Transcription
That we're at, for good or for ill, we're at a pivot point, at a at a nexus, and shift point from an order of magnitude in the global economic realm into another order of magnitude, whatever that looks like. And everyone and their uncle thinks that you are the hallmark of um really disclosure of truth and disclosure as it relates to the global financial system. You began it before anyone else, and um the Creature from Jekyll Island still stands as being the seminal tome that arrested our notions of reality as it relates to the global financial system. The architects, the engineers, the agendas, um and the the the deeply nefarious and egregious nature of it, uh that meeting that took place.
So, if you don't mind, I'd I'd I'd like to just uh read a a a um off my notes uh to set set the conversation, and then I've got a dozen questions I'd like to run into, and Scott's going to be flanking with um follow-through questions. Would that be okay as a format?
>> Oh, that would be more than okay, because it means I don't have to think. I just have to uh sort of coast along and hope that I know the answers to those questions. So, let's see how that runs. Very good. Thank you.
Okay, so in beginning um Ed, it is obviously a very rare privilege to sit with you, not only as the author of the Creature from Jekyll Island, but as one of the very few individuals who decades ahead of the curve identified and articulated the architecture of modern financial power. And um just to set the stage there, uh in 1910, uh under conditions of extraordinary secrecy, a small group of banking and political elites convened at uh Jekyll Island off the coast of Georgia. Traveling under assumed names, they drafted what would become the blueprint for the Federal Reserve System, aka a blood economy, a death economy, an institution presented to the public as a stabilizing force, but which you have argued operates as a private banking cartel with the power to create money out of nothing, monetize debt, and socialize risk. So, your work exposed not just a mechanism, but a pattern, the consolidation control, the coupling of central banking with war financing, and the quiet transfer of sovereignty from nations to financial institutions.
Now, more than a century later, we appear to be standing at an inflection point where that system is both more powerful than ever, and yet increasingly visible, questioned, and perhaps destabilizing under its own weight. So, today, I'd like to explore not only the origins of that system, but its trajectory, its consequences, and whether we're now witnessing the early stages of a fundamental shift away from it. And Scott McKay is going to be joining me and sending some probing questions in your direction. But original insight, Ed, when you first began researching what became the creature from Jekyll Island, what was the single most shocking realization for you, not just about the Federal Reserve itself, but about the nature of power behind it?
First of all, I'd like to say you did an amazing summary introduction to this topic. You compressed just about all the important features I could think of in that introduction. Congratulations. I don't think I could have done that. I have a tendency to get long-winded and say, "Oh, by the way, then remember I remember this." And so forth. I take forever to get to any point. So, that was a brilliant introduction. Yes, uh Yeah, I see there's much to talk about in terms of how things are going to change. It's not so much that we need to look backward anymore because we pretty well know that story. Even even the general gum-chewing public, if I dare use that phrase, is somewhat aware that there was a lot of skulduggery and and dishonesty and and deception going on. Well, that's that's not new. I mean, that's been going on since uh the somebody invented the word government. And uh Uh so, that's not new. And I think just the the average guy on the street understands that the bankers somehow always come out on top and the taxpayer always comes out on the bottom. And they're beginning to think that I wonder if this is a coincidence, you know? And they figured it out. So, now your question leads to the future. Uh and then you ask a very tough one, which is what got me moving in this direction. Uh what was the first uh aha moment or oh my god moment or whatever you want to call it, I don't remember. Because it was one of those things that just sort of eases up. It's like, you know, the you drop a uh a washcloth in the basin of uh uh water and and it starts to get soggy and gradually what you watch the water creep up around the washcloth until finally the whole thing is covered with water. It takes a little time. And you you I usually run little bets against myself saying, "Well, let's see. I think it's that corner of the washcloth that's going to be sticking up the last little bit before it gets taken over." I kind of look at world events that way. Like, "Who's going to be the last survivor?" And well, listen, that Oh, I missed the bet again.
All of that aside, um the the probably the most interesting thing that got me focused on the subject of the Federal Reserve is the secrecy that you already mentioned that was surrounding the formational meeting on Jekyll Island back in 1910. It was astounding what I really discovered and it it was hidden in plain sight. It was not difficult at all to discover authentic documents demonstrating proving in fact documents from the perpetrators themselves talking about what they were doing, why they were doing and how important was to keep the public from understanding what was going on. So when you when you find the devil describing himself and and it's all written down and you have a copy of it, you don't need to go much further than that. So when I discovered the secrecy that surrounded that meeting, at first it just seemed like a like a uh a dramatic play that you might go to high school play, you know, everything was exaggerated and just so that you can understand the plot and but then I realized no there were some sinister elements to it and uh so okay the secret is to answer your first question is when I discovered how uh to what great lengths these people went to conceal what they were doing you don't have to be a genius to figure out what that when when there are secrets there's usually something to hide. And I was curious of what what what are they hiding? It seemed on the surface they were just trying to create um a more efficient banking system even though it was obvious that they were designing it in such a way that it would be more lucrative to them than to anybody else. Well, that's not too shocking. It's It's more or less expected. But there was something deeper than that. And I Of course, I started off at ground zero of no knowledge about banking or money or financial history at all. And it was a terrible handicap, Sasha, because well, ignorance is bliss, I suppose. But it always ends in disaster. And I that little side note there. I spent 7 years putting all this thing together. And twice along the road, I decided it was too much for me. I'm just a kid from Detroit. And I was a you know, I'm an I was an actor. A little child actor. You can pick anything more obnoxious than that. And And now I'm supposed to be uh talking with these high high-level bankers and international financiers. And And I'm supposed to know about what's going on in the world. This is not for me. And so I quit twice. And But what I had already learned at those stages was gnawing at me. This is too big a story. It's too important. There are deeper elements that I was discovering. That's why I went back to it, to make a long story short. And I'm glad I did. But I was convinced that when the final product was completed and I went on the road, on a book tour and uh that was sort of harrowing because I figured I'm a fraud, you know, the world is going to discover that I really don't know what I'm talking about. And when I get on stage or on the radio or on a television interview somebody's going to come along from the university level and blow me apart in front of the whole world. And I was waiting for that that very gruesome death, uh when I um I was on the East Coast in some little town I've even forgotten, and I was I had given a speech the night before about the Creature from Jekyll Island, and I was invited to go on a radio uh interview uh the next morning to talk about it. Oh, this is great. I get to talk about my book. And so I went there. I think it was a 10:00 appointment, and uh I walked into the studio, was ushered into the little uh the cutting hole thing where they where the uh moderator is surrounded by microphones and meters, and and there were a couple of chairs and a couple of microphones, and I found that there were there was another guy in the studio waiting for me. So I was introduced to Professor whatever his name was, Professor Bubla from the local college, and he was a a professor of money and banking. And uh oh, by the way, Mr. Griffin, you won't mind the sharing this interview with the professor, would you? I thought Of course not. I thought, well, Hail Mary, full of grace, this is the end of my life.
>> [laughter]
>> I was going to be slaughtered in public. So I'm telling you this story because I want you to get a flavor of really how I still feel about this topic. Um so the the moderator said, well, Mr. Griffin, why don't you take a about 3 minutes to just summarize what your your proposition was? I said, okay. So I sort of went through the main points of the book, what what were the six or seven six or seven really important reasons that the Federal Reserve System was a very bad thing. And when I was all done, the moderator turned to the professor and said, well, Professor, well, what is your response to that? And there was a long silence, and he sort of uh looked into space, and I was shivering waiting for his opening salvo. And uh he said, well, what he says is true,
>> [laughter]
>> but we're we're living well, aren't we?" That was his response. Right. And in a moment I knew, my God, Wow.
>> I'm free. I made [laughter] it. I made it. And that is really the major the only and the major opposition to my proposition is that everything in the book is accurate. Oh, there might be there were a couple of dates that were wrong. I got Tsar Nicholas wrong. It was the fourth instead of the sixth or something. Very, very minor. Which amazed me. I would God must have been looking over my shoulder because it was a long journey and I expected to stumble a lot along the way. So, anyway, the reason I mentioned that is not because of any pride or anything, but how miraculous it was that I was able to apparently grab hold of this essence of it and get past all of the the details, let's say. And I say that because even now there are many people who understand the Federal Reserve System much better than I do because they work with inside it every day and they know how the cogs and the wheels turn. I know what the cogs and the wheels do and what they're supposed to do and what the output is, what the input is, but I don't know how they mesh. And uh so, but you don't have to know. Yeah. One of the first things I discovered is that the biggest obstacle to understanding the Federal Reserve is that is the mistaken idea that it's complicated. They go to great lengths to make it appear to be very complicated. They use a lot of terminology and they they have three or four tier level college courses on on discount ratios and all this stuff. And uh uh but when you find the big moment came, I guess, for when I was writing this in the early days, was that it was very, very, very, and I mean very, simple. And the simplicity of it is this. It's a scam. From start to end. Once you clear that idea out of your mind that it's some kind of a very complicated machine that's designed to do something of value and of benefit to society and it's got all these moving parts and you some of them are malfunctioning, but people are trying hard to make it work, which is the image, of course, that's projected. Once you get that cleared out of your mind, say, "No, it's not that at all. It's a scam." You can summarize the Federal Reserve System in three words. It's a scam. Well, from that point forward it became a little bit easier.
So, now back to the track of your of your question. Though that was that was a very important discovery on my part is that I was trying to make something out of it. And I I run into a lot of bankers over the years and um their message to me, the friendly ones, there were some that were very unfriendly to me, but there were a lot of amazingly more friendly bankers that I've run into than unfriendly. And by bankers, I'm talking local level. I'm not talking the high level. And a lot of them are quite frank about it. They say, "You know, I I never understood how this system worked." And they're working in the in the banking system. And um but they say to me that um you know, you were you were lucky you didn't know anything about this. We went to school. And therefore we had to unlearn before we could start to learn. So, I'm throwing this out as as to encourage any listeners that might be out there that if you're trying to make the Federal Reserve System sensible, you're you're never going to make it sensible until you understand that the sense within it was to legally plunder the American people. Right.
>> Once you get that picture, then everything falls into place. Right.
>> I don't know if that answers your questions.
>> No, I think it I think it more than more than wholesomely does. Scott, I mean a lot of questions raised there. One, I'm not sure that the Romanov Dynasty are going to be suing Ed Griffin anytime soon for getting the the Tsar Nicholas' moniker wrong from the fourth to the sixth. So, that notwithstanding, you know, that book, The Creature from Jekyll Island, has withstood the test of time, the the the scrutiny of every academic and every historian, and it stands up as what it is, sentinel. Sentinel at its genesis and sentinel today. So, yeah, Scott, any question you have for for Ed?
Primarily a comment and and it'll it'll follow, I'm sure, but you know, I I think like like like Sasha said, a sentinel moment in history. Don't don't You you would because you're a humble man, but you can't understate that that was the foundation, I think what what led us all today to the point where now it is exposed and it's coming down. You know, interesting thing about Professor, I got to comment on him. Of course, he's going to say that. Why? Because he just spent all of his time teaching students for how long, many years, a system that's fraudulent. And what's he going to say? Because he wasn't responding to you, he was responding to the students who are going to see this interview possibly and have to explain to them What do they say when they come and say this is all And he he would come back with that response, but you know, the reality of it all is now that where where you've seen all of this come, obviously, you couldn't have imagined that leading to where we are today. And so my question is as you see the structure this and by the way, they say make this genius is taking the complex making it simple. Idiocy is taking the simple making it complex. That was the way they got the cover they needed to make it sound so complex that people wouldn't just look at how simple it was. When you saw how simple this was and you were going to go on a book to you write the book and then you're going on tour. Did you ever have any reservations? Second-guessing, thinking this just can't be. It's so simple. It's so in the open. How can I possibly could I be totally wrong about this? Thing was there a moment over the years when people were sort of acquiescent to the message in this book. Was there any point in time that you're even deep into it thinking man, this is surreal. This book is going everywhere. I must have missed something or did it become clearer to you as other people could start to see this information you shared?
Well, precisely. Yeah, that's what that's the reason I had at least two two dark nights when I decided to give up the whole project. I said I I'm not No. This I've missed something. You're quite right. I It's so complex. I was still in that mode that surely all of these professors and all of these high-ranking people and bankers, it's a huge industry. Surely people in the banking industry would recognize the fraudulent of it all. Even though they weren't in charge, they would recognize it, right? Wrong because they bought into it. And once you It's kind of like the I wrote a book on cancer, the same thing. Once you go to medical school and they teach you what cancer is regardless of the fact that it's perhaps wrong you learned it and your whole profession depends on it. Same thing with banking. You you don't you don't survive in the banking world if you say, "Wait a minute. This this banking system is fraudulent." You don't get very high in the ladder. So, that I think that that paralysis of of rational and objective thought, self-analysis, disappears when your your whole livelihood depends on it disappearing. Then and this is it's a natural trait. I I'm not necessarily complaining or condemning these people because I put myself in their position. They But that would be tough if I just spent, you know, 14 years learning something and now I got a nice job and I'm helping people and but wait a minute. Maybe I'm not helping people. What do I do about it? I go back and try a new career? No. So, anyway, I I I hear what you're saying and I'm Yeah, I I reached the the dark night twice and I said, "I can't do this. I'm sure I've made too many mistakes and the people are going to drag me into debates on this thing where I will expose my ignorance."
>> [laughter]
>> And we all have ignorance even on topics we think we know a lot about. And it's going to be devastating. I'm going to be laughed at. I'm going to be a failure. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah and I fear you and most people go through this stage when you're tackling something that's so seemingly beyond your ability to survive. Yeah, I went through that. Yeah, definitely.
So, um and war and uh finance coupling. You've long uh emphasized the link between uh central banking and war financing. So, historically speaking, do you see war as dependent on central banking or do you see central banking as dependent on war? And in in essence, would modern large-scale wars even be possible without Central Bank financing.
Well, let's start with the third question because it's the simplest, I think. Uh the modern warfare that we now see uh with all of the technology and all of the channels of communication that have to be controlled, a lot of choke points, and so forth would be impossible without an endless uh faucet that flow of a flow of funding for these things. And um it's not a commercial enterprise. It doesn't really pay for itself in terms of products or services. It only really pays for itself in terms of uh profits unearned profits uh or or the fraudulent part of the whole thing that I was talking about. So, yeah, the wars as we know them today with all the technology, the the the endless spending of money for a new weapon system or a support system to a weapon system or a propaganda campaign that ex- explains away something Those things could never be funded without Central Banking. Because um as you said accurately at the introduction that the money is created out of nothing It's It's actually it's worse than that. Uh money is created out of debt which is worse than nothing because it has to be repaid. And the debt carries with it an interest rate. And that goes to the banks for having done nothing except to create the money that you were so grateful to get, and you put up your own assets as uh support for it and everything, so that if the procedure goes wrong and the the venture goes wrong, the banks get your assets. It's It's It's one hell of a scheme, I'll tell you. And we once you see it, it just makes your eyes spin. How How come the public never challenges us? And we're back to that topic. So, um yeah, it's I agree that uh in the first two questions, does central banking depend on wars or do wars depend on central banking? I think they it's even both ways. I think they're they're hipped they're joined at the hip. Um wars have always been always been the the deal breaker for for nations, hasn't it? It's broken economies.
Well, indeed, but then okay, then let's just look at the financial crises that have occurred historically from the Great Depression for instance to 2008. And then you could even look at the Strait of Hormuz right now with this conflagration going on in in the Middle East with the the US and and Iran. Um these these financial crises have often resulted in greater centralization of power. So, do you see them as systemic inevitabilities or as events that are uh largely engineered um or is it that they're um opportunistically leveraged? I guess is really the question. Um what what is your take on on the the historical financial crises that we can reflect on?
Well, I'm going to I'm going to blurt something out which has flashed to my mind. It may not be um what I would want to sign off on after I thought about it for a week, but I think it's all interconnected. I don't think it's separate components at all. I think they they're all part of the same process. Uh however, there is there's one element that I think we have to acknowledge that's different. You know, the old saying that there's nothing new under the sun. I used to believe that. But I don't anymore. There is some there are things new under the sun. And the most obvious one is technology. The ancients never had to deal with the or never had the option of using the technology that we now have. Technology in terms of we could see over the centuries over the long period that the development of of weaponry was I I'm not going to say the most important thing, but it was certainly one of the most important things as to who who gets to rule. Um if you had guns and your opponents said, "No, we're going to stick with swords." You win. And uh And so that process still goes on, which is why all of the nations, including the United States in particular, is willing to bankrupt every single human being in the country in order to be the weapons uh supremacist so that nobody dares touch them. And it doesn't make any difference to what it costs or anything like that. And but in the the uh overview on that issue a true true that it may be that way as I just said it, still never the nevertheless the most powerful weapons are psychological weapons. Like even the atomic bomb in my view is a psychological weapon. It's not it's not that you can blow up somebody's cities bing bing bing. It's the the fact that you can blow up somebody's sitting cities bing bing bing and the fear and the respect that generates on the part of your opponents. That's the real value of the atomic bomb. Not the destruction, but the the fear of the destruction. So and in most war weapons I think have that element to them. But, the more technology advances and the more dramatic the the results and the control mechanisms that spring from those weapons such as AI, I consider to be a weapon, by the way.
>> Yes. Uh that's an extremely unbelievably powerful weapon. And uh however, in in that case, I'm I'm realizing I'm contradicting myself because in that case, they definitely are using it a weapon. They're not just threatening to use it, they are using it. So, there are a lot of elements that I'd have to think about to answer your question, but I I think it I look at it as just a a milieu of many different elements that the the chieftains uh have access to. And their real objective is to Okay, here's another one of those things that's different new under the sun. Up until fairly recently, nations were competitive. Governments were competitive. And since at least World War II and largely World War I, there was a motion a movement going on to end that cycle. And the the the strategy for doing that was not to conquer from outside with invading armies, but to conquer from inside with subversion. Yes. Yeah, when the enemy turns out to be your neighbor instead of your your foreign friend. And that has been developing sort of unseen by most people since at least World War I. And it's in full bloom now. It was certainly visible during the uh the COVID fiasco when we were told that there was a global plan to a pandemic of uh this horrible new virus called COVID. And I I guess if your listeners will put their mind back to the time when all that news was coming out for the first time in the first days, the first week, the first days, there's a plan a pandemic. Every literally, not literally, but almost every nation of the world was announcing the same thing at the same time using the same words, the same arguments, and it became obvious to anybody could open their eyes is that this was a scenario. And this was planned. And and I remember thinking that where did all these people come from here in the United States? All the the mayors, all of the health departments, it was coming out with the same messages, the same baloney that we now know is real baloney, but they were all saying the same thing. I knew then that what we were dealing with were agents, as you've called them, that were there in place waiting for the announcement. Go. Now. And they did. And it was like waking up in the morning after a gentle rain all night long and looking at your lawn and it's covered with mushrooms. The whole lawn is covered with mushrooms came up over the night, same night. How did that happen? It happened because there were trillions, millions of mushroom spores already in the ground waiting for the rain. So, this I think is a is a useful analogy to what we're facing today is that the conquest is not one nation against the nation, although the people who are playing this game are trying to make it look that way. I mean, those those Chinese or all those those Arabs or those Israelis or what whatever it's all Oh, those Americans. Oh, no. You know, it's they're trying they're still you playing that nationalistic card. But, the fact is they have their agency in all of these countries and they're all working together and they're agreeing to fight each other. That's the thing that's so hard for people to understand is that they agree to be apparent enemies so that the net result is that the whole world is in fear and confusion and the new world order as they like to call it is being assembled around them. The spores are being planted in the ground as we speak and the day will come when they'll say, "Now, go." And that's it's a new it's a new concept and and people are not thinking still not thinking to recognize this this strategy. That's my opinion.
Indeed. Well, a new world order, Scott, speak about that and uh anything
>> Yeah. Yeah, you shouldn't brought that up and turn me loose. I'm going to keep this very brief. Um Oh, are you wild on this topic? Yeah, well, yeah, anything that has to do with their criminal cartel putting a boot heel on the back of the necks of the people while they're face down in the dirt, absolutely. Yeah. And that's that's really what they built. Uh the you know, we've looked at and and look a lot of different aspects of this new system coming up in this quantum field, this quantum technology that is going to insulate or isolate uh should say these kind of characteristics and and keep them at bay, primarily because uh there's there's uh let's just say their control mechanisms where they cannot do this again. Uh do you think the the idea of uh governments providing money in the future? And this again is part of whatever people want to call it, the SAR law that's been, you know, passed but never implemented, which come from the the land or the farm claims act back in the '70s or '80s. Do you see, uh, mechanically, do you see how the world can work whereby governments will provide money in terms of hard loans for whatever, building a house, etc., with zero interest because I learned I learned from Muslims that I was designing solar systems for. They don't ever finance these things. Absolutely. Why? They are bored to loans because of interest. It's against their religion. I thought, "That's the strangest thing." "Interest is against your religion?" I I'm kind of thinking that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. What they're against is it doesn't align with natural law. So, therefore, when you loan money to somebody, you get the money back and that's just the way it should be. Uh, meaning that you're not paying interest cuz you're always losing. Do you see the possibility of that happening in this world as it emerges where people can borrow money, likely from governments, make these things available, and just pay back the principal with no interest?
Yes and no. The yes part is that why not? It it seems logical that uh, in fact, it's done a lot right now. You want to borrow some money, you have a friend, you borrow it at no interest. Your family will maybe advance some money at no interest. Uh, GoFundMe programs, for example, are funding projects right now. And people are very open-hearted when they see a worthy project that needs money and and maybe the underdog is, uh, prevented from doing something. Yeah, I think it's theoretically quite possible. But the reason I say no is because you added a word to the equation. You said governments. If government has anything to do with it, it will not work. Because governments are, by their very nature, unreliable. George Washington said it pretty well. It was attributed to him anyway. When he said, "Government is not reason. It is not logic. It is force. Unlike Unlike It is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and master." In fact, I named my My first book was called The Fearful Master because of that. The minute you get governments involved in anything, regardless of all the highfalutin language and all the sincerity and all the apparent goodwill that they talk about, any institution Now, here's a piece of philosophy coming down. Stand by. Incoming Incoming opinion. I think, from what I've seen so far, that any institution that is capable of amassing great influence over public opinion or amassing great uh quantities of money Money and power, in other words, will become very quickly a magnet to the predator class. And no matter how how honestly it starts out, how with great good intentions and what good people at the beginning got Let's just say governments. Our own government. Mostly, those men had good intentions. They weren't Some of them might have had some ideas of how to make make a killing on all this. But most of them were willing to fight and die for freedom. But how long does it take before the United States government or any government. No matter how idealistically founded they may be, how long does it take for those to be infiltrated by people who want a job in government so they can screw the public? It doesn't take very long. Mhm. And we can see that happening over and over and over and over again throughout history. So the minute you say, "Well, the government will do that because we can trust the government." You have made a huge mistake. No. You cannot trust the government. And I don't care even if if if all of you and us, if we were all members of the government, we say, "Just us, nobody else." We would be corruptible at some point, perhaps.
>> Yeah. It happens. So get this idea out of your brain that government is the way to go. Government is the last way to go. Right. So that's the distinction I would like to make. Right.
Well, government emerged really as as the ultimate third party interventionist technology off the back of the Vatican conspiracy and the Catholic Roman Catholic Church in that sense. I mean, the the two are very very connected. And the genesis of government was really a handover of the baton. Um so I think we've all fairly understand that piece. But coming now to the 21st century and to this point of sort of inflection point, digital currency and control. So we're now seeing obviously the emergence of central bank digital currencies. We're seeing a proliferation of NFTs and tokens and cryptocurrencies and decentralized mediums of exchange which in principle is is foundationally a good thing. But when you get to the CBDCs, the central bank digital currency, from your perspective, do these represent a natural evolution of the current system or significant escalation in control mechanism as a response to what was automatically what was organically emerging as a new horizon of of economics, meaning to say people wanting to get out of central banking altogether?
Yeah. Uh and the way it's being evolved right now, the the motive forces behind it are such that it's clear that it's intended to be a control mechanism. And um I I think a little litmus paper test for all of these issues is to ask one question is that will you be forced to use the system or will you have the freedom to option to opt out? Is Is it mandatory? Right. Is it your choice? None of these programs that are being proposed are going to be your choice. Somebody's going to this they're going to tell you this is good for you and you're going to use it by golly or you're going to starve. And you don't need to know any more before about that. Uh I used to say in the early days when I was researching all this that gold-backed money a gold or silver-backed currencies was the way to go. And we don't have a law that requires everybody to use gold-backed currency. I said, "Wait a minute. What am I saying? We ought to have a law. We ought to force people to to do what I think they should do for their own good. I know better than these other idiots that are trying to force me to do what they think is right." Okay, Griffin, you you you went off the rail on that one. So, my my motto now is I want the freedom to choose my money. If I want to use American dollars, I'll use it. If I want to use uh Disneyland tickets,
>> [laughter]
>> and every somebody wants to swap tickets with me as money, let's do it. If I want to use a foreign currency or if I wanted to use just ounces of gold or silver, let the market decide in in the contest of free will and free options and let it play out and see which one works. So, finally I I it it came back into form again and I'm still an advocate of gold and silver behind money, but I'm not an advocate of forcing people to agree with me. That's all.
Beautiful. Thank you. And you just perfectly explained the premise of the new at exchange that we've been developing forward which is all about that choice. Opt in, opt out. It has to be the rudiment. Um Scott, before I uh move on to uh the human manifesto um as a kind of closing uh piece here. Uh any any any seminal questions that you wanted to put at uh at Ed?
Uh honestly not not not at this point. I would just say it's it's an honor uh Ed Griffin to be able to be on any show with you and to have to visit you a couple of times. It's it's I think it's truly remarkable what you have done and I really do think that coming into the future as the system starts to change, people are going to be asking why they change. And I think the center point is going to be because what you put in motion all these years ago to help people understand this is a very bad thing. Nobody's done that before you. And so I just want to say hats off to you. Much love to you, sir, for everything you've done not just for this country and this topic, but for humanity in general. And I think as time evolves in history, that'll show to be exactly that. That book Many people know the book The Creature from Jekyll Island. They've never even read it, even thought about it, or even inquired about it, but they know the title. And I think that book is going to become a major best seller again uh as time goes on because we're everybody's going to wonder how the hell did we get here? How did they do this? When they realize in among the masses, not just us, but the masses. And I see that coming as part of your legacy. So all I just want to say is a thank you.
Well, I appreciate that. Thank you. I I'm um People say I'm uh What do they call me? They They They say I'm too I'm too um timid, you know, I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm having a Timorous. Hm? Timorous. Timorous.
>> uh timorous timorous. That's a good word. Anyway, too humble I think. He's too humble. No, I am not too humble. I just happen to know what I don't know and uh most people have no idea how big a topic that is. But I But I'm I'm really I'm really grateful that what work I have been able to do has stood the test the real test so far. And but the real challenge is coming now because as you know, we didn't even get to this topic, all of this that we've talked about is going to change drastically. Money's going to disappear as we've known it and it's all going to be programmable money and that's the that's the phrase that people have to get into their into their brains. Programmable money is not for me. We could have songs about it and you know Return to cash everybody and because if they if we ever make that step from money that we can hold in our hands and say it's mine and we're going to stick it in the mattress or bury it in a tin can or give it to a friend or some beggar on the street that needs a coin dropped in the cup or whatever, that's a good thing. But when it's all programmable and somebody that you don't even know who it is can say, "Ah, I don't like what he said. I didn't like that book. I didn't like that interview that he just did." And so click, he's he's sitting on the on the cement on the on the on the curb with his tin cup and but nobody's got any coins to put in it because there are no coins.
>> [laughter]
>> Right. This is the This is the coming thing if we don't wake up real fast.
>> Yes, yes it is. It is. And you know, Scott, just to reflecting on on on your accolade there to to uh to Ed, maybe it's not that he's such a brilliant writer of incredible books, but just that he has this gift to come up with the greatest titles ever conceived.
>> [laughter]
>> I'm joking, of course, but the point being Creature from Jekyll Island, what a title of a book. My God, who doesn't want to know what that is. Read it. And leading us to the opus magnus currently brewing in that remarkable brain of yours, Ed, a human the human manifesto. A an idea whose time has come. That is the moniker for your book upcoming. Um suggesting a shift beyond critique into prescription. What is the central thesis of the human manifesto and what does it propose as the next step for humanity in reclaiming sovereignty?
Boy, thank you for that question. That's a good one. It opens up the whole the whole future. Let me just take a moment, make sure I don't mess this one up. Um my 60 years or so of experience in the trenches, if we want to call them that. That's an insult to a real soldier, of course. But uh but 60 years in the battle I've observed that our enemies our enemies, yeah, our foreign enemies it always has been up until now, as we were discussing a moment ago. But anyway, most of the people that are doing things politically that we don't like because it seems to be taking away our liberties. Um have a belief system and they can identify it by name. They could say, "Well, I'm a Marxist or I'm a communist or I'm a fascist, I'm a socialist, or I'm a whatever." And there's a whole laundry list of things that you can be. And um most of those ideologies, let's call them that, have treatises and books and uh and they say, "Well, do you want to learn more about this?" And they can hand you a copy of Mein Kampf and see what Adolf Hitler was talking about, you know? And I became aware over a period of time that all of these people have got these treatises that they can explain what they believe in and why and so forth. And you find the college students reading these books and then they all of a sudden they're waving the flag, you know? I thought, "What's our book? What's our manifesto for freedom?" Well, we don't have one, never had one. And among my associates, when I asked the question, "Well, what do you believe in?" They have a terrible time answering that question. They say, "Well, I believe in the Constitution, for example." I said, "Okay, well, I do too, but why do you believe in the Constitution? What is there about the Constitution that you believe in?" Uh uh Well, maybe freedom of speech, you know, or peaceful assembly or something. They go to the Bill of Rights. I said, "Well, that's pretty good, but uh what do you do about it when an attorney comes along and says, 'Well, you have a right to do something so long as you don't injure your neighbor.'" Is that uh you know, go back to Animal Farm when the animals went to the back of the barn and they said, you know, "All animals are equal." And then the additional comment was made months later, "But some are more equal than others."
>> [laughter]
>> You can You can take almost any statement of virtue and add a word or two to it to it and change its meaning completely. And if you don't understand the meaning behind those words, you're lost in a debate. And uh so I said, "What about that?" And so that's the background. So I decided "Wouldn't it be cool if somebody would write a manifesto of what we believe in?" And in the process of trying to answer that question myself, I found out that what I'm not so sure I can answer that question. And so I don't I How much time do we have left? I don't want to drag this too far.
>> no, no, please crack crack right on. We're We're grateful for everything we get. This to me this to me is essential. This is really essential information. If you want to know how my mind works and my heart ticks, this is this will explain it more than anything. Um in the '60s, I was concerned, like a lot of people, with the rise of communism. Communism had taken China, had taken Cuba. I mean, it it was on the advance around the world. And there were communists marching in our streets, communists teaching in our classrooms. What? What? What? Communist What is this thing? I was concerned about communism, and there was a great anti-communist movement underway. Well, I joined into it. I thought, "I got to be part of this movement." But I was curious as to why especially the students were buying into communism when every place you look where communism had come to power, it was horrible. Mass murders, I mean, the economy collapsed, it was brutality everywhere. And it was How could they not see the reality versus the promise? I thought, "Well, what's the promise?" So I decided to go down to
The Communist Bookstore down on Larchmont Street in Los Angeles. It was called the People's Bookshop, of course. And, uh, I went in there. I'm working for a corporation at this time, working for an insurance company as sort of an underwriter for group insurance policies for companies of 50 employees and above. And so I walked into the Communist Bookstore in my shiny suit, my sideburns, my narrow tie, everything. And they're looking at me like, "Who is this idiot cop?" And, uh, anyway, so I told them, "Yeah," I said, "this is a Communist Bookstore, right?" "Yes." I said, "I, well, I'd like to find out more about what you guys believe in. Do you have some books you could recommend?" Oh, yeah, they had the books, all right.
So they started showing me all the books they had there, and it didn't take long before they, you know, put the Communist Manifesto in my hands and, uh, and Das Kapital and loaded me up. I found a whole bunch of books written by, uh, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin and, uh, I loaded up on this book. I had a lot of them. And I came back and kept buying books. And it soon became obvious, Sasha, that I read. Well, I read the books, but it soon became obvious that these guys hadn't.
[laughter]
They were working in the bookstore. They'd never read these books. All right. Because I wanted to discuss some issues with them, and they'd say, "Well, where did you find that, you know?" And, uh, so that was an enlightenment, too. I think some of them, if they had actually read the books and had discussed the dangers and the problems of some of these propositions, they probably would have changed their position.
Anyway, so, okay, I became, uh, somewhat of an aficionado on Marxism. And then I discovered the difference between Marxism and Marxism-Leninism, they call it. Yes. And those two words are usually hyphenated apart from each other. And it's very hard for somebody who's not read these works to understand what's the difference between a Marxist and a Marxist-Leninist. I don't know. It all sounds like the same to me.
Well, just to explain this to the audience that's wondering what it is. It's that Marx was primarily a philosopher. Um, he talked about ideas. And, you know, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," and so forth. Well, let's stand against racism and war and, and let's fight against the, the imperialist capitalist and all these slogans, most of which sounded pretty good. I, some of them I thought, "Yeah, that sounded good. Sign me up," you know. But I didn't sign up because I wanted to know how they were going to do these things.
So anyway, um, I found out that then I started to read Lenin. And the minute you pick up Lenin in his collected works, everything changes. You don't see an awful lot. You don't see hardly any philosophy. It's all about how to come to power. Yes. Yes. All about that. And his basic message is almost all of his stuff, many volumes, boil down to pretty much the same thing, which is this. This is my paraphrase. Comrades, if we go into a country that we want to take over from the inside, do we go in and tell everybody we are communists and we're going to take over the country and change their social system, their culture, their legal system? No, they would run us out. We tell them we are anti-communists. We want nationalism. We want to preserve their traditions. We tell them that, and they will love us.
There's a Jesuitical trope if ever there was one, yeah.
There's, yeah, exactly. I didn't know that part of it, by the way. And so, they will, they will love us. We will become, if we work it right, we can become their leaders. They will make us their leaders. And then, when we come to power, we can betray them. And he used his words like that. And he was the guy that said, you know, "Promises are like pie crusts, made to be broken."
[laughter]
He's a very quotable guy. Well, once you read Lenin and realize that he was considered to be the originator of the Communist Party. Now, the Communist Party was not a study group. The Communist Party was a quasi-military organization. Coming to power was the only thing. He said, "That's the only thing we are concerned about. We don't care about winning debates or saying the right thing or expo We must come to power because then, if we reveal our true, our true goals, if they oppose us, we can shoot them." Yep. Yeah. Okay, that is a Marxist-Leninist. That's why that other word was put on. Yes. So, that was a big awakening to me. And, uh, that I haven't changed since that. I, I, I'm not falling for all that stuff because I now know what it means. And they know what it means. Not the guys in the bookstore, they didn't understand what it meant. Yes. But the guys that wrote the books did.
And, okay, so now we come to the next chapter. I said, "Wow, this is what communism is all about. And this is why the students fall for it because the slogans are so good. And they, they don't really want you to think too much except that the enemy is bad and they are good, and the slogans prove that. So it's like virtue signaling, you know." And I thought, well, well, let's see, what's the opposite of communism? I don't want to be supporting communists, I want to oppose communists, so what's the opposite extreme? Well, I went to the university. I knew what the opposite was, it was fascism, and they told me that. So if fascism is the opposite of communism, maybe I should be over there. I didn't know what fascism or Nazism was all about either. So I thought, okay, so down I, there were no bookstores for fascists and Nazi bookstores, so I ordered the books and I, I got the books. I got Mussolini's treatises, I got Mein Kampf from Adolf Hitler, and I read them also.
Now, this is where my life changed. Because when I was over there hanging out with the comrades, I started making an outline of all the major points that Marx and Lenin, to some extent, were making in their appeal to the public or to the recruit, and what they, what they really believed in. And I had about a dozen of them, and I understood them, I thought, pretty well. Now I'm reading Mein Kampf. I started to do the same thing. What did, what does he believe in? And blow me down, Sasha, it was the same thing. Oh. Every one of them. And that's when I realized that calling fascism the opposite to communism was a lie. Mhm. But I believed it until I read their books. They're exactly the same. And that's it also explains historically why some of their leading figures moved back and forth between communism and fascism, and they performed very, and some of the strongest Nazis were former communists. And some of the former communists were former Nazis. They didn't, ideology was the same. The only thing they were fighting over is dominance. Who's going to be the top dog and who's going to take the orders?
Well, okay. Now, I come to the final chapter of this. So, what was the thing that they all believed in? I found out that there was a name for it. And it's called collectivism. And that is what all of those ideas that I was outlining describe as the features of something called collectivism. And the ideological opposite of that is called individualism. And I wasn't making these words up because you can find them easily if you go back a hundred years or more. You'll find that all of the books that our founding fathers were reading at that time used words like collectivism and individualism. And in early America, those words were common like ice cream and hot dogs, you know? Everybody knew what collectivism and individualism were. But there was a war. The collectivists really led the war. And they wanted to come up with more words. And so starting with World War I, basically, those words were systematically removed from the literature. And by the time we get to World War II, and along with that came, by the way, the idea that democracy was a good form of government. Democracy is nothing but a form of collectivism, really. And that's why the founding fathers said, "Stay away from democracy. Don't go there, guys." But how many people today know that? I mean, even people on, you know, the pro-freedom side are saying, "Well, we've got to preserve our democracy." Oh, it drives me crazy. I know. Me, too. Me, too.
It just drives me insane. Anyway, to bring this to a conclusion, from that point forward, I've been one of those guys that would say, "Let's restore the old vocabulary. Let's start talking about collectivism versus individualism." And that's what I put into a little booklet called The Chasm, which is the conflict between collectivism and individualism. And once, the amazing thing is, once you read that booklet, I found that a lot of young people in particular who thought they were collectivists of one form or another, maybe they thought they were socialists or communists, or some of them even liked the idea of putting a socialistic on their children. It was dramatic, you know. They didn't know what they were doing, but they, they liked. They read this stuff, they said, "Oh, I guess I was an individualist all along and didn't know it." Because it's, once you understand the true definitions of those two words, any, any sane person has got to choose individualism because all of the things on the other side lead to slavery.
Anyway, that's the short version, believe it or not. And if, and if anybody would like a free download of my booklet on, on, it's called The Chasm. Uh, let's see if I can remember. You go online and you write the word chasm, C H A S M, .realityzone.com. That's one of my websites. And, uh, you can download a free copy. You can read it online or download it and print it out. And I, I urge people to do that who want to stop using these these programmed words because there's no, there's no choice and except between collectivism and individualism.
No, quite so. Quite so. And, you know, I, I have to say, well, Scott said it best a moment ago, but just to mirror his sentiments, Ed, what your work consistently reveals, always ahead of its time, is that the system we've been subjected to has never been neutral. It's, it's, it's been engineered, a debt-based, centrally controlled, ultimately dependent on a perpetual expansion to sustain only itself, which is the point you're making. And now we're seeing the limits of that architecture. So, on one side, attempts to reinforce it through digital control systems and tighter financial integration. On the other, the rise of decentralized technologies challenging issuance and trust and intermediaries altogether. But beyond even that, there's a deeper conversation beginning to take shape, and one that moves past both fiat and crypto as we currently understand them. Scott alluded to this a little earlier. This is a question of whether economics itself can be refounded not on scarcity, manipulation, or debt expansion, but on actual value creation, energy, integrity, and transparency of exchange. So, what we're calling a zero-point economy or true cost economics, where systems are designed not to extract, but to reflect real input, real output, and real human contribution. And perhaps that's the real pivot that we're standing in, not just a shift in systems, but a shift in consciousness, from inherited structures to consciously designed ones. Ed Griffin, thank you for obviously a life sign of clarity and courage which continues unabated. In closing, Ed, you've spent decades diagnosing the architecture of control. And as we close here, I'd like to ask not just what has been, but what could be if humanity were to take seriously the insights that you've shared over your lifetime. So, what in essence does the next 20 to 30 years look like to you?
That depends on us. If we do nothing except worry about it or read about it or talk about it and say, "This is, this is terrible stuff," then there's no hope. Because these guys, I mean, they're on a roll. And they're, they're gaining momentum. Now, they have internal problems, of course. I mean, they would probably cut each other's throats if necessary to get to a higher position in the hierarchy. And there's disagreements and so forth. But still, they come together against us. And as long as there's any of us, they'll probably stick together. But once they, if they ever succeed in creating this this global cesspool that they're trying to build, they'll turn on each other, I think. Which doesn't help us any, but hopefully that would disintegrate the system. And maybe a thousand years in the future, people, if there are any people left at that time, will come across some of our books and remember, "Oh, they had it figured out. Let's try this." And maybe a second time around, we can do better. Now, that's the, that's the pessimistic scenario. The optimistic or realistic scenario is not optimistic, but is realistic. We don't have to go that far. We still have time and maneuverable space to do it, but we better get off of our couches pretty fast and go into the power centers of society, the political parties, the labor unions, the church organizations, the Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, you know, all of the organizations that make up the character of a nation will eventually produce the politics of the nation. And that's what we have to do. It can be done. And but we have to stop just theorizing about it and complaining about it. Uh, we have to start organizing at the ground level. And that's why I created Freedom, I mean Freedom Force International, but then we have, uh, we're building, hoping to build. We are in the process of doing it now, what we call campuses of Red Pill University. And these will be groups of people who will work together in their local communities and are working together right now. And we've learned the hard way by studying our, our comrade friends on the other side that it doesn't take a lot of people working together in concerted, concerted action to overcome the undirected majority. History is always written by 3% of the population supported by 15% of the population. And we already got 15%, but they just don't know they're they're there. They think they're alone. Yeah. I think probably about 20 to 25% of the population today, maybe that's high. Let's go to 18%. I know we have 15%. All we have to do is get those people working together who can have something to believe in, like individualism. Yes, very good. That unites everybody.
Right, so God, I heard the man say campuses, and if I know my Latin, the plural of campus is campi, but I'm going
[laughter]
Are you sure about that? I'm not so sure, sir.
[laughter]
I think it's campuses. Very good. Very good. Ed, thank you. This has been a beautiful, beautiful conversation and so excited to hear about the Red Pill campuses. This is a great idea. Scott and I have already jumped on you a couple of weeks ago at your beautiful home, one of your beautiful homes, when we spent some time with you. You're under instruction to give a big kiss to Pat on one cheek and from Scott one on the other cheek from me at the same time, please. And we look forward, Scott and I look forward to the Human Manifesto whenever you give the thumbs up on the issuance of that book. We really want to help rally the troops and help create a beautiful online launch summit for that book. Ed, thank you so very much.
Well, thank you, Sasha. I expect you to be one of our best promoters of the book when it comes off the assembly line. So, anyway, thanks for allowing me to speak on these topics and meander all over the place. And anytime you want to do it again, let's do it again. You're done. We're done. Thank you. Thanks, Scott. And thank you, Scott. Thank you, too. All right. I guess we got to turn this off now.