SOLVED: JFK and others murdered by the Elite Shadow One World Order

(GLOBALINTELHUB) – 10/28/2017 —

Since all the people involved in the JFK murder and investigation are dead, one might wonder why all the fuss about documents from 50 years ago really matter.  FX traders are mostly conspiracy theorists, either they are part of the FX rigging scandal making billions off the backs of unsuspecting clients that don’t understand FX, or they are traders trying to guess why markets move the way they do in order to protect their positions.  In any case, FX traders see how FX moves ahead of terrorist events, and how the US Dollar tracks several hours ahead of key global military events.  Also, the world really hasn’t changed much, especially the architecture of modern political power, so a look into the past can be also a look into the present.  The parallels of JFK and Trump are interesting, both being from rich families and both in some way ‘turned’ against the mainstream establishment.  Although the world is too different now for a fair comparison, and JFK and Trump are nearly polar opposites when it comes to them individually.  While the recent data dump of documents presents more circumstantial evidence than ever before – all from the ultimate source (the US Government) any ‘smoking gun’ document has long been destroyed.  Perhaps the only smoking gun is the ‘burned memo’ which could be a cryptic assassination directive.

While the world wonders about President Trump, 54 years ago, a US President was murdered in broad daylight in Dallas, Texas; John Fitzgerald Kennedy – the only Irish Catholic President, and possibly one of the only US Presidents that was not a Freemason.  To this day, the facts surrounding this event remain clouded.  The ‘official’ Warren Commission report presents fanciful theories about a “Magic Bullet” that was able to go in and out of JFK’s body multiple times, and other wild fantasies.  But this official report is ‘official’ and any other explanation of the events of that day are ‘conspiracy theories.’  As time has passed, and secondary information surfaces, there are indications of the true power of the information that was kept secret for so long.

The murder of JFK is perhaps one of the most significant events of the 20th century.  In the past 10 years, new information has surfaced that portends to a major re-investigation into the issue.  As well, a generation has passed since the event which took place 1963.  This article presents two unique viewpoints, previously unpublished, as well as looking at some recently released evidence:

  1. The book titled Kennedy’s Last Stand: Eisenhower, UFOs, MJ-12 & JFK’s Assassination
  2. New evidence that has surfaced since the making of Oliver Stone’s “JFK” in 1991
  3. Groundbreaking documentary created BEFORE release of documents “JFK to 911 is a Rich Man’s Trick”

The Warren Commission came up with nonsensical conclusions he said, such as the “Magic Bullet” and the lone assassin theory, that Oswald did it by himself.  No one took it seriously, at the time, but what could anyone do?  It was obviously much bigger than one agency, even bigger than the office of the President, so whatever power lurking in the shadows – was not one to mess with!

Part 1: The Book that all JFK researchers should read

Kennedy’s Last Stand: Eisenhower, UFOs, MJ-12 & JFK’s Assassination – This is a must read, for those interested in the topic of ‘information’ and ‘informatics’ even if you’re not interested in the subject of UFOs.  The point here is that documentary evidence regarding the UFO conspiracy is real and comes from the top.  A group so powerful (MJ-12) they shut out the President (Eisenhower) who overcame them only by threatening to invade Area 51 with the Army.  In the past 20 years, new evidence has surfaced, some of which is presented in the book.  Most significantly, the book points a paper trail right to the top of the CIA and beyond.

Small background on UFO phenomenon as it pertains to this story; UFOs were first discovered by the military over Los Angeles during World War 2.  It was alarming because the Army believed that it was the enemy Japanese attacking, all they saw were ‘airships’ shooting down from the sky; the idea of Aliens or UFOs wasn’t common knowledge at the time.  See a brief summary of the “Battle of Los Angeles”:

The Battle of Los Angeles, also known as The Great Los Angeles Air Raid, is the name given by contemporary sources to the rumored enemy attack and subsequent anti-aircraft artillery barrage which took place from late 24 February to early 25 February 1942 over Los Angeles, California.  The incident occurred less than three months after the United States entered World War II as a result of the Japanese Imperial Navy‘s attack on Pearl Harbor, and one day after the bombardment of Ellwood on 23 February. Initially, the target of the aerial barrage was thought to be an attacking force from Japan, but speaking at a press conference shortly afterward, Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox called the incident a “false alarm.” Newspapers of the time published a number of reports and speculations of a cover-up.

Some contemporary ufologists and conspiracy theorists have suggested the targets were extraterrestrial spacecraft.  When documenting the incident in 1949, The United States Coast Artillery Association identified a meteorological balloon sent up at 1:00 am that “started all the shooting” and concluded that “once the firing started, imagination created all kinds of targets in the sky and everyone joined in”.  In 1983, the U.S. Office of Air Force History attributed the event to a case of “war nerves” triggered by a lost weather balloon and exacerbated by stray flares and shell bursts from adjoining batteries.

After this ‘battle’ UFOs were on the radar of the military – literally.  Military planners, practically, incorporate every kind of potential attack into their strategy planning.  UFOs were not looked at scientifically by the military – simply as a potential threat, whether from Hitler or another planet they didn’t care.

The second event that marked this age was the Roswell crash, still a big mystery to this day.  Apparently, there were 2 crashes, one with actual biological bodies, and the press release was designed to take the focus away from the more sensitive site.  According to the book, everything was taken to Area 51 for review, where the facility was placed under the security of the CIA and managed by a group formed by Truman known as MJ-12.  A lot of this is not science fiction when considering Nazi scientists developed rockets that NASA still uses to this day via Project Paperclip.  Remember that all of this happened around a time when USA was becoming a superpower, the CIA was just formed, along with the military industrial complex – including its corporate technology arm, still in use today (Silicon Valley).

Where did the explosion of scientific developments come from such as Kevlar, the Microprocessor, fiber optics, stealth, weather modification, and other technologies come from?  Many of these developments came out by the hundreds month after month by research labs like PARC:

PARC (Palo Alto Research Center Incorporated), formerly Xerox PARC, is a research and development company in Palo Alto, California,[1][2][3] with a distinguished reputation for its contributions to information technology and hardware systems.[citation needed]

Founded in 1970 as a division of Xerox Corporation, PARC has been in large part responsible for such developments as laser printing, Ethernet, the modern personal computer, graphical user interface (GUI) and desktop paradigm, object-oriented programming, ubiquitous computing, amorphous silicon (a-Si) applications, and advancing very-large-scale integration (VLSI) for semiconductors.

This all shortly after the Roswell incident.  Looking at all this from a technology standpoint is not so sensational.  The fact that the Roswell crash was in fact a UFO possibly operated by a ‘robot’ or ‘drone’ from another planet or another timeline is not so far fetched.  If the reader could be transported back to the middle ages of Europe equipped with a laser pointer, iPhone 7, automatic handgun, and other wizard’s tools, certainly the people would think that the user is a “God” who practices “Magic”.

The interesting twist in this book is how JFK wanted to unmask all this, use it for the good of the world (in partnership with Russia) and how the group who operates above the US Government, in this case MJ-12, ordered the hit via a secretive assassination directive:

An Mj-12 directive to kill JFK

The most dramatic directive, likely drafted by Dulles (MJ-1), Director of CIA under JFK and apparently approved by six other MJ-12 members was a cryptic assassination directive. In full, this states: see last memo in series in link below.  

Draft – Directive Regarding Project Environment – When conditions become non-conducive for growth in our environment and Washington cannot be influenced any further, the weather is lacking any precipitation … it should be wet.

The term “it should be wet” is a coded command to kill someone.  

Detractors of this book will say that the author is reaching to connect the dots, and this cryptic message is not ‘clearly’ the smoking gun evidence that everyone is looking for.  But is it?  Have a deeper look through these documents here: 


To the less educated researcher, documents such as the letter from respected scientists Oppenheimer and Einstein regarding the UFO issue, and the letter from the anonymous CIA leaker re: James Angleton; may be of more significance, as the authenticity of these documents is more verifiable, and anecdotally more believable.  Einstein for example published thousands of public essays and letters on various important topics of the day; this was a time when the power Elite relied on high IQ scientists.

There is no alternative paper trail, with a more powerful suggestion – solving the JFK murder.  Most of the files have been released in a searchable archive, which you can find here:

It is not likely that in the next 20 years another ‘smoking gun’ document will be discovered, although it’s possible (it could be in some relatives attic, next to baseball cards and grandpas pipe saved from last century).  So it’s reasonable to conclude that 95% of relevant information regarding the JFK scenario is out there, somewhere – in the ether.  With the speed and velocity of the internet sleuth community, if there was such a relevant document such as photo (right) – it would have been distributed and redistributed, analyzed and discussed, ad nauseum.

What is the significance of this event, you ask?  It’s a singularity, as they describe in physics (a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole).  From one perspective, it was simply a power grab by ‘faction 2’ from ‘faction 1’ as some describe big power politics.  The Kennedy clan were outsiders, they were social climbers, they went against the power structure of the haves – case closed.  But Kennedy or someone else – something more meaningful happened here.  A group called the “Shadow Government” stopped Kennedy from exercising the powers granted to him by the Constitution and by the voters.  It puts the entire system into question, proving basically that the United States operates by Mob Rule not so much different than a banana republic.  A group of rich families and companies with deep pockets control the country through their trained surrogates.  The continuation of this can be seen with political families such as Bush and Clinton who have a statistically unusual amount of deaths of associates, friends, and workers surrounding them.  Some were even afraid to work for the Clinton camp due to the high number of workers who ‘suicided’, disappeared, had heart failure, or stabbed themselves in the back 10 times.

Let’s thread through the irony of the power structure for the last 30 years with this interesting photo, and comparison, of a figure outside the Texas School Book Depository:

The photo on right, comparing the posture of a figure standing in a suit and tie is striking.  George H.W. Bush Sr. later went on to be the director of the CIA, only for 2 years, under Gerald Ford.  But Bush’s impact on the establishment would be large, as he would later be Reagan’s Vice President (and rumored that was more of a ‘President’ during this time than Reagan ever was) and eventually President of the United States, and father of a future president, George W. Bush (his son).

(NOTE: It is interesting that the shadowy figure would 30 years later popularize the phrase “One World Order”)

What kind of ‘organization’ is out of the public view, has the means to organize such an assassination, and the motive?  All points to one organization, really the only capable organization of organizing such a project.  Look at some evidence, such as this list compiled by Wikispooks, of attempted or successful assassination attempts on foreign leaders organized by the CIA since World War 2: And here’s “Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders” as compiled by the US Senate in 1975: CIA_Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders

With such overwhelming evidence of the CIA’s involvement in foreign assassinations, if only one of these ‘plots’ is true it’s reasonable to assume they all are true because after all, the CIA is a spy agency, not an overt military operation, so most of this is done with the clandestine service.  And, if the CIA really does have a ‘hit squad’ trained to topple and kill foreign dictators, then it is reasonable to assume this same operative group inside the CIA could potentially use this same group domestically.  In fact, it is the only group in the world capable of assassinating a US President so successfully, including the use of insiders to change the course of the motorcade, for example.

Or to use another analogy as a means of deductive logic, 95% of hackers are inside jobs – in other words, hackers very rarely breach security from the ‘outside’ – they rely on a rogue employee, security expert, or insider to provide key information such as passwords or other details needed to complete the job.  This must have been the case with the murder of JFK because without those on the inside, such an epic target would not have been possible to hit.  It was for this reason the ‘higher ups’ at the FBI wanted this case closed and not discussed, because there clearly were insiders working against JFK who provided key info and modifying security protocols leading to the assassination.

As referenced by NY Times, the peak of outrage against the CIA for such plots was in the mid 1970s:

The peak of outrage against government-sponsored assassination was the mid-1970s, when the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations — better known as the Church committee — spent more than 60 days questioning 75 witnesses about C.I.A. plots of the late 1950s and early 1960s. Back in the darkest days of the cold war, the agency had devoted significant resources and creativity to devising unhappy ends for unsavory or inconvenient foreign leaders. Among those listed for assassination were Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam, Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic and, most famously, Fidel Castro of Cuba, who survived no fewer than eight C.I.A. assassination plots. The senators on the committee were intent on divining the full extent of the government’s role in these plots. How much direct authority, for example, did Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy exert over them? The committee’s conclusions were vague at best. The truth was that neither president would have allowed his hand to show in such affairs.  Times have changed. Our president now interrupts regularly scheduled broadcasting to announce the news of an assassination himself.

Perhaps the details of the JFK murder, public coverage, and FBI investigation would have been different had it happened in 2010.  Certainly it was a different time, before the internet, and at a time of much happiness and prosperity.  Since “JFK” we’ve had “911” which is another game changer event that put the US on a different path as it was during the 90s.  Perhaps every generation needs such an event to ‘remind’ them of who is in charge?  (Dr. Tony Blanton from Pine Crest Prep School is ringing in my ears ‘history is a struggle between the haves and the have nots and you are the movers and the shakers who are going to change society’)

What secrets are the ‘shadow government’ protecting or are they simply exercising their power to show the have nots that their ownership of the planet is above any government, any nation state, religion, or other entity?  The UFO issue is concerning, particularly due to security concerns; because the information we do know is only bits and pieces from whistle-blowers and a few encounters that are not well documented.  There are rumors that Eisenhower himself made a deal with the Aliens to keep them a secret in exchange for technology transfer through the military and corporate America.  Maybe it was a good deal, maybe it never happened – who knows?  The point is that, until real discovery and disclosure is achieved, we will be in the dark regarding important issues that can impact daily life on planet earth.  Some important questions we need to ask beyond the shock value of understanding we are not alone in the universe:

  • Who are these aliens, what do they want?  What has been ‘agreed’ with them, if anything, and what current involvement do they have with US Military operations?
  • What of the stories that some of these creatures are multi-dimensional, or from another ‘timeline’ (that they aren’t aliens from other planets but beings that live in many dimensions)?
  • How can we address issues of exo-politics if the CIA was dethroned as the sole security to Area 51 and ultimately, controlling the diplomacy between such aliens, if any?
  • Is there any truth to the stories they are abducting humans for purposes of experimentation, whether it be biological or genetic?  What about the ‘hybrid’ projects?  If there is truth to it, how to stop it?
  • Do aliens have any current business arrangements with US corporations, US politicians, or are involved in major conflicts in any way?  If so, this urgently needs to be addressed, and contracts re-evaluated.  For example there are many accounts that UFOs were seen when nuclear warheads went dead (if even for a test).
  • Are there any secret government ‘libraries’ or ‘archives’ where files about aliens are kept, if so – where are they and in what format?

What’s interesting about this issue that it seems to be a wealth of information right here under our own desert.  It’s like the metaphor about exploring space when we know less about our deep oceans.  There again, rumors of alien bases under the deep seas.  The amount of information regarding the veracity of such stories is immense, and it has gone parabolic in the last years as many who were alive and working during these times before modern security protocols and training were in place, are retired, dying, or have passed information onto children.

Part 2: The New Evidence

1963 was a long time ago.  New facts and evidence have surfaced, most interestingly – we are on the precipice of a major data dump by the US Government still to be determined, scheduled for ‘sometime’ in 2o17.  See explanation from :

In 1992, the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act mandated that in 2017 all remaining JFK records and redactions be released. However, the National Archives has recently informed federal agencies that if they intend on maintaining secrecy over these records they should begin preparing appeals to the next president of the United States. We are working to ensure that the law is upheld.  We are calling on you, fellow Americans, to come together and ensure that our government upholds the law.

The parallel of the information secrecy both for the JFK murder and the UFO issue, and their purported interconnection, is interesting.  If state secrets or a modern political organization were not at stake, why the hold up to release information about JFK?  Everyone mostly already believes it was the CIA, a group we have shown capable of organizing assassinations of many foreign leaders, and recently (2016) was caught meddling in a US domestic election.  The UFO issue can be the motive to cover up the JFK murder for so long, so deeply.  And the less obvious, more subtle ‘can of worms’ argument, that if the US Government lied and hid the facts about JFK, of course – everything else including the 9/11 investigation would be open for re-investigation.  This is another reason for waiting for so long because there’d be no one to ‘blame’ as those who orchestrated the conspiracy / cover-up would all be dead by now (or so the thinking of this strategy goes).

One interesting tape was in fact found in ‘Grandpa’s Attic’ – claimed to be the most significant piece of evidence since 1963:

A recording of radio communications to and from Air Force One on November 22,1963, discovered in 2011, is among the most important new pieces of JFK evidence to emerge in recent years,

The tape, an edited excerpt from a longer recording, captures some of the communications of the leaders of U.S. national security agencies as they learned about the assassination of a sitting president.

I wrote about the importance of the Air Force One tape in the fall of 2013:

“Audio engineer on the trail of a long-lost JFK tape” (JFK Facts, Nov. 6, 2013)

“Enhanced Air Force One tape captures top general’s response to JFK’s murder”  (JFK Facts, Oct. 19, 2013)

You can listen to it here.

Where was the Air Force One tape found?

This old-fashioned reel of analog tape surfaced at Philadelphia auction house in 2011. The recording was found in the estate of the family of Gen. Chester Clifton, a military aide to JFK. Clifton died in 1991. His children put the estate up for auction.

Bill Kelly, a JFK researcher, enlisted Primeau Forensics, a Michigan audio engineering firm, to produce a cleaned-up version of the tape.

What is significant in this piece of information, as far as data analysis is concerned, is the source.  It was an unclassified transcript of a non-essential to the JFK operation (Project Environment).  It only ‘suggests’ through information via what was said and not said, and as such, is not a ‘smoking gun’.  But much like the UFO phenomenon, in a similar thread – it seems that it’s simply IMPOSSIBLE to keep such a high profile operation secret for so long.  The analogy to the UFO issue is Dr. Steven Greer’s “Disclosure Project” available at; in summary:

Beginning in 1993, I started an effort that was designed to identify firsthand military and government witnesses to UFO events and projects, as well as other evidence to be used in a public disclosure. From 1993, we spent considerable time and resources briefing the Clinton Administration, including CIA Director James Woolsey, senior military officials at the Pentagon, and select members of Congress, among others. In April of 1997, more than a dozen such government and military witnesses were assembled in Washington DC for briefings with Congressmen, Pentagon officials and others. There, we specifically requested open Congressional Hearings on the subject. None were forthcoming.

These materials are, as you can now discern, only the tip of the iceberg of what we have recorded on digital videotape. That is, from over 120 hours of testimony by over 100 witnesses we transcribed only 33 hours and then further edited materials down to a fraction of that amount. Moreover, the full archive represents the testimony of only 100 witnesses of the more than 400 identified to date. The edited testimony will be appearing in book form. A portion of it appears in The Disclosure Project Briefing Document and only small excerpts and summary bios of testimony appear in this Executive summary. We hope in the future to secure funding for a 5-6 part broadcast quality video documentary series to be made from the videotaped testimony we have as the impact of hearing and seeing these witnesses speak is very moving.

This then brings me to my last point: The witnesses who have given testimony to date are extraordinarily brave men and women – heroes in my eyes – who have taken great personal risks in coming forward. Some have been threatened and intimidated. All are risking the ever-present ridicule that attends this subject. Not a single one of them has been paid for his or her testimony: It has been given freely and without reservation for the good of humanity. I wish to personally thank them here and extend to them my personal, highest respect and gratitude.

This summary is focusing on the testimony of important first-hand witnesses. We have thousands of government documents, hundreds of photographs, trace landing cases and more, but it is impossible to include them in a summary of this length. These materials will be made available for any serious scientific or Congressional inquiry.

These 2 issues are interrelated on so many levels, it’s only fitting that both have strong nonclassified, civilian groups dedicated to identifying, collecting, archiving, sorting, and classification of all relevant information on the topics.  They are after all, significant issues, with implications on all sciences.  These 2 topics may even be more important than recent scientific discoveries.  For example, as hundreds of high level government witnesses have testified in the disclosure project, one of the technologies kept under lock and key by the CIA (as reverse engineered from ET) are several energy technologies including but not limited to ‘zero point’ energy which would literally, instantly end our dependence on oil, coal, and nuclear.  This is just the tip of the iceberg, as hundreds of ground breaking tech has been leaked from ET such as thorium ‘clean’ nuclear technology, Kevlar, nanotechnology, advanced long distance energy communication, the ability to manipulate space time (or at least, to pass through a ‘wrinkle’ in time), and hundreds of others.  The business element of this provides a solid motive alone, without religious, social, or political implications.  There would be no need for 90% of the Fortune 500, the stock market would crash and the entire economic system as we know it would be immediately restructured (who would pay for gas when free energy is available?).

The public stated reason, for locking away the JFK files for 75 years, which plausibly is also the reason of keeping UFO information secret; is that the public ‘cannot handle the truth’ – that it would be ‘too much to handle’ – the first implication being some embarrasing political facts, such as the fact that the CIA with the help of insiders like LBJ were critical to the murder or completely organized it themselves.  But that’s not hard to swallow, generations of hardened Americans watching real-time cameras on missiles bombing and maiming brown people (mostly) have become desensitized to such emotional dribble.  But the elephant was in the room all along – this ‘shocking’ fact really is shocking, because it would change every aspect of life on our planet – quite literally (not figuratively).  For example, having free energy would change manufacturing, transportation, computing – just about everything.  It would change war, it would have implications into governance, we can skip religious implications and take the lead from the Catholic Church who is ahead of the information curve on this issue (for obvious reasons).

There is a lot of new evidence, much of which has been referenced in the below documentary – we chose this as an example because it was likely overlooked during the sweep of evidence hiding.

So there we have it, the JFK murder has been solved.  

WHO – It was a sub-set of the Intelligence aparatus, MJ12/CIA under the direction of Allen Dulles operated by Jesus James Angleton, involving multiple CIA agents including but not limited to George H.W. Bush Sr.

WHAT – The murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK) US President, Elite leader, representative of the powerful Kennedy clan, Irish Catholic, father, patriot, and civil servant

WHERE & WHEN – Dallas, Texas November 22, 1963

HOW – A fine tuned machine prepared the ultimate kill scene, which involved extensive research and planning, significant funding, resources, highly skilled and trained soldiers, and a ‘cover-up’ scenario which had to involve LBJ and others around JFK.

WHY – To maintain the big Illuminati secret – that the US Government has obtained technology from other worlds, given to us directly and reverse engineered, and this transfer of tech continues to this day – and that the revelation of what happened to JFK regarding the UFO issue would start a chain of events that would finally lead to the complete disclosure of this technology, and thus – change the entire global political and economic system forever.

Part 3: JFK to 911 Everything is a Rich Man’s Trick

This is a well documented detailed documentary that simply connects the dots between JFK and 911, and basically exposing the ‘pattern’ of such events, we can include the recent shootings in Las Vegas to the long string of such events.  Some call them ‘false flag’ operations or “PsyOps” but really they are no more significant than your local pest control guy planting nests of ants and roaches near your home when business is slow.  Since World War 2 there has not been a serious threat to the United States – and at the same time the US Military ‘over prepared’ for the possibility of going to war with ten planets, so all that needs to be justified.  The Military Industrial Complex needs an enemy, it doesn’t matter if the enemy is Russia, or terrorists.. or aliens..


Research Links

BOOKS – Kennedy’s Last Stand: Eisenhower, UFOs, MJ-12 & JFK’s Assassination

An interesting leaked email from Edgar Mitchell to John Podesta

The New Starting Point – Another look at JFK with new research

Mark the Date – List of classified documents to be released regarding JFK

7 Key Facts we’ll learn with release of JFK files

Was JFK shot for his interest in UFOs?

Short list of investigative groups, information sources, and other JFK related material sources: 



Oliver Stone Talks to ‘The Nation’ About His New Documentary ‘The Putin Interviews’

Three-time Academy Award winner Oliver Stone—the Vietnam veteran and Purple Heart recipient who made some of Hollywood’s greatest antiwar movies—was interviewed on the anniversary of D-Day at his Santa Monica office. The hallmark of Stone’s cinematic oeuvre has been artistically creating counternarratives, which has pitted him against not only government forces but also the mainstream media. In 1986, when President Ronald Reagan pursued the Iran-Contra covert operation Stone showed the other side of the story in Central America in the riveting Salvador. Later that year and in 1989, with the Vietnam-set Best Picture Oscar winner Platoon and Best Picture nominee Born on the Fourth of July, Stone took on militarism with his war-is-hell classics. While Reagan ballyhooed unbridled capitalism, in 1987’s Wall Street Stone questioned the “greed is good” ethos. Perhaps most memorable is Stone’s demolishing of the Warren Commission Report in 1991’s JFK, implicating US intelligence agents in the Kennedy assassination. And in his colossal 796-minute 2012 documentary series, Untold History of the United States, Stone compellingly presented an alternative view of the Cold War and more.

Now Stone is back with The Putin Interviews. As the intelligence community, Congress and press investigate alleged Russian tampering with the US presidential election and possible collusion with the Trump campaign and presidency, Stone, using his rare access to the Russian president, dares show Vladimir Putin’s side of the story. During an in-depth interview with The Nation, Stone took the long view of history and stressed he was often expressing what he understood to be Putin’s perspectives. We talked about Edward Snowden, the new McCarthyism, Syria, Donald Trump, Ukraine, MSM, Hillary Clinton, Julian Assange, Bernie Sanders, the Cold War redux, Megyn Kelly, war and peace, and Putin. The interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

The Nation: Discuss The Putin Interviews’ timeline.

Oliver Stone: The Putin Interviews began in June 2015. We had just finished filming Snowden—we went to Moscow to shoot the last scene with Ed Snowden in it. We stayed for a few more days and went into the Kremlin to see Mr. Putin for our first interview. Then we did two more days on that trip, so we had several interviews. We returned early next year and the middle of 2016—each times, different interviews, in Sochi… in the dacha—it was catch as catch can. His time was very pressured; he works long hours. Often he’d leave at 1:00 am and say, “I’ve got another meeting.”

He does discipline himself and gets a good night’s sleep. He was fresh every day—he was never tired, like I was. Very, very disciplined—probably from judo… He wore a suit and tie and looked very manicured no matter what time of day. He never had to go to the men’s room… He’s been keeping this up for 16 years. I mentioned the Reagan way of doing business—he doesn’t delegate, he gets into the mechanics of every situation. That impressed me… Putin is a very consistent, conservative leader.

The fourth trip—hopefully, we were finished… It wasn’t planned—it turned out after the US election, a whole new bunch of crisis issues were raised. So we arranged to go back in February 2017 and do a final installment, post-Trump. Which is devoted a lot to Trump—but it’s not just in the present, it goes back and encompasses 17 years, telling us about Putin’s time in office, which is very important to understanding the present situation. Americans tend to think in the moment—the headline, the news. It doesn’t work that way—policy, relations between countries take time.… Unfortunately, we don’t have that ability with the media world pressing in for immediate response, like Bush being prompted to say, “I looked into his soul and found a man I can trust”… Relationships like that get built for camera only.

He could have cut this off at any point. If the interviews were dull, my questions pointless, I think it would have ended sooner. I think I kept his interest by dancing, by doing what a movie director does with actors, making them want to do the scenes, keeping the interest going. That’s a quality I’ve picked up over the years working with actors. I’ve done it with heads of state—Castro, Netanyahu, Arafat…

Total, we got 19 hours of film. We cut to four hours—it’s a pretty good ratio of 20 percent. We had 22 hours together… There’s no Russian money at all financing The Putin Interviews

The Nation: What’s the significance of your documentary coming out at a time of deteriorating US-Russia relations, amidst these election hacking charges?

Stone: It wasn’t planned that way. This is another crisis in a long line of crises. The US has always dominated the media and told its side of the story with headlines around the world. You have to take into account it never includes the Russian point of view, which has never been properly presented to the American people. And when it has been at all it seems to be sarcastically presented, making fun of—it’s not a good way to do business. So what we try to do very clearly is go back in time and work forward to now. With Putin’s 2000 accidental presidency.

He found Russia in a chaotic state—remember, the Americans had been sending economic teams to Russia, advising Yeltsin. Yeltsin had been a good friend to Mr. Clinton—he was very much “our guy.” In 1996, when his poll ratings were dismal, Yeltsin was reelected president. There’s always been great questions in Russia—it was regarded as a fraudulent election, and there’s lots of evidence to that effect. He also got a surprise IMF loan, pretty big one, at the last second to keep that economy up.

Our experiment in Russia did not work—privatization, turning over all of the state enterprises. It setup a lot of the corruption we’re now complaining about. Much of that corruption came from that period. Because those who were smart got the free ride. People that went by the rules, who played by the book, who had the pension plans, the security plans, were really fucked. [Laughs.] Put it this way—the GDP of Russia crashed 40 percent approximately. It was a worse crash for them than World War II, which was enormous damage for Russia. As Kennedy said, “a third of the US, from Chicago to New York, was destroyed.” It sank to the level of about Holland’s economy.

Since Putin came in, it’s really turned around. Income levels have gone up. There’s still poverty problems and gaps—these were set in the ’90s. Privatization was turned around—modified. He believes in a capitalist, market economy—more on the European side of things than the American side. He has enacted financial reform. Made lots of enemies—as you can tell, from people who had benefited in the 1990s. Not all of them—but a lot of them went into exile, took the money and went away.

The Nation: “Oligarchs”?

Stone: Yeah, they were called oligarchs. There were many who stayed and worked with the new government.

The Nation: Should Russia be America’s national-security partner, instead of [our] viewing it as public enemy number one?

Stone: Absolutely. America and Russia have many common interests, including the war against terrorism. In space, they’d be crucial allies. We shouldn’t militarize space, which is one of their complaints. Certainly climate control… There’s hope there could be partnerships in all this—and a secure world…

The Nation: You’ve been a profound critic of mainstream media. What do you think of MSM’s view of Putin?

Stone: It’s been dismal in the West. At first there were some positive things written when he brought some order to the chaos. But when he emerged as a son of Russia, so to speak, acting in the self-interest of Russia, as nations are supposed to act, I think he took American leaders, the elite, by surprise, in his firmness and consistency. A media war against him began in February 2007[, when Putin criticized US unilateralism for “almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations” at the Munich security conference.]

The Nation: What strikes me most about your fiction and nonfiction work, from JFK to Untold History, is that in cinematic ways you present a counter-narrative to the prevailing, official version of events and people. How is your viewpoint of Putin different from MSM’s conventional wisdom?

Stone: In our documentary he goes into detail—it’s important to understand history and origins—he goes into three shocks that were laid on him by the US expansion of NATO, starting in 1999—13 countries were added. NATO has another meaning to the Russians than it does to Western people…

NATO as he explains is almost like a nation-state unto itself that takes over the military mechanism of the country it allies with. It becomes a NATO country. NATO planning, use of their country for staging operations, war games, and maybe ultimately as a war hostage, someone on the front line. NATO is a serious commitment… NATO is sold as an anti-Russian alliance… This is very important to the US I don’t think it’s in the interests of Europe to be the frontline hostage in a situation that has been overwrought. But bringing NATO to the borders of Russia is on the verge—it’s as if [Russia] was putting troops in Mexico and Canada, right on the borders, saying we don’t trust you, we’re going to come down on you at any given moment. It’s a tremendous strain. That’s called a “strategy of tension,” and that is a strategy that’s very fundamental to Western interests… But the Russians have not been putting any tension on us, they haven’t moved troops—it’s the US that’s moving troops. How many forward bases do we have—800? Plus special operations troops in 130 countries—we feel threatened, we feel surrounded…

What Mr. Putin is saying is, “Who is bringing disorder to the world?” If you put it on a map and say “where are the troops, where are the bases, where are the arms going?”

The Nation: Putin actually says in the film that towards the end of the USSR Soviet leaders were promised that NATO wouldn’t expand and accept Eastern European countries as members.

Stone: But it was not on paper, as he said, and he blames Gorbachev…

Number two [the second shock], when George Bush abrogated the ABM Treaty with Russia [in 2001]—that was a shock, truly. Very dangerous for the world—people didn’t pay attention, but the whole concept of nuclear parity that was built up for so many years was violated by that. America has since placed ABMs in Poland and Romania, right on the borders of Russia.

I can’t tell you how much this has thrown the balance off. The Russians were shocked by it—you don’t abrogate treaties that were so important. That was a cornerstone of the nuclear parity, signed in 1972 by Nixon and Brezhnev. It was a very important treaty but the American people don’t realize it because the media didn’t explain it to the world. This means Russia now has to invest money and tremendous energy in rebuilding some of their nuclear facilities. Because they can’t keep up with—ABMs, as Putin explains, can be converted into offensive missiles overnight. Without telling Russia, for example, that you’ve done so, the Russians are very confused as to what’s on the radar, what comes across. If suddenly an ABM starts acting like an offensive missile, it becomes a real problem. You have to gear up your defense system immediately to try to stop these weapons from hitting. America has put submarines, ICBMs, NATO planes, all over Russia’s borders, on both sides. We’re developing all kinds of new machinery, including new nuclear fuses called “super-fuses”—also very dangerous.

In other words, the US has shown no intention of letting up on the nuclear—it has shown an intention to be superior and have first strike capacity on Russia. That’s a serious, serious business. More than you think. This brings us close to the edge. There’s also the great possibility of mistakes, as in Dr. Strangelove [Stone screens Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 nuclear satire for Putin in the documentary], where something goes wrong, somebody overreacts—that’s happened so many times now since the 1970s, how close we’ve been if you’ve followed those details. During the Reagan administration, there were several near misses. So everyone’s nervous right now. The Poles are involved—they hate the Russians. The Eastern European countries, there’s much revenge in their minds. It’s a very dangerous situation; an accident can happen.

Number three [the third shock], and he goes into it in detail, the support of the US for the terrorism in Central Eurasia and also Russia. Putin talks about it, it’s a big point. They were helping us after 9/11, they agreed with Bush to help us with Afghanistan—transit rights, arms, intelligence, they really did help us. They saved quite a few lives actually in Afghanistan. At that point, they started picking up signals from Chechen terrorists, in Georgia… active, trying to separate from Mother Russia, which had already shrunk in 1991, 25 million people. So now Chechnya is fighting, for independence. Georgia became independent during this period. So there were all kinds of problems brewing on the borders. Ukraine became a problem in 2004… and there is terrorism in Ukraine from right-wing thugs.

Bush and Putin had a meeting—he talks about the outcome. Bush agreed we shouldn’t support people who wanted Russia to fall apart—at the same time he’s unable to do anything because the CIA continues to do it. So who runs—you wonder, who’s in charge? Is Bush in charge? Is Trump in charge? Or really is there a secret state, the CIA, the intelligence services, who do what they want to do? So that becomes another issue.

[As] the Soviet state collapsed in ’91… it was still business as usual, sole superpower… Mr. Bush put 500,000 troops in the Middle East. That’s a huge decision—remember, in Vietnam that was done gradually… All of a sudden that 500,000 troops signals a new presence in the world. This is Mr. Superpower hanging out his shingle, saying, “Okay, we’ll decide everything…”

But those three things struck Putin in those first years as a major turnaround in relations. He keeps talking about “our American partners” throughout the documentary. He never says one bad word, he doesn’t badmouth anybody, no president. He respects Obama, respects Bush—he clearly likes Bush, in a way. I’d say on a scale of American values he’d be a conservative American, traditional values, absolutely. He falls in that scale. And if he were an American president he’d be very well-liked by our media because he’s a good, consistent leader.

The Nation: Do you think MSM has demonized Putin?

Stone: Well, none of these three things I mentioned in the 2000 to 2007 period were [reported]. [Editor’s Note: Actually, they were under-reported by the mainstream media.] I didn’t read about them. I thought our relationships were good—but I was wrong. Nor did I follow the 2004 Ukrainian “Orange Revolution”—it seems Russia was fine with Ukraine going Western. That wasn’t the issue. They had trade agreements that were very rich, powerful and good for both sides. They had military agreements for arms supplies. But that got ruptured by a coup d’etat in 2014. There were ruptures in the Georgian war, which is little talked about. The second Chechnya war—finally, Chechnya was calmed down [the war ended in 2009].

The relationship cratered over Ukraine and then Syria, which was first. Because in 2011 the US got heavily involved in Syria, which had been a Russian ally since the 1970s, they had a base there. It was one of their major allies in the Middle East. The US, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, England, France all got involved in this proxy war in Syria with the idea of destabilizing, getting rid of Assad and putting in some kind of moderate opposition, which there was no evidence of that time. The country deteriorated. Obama bombed Syria for four years, with no results seen on Isis.

Putin got involved in 2015—that’s when the shit hit the fan. Because there he actually ran huge bombing runs, thousands of sorties, hundred a day, whereas the US is running one or two. He really did a number on Isis, it made a significant difference. If you notice, the timeline of the whole Syrian crisis changes color when the Russians come in and actually do what they set out to do, which is actually fight terrorism. Putin insists that’s the main goal. He points out Damascus is only 1,500 [miles] from Moscow—it’s not far. You have to understand the fear the Russians have of the resurgence of terrorism, as they had at Beslan [school on Sept. 1-3, 2004], in Moscow [in the Dubrovka area of Moscow, four kilometers from the Kremlin on October 23–26], Dubrovka theater in 2002—many Russians died in those terror attacks.

Putin took Syria very seriously—I don’t think America did because we had a different objective. We were not fighting terrorism. We’re fighting for our geopolitical advantage in Syria, which has lots of links to oil and its geography—control of the Eurasian subcontinent, Turkey.

But with Syria and Ukraine, that combination has knocked out any remaining relationship. Added to which is a huge amount of insult in the Western media and governments. When you have people like John McCain saying [Putin] “is a thug, a murderer, a dictator—

The Nation: And “a bigger threat than ISIS.”

Stone: And “a bigger threat than Isis.”

The Nation: What do you think of that?

Stone: I don’t see Russia as a threat. I think this is, as Noam Chomsky might say, a manufactured crisis. It helps keep the American hostility alive, the military-industrial state alive, the budgets alive—it allows us to spend 10 times what the Russians are spending on [the] military. And of course, the hugest mistake of all is what Obama did in 2009, which is declare we were going to completely remodel our nuclear infrastructure, and spend a trillion dollars doing that. Now, that is a very scary thought, if you think about the possibilities of an arms race, how can Russia keep up, how can China keep up? Think of it—commit billions of dollars to war. Where does this lead?

This would have been the great moment—like with the end of Gorbachev, Bush could have said, “Let’s have peace.” Reagan at one point considered disarming completely—remember, Gorbachev said, “Let’s get rid of all the weapons,” and Reagan liked the idea.

The Nation: At Reykjavik in 1986?

Stone: It was a wonderful thought, great moment in time… If the world blows up people should know there was such a moment…

[Obama’s] 2009 [plan to spend $1 trillion on remodeling nuclear infrastructure] is very dangerous. That, with the ABM threat, brings the world to the brink… From all my work on this documentary, I can tell you from the bottom of my heart, from my drama instinct, is the Russians are tough people and they’re not going to back down. Their history in World War II is unbelievably resilient—they were overwhelmed by the Nazis, best war machine of all time. They took enormous casualties but they built themselves up and fought back—they actually turned the whole war at Stalingrad… But they fought, then they continued into Eastern Europe, which is unbelievable. They suffered enormous military and civilian casualties—some estimate 27 million… Russia won World War II—and they never got the rewards of it. The Cold War began right away with Churchill and Truman…

Soviet World War II films were very good… They remember. If you make a WWII film now, unless it’s Tarantino’s kind of thing, it won’t get traction in this country. In Russia, it can if it hits the heart because it’s in their DNA. Everyone in Russia, everyone has a relative who was affected, wounded or killed. So many died. The whole country fought for their lives. You have to understand—they’re ready for war, and that’s what they fear. What I felt on my trips… is they’re surprised America would take such a harsh position with them. They like Putin because he stands up for Russia. He’s not been overly aggressive, he hasn’t invaded anywhere, despite what they say…

The Nation: Do you see what’s happening today, with all these allegations of Russian interference in America’s election, as being within a Cold War context?

Stone: Absolutely. Memories of the Cold War have not gone away. All the older generation, the neoconservatives, always remember that and Russia as an archenemy. It’s in their blood, it’s DNA to hate them… I don’t feel it’s necessary, I believe there’s a tremendous amount of distrust, especially on the Republican side. They made this an election issue with Truman running scared [in 1948], instituting the Loyalty Act and CIA. So many of the evils we’ve inherited come from that time. It’s interesting because if Roosevelt had lived a few months longer, there was no question that it would have been a different world he would have framed. I’m sorry that he died in April [1945]—if he had lived to July and August… Roosevelt believed in the grand alliance between the US, Soviet Union, England, and China… Churchill said, “whatever you criticize Stalin, he kept his word with us.”

The Nation: With all of these hacking allegations, are we seeing a new McCarthyism?

Stone: It’s bizarre but it’s happening. Those old figures, who distrust and hate whatever reason Russia. I don’t understand why because the Russian people are very close to the American people in many ways…

The Nation: Seventeen US intelligence agencies all came to the same conclusion about Russian hacking, so everybody on the left has to say, “They must know what they are talking about.” So you don’t buy that these 17 intelligence agencies are telling the truth?

Stone: No, because they backed off on it… There were three agencies—the CIA, NSA ,and FBI. They cooked this intelligence. That’s my word [not Putin’s]… These are serious allegations: That Trump was a Manchurian candidate. The influence on the election from the Russians to me is absurd to the naked eye. Israel has far more influence on American elections through AIPAC. Saudi Arabia has influence through money… Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers have much more influence on American elections… And the prime minister of Israel comes to our country and addresses Congress to criticize the president’s policy in Iran at the time—that’s pretty outrageous.

Our country is very much in the grip of a dictator: The dictator is money, the military-industrial-complex… It’s beyond absurd to have this kind of expenditure every year on military…

The Nation: Although your documentaries aren’t as well known as your features, you have quite a substantial body of nonfiction films. Can you put The Putin Interviews into the context of your previous documentaries about Fidel, Arafat, South of the Border, etc.?

Stone: Those were specific interviews, as was this. The Putin thing comes about spontaneously, it grows out of the Snowden story. I meet [Putin], and then we end up making a film. We didn’t know any limits at that point. We had to keep it interesting for him. I think he gets bored by most of the interviews he does. Certainly, the Megyn Kelly kind of thing, where she jumps on you and you have to defend yourself, that doesn’t quite work to me…  At the end he said to me, “Thank you for being so thorough and asking good questions.” I challenged him softly—nothing gets done with this hard-edged Megyn Kelly stance… She wasn’t well-informed; she mentioned the “17” intelligence agencies and didn’t know what the digital footprints Putin was talking about were.

The Nation: In the Megyn Kelly interview do you think Putin was referring to you when he said there’s a theory in the US that President Kennedy was killed by US intelligence?

Stone: I don’t know. He never talked about it with me… That was out of the blue, a surprise. But he accepted it, almost as a given, didn’t he? I definitely believe it and probably you do, too… Only the state apparatus could pull that off, not amateurs.

The Nation: In terms of the history of documentaries, can you compare The Putin Interviews to nonfiction films that tackle and upend congealed narratives, such as Michael Moore’s 2004 Fahrenheit 9/11, Errol Morris’ s 1988 The Thin Blue Line and 2003’s The Fog of War, Frederick Wiseman’s 1967 Titicut Follies, Emile de Antonio and Mark Lane’s 1967 Rush to Judgment? These documentaries had countervailing points of view and helped changed public opinion. Can you put The Putin Interviews into that context?

Stone: We don’t know yet. Hopefully it will contribute to peace or harmony or a better understanding. Yes, totally, I’m into a consciousness of another world, an alternative. I don’t understand why we fight wars…

What do you call it: Stone/Putin? Some people say Frost/Nixon. But that was all in the past—this is present. This is a chance for this crazy filmmaker to go over there and ask, “What are you really saying? Can we hear it?”

The Putin Interviews premieres on Showtime June 12 at 9 pm ET/PT, with one-hour portions of the interviews aired nightly through June 15.

The Conspiracy Mill

5/28/2017 – (GLOBALINTELHUB)– Ever since JFK the word ‘conspiracy theory’ has been used to discredit anyone holding a non-conventional view, such as based on facts regarding the CIA’s role in providing security at Area 51 (and the point being, what are they doing there?).  But since the Trump election ‘conspiracy theorists’ like Alex Jones have been thrust to the forefront of the mainstream information curve.

It seems now the Democrats will stop at nothing to create their own ‘fake news’ and ‘conspiracies’ to destroy the fairly elected Donald Trump.  But many of us remember it was recently Republicans creating ‘vast right wing conspiracies’ about leading Democrats.  The fact is, there is little difference between the two parties, they are both funded by the same sponsors.  This groundbreaking documentary explains how the world really works from the ground up; the tools used to manipulate the population into blind submission.  This is a must watch – but bear in mind a few tidbits;

  • JFK as an event is completely irrelevant today; however – as it was so deep in the past, it’s possible to analyze it better than more recent events like 911 (even though there is less forensic evidence).  It isn’t just for history buffs, it explains how the world ‘really’ works.  In the case of FX, it shows the simple path leading Nixon to office and finally the creation of a free floating FX regime.  (THINK:  If JFK survived, would we have FX?)
  • The tools built by the military industrial complex post World War 2 have evolved only in technology, they are using the same bag of tricks.  Thus, by understanding how this game works, we can better understand what’s going on today, whether it be how to improve your business, your finances, your portfolio, or understanding of the upside down pyramid structure that runs the world.

Importantly, the CIA has been engaged in the conspiracy mill in foreign countries for years.  Part of winning any war, is first winning an information war.  But this strategy was used in a domestic political election, clearly a violation of their mandate.  And, logically – if they will violate their mandate once it is logical to assume they would for any other reason they deem necessary.  Or who knows what lengths they may go through to justify their power and expanding budgets (i.e. Project Blue Beam).

Message for traders/investors: If you understand how significant events like 911 were rigged, as large scale Hollywood productions, you can understand how markets are rigged, and thus – see things for what they really are.

VICE Meets Glenn Greenwald: Snowden’s Journalist of Choice

Glenn Greenwald (born March 6, 1967) is an American columnist, blogger, and author. He was a columnist for Guardian US from August 2012 to October 2013.[1][2][3] He was a columnist for from 2007 to 2012, and an occasional contributor to The Guardian.[4][5][6] Greenwald worked as a constitutional and civil rights litigator. At Salon he contributed as a columnist and blogger, focusing on political and legal topics.[7] He has also contributed to other newspapers and political news magazines, including The New York Times,[8][9][10] the Los Angeles Times,[11] The American Conservative,[12] The National Interest,[13] and In These Times.[14][15]

We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks

We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks is a 2013 American independent documentary film about the organization started by Julian Assange, and people involved in the collection and distribution of secret information and media by whistleblowers. It covers a period of several decades, and includes considerable background material.

Read More: 

New perspectives – what’s wrong with TED talks? Benjamin Bratton at TEDxSanDiego 2013 – Re:Think

With all due respect to Lizzie Velasquez, the vast majority of TED and TEDx talks are complete bullshit, and it’s high time someone called them out on it.

Benjamin Bratton, Associate Professor of Visual Arts at the University of California, San Diego, has a huge problem with TED, and he isn’t afraid to tell them so right to their face.

At a recent TEDx event in San Diego, Bratton delivered a talk called “What’s Wrong with TED Talks?”

“The first reason is over-simplification,” Bratton says at the start of his speech. “To be clear, I have nothing against the idea of interesting people who do smart things explaining their work doing in a way that everyone can understand, but TED goes way beyond that.”

Bratton then launches into a terrifying anecdote to explain what he means:

I was recently at a presentation that a friend, an astrophysicist, was making to a potential donor, and I thought this talk was lucid, and engaging, and I’m a professor of visual arts here at UC San Diego so at the end of the day, I know really nothing about astrophysics. The donor, however, said, ‘you know what, I’m gonna pass. I’m just not inspired. You should be more like Malcolm Gladwell.’

Bratton was livid: “Can you imagine? A scientist who creates real knowledge should be more like a journalist who recycles fake insights. This is not popularization. This is taking something with substance and value and coring it out so that it can be swallowed without chewing. This is not how we’ll confront one of our most frightening problems – this is one of our most frightening problems.”

You should absolutely watch the entire talk, but if you’re short on time, just read the full text of Bratton’s “take away”:

As for one simple take away … I don’t have one simple take away, one magic idea. That’s kind of the point. […]

‘Innovation’ defined as moving the pieces around and adding more processing power is not some Big Idea that will disrupt a broken status quo: that precisely is the broken status quo.

One TED speaker said recently, ;If you remove this boundary … the only boundary left is our imagination.’ Wrong.

If we really want transformation, we have to slog through the hard stuff (history, economics, philosophy, art, ambiguities, contradictions). Bracketing it off to the side to focus just on technology, or just on innovation, actually prevents transformation.

Instead of dumbing-down the future, we need to raise the level of general understanding to the level of complexity of the systems in which we are embedded and which are embedded in us. This is not about ‘personal stories of inspiration,’ it’s about the difficult and uncertain work of demystification and reconceptualisation: the hard stuff that really changes how we think. More Copernicus, less Tony Robbins.

There Will Be No Economic Recovery. Prepare Yourself Accordingly.

Plutonium Circus – documentary

Documentary about the Pantex nuclear weapons plant in northern Texas.

More about Pantex:

The Pantex plant is America’s only nuclear weapons assembly and disassembly facility and is charged with maintaining the safety, security and reliability of the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile. The facility is located on a 16,000 acre (65 km2) site 17 miles (27 km) northeast of Amarillo, in Carson County, Texas in the Panhandle of Texas. The plant is managed and operated for the United States Department of Energy by BWXT Pantex andSandia National Laboratories. BWXT Pantex is a limited liability enterprise of Babcock & Wilcox Technical Services GroupHoneywell and Bechtel.

Nuclear Waste: Dumped and Forgotten – Industrial Atlantic Ocean Water Radiological Contamination

Countdown to catastrophe: Earthquake in North America

A is for Atom

The Pathology of the Rich – Chris Hedges on Reality Asserts Itself

Paul Jay, Senior Editor, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Paul Jay in Baltimore. And welcome to Reality Asserts Itself. A few weeks ago, we did a series of interviews with Chris Hedges, and one of the things we talked about was the weakness of the left, the weakness of the people’s movement, if you will. Well, we’re going to continue that discussion now. And Chris joins us again in the studio.

Chris, as everyone probably knows by now, is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and a senior fellow at the Nation Institute. Along with Joe Sacco he wrote the New York Times bestseller Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt. And he writes a weekly column for Truthdig.

Thanks for joining us.

Chris Hedges, Journalist, Senior Fellow at the Nation Institute: Thank you.

Jay: So last time we talked a lot about something you had said in 2008 and you’ve written more recently about: one of the greatest weaknesses of the left was not creating a viable vision of what an alternative politics and economy looks like, a viable vision of a socialism. But you’ve written more recently about some other weaknesses, you could say, of the people’s movement, and here’s one. And I’ll read it back. This is a piece you wrote called “Let’s Get This Class War Started”, which I guess is a play on Pink’s song, is it? “Let’s Get This Party Started”. The quote is: “The inability to grasp the pathology of our oligarchic rulers is one of our gravest faults.” What are you talking about?

Hedges: Because we don’t understand the pathology of the rich. We’ve been saturated with cultural images and a kind of cultural deification of wealth and those who have wealth. We are being–you know, they present people of immense wealth as somehow leaders–oracles, even. And we don’t grasp internally what it is an oligarchic class is finally about or how venal and morally bankrupt they are. We need to recover the language of class warfare and grasp what is happening to us, and we need to shatter this self-delusion that somehow if, as Obama says, we work hard enough and study hard enough, we can be one of them. The fact is, the people who created the economic mess that we’re in were the best-educated people in the country–Larry Summers, a former president of Harvard, and others. The issue is not education. The issue is greed. And I, unfortunately, had the experience of being shipped off to a private boarding school at the age of ten as a scholarship student and live–I was one of 16 kids on scholarship, and I lived among the super-rich and I watched them. And I think much of my hatred of authority and my repugnance for the ruling elite comes from having been among them for so long.

Jay: Yeah. People don’t understand the elite schools, even at the high school level, that they get–the kids get excellent educations, but they learn the whole culture of hundreds or thousands of years of how to rule.

Hedges: Right.

Jay: And a deep, rich understanding of it.

Hedges: Not only that, but they–you know, and George Bush is a perfect example of that.

Jay: Well, not so much an example of deep, rich understanding, but–.

Hedges: No, but of how–you know, affirmative action for the rich. And I came–certainly my mother’s side of the family–from, you know, lower working class. I mean, people–one of my uncles lived in a trailer in Maine, and certainly people with no means. And I would juxtapose the world I was in with that world. And it was very clear that it wasn’t about intelligence or aptitude. The fact is, if you’re poor, you only get one chance. If you’re wealthy like Bush, you get chance after chance after chance after chance. So you’re a C student at Andover, and you go to Yale, and you go to Harvard Business School, and you’re AWOL from your National Guard unit, and you’re a cokehead, and it doesn’t really matter. You don’t even really have a job till you’re 40 and you become president of the United States. So that was what was particularly insidious, how those small, tight elite oligarchic circles perpetuated themselves and promoted mediocrity (because many of these people like Bush are very mediocre human beings) at the expense of the rest of us, and how with money they game the system. And, of course, now we live in an oligarchic state where we’ve been rendered utterly powerless, and the judiciary, the legislative, the executive branches all subservient to an oligarchic corporate elite. And the press is owned by an oligarchic corporate elite, which makes sure that any critique of them is never broadcast over the airwaves.

Jay: And it’s not some, like, inherent evilness or something, but you are brought up as a super-rich or very rich in a culture, in a school, in a milieu where everyone’s there to serve you. It’s your right to be served.

Hedges: Yeah. It’s very distasteful to see, because, you know, I would go to the homes of friends of mine and watch–and let’s remember they’re children, 11, 12 years old, ordering around adults–their servants, their nannies. And I begin that piece by talking about Fitzgerald, who came from the Midwest to Princeton and went through much of the experience that I went through, and that apocryphal exchange–which didn’t take place, but it does represent the difference between Hemingway and Fitzgerald–where Fitzgerald at one point had written–the story is that he said the rich aren’t like you and I, and Hemingway is supposed to have quipped, yes, they have more money. Well, Hemingway, like on many things, was wrong. The rich are different, because when you have that much money, then human beings become disposable. Even friends and family become disposable and are replaced. And when the rich take absolute power, then the citizens become disposable, which is in essence what’s happened. There is a very callous indifference. I mean, these people–and C.Wrights Mills wrote about this in The Power Elite–they’re utterly cut off. I mean, the only people they ever meet who are members of the working class are people who work for them–they’re gardeners or they’re chauffeurs. They live in self-encased bubbles. They have no real contact with reality. I mean, they don’t even fly on commercial airlines. And yet they have absolute power. Now, that becomes very dangerous politically because they’re so out of touch and they are able to retreat into their enclaves in the same way that you saw in France under Louis XVI, people retreating to Versailles, or the end of the Chinese dynasty when everybody went to the Forbidden City.

Jay: He said “Après moi, le déluge,” does he not?

Hedges: Yeah. And that’s, I think, you know, so that they will extract more and more and more, because they have no self-imposed limits, without understanding the economic, political, and social consequences of what they’re doing. So we have a popular uprising through the Occupy movement where people pour into public spaces to express legitimate grievances–student debt, the next bubble to go down, $1 trillion in debt, which we now saw, courtesy of our Congress, debt rates, you know, interest rates will actually go up in a couple of years, I mean, more than if they’d just taken it from a bank. It’s insane. And meanwhile the Federal Reserve is buying $85 billion a month worth of junk bonds and giving money at virtually zero percent interest to Goldman Sachs. I mean, it’s insane. The failure to address the mortgage and foreclosure crisis, the failure to address the chronic unemployment, underemployment, which–I mean, half of the country now lives in poverty, including the working poor, or near poverty. And what is the response? The response is to physically shut down the encampments, suspend unemployment benefits, cut food stamps, close things like Head Start. It’s crazy. And that’s what happens when you have an elite that is that unplugged, and which our elite is. So they will push and push and push myopically out of ignorance until something erupts. And that’s exactly where we’re headed.

Jay: It’s interesting. There are some children of the some of the super-rich–and I think Occupy had something to do with it–who kind of woken up a bit to the situation and don’t want to repeat the pattern of their parents, get some of the insanity of it.

Hedges: I don’t know if they’re children of the super-rich. I think that Occupy had a lot of children of the middle class.

Jay: No, no, I don’t mean the majority of Occupy.

Hedges: Oh.

Jay: But they’re actually know who some of these people are. And it’s interesting. They’re children of very, very wealthy people, and they have decided that, you know, there needs to be more to life than repeating this, living in this bubble.

Hedges: Well, they may be out there, but I don’t think they’re a majority.

Jay: They’re a very tiny minority.

Hedges: Most of them get sucked right into that cult of the self, which the super-rich managed to perpetuate at a rather nauseating level.

Jay: We were talking off-camera just before we started how we both knew Gore Vidal, and Vidal used to go on about the total amorality of the super-rich.

Hedges: Oh, he would know.

Jay: Well, he would know for a lot of reasons, one in terms of his own life, but also in terms of he knew many of these people.

Hedges: Well, so did I. I mean, and I think that’s what I’m getting at, exactly. I mean, you know, I wrote in that column about, you know, being at this boarding school and watching these fathers pull up in their limousines, fathers who had very little contact with their sons, with their personal photographers. And these were famous, wealthy men. And that picture of them playing with their son, which was total–you know, a fiction, would be disseminated through the press. Yeah, amorality, hedonism, selfishness, callousness.

Jay: And part of it is the total willingness to accept, for example, that ordinary people’s families should send their kids off to war to defend the American way of life, which means essentially their way of life, can die for these things. It’s almost a kind of racism. I mean, when the British enslaved the Irish–you don’t have to be black and of color to be thought of as less than human. And that seems to be what the super-rich think about most other people.

Hedges: Well, and not just the working class, I mean, the kind of disdain for the working class and also the middle class–I mean, in some way the way that they would speak about the middle class. And, you know, in essence, coming out of the middle class, this was something that struck home to me. Yeah, they inhabit another world, and they have very sophisticated mechanisms of public relations and well-publicized acts of philanthropy to hide their private faces. But how they act when the doors close and how they act in public is very different. And having, as Vidal was, as Fitzgerald was, having been behind those closed doors and seen the decadence of the ruling elite, it certainly marked me for the rest of my life and it defined for me at a very early age who my enemies were.

Jay: You quote in your article Karl Marx writing, “The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships,” Marx wrote, “the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.” Why did that hit you?

Hedges: Well, because the whole notion of the free market–laissez-faire capitalism, globalization–is a very thin rationale for unmitigated greed by a tiny oligarchic elite. And they have made sure that that ideology is taught in universities across the country. And people, especially economists, who deviate from that ideology have been pushed aside, have become pariahs. And yet the driving ethos of that ideology is really to justify the hoarding of immense amounts of wealth by a very tiny percentage of, you know, the upper ruling class. That’s what it is. I mean, the whole lie of globalization, perpetuated by people who popularize it, like Tom Friedman, has already been exposed. I mean, the idea that it’s going to lift all of us up and create middle-class and, you know, well-compensated working-class families in the Third World, I mean, all of it’s been exposed.

Jay: And I think part of it, his point, is that this isn’t just some innate ideas that everyone is essentially greedy, these people just happen to be rich, and you’re not as lucky you’re as smart as they are; it’s that it comes from what he calls the material conditions, about, like, how stuff is owned, who has power as a result of concentration of ownership, how things are distributed. It’s not that–you know, it doesn’t have to be this way. It’s a product of how the society is organized.

Hedges: Right. And so in that sense the ideology serves the system, the intellectual class serves the system. Those economists whose voices are heard, who get tenure, serve the system; and those who don’t serve the system don’t have a job. And that’s what Marx was getting at. And I think that’s extremely true. I mean, we don’t live in a free-market society. We live in a society where corporations at will loot the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve and are bailed out by the taxpayer. And yet that fact of kind of corporate socialism for corporations is ignored. And yet it is–and that’s dangerous, because there is an utter disconnect from the language that we use to describe our economic system and the reality of our economic system, which is essentially a system where corporations have become predators on government and taxpayer money. And we’re all going to pay for it, because most of this stuff, these bonds that they’re buying up, is garbage. You know, it is things like foreclosed homes that on the books are worth $600,000 but in reality, because the electricity has been turned off, the basement’s flooded, you’d have to spend money to raise it to put up anything of any kind of value. And that is going to blow right up in our face.

Jay: And this idea that you’re expressing, that the majority of professional paid intellectuals, professors and writers and pundits, the idea that the free market is the fundamental assumption and starting point, to suggest anything else might work is sacrilegious, and then some people say, well, that’s ’cause America’s always been like this. America’s this center-right country. But it’s not true. And, you know, pre-World War II in the 1930s and right after World War II there was a big public debate about what kind of economy, what kind of politics, and there was a real campaign waged to get rid of public intellectuals, get rid of union militants, get rid of actors and directors. Anyone that wanted to have this public discourse was hounded out of office

Hedges: Well, I write death of the liberal class is really that story, how all of these people were silenced, pushed to the margins, stripped of employment, including, like, even high school teachers. I mean, Ellen Schrecker, the historian, has done a good job on this.

Jay: Just quickly, for people who don’t know what we’re talking about, we’re talk about the House Un-American Activities, McCarthyism, and a real campaign to try to move anyone with a kind of progressive socialist idea out of anything.

Hedges: Right. And they were effective, I mean, in a way, far more effective than in Europe. I mean, in Europe, you’ll still have a residue. We’ve been robbed of language by which we can express the reality of what we’re undergoing. And that’s because, you know, our radical populist dissident movements, those who offered a critique of the power elite, have been banished or silenced.

Jay: Now, you write something here which, you know, if you–you would not be allowed to say on mainstream news anywhere. You write:”Class struggle defines most of human history. Marx got this right. The sooner we realize that we are locked in deadly warfare with our ruling, corporate elite, the sooner we will realize that these elites must be overthrown.”There’s a massive campaign not even to use the words class warfare. In fact, if you talk class, people accuse you of being essentially anti-American.

Hedges: I don’t think you can understand the nature of capitalism if you don’t understand the nature of class warfare. You know, if I was running a Wall Street firm, I’d only hire Marxian economists, because they understand that capitalism is about exploitation. Marx got that right. And that gets back to the nature of the ruling elite. I mean, we are the most illusioned society on the planet. The airwaves are awash in lies. You know, they very skillfully know how to humanize figures, I mean, even idiots like Donald Trump, to mask what it is they’re actually doing to the rest of us. And I think we have to begin to puncture the very effective mirages that have been created–and corporations, of course, spend billions of dollars to create these mirages–to understand our reality. I mean, look at BP. You’d think BP was Greenpeace, given the amount of commercials that they’re running about how much they care about the Gulf, when in fact they turned the waters of the Gulf into a dead zone and poisoned the shrimp and all the other which they’re selling us to eat. And yet we don’t have mechanisms by which–or certainly within the mainstream. What major network is going to go do a serious documentary on BP? You’re not going to confront those interests, because at this point, these interests, you know, they own or control the systems of information, as well as the systems of education.

Jay: So your article ends with: “The only route left to us, as Aristotle knew, is revolt.”

Hedges: Well, because the mechanisms of incremental and piecemeal reform don’t work. And you talked about the New Deal. The New Deal was the classic example of that kind of safety valve. And as Roosevelt said, I mean, his greatest achievement was that he saved capitalism. And in the stupidity of the corporate oligarchic elite, they destroyed the liberal class. I mean, we still have a self-identified liberal class, but they no longer do anything to defend the interests of those they claim to represent, whether that’s the working class, the middle class, labor, or anyone else. And by destroying that safety valve, by destroying that liberal class, those mechanisms that made piecemeal and incremental reform possible, you no longer can adjust the system. So you can’t ameliorate the suffering or the grievances of the underclass. And now we’re talking about half the country. Now, that means that if you want to resist, if you want to create change, you can’t do it through political parties, you can’t do it through the courts, you can’t do it through a corporatized media. You have to step outside the system and create popular mechanisms, mass movements that will begin to put pressure in a cruder way on the centers of power. That is the only hope we have left.

Jay: You say you can’t do incremental reform. The elite can’t even pass regulations that would serve their own interests, in terms of controlling financial speculation, for example, a simple change in terms of position limits at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, that anyone that wants some kind of functioning capitalist system would want to have this so that you don’t have another financial collapse as 2008. They can’t even pass that.

Hedges: But they don’t–the people who are running Wall Street don’t give a damn about–they know it’s going to collapse. And what they’re doing is stealing as fast, as much as they can on the way out the door. There’s a very deep cynicism

Jay: Well, they make money–they make money after the collapse as well, ’cause they know the state’s there to bail them out.

Hedges: Right. But, you know, this time around it’s going to be a little harder to pilfer state funds. I mean, they’ll certainly attempt to do that. But, you know, the goal is so self-centered. You have–I think the head of United Healthcare made $1 billion–I mean, it’s insane—last year. I think I have that right. But certainly hundreds of millions of dollars [incompr.] And it’s all about amassing little monuments to themselves, little empires to themselves. You know, I have relatives who work on Wall Street, and their critique is not any different from mine. The difference is they’re just grabbing is much as they can on the way out the door. And I think that is always symptomatic of a kind of dying civilization.

Jay: Yeah. Marx was asked once to describe the psychology of a capitalist, and it was what we talked about a little earlier: après moi, le déluge, after me, come the floods. I’ll get what I can today, and if the society is toast later, too bad.

Hedges: And I think they know it’s going to be toast. And I think they think that they’re going to retreat into their, you know, gated compounds and survive it. And they may survive it longer than the rest of us, but in the end, climate change alone is going to get us.

Jay: So it’s up to us. Don’t expect anything from the oligarchs.

Hedges: No. And not only that, they are creating systems in terms of exploitation not only of us but of the ecosystem that, if left unchecked, will ensure the extinction of the human species. It may already be too late, of course. But, you know, allowing the fossil fuel industry or these corporations to determine our relationship to the environment is a form of collective insanity at this point.

Jay: Thanks for joining us

Hedges: Thank you.

Jay: And thank you for joining us on Reality Asserts Itself on The Real News Network.

Chris Hedges, whose column is published Mondays on Truthdig , spent nearly two decades as a foreign correspondent in Central America, the Middle East, Africa and the Balkans. He has reported from more than 50 countries and has worked for The Christian Science Monitor, National Public Radio, The Dallas Morning News and The New York Times, for which he was a foreign correspondent for 15 years. He has written nine books, including Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle (2009), I Don’t Believe in Atheists (2008) and the best-selling American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America (2008). His book War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning (2003) was a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award for Nonfiction.

Wage Crisis – The USA’s new underclass

Will Work For Free

What’s the biggest threat to humanity you can think of? Pollution, disease, natural disasters, terrorism, crime, drugs…? But do we ever think about our basic life support needs? We usually don’t have to because luckily for us we have a system. It’s a system where you can gain employment and work for money which of course provides access to food, water and shelter. And it’s a good thing we have this system because without money you’re as good as dead.

But if you don’t have a job you don’t need to worry because again we have a system. If you’re out of work for whatever reason simply apply for government aid. All the people with jobs pay taxes and since the government understands that a certain level of unemployment as to some degree is to be expected, it simply relocates some of that tax money and hands over to those without jobs through a magical process calledredistribution. It makes you wonder, if this is the solution for unemployment than where is the threshold? What level of unemployment is sustainable and what would happen if all these jobs suddenly disappear?

This isn’t the first time unemployment has been a threat to this system. Twenty years ago unemployment accounted for 10% of the UK’s population. It marked one of the worst recessions in their history with significant waves of rioting. However, in 1993 unemployment took a turn. Somehow the jobs came back and things got better. This growth and employment was just what they needed, however only lasted until 2001. Then the rate stagnated and increased again.

By 2009 they were back to 8%. But it is reassuring to see that recent trends of unemployment have slowed since then, or at least it would be reassuring if it weren’t for the fact that the increase of the part-time employment runs almost parallel to the decrease of the full-time employment. Technically more people are unemployed and the rate falsely implies a slight slowdown of job loss. In reality the amount of available work is shrinking and the economy is only getting worse.


We Are Legion – The Story of the Hacktivists

We Are Legion: The Story of the Hacktivists is a 2012 documentary film about the workings and beliefs of the self-described “hacktivist” collective, Anonymous.

What Is Free Banking, and Why Should I Care?

The establishment has invested heavily in the current system, including the education of the system.  There is a pervasive thinking that our current system is the ‘best’ and the ‘only’ modern financial system viable.  But history has shown more than 50 examples of free banking systems (not managed by central banks) that have produced excellent results.

Silver & Gold – Hidden Secrets Of Money – Mike Maloney

Mike Maloney warns thatThe world will have a new monetary system in this decade… people will simply lose confidence in currency, and what do they always go back to through out history? Time after time, for the last 5000 years, they always go back to gold and silver.” This excellent documentary – which focuses on the inevitability of the seven stages of empire – and the endgame of the most predictable long-term economic cycle, connects the dots across 140 years of monetary history.

Part 1 – Currency vs Money

Part 2 – Seven Stages Of Empire

Part 3 – Dollar Crisis To Golden Opportunity

Part 4 – The Biggest Scam In The History Of Mankind

‘Congress all bribed, has zero confidence in eyes of American people’

Further Reading:

Dr. Jim Willie-Big Banks in Danger of Imploding

An Empire of Money and Privilege in Decline: Portrait of a Tragic Policy Error

“Everybody, sooner or later, sits down to a banquet of consequences.” Robert Louis Stevenson

“They don’t have intelligence. They have what I call thintelligence. They see the immediate situation. They think narrowly and they call it ‘being focused.’ They don’t see the surroundings. They don’t see the consequences.” Michael Crichton

The Fed is faced with a problem that is best represented by the first two charts below.

Velocity of money is a simple ratio measure of money supply and GNP. It intends to represent the number of times a unit of money is exchanged in a transaction over a period of time.

As you can see, the velocity of the two broad money supply measures is dropping to historic lows.

Is this because the great mass of people are ‘hoarding money,’ which implies that one should lower real interest on savings, even taking them more deeply into the negative through monetary inflation in order to encourage spending through fear of de facto confiscation?

The third chart gives some insight into the true nature of the economic problem. Most of the income gains this century and for the past two or three decades of the past have been flowing to the top few percent of US households. The median household, the middle if you will, has been steadily losing ground in large part to Fed and political policy decisions driven by a mistaken ideology and a top down or trickle down approach to prosperity.

If the Fed pursues monetary inflation, without taking strong steps, even through the use of its bully pulpit and actions as regulator, to correct the severe policy imbalances that lopsidedly favor the wealthy financiers, it will drive the US middle class over an economic cliff and destroy the very system which it is attempting to save.

That is the basis of the tragic policy error of the Fed and the ruling class. Jeffrey Sachs has noted it in a recent talk to the Philly Fed shown below, and Bill Black has some particularly scathing words today for the ‘Hyper-meritocracy Led by Criminal Morons.’ I might have said self-delusional narcissists or even sociopaths rather than morons. The majority of those who enable the abuse of power are merely careerists.

One can make the strong case that the primary responsibility for this is in the political leadership. But one cannot also deny that as policy influencer and regulator the Fed has favored, quite actively, the growth of imbalances and social and economic injustice by pursuing a blind allegiance to a mistaken theory of deregulation and oligopoly of banking capital.

An audacious oligarchy needs someone to rescue them from themselves. And this will not be an easy task because the system is corrupted and the powerful have been blinded by greed. The current political deadlock in Washington is a symptom of the problem. There is always an element that believes in a long range plan consisting of repression as required, disinformation, and plundering the weak.

The monied class do not ‘create jobs.’ Genuine organic and systemic demand for good and services creates jobs, and those who have the means respond to that demand. It is a virtuous cycle that begins with consumer demand, and the willingness and the ability to pay for it. Yes there may be a role for inorganic demand such as stimulus to ‘kick start’ an economy caught in a policy error trap, but it is the reforms that allow for organic growth that make it sustainable.

Moving offshore to find new demand for markets while abandoning one’s domestic base to decline and failure, in the true colonial fashion of past economic empires, is a form of neurotic failure. It often lights a fire in men’s minds, and becomes a sort of self-fulfilling cultural suicide. And perhaps this is embodied in the latest corporatist deal which is the infamously secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership.

How fitting that, having overturned most of the financial reforms of the past century, we stand here now on the brink, on the 75th anniversary of the New Deal, with essentially the same set of problems facing us that brought the world down so low in The Great Depression, and opened the door to the madness that followed.

“I believe we have a crisis of values that is extremely deep, because the regulations and the legal structures need reform. But I meet a lot of these people on Wall Street on a regular basis right now. I’m going to put it very bluntly. I regard the moral environment as pathological…

If you look at the campaign contributions, which I happened to do yesterday for another purpose, the financial markets are the number one campaign contributors in the U.S. system now. We have a corrupt politics to the core, I’m afraid to say, and no party is – I mean there’s – if not both parties are up to their necks in this. This has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans. It really doesn’t have anything to do with right wing or left wing, by the way. The corruption is, as far as I can see, everywhere.

But what it’s led to is this sense of impunity that is really stunning and you feel it on the individual level right now. And it’s very very unhealthy, I have waited for four years, five years now to see one figure on Wall Street speak in a moral language.

And I’ve have not seen it once. And that is shocking to me. And if they won’t, I’ve waited for a judge, for our president, for somebody, and it hasn’t happened. And by the way it’s not going to happen any time soon, it seems…

The final point, of course, is separating the politicians from the crooks, but maybe that’s so close together that they can’t actually be separated. Maybe it’s just the same community.”

Jeffrey Sachs, Fixing the Banking System For Good, Philadelphia Fed, April 17th, 2013