69 the circumstance under which you saw the Mesopotamian cultures a millennia ago. They had these debt jubilees where every- body’s public and private debt is wiped out and cancelled. The reason was because under that system – the systems that they had of public and private debt back then – what eventually happened was that people were literally indenturing either themselves or their children as collateral in commercial loans. Eventually over time, what that did as the debts mounted up and the people were unable to repay them was simply aban- doned their farms and quit producing. The society began to fall apart because nothing was being done. The way to bring them back was to have the ceremony of the breaking of the tablets, the king comes out and breaks the tablets, and everybody’s debt is wiped out, and “We’re starting all over. Come back.” I think that may be what they are up to. Fitts: Here is what they are up to: You take this complete world of private savings and pension funds, and it’s a complex world. There are many institutions, and there are plenty of fees, and it’s complex, but it’s private property. If you wipe out all the debts, you’re going to wipe out all the assets within the pen- sion funds. So you say, “Everybody gets a universal basic income.” It’s very simplify- ing, and you cancel everything. What you do is abrogate all the obliga- tions in 2.0 and say, “Don’t worry. You’re going to get universal basic income, and everyone will have it. Software is going to do everything. You don’t need to work. You’ll have plenty of time to enjoy your life. It will be free and inspired. Just take the chip.” Farrell: They’re going to sell it as a sim- plifying mechanism. To a certain extent – from their standpoint – it makes sense because the obligations have grown so enormous and cumbersome. Even with advanced technology and algorithms and computers, it’s becoming a nightmare to manage. So, yes, I think that is a possibility that is definitely in the cards. As we both know, there are deeper agendas for chips in arms. Fitts: When that happens, I’m going to say, “That sounds very nice and good. The problem is that you’re talking about con- ceding all the power to a small group of people and wiping out our power.” And, of course, Mark Zuckerberg is pushing it. Frankly, if you look at who that group is and what they believe, they’re not competent to run it. Even if we wanted a highly centralized system, which we don’t, they’re not competent to run a highly centralized system. Farrell: It’s a diabolical agenda and we both know where it comes from. I do think that there is a certain segment of those people who are really not interested in the financial aspect of it all; I think that they are interested in the spiritual aspect of it and the idea of total control over everybody. It is ultimately a dehumanizing step. Essentially, you are implanting the image of Caesar in the image of God, and you’re changing the ownership of the property – or at least claiming to do that. Fitts: Unfortunately, Mark Zuckerberg is dressed up as Caesar. If I had a choice between Caesar and Mark Zuckerberg, I’d take Caesar. Farrell: I would, too, in a heartbeat. There is another aspect of a much deeper layer to all of this than just the financial and control aspects, and that is a very spiritual one and we’re in those times. Fitts: Another Unanswered Question: David Rockefeller’s death. I think it was very, very important and a very important event. He died in March, and I think that we are seeing that roll out. It started with the Amazon deal in the 2nd quarter, but now I think the acceleration that we are watch- ing is very much ‘the young Turks’. Farrell: We had two deaths that were very significant – Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller. As loathsome as they were, and I’m not trying to give these people kudos or anything, but they at least had their foot on the brake. They were able to keep everybody more or less corralled and keep them from going too far overboard. Their foot is no longer on the brake, and what we see are people who have not near the experience that they did in terms of politics and finance and global manage- ment, and they’re in this race to get their agenda accomplished. The problem is, as we were talking with the electronic warfare and mind manipulation, they have been served some messages that, “You had better slow down because your military is now vulnerable.” Like it or not, right now, Mr. Globa- loney still needs North America. They don’t have much of a powerbase without it. I think that has – at least in certain segments – made them put the brake on again. They have to do certain things before they go full tilt through their New World Order agenda, whatever it is. The restraining factor has been taken out of the picture. Fitts: You really see that and, of course, we had the Congressman shot earlier this year. I don’t know if he’s back in Congress yet or if he is still recuperating. Farrell: I believe he is still recuperating. Fitts: That wouldn’t surprise me because he was very badly hurt. I looked at everyone who voted ‘yes’ on the National Defense Authorization Act, including turning down Rand Paul’s amendment to pull the blanket authori- zation on the War Clause. It was a very small number who opposed it, surprisingly small. The people who opposed it have plenty of stature and seem to have the confidence. Nevertheless, if you look at the fact that almost everyone voted for it and what is an insane increase, you’re talking about, once again, violating the Appropriations Clause and violating the War Clause. It was almost everybody. Farrell: It was and the problem there is I think it’s high time that these violations of the Constitutional Appropriations need to be brought to court, and the government needs to go on record. “Are you going to