Audio Classic: The Quigley Formula by Edward G Griffin

Historian Carroll Quigley revealed that the ruling elite don’t care who’s in office—so long as they control both sides. In this talk, G. Edward Griffin unpacks Quigley’s admissions and shows how political parties, left and right, are guided toward the same goal: a collectivist world system. It’s not about freedom versus tyranny, but managed opposition leading us into global governance.


Fair Dealing Notice (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988):This lecture may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of research, private study, criticism, review, quotation, parody, pastiche, or reporting current events, as permitted under the fair dealing provisions of UK copyright law.Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976:This lecture may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. We believe this constitutes a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act.Links⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠email:[e-mail]⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Beyond the Paradigm - YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠instagram.com/paradigm1979⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠twitter.com/paradigm_79⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠(1) Facebook⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Support The Show ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ patreon.com/BeyondTheParadigm ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠buymeacoffee.com/beyondthep5

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
You're here because you know something. What you know you
can't explain, but you feel it. You felt it your
entire life. Do you know what I'm talking about, Matrix.

(00:28):
I've had dreams that were just drive.

Speaker 2 (00:35):
We accept the reality of the world with which represented
It's as simple as that.

Speaker 1 (00:40):
Billions of people just living out their lives.

Speaker 3 (00:46):
Oblivious they talks.

Speaker 2 (00:48):
You're good, hey, do you believe their world? You can
deny all the things I've seen, all the things I've discovered,
but not for once long because too many others know
tamely on and no one, no government agency has jurisdiction
over the truth.

Speaker 4 (01:07):
All un welcome to beyond the paradigm. This is an
audio classic, the Quiggly Formula by Edward G. Griffin. In
this lecture, Edward G. Griffin does outline Carol Quiggley's claim
that a global elite do not care about political parties,
but they're only about maintaining power and just slight criticism

(01:31):
regarding this talk by Edward G. Griffin. Griffin is a Christian,
so it falls slightly short, so it's sort of a
half truth. It's still a useful lecture to listen to,
and that's why I've uploaded it, but just sort of
three points of criticism. Griffin speaks only in terms of
politics and economics, and he diagnoses the mechanics of collectivism,

(01:55):
but he does not recognize the spiritual architect behind it,
which is say to and without this he's warning he's
obviously incomplete. He offers humanistic solution. Griffin suggests education, personal activism,
and political involvement as antidotes. Yet the Bible makes it
clear that the ultimate answer is not human reform. But

(02:18):
Christ's return Revelation seventeen shows the best system will succeed
for a time, and no matter what formula, we resist
it with neutrality of morality. Griffin's libertarian approach elevates freedom
as the supreme value. But as Christians, we know true
freedom only comes in Jesus Christ. So a society that

(02:41):
is free politically but enslaved spiritually is still in bondage. So,
keeping those things in mind which I've just spoken about,
this is the quickly formula by Edward G. Griffin, and
I think you will find it interesting and it is
still profitable, although missing the spiritual elements. So without further ado,

(03:03):
this is Edward G. Griffin The Quiggly formula.

Speaker 3 (03:10):
Thank you, thank you well, thank you missus Buller, and
thank you ladies and gentlemen. It was pretty depressing listening
to those previous speakers. In fact, I'm amazed that I
see smiles on anyone's faces. It is, yes, very depressing story.

(03:30):
America is in serious trouble, and I'm going to be
talking today about how we got that way, and then
at the very end, what we can do about it.
So let's get on with the real story. I think
the good place to begin is by telling you a
little apocryphal story about show and tell day. In the

(03:51):
first grade in school, the teacher had told the children
to bring something to class that was interesting and new
so they could stand up and show it to the
class and tell them all about it. So they all did.
Most of them brought toys, but little Johnny brought a kitten. Well, naturally,

(04:11):
the kitten was more interesting in the long run than
most of the toys, so it didn't take long before
the whole class was focused on the kitten, and the
question came up, was this a boy kitten or a
girl kitten? Well, there was a heated discussion on this.
Everybody had an opinion, but nobody really knew how to
answer the question, so it just opinions, opinions, opinions, until

(04:34):
finally the teacher asked the class, does anybody know how
you can tell the difference between a boy kitten and
a girl kitten? And silence fell across the classroom. No
one had a clue, and finally Johnny raised his hand.
He says, I know. The teacher got very concerned with

(04:54):
that one, and she asked, cautiously, says, well, Johnny, how
can you tell tell the class? He said, well, my
dad says, we live in a democracy, and so in
a democracy you vote on everything. So let's vote on
this issue and we'll find out the truth. So you
know right away this was an American school, because it's true,

(05:15):
isn't it that all of us, certainly myself included, have
been taught from a very early age that we live
in a democracy. It's one of those words that we
need to get very serious about defining. But I've got
this general impression that democracy means a majority rule, and
that's wonderful. So the majority should decide everything, and the

(05:37):
more serious the issue, then the more need there is
to have the majority, you know, express its view well,
the purpose of my presentation is a little bit upstream.
I'm going to be saying basically that this, although it's
a cherished American concept, it's a very dangerous one. If

(05:59):
you don't think it's through and don't put limitations on it,
it's a very dangerous concept. And as a matter of fact,
it is the concept that is being used against the
American people and people all over the world to their
own detriment, to put them, in fact, into a condition

(06:19):
of bondage, a condition in which they elect their own
dictators and feel happy about it because they did it
to themselves. That's what I'm going to be talking about now.
As you probably know, the title of this presentation is

(06:39):
called the Quigly Formula. So let's take a look at that.
What is this thing? The Quickly formula? And the first
step is to answer the question who is this man quickly? Now?
I say this man quickly because the name is Carol Quigley,

(07:01):
and sometimes people think that's a woman, will it's not.
It's Carol Quigley that we're talking about. Who was He's
deceased now, but he was a very well known professor
of history who taught at Georgetown University, and while he
was there he had a very famous student by the

(07:22):
name of William Clinton. And Clinton studied under Quigley and
became a favored student and spent some personal time with
him and admired quickly. Twenty seven years later, when this
student was given the nomination for President of the United States,

(07:46):
in his acceptance speech, he mentioned Professor Carol Quigley in
his speech and paid homage to him. After he was
elected President of the United States, he made at least
two public appearances at which I'm aware where again he
mentioned Professor Carroll Quigley and thanked him for the influence

(08:10):
that this man had had on the political awareness and
thinking of himself, President Clinton. So there was no question
about it that Quigley was Clinton's mentor. Now why is
this significant. It's significant because Professor Quigley taught the conspiratorial

(08:32):
view of history as explained by the conspirators themselves. Quigley
was very close to a secret society. In fact, he
had been invited, he said in his own works, he
had been invited into its inner circle and given the
privilege of examining the society's private papers. He was considered

(08:58):
to be the official historian of this secret society, and
he admired it. He thought it was wonderful. He felt
privileged to be close to it and to its documents,
And he wrote a couple of books about this as
a matter of fact, and he said, the only point

(09:20):
of disagreement that he had with this secret organization was
that it wished to remain hidden from view. He felt
that by now, with all these years of success and movement,
it was time to come forward and to boast about
what it had accomplished and to proclaim openly what its

(09:41):
goals were. So quiggly was the historian of a secret society? Now?
That means therefore, that when President Clinton gave homage to
Professor Quigley, his comments had two meanings. To the average

(10:05):
person who did not know who Quickly was, or what
position he held, or what he had written about, they thought, oh, well,
isn't that nice. Here's Bill Clinton giving homage to some
nice old professor that had an influence on his collegiate days.
How nice. But to those who knew, to those who

(10:25):
knew who Quickly was and what his position was, and
what he wrote about and what he advocated, and we'll
be talking a lot about that today. Then they understood
there was another message, a hidden message. Clinton was saying
he knew about this conspiracy and he was now in
its service. That was a signal to everyone around the

(10:49):
world who understood what the real meaning was. They knew
that Clinton now was in the service of this secret
society that we'll be talking about today. Now I've mentioned
the word conspiracy before, I'll probably be using it again
several times today, and that causes some concern for a
lot of people because it's kind of a knee jerk

(11:11):
reaction for people to say, Oh, you believe in conspiracy.
What are you a conspiracy theorist of some kind. Well,
I'm certainly not a conspiracy theorist. When people take that position,
I have to laugh because I feel sorry for them.
They've obviously never read a history book, because anyone who

(11:34):
knows anything about history knows that it's built on conspiracies
from one end to the other. Conspiracy is the engine
of history. Every major event in history, when you examine it,
has come to pass largely as a result of at
least one, and in many cases many conspiracies, and it
goes on today. These people have never sat in a

(11:57):
courtroom and listened to to lawyers, try men and corporations
on the charge of conspiracies, Conspiracies in corporations, conspiracies and families,
conspiracies from top to bottom. Conspiracies are a fact of life.
And for anybody to say that conspiracies are absurd and

(12:19):
that anyone who thinks the conspiracies are real is a
conspiracy theorist has a real problem. I do not have
this problem. I know the conspiracies are real, and we'll
be talking about a very real conspiracy today and we'll
be documented with the words of the people themselves who
are involved in it, and they're very proud of it.

(12:43):
So but let's not drop the word with that. What
is a conspiracy? The Dictionary defines conspiracies generally as having
three components. If you have these three components, then you're
dealing with a conspiracy. First, it has to involve two
or more people. Secondly, it has to use tactics that

(13:07):
are either immoral or at least coercion. And thirdly, the
objective of these tactics has to be illegal or immoral. Right,
that's generally the definition of a conspiracy. So let's take
a look before we get into the details of the

(13:27):
conspiracy we'll be talking about today, and just look at
the surface. First of all, will there be two or
more people involved in You bet there are many people involved,
certainly not the masses, but a lot more than two.
So we can check that one off. The second part
is do they use deception or coercion? And yes, indeed
they boast about it as a matter of fact, saying

(13:50):
that the masses are so stupid that you have to
fool them for their own good, and you have to
pass laws to use coercion in order to force people
to do what they want. So yes, you can check
that one off. They do use deception and coercion. But
now we come to the third issue. Is the objective
illegal or immoral? Well, it's certainly not illegal in most cases,

(14:14):
because we'll find out in a moment. As you folks
already know, these are the people that make the laws.
So what they're doing is entirely illegal because they made
it legal. They hold the powers of political power, legislative power,
executive power, judicial power, and so what they're doing is
not illegal. If they're going to merge let's say merge

(14:37):
the United States, or let's say get rid of the
United States and merge what is left of it with
Mexico and Canada in a North American Union, for example,
of one of many things we could talk about. It
will be done entirely legally. It will be done with
no objection from Congress. The courts will uphold it, and
they'll figure out all kinds of ways to justify it

(14:59):
as illegal move So it's not illegal in most cases,
although sometimes they do resort to illegal measures, but that's
very rare. That leaves finally the last issue. Is it
immoral or unethical? Now, in the minds of these people,
it is the highest morality. They think that their goal

(15:20):
is the highest morality possible. They are working towards what
they fondly call the new world order. In their minds,
that is the ultimate morality. And it's people like you
and me who are the immoral ones, the idiots that
think that national sovereignty has some kind of value in

(15:43):
this modern world. We are the ones standing in the
way of progress. We are the ones standing in the
way of the happiness of mankind. We're the ones that
are for all kinds of injustice. We are the ones
that are immoral. You see, So in their minds they're
very moral, and everything they do and the end justifies

(16:04):
the means. If they have to sacrifice individuals or minorities
or large numbers of people to achieve this wonderful goal,
it's an act of honor, it's an act of high ethics.
So in their mind they are not conspirators because we
fail to have all three of these elements. They are
not conspirators in their minds. But now in the minds

(16:28):
of the rest of us who have to live in
this order that they are forcing upon us through coercion
and deception, I think we have every reason to consider
that the objective is unethical, and is immoral, and is
disastrous to the American people and to people everywhere in
the world. So I think for us to use the

(16:48):
word conspiracy is entirely justified. Now, having gotten that out
of the way, let's get down to the substance of
what this conspiracy really is. Professor Quigley described this conspiracy
in two books. One is called Tragedy and Hope and

(17:09):
the other is the Anglo American Establishment. Tragedy and Hope
in particular, is a very thick book. They're both history books.
They're written by history Professor they're both pretty dry. They're
hard to read. It get a lot of dull factual information, names, dates, places, events,
and so forth, and it's easy to go to sleep

(17:29):
reading these books. But all of a sudden you'll come
across a paragraph or a sentence that'll just blow your
socks off, and you go back and say, did he
really say that? And indeed he did. Remember he's the
historian of this group. These books were not written for
mass consumption. They were written primarily for academia and for

(17:51):
people who were involved in this conspiracy at one level
or another, who were curious to know about its origins,
about its history, and about the extent of its operations
in the world today. It was written for that very
select group, and it was only accidental that people like

(18:14):
myself and some others got hold of copies of it and
began to talk about it, and the word got out,
and the first thing, you know, a lot of people
who weren't intended to read it started to read it
and become alarmed about it. And so the publisher, which
was McMillan and Company, pulled it. They said, no, we're
not going to reprint this book anymore. Professor Quigley himself,

(18:35):
by the way, was very irate at that. He started
a lawsuit as a matter of fact against McMillan. But
this is another story. There was at least one publisher
in California that started to pirate the copies. He made
a beautiful replica of it. You could hardly tell the
difference between the original of this. He sold thousands and
thousands of copies, and it was embarrassing for McMillan to say, well,

(18:58):
we've got to stop him from doing that, because they
were at there at the same time saying there's no
market for it. And so McMillan finally relented and put
the book back into print. Well, anyway, if you can
buy a copy of it today, either the pirated version,
which I think is more valuable because it's more limited edition,

(19:19):
or you can buy the original thing from McMillan. That's
another side issue. The important question here is what did
these books say. I'm going to give you an overview
of my summary of it, and then I'm going to
come back and give you excerpts from the books themselves
to illustrate that my summary is accurate. Otherwise you may

(19:39):
wonder quickly didn't really say those things? But here's my summary,
so you can get the whole picture first and then
we'll look at the details. Quickly. Said that at the
end of the nineteenth century a secret society was formed
in England by Cecil Roads. Now, as many people know,
Cecil Road was one of the wealthiest men of history

(20:03):
of all time. He was the Chancellor of South Africa.
He had acquired a possession of almost all of the
gold mines and diamond mines in South Africa. Had used
this tremendous access to the natural resources of that country
primarily for his own personal use. Very wealthy person. What

(20:23):
we don't know, generally is how he used that money.
Most people think that wealth it probably went to his heirs.
It did not. Cecil Rhodes created seven wills and very
specifically instructed his executors of how to dispose and use

(20:48):
this great wealth, and he said it should be used
for the purpose of creating a secret society. And that's
how it was and still is by the way being used. Now.
One of the wills created the Rhodes Scholarship. We all
heard about that, and the general impression there is that
isn't it wonderful that this man Roads set aside a

(21:11):
big chunk of money for the education of worthy young
men and women. Well, that's kind of a surface view.
He did set aside a big chunk of money for
the education of worthy young men and women. But the
definition of worthy meant that they had to have a
certain worldview. They had to be smart, they had to

(21:32):
believe in global government based on the model of collectivism,
they had to be a little bit ruthless, and they
had to be capable of being enlisted into the Secret Society.
This was the recruiting arm of the Secret Society to
a large extent. It was a recruiting fund, not an

(21:55):
educational fund. The other wills are unknown completely to most
people have no idea what that money was used for
and how was allocated in these other wills. I said
seven wills before Actually that was a mistake. It was
five wills. He wrote five wills, and the Scholarship Fund

(22:17):
became the best known of them, and the others are
pretty much even unknown to this day. This Secret Society
exists today, continues to exist, and has been a major
historical force since World War One. Quigley says that every
major event in history from World War One has been

(22:42):
dominated and directed to a large extent by this secret Society.
The goal of this organization originally was to expand the
British Empire's culture and political system and domination over the
entire world. Originally, Rhodes felt that the English represented the

(23:03):
finest the highest watermark in culture, was the finest race
in the world, the smartest people, the most benevolent people.
And they had an obligation, you see, to rule the
world so that all of the ignorant people of the
world could benefit from this. It was an act of noblease, Nobley.

(23:23):
They had this obligation. Somebody had to do it to
protect these poor, ignorant people from themselves. It might as
well be them, since they had this wonderful culture, this
great language, and this great outlook of what the future
should be, a world built on the model of collectivism. Now,

(23:44):
that evolved very quickly after cecil Wrote's death to a
different view. It was no longer the British Empire that
was to be at the center, but there was a
world government to be created. The geographic axis shifted from
London to New York and became the United Nations. But nevertheless,

(24:07):
the original concept that the members of the Secret society
would rule from behind the scenes. It would not be
the major political figures. They would be the ones who
selected the major political figures and who funded the major
political figures. They would not be the great teachers or
the historians who wrote the textbooks. They would be the

(24:29):
ones who hired the great teachers and funded the historians
who wrote the textbooks. They would always work behind the scenes.
That was the model that he set up. The method
by which they would do this was very precise. They
knew that you could not really control the masses directly
one on one. You had to do it through the

(24:52):
organizations to which they belonged. They called them the power
centers of society. Man has a heard instant. We belong
to groups, We follow leaders, we move in groups, we
sometimes even think in groups. And so they recognized a
long time ago that all you had to do if

(25:14):
you wanted to lead the masses is to capture control
of the groups, the leadership of the groups to which
people belonged, the political parties, church organizations, labor unions, media outlets,
the great corporations, all of the groups, the power centers

(25:34):
of society. You could control them with a relatively small
number of people if they were well organized, dedicated, and funded,
and then those people would indirectly control the world. That
was the model. The structure that Cecil Roads created, and

(25:57):
remember this is all described primary by Professor Quigley was
outwardly modeled after the Jesuit Order. It's right. I was
surprised to read that the Jesuit Order. Quigley was a
great admirer of the structure of the Jesuits, and he

(26:17):
decided to model his secret society after that structure. But
at the deeper level it was clear that he borrowed
the structure from the Illuminati. And now everyone knows that
the Illuminati existed at one time. It was created in
seventeen seventy six by Adam Weishaupt, but shortly thereafter it

(26:40):
was exposed in Bavaria. The police rated it, they arrested
its members, They discovered its ledgers and its books and
its papers, which is why we know so much about them.
They're part of the public record. Now we know what
the Illuminati was trying to do, and how they were structured,
and how they organized and so forth, and so that's
part of the record. But we are told that the

(27:03):
Illuminatis ceased to exist after that date. I think it
probably did. But whether it did or not, certainly others
like Cecil Roads picked it up. They picked up the concept.
I don't know if there's a historical continuity back to
Adam Weisop. I don't think it makes an awful lot
of difference when we realize that there are people like

(27:23):
Cecil Rhodes who read Adam Weisop's work and said, hey,
this is a good idea, let's use it. And that's
basically what Cecil Rhads did. He adopted the strategy that
Weisop created of He called it rings within rings within rings.
That means that the center of the Secret Society would

(27:44):
be run by one individual with perhaps a little brain
trust around him, with two or three people. They would
be the absolute rulers of this whole structure. Then they
would create around them a ring, as they called it,
a larger organization which they would dominate. They would control
it absolutely from the center. But the other members who

(28:06):
were recruited into this larger organization would not be allowed
to know that there was an inner control and direction.
They were brought in for a lesser view of the
whole purpose, and that was the outer ring, and that
might be twenty thirty fifty people, maybe one hundred people.
And then outside of that there would be a larger ring,

(28:27):
another organization created with hundreds of people, perhaps thousands of people,
and they would not be allowed to know, or would
they even suspect that there was an inner ring controlling
the larger outer ring. And this is what Wisup called
rings within rings within ring. Cecil Rhads thought that was
a dandy idea, and so he adopted it as the

(28:47):
structure for his secret society. Now in his group, the
Inner Circle, they called the Society of the elect That
was the name Roads put to it. It originally consisted
of Cecil Roads and a brain trust from British banking
and politics, a very small number of highly placed, very

(29:11):
wealthy people. The center of gravity, as I mentioned a
moment ago, shifted eventually to the Rockefeller Group in the
United States, with centers of influence in such other organizations
as the Builderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, and that sort
of thing we've all heard about these, and the goal

(29:33):
shifted away from the control from the British Empire to
an international control through something called the New World Orders.
The phrase they adopted with control primarily focused in New York,
with the United Nations meant to be the hub of
this global government, and I should say global government, not

(29:57):
just any global government, one based on the model of collectivism,
which means total control over every human being. Not much
room left there for personal freedom. Now, the secondary rings
around the society of the elect were called roundtables, and

(30:19):
they were formed in the United States, in Britain and
all of the former British dependencies, and they still exist today.
They operate under that name. Around the round tables, a
larger ring, a tertiary ring, was formed, and they called
them front groups in a generic sense in each country

(30:41):
where there were roundtables, and they took on the name.
In the dependencies of the former dependencies of the British Empire,
they took on the name of Royal Institute for International Affairs.
That's where you'll find them today under that name in
all of the countries Great Britain, Canada, Australia, so for
the Royal Institute of International Affairs. But in the United

(31:04):
States the word Royal didn't go over too well, and
so they changed it completely and they called it the
Council on Foreign Relations. But it has exactly the same
relationship to the roundtables, which is surrounding the Society of
the elect, which is the secret society that still functions today,

(31:24):
was created by Cecil Roads and ladies and gentlemen. After
one hundred years of operation and of penetration into the
power centers of society, the Roadsian Network, as I call
it now, is close to its final achievement, which is
its goal, the creation of a true new world order.

(31:47):
Now I call it the Rhodesian network because one of
the things we have to realize is that itself it
has no name. Isn't that brilliant? Quickly when he writes
about it, does know whether to call it the group
or the network, or or the Roads Group. He calls
it all these different things. And you see they carefully

(32:11):
and consciously decided not to have an official name. Well,
if you don't have a name, that's pretty hard to
talk about the structure like that. So that was one
of the very smart moves they made, did not have
an official name. I have given it a name so
I can talk about it. I call it the Rhodesian
Group or the Rosleian Network, the Rhodesians. I hope it

(32:32):
sticks because that's exactly what they are now. I said
that this group is dominant now as coming close to
fruition of its ultimate goal in the Western world. I
very carefully said the Western world, because I wanted to
differentiate between what's going on in the Western world and
what's going on in the rest of the world. We

(32:52):
tend to think, as we look at this group, that
this is the totality of our problem in the world today,
and it is not. There is at lee one other group,
very similar to the Rhodesians. They too decided that having
a name was a bad idea, and not too long
ago they got rid of their name. We used to
call them communists. Well, they said, we don't want that name.

(33:17):
Nobody likes that name. Let's get rid of it. And
so they're no longer communists. They went through this great
charade of getting rid of the Communist empire. All they
did was change their names. Ladies and gentlemen. They don't
really have a name anymore. They took this hat that
said Communist on the front of it, and they turn
it around and the other side had said social democrat.
Now that's different, isn't it Social democrat? But you notice

(33:41):
the heads under the hat were the same. They didn't
change the heads unless they died off. But most of
the old commissars are now entrepreneurs and they're still running
the country, and they still believe in collectivism, and they
still are the enemies of freedom, and they still operate
a military that it could potentially be a very big

(34:01):
threat someday. They still operate as secrets to service. The
former KGB has changed its name, but it's bigger and
more powerful than ever before, and they're still dominant and
a huge part of the world. We must not forget
that they live. They're there, and they're very similar to
the Rosians. As a matter of fact, their ultimate goal

(34:22):
of world government based on the model of collectivism is
exactly the same. There is no difference between the ultimate
goals of these two groups. The only difference is that
they compete with each other for dominance in this new
world order. They'll fight tooth and nail for territory and

(34:42):
dominance and control. But their goal is exactly the same.
And I just want to footnote that into my comments today,
because it's extremely important that we don't think that just
because we have this problem with the Rhesians, that anybody
out who condemns the Rhodesians for their faults are good guys.

(35:04):
I mean, we don't want to run to the Leninists
now and say, well, because they're opposed to the Rhodesians,
the Leninists have got to be good. Now. It's going
from you know, pot into the fire, frying pan into
the fire. They're both exactly the sign. All right. Now,
that is my summary of what Quigley said and others.

(35:27):
Let's go now to the actual documents and see if
perhaps I distorted or exaggerated in some way. Let's go
to Tragedy and Hope Quigley's Mammoth Book, and this is
what he said. He said, I know of the operation
of this network because I have studied it for twenty
years and was permitted for two years during the nineteen

(35:49):
sixties to examine its papers and secret records. I have
no aversion to it or to most of its aims,
and have for much of my life been close to
it and to many of its instruments. In general, my
chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown.
So there's quickly's appraisal of the Secret Society, and he

(36:11):
likes it a lot in his other book, The Anglo
American Establishment. This is what he said. The Rhodes Scholarship
established by the terms of Cecil Rhades seventh will We're
back to seven again. I'm gonna get my numbers right
seventh will. The Rhodes Scholarship established by the terms of
Cecil Roads seventh will are known to everyone. What is

(36:33):
not so widely known is that Rhodes, in five previous wills,
left his fortune to form a secret society which was
to devote itself to the preservation and expansion of the
British Empire. And what does not seem to be known
to anyone is that this secret society continues to exist
to this day. To be sure, it is not a

(36:55):
childish thing like the Ku Klux Klan, and it does
not have any secret robes, secret handclasps, or secret passwords.
It doesn't need any of these things since its members
know each other intimately. It probably has no oaths of
secrecy nor any formal procedure of initiation. It does, however, exist,

(37:18):
and it holds secret meetings. This group is, as I
shall show, one of the most important historical facts of
the twentieth century. Now, when he says, secret meetings. I
want you just to think in terms of the Bilderberg meetings.
There's nothing more secret than that. This is what he's
talking about. And the g you know, the countries that

(37:41):
dominate the central banks, they have the g FI or
the G seven they meet. That's very secret. Trilateral Commission
meetings are secret. That's what he's talking about now. One
of the original leaders of this organization was William Stead.
He wrote a book called The Last Will and Testament

(38:03):
of Cecil Rhodes. He was well positioned to write that
book because he was the executor of Cecil Rhodes estate.
So this guy knows what he's talking about. In this book,
Stead wrote this. He said, mister Rose was more than
the founder of a dynasty. He aspired to be the

(38:25):
creator of one of the vast semi religious, quasi political associations, which,
like the Society of Jesus, have played so large a
part in the history of the world. To be more
strictly accurate, he wished to found an order as the
instrument of the will of the dynasty, an order like

(38:47):
a religious order or like a chivalric order, that was
the intensity of the loyalty and commitment that Cecil Rhodes
envisioned and acquired. Cecil wrote left some handwritten manuscripts upon
his death, and they weren't published until quite a bit later.

(39:10):
But in one of those this is what he wrote. Now,
this is from the words of the man himself. He said,
I contend that we English are the finest race in
the world, in that most of the world that we inhabit,
it is better because we are the supreme masters of
the human race. I'm going to get this straight. I

(39:33):
didn't read that quite right, so let me read it again.
I consider that we English are the finest race in
the world, and that the more of the world we inhabit,
the better it is for the human race. What scheme
could we think of to forward this object? I look
into history and I read the story of the Jesuits.

(39:54):
I see that what they were able to do in
a bad cause, and I might say under bad leaders.
In the present day, I became a member of the
Masonic order. I see the wealth and power they possess,
the influence they hold, and I think over their ceremonies,
and I wonder that a large body of men can
devote themselves to what at times appear the most ridiculous

(40:17):
and absurd rites, without an object and without an end.
The idea, gleaming and dancing before one's eyes, like a
will of the wisp, at last frames itself into a plan.
Why should we not form a secret society with but
one object? The furtherance of the British Empire and the

(40:39):
bringing of the whole uncivilized world under British rule. That
was his vision in his own words. Now back to
Quigley's words, he said that the goal of this secret
society was, and I quote, nothing less than to create
a world system of financial control in private hands, able

(41:03):
to dominate the political systems of each country and the
economy of the world as a whole. The system was
to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central
banks of the world, acting in concert by secret agreements
arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. On page

(41:27):
four of the Anglo American Establishment quickly says this this
organization has been able to conceal its existence quite successfully,
and many of its most influential members, satisfied to possess
the reality rather than the appearance, of power, are unknown
even to close students of British history, partly because of

(41:51):
the deliberate policy of secrecy which this group has adopted,
and partly because the group itself is not closely integrated,
but rather appears as a series of overlapping circles or rings,
partly concealed by being hidden behind formally organized groups of
no obvious political significance. Now regarding the conspiratorial structure of

(42:17):
this group, quickly tells us this. He says, in the
Secret Society, Rhodes was to be leader. Stead is the
guy that wrote the book on the Wills. Stead, Brett,
Lord Esher, and Milner were to form an executive committee
called the Society of the elect. Arthur Lord Balfour, Sir
Harry Johnston, Lord Rothschild, Albert Lord Gray and the others

(42:42):
were listed as potential members of a circle of Initiates,
while there was to be an outer circle known as
the Association of Helpers, later organized by Milner as the
Roundtable Organization. After the death of Cecil Rhads, the organization
fell under the control of Lord Alfred Milner, who recruited

(43:03):
young men from the upper class of society to become
part of the Association of Helpers. There are a lot
of words in there, But what that boils down to
is this. These young men that were recruited were unofficially
referred to at that time by this group as Milner's Kindergarten.
They were college graduates, They came out of the finest

(43:24):
universities in England, and they went into top positions in
government and elsewhere, but they called them Milner's Kindergarten. Nevertheless,
these were the men who were placed into the power
centers of British society. Eventually they became the roundtables in
all of these countries, which were the inner rings of
the larger front groups. Milner's Kindergarten became the roundtables. Now

(43:52):
we must remember that the purpose of a secret society
is deceit. They have to have seek which don't they
They're not going to reveal their secrets. Otherwise you don't
need a secret society. You can just do everything out
in the open. So if you have to guard secrets
and people ask you to explain what it is you're doing,
you cannot say, well, we're doing this, this is list.

(44:14):
You have to lie about it. That's just logic. And
so we find a lot of this going on. These
the members of this secret organization. Lie. They lie through
their teeth, and they think it's an honorable thing to
do because they're preserving the secret. It's not a lie
to them, it's just a necessary public relations gesture. And

(44:35):
you know, you find this throughout. But there's a classic
example I would like to share with you one of
the most or the better known of these people, one
of the more prominent members of Milner's Kindergarten, which we
discussed a moment ago. His name was Arnold Toynbee. Now
he's a very famous historian, isn't it. Everybody's heard of

(44:58):
Arnold Toynbee, renowned historian of his professor at the London
School of Economics where they teach collectivism global government. He
was the director of Studies at the Royal Institute of
International Affairs, which was a front group for the Roundtable.
He was a British intelligence agent and the author of

(45:19):
a twelve volume work called A Study of History which
extols the virtue of world government based on the model
of collectivism. And in November nineteen thirty one, in that
issue of the International Affairs Publication, which was the official
publication of this front group, this Roundtable, which was to

(45:42):
be read primarily only by its members. It wasn't to
be read by people like us, where they can lower
their guard and speak the truth, not expecting anybody to
really catch it. This is what he said. Toynbee said,
I will hereby repeat that we are at present working discreetly,
but with all of our might, to wrest this mysterious

(46:05):
political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the
local national states of our world. And all the time
we are denying with our lips what we are doing
with our hands. Good for us. See, this is what
you would expect from a secret society. Should not be
a shock to anybody. But I put it in because

(46:27):
some people still find it hard to believe that their
politicians or anybody in prominence would not tell the truth. Now,
world government doesn't just happen by writing articles or books.
It happens only when people come into control of the
power centers of society and drive the society into world government.

(46:51):
And quickly explains how this came about, he said, and
I quote through Lord Milner's influence, these men were able
to win influence posts in government. In international finance had
become the dominant influence in British imperial affairs and foreign
affairs up to nineteen thirty nine. In nineteen nine through

(47:13):
nineteen thirteen, the organized semi secret groups known as roundtable
groups in the chief British dependencies and in the United States.
These still function in eight countries. The task was given
to Lionel Curtis, who established in England and each dominion
a front organization to the existing local roundtable group. This

(47:34):
front organization, called the Royal Institute of International Affairs, had
as its nucleus in each area the existing submerged roundtable group.
In New York, it was known as the Council on
Foreign Relations and was affront for JP Morgan and company.

(47:56):
I hope you were awake and heard all of that.
What we just leant learn from Quigley himself. We come
to the ubiquitous Council on Foreign Relations, which was mentioned
by several of your speakers earlier today. And who those
people are, what influence they have? Where did this organization
come from? Now we know we're informed it was spawned

(48:17):
by a secret society which still exists today, that it
is a front for a roundtable group originally embodied in
JP Morgan and Company, but now the Rockefeller Consortium, and
that its primary goal is no longer the expansion of
the British Empire, but global collectivism with control in private hands,

(48:40):
administered in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of
the world. Now, ladies and gentlemen, these are their words,
not mine. Why is this important? It's important because the
members of the Council on Foreign Relations are the rulers

(49:01):
of America. Who are they? Well, once in a while
their name pops into the news, but very seldom you
get them all together. I'm going to take a few moments.
This might be boring, but I think for the record,
everyone needs to be familiar with the names some of

(49:21):
the prominent names who are members of this outer ring
of a secret society. Let's start with the presidents of
the United States, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford,
James Carter, George Bush Senior, and William Clinton. JFK once

(49:44):
said that he was a member of the CFR, but
nowhere can you find him on the membership roles. So
I guess he was a wannabe but didn't quite make
it in. But he actually said that he thought he
was a member, and of course the presidential candidates said
John Carey and Vice President Richard Cheney are members of
the CFR Secretaries of State, that this is a very

(50:07):
important position for this group, because it's even more important
than the president. The president can be controlled by the
Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and all of his
cabinet members who are pretty much appointed for him. You know,
he doesn't appoint. Presidents don't appoint their cabinet members from
their own private telephone directory. You know, they're not even
in their book. They're told who to appoint. Anyway, Here

(50:31):
are the secretaries of State, perhaps the most important position
in the United States government as far as the CFR
is concerned. Dean Rusk, Robert Lansing, Frank Kellogg, Henry Stimpson,
Cordell Hall, E. R. Stettinius, George Marshall, Dean Atchison, John Foster, Dulles,
Christian Herder, Dean Rusk, William Rogers, Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance,

(50:57):
Edmund Muski, Alexander Haig, George Schultz, James Baker, Lawrence Eggelberger,
Warren Christopher, William Richardson, Madeline Albright, Colin Powell, and of
course condo, Lisa writes, wedn't leave anybody out. I don't
know now. Secretaries of Defense also very important. James Forrestall,

(51:20):
George Marshall, Charles Wilson, Neil McElroy, Robert McNamara, Melvin Laird,
Elliott Richardson, James Lessinger, Harold Brown, Casper Weinberger, Frank Calucchi,
Richard Cheney, Les Aspen, William Perry, William Cohen, and Donald Rumsfeldt.

(51:41):
Directors of the CIA pretty important, Walter Smith, William Colby,
Richard Helms, Alan Dulles, John McCombe, James Lessinger, George Bush Senior,
Stansfield Turner, William Casey, William Webster, Robert Gates, James Woolsey,
John Deints, William Stuttterman, George Tennant, Porter Goss, and Michael Hayden.

(52:06):
Now some better known corporations with CFR members at the
board of directors or chief executive levels where they dominate
these huge corporations. It's quite a list. I had to
trim this down, believe it or not. Here are just
a few Atlantic Richfield Oil Company, AT and t Avon Products,

(52:27):
Bechtel Construction Group, Boeing Company, Bristol Myers, Squibb, Chevron, Coca
Cola and Pepsicola Consolidated, Edison of New York, Exxon, Dow Chemical,
DuPont Chemical, Eastman, Kodak, Enron, s D, lauder Ford, Motor, General, Electric,
General Foods, Hewlett Packard, Hughes, Aircraft, IBM International Paper, Johnson

(52:52):
and Johnson, Levi, Straussen Company, Lockheed Aerospace, Loosen Technologies, Mobile Oil, Montano, Northrop,
Pacific Gas and Electric, Phillips Petroleum, Procter and Gamble, Quaker, Oaks, SBC, Yahoo,
Shell Oil, Smith, Klein, Beecham Pharmaceuticals, Sprint Corporation, Texico, Santa Fe,

(53:13):
Southern Pacific Railroad, Teledi, TRW Southern California, Edison, Unical, United Technologies,
Hoizon Communications, Warner, Lambert, Warehouser, and Xerox, to mention just
a few. Now In the media, also very important in
controlling the thinking processes of the American people, we find

(53:34):
CFR members in the management and operational positions at the
Army Times, Associated Press, Association of American Publishers, Barons, Boston Globe, BusinessWeek,
Christian Science Monitor, Dallas Morning News, Detroit Free Press, Detroit News,
USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, New York Post,

(53:57):
San Diego Union, Tribune, Time Mirror, Random House, w W.
Norton and Company, Warner Books, American Spectator, Atlantic, Harper's Farm Journal,
Financial World Insight, Washington Times, Medical Tribune, National Geographic, National Review,
New Republic, New Yorker, News Day, Newsmax, Newsweek, Pittsburgh Post, Gazette,

(54:22):
Reader's Digest, Rolling Stone, Scientific, American Times, Warner Time, US
News and World Report, Washington Post, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, PBS, RCA,
the Walt Disney Company, and, of course, Rupert Murdoch. Media personalities.

(54:46):
The talking heads include David Brinkley, Tom Brokaw, William Buckley,
Peter Jennings, Bill Moyers, Dan Rather, Diane Sawyer, Barbara Walters,
Katie Couric, and Andrea Mitchell was the wife of Alan
greens Span, former chairman of the Federal Reserve System. Of course,
Allen is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

(55:07):
Labor unions and with CFR. Members and key positions include AFFLCIO,
United Steel Workers of America, United Autoworkers, American Federation of Teachers, Bricklayers,
and Allied Craft Communication Workers of America, Union of Needle
trades and amalgamated clothing and textile workers, all the big ones.

(55:31):
In the tax exempt foundations and think tanks, the number
of CFR members in controlling positions is four hundred and
forty three. Some of the better known names are the
Sloane and Kettering Foundation, Aspen Institute, Atlantic Council, Builderberg Group,
Brookings Institute, Carnegie and Doman for International Peace, Carnegie Foundation,

(55:54):
Ford Foundation, Guggenheimer Foundation, Hudson Institute, John and Catherine MacArthur Foundation,
Mellon Foundation, Rand Corporation, Rhodes Scholarship, Selection Commission, Rockefeller Foundation
and Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Trilateral Commission, and the un Association.
In the universities, the number of CFR members who are

(56:17):
or have been professors, department chairman, presidents, or board members
is five hundred and sixty three. My last count could
be different today, probably more. In the financial institutions such
as banks, the Federal Reserve, stock exchanges, and brokerage houses,
the number of CFR members with controlling positions is two

(56:37):
hundred and eighty four. Now, ladies and gentlemen, that gives
you an idea. We could go into other areas, but
bear in mind that The total membership of this group
is about four thousand people. Now, there are a lot
of churches in your hometown that have memberships equal to
or larger than that. And wouldn't it be curious if

(56:59):
you were to discover that the members of that one
church held all of these positions in society? Wouldn't you
be curious what's going on? But first you'd have to
know about it? And how would you know about it
if the channels of communication by which you might be
informed of it are also controlled by these same people.

(57:21):
You see the magnitude of the problem we face. I'd
like to emphasize that the CFR is not the inner
core of a secret society, but it's at least two
rings out. Now what does that mean. That means that
most of those people in the CFR are not aware
of the history I've given you today. They have no

(57:43):
inkling of it. Probably if they did know it, they'd
be impressed, they wouldn't be shocked, because, boy, we're on
the inside of a very powerful group. Most of these people,
I think, look at this as sort of a high
powered ultimate employment agent. And see they know that if
they're invited into this group and you have to be

(58:04):
invited that they've got it made. Once your name is
on that list, you never have to worry about a
job again. Because the New World Order, people are constantly
looking for reliable servants to their CAUs and these people
have been selected not because they're evil people at all,
or because they've got the grand vision of global government,

(58:25):
although some of them do, but most of them just
go along with the idea. They're open to it, they
like it, and so they're dependable, and that's how they
get in. So these are not These people are not
most of them at the inner core of a secret society.
They're just opportunists. The three things we have to understand

(58:45):
about this group. First of all, they're not partisan. The
names I read to you have nothing to do with
Republicans versus Democrats. You find them equally located in both
political parties. These people laugh at it, anyone who takes
seriously a political party. They laugh at all of these

(59:07):
people campaigning out there for Republicans or Democrats. This has
nothing to do with that. Secondly, they are elitists. They
intend to rule for our own good, of course. And thirdly,
the method by which they intend to rule is called democracy.

(59:28):
We're back to that word democracy. They want democracy. Now
that presents a problem. How is it possible for these
people to rule mankind absolutely and still allow democracy where
people vote and determine things through the ballot box. There's

(59:48):
no problem with that in their book. All they have
to do, they say, is just control the elections. Allow
people to vote, so long as they don't vote for
anything significant. We'll make all the important decisions and let
them vote for the unimportant things. So they get the
sensation of participating in their own political destiny. They'll be happy.

(01:00:12):
Just keep them out of the way, Let them have
their fun and games, let them have their bumper stickers
and their and their straw hats. Let them go to
the convention and let them fight with each other out there,
candidate against Kennedy. But we own them all. So what
difference does it make? You See, you're getting the picture now.

(01:00:33):
Quigley himself described this in very approving terms. He likes
that idea in his book. This is what he says.
This is in forgotten which book it is now, but
it's right. Let's see, it's probably the big thick one.
Here's what he said. The national parties and their presidential candidates,

(01:00:56):
with the Eastern establishment assiduously fostering the process behind the scenes,
moved closer together and nearly met in the center with
almost identical candidates and platforms, although the process was concealed
as much as possible by the revival of obsolescent or
meaningless war cries and slogans, often going back to the

(01:01:17):
Civil War. The argument that the two parties should represent
opposed ideals and policies, one perhaps of the right and
the other of the left is a foolish idea acceptable
only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two
parties should be almost identical, so that the American people

(01:01:39):
can throw the rascals out at any election without leading
to any profound or extreme shifts in policy. Either party
in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorous,
then it should be possible to replace it every four years,
if necessary, by the other part, which will be none

(01:02:01):
of these things, but will still pursue with new vigor
approximately the same basic policies. And there you have it.
Does it sound familiar? Yes, this is the system that
we have been living under, ladies and gentlemen, since World
War one, and what are these basic policies? The creation

(01:02:30):
of the new world order based on the model of collectivism.
That's it. Everything else's secondary. You can have fiscal responsibility,
you can have wars, no wars, and as long as
you're moving constantly in that same direction, that's the same
basic policy that they demand from all candidates and two

(01:02:51):
of the two major political parties. Hard to put that
into focus because we slept through a lot of this.
I did. I didn't even know it was going on
for most of my life. So I look back in
history and I could see it clearly now that I
understand the template, and the good place to start was
with the Panama Canal. We gave it away, didn't We

(01:03:12):
did the American people want that? No. Republicans didn't want it,
Democrats didn't want it, the voters didn't. But both parties
united and gave away to the Panama Canal because that was
the goal of the CFR. Republicans call for war in
the Middle East and they advocate that we give more
power to the UN. The Democrats call for peace in

(01:03:35):
the Middle East and advocate that we give more power
to the UN. And after the Democrats came to a
majority in the last election, we said, ah, they're going
to pull the troops out and have peace in the
Middle East. No, no, no, no, no change is really
they talk a lot about peace, but they continue to
fund all of mister Bush's war measures. They complain a lot,

(01:03:59):
they give speeches, but when it comes to the vote,
they continue the same policies, because that is what the
goal is of the Council on Foreign Relations. Republicans promote
legislation to restrict rights in the name of anti terrorism
and national security. The Democrats give speeches a deep concern

(01:04:22):
about that, and then vote for those laws. The electorate
doesn't want that. Republicans or Democrats voters, they don't want that,
but that is the goal of the Council on Foreign Relations.
As a matter of fact, almost all of this legislation
was written by members of the Council on Foreign Relations

(01:04:43):
long before nine to eleven. They were just waiting for
an excuse to put it into effect. Democrats promote legislation
to restrict freedom in the name of stopping global warming.
Republicans object that's not based on scientific fact, and then
they vote for those laws. The electorate doesn't want that.

(01:05:06):
Republicans are Democrats. They don't want that, but that is
the goal of the Council on Foreign Relations. Republicans advocate
laws that will restrict your freedom of speech because it
might be seditious and damage national security. Democrats don't like that.
They think that's terrible. So what's their answer. They promote

(01:05:28):
legislation to restrict your speech because it might be hate speech.
But both of them agree on the right to restrict
your speech if they want to do so, because that
is the goal of the Council on Foreign Relations. The
American people don't want that. Republicans give speeches on the
danger of illegal immigration, don't do anything about it, but

(01:05:51):
they give good speeches on it. The Democrats give speeches
about compassion, but then they both unite, merging the United
States with Canada and Mexico so that the issue of
immigration becomes a non issue. The American people don't want that,
the Mexican people don't want that. The Canadian people don't

(01:06:12):
want that, but that is the goal of the CFR.
Republican leaders who run corporations that build election or electronic
voting machines steal elections using software, using machines that not
only are capable of being hacked. But ladies and gentlemen,

(01:06:35):
they were designed to be hacked. And the Democrats so
far who have lost these elections, they don't do anything
about it. You've noticed they just say, oh, golly, I
wonder if the election was stolen. Did mister Bush really
win that election? And mister Kerry and mister Gore don't
really do anything about it. They block, actually block any
serious ground swell of opposition to it. Now that the

(01:06:58):
new elections are onhand, we find that the rigging of
the elections are being used to promote certain Democrats. You see,
this has nothing to do with Democrats versus Republicans. This
has to do with the Quigley formula. Rigged elections is
the ultimate form of the Quigley formula, giving people the

(01:07:19):
illusion that they participated in their own political destiny, because,
by golly, they went to the polls and they touched
the screen and the light went on, and they got
their little sticker that says I voted, And they have
no idea what went on inside that machine and when
the numbers were counted, or they get a piece of
paper and they put it through a scanner. So I

(01:07:40):
got the piece of paper, see, and it goes into
a scanner. They have no idea what goes on inside
that scanner and how the numbers come out. That is
the ultimate embodiment of the Quigley formula. What we're dealing
here is with here is a phony wrestling match. I
remember my grandmother used to watch the wrestling matches when

(01:08:01):
TV was in its infancy. She'd sit there, smoke her
cigarettes and jump up and down and say, look at
that guy. He's just he's a bad guy, and he's
going to beat up on this other guy. You know,
they had the tights on. He could always tell the
good guys and the bad guys because the bad guys
had the masks and the tattoos. It's got even worse today,
I know, but in those days it was good enough.
My grandmother thought that was real, and it was about

(01:08:23):
as phony as the three dollar bills. The elections today,
ladies and gentlemen are about the same thing as a
rigged wrestling match. They go through and put on a
great show in the ring, but when it's all over,
they meet in the in the locker room, put their
arms around each other, say, boy, that was a good
show you put on there, And they go out and
have a beer. Americans have become like tennis balls and

(01:08:50):
a tennis match, wham from one side to the other side. Republicans. No,
we don't like the Republicans this year, so we vote Democrat.
Now they're the good guys, right, Wham, they turned out
to be the bad guy. So back we go to
the Republicans again, back and forth, back and forth. And
in this game, yeah that players can sometimes win a game,
but we the tennis balls, never win anything. We've got

(01:09:13):
to stop being tennis balls and realize what's really going
on out there. So people don't vote for a candidate
so much anymore. They don't like any of them. They're
beginning to suspect this whole thing is foul, but they
now vote against candidates. They're going to vote for the
lesser of two evils. Isn't that smart? And then they
wonder how come they got evil because they've been voting

(01:09:36):
the lesser of two evils all their lives. They don't
like anybody, well, sometimes they do, but generally this is
the politics of hate. I don't like this candidate, but
I hate that one, and we can't let him get
into office. And voters are putty in the hands of
these these psycho politicians who know how to manipulate them.

(01:10:00):
Reach voter today trying to figure out who to vote
for on the basis of choosing between Republicans or Democrats.
So he's got about as much chance of figuring out
what's going on and making a correct decision, fact less
of a chance. Then the children in that classroom trying
to determine whether that was a boy kit or a
girl kit. We haven't a clue. And that's the problem

(01:10:26):
we're facing. All right. I could talk a little bit
more about the cheerleaders, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, organizations like
Accuracy and media organizations like move On. All of these
are cheerleaders. They're cheerleaders for the phony wrestling match. Some
of them are very good at exposing the corruption in

(01:10:49):
one party, but they're totally blind to any corruption in
the party that they represent. And the others are totally
good at exposing the corruption and the other party, but
they're totally blind to their assigned loyalty. We've got to
get clear on these phony cheerleaders as well. So now
we come finally to the solution. What is the solution

(01:11:12):
to this silence? Has fallen across the road there. Ask anyone,
they'll tell you there isn't any collectivism is one. These

(01:11:33):
people have won. They control the power centers of society.
You really think that you're going to break the grip
of these people that run the elections, They control the elections,
the political parties, the media, they're your employers, they run
the military, they have the CIA all. You think you're
really going to break the grips of these people, Let's
face reality. They've won, We've lost. Those who benefit from

(01:11:59):
it are to be with it. Those who serve it
and are subject to it are afraid of it. They
don't want to stand up for fear it might be
bad for their reputation or business. They're not going to
do anything. So it's over. Get used to it. A
but wait a minute, I just had an idea. What

(01:12:20):
would happen? Do you suppose if just two percent of
the people knew what was really going on and they
were no longer willing to play this game, and if
just two percent of the people would unite across the
lines of religion, culture, politics, just unite have a common creed.

(01:12:46):
They knew what they were for as well as what
they're against They're not voting against something now for the
first time, they're voting for something or at least working
for something. And if they united and work together, do
you think we could turn this thing around? I think so.
I think so definitely. In fact, I'm betting my life

(01:13:08):
on it and everything I have. It can be done now,
it might not be done by the next election. So
we've got to get this longer view of history. One
of our problems is that everybody is impatient. They want
it done by the next election. If we can't see
it being done, then forget it. No, that's not how
it works. It took these people a hundred years to

(01:13:29):
get to where they are today. You think we're going
to turn that around in six months or a year.
Not going to happen. Even if our favorite candidate were
to be elected president and he moved into the White House,
he would be surrounded by enemies, collectivists, he completely surrounded.
It would block him in every way. In order for

(01:13:50):
us to solve this problem, we have to send people
into government at all levels, not just one candidate, and
we have to have all of these people on the
same page, knowing what they stand for. Having a creed
of freedom. Then it can be done. And that's the
reason that we created Freedom Force International a few years ago,

(01:14:10):
and I'm here to tell you it's going like wildfire.
We now have members as if we speak, in fifty
five different countries. I never thought that would happen, but
I knew it had to happen, and it's growing. People
who are dedicated to recapture control of the power centers
of society take our systems back just the way we

(01:14:31):
lost them, one by one. It can be done that way.
And if anybody has any interest in joining us in
that endeavor, you have a piece of paper in front
of you, Just let me know your name and your
email address and I'll see that you get more information. Now,
to close this off, it's pretty hard. We cover it
some real heavy stuff here. How do you close it

(01:14:51):
off on a light note? Excuse me? Oh, this is
about it. I'm closing them no less than that. How
do you close this off on a light note? So
to do that, I'd like to go back to that

(01:15:12):
classroom where the kitten was being looked at so carefully,
and it reminded me of my aunt Alice. My aunt
Alice was a wonderful woman, she raised me. She was
sort of my surrogate father and mother. She was an
old maid, school teacher aunt. Everyone loved her and she

(01:15:33):
was a very wise lady and a wonderful lady. But
one of the things that she did that always amazed
everyone is that she could look at a young kitten
and tell you whether it was going to grow up
and be a male tomcat or a female cat. She
could always do that, and everybody was saying, Aunt Alice,
how do you do that? And she'd laugh and say, well,
you just can do it. Many years later, she finally

(01:15:57):
confided to me her secret. I call it the end
Aunt Alice formula, she said, Edward. It's very simple. Just
look at the kittens, and after they're just a couple
of weeks old, you can tell by looking at their
heads the ones that are starting to grow broad heads
are the tomcats and the ones with the little narrow
heads are the female cats. That's simple as that, I said,

(01:16:18):
Is that all there is to it? She said, yeah,
And by golly, I've been doing that ever since. I've
amazed people by telling them whether it's going to be
a tomcat or a female cat. And I'm usually right.
So that's the Aunt Alice formula, and I want to
close by mentioning that because it's an illustration of the
fact I don't care how complex and seemingly hopeless a

(01:16:39):
problem may be. Sometimes the solutions are more simple than
you think, thank you very much. Like crazy, we don't

(01:17:02):
use that word in here.