Matthew Ehret: Canada, United States, British Empire and a New World Order
At the Grand Jury of the People's Court of Public Opinion, Matthew Ehret gave his testimony regarding the history of the influence the British Crown, Rhodes Scholars and the Round Table has had in North America, and their financial interests.
Matthew Ehret is a Canadian investigative journalist, lecturer and founder of the Canadian Patriot Review and director of the Rising Tide Foundation. He has published three volumes of the Untold History of Canada.
People say, 'oh, the British Empire just disappeared after World War II. It let its territories go free. And now the Empire is the big, bad American Empire'. That's the mythology that's been passed down to us. And it is a mythology. As Alex [Thomson] went through, very concisely, the real power that controlled the fifth column inside of the United States, which has always been there since 1776, has always been centered in London. We're going to flesh this out a little bit more. But it never disappeared. No Empire of this sort ever just wilfully gives liberty. Liberty is something you fight for," Ehret testified.
Below is the video of Ehret's testimony and the transcript.
Click on the image below to watch the video on Odysee
Watch the full Grand Jury Day 2 – Historical and Geopolitical Background, 12 February 2022 (5 hrs 47 mins), HERE.
Logistic support is provided to the proceedings by the Berlin Corona Investigative Committee: website (German) or website (English).
More information about the proceedings can be found on the Grand Jury's website: www.grand-jury.net
Transcript Matthew Ehret
Thank you. I have to say that presentation [by Alex Thomson] was more than I expected, though, and I think sets the tone very well for the torch that I'm being handed right now.
I would just make maybe push back on one, one single point, which is that no matter what the oligarchy might wish legally or formally be the claim of who owns the soul or the body and freedom of people, it has no bearing in reality. There is a natural law that is higher than the law that they wish to impose onto the universe. And that's part of the problem with Ivory Tower thinkers. Right. They always want the universe to conform to their mathematical models, and they kind of go into conniption fits of rage when they discover that the universe is much more creative and nonlinear than they want it to be. So, it's a sort of God complex. Which is ultimately the downfall, I think, of empires historically, every time you see the oligarchy sort of self cannibalise and melt down under its own self contradictions. It's a natural thing that should happen the way it does. The question is, are we willing to tolerate that level of folly and immorality to the point that we go down with it? Right. And that's always the challenge for every generation. And this isn't a new thing. And obviously, we are at the end of the system.
I'm going to do something a little bit different. Originally, I was going to talk a lot more about eugenics. Now I understand that in February 26, we're going to focus a lot more on eugenics. So, I won't do that. I will carry on the theme that Alex raised, but I will do this by first dealing with about eight minutes of the present situation just to get across what is the British hand in global affairs today. A little bit more detail, using a little one-minute video from Justin Trudeau here in Canada, where we have this shadow of a shadow who has been imposed onto people to carry out a policy that really doesn't come from him. I think everybody recognises that, there's nothing really there, he's kind of like a young version of Biden. His whole life has sort of been handled. But the question being, well, obviously, if this guy is too much of a Ken doll without a brain or a soul to actually carry out or make decisions, then what is the power behind the so-called throne?
So, I'm going to start with a video. Then I'm going to go back after dealing with the presence a little bit more into the 19th century, a little bit, with a Canadian focus. Just because this is something on people's perspective right now, being what is happening is currently happening in Ottawa. And then we're going to carry up to the battles in the post-World War II age just to see how this thing transmogrified and recalibrated after World War II.
So, we'll just do this in a summary way. I'll try not to oversimplify too much, but obviously this is a complex issue, and I will try to do justice and rigor to what needs to be understood.
So, the first thing is the video that I promised, which I'm going to play here. It's about a minute and a half. Oh, sure, sound all, right? I hope people can hear this. This is not the video. I'm so sorry. Let's try that again. Ok. Can people see the Canadian press? All right.
[plays video on screen]
[Video transcript]
"I, Justin PJ. Trudeau, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, her heirs and successors, so help me God.
"I, Justin PJ. Trudeau, do solemnly and sincerely swear that I shall be a true and faithful servant to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, as a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council for Canada. I will in all things to be treated, debated and resolved in Privy Council, faithfully, honestly and truly declare my mind and my opinion. I shall keep secret all matters committed and revealed to me in this capacity, or that she'll be secretly treated of in council. Generally, in all things I shall do as a faithful and true servant ought to do for Her Majesty, so help me God.
"I, Justin P. J. Trudeau, do solemnly and sincerely promise and swear that I will truly and faithfully and to the best of my skill and knowledge, execute the powers and trusts reposed in me as Prime Minister, so help me God."
So that is a little bit of a confusing thing for some people who saw this in 2017. Not your typical thing you would expect a so-called democratic head of state to be doing when he was declaring his oath of office after an election. But then again, Trudeau is not really the head of state, as we've come to see. He's both a member of the Privy Council office, which you have to be if you're going to be in a cabinet position, in government or in the opposition. And the actual head of state is the Governor General, that older gentleman standing next to him who is the appointee carrying out the emanation of the powers and authority of The Crown to give royal assent to any law that becomes law in Canada.
You have Lieutenant Governors, a positioned in every single province. You have a Privy Council office. You have this whole weird Byzantine structure above the apparent public aspect of our so-called democracy in this monarchy of the north, which is, again, very confusing for a lot of people.
We're going to go into a little bit more of what this is. What is this anomalous thing and what is it a part of internationally? How did it come into being?
So here I've prepared a series of slides. Just need to get across that Canada is, after all, a part of the Commonwealth, the British Commonwealth. This is something that was set up in the late 1930s in preparation for, well, essentially the transformation of the British Empire's outward image.
Today, there are about 54 countries in the British Commonwealth, with the center being the United Kingdom. The head of it is the Queen of England. You have this thing occupying about 12.2 million square miles of territory, 2.4 billion people are represented within territories here, 21% of the world's land area.
And people celebrate this thing as if it's somehow Democratic institution. And it's a bit weird. Like, what is this thing? Also, if you look at a lot of these territories, a lot of it is the Caribbean, the Latin American areas aren't so touched, but a lot of the Caribbean is. A lot of Africa, there are 19 African nations in sub-Saharan Africa. There are eight Asian nations, India being the biggest. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, obviously, the five eyes minus the United States.
But let's just compare this to the old British Empire. This is a screenshot from 1920 map. It looks pretty similar, doesn't it?
So, people say, "oh, the British Empire just disappeared after World War II. It let its territories go free. And now the Empire is the big, bad American Empire." That's the mythology that's been passed down to us. And it is a mythology. As Alex went through, very concisely, the real power that controlled the fifth column inside of the United States, which has always been there since 1776, has always been centered in London. We're going to flesh this out a little bit more. But it never disappeared. No Empire of this sort ever just wilfully gives liberty. Liberty is something you fight for.
Just quickly, the issue of current mining interests today, this is not something that just occurred in the 1880s, 1890s with the land grab for Africa and Cecil Rhodes' creation of De Beers and Lonrho and other mining interests.
This is a 2016 report. It's a fantastic report by non-profit that conducted audits on the British interest. Those interests that are controlling mining in Africa, with headquarters in either the UK or within Commonwealth territories, measured on the London Stock Exchange. And just a small quote here, it's a new colonialism Britain scramble for African energy and mining resources.
It says: "101 companies listed on the London Stock Exchange – most of them British – have mining operations in 37 sub-Saharan African countries. They collectively control over $1 trillion worth of Africa's most valuable resources. The UK government has used its power and influence to ensure that British mining companies have access to Africa's raw materials. This was the case during the colonial period, and it is still the case today."
This report is available for free online as a PDF. I'm not going to go into details. It is upwards of 70% of the mining interests, which also include refining materials by companies that are in British controlled territories. What is the infrastructure carrying this out?
There's something that a lot of people don't even know about. This is an organization affiliated with the Melinda Gates Foundation as well as the World Bank called Crown Agents. It was set up in 1833, on its official self-description, as an emanation of The Crown. It's not part of the government, but its authority comes from the fount of all honours, The Crown itself, that's the way the sort of Byzantine structure is emanated – the shadow government. There's a sort of hierarchy of authority. It doesn't come from the consent of the governed. It comes from the singular sovereign, The Crown, whoever that may be, as a hereditary institution.
So, this was set up in 1833 as a branch of the British Colonial Office to manage the infrastructure hard, and a lot soft, of the colonies internationally of the Empire. It did a few name changes over the years, and in 1996, it went through another name change called the Crown Agents for Overseas Government Administration, where it also has been managing the health infrastructure, including Covid protocols of Eastern Europe, especially Ukraine.
It manages many African countries, South Sudan, Myanmar. And it deals with governance. It helps these countries adapt their governing mechanisms according to World Bank and IMF standards. It's been there and doing this for a very long time, and it's a very strange thing. And again, they call themselves Crown Agents – it's not me slandering them or calling them. And this has been around, as I said, for a very, very long time. So that's one aspect of this thing in terms of the maintenance of the shadow Empire.
Now, one thing about this Commonwealth / City of London managed system is that the Cayman Islands and offshore banking is the center of this. There was a wonderful documentary that people can watch called "The Spider's Web" on Burton's Invisible Empire that is available on YouTube, even. It goes through this in a nice way, but it just gets across that, internationally, you have 24% of the financial services moving through a lot of British controlled Cayman Islands, Caribbean and other offshore tax havens.
But also, within these is the center of global drug money laundering and terrorist financing. People think: "oh, drugs. It's just a natural plague of our society. Terrorism. It's just a natural thing just that happens." And it's like, no, this is very artificial. This is not the way human society just comes up with these plagues of sociology. These were created diseases that are geopolitical in nature, not even religious in nature, that are cultivated from the top.
This is a 2012 Senate report conducted over a long period by, the recently deceased, Senator Carl Levin on US vulnerabilities to money laundering, drugs and terrorist financing the HSBC case, whereby in the course of this, it was discovered that HSBC was the primary number one offshore account money laundering bank in the world. As Alex pointed out, they were set up in 1865 in order to enforce or manage the opium trade, to destroy China – that never stopped. They were found guilty. They were slapped on the wrist with a certain fine of $1.9 billion. They were allowed to appoint their own auditor to sit there for five years. And as far as I could see, they're still doing what they do. They have a huge stake in Air Canada as well. Anybody who takes a plane to Canada will see HSBC signs everywhere. That is a huge piece of infrastructure as part of the silver triangle that's been underway for the whole of the 20th century.
You have the picture of the Queen with by Coutts. That's the Queen's personal bank, which was also in 2012 found guilty for drug money laundering. It paid its own little, I think maybe $10 million fine, and the bad publicity results in the bankruptcy's offshore accounts that were conducting the laundering to be sold off to the Royal Bank of Canada, which currently conducts the same operations. So that's that.
Africa, as well as $177 billion of debt holding it to hostage, meanwhile about $944 billion of revenue from the extraction of wealth, sits in British offshore accounts. So, it is not a debtor, but predator nation en masse. This is a whole story unto itself.
The City of London, as Alex pointed out, it's a separate entity. Even the UK government can't really do much legally to stop it. They have their own courts, their own police. It's a weird structure.
Okay, I just want to throw that out. And I didn't even talk about Iraq war, dodgy dossiers being justified and created by British intelligence that justified the bombing of Iraq, Libya as well – that was more MI6 intelligence – I didn't talk about that. I didn't talk about the Syrian dodgy dossiers of chemical weapons that were never actually proven to be used by Assad, but that had been justified for sanctions and justifying the regime change that has been attempted now for seven years. I didn't talk about that. But all I have to say, it's everywhere. The British hand everywhere. You scratch a little bit. Even in the course of the dodgy dossiers to try to put Putin as the big bad guy controlling Trump. Those dodgy dossiers were brought to us by people like Sir Richard Dearlove, the guy who brought us the original Iraq war Yellowcake dodgy dossier. That was always a fraud and the Chilcott Commission report proved that to be the case. And also, the question of Rhodes Scholars, people like Strobe Talbott, who is a Rhodes Scholar, came in with Clinton and has been there running Brookings for a very long time. This is also he's been behind Russia gate with many other Rhodes Scholars currently managing the Biden administration, like Jake Sullivan, Susan Rice, Eric Lander. The Sciences are Rhodes Scholars. They're just everywhere. And I won't go into that.
Okay. Some historical context. I'm Canadian. So, the question of Justin Trudeau, I hope that that's still an imprint in people's mind is what the hell is that?
So, the Privy Council Office, unlike the United States Constitution or Declaration, the Canada was founded in 1867. The original conference with our Founding Fathers was not something that was a part of a fight for freedom, unlike the US, this was something where these were all British loyalists, anti-republicans, they were all like our Founding Father, who was standing up there in the painting. Johnny McDonald was an Aryan complete race Patriot, wanting an Aryan Canada who said: a British I was born and British I will die. He was a filthy, immoral scumbag. And these are the people celebrated as our sacred cows that we're supposed to honour in Canada.
Now, unlike the US – which enshrines the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence, as well as the idea of the principle of the general welfare both now and into posterity in the Constitution – the Canadian founding document says literally:
"Whereas the Provinces of Canada [at the time there were four of them] have expressed their Desire to be federally united in One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom and of Great Britain and Ireland, with a constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom. [Which is itself a bit of a fraud since the UK doesn't really have a constitution so it's sort of a mirroring of a shadow.] And whereas such a Union would conduce to the Welfare of the Provinces and promote the interests of the British Empire."
So that's our so-called preamble is to promote the interests of the British Empire. That's why we were created. We were also created, this conference that drafted that it occurred three years earlier in 1864 while the Civil War was just winding down, it was still being fought. The British had put a lot of resources into breaking up the Union, as I've gone through in previous presentations. A lot of this is in my books as well in The Clash of the Two Americas and The Untold History of Canada.
The point that the British were afraid of, as I demonstrate, was that Canada had pro-linking statesmen in positions of leadership who were fighting to create an independent country at that time.
There were also people who were working to create an American Zollverein with the Canada and the United States together in one customs union based upon industrial development, with the type of policy, not like America today, but it was a different policy of the Lincoln / McKinley orientation of a real long-term thinking where human beings were seen as a creature that money had to serve by virtue of investing into large scale infrastructure, science and technology but also working abroad with Germany, doing the same thing under Otto von Bismarck, with Russia that had just sold the Alaska Territory to the United States with the intent of building rail through the continent into Eurasia.
So, this was seen as being a vital territory that had to be kept under the control of the British Foreign Office. And so, this Constitution was drafted. Lincoln's allies were ousted from power and it was kept as a wedge between the danger of a US-Russia collaboration.
Except one Lincoln admirer did become Prime Minister at a certain point, Wilford Laurier, and he did by 1911 organise to create a customs union, finally, all the bills have been passed and it was about to go into law, finally. And unfortunately, he was ousted in a coup de tête that was orchestrated by the Round Table and some Orangemen Freemasons that have the Queen, The Crown, the head of these different Free Masonic outfits. A paper was written that I published on the Canadian Patriot site going through those details. But just two years later, Wilford Laurier writes to his close ally O.D. Skelton that:
"Canada is now governed by a junta sitting in London, known as "The Round Table", with ramifications in Toronto, in Winnipeg, in Victoria with Tories [that's Conservatives] and Grits [that's Liberals] receiving their ideas from London and insidiously forcing them on their respective parties."
So, that was an admission directly from the man himself. He had a vision for turning Canada into a Lincoln modelled nation with a population of 60 million, within a generation, based upon large scale electrification and industrialisation – that was all ousted, ended, and again The Round Table took control.
Robert Borden and his replacement was a Round Tabler who ended up controlling the Chavin House of Canada at its inception as its first President. By 1918, The Round Table had already initiated a takeover of the British government. They had ousted Herbert Asquith in the Labour government in 1916, not that he was such a great guy, but they really wanted to have their full controls on the terms of the Versailles Treaty and the end of World War I.
One of the problems, they needed the United States – they really needed the power of the United States behind them and that's been always the objective of the Cecil Rhodes design. Lord Lothian, who was a leading Round Tabler at the time, he was the ambassador to the United States, had written – his other name was Philip Kerr, they always have names that sound kind of like Star Wars villains – he wrote the problem of the American psyche that had to be dealt with is that:
"There is a fundamentally different concept in regards to the question between Great Britain and the United States as to the necessity of civilised control over politically backward peoples … The inhabitants of Africa and parts of Asia have proved unable to govern themselves … Yet America not only has no conception of this aspect of the problem but has been led to believe that the assumption of this kind of responsibility is [iniquity. I can't say that word] iniquitous imperialism."
So, it's a problem, right? The Americans have this, "damn, they don't get that there's a white man's burden that they have to impose because they're just scientifically better than the darker skinned people." They have to morally and scientifically impose an Anglo-American control over the backward peoples and they don't get it. And that was a problem. Not there were Americans that did get it – and that was again part of the American deep state problem that I had mentioned, that Alex went through a bit – but what had happened?
So, there were several attempts at new world orders. What we're seeing today is not a new thing. I alluded to this in previous presentations, but in 1919 you had the creation of Chatham House, you have the creation of the Versailles, the League of Nations, all orchestrated by Lord Milner who at this time was a leading figure controlling British foreign policy along with many other Round Tablers.
The idea of the League of Nations was to read a collective security pact, Article 10, get rid of national sovereignty over economics and military affairs and create effectively a one world government. Part of this was also part of the Imperial Federation, kind of like what the European Union is, what they wanted for all of their – basically the world that failed. Why did it fail? Because people both in Canada, the lorry Liberals had made to come back through the 1920s and they resisted it, Irish Free State movements resisted it, people like Warren Harding who was assassinated – I say assassinated, I've never seen evidence to the contrary, the American President from eating poisoned oysters died. But the point being is you had nationalists that resisted and didn't succumb to this pressure at the time. So, it petered out and they tried again.
1933 there was the International Bankers Conference in London centered around the bank of International Settlements, the bank of England and 66 nations had been a part of it. All with the design that the Great Depression would be solved by moving sovereignty economically from nation States into officially essential bankers' codery under the bank of England. And the only reason after six months that failed is that Franklin Roosevelt pulled the US delegations out of all participation and the thing just fell apart. I wrote about that in chapter seven of my Clash of the Two Americas in detail.
Then there was another attempt in 1944. Again, Roosevelt had not yet died. John Maynard Keynes was assigned this time to represent the British Empire at the Bretton Woods Conference with the idea of a one world currency run by the bank of England called "the bancor," an international exchange rate that would be again effectively a one world currency, with the idea of the Americans who had come out of World War II as the only unbroken country to be the battering ram or the enforcers of an Anglo-American reconquering of the nations of the world, many of whom had fought during the war and many had ideas of independence and freedom alive in their hearts. That was not acceptable.
I just have a little quote by Franklin Roosevelt, which I really like, where he made the point that: "they who seek to establish systems of government based on the regimentation of all human beings by a handful of individual rulers call this a new order. It is not new and it is not order." That was a sharp quote.
So, to pick up here a little bit now, where Alex has left off, there's a book called As He Saw It, written in 1946 by Roosevelt's son and his assistant, his personal assistant, Elliot Roosevelt. And he documents a lot of the battles between Roosevelt versus the Churchill gang that were trying to always pull the US into a Brotherhood of control – à la Cecil Rhodes, right, à la five eyes – which is already what was creeping up and happening from the Black Chamber being transformed into the NSA in 1930, which became integrated more and more into the British five eyes thing, which was again always the Cecil Rhodes will orientation.
But in this book, it's a great book. People can find this online; they could buy it; they should buy it. It's on archive.org. I use it extensively. But he talks in 1944 after a battle with Churchill, I think at the Tehran Conference, I'm not too sure which conference, but he speaks to Elliot saying:
"You know, any number of times the men in the State Department have tried to conceal messages to me, delay them, hold them up somehow, just because some of those career diplomats over there aren't in accord with what they know, I think. They should be working for Winston. As a matter of fact, a lot of the time, they are [working for Churchill]. Stop to think of 'em, any number of 'em are convinced that the way for America to conduct its foreign policy is to find out what the British are doing and then to copy that! I was told … six years ago, to clean out that State Department. It's like the British Foreign Office."
So, the OSS had not been cleaned out and the OSS had a lot of problems, but there were still a lot of Patriots and nationalists embedded in American intelligence within the OSS that were problematic for those trying to take control, who had pretty much occupied most of the State Department by this time.
Within Elliott's book, there's another wonderful battle between him and Churchill that was documented over what would be the post war era, what type of operating principles would govern it, where FDR's vision for the Greening of African deserts, the extension of the Tennessee Valley Authority, the rural electrification projects that pull people out of poverty and backwardness inside the USA, that would be extended through large scale loans internationally to help other countries have their own industrial programs, their own Tennessee Valley authorities, and really to extend the principle of the four freedoms to the world that we're not just supposed to be just nice, flaky words, but real active. Which is why Bretton Woods, the Keynesian team, lost out. And Harry Dexter White – who became the first director of the IMF, also dying under mysterious circumstances – the American delegation under him had won out and made sure that even China, India, Africa, South America, Russia would all be participants in receiving Tennessee Valley Authority projects that were all approved by the US delegation. They were all resisted by the British delegation. And even at that time, when Roosevelt had a Russia-China-US Alliance as his bedrock, Russia was a subscriber for a billion dollars into the IMF originally, before the Iron Curtain caused them to be forced out.
All that to say, I ramble, but in this small extract I selected, he's describing now the evening, talking with Elliot after fighting with Churchill, saying, "I'm talking about another war. [He's warning of a World War III.] "I'm talking about what will happen to our world if after this war, we allow millions of people to slide back into the same semi-slavery!
"Don't think for a moment, Elliott, that Americans would be dying in the Pacific tonight, if it hadn't been for the short-sighted greed of the French and the British and the Dutch. [That's the colonialists.] Shall we allow them to do it, all over again? Your son will be about the right age, fifteen or twenty years from now.
"One sentence, Elliot. Then I'm going to kick you out of here. I'm tired. It's this sentence: When we've won the war, I will work with all my might and main to see to it that the United States is not wheedled into the position of accepting any plan that will further France's imperialist ambitions, or that will aid or abet the British Empire in its Imperial ambitions."
So, tragedy strikes, right? Wallace, I don't know, I mean, it's a long story, but Wallace is replaced by Harry Truman, who is a George Bush sort of prototype bankers' boy Anglophile. And he's brought in now as the new vice President. So, Wallace was the Vice President who was completely online with FDR's vision. Roosevelt dies April 12; no autopsy is ever done.
And immediately within the preceding month, nuclear bombs are dropped on a defeated Japan by Truman. September 20, the OSS, the American intelligence agency, has disbanded. And purge, a massive purge begins. If anybody who had an understanding of the Wall Street, London financiers behind fascism rise and eugenics rise, there was a lot there were reports on this, these are all purged in the ensuing year. And at this point, the Iron Curtain speech is launched and people think, "oh, yeah, that was the Americans who did the Iron Curtain, which turned Russia and China into their enemies." No. It was Winston Churchill who came to the United States, stayed at the White House for a sustained period, and delivered his speech where he said:
"Neither the shore prevention of war, nor the continuous rise of world organisation will be gained without what I have called the Fraternal Association of the English-speaking-peoples. This means a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States."
Henry Wallace, just before he gets fired, he's now Commerce Secretary fighting against this insanity that was brainwashing the American people into these paranoid mobs, afraid of calming infiltration and conspiracy. The whole McCarthyism thing was a real atrocity run by the FBI as a dictatorship, which it was, the US became a dictatorship under the FBI, he says:
"Fascism [he warns] in the post war inevitably will push steadily for Anglo-Saxon imperialism and eventually for war with Russia. Already American fascists are talking and writing about this conflict and using it as an excuse for their internal hatreds and intolerances toward certain races, creeds and classes."
Obviously, there's a complete racist backlash, again, sponsored by J. Edgar Hoover – another 33rd degree freemason running the FBI for seven American presidencies – that's supporting the rise of racism, the dismantling of civil liberties for African Americans and others but also coordinating with the CIA that is soon reconstituted to create a new management system much more in alignment with British foreign policy. Things like MK Ultra that was originally using science crafted by Tavistock, the British intelligence branch of psychological warfare. COINTELPRO infiltration that also mirrored Operation Gladio in Europe. These are all things deployed justified by the terms and conditions of the age of 'mutual assured destruction'.
So, it continues. Wallace is now fired after giving the speech. The Truman Doctrine is announced, again. Who is the main organizer of the Truman Doctrine? One of the key guys is George McGee, a Rhodes Scholar. You have the central CIA is created in September 18. Now, completely a sort of new reconstituted cleansed intelligence agency. Harry Dexter White dies. IMF is hijacked, that was the guy who was on Roosevelt's team who is now, at that point in 1948, he was fighting to get Wallace elected under the Progressive Party leadership in the '48 elections. You'll find many great Patriots of the United States either died or had their careers annihilated who were part of this network. And then you have this famous July 50th NSC National Security Council 75 Memorandum to 'Save the British Empire'. I kid you not. This is literally a protocol issued under the logic that if the British weakens its imperial economic interests, then the Soviets will take and fill that space. So, the US foreign policy interest has to be to preserve British interests abroad. And this is where the IMF, the World Bank increasingly became rewired to use economic colonialism wherever needed. If you can't stop the political independence of a nation, at the very least sabotage their economic independence.
One guy who's an interesting figure is Clement Atlee at this time, who is post-World War II Prime Minister, and he makes a strong point that:
"Over and over again we have seen that there is another power than that which has its seat at Westminster. The City of London, a convenient term for a collection of financial interests, is able to assert itself against the government of the country. Those who control money can pursue a policy at home and abroad contrary to that which is being decided by the people."
Again, you have even British – so it's not the British government, right? The British people are also as much victimised by, as well as many figures within the British government are victimised by, this power above the official visible branches of government.
Throughout the Cold War, again, if you can't understand the architecture of the Cold War, of mutual issue of destruction, asymmetrical warfare, game theory doctrine, the application of systems analysis to manage the geopolitical overthrows of governments, things like the Vietnam War. If you don't look at people like Dean Rusk, Rhodes Scholar, Walt Whitman Rostow, who ran the NSA for three years was a Balliol Rhodes Scholar, Escott Reid, who was the architect of NATO to break Russia out of any influence in the Security Council over military affairs. NATO, that was Escott Reid, Rhodes Scholar. William Fulbright, Rhode scholar. I mean, there's so many that overlap. So again, you can't really understand what is this thing that JFK was pushing back against and trying to fight against? What was the thing that Eisenhower was warning about in his military industrial complex speech? You can understand that if you don't look at these ideologues who have been penetrated over decades. There's been 3000 so far in the 20th century who have been processed through the halls of Oxford. Not that they're all bad. I think Chris Christopherson is an okay actor and maybe his movie choices are not so great sometimes, but I don't think he's a bad guy. Although he's a Rhodes Scholar.
So, you'll find that you can't be guilty by association, but you can't understand anything unless you understand this very controlled, centralised hive. That also coordinates with the American Round Table movement, which is the Council on Foreign Relations. The thing that Hillary Clinton referred to as "the mothership" in a 2011 speech, that has always been since 1921, the British Round Table in America. And even people who you think of as being American geopolitical grand designers like Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samuel P. Huntington, Clash of Civilizations, a Canadian, Pierre Trudeau, who did his own martial law in 1970 and really reorganised the entire government as a technocratic cybernetic system. They were all processed under William Yandell Elliott at Harvard, who ran something that some have referred to as the Chatham House of Harvard. William Yandell Elliott was one of these guys who just like having talented young sociopathic boys brought around him, and he just trained generations of these geopoliticians who are processed. It's like a talent searching thing, as Rhodes describes it's exactly what they carried out, and then brought back into positions of ideological authority to carry out a policy that they themselves were not the originators of per se, but they were put into positions to make it happen.
We did have pushback, and I just want to have some counter voice because it's not like they're godlike creatures, right? There were real human beings, real statesmen, especially throughout the 1960s. You have Enrico Mattei, the Italian industrialist. You have Dag Hammarskjöld, the Secretary General of the UN, who had a grand program to end imperialism and promote industrial development in a variety of countries, especially in South Africa. Charles de Gaulle had avoided 30 assassination attempts. John F. Kennedy, obviously. Patrice Lumumba.
I didn't put everybody on here who was either assassinated or overthrown in CIA-MI6 directed coups. But all that to say it was a major period of potential where the common theme was cooperation and breaking out of the mathematical ways of governance, right. Introduce new technologies, new discoveries that were not monopolised, and do it through a way of looking for win-win cooperation, points of common interest.
That's why JFK offered the Russians the ability to work with the United States on a joint space program together. So, that would be something to break away, to liberate us from this mathematical balance of terror way of governance.
I'm ending up now, I think maybe three or four more minutes.
So, after the age of fascinations, again in the 60s, very parallel to the thing that was happening after the 1890s to World War I again, age of total assassinations and colour revolutionary coups, you have the stage is set now for a full economic recolonisation of the United States, especially. The focus has always been: take back control of the United States. You have this with several things happening. And Kissinger is a key figure in much of this. You have the creation in January 1971 of the Inter-Alpha Group created under the blueprint of Lord Jacob Rothschild, who was running N M Rothschild & Sons, but also has been a major banking financier interest as a part of a mercenary dynasty since the 1700s.
So, the Inter-Alpha Group of banks was a coterie of, there's a picture of it there, of the member banks with key major banks set up in each of the focused European countries to advance a new doctrine of deregulation, centralising power away from nation States, especially in Europe, and moving it into the private supernational coterie of corporate and financial interests above national authorities. So, I don't have time to go into detail there. That was 1971 that group was founded. It has since grown in numbers since its original founding six. Many of these banks were all tied to financial activities supporting fascism's rise, whether Franco, Mussolini or Hitler, earlier on, [ ] of whitewashed.
Then you have the same month the World Economic Forum is founded by one of Kissinger's prodigies, who we all know and despise, Klaus Schwab. Also, one of the co-founders was Maurice Strong – a Canadian oligarch who was picked up by the Rockefellers and was a co-founder of the Canadian Club of Rome, major player with Prince Philip, who is the guy who's called for being reincarnated as a deadly virus – who ran the World Economic Forum. In my February 26 presentation, we're going to go into detail in that [ ]. So, Maurice Strong, another figure who is a co-founder and inspirer of Klaus Schwab.
Then you have the big deal here, which is the August 15, 1971, US dollar floated. Kissinger and Schultz running the Nixon administration orchestrate the removal of the dollar from the gold reserve, the gold exchange system or the fixed exchange rate system, that was preventing speculation on currencies and commodities. As long as you didn't have speculation, it was difficult to conduct the sorts of economic warfare against nations trying to develop their infrastructure and their industrial base, which has always been, even going back to the 19th century, a tool used by Empire to keep nations destabilised, this economic warfare. So, the fixed exchange rate had to go. It guaranteed too much stability. You were able to think long term 5,20-year projects could be conceptualised when you had relative stability of currencies. And that was floated onto the floating markets. So, all of a sudden, the markets became the determinant of the value of the dollar that became increasingly embedded, again under Kissinger's lead, to the price of oil on the spot markets. So, all of a sudden this created a degree of chaos. So, you can no longer really build or maintain or improve your infrastructure, your capital-intensive part of your economy that you need to always have as the basis of your economic value in the system, that became atrophied. And increasingly the age of deregulation speculation was upon us.
I mentioned here for good measure, the Trilateral Commission, founded in 1973 under Brzezinski, Kissinger and David Rockefeller. Again, the hand of the Council on Foreign Relations, which is again the Round Table movement, is always there, as well as the Bilderberg Group, which is always there. Many of these figures are overlapping with this other thing that I'm going to talk about on February 26 in more detail.
So, this is what takes over under Carter, the Trilateral Commission. Nearly every member of Carter's cabinet is a member of the Trilateral Commission. People like Paul Volcker, who becomes the Fed chair, calls for a controlled disintegration of the US economy in 1979, which is where the interest rates are raised to 20% or more for two years, destroying small and medium businesses and only leading these behemoth multinational companies able to survive and thrive and gobble up under mergers and acquisitions.
Henry Kissinger delivers, at this time, a speech at Chatham House in the UK, describing the difference between Churchill and Roosevelt views of the post war age and describing people can read this, it's an appendix in my volume two, the full speech. But he describes how he preferred the Churchill way of thinking about geopolitics over the Roosevelt idea, which he saw as obsolete and incompatible with reality. But in it he also describes his time as Secretary of State under Nixon, where he says:
"The British were so matter of factly helpful that they became a participant in internal American deliberations, to a degree probably never practiced between sovereign nations … In my White House incarnation then, I kept the British Foreign Office better informed and more closely engaged than I did the American State Department … It was symptomatic."
Total admission. They don't even hide this is saying like, "oh, you didn't really see that." No, they just admit it. They just assume that we're too dumb to put words and actions together. Lord Jacob Rothschild 1983 delivered a speech saying that:
"Two broad types of giant institutions, the worldwide financial services company and the international commercial bank with a global trading competence, may converge to form the ultimate, all-powerful, many headed financial conglomerate."
What he's referring to is the breakdown of the division of bank activities from commercial, investment, trust, insurance. All of these had formerly, under Roosevelt, originally been designed in separate compartments so you couldn't speculate with people's savings. You couldn't legally do that. He was talking about taking that away so that you can create a new type of universal banking that does everything – what today we might call too big to fail.
This was done originally in Britain under Margaret Thatcher's Big Bang, where the first wave of universal banking was created in London again sort of restored even more of its control than it had formerly enjoyed. You have a near total collapse of a speculative bubble that results in 25% collapse of the stock exchange in New York. As a response to avoiding the collapse, Alan Greenspan is brought in and immediately normalises creative financial instruments, otherwise known as derivatives, that had formerly been illegal for the most part. These were known as junk bonds, securitised debts that were worthless but that were still securitised and then gambled upon with insurance that became also securitised so that people could – it's complex, but it's insane. It's not a way that you make any value. And it became kind of like a cancerous tumour that grew up in the economy to the point that by 1992, when the Maastricht Treaty was affected – creating the European Union as a new consolidation to get rid of nation States and get rid of the right of nations to admit their own and control their own credit in Europe – there was about $2 trillion of derivatives. That same year you have the Soviet Union dissolving. The end of history is being celebrated. George Bush says in 1990 at the opening of the Kuwait War that:
"We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order – when we are successful – and we will be – we have a real chance at this new world order."
So, this is a point where Margaret Thatcher is bragging that she put the steel into the spine of Bush, who was wavering on the issue of Desert Storm. But again, the idea was always it's the end of the nation state system. Now finally, at the end of the Cold War, it's a unipolar era of what today might be called the neoliberal world order. Soviet Union is totally privatised, destroyed, targeted for destruction overseen by Strobe Talbott, who is the point man on the ground, Rhodes Scholar, working closely with the IMF. NAFTA, is signed to again get rid of more powers of nation States in North America and move powers into the hands of private corporations above nations. World Trade Organisation and then big time Glass Steagall. The separation of US banking commercial from speculation is broken down by Clinton, Rhodes Scholar, last act in office.
And then from that point forward you have the ushering in of just the biggest cancer of derivatives, going from 2 trillion in 1992 to 70 trillion in 1999, by that point, overlapping the US global GDP. To the point that only ten years later, you have the deregulation completely of over-the-counter derivatives because Glass Steagall is now gone, too big to fail to become bigger than God, or so they want us to believe, so we have to bail them out. It's like a gun to the head if they go bankrupt. And by 2007, when the next collapse hits, there's $708 trillion of derivatives weighing down the system, far outweighing the $15 trillion of the US GDP.
Strobe Talbott in 1992 made his manifesto saying:
"All countries are basically social arrangements … No matter how permanent or even sacred they may seem at any one time, in fact they are all artificial and temporary … Perhaps national sovereignty was not such a great idea after all … But it has taken the events in our own wondrous and terrible century to clinch the case for world government."
That's from his Birth of a Global Nation.
Just two last slides here, I'm done.
Just to get clear, the takeover of financial services and the collapse of the real economy – the real part that has value, that sustains life. That has been the trend. You have the crossover of the, what you have there is the real estate rental leasing, finance speculation overlapping in 1987 with the physical manufacturing base. That's just one of many graphs put forward. A real economy only works if you have the financial side always servicing and improving upon the real side – manufacturing, infrastructure, science. If the financial side is not servicing that it's a fake, it's the bubble and the bubble will pop. And that's why the bubble that was created today, which is popping, was a planned disintegration and it was always designed for 1971 to disintegrate.
The question is when would be the pinprick? The pinprick has happened.
Point is, why is there an encirclement of China, of Russia by the US military, by the British? Why are there all these PSYOPS? Why are these so many different types of CIA connected operations to destroy and destabilise Eurasia right now? And I mean, I've talked about this in my last presentation, and this is well documented. What's going on? What are they afraid of?
I'm going to end with this last quote by Putin. People might feel feelings of rage when they see Putin's face because they've been fed a lot of propaganda in the media, I don't care. But in a recent speech, Putin just said:
"Only sovereign States can effectively respond to the challenges of the times and the demands of the citizens. Accordingly, any effective international order should take into account the interests and the capabilities of the state and proceed on that basis, and not try to prove that they should not exist. Furthermore, it is impossible to impose anything on anyone, be it the principles underlying the socio-political structure or values that someone, for their own reasons, has called "universal." After all, it is clear that when a real crisis strikes, there is only one universal value left and that is human life, which each state decides for itself how to best protect based on its abilities, culture and traditions."
I went over my time. I'm really sorry I did that, but I really wanted to just drive home a few key lessons of world history. And if there's any questions, if there's time for that, I'll happily answer.
Reiner Fuellmich: Thank you, Matthew. Let me just verify that I understand you correctly. The main point is that the British Empire has never ceased to exist. It is still there. Colonialism is still existing, except its existing under a different name. It has never stopped to try and pull the United States back in, but for some reason, it hasn't really been successful. Is the outcome of this, is that what we're seeing with the deep state idea? Is the deep state that part in the country that tries to reintroduce the United States into the Anglo-American system and into, well, the city of London, basically?
Ehret: I have no problem with what you just said. Yeah, I have no problem with that.
Reiner Fuellmich: Now, as far as I can tell from what you're telling us, it hasn't failed in Canada. Their attempt to keep Canada under control has been very successful. I mean, just from listening to how Justin Trudeau took his oath of office, he swore allegiance to the British Crown, to the Queen of England. Doesn't that bother the Canadians?
Ehret: For those who know, it's a paradigm shifter, but there's a big cognitive dissonance that's been put there by years and generations of conditioning. Here's the thing. In one of the chapters I go through, the creation of a synthetic nationalism in Canada arranged by none other than Lord Milner himself, who ran the Rhodes Trust in 1909 and came to Canada with McIntyre, who was at the time, I mean, he's the founder of geopolitics in its modern form, but at the time he was the head of the Fabian Society's London School of Economics. Now he quit his job as the head of the London School, based upon an offer made by Lord Milner, who's from the Round Table, right, who runs through Oxford. So, you have the LSC and then Oxford. So, he quit his job to come to Canada with Milner to formulate a grand strategy to figure out how the hell do we keep Canada as a wedge between Russia and the US and also with Germany, because at the time, Germany, it wasn't a fascist state at all. There's still a lot of anti-colonial, anti-fascist impulses in very high positions of power, around the Friedrich List Society and others. So, Miller, actually, there's a quote where he says: of the three greatest dangers to the British Empire, the preferred thing is greater cohesion.
So, the top three scenarios for the future regarding Canada is: number one, greater cohesion and integration into the British Federation. That's probably not going to happen. You still have Wilfrid Laurier, a Lincoln admirer, other things, right. So, it's not going to happen. He said: the greatest danger is greater cooperation with the United States, of the states of 1909, that's the greatest threat to the British Empire. The middle ground is the growth of a Canadian nationalism. And he actually says: the Canadians are so wonderfully ignorant to the longer forces of history, and they feel that they're superior to the Americans in almost every way. It's bumptious and it's fantastic. These are his words. It's just fantastic how ignorant they are. And we should go with that angle and really craft a new nationalism for them. And that is exactly what became the entire trend of the 20th century, leading up to the creation of the artificial Canadian flag with a Maple leaf that doesn't mean anything. Unlike other countries who have flags that mean something, it's literally just a Maple leaf. That's what it means. And people like Vincent Massey, who was his prodigy, became our first Canadian Governor General, who ran and managed much of this. These were all eugenicists. They created the Canadian Fabian Society as well, which is a whole story run by five Rhodes Scholars in 1931.
But yeah, Canada has been there's a lot of cognitive dissonance and myths that have been created that are sacred cows that our minds are afraid to walk to. But, now that we actually see the system demonstrating its true tyrannical hand, which it always has had, right, we just didn't push on it, so we didn't get to feel it. But now as soon as you demand something human like liberty, you actually see the mask coming off.
Now people, I think, are much more receptive to figuring out, "well, what the hell is really going on? What is this thing called Canada?" And I think that overall, the lessons of great Patriots who were ousted in Canadian history. I mean, we had our last national government in 1963 that was ousted in a Rhodes Scholar run coup – 1963, that was our last national government.
So, you definitely have a hunger and I think the more people see and think about what Justin Trudeau just said in 2017 and look at what has happened, and it does piece a lot of things together. The thing that is very important is a sense of, well, what should a true sovereign nation be? We know what it isn't now, but what should it actually do? Because we do have some serious objective prices, breakdown of food production, supply chains, infrastructure. How do we actually manage coherently to make sure our children, not only don't become slaves under this dystopic system, but that they actually have a life that can thrive, where we can invest in a National Bank that serves the interests of the people, with other nations organising themselves in a common way. That's a whole discussion that has to really take hold. And I think the current protests in Ottawa are a good spark plug. Like there's a hunger now, like I've never seen for these bigger ideas.
Reiner Fuellmich: That is Canadian nationalism asserting itself against the British Crown, in essence. Right?
Ehret: In essence. It's based on something principle that's not artificial. It's really based on the right to feed our families, to work, to have a life. The basic fundamental things.
Reiner Fuellmich: One final question. The power of the City of London combined with its fifth column, Wall Street. Is it really true? Did I understand correctly that: all that money, all that power was capable of starting two world Wars, World War I and World War II, with these financial behemoths financing both sides?
Ehret: Oh, yeah, absolutely. I feel like I've taken up too much time, but yeah.
Reiner Fuellmich: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that I didn't misunderstand you. And finally, anyone who can start two world wars probably has no problem, because I wrote this down when you said it, to create diseases like terrorism and drug trade. So that, in essence, is also started or was started by this financial behemoth City of London, plus Wall Street.
Ehret: Yeah. And I would just add one quick thing on that, which is that the British – I conducted an interview with Alex Krainer based on a wonderful trilogy he wrote on the original British design for a new world order under people like Lord Halifax, the appeasers of Britain that were people like Neville Chamberlain, who were part of an operation which all the way up until 1939, 1940 still wanted to have an Anglo-American fascist alliance with Hitler and Mussolini and others, to manage the world – as a new world order and be enforcers of a eugenics policy of population control under a scientifically managed society from the top. That was a design all the way up until the ouster of Neville Chamberlain, when Hitler became a Frankenstein monster that was no longer sort of behaving according to its commands and had bigger ambitions to be sort of at the head of the helm instead of a secondary enforcer for the will of a banking class, and they have to sort of change strategy and abort that plan. There's a whole story there. But yeah, the oligarchy, the lesson I carry out and I want everyone to carry out of this is that the oligarchy, they screw up a lot. They're not as powerful as they want us to believe they are, which is an intimidation of the mind. Every time you look at what they're trying – the thing that they're trying to do today is not new – they've tried many times, and usually it blows up in their face and undermines them, too. So, then they have to reorganise and try something new.
Reiner Fuellmich: I do understand now, however, that Vera Sherav, a Holocaust survivor, says that she can't believe that she's fighting the same people, the same structures again that she fought 75 years ago, because it looks as though what happened then is happening again. Matthew, I don't want to keep my esteemed colleagues from asking any questions, so please go ahead with your questions.
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt: Hi. Thanks so much for your evidence. You mentioned at the Ryne veldt onset of the statement of evidence that you've given, you're talking about natural law. As we all know, the substantive law that we are using in this grand jury is natural law. So, I would like to find out from you, based on all the research that you've done, how important is natural law for humanity survival? And most importantly, how is it related to constitutional law? Thank you.
Ehret: Dexter, that's an amazing question. That's a very good question. In my understanding, all of world history has been shaped by a battle between either artificial law – I mean, mankind is the only species that we know of that creates and improves upon the laws of the systems that we self-organise around. Other animals are ordained by their genetics, by their environment and their wiring to be what they are, and that's great. But human beings are uniquely able to craft conceptions and apply those conceptions to manage, wilfully, our own existence. And then, again, identify problems with the so-called invisible metaphysical machine of statecraft and improve upon them. But upon what standard do we improve upon? Upon what standard do we judge our man-made laws to say, "okay, this one squares with something that is designed by God" and which ones are out of whack, out of harmony, that we have to correct, that are illegitimate or, as Thomas Cleas would say, forms of violence. So, if a law can actually destroys, deprives you of your innate ability to express your life, liberty, happiness, creative powers, if that's what a law is doing, it's not a law – it's a form of violence. It does not have to be respected. And that's what the founding fathers, if you read the writings of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, they were very sensitive to that fact that there is a higher law. It's not even separate from scientific law. That's why Benjamin Franklin was both a scientist who discovered principles of electricity that he shared. But in his mind, his discoveries of the laws of electricity were not separated from the metaphysical moral laws that became the foundation of his life's effort to create a Republic of self-governance, premises on the inalienable rights of the individual and not the hereditary institutions that had governed society for thousands of years. That was the first time it was done. Again, in his world, it was two sides of the same thing. Real science is not mathematical description or trying to impose a formula onto the universe and expect the universe to abide by it. It's about tuning our own creative reason in harmony with that universe that is always going to be more discoverable. And every time we transmit those new eurekas in any domain to our fellow mankind and then apply it to the productive process, the universe responds by giving us greater standards of living, right. We can sustain more people at a higher standard of life than we could have if we didn't have electricity, if we didn't have knowledge of fire, where we were living like kind of like whatever, cattle in caves.
But this reciprocal nature of the universe having this quality that mankind has made in the image of that universe under certain conditions, if we abide by those certain principles, as Benjamin Franklin and others understood, we will have greater emancipation. The Empire, the oligarchical system of a hereditary elite, will lose its places to put its claws, like a parasite that it is into the host. It won't have much to grab onto and it will lose its power and it will self-implode, as I think we're seeing right now.
Alex Thomson: May I add something very briefly. What we are now seeing in the jurisdictions of the United Kingdom – there's the jurisdiction of England and Wales, jurisdiction of Northern Ireland, jurisdiction of Scotland – the court systems in all of these realms, which are basically common law, are starting to arrogate to themselves, at judicial level, the power to decide mens rea. They are further ahead than any common law or civil law jurisdiction, in our repeated findings now, in asserting that even if there is a jury there for show – and they seem to be trying to get rid of them now under the spurious claim that international treaty requirements require them to dwindle the use of juries – even if a jury is there for show, they reserve the right to determine what was in the mind of the perpetrator. And very often now, it's a drafting which comes from the tax exempt foundations, such as the Carnegie Foundation that I spoke about earlier, via the House of Commons library tells the legislators in Britain, which then will lead other countries in the same way, the legislators are told there is an ersatz version of the public good or the public welfare now – it's called collective well-being, collective welfare – that's what the foundations were doing all through the 20th century, creating enemies for that very purpose. And now the courts are saying if you have offended against society, then there is no redress, you are guilty. And that is the furthest towards getting rid of natural law that I've seen anywhere. It's gone further than any European totalitarian state, any international court. It's now coming through that the British national level through legislation, ultimately from the think tanks, the abolition of the concept that natural law decides whether you're guilty or not.
Viviane Fischer: Like your opinion, because we're seeing this, not a 100% lockstep constellation right now, we have this still very strict regulations in Australia and in Canada and these places. But then, sort of you're saying that in England it's basically they're preparing it from a different angle. So, it's seemingly more relaxed at the moment. But I mean, they're preparing to finalise the totalitarian graph through a different angle, basically.
Alex Thomson: Yeah. I am absolutely convinced of that, that the United Kingdom is in the lead, the Anglo Commonwealth is second. And the resistance to this will actually be largely in Central European countries because they give more weight to the rule of law and to the institutions, of course, than they do to juries, for example. They will show more resistance, welcome resistance to this idea. It is definitely Britain or British based think tanks that are pushing on our legislators, more than anywhere else in the world, this idea that if someone meets the requirements in a code, they are convicted with no defence possible. So, it's this spurious idea behind it if you have offended against the interests of the common good that I'm afraid, and from what Matt said, you understand, I think now in some detail, who is saying that, what they are afraid of. They don't want any threat to their narrative.
Reiner Fuellmich: Any further questions from Anna or Dipali or Dexter or Virginie?
Reiner Fuellmich: I have one question. Is it possible that, not only in Europe but also in the United States, there is a movement that having understood what is going on, is trying to distance themselves? I'm talking about the United States trying to distance themselves from the Europeans and in particular from the City of London because "we are simply buried under debt and we carry too much dead weight with us"? I'm saying this in layman's terms. What do you think, Alex and Matthew?
Alex Thomas: For my part, absolutely. And the recent testimony I gave to you, I spoke about that, that there is a large belt of heartland America that has woken up to this and now sees what they regard as an Anglo or an Anglo-European problem steering them. And I think that they are getting heartily sick of it all because of the amount of treason involved. Just as codicil to Matt's testimony about 1971 when the financial coup was pulled off, one of the indications that the Americans were being used as hapless pawns in this is that very year Kissinger is said to have said that the military, by which he largely meant the US military, were brute, dumb beasts, sent to do others biddings. And in that same year, being the new Secretary of State under the incoming Nixon administration, he got a Massachusetts based manufacturer, the only manufacturer in the world that could produce precision ball bearings – Bryant Chucking Grinder – to supply the ball bearings to the Soviet Union to allow them to develop multiple independent re-entry vehicle warheads, which I know that one of our extra testimonials this evening from Jim Bush well, he personally was involved in the American side of that. So, the amount of treason involved is such that where the United States had even a military or an economic lead, the cabal we're talking about deliberately abolished that. And I get a very strong sense, from my extensive US contacts, that a large swathe of the Americans do not wish to abolish their Anglo heritage, their common law heritage, but they have completely had it now, with British and European intellectual leadership.
Reiner Fuellmich: makes perfect sense.
Ehret: I don't want to speak too much because I know we're going far beyond schedule here. But just to say quickly, there are fifth columns in Russia, and every country has its own fifth columns. They've got their own battles between legitimate forces, who represent these cultures, versus these other parasitical penetrations. I would say in Eurasia, you actually have had more serious pushback in a serious way to the point that there is a genuine, I don't think this is a game I think there's an actual genuine alternative strategy that has been deployed outside of the framework of the cage of NATO that is imploding, and it was always designed to implode. And I think you've got forces within the United States, I see it more currently on the state level, that don't want to go down with the sinking ship. There are forces all over Europe. Unfortunately, the federal executive branches of most of the transatlantic governments have been in large measure captured not entirely always, but in a depressing level. So, I'm not an expert in geopolitical planning, and I do hope that the creative forces are able to utilise the self-contradictions and insanity of the Empire to their benefit, since again, this Empire, once it succeeds, it can only destroy itself as well. And I do see that there are people that want to have a future, that want to survive, and that are organically organising. And I just think they need to sharpen up their game plan of what they understand the world to be. Because a lot of people still think, especially in America, and a lot of the Patriots who don't like The Great Reset, they tend to have fallen for certain traps that have given them a narrative, that – it's the Cold War narrative, that the real enemy behind everything is not the British Empire. It's not the oligarchy, it's not that. It's the Chinese communists that want to destroy your freedoms, that's who's behind everything. And a lot of people fall into that and I think that to the degree that they hold onto those Cold War narratives, they're going to self-sabotage their overarching desires to have a successful battle against this oligarchical thing. That's what I threw out there.
Reiner Fuellmich: Thank you, Matthew. Any further questions from Anna or Dexter or Virginie or Dipali?
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt: No further questions for me.
Ana Garner: None from me, either. Thank you. What a wonderful presentation.
Reiner Fuellmich: Yes. Thank you, Matthew. If there are no further questions, then this concludes your testimony, Matthew. Thank you very much.