Video Pages \ Controlled Opposition

Transcript

This transcript was produced by AI. We will provide a formatted version as time permits.

This is the last class that we will be broadcasting. And so just as an FYI, the final class talking about solutions, We like to just do it with people that it's not just out of curiosity. It's something that they're interested in. They've liked what we've done so far. And so they reach out to us. And so again, after this final class tonight, if you would like to reach out to me and talk about the solutions, we can, we'll go over. If you've got maybe even a group of people, we could do it, either online like this or in person. And so again, this is the last class that is online, that is broadcast to everybody. Our solutions class is meant for those that are just after seeing what we've done are interested in saying, yeah, I like what you've said, and I'm interested in what your solutions are and maybe even possibly becoming a member and joining with you. So that's Just let you guys know as just a heads up. With that, let's go ahead and get started with tonight's class. So this idea of controlled opposition, right, the idea of wolves and sheep's clothing, not understanding this. We covered the conspiracy, the last two classes, and even understanding the conspiracy, this idea right here of wolves and sheep's clothing is one of the most difficult things that we've had, that people have to be able to convert the idea of conspiracy to applying it to people that they are following in either media, government, or whatever it is. Without this, without understanding this principle, we will continue to fall for conspirators and the conspiracy's solutions, because even though we understand the conspiracy, If we don't understand this principle, we will give bad guys the benefit of the doubt and continue to trust them and follow down the path that they are leading, which is designed, when we'll cover these specifically, to make sure that we are in as ineffective as possible. And so in addition to the conspiracy, this principle right here is one of the most important principles to making sure that we are as effective as possible in our activism. We are going to get into specific names of wolves and sheep's clothing. We're not trying to make people angry. We're not trying to offend you by naming maybe people that you just love. It's one of those things, you know, reaching people where they're at and making sure, right, we're not going to go, you know, typically, we don't go up to people and say, hey, you know your favorite politician or you know your favorite media personality. Well, they're actually satanic conspirators. You know, it's not one of those top list of things to do to win. I don't know. to put our egos back a little bit and put them on check for a second and be willing to say, you know what, maybe my favorite personality isn't who I thought they were. And so I hope you'll bear with us and be patient with us as we explain this principle. So let's get into that a little bit more. The Savior taught a key principle for us to start to identify these people. He says, beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves, and you shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles? The Savior doesn't say judge them by their words. He says, judge them by their fruits. What are they producing? What are they doing? What are their actions? Because it's very easy to say the right things. A wolf and sheep's clothing, somebody that is, they're trying to fool you, will say the things that they think you want to hear. And so they're going to talk about the Constitution. They're going to talk about the founding fathers. But then their solutions, their actions, their fruits, what they're producing, are not going to be something that is actually producing liberty, but they're actually designed to get us off track. So this is one of the first key principles for us to start to identify who are people that aren't actually what they appear to be. And so Taylor Codwell wrote a book called A Pillar of Iron where she also lays out a principle where she says, a nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious, but it cannot survive treason from within. You know, those people that are outside, those are the ones that conspirators will want you to focus on because they're on the side and they don't want you to look at them. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys heard in the very halls of government itself. They dress like you, they talk like you, they're going to say all the things that they think you want to hear. For the traitor appears not to be a traitor. Now we go off to this principle that also we need to understand is that one, if we can accept the idea that we've been fooled in the past, are currently fooled in some ways and will be fooled in the future, have no hope in defeating the conspiracy. I admit it, I've been fooled. It's taken me time of, you know, after time of making mistakes, trusting the wrong people to start to understand these key principles. And so it's okay to make mistakes. There's a great, you know, talks that people, there's a guy on YouTube, I watched a video that he said he likes to be the dumbest guy in the room, where if somebody's, you know, giving a presentation and he doesn't understand, to not be afraid to say, I don't get it, to maybe look stupid to everybody else that is appearing to understand, but recognizing that we all have something new to learn. And so it's important for us to realize that we've been fooled in the past. I've been fooled in the past. I'm sure there's things that we don't know, we don't know. I don't know maybe right now some of the things that I'm fooled by. And that, of course, there are chances that I'll be fooled in the future. But understanding the principles we're going to go over tonight will help us to mitigate this as we apply it. So Vladimir Lenin, he explained this principle very well himself because he used it. He said the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves. Setting up your own opposition so that way when people, he no doubt recognized that there would be people that opposed him. And so he would get ahead of it and start his own group that said, Stalin, you know, Lenin is bad. And so that way anybody that opposed Lenin would A, be identified. And B, they would make sure that they were sent off on tracks that wouldn't actually do any damage to Lennon himself. So controlled opposition, what is it exactly and how does it work? We've kind of laid those foundations, give me a little bit of a definition of it, but we want to kind of show you this. He says, we see here it's a strategy in which an individual, an organization, or movement is covertly controlled or influenced by a third party, whereby the The entity's true purpose is something other than its publicly stated purpose. We have here this illustration of the slaughterhouse, but we have it, you know, sectioned off of left versus right. Like we have this choice of, yeah, yeah, they're both going to the slaughterhouse, but, you know, maybe this side of the path is going to be slower to the slaughterhouse. And so, yeah, that's better. This illusion of free choice. The controlled identity serves a role of mass deception, surveillance, and or political and social manipulation. They're going to identify. They're going to surveil those that are opposed to the official line, and they're going to make sure they're going to manipulate your political or social thinking. In most cases, the controlled party is portrayed as being in opposition to the interest of the controlling party. They are a part of the controlling party, but outwardly to the masses, they are showing themselves as being opposed to the controlling party. We think of that old rare rabbit and brayer fox where he says, you know, don't throw me in that briar patch. He's saying, you know, outwardly he's saying, oh, I don't want this thing where that's his home. And so that's exactly where he wants to go and that's exactly how false opposition works their objectives what are the things that they're trying to do they want to capture wayward flocks and guide them into the conspirators fold they guide all individuals through the emotional process to the ultimate conclusion and acceptance of the conspiracy's narrative they mitigate any actions against the conspiracy or make those actions actually profit them They're going to make your opposition to them actually help them out in the long run. So if we don't understand false opposition, then the cards are stacked against us. Everything that is going on is designed to make sure that we're not effective when we don't understand false opposition. So their tactics that they use, we're going to go over these and we're going to lay them out. And then we're going to go over them specifically into individually in more detail. So they control the argument. They make false attacks on people that are their friends. And so that way you think, oh, my goodness, CNN's against them. They must be fantastic. And then they also create a false hero where they will promote somebody as the champion of the cause of liberty. You have political theater. You have false righteousness, pretending to be something that is grand when it is not. They want to make sure, make it look like you're consenting to what they're doing. They also engage in what's called black hole activism. And there's also fake freedom organizations, which are designed to be black hole. Also, a steam release. We're going to get into that. What does that even mean? Minor, they're going to engage in minor concessions. And then, of course, fake conspiracies, so that way you look like a fool because you're promoting a lie or something that's ridiculous. They're going to have manufactured events to get people into their corners. And then, of course, rapture cult and New Age Christianity that we covered in more depth than we will tonight in our first boot camp, which you can view right now in class number one. And so The next one is the final one is the myth of peaceful resistance, which I think this will be a shock to most people. So the controlled argument, false concepts used for this tactic is, of course, only approved narratives are allowed. When you look in the controlled media, whether it's left or right, there's only acceptable narratives. The fact that we are facing a conspiracy, for is not accepted as well not one of the accepted narratives it's always about those darn left you know leftists or those rhinos it's never the fact that there's an actual conspiracy working to destroy liberty we have the straw man argument we have false choices and we i'm sorry we'll go back and we have false choices so these are the three that we're going to get into right now explaining what that means of the approved narratives. An example of an improved narrative, right? We have these individuals who are the choices that are presented to us. These are the acceptable narratives. We have scientific consensus. The Earth's climate is warming. And we have experts agree that inflation reduces, the Inflation Reduction Act accomplishes a lot for small business and working families. And then you get into the opposite, false opposition left and right with that. And so this this gets you into your corners of left versus right. If we don't support this, the Democrats are going to go off the deep end. And so we've got to support whatever the Republicans are doing to stop these things like the inflation reduction act or the conservative solution to climate change. And so It makes it look like that the actual conclusion is legitimate. It's just the way that we get there is where the debate is. And so that third option of, no, the conclusion, what this is based on is a complete fraud to begin with. The third option of not going into the slaughterhouse to begin with. We also have the straw man, the controlled argument. And this attempts to distract from and discredit in its beliefs by presenting them in an unfair and actually an inaccurate light. So to illustrate this, we're going to, we have a little cartoon here, a little comic that lays this out where you have the first individual saying, you want to go get some hamburgers? Straman says, could we get some pizza? So the reaction, the straw man, is what? You're saying that we should only ever eat pizza, that we should just burn down all hamburger stores? No, it's an inaccurate in representation of what I said. Because you didn't want hamburgers that one time, the straw man is you never want hamburgers for the rest of your life and that we need to destroy anybody that sells hamburgers. And so that's an example of a straw man argument that is used by the conspiracy to discredit individuals. They'll say something like, if there's a conspiracy, they're going to say, oh, you think everyone's Oh, you think everyone's a conspirator, instead of saying, well, of course there are conspiracies. That's just a fact. They want to discredit the idea that a conspiracy even exists by making it look like you think everybody is a conspirator. Then we have false choices, the argument using purposely hidden assumptions to control others' perceived options. They frame the debate to offer a narrowed set of options when, in fact, other, and of course, better ways actually exist. And often the choices are marketed as opposing, but are not significantly different. They accept the premise, and they're just arguing on how to get to that end premise, right? And so we have examples of how are you going to protect yourself from the coronavirus? And I'm not a lawyer. I can't answer your question about legislation, said the legislator that's writing the bill if you don't vote republican the democrats will win are you voting republican or democrat these false choices that are out there so the false choices republican versus democrat right of course if you don't vote republican the democrats are going to win it's a false choice not recognizing that they're both on the same team of course the conspiracy is going to approve that narrative Ivermectin versus the vaccine. How are we going to fight COVID, right? Well, the fact that they're both agreeing that COVID's a problem, as opposed to the flu, and there was no actually increased deaths, so there's no reason to treat it any differently, the situation any differently than you normally would, but they want to make it about the COVID is legitimate, and so are you going to get vaccinated or are you going to get the ivermectin or something else it's still the preconceived notion that the coronavirus is a real problem and of course the conspiracy is going to approve this argument because it settles it it makes everybody agree on the narrative so then we also have false choices working isn't capitalism isn't working you have stopped the steel my body my choice how vaccine foes co -opted the abortion, rallying cry. You have children, protect children, not guns, my body, my choice. And so all of these different things out there where they have these fake arguments where you're against abortion, if you're in support of life, that means you're not in favor of choice or you're not in favor of agency, et cetera. And so if you like the Second Amendment, you want to protect your family, you want to protect your children. That means you're against children. And so they have these false choices out there. And so then we see the political theater where on TV you have the Democrats and Republicans pretending to fight each other. They're going to argue and they're going to say that the other side hates children, the other side hates freedom. And they're, you know, we've just got to, whatever side you're on, you've got to pick one because this is a real battle. Whereas behind the scenes, they're actually helping each other. They're actually on the same side. Now, they're not just friends. They're actually promoting and working on the same agenda together. And we just don't realize it because we're looking at the words as opposed to the fruit. So we're going to kind of look at an example, a specific example of political theater. We're going to start with something, right, that happened in the past, make it a little bit easier for us to kind of accept the fact that we were probably fooled. And so a lot of people, right, you're going to say here, well, the lesser of two evils. You know, of course, George Bush, you know, we didn't agree with everything. We can't have perfection. And so, but at least he's better than Bill Clinton. And so we've got to choose the lesser of these two evils. And so a great speaker on the Constitution, man by the name of Stephen Pratt, who's no longer with us, actually gave a presentation, giving these two men as examples, of what happens when we choose the lesser of two evils based on what we see on TV. What is the media feeding us of who's the lesser of two evils? And answering, asking ourselves these questions, who increased the debt more? So we're going to find out, who's the lesser of these two evils? Who increased the debt more? It was actually George W. Bush that increased the debt more. Who spent more money unconstitutionally? It was actually George W. Bush that spent more money unconstitutionally than Bill Clinton. Who grew government more? By a long shot, it was George W. Bush more than Bill Clinton. Who sent more troops into UN wars? Again, George W. Bush. Who attacked the Second Amendment more? That one, you might have a little bit of a, you know, back and forth on that one. Who got the feds more involved in education? George W. Bush. Who defended abortion more? Abortion rights actually expanded, and more money, more funding from the government went to abortion under Bush than actually Clinton. Who had more globalists in his cabinet? Shockingly enough, maybe to some of you, it was actually George W. Bush that had more globalists in his cabinet than even Bill Clinton. That pesky, horrible Democrat, that was just an immoral person that was trying to take our guns and was working with China, as a horrible as a person he was, if you're judging it on these things, you're going to say that actually Bill Clinton was the lesser of two eagles. But that's the false argument. It's not about the lesser of two evils because we're not told the full story. We need to understand that it's a distraction because both of these men are on the same team. They're both fighting for world government. They're both working to destroy the liberty and independence of this nation. And so fighting about who's the worse or who's the better is a distraction that benefits the conspiracy because you're still picking between two globalists. So both of them are going to get you to where the conspiracy wants you to be. So left right, it's the same evil outcome. Is it the lesser of two evils? No, of course not we have this cartoon here, that every election is just like, you know, the turkey choosing between the axe and the machete on which way he's going to die. Now, we want to compare, right? Because what is the propaganda that gets us to believe the lesser of two evils and that one person is less evil than another? Leading up to the first Bush administration when he was running for office, he would give these, they would have these debates, And he would present himself as being very much anti -globalism and pro -American independence. And so let's look at this. Let's see what does he say? What are his words? But we can't be all things to all people in the world, Jim. And I think that's where maybe the vice president and I begin to have some differences. I am worried about overcommitting our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. You mentioned Haiti? I wouldn't have sent troops to Haiti. I didn't think it was a mission worthwhile. It was a nation -building mission. And it was not very successful. It cost us billions, a couple of billions of dollars, and I'm not so sure democracy is any better off in Haiti than it was before. I'm not so sure the role of the United States is going around the world and say this is the way it's got to be. We can help. And maybe it's just our difference in government, the way we I mean, I want to empower people. I don't, you know, I want to help people help themselves, not have government tell people what to do. I just don't think it's the role of the United States to walk into a country say, we do it this way, so should you. So we see this is the narrative that they want you to think, that he's like, you know, this is just a difference in, you know, our philosophy of government. You believe in we should be the policemen of the world. And I think that we should empower people. And so he's saying that he's anti -globalist, he's pro, you know, just keeping America out of the affairs of the world. No, we're not the world's policemen. But what's the actual record, right? He had five nation building United Nations approved wars. He did more than the previous administration. So clearly what he was saying, his words were different than his fruits, as we're supposed to judge. And so, of course, right, as if there was a difference. after. No matter what, taxpayer money to the United Nations, global government, continues to go up. And so we need to start to understand this idea, right? So these fake attacks. So as a rule of this tactic, the attack is publicized and rarely has a significant negative impact on the target. The publicity stunt provides a benefit by creating public support for the target. The target is a new hero because, you know, the media is attacking him. That must mean he's doing a good thing. And so therefore, we have to support this new hero that is getting attacked by the conspiracy. The conspiracy hates me, but behind the scenes, you know, it was just a stunt that made people think that he was a good guy that the conspiracy hated. And so this is one of those examples. We're going to go over again, the public image versus the actual record, the fruits that were supposed to judge by. And so, you know, just some background like myself, this was a hard thing for me to accept because Ronald Reagan was the president when I was a kid growing up and I just, you know, loved his talks. And I was like in the second grade and my dad pulled me out of school and we're going to go to the state capital, we're going to hear President Reagan speak. And so you've got the nostalgia, you have that, you're hearing their words and you're like, yeah, that's exactly right. And you find it really hard to believe that they would be doing something not just not living up to the rhetoric, but the complete opposite of the rhetoric. So let's see what Reagan, what is the public image of Reagan and then compare it to the record. father sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. First of all, I think you must have some principles you believe in. In mine, I happen to believe in the people and believe that the people are supposed to be dominant in our society, that they, not government, are to have control of their own affairs to the greatest extent possible with an orderly society. Well, Johnny, I think that one of the things is that people keep looking to government for the answer, and government's the problem. Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall. So you have the rhetoric of an Anti -communist. Tear down this wall. Government's the problem, not the solution. I believe in empowering the people. That's what we think of when we think of Ronald Reagan. But there's a fantastic book called The Insiders by Jonathan McManus. I encourage you to all get a copy of. And look and it goes in even more detail than I'm able to go tonight on the record. But I think it's important for us to be able to go over that. What's the real Reagan? What's the real record of this man? Not just once he became president. Some people will say, well, yeah, he was scared because of that assassination attempt on him. Again, right, that false hero. Going back to even being governor of California, the record is the same. Started as governor of California, and he attended the Bohemian Grove rituals that we mentioned in the past two previous boot camps. As governor, he raised taxes. As governor, he raised test. write a check to the government and realize how much they're being manipulated and stolen from every single month, raised sales taxes and taxes on business. So even as governor of California, his spending increased more than the other states, including a 61 % in communist socialist welfare spending. He attacked, of course, Jimmy Carter when he was running for president for having CFR, Council on Form Relations and Trilateralists in his cabinet. But then after winning his first primary for the 1980 election, he replaced his campaign manager with a member of the Council on Formalations and globalist William Casey. And then he appointed Casey as the head of the CIA once he became president. He ran ads that were critical of George Bush seniors at membership in the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Formalations. But then after, of course, winning the nomination, he stated that he would pick a running mate with his values, and who did he pick with his values, the CFR trilateralist, George Herbert Walker Bush. He also appointed Council and Formalations members, Ambassador Anne Armstrong, Senator Howard Baker and Henry Kissinger as his foreign policy advisors, globalist as his foreign policy advisors. Then on election day, he appointed CFR members as Secretary of the Treasury and Secretary of Commerce. And then after stating that he opposed the Trilateral Commission, because they were soft on national defense, he appointed a trilateral member as the Secretary of Defense. The real Reagan, right? We see he's just five months into his administration. His cabinet was packed with 257 members of the Council on Foreign Relations. In senior positions, such as heads of state and defense departments, he backed the U .S. taxpayer bailout of the Soviet satellite of Poland as Polish citizens were being imprisoned for supporting freedom. The Soviet Union wouldn't have lasted as long as it did if it was not for Ronald Reagan, authorized the funding for nuclear steam turbines for the Soviet satellite of Romania and a steel plant for communist China. He sold arms to communist China, but when the free people of Taiwan wanted help, he denied it to them. He campaigned to cut the budget by billion dollars. In office, he actually increased it by $10 billion. I'm sorry, $110 .10 billion. And then past the largest tax increase in history up to that point of $227 billion. Doesn't sound like much of an anti -communist, anti -globalist when you look at his fruit versus his words. So now let's look at another organization, these, you know, people, the National Rifle Association that states that it's there to protect your Second Amendment rights. What, I mean, I think it's known, but I think it's good to illustrate what is the public image of the National Rifle Association? In a recent closed door speech to donors, politicians, and media, Bill Clinton spoke about American gun owners. Quote, a lot of these people, all they've got is they're hunting than they're fishing, or they've been listening to this stuff for so long that they believe it all, unquote. And we all remember Barack Obama's 2008 contents to a room of San Francisco elites. Quote, it's not surprising then they get bitter. They cling to guns or religion, unquote. The arrogance of their superiority requires this reminder. They don't rule us. They don't give us rights. We grant them power. They don't make us safe. We pay to protect them. They don't make us free. We're free already. And as long as we have the Second Amendment, we always will be. We are America. And our politicians are only as powerful as we, the people, allow them to be. In an effort to energize the gun rights activists, he released this incendiary fundraising letter. That the semi -auto ban gives jackbooted government thugs more power to take away our constitutional rights, break in our doors, seize our guns, destroy our property, and even injure or kill us. Aren't you concerned when you say Nazi bucket helmets, government thugs, kicking down doors, killing maiming people. Aren't you inciting people? Aren't you willing now to apologize for the tone of this letter? Those words are not far. In fact, they're a pretty close description of what's happening in the real world. Wow, look at that hero, man. He is sticking it to him. He is calling out those pesky Democrats as those gun grabbers that they are, and that they're there to protect your God -given rights. And that, oh, my, look at, he is, you know, calling out the government for being the jackbooted thugs that they are. And he is standing up to that liberal Tim Russert, man, he is going to show him what's up. That's the public image. Again, words versus fruits. So we look at the real NRA, according to their own records, their own words. They received government funding from their inception in the 1800s all the way up till the 1970s. In the 1920s, they actually pushed for gun control measures in nine states requiring a permit to carry a gun. Require, the NRA, before the NRA gets involved, there's no permit, you don't have to get government permission to carry a gun. NRA gets involved, and they push a bill that says, you need government permission to carry a gun. And a waiting period and a record of purchase going to the government. So because the NRA, we now have records of who purchases guns. They lobbied to ban mail order sales of guns in 1967. Prior to 1967 and the NRA's pushing of a bill, you could buy a gun just right over the mail. In the 1968, they lobbied for tracking of guns and banning the shipment across state lines unless You were licensed. You got government permission to do so. In their own publication, the American Rifleman in 1968, they bragged about their involvement of pushing more government intrusion into your right of self -defense, saying the NRA supported the National Firearms Act of 1934, which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed off rifles, and sawed off shotguns. NRA support of federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills, which through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts, bragging about their taking away your right to defend yourself. Further on, it says the NRA supported the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition, not just guns, but in government control of the ammunition itself. The NRA supported the original Dodd Bill to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as Senate Bill 1975 in August of 1963. Can you believe this? So the real NRA we have here, again, the same guy that was on Tim Russert saying, you know, these guys are jack booted thugs. So we have the free speech zones. And now the NRA who's supposed to be supporting your Second Amendment is saying, we want you to have Second Amendment free zones where you're not allowed to be able to protect yourself. We think it's reasonable to expect full enforcement of federal firearms laws by the federal government. That's why we support Project Exile, providing five years federal prison for violations such as having a folding stock or bayonet. The NRA wants you to spend five years in federal prison for simply having a stock that folds or a knife at the end of your gun. This is the guys standing up against Jack Buttig Thugs. The Constitution authorizes zero restrictions on your right of self -defense. But the NRA, promoting themselves as defending the Second Amendment, wants to destroy the Second Amendment and is working to destroy it. Now, they're actually, you know, back after the Patriot Act, after the 9 -11 attack on the Twin Towers, the demolition of the Twin Towers, they actually opposed gun owners and expanding the government's powers in the unconstitutional Patriot Act. You had Rand Paul actually introduced legislation to stop this, and the NRA opposed Rand Paul's amendment, saying there have been no reports of the current Patriot Act being abused, being abused. The whole thing's an abuse. With respect to firearms records, however, supporters suggest a far -fetched scenario in which every firearm sales record in the country, tens or hundreds of millions of documents dating back to 1968 could be sought. Of course, it's being put into databases at this time. And so they opposed actually preserving your right to privacy and your right to defend yourself. They backed language that allows the BATF now to get access to every gun owner. 2008 to 2011. He had his own Fox, which is also a corporate member of the council and formulations program. And then Glenn Beck promotes conspiracy outlets regularly by hosting the articles from the New Yorker, Washington Post, USA Today, and others, and even has people on his show that are members of the council and formulations. And he also just as a side note, spoke at the CPAC convention in 2019 and other years. So let's look at Glenn Beck actually in his own words. What does he say? So we can expose, you know, people know his record. So let's look at what he says himself. I think the bailout is the right thing to do. The $700 billion that you're hearing about now is not only, I believe, necessary. It is also not nearly enough. Well, folks, we are getting new Hints that President Obama may be increasingly open to the idea of a brand new national sales tax on everything you buy. They call it a VAT, a value -added tax. But in the scheme of things, I think it's fair to look at a value -added tax. Will Republicans handle left a big VAT victory? The subtitle reads Mitt Romney won't rule out the possibility of imposing a tax. Dan Mitchell, the Cato Institute, joins us now for... You say that Americans should fight VAT to our last and dying breath. Every candidate running for president should have to sign in blood that they will never allow this European tax system to destroy the American, America's fiscal future. We can bring the country back. You have to have a national sales tax. I actually agree with you. I want a 2 % VAT. I want a 2 % VAT, probably heard that President Bush yesterday acknowledged for the very first time the existence of secret CIA prisons. Thank God, it's these types of things, the stuff we never usually hear about unless we read the New York Times, that actually makes me feel more secure. I want a Jack Bauer out there. I love seeing cops doing bag checks on subway stations. I love seeing cops doing bag checks on subway stations. What we're talking about is waterboarding and whether or not you're morally in favor of waterboarding or not. It is a far cry from torture. And it's going to take somebody who sits in front of Congress who is not afraid of them anymore and does what Jack Bauer did and that is, yes, I did torture and I'm proud of it. I'm for the bailout bill. It is going to cause us great pain if we don't have it. He's reminded us over and over again that President Bush was in office when TARP bailout happened. Well, we were all against that. We were all against that. Well, he says, I'm going to get every penny back from those greedy bankers. And most people cheer, as I do. I didn't want them to get the money in the first place. Bush started the bailouts. Yes, he did. Hated him for it. I will always tell you the truth, even when it hurts me personally. Here's the problem. I mean, everybody will say, oh, that Glenn Beck, he's a conservative. He just loved the Bush administration. No, I didn't. I did say the same things about George W. Bush. I did complain about his out -of -control spending. I did complain about his abandoning free market principles to save the free market system. I did complain constantly. 11 ,687. That is the number the Dow Jones closed at yesterday. That number is the highest ever. Our budget deficit has actually shrunk by 22 .3 % since last year. The economy is in fine shape. These people... Two things, two things here. This is why I like George W. Bush. This is why I like George W. Bush. President Bush is a man who personally feels the pain of every lost soldier. Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere. He feels the pain of every wounded hero, every lonely, grieving parent this war has caused. Nope, no weapons over there. But above all, I can tell you that the president has incredible passion and resolve. Maybe under here. Any of these 9 -11 truthers, who I've been telling you for years, are dangerous. These truthers are exactly the kind of people who want to rock this nation's foundation, tear us apart. Are one of the groups that I've been warning about for a very long time of these 9 -11 truthers. This is the kind of group that a Timothy McVeigh would come from. Senator Santorum voted for the Patriot Act for an expansion of Medicare and for raising the debt ceiling by trillions of dollars. Senator Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania may just be the Winston Churchill of our day. One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarian -ish right. The libertarian view is, you know, isolationist from national security point of view. I don't pick or choose or back any presidential nominees. I am throwing my support behind Rick Santorum now. Please win, Rick. Please. I came on your radio show and you said, now I said, I'm going to ask you 30 questions, but I gave answers to all 30, and then you finished, and then you finally said, I want to kiss you in the mouth. That's what you're saying. Santorum once held his nose and voted to fund abortions, and Romney wants openly and gleefully endorse them. I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. And I think this is the guy, this is the mechanic that can fix our finances. He's the guy who can fix the engine of our economy. I believe that, with everything in me. If it's between Obama and Romney, there isn't all that much difference. The defense he makes of Romney care could basically be a defense of Obamacare. And I welcome you to the first of the 2012 presidential debates. And the best course for health care is to do what we did in my state. Last night you saw somebody who took the stage that appeared to me to be George Washington. Mitt Romney is obviously the choice of the Republican establishment. He is not a politician. He is a man that I would strive to be like. Those are the folks who brought us tarp and stimulus, wars fought on credit cards, federal agents writing their own search warrants, and the federal government taking over education. In two weeks' time, America goes to vote for the next president in the United States. Mitt Romney believes in all these things, but here's the crusher. So does President Obama. There's not a dime's worth of difference. The American people have a very, very clear choice. Mitt Romney might as well be Barack Obama on everything from warfare to welfare. If you want a reason to vote for Mitt Romney, here it is. He knows what's going on with the Federal Reserve, and he is warning us. Should the chairman of the Federal Reserve be appointed again? You know, I think he's doing a good job. I think he's doing a good job. I am going to vote for this guy. Look, I'm not going to spend my time going after Ben Bernacki. I'm not going to take my my effort and focus on the federal. I sincerely hope that we are not at a place as Americans to where we are going to let the Democrats jam down the Green New Deal because we're at home panicked. I want to have a frank conversation with you and ask you where you stand. I mean, I'm in the danger zone. I'm right at the edge. I'm 56. In Italy, they're saying, if you're sick and you're 60, don't even come in. So I'm in the danger zone. The German people, they got this. If you're handed that hat and it's got the skull and crossbones on it, don't you look at it and go, um, I don't know a second I thought I might be on the wrong side. And that just scream, wrong side, wrong side? Okay, that was a little bit long, but I think it was really important because he is seen by so many as such a conservative or, you know, a hero for liberty to show his back and forth, his lies, his support for people that were clearly and obviously being called out at the time. It wasn't like, oh, nobody knew. It was obvious. There was lots of people calling out Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney for those things. And then, you know, he supported Bush. He supported the bailouts. And then afterwards, when it became unpopular and it was already too late, he says, oh, I was always against Bush and the bailouts. And so he's being deceptive and he is pushing the official narrative. And so that way, everybody's saying, well, you know, when Beck, he, you know, he researches this stuff, and he's liberty -minded. He wouldn't be backing this if there wasn't something to it. And that's the role that he plays. And so it's essential that we understand this principle of false opposition or we're going to continue to fall for it. So the bait and switch is that they claim to be doing something good. Well, of course, are doing the complete opposite. You have legislators, government officials, fake charities, conspirator charities, fake freedom organizations, and non -governmental organizations that use this tactic, of course, all the time. Often uses the problem, reaction, solution formula to sell on their bait and switch campaign. So here's a real quick short video that shows an example that we're seeing a lot now housing to get at you have both so -called conservative or liberty organizations pushing it into 21 housing as well as the open lefty globalists doing the same thing myth stacking more people into tighter spaces makes housing affordable fact stacking more people into tighter places artificially inflates housing prices. Even the Liberal Sierra Club admits high -density housing raises housing costs and the extreme high -density zoning in Hong Kong has made housing so expensive that many live in cage homes the size of dog kennels. The affordable housing agenda is a devious scheme. So you have so -called conservative states as well as states like New York and San Francisco pushing the same thing, wherein states like Wyoming and Utah and Idaho, their conservative legislatures are actually passing legislation forcing every city in their state to have a certain amount of high -density housing. You can see in Hong Kong, they're actually living in kennels, and they're paying $2 ,000 a month to live in a kennel. Now, the false righteousness, the immorality and falsehoods masquerading as a morally superior position or fact. The conspiracy will double down on their lives to combat this inconvenient truth, And they will pretend the inconvenient truth does not exist, or if faced with the inconvenient truth, will fraudulently debunk it, and by repetition, the lie will become more and more believable over time. Sigmund Freud started off with the sodomite supremacy movement, saying homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation. It cannot be classified as an illness. And then we have, of course, the lie that these things are safe and effective. Even though the government's own program has paid out billions of dollars for this safe and effective literal godsend. False righteousness about, of course, global climate change. And then you have the drought has drastically reduced in Utah, we had flooding. We had flooding last year, and they said that the drought was reduced. And then we have, of course, equating force mask mandates as being the same as the Savior himself demanding the destruction of what he fought for before the world was. So now the next thing that they do is they want to manufacture consent make it look like they got everybody on board with this program before they went along with it. So why manufacture consent? The conspiracies plans are of course unpopular so that they make it look like it's popular. The conspiracies agents become ineffective without public favor. They depend on perceived legitimacy and if they're exposed as being the illegitimate people that they are, they lose their power. It marginalizes, of course, opposing voices. Everybody's doing it. The conspiracy needs the appearance of public support to preserve their legitimacy. So how do they manufacture that consent? They encourage the public to meaninglessly voice their opinions so the conspiracy can pretend their plan was molded and shaped by the public. In the state of Utah, just for example, and other States have the same thing. They have this in what's called Envision Utah, which is an agenda 21 organization, agenda 2030 organization, and they have these these questionnaires or they get you to fill out online to see what one of these, which big government solution do you want? So that way they can say, oh, thousands and thousands of people filled these out and we're going with, you know, what made the most sense based on these surveys. Everybody wants these things. They push people to participate in making these false choices. There was one, for example, the choices, they actually provided, you know, the idea of, you know, preserving your property rights. But they equated it to extinction. And then they showed, you know, high density housing as this utopia of the future. They manipulate the data, of course, or outcomes after public participation to approve the conspiracies plan. They'll just manipulate the percentages anyways. So they have manufactured consent through supposed voting. You have the Utah launches their medical marijuana signature drive. And of course, the Governor Cox tells the lawmakers, you know, you guys got to stop pushing these bills without the public support and input, and so they would have these meetings. And so it looked like everybody wanted to have this new program that set up a list of people that weren't allowed to have guns because they're violating federal law, but because everybody wanted it. And we have this InVision, Utah again, they are using these questionnaires to get people to move towards globalization, high -density housing, et cetera. Of course, we have their... vehicles on the gas tax. So now we're going to start charging you for the miles you drive on your electric vehicle and of course your gas vehicles as well. And so they were doing they're doing this in liberal states like California and Oregon. But in Utah, they will call it the conservative solution to climate change. And it's the same exact programs that of course these big government states are doing. And of course, you know, we have these essay contests put out by these agenda 20, 30 organizations to give consent of why, you know, this is why I like my community. So they're just basically, they're saying, look at everybody's writing these great things about all the things that we're doing that is increasing government, manufactured consent. Now Nelson Mandela is an example of a communist that was they would use this idea of manufactured consent to give him, you know, in his communist efforts in South Africa, the idea and the perception of legitimacy through consent that they manufactured. According to Nelson Mandel's book, The Long Walk to Freedom, he says, in 1954, we invited all participating organizations and their followers to send suggestions for a freedom charter. We want everybody's input in our new Freedom Charter, even though he's a communist. Circulators were sent out to townships and villages all across the country. If you could make the laws, what would you do? We're going to get your consent and your participation. Suggestions for a new constitution were to come from the people themselves and conspirator agents. All across the country were authorized to seek ideas in rioting from everyone in their area. The charter would be a document born of the people. like other enduring political documents. they're all the same, and so that they were pushing towards this, of course, conspiracy -approved charter that made it look like everybody was on board with. Then, of course, you have black hole activism. What is black hole activism? Political event or effort that has no capacity to actually create the participants' desired political change. It's designed to waste your time make you think you're doing something when you're actually not having any design, not to have any impact. Some of these examples of liberty solutions that aren't examples that have been used in history to actually restore liberty, but they've been the solutions that have been conspiracy promoted for the last 75, 100 years. Voting, running for office yourself, lobbying You know, we've shown that they control the elections. We've shown that these people in office are literal Satanists, and we're going to write them a sternly written letter. We're going to call the media that's controlled by the conspiracy and get them to blow the lid off of this thing. We're going to hold rallies. Holding rallies by themselves isn't necessarily a bad thing, if as long as your goal isn't to affect actual change. conspiracy, these Satanists aren't going to be like, oh my goodness, these guys are meeting together and having snacks and having a picnic. We better do something about this. The only thing that rallies actually do is, you know, that might be considered effective is to see that you're not alone and to find other like -minded people. But the amount of effort involved in making rallies is designed to spin your wheels and so that you're not actually doing anything of effect. You know, taking the government to court. So you're going to take the government to Thank you. initiatives and ballot referendums, another example of implementing communism and mob rule to be able to supposedly overcome the conspiracies agenda. Forbes did an article so called Can You Sue the Government? So we have here the change .org. We're going to have these petitions to make it look like, you know, we've got all these people that are opposing this. and now you've just spent some effort and some time doing absolutely nothing of impact. Go around just talking to random people as if that's going to have an impact. You know, going to an event where your satanic representatives are going and writing in this letter, dear legislative Satanist, please don't do evil things when you are sitting in your seat of power or I will work tirelessly to remove you from office at the next election that you've rigged in your favor, right? Like, they're really going to be like, oh, I'm really scared about that one. It's designed to make you feel like you're doing something when you're actually not able to actually have a real impact with these things. So the steam release is in order to temper public outrage, the conspiracy may host or even a an event that helps people bent their frustration in ineffective direction. That's what all these things are. They're designed to make you feel like you had your voice heard. You went to hear one of these satanic legislators, and you said, I don't like what's going on. And you were able to release some steam. He said some platitude of, we're looking into that. Thank you. And thanks for being involved. And you felt like, you know, you've done something, and government continues to get bigger and bigger. You have rallies, protests, concerts, et cetera, right? We have people holding up their signs to other people like mine that agree with them. We will have these events where we have food together, and you'll have some sodomites being able to promote their immorality while pretending to support freedom. Then the next one is they're going to have minor concessions. As a very last resort, the conspiracy may temporarily give the public what they want. Why? Why will they give us what they want temporarily? Because it denies a frustrated group of people a way to promote their concerns. We had about a year in the United States of just these crazy lockdowns, and then they passed a bill that said, oh, we can't do this until 2024. So now, a lot of people are like, well, there's nothing to complain about anymore. So they took one step backwards so they could then take two steps forward. Denies people, the opportunity to nullify the evil thing that they're doing. Preserves the conspiracy's legitimacy because, look, they heard your voice. One step back today, two steps forward tomorrow. An example of this concession was the national opt -day for the TSA, you know, at the airports where they basically molest you in their effort to fight terrorism, right? And so there was a big organized fight or organized effort to go there and fill up the lines naked and get it all filled up right during Thanksgiving weekend as a way to protest the TSA. And they were just going to fill it up. And so that way the lines would be backed up and that would get people upset about TSA. So they just let people go through, took it away. There was nothing to fight. And so there was, you know, they were able to just the following weekend, you know, after the Thanksgiving weekend was over, they were able to continue to do their invasive molestations at the airport with no opposition anymore. So now the next thing we kind of go over is this false opposition is fake conspiracies. The conspiracy knows that there are people out there that are not going to be convinced or, you know, tricked into believing there's no such thing as conspiracies. So to get the people that know that there are conspiring people out there, they come up with fake conspiracies, right, and that are intended to associate them with real conspiracies. And so this benefits the conspiracy by misleading people down foolish roads as they fail to perceive between fictional and real conspiracies. Conspiracy theory versus conspiracy fact. This can cause the real conspiracies to appear fictional. When you sandwich these things together, then it puts them all on the same page. It also creates objects of ridicule for the conspiracy to leverage. They'll put out a fake thing out there. They'll get some people to believe it and promote it, and then it gets, you know, obviously proven to be false. And so they get to lump it in with the real conspiracies. Generates a disposition in the mind of a fool, of course, against the fact that a real and thriving conspiracy actually exists because you have that boy who cried wolf mentality where you've talked about all these fake conspiracies. And so when you're actually able to identify a real one, nobody believes you. So we have flat earth, we have shape -shifting lizard people, we have laser beans shooting down the Twin Towers, just examples of these fake things that make people look like fools. What if cats have their own internet? It's full of pictures of us. Birds aren't real. That's actually a real thing, people say. And then of course, QAnon. And that's maybe going to surprise some of you as well is also one of these false opposition movements. Operation Trust was a Soviet program, an operation of the Soviet secret police officially lasting from 1921 to 1926. The language that they use is going to be eerily familiar, I think. They set up a fake anti -Bolshevik organization called the Monarchist Union of Central Russia. So, you know, We're against this communist revolution. We want the monarchy back. Part of their purpose was to identify the supporters of the monarchy. So that helped to serve their purpose. And then they also were led by Alexander Yukeshav, a bureaucrat in the Tsarist government to give the movement credibility. So they found somebody that was actually in the monarchy that was now on their side. But people didn't know that to lead this movement that gave them credibility, and then they were able to co -op them as an anti -communist organization that was actually working to support their efforts. And the people were convinced not to engage in violent acts against the communist regime by convincing them that a plan was underway. Trust the plan within the government that would topple the regime from within. There's a secret group of white hats in the government working behind the scenes to take care of business so you don't have to worry about it. We got this covered. You just sit back and watch the show. That should sound familiar because they have copied that same program today. Now we have manufactured events. The definition of a manufactured event is events which are created at pivotal times that fit the current narrative of propaganda and form the rationale for implementation of agendas. The conspirators have no allegiance to the people around them or the place which they live. They only have loyalty towards those in their own organization. And people are of course disposable objects to them and they are perfectly willing to throw another's life away to make a tiny step in an evil direction. And the conspiracy refers not to have real victims in manufactured events. Having family of a victim causing a ruckus would be a significant problem for their agendas. It's important everything supports their propaganda. So like with 9 -11, that's why Glenn Beck talked about hating the 911 families because they, you know, they were real victims and they were causing a ruckus to the official plan. So let's look at some of these classifications of a manufactured event. First, we have something that's complete fiction. Never really happened. It is complete propaganda. It's no physical event, completely just not real. Fake pandemic, for example. Then we have the mixture of real and fake events. A carefully planned event executed by the conspiracy with actors and the Beast media covered with careful precision, typically no loss of life, that's real, and has bystanders believing the event from a distance. So we have examples of Sandy Hook and other school shootings, the Pulse nightclub shooting, Boston bombing, Las Vegas concert shooting, etc. A mixture, right, of real and fake events. A real event, but was orchestrated by the conspiracy. Terrible things happened, but the conspiracy planned and funded the event 9 -11 in the Oklahoma City bombing as an example. Then you have a completely genuine event, a person not connected with the conspiracy commits an act, and those normally don't have any lasting coverage in the conspiracies media. So you have a manufactured example with the fake pandemic. You have the Walk of the Martyrs, where you have this man of Husefa, and he was supposedly a school shooting victim in Pakistan in 2014. And then in 2012, we have Noah Posner, who supposedly died at Sandy Hook. Then you have, of course, 9 -11. So then the next thing of false opposition is the rapture cult, New Age Christianity, and how the conspiracy gets us to think that there's nothing that we can do or should do, because it's all part of the plan. The Savior is going to come. The Bible, they say, is not a historical document. It just has good truths in it. The Bible's not literal. It's just a figurative principles. Jesus is a mere saving event, not your savior. They point only to Jesus, and of course there is no God the Father. And so we talk more about this in our weekly member trainings every Monday night for members. And it's recorded, and so members can go back and watch them afterwards if they can't come on live. So let's look at the next thing is is the myth of peaceful resistance. What we're told by people that are controlled in the controlled media is that violence gives evil power. But of course, they fear violence themselves. That's why they surround themselves with people with guns. You know, they say that we're supposed to just turn the other cheek and follow the Prince of Peace. He's just saying that Jesus just sat there and took every bad thing that ever happened when, of course, Jesus fought the conspiracy. We were supposed to obey the government. Romans 13, 12th article of faith. We just got to do whatever the government says. But God is the lawgiver, and he tells us to not obey fake laws. Then the conspiracy says that success only comes through the political or judicial process. We only do this through, you know, through the ballot box and through the judicial process. But, of course, those acceptable channels are structured to destroy good efforts. The elections are rigged. The courts are controlled. They're designed to keep your wheels spinning and not actually doing anything. And, of course, we're supposed to not give the conspiracy and excuse to attack you. But the fact is, is that the conspiracy has already declared war on you and your family. We'll talk about some of those examples. Going to giving, right? Why would these tyrants all want to take away your guns if violence doesn't work? Why do we have the conspiracies setting up the Bureau of Alcohol and Tobacco and Firearms to ban guns if violence didn't work? Why would they surround themselves with the things they want to take away from us. Why are they so afraid? Where we have here this report of the Utah governor speaking out about taxpayer -funded security project at his Fairview Home, where he spends hundreds of thousands of dollars to protect himself from what? Somebody, probably some punk kids shooting a BB gun through his window. But Jesus did fight the conspiracy. Matthew chapter 10, the Lord himself said, think not that I come to send peace on earth. I come not to send peace, but a sword. Matthew chapter 21, he says, in the multitudes that went before and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the son of David, blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord, Hosanna in the highest. And when he was come to Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, who is this? And the multitude said, this is Jesus, the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee. And Jesus went into the temple of God and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple and over through the tables of the money changers and the seats of them that sold doves. Wasn't peaceful resistance. John chapter 2 verse 15, he made a whip of cords and he drove all of them out of the temple. This is not peaceful resistance. Of course, we have God is the lawgiver. Isaiah chapter 33, verse 22, the Lord is our judge. The Lord is our lawgiver. The Lord is our king. No king but king Jesus, as the founder said. Isaiah again, hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom, give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. First Samuel, we learn and now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling ox and sheep, camel, and ass. The council of 50 in 1844, they said that no other government, kingdom, dominion, authority, power, rule, or law shall be acknowledged by my people except for God's laws. So we see here these acceptable political channels are destructive to you and your liberty. They are designed. They are modern solutions because they are put there by the conspiracy. They've never been used in the past at any point in history to actually restore lost liberty. And so that's why they want you working on them because they know they don't work because things right when we follow these paths things continue to get worse and realize the conspiracy has already declared war on you you're attacking you and your family because you want to keep your income they are attacking you through medical and through weather and through food they are attacking you through propaganda and child abuse in the government schools We have here in Arizona, child welfare workers fired for wearing professional kidnapper shirts. They were actually wearing shirts that said, we are professional kidnappers. It wasn't just an isolated incident. You have the police working against the people. You have, of course, the COVID shutdowns. Let's look at maybe some examples of success using more aggressive terms or forms of solutions. The founding fathers said It is their right. It is their duty to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security. They did not write King George and say, please give us our rights back. Captain Moran, I said, whosoever would not take up arms in the defense of their country, but would fight against it were put to death. You would not fight for freedom. You forfeited your life. In the book of Joshua, we learned, and They burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein, only the silver and the gold and the vessels of brass and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the Lord. Then Gideon, in the book of judges, we learned that he stepped forward and killed them and took the ornaments off the camel's necks. The Israelites said to Gideon, rule over us, you, your son, and your grandson, because you have saved us from the hand of medium. Now this doesn't always work, but it works more than that which never works. So now examples of necessary violence. Jesus taught, think not that I am come to send peace on earth. I come not to send peace, but a sword. And then he says, suppose that I am come to give peace on earth. I tell you nay, but rather division. But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth and he sent forth his armies and destroyed those murderers and burned up their city. Those are examples that these things have to be done sometimes. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is. And it's contentious. They say that you know, that opposing them, that, you know, we need to disagree better, that that it's contentious to disagree with them. It's actually contentious to continue to allow evil. There's a fantastic book called Kill No murder that was written in the in the 1600s that the founding fathers referenced and were aware of that talked about how if you don't if you have the opportunity to stop a tyrant and you don't you are culpable for the injury caused by that tyrant so now the conspiracy promotes peaceful resistance because they had a problem looking at india as the as the example the bengals were physically attacking occupying crown officials and ransacking crown -friendly print businesses and businesses that sold British goods, right? So India was being controlled by Britain, and so you had a group of rebels that were just causing them a lot of problems. And so in 1905, the British partitioned Bengal into Hindu and Muslim provinces. And this restricted the cooperation of the Hindus and Muslims against the Crown. They couldn't get them to work together. They separated them. And the conspiracy wanted to make those friends enemies. That's why they're enemies to this day because of this. The partition intensified Bengal resistance. And they began the work of assassinating crown officials, actually. Assassination attempts killed two women related to conspirators. And so those caught and executed for this work were honored as heroes by the Bengals, because they understand this eternal principle. The judge, prosecutor, and arresting officer were all also assassinated after this man's execution. The conspiracy feared for their safety. They knew they had to do something to stop this resistance. And so they put up their own false opposition in Mahat Mahat, Gandhi. Gandhi's character, his job was to disarm the people and to make sure that there was no resistance. It appears that 20 ,000 Afghans have taken a field. The unrest is spreading all over India. A white woman was killed by an explosion. The cable grams suggest that the intention of the assailant was to kill a magistrate. The Indian people will not win their freedom through these methods. In the end, the methods which we imagine we would use only against foreigners will be used against ourselves. So this idea of we don't want to give them a reason to attack us. Otherwise, it will be used against us. Yes, many members of the Indian Civil Service are tyrannical, but what does that signify? If they have lost some of the moral fiber, it is a reflection upon ourselves. It's our fault that we're being tyrannized, Gandhi said. So this is the public image again of this man of peaceful resistance, that he was a man that he was poor, and that he was just the voice of the people, that he was celibate, and that he was a dedicated religious man, but he was an outsider, that he just rose to prominence naturally, and that he helped create a free India, and that he was peaceful, effective, and an enemy of the conspiracy, and he was murdered by just some lone nut. But what's the real Gandhi. He was born to the governor of Prabindar, India, and a three -story, 17 -room mansion waited on by servants. He got his law degree from the Honorable Society of the Inner Temple in London, founded by the Knights Templar. He was a member of the esoteric Christian Union, an arm of the Lucifer Trust, now called the Theosophical Society. And he worked closely with and lifelong friend with the head of the Lucifer Trust. You see here that he was born into the conspiracy, that he was actually extremely wealthy. He was educated in the most insider British school that money could buy. He was self -admittedly followed the doctrines of the Lucifer Trust. He quelled an uprising against the conspiracy. He was losing popularity so needed that six -year jail sentence for street credibility. So they sent him to jail to make it look like he was one of them. Of course, he only served for two years. And then he worked to establish a new state for the conspiracy led by the Indian National Congress and then was assassinated by, as a propaganda campaign, to stir contention between Muslims and Hindus and to make him look like a real enemy of the conspiracy. This was a character that was created to disarm any true resistance to the conspiracy. and he pretended the fault of the oppressors lied with those that were oppressed. He led people to believe that evil men can be swayed by reason and good sentiments. These guys aren't bad. They just don't understand. They need to be talked to. Help, he helped transition India to its next place in the conspiracies plan. Muslim, Hindu, Balkanization for generating conflict and a government that pretends to represent the Indian people, create this conflict so that they have to come in this false conflict so that they're distracted fighting each other instead of fighting the real enemy. And of course, his own death was a propaganda campaign. So now let's get into this video that talks about what happened in Seattle in about 2000 called the Battle of Seattle. It's a really good example of how this overall principle that we've talked tonight about false opposition works because it's important we have we've listed names we've shown you individuals but names individuals change organizations change and so it's essential that we understand and grasp the principle so that we can identify the next false opposition that comes up so let's watch this real quick Street demonstrators turn the area of the World Trade Organization Conference into a war zone. Over 500 National Guardsmen and state police are called in to health restore order in what became known as the Battle of Seattle. The major media focused on the chaos and the mob's demands. Let them go! Yet they carefully avoided raising the issue as to how the groups on the street were organized and funded. Or whether their leaders might have a hidden agenda. Instead, the media portrays such demonstrations as natural outpourings of genuine grassroots concern. We're just normal people who are tired of the exploitation of multinational corporations. Again, for those who orchestrate these events, it's the illusion that counts. The familiar media melodrama of the anti -globalization movement that we have seen in Seattle and some of the other protest venues is really a classic example of bracketing an issue with false alternatives because we're told that these are people who oppose the global agenda. After all, they're called anti -globalization activists. Well, what is it that they oppose? They don't oppose global government. They believe that there is too much free market capitalism in the world and that government, at a global level, has to be more assertive in imposing controls over the free exchange of goods and services. But you see that both of these sides are really calling for empowering the United Nations. The media further stage manages the illusion of conflict by promoting those designated as the official opposition. I'm going to focus on what the other side says and what you say back. The media appointed spokesperson for the anti WTO forces is Lurie Wallach. She heads up Global Trade Watch. Ignored by the media is the fact that Wallach's organization receives funding from the Ford Foundation, which is closely tied to the CFR. The friendly relationship between Wallach and the CFR agenda was made clear in Foreign Policy magazine, a major conduit for CFR thinking. This issue signals media leaders that Laurie Wallach should be represented as an and specifics, we've gone over principles. Let's just go over some tips to recognize and controlled opposition. Are they just promoting that steam release? Are they just, they're not actually doing anything? Are they just trying to get you to release that steam and go back to your normal life? Does the beast media acknowledge the entity? They give air time with attacks or puff pieces. P .T. Barnum, Barnum and Bailey Circus says, I don't care what you say about me, just spell my name right. Public attacks are literally just free advertising. And so it's creating that false hero. And so we need to understand if they ignore who they're afraid of and they attack who they want you to see as the hero. Do they expose the conspiracy or do they try to poo -poo the idea of conspiracy? Does the entity incorporate false choices? Or are they or their staff full of members of one of these conspirator organizations? Start to understand these and ask yourself these questions. Anytime a new organization or something that you just learned about and find out, is this what's going on? So that way you can start to identify if they're more likely than not false opposition. So I encourage you to join with us. Again, this is our last online presentation of these extremist Liberty boot camps. And so I encourage you, if you'd like, learn more about the solutions that we're engaged in and learn more about becoming a member of the Tree of Liberty Society. I encourage you to reach out to me at Ben at Tree of Liberty Society .com or go to our website and reach out to us. And we'd be glad to put together either an online or in -person presentation of our final solutions. We've laid out the groundwork. We've put in each of these different things, effective. of the things that the key principles that we've covered tonight and or if you need to kind of go over and review some of the the principles in tonight's presentation. And so with that, we'll go and close up and we hope to see you soon.