Brett McCabe: Welcome back to The Fourth Reich in America, Political Repression in the Warfare State. My name is Brett McCabe, and I’ve been the moderator for our conference today.
We have two speakers with us who have just joined our panel, who were not here during the day, or who were not initially invited speakers. But we’ve lost several previously scheduled speakers, so we’ve added them to our panel. And I would like to allow them each maybe a few minutes, just to make an opening statement, and then we will start addressing questions from the audience, to our panelists, and try and get more of a forum going here.
The first person I’d like to introduce to the audience, is Richard Whitney, from the Socialist Labor Party. He will speak for a few minutes on . . . whatever he would like to say for the next five minutes.
Richard Whitney: Thank you. What I’d like to address is what is supposed to be the subject of this panel, where do we go from here? And I think that if we’re going to address the question, of what do we do about the Fascist threat in the United States, we have to be very clear about it’s fundamental cause. Now, I know it’s been alluded to by some of the other speakers, John, and some people in the audience who’ve asked questions. Mention has been made of the fact that the people in power, the people we’re referring to as the Fourth Reich, the people in the National Security Establishment, etc, are serving the interests of the wealthy. It’s been mentioned in various ways. And I’d like to pick up on that point for a few minutes.
Fascism is not a political construct that arises simply because there happen to be evil individuals who seek total power. Those individuals cannot come to power, and usher in totalitarianism, unless and until there are powerful social forces behind them that propel them into power. In particular, what we regard as the real rulers of society, the wealthy owners of the means of production, or the capitalist class.
For example, Hitler in Germany was considered as something of an oddity, maybe something akin to Lyndon LaRouche, until the point reached when there was a economic crisis in Germany, and the industrialists, the big industrialists, the Krupps, the Junkers, and the other wealthy capitalist industrialists at that time, backed him into power.
And so, I think the thing that I’d like to impress upon you here, is that Fascism serves a specifically a capitalist purpose: to preserve and extend capitalist class rule.
In his landmark work on the Nazi economic system, Otto Nathan begins his work with these two sentences:
"The victory of Fascism in Germany early in 1933, was a victory of forces united by two major political objectives: the exploitation of fanatical nationalism, in pursuit of an aggressive, imperialistic foreign policy, and the maintenance, and if possible, extension, of the power and privileges that go hand in hand with the extreme maldistribution of wealth and income in capitalist society. It was a victory of counter-revolution; a victory of those groups in German society which could hope to regain their former political and economic eminence only by destroying the main achievements of the revolution of 1918."
In our view, in the SLP’s view, all the different elements of Fascism: the aggressive nationalism, the racism, the imperialist plundering of the Third World, the extreme state repression, all these serve specifically to protect and extend the power and wealth of the capitalist class. The real rulers of the economy, if you will. And so we describe Fascism as a reflex of a decaying social system. It’ s been described by one writer as the "iron hoop around the collapsing barrel of capitalism."
Now, to say that it’s backed by the ruling class doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have appeal to . . . others in the working class. It can and it does, in times of economic crisis and social decay. Fascism provides simple answers to things like unemployment. When there’s massive unemployment, well, it’s, you know, it’s the fault of this or that racial group. Or it’s the fault of the Jewish bankers. Or it’s . . . you know, whatever . . . it happens to be. It provides simple answers to complex problems.
And it also provides order, at a time when economic crisis naturally breeds chaos. The thing to understand though, is it provides order on terms that preserve the capitalist status quo.
And so, to address the question of what do we do about it, the position I would like to proffer here, is that, yes we must educate, we must continue to do a lot of outreach work. Get the information that’s presented at this conference out to other people. We must hold more conferences of this type, and so on. But we have to educate to a purpose. And in our view, the SLP’s view, we must think in terms of organizing our potential strength, our strength as workers, as the people who actually make the economy go, and organize for the express purpose of creating a new social system. In our view, a system that has to be based on democratic worker’s control of the industries, and the entire economy.
Now I don’t expect here to persuade all of you to become partisans of socialism in one five minute spiel. But I do hope you will reflect on the conclusion, based on historical evidence, and an understanding of what Fascism serves, that as long as we have capitalism, in which a small, elite class lives off the exploitation of the rest of us, there will be economic and social decay, there will be crises, and there will be, necessarily, a Fascist threat, no matter how many individuals you might expose, and depose. And so I’d just like to leave you with that thought. Thank you.
Brett McCabe: Thank you Richard Whitney, of the SLP. [applause].
I’d like to make a brief announcement, that KKUP, that’s 91.5 on the FM dial, will have another The Secret Government of Iran/Contragate. And that’s on July 24, Saturday, from 12:00 midnight. And also, the next day, on Sunday, from 12:00 midnight. And evidently, according to Jim Bottini, they will be using some of today’s tapes. So you might want to tune into that.
Our next speaker, whose going to make a brief statement, is Richard Gallyôt. And without any more . . . without further ado, let’s welcome Richard.
Richard Gallyôt: OK, can you hear me?
Audience: Yes.
Richard Gallyôt: OK. I am amazed you’re all still here. My name is Richard Gallyôt. I’m kind of a zen/atheist/anarchist. [laughter and applause]
I began my involvement in this stuff, by being a foster child, and seeing how, how children in institutions get treated, first-hand. It’s,very educational . . . and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.
I began monitoring the People’s Temple in 1976, two years before the massacre. There were a lot of reasons why, but one of the reasons and one of the reasons that I stayed with it after the massacre was that I started discovering how the foster children from our society were being dumped there into the hands of Jim Jones, like human garbage.
Having been a foster child . . . those children were my brothers, and they were my sisters. On a very visceral level. And nothing has changed. Not a goddam thing has changed. Jonestown could happen all over again tomorrow. Because any goddam asshole with a collar, whose got a little mask of acceptability, can have as many children as they want. And they can use those children for sexual perversion, they can use those children for labor exploitation. It’s a damn crime. And it’s a crime that I am committed to exposing and to eradicating.
So I’ve been writing a book on Jonestown, that’s based on my interviews with virtually all the survivors of Jonestown. I covered the Larry Layton trial for KPFA. I was the first reporter to get Larry Layton to talk to me, to get an interview with Larry Layton. I got a 12 page fan letter after Charles Manson heard my KPFA show on propaganda. [laughter] I felt ambivalent about that. [laughter].
And, I suppose, boiling it all down, what I’ve learned is that you can’t get along in this world without love. And so the number one thing of where we go from here, and what we do from there, is that we get in touch with the love inside ourselves, and we give it to the people in our lives, and we practice what we preach on a one-to-one level. And then, from there we expand, and we go out. And we learn what we can learn, and we teach what we can teach, and we gotta reach out and get the children of tomorrow. Because when we die, when everybody in this room is dead, who is going to teach those children that they live in a world of lies? That’s what I’m worried about. And that’s why I’m writing a book.
And everybody here should do something . . . whatever you can. You don’t have to be a superman. You don’t have to reach a million people. If you can reach one person, and if you can teach one child, then you are changing the universe forever. So go, reach out to the brother on the street. And the sister on the street. ’Cause if you don’t do it, who will? Thank you. [long, loud applause]
Brett McCabe: Before we go into question and answers, I have had a request that some of the other speakers might like to make a brief statement as to where they think we should go from here. So let’s start with Barbara Honegger.
Barbara Honegger: Can you hear? Can you hear? OK. I’d just like to point out and make very explicit something that was implicit in my earlier address tonight on the very real possibility . . . I’m not saying it’s an actuality, but I believe it is, based upon the evidence I have, of a very real link between the the Armageddon scenario and what’s happening in Iran, Syria, Libya, the Middle East, etc. I want to be very explicit about this. That if we start to see these things happening, that this is not an act of God. That this is a conspiracy of men. Thank you. [polite applause]
Brett McCabe: Next, I will ask John Judge if he’d like to make a brief, closing statement?
John Judge: Well, the two focuses that I have, right now, in terms of going some place from here, one has to do with what I term the politics of support. Because I think that, on the individual level, that’s really what a lot of the institutionalization, manipulation, social control we talked about this morning, has to do with. And I think it’s a political question, in this society, at the individual level, who gets support and who doesn’t. I don’t think it’s a psychiatric, psychological, sociological question; I think it’s a political question. Why certain people have privileges over other people on an individual level, in our daily dealings with each other, and our social meetings, and our work places, and families. And I think that there’s a politic to why certain people get privileges and support, and other people don’t.
And I think that the first way, to get at that in our own lives is to begin to force ourselves, and other people, to tell the truth about our lives. Because I think that much of their ability to fool us, is because we keep fooling ourselves. Much of their ability to manipulate us, is because we keep playing along, for short term advantage, with that manipulation, in our relations with other people.
And that, until we address the politics of support, which are the politics of poverty, the politics of racism, and sexism, and homophobia, and the other things, that, on the larger scale, are so deadly, then we sanction the system. As long as we don’t address them, we go along with it, and we further it. And until we stop that sanction, until we say "enough," and say it in our own lives, and struggle for it, every place that we live, every place that we breathe, and with everybody that we consider a brother and sister, then we don’t have a hope, of breaking the game of control. You see, until we establish that decency in what we do and how we conduct ourselves, and in our relations with each other, then we can’t expect to make a change in the broader society.
The other thing that I think, is that we must do politics. And I realize that we are pushed by the system from crisis to crisis, from issue to issue. But we must begin to do politics that break down the false divisions between those issues. To begin to realize that this is a system, and all of it’s aspects are repressive. And all of it needs to be opposed, and needs to be opposed together. And to make those links, which I had hoped, when I agreed to come out here to California to do this conference today, we could begin to address how those issues connect. I think we’ve done a little of it. I think there’s plenty more to do. But if we can make those connections, if we can understand that the struggle is the same and support each other, then I think that we can make a difference.
The other element to that politic, I think that’s critical right now, is to do things that empower people. On the smallest level. On the local level. On any level. To do things that give people back the right to make decisions about the things that affect their own lives.
And that’s one of the reasons that I believe in the three ideas I have as focuses, or momentum, to begin a change, from a local level outward, in that empowerment on a general scale.
One is to demand public access and control of all electronic media. [cheers and applause] twenty-five to thirty percent of the time. But that’s a political demand. Not because we expect to win, immediately, but because we expose the system with these demands.
That our second demand be, that that time be used, in large part, for political debate, and open debate from all points of view, on the issues that, by plurality, we decide are most important.
And that the purpose of that debate is to abolish representative democracy in this country and establish a referendum and direct control, from the lowest to the highest level. [applause] And to get out of office all these people who can’t possibly represent any of us.
We have the technology. We don’t live in the seventeenth century anymore, and it’s time . . . [applause] . . . It’s time for us to decide about our own lives. And people have to have control, in order to do that.The system is not only bankrupt, it’s obsolete. And the third thing I suggest, as an educational tool, is to put out forms, that could be collected locally, regionally or nationally, a double form with a little bit of carbon in-between, every year on April the 15th. So that the people that still pay taxes would just see on that form a pie, that showed them where the tax goes. And then they could fill in some things down below, with percentages, about where they want it to go. [laughter]
Not because immediately that’s how it will be spent, but because one copy will go to the IRS and the government, and the other copy will go to whatever level, and the more decentralized the better, but whatever level that that information can be compiled, in order, again, to expose that this system. Oliver North brags about it, but this system does not represent the people.
And if it does not, then Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine and Emma Goldman and all the rest have had a little bit to say about that. And I think we know what they’d say. And that is, those systems aren’t for us. [applause]
Brett McCabe: We will next hear from Richard Williams.
Richard Williams: I think for us to answer the question, "Where do we go from here?" we must remember who we are and where we are. We are human beings, on a planet called Earth. We owe the Earth a lot more than we think we do. We owe the plants and the animals the right to live, as much right as we do. We must respect their rights. We must respect the rights of the Earth. The four elements: the fire, the water, the earth and the air. The plants and the animals have as much right if not more to live here than we do. They have been here the longest. They are the teachers of our children, of our future generations.
We must listen to our Elders. We must pay attention to their council and their guidance. And honor their decisions, that they make for us.
It is difficult, to listen to the Elders. Because they ask us to do many things we do not understand. And sometimes we do not understand them until we become Elders ourselves. And then it’s too late because our Elders are gone.
Just remember, that we have to live clean: physically, emotionally, mentally, and spiritually. We must maintain this balance. To remember who we are and where we are, before we know where we are going. Thank you. [applause]
Brett McCabe: Next we will hear from Lori Bradford.
Lori Bradford: Oh, where we are going from here . . . hum . . . I find, personally, that often it’s very difficult to keep going at all. So . . . I guess that’s what I’ll address. I think, I think we ought to continue to find out how to keep ourselves and our friends out of institutions, especially out of psychiatric institutions.
I think that’s one thing that’s important is that we have to begin not to be so frightened of each other. So many of the stereotypes that we accept put us in so much fear of each other. Psychiatric patients have such a reputation for being dangerous, that, sometimes it’s kinda hard to get past that. And it’s also hard to be in a situation with a stigma where you realize people are, like, responding to you frightened all the time. And then. and then that kind of warps you out, you know, it’s an odd thing . . .
And, I think we have to think about what kind of behavior we expect from people in this society, where there’s so much oppression. And how hard it is to get by. But we buy so much that really professionals have the answers, and friends can’t be any use past a certain point, and that we really have to be able to rely on institutions as a control.
Not that I have all the answers, and I’m often asked when I start to try to say something about this, "But what about the sniper blowing off people on the street?" Well, you know, I don’t know. You know, life is so bad that people are really doing that.
You know, I mean, we would really like to believe that all this death and dying isn’t occurring and it seems like it’s a pretty hard reality to accept. How much they’re killing people in this country. And how often people die as a result of oppression in this country. In a myriad of ways that are so subtle.
So anyway, I think where we go from here is to continually try to be more weird in the streets. And to continually try to confront the kind of fear we have of one another that’s based on racist and sexist and other kinds of lies that are brought to us by a system that certainly has no one’s self-interest at heart. That’s all. [applause]
Brett McCabe: And our last address will be from Steven Hassna.
Steve Hassna: As a Vietnam Veteran, I know that this is going to be one long, hard struggle. And people have to organize politically within their communities. They have to also understand who and what is doing what to who, as far as the "enemy," if you want to put a classification on that.
The United States military is an apparatus of the political and economic situation of this country. It’s the bottom line. It is the end result. The people within the military, I hope you can understand, when you deal with military personnel, are not the enemy. The privates, the soldiers, the sailors, are there because of a myriad of reasons, economic reasons. Because they don’t really know any better, they want to get out of the inner city, anyone of a number of things. But those young soldiers are not the enemy. They have no say in foreign policy, military posture, or where they go or what they have to do.
I say this because when, myself and a few million veterans came back from Vietnam, we were basically ostracized and blamed for the whole fiasco. Now, I’m not saying, you know, embrace everybody and bring them to your house and give them a dinner and all this other stuff. But just recognize that that young soldier out there is not the enemy in the sense of the person that’s setting the rules for them to have to function.
And so, if you organize among them, if you get to know active duty personnel, bring questions to their mind. When I was a Drill Sergeant I would have people that were graduates from universities, in English. And they would ask me very pointed questions, to the point that I finally had to start answering, and became so disillusioned with the military, I left, and for the last almost twenty years, have been doing this.
So, when you deal with military personnel, recognize who the enemy is. You know, the generals and that, I ain’t got nothing for them. But those young soldiers out there, don’t chastise them cause a lot of them are there only because they have to be. And that’s a good place to start. [loud applause]
Brett McCabe: To keep the last part of this somewhat fair, I’d like to propose that I point out people in the audience, that we want to have ask a question, and then I pick whichever panelist feels like they would like to ask [sic] it, and if you’re willing to trust me with whomever would like to field the question. I think otherwise, it will be mayhem.
Barbara Honegger: When the question comes up, we might each put our hand up if we think we have something to . . .
Brett McCabe: That’s what I mean, that’s what I mean. Uh, Pat Cary.
Pat Cary: A very important question for Barbara Honegger. Everything that you’ve said has convinced me that President Reagan is a flaming, crazy maniac. OK, is that why you wrote your impeachment resolution with 37 whereas’s? Is that how you wrote it and why you wrote it? And I want to do it! How can we get that man impeached? And everybody says, "Oh, he’s going to be out of office." He’s got his finger on the nuclear button. He’s crazy as hell! How do we get him out of there? Tell me about it.
Member of Audience: George Bush though, we don’t want that.
Barbara Honegger: She was shouting, could everyone hear her? OK. Pat was referring to the fact that, about two years ago, I believe it was, I personally wrote, had typeset, and distributed copies of, and still have . . . not with me, I didn’t think to bring it tonight . . . but I have them. You can request one from me . . . Uh, a formal impeachment resolution. It’s drafted very much like, uh . . . well, it’s a formal "whereas" document . . . Whereas Ronald Reagan has broken this particular law for this particular reason. Of course, it . . . I really should rewrite it, Reagan and Bush.
Why did I do that? The thing that disturbs me the most, is knowing the truth about the degree of the heinous crimes. Treason, by the way, has not been my word. It was first used by one of the fifty-two hostages himself in a publication in Georgia, when he learned of this documentation.
These people have committed, the highest imaginable crimes, if, [sic] in fact, they are indicted for them. At the moment, the United States House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, headed by Senator, excuse me, Representative John Conyers, is in the middle of, what they call, a preliminary investigation. Which usually is Washington inside jargon for, "The FBI asked us secretly to look into this." They are in the middle of, what they call a preliminary investigation, into these charges. And one of my colleagues, just the other day, informed me that within the last 3 or 4 days, they called Frank Askin, who is the council, the attorney, who Representative John Conyers has placed primarily on this investigation. And that they are, he said, getting closer to holding public hearings.
When this information comes out in any kind of formal, open way, and/or breaks into mainstream network television, which has not yet happened, and I wasn’t able to take the time, because we didn’t have it here, to address the degree of censorship, not in the print media. I have a package of front page articles from the nations mainstream press on pieces of this story that have been printed. It’s been in the print media. I myself have seen that it has been on the top radio stations in the country. I’ve been on KGO, on Michael Krasny twice for two hours each, for heavens sakes, that reaches half the country. I’ve been on Larry King, allowed to be a call-in three times, for up to ten minutes each. And now President Carter has addressed my work and confirmed on Larry King radio to 49 states on June 15. It’s out there in radio, it’s out there in print media.
There is a wall, a stone wall, between there and network television coverage. And it think we’re getting to the point now where we’re about to move through that. When that stage happens, then the public pressure will be put upon Mr. Conyers’ office to move forward with his national hearings, which I would hope would be open and televised, which could then move towards the impeachment process, which should have happened a long time ago.
Audience Member: Two things to which I would like the panel to address itself, and I would feel cheated if they did not, individually, address the question I’m raising. You can do it in short, sweet sentences. Two things. One is recognition, and the other thing is a call. Each panelist, I would like to ask whether they recognize that neither political party, the Democrat or the Republican party, represents our real interests. Number one. I’d like that addressed by each member of the panel. And number two is a call for independent political action that is labor action. It’s significant that here tonight, we meet in a labor room, and there isn’t a single labor representative, either sending fraternal greetings, or addressing this panel, or addressing the audience. I think that’s a very serious neglect on the part of this group.
Brett McCabe: Would you pick one person. There are other people who would like to . . .
Audience Member: Just two or three people who feel that they . . .
Brett McCabe: Steve Hassna would like to answer this question.
Steve Hassna: I agree with you. The Democratic party doesn’t represent me. Lyndon Johnson sent me to Vietnam, and Michael Dukakis said he would not rule out preemptive first strike. OK? The Republican party has never represented me. I look at the United States government as just a glossed over Fascist state. Period. And that’s the way it is.
Yeah. And organizing among labor people . . . that’s something that’s been going on for hundreds of years, and it should continue going on, and it has to keep going on. So, as far as labor being represented here, um, I can’t address that I was just asked to be here to speak. OK? How’s that?
Audience Member: For Barbara Honegger, I have a question. My name is Steve Sugarman. That is, regarding Oliver North, Albert Hakim, Richard Secord and company. It was referred to as a CIA within a CIA. However, don’t you think that the people who run the Central Intelligence Agency, were fully aware. That . . . that it was not really a CIA within a CIA? You see what I’m trying to say?
Barbara Honegger: Not quite.
Audience Member: It was not a CIA . . . The people who run the Agency . . .
Barbara Honegger: Were these people secretly working for the CIA?
Audience Member: Yes.
Barbara Honegger: I don’t know.
Audience Member: George Bush. What can we do to expose more about George Bush? I think he’s running for President, isn’t he? Why have we not dealt enough . . . very much, with George Bush? And what can be done between now and November?
John Judge: I think, the thing to do is to get down his biography. He has a past, you know, these fellows have addresses. They have histories. A lot of people know he was Director of the CIA. It would be useful for somebody to have a full history of what the CIA did during the period that he was the Director. That alone would tell us a lot about him.
I think that more can be said about his relations with the Hinckley family. Certainly a lot more can be said about his relations with the Contras and the international drug dealing, than has been just hinted at. And the role that he’s played in the Reagan administration. And the things that Barbara Honegger has researched in the early deals to steal the election in 1980. Those kind of things need to be flushed out, and put forward,.
But, I don’t know in the end, what ultimately you can do to expose any person in this society, at that level, that’s going to stop them. I would rather convince people that we need to go a different way, than to convince people to vote for one party or the other.
Brett McCabe: I think Barbara Honegger would like to follow that up.
Barbara Honegger: There are certain key facts that the public can know about George Bush. And what I recommend that you do, is take a listen to the 29 minute tape that I have a number of copies here with me tonight. It’s called The October Surprise. For those of you who don’t want to go home with one tonight, or can’t afford it, it’s $8.00, you can order one later, either through me, or through the Other America’s Radio, in Santa Barbara. They’re in the book. This tape, if it was played on every radio station in the country, the man simply could not be legitimately elected. He would be fifteen percentage points behind anyone he was running against.
Another crucial data point, and I know that John Judge has mentioned this also on Mutual Radio programs that we’ve done together, and we really agree on this. It’s extremely important. We agree on many things, but this we’re really adamant about. If I understand you right, John. And that is, that, it’s extremely important to ask the very simple question: Did George Bush authorize the arms sales to Iran during the 8 hours that he was Acting President of the United States while Reagan was under anesthesia on July 13, l985?
I believe the answer to that is, yes. If you recall, Ed Meese went public shortly after the whole affair opened, and said, "Well, gee, I think the reason that Reagan doesn’t remember whether he authorized those late 1985 shipments of TOWS and HAWKS or not, is because, gee, I think he was asked by McFarland while he was woozy and coming out of the surgery."
Well, I believe that the reason for that memory of Meese’s which may actually be a legitimate memory, is because Meese was told, quote, "The President," unquote, authorized the arms shipments. Well, for 8 hours, Bush was, quote, "The President," unquote.
And two other interesting fact to follow that up, and it’s in my documentation is that, according to the Wall Street Journal . . . that’s as mainstream a source as you can get in a capitalist system . . . The Wall Street Journal reported, and I have the precise cite in here, that in July 1985, note that Reagan’s surgery was in July 1985, that in July 1985, Mr. George Bush, Vice President of the United States, went to Israel, to physically meet with [unintelligible], where he was briefed in detail, the Iran arms sales operation. If the Wall Street Journal says that that happened in July, it probably did, and the the Wall Street Journal had access to Craig Fuller, his . . . Bush’s assistant’s notes of the meeting. I’m sure it happened in July. If so, why does George Bush’s own autobiography, right now out on the stands, called Looking Forward, lie, I believe, and say it that happened in August? He’s covering up something about those crucial 8 hours, when he was "The President." [cheers and applause]
Audience Member: This, conference is called The Fourth Reich in America. There’s a book I believe John Judge is familiar with, called The Nazi’s Go Underground. It was as published at the end of WWII, and it says that some officials of the Third Reich, including Martin Borman, decided since they couldn’t beat the US in a war, to subvert the US, take it over, and then bring about the rise of the Fourth Reich. Do you think there may be an international network of Nazis operating today? And, if so, are they connected to the Kennedy assassination?
John Judge: I don’t know, maybe you weren’t here before, but I actually went into some detail about some of the Kennedy assassination links to exactly that Fascist International network. Like General Dornberger, the role played by John J. McCloy who helped to pardon them, Leon Jaworski to move them, George De Mohrenschildt, whose family worked with the Nazis, to be the baby sitter for Oswald and move them around some. I don’t have time now to go to that level of detail.
I think absolutely they didn’t lose the war. I don’t think it was solely a matter of not being able to beat the United States. I think that they were in bed with pro-Fascist, anti-Communist elements in the United States who saw them at that point as best political allies. in terms of what the future agenda was. And that, there was enough similarity, in those Fascist trends and interests the ruling classes, to bind with them and to use them.
Their technology was way ahead of anybody else’s, and we knew it. And we wanted it. And, we brought them here: their spies, their scientists, some of the worst of their war criminals. And also helped to set them up in many other key and critical positions around the world.
And, we have to deal with the continuation of the genocide, and not just John Kennedy’s assassination, but every major assassination and political operation I’ve ever looked into.
Brett McCabe: John has a brief history on Henry Kissinger that I think is worth reading, or hearing.
John Judge: Well, Henry Kissinger worked directly with these people in Germany. He was in the Army and had connections in those years, I believe, with the guy whose publicly acknowledged as being his mentor, and the mentor for Al Haig, who spent 30 years in the Pentagon Plans Division: Fritz Gustav Anton Kraemer, who I believe to be one and the same as the Fritz Kraemer who was convicted at the Dachau trial in relation to the massacre at Malmedy. And yes, that’s his prisoner docket number there. And, you can compare the photos and the histories and see what you think. He fits into Kissinger’s whole life. His son, Sven Kraemer and he, both served on the National Security Council. And at least Sven, and perhaps Fritz are still on it. Sven was one of the main people involved in the "Debategate" theft of the books, in order to further insure that Reagan would win the election against Carter.
And, Kissinger, even in Price of Power, and I think it’s the most important thing in the book, and the reviewers and the television interviewers didn’t even touch on it Kissinger was with the specific Counter Intelligence Corps that moved the Rat Line. And moved the Nazis. And when he came here to the United States, he worked directly with those elements of the CIA that had to do with the importation of the Nazi criminals into the Intelligence agencies here. He’s been part and parcel of this scam right from the very beginning.
As was Richard Nixon, who worked out of Jay Gould’s old estate on Long Island, with Navy Intelligence. And helped bring Malaxa and other key Fascists into the United States.
This is the dirty secret. This is the one that unlocks the code. Is to study the history of the movement of the Fascists around the world at the end of WWII and who they were connected with here. And it goes right up into the current Contragate scandals and everything that I’ve looked at. So, Kissinger’s part and parcel of it. They didn’t take him and that accent off TV for no reason.
Audience Member: He was fired by Kennedy. He wrote the first winnable nuclear war scenario. He was fired by Kennedy in ’61. He was never elected, always appointed, always has this massive power going. The first thing that Nixon said, coming back to us a couple of months ago, was, anybody’s who’s elected, better get Kissinger in there. He’s one of the enemies that we’ve got to stop. Vitally important.
John Judge: He’s a butcher. He’s a killer. He’s a murderer, and he’s one of the foulest Fascists on the planet.
Audience Member: I have a tough question that’s just been brought up, about this discussion here. That is, Kissinger is supposed to be a Jew. And his family supposedly left Germany in 1939 and came to America. So, the first thing is, what is a German Jew doing with all these Nazis? And the second thing, that would connect with Barbara Honegger’s . . . I didn’t hear her whole talk, but the thing about the 15 or 16 families that control the monetary system, etc. And I wanted to make a statement of my own about it . . .
Brett McCabe: [interrupting] We’re not making statements, we’re asking questions.
Audience Member: [resuming] Then answer my question.
John Judge: I don’t believe he’s Jewish. I think he’s lying. But even if he is, I think that there are Jewish Fascists. Just as there were German Fascists, there were Jewish Fascists.
You’re saying he’s a Jew by race. When you’re talking about "Jews" to me, you’re talking about a religion, an organized religion. The Nazis want us to believe it is a racial characteristic. I don’t buy it. I mean, I think that if you want to talk about being Jewish, than that’s what you’re talking about is a religious belief. You know, some people may take it further, but I think it’s a tenet of Fascism to talk about it as some kind of race. [scattered applause]
There are many people under oppression, who buy into the oppression. I doubt there’s anyone here in the room that can walk the clean slate for all of their life. Or even what part of it they live now. And say that they don’t participate. They don’t have any hand in the pie. So it’s not surprising that, at times, oppressed people buy into their oppression, cooperate with it.
Audience Member: This is directed, I guess, towards John and Barbara. Recently in the [San Francisco] Chronicle, on the front page, was a picture of renegade Bishop from France I can’t pronounce his name. and his split with the Vatican. He’s since been excommunicated. Also, in the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail he talks a lot . . . he is also a member of the Order De Zion. And I wondered if there’s any comments, since he deals with what you’re talking about
Barbara Honegger: John says I can take this. [laughs] Yes, I’m glad you asked that question. Now, I’m going to preface this, because I don’t want you to think I’m the weird one, simply because I’m being the messenger of this information, OK? This is not what I believe, this is what they do.
If you haven’t read the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail, it’s a must, to understand what’s happening. Also, the follow-up by the same authors, entitled The Messianic Legacy. And, another book I recommend, called The Spear of Destiny by Trevor Ravenscroft. If you take those three books together, you will pretty well understand the relationship between this wild Biblical Fundamentalism, the creation of the State of Israel, the far Right in Israel, which are really not religious at all. They have geopolitical motives to expand their state for very Fascist reasons.
And the scenario in Holy Blood, Holy Grail which very . . . in . . . in just a few words, is that this book proposes that the person who is known as Jesus Christ did not die on the Cross, but produced offspring that . . . whose bloodline became the Merovingian Dynasty of monarchies. And that, it’s very interesting, that the last Merovingian king was, as I recall, it was, um, it was either Dagabert or Barbarossa.
Audience Member: Dagabert.
Barbara Honegger: It was Dagabert. And when you read The Spear of Destiny, you learn that Hitler was personally obsessed with Dagabert, and actually believed, according to one of his . . . um . . . psychic friends, who has written other books, to have believed himself to be the reincarnation of him, which is interesting. Therefore, when Hitler, according to Holy Blood, Holy Grail, excuse me, according to The Spear of Destiny, his first act when he gained power, the Anschluss, was to march into Vienna and to take the Spear of Destiny. And he believed that his political power, that is, the power around which the Nazi/Fascist movement is, according to Hitler himself, that would leave him. This is a very magical belief, a la the Trilogy of the Ring [sic], the Ring trilogy. He believed that his power, his military power, the concentration of military power, and the Fascist power would only adhere to the Nazi movement, and the Fascist movement, as long as that physical spear was in their possession.
You’ve got to read these books in order to understand that this idea, that links the Merovingian Dynasty to the survival of Christ in the bloodline, and that linked in turn to Dagabert, and Dagabert to Hitler, and Hitler linked to some of the Jews in Germany being part [unintelligible] of the creation of the state of Israel, and the right in Israel that now wants to use the Armegeddon scenario using the same Fascists in this country who’ve infiltrated to have the Armageddon war to expand to the Greater Israel. It’s all part and parcel of this religious-geopolitical belief system.
Brett McCabe: I’ve heard that the . . . I don’t know if it was Mae Brussell or someone I heard, say that the Spear of Destiny is supposedly at West Point.
Barbara Honegger: Her source for that was me, and she got it wrong. She remembered it incorrectly. What I was told by, a gentleman who claimed to be in the Merovingian line . . . a Canadian, uh, Minister . . . He told me me that the real Spear is not the one in the Schatzkammer in Vienna, which was, uh, the official history is that the Spear was, um . . . at the end of Holy Blood, Holy Grail you learn that the Spear was, um, allegedly, um, found, by the American intelligence people and returned to the Schatzkammer. According to him, that is a copy of the Spear, and the real Spear is at Annapolis. [laughter]
Richard Gallyôt: I’d like to ask a question of the audience. I’d like to hear, since the topic is where do we go, and what can we do, I’d like to hear what some of you think we can do.
Brett McCabe: I’d like to recognize whoever I think has a great idea. The lady in the purple shirt had her hand up.
Audience Member: On David Emory’s show, he was discussing Jesse Jackson. And after the primaries he went to LaCosta, which is owned by the Mafia. And he made some reference that he thought that Jesse Jackson might be an intelligence agent.
John Judge: Who said that?
Audience Member: [cont.] Dave. David Emory said that. On One Step Beyond.
John Judge: What I heard her say was that Dave Emory made some mention that Jesse Jackson visited La Costa which is mob-owned, stayed there, and then he asked some question about whether he was CIA related, therefore?
Audience Member: [cont.] He didn’t say that he was CIA, he said something like . . . I don’t remember exactly, something like, he was suspicious about what he was up to.
Audience Member: If I can help clarify that, I heard the same program. He was building a whole case about Jesse Jackson, based on the incident at the time of Martin Luther King’s assassination, where Jesse Jackson reappeared shortly afterwards with a bloody shirt. And he’s, you know, where did he get it, you know, how did he know about it. And the incident that you mentioned. And then Dave . . . Dave was hypothesizing, Dave and Nip, the co-host,they were making clear, I thought, that they were hypothesizing that maybe he was playing some kind of intelligence diversionary role. And then they went on and talked about his politics from that point of view. You know, as a split in the Democratic party, and that kind of thing. But, I think that they were making it clear that they were hypothesizing, and not, on the basis of this kind of evidence, saying that he was an intelligence agent.
John Judge: I just feel really at a loss, since I didn’t hear it. I have my own views on Jackson, but I feel very much at a loss, not having heard the program.
Audience Member: Would you give us your views on Jackson? My other question is, do you think John Kerry is Naval Intelligence?
Steve Hassna: John Kerry was one of the founders, in 1968, of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. I’ve been a member since 1972, and if he’s part of Naval Intelligence, he sure organized a bunch of rowdy people y’know, ’cause VVAW’s been getting in their face for 20 years now. [applause]
John Judge: John Kerry was booted out, eventually. In part because of his class differences with many of the Vietnam Vets. And it is, I think, significant that Kerry is a member of Skull and Bones, at Yale: Bush’s and others’ little secret, elite club.
Audience Member: What about your views on Jackson?
John Judge: Well, my views on Jackson are, that he articulates, in many ways, a lot of the kind of aspirations and hopes of people in this society, and that he addresses issues that the other candidates don’t address. On a personal level, I think that politically, the way he operated in Chicago leaves some questions to be answered about opportunism.
But my hope is not tied even to the best of the representatives who want to go forward in that way. I mean, I think that the Jackson campaign and the Rainbow Coalition has been a very significant political phenomena. And one that can be built on in terms of solidarity around some of these issues, and crossing issues, and a lot of the things he raises. But I don’t pin my hopes, and don’t think anyone should pin their hopes, at this late point, on any representative.
Brett McCabe: Frank Prince, in the back.
Audience Member: If I could just add to that . . . If Jesse Jackson could make a difference, he’d have a bullet in his head. Haven’t we learned that today? [loud cheers, whistles,and applause]
Brett McCabe: I’d like to get some people who haven’t spoken. The lady in the purple tank top.
Audience Member: I’ll address to John Judge. If you did get your hook-up with everybody, and you did get public access, referendum, sure, what would prevent them from taking it over? They’ve certainly done dirtier tricks on [laughs] on some other things. I mean, who’s going to set up this great computer, and who’s going to control it, and who’s going to police it?
John Judge: I’m suggesting it as a model, first, in a very decentralized way. And I was suggesting is as a way to empower people. I don’t believe that you or I can think of any social mechanism, or system, that can be laid down like a grid over human nature that, in and of itself, without other composite changes from the bottom and in the top, is going to function perfectly. I mean, there have been drives for referendums around issues, where, when people got enough signatures to put the thing on the ballot, the money came in and bought advertising. So, in another element would be, that you’d have to stop paid ads on those issues while they were being debated.
And I’m not an idealist in that sense. I don’t say that there’s anything that’s beyond corruption. The more decentralized it is, the more decentralized the input is, the broader based the decision-making is, the less easy it is to corrupt. But anything and everything is, of course, corruptible. It was more important to me to give people the idea that they should have the right to make those decisions around their lives, and to have them struggle for that. There is more to be learned from political lessons of that struggle, than from the mechanism itself. And, I do think that that mechanism does have a potential, and I think it’s one that has a potential to educate, and one that a lot of people can relate to, and can be talked to about.
The ruling class would go against it, I have no doubt. That they would try to corrupt it. But, that’s true no matter what we do. And if you just want to sit at home and say, "Well, no matter what I do, they’ll come against me. . . . " Well, they’re already here. They’re already against us, and it’s time for us to be creative. [cheers, laughter, and loud applause]
Barbara Honegger: I’d like to follow up John’s comments. My position on what should be done, can be done, besides making sure that Bush isn’t the next President, is that in the long term, now I know that, I believe that, we agree, John. I know that the words that you chose to use are slightly different that I would have. I believe you said that the democratic system doesn’t work. In fact, the Republican form of government does not work. And, you’re calling for a direct democracy, I believe, isn’t that correct? Yes, well I can agree with that. And the the best way. I don’t think we can take quantum leaps in culture, because we have to retain what’s good from the past as we go into the future, into a better future. But we can significantly improve our system by a national initiative process which is very similar to what John is talking about.
And, in fact, there are organizations. They’re not very well-funded yet in Washington. But there are very serious organizations which are, which have been in, had an office, had a small staff. You could consider working for them. And what I would recommend, what I would like to see happen. Obviously, the Congress of the United States, the Senate and the House of the United States, are never going to vote themselves out of power by voting for a national initiative.
The only way to do it, is to have something like the national initiative party. Where the people from a new party would be bound, as members of that party, delegates of that party, and running representatives for office of that party, the House and the Senate to, in particular, gain the votes, to have a majority in the House and the Senate to vote in a national initiative process.
Audience Member: Thank you Barbara. I’d like to address something Richard asked a few minutes ago that we never got back to. He asked what we could do. I have a six year old. He knows John Judge. He loves him very much. Make sure your children know these people. Your children are important. Mr. Williams has pointed that out, also. You may not be able to get your computer base. You may not be able to get everyone together. But you let your child sit down with one of these people, or people like them, and draw pictures. He refers to John as "the government man." He doesn’t know government, but, he could talk to you John Judge talk a lot better than you would believe. And he started this at 5 years old. Introduce your children to these people.
Richard Gallyôt: My kid’s two and he loves John. [applause and laughter]
Audience Member: In terms of what can we do, I have both hands and both feet intimately involved in the local politics of Fairfax, California, Marin county. I want to tell you, it’s one of the ugliest messes. I would have never imagined how ugly the politics is in Fairfax, California. And the kinds of things that you are talking about on the national level, are happening to us on the local level. And we are fighting against it. It is very, very difficult. I have been at it for six years there. It is very hard work. Very hard work. And I urge everybody here, to look carefully, in the way that you people are looking at the national level, at what is going on under your very own noses. Even in this town.
Richard Gallyôt: Especially in this town. It’s not news to us. Don’t be surprised if you get a lot of dirt, but don’t get discouraged and don’t give up? Keep trying. Keep trying.
Audience Member: That’s right.
Audience Member: I’d also like to refer to Mr. Gallyôt’s question, and, uh, I guess this is for those of us who don’t have kids. Act like kids. Disobey. Disobey. [laughter] I mean, you know, this whole system is pretty tenuous. It’s kind of like juggling. And if somebody gooses the juggler, you’d be amazed just how much effect . . .
Richard Gallyôt: I imitate my kid all the time. You’d be amazed what I can get away with. [laughter] It’s true. Act like a kid, you’d be surprised at the inspiration.
Audience Member: The military state that they’re hoping to bring into effect, it’s going to have to be different than what was brought about in Nazi Germany, because the American people are not used to being under an authoritarian rule [hisses and boos] . . . openly authoritarian rule. (You’re a bunch of rebels.) First thing, how do you feel that . . . and I’m addressing this to Barbara Honegger and John Judge. How do you feel that the military is going to be able to get away with it? And, could it possibly be the war on drugs? Could the war on drugs become . . . make every . . . anyone that they choose, an unperson?
Barbara Honegger: Did everyone hear that? Did everyone hear that question? It was a rather long one. Shall I repeat it, or not? [affirmative from a few members of the audience.]
OK, paraphrasing,the claim was made, which I very much agree with, that, should there be a military state, a martial law state, instituted in this country, that it wouldn’t come about by the same process, or at least obviously so, that happened in Nazi Germany. And if it did happen, how do we see that it could happen?
Well, again I feel I’m torn, because I wouldn’t want to give these people any new ideas. But, what we do know, I’ll just say what they’ve tried. And, that will give you some idea as to what they could try to achieve in the future. Ed Meese is leaving, thank God. He really was the architect of the worst part of their attempt to do just that and put the machinery in place, which was the "Rex 84" program, amongst others, which was, drawn up, such that the President of the United States, at the stroke of a pen, something that I frankly believe is explicitly unconstitutional but they wrote up a secret executive order, a National Security Directive, that would give the President of the United States the ability to declare martial law in an economic emergency at the stroke of a pen, and completely suspend the Constitution of the United States. Rather than. By the way, one of the modes that Ed Meese, tried to put into place, and has, to some extent has been successful, is to try to have direct federal control over the National State Guards, which many of the state Governors are trying to fight. They should win in the Supreme Court, and I believe they eventually will.
What I have done personally to try to stop this, and I actually believe that the Force is with us is that after Iran/Contras’ exposure that will be successful, is to propose an explicit Constitutional Amendment, which would be the 27th. I have sent this to the California Committee on the Bicentennial of the Constitution, at their request, and hopefully will be presenting it as an idea at a national town hall meeting that is going to be held on the 200th anniversary of the Ratification of the Constitution. I hope to be invited to do that and they have asked me to ask.
And I’ve proposed this constitutional amendment that would make unconstitutional any attempt by any of the three branches of government, to change the constitution in any way, and to, in any way, lessen, revoke or suspend any of the rights and privileges in the United States Constitution. Including the Bill of Rights, and all Amendments to the Constitution, Except through Article 5, which is the Amendment process itself, as stated in the Constitution. And that proposed Amendment, I have now sent to these people, and I think that it will solve the problem. [applause]
John Judge: Well, I should say that, of course, from my perspective, we already live in the authoritarian military state, and that it’s a very cleverly designed one. It won’t of course, look exactly like 1930s Fascism. It’s Techno-Fascism, for one thing, forty years down the technological pike.
But I think the the thing that happened in 1963 that we watched on the video today, was a military coup d’etat. It was a grabbing of this country, and if you can’t tell by now, from where the money goes, and how the decisions are made, who’s in control in this country, and the power of that military and national state apparatus, then I think you’re missing something.
On the other hand, I don’t believe the thesis that’s supported by some people, that the Germans were somehow different, is correct. I think that many people in many societies are quite comfortable under authoritarian rule.
But I also think that there’s a longer history, and a potential history, for people in this society to look at things in a different way. That we’ve been allowed a particularly long leash, and that we’ve been allowed, at least, the remaining illusion and trappings of a democracy, until they can come up with a scenario that frightens enough people to go into a martial law situation. And I think that there are hundreds of such illegal and backhanded executive orders that rule the situation.
We’re already in the state of emergency, legally, and it’s it’s merely that they don’t have, yet, the perfected public excuse to go the rest of the way. And that’s what they’re working on. As they get closer to that, they fight each other, tooth and nail, to see who’s going to be on top, and that’s why we know something about them. [applause]
Richard Gallyôt: A friend of mine who’s done a little bit of time, refers to us, as, "out on minimum security." [laughter]
Brett McCabe: I’d like to just make a brief reminder/announcement, that the Bound Together Bookstore table in the back of the room has a mailing list, and that if you want to get the proceedings either audio, video or print, that you should go back there. Susan or Lee are back there at that table.
Also, I want to announce again, that KKUP, 91.5 FM will have another The Secret Government of Iran/Contragate on July 24, on Saturday, 12:00 midnight, and Sunday, 12:00 midnight.
Audience Member: I have a tentative statement I’d like to make as far as, where we can go from here.
Brett McCabe: Are we making statements, or asking questions?
Audience Members: [loudly].
Let him speak!
How about both!?!
[etc.]
Audience Member: [cont.] Where do we go from here? OK. A capitalist society is based upon consumption. The scary thing about the military/industrial capitalist society is that, they consume it. They build it. They send it to friends of theirs, and they blow it up. OK. The object there is to make it as expensive as possible. We pay for it. They blow it up. Make it, we pay for it, they blow it up. OK,
Now, we can talk about the fact that the workers control the production. And therefore, indirectly, have the power to bring this to a halt. But, as consumers, we have power too, because if we don’t buy their goods, or politically, we don’t buy their package, then we vote with our . . . we vote . . . that way. We vote with what they want, which is our money.
We can stop them from spending our money to blow up their toys, or stop spending our money for toys we get from them, that are crap. Then, where do they get their money? I mean, ’cause they don’t buy shit from each other.
Brett McCabe: [interrupting] Can I say something? I’ve been listening to you guys all these hours and hours and hours. I want to say something. I think the most important thing that people could do in this country . . . and we are sitting in a union hall . . . What do unions have? What power do they have? They have the right to negotiate contracts, right? Why don’t all the unions in this country have the same day for negotiations of their contracts. That way . . . that way, if these guys try to screw the unions, we all walk out. That means this whole country shuts down. That means national strike. Why don’t the unions do that? I say, unionists should take back their own unions. Throw out these bureaucrats that are running them and make a national day, one day . . .
Member of Audience: "Labor Day."
Brett McCabe: "Labor Day" . . . when all unions ratify their contract. That gives us industrial unionism, and that gives us strength. [applause.] Now I’ve had my peace.
Audience Member: I’d like to really make an important statement. I don’t know if you heard about it. About the Citizens for Fraud-Free Elections. First, we have to have free elections. That’s what you can do. You can contact your voter registration office and find out what the hell they’re doing with these damn numbers. Manipulating them. How come they’re getting the information from Texas? What are they doing with the information down there?
And the other thing is, too, you’ve got the Senate Bill 2703. This includes dropping people off the voter registration rolls, and sharing voter registration information with PG&E and Pacific Telephone. Now people, wake up. This thing here was authored by Sen. Milton Marks, right here in San Francisco. And he started in January, and it’s been amended several times. I suggest people wake up and do something about it.
Barbara Honegger: What’s the number?
Audience Member: Senate Bill 2703. If this isn’t Big Brother, what is? They’re sharing information with all state agencies, OK? The state agencies, the PG&E and with Pacific Telephone. You try to get Pacific Telephone, they’ll say, "Where is your address? Well, according to our records, we got this guy, this guy and this guy." Also, the DMV interfaces with these guys. That has nothing to do with voting.
And the second thing is finding out if your vote really does count. Check out the precincts, find out what the voter turn-out was. Contact these neighborhoods, see who they voted for, see if that correlates with what the voter registration office says. I don’t think it does. Do something about it, within the system. [applause]
Barbara Honegger: Just a comment on that. There is an organization called Citizens For Fraud-Free Elections. I’ve spoken with them, had dinner with them, looked over their documentation. It’s really important to contact them. Don’t get depressed.with what they will tell you. It’s in all the documentation they have, that even the League of Women Voters, mother and flag and the apple pie, are involved in fraud in our national elections. But the way to correct it we have to focus on the positive, the way to correct it is to support their movement for a bill that would make it illegal to hold computerized election pollings, because that’s where the fraud comes in. If it’s hand-counted ballots, they’re physical, they can be recounted and we should demand it.
Brett McCabe: Anyone that’s interested in buying a copy of what’s been happening here, can get copies and other information at Bound Together Books, which has a table set up in the back, and is also a Bookstore on Haight Street.
Richard Whitney: If I may, I’d like to point out that the desecration of the free ballot in this country goes back a lot further than simply the manipulation and fraud that apparently is happening today. There’s supposed to be a free ballot in this country, but as I can tell you, as a member of a minority party, there is not.
Minority parties have been excluded from the ballot in state after state. For example, if we were to try to get on the ballot in California, our party would have to go out and collect 600,000 signatures. Even if we had the resources to do it, that means we’d have nothing left of for a campaign. It’s a "Catch-22" bind, and state after state is like that
So there is no free ballot. But I think, another thing to point out, and it gets back to the question raised by the woman who was asking about John Judge’s proposal about having more referendums, and so on . . . you get back to, who controls the computer? And I’d just like to emphasize again, that I think we have to realize, that the real source of political power is economic power.
Some sixty years ago, Woodrow Wilson pointed out, that the real government of the United States is the combined capitalists and manufacturers of the United States. And I think that’s what you have to realize. Even if you had freer elections, the people who are elected to office have to respond to the economic power that’s held by the people who control the industries.
And that’s why I think we have to . . . I . . . I’m not saying that I’m opposed to efforts to try to win free elections, of course, we have to look at the other front, where it’s really . . . where the real power originates. And I think that’s in the economic field.
Brett McCabe: Which is industrial unions. Right?
Richard Whitney: That’s what we propose as the answer, is organizing our industrial strength.
Brett McCabe: Listen, it’s 10:30. We’ve made history here, because we’ve been here . . . not only have we been here since 10 in the morning to 10:30 tonight, now we’re at 12 hours. We’ve been talking about things you’re not going to hear on the Today Show. You know, Barbara Walters I don’t think is ever going to interview John Judge. [laughter] They are seriously now considering Barbara Honegger. I stand corrected.
I’d like to let you all know that it is 10:30. I’d like to just let people know that you have been here for The Fourth Reich in America, Political Repression in the Warfare State.
John Judge would like to say one final thing, and then I’m going to take one more question. And I already know who I’m going to take it from, so . . .
John Judge: I just wanted to say a word of thanks to the many people, some of them speakers, who put out the effort and a great deal of energy to make this event happen out here, in San Francisco. I think that, those people, especially the people that took time out, volunteered did child care today, and just that made this happen: I want to say thanks to all of them. [loud applause]
Brett McCabe: Could I make one last announcement? I’d like Mae Brussell to know that we’re all thinking of her. Because that is a lady that deserves the credit of America. Because she has fought for all of us. [loud applause and cheers]
The gentleman in the blue shirt and the suit, who’s talking to the man in the sweater has had his hand almost up to the ceiling. That gentleman right there, who’s got the newspaper in his hand.
Audience Member: I have two parts of this. One is, how best can we initiate an audit of the Federal Reserve System, as an open audit? It came into existence in 1913. There hasn’t ever been an open audit from outside of the particular Federal Reserve body itself, private bankers who represent the monetary policy makers.
And, also, how does the Federal Reserve control our Judicial system?. One of the most powerful units that our society is used to perpetuate the status quo, keep the resources away from the masses.
John Judge: The only thing I can suggest is that we look, which I think we have to start doing pretty soon anyway, at an alternative bank system, and let them have their money. [laughter]
Brett McCabe: Alright folks, I think we’re going to have to say, "That’s all, folks."
Willard: One of the things that we can do, is to make sure that this happens next year. [cheers and applause]