Classic Audio: G. Edward Griffin's "The Quigley Formula"

G. Edward Griffin's speech titled "The Quigley Formula: A Conspiratorial View of History as Explained by the Conspirators Themselves" was delivered at the University of Texas on April 29, 2008.

Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/TheFactHunter
Website: truthernet.com
Email: [e-mail]
Snail Mail: George Hobbs PO Box 109 Goldsboro, MD  21636

Copyright Disclaimer: - Under section 107 of the copyright Act 1976, allowance is mad for FAIR USE for purpose such a as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statues that might otherwise be infringing. Non- Profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of FAIR USE.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
The following presentation is Del Marvis Studio's production. You're listening
to The Fact Hunter Radio Network. Here is your host,
George Hobbs.

Speaker 2 (00:16):
Welcome back truth seekers from around the world. It's time
for another edition of our classic audio series, and tonight
one of the more requested truthers of our time, G
Edward Griffin. We're gonna go back to April twenty ninth,
two thousand and eight. University of Texas is the location,
and it's G. Edward Griffin's speech, entitled The Quigly Formula,

(00:40):
A Conspiratorial view of History as explained by the Conspirators themselves.
This runs about an hour fifteen. It's full of great nuggets.
I hope you'll enjoy it, and we'll see you Tuesday
for another edition of The Fact Hunter. Without any further ado,
here is G. Edward Griffin.

Speaker 1 (01:01):
Thank you, thank you, Thank you, Missus Boehler, 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.

(01:21):
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

(01:42):
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,

(02:03):
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

(02:25):
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

(02:46):
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,

(03:06):
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 get this
general impression that democracy means the majority rule, and that's wonderful.
So the majority should decide everything. And the more serious

(03:28):
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 you don't

(03:50):
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
of bondage, a condition in which they elect their own

(04:16):
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
called the Quiggly Formula. So let's take a look at that.
What is this thing, the Quigly formula? And the first

(04:39):
step is to answer the question who is this man? Quickly? Now?
I say this man quickly because the name is Carol Quigley,
and sometimes people think that's a woman. Well it's not.
It's Carol Quigley that we're talking about. Who was cease now.

(05:00):
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 name of
William Clinton. And Clinton studied under Quigley and became a
favored student and spent some personal time with him and

(05:24):
admired quickly. Twenty seven years later, when this student was
given the nomination for President of the United States, in
his acceptance speech, he mentioned Professor Carol Quigley in his
speech and paid homage to him. After he was elected

(05:48):
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 that
this man had had on the political awareness and thinking
of himself, President Clinton. So there was no question about

(06:11):
it that Quigley was Clinton's mentor. Now why is this significant.
It's significant because professor Quigley taught the conspiratorial view of history,
as explained by the conspirators themselves. Quigley was very close

(06:33):
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 to be the
official historian of this secret society, and he admired it.

(06:58):
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 of disagreement that he
had with this secret organization was that it wished to
remain hidden from view. He felt that by now, with

(07:21):
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 goals were. So
Quiggly was the historian of a secret society. Now. That

(07:42):
means therefore, that when President Clinton gave homage to Professor Quigley,
his comments had two meanings. To the average person who
did not know who Quickly was, or what position he held,
or what he had written about, they thought, ohll, isn't

(08:04):
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
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

(08:27):
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
world who understood what the real meaning was. They knew
that Clinton now was in the service of this secret

(08:49):
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 con for a
lot of people, because it's kind of a knee jerk
reaction for people to say, oh, you believe in conspiracy,
What are you a conspiracy theorist of some kind. Well,

(09:12):
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
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,

(09:37):
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
courtroom and listened to lawyers try men and corporations on
the charge of conspiracies. Conspiracies and corporations, conspiracies and families,

(10:01):
conspiracies from top to bottom. Conspiracies are a fact of life.
And for anybody to say that conspiracies are absurd, and
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

(10:21):
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.
So but let's not drop the word with that. What
is a conspiracy? The Dictionary defines conspiracies generally as having

(10:45):
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
are either in more or at least coercion. And thirdly,
the objective of these tactics has to be illegal or immoral. Right,

(11:11):
that's generally the definition of a conspiracy. So let's take
a look before we get into the details of the
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,

(11:33):
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
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

(11:56):
now we come to the third issue. Is the objective
illegal or immoral? Well, it's certainly not illegal in most cases,
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,

(12:20):
executive power, judicial power, and so what they're doing is
not illegal. If they're going to merge, let's say, merge
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 just one of many things we could talk about.
It will be done entirely legally. It will be done

(12:42):
with no objection from Congress. The courts will uphold it,
and they'll figure out all kinds of ways to justify
it 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,

(13:07):
it is the highest morality. They think that their goal
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

(13:30):
think that national sovereignty has some kind of value in
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

(13:51):
very moral, and everything they do and the end justifies
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

(14:11):
fail to have all three of these elements. They are
not conspirators in their mind, but now in the minds
of the rest of us who have to live in
this border 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

(14:32):
disastrous to the American people and people everywhere in the world.
So I think for us to use the 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.

(14:57):
One is called Tragedy and Hope and 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.
You get a lot of dull factual information, names, dates, places, events,

(15:18):
and so forth, and it's easy to go to sleep
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

(15:42):
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

(16:06):
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,

(16:26):
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,

(16:49):
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,

(17:10):
or you can buy the original thing from mcmillton. 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 wonder,

(17:31):
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 Rhodes was one of the wealthiest men of history

(17:54):
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

(18:14):
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

(18:39):
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 one that this man Roads set

(19:01):
aside a 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

(19:23):
had to 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,

(19:46):
not an educational fund. The other wills are unknown completely
to most people have no idea what that money was
used for and how it 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

(20:07):
Scholarship Fund 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

(20:32):
has been 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 finest, the highest watermark in culture, was

(20:57):
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. They had this obligation. Somebody
had to do it to protect these poor, ignorant people

(21:19):
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, that evolved very quickly
after cecil Wrote's death to a different view. It was

(21:42):
no longer the British Empire that was to be at
the center, but there was a world government to be created.
The geographical axis shifted from London to New York and
became the United Nations. But nevertheless, the original concept that
the members of the Secret Society would rule from behind

(22:04):
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 ones who hired the
great teachers and funded the historians who wrote the textbooks.

(22:26):
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 organizations to which
they belonged. They called them the power centers of society.

(22:49):
Man has a heard instinct. We belonged 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 you wanted to
lead the masses is to capture control of the groups,

(23:10):
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 of society. You
could control them with a relatively small number of people,

(23:32):
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 remember this is
all described primarily by Professor Quigley, was outwardly modeled after

(23:56):
the Jesuit Order. It's right. I was surprised to read
that the Jesuit Order quickly was a great admirer of
the structure of the Jesuits, and he 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.

(24:22):
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 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.

(24:44):
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 Illuminati 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

(25:07):
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 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 Roads did.
He adopted the strategy that Weisop created of He called

(25:27):
it rings within rings within rings. That means that the
center of the Secret Society would 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

(25:49):
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 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

(26:10):
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, 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 Wysup called rings within rings within ring.

(26:34):
Cecil Roads thought that was a dandy idea, and so
he adopted it as the 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

(26:55):
brain trust from British banking and politics, a small number
of highly placed, very 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,

(27:20):
and that sort of thing we've all heard about these,
and the goal 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

(27:42):
be the hub of this global government, and I should
say global government, not just any global government, but one
based on the model of collectivism, which means total control
over every human being. Not much room left there for
personal frenes. Now, the secondary rings around the Society of

(28:05):
the Elect were called roundtables, and 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

(28:25):
tertiary ring, was formed, and they called them front groups
in a generic sense in each country 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

(28:48):
the countries Great Britain, Canada, Australia and so forth, the
Royal Institute of International Affairs. But in the United 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

(29:11):
elect which is the secret society that still functions today,
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 roads in network as I
call it now is close to its final achievement, which

(29:34):
is its goal, the creation of a true new world order.
Now I call it the Roads Dan 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, doesn't know whether to call it the
group or the network or or the Roads Group. He

(29:56):
calls it all these different things, and you see carefully
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

(30:17):
I can talk about it. I call it the Rhodesian
Group or the Rhosleian Network, the Rhodesians. I hope it 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

(30:38):
between what's going on in the Western world and what's
going on in the rest of the world. We 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 least one other
group very similar to the Rhodesians. They too decided that
having a name was a bad idea, and not too

(30:59):
long ago they got rid of their name. We used
to call them communists. Well, they said, we don't want
that name. 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

(31:20):
don't really have a name anymore. They took this hat
that said communist on the front of it, and they
turn it around on the other side had said social democrat.
Now that's different, isn't it Social democrat? But you notice
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

(31:43):
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
threat someday. They still operate a Secrets to Service. The
former KGB has changed its name, but it's bigger and
more powerful and ever before, and they're still dominant and
a huge part of the world. We must not forget

(32:07):
that they live. They're there, and they're very similar to
the Rosians. As a matter of fact, their ultimate goal
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

(32:29):
world order. They'll fight tooth and nail for territory and
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 Roosians, that anybody

(32:50):
out there who condemns the Rsians for their faults are
good guys. I mean, we don't want to run to
the Leninists now and say, well, because they're opposed to
the Rhodesums, 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,

(33:13):
that is my summary of what Quigley said and others.
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

(33:34):
of this network because I have studied it for twenty
years and was permitted for two years during the nineteen
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.

(33:58):
So there's Quigley's appraisal of this secret society, and he
likes it a lot. In his other book, The Anglo
American Establishment, this is what he said. The Rhoades Scholarship
established by the terms of Cecil Roads, seventh will we're
back to seven again. I'm gotta get my numbers right,
seventh will. The rhad Scholarship established by the terms of

(34:20):
Cecil Roads seventh will are known to everyone. What is
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

(34:43):
to this day. To be sure, it is not a
childish thing like the Ku Klux Klan, and it does
not have any secret rogues, secret hand clasps, or secret passworths.
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,

(35:09):
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 the countries that dominate the central Banks,

(35:34):
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, and he wrote a book
called The Last Will and Testament of Cecil Roads. It

(35:57):
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 Rhose was more than the founder of
a dynasty. He aspired to be the creator of one

(36:17):
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 a religious

(36:39):
order or like a chivalric order. That was the intensity
of the loyalty and commitment that Cecil Rhodes envisioned and acquired.
Cecil Rhodes left some handwritten manuscripts upon his death, and
they weren't published until it later. But in one of

(37:01):
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 didn't

(37:24):
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.

(37:45):
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 and I think over their ceremonies, and
I wonder that a large body of men can devote

(38:05):
themselves to what at times appear the most ridiculous 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

(38:27):
one object the furtherance of the British Empire and the
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

(38:48):
a world system of financial control in private hands, able
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

(39:11):
arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. On page
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

(39:33):
the reality rather than the appearance of power, are unknown
even to close students of British history, partly because of
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,

(39:57):
partly concealed by being hidden behind formally organized groups of
no obvious political significance. Now regarding the conspiratorial structure of
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,

(40:19):
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
were listed as potential members of a circle of Initiates,
while there was to be an outer circle known as

(40:40):
the Association of Helpers, later organized by Milner as the
Roundtable Organization. After the death of Cecil Rhades, the organization
fell under the control of Lord Alfred Milner, who recruited
young men from the upper class of society to become
part of the Association of Helpers. There are a lot

(41:02):
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
universities in England, and they went into top positions in
government and elsewhere. But they called them Milner's Kindergarten. Nevertheless,

(41:22):
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 round tables.
Now we must remember that the purpose of a secret

(41:47):
society is deceit. They have to have secrets, 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.
You have to lie about it. That's just logic. And

(42:09):
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
you know, you find this throughout. But there's a classic

(42:29):
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
Arnold Toynbee, renowned historian of his professor at the London

(42:53):
School of Economics, where they teach collectivism global government, 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 a twelve
volume work called A Study of History which extols the

(43:15):
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 be read
primarily only by its members, it wasn't to be read

(43:37):
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 rest this mysterious political force

(43:57):
called sovereignty. Out of the much is 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 some people still find

(44:19):
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 society into world government. And quickly explains

(44:44):
how this came about, he said, and I quote through
Lord Milner's influence, these men were able to win influential
posts in government, in international finance, and become the dominant
influence in British imperial affairs and foreign affairs up to
nineteen thirty nine. In nineteen o nine through nineteen thirteen,

(45:05):
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 front organization,

(45:26):
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. I

(45:47):
hope you were awake and heard all of that. What
we just learned 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 by a

(46:09):
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, administered in

(46:32):
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 of America. Who

(46:56):
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 the prominent names who
are members of this outer ring of a secret society.

(47:21):
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 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

(47:41):
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 Kerry and Vice President
Richard Cheney are members of the CFR. Secretaries of State
that this is a very important position for the group,
because it's even more important than the president. The president

(48:03):
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 are the Secretaries of State,

(48:24):
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,

(48:45):
Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance, Edmund Muski, Alexander Haig, George Schultz,
James Baker, Lawrence Eggelberger, Warren Christopher, William Richardson, Madeline Albright,
Colin Powe, and of course Condo Lisa writes. Did we
leave anybody out? I don't know now. Secretaries of Defense

(49:08):
also very important. James Forrestall, George Marshall, Charles Wilson, Neil McElroy,
Robert McNamara, Melvin Laird, Elliott Richardson, James Lessinger, Harold Brown,
Casper Weinberger, Frank Calucci, Richard Cheney, Les Aspen, William Perry,

(49:28):
William Cohen and Donald Rumsfeld 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,

(49:49):
Robert Gates, James Woolsey, John Deints, William Studhaman, George Tennant,
Porter Goss, and Michael Hayden. Now some better known corporations
with CFR member is 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

(50:09):
it or not. Here are just a few Atlantic Richfield
Oil Company, AT and t Avon Products, 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, SD,

(50:34):
lauder Ford, Motor, General Electric, General Foods, Hewlett Packard, Hughes Aircraft,
IBM International Paper, Johnson and Johnson, Levi, Straussen Company, Lockheed Aerospace,
Loosen Technologies, Mobile Oil, Monsanto, Northrop Pacific Gas and Electric,
Phillips Petroleum, Procter and Gamble, Quaker, Oats, SBC, Yahoo, Shell Oil,

(50:59):
Smith Kline, Beecham Pharmaceuticals, Sprint Corporation, Texico, Santa Fe, 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

(51:21):
controlling the thinking processes of the American people. We find
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,

(51:43):
USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, New York Post,
San Diego Union Tribune, Times 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,

(52:07):
New Republic, New Yorker, Newsday, Newsmax, Newsweek, Pittsburgh Post, Gazette,
Reader's Digest, Rolling Stone, Scientific, American Times, Warner Time, US
News and World Report, Washington Post, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, PBS, RCA,

(52:29):
the Walt Disney Company, and of course Rupert Murdoch. Media personalities.
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 Greenspan,

(52:52):
former Chairman of the Federal Reserve System. Of course, Allan
is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. 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

(53:16):
Needle Trades, and Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers, all the
big ones 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,

(53:38):
Builderberg Group, Brookings Institute, Carnegie and Dominant for International Peace
Carnegie Foundation, Ford Foundation, Guggenheimer Foundation, Hudson Institute, John and
Catherine MacArthur Foundation, Mellon Foundation, Rand Corporation, Rhodes Scholarship Selection Commission,
Rockefeller Foundation and Rockefeller Brothers, the Trilateral Commission, and the

(54:02):
un Association. In the universities, the number of CFR members
who are 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

(54:24):
brokerage houses, the number of CFR members with controlling positions
is two 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

(54:46):
to or larger than that. And wouldn't it be curious
if 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

(55:08):
informed of it are also controlled by these same people,
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

(55:31):
of the history I've given you today. They have no
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 agency. They know that if they're invited

(55:53):
into this group, and you have to be invited, that
they've got it made. Once your name is on that line,
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

(56:14):
got the grand vision of global government, 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.

(56:35):
There three things we have to understand 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 anyone who takes seriously a political party.
They laugh at all of these people campaigning out there

(57:00):
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. We're back to that word democracy.

(57:21):
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 no problem with that in their book.

(57:43):
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 the their own
political destiny. They'll be happy. Just keep them out of

(58:04):
the way, let them have their fun and games, let
them have their bumper stickers and there and their straw hats.
Let them go to the conventions, and let them fight
with each other out there, candidate against kendidate. But we
own them all. So what difference does it make? You See,
you're getting the picture now. Quigley himself described this in

(58:26):
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, with the Eastern establishment

(58:48):
assiduously fostering the process behind the scenes, moved closer together
and nearly met in the center with all most 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 Civil War,

(59:09):
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 can throw

(59:31):
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 party, which will be none of these things,

(59:53):
but will still pursue with new vigor approximately the same
basic policy. 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

(01:00:15):
these basic policies? The creation 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,
as long as you're moving constantly in that same direction.

(01:00:37):
That's the same basic policy that they demand from all
candidates and two 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

(01:01:00):
to start was with the Panama Canal. We gave it away,
didn't We 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 Panama Canal
because that was the goal of the CFR. Republicans call
for war in the Middle East and they advocate that

(01:01:21):
we give more power to the UN. The Democrats call
for peace in 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

(01:01:42):
is really they talk a lot about peace, but they
continue to fund all of mister Bush's war measures. They
complain a lot, they grumble, 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

(01:02:07):
the name of anti terrorism and national security. The Democrats
give speeches a deep concern 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

(01:02:29):
of fact, almost all of this legislation was written by
members of the Council on Foreign Relations 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 and

(01:02:50):
say that's not based on scientific fact, and then they
vote for those laws. The electorate doesn't want that. Republicans
or 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.

(01:03:16):
They think that's terrible. So what's their answer. They promote
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

(01:03:37):
danger of illegal immigration, don't do anything about it, but
they give good speeches on it. The Democrats give speeches
about compassion, but then they both unite in merging the
United States with Canada and Mexico so that the issue
of immigration becomes a non issue. The American people don't

(01:03:59):
want that, the Mexican people don't want that, the Canadian
people don't 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

(01:04:22):
that not only are capable of being hacked, but ladies
and gentlemen, 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

(01:04:43):
don't really do anything about it. They block, actually block
any serious ground swell of opposition to it. Now that
the new elections are on hand, sign 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.

(01:05:05):
Rigged elections is the ultimate form of the Quigley formula,
giving people the 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

(01:05:25):
machine and when the numbers were counted, or they get
a piece of paper and they put it through a scanner.
So I 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.

(01:05:49):
I remember my grandmother used to watch these wrestling matches
when 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 a bad guy, and beat up
on this other guy. You know, they had the tights on.
You 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,

(01:06:13):
and it was about 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

(01:06:33):
out and have a beer. Americans have become like tennis
balls and a tennis match. Wham from one side to
the other side. Republicans. No, we don't like the Republicans
this year, so vote Democrat. Now they're the good guys, right,
Wham there turned out to be the bad guys. So
back we go to the Republicans again, back and forth,

(01:06:54):
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 to stop being tennis balls
and realize what's really going on out there. So people
don't vote for a candidates so much anymore. They don't
like any of them. They're beginning to suspect this whole

(01:07:15):
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 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

(01:07:36):
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 psycho politicians who know how
to manipulate them. I think the average voter today trying
to figure out who to vote for on the basis
of choosing between Republicans or Democrats. But he's got about

(01:07:58):
as much chance of figuring out whats 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 we're facing. All Right,

(01:08:20):
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 one party, but they're

(01:08:42):
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. Now we come finally to the solution.

(01:09:02):
What is the solution to this silence has fallen across
the road? Ask anyone, they'll tell you there isn't any
collectivism is one. These people have won. They control the

(01:09:26):
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

(01:09:49):
who benefit from it are too happy 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 of business going
to do anything. So it's over. Get used to it.
But wait a minute, I just had an idea. What

(01:10:11):
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.

(01:10:37):
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

(01:10:59):
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 one hundred years to

(01:11:21):
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

(01:11:41):
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 FORCEAL a few years ago.

(01:12:02):
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

(01:12:22):
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 covered
some real heavy stuff here. How do you close it

(01:12:42):
off on a like note? Excuse me, Oh, this is
about it. I'm closing note no less than that. How
do you close this off on a like note? So
to do that, I'd like to go back to that

(01:13:03):
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

(01:13:25):
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 Aunt Alice, how
do you do that, and she'd laugh and say, well,
you just can do it. Many years later, she finally

(01:13:48):
confided to me her secret. I call it the aunt
Alice formula, she said, Edward. It's very simple. Just look
at the kittens, and after there are 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. As simple as that, I said,

(01:14:09):
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

(01:14:30):
problem may be. Sometimes the solutions are more simple than
you think. Thank you very much.

Speaker 2 (01:14:44):
You were listening to the Fact Hunter Radio network.

Speaker 1 (01:14:50):
Just the facts, Mammy