So we all know about the missing trillions by now, but where is that money going? And what can Americans do to reclaim that money that is rightfully theirs? Join Catherine Austin Fitts of Solari.com and James Corbett of The Corbett Report for this wide-ranging discussion on the most important topic of our time that no one is talking about.

Watch this video on BitChute / YouTube or Download the mp4

---

TRANSCRIPT

CATHERINE AUSTIN FITTS: What we have built is a global national security state, which is fantastically expensive. And there are many different component parts from the underground bases to the secret space program. But essentially, I call it “The Tapeworm.” It is a financial parasite that is simply harvesting and destroying great parts of the economy.

= = =

NARRATOR: You’re listening to The Corbett Report.

JAMES CORBETT: Welcome back, friends. James Corbett here, corbettreport.com, in a conversation that is being recorded on the 26th of November 2019.

Today we are talking once again with Catherine Austin Fitts of solari.com. You will definitely remember her, because we had the chance to talk to her in the not-so-distant past. Just a couple of months ago, we were talking about the financial coup d’état. Go back to Interview 1479 if you happened to miss that conversation. I think it was a particularly important one on a particularly important topic that I’ve been attempting to cover for a number of years now. Just type “missing trillions” into my search bar and you’ll find several different reports that I’ve done over the years on it.

But more importantly, go to missingmoney.solari.com for much more detailed reports, including a detailed breakdown of the $21 trillion—yes, that is trillion with a “T”—$21 trillion that we know has gone missing or somehow has been fudged on the books over the past several years.

You’ll also want to pick up a copy of the Solari Report, specifically The Real Game of Missing Money, a two-part series that the Solari Report recently published, details of which will be in the Show Notes for today’s conversation, along with everything else.

Catherine Austin Fitts, thanks for joining us once again.

FITTS: Thanks, James. It’s always great to be back.

CORBETT: Well, it’s good to have you back, especially because, since the last time we talked, there has been a little bit of some sort of movement on this topic specifically.

We were noting, for example, the Pentagon’s failed audit last year. Well, they’ve just gone through a second failed audit. But don’t worry, they were expecting this one. So it’s OK: “Of course they’re going to fail.”

Are there any details from this failed audit that are important for people to know about?

FITTS: Well, I think what’s important to recognize is that their solution for all of this is to change the policy. So we had the issuance late last year of Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board Statement 56 [officially called the Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 56″ (SFFAS 56)], which gives them permission to move things in secret. And so now, whether they pass an audit or not, it’s meaningless.

If they announce, James, that they passed an audit, I would tell you it’s meaningless. Because what they’ve done is they’ve solved the ultimate problem of cooked books by simply institutionalizing secret books. And, more importantly, it’s a secret process by secret people who create secret books. You can’t know who did it or what they did.

So, when you look at the financial statements of the twenty-four covered agencies—they didn’t just do it for the DoD; they did it for the [twenty-four] covered agencies and approximately 154 other government entities—and you add in the classification laws, it includes all the big banks and corporations doing business with the government.

Literally now, when you pick up the financial statements of any of the major players at the New York Fed or any of the major financial institutions or any of the major defense contractors, you have no idea what their financial statements mean.

This is the majority of the US securities market, including the US Treasuries market, going dark. All the information that investors need to do proper due diligence is gone.

If the Department of Defense says they either pass or don’t pass an audit, it’s totally meaningless. You have no idea what it means.

It’s interesting: If you look at the leadership of the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board that promulgated this policy, what they said was their only other choice was essentially to permanently recuse the Department of Defense’s financial statements. I would say that’s far preferable because now what you’ve done is you’ve essentially recused the entire US government’s financial statements.

I call it “never-never land” accounting. We are truly in “never-never land” accounting. And it’s quite remarkable.

CORBETT: On that note, I think it is important to bring up the context. There was recently a Costs of War Project at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs. [According to this report,] the War on Terror has claimed 801,000 lives, and $6.4 trillion have been spent on this War on Terror. Again, what meaning do any of those numbers have, given that this is coming from public statements from the DoD?

FITTS: They have some meaning in the sense that we know we’ve spent a fantastic amount of money fielding and managing and using a global military. We have a significant military presence and bases all around the world, and we know that it’s fantastically expensive.

Whether these numbers make sense or not, I don’t know. If you go back to the history of the black budget, back to 1947 and 1949, what you have are these rapacious secret operations that are constantly demanding more and more money. And, of course, the more you build and invest in them, the more they demand. Underground bases require maintenance. Global spraying requires more spraying. If there’s a secret space program,

spaceships get old and need to be replaced.

So this thing [the secrecy] seems to compound and grow over time, and we literally saw with FASAB’s Statement 56 a decision for the secret part of the finances and the secret operations to basically take over the . . . you know, we have an overt economy and a covert economy, and the covert economy and the hidden system of finance just basically took over everything.

Now, we’ve been watching this for years. So for years, people have been complaining as the secret money rolled into Wall Street and increasingly took over the media industry and other industries.

We’ve seen complaints of the dirty money rolling in and building the offshore havens. This has been going on for a long, long time. The $21 trillion missing from the federal government since fiscal 1998 is just part of this growth of a secret national security state.

It was growing steadily, but 9/11 really exploded the growth [of the secret national security state]. [First was] the war on poverty [and that] was good. Next was the war on drugs, and that was good. Then they needed a new shtick essentially. [That’s when they] started the War on Terror.

It’s very interesting. I’ve just been reading a couple books about the early part of the War on Terror. You have this fantastically expensive national security state looking for terrorists and having to create terrorists so they can have a War on Terror.

What we have built is a global national security state, which is fantastically expensive. There are many different component parts from the underground bases to the secret space program, but essentially, I call it “The Tapeworm.” It is a financial parasite that is simply harvesting and destroying great parts of the economy.

CORBETT: Exactly right. And if we have lost anybody about FASAB’s Statement 56 and what specifically happened, I will suggest they go back and listen to our first conversation where we did talk about that.

But let’s move on, because you did broach the subject that I really want to get into today, which is: So, what is this money being used for?

Let’s pick up on something you mentioned last time that I think is important. You said the president of CalPERS warned you back in April of 1997 that they have given up on the country. They are moving all the money out starting in the fall.

What does that mean? How did you interpret that at the time? What have you since come to understand?

FITTS: I was presenting a proposal to a leading group of pension fund leaders who were very interested in rebuilding the US economy and getting the US economy on a sound footing. And I had done an incredible deep dive, looking at the US government budget and the US economy by place. America breaks down to 3,100 counties. What we had discovered was that the government money had a negative return on investment and could easily be reengineered to a positive in a way that would create enormous capital gains on the real estate and the economy and could really help the pension funds make their targets.

The great concern at that time was how would the pension funds support the boomers in their old age. We had rolled out an entire presentation on this reengineering of the government budget and doing it place by place in 3,100 counties in a way that would produce huge capital gains for the pension funds and take care of the boomer retirement. It was a 1997 version of Make America Great Again in the face of globalization and what globalization was doing to employment.

The president of CalPERS, who was one of the members, froze and he said, you know, “This was Alinsky’s plan and they stopped him.”

I said, “What we’re talking about is now we have technology that can radically increase learning metabolism in communities that can create enormous equity wealth.”

Then he froze and he looked at me and he said, “You don’t understand. It’s too late. They’ve given up on the country. They’re moving all the money out starting in the fall.” He said, “You’ve got to get to Nick”—meaning Nick Brady, who’d been the former Secretary of the Treasury and had been the chairman of Dillon Reed, where I was a partner. He said, “You’ve got to get to Nick to tell them that it’s not too late. It’s not hopeless.”

I thought he meant, James, that they had given up on investment in the country and had given direction to all the pension funds to reallocate equity to investment in the emerging markets as part of globalization. I thought he meant the pension funds and the big investors—the big school endowments and foundation endowments—were going to shift their allocation from US domestic equity to global equity. And not just to the developed markets, but to the emerging markets.

So, I just thought he was talking about legal reallocation of legal monies. When he said “it’s starting in the fall,” [he was referring to] fall as the beginning of the federal fiscal 1998 year.

When the fiscal 1998 year closed, what we discovered was fantastic amounts of money were going missing from HUD. The reason I was focused on HUD is that having been a leader of the reform of HUD information systems, technology and financial and legal arrangements I knew there was no reason for HUD’s books to not be absolutely perfect. HUD had the resources. It had the laws. It had everything it needed to have perfect books. Why would fantastic amounts of money start to go missing [from HUD]?

At the time, the chief of staff to the senator who was in charge of the Appropriations [Sub]committee for HUD was complaining to me that HUD was “being run as a criminal enterprise.”

Now, what you need to understand is that HUD is run essentially by the Treasury Department, the Department of Justice, the New York Fed member banks (with JPMorgan Chase in the lead), and a group of big IT contractors at that time (Lockheed Martin and DynCorp were among them). You can’t run HUD as a criminal enterprise unless they intentionally are organized to run it that way, which I later came to believe.

What we saw was not a movement of the overt equity out of the US. What we saw was a covert movement of massive amounts of money being pulled out of the United States to be reinvested.

Your guess is as good as mine. I think some of it was reinvested in Asia, as he said it would be. But I think some of it really represents an explosion of the covert side of the national security state and a real vision of, “Okay, we can run the planet on a unipolar model using the national security state in the War on Terror as basically a way to assert control of all resources globally.”

You’re looking at a command and control model for all resources. And that necessitated dramatic increases in movements of our military globally, which is exactly what happened.

CORBETT: Just to back up that timeline, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the first Inspector General report of the DoD missing trillions from 1999 looking at the ’98 books?

FITTS: Yes. Now, we found it. In fact, it was my attorney who found the HUD IG’s testimony on the 1998 year saying the money was missing and they’d given up trying to audit and we’re just going to quit.

Now, if your bank account was missing $59,000, I dare say you wouldn’t just give up if the bankers promised you, “Don’t worry, it won’t happen next year.” You’d say, “No, I want my $59,000 back.” The behavior was bizarre.

But then I think it was not that long after we discovered that $1.1 trillion went missing from DoD in one year. It was 1999 or 2000. That’s why when Rumsfeld stood up the day before 9/11 and said there’s $2.3 trillion, we thought it was a modified hangout because he didn’t mention the $1.1 trillion missing the year before. So it was up to $3.3 or $3.4 trillion—depending on how you round up trillion—as of the day of 9/11.

And in fact, that Friday we were coming out with a major front cover story article in Insight magazine about the missing money and how it broke down by state and what it meant to every person. Whether it was student loans or pension funds, this was $65,000 per person. We’re talking about a dramatic amount of money hitting people, whether it disappears from their pocketbook or hits them because they’re taking a terrible currency debasement, [causing] their cost of goods [to go] up 10 percent a year.

CORBETT: Alright. You have raised the specter of some of the things that could be enabled with this type of money. For example, underground bases, spraying programs, secret space program, things that sound far-fetched to anyone who thinks, obviously, there must be a financial infrastructure for this. We’d see it in the books. Well, no, we cannot see it in the books. That’s the point.

What do we know and what do we not know about where this money is actually going?

FITTS: First of all, we don’t know how much money this really is in terms of cash or hard credit. Some of the money could be revenues and some expenses.

So, for example, we could be occupying Iraq and Afghanistan and taking very valuable minerals and oil out of them, selling the oil and laundering the money back through—or the drug sales back through—DoD.

I became convinced after many, many years of research that drug money was being laundered through the HUD accounts.

Some of this could be revenue. Some of this could be expenditures. We don’t know. What we do know is there’s plenty of anecdotal information that documents that there are extraordinary expenditures going on in terms of underground bases.

Could that money be clawed through the black budget in the DoD budget? There’s a process where money can be clawed out of different agencies and taken into a black budget and is not disclosed because it’s a secret budget. Could all those underground bases have been funded from the black budget?

Yes, but [there are other ways of secretly funding secret programs.] If you look at the rise in and the percentage of space expenditures as a proportion of the budget and the GDP [during Kennedy’s presidency], after he was assassinated, space program expenditures started to fall. What I believe is that, in fact, space spending continued. They just took it dark.

These various forms of disappearing or missing money were one of the ways they funded everything. I happen to believe there are tremendous expenditures on space that we don’t see.

The way globalization happened, James, is that we had the global satellite infrastructure necessary to ensure enforcement. No investor puts money any place where they cannot enforce. And it was the global satellites and whatever our presence was in space that was very, very critical to allowing globalization and that kind of investment to happen.

The other thing we know is that we have tremendous evidence of all sorts of unusual spaceships flying around the planet. What I’ve said to various people is, “That’s $150 trillion of hardware. Where did it come from? Somebody built it, right?

So if you if you simply look at the kind of hardware that’s floating around the planet and flying around the planet and the high technology, it doesn’t take a big intuitive leap to say, “I’ll bet you we built some of it.”

CORBETT: Yeah. And even what is on the record that we know that we don’t know, the classified space shuttle flights that we know nothing about what they were up there for, or the X-37B, which they like to tout as “this mysterious space plane that we don’t know anything about just came back from its latest two-year mission” or whatever it is.

But that’s what we know that we don’t know.

FITTS: Let me bring up another one. One of the things that is so remarkable about the US economy is that the US economy is very centrally controlled. It’s controlled because we use government money to control places as opposed to optimize the economy in these places.

For example, if you look at private prisons, I’ve written a book describing the waste of private prisons. Private prisons in 1996 were costing $154,000 per person per year. That’s a fantastically wasteful amount of money. The negative return on investment has been unbelievably expensive. In 1996, when we started globalization, add to that extraordinary manipulation of the markets.

Some of it was derivatives, but it would have required a real stockpile of money. You would need what one investor calls “the hammer”—or a “bazooka.” He says, “If you have a bazooka, then you don’t need to use it.”

We created a financial bazooka that no matter where the gold price wanted to go we could press it down and layer on derivatives after derivatives. My guess is that some of this money was parked in the exchange stabilization fund and places like that and was used to help make this global model go. There are big parts of this global model that are very expensive and have a negative return on investment.

It’s all about the control and concentration of cash. It’s not about the control and optimization of equity. So I think that’s another place.

Global spraying is, I believe, one of these expenses. No matter where you are in the world, when you watch the spraying and try to count up, “Okay, how many planes? How many pilots? How much would the spraying cost?” and you make a WAG estimate—wild ass guess—we’re talking about something which is fantastically expensive.

And so my guess is that some of this money has gone into global spraying.

During the period, if you look at when the money is going missing and then you look at the offshore havens, it’s like the Pillsbury Doughboy. This is leaving and this is rising. It’s almost so perfect it’s unbelievable. So, I think a lot of cash has gotten stockpiled offshore in a whole variety of interests.

Finally, one of the more interesting uses—though I can’t say this is one of the biggest ones; underground bases and global spraying are pretty big—is that the different fraudsters and money networks seem to have a proclivity for investing in advanced research.

For example, some of the money that disappeared through [Bernie] Madoff went to MIT brain research. Some of the money that went through [Jeffrey] Epstein went to MIT brain research.

I happen to think that of all the political problems we’re facing right now, the biggest one is mind control. If you look at how much money has gone into manipulating human beings—manipulating their minds, accessing their minds, building the kind of NSA surveillance we know we have—they’re trying to build a global mind that can be centrally controlled. I think a fantastic amount of money has gone into that research.

CORBETT: Absolutely. And that ties into the DARPA Brain Initiative and also into serial scamsters like Elon Musk and his Neuralink and things like that.

FITTS: I had a friend who was very knowledgeable about Musk and the people around him who kept saying, “Look, Musk is very, very dark. There’s very serious occult things going on here. You have to pay attention and not quote Musk.” This was all said to justify me not quoting Musk. And then, when I watched his Neuralink speech, [I thought], “That’s a man on a leash.” It was one of the most bizarre speeches I’ve ever watched in my life. And I’ve seen a lot of bizarre speeches.

CORBETT: There are jokes going around on the internet that he’s some sort of cyborg or something. It really does make you wonder what exactly his brain is on.

FITTS: Well, I actually—don’t laugh—I ran into one person very recently. I used to listen to some of the people who would leave Washington and say, “Some of the Presidents are cyborgs or doubles,” and I never know what to make of it.

One of the things I love about humans is they always have this divine spark. No matter how far gone they are, they’ve got that divine spark. I was raised as a Quaker, so we’re big on divine spark. You have to find the light in everybody. But I dealt with a person not that long ago who had no spark. None. Every time I talked to them, it was like an hourglass spinning. They were waiting for their download from the AI and the neural network to tell them what to say next. It was one of the most bizarre experiences of my life. I said, “Oh, no, could this really be possible?”

CORBETT: One never knows. And the thing is that the economic opacity is what enables any of this to potentially be true. We truly have no idea what is going on under the cover of this.

FITTS: Here’s what’s interesting. There’s a history. We ought to get a group of us and do a history of secret money for secret operations and secret armies starting in 1947–1949. Or we can even go back to 1913 and the creation of the Federal Reserve, because it’s the fiat currency and the ability to use that fiat currency globally that makes this all go. So it goes back to the Federal Reserve.

If you look back, there are thousands of people who fought and died to try and stop the secret money for secret operations and secret armies. That’s what it is. It’s just secret money, secret operations, secret armies.

Forrestal got killed for that reason. McCarthy got killed for that reason. Kennedy got killed for that reason. The people who died in 9/11 got killed for that reason. All the people who were destroyed on the drug narcotics trafficking into their communities—same thing.

It’s been the same story for almost a century. Somehow we never look at it as one continuous story. Yet that’s what it is.

CORBETT: That’s exactly right. That’s something that really occurred to me when I was putting together my Century of Enslavement [subtitled “The History of the Federal Reserve”] documentary. Essentially, the history of America has been the history against the central bankers or people who want to create that institution. And when you see the struggle in that light, a lot of the history actually makes sense in a very different way. So I agree.

FITTS: Right. And what’s remarkable is if you look at the system of secret money for secret operations and secret armies, if you look at who runs it and who controls it, it’s a remarkably small group of people.

That’s why I’ve always thought, “Why are we letting a remarkably small group of people do this?”

Now, I believe one of the sticking points that has given them their power is that in 1947 [when James Forrestal was appointed the first US Secretary of Defense] and 1949, when they assassinated Forrestal, you had a group of people who really believed that the general population couldn’t handle the truth. I don’t necessarily agree with that, but I think they really believed that. They were sincere.

Then, once you build up an infrastructure that is financially addicted to secrecy, which is the most powerful financial addiction in the world, James—once you build up something, the legal liability of trying to reverse it could be catastrophic. You have a cycle of disrespect between the general population and the leadership, and the leadership don’t trust the general population to do an adult transition.

So, we have this cycle of disrespect on top of it, and it puts us in a real pickle. Meantime, the secret operations and secret armies just get hungrier and hungrier and hungrier.

CORBETT: Absolutely. We can see how that makes sense in an institutional sense. But it raises the question. You’re an investigator. And one of the things I love about the work you do at Solari is that you’re very fact- and detail-oriented and you’re able to draw out the meaning of information as it lies. If we’re looking for the real basis of an operation—how it works, how it’s functioning—we follow the money. The money speaks the tale. We can’t do that in this case. So how do we start to get a handle on these secret programs?

FITTS: Well, it’s interesting. “Nobody is as smart as all of us,” as one pundit said. What we have to do is start with the unanswered questions. What are the important questions and what are unanswered?

Then, what is the information—whether it’s anecdotal or intuitive—that we can gather together that will start to inform those questions? If you just keep asking those questions and collecting information, the group intelligence starts to kick in and go to work. Part of it is learning how to connect what we do know about what’s going on with what we see in our neighborhoods.

One of the reasons I was launching software called Community Wizard that would allow you to look at the federal budget in your community is that you would start to notice . . . [stops midstream and approaches the subject from a different angle . . .]

When I was assistant secretary of housing, I would get a download of where all the foreclosures were. You’d [physically] go to that block in Dallas where it said there were ten foreclosures, and there’d be an empty lot. Connect the dots.

So I think part of it is learning how to bring it down into my day-to-day life and seeing it in my day-to-day life and taking the actions that can either protect me from it in my day-to-day life or help me navigate it.

Sometimes when you bump into “this in your day-to-day life,” you just need to move away. Sometimes, you’re in the middle of a meeting and realize, “Uh-oh, the people I’m meeting with are not on the up and up.” You just have to navigate your way through.

CORBETT: Yeah. And on that note, it is important to bring this back to something we can actually do about this rather than just . . . I mean, it’s fun to speculate about where this is going and what have you, but you’re doing something very important over at Solari that I hope people have seen.

It’s called the #my212020 campaign. We’ll put the link into the video highlighting this campaign. But I want to talk about what it is that people can do about this $21 trillion or whatever it is and taking some of that power back into their own hands.

FITTS: I believe a fantastic amount of money has disappeared both on the bailouts and on missing money. We have the power to get it back. The reason I’ve stuck with this for thirty years is I’ve known we have the power to get it back.

So, let’s talk a little bit about how to do that. First of all, if you go to missingmoney.solari.com, there is a wealth of documentation on the legal structures of how finance works in the federal government.

If you want to do significant due diligence, I got two of my attorneys to write out the whole framework. And I’ve done a piece with my attorney called “Caveat Emptor” on how to do due diligence if you’re an investor. There’s a wealth of the detailed information. #my212020 is to bring it down to the 2020 campaign.

Campaigns in the United States, James, are a time when people get together with their neighbors and really discuss the issues. It’s remarkable how much Americans still invest in having a discussion of serious issues during the campaign. We wanted to get the $21 trillion back into the 2020 discussion, but in a way where people could use it. The first way to get this money back is to use it as political leverage.

I wrote a piece on pension funds (pension.solari.com). It’s called “The State of Our Pensions.” In it, I pointed out that the US pension funds are underfunded by $5 trillion, which is a lot less than $21 trillion. I want to make sure that the pension trustees and pension beneficiaries, when the time comes, can come to the table and say, “Well, wait a minute. You gave $24 trillion to the banks and there’s $21 trillion missing from the federal government. Why is it a problem to fund that $5 trillion?”

Now, in the law, there’s something called a common law right of offset. If you are a contractor who has facilitated illegal payments or if you’re an IT contractor running the payment systems or you’re a bank at the New York Fed running the depository in the payment systems . . . the New York Fed is the depository for the US government. All banking transactions go through the New York Fed and their members as agents providing that depository. If you’re JPMorgan Chase and you’ve facilitated these transactions under the law, you’re liable for those monies if those were illegal transactions and you knew it.

JPMorgan Chase in 2018 earned $32 billion. $32 billion a year for the next 100 years would fund a lot of pension funds, would fund a lot of Social Security. So there are ways, whether it’s political leverage, or there are ways, whether it’s holding the people responsible who’ve done this, there are ways of getting this money back. If you look at the posters, one of my favorite posters is this really cool-looking young guy who’s saying, “Dear Mr. President, About my student loan debt — Please deduct it from the $21 trillion.” That’s the common law right of offset that I love.

When I settled my litigation with the federal government, [there was] one of the banks who I believed was the most responsible. I owed them $14,000, and at the time that was approximately the amount of missing money I identified. I wrote him a letter and said, “You owe me $14,000 and I owe you $14,000, and I’m asserting common law right of offset. Goodbye.” And that was it.

CORBETT: It’s an incredible and powerful idea. It’s one that needs to be popularly understood and adopted for it to have that kind of resonance, which is why I’m totally on board with hijacking the selection circus of 2020 and all of the craziness that will go around that to an issue that actually matters. Can you imagine if we got a real issue with real substance on the table.

FITTS: So let me describe: $21 trillion is $65,000 per person. I don’t care what your issue is, whether it’s student loan debt, whether it’s pension fund, whether it’s health care. $65,000 per person. For a family of four, we’re talking about a quarter of a million dollars. That solves many, if not most, practical problems. This is real money. If we apply it as real money strategically to the things that government is supposed to be doing but they’re not doing because that money disappeared someplace else, then we’re talking about having a real conversation. And that’s why it was really irritating when people started to talk about reparations. I said, “What about reparations for everybody?” Let’s do some real accounting.

CORBETT: The money is there. Let’s do some [real accounting]. Exactly.

Alright, I very much appreciate that. But I actually wanted to leave today’s conversation on a different note, because, of course, all of this takes place within the context of society generally and what’s happening with the general mindset. I wanted to point at something from your 2018 wrap-up, where you wrote about 2019: “Get ready, get ready, get ready.” You said:

“As we debate our sovereign rights and freedoms, we are experiencing an unprecedented effort to assert central control, often by covert means, and to brainwash and mind control the general population into financing and supporting the forces acting against us. As we finance this invasion, secrecy, corruption and organized crime continue to grow. At the same time, our culture continues to be debased.”

You laid out four scenarios for 2019 based on two variables: humanity and transparency. Explain to people a little bit about that and what you think . . .

FITTS: Right. I think the most important issue before every one of us is: Are we going to be part of a society which is human and a society that’s lawful? Or are we going to be part of a society where inhumane practices prevail?

If you look at what some people call transhumanism”—and what we’ve now at Solari started to call “subhumanism”—I think we’re talking about central control, applying technologies in ways which are indeed slavery.

I think they are subhuman and unacceptable. As a society, what’s important is not money. What is important is, are we going to be a human society? Are we going to be individual beings who are sovereign under divine authority? Or are we basically going to be natural resources like oil deposits? I think that’s the biggest question before us. And I think the most important thing every one of us has to do in our daily life is say, “No, I refuse. I refuse to participate in that. I stand for a human society.”

CORBETT: Tell us about the scenarios you’re working on for 2020.

FITTS: Last year, the big issue was “Transparency Or Not?” You make four quadrants. You have two variables. One is human versus inhuman. One is transparent versus dark. One of the things I talked a lot about last year and I’ll talk a lot about this year is about how everything’s going dark.

I’m about to publish “The State of Our Currencies.” One of the things I’m going to look at is the trajectory of the dollar. This time, it’s going to be human versus inhuman. Again, I think that’s the most important issue. But then the question is: Will the dollar hold for 2020 or will it go into a steep decline? Will it significantly lose market share in a way that’s going to have a major impact throughout the developed world, not just America?

You know, the dollar bubble has floated the entire developed world, and you’re going to see a very significant shift. After I finish publishing “The State of Our Currencies,” I’ll look at the variable of dollar holds for 2020 [one quadrant], dollar significantly declines [second quadrant], and then human [third quadrant] versus inhuman [fourth quadrant]. That gives you four scenarios. And that’ll be part of the annual wrap-up.

The annual wrap-up, James, is a wrap-up of the Deep State Tactics. I published something you’ll find at Missing Money called “A Personal History.” It’s my thirty years [1989–2019] of trying to stop the money from going missing.

I needed to do that, because people kept believing the same excuse every year for thirty years. I needed a way to say, “Look, I’ve been listening to this excuse for thirty years. [This excuse] doesn’t hold weight.” It was to try and give people a sense of the history.

The last chapter was going to be on all the tactics they used to target and stop people who try and bring transparency to the secret money, the secret operations and the secret armies. It got very long. To my shock and amazement, people were very interested in the day-to-day tactical issues of how control is engineered. It’s been one of our most popular things at the Solari Report.

This year we have more to do. We’re going to wrap it all up and in the Annual-Wrap-Up do a “mega” on the Deep State Tactics like we did on the Missing Money. Then of course we’ll have the scenario plans—the scenario designs. I used to do those when I was doing investment advisory for families. I find them absolutely critical for business planning, investment planning, and personal planning of your time for the year, because it’s very important you’re successful no matter which way the scenarios go. And it’s very, very important given the change that we’re accelerating into.

You know, nobody can predict the future. The future is uncertain. I believe it’s our job to build the future, not to try and predict it and survive it. Scenarios make you flexible. I want to make sure our subscribers succeed, no matter what scenario comes true.

CORBETT: Exactly right. A good part of planning is to know the different directions that things could be trending and be prepared for those eventualities and how much you weight each of those scenarios. So how much should I be thinking about this?

FITTS: I’ve seen so many people be terribly, terribly hurt by getting invested in a particular scenario. Big mistake. The future isn’t certain.

Every year we have a section called “Unanswered Questions.” I believe that even if you can’t answer the question, you’ve got to keep asking it. And our biggest unanswered question is: “Who’s really running this?” The governance system on this planet is secret and invisible. Secret money for secret operations for secret armies makes it possible for a small group of people to run a secret governance system.

Now, if we’re going to re-engineer the financial system, the financial system is just a subset of the governance system. If you want to know how to reengineer the financial system, you have to be able to answer the question: “How does the governance system on planet earth run?” I can’t believe I’ve lived on this planet this long and tried as hard as I have to understand it. I still couldn’t get up in a court of law and document how it’s done. When you think about it, think of how strange it is that we live on a planet with 7 billion people—and the fundamental economic and governance model is secret. That’s nuts.

CORBETT: Perhaps that says something about human nature and the way humans come together in society. Isn’t it interesting? About how much are people willing to give up just for convenience? “Oh, secret government, whatever. As long as I get my burger and football, I’m okay.”

FITTS: I think that’s the mind control kicking in. What I find is that in every business, in every neighborhood, in every place, you have 10% of the people whom I call “the high-energy people.” They’re entrepreneurs. They always give more energy than they get. If you come to where I live, my mayor and a lot of the people on the City Council I call net energy-plus people. They wanna know. They do wanna know, but they also don’t want to get their family killed. They care. They’re trying to be effective. They’re trying to not waste their time.

I spent eleven years litigating with the federal government. I’ve got to tell you: I worked for free for 36,000 hours. I was required by law and regulation in the courts to do 36,000 hours of free work to prove that I was right. They know I was right. Not everybody can afford to do that. Not everybody wants to do that. And I’m very sympathetic.

I got mad.

CORBETT: Yeah. If you’re not mad, you’re not paying attention. But also, if you’re not doing something about it, then what is it worth getting mad about? So, I think there are the two halves that we have to connect there—the understanding with the action.

FITTS: Well, the only reason I did it was that line between the human and the inhuman. What they were doing—and I explained it all in my online book, Dillon Reed and the Aristocracy of Stock Profits—is bringing drugs into poor communities. Then they were dropping SWAT teams and rounding up kids who were either entrapped or innocent. And they were stuffing them into private prisons and making money on the gentrification in the stocks. Those are slave labor camps.

That’s what we were brought up to believe the Germans were doing, which was so very wrong. And I just said, if as a society, we take innocent young people, stuff them into slave labor camps where they make, you know, uniforms for the military, if we do that, we cross a line. And if it can be done to them, eventually it’s going to be done to everybody. And I was right. You know, if you look at where this is going, it’s being done increasingly to more and more people.

CORBETT: And I find that throughout my work. That’s one of the connecting threads throughout everything thing that I do. It continually boils down to that question: What is our humanity? Is it being taken away from us? And can we stop it. That’s really what this is all about.

FITTS: I did a great interview with the Saker, which we’ll take public this week. We interview him quarterly. I asked the Saker, “What do you think is the most important issue in the campaign?”

He said the most important issue in the 2020 campaign is: “Will America be a country of the rule of law?” We’ve held the reserve currency, James, because people believed in the fundamentals of the US rule of law. And now what’s happening is that whether it’s through the sanctions being used with the dollar or the politics being played with the dollar, the weaponization of the dollar, FASAB Statement 56, all the things we’re talking about, unfortunately, the message the globe is getting is, “The US is not a country where the rule of law prevails. We better get our money and run. We need another plan.”

CORBETT: Yeah, but my research indicates that the pulling of the plug on the dollar is part of the long-term plan.

FITTS: Right. That wouldn’t surprise me.

CORBETT: Yeah. I mean, they’re already starting to create the infrastructure for what comes next. And what comes next is just a further centralization and further removed hands.

FITTS: Right. Well, imagine the centralized digital currencies you can build with $50 trillion.

CORBETT: Exactly. Exactly. And that’s why we’ve got Mark Carney talking about, “Well, maybe the next reserve currency will be something like Libra.” So, yeah, I see so clearly where this is trending, and it’s not good—unless we get in front of that.

And one of the things that we can do, at least to start, is something like #my212020. Again, I’ll put the link in the Show Notes so people can at least familiarize themselves with that.

I’m looking forward to the Annual-Wrap-up, but that’s because I know about the work that you do and why it’s important. But for people who don’t, let’s give the elevator pitch of the Solari Report and why people should be checking it out.

FITTS: Okay. We do a weekly interview, and I do a weekly commentary, “Money & Markets.” Quarterly—I believe, James, that people are unbelievably busy and what they need is a distillation of all the news quarterly. In both our “Quarterly-Wrap-Ups” and “Annual-Wrap-Up,” we go deep on one theme, because busy people need to understand the big trends and it takes time to go deep once a quarter on the big trends over time, whether it’s “The State of Our Pension Funds” or “MegaCities” or “The Rise of the Asian Consumer.” The one I’m working on now is “The State of Our Currencies.” The next one will be “Take Action,” then “Deep State Tactics.”

If you understand these deep trends, you don’t need to spend a lot of time watching the news. The idea of the “Quarterly-Wrap-ups” and the “Annual-Wrap-up” is that if you only read those or listen to them—they come in audio and a little bit of video and in written form—if you only digest those, you’ll be smarter than anybody in the room about what’s really going on.

CORBETT: Yeah, that’s also a point I keep coming back to is that the news cycle—the 24/7 news cycle—is meant to distract you from what’s really important a lot of the time.

FITTS: Right. Right.

CORBETT: Alright. Well, I hope people will check it out. All the links will be in the Show Notes. And obviously this is an ongoing conversation. We’ll have to have you back on in the future to continue this at some point. But we’ll leave it there for today. Catherine Austin Fitts, solari.com. Thank you so much for your time.

FITTS: James, thank you. It’s always a pleasure.