Challenger Disaster whistleblower Richard Cook, author of Our Country, Then and Now, discusses his new article “Is World War III About to Start?” Parts 1 and 2 were published by ScheerPost. But the ultra-controversial Part 3, which touches on the “Zionists are depopulating Ukraine so they can create a new Khazaria a.k.a.
When I read Ellen Brown writing about the state bank of North Dakota, it just seems so obvious that a national bank should operate in the same way. What is not obvious is how such a small group of people control so much of the world's wealth creating ability. If you bring up the subject of Zionist domination of finance, media and foreign policy you're immediately labeled and emotion blocks any attempt at rational discussion.
Exactly right. It's amazing that Ellen has been able to get as much traction as she has without being smeared, given the way the bankster dupes and stooges are so quick to resort to name-calling. I guess it's her disarming amiability...
Richard's diagnosis is spot on, but the prescription is always harder and not correct. Centralized top-down approaches have never worked as far as I know. No national hero is going to save us.
Every change in my life has started at the bottom and percolated up. For example, smoking was first banned in restaurants in California due to a lawsuit by restaurant workers for lung cancer from second hand smoke. It was banned in CA first, then spread to other states, and finally adopted by the Surgeon General. I circulated petitions for medical marijuana decades ago in CA and it started in one county: San Francisco county. Then it spread to Santa Cruz, Sonoma, and from there went nationwide. Recreational marijuana started in Colorado and then spread to other states and is still not national law. Same for civil unions/gay marriage, etc.
Cook is incorrect in calling the "Civil War" an "insurrection". An insurrection is an attempt to take over the government. It was a SECESSION from the union, not an insurrection. It was a war to prevent secession. Good riddance, they should have let them secede. The executive military approach Lincoln took according to Richard is what we need to reverse the Federal Reserve Act. But this was proceeded by years of refusal to cooperate with the Fugitive Slave Act by states, Quakers and other abolitionists working for years to abolish slavery, the actions of John Brown, etc. Lincoln's executive action was just the last step in the chain.
Another approach would be for states to secede from the national government and from the federal reserve system.
Regarding monetary reform there is a great deal of rebellion percolating at the fringes. There is Bitcoin and cryptocurrency, public banking, LETS, barter networks, advocating of gold, de-dollarization, BRICS, etc. Many leaders like Ron Paul have called for the abolition of the federal reserve for years and there is a large following.
Regarding monetary reform public banks can begin the process of transforming the monetary system at the local and state level and eventually replace the central banking system. I do NOT think it is good idea to transfer the money power to the Treasury even though Congress has the Constitutional right to print (debt-free) money". That is still too centralized and they will spend it on war. Monetary power has to be decentralized. Public banks can spend money into existence for public infrastructure projects.
The best approach of all would be for citizens to withdraw from the federal government by refusing to pay taxes, and the US would lose its bond rating, But this is not going to happen.
This is all a moot point as nothing will change until the next financial collapse on schedule for about 2025/2026.
Meanwhile the neo-con zionists and the evangelical zionists push for armageddon, since that is when their Messiah (re)appears. Religion is the root of all evil.
I won't try to comment on all of this except that I stand by everything I wrote. I will say that Bitcoin, etc., is a natural phenomenon that has been resorted to many times in history, except that it is called "scrip." Trouble is it's not legal tender so is very volatile in value. Plenty of people have been wiped out investing in cryptocurrencies. And I do support barter.
But in regards to whether the Civil War was an insurrection, I will say this. I live on a road near the Antietam Battlefield. On September 15, 1862, about 35,000 Confederate soldiers marched past my house to set up a battle line on a ridge at Sharpsburg about four miles to the west. They were there to kill as many Union soldiers as possible, then attack Washington, D.C. The Union soldiers called them "Rebs." As it turned out, they were being chased by over 60,000 Union soldiers. On September 17 there was a one-day battle with about 27,000 casualties on both sides. It was a stalemate, with the Confederate armies retreating back across the Potomac River to fight another day.
Another motive was to get Britain, then run by the Rothschild bankers, to join in on the side of the South and to send their warships to blockade American ports so as to allow free movement of weapons to the Southern armies. This failed, at least in part because Russia sent its own war fleet to anchor in New York and San Francisco harbors.
Sounds kind of like an insurrection to me. At least that's what the 2.6 million Union soldiers who fought to preserve the Union thought.
I love your work and I have met you at a UBI conference. I also worked on the TDRS2 that was in the cargo hold of the Shuttle Challenger when it blew up, so appreciate the truth you brought to that event. I also read your article in Veterans Today and appreciate the context. We can debate the purpose of the secession of the south and you are correct that it was to preserve slavery. Your point was that we need the executive action of a Lincoln to save us. My only point is that no great leader is going to save us, it's up to us. cheers.
Most interesting what you write Gary. Thank you for that. I don't remember much about the UBI conferences back then. I was really struggling to try to bring together the ideas of monetary reform with those of UBI but didn't think I succeeded very well. Most interesting about your space shuttle involvement too. Don't know if you worked for a contractor or NASA. I wasn't at NASA for long, but it was an interesting time for sure. On Lincoln, et.al., I am inclined to view things through the lens of Leo Tolstoy who, in War and Peace, seemed to be refuting what was then the "great man" interpretation of history by showing how what we take to be such an individual was one who embodied most perfectly the spirit of a people. So a great man never really "did" anything, other than allowing himself to discern and implement what a pivotal moment in history required. I forget the name but his example was the Russian general at the Battle of Borodino who won the battle by essentially retreating judiciously while Napoleon took Moscow, accidentally set it on fire, then watched his army be annihilated by General Winter. Very soon afterwards, the victorious Russian general died because history had no further need of him. You could argue that the same was the case with Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt. Today in the US, there are fools like Biden and Trump who are infatuated with their own importance while it may be someone like Kennedy, a recovered drug addict, who may embody the spirit of the times. I guess we'll soon find out. Anyway, I do appreciate this exchange with you.
I worked on TDRS 2,3,4,5,6 as a test conductor at TRW.
Yes, true, there sometimes are great men who change history. Interesting thesis by Tolstoi. My views are informed by Étienne de La Boétie, "The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude"
Thanks Gary. I worked for TRW at a temp job before joining NASA. They offered me a permanent job but the chance to work on the shuttle looked pretty good!
When I read Ellen Brown writing about the state bank of North Dakota, it just seems so obvious that a national bank should operate in the same way. What is not obvious is how such a small group of people control so much of the world's wealth creating ability. If you bring up the subject of Zionist domination of finance, media and foreign policy you're immediately labeled and emotion blocks any attempt at rational discussion.
Exactly right. It's amazing that Ellen has been able to get as much traction as she has without being smeared, given the way the bankster dupes and stooges are so quick to resort to name-calling. I guess it's her disarming amiability...
The whole world needs her to use her "disarming amiability" on Netanyahu or this time, the feces really could hit the fan.
Richard's diagnosis is spot on, but the prescription is always harder and not correct. Centralized top-down approaches have never worked as far as I know. No national hero is going to save us.
Every change in my life has started at the bottom and percolated up. For example, smoking was first banned in restaurants in California due to a lawsuit by restaurant workers for lung cancer from second hand smoke. It was banned in CA first, then spread to other states, and finally adopted by the Surgeon General. I circulated petitions for medical marijuana decades ago in CA and it started in one county: San Francisco county. Then it spread to Santa Cruz, Sonoma, and from there went nationwide. Recreational marijuana started in Colorado and then spread to other states and is still not national law. Same for civil unions/gay marriage, etc.
Cook is incorrect in calling the "Civil War" an "insurrection". An insurrection is an attempt to take over the government. It was a SECESSION from the union, not an insurrection. It was a war to prevent secession. Good riddance, they should have let them secede. The executive military approach Lincoln took according to Richard is what we need to reverse the Federal Reserve Act. But this was proceeded by years of refusal to cooperate with the Fugitive Slave Act by states, Quakers and other abolitionists working for years to abolish slavery, the actions of John Brown, etc. Lincoln's executive action was just the last step in the chain.
Another approach would be for states to secede from the national government and from the federal reserve system.
Regarding monetary reform there is a great deal of rebellion percolating at the fringes. There is Bitcoin and cryptocurrency, public banking, LETS, barter networks, advocating of gold, de-dollarization, BRICS, etc. Many leaders like Ron Paul have called for the abolition of the federal reserve for years and there is a large following.
Regarding monetary reform public banks can begin the process of transforming the monetary system at the local and state level and eventually replace the central banking system. I do NOT think it is good idea to transfer the money power to the Treasury even though Congress has the Constitutional right to print (debt-free) money". That is still too centralized and they will spend it on war. Monetary power has to be decentralized. Public banks can spend money into existence for public infrastructure projects.
The best approach of all would be for citizens to withdraw from the federal government by refusing to pay taxes, and the US would lose its bond rating, But this is not going to happen.
This is all a moot point as nothing will change until the next financial collapse on schedule for about 2025/2026.
Meanwhile the neo-con zionists and the evangelical zionists push for armageddon, since that is when their Messiah (re)appears. Religion is the root of all evil.
I won't try to comment on all of this except that I stand by everything I wrote. I will say that Bitcoin, etc., is a natural phenomenon that has been resorted to many times in history, except that it is called "scrip." Trouble is it's not legal tender so is very volatile in value. Plenty of people have been wiped out investing in cryptocurrencies. And I do support barter.
But in regards to whether the Civil War was an insurrection, I will say this. I live on a road near the Antietam Battlefield. On September 15, 1862, about 35,000 Confederate soldiers marched past my house to set up a battle line on a ridge at Sharpsburg about four miles to the west. They were there to kill as many Union soldiers as possible, then attack Washington, D.C. The Union soldiers called them "Rebs." As it turned out, they were being chased by over 60,000 Union soldiers. On September 17 there was a one-day battle with about 27,000 casualties on both sides. It was a stalemate, with the Confederate armies retreating back across the Potomac River to fight another day.
Another motive was to get Britain, then run by the Rothschild bankers, to join in on the side of the South and to send their warships to blockade American ports so as to allow free movement of weapons to the Southern armies. This failed, at least in part because Russia sent its own war fleet to anchor in New York and San Francisco harbors.
Sounds kind of like an insurrection to me. At least that's what the 2.6 million Union soldiers who fought to preserve the Union thought.
Richard,
I love your work and I have met you at a UBI conference. I also worked on the TDRS2 that was in the cargo hold of the Shuttle Challenger when it blew up, so appreciate the truth you brought to that event. I also read your article in Veterans Today and appreciate the context. We can debate the purpose of the secession of the south and you are correct that it was to preserve slavery. Your point was that we need the executive action of a Lincoln to save us. My only point is that no great leader is going to save us, it's up to us. cheers.
Most interesting what you write Gary. Thank you for that. I don't remember much about the UBI conferences back then. I was really struggling to try to bring together the ideas of monetary reform with those of UBI but didn't think I succeeded very well. Most interesting about your space shuttle involvement too. Don't know if you worked for a contractor or NASA. I wasn't at NASA for long, but it was an interesting time for sure. On Lincoln, et.al., I am inclined to view things through the lens of Leo Tolstoy who, in War and Peace, seemed to be refuting what was then the "great man" interpretation of history by showing how what we take to be such an individual was one who embodied most perfectly the spirit of a people. So a great man never really "did" anything, other than allowing himself to discern and implement what a pivotal moment in history required. I forget the name but his example was the Russian general at the Battle of Borodino who won the battle by essentially retreating judiciously while Napoleon took Moscow, accidentally set it on fire, then watched his army be annihilated by General Winter. Very soon afterwards, the victorious Russian general died because history had no further need of him. You could argue that the same was the case with Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt. Today in the US, there are fools like Biden and Trump who are infatuated with their own importance while it may be someone like Kennedy, a recovered drug addict, who may embody the spirit of the times. I guess we'll soon find out. Anyway, I do appreciate this exchange with you.
I worked on TDRS 2,3,4,5,6 as a test conductor at TRW.
Yes, true, there sometimes are great men who change history. Interesting thesis by Tolstoi. My views are informed by Étienne de La Boétie, "The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude"
https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/Politics%20of%20Obedience.pdf?file=1&type=document
Worth reading if you haven't.
Regards,
Gary
Thanks Gary. I worked for TRW at a temp job before joining NASA. They offered me a permanent job but the chance to work on the shuttle looked pretty good!