Tales of Tyranny: Conspiracy to Overthrow US Government, Blackrocks Dystopian Real Estate Grab & FBI Grilled in Senate

The Adams Archive

Welcome to another fascinating episode of Adam's Archive! I'm your host, Austin Adams, and today we're diving deep into some of the most compelling and lesser-known stories of political intrigue and historical conspiracies.

🔍 In This Episode:

• The Business Plot of 1933: Discover the shocking attempt to overthrow President Roosevelt, led by corporate giants. We unravel the plot's complexities and its impact on American history.
• North Korea's Unusual Plea: A closer look at Kim Jong Un's emotional appeal for increased birth rates in North Korea. What does this signify for the isolated nation?
• Real Estate's New Giants: Delve into how 44% of single-family homes are now owned by private equity firms like BlackRock. We explore the implications of this significant shift in the housing market.
• FBI's Congressional Grill: Join us as we dissect FBI Director Chris Wray's responses on Hunter Biden's laptop and warrantless surveillance controversies during a recent congressional hearing.

💡 Deep Dive Discussions:

• American Coup: We discuss an intriguing list of the top five worst US presidents and how it connects to the business plot of 1933 to overthrow FDR in 1933

🌟 Join Our Community:

• Subscribe and Review: Your support on Apple Podcasts with a 5-star review helps us reach more curious minds.
• Follow on YouTube: For a more immersive experience, watch our episodes on YouTube and enjoy the added visual context.
• Stay Informed: Don't forget to sign up at austinadams.substack.com for exclusive content, updates, and more.

Ready to unravel some of the most intriguing stories hidden in the folds of history and current affairs? Let's jump right into today's episode of Adam's Archive! 🎙️

All the links : https://linktr.ee/theaustinjadams

Substack: https://austinadams.substack.com

----more----

Full Transcription

 Adam's Archive. you beautiful people, and welcome to the Adams Archive. My name is Austin Adams, and thank you so much for listening today. On today's episode, we're going to be doing a deep dive back to 1933 to look at a attempted coup of president Roosevelt. And what makes this even more interesting was the corporate interests that surrounded it and the individual that they attempted to have executed.

Which was a very, very famous, probably the most decorated and famous Marine of all time. And we'll walk through some of his history, what he was asked to do, and then we'll actually look at the transcripts of this. And I actually had a New York Times article that was pulled up, um, from the day after this hearing.

So it's a wild thing. It's called the business plot. And it's one of the craziest conspiratorial aspects of American history, one that is pretty well, uh, censored online, but I found some good articles on it. Uh, so we will dive deep into that, but first we'll discuss a few other topics.

The first one being that Kim Jong Un, the leader and totalitarian dictator of. Not thriving North Korea, it was crying during a video where he was seen asking, pleading, begging with the women of North Korea to start to have more children to stem the birth rate decline. After that, we will look at a couple other things, one of them notably being that 44 percent of All single family home purchases were by private equity firms.

And we'll dive into some of that because I'm sure you've heard one story or another from somebody that you know that dealt with this. And it is wild. Now, the, the leading picture on this article. Has the very front of the company BlackRock on it. So if that tells you anything, so we will look at that as well.

After that, we'll look at a Chris Wray from the FBI getting questioned during a congressional hearing Where he addresses some of the things that he is grilled on, including Hunter Biden's laptop story, as well as the warrantless surveillance of Americans. So, all of that and more, and then what will lead us into that discussion, that deep dive into the business plot of 1933 to overthrow the government, is a list I found on Reddit.

Brought me to that point, which is the top five worst presidents in us history. Now, some of the points that are made on this, uh, infographic are pretty valid. Now it's a very ugly infographic, uh, but I digress, um, some interesting discussions that we'll have surrounding that, that will lead us into the business plot as well.

So. All of that and more. First thing I need you to do is go ahead and hit that subscribe button. It just takes a minute, not even a minute, a second. Literally a second of your day could be spent. If I spent another ten seconds talking about this, you could have done it ten times. So, just hit that subscribe button, leave a 5 star review on Apple Podcasts, go ahead and follow me on YouTube, The Adams Archive, and you can actually watch the videos.

So as I'm reading all of these articles, there is the pop up right next to my beautiful face here, and it will show you exactly what I am discussing while I'm discussing it. So make sure you head over to YouTube, as well as the Substack. Go ahead and get signed up. That's how I stay in contact with you guys.

So anything that I have is news, updates, uh, breakdowns from the podcast, articles, whatever it is, head over to the Substack, sign up, austinadams. substack. com and we will start getting more material out there as well. So, let's jump right in.

Alright, the very first thing that we're going to jump into today is the fact that Kim Jong Un is now seen on camera crying, weeping, begging the women of North Korea to have more children because of the decline in birth rate. So, here is the article. It comes from Fox News and it says, The dictator appeared to wipe away tears as he called on women to have.

I'm not sure if this changes over into English. So if it doesn't, I'll, I'll narrate it for you on my end. There's a bunch of people cheering. There's a hammer on the front of this beautiful desk. As he walks up to a crowd of people jumping, clapping all together, huge crowd of people in pinks and greens, celebratory looking garb.

And as he walks up, claps his hands. What a beautiful ceremony. He sits down, allows everybody else to sit down. Wow, they're really going to go full, full throttle on this, uh, North Korean. Celebration. No, no. Dub over this by Fox News. So he bows to the crowd. I wonder if they'll even give subtitles. That would be ideal.

Doesn't look like they're going to give any context to this, of what he's actually saying. So, let's see if we can find this man crying. Wow, so many people jumping up and down crying. Because if they don't, they will be murdered. That is sad. It's how it goes in North Korea. I've actually listened to, uh, there was a podcast that came out, I believe it was, um, Oh, what's her name?

Uh, she's been on Joe Rogan a couple of times. She just wrote a book. Uh, I bet you I can find it. North Korean Joe Rogan interview.

Yoni Park, who has some really like horrific stories that she went into surrounding growing up and living in North Korea. And one of the things that she mentioned was that when his, when Kim Jong un's dad died. They were all required, required for like two full weeks to go outside and sob, crying, in the streets all together.

Imagine walking out on your street in the suburb and everybody requirement at a certain time of day had to go out there and sob. And if you didn't show enough emotion, they would essentially, uh, uh, imprison you and all of your relatives, as well as. Several generations after, if you didn't cry loud enough for two weeks straight outside your home, uh, surrounding the loss of a dictator, pretty wild stuff.

Anyway, so this says that North Korean dictator Kim Jong un implored women in the East Asian country to have more children and raise them as communists and wept as he delivered the emotional address, uh, address to an erupted, Stopping the decline in birth rates and providing good childcare and education are our family affairs that we should solve together with our mothers, Eun said, dabbing tears with a white handkerchief.

During a 5th National Conference of Mothers in Pyongyang, Eun tackled housekeeping duties, which included calling upon women to fulfill their duties and strengthening national power by having More children, preventing a decline in birth rates and good children are all are all of our housekeeping duties.

We need to handle while working with mothers, we need to handle interesting. There is his Ugly fat face. And so when when your dictator tells you that you need to go and have more sex, you do it, especially if you're in North Korea. Can you imagine this guy crying in front of you telling you that you have to have go go have more sex with your husband and have more children, or else the communism and your totalitarian dictatorship won't thrive?

Like how about no, Um, especially in a country that like, you know, it's probably the most morose, mundane, boring sex you could ever have. Uh, the leading comment on here says, personally, I think if he stopped jailing everyone that doesn't jump at every one of his, uh, off the wall moods and actually spent money on food for them, maybe.

There would be more inclined to listen. Yeah, that's a fair point. Like, maybe just don't jail everybody. Like, if your concern is about the declining rate of, uh, children in the country, um, the declining birth rates and the longevity of your dictatorship based on how many children are born, maybe just Stop jailing everybody for disagreeing, you know, with how long they should be outside their homes mourning their dictator's loss every day for two weeks straight.

There's like some horrific stories, like you go back and listen to that Yomi Park episode, it's like 16, I just had the number up. And she might have been on a couple of times, but it's a really crazy episode to hear how absolutely terrible, uh, it really is in North Korea. That was episode 1691, I believe was her first episode.

Um, so, pretty comical. Anyways, that's all we'll touch on for that. There's more that you can read into about that article. But, we're going to jump on to the next one, which is going to be that This is just something that I found to be interesting and now there's a difference between causation and correlation, but we'll explore that here.

So the next thing that we're going to discuss is that Derek Chauvin, um, was stabbed 22 times by a federal inmate who says he attacked him on Black Friday as a symbolic connection to Black Lives Matter. I thought we dumped that movement. I thought we were on to transgender, uh, Ukrainian women now, like, we're like five stages away from Black Lives Matter at this point.

I'm not sure what this guy was. I guess he's in jail. So he doesn't really follow the news. So maybe that's why but Yeah, sorry, bud. Black Lives Matter is out. Israeli transgenders is in. Um, now one interesting thing to note about the guy who stabbed Derek Chauvin was that he was a former FBI informant and a former Mexican mafia member.

Now, again, we'll address some of these things. Like, was it causation or correlation? Like, did the FBI order this hit on Derek Chauvin? Maybe. Or, has this guy been in jail and probably knows very little about what actually happened there? I'll guess, although I guess he said it was about the Black Lives Matter movement, so potentially.

Uh, but, you know, you go into some of these comments here and that's what people are saying. Informants are all over the prison system. They are not undercover agents. They are criminals who made a deal to get less time for the crime. Now, not when there was 30, I guess, when was this? Yeah, it was 2000 when this guy actually went to jail.

So that's 23 years ago. Um, not exactly. Somebody who, let's see, this is a former Mexican Mafia member who admitted carrying out a number of crimes while working as an undercover FBI informant was sentenced Monday in Los Angeles federal court to 30 years in prison. So this is the guy that, the guy that stabbed Derek Chauvin.

was actually a FBI informant. Now, whether or not that had something to do with it, who knows, but it's an interesting correlation. Uh, as you read through some of the comments of this, they seem to think not. I says, wait, can somebody explain this one to me? Um, you know, there's a difference between an informant and an agent.

The feds are so good at planning they had this guy arrested 22 years ago just to ensure he'd be in the right place at the right time. No, but there is sleepers like, you know, if you see this guy getting released five years before his sentence now, maybe that's a good indication that this was done on their behalf.

Right? What is the statistical likelihood that the person who stabbed Derek Chauvin, especially after all of this stuff has come out, um, about the actual, uh, death. that actually he's in jail for, right? All of this stuff has come out about it actually being a, uh, fentanyl overdose. And let's see if we can pull that up.

But there was a whole, uh, documentary that came out about how basically him, you know, this was the police officer who put his knee. On the neck of George Floyd, right? If you remember that. And so when you actually go back and you look at the tape, it really wasn't a position that should have stopped both arteries from, uh, from giving blood flow to his brain.

Right? Again. If you understand the methods of strangulation or choking, there's two different ways to do it, right? You can stop the airflow to your lungs, right? You can stop the ability to breathe, stop airflow. But the more effective way is to stop the carotid arteries from delivering blood to the brain.

That's going to cause somebody to pass out much quicker. It's much easier, honestly. Really, choking somebody's airway, an air choke, is much more difficult to accomplish than a blood choke. But when you have a knee on one side of the neck, Right. Just by looking at that, I think you go back and you can even watch my initial analysis of the video when that actually happened.

But the way that he had his knee on the neck just did not make sense for it to cut off both of the carotid arteries or be a proper air choke, um, so that he couldn't breathe properly. And, and so when they ran the toxicology report and when he actually went in front of, uh, the, the court about this. They raised the fact and they, they, uh, questioned the autopsy, the individual who did the autopsy and asked him if there was a lethal dose of fentanyl in the system.

And he said, yes, there was, but I don't believe that was the cause of death. He said, okay, you know, the, the deadly dose of fentanyl or the knee on your neck for, you know, eight minutes, it's most likely the deadly drug. Um, But I digress. So, so that's where this conspiracy goes into is, is what did the FBI, did somebody want to silence or kill Derek Chauvin after all of this information has been coming out now, they're releasing him back into the general population of the jail, back into the same jail that he was just stabbed in.

And I assume with the same guy who. Was an FBI informant. I thought that was pretty interesting. Um, but who knows? All right, that moves us into our next topic, which is going to be that 44 percent of all single family home purchases were by private equity firms like BlackRock in 2023. You heard that right.

Now, if you recall, when I have heard from so many people, so many of my friends dealing with the real estate market, and they would be bidding on a house, bidding on a house, bidding on a house, and then all of the sudden there would be one buyer who would not be named, who would come in under an LLC and purchase the home cash with like 15 percent over asking price.

Which made no sense, right? All through 2022, 2023, this happened constantly. And so now what we're finding out is that 44 percent of all of the single family home purchases, single family, meaning this is something that you or I would live in, right? Purchased by private equity firms. And why would that be?

So let's go ahead and read this article. This comes from Medium and it says private equity firms have been making significant inroads into the residential property market, a trend that has led to some shocking statistics, and then they cite the real other sites as well, which is that 2023 Homebuyers and Sellers Generational Trends Report, which is where they pulled this from, according to a study by Business Insider during the third quarter, these firms accounted for 44 percent of the purchases of single family homes compared to independent homeowners.

Operations. This increasing presence of private equity in the residential property market has raised concerns about its impact on housing prices and the ability to, for individual homebuyers to compete. The latest version of the housing villain story targets private equity firms and hedge funds, broadly institutional investors that have supposedly been out competing regular homebuyers and therefore responsible for the skyrocketing prices.

It says private equity has been rapidly growing its share of the housing market, taking advantage of a housing crisis, and in some cases, exacerbating it.

According to census data analyzed by the national multifamily housing council, a lobby representing landlords who own multifamily properties. 38 percent of multifamily units were owned by individual investors in 2021, and investors bought 24 percent of single family homes in 2021. Before the Great Recession of 2009, financial Oh, dang, we're gonna get, uh

We're gonna get blocked by mediums login. This is before the Great Recession of 2009 financial institutions and investment firms focused on purchasing multi family dwellings like apartments and essentially ignored single family homes. But when a ton of homes were suddenly being sold at incredibly low prices with low interest rates, these investors jumped on the opportunity to scoop up these homes.

And what we're going to see is like this is only going to get worse as we move into another. ebb and flow of our economy as we see the housing crisis a huge bubble, you know, Robert Kiyosaki, um, just did a big thing on this where he talked about how we're going to see the largest, uh, bubble in history, essentially, um, like we've never seen before, he said.

And so, When with that looming and with how much interest there has been and how much volatility there has been in the housing market It's going to be no wonder It won't surprise me one bit if we see this just get completely exacerbated that they take up far more of the housing market is immediately just like they did the following 2009, right?

Because they have the money, right? The people are the ones that that suffer. It's not the business entities that have large, uh, large abilities and, and, uh, to, to source funding to make profitable movements, right? So now that we have the article back, it says, uh, institutional over the last decade, the number of investors purchasing family homes went from 10 percent to 15%.

Wow. So many. Videos embedded. Um, over the last decade, the number of investors purchasing single family homes has moved from 10 to 15, uh, increased from 10 to 15 percent each year. According to data provided by the PEW trust and originally gathered by core logic corporations backed by private equity groups, such as Blackstone and, uh, Pret premium partners bought tens of thousands of home across the U S belt.

Uh, Sunbelt prices for detached homes have increased faster in key Sunbelt States. Then the national average institutional investors may control 40 percent of us single rental homes by 2030, according to MetLife investment management, the increasing presence of private equity in the residential property market has led to concerns about its impact on the housing prices and the ability for individual homebuyers to compete.

Right, and I wonder what, like, what else comes with that, right? What are the, what are the biggest concerns that we have when it comes to having majority of homes, especially in a world where you're moving more towards social credit scores every single day, right? It's bad enough that we have credit scores, which were designed essentially like in the 80s or 90s, right?

But to have a social credit score based on your social media behavior, right? You see all the verifying that's happening on Twitter or x or Instagram or Facebook, right? They're trying to attach you to your identity. So that when you speak out against something that they don't want you to speak out against once once you say something against the propaganda arm, then they can punish you for it.

Endlessly, right, the new jailing system will not be a behind bars, it will be in your tiny little home with your 20 percent interest rate with a car that you, you can't afford because the interest is so high. And you're making just as much as your neighbor who has twice the house and twice the car because, you know, they're a docile little agreeable person who goes along with the government's narrative.

Right. So that's basically what they want to turn it into. But let's see what else let's see if we can get time. I'm going to mess around with chat GPT here, see if it can tell us some of the other concerns with having large private equity companies in the real estate market. So let's see.

Can you name for me what are the biggest concerns when it comes to having private equity firms be Transcribed Owning majority of single family homes. Let's try that one more time. Let's try that one.

We can go back.

What are some of the drawbacks and biggest concerns for having large private equity companies purchasing majority of the single family houses in America? How does that affect the individual and what things should we be concerned about?

Having large private equity companies buy up a majority of single family houses in America raises several concerns. Here's a breakdown. One, market distortion. These companies often have significant financial resources, allowing them to outbid individual buyers. This can drive up house prices, making it harder for individuals to buy homes.

Two, rental market impact. More homes under corporate ownership can mean more homes are for rent rather than for sale. This could limit the availability of homes to buy, pushing more people into the rental market, which might increase rental prices. Three, community stability. Local communities might be impacted.

Homeowners are often more invested in their communities than renters. With more houses being rentals, there could be less community engagement and stability. Four, tenant rights and quality of housing. Corporate landlords might prioritize profit over tenant well being. This could lead to issues with maintenance, tenant rights, and overall living conditions.

Five, economic risks. If these companies face financial issues or a market downturn, it could have a broad impact on the housing market. For example, if they decide to sell off properties quickly, it could lead to a market flood, reducing home values. Six, Loss of first time homebuyers. The competition from these companies makes it harder for first time buyers to enter the market, potentially delaying or preventing homeownership for many.

7. Wealth Inequality Homeownership is a key way families build wealth. With more homes owned by corporations, there's a risk of increasing wealth inequality. For individuals, These factors can make it more challenging to buy a home, lead to higher rental costs, and potentially impact the quality of housing and community engagement.

It's important to be aware of these potential issues, especially in areas where corporate ownership of homes is prevalent. Policies and regulations may be needed to address these issues. Alright, so, interesting, right, I like to, we'll probably add that more here. Um, excuse me, um, so I brought up a few interesting points to me and this is something that I've brought up before, which is that when you move from a corporate entity that's controlled by a CEO, something that's not a public company, but a private company where it's, it's, there's a singular or several leaders.

Who have humanity at the center of their decision making, not always, but majority of the time, there's at least some of that taken into consideration, right? When you, when you have an individual who started a company with a mission, a vision and dreams for that company, the impact that it was going to make, which that should be what drives most companies to success, right?

The products just lay over that. So when you understand that and you understand that a company driven by a CEO driven by a founder who started it from nothing, who has skin in the game and worked long nights and, and sweat and tears to create a product that he could bring to the market that could then be be loved by people or help people or improve, uh, whatever it is.

But when a company goes from public to PRI or from private. To public, what ends up happening is the only metric that gay is gauged is profitability and margins. And so when you get into a world where margin is literally the single only thing that matters despite any, any person, any moral compass, it has to step on to get there, then that's what leads to.

evil in this world. Almost every time, right? Power hungry, money hungry, but it always starts with money and then it always moves to power, right? So when you have a company like Blackrock, that's purchasing all of these homes and they're now your landlord, right? Blackrock and Vanguard will be your landlord in five to 10 years.

You will own nothing and you will be happy about it, right? That's their goal. So when that happens, what happens is the landlord no longer takes into consideration humanity. at all. They're going to be kicking people out on their ass two days after they don't pay their rent, regardless of how many kids they have, regardless of whether they just lost their job, regardless of how hard they're working or how good their communication is to their landlord about the problems that they're having and how they're going to improve them doesn't matter.

None of that matters. The community doesn't matter. The, the, the, the neighborhood doesn't matter. The individual doesn't matter. The family doesn't matter. The children doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is their bottom line. And so it will create a market where the people renting homes is no longer people.

It's corporate entities and boardrooms making massive decisions that move their margins 1 2%, even if it affects 50 percent of the country in a tremendously negative way. Because that 2 percent to them equals billions of dollars, and the billions of dollars equals millions in bonuses to those board members.

And if you're a board member who has anything in mind in these large corporate entities and banking institutions, other than that profit margin, you're gone. That's just how it works. So it's no different here than it is in any other company. If they own all of the property, that's where this leads. And that is a dark world, especially as we're moving towards Klaus Schwab's dream of smart cities, of social credit scores, of you'll own nothing and be happy, and surveillance states where every move and decision and word that comes out of your mouth or is tweeted by you has a Algorithm behind it that attaches it to your identity that moves your social credit score up and down and now they have all of the housings Imagine if the government owns the houses all of the homeowners are now the government.

That's all it is Especially when you look at blackrock and vanguard those that is the government They're they're the ones who place the politicians in there They're the ones lobbying to back all of the the laws that help them become more profitable. That's what it is so when when The house housing market is essentially owned by the corporate institutions.

That is our government in today's world. You don't want the government owning every home. That's that's called extreme socialism. And that's what we're moving towards. As we see all of these large organizations bringing in all of the housing under their corporate umbrellas. And that is a terrifying world, terrifying world.

So thank you chat, GBT for bringing up some, some. Very good points. So market distortion, rental market impact, right? Community stability, tenant rights and quality of housing, economic risks, loss of first time home buyers and wealth inequality. And that's fair. One of the major things people pass on to their children is their houses.

I saw Grant Cardone, who's a large real estate investor and. Um, sales trainer guy from, um, that business world side of things, Grant Cardone said, it will be very soon that you will see 100 year mortgages because they want to give you the illusion of ownership and a 100 year mortgage just means you'll never live to see it.

You'll never really own your house. So he says within. Our potential lifetime, you will see 50, 60, 70, 80, and a hundred year mortgages. And again, the only reason that they do that is so that you never actually own your home and they can utilize a hundred years of that value where they actually truly own the property to take out loans on it, multiply it by nine, as we know, by fractional banking and, and dominate the entire economy.

So that they can keep their shoe on your throat and on that note, let's move in to our next discussion, which is the segue into our deeper conversation surrounding the, uh, history of the United States and the business plot. But first, let's talk about this, which is that there was a hearing. With the FBI and with Christopher Wray, where first he had said that he couldn't admit that Hunter Biden's laptop was real because it was election season.

Oh, was that the reason? Here's the clip coming from the post millennial and you can make up your own thoughts about it.

The, the, the laptop's real. I didn't just tell everybody the laptop's real. We're not vouching for what's on it, but it's real. This isn't a fiction. Well, I, as you might imagine, the FBI cannot, especially in a time like that, be talking about an ongoing investigation. Second, I would tell you that, at least my understanding, is that both the FBI folks involved in the conversations, and the Twitter folks involved in the conversations, both say that the FBI did not Direct Twitter to, uh, suppress that particular story.

But others were in government. Well, I can't, again, I can't speak to others in government. That's part of the point that I was trying to make. Because the Fifth Circuit's opinion But you're the FBI. You're not part of the White House and part of Homeland Security. You're not supposed to be political. You see all this controversy going on.

Why didn't the FBI said Time out, folks. We're not getting the middle of this, but the laptop's real. Again, we have to be very careful about what we can say, especially in the middle of, uh, an election season. Because that's precisely some of the problems that led to my predecessors, uh, negative findings from the Inspector General.

Did you hear a gavel? Thank you, Senator Kennedy. I heard a gavel. You can't speak on an ongoing investigation? How about 52 FBI agents and high level officials? Signing a document stating that it was Russian disinformation. Why don't we bring that up? Right. You want to say that you can't speak to an ongoing investigation, especially in during election season. Well, how about election interference, which is the fact that you and all of your pals wrote a letter and then, and got people to agree with you.

About what was obviously a lie to the American people to persuade them to vote for Joe Biden, because I remember a poll that I saw, it might have been 30, 40%. Let's call it 40%. Let's even call it 30%. Let's call it 5%. If 5 percent of voters did not vote for Joe Biden, because of the Hunter Biden laptop in association with China and Ukraine and the Russian energy companies, or I'm sorry, the Ukrainian rep.

Energy companies like Burisma. If that was the case, they would have never voted for them according to those polls. And guess what? We wouldn't be in the shit show that we're in today. Simple facts. So when you're sitting in front of Congress, when you're sitting in front of, you know, the government asking you these questions and you say, Oh, we, we just can't.

We can't, we don't want to say anything out of line during election season. How about literally going to people and getting them to sign a document to lie directly to the American people so that you can get exactly what the way is of the people who, who are in power that puts you in the position that you're in.

Right. It's just so crazy to see how. How soft the government goes after these people. Because it's just a horse and pony show, right? Whatever the hell that means. It's just puppeteering. This says, from the post millennial, Senator John Kennedy, Sorry, this is in front of the Senate, not the Congress. Um, Senator John Kennedy, grilled FBI director, Uh, Christopher Wray, in the Senate.

On Tuesday, demanding to know why the agency did not come out and say the Hunter Biden's laptop was real when it was reported on by the New York Post in October of 2020. The FBI had known about the existence of the laptop for nearly a year before the contents were made public. Despite this, the FBI had warned Twitter execs to be on the lookout for potential Russian disinformation.

Go back to the conversation between Elon Musk and Lex Friedman and with Joe Rogan where they bring this up. Why didn't the FBI just say, Hey, the laptop's real. Why didn't you just tell everybody the laptop's for real? We're not vouching for what's on it, but it's real. This is. Not a fiction, Kennedy asked Wray.

And so it just gives some transcriptions from what we talked about. Says, this laptop was widely denied as having been Russian disinformation. This messaging came from the Biden campaign, was disseminated from there to the intelligence community, and was picked up as fact by mainstream media outlets, many of which had to go on to eat their words, as it was proven again and again the contents belonged to Hunter Biden, Post Millennial says.

Last but not least, it says, in addition to cracked out photos of the younger Biden, his genitals and his dates slash Russian prostitutes, uh, laptop contained potential evidence of influence peddling information about the Biden family business, emails, correspondence, and more. This material has been used as a starting point for Republicans to investigate the Biden's relationship to foreign business partners and to insinuate that Joe Biden has been guilty of selling the power of his office during his time as vice president in Barack Obama's White House.

Now, in this same hearing. The same exact hearing in the Senate, but being questioned by somebody else about a different topic. He still fumbled over answering anything with the truth. And here it is here. Also coming from the Postmillennial. It says Mike Lee blasts FBI Director Chris Wray over warrantless surveillance of Americans.

Let's see if we can get the video on that. Here it is.

FBI and other agencies searched Americans communications over 200, 000 times. Only 16 of which were evidence of a crime only searches that returned information. I'd like to ask you to give a yes or a no, uh, answer to these questions. Were the three related batch queries consisting of over 23, 000 separate queries relating to the events of January 6th?

Were those evidence of a crime only queries? Yes or no.

I don't know the answer to that. The answer is no. I do know the answer. The answer is no. Were there 141 queries for the activists arrested in connection with the George Floyd protests here in Washington, D. C., evidence of a crime only queries? Those were non compliant queries. And again, they all predate the reforms that we've put in place, which Which echo other reforms that other FBI directors have told me about every darn year.

How about the 19, 000 donors to a political campaign? The answer there is no. What about the query for a sitting member of Congress? The answer there is no. What about the query involving a U. S. Senator, which for all we know could be any one of us? The answer is no. And so what, what does that tell me? Well, what I'm hearing and what these data points all point to is that a warrant requirement Or prohibition relating to quote unquote evidence of a crime only queries would not have been something that would have prevented any of the most egregious examples.

Of the abuse that we've seen under section 702. So, the FBI is already required to obtain a court order in some circumstances before accessing the contents of Americans Communications in the context of 702. They're already required for that in some circumstances. Since 2018, how many times has that requirement been triggered according to government reporting?

Do you know? You're talking about the so called F2? Uh, uh, how many times has it been triggered? Yes. I think it, I think there have been two instances where I think it's maybe the number. 103. 103 times it's been triggered. And out of those 103 identified times, the FBI should have obtained a court order.

How many times did the FBI actually obtain one? Do you know? That I think the answer is none. Zero. So you're telling me that the FBI has completely ignored the limited court order requirement that it's already subjected to. You have the audacity to come here. And you told us that getting, uh, adding a warrant requirement to 702.

Even for queries involving U. S. persons on U. S. soil, that that would amount to some sort of unilateral disarmament. That, you have a lot of gall, sir. This is disgraceful. The Fourth Amendment requires more than that, and you know it. I know every single time for centuries, even prior to the founding of this country, there were similar protections built into the laws of the United Kingdom before we became a country.

Even then, the government was making the same darn argument you're making today, which is, it's too hard. This would make it hard for the government. That's why we have a constitution, sir. And you must comply with it. Mr. Chairman, may I respond briefly? When you ask why are things different this time, I would point you again to the findings of the court and the department themselves, both of which have not been shy about identifying some of the same instances that you cited in our colloquy.

They themselves have observed the effectiveness of the reform, which is why the, uh, pre versus post date of the reforms becomes very significant. So that's number one. Second, second, uh, as to your claims about constitutionality, I would point you back To what the case law actually shows on this subject, which is that no court has found seven or two in its current form to be, uh, unconstitutional.

And every court to have looked at it has found it to be constitutional. And last point. How lucky for you because no one has standing to do that. No one knows when they're being surveilled. Yeah, that is not an argument, sir. Last point, Mr. Chairman, uh, is that in some of the instances, and you went through a number in your, uh, questions, in some of the instances in particular that I know about, uh, those are instances where the queries were run in order to get to.

A public official, a member of Congress, to warn them about foreign influences targeting them, and a warrant would not have enabled that. We call those consent searches, and consent searches do not require a warrant, sir, and you know that. There is nothing that you have done that is not entirely within the FBI's control and supervision.

You're asking me to believe something that is not believable because your, your agency has made it unbelievable, and I refuse to accept it. Good. It's, it's, it's at least a little. It's at least a little, uh,

before we have that go on, um, it's at least a little comforting to know that there's at least some people questioning these people.

Now, I don't think we've ever seen an inch of traction in holding the FBI or the CIA accountable for any of the egregious acts that they've conducted, whether it's conducting black operations in the dead of night in countries that we've never heard of or care about to, to install shadow puppet.

Governments and so they can peddle influence or whether it's about surveilling your cell phone so that they can make sure that they have something on you in the event that you actually are successful in speaking out against them. It's, it's infuriating to see that everything that Snowden did, everything that, uh, all of these whistleblowers have come out with has done.

Nothing to stop the continued, continued surveillance state on the American people with zero, zero retribution, zero, uh, actual accountability for their actions consistently. There's been not a inch of movement in holding these organizations accountable, right? So, so at least we make one guy sweat in front of them with this shitty, uh, you know, drama that plays out during the times that the camera's on.

And then, you know, these guys go back and are talking to the lobbyists and realize that, Oh, maybe I shouldn't have went so hard on an FBI agent. Cause now I need to get funding. But. It's, it's infuriating to see that just, just as simple as that. They won't answer questions. They have no accountability to anybody.

There's never any single indictments for these people yet. You see Donald Trump getting indicted 35 times, but not a single. CIA, FBI head is, is getting in trouble for the countless egregious stomping, uh, actions on our constitution, right? Just just trampling it over and over and over again. When it comes to the fourth amendment, when it comes to the second amendment, when it comes to the first amendment, when it comes to, uh, you just.

Name it in the constitution and the FBI or the CIA has just shoved it in a fire and, and stoked it with a bunch of Kindle and, and it's, it's Kindle, kinder, tender, I don't know, but you see what I'm saying? It's infuriating. And there's, there's no direction that we're, there's no trajectory that we're on that makes me feel better about that.

Right. It feels nice to see him sweat a little bit in front of the Senate, but there's actually no outcomes that have happened that lead me to believe in any way, shape, or form that the FBI or the CIA is in any danger of losing or, or not continuing to gain more and more power over the American people, right?

These are the shadow governments. When you go back and you look at, you want to dive deep into this book, Legacy of Ashes, the history of the CIA, right, the, the, the countless egregious acts, um, it says, must read for every presidential candidate who wants to understand why the nation repeatedly stumbles in from one disaster abroad after another.

With shocking revelations that made headlines in papers across the country, Pulitzer Prize winner Tim Weiner gets into the truth behind the CIA and uncovers, uh, here why nearly every CIA director has left the agency in worse shape than when they found it and how these profound failures jeopardize our national security.

You can look at just example after example of the ways that the CIA and the FBI have gone behind the backs of the American people with zero accountability to the Constitution or any governing body. At all and done atrocious acts that were absolutely not in the best interest of the American people.

It's, it's truly astounding that these organizations still exist. So when you go back and you look at the quotes of, of, uh, you know, John F. Kennedy speaking about the CIA and saying that it should be shattered into a million pieces, he was speaking the truth. And you see that echoed in his, his nephew with Robert F.

Kennedy Jr. Now go listen to any of his speeches about the FBI or the CIA. And he, he still echoes that conversation that these are the most corrupt, most power hungry institutions in the world with some of them, the, and it's done with our tax dollars. Like who decided that, did I check the box that said we should go?

I don't know. Install it. Puppet government in Uruguay like that doesn't seem to be something that I'm interested in my money going to so I, I pray, I hope we see some sort of movement. I wouldn't hold my breath because just these types of conversations, great, but nothing will come of it. There will be zero accountability to the CIA or the FBI for, you know, inciting January 6th for shoving, as we found in some of the, the more recent videos, literally a guy with near peace and a woman saying, you pushed me, you pushed me, you pushed me into the Capitol.

And he's saying, Oh, you know, like they. Insighted these riots. They incited Black Lives Matter. They incited the January 6th insurrection. They, they constantly are on the Proud Boys or Antifa, breaking windows, throwing Molotov cocktails, trying to get these, these huge. Riots going and massive social movements one way or the other to stoke fear to stoke, uh, instability to, to make you worried about your children's future and you are funding this with your tax dollars.

So that leads us to our next conversation. We have a, there'd almost be a better segue just to go directly into the, the business plot. Um, but I do want to, let's touch base on this first. And before I do that, go ahead and hit the subscribe button. Leave a five star review. Follow me on YouTube, on Rumble, on Instagram, on X, on wherever the hell else you are.

Threads, if somebody's still using that shit. I don't think they are. Find me, TheAustinJAdams. And, um, find the Adams archive, wherever you listen to your podcasts or watch. Your videos, uh, Substack Austin Adams dot substack. com and. That's what I got for you. All right. So the next topic that we're going to discuss here is here is a list of the top five us presidents that were the worst president.

So the top five worst us presidents, and here we go. We'll start with number five and we'll, we'll discuss why here. Number five is George. W. Bush for the reason of after 9 11, Bush increased the size of the government and created a de facto police state in the name of collective security. Let's talk about, uh, the, um, all of the totalitarian surveillance state that got pushed in through Bush Bush invaded Afghanistan.

And Iraq killing millions and spending trillions. He also expanded the Ponzi scheme of social security with Medicare part D, which has eclipsed social security's trust liabilities in just 10 short. Let's not even get into some of the other stuff, but, uh, you know, conspiratorial situations. Um, number four worst president is Lyndon Johnson.

Johnson, uh, escalated the Vietnam conflict on the lie of the second attack in the Tonkin Gulf, right? The Gulf of Tonkin situation. Absolutely a false flag. Killing Two to five million people, primarily Vietnamese civilians. He expanded the Ponzi scheme of Social Security with Medicare and Medicaid and created the infrastructure of a welfare state that has doomed millions of lower income Americans to continued poverty.

Number three, Franklin Roosevelt. FDR eliminated the Spessy gold standard in 1933, stealing a 75 percent increase in American gold wealth. His economic policies prolonged the Great Depression and created the Ponzi scheme of Social Security. Moving. The U. S. fleet to Hawaii in 1940 prompted the Japanese to attack on Pearl Harbor.

FDR incarcerated Japanese Americans with no due process. Coming in at number two of the worst presidents. Woodrow Wilson, pressured by bankers that had Loaned allies over 2 billion. Wilson entered the U S into world war one and was directly responsible for over 320, 000 us casualties world war. One also set the political stage for every military conflict sense as well.

Wilson created the federal reserve, which has destroyed American purchasing power through unbridled debt. So, honestly, that would be my number one, probably, is Woodrow Wilson, just for the Federal Reserve alone, not even getting into the World War I situation and the bankers that he's actually referencing there.

Um, let's see if we can get a breakdown of that real quick while we're in the testing phase of using ChatGPT during some of these conversations. Let's see if it can give us some insight into that.

Here we go. Tell me about the bankers, who they were, that pressured Woodrow Wilson into getting into World War I, and why they did so, and why he gave in.

The narrative about bankers pressing President Woodrow Wilson into entering World War I is a complex and somewhat controversial topic. It's important to approach this with an understanding that historical interpretations can vary and some views might be more speculative than others. One context of World War I.

When World War I began in 1913, the United States initially remained neutral. President Wilson re elected in 1916 on the platform of keeping the U. S. out of the war. American banks, including Morgan Co, have lent substantial amounts of money to the allied powers of Britain and France. There is a view that these financial ties influence the U.

S. government's stance. The reasoning is that if the allies like the war, They might not be able to pay their debts, which would hurt American banks. Three bankers in the U. S. influence, leading bankers like JP Morgan, were seen as influential figures in the U. S. economy. While there isn't concrete evidence that they directly pressured Wilson, their significant role in fighting the war effort and their economic interests aligned with the allies could have indirectly influenced policy decisions.

For Wilson's decision, Wilson's to enter the war in 1917, publicly justified by several factors, notably the German unrestricted warfare, which included attacks on American ships and the Zimmerman telecom, in which Germany proposed a military alliance with Mexico against the U. S. Interesting. All right. So not sure what that was.

So we'll work on it. But I think that's cool. So yeah, JP Morgan Chase. Now we know who are the bankers that they're talking about. It's one of the six royal banking bloodline. Families, right? The Rothschilds, the JP Morgans, the chases, the ones who set up the Federal Reserve to begin with, if they had got him to be a part of the, you know, the creature from Jackal Island that we've discussed in detail before here, which came out of that conversation with those banking families to become the Federal Reserve.

So they essentially owned the ability to print American money at will and lend it back to the American government. Yeah, that's probably the one of the worst ones to me. So, and they probably had the ability to influence him when it came to the wars, if they got him to essentially hand over the keys to the United States banking system.

Coming in at number one as the worst president of all time, according to this list, is Abraham Lincoln, which it says killed between 600, 000 and 900, 000 Americans in the Civil War, created the first income tax and Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service with the power to confiscate property for nonpayment of taxes, suspended Habeas Corpus and imprisoned thousands of civilians without due process and unprecedented assaults on the U.

S. Constitution. Hmm. Now, I wonder how much whitewashing there truly was done, and like, I don't even wonder, I know everything that we probably learned in high school about all of the presidents was probably some super whitewashed, super, uh, you know, um rewriting of history in this dramatic, positive, patriotic, propagandized way.

So when we're talking about that, I guarantee you everything that we now this obviously doesn't list the things that they did well. And it seems like for all the propaganda from Abraham Lincoln that there's probably got to be some backing behind that right we can go back and look at that Maybe a different episode, but it was super interesting to me that they had him as number one now when we're talking about Habeas corpus if you don't know what that is It's essentially if you're a prisoner in jail and you believe that you're being imprisoned for false pretenses Or for no reason at all then you can basically essentially Leverage habeas corpus to get in front of a judge quickly to be told whether or not your jailing is based on true law, right?

So it's like, if you're just being held without any process at all, for any reason at all, and you don't have habeas corpus, it's, it's essentially making it so that they can throw you in jail without any due process and you have no right or, or no. Uh, yeah, no rights, no freedoms to be able to combat that in the government.

So at least what habeas corpus allows you to do is say, Hey, I'm saying I need to see a judge right now. If you're holding me and detaining me, and I need to know what crime I'm have been accused of committing, because if I haven't been accused of a crime, you have to get me out of here. There's no reason to jail me.

Right? So. That's what they're talking about there. Alright, now, what that led me into from the comments section from that is the conspiracy of the business plot. And this was specifically discussing FDR. And so when we drive or dive deeper into this conversation, this was a coup aimed to overthrow FDR back in 1933.

Now, again, this is one of the most censored pieces of American history ever. And so let's take a deeper look. The year 1933 saw several consequential worldwide events brewing. Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany. Engle Engelbert Dfas dissolved the Austrian parliament and assumed dicta, uh, dictatorial powers as chancellor of Austria.

Alejandro LaRue came to power in the Spanish general election, igniting a brief and bloody insurrection. Attempt committed by an anarchist national confederation of Truo across the Atlantic. A similar insurgency attempted to destabilize the United States earlier LA that same year. The business plot of 1933 was a failed attempt to overthrow FDR and install a dictator.

And it was not led by a fringe group of working class radicals, but covertly bankrolled by a Wall Street coalition of affluent businessmen. Leading up to the business plot, Western powers had been scrambling to alleviate the devastating effects of the 1929 stock market crash on tens of millions of workers.

At the time, Farm Bureau Federation President Edward O'Neill famously, uh, told a Senate that unless something is done about the American farmer, we will have a revolution in the countryside in less than 12 months. Thousands of unemployed world war one veterans were among those stifled by the depression and the limited government intervention in July 17th of 1932.

Tens of thousands of veterans and their families descended on Washington, D. C. to set up tent camps and demand immediate payment of the bonuses promised to them by the World War Adjusted Compensation Act of 1924. The veterans were dubbed the Bonus Army by the media. And after 11 days, Attorney General William D.

Mitchell ordered that they be removed from all government property. Resistance ensued.

Major General Smedley Butler, a popular and decorated military figure at the time, appeared at the Bonus Army marches. Butler had emerged as a fervent, or fervent, can't speak, fervent, uh, public advocate, uh, against capitalist exploitation of the masses by that point. In the 1932 presidential election, He backed Roosevelt over Hoover.

And what you'll find is that, um, uh, general Smedley Butler was a very well known, very decorated soldier who also happened to be a libertarian. Many conservative businessmen were upset by Roosevelt's election because of his campaign promise to have the government provide jobs for the unemployed.

Wealthy businessmen were concerned that he would introduce reckless spending and economic socialism. Roosevelt's New Deal policies, which addressed almost every sector of the economy in the form of regulations, social programs, and financial reforms, made him an ever growing problem in the eyes of big business and banks.

Furthermore, the United States adherence to the gold standard deteriorated with the onset of the Great Depression, even after Western European countries abandoned it. Roosevelt officially moved to the United States from the gold standard when he signed the Gold Reserve Act of 1934, which made most forms of gold illegal for the general public to possess.

The end of the gold standard was said to have shocked Wall Street because they saw a currency that was not solidly backed by gold as inflationary, undermining both private and business fortunes. The 1973 book, The Plot to Seize the White House, notes That Roosevelt was damned as a socialist or communist out to destroy private enterprise by sapping the gold backing of wealth in order to subsidize the poor.

This formidable class, and here's a picture of, uh, General Smedley Butler, um, And man, this guy's story is actually pretty crazy. Like he has some wild war stories. I'm pretty sure he was the single only person to get, uh, I forget the name of the, the, the honor of the metal that he got. There's like only two people who have ever gotten this metal and only one of them has gotten it twice and it's him.

And he was like just a complete bad ass. This formidable class of disproportionate money and influence began plotting, uh, plotting to take action for. Their grievances, a scheme that finally unraveled before public eyes in November 1934. In a series of allegations, General Smedley Butler revealed the existence.

Of a political conspiracy of business leaders to depose president Roosevelt, a special house committee heard his testimony in private. Now I actually have that full testimony, uh, transcription. And if I can get to it this week, I will put it in the sub stack and send it out to you. So austinadams.

substack. com, go ahead over and check that out. And I'll put that in there and I'll read some of it to you. Today, Butler and McGuire's meetings began in July, 1933, and lasted until the first half of 1934. McGuire's initial proposal seemed innocent. He asked Butler to run for national commander of the American Legion, a well known veterans organization.

When McGuire steered the conversation towards getting the American Legion to pass a resolution in favor of restoring the gold standard, Butler's suspicions grew. According to Butler, McGuire's the gold standard was a veteran's issue because their bonuses would be worthless paper if the currency was not backed by gold.

Eventually, McGuire revealed the extent of the true plot to Butler. In return for his participation, Butler's mortgage and his children's college education would be paid for. McGuire already told Butler's former personal secretary that the plot's conspirators would meet at a Veteran of Foreign Affairs convention to plan their next steps, which Butler passed on to Veterans of Foreign Affairs Commander James E.

Van Zandt. Butler alleged that the entire scheme was backed by a new conservative lobbying group called the American Liberty League. This group includes J. P. Morgan, Irun Dupont, and the CEOs of General Motors, BirdEye, Bird's Eye and General Foods, among others with nearly 40 billion in assets equivalent to 78 or 778 billion today.

So JP Morgan, again involved here, DuPont General Motors, BirdEye, and General Foods.

It says, in addition to the list of alleged conspirators included former presidential candidate, John W. Davis, JP Morgan partner Thomas Lamont, Prescott Bush, who would've thought a Bush would be involved and numerous. Military leaders. Butler named Bill Doyle, the commander of the Massachusetts American Legion, uh, as a co conspirator.

As Doyle apparently attended the first few meetings, Butler also gave the name Robert Sterling Clerk to serve the second lieutenant under Butler during the Boxer Revolution or Rebellion in China. He came from a wealthy family and was the heir to the Singer Corporation fortune, earning him the nickname, the Millionaire Lieutenant.

Interesting. It said that, uh, all parties alleged to be involved, however, publicly denied Butler's story. Interesting. Um, Instead of following through with McGuire's instructions and personal favors, Butler turned to the head of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, in the fall of 1934. All parties alleged to be involved, however, publicly denied Butler's story, dismissing it as A joke, fantasy, or slander, but Butler, a distinguished veteran and two time Medal of Honor recipient, was the most decorated Marine in U.

S. history at the time, and had no apparent motive to lie. After hearing Butler out and collecting additional information, the Congressional Committee informed Congress it had received evidence that certain persons had made In an attempt to establish a fascist organization in this country. There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient.

Right, so you are going to have these major corporations, JP Morgan Chase, DuPont, uh, General Motors, all backing a coup to install a totalitarian dictatorship. That's what we're talking about here, right? Let me put all of those words into a a summary for you. There were no further investigations or Prosecutions at the time the plot was completely dismissed by the news media with the New York Times editorial calling it a gigantic hoax Who would have thought?

the New York Times And they balled an unconvincing narrative. However, the publication swiftly changed its tune after the Congressional Committee released its last report. Today, most historians agree that the business plot was real. The only question is whether it was ever close to execution, as Butler claimed, or if it was merely a Hair brained scheme brought up in discussions that never gain traction.

Butler was well known for his book, War is a Racket, published shortly after the events of the business plot, in which he stated that he had named names and that those names had been removed from his testimony before it was released to the public. Like most committees it was, it has slaughtered the little and the little and allowed the big to escape.

The big shots weren't even called to testify. He stated in a radio interview. So that's a wild one. So there's your overview. Essentially. They took the most decorated Marine of all time to medal of honors from two separate deployments and two separate situations for two separate things, right? That the history of, of, uh, Butler is just wild when you look at his military records and all of the things that he accomplished,

So here is the committee hearings that he was a part of, where he came to them and told them the plot, told them who spoke to him, what they said, what the bribes were, what the goal of this was. All of it, and I won't read you the whole thing, but I will include this, uh, in the sub stack this week.

So again, austinadams. substack. com, but I'll give you the overview from both of these, because there's two full articles and all of the transcriptions. It said, uh, did a vast, powerful and influential click of businessmen, politicians briefly plan, or perhaps attempt to execute a coup against president Roosevelt in 1934, which would have relegated the president to a figurehead in a new fascist military government.

Libertarian hero and icon of military history, General Smedley D. Butler, said as much under oath in front of the United States Congress. The centerpieces of the plot were Butler's, uh, popularity among the military and the policy of a return to sound money, being that they're gonna get back to the gold standard.

Butler then, was then approached by the conspirators as early as 1933, and he revealed the scheme publicly, though Congress did not. begin investigating the claims until 20th of November, 1934, the McCormick Dichtstein committee investigated the alleged plot for three months and published its findings.

Though newspapers began dismissing Butler's claims immediately after his testimony was. Proof was given John L. Spivak, a communist reporter for the magazine New Masses, observed and recorded the proceedings of the committee investigation, including key portions of the testimony redacted from the Congress official report.

Portions dismissed by the committee as hearsay. The redacted testimony transcribed by Spivak appears emboldened.

Um, one being the first redaction was going to be that Johnson had taken this list. As the White House for, uh, to the White House for approval that Lewis Howe, one of the secretaries of the president, had crossed my name off and said that I was not invited, that the president would not have it. So what they tried to do here is what he thought was that they were just trying to get him riled up, that the president didn't want me there, this decorated war hero would be for sure insulted by that, right?

Why would the president not want him there? So, that was one of the redacted portions. Continuing on, another one is that, let's see, just went past another one. Um, no, no, no, he does not control anything in the Legion now. This is about the Legionnaires. Is he responsible too? Talking about, he is on our side.

That is the reason he makes the kings. Let's see who they're discussing here.

Uh, Colonel Murphy. And so, they're saying that, um, Is he responsible, too, for making the Legion a strike breaking outfit? No, no. He does not control anything in the Legion, though. I said, you know very well that it is nothing but a strike breaking outfit used by Capital for purpose, and that is the reason they have all those big clubhouses, and that is the reasons I pulled out from it.

They have been using these dumb soldiers to break strikes. He said, Murphy hasn't anything to do with that. He's a very fine fellow. I said, I do not doubt that, but there is some reason for him putting 125, 000 into this. Then they redacted some dates. And something about John W. Davis being the one to tell him about his speech costs a lot of money.

So, an interesting thing. Essentially what they wanted to do was have him go up and speak so that he could start to gain the favor of these individuals. Start to build and create this group and movement towards this so they can install this coup. Now the second part of this. Investigation hearing. And again, I'll put the transcriptions of all of this into the sub stack.

It says, this is the second installment of our investigation into General Smedley D. Butler's claims that a mysterious clique of businessmen and politicians attempted to lead a fascist coup against President Roosevelt in the early years of his administration. In the first piece, we read General Butler's testimony before McCormick Dickson, or Dickstein Committee.

Butler painted a vivid picture of bribery and intrigue. With the goal of establishing a fascist military dictatorship and relegating President Roosevelt to the position of figurehead and puppet, Butler would lead millions of veterans and soldiers much like the fascist regimes which rose to power through thuggery.

In the streets, in parliaments of Europe. Horrified, Butler, uh, exposed the conspiracy and testified against the plotters before Congress. So what they wanted to do was create this, you know, pseudo fascist military dictatorship where the president was just a figurehead and a puppet. Oh, wait, that is what it is.

The corporations own everything and our president is exactly that. Like this has already been enacted in today's world. So despite, uh, you know, um, Butler's best attempts, uh, but it said that the McCormick Dickstein committee pursued Butler's claims, questioned several of the men implicated in their plot and concluded that the key questions remain unanswered.

It would appear that the plot. Uh, never materialized and that the conspirators either remained, uh, broad and beyond the reach of the committee, outright denied Butler's claims before the committee, or simply claimed ignorance and the inability to account for large sum of money. Congress, much more concerned with chasing communists than fascists, dropped the issue and Butler's testimony remains the only significant evidence that such a conspiracy ever existed.

As before, portions of the committee's reports were redacted from the copy and, uh, from the copy released to the public, but were re, uh, reported by journalist John Spivak. The redacted portions appear below in bold. So, let's see if there's any interesting things that were redacted here. But it walks through the entire story, top to bottom.

Um, And here's one of the redacted portions said, he said, you know, um, I said, the idea of the great group of soldiers then is to frighten Roosevelt. Is it? He said, no, no, no, not to frighten him. This is to sustain him when others assault him. He said, you know, the president is weak. He will come right along with us.

He was born in this class. He was raised in this class, and he will come back. He will not, or he will run true to form. In the end, he will come around. But we have got to be prepared to sustain him when he does. Essentially back him up with a great military. That's why they mentioned, uh, Hitler and, uh, Mussolini basically being propped up entirely by a military force.

And that's what they wanted to do here in the U. S. Backed by these businesses. And again, JPMorgan Chase, uh, which puzzles me a little bit if that was a piece of it because he was a part of the Federal Reserve being designed to begin with. So I wonder what the relation is there. Um, let's see, let's give one more shot to this whole chat GPC thing.

If JPMorgan Chase was involved both in the business plot with Smedley Butler trying to overthrow FDR. Also, simultaneously, for the reason to reinstall the federal, er, the gold backing, why would he do that if he was a part of the original meeting on Jekyll Island to create the Federal Reserve in the first place?

involves two separate historical events, each with its own context and set of facts. Let's break them down. One, the business plot in Smedley Butler. The business plot, also known as the White House coup, was an alleged political conspiracy in 1933. Major General Smedley Butler, a retired U. S. Marine Corps officer, claimed that a group of wealthy businessmen were planning a coup to overthrow President Franklin D.

Roosevelt, FDR, and replace the government with a fascist veterans organization. Butler testified to a congressional committee about this plot. However, the committee's final report found no evidence to support the existence of such a plot. It's important to note that J. P. Morgan Chase, as a banking entity, was not directly implicated in this alleged plot.

To J. P. Morgan Co. and the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve System was established in 1913, before the era of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It was created to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system. While J. P. Morgan Co., the president of J. P. Morgan Chase, was a significant banking institution at the time, the establishment of the Federal Reserve was a governmental response to financial panics, particularly 1907, in which J.

P. Morgan played a key role in stabilizing the banking system. The creation of the Federal Reserve was not a result of a singular effort by any private bank, but rather a legislative response to systemic issues in the American banking system. In summary, While JPMorgan Co. was a significant financial institution during the early 20th century and had a notable impact on the American financial system, its direct involvement in the events you mentioned, the business plot against FDR and the establishment of the Federal Reserve, is not supported by historical evidence.

The business plot remains a controversial and somewhat speculative part of American history, and the creation of the Federal Reserve was a complex process involving many stakeholders and broader economic considerations.

Then how can you refute that information when he was mentioned specifically within the transcriptions from Smedley Butler, as well as the information presented in the book, The Creature from Jekyll Island, which clearly indicates that it was a part of JPMorgan Chase, as well as the Rothschild families and other banking elites who designed the Federal Reserve to begin with.

The reference to The Creature from Jekyll Island suggests you are mentioning a book by G. Edward Griffin, which presents a particular viewpoint on the creation of the Federal Reserve. Griffin's book is known for its critical perspective, arguing that the Federal Reserve was created to serve the interests of a few elite bankers.

Yes, including those from JP Morgan and Co and Rothschild families. However, the historical consensus around the formation of the Federal Reserve is more complex and nuanced. One meeting at Jekyll Island. In 1910, a secret meeting did take place at Jekyll Island, where several bankers and economic policy makers discussed banking reform.

This meeting is often cited as evidence of a conspiracy, but mainstream historical analysis views it as part of a broader, more transparent effort to reform the U. S. banking

system. Yeah, that's why you meet in private, is for public banking systems.

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which established the Federal Reserve,

not just bankers. Politicians, economists, and other stakeholders were involved in shaping the legislation. Three, the role of J. P. Morgan Co. and others. While it's true that J. P. Morgan Co. and other major banks of the time had a significant influence on the financial system, the creation of the Federal Reserve was not solely for their benefit.

The

panic of, of course not. Nothing that JP Morgan Royal Bankers do is just for their benefit system. It's for the benefit of the people to manage

monetary policy and prevent financial crises. Four, controversy and criticism. Griffin's book and similar theories are part of a larger body of critique against central banking and the Federal Reserve.

These critiques focus on issues of monetary control, economic manipulation, and the influence of elite financial interests. 5. Historical Interpretation. It's important to distinguish between historical consensus and alternative interpretations. While there's room for critical analysis of the Federal Reserve's formation and function, mainstream historical scholarship often disagrees with the more conspiratorial views presented

in it.

Yeah. You know the ones who are owned and put into positions within the, uh, the universities that are, create the books for children that are owned by the same banking companies? And the Rothschild family. This perspective is not universally accepted in historical scholarship. The establishment of the Federal Reserve is understood as a complex historical process involving various stakeholders influenced by the economic and financial challenges of that era.

All right, we're done with you. Um, but fair enough. So you get some alternative perspectives here. I think I'll use that more once I can figure out the setup better. Um, so it doesn't, you know, have to be through the mic, but I hope you appreciated that. So there is the breakdown. One of the craziest, if not the craziest coup attempt in the United States ever was backed by JPMorgan Chase, DuPont.

And General Motors and, uh, was, uh, you know, outlined perfectly in this transcription of this discussion. So there you have it. There you go. There's your deep dive for the week. I appreciate you guys. I love you from the bottom of my heart. I hope you have a wonderful week. Um, and, uh, we'll see you next time on the Adams archive.

 Adam's Archive.