RADIO CALL — TAPE #743
Q: Mark Russell Bell
C: unidentified caller to “The Matt Drudge Show”
M: Matt Drudge, host of “The Matt Drudge Show”
L: Lee Klein, host of “The Lee Klein Show”
S: Sherman Skolnick, guest
P: Mark Smith, producer of “The Lee Klein Show”
B: Barry, caller from Torrence
J: Jan, caller from Inglewood
R: Brian, caller from Toluca Lake
O: John, caller from Los Angeles
T: Steve, caller on cellphone
H: Phil, caller from Downey
N: Neal, caller from San Diego
F: Frank, caller from Grand Terrace
G: Gaby, caller from Los Angeles
(X): unattributed sounds
Q: Well I — it’s Sunday night. I took a shower (X) and then I was thinking about calling the radio show tonight: Lee — what’s his name? And (X) I was thinking about Edgar Cayce because I’m reading that book which turned out to be an ersatz memoir — I mean he left (X) some (X) articles here and there and they’ve all been combined. Some of them are very telling — some of the anecdotes and excerpts. Even if he would never have entitled it My Life As A Seer himself. So I was thinking of my own experience and comparing it to his and then all of a sudden (X) I turned on the radio and Drudge was on. (“AND I”) I was shocked as someone asked him about his promise to break the biggest story of all time in two weeks. And, anyway, so that’s when I turned on my radio cassette recorder and here’s what I heard.
C: . . . Well I don’t know. I guess I should ask you if you made the statement.
M: Hold on. Where did I make that statement?
C: I don’t know where you made the statement. Did you make that statement?
M: Did you hear it with your own ears or what are you saying here?
C: No, sir. No, sir. No, sir.
M: Oh. Okay.
C: I (X) just fou(nd) — I was surfing around, perusing the web and stumbled across an article that said that you made this statement. Maybe you never did. Is that the (X) case?
M: Continue. I know where you’re going with this.
C: Okay. Allegedly (X) you made the statement that you would be breaking (X) the biggest story in the history of the media, a story that would shake the foundations (X) of the world within a couple of weeks.
C: That would be — that would have meant sometime in January ’98. I don’t recall any Earth shaking stories in (X) January ’98 so I was just curious if there’s any truth —
M: Well we’re still waiting for that story.
C: Pardon me?
M: We’re still waiting for that story. I’ve got to warn you. Don’t (X) believe everything you read on the Internet.
C: Well I —
M: I mean they’ve got (X) people writing (X) Drudge reports that I never wrote. They’ve got people running (X) Drudge Report websites that don’t belong to me. (X) I mean I could (X) spend my whole time in the copyright courts if I wanted to go that way.
C: I agree with you totally but you did just say you’re still waiting for the story so there is some kernel of truth to the —
M: Well yeah, one day. One day. In case of rapture, this microphone will be vacated, sir. Thank you. (X) Yeah, he’s — he — I guess he’s right about some of it. I mean as we are waiting for the biggest story ever in the history of mankind that will forever alter history, aren’t we? I mean we’re all romantic (X) that way, aren’t we? I mean some of us are. Oh well.
The truth will come to us at last
(bumper music is “Stairway to Heaven” performed by Dolly Parton)
M: drudgereport.com is where it is — drudgereport.com — (X) that’s where I’ll be hiding.
And she’s buying the stairway (X) to heaven
(TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE: LEE KLEIN COMMENTED ON CURRENT NEWS STORIES AND COMMENTED ON THE ONGOING FINANCIAL UPHEAVAL PRIOR TO PROVIDING BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT THE EVENING’S GUEST, SHERMAN SKOLNICK.)
L: . . . I want to talk about business and as we do that (X) I want to bring up before I introduce my guest. I — first I will tell you who he is before we bring him on. He’s been on the show many times before. His name is Sherman Skolnick. He has his own radio show. He is a freedom fighter for your rights. He has a website, etc., etc. He is in Chicago. . . . (X) And now from Chicago, here is Sherman Skolnick. Sherman, welcome to the show.
S: It’s my pleasure and honor to be back on your show, (X) Lee. Tonight, as time permits, (X X) I (X) hope to discuss some little-known things about the economy (X) and, secondly, how the Rockefellers for three decades have been plotting—(X) and we’ve uncovered it each time—to have a member of the Rockefeller family as the President without an election. (X) How they tried in the past and how they’re trying now, I hope to discuss. (X) If you want to discuss the economy first, we’ll go into that first.
L: Well you heard my little tirade. What’d you think? (X X)
S: I would deal with the Rockefellers first and then (X) get into the economy second. It’s your call . . .
L: Well, first off, have you ever held stock before? Yourself?
L: Alright, so you’ve never been quote/unquote “an investor” in our markets. Correct?
S: No, I stay out of all of that (X) stuff. I do — (X) I run a television show, a non-commercial TV show for 12 years, a weekly show in Chicago, public access channels. Off the record I interview financial experts (X X) on the proviso that I never mention them by name. And I find out things (X) because our basic work has been over the years our specialty — is putting (X) top-level judges in jail for bribery. (X) And these judges, many of them are also bankers. We call them banker-judges. (X) So inevitably (X) over the 39 years that our (X) group has functioned as a citizens committee to clean up the courts, we study the financial system. It’s part of our work (X) in understanding the corrupt members of the judiciary.
L: Well it —
S: So we understand the economy, we understand (X) little-known things about the markets and so on.
L: Let me ask you this then. Being in a major city, the (X) third-largest city in the United States being Chicago and the Chicago Board of Trade being there, and certainly you being in the know and reading newspapers, do you think that — not from a conspiracy concept, but do you believe that the stock market, the situation that’s being done right now and all of this money that’s evaporated into nothing — and the last time you were on the show, you were talking about the (X) fact that it was almost like (X) pennies on the dollar that were actually in reality to what the investors really had, or the dollar value — the value of the dollar, rather — is this (X) all been pre-planned or do you think that just it’s (X) out — so out of con(trol) — it’s out of control now?
S: It’s a combination of cycles and circumstance. (X) The ultra-rich (X) by the decade of the thirties, called the Great Depression, benefitted by withdrawing money (X) from Wall Street (X) through Britain at a key point, (X) causing the great crash. The details of that are in a book called The Great Crash by (John) Kenneth Galbraith. The Brits touched that off. (X) And later they were able to buy up community banks, (X) commercial and (X) personal real estate for a few pennies on the dollar. So it’s not exactly a conspiracy, it’s just the way the aristocracy enriches themselves further at the expense of common Americans. (X) In other words, (X X) they (X X) increase the cycles. Business cycles are customary. But what the aristocracy does is make it worse. (X) Now and they do so because of the (X X) failure of the networks (X) to educate the public. Now let’s discuss a few of the things (X) that the networks and other major (X) media do not tell us.
L: Well hold — before you do that, we only have a minute before the break so you may want to hold until we come back to give you plenty of time to discuss that, okay? Just real briefly be(cause) — so that we only have about a minute left, (X) do you think that the events of the world right now (X) have more an effect on our economy than ever before? I mean we all know about the Depression but don’t you think it’s outside investments and preplanning (X) to some degree? That it — how can people — in other words, how can people get rich right now despite the fact that this market is going really down the toilet?
S: The key element (X) of American finance is a term you never see in the business press: hemorrhaging. When things get bad, they’ve really got to raise the interest rate to keep the country from hemorrhaging (X) out the money.
L: But we’re not raising the rates.
S: Inevitably it will go up. It has to. (X)
L: Alright. We’re going to hold you off on that. Sherman Skolnick is our guest from Chicago. We’re just beginning our conversation about our economy. And, of course, we’ll get to the Bilderberg situation, the Rockefellers, etc., etc. I’m Lee Kline, you’re listening to KFI AM 640, more stimulating talk radio.
( . . . )
Oh yeah oh baby You’re going to wake up one morning As the sun creepin’ down You’re going to wake up one morning As the sun creeps down . . .
L: Welcome back to KFI AM 640, more stimulating talk radio, Lee Kline with you until one o’clock in the morning as we go around 12 minutes before the hour of eleven o’clock West Coast time, Sherman Skolnick our guest from Chicago. (X) Sherman, in good times and in bad times, everybody always said you can’t lose money in gold. Gold right now is somewhere a little under $320 an ounce. Is gold a good commodity at this point or not?
S: Before I answer that, let me clarify a point from earlier. (X) The mutual funds hold the shares of the stock. Your shares in a mutual fund — if the redemptions are too great, the fund gets frozen up and you get zero and possibly cannot take a penny out of the mutual fund for as much as ten years. That was the problem of the investment trust. That is the (X) oncoming problem of the mutual fund. Now as to the gold question, there’s a ferocious fight between the paper money crowd (X) and the gold (X) bugs. (X) And they’re trying to force gold back down under $300 because U.S. currency, which are really Federal Reserve notes, becomes discredited if gold goes up. If gold goes up, the paper money goes (X) to hell. I mean there’s no other quick way to explain the situation. (X X) And —
L: By the way, was that the same when it was sil(ver) — before it became what it is today? When it was silver certificates, was it still the same principle?
S: No, (X X) from 1934 to 1975 gold was illegal for Americans. We never got back to the gold standard. The silver certificates ended with the Kennedy administration.
S: Some people, rightly or wrongly, claim that one of the reasons for killing President Kennedy was he wanted U.S. genuine currency money rather than federal reserve funny money backed by nothing. That’s a profound subject all by itself. The point is there’s a tremendous fight (X) in the (X) gold market. I interview some of the experts in the (X) field. They let their hair down and talk to me because I’m not a customer, I’m not a competitor of theirs. I’m not involved with them financially. So they can level with me and I always promise never to mention their name and I find out a lot about the situation. And, (X) basically, the fight (X) is between — the classic traditional fight between the French Rothschilds (X) and the Rockefellers. The Rockefellers are the paper money crowd. The French Rothschilds, who are also the official bankers (X) for the Vatican, are the gold crowd. (X) And the French Rothschilds really in a way hold the cards. Because if gold does succeed in shooting up, the so-called bullion banks, Goldman Sacks, J.P. Morgan are bust. Why? To put it in simple terms, (X) they’re on the short end of the market and they won’t be (X) able to wiggle their way out.
L: And who will be on the high end of this?
S: In simple terms, (X) as a generality, the French Rothschilds. (X)
L: And that would benefit Europe more than it would the United States, obviously.
S: Yeah. In France in particular they like gold. Gold is the thing in France. (X)
L: Yeah but what about what other people such as the Japanese —
S: The Japanese have pa(rtial) — a partial gold standard, (X) the Hirohito (X) — (X) the Hirohito certificate is backed by gold. (X) The — what happened in Japan is they withdrew the deposit insurance of banks so there’s been a tremendous out(X)flow of — (X) of funds from the Japanese bank — banks into gold. Physical gold. (X) And so that’s the long and the short of it. (X) People have been killed over the gold market. One of the leading people of the gold market was Edmond Safra, the head of the Republic National Bank of New York, and he died in Monaco under circumstances indicating murder. And he was a major gold bug. So I mean there’s all kind of situations.
L: What about John D. Rockefeller?
S: Which one? The fourth?
L: The third.
S: Well he was murdered in (X) ’78. I’m the only reporter that inquired into (X) it. They list it as an accident. (X) He was murdered on the way to his mansion in upstate New York. (X)
L: And the reason why I’m bringing that up, you’re one of the few people that have ever mentioned this. To the best of your knowledge from a conspiracy standpoint, what do you believe the rea(son) —
S: I’m not a conspiracy theor(ist) —
L: No no no no no no. That’s not what I meant about you. What was the conspiracy (X) to kill him about?
S: The fight between (X) him and the Rothschilds. (X) Eigh(X)teen years (X) later, the head of the Rothschild banking fortune in Paris was (X) murdered. American press was told not to run the story at all. Murdoch ordered his papers in the United (X) States not to run the story or call it a heart attack. (X) The French police (X) said it was murder. That was eighteen years later: 1996. (X X) I mean I am knowledgeable about both situations. There is this (X) traditional fight. The only place that the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds sit down together is at the Bilderburg secret conference, which took place about five weeks ago. (X) And the Wallenberg Swedish bankers are sort of the neutral party (X) in the middle. There’s a lot to be (X) said about (it.) Before we run out of time, can I give our address and all that?
L: Oh yeah. Go ahead.
S: Alright. We have prepared a heavy packet of printed stories: “Before and After (X) Black Tuesday,” (X) “The Chandra Levy Affair,” documents showing (X) the Bush crime family in business with the Queen of England at her private bank in London. (X) A heavy packet of our printed stories. Send $5 in a stamped, (X) self-addressed business-size envelope (X) with three stamps on it to Sherman Skolnick, (X) S —K — O — L — N — I — C — K, 9800 South (x) Oglesby Avenue, O — G — L — E — S (X)— B — Y, Chicago, Illinois 60617. (repeats) Now if you didn’t write it down, we have a whole group of phones that updates our work with a recorded message and repeats our address and our website and how to get our literature. It is (X) not an expensive call. And the number in Chicago is (773) 731-1100. Our web(X)site is www dot skolnicksreport (X) dot com — an S after my name: http://www.skolnicksreport.com. When you click on my website, you will notice that you can see numerous portions of our weekly (X) television show online (X) anywhere in the world.
L: He does have a very good website and, once again, that would be shermanskolnicksreport.com —
S: No no no, just skolnicksreport.com.
L: — I mean skolnicksreport.com. And, also, if you want to contact him by phone (773) 731-1100. Before we take a break, I want to open up the phone lines here. If you’d like to talk to Sherman in the next upcoming segment, by all means. If you have something you would (X) like to suggest or something to add — your comments (gives number) locally and outside of Los Angeles (gives number). Sherman, I have a question for you here.
S: Yeah, go ahead.
L: Do you see us coming out of this malaise as you call it, depression as I would call it? Do you see an ending in sight or is this going to just continue?
S: No, we’re going into a period of (X) anarchy. (“I”) You know, the Bible points out these periods of good times and bad times and so it shouldn’t come as a great shock to sensible people. The only ones that are shocked are the ones that got into the dotcoms (X X) and bought stock at the top of the market (X) and invested in California and Chicago real estate at the top of the market and so on and got the idea that real estate’s going to the sky. (X) These things happen and —
L: Yeah but at the same time, there’s no confidence in America because of all these corporations cooking their books and all of these firms like Arthur Anderson that are (X) screwing around with everything.
S: . . . But Lee, (X) the book cooking scandals mysteriously all showed up within thirty days after the secret (X) Bilderburg conference (X) May 30th. The minute that meeting adjourned, (X) all of a sudden the press pundits that came to that secret meeting (X) all started hollering “book cooking.”
L: Are you believing that this does not happen?
S: The big five accounting firms have known about the book cooking for years. They sat on it. Somebody says, “Okay, bring it out now.” And all of a sudden in the last five weeks it’s all coming out: (X) General Electric, General Motors, (X X) etc. They’re all being accused of book cooking. (X) It was known for years. Is it odd that it’s all being brought out now? Is it just a coincidence? (X) We are not conspiracy theorists. (X) You do not succeed as we have for forty years sending judges to jail for bribery with pie in the sky and foolishness. (X X) So we’re not conspiracy theorists. (X) However, it is something very odd that all of this started coming out (X) in the last several weeks and not before. Was it known before? (X) Absolutely. Why did it come out now? I’m not saying that it’s a plot of false information. I’m saying it’s a plot to bring out correct information (X) at a time and place of the most damage (X) to the American republic.
L: Alright. And on that note we’re going to take a break. We’re coming to the top of the hour. Sherman Skolnick from Chicago is our guest. If you would like to talk to Sherman, ask him anything or some — anything that you have on your mind about what you (X) feel the economy is doing one way or the other, by all means (gives numbers). If you have a comment, please dial the number now. I’m Lee Kline. You’re listening to KFI AM 640 more stimulating talk radio.
(TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE: I CALLED THE LOCAL NUMBER AT THIS TIME.)
P: KFI. Hello?
P: Yes, what’s your comment, sir?
Q: Yes, I just wanted to say — to compare these Rothschilds and Rockefellers almost to the street gangs out here in L.A.
P: Okay . . . (keyboard typing) Okay. Alright, what’s your name?
P: Where are you calling from?
Q: Canoga Park.
P: Hold on. (news, traffic, weather and commercials)
Time has come today Young hearts can go their way Can’t put it off another day I don’t care what others say They say we don’t listen anyway Time has come today Hey . . .
(“Time Has Come Today” performed by The Chambers Brothers)
L: Welcome back to KFI A.M. 640 more stimulating talk radio. Lee Kline with you until one o’clock in the morning. On the West Coast it is five minutes past the hour of eleven o’clock on a Sunday as we reach the end of the day and try to begin a new week. Hopefully, it will be better than the last one, as they always say. From Chicago, (X) Sherman Skolnick is our guest. Sherman, we have a lot of people here (X) that would love to talk to you. Why don’t we start with some phone calls right now?
S: Okay. And then (X) after we deal with a bunch of calls —
P: Stand by because we’re coming right to you, okay?
S: — we’ll get into the Rockefeller White House issue.
L: (small laugh) That ought to be interesting. Let’s go with Mark in Canoga Park. Mark? Good morning. (BEEP) How are you?
Q: Very good. It just shows that it doesn’t matter how much money you have, or how much prestige, you’re just like an ordinary L.A. street gang if you don’t have (“YOUR” X) a basic understanding of God. (X) And (“IF”) if people like this would allow this knowledge (X) to look at themselves, perhaps, from a viewpoint of how God would look at (X) them and each (X) one (X) of their decisions, we wouldn’t be in this (X) mess.
L: Well, you know, Sherman, first off, these people do believe or at least preach to believe in God to try to rule us all like marionettes, do you think that, you know, that they think that they’re bigger than all of us, including God?
S: Well the point is, (X) although I’m not a lawyer, I am an — self-educated in law (X) and the judges (“MM”) mention the Deity (X) quite a bit (X) because at the end of every petition, (X) you’ve got to put down there that you pray for judgement. I mean there are some judges (“THAT ARE”) that take bribes and ended up in jail, they still ask you to pray for judgement in their crooked court. (“I THI[NK]”) (small laugh) Look, I’m not an atheist. I (“I’M”) — I don’t know that I could make (X) a religious (my line was disconnected here) issue out of the thing. (X) I would say that some of those that do these things probably go to synagogue on Saturday or church on Sunday (X) and swindle you on Monday. (small laugh) I don’t know.
L: That’s a very good way to look at it, by the way. That sen(tence) — that’s a very interesting way to look at it. Let’s go to Torrence (X) and talk to Barry. Hi, Barry. How are you?
B: I’m pretty good. How are you doing?
L: Fine, thank you.
B: Good. I want to ask (X) Mr. Skolnick if he’s heard of GATA and Bill Murphy and the work they’re doing with trying to expose the gold manipulation?
S: I know a great deal about it. We share information. (X) From time to time I talk to Bill Murphy because I have his direct phone number. I’m quite aware of it. I — a quick answer is (X) the FBI was investigating Murphy’s organization charges of — that the gold market was held down by manipulation but that section of the World Trade Center blew up before there was trouble in that part of the north tower. So (X) all those records were paper records and they’re destroyed. I’m very perplexed. Some people feel that there were explosives in the World Trade Center designed to blow up the FBI offices and destroy all those records, which were destroyed.
B: Wow, that’s (X) totally amazing to me. (X)
L: Well unproven either way but nonetheless I’d heard that earlier.
S: No no no, listen. The firemen’s monthly magazine which has (X) come out for 125 years now claims that there were some kind of explosives planted in the building (X) and that’s why they came down — the buildings came straight down like a demolition charge dealt with it. And it was the 23rd — 22nd, 23rd and 24th floors (X) of the north tower that held the FBI records on the gold antitrust situation and that was 50 floors below where the airplane hit. Long before there was anything coming (X) down from that hit (X) and so therefore those firemen that survived contend that there were explosives planted in the two towers. (X)
L: Well —
S: And they were there on the spot and I cannot dismiss what they say. (X)
L: Jan is in Inglewood. Jan, welcome to KFI.
J: Yes. Hi, Mr. Skolnick. I really — I’ve seen your pages before on the Internet and I really appreciate them, your efforts. A huge amount of information there. I wanted to ask you (X) a question. I’ve noticed (X) a growing conflict between what I would call the global Socialists and the free trade Capitalists (X) in the world and (X) I thought your statements about the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers was very interesting. I wonder can you tie these in together or am I —
S: Well I don’t like to put labels on people. Anybody in years past that disagreed with the aristocracy was labeled (X) either, originally, as a Socialist and if that didn’t do the trick (X) then they said you were a Communist. Now, fifty-some-odd years after the Red scare, they’ve stopped calling people falsely Communist. They now call them Socialist and nobody even bothers to look in the Dictionary what the word Socialism means. It means the instruments of production are owned by the common people. So I don’t — I can’t deal with these labels. I don’t like to put labels on people. When I (X) label a corrupt judge as a banker judge I can point across the street from the bank — from the court and say, “Now the judge and his cronies own that bank and that’s where the bribery is.” And we’ve shown that after — over forty years. These other terms, I don’t know how to deal with them (X) because we’re technicians of fact. We’re not philosophers.
S: Does that answer your question or not?
J: Well kind of yeah. But, you know, I’ve done a little bit of (X) sleuthing myself and I’ve seen that there is actually a very large community of people that are (X) working actively to bring down our government. (X) And they’re — oh I guess — what do you call them? Communists, Socialists or (X) whatever?
S: No, they’re the aristocracy.
J: They’re ideologically joined at the waist but they’re working for the same goal.
L: Yeah but hold it, both of you. Jan, but when you make a statement like that, what is the end result? What’s the agenda of these people? (X)
J: The same thing that it’s always been with all people. It’s contest and power. You know —
S: On behalf of the aristocracy, the establishment, the powers that be, whatever you want to call them. But I wouldn’t call them Socialists or Communists. That’s a label from fifty years ago. (X) I have a quick answer, which you may or may not accept. But since so many people are online, (X) pull up my website and look at (X) our multi-part series called “The Overthrow of the American (X) Republic” (X X) and you’ll get a much more detailed answer than I could possibly give on a radio show. (X)
L: And very well done. By the way, the website is www.skolnicksreport.com — that’s plural with an S. Also, I’ll give out the phone number. If you would like to ever contact Mr. Skolnick, (X) it’s (773) (X) 731-1100. We’re going to take a break and be back —
S: That’s a recorded message, by the way.
L: Right. We’re going to take a break in about a minute. A quick question for you, do you have any idea that with the market the way it is globally (X) and with the recession that the entire world is in, how the people such as the Rothschilds and their banking industry and the Rockefellers and all of their wealth, how do they continue to maintain the wealth without losing (X) some of it when all of the rest of us are losing? (X)
S: Well a quick (X) answer is a lot of their property and assets they got in the ’30s (X) for pennies on the dollar. So I mean, (X) assuming that some of those properties are worth $100 a share, if they got them — if they got something for a few pennies 70 years ago, (X) they can roll back a lot (X) and still be ahead.
L: Yeah, but — (X) but so then obviously they’ve also taken — some of these people that we’re talking about have also taken (X) somewhat of a hit?
S: Well what are you talking about? You’re talking about the mere millionaires? You’re talking about the super-(X)rich (X X) billionaires? To understand (“AA”) your question, I’d have to refer to a book where you’d have to read about this situation called The Rich and the Super Rich (X) by Ferdinand Lundberg. It’s (X) sort of a textbook in that field. (X)
L: (Alr)i(ght) — we’re going to take a break right now. When we come back, we’ll discuss more with Sherman Skolnick. He’s in Chicago. We’re talking about the large amount of our wealthy people that are controlling, which really is not a lot of people. It’s just a handful of people that are controlling the economy of the globe realistically. I’m Lee Kline and you are listening to KFI AM 640 more stimulating talk radio.
( . . . )
. . . I turn to stone Turn to stone If your love I can’t call my own I turn to stone Turn to stone I need your love In every way Your love I cling to When things slip away Without your love . . .
("I'll Turn To Stone" performed by the Four Tops)
L: Welcome back to KFI AM 640 (X) more stimulating talk radio. Lee Kline is my name. (X) Sherman Skolnick is our guest from Chicago. We’re discussing the economy. Sherman, you want to — you always like to get into the situation with the Rockefeller family. You know, ever since the 1870s with the enormous wealth and the monopolization of the oil industry, (X) Standard Oil, etc., etc., one of the reasons for the antitrust laws after the turn of the century, the reason for income tax around 1913, so much of our American wealth and history in this country goes to the original, original John Rockefeller and now, here it is, 150 years later or so and we’re s(till) (“SON” or “SUN”) — 30 years later — and we’re still talking about his family and the wealth that they possess.
S: Before I jump right into that, (X) I want to give a short answer to a previous question. America has got a sacred cow problem. (X) What do I mean? The ultra-rich do not pay any (X) taxes and it’s a heavily censored subject. On my non-commercial show on television here in Chicago, I had put the question (X) to candidates for (X) high government office like governor: “If you’re elected governor, are you going to tax the ultra-rich?” (X) I never get an answer. They look at the ceiling. I say, (X) “What is on the ceiling? (X X) TV cameras? Look at the ceiling. (X) The guest is looking at the ceiling. There must be an answer on the ceiling.”
L: (small laugh) (X)
S: As for the Rockefellers, they have used (X) violent methods. They used to bomb some of their own buildings and (X) blame it on their competitors. (X) A crusader early in the 20th Century who went into that was Ida Tarbell. But now here is — here (“BUT”) — here is step-by-step (X) my analysis (X) of over 30-(X)some-odd years of how the Rockefellers want to put one of their people as President without an election. (X) And it almost happened already.
L: Well yeah if you’re talking about Nelson being vice-president with Gerald Ford.
S: . . . Yeah, let me just go into it. Remember Lee, there are some people that are listeners to your show — weren’t born at the time of what I’m about to discuss. So they have maybe no knowledge of it so I’m going to go into it as an educator. (X “WHEN”) President Kennedy was assassinated, (X) okay? One of the reasons for assassinating him by the military industrial complex is Kennedy was against big oil. He was going to dis(continue) — (X) cancel the oil depletion allowance (X) which is a tax loophole for big oil. Okay? And now a book called Farewell America, which has been suppressed for thirty years, is (X) now available openly in the United States from some of the online booksellers. Farewell America. (X) It’s — it’s (X) who was really behind the assassination (X) of Kennedy. (“SO” X X) Lyndon Johnson, who was the vice-president, became automatically the President (“NO”) but here was the problem. Up until the time Johnson was elected President in ’64 he had no vice president (X) because of a defect in the Constitution. The Rockefellers had been planning for some time to put one of their family members (X) in the Oval Office without an election. So quietly in 1967 they promoted (X) amending the Constitution with the 25th Amendment providing for a line of succession (X) as to the vice president. (X) Okay? Now here’s how it worked. In 1973 the major news networks (X) knew that (or “THAT”) Spiro Agnew, Nixon’s vice president, (X) was facing bribery charges but they didn’t want to release that information until a time and place suitable to their geo-political purpose. (X) So one of the network reporters that I know—and I’m not going to tell you who—put it in my ear. (X) I was traveling around the country giving speeches for students (X) and I would mention that Spiro Agnew is facing bribery charges. (X) You know how I was heckled by local press, by student newspapers, by students themselves? “Skolnick, you made up the story. I didn’t read anything like that in The New York Times and I read The New York Times every day.” And then (X) in October 1973 (X) Spiro Agnew resigned, facing bribery charges. Nobody apologized to me and I didn’t ask anybody to apologize for calling me a liar. But what happened? (X) Nixon turned around and appointed under the — under Rockefeller’s 25th Amendment, Gerald Ford as the vice president, done without an election. (X X X) Gerald Ford was quite acceptable to the establishment. He sat on the Warren Commission and said, “Only a lone assassin killed JFK. Nobody else.” (X) Okay. (X) Now they made a deal — the Rockefellers with Nixon (X) that in ’74 in August he was to resign and he got a — (X) a financial benefit from the Rockefellers. Nixon got a townhouse in Manhattan and he lived for a while — get this — in a townhouse wall-to-wall with David Rockefeller. What do you make of that, Lee, huh?
L: Well, first, he — well I don’t know what year you’re talking about but he came to San Clemente and spent a lot of his (X) time here. I know that he wound up back east in his final days. He lived in New York.
S: . . . Well he lived in various pla(ces) — he had residences in various places. Okay. But now here’s the point. (X) Gerald Ford, (X) who became President without an election, (X) turned around and (X) under the 25th Amendment promoted by the Rockefellers, who did he put in as the vice president? Nelson A. Rockefeller.
L: Which, by the way, for those that are listening, the only time in our American history where we had a President and a vice president, neither of which were elected, was at that particular moment.
S: Now notice what happened. When the Senate had ratification hearings on Nelson Rockefeller as the vice president, (X) he testified under oath that he and the top members of the Rockefeller family had paid no taxes in the previous eleven years. Does that tell you about the sacred (X) cow problem, huh? Now what happened in ’75 — and some people have forgotten or weren’t alive at the time that are listening. There were three genuine plots to assassinate Gerald Ford. There was (X) Squeaky Fromme. There was Sarah Jane Moore, an undercover federal agent who somebody supplied with a large caliber weapon (X) and she came within a hair of blowing away Gerald Ford.
L: Which would have made Nelson Rockefeller President.
S: Right. And then there was a third plot that was aborted by the Secret Service and at the time — (X) at the time I had a recorded phone message and the Secret Service (X) closed down all of my recorded phone message (X) because I dared talk about it openly and publicly. (X) Okay. So now there is the scheme there where they (X) tried to put in Nelson Rockefeller. Okay now let’s fast forward. In ’97 the Rockefeller media and they’re big with all three networks, come on — (X X) they started in after Albert Gore. They were going to fish out Albert Gore, put in Jay Rockefeller, knock down Clinton (X) and then John D. Rockefeller IV, who calls himself Jay, he’s the (X) U.S. senator from West Virginia —
L: From West Virginia.
S: — Democrat. (X) They started up with a scandal against Gore that he used the White House phones for campaign (X) money raising and Gore answered it by saying, “Well wait a minute I used a credit card so who was advantaged?” (X) Okay. That didn’t work. (X) Then in 1999 (X) there was a (X) direct effort to assassinate Gore and here is how it worked. (X) Air Force 2 with the Vice President Gore was traveling over a major Democrat stronghold, the city of Chicago, Mayor Dailey. (O)kay? (X) As the plane was over Chicago, ground control by the greatest mystery directed three large commercial aircraft into the same air space as Gore’s airplane. Now one airplane by accident (X) can (X) get what they call vectored into the same air space as the vice president’s plane. There were three. The Sun-Times sat on the story until July 14th and ran that two airplanes (X) — and I talked to the guys that worked on the story. There were actually three. Gore’s airplane landed. The pilot got off the plane livid and he wanted to punch out some of the people in ground control. Several days later, the former head of the FAA and expert on ground control and air traffic, was murdered. Does that tell you something? Okay. Now this happened on July 9th, a Friday. Look what happened on the following Friday, July 16th. John F. Kennedy, Jr. was (X) murdered by way of a sabotaged airplane, okay? Now Kennedy Jr. had a big secret. He was planning on August 1st, ’99 to announce that he was approaching the age such as when his father ran for President (X) and Jr. was going to run for President. (X) He made one blunder. He didn’t keep the secret. He told somebody in the Gore campaign (X) and it leaked out. (X) And Bush benefitted. Okay? Now if Kennedy Jr. ran, he was charming. So far as we know he was free of scandal and he would have swept the field. Nobody really could win against (X) (him).
L: Well I’m going to challenge you on some of these statements. I mean I’m just not going to let you just go on and on and on and talk of these things.
S: Alright, go ahead.
L: And, just for the fact that, you know, I — at this moment I’m not going to be able to produce that every fact that you’re saying is correct or incorrect but you’re weaving things that did take place in history that we know about but you’re tying them all in as a plot. Now unless you can, (“YEAH”) you know, name names or do things that — to weave the plot — and the reason why I’m saying this is not because I’m not after you, I’m not trying to discredit you. I will say this, to say that Kennedy would have won the election, I highly doubt that, number one. Because he was squeaky clean? Big deal. He was a handsome man (“BUT”) and had a family name. (“BUT”) As far as politics go and as far as backing with the Democratic party from a national standpoint, he — (X) he hadn’t even (X) paid his dues yet. (X)
S: There (or “THERE” or “THEIR” or “THEY’RE”) — I have a quick answer which you may or may not like. (X X) I have a four-part series on my website that adequately answers what you’re talking about with a lot of details, which time on radio does not — there isn’t time on radio to go into all that.
L: Well that doesn’t help me explain — or the listening audience.
S: . . . the listeners could read that and then they could decide whether your skepticism or my statement (X) has validity.
L: Well I’ll just say — look —
S: My four-part series is called “What Happened To America’s Golden Boy?” (X)
S: You’ve got to read. And there is the secret (X) report (X) of the FBI about the Kennedy Jr. airplane that was supposed to be kept secret for thirty years. It’s there as part four about this series on my website. That is my way of answering with specifics where — in other words where the specifics (X) are in answer to your skepticism.
L: Alright when we come back we’ll open up the phone lines once again to the rest of you. I’m Lee Kline. My guest Sherman Skolnick, entertaining as he is, from Chicago right here on KFI AM 640 more stimulating talk radio. (commercials, news, traffic and weather)
Have I the right to hold you And you know I’ve always told you That we must never ever part Ohh oh oh oh oh oh Have I the right to kiss you You know I’ll always miss you I’ve loved you from the very start Aaaarrrggghhh Come right back I just can’t bear it I’ve got some love and I long to share it . . .
(“Have I The Right” performed by The Honeycombs)
L: Welcome back to KFI AM 640 more stimulating talk radio. (X) Lee Kline with you until one o’clock in the morning. (X) From Chicago Sherm Skolnick is our guest. (X) Sherm, we’ve got a lot of people here that want to get back in touch with you so —
S: Can I do this?
S: Can I use a few sentences to wrap up the Rockefeller thing and then we’ll go right into the questions . . .
L: Yeah. Well —
S: . . . comments? (X)
L: Yeah, one of them will be that there’ll be no end to the family and it’ll never end. (small laugh) (X)
S: Notice what has just started to bubble and boil? Serious (X) accusations (X) very likely true that Richard Cheney, the vice president, did two things. (X) That as CEO of Halliburton right up to the time he ran for vice president that he cooked the books by (X) great sums of money and, secondly, that he allowed (X) or in some way reportedly participated in treason in supplying oil machinery to Iraq through European subsidiaries of Cheney’s company so that Iraq (X) was able to break the embargo, which is treason. Okay? Now that information was known but notice how the (X) Rockefeller-controlled monopoly press (X) is pushing those things right now. That has been known for several years but they’re pushing (X) it right now because (X) there is a scheme under way that we are (“NO” or “KNOW”) — that we know about. We’re going to write more about it on our web(X)site — to push out Cheney for either medical reasons because of the thing he’s got in his chest that’s hooked into a satellite. They could croak him any time with that satellite (X) connection or they could get him on these scandals which is apparently correct and true information just like they confronted Spiro Agnew. Push him out (X) and force Bush to put in (X) Jay Rockefeller as vice president without an election and then and only then push out Bush.
L: But Jay Rockefeller is a Democrat. (X)
S: What difference does that make?
L: Oh come on, Sherm!
S: In the Rockefeller . . .
L: We have not had a cross section of President and vice president since the mid-1800s.
S: The Rockefellers are neither Republicans (X) or Democrats. (X) When Nelson Rockefeller was the governor of New York (X) what (X) party was he really . . .
S: Well — they pretend to be Democrat. Look, (X) they got a foot in both parties. It’s a mistake to call them by a party name. (X) They’re — they’re world government . . .
L: I’m just n(ot) — let me put it this way. The Jay Rockefeller thing I wouldn’t buy in a million years. I wouldn’t buy — even if you’re right, I wouldn’t buy it. I wouldn’t buy it.
S: I know you wouldn’t buy it but, you know, the media would get away with it. The (X) media has a way of pounding our head —
L: Why would the Republican — first off, explain to me why another set of Republicans would want to get rid of another Republican and expose him? And bring shame to the party?
S: . . . First place, this has nothing to do with party. The ones that’ll expose him (X) are the monopoly press and they’re of (X) nobody’s party.
L: Yeah but the Rockefellers — Jay Rockefeller’s a Democrat. Why in the world would they put a Democrat in to replace a Republican?
S: Lee, you’ve fallen into the trap, unfortunately, of caring about the . . .
L: Of what? Thinking? Thinking logically?
S: Ideologically, he’s not Democrat or Republican. He calls himself a Democrat — (“HE”) he’s not much of a Democrat. (X) Bush is going to — (“IS”) in the view of people that are really on top of this, (X) believe that that is (X) in the works. (X) Whether it actually (“YET” X) — hey listen, (“I”) my main problem is I get ahead of the parade. I got (X) ahead of the parade at the Spiro Agnew thing. (“I”) Media people called me liar up and down the country. None of them called to apologize. I don’t need an apology. My ego doesn’t require it. I’m telling you what the scheme is. Let’s see what happens.
L: Fine. That’s fair. Let’s move along here. Let’s go to Brian in Toluca Lake. Brian, welcome to KFI.
R: Hi. I believe OPEC will reach a point where they refuse dollars for oil and will accept only gold for oil. What would happen to the U.S. economy? And isn’t this likely since Islam is at war with our economy? (X)
S: My answer is this. (X) Since 1973, little-known but published elsewhere, out of the United States, (X X) two (X) major countries that trade with the United States, (X X X X) that buy U.S. bonds—(X) bills, notes and bonds; Treasury securities—have no securities (X) (not) backed by gold. (X) Saudi (X) and Japan. Common Americans that buy Treasury securities (X) certainly are not (X) given that privilege to have their securities backed by gold. And (X) if gold goes up, (X) it’s going to cause disruptions in the oil market. (“SO”) This caller has made a very potent (X) comment. (X)
L: By the way, Brian, your information that you got even to bring up the question came from where? (X)
R: Studying the gold market and the (X) Republicrats over the last sixteen years in (X) great detail.
L: Wouldn’t you say, though, since you’ve studied the gold market, Brian, that gold is around 120 to add this morning when it opened up or 103.18, something like that. Do you think that gold is undervalued right now?
R: Oh absolutely. I think if (X) it were allowed to float it would go between $2,800 and $4,500 an ounce.
L: Which would destroy, according to what Skolnick is saying — and a lot of other people — would destroy our own (X) Treasury of what we use as our American dollar.
R: Well the Treasury is just a collection of paper. It would destroy the whole world paper chase, I think. None of it’s worth —
S: Gentlemen, understand a little pointer. Every year, there’s a thing called the Chicago Gold Conference. The president of the World Gold Council, mining engineers from all over the world — only one reporter in the past went to that annual meeting . . .
L: Let me take a wild guess. That would be you.
S: The paper money crowd. Hey, how come they didn’t come to this worldwide conference (X) of gold experts? I’m not even a paid reporter. I’m a freelance reporter that runs a court reform group. I’m the only one that comes to the conference in years past.
L: Well maybe you’re the only one who gives a damn.
S: I learned a lot from them, okay?
L: Um-huh. (X)
S: But this (X) — this caller makes a potent thing. (X) I’d like to ask this caller if he knew that Saudi and Japan are the only ones (X) — when they buy U.S. Treasury securities, it’s backed by gold but the rest—of common Americans that buy it—is not. (X)
L: How — wait a minute. (X) Who’s gold is it backed by then? (X)
S: (small laugh) It’s backed by gold that is no longer at Fort Knox but if you want to go into that, you better have a lot more time on this (X) program . . .
L: So what you’re saying that the United States guarantees the Saudis and the Japanese (X) our money whereas it doesn’t guarantee anybody else.
S: Right. (X)
L: Interesting there. Let’s go to John in Los Angeles. John, welcome to KFI.
O: Hey, Lee.
O: Hey, Sherman. Lee, great show, great bump music by the way except for maybe that last ditty.
L: Well I’m sorry there was (X) one in the crowd you don’t like.
O: Yeah but all the rest was (X) great. Hey listen, Sherman, with all due respect, you say that you’re not a (X) conspiracy theorist but, you know, I got to say you’re (X) very bright. You’ve got a lot of facts. (X) You’re extremely smart, been doing this a long time but about every four sentences (X) I’m laughing. I get a good chuckle. I mean you string some sentences together and then you just top it off with, you know, a wonderful statement about the Rockefeller family trying to arrogate —
S: Well — (“YOU KNOW”)
O: — power by stealing the Presidency. It’s just — (X) that’s a conspiracy, isn’t it?
S: They tried to do it with the (X) Spiro Agnew thing. Listen, what they do day by day is not a conspiracy, it’s their way (X X) of trying to control the world and so on. It’s not a conspiracy. This is their day to day operation. I mean is it a conspiracy that they are sacred cows and don’t pay any taxes in America? (X) And the media is afraid to ever mention it? And it’s only non-commercial people like me that raise the question on my cable show? Is that a conspiracy or what is it? (X) Does it sound like a — I’m a — do you think that we put judges in jail with conspiracy theories? What do you think? (X “VAM”)
L: Well we don’t have enough time to get back to John. Thanks, appreciate the call, John, because we’re up against the clock for the break right now. Alright, well when we come back, (X) again more of your phone calls and some more grilling of Sherman Skolnick. I’m Lee Kline and you are listening to KFI AM 640 more stimulating talk radio.
( . . . )
. . . And I don’t hardly know her I (X) think I could love her Crimson and clover Ahhhhh Well as you come walking over Now I’ll be waiting to show her Crimson and clover . . .
(“Crimson and Clover” performed by Tommy James and The Shondells)
L: KFI AM 640 more stimulating talk radio. Lee Kline with you until one in the morning. Sherman Skolnick in Chicago is our guest this evening. We are talking about a plethora of a lot of things economically-backed in this country one way or the other, (X) good or bad. Sherman, we’ve got a — once again, we have a lot of people and limited time so let’s take a couple of callers.
S: Are we going to go past the top of the hour?
L: We’re going to take one segment past the top of the hour so you have — (X) we have two segments with you left. (X)
S: Because I’d like to give our address again before we finish.
L: We’ll take care of that for you. Don’t worry about it.
S: Alright, let’s deal with the callers as quickly as we can.
L: Let’s go to Steve on a cellphone. Steve, welcome to KFI.
T: Yeah, you know, these Rockefellers, I mean (X) they’re so brilliant, you know. When I was like thirteen years old, I thought it was a plot. There so brilliant and they’re so powerful that you got Nelson Rockefeller in there for about (X) ten months (X) who nobody liked — (X) nobody liked, Democrats (X) or Republicans because he was too liberal for them. And they’ve got (X) all this power. (“THEY”) They’ve already got the oil. (X) They’re already not paying taxes. (X) What do they need the Presidency for? I mean if you’re really going to be conspiratorial, you just have your puppets out there instead (X) of being so obvious and (X X) — and get a (or “AN GET A”), you know, unless you want the prestige of the Presidency and Clinton killed that one too.
S: Let me answer that comment. There’s a quirk in the Rockefeller family. The other ultra-rich do not want to be photographed. (X) If ever any of the other ultra-rich are photographed, you always see them smiling and that’s because of the monopoly press. (X) The Rockefellers have got some of a hang-up. (X) In every generation, they seem to have one of their members (X) who either poses as a Democrat or Republican and is seen only smiling; and he wants to get into public office as the governor, as the vice president, as the President. (X X) And they’d rather do it without an election because they don’t trust the American people. They don’t trust the vote. (X)
L: Well at the same time do we trust them?
S: (small laugh) I don’t know. Didn’t I say enough here in a short time to —
S: — cause a certain — do I got to drag out a copy of the book by Ida Tarbell —
L: No no, I’m just —
S: — and start reading from her (X) reports of a hundred years ago as to what the Rockefellers (X) have been into?
L: It’s —
S: Remember in 1914 the Rockefellers (X) ordered the machine-gunning of women and children as part of an industrial strike (X) in Colorado. (X) Has everybody forgotten about (X) that?
L: I think most have because nobody was around that’s still alive, for the most part.
S: Well. (X)
L: Let’s go to Phil in Downey. It wouldn’t be a show without Phil and Sherman together. There’s a duo. Hi, Phil.
H: Yeah, hi. Just briefly I got into a couple of (X) funds that I wish to hell I had never heard of these two funds and I’m trying to get out of one. (X “WHE[N]”) I got into them when I was a raw-ass novice and my question is — or rather my statement is that (X) I want out of the market in this mutual fund. I want to get the money out of the market and so I called the broker and he tells me, “Well you can’t get out right away.” So in addition to the redemption clause, here’s another thing people should know about this (“THE”) mutual funds. If you want out (X) of a certain fund in the mutual fund, you have to have (X) the day of the trade plus three days. So (X) by the time you wait — all of this waiting time, the(y) hel(d) them (X X “HH THE”) damn market could crash. (“SO I”) If I wanted to get out of the market today —
S: Right . . .
H: — if I put in an order tomorrow Monday (X) the damn thing wouldn’t be settled until Wednesday. (X) And in the meantime the market keeps tumbling and tumbling and tumbling.
S: That’s a very potent statement.
S: Remember something. I predicted the ’87 (X) crash exactly to the day, okay? (X) The other thing is, in the ’87 crash, that was a black Monday, (X) the 800 numbers to most of the bigger mutual funds were jammed. You couldn’t get through to do anything. They didn’t have the time limits that this caller is now referring to. But the point is (X) if there is a further tumble in the market there is a possibility you won’t even be able to get . . .
H: That’s right. That’s exactly right.
L: Yeah but Phil — wait, but both of you. Phil, if you really want to get out and it takes you 72 hours to get out, tomorrow morning call your broker and by Wednesday you’re out.
H: Well I called him Thursday. My thing will not be finalized until Tuesday. But then I got another thing I didn’t know, like I said when I was a war — a raw-ass novice, this — this fun (or “THIS FUN”) — this particular fun(d) I’m in is back-loaded. That means when I sell, (“THEY”) they get a commission on the sale so I’m totally screwed.
L: Yeah but they all do. They all do.
S: Caller, I’d like to say something —
H: No no, there are no load, (X) low-cost funds, low P ratios, and there’s a whole bunch of, Lee, complicated —
S: Caller, can I suggest something? (X) You want to get your broker or your mutual funds supervisor twisted out of shape and maybe screaming? Say, “Hey, what’s this here redemption clause about? Explain it to me.” (X)
H: (small laugh)
S: (small laugh) (“YOU’LL”) You’ll learn something . . .
L: Well Phil, you’re the guy that would do it so go ahead, Phil. Then call us next week and tell us what they said. (X)
H: Alright, I will do that. But, anyway, you got to watch (X) the loaded funds. All you listeners who want to get into a mutual should get a no — a low-cost, no (X) load fund. And they’re out there. There are a lot of good, very good . . .
S: But caller.
S: If they’ve all got redemption clauses, what’s the difference if it’s a load, no load, half load, three-quarter load? What difference does that make? They’re like the investment trusts of 70 years ago. (X) If too many people seek to redeem, it’s frozen. They go into receivership. You can’t get out a single penny. (X) If you own shares directly, (X) you can get out. And by the way there’s another hang-up right there. (X) Some broker says, “Well I ain’t going to send you the share certificate. I’m going to keep it for you.” Hey, that’s a (X) really bad situation. If the broker gets insolvent (X) and is holding your shares, (X) he may have done a thing called hypothecate, which is — it’s illegal but he may have hedged it with some bank or something to raise money, (“TO”) get out of his insolvency.
L: So which means you don’t own it, the bank does.
S: Right. (X) They’re not supposed to hypothecate shares that your broker keeps in custody.
L: Well basically they’re thieves then. They’re stealing your money.
S: No, it’s a standard practice in the industry. I don’t know. (small laugh) If thievery is a standard practice, then we’ll call it what Lee called . . .
L: Well I think we are living in a very greedy—wouldn’t you say?—society.
S: Well I mean look at the brokers who are now accused (X) of having (X) pushed — (X “TT”) that you should buy Enron: “It’s a good buy.” They kept saying so. Within 48 hours, Enron went into bankruptcy. (X) What do you call that, Lee? Thievery? (X) Corruption?
L: I call them lying sons of bitches. What do you call them?
S: Yeah, that’s right. A nicer — we don’t — we’re not that blunt. We’re pretty blunt on my TV show but not that blunt.
L: Well I’m blunt because I’m not politically correct. Let’s go to San Diego and talk to Neal. Neal, welcome to KFI.
N: Hi, Lee. Hi, Mr. Skolnick. I wanted to (X) ask a question (X X) concerning the Sherman Act and (X) real estate corporations. Since everything is (X) going into one, (X) I was inquiring about a (X) firm by the name of Charles E. Smith — Arch Stone Smith. Do you have anything?
S: No, I don’t know anything about it but wait a minute. Slow down a minute.
S: Many brokers now that say, “Oh you don’t want stock? I’ll put you into a real estate investment trust.” (X “WITH”) With a real estate bust about to hit us, you’re just going to go from one fire into another fire. (X) The Sherman Antitrust Act (X) in the hands (X) of the attorney general. I call him John Ashcan. I’m rather blunt on that. I call him John Ashcan. (X) Do you trust the Antitrust Department of the Justice Department (“TO”) enforce the antitrust laws? Really? That’s a joke. I don’t know the company you’re speaking of. No. (X)
N: Well what I was (X) inquiring about is everything’s — since all the corporations are going into one, I’ve — was in particular interested in one (X) which I just mentioned. Do you think that the — as real estate, apartment and commercial real estate that eventually it will be all in one? It’ll be owned and controlled, you know, (X) such as . . .
S: Here in Chicago in the ’30s, my elders used to curse the title company Chicago Title and Trust because they took over a lot of properties for a penny on the dollar on behalf of the aristocracy. (X) And that is what we’re going to see (X) happen — where people are going to lose (X) in a way more, in my judgement, in the near future is in the real estate market more so than in the stock market or the mutual funds (X) because too many people have bought half a million dollar or quarter million dollar houses that in a pinch (X) you can’t sell it for that. And the mortgage will be bigger than the house (X) so they’ll leave a note (X) like my elders used to do 70 years ago: “Goodbye, mortgage company. Nice knowing you.” They’ll leave a note: “Here’s the key.”
L: Yeah but the problem is where are they going to get credit to go buy another house in what they for(feit) — once there’s forfeiture on the other? (X)
S: Well when they went down the street, (X) they were able to buy it for a pittance. They were able to buy . . .
L: Yeah but understand, Sherman, you’re not going to be able to get another mortgage if you forfeited on another. We have computers today. You have credit lines that didn’t exist the way that they did before. You’re not going to be able to walk away from a half a million dollar mortgage and buy another house tomorrow morning.
S: . . . We’re getting into a sensitive area. Here in Illinois, (X) mortgage companies have multiplied like the locust. (X) You’re a commercial show. You’re asking me to comment on something that’s going to get your rear end in a sling. (X)
L: Look, nothing’s going to get my rear end in a sling. You don’t have to hold back on anything you want to say, Sherman. Trust me.
S: These mortgage companies — some of them, not all of them but a few percentage of them — let’s talk about Illinois. Let’s not talk about California.
L: Well we’ve got a minute. Can you do it in a minute or do you want to wait?
S: Yeah, no. Some of the mortgage companies, (X) it’s (small laugh) (X) Columbia dope money, it’s mafioso money, it’s — it’s what, it’s — they got this word that they adopted from — from — (X) from Jews called it’s not kosher. (laughs) You know what I’m saying?
L: Yes, I — that’s mild.
S: . . . don’t quote me wrong. I didn’t say every mortgage company. I said some of these Johnny-come-latelys that (X) sprung up and are advertising —
L: Sherman, you can go on the Internet now and you can go and bid for mortgage money and go to moneytree.com and you can wind up with a hundred different people bidding for whatever you are. I mean I’m not giving that out as a website in particular but it’s just one of many.
S: But who are some of those people? Who are a certain percentage of those mortgage companies?
L: I don’t know. I’m not saying you’re wrong. I don’t know. Nobody knows on the Internet. When somebody —
S: But the point is what my elders did 70 years ago (X) is (X) they somehow were able to get $2,000 together and they bought a three-flat of which they had previously —
L: Sherman, for $2,000 in California, you can’t get yourself a window in a garage. Alright, we’re going to take a break. When we come back at the top of the hour, Sherman Skolnick, our guest from Chicago. I’m Lee Kline. You’re listening to KFI AM 640 more stimulating talk radio. (commercials, news, news and weather)
Time has come today . . .
L: You’re listening to KFI AM 640 more stimulating talk radio. Lee Kline with you until one in the morning. Now six past the hour of midnight so good Monday to each and every one of you. Hope that you’re going to have a good week. And we wish you a better one than the last one. From Chicago, our guest tonight has been Sherman (X) Skolnick. This is our final segment with Sherman. Sherman, if you want to give out your Web address or any other information, why don’t we do it right now?
S: Alright. Several times a year we come out with a heavy packet of our printed stories. Currently, it’s “Black Tuesday: Before and After.” (X) It’s “The Chandra Levy Affair.” It’s a document showing the Bush crime family and hundreds of billions of dollars laundered (X) through a joint account with the Queen of England and her private bank in London. (X) “Enron” — (X) little-known things and little-known things about Arthur Anderson. A heavy packet of our printed stories. Send $5 (X) and a stamped-self-addressed business-size envelope with three stamps on it (X) to Sherman Skolnick, (X) 9800 S. (X) Oglesby Ave. (spells) Chicago, Illinois, 60617. (X) (repeats) Now if you didn’t write that down, we have a whole group of phones so you’ll seldom get a busy signal. It’s not an expensive call. It plays a recorded message update of our work and it has our website and how to get our literature at the tail end of the message. And that number in Chicago, not an expensive call, is (gives number). Our website (X) where you can also see portions of our television show online and that is www.skolnicksreport.com — an S after my name. (spells) There’s about a hundred stories listed there and you’ll see it’s marked in red where you can click on that and see parts of our television show on the latest technology called video streaming. And if you don’t have the software, you can download (X) that for free. (X)
(TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE: AMONG THE ARTICLES AT SHOLNICKSREPORT.COM IS “THE TRIPP-WIRE” BY SHERMAN H. SKOLNICK. ALTHOUGH MUCH OF THE ARTICLE SEEMS TO BE SPECULATION WITH RATHER UNCONVINCING EXPLANATIONS AND MOTIVES, SOME INFORMATION SEEMS INTRIGUING, SUCH AS THE PARAGRAPH DESCRIBING LINDA TRIPP AS “FORMER COVERT OPERATOR FOR SUPER-SECRET DELTA FORCES, ONE OF THE FEW WOMEN IN SUCH A GROUP. SHE HAD BEEN A SECRETARY IN THE CLINTON WHITE HOUSE IN OR NEAR THE OFFICE OF DEPUTY COUNSEL VINCENT W. FOSTER JR., ONE OF THE LAST PERSONS [OTHER THAN THE ASSASSINS] TO SEE HIM ALIVE. SHE KNOWS PLENTY. LATER, SHE WAS ASSIGNED TO THE PENTAGON AND WAS WITH MONICA LEWINSKY ASSIGNED TO THE PENTAGON SPOKESMAN, KENNETH BACON. LINDA WIRE-TAPPED MONICA BOTH TO PROTECT HERSELF AND UPON FURTHER ORDERS OF SO-CALLED INDEPENDENT COUNSEL KENNETH W. STARR. LINDA SUPPLIED INFORMATION TO INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ASSETS WITHIN THE MONOPOLY PRESS, SUCH AS REPORTEDLY MICHAEL ISIKOFF OF NEWSWEEK MAGAZINE.” AMONG THE INFORMATION AND SPECULATIONS ABOUT MONICA LEWINSKY IN THE ARTICLE—NOT ALL OF WHICH I FIND CONVINCING—IS “CLINTON GAVE MONICA TOPMOST SECURITY CLEARANCE AT THE PENTAGON WITHOUT REQUIRING HER TO GO THROUGH THE USUAL SCREENING PROCESS. SHE TRAVELED WITH WILLIAM COHEN, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, AND TOOK NOTES OF HIS MEETINGS ALTHOUGH NOT FULLY COMPETENT AS A SECRETARY.” THE ARTICLE ENDS WITH: “IN A REPORTED CONVERSATION BETWEEN MONICA LEWINSKY AND LINDA TRIPP, DISCUSSED WAS THEY DID NOT WANT TO END UP LIKE MARY MAHONEY, A SORT OF MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING THAT PEOPLE IN THE WHITE HOUSE WHO KNOW TOO MUCH SOMETIMES GET MURDERED. IF THE LINDA TRIPP WIRE-TAPPING CRIMINAL PROSECUTION PROCEEDS TOWARD TRIAL, SOME OF THE FOREGOING DETAILS MIGHT EVEN GET INTO THE STATE COURT RECORDS. THE VARIOUS CHARACTERS MENTIONED HAVE A VARIETY OF THINGS TO LOSE. WAS THE VEHICLE ACCIDENT OF MONICA LEWINSKY A FEW DAYS AFTER THE RELEASE OF AN INDICTMENT AGAINST LINDA TRIPP, MERELY AN ‘ACCIDENT’? AND WHY WAS MS. LEWINSKY TAKEN BY AMBULANCE APPARENTLY TO A MILITARY HOSPITAL? JUST ANOTHER STORY SUPPRESSED BY THE LIARS AND WHORES OF THE PRESS, THOSE WITH THE FIFTY DOLLAR HAIRDOS AND THE NICKEL HEADS.”)
L: Alright, let’s go to Grand Terrace and talk to Frank. Frank, welcome to KFI. Good morning to you. (X)
F: Hi, Lee. (X) You know, I’m just thinking to myself that there’s just so many of these guys that get the people worked up. I’ve been involved in radical (X) activism and (X) these guys are a dime a dozen. They get the people angry and I just feel like I’m angry enough at this point. (X) I wish somebody would do a show to tell me how the people can get involved (X) to stop things like this corporate (“KA”) crime wave and such. (X X)
S: I’ll answer it briefly. There’s no secret door, caller, that I can list — (X) direct you to in Washington that if you knock on that secret door, you’ll cure or remedy (X) what ails America. (X) In fact, some people that don’t prefer to believe what I say, I usually tell them, “Dismiss what I say. History will teach you the hard way (X) the validity of what I’m talking about.” There is no quick way to deal with this. (X) It’s built into our system and probably we’re going to go into a decade of a malaise if not much worse (X) and it might be anarchy. And we might not have an election this year in the way in which we’re accustomed to.
L: How so?
S: Well you see the Black Tuesday in its simplest form was to offset or sidestep a financial meltdown. And I’m not the only one that says it. A very astute commentator, Mike Rupert, says about the same thing. And so how are they going to sidestep what appears to be the looming crash of the stock market, the busting of the real estate bubble? How are they going to sidestep it? Probably with an emergency, fake or otherwise, orchestrated by some element in the government to sidestep the financial meltdown of the markets. (X) And that might cause a certain amount of anarchy. And then they’ll — (X) they’ll suspend the election or do something (X) because they’re liable — the opposing party is liable to sweep Congress (X) and Bush is liable to be like Herbert Hoover, lock himself in the White House and not be able to deal with . . .
L: So will we all be sleeping in tents and we will call it Bushville instead of Hooverville?
S: I call — I don’t call him the President. I call him Bushfraud and I say he’s only the occupant and resident of the White House. (X)
L: Let’s go to Gaby in Los Angeles. Hi, Gaby. Welcome.
G: Well hi. Mr. Skolnick, I got to tell you I’m probably one of the few people of Mr. Kline’s that believes you about Mr. Rockefeller going as VP. (X) The reason I say that is because in the year 2000 David Rockefeller had a meeting with the media in Paris, France in the month of May and he revealed at that particular point in time that by the year 2004 the New World Order was to be implemented. If it was not implemented by then, it would never happen. And the only way America can have that happen is if we have a Rockefeller in the White House. And I feel that Bush —
S: . . . whether he calls himself a Democrat or a Republican wouldn’t make a difference, would it?
G: Well no because they have an agenda. And I’ve — ever since Nixon. When Nixon was told who his cabinet was, I feel every President has been told who, what, where and how and when. And I feel that that agenda is being fulfilled. I’m watching it myself.
L: Yeah but now that you’re talking about it, how could it possibly come to fruition based on the fact that now the secret’s out? (X)
G: Well the secret — well because there’s peop(le) —
S: Well no. Lee has got a point there. If us clever people knew in advance that they’re going to murder Kennedy in Dallas and we talked about it, they’d probably have to (X) blow out his brains somewhere else. (X) But the point is, caller, do you accept the idea that based on their past way of doing things where they tried to get Nelson Rockefeller as the — in the White House and there were three genuine plots against President Gerald Ford, that it is very likely that what I set forth is not a conspiracy theory but is a valid interpretation of an ongoing situation?
G: Oh I totally concur with you. I feel that they have an agenda and even though Lee says, “Well it’s been out in the open.” Yes, it’s out in the open but there’s a lot of people that are skeptics and will not believe it. And they figure, “For those who believe, they’re a dime a dozen, whereas there are more that don’t believe and therefore we can move ahead.” And that’s the mentality that is existing and I see it happening all around us. (X X X) In a lot of different areas.
S: Is it — do you accept that the mass media can propagandize us to accept a so-called Democrat as a vice president appointed under the 25th Amendment by a Republican? In other words, alleged Republican Bush appointing alleged Democrat Jay Rockefeller to be the vice president after they shove out Richard Cheney? (X)
G: Yes because the media now is redacted. We’re not getting the full facts. (X) So I mean for that to happen if the White House says it’s a go, it’s a go.
L: Am I mistaken or am I missing something here? Isn’t the speaker of the house next in line?
L: So then how in the world are you getting Jay Rockefeller in there as vice president?
S: No no no no no no no. He’s about the fourth in line. (X) The — (X) what’s his name? The 99-year-old guy in the Senate there is the next in line . . .
G: Not . . . (X) the one that just had the surgery.
L: Strom Thurmond.
S: He’s the next in line. The Secretary of State is the . . .
L: For what? For having hip surgery? Alright, Gab, we’re running out of time. Gaby, thanks for the call.
G: Alright. Um-huh.
L: Sherman, we’ve only got about thirty seconds left. I want to thank you (X) as usual for being controversial, which wherever you go you know you are, and I thank you for spending the time and staying up half the night in Chicago for being our guest.
S: And I hope the listeners support your program because I think, Lee, you and your associates are trying very hard (X) to bring the truth before the public in your market (X) and they shouldn’t take for granted that this can be done in any market in the United States. There is censorship so I urge the listeners to support this facility and your program in whatever way they can.
L: I appreciate that. Sherman, thank you very much for being our guest tonight.
S: Alright. Thanks, everybody for listening.
L: Thank you. Sherman Skolnick from Chicago. When we come back, we’ll start talking about you and I. And about the investments and where we’re going with our jobs and with our money here in the United States. I’m Lee Kline and you’re listening to KFI AM 640 more stimulating talk radio.
Q: (speaking into tape recorder) Well I’m a bit frustrated by that last call of mine. I don’t think I really clearly communicated what I really wanted to. (X) I really wanted to say that the world has so many problems and the basis for them all is a lack of understanding of God. If you researched spiritual traditions and so-called ‘paranormal’ case studies, you can find proof and reach an understanding of what we call God. So now I’m sounding like the (X) guest instead of just a caller to the show (taking up so much time) but when I mentioned that about (X) point of view, (X) as I myself have experienced — and I guess it’s best I concentrate on sharing my experience. And people can take from that just as much if not more than what I can articulate. (“BUT”) This knowledge would allow people to look at themselves and their circumstances in a more effective way by considering the point of view of Love. On shows like this, words like capitalism and socialism, liberal and (X) conservative are meaningless without awareness of the relationship we each have with Spirit. (X) So after making the call, I looked up one of my paperbacks, this one entitled The Thought of the Prophets by Israel I. Mattuck. And he says it much better—what I wanted to say—than I did. His book is about all the (X) Jewish prophets and he shows that they had experiences that must be like mine. And, unlike the prophets of today, these prophets (X) were primarily concerned with the welfare of other people. (X) The prophets of today — I mean who knows what they’re (X) concerned with, if you listen to shows like some of them that are on the radio. They’re more involved in selling their books. (X) Anyway, (X “SOME”) Mattuck wrote:
The prophets were animated by a pained sympathy for the poor, who suffered from the rapacity of the rich, the venality of judges, the neglect or despotism of rulers. Such poverty and misery presented a religious challenge. Why in a world ruled by a loving and just God did men and women suffer, without any moral fault in themselves, the miseries and hardships of poverty? And the Prophets answered: Because the social order was wrong, it did not promote justice, but neglected the rights and needs of its weaker members, and allowed the rich and the strong to oppress them.
Q: So some of the ideas in this book: divine inspiration, revelation, mystic communion, God revealing to the prophets new ideas, moral law/morality, ethical principles such as loving kindness, piety meaning loving devotion and loyalty, justice, righteousness, the concept of a just society, (X) faith in (X) God and morality interwoven, knowing inspiring one to action, knowledge of spiritual wealth being more important than material wealth, and the importance of thinking and repentance and prayer. (X) Prophecy today — what has the word prophecy come to mean? Something to think about: prophecy and karma. (X) Anyway, I know — (X) I’ll send an Email to Mr. Skolnick. I think I might’ve sent him one in the past. And I’ll copy the host if I can figure out what his Email address is or how to send it to him. (X) I think I’ll mention since he’s so interested in the judges, (X) that famous trial I keep going back to involving Susan B. Anthony, which I read about in The Ghost In My Life by the great niece of the famous suffragist of the same name, the 1971 book. Susan B. Anthony wanted to obtain a ruling on the 14th Amendment’s enfranchisement of women and on 1872 Thanksgiving she was arrested for voting. A justice of the Supreme Court, Ward Hunt, (X) in 1873 was assigned to be the circuit court judge after the judge who should have presided disqualified himself without explanation. She never went to jail. (X) And she concluded her famous speech: “Resistance to tyranny is o(X)bedience to (X) God.” That’s something for people today to consider. Judge Hunt directed the jury to bring in a verdict of guilty. (X) She was fined $100 and the costs of prosecution, which she never paid. (X) Justice Hunt barred her appeal to the Supreme Court by refusing to abide by the law that she remain in prison until her fine was paid. So if the system was this controlled by those (X) who don’t understand true power in kindness rather than momentary wealth (X) and — what is it? — kowtowing to those currently in the position of authority or to whoever’s in charge. (X) At the time, people didn’t think women deserved to vote. Now, of course, we can’t believe it that back then (X) they thought this was just as terrible for society as, perhaps, knowledge of aliens or UFOS or other mysteries, (X) crop circles. (X X X) I mean it’s just horrendous. Why are injustices even more blatant years later? Is some kind of progress being made? Anyway, what am I trying to say now? Well I’m reading another book on Edgar Cayce and this one makes it clear how the doctors (X) confronted with him at the time did more than cover him up. They lied (X) about his efficacy (X) or effectiveness because they were so caught up in their own careers and self-interest. There’s no getting around it. (X) To be confronted by the Christ Consciousness, what we know as God, (X) without even — they didn’t even realize that. They just thought that this was some rival; instead of a gift to them, this was something to be (X) feared rather than — again, it comes down to fear or love and if you’re acting with fear then you’re not reacting with love. And these doctors didn’t (X) react with love. And our whole medical system (X) and our whole system of (X) knowledge and education shows the signs of this (X) fear of the unknown. (X) And here I am giving my own experiences, my own (X) version of having a window and revelation (X) into the unknown much like the (X) thought of the prophets of old (X) and people won’t even let me share it on the usual media/accepted outlets, (X) for whatever reasons. So the same doctors who didn’t understand Edgar Cayce in that society have given way to (X) a world where I am very misunderstood. And I have made many mistakes. I’m aware of that. I repent for my mistakes and I share them because I think it will help others. But the truth is that (X) the agendas of the rich and the (X) ‘powerful’ (X) are making it hard for people like me to share their experiences. (“IT’S LIKE” X) The mystery of that whole time when I went to hear (X) Wayne Peterson talk about Maitreya. He’s an ex-diplomat. (X) This is the retired director of the Fulbright Scholarship Program. I’m sure Lee’s listeners would (X) make a big deal about that. (X) He began his career in the Peace Corps in Peru after (X) being recruited personally at the University of Wisconsin by that David Rockefeller of the Chase Manhattan Bank. Nnw Laurance Rockefeller has financed UFO research and other metaphysical enquiries, (X) I understand, (X) according to articles that you find on the Internet; and this includes apparently the late Terence McKenna who studied hallucinogenic plants.
(TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE: ONE CONSULTANT TO LAURANCE ROCKEFELLER IS CROP CIRCLE RESEARCHER COLIN ANDREWS, WHOSE OPINION THAT APPROXIMATELY 80% OF THE CIRCLES APPEARING IN ENGLAND DURING THE YEARS 1999 AND 2000 WERE HOAXES IS AT ODDS WITH THE ESTIMATIONS OF OTHER CROP CIRCLE RESEARCHERS YET ANDREWS IS THE ONE WHO HAS BECOME THE HIGHEST PROFILE CROP RESEARCHER WITH MEDIA APPEARANCES INCLUDING “CNN,” THE LEARNING CHANNEL, THE HISTORY CHANNEL, “20/20,” AND “UNSOLVED MYSTERIES”; AND HE HAS BEEN INTERVIEWED FOR SUCH PUBLICATIONS AS THE WASHINGTON POST, USA TODAY AND NEWSWEEK. A JULY 1999 NBC SEGMENT ON CROP CIRCLES REPORTED ANDREWS’S 80% HOAX CLAIM AND EVEN THAT HE HAD RECEIVED $1,000,000 FROM ROCKEFELLER.)
Q: So there is evidence (X) of ties between the Rockefellers and attempts to manipulate the spiritual beliefs of others, who may not have the same advantages in life as wealthy individuals. And, of course, my whole book (X) bears certain testimony to (X) the media (X) and how they’re influenced, whether they know it individually or not. (X) I think I would like to speak (X) to George Noory on “Coast to Coast AM” and I think Edgar Cayce would make a good (X) subject but I don’t know if I’ll be screened. I guess I’ll try it again. For a while I felt like, (“WELL”) “Since they’ve silenced me, it just wouldn’t do to give them a call because it’s artificial. (X) I haven’t been able to share the (X) growth in an open relationship as a caller to the program. Of course, they never really did have much of a forum. But I’ll give it a try. Nothing — it can’t hurt. Sometimes I listen to George and I think he’s perceptive and other times I think he’s most intent on selling that goddamn newsletter. (X) Why anyone would pay for that when they can just listen to the radio for free — and (X) the fact that they charge a monthly fee to listen to it on the Internet just really turns my stomach. Not to mention my having gone to that lecture by William Barnes about his previous incarnation, and he told me—and his wife told me—(X) $5,000 had been paid to the show in order for him to be a guest. And if you know the weekend roster of guests, (X) not to mention some of the strange (X) weekday guests, it (X) just makes you wonder how many people are having to pay to be on the show and what does that mean about what that show is. I bet they probably would make you pay to be a caller if they could figure out some way of doing that. Again, it’s corporate thinking. “Oh but I’m not doing it. I’m just making money for the corporation. I’m doing —” Yes, sometimes we don’t accept responsibility for what we do; we don’t want to feel guilty for enriching ourselves at the expense of the truth of others yet this is what we do in making ourselves (X) feel beneficial to a company, a corporation, an agenda, a government. Names of organizations are illusory. Beware being ruled by such evil principalities, something that doesn’t truly exist. (X) Anyway, (X) it’s hard to put into words.
( . . . )
Q: So I was thinking about my Email to Mr. (X) Skolnick and maybe I should just send him a transcript (X) of this tape side as a (X) preview of a future transcript. I mean how do you communicate one’s situation? Both Lee (X) and Sherman Skolnick seem very well-versed—(X) just from having listened to a few weekends of his show, I mean—about what society has come to be like. (X) I mean I’ve had proof that once society allowed books to be written such as Our Dishonest Constitution by Allan L. Benson. (“BUT AT”) Now, you very rarely get good information because there’s so much disinformation. (X) I haven’t even made up my mind about Mr. Skolnick even though I do think he does have some awfully good information but I can’t — (“ME”) he has just so much of it, though. It’s hard reaching an understanding. That’s something that I should be concerned about too because of my tape sides. I have too much material and yet I don’t want to edit out (X) incorrect things because when people edit, they don’t really know what others will benefit from. I will, upon rare occasions, edit a passage if I think I’m trying to make myself feel superior by pointing the finger at someone and not sharing compassion that I would like to receive from others as well. [2021 UPDATE: THIS STATEMENT CONCERNS QUOTED PASSAGES AS I'VE NEVER DELETED OR ALTERED ANYTHING WHILE TRANSCRIBING AUDIO RECORDINGS FOR TESTAMENT.ORG.] The most important thing (X) I think I could possibly share about Lee’s show — he doesn’t always sound angry, by the way. I don’t know if that’s just an affectation that radio show people have, (X) or if he really is angry. I think I might sound angry sometimes. Not that angry. (X) Anyway, he ends each show with Donovan’s song “The Universal Soldier” (X) written by Buffy Saint Marie. And so I think (X) I’ll share that here on this tape side transcript (X) because (X) there’s nothing that would be better or more effective to communicate than that. Can you (X) believe that there’s a show like Lee Kline’s in comparison to all the other radio shows (X) out there?
He’s five foot two and he’s six feet four He fights with missiles and with spears He’s all of 31 and he’s only 17 Been a soldier for a thousand years He’s a Catholic, a Hindu, an atheist, a Jain a Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew and he knows he shouldn’t kill and he knows he always will kill you for me my friend and me for you And he’s fighting for Canada he’s fighting for France he’s fighting for the USA and he’s fighting for the Russians and he’s fighting for Japan and he thinks we’ll put an end to war this way And he’s fighting for democracy He’s fighting for the Reds He says it’s for the peace of all He’s the one who must decide who’s to live and who’s to die and he never sees the writing on the wall But without him how would Hitler have condemned him at Laval Without him Caesar would have stood alone He’s the one who gives his body as a weapon of the war and without him all this killing can’t go on He’s the universal soldier and he really is to blame His orders come from far away no more They come from here and there and you and me and brothers can’t you see this is not the way we put the end to war
(TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE: I WAS TRANSCRIBING THIS IN EARLY SEPTEMBER 2002 WHEN TIM STRACHAN SENT THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE TO ME IN AN EMAIL WITH THE SUBJECT HEADING “CORPORATIONS — WHAT THEY REALLY DO.” THIS ARTICLE CAN BE FOUND ON THE INTERNET AT HTTP://WWW.YESMAGAZINE.COM/18COMMONS/KORTEN.HTM)
A few jaws dropped among the young activists at a training camp outside Seattle where preparations for the WTO blockade were in high gear. The man who had just joined the circle looked like he might be on his way to a Chamber of Commerce luncheon. But the young activists soon learned that David Korten is a leading critic of corporate globalization. Many credit him with opening their eyes to the threat to democracy, the environment, community, and our common future posed by transnational corporations, global finance institutions, and the World Trade Organization, World Bank, and IMF.
David Korten didn’t always hold these views. He was raised in a small town in Washington state where it was assumed that he would take over the family business. In college he was a Young Republican, and it was his concern about the threat of communism that led to his decision to help bring the US business model to impoverished countries. He helped start a business school in Ethiopia and was a Harvard Business School advisor to the Central American Management Institute in Nicaragua. He later worked for the US Agency for International Development and the Ford Foundation in Asia.
Gradually, he found that the US development model was benefitting US corporations, not those it purported to serve. In 1992, he returned to the US to explore the roles of corporations, financial markets, the IMF, World Bank, and other global institutions. This exploration took form in his book When Corporations Rule the World, published by Berrett-Koehler and Kumarian Press in 1995.
I have been privileged to be a colleague of David’s for some years. He is founding board chair of the Positive Futures Network, publisher of YES! He’s a regular contributor to YES! and an important source of insights and ideas. I spoke to David about the upcoming release of the second edition of When Corporations Rule the World.
— Sarah Ruth van Gelder
Sarah: When the first edition of When Corporations Rule the World came out, you were one of very few voices questioning the global power of corporations and international finance institutions. That was in 1995. Now it’s 2001, the second edition is coming out, and things are radically different. What has happened in those six years?
David: Corporate power has become even more concentrated and rapacious. We see ever larger mergers, with particularly ominous consolidation in banking, media, and agribusiness. Even when the economy was at its most robust, downsizing continued as a favored corporate strategy for getting a quick boost in share price. Inequality is worse. Environmental failure is accelerating. Ever more of the commons is being privatized. Corporations are playing God with genes for profit. And the financial system has become even more rapacious and unstable. The new edition of When Corporations Rule the World updates developments in all these areas. On the positive side, teach-ins, seminars, books, and articles in independent publications like YES! have increased public awareness and mobilized citizen action. World attention was briefly focused on the 50,000 people who took to the streets of Seattle on November 30, 1999, to protest the World Trade Organization. Less noted was the fact that on that same day, as many as a million people joined in demonstrations around the world. Indeed, citizen outrage has become so great that corporate elites and their captive public representatives are being forced to seek out ever more isolated and heavily fortified venues for their meetings. Some 60,000 people turned out for the recent heads of state meeting in Quebec City, which was walled off with checkpoints, a chain-link fence set in concrete blocks, and 6,000 heavily armed police. The air was so heavy with tear gas that it hung in clouds over the city and was sucked into the meeting rooms through the air conditioning. The next meeting of the World Trade Organization will be held in Qatar, a remote monarchy with a reputation for ruthless political suppression. The breadth of the growing citizen concern was documented in a Business Week poll, which found that 73 percent of adult Americans think corporations have too much power. The new edition of When Corporations Rule the World documents the growing citizen concern and the opportunities it creates for deep change. Much as with the seemingly sudden disintegration of the Soviet Union and fall of Apartheid in South Africa, we are experiencing a largely invisible buildup of social tension similar to the pressure that builds in the Earth’s tectonic plates before an earthquake.
Sarah: The coalitions that are opposing globalization involve people ranging from Canadian farmers to Asian NGOs, to European environmental groups, to US steelworkers. Are these short-term, fragile coalitions, or is there something deeper that holds these groups together?
David: These alliances are built on a deep foundation. Though the various groups involved in the protests speak with many voices, they are joined by a deep commitment to life and democracy. In India, it’s known as the Living Democracy Movement, which is beautifully descriptive of the values the movement embraces. Although sometimes characterized by the corporate press as isolationist, it is perhaps the most truly international and inclusive social movement in human history. There is a strong sense of international solidarity and a deep commitment to international cooperation. This is the positive face of globalization — the globalization of civil society. It is a collective human response to the threat posed to the rights and well-being of people everywhere by the globalization of undemocratic institutions. More specifically, global financial markets and global corporations are programmed to destroy life — the lives of working people, the life of community, and the living wealth of the planet — to make money for the already wealthy. And they do it with extraordinary efficiency. The threat will not be resolved until the publicly traded, limited liability corporation is effectively eliminated as an organizational form. By that time, the new global consciousness will be so deeply embedded in the human consciousness as to be irreversible. Let me elaborate. Recall that our contemporary global corporations are direct descendants of the British East India Company and the Hudson Bay Company. The institutional form of the publicly traded, limited liability corporation was created to make possible the nearly unlimited aggregation of economic power under a centralized command authority for the purpose of colonizing and extracting the wealth of others without regard to human or natural consequences. Today, corporations, which command more economic resources than most states, are using their power to claim ownership rights to yet more of the productive assets of society and planet, including water, soils, air, knowledge, genetic material, communications. Here is where we see the link between corporate globalization and the commons. Corporations are pushing hard to establish property rights over ever more of the commons for their own exclusive ends, often claiming the right to pollute or destroy the regenerative systems of the Earth for quick gain, shrinking the resource base available for ordinary people to use in their pursuit of livelihoods, and limiting the prospects of future generations. The system is brilliantly designed to strip away any human sensibility from decisions that have profound human consequences. Even if the top manager of a corporation has a deep social and environmental commitment, he (it’s usually a “he”) is legally bound to act on this commitment only to the extent that it is consistent with maximizing returns to shareholders.
Sarah: When the question of corporate rule comes up, some people get very uneasy that those who work in or lead corporations are being demonized. A lot of people are looking for approaches that are inclusive and don’t divide us. How do you respond to that concern?
David: Unfortunately, we live in a deeply divided society; living in denial of that fact will not make the divisions go away. On the other hand, it is no more helpful to demonize the rich than it is to demonize the poor. My own focus is on the structural causes of the division, which is why I focus on the nature of the corporation as an institution and on the ways its legal structure directs the behavior of those who work for it. One thing that is important to understand about me is that, although I’m often referred to as an economist, my professional training is actually in psychology and in the behavior of organizations. In business school, I was trained to design organizational structures, including corporations, to shape human behavior through the design of reward and punishment systems. The clearest example is CEO compensation. According to the latest Business Week survey, the head of a major corporation now receives an average compensation package of more than $13 million a year, most of it in stock options. The actual value of the options depends on the growth of the stock price, which provides a powerful incentive for the CEO to keep his attention focused exclusively on maximizing short-term return to shareholders. Now consider that the CEO of a major corporation sits at the top of an authoritarian organizational structure that gives him command authority over economic resources greater than those of most countries. The law, the financial incentives of his compensation package, and his board of directors all tell him that this power is to be used exclusively to increase shareholder return. Add to this the fact that the legal structure of publicly traded corporations disconnects the rights and powers of ownership from the consequences of their use by institutionalizing an extreme form of absentee ownership; owners are kept unaware of the actions taken in their name for their exclusive benefit and shielded from any liability for the consequences of those actions. Put this together and you begin to realize that the publicly traded, limited liability corporation is designed to encourage and facilitate the abuse of power for the exclusive benefit of a privileged elite. It is an institutional form programmed by its legal structure to behave like a sociopath irrespective of the ethical sensibilities of the employees who serve it — including those of the CEO. One can, with justification, argue that those who sit atop the system as money managers and corporate CEOs use the system to their own advantage. Yet in many respects you might think of them as well-compensated employees of a system that serves its own ends without regard to human interests. I see little point in demonizing the servant for the sins of a master that has neither soul nor conscience. The goal must be to transform the demon master into faithful servant by changing the rules that define it. Limit its size, strip it of its special rights and privileges, and vest its ownership in the employees, community members, customers, and suppliers it properly serves. I see little hope that leadership for such change will come from the ranks of the system’s power holders. I sometimes try to imagine what it would be like to be CEO of a $100-billion corporation with operations in more countries than I can name, producing and selling thousands of products and services about which I have little knowledge, facing incessant demands from shareholders to get the stock price up 10 percent by the end of the quarter. Like finding oneself astride a Brahma bull in a rodeo, it surely focuses the attention, but probably not on large questions of ethical purpose and the nature of society. This is one reason I believe change is more likely to come from outside the system, from people who have the freedom and distance to be more reflective.
Sarah: What problems would not be solved if we were able to deal with the issues of corporate rule?
David: This is a key question, because simply sweeping away global corporations to reclaim the spaces they have colonized would only remove a barrier to the creation of just, sustainable, and compassionate societies. There would remain a daunting task of restoring damaged ecosystems and communities and redistributing the recovered assets in ways that assure their sustainable use. It would also be necessary to rebuild the capacity of households and communities to steward and manage the space reclaimed. We’d have to learn to make choices between appropriate and inappropriate technologies, and to relate to one another and to the Earth in more equitable, sustainable, and democratic ways. Many of us have become so conditioned to being dependent on hierarchical organizations that we would have to relearn how to take responsibility and be active participants in our communities and businesses. Learned dependence is, for example, a major barrier to effective employee ownership.
Sarah: Some have said that your approach is utopian — that because of travel, the widespread use of communications technologies, people’s love of cultural differences, the economic theory of comparative advantage, globalization is inevitable.
David: Those of us who oppose corporate rule made a serious tactical mistake in allowing ourselves to be characterized as an “anti-globalization” movement. We failed to realize that to most people the term globalization refers to increasing international exchange, communication, and awareness of the planet as a whole; trends that probably are inevitable and that most of the protestors strongly favor. Many of us are now using more precise language to make clear that our opposition is to corporate globalization, that is the corporate domination of the planet, the use of trade agreements to strengthen corporate rights and to remove constraints to their pillage of the Earth. This type of globalization is an artificial product of rules made through undemocratic and illegitimate processes by people seeking to free themselves from democratic accountability for their actions. We don’t have to accept it. So the question becomes, “Is democracy a utopian ideal in a world of corporate rule?” I’m sure that in an earlier day, many considered those who called for the end of monarchy in favor of democracy to be utopians. If democracy is a politically infeasible goal in our present context, then we might well conclude that human survival is also politically infeasible, since corporate rule is leading us toward our own self-destruction. So should we just throw up our hands and say we are doomed? Or should we get on with figuring out how to make the politically infeasible feasible? I see it as a test of how we would answer the question, “Is there intelligent life on Earth?” If we are in fact an intelligent species, then we ought to be able to look ahead, see where we’re headed, realize it is not where any sane person should want to go, and make the choices necessary to move in a different direction. There are also basic questions about human nature. Modernism has cultivated a widespread belief that humans are by nature greedy, individualistic, and aggressive, and that progress depends on a competitive process by which the strong displace and destroy the weak. Conversely, this belief system suggests that cooperation is not in our nature and if it were, it would be a barrier to progress. Fortunately, we don’t have to look very hard to realize that compassion, cooperation, even love, are the foundation of most human relationships and indeed, are an essential underpinning of civilization. It seems self-evident, therefore, that these capacities are at least as inherent in our nature as is our well-demonstrated capacity for greed, violence, and destruction. It is a matter of which capacities we choose to nurture in ourselves, our children, and the larger society. I’m especially excited by the new biology’s findings that mature living systems are based on mutuality and cooperation. We see in living systems an incredible capacity for cooperative self-organization toward relationships that maintain a delicate balance between individual and collective needs. If this capacity for mutuality is a universal characteristic of healthy living systems, which it seems to be, then surely we humans have a similar potential, even though modern societies seem intent on denying it. Such insights from the frontiers of the biological sciences may profoundly reshape our image of ourselves and allow us to move beyond our dependence on coercive hierarchical forms of organization to maintain social order.
Sarah: Where do you see the most promising work happening in moving us toward the kind of just, compassionate, sustainable society we’ve been talking about?
David: In terms of the business sector I think of groups working on socially responsible investment and the Social Ventures Network, which brings together business leaders like Ben Cohen, Anita Roddick, and Judy Wicks who are fire-in-the-belly activists working to create enterprises that explore the possibilities of what business can contribute to creating a better society. To me, the greatest source of hope for the human future is the evidence presented by Paul Ray and Sherry Anderson in their interview in YES! magazine [Winter ’01] that millions of people are awakening to a new cultural consciousness. For the United States, they trace this new consciousness back to the civil rights movement, when many awoke to the fact that relations between the races were defined by a cultural code that had nothing to do with reality. There soon followed a realization that relations between men and women, people and the environment, straights and gays, and now people and corporations have also been defined by cultural codes that are similarly at odds with reality. This trend is freeing us to rethink human values and relationships in ways that may lead to the realization of previously unrecognized potentials in ourselves and society. The trend has important implications, as it suggests that political success must be built on the foundation of an awakened cultural consciousness. The most potent political actions will be those that facilitate the awakening, while coalescing and aligning the social energies released toward the task of building a world that works for all. A new politics will naturally flow. It is within our means to make a collective choice for life, though time is fast running out. I sometimes feel torn. We must wake people up to the unacceptable consequences of accepting the status quo. Yet fear alone can cause us to draw inward and focus on purely defensive strategies that are ultimately self-defeating. The energy for the creative task at hand must flow from a deep love of life and compassion that leads us to reach out to all our neighbors in a joyful anticipation of the world that is ours to create together.
Sarah van Gelder is the executive editor of YES! a Journal of Positive Futures.