Walt Stickle and Jörg Glismann, discuss various Issues. Also included in the talk is the author of The Creature of Jekel Island, G. Edward Griffin.

Transcription

Walt Stickel: Greetings and welcome to Mystery Babylon News Radio on May 10th 2015. My co-host tonight is going to be Jörg Glismann from Belgium and we’re going to be discussing some clips from G. Edward Griffin.

G. Edward Griffin is an American author, he’s a lecturer, and a filmmaker. He is the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island, which promotes conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve System.

Now tonight’s broadcast, like I said, is the conspiracy of misdirection. At no time I want you to feel that I am picking on G. Edward Griffin. The point that I want to make is, the point that we’re going to make in this discussion, is it’s not what people are saying, it’s not what history is telling us, it’s what history is not telling us.

So with that, I’m going to start the broadcast. In eight minutes we’ll make a comment. Jörg Glismann from Belgium and my name is Walt Stickle, your host.

G. Edward Griffin: I’m Ed Griffin. I’m a writer. I write controversial works. I think they’re very important works. I deal with such topics as banking history, health issues, United Nations, U.S. foreign policy, the wind of topics where people get all heated up because they have strong opinions, but I consider myself to be a researcher and I try to be a historian as best I can. So I deal with facts mostly, not in opinions.

I’ve been doing this most of my adult life. I started becoming interested in issues of this nature in 1959, and by 1960 I was really revved up to it. I left my employment with a large insurance company and went in full time in doing writing and speaking on these topics.

The growth of the Tea Party movement and the left-right paradigm, they’re all sort of intertwined and yet there are very separate intellectual threads that need to be followed in all of that.

I think first of all it’s important to talk about and understand this left-right paradigm. What is this all about? Most of this, including myself for certain, in my younger years I was brought up thinking that you had to choose, if you were smart at least, you would have to choose politically between being on the right or the left. You had to have a political view and I thought that in those days I thought that the extreme right would be something like fascism or Nazism and on the extreme left of course you would have communism or socialism, just a little bit short of that.

So that was the paradigm that I was taught and it seemed to make sense at the time. But as I became more involved in these issues and learned more about them I began to realize that the basic philosophy between the so-called extreme left people and Communists and Socialists and the so-called philosophy on the right of the Fascists and the Nazis was really the same. How can this be? They’re supposed to be opposites of each other.

Then I began to realize that there is something more common to all of these philosophies that was left out of my training and education and that was the ideology of collectivism. I began to realize that the thing that was common to them all is something called collectivism. That’s a word that is not very well used. It’s not very entrenched in the vocabulary of most people today but I found out that it was a very commonly used word about a century ago. People wrote a lot about collectivism and the opposite of that would be individualism. Those are two words that are sort of abandoned today but in my view I think they need to be recaptured and understood and used more.

I realized that communism and fascism, the so-called opposites, are merely variants of collectivism. They’re the same thing and they believe that the group is more important than the individual, for example, and the individual must be sacrificed if necessary for the greater good of the greater number. They believe that the State should be all-powerful and that the people should obey the State for the greater good of the greater number and all of that sort of thing.

They believe that rights are granted by the State. They’re not part of the human being. They’re not God-given. They’re not entrenched in his body and soul. They have to be granted by the State. All of these things, and you look at them one by one, Communists and Fascists and Nazis and Socialists, they all believe that.

So wherein lies the conflict? I began to question that and I realized that it’s partly a trick. In fact, I think it’s a huge trick. It’s a great scam because people even today are thinking that they have to choose between the right or the left, not realizing that no matter which way they go, they’ve accepted basically the same ideology underneath.

Now it’s true that the leaders of these groups, like the Stalins of the world and the Adolf Hitlers of the world and the Mao Zedongs of the world and so forth, the leaders of these groups on left and right will fight each other and they will go to war with each other and there will be tremendous battles as we saw in World War II, for example. But what are they fighting over? Ideology? Not at all, because they agree on ideology. What they’re fighting over is dominance. Who is going to rule? That’s all they’re fighting over.

Once you get that picture historically, it’s not too difficult to see that that’s the same thing going on even today, as certainly going on in American politics. We have the left versus the right sort of embodied today in the Republican Party supposedly on the right and the Democrat Party supposedly on the left.

Now here’s a choice, isn’t there? Well, why is it if this is such a choice? So we go from Republicans to Democrats and then four years later we go back to Republicans again and we keep doing this. We’ve been doing this since World War I. How come the country keeps moving in the same direction all the time, deeper and deeper and deeper into collectivism, regardless of which party is in in favor, because they both believe in collectivism. They both believe in big government.

Their slogans are different, their leaders are different, but the poor voter out there trying to make sense of all this is, he’s tricked, he’s stuck, he’s trapped. And so this is the important thing to, I think, understand that this left-right paradigm is a it’s a political ploy. It works very well for those who know what they’re doing.

We find that the Republican Party and the Democrat Party both are pretty much in the hands of a relatively small group of people with a membership of about 4,000. It’s called the

Council on Foreign Relations

. These are the people that are really pulling the strings in both the Republican and the Democrat Party and they’ve even written about it. There’s a fellow by the name of Carroll Quigley.

Walt Stickel: Yes, Carroll Quigley is a professor at Jesuit Georgetown University. He wrote a book called Tragedy and Hope. It is 1,363 pages. I’m going to give a little quick quiz here and we’ll answer it later on in the broadcast. The question is, how many times was the word Jesuits, plural, used in a book that’s 1,363 pages?

A. Numerous.
B. Few.
C. One. Or,
D. None.

(I think it’s probably D.)

We’ll comment on this at the end of this clip.

G. Edward Griffin: There’s a former history professor at Georgetown University. By the way, he (Carroll Quigley) was the mentor of William Clinton when Clinton was a student there. He wrote several books about this group of people and their origins and their roots coming from Europe and England in particular. He comes to a very interesting point in one of his books where he says, Okay, this is the way the real world is. He said, “How is it that we collectivists, we elitists, how can we rule the world when at the same time we want to let the average person think that they’re living in a, “democracy”? They’re living in a system where their vote counts. They’re living in this world in which they feel that they must participate in their own political destiny.”

This is a carefully nurtured myth that they want to create so people will be content with no matter what happens to them. They’ll say, “Well, I voted for it or I did it. This government is my government. No matter how bad it is, it’s responsible to me.” And as long as people have that image, then they don’t complain so much about how bad it gets because they did it, they think. So Quigley deals with this question, how do you let people think that they’re directing their own political destiny when at the same time we, the elite, we are the ones who must direct their political destiny without them knowing it? How do you do that?

And he answers the question brilliantly. He said, it’s very simple. You’ve got to have two major political parties and they’ll both have the same major goals, the same basic fundamental principles, and they’ll argue with each other on the surface with slogans and leadership and style and all of that sort of thing. He said, but we will control them both.

There’s the strategy. There’s the whole scam behind this left-right paradigm. When you understand this history and this reality, you look at it and you say, “Well, yes, we’ve got a left wing and a right wing, but they’re just opposite wings of the same ugly bird, and that bird is called collectivism.

Walt Stickel: Greetings and welcome! This is Hour of the Truth from Belgium. Are you ready for a $64,000 question?

Jörg Glismann: Only $64,000, Walt? I need more.

Walt Stickel: Edward Griffin is a researcher. He’s been on Alex Jones, and as you heard in the tape, he went full-time and he was an insurance salesman. So he makes a living of selling books and speaking. But the title of this broadcast, I want to really lay this out so you understand where we’re going here. The conspiracy of misdirection.

Now, he mentioned Carroll Quigley at Georgetown University, but he left out – it’s not in their vocabulary – that’s Jesuit Georgetown University, founded in 1789, the same year that our country officially became a nation. It was in 1789.

The seal for Georgetown University and the seal of the Great Seal of America are so similar! I don’t know if George Washington gave the seal to Georgetown or if John Carroll gave the seal to George Washington, but my question to you, Jörg, is how many times do you think in this 1,363-page book was the word Jesuits, plural, mentioned? Or the word Jesuit? Okay. A, numerous times? B, few? 3, 1? Or D, none? What would you guess?

Jörg Glismann: Well, when you know Carroll Quigley, you don’t even have to read his book to know that the answer is D, none.

Walt Stickel: Let me correct you now. It was 1. He did mention it once, but you were very close, okay? So I’m not gonna flunk you, you didn’t flunk the test, so continue, please.

Jörg Glismann: Well, the point is that Carroll Quigley himself is Jesuit-educated, and people who follow the Jesuit agenda are only allowed to a certain point to expose them. When you go into so-called researchers like Eric Jon Phelps, for example, who exposed the Jesuits on many levels in his book Vatican Assassins, there’s only so much that he can or is allowed to reveal in his book.

And when there comes another author along, like Tupper Saussy, who reveals things that he left out in his book, then he is made out as a Jesuit coadjutor. And Carroll Quigley has the “problem” that he is only allowed to disclose so much information. He knows exactly what he is allowed to say and what he is not allowed to say.

Of certainty he is not allowed to say that Jesuit Georgetown University in the first place was founded by John Carroll, was it, right? A Jesuit. And he is not allowed to say that the whole American foreign policy is actually formatted at Jesuit Georgetown University. So by that you can save yourself the time of reading 1,363 pages of Tragedy and Hope, and just ask yourself why is an author that is teaching as a professor at that university, when he writes a book with that kind of an interesting title, not talking about the figures behind the curtain?

And that’s exactly the same thing that Edward G. Griffin didn’t do. I mean, I didn’t read his book The Creature from Jekyll Island, but I’m willing to ask the same $64,000 question back to you. How often does he mention the Jesuits, or the Roman Catholic Church, for that matter, in his book The Creature from Jekyll Island?

Walt Stickel: Well I would say that it’s either one time maybe, or none.

Jörg Glismann: I even tend to none, because people like Edward G. Griffin do not go the same way that F. Tupper Saussy did, looking up the Encyclopedia Judaica, and looking up what the Rothschilds stands for. The Rothschilds stands for in the Encyclopedia Judaica, according to the research that F. Tupper Saussy did. And you can do that by yourself, by just googling the Encyclopedia Judaica, and read it for yourself online.

Walt Stickel: It’s in the book Rulers of Evil by F. Tupper Saussy. It’s a Jesuit-Vatican Conspiracy,

Jörg Glismann: But my point being is that F. Tupper Saussy made this inquiry in the Encyclopedia Judaica, and he found out that in that Encyclopedia itself states that the Rothschilds are not anything more, and also not anything less, but the guardians of the papal treasure. They are the war bankers of the Vatican.

An interesting little anecdote is that the name Rothschild, as you speak, as you pronounce it in English, in German spoken means Roth Shield, and that is a red shield. And that is the same red shield that the pagan Roman soldier used to defend themselves when they went into battle. You know, when you were a soldier 2,000 years ago, and you went into battle, you had a shield and a sword. A shield to protect yourself, and a sword to attack. And that color of that shield was red. So the color of the soldiery of the army of the then ruling pagan Roman Empire was red.

And it is no coincidence, let me tell you, that the god of war in the Roman pagan Empire was the planet Mars. M-A-R-S. The same planet that we call today the Red Planet, and where NASA, so-called, sends one drone after another.

The red planet Mars is a symbol for the Rothshields, of Rothschilds, as you say in English. And the planet Mars spells M-A-R-S, and the company that the Rothschilds founded was called Meier, Amschel, Rothschild und Söhne. Now take the first letters of that, that is Meier, M, Amschel, A, Rothschild, R, Söhne, sons. M-A-R-S. Do you think that there’s any coincidence in this fact that I’ve just told you here about? I don’t think that it’s any coincidence in any way.

And this is the kind of research that Edward G. Griffin and a lot of other so-called conspiracy researchers in the so-called conspiracy research scene are not going to touch. Because if they would touch it, they would probably be JFK’d. (Murdere.)

Walt Stickel: Well, it’s the conspiracy direction, and a lot of it is, you see, it’s religion that runs the world.

Jörg Glismann: Yeah, but you are not allowed to point in the direction. You’re only allowed to point in the misdirection. And that is exactly what Edward G. Griffin does.

Walt Stickel: That’s exactly. And also, he mentions the left and the right. I want to quote, “The right and left wing of party politics are both wings of the same bird.” The head of the bird determines the directions, not the wings. And the head of the bird is the Jesuits.

Jörg Glismann: And that’s what he leaves out.

Walt Stickel: And that’s what he leaves out. It’s not what he’s saying. It’s not what Alex Jones is saying. It’s not what Eric Phelps is saying. It’s not what the Hagmonds are saying. It’s not what Quayle says. And all the, all the reptilian book writers, it’s what they leave out. And we’re not leaving out the word Jesuit. They want to leave that word Jesuit out of their vocabulary. It’s part of history. We have a Jesuit coming to speak at a joint session of Congress on September 23rd, 2015. This is not a conspiracy. It is a conspiracy, but it’s no theory. The Pope is coming.

So, you know, I got two more clips. I’d like to play this another clip. It’s only five minutes. So I’m going to start that clip right now.

G. Edward Griffin: So how does that apply to the Tea Party movement that we see today? There it is. I mean, that’s the blueprint. The Tea Party movement seems to have been a very genuine, spontaneous movement arising from people who were unhappy with both the Bush administration and the candidacy of Obama. They didn’t like either one of them. They were people who understood more or less, maybe not intellectually and historically, that there was collectivism in both parties, but they understood that something wasn’t right and they didn’t want more of the same.

And so the Tea Party movement, just think about it. What does that mean? It goes back to the historical episode where the colonists in Boston dumped the Tea Party into the Boston Bay because it was a protest against the taxes and the restriction of liberties and the Stamp Act and so forth on the part of Great Britain against the colonies. And so the Tea Party movement really was a rebellion against big government, no matter what camp it came from, whether it came from the Republicans or the Democrats.

Well, it didn’t take long, especially when the Tea Party movement began to gain momentum. And I was privileged to see that because I was invited to participate in some of these early events. And I remember the first event I went to, maybe they had a couple of hundred people, but they were all, you know, dedicated to the principles that made this country great, had nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats, it had to do with political philosophy, the concept of limited government and the people being in charge, not the government in charge.

So I saw it start in a small fashion like that, and then over the next couple of years it grew and grew and grew until finally it was a very large movement. And at this point the political parties, the leadership of the political parties began to take very careful note of it. They said, wait a minute, this is something we should be doing, because they’re experts at orchestrating movements and letting the people think that it’s their movement, you see.

This was a genuine grassroots spontaneous movement, had nothing to do in the beginning with political parties. Well, the leadership of the parties couldn’t let that be. So they both looked at it very carefully and the Democrats decided that because of the nature and the slogans and so forth, it didn’t fit well. So they began to attack it. They began to try and make it look like it was a bunch of idiots and wackos and tin-hat people and all this sort of thing.

And the Republicans thought, hmm, this is something we can use. And so they started to go into it as best they could and take it over. That was their goal, to cop it for their for their program.

And so here we are today looking at this process underway. They’re still trying very hard to convert the Tea Party movement into a Republican front. And I’m sorry to say that they have achieved some success in that direction, primarily because of some very well-known people who are closely aligned with the Republican Party.

We’re talking about the candidate, of course, Sarah Palin, who is a Republican from top to bottom. And she represents this right wing image. She fills the bill perfectly. She’s this Republican right wing collectivist. And she can speak with great fervor and great emotion and great meaning against the extremes of the Democrats, those bad left wingers. And she does a good job of it. And everything she says is true.

But she doesn’t speak out against those bad right wingers, you see, because she’s part of that group. Her mission is not to bring about a restoration of the principles of America, but to get the Republicans back into power. That’s her mission.

And, of course, we have people like Glenn Beck, who have the power of the Fox broadcasting system behind him. That’s tremendous power. And he’s always speaking against those bad left wing Democrats with great conviction and great fervor and great truth. Nothing wrong with what he says. What’s wrong is what he doesn’t say.

Walt Stickel: Let’s keep in mind that Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a Knight of Malta.

G. Edward Griffin: He’ll never attack somebody from the Republican Party. We’ve got people like Rush Limbaugh, he plays the same role. He’s very good at exposing the Democrats. He’s very good at pointing out the absurdity of the left wing philosophy. But he’ll never say anything bad about a right winger or a Republican. So there you have it.

Of course, on the Democrat side, you’ve got the same team. These are the cheerleaders and the players. They work together. And the average voter gets caught in the middle of this. He hasn’t any idea what’s going on. He just thinks that the debate is such that he has to choose.

Who are you going to vote for? Are you going to vote Republican or are you going to vote Democrat? And so as long as they’re in that role, they’re like a tennis ball in a tennis match. They get hit back and forth across the net. First, they’re on the right. Bing! Then they’re back on the left. Bing! Back there on the right. They’re Republican. They’re Democrat. And the game goes on and on and on. And although it’s possible for the players of that game to win, the tennis ball never wins that game.

So I think it’s time for people to stop being tennis balls in this game and just get out of the game completely.

Walt Stickel: Jörg, he mentions the press. Give me a little definition of what a Knight of Malta is.

Jörg Glismann: Well, first of all, I want to say this were five minutes were the pot was calling the kettle black. He accuses Rupert Murdoch of not telling the whole truth. It’s not about what he says, but it’s about what he doesn’t say. Well, this is exactly the same according to him (meaning it’s not what G. Edward Griffin is saying, it’s what he’s not saying.) Right? So this is the pot calling the kettle black. And this is exactly the same thing that he does, what he accuses other people of, being the tennis ball, being pushed from the left to the right, from the right to the left, back and forth. And that’s exactly what he is doing.

And what about his political party analysis there? You have the Democrats on the left. You have the Republicans on the right. And then you have the Tea Party movement calling that a grassroots movement. If that is a grassroots movement, then I don’t want to be part of a grassroots movement, because that’s as grassroots movement as the Democrats and the Republicans are. It’s just a third party they throw in there to put more distraction on it.

People who came out of this so-called grassroots movement, if I’m not completely mistaken, are people like Ron Paul. How many times has Ron Paul been to Rome? Ron Paul has been speaking at Georgetown University. Is anybody ever talking about that?

Walt Stickel: No, because the word Jesuit is not in their vocabulary.

Jörg Glismann: And not even the word Jesuit, even the word Roman Catholic Church, Catholicism, or the Pope. Or even worse. You said the Pope is coming this year, September 23rd, to the United States of America to speak before a joint session of Congress on behalf of the American people, right? He is not just a Pope. He is not just a Jesuit. He is a Jesuit Antichrist. He is the biblical, historical, and prophetic Antichrist, coming to a so-called Protestant nation to speak on behalf of the so-called Protestant inhabitants. That is something that has to be covered.

He is playing exactly the same game that he accuses Rupert Murdoch of. And you said Rupert Murdoch is a Knight of Malta, and you want me to go deep into the Knights of Malta? Well, I can only say, Walt, I want to make this short, because otherwise we are still at midnight talking about this.

I made a very interesting video about two or two and a half hours long when I was on the broadcast on Popping Puppets Boots, Michael Adams. And we did a broadcast for more than two hours on the power of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. And what and who do they all control in this world? And to make it short for the people who have no idea what the Knights of Malta are, the Knights of Malta are a military religious order from the Vatican that control banking and food and politics all over the world on behalf of the Antichrist, to make it that simple. If you want to have any more information on that, go to my YouTube channel, Jogler66, look up in the playlist, the playlist of nothing but the truth, and you will find that video as one of the first six videos that I’ve uploaded in that series. It’s a broadcast from the beginning of this year or the end of last year, I don’t remember anymore. And there you will learn much more than we can talk about now in five minutes about the Knights of Malta.

But these Knights of Malta are the same Knights of Malta that also the Rothschilds are part of. Meier Amschel Rothschild was a Knight of Malta. So he was a papal knight!

And that was another point that F. Tupper Saussy made in his book. Who would expect an Orthodox Jewish family to be behind the banking affairs of the Roman Catholic Church? Nobody! And this leads directly back to the title of your show today, The Conspiracy of Misdirection, because everybody is pointing their finger at the Jews, at the Zionists, and they are leaving out, or better said, the people are being so indoctrinated with this kind of “knowledge” that they do not any further search on where do these come from, who is behind that.

(End of transcription.)
I transcribed a little over 30 minutes of the 44-minute audio. I think the speakers have made their point about the conspiracy of misdirection. My opinion: Jörg Glismann is too hard on G. Edward Griffin. I think what Mr. Griffin had to say about collectivism is important information! I didn’t know that term and how it applies to the world of politics. And I think he just may not know about the Jesuit / Vatican connection to Satan’s New World Order conspiracy. I didn’t know about it until after the year 2000. John Todd didn’t know about it in his testimony about witchcraft and the Illuminati, but to Todd’s credit, he did say it was not primarily a Jewish conspiracy. At the time I did not believe that, but I do now.

Knowledge is a shared resource. Nobody knows everything. We learn from others. One of my friends told me I don’t need to read Bible commentaries from authors such as Matthew Henry or John Gill. He says all I need is the Holy Spirit. I don’t agree with that. The Bible says,

1 Corinthians 12:28  And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers…

If all we need is the Holy Spirit, why did God also give us teachers? Because teachers have knowledge and sources of information that we may not have, knowledge for example about the history of certain fulfilled prophecies. That’s not to say all teachers and pastors are good. This is where our own connection to the Lord, the Holy Spirit, and knowledge of the Word of God comes in. We need to pray for discernment.

I know people who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit in their doctrinal teaching, but who also parrot Jesuit-based false doctrines such as the 70th Week of Daniel as an end-time event, the rebuilding of a third temple, and the rise of the Antichrist, etc., but who fail to see the Antichrist is alive and working against them TODAY and has been around for centuries in the office of the papacy.

I believe there indeed are people who do know about the Jesuit’s and Vatican’s connection to the New World Order conspiracy who intentionally withhold that information from the public. For sure Carroll Quigley must know about it. But just because a researcher doesn’t talk about it doesn’t mean he is purposely trying to misdirect you. For sure all the major news media sources are intentionally misdirecting the public, and I would also be leery of big-name alternative media people such as Alex Jones! I stopped listening to him over 20 years ago.

The people I am most interested to listen to are true Protestant Christians who are knowledgeable about the Jesuit led Counter-Reformation. You won’t find any of them working for a major news service.