bushes. Just people like the Bushes and Clinton come and go. We don't need them. And it was funny. I had a neighbor who really, you know, did not like the Bushes. She said, yeah.

And so that was like two of us. And then it went from there. And what was really interesting is for about six months, my cousins were putting little yellow flags on me and, you know, praying that I didn't get tarred and feathered. And then when it came out that the National Security Council had known about planes flying into buildings, it really helped because, you know, everybody kind of felt, well, we didn't go, we didn't buy into the narrative, you know. But how did the priest know about the war? Well, that's a very good question. And I've never put him on the spot and asked. But what I found is that on the church networks, there's, you know, in the campaign, we used to call it a faxback service. And whether through the TV or their, you know, networks, you know, there is encouragement of what the spin this week is going to be, what the topic this week is going to be, what the, you know. And it's remarkably coordinated.

That's impressive. Yeah. So this is like more than 20 years ago. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But if you look at the control, because I've studied, the litigation forced me, so I litigated with the Department of Justice for 11 years, and I dealt with very serious harassment, physical harassment, legal harassment, financial smear campaigns. And it enabled me to really study what are the nuts and bolts of control and how do they work? And I think it's not generally appreciated. Snowden and Bill Binney and other people have tried to explain. But the digital surveillance systems have given the leadership the ability to use AI and software to basically track and manipulate every person, one person at a time. The smartphone technology combined with telecommunications has given incredible power to, you know, to control and management.

It's quite extraordinary. And if you really study, you know, what Bill Binney and people like that have said about the NSA and the digital infrastructure, you can appreciate it. But until you sort of wrestled with it, it's hard to understand. And I did a series on the Solari Report called Deep State Tactics to kind of help people understand how these systems work. This week in September 2001 was quite crucial. So that's when everybody finally realized, okay, what she's saying about the missing money is true. I see. Right. So in fact, the 9-11 attacks showed you were right. Yeah. But still, you know, still no one wants to deal with it. I mean, for trillion. I mean, how did you get this number? I got it from government documents.

You just made the math of like, what is going on? Every year they're supposed to publish financial statements and they publish a financial statement and they say, I'm grossly oversimplifying, we're not going to publish audited financial statements. We can't publish audited financial statements because we have X trillion of undocumented adjustments. Okay. So every. Right. Exactly. So that, I thought this was very important because my feeling is, you know, what they're doing essentially is stealing all the boomers' retirement money before the boomers need it. You know, so it won't be there. Anyway, so finally we got the Missing Money magazine story that was supposed to come out that week to come out six months, four, six months later. And it came out, but everyone was so busy making money on the new flush of money.

Anyway, so money continued to go missing and I kept tracking it. And then in 2015, the primary defense contractor who had run a majority of the systems where the money was disappearing spun their IT division, their government IT division off to a new company. And I said, cut and run. Anyway, but they announced for 2015, 6.5 trillion missing, which is the biggest number yet. So I get on. They announced, but they really say it. And who's saying it? Well, they publish a 200-page financial statement that is the single most boring document you will ever read in your life. The U.S. government, you mean? Yeah. And in the footnotes, it says there's 6.5 trillion of undocumented. That's incredible. Well, but nobody reads it, nobody publish it. But because I have a group of people who look at these things and I'm interested, you know, so I find one of, in fact, it was one of my subscribers who was reading the financial statements and said there's 6.5. You know, that's how I found it.

So I started doing radio shows saying, you know, it's a cut and run. This is bad because the coup is reaching a culmination and this is going to turn into a major change in control. Anyway, so I'm trying to warn people. And so this professor from Michigan State University hears me talking and he says, well, she can't possibly be right. She must have made a mistake. So he gets on and he looks at the financial statements and realizes that I'm right. So he comes to me and he said, could I help? And I said, yeah. One of the things you could do is you could go back and do a survey from 1998 to 2000. He had, to 2015, he had a lot of graduate students helping him. And I said, let's do a survey and make sure we have a complete documentation just at these two agencies as to what's missing.

Like the Department of Defense? It's the Department of Defense, which is missing 20 trillion. 20? Did you say 20? 20 trillion. Okay. I'm happy I'm sitting. Okay. And the other department? And the other department is the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which is a big mortgage insurance portfolio and with very big money. So they're missing about three quarters of a trillion. Okay. So we did a complete survey and he wrote a report and we published all the documentation. You know, it's all government documentation. This is all their numbers. And then he wrote a sort of a report on a review. And it was basically confirming what I've been saying, but it was much more thorough, much more complete, much more, you know, and I think it's important in situations like this.

You need multiple people checking and saying, you know, that sort of independent verification. So we published that and I had said to him, I don't want to publish this until I have multiple copies of these documents on multiple servers around the world. And he thought I was paranoid. It's just like, okay, well, you know, whatever you want to do. Anyway, so we publish it. And suddenly two offices, one at HUD and one at Department of Defense, take down the documents. And he couldn't believe it. He was in shock. Then we did a series of radio shows and caught them lying on a couple of different points. Anyway, so he went through this gradual education process because if you're a very successful, established professor of economics, it's hard for you to fathom that this is really true, you know. So anyway, so we go through a process.

There was a very suspicious fire immediately at the New York Fed on a Saturday night. Apparently somebody had been using the old fireplace in the basement burning records, I presume. Anyway, so, you know, so there are all these strange things that go on. But we continued and what happened, the next thing that happened was the Senate and the House, both Republican and Democrat, and the Trump White House all agreed in 2018 in a very quiet way that they were going to adopt an administrative policy called Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board Statement 56 that stated that by a secret process, a secret group of people could keep as much as they wanted of all the agencies and related agencies and companies secret, and they didn't have to tell anybody.

Now, that's a violation of the Constitution, all the financial management laws, and it's not adopted by legislation. It's adopted by an administrative agreement, by just, OK, we agree, we don't have to obey any financial laws, period, and we're not going to, end of discussion, and it's all legal. And that was their way of resolving the fact that they had more and more undocumented adjustments. They have now stated that the adjustments are up to $96 trillion, but that is, they haven't specified that that that's undocumentedable. So that number is essentially meaningless. So, clearly, the number is higher than $21 trillion now, but we have no idea what it is. So why do you call this a coup d'etat? It's a financial coup d'etat.

What they decided to do, the G7 nations have run a financial system which is a balance of power between the elected representatives who basically allocate the tax money, that's fiscal policy, and the private bankers who run the central bank and monetary policy, and it's a balance of power between them. And this was the process by which they bankrupted the government, shifted the assets into their control, and basically put the electorate system in a position where the central banks could control all of fiscal policy. Because you were dependent on the central banks to finance your debt, and the elected representatives were in a financial trap with the debt entrapment. So this has been a 20-year process of the central bankers taking control of the whole system and doing it in a way where they can de-link the U.S.

dollar reserve currency and globalize it. So you're globalizing the Treasury, you're globalizing the military, and you're globalizing the aspects that the civil service run that you want. You're sort of, think of this as neurosurgery, you're separating out a part of your brain and moving it into global governance.

Okay, I think we have to slowly, slowly get through this. Different questions coming up in my mind listening to you. The first one is, of course, are these just people who want to have a nice time and sit on the swimming pool? And just want to have as much money as possible, because we know greed is unlimited. Right. Is it for some people to become as rich as possible, or is it to really have a power structure which is parallel and undocumented? It's a governance structure that has strategic goals, and everything is organized around those strategic goals. And it's much more driven by risk management than by greed. Okay, that's a clear answer. Just could you give an example on how just people think?

I would say, so let's get inside Mr. Global's head. Mr. Global has a very difficult job. That's the first thing you need to understand. This is not a fun or easy job. It's a very high-pressure job. And part of the reason it's high-pressure is you've got a growing global population, and you've had for 500 years a model called central banking warfare. And up until the time you globalized in the mid-'90s, it was relatively simple, which is the G7 central banks print money, the military makes people take it, and by extracting natural resources cheaply from the third world, you live a nice life in the first world. Okay, that's sort of the model. Already here the role of the military is difficult for me also to figure out.

I mean, why does the money go through the military, or why does the link to it now? No, it doesn't go through the military. The military makes sure people take it. In other words, if I just print money out of thin air, you know, so let's say, okay, I make a dollar, right? And here's my dollar, and, you know, I want you to give me, I don't know, you know, I want you to sell me your watch for a dollar, and you're like, well, this is a worthless piece of paper. Why should I take it? But if I have a gun, you might consider, you know, taking it, particularly if my gun encourages everybody else to take it. You know, it's back to the John Maynard Keynes and the Beauty Show. So, for example, when the dollar became the reserve currency at the end of World War II, it was because through the Bretton Woods system, the U.S. Navy controlled the global sea lanes.

And unless you played ball in the dollar system, you know, your boats might not get through, right? So the military makes sure that everybody plays ball in the system, you know, and it's both a currency system but also a reserve system. So you're holding dollars in your sovereign wealth fund or your, you know, your reserve funds at your treasury or central bank. So, you know, the U.S. and the Anglo-American alliance were able to build up a system that everybody said, okay, we'll all play. And the beauty of the dollar system at the end of World War II with the Bretton Woods system is we made it an open model. And so it was really to everybody's benefit to play. And that built up an enormous flow and liquidity in the dollar and one that's very hard to replace. So, you know, one of the great quotes on the dollar in 2013 at the end of the financial crisis, it's dominant but dangerous.

And it had such a huge market share both in reserves and in trade, thanks to the U.S. military in no small part. You know, everybody sort of had to play within the dollar system because there really were no alternatives. And one of the sort of tensions and squabbles between Europe and the U.S. was when the euro started, it started to become a real threat and taking market share from the dollar. And, of course, then we had austerity and the financial crisis. And interestingly enough, whoop, dollar back to number one. So you're insinuating that the austerity measures with southern European countries were to weaken the euro. Well, here's what's interesting. At the end of the financial crisis, there was huge amounts of fraudulent paper in the system.

And the Americans took all that fraudulent paper from the American banks and stuck it back to the taxpayer. In Europe, you stuck back much less to the taxpayer. And the banks continued to struggle. And it gave, you know, in the ongoing financial coup, I believe it gave a tremendous advantage to the Americans. We are in 2018. This is where you say it's a turning point. Right. And I'll tell you what the turning point is. If you steal everybody's retirement savings when they start to retire, then you have to do something because the money's not there. It's not there for health care. It's not there for pensions. It's not there for the infrastructure of a society. You know, you've basically, 20 years ago, you said we'd rather have spaceships and a space program than nursing homes.

We're not going to pay for all that stuff. So now you need a story to explain why all the promises you've made can't be kept. You need a story. Yeah, I kind of feel where you're going to. Well, the first thing you need is you need a new financial system because you've levered up the governments, the sovereign governments, and they've lost their sovereignty. So now you have control and you can do a change of control. But you need to re-engineer the... Why can't you just print more money? Well, in theory, you can. But there are enormous tensions now globally. You have... Instead of this model where the first world is subsidized by the third world, you've globalized. And now you have economies around the world that are growing much faster than the G7 nations, and they're becoming much more important and powerful operationally.

And so you... The question is, where's your subsidy going to come from? There needs to be a reallocation. And one of the ways you've kept the reserve currency going is by weaponizing the dollar with financial sanctions. And the problem is you can't use a currency that's a weapon to also do trade. You know, the guys who want to do real trade are saying, look, you know, we need a more dependable, stable system to trade. So there are enormous tensions, and you need to reconfigure the reserve currency. Now, you can change the reserve currency, but you can also de-link the reserve currency from the United States political infrastructure, globalize it, which is what FASB-56 and these other things are, and then just reconfigure the governance.

That's a bit complicated for my simple mind. It's just... I got this story with why the dollar is everywhere and the military helps to put it everywhere, but then the weapon is the weapon, and, you know, the money is the paper. Right. However, can the money itself be a weapon? Money is... So it's like a coin, the military and the... So you can have financial sanctions, but it has to be backed up by force. Yeah, I got it. So, for example, when Russia got its full global satellite system up and there was growing tension between the Russians and the Americans, the Russians, the Americans implemented different sanctions, financial sanctions, with the help of the Europeans. And occasionally, they keep threatening to throw Russia off the SWIFT system.

They have threatened, you know, that they can't use their bond market. So what they're doing is they're using the financial transaction systems and including the trade systems to sanction Russia. And Russia's had to build a much more self-sufficient, resilient economy as a result of those sanctions. Okay, so this means they cannot just go buy shares in companies or just products like... The government's selling bonds in the Western markets. It meant certain people in the leadership couldn't have bank accounts outside of the country, you know, or would be targeted legally if they left the country. And so if you look at the financial sanctions, it's a very complex scheme, but it's designed to make it, whether it's to the political leaders or to the different agencies or the central bank, to limit their financial liquidity outside the country unless they do what they're told. Okay, so back to 2018, they needed a new story.

And so what happened between today and 2019? So they passed FASB-56. And there were a series of things, but the big one was FASB-56 because now they can run all the money. Please explain FASB-56. Oh, sorry. Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board Statement 56. I call it FASB-56 for short. So they adopted the policy that said all of our money is secret. We can do whatever they want. And that includes the publicly traded corporations and banks who do all the business. So they took things secret. The next big item was there was a series of meetings of the G7 related to financial policy, including in June of 2019, how they were going to do crypto, how they were going to do digital currencies. And the dollar right now is primarily a digital currency.

But there's no doubt that the digital system is far from 100% digital. So then the G7 central bankers met for the big meeting. The big meeting was in Jackson Hole. Every year the Federal Reserve has a meeting in Jackson Hole, and the G7 central bankers come and meet. They also meet very often at the BIS in Basel, Switzerland, but they do this one in the summer. And they voted on a plan called the Going Direct Reset. And this is the reset. We have two write-ups at the Solari Report. We've written about this. One is called the State of Our Currency, and the other is called the Going Direct Reset, where we go through why there needs to be a reconfiguration of the currency system and then what the Going Direct Reset was.

The Going Direct Reset was a plan put together by a group of retired central bankers working through the BlackRock Investment Institute. And what it did was it put together a plan, and this is my words, not theirs, whereby the central banks take control of the Treasury functions, which is the way I would describe it. And then literally it was that September, September 2019, the Fed moves into the repo market, and one thing leads to another. And they literally do, I would describe it as a takedown of the economy. And here's how it works. You shut down all the small businesses. You shut down families and family wealth. Everybody has to shop at your big publicly traded company, and you consolidate massive amounts of the economy out of small business and out of communities into your large publicly traded corporations, particularly online. Because you're trying to get everybody into a digitized system, and a system that can be under surveillance.

So I can't meet with you, I have to get on Zoom to meet with you, and now it can all be recorded and go into my AI and software. So one of the little secrets on the technology here is if you study AI, what you realize is the guy who has the best AI system is not the guy with the smartest developers. It's the guy with the most data. Because you're in something where the knowledge and the intelligence emerge from the data. So the more data you have, the more successful you are. So right now we're watching a process around the world. You know, data is the new oil. Everybody's trying to get as much data. You know, there's a data vampire running around. So you want to get everybody into the digital system so you've got the data that will not only give you the most intelligence, but help you create the most wealth in your company.

So all of the Main Street economy is being shut down, and you hear a giant sucking sound of all the data and all the money and all the trade into the publicly traded companies. And this is a centralization of wealth. And, you know, the process is called disaster capitalism. It's war. So rather than, you know, rather than kill all the small business people, you just bankrupt them. You know, you put them in a debt trap. You get them deeply dependent on government money, and you suck up all their business and all their clients and all their trade. And now you've got it in your databases, and you've got the money in your bank account. And that's why the stock market's flying up, because you've got huge amounts of money.

And you suggest that this has been fundamentally decided at this meeting in Jackson Hole. Yeah. And this was in September? It was August 22, 2019. They made a decision to take down the economy. Okay. And as part of that, inject enormous amounts of money in a way that, you know, because you're watching. Somebody just sent me an email, said they had sold, their parents had died, they'd sold their parents' house. There were 18 bids, and they sold it for $200,000 above asking price.

When the central banks print money, that's what happens. And so the question is, how do you force people to have to sell? Well, you know, if you asked any American at the beginning of the pandemic how they were going to survive the next year or two, they all said, we're going to sell our house.

That's your full thought. In Germany, you know, a lot of businesses are surviving because government is injecting a lot of money. Right. And they're making a lot of debt. Right. My guess was that maybe some people are interested in just killing the public structures. Is this, I mean, is this evil thinking? Well, you want to control the public structures, which you can do if they're indebtedness. But these businesses are now completely indebted to government. They're controlled. So if you say we want to go to Rome, they're going to have to go to Rome because they're now, I mean, they're either in a debt entrapment or they've lost, you know, when you don't do your business day after day after day, and you don't maintain your relationship with your clients and you don't maintain the intelligence of how to be great at doing your business, you know, it's like a muscle that atrophies.

And so you lose your connection with your clients. You lose and you're sitting there dependent on government money and you're getting weaker and weaker. It's like financial methadone. You get weaker and weaker and weaker. And it's a way, you know, if you just, if you just shut down their business and you didn't give them money, they might riot. They might stop you. They might vote you out. This way you keep them quiet while you, it's a slow kill.

I can see you thinking and you say, it can't possibly be this controlled. So if you if you look at the introduction that I wrote for the Going Direct Reset that we just published, one of the things in it, I say, why would a group of people, you know, because if you look down at the takedown of the economy, you know, you're talking about at the peak, putting 500 million people out of work and and that's a devastating, you know, if it's if it's devastating, the United States or Germany, imagine what it's like in the emerging markets. And and, you know, if you look at how many people are killed when the unemployment rate goes up in the United States, you know, it's extraordinary figures. You're talking about killing hundreds of, I mean, just millions and millions of people globally.

And that's exactly what's happening. So the question is, why would a group of people go into a room and vote to kill that many people? Because it's the it's the financial equivalent of dropping several nuclear bombs around the world. Why would you do it? And that's the question. Why? Why did they do it? Now, you do have to have a reset, but they chose to have a reset that dramatically centralizes power in a way that is unbelievably painful to the general population.

So the pain helps people to accept these changes. So if you look at where they want to go, they want to implement a financial transaction system that will give them control at the individual level globally. So digital technology gives you the ability, especially if you move the whole planet to an electrical system, it gives you the ability to to implement a control system so that you can wipe out not just national sovereignty, but individual sovereignty. And you can control it at a central level and and and so part of what is happening is technology is permitting this system to happen. So one of the reasons it's so hard, I think, for most people to fathom where they're going is we haven't really thought about what is possible now in sort of invasive how how one person can be controlled, because the vision is one that lacks empathy.

Most human beings have empathy, so they can't fathom why Mr. Global would want that kind of invasive control at an individual level. So I think it's very hard for them to fathom it. I can fathom it. One of the reasons I can fathom it is I've hung out with them. But the other reason I can fathom it is if you've ever studied the history of investment, what you know is slavery has is fantastically profitable and much of the most profitable experiences, you know, without slavery and war could not have happened. And if you look at the reasons that the slave trade was cancelled in the 1800s in the Americas and in Europe, the things that caused the leadership to decide they should cancel slavery, those problems, those risks have been solved with digital technology.

So the reasons I was nervous about maintaining control in the face of slavery, of digital technology can solve those problems. And so now I can proceed with slavery and it can be wildly successful for me.

So Germany losing so much public money, just to give an example, is this a sign for there was something before? Like there was a government structure which had to be deleted, erased in a way, so that these underground, unofficial, government-like structures can take over?

So there was a period after World War II when we moved to an open trade model and we went to a sort of modified version of a market economy and it produced tremendous wealth. So you had growth in technology, you had growth in investment, and you had a fair amount of personal freedom in the West. And that combination was very electric and it created a huge amount of wealth. And the challenge now is with a growing population, how do you keep that kind of wealth going when technology poses lots of opportunities but significantly more risk? And how do you keep it going when, if everybody in Asia grows as quickly as they're growing and wants a per capita of the same as Germany or Australia or the United States, there's not enough mining in the world to build that many cars.

Do you know what I mean? You have a real resource allocation issue, an environmental issue. Now, one way you can solve that problem is to rebalance your financial system to be, to have, to align it with living systems. You can do that. The problem is if you do that, you bring transparency, which means all this secrecy has to come out in the open and there's a lot of liability issues. Somebody who's made a fortune on secrecy is not really encouraged by transparency. The other thing is you're going to end up with leadership other than the existing leadership. And the existing leadership is very scared of that. A reset is going to change control and it's going to make risk management more difficult. And it appears to me that for whatever reason, they don't want to take that risk.

They want tight central control and they don't want to change in leadership. In a way, it seems like times have changed and they want to keep the old system, so they have to grow and make it globally. Right. So what you're doing is you're moving everything into a one world government that will have very tight central control. And you will have everyone on a digital transaction system where you can control them spatially and you can control what they do, what they think, what they spend money on. So if you think of the Chinese social credit system, you know, they're basically, if I can put you on a digital currency system, you know, CBDC, central bank, it's not a currency. It's like a credit at the company store.

You're totally financially controlled and totally financially dependent. If I don't want you traveling more than five miles from your home, you can't transact more than five miles from your home. If you say something I don't like, I turn off your bank account and you starve to death. If you don't take whatever injection I want to give you, you know, that's it. You don't get any food. So it's a complete control system that can be implemented with AI and software in very, very granular ways. And I can track you 24-7. But we don't have it yet, do we? It's coming. It's coming. And this is part of the decision that has been done like last year. So if I was the central banks and I announced, OK, we're doing going direct, I want complete control of all your financial transactions, no privacy.

You know, I have complete access to data and I control your money and I control your wallet and I control your bank account. I can, if I want to raise taxes, I just take it out of your bank account and you have to do what I say. Everybody would say, no, I don't want to do that. But you say, oh, you know, we're worried about your health and safety. So we want to have these health care passports. They're green. They're green. And it's for your safety. And it's because we want to make sure you're safe. You know, then you can, you know, it's the Judas goat. You can get everybody in the trap because you don't want them to see the trap until you throw it. And it's too late. And that's why you'll see people like Dr.

Naomi Wolf standing up and saying, if we let them do this, it's the end of human liberty in the West. And it is. It is the end of human liberty if we agree to this kind of financial control system. And I assure you, their goals in this have nothing to do with health. Nothing. This is a financial control system. How do cryptocurrencies play into this? So cryptocurrencies were prototypes to help them figure out how to use blockchain technology and how to use digital currencies to do the central bank, CBDC. And, you know, so one of two things will happen. Remember, they're trying to get everything digital. And I always say, I said this in 2008, they don't care if you call it dollar or wampum beads or crypto.

As long as it's digital and it runs on their hardware, they're happy because that's the control. So you mean whether we, whether I pay you in Bitcoin, it can still be controlled somehow centrally? Absolutely. In 2017, I had to speak at a conference on cryptocurrency and I did, you know, their standards under the investment advisory rules in the United States. And I tried to implement that quality of due diligence. I spent a couple hundred hours really studying blockchain, learning about crypto. And I realized, you know, the whole thing is it's just a prototype leading to the control system. And people always ask me once the CBDCs roll in, what will happen to Bitcoin and the other cryptos? And there are many different ways they can handle it, but essentially whether they let it die on the vine or they wipe it out, you know, these are prototypes to an all digital system, you know. And what happens in terms of particular cryptos, I don't know. But I assure you, when you play on your enemy's hardware, they control.

Yeah, because it's running on servers. So this trade, if you come into Solari, we have a commentary on Cash Friday. So we're encouraging everybody on Friday to use cash because we're trying to take it away from all digital. And if you come in, there's a, and you open it up, there's a video at the top. It's 56 seconds. Everyone on the planet should watch it. It's Carstens, who's the general manager of the Bank of International Settlements. He's a central banker who came through Mexico. He's Mexican. And, you know, I have to tell you, I love a central banker that tells the truth because it's so rare. But in a last October, Carstens was on an IMF panel on cross-border settlements. And he explained in 56 seconds why CBDC will be fantastic because central bankers will see everything, know everything, and will be able to enforce whatever rules they want. They will have complete control.

And he does it in 56 seconds. So it's like, wow, it's the first time I saw a central bank tell it like it is. So all this is quite, you know, fascinating and staggering that you can really see and track all these supposedly secret actions. They're not that secret. They're not that secret. Believe me, they write this stuff up. The Going Direct plan was BlackRock, the BlackRock Investment Institute wrote it up. You know, the 21 trillion missing, it's all in government documents. It's all... In a way, it seems also inefficient. You know, one reason mafia has a disadvantage is that if people are just, you know, real competition, then I think it kind of can work. And then, you know, you would, with less, with less you can make more if the structure is more open.

This closed structure and this totalitarian or dictatorship-like approach, you would have, isn't it the less efficient system? Yes. And in fact, yeah, if you study how in the United States, when I put together the databases and studied how money worked by place, one of the things I concluded after working with those databases and simulating economies locally is that our wealth could be hundreds of times greater than it is because the central control is so destructive of productivity. It's so destructive of creativity. It's so destructive. You know, there's so much waste in the system when money is allocated by politics and the desire for central control. So there's no doubt that it's wasteful. What it permits, though, is if you look at what's happening with new technology, new technology can create so much wealth and productivity, particularly if you bring the energy price down.

Your concern, if you're Mr. Global, one, you're a lot less worried about productivity because the potential is so great. But the thing you're most worried about is risk management. Because if various groups get a hold of it and can weaponize it, then you've got a real mess. So, yes, central control and tyranny is incredibly wasteful, phenomenally wasteful. But if you're Mr. Global and your concern is risk management, you're willing to take that waste. Because, frankly, with robotics and software and AI, you don't need this many people. If you don't need that much wealth, you mean? Well, here's Mr. Global and here's a person. And the issue is, how much wealth can this person create for Mr. Global? And then how much risk on the downside can this person cause Mr.

Global? And right now, you know, for a variety of reasons, people are becoming more and more risky for Mr. Global and less and less profitable. And so, that's the equation that Mr. Global is grappling with. And what helps me to understand what you're saying is that the logic of war is, of course, not the logic of economy, in a way. I mean, economy means we do something together. We have a product and then we sell it. We have any service and this is a clear added value to the customer. And this is why we're making money and profit. However, war is, of course, in a way the opposite. We try to create oligopol or monopole structures so that we can have more control over others. So, for me, it's a clear juxtaposition there.

Let me show you. This is a little secret. I'm going to show you the difference between an industrial economy and a network economy. Okay? Okay. So, who's got a dollar? Somebody needs to give me a euro. Anybody got money on them? Okay. Okay. So, I have a euro and you have an oil well. Right? This is oil. Yeah, you have an oil well. And I want your oil well and you want my money. Right? Okay. So, I give you my money and I take your oil well. Okay. Now, how can you be better off in this transaction?

If I get two euros? No. If you kill me and steal my oil well, now you got the money and the oil, right? You're better off. Yes. Yeah, you don't think like a criminal. I can tell. I see. So, okay. So, watch this. You have a database and I have a euro. And I want your database technology. So, I give you a euro and I take a copy of your database technology. So, how can you be better off? If you kill me and steal this back, are you better off? No. Because you already have it, right? I erase it. I don't know. Well, but if we collaborate, right, I have the database, you have the database, we can create a new thing. So, in fact, in an information economy, we can make a lot more money collaborating than fighting. This is an important part.

Right. So, this is a fundamental change. Now, here's the problem. This can only work if there's transparency, if I can see what's going on. And, in fact, because I'm incentivized to cooperate and collaborate, you know, I want to know what's going on there because I want to figure out how we can create something new. This is a problem for Mr. Global. So, if you're Mr. Global, you want to get the open collaboration down to a group of players who can be trusted to handle the secrecy. And this creates real challenges between the, you know, giving access to this technology to the general population because then their learning speed can end up being higher than yours. It's a, it's a, it's a, this is a very fundamental change in how the economics work and what it does to politics.

So, this is why secret services in general are quite close to the digital economy. It's kind of the same thing. You know, if you collect data and make something out of it, it's what secret service is supposed to do anyway. Right. And this is what the new economy is doing anyway. Right. So, the game is who controls the data, who has access to the intelligence, who can engineer that intelligence into action fastest. And, and, you know, this is why you'll see the expression that data is the new oil because it's what I said yesterday. In a digital economy, data about money is worth more than money. And in fact, in an all digital money system, it's, it's just zeros and ones. It's just bits. In a way, it's the same, yeah. Yeah. So, this is why you're saying it's so suspicious if Amazon, the owner of the Washington Post, has a huge contract with data service.

So, I don't think, I don't think Amazon is the owner of the Washington Post. I think the CIA is the owner of both Amazon and the Washington Post. When, yeah, because the first time Amazon creates a profit is when the CIA gives them this enormous contract. In other words, if you go back to the federal government, you have the CIA and all the intelligence agencies in a big Amazon cloud contract. And, and right now, so the Navy picked Leidos, which is the old, is the spin out of the IT company that ran all the, the digital systems for the money disappearing from DoD and, and for part of the period at HUD. And then you have a huge war going on that's been going on for two years because DoD is choosing the cloud contractor for the DoD system.

And there is a war between Microsoft and Amazon about who's going to get, because what you're talking about is the infrastructure that will then shift all of that to the global structure. So, so if you look, there was a very famous moment at the beginning of the Trump administration when Chuck Schumer, and I'm about to say one of the only nice things you will ever hear me say about Chuck Schumer, Chuck Schumer was on the Rachel Maddow show and, and Trump had just been critical of the CIA. And there was a bit of a squabble going on and Schumer said, Senator Schumer said, the president will learn, the U.S. intelligence agencies have a hundred different ways of getting you, and if you don't do what they say, you're not going to make it.

And what he was saying very clearly and openly is the CIA tells the president what to do, not the other way around. And in fact, there's a long history of that, and I would argue that is the fact, so, you know, and, and, and, but in a way, I don't even know whether I think it's good or bad. It's, it's kind of comforting to see that you are saying these are public structures. So, I mean, I like the idea of public structures here, is it a public structure? They are private networks that control bureaucracies that have access to sovereign powers, but they're no more public structures than the man on the moon, because they're not responsible. They're responsible to intergenerational pools of capital and governance.

They, they do not report to the Congress, and they do not report. Yeah, I'll tell you a perfect story. I believe the story is true, and, you know, it certainly fits with everything I know. One of the mistakes that Eisenhower made, and he didn't make a lot, but one of the, he, he made is, I think it was between Truman and Eisenhower, they delegated security for Area 51 to the CIA. And, and, and between that and several other decisions that were made with the creation of the 49 Act, they turned the CIA into the most powerful banker in the world, who had, I mean, literally the iron bank, not only the ability to keep everything secret, but the ability to kill with impunity and live outside the law. Uh, you have to be slow. What is the 49 Act?

Uh, uh, uh, the national security state was created by the 1947 Act, which was the National Security Act, and then the CIA Act was passed two years later, it's the 1949 Act. And that was the beginning of building the really significant secret infrastructure of the national security state. So why are there bankers, sorry? Why are the CIA a banker? The CIA are bankers because they control the largest pools of secret money in the world working with the central bankers. Okay. Okay. So if I have 100% intelligence of what's going to happen and why and when, and I have access to money that I can print out of thin air, and I can kill with impunity, then I don't need money to make money. I can make all the money I want.

You know, it's the ultimate insider trading machine, especially if I can run the high margin business. So this is why you would suggest, you just suggested that, you know, we think Amazon is a big guy, and in fact, they're not. They're just, uh, just a means to act on. Amazon, Amazon is a huge machinery that has very integrated support in and with the national security state. And they are very, very powerful as part of that machinery. But literally, if the people who control FASAB 56 turn off the spigot, you know, they could end up bankrupt in a reasonably short period of time. So, so, so then we have proof. You have to let me tell my Eisenhower story. Sorry, I'm sorry. No, that's okay. I just, I need, yeah, I guess because I.

So, so Eisenhower is sitting in his office, and the CIA is supposed to report to him about what's going on in Area 51, and they won't. And he gets really irritated. Now, you have to remember, Eisenhower was very popular and very respected by the American people and the military. So, finally, he gets so frustrated, he calls the CIA and tells them that if they are not in his office the next day to report on what is going on, he will fly to Colorado, get the First Army, and invade Area 51 the next day they were in his office reporting. Because, in fact, he could do that. He could get the First Army to invade Area 51 under his command. Anyway, but, you know, those are the tensions that you have. And we see today where the Washington Post has made a steady flow of aggression against the Trump president.

Here's what happened. So, so they do the deal with Amazon. And as soon as, as they do the deal with Amazon, and Amazon stock flies up, creating huge amounts of wealth, Bezos turns around and puts a tiny portion of the wealth that was just created on his balance sheet into the Washington Post. Now, you decide who owns the Washington Post, but, but I presume. Now, I had a huge war with the Washington Post. And in my experience, the Washington Post is really just an organ of the intelligence agencies. That was my experience. And the interesting thing is that this shows how much conflict is within, you know, the government structures, the intelligence agencies opposing the president. So there is no government.

That's what you have to understand. There's a group of banks and contractors who run this infrastructure. And if you look at the civil service and the president, they don't, they don't control. That's what you have to understand. You know, a perfect example is the Exchange Stabilization Fund is managed by the New York Fed, reporting directly to this, to the Secretary of Treasury, not through the bureaucracy. You know, and they control the mother of all slush funds, using governmental authority to trade and government credit to trade. So all the liabilities are on the taxpayer, but the information is secret. And it's really, as a day-to-day matter, I would argue, it's being run by a private bank. So, you know, and this is one of the major tools of financial warfare, which is part of running the reserve currency.

So, but here's the important thing to understand about the system. The problem with the national security state and the national security state being globalized into a global empire is that it is so big and so complicated. Now, in one sense, no one is in control. You know, so if you look at the power militarily in the system, you're talking about weaponry and satellites in the suborbital platform or high altitude in the skies, which is a very expensive infrastructure, and you're talking about controlling the sea lanes. You know, that's a very expensive proposition to control the satellite lanes, to control the sea lanes, and it takes a lot of people. And so it takes a lot of coordination. And if you look at the management that is steadily doing the financial coup, you know, one of the reasons they meet and have all these meetings is trying to just figure out, you know, consensus.

And if you look at the decision making, when you come out of the Bohemian Grove and you've made a series of decisions, the reason everybody stays on the same page is in a system that is that complicated and requires that much consensus just operationally to get the work done. And, you know, you can't afford, if you've all decided to do the waltz, you can't just start doing the tango in the middle of the dance floor and think it's going to come out well. You know, and that's why there's, you know, everybody obeys because we just went in the room and agreed we're going to do the waltz. And, you know, you can't just. It's a hard behavior. So Trump shows up and says, I feel like doing the tango. And it's like, well, someone get that guy off the dance floor.

Right. Right. Because it's a complex machinery. So I think we emphasize some problems today. And the question is, how can we solve them? How can we get out of this? Can I tell you something? There are. It's remarkable how easy it is to solve. And I'll tell you why. If you look at the machinery. So let's look at Mr. Global. Mr. Global, whoever is in that room, it's a small group of people, right? If you look at who's building the trap, who's building the prison, guess who's building the prison? The prisoners. Yeah. So we're, you know, with our bank deposits, we're financing the big banks to do this. We're financing Amazon to do this by shopping in Amazon. We're putting our money into the stocks of the companies that are destroying our world. We're paying taxes to this government and not, you know, using the powers we have as a taxpayer to, you know, to check and see where our money's being.

We have the ability to bring huge transparency. We have the ability to stop building the prison. Okay. And so the question is, what are we going to build with our world? If we keep building the prison, we will be prisoners, you know, and it's coming up fast. So one of the things, if you come to Solari, you see us promoting Cash Friday. Stop using digital money. Use cash. You know, keep your transactions private. But you can shift your bank deposits. You can shift your purchases. You can shift your investments. The other thing you can do is you can exercise the single most powerful political tactic from the beginning of time, and that's shunning. You know, it was during the financial crisis, as I had worked as a summer intern at Goldman Sachs, and so I was eligible to be on their email system and get their research, and I wrote them an email in 2008.

I said, I don't want to know you. Take me off your email list. I don't want your research. I don't want to know you. If I sit down next to you at a dinner table, I'm going to say yuck and get up and walk away. You know, start shunning, because if we support, there are around the world thousands, if not millions, of really great bankers and people who run credit unions and co-ops. Support the good guys. Shift your energy, your time, your money out of the bad guys and put it into the good guys. And do it quickly, because as I said, the trap is coming up fast. So, if they're implementing vaccine passports in your area, don't let it happen. You know, if you want to have a vaccine system, make it paperful. Digital systems, if we allow this to go all digital, it will be the end of human liberty in the West.

I think you shook me and a lot of people who listen to us. And I think this is helpful. Helpful because to change needs a kind of friction and needs some pain also. Because if there's no pain, you understand and you feel you will not change fundamentally your behavior. And I think that the new media you're creating with the Solari Report, and I hope to be part of this with what we are doing right now, is also part of this. Absolutely. So, I would ask also the people seeing and listening to support us. We need that support. There are a lot of ways. Some of them are very easy. It really is fundamental, because money is energy, and this energy gives us the space and the time to act. So, can I say something? Maybe.

Just go ahead. Just go ahead. So, as an investment banker, we're always looking for investments that have a high return. So, for a little bit of money, we call it a pop. You get a big pop. And I have to tell you, I think OVALmedia has one of the best returns on a dollar or on a euro of just about any of the new media I've seen, which you guys are rocking the world. When Robert said, who's OVALmedia? I said, they are the hottest media company in Europe. Thank you so much. I feel so glad. I would say, go push that button and subscribe and send money, because you will not get a higher return in the world of truth than what you guys are doing. I certainly could say the same for the Solari Report. Okay. So, please also subscribe to the Telegram channel and email list, because you never know what channel is there next week.

Goodbye. Goodbye.