Holistic Survival
Welcome! If this is your first time visiting Jason Hartman's website, please read this page to learn more about what we do here. You may also be interested in receiving updates from our podcast via RSS or via email if you prefer. If you have any questions about financial survival feel free to contact us anytime! Thanks!

Holistic Survival #22 – Original Intent

Bookmark and Share

Jason Hartman interviews Director, James Jaeger, on his new film, Original Intent, which covers another area of Holistic Survival (protecting the people and the country). Listen at: http://www.holisticsurvival.com/category/audio-podcast/. This episode will explore the consequences of failing to heed the Founders’ intent. The documentary discusses the many social, political and monetary issues ranging from Federal Reserve System to androgyny and the divorce rate as well as issues like the Commerce Clause, Article III, Section 2 and the Second Amendment. You’ll hear some interesting new things that you probably haven’t thought about before. Our next show will cover another important “Pillar of Holistic Survival” as we continue to provide information on protecting the people, places and profits you care about in these uncertain times.

Narrator: Welcome to the Holistic Survival Show with Jason Hartman. The economic storm brewing around the world is set to spill into all aspects of our lives. Are you prepared? Where are you going to turn for the critical life skills necessary to survive and prosper? The Holistic Survival Show is your family’s insurance for a better life. Jason will teach you to think independently, how to understand threats, and how to create the ultimate action plan. Sudden change or worst case scenario, you’ll be ready. Welcome to Holistic Survival, your key resource for protecting the people, places, and profits you care about in uncertain times. Ladies and gentlemen, your host, Jason Hartman.

Jason Hartman: Welcome to the Holistic Survival Show. This is your host Jason Hartman and this is episode number 22. Thanks for joining us today because we talk about protecting the people, places, and profits you care about in uncertain times. That’s what holistic survival is about, those three pillars, people, places, and profits. And if you want to know more about the profit or the financial side of the equation, be sure you listen to my Creating Wealth show. I’ve got a video and audio version of that. And be sure to listen to that. You can type “Jason Hartman” in the ITunes store and find all my shows there or just go to JasonHartman.com. Today, let’s talk about protecting yourself – I guess that would be people. And protecting people you know and care about from the cultural war, cultural Marxism and corporate fascism. I think you’ll find this interview to be very interesting. I have James Jaeger who is the creator of a new movie called Original Intent, a movie that I am proud to be affiliated with. I am an associate producer of that movie. And the movie is Original Intent. And I believe the website, although he mentions it later here, is OriginalIntent.us. And here we talk about cultural Marxism, corporate Marxism and corporate fascism and how to handle it and what to do about it and how to protect yourself from it. So here’s the interview with James Jaeger.

Interview with James Jaeger

Jason Hartman: It’s my pleasure to welcome back Mr. James Jaeger to the show and he has produced a new movie. We had him on formally about his other movie and this one is entitled Original Intent. And I am very proud and happy to say that I am an associate producer of this movie and James has just done a great job of talking about a subject that you may not be familiar with. Of course, you’re familiar with the results, but you’re not familiar maybe with the phraseology for it, and it’s cultural Marxism. James, welcome.

James Jaeger: Thank you, Jason. It’s great to be back.

Jason Hartman: Well, great to have you. Tell us about cultural Marxism.

James Jaeger: Well, the term cultural Marxism like the term fiat money was one that totally escaped me. I just barely knew what the word Marxism meant, barely even knew what the word culture meant. And our producer, Bill Van Allen came up to me one day and said you’ve got to read this excerpt out of Dr. Bayer’s book. It talks about cultural Marxism. And I read it and I didn’t get it. Then I actually went across it in Wikipedia and I still didn’t get it. And then finally when I went down to interview Pat Buchanan after reading his book I really got it because he explained it really well and we’re fortunate to have him explain it in the movie.

Jason Hartman: Well, the movie is entitled Original Intent and give us that subtitle f you would, James.

James Jaeger: Well, we wrestled with the title for this movie for about a year. The production time was two years and four months, but about a year of it went into wrestling with the title. We knew we wanted it to be Original Intent, harkening back to the constitution. But the logline, the subtitle, we really wrestled with. So we had everything from “Original Intent: What Were They Thinking?” to one we settled on was how cultural Marxism and corporate fascism are destroying the US Republic. They would determine that nobody would really know what cultural Marxism and corporate fascism were, so we changed it to How Negative Influences Are Destroying the US Republic. Then I got a bunch of people saying to me “Well what’s the word republic mean?” So today, and Jason, you’re the first to have it announced, we’ve decide to change the title. And do you want me to tell them what the new title is?

Jason Hartman: Yes, please. I like the new subtitle, so go for it.

James Jaeger: We changed the title to Original Intent: How the Democratic and Republican Parties Are Destroying The United States.

Jason Hartman: And that they are.

James Jaeger: And I had thought of this title and I didn’t want to be offensive to the democrats or republicans because there’s a lot of good democrats out there and republicans, such as Ron Paul who’s a great republican and conservative and they’re really working to uphold the constitutional principles. But somewhere along the way, the party has wandered. So I want to emphasize how the democratic and republican parties are destroying the US.

Jason Hartman: Well, tell us about how they’re doing that. And what I find fascinating about the movie, James, is how you explore so many different elements of our culture, everything from the androgyny, push for androgyny and kind of breaking up the nuclear family and it’s just really interesting how you’ve delved into a lot of subtleties that people wouldn’t normally think of.

James Jaeger: Well, I guess it gets back to the idea that it takes two to tango. Breaking the problem into its constituent parts, I’ve assumed that well the right and the left must be doing something wrong, because by following both which is essentially the two parties, we’ve been wandering from the center, the republican ideals set up by the founders. Take a look at the left. What is the left doing? This idea of cultural Marxism is basically when Marx screamed for workers of the world to unite in World War I, the workers of the world did not unite. And a splinter group that got together in Frankfurt, Germany, concluded that the only way to take over to indoctrinate the west and get rid of capitalism was to attack the culture. And this was led by Horkheimer and Marcuse and various people that are splintered all from Marx’s philosophy. And they said the only way you’re going to take over the political unit and the economic unit is you have to first take over the culture. So starting…They actually moved to the United States in the 20s and 30s but it didn’t really get started until the 60s. And what the Cultural Marxists did is they basically infiltrated the arts, cinema, the theater, the literature, the schools, the higher education, and even the clergy, and they basically attacked the family unit. Their idea was well let’s attack traditional values that hold the western culture together and if we can destroy that we can then destroy the middle class upon which the capitalism depends and eventually we’ll be able to destroy capitalism. And then if capitalism caves in, we’ll be able to destroy the political unit which would be the constitution.

Jason Hartman: Okay, so that assumption in the middle class really is what supports capitalism. Why is that? You made that statement and can you just back that up a little bit? Why does capitalism depend on the middle class?

James Jaeger: In statistics, you have a thing called the bell shaped curve. And the bell shaped curve basically is where most of the people fall. And it forms a curve which is like a bell. To the far left of the bell shaped curve you might have the poor and to the far right you might have the rich. And you could say that there’s about as many extremely poor as there are extremely rich. But in the middle, the vast majority of people of the United States, are basically the ones that are neither rich nor poor. And that is where the economic power of the United States lies. Now the middle class, the economic power of this country, has been under assault, not only by cultural Marxism but also by corporate fascism which is the second part of the movie, discussing and criticizing the problems on the far right. And by undermining the family unit which is a basic unit of the middle class…the basic economic unit in the United states and in any country really is the family unit because this is the unit that spends the most money, requires the energy and finances to raise the next generation, the house, the car, all the accoutrements that go into the house and various things like that. This is the economic engine of the United States. And if that is destroyed by destroying the family unit, then you’re on the way to destroying the middle class. And as you can see, the middle class in this country is pretty much being destroyed.

Jason Hartman: Yeah, the middle class is certainly under attack. I couldn’t agree more. There is, as Lou Dobbs puts it, a real war on the middle class. Now, it’s interesting in the movie that you have this one segment that talks about pretty much a plan to destroy the family unit, which you note very well that the most successful organization in human history is the family unit and when you do that you actually increase the size of the economy in a way because instead of needing one household you need two, and instead of needing one coffee maker you need two. And you need daycare which wasn’t really needed before, and all of this sort of economic impact that just spirals out of a changing family demographic. Tell us about that if you would.

James Jaeger: Well, in short, the dissolution of marriage is big business. When you destroy a family unit and one way or the other the mother and the father divorce, then where they once had a big house, he now has a little apartment and she has a little apartment, now they have two of those. Then I have to go out and get two sets of plates and dishes and silverware and televisions and dishwashers. And the lawyer fees, the court fees, the endless parasitic infrastructure that preys on the dissolution of marriage, all of this is what…I don’t know whether it falters it but it actually continues it and preys on it. And this falls into the idea of the corporate fascist. Now, understand when we say corporate fascist, we are not targeting capitalism and we are not targeting entrepreneurship or free markets. We’re targeting greed, excessive monopoly capitalism and things like that, where the person or the company or the entity doesn’t really care about how they make money. They just want to make money and to heck with society. So you can blame this tendency of some on the far right with the cultural Marxism on the far left where the family unit has been denigrated by a technology known as critical theory which is one of the prime technologies developed by the cultural Marxist at the Frankfurt School. Critical theory seeks to basically find everything it can that’s negative about the family unit, everything that’s negative about fathers and mothers and basically try to destroy extreme pessimism in the culture about the institution of marriage. And the Marxists knew that if they could undermine the family unit and marriage, they could basically destroy the middle class. And there would be elements on the far right, the greedy, corporate fascists that would also play into this by preying on the dissolution of marriage. So basically what I tried to show is that because cultural Marxism is destroying the morals and the cultural fabric of The United States, elements on the far right, extreme elements are taking advantage of this. And it’s almost like these two totalitarian sides are there exploiting the US republic. And so that’s what we see happening today as far as I’m concerned.

Jason Hartman: Yeah, it’s pretty sad that they are, but here’s the problem. When you hear the left come out against big business and you hear the right come out, usually supporting big business, it’s hard to quantify things because when you say things like “the big business right” the corporate Marxists are exploiting this denigration of the family, well how do you quantify it? You say they’re too greedy. And by the way, I just want you to know I agree with you because I used to be, when I was less enlightened than I am now, I used to be a supporter of big business and Wall Street. But I think it has completely separated. It’s not true capitalism. It’s a rigged game. They have a monopoly. They have their lobbyists. And they’re not existing in a real free market system as small businesses still are. But how do you put a number on that? When you say they’re too greedy, you have to quantify it, right? I mean I think that’s what’s hard about this debate, isn’t it?

James Jaeger: Yes, very good question. And I think the way you differentiate between what you might call a good, normal capitalist free market business and a corporate fascist business is does the business rely on the free market or does it rely on government handouts to exist or expand? If the business relies on the purely the free market, my feeling and the feeling of many people is the free market is the only legitimate regulator of economics and businesses. As soon as a business makes a partnership or deal with the government, they made a deal with the devil. They basically have said Mr. Government and your guns and your force, we want you to come in here, and we want you to give us special privileges, and we want you to give us special concession, tax deductions and so on. And what happens is that business then has an undue advantage and can outcompete all the other businesses out there. And that tips the playing field. And that’s what we mean by a business that partners up with the government. In essence that business then enables them to be too big to fail. They consolidate, they consolidate, they consolidate. They go abroad. They become a multi-national. They start to then exploit and ship labor out of the United States and into slave work forces in China and various other places, and all this done under the umbrella of government partnerships. And this is where we draw the line. If the government was out of the businesses and it was real laysayfair economics you would have free market, would regulate everything. And you’d never even have Too Big To Fail, you’d never have corporate fascists growing.

Jason Hartman: Right. That makes a lot of sense. What is the solution on this side? Is it just to get the big business CEOs and all the greedy crooks on Wall Street to realize that they’re destroying the country and hopefully they’ll change? I mean I doubt that’s going to happen. What do we do?

James Jaeger: You know, I offer three solutions at the end of the movie which are pretty simple solutions. And I’m not going to say what they are here because I’m hoping that people will get the DVD or watch, but I think the way to deal with this might be to, in essence, fight fire with fire. The cultural Marxists on the left are using the long march through the institutions, the cinemas, theater, the literature, the public schools, and so on to basically indoctrinate the public into the idea that big business and big government is better. I think we might have to use the same technology to indoctrinate them the other way, or at least provide some balance to the argument. For some reason, people on the left, like Soros and so on, pour millions of dollars into artists and into films and books and radio and TV shows. But the conservatives on the right don’t pour money into anything. And so as a result, they’re just basically being trampled over. The conservative movement is just being trampled. I mean these conservatives are all too conservative. And what you have to do is if the left is using the media to promote the cultural Marxist agenda, the right’s going to have to rise up and they’re going to have to start educating the public about cultural Marxism and about these elements that are destroying the United States and the republic. And so that’s what you do. If they’re using critical theory to come up with every critical, negative thing that they can about the family unit, mothers, fathers, the church and everything else, we have to use critical theory to point out every critical and negative thing about what they’re doing, you know, ripping people out of the middle class and taking them over to China to work for a whole day. They were working for a whole day for $5 over there. The idea is there’s nothing wrong with free trade in its purest form, but we argue in the movie that what we have right now is not really fair trade. And Pat Buchanan goes over the various back taxes and things that the Europeans have laid on us and he discusses the fact that 300 million people flooded into the work markets of the world when the Soviet Union fell, and places like India and China saw the writing on the wall and they realized they better start moving towards authoritarian capitalism. That’s what they call it, Jason, authoritarian capitalism.

Jason Hartman: Right, yeah. That doesn’t sound too good to me. Yeah, right.

James Jaeger: This is the CFR, Council in Foreign Relations. Mouthpiece Magazine of foreign affairs, their authors like to use that term.

Jason Hartman: It sounds like Obama calling terrorism a manmade disaster or something like that? Remember, he’s got this new phrase “Terrorism is a manmade disaster” versus a natural disaster.

James Jaeger: Right. And it’s never world government anymore, it’s world governance.

Jason Hartman: You’re right, of course.

James Jaeger: We’re moving into an era of world governance.

Jason Hartman: Yes. Words mean something very significant, don’t they? And you can soften the meaning of acts and deeds with the right phraseology. So we’ve got to be very careful of that. Well James, give us some more examples of cultural Marxism if you would. We talked about destroying the family unit. There are several elements to it though, aren’t there?

James Jaeger: Yes. One of the most nefarious elements that could be considered actually almost nefarious genius is the technology known as androgyny. And I invite your listeners to look for androgyny when they’re watching movies. This could be any movie you rent from Blockbuster or Netflix. This could be movies that are shown on television, TV movies. You will find that the idea behind androgyny is you make men into women and you make women into men. And in doing that, you basically undermine the family unit and you confuse the younger generation about the whole situation. And what I mean by that is you will see, if you look in the movies, that the women basically are like aliens. I mean if a guy says something wrong to a lady, she won’t just hit them or something or yell back. She like turns into Sigourney Weaver in Alien, starts clubbing the guy all over the place. And it’s just gone to the point where it’s just unbelievably excessive that women are driving trucks and things like that. And I know…

Jason Hartman: I can just hear the feminists though…Yeah, I can just hear them say, I’m probably going to get an email or two on this, “Well, what’s wrong with that?”

James Jaeger: It’s not that a woman can’t do a man’s job just as well.

Jason Hartman: Okay.

James Jaeger: That’s not the issue. Of course a woman can drive a truck. Of course a woman can do this and that. But what it is is the fact that the media is pushing this as if it’s the total norm, that this is what women are supposed to do. The women, they’re not supposed to be home taking care of kids. They’re supposed to be out driving the truck so that their kids can be home in the cellar building bombs so when they go to Columbine they’re ready. And this is exactly what’s happening. Women are being indoctrinated that it’s okay to be men. And on the other side, men are being indoctrinated that it’s okay to be women.

Jason Hartman: So is this making the genders less attractive to each other?

James Jaeger: It’s confusing the genders. It’s making them hermaphroditic. It’s making men women. The idea is to destroy the concept of a nuclear family. And what they tried to do under cultural Marxism is destroy the idea of one woman, one man, they get together for the purpose of creating children. Now, this is not to say if you want to have a same sex marriage or you want to be married to a whole bunch of people or this or that. This is not a commentary on all those different lifestyles. And I believe, as a libertarian, people should have the right to live whatever lifestyle they want without government interference. But down through history, it has shown that the one man, one woman nuclear family has been the most efficient. It hasn’t been the most loving, the best there is, but it’s been the most efficient for the procreation on the next generation and the supervision thereof. And right now we’ve got kids all over the place that aren’t being properly supervised.

Jason Hartman: Yeah, we do. And that ties into the crime rate. It ties into the need for a whole industry of the incarceration industry we’ll call it. It ties into the after school industry. It ties into so many things. And just thinking, James, as you were talking to me before about the destruction of the family unit and when we talked about duplicate living spaces, because you have people living in two different places versus one place, I’m sort of wondering if that wasn’t responsible for some of the rather amazing economic growth we had over the last few decades because as feminism really sort of came about in the 70s in a big way, it changed the dynamics a lot, didn’t it?

James Jaeger: Yes, it did. But you must realize that the cultural Marxists, the folks from the Frankfort school, they basically asked themselves the question well if workers of the world will not unite and we can’t get workers of any nation to unite and fight workers against each other of different nations, what group of disenfranchised people can we get to fulfill our mission? And they said well let’s get the blacks, feminists, homosexual community, Jewish community, any community that is disenfranchised and a minority, and what they did was they got all these people together and they used critical theory to help them look at all the establishment if you will, traditional western establishment and say “Look at this western traditional establishment. It’s a bunch of malarkey.” And the critical theory basically stirred up these groups so that they imbued the society with pessimism. And this leaked into the main stream in the 60s when the baby boomers were basically out in force and many of them were just drugged out of their mind and they hated the establishment, but the movie explains there are books that are out there and real people that were pushing this revolution. This didn’t all just happen. This is a planned campaign by a group of ex-Marxists to take over the culture of the United States.

Jason Hartman: And what do they get for it? Money? Power? I mean who is this group? It’s sounding now very conspiracy theory, which I’m not saying is untrue by the way, because I’ve entertained a few conspiracy theories before, but what are they hoping to get and who is the group? I mean give us a clue…

James Jaeger: Well, the group is known as the Frankfurt School and they set up right there at Columbia University, so there’s no conspiracy involved at all. In fact, go to your Google and type in Frankfurt School an you’ll find movies and all kinds of things that explain exactly what the Frankfurt School was, exactly who was in it. And in fact, it’s not a conspiracy because these guys published endless books. There are books out and the movies show the various books and various quotes from the authors of these books. There will be a revolution. It will be unlike any other revolution and so on. And, in fact, I have a couple of notes right here from what they said.

Jason Hartman: Yeah, I’m looking them up here in Wikipedia and it says they’re a neo-Marxist interdisciplinary social theory. They’re associated with a group called the institute for social research. So that’s interesting.

James Jaeger: Exactly. Here we go. Antonio Gramsci, here’s a quote out of his book: “The civilized world has been thoroughly saturated with Christianity for 2000 years. Any country grounded in Judeo-Christian values cannot therefore be overthrown until those roots are cut. But to cut the roots, to change culture, a long march through the institutions is necessary. Only then will power fall into our laps like ripened, brightened fruit.” That’s not a conspiracy where someone’s just doing something secret. That’s in a book that was published and thrown all over the place throughout the 60s.

Jason Hartman: That’s an outright mission statement right there.

James Jaeger: That’s an outright mission statement and there’s 5 or 6 of them in the movie.

Jason Hartman: Wow, that’s amazing what’s going on.

James Jaeger: You guys are out to take over the culture of the United States. That’s what the long march through the institutions is.

Jason Hartman: And is the United States in their sites just because the United States has really been such a successful country because of its Judeo-Christian roots and its capitalist roots?

James Jaeger: No. The United States was not specifically in their sites. What happened was they set up the Frankfurt School in Germany. But when Hitler came to power, they had to flee Germany. And they fled Germany. Because they were going to do all this starting right there in Europe but the fact that they basically had to flee Germany because Hitler hated Marxists and he distained Frankfurt School itself, they had to flee. And they came to United States under the auspices of Columbia University. They set up the Frankfurt School there. Well they say well we might as well practice our technology here.

Jason Hartman: Unbelievable. And they had the first amendment behind them and a willing audience of listeners who were drugged out and trying everything new in the 60s and kind of just were very receptive to ideas, didn’t they?

James Jaeger: Absolutely. And remember, their goal was to attack values, not American values but traditional western values. And Europe is part of the left. So they’re really attacking the west. George Lucock says, for instance, I see the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution. A worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of the new ones by the revolutionaries. So this is another statement of the mission of the cultural Marxist.

Jason Hartman: So what else do we need to know? What are the other elements, if any, of cultural Marxism that you want to talk about? Because I want to move to corporate Marxism. Kind of circle back to that and go over a few more examples of it if we can.

James Jaeger: Well, just in summary, when you realize that the institutions, the long march through the institutions include Hollywood, the mainstream media, the mainstream radio, the literature, the mainstream publishers, they have all been indoctrinated and taken over the cultural Marxism. It’s not even that it’s a conspiracy. It’s just that it has totally imbued the culture. And that’s why this freedom message, such as what we’re trying to get out about the republic, about limited government, are being squelched. That’s why you don’t see this stuff blasted all over the media. And even Pat Buchanan, who is in the mainstream media, he really can’t go into all this stuff. But he does go into it in his books.

Jason Hartman: It’s interesting. When I had Pat Buchanan on the show a while back, I asked him about…There was one line in one of his books where he talked about how corporate America, the big corporations today, are no longer like the home team. They’re not American companies. They’re complete prostitute companies that just move from country to country looking for the cheapest work for the most lax laws and the highest profit margins with no view toward their home being like as an American company more. And it’s really changed a lot and that’s why this old thinking about left and right and capitalism…Big business is not capitalism. It’s just not that way anymore. It’s a rigged game. It’s a game with armies of lobbyists who basically, as you said before, are in cahoots with governments, not just our government but the governments around the world, in many countries, in order to get their way and get what they want. It’s surprising in America we have as much innovation as we do in this climate, isn’t it?

James Jaeger: It is, it is. But I think that we’re seeing a totally new form of fascism arising in this environment. If you recall, go back to World War II with Mussolini, basically you have deep fascism there where the state power basically dictated to the corporate entities and basically used them, told them what they were going to do. So the state power merged with the corporate power and the state power dictated. But today, I think we have a whole new type of fascism, what I named corporate fascism. Actually, I don’t know if I came up with that name or whether Jim Morris came up with it or someone else did. But the idea behind corporate fascism is we now have corporations that are so huge, multinationals, that they’re bigger than many, many states. And these corporations have billions of dollars to wield and they basically go in with K Street lobbyists and they basically just purchase up these government officials and congressmen. And so we ask the questions in the movie was the constitution written for flesh and blood people or was it written for corporations? Now, again, there’s no attempt to invalidate corporations or capitalism or free markets. But when a corporation irresponsibly points money at our elected representatives and tells them how to configure the loss, I don’t think we’re living in a republic anymore or a democracy for that part.

Jason Hartman: Couldn’t agree with you more because the original intent of the founding fathers was for individuals to have rights. And as soon as the whole concept of group rights started catching on, I just think of Ayn Rand’s quote as that anyone who talks about individual rights has to understand that there’s no such thing as group rights because the individual is the smallest minority on earth. And so anybody who preaches rights of groups, and I think you could consider corporations and businesses groups, they’re not of a certain color or preference or anything like that but they are a group, they’re a special interest group, and we’ve fallen away from people and now these unnatural people, these corporations, have really just rigged the market, haven’t they?

James Jaeger: Yes. And in fact, a corporation is an artificial creation of the state by definition. So the corporation is actually a spinoff of a state in organizing form. But the idea that the corporate power is so great that it can purchase the legislatures I think is a real problem because that’s just not in the plan of a republic. And this idea that you mentioned earlier about the individual, the individual versus the collective, I think this is the essence of the discussion, the problem. You’ve got people that basically feel the collective is the greatest good and we should do everything for the collective, the group, the government, the country, whatever. And then you have the other view which is no, we should strengthen the individual. Well, the thing is the collective is made up of the individuals. If you strengthen the individual, you get a strong collective, ipso facto. If you strengthen the collective, you get a dictatorial totalitarian entity that truncates the individual.

Jason Hartman: Well, I’d sort of further on the Ayn Rand concept is there’s no such thing as collective rights. Collective rights is by definition collectivism. And collectivism has caused more human suffering and more violence than anything in history probably. It is an evil, disgusting, despicable thing and we have to constantly be on guard against it. And it’s just amazing to me when you hear these government officials in the media and by and large 95% of them it’s all about expanding their power and becoming bigger and more powerful and more influential. It’s never about being less, about leaning down. In California now, I should say the People’s Republic of California or the socialist republic, there’s this big talk now. It’s becoming fashionable again to talk about a part time state legislature which we used to have. And that’s the way government should be. Government was not meant to be this big behemoth infrastructure. It was meant to just be where people, who had their own lives would go there and govern for a time and then they would leave and go back to their business. And now it’s become a career and an entrenched special interest. It’s another collectivist group.

James Jaeger: Exactly, this endless expansion of the welfare state. And nowhere is that more champion than in California in many ways and New York and those of course are big media centers also.

Jason Hartman: Yeah. No, it is. It’s really interesting to note, too, that the economies are worse off in all of the areas that have this big government, that have this “I hate business” mentality, and the businesses are just leaving. And the differences in the distinction change is that this is not how it is with the big business scenario. That’s a different game. And, you know, we’ve addressed that, but it’s just a totally different thing where those companies, they just buy off the legislature. The small businesses, they just go elsewhere to a more friendly climate and they have to keep moving.

James Jaeger: That’s unfair. That’s what we mean by any time a corporate entity has the wherewithal to purchase the votes or loyalty or enable the legislature to configure the law for them, everyone else is basically at a disadvantage.

Jason Hartman: They are.

James Jaeger: I don’t know what the solution is. Ron Paul says it’s just to let people that won’t fall into that trap. But we’re basically exploring that and asking the question whether that’s reliable. A fellow by the name of Nelson Hultberg just wrote a book called The Conservative Revolution: Why We Must Form a Third Political Party to Win It. Now, before you prejudge this as oh a third party, it’s going to take away vote from the republicans and so on, go to the site and read the book. I really implore your listeners to read this book. And they can get this book right directly at the site. I believe it’s www.AFR.org. And the thing about Hultberg’s view on this is he basically says he doesn’t think change is ever going to come from within the Republican Party. Because everybody knows Washington’s cesspool but then as soon as the get there they treat it like a hot tub.

Jason Hartman: Right. That’s a great quote. It’s unfortunately too true also, yeah.

James Jaeger: And for 30 years we’ve been sending meaning conservatives to Washington to try to prune back the size of government and they’ve all failed. So Nelson has concluded that a third party has to be constructed. But the third party needs to be constructed, and listen to this carefully because this is the genius of the strategy, not to win an election, but to get up in front of 70 million people and give them a seminar. And the last guy that did that was named Ross Perot. So the total strategy is form a third party to get up there and give the lecture to the presidential TV debates, and that way they will be able to hear some of the ideas that we’re talking about right now on this show.

Jason Hartman: If they can get into the debates though because the corporate fascists and cultural Marxists that could run the media won’t let them in. Look at what has happened to so many of these green party candidates, libertarian party candidates, on either sort of side of the spectrum, they can’t get into the debates most of the time. Look at Ralph Nader, I mean he was totally shut out. I saw his documentary. It was fascinating. You know, they had the cameras right there as he was being completely shut out of the presidential debates.

James Jaeger: Right. And Nelson explicates exactly why this happens. He says the reason it happens is because of two phenomenon, marginalization and cloning. The libertarians and the constitutional party have never gotten more than 1% of the votes for the last 30 years. Then you got Ross Perot’s reform party. He never got in. The reason these people aren’t getting in, the libertarians and the constitutionalists, is because they marginalize themselves. They get up there and they say crazy things like we have to abolish the federal reserve or we have to abolish the income tax.

Jason Hartman: But don’t we?

James Jaeger: Even though we do, you can’t say it. Because here’s what happens when you say it, first of all, you blow away people that have 1.45 trillion dollars of vested interest in the welfare state. They just say to themselves this guy’s a nut. He’s going to just drag away my welfare. So immediately you’re marginalized. On the other hand, Ross Perot didn’t get in there because he was basically doing nothing but cloning the Republican Party. He was basically just saying oh we’re going to do all the same things, we’re just going to bring a better management team in there. So if you cannot stop the viewpoint, the change will never happen from within the Republican party, that they all know it’s a cesspool but they all treat it like a hot tub. And if you can adopt that reality, which I have finally, then you don’t care whether you’re going to take away some votes from the republicans. And you want to get the man up there to give a 70 million man seminar in that thing. And the way you do that is you only need 15%.

Jason Hartman: Well, one thing. I want to say that the reason you mentioned it, and you’ve mentioned it a couple of times, is don’t worry about them taking away votes from the republicans. I’m going to speak for you here, so correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the reason you’re saying that is the republicans are closer, although not very close at all, to the vision of less government than the democrats are. But both parties have supreme levels of guilt in the mess we are in and the collectivism we’re moving toward because they have both sold out but I would say the frying pan and there’s the fryer. And the republicans are the frying pan and the democrats are the fire. I mean that’s what I’d like in it too. So speak for yourself but…

James Jaeger: That is the traditional viewpoint on that. But if you consider this, the only way the republicans can even stay in the game is they have to mimic the democrats. Then you realize that it’s not long before the republicans become more like the democrats, then the democrats become more and more statist, then the republicans follow them to become more and more statist themselves. They’re basically taking each other down the drain.

Jason Hartman: And what that’s all about is just pandering and buying votes.

James Jaeger: Pandering, exactly, to the welfare and the warfare state. So if you realize that…Sure, you start a third party, you’re going to take people away from the Democrat and the Republican party, but so what? That party’s going down the drain anyway. Wouldn’t you rather at least have somebody get up there and be able to give a 70 million man seminar to everybody and basically say look, here’s some new alternate ideas. At the very least, that would put pressure on the two parties.

Jason Hartman: A lot of people say that the reason Clinton won back in ’92 was because of Perot.

James Jaeger: Yeah.

Jason Hartman: So they don’t want a spoiler in there. They called Perot the spoiler. The republicans called him the spoiler and that’s what people are thinking as you’re saying this that it might just be a spoiler. But yes, they’ll get to give a seminar. If it does put pressure on both parties, that’s good, but I don’t know how long that pressure runs.
James Jaeger: It’s being a spoiler at this point of nothing.

Jason Hartman: Well, a spoiler to do less. But I love the way Peter Schiff said it. He’s making a bid to get into the inner circle of Washington and people keep asking him “So what kind of new legislation are you going to sponsor? What kind of new laws do you want to see?” And he says “I want to see fewer laws. I want to repeal laws. I want to see less government.” I love that thinking because the government has become so disgustingly bloated. It is just out of control.

James Jaeger: So I just don’t see any way it’s going to correct itself because you look at this fiat money that they’re printing up and you’re not going to get…That basically is where the government gets its income half the time and then the taxes. Nelson basically says that you could get 15% to get into the debates on the following issues. The first two issues would be controlling the fed, that means controlling the money expansion, and the second issue would be progressive income taxes. He ways you can’t get rid of the income tax right away, and if you say that to people they’ll think you’re a nut. If you say to people we’re going to get rid of the Federal Reserve system they think you’re a nut, so they don’t vote for you. When Ron Paul got on Jay Leno, he had 15%. He had it. Then, right there in front of Leno, Leno said “What are you going to do?” He says I’m going to abolish the Fed and the income tax.

James Jaeger: Leno practically freaked out. And this is all on the internet. You can watch this tape. And he gave him two chances to correct himself. And Ron Paul didn’t correct himself. And shortly thereafter he went from 15% of the vote down to 5. So Ron Paul marginalized himself right on Jay Leno. Now I’m not citing Ron out. We’re all doing this. I ran around for 10 or 15 years screaming let’s abolish the Fed. I was marginalizing myself. All of my family and friends look at me like I’m an alien. I’m a libertarian. What are you? You’re an idiot. You’re unreal. So the libertarian party has shot itself in the foot by doing unreal. That’s why we’ve never gotten more than 1%. So Hultberg’s strategy is let’s not be idiots and marginalize ourselves. Sure, we want to eventually get rid of the income tax, but he says let’s only attack the progressive income tax because, after all, isn’t this nation supposed to be built on equality? How is it equal when some people have to pay 35%-37% and others pay 0? That’s not equal. That’s not equality.

Jason Hartman: Of course it’s not, of course it’s not.

James Jaeger: Let’s get rid of the progressive income tax and someday maybe later in the future that tax can be reduced, but here’s the genius of his strategy. He wants to get everybody to pay 10% flat tax. And we’re not talking about the tax that exempts people. He wants everybody to pay because here’s the secret. Unless you can get everybody to suffer, you’re never going to get everybody to demand the tax be lowered. And you have to get it equally across the board, no tax deductions, 10%, and that will immediately make everybody suffer and they will demand to lower it down towards 4 or 5%.

Jason Hartman: Okay. So James, I’m going to tell you, I was talking to Steve Forbes’s daughter one day.

James Jaeger: Forbes’s plan is no good because he exempts up to 25-35,000 and those people won’t suffer.

Jason Hartman: Right. But he did have a radical new idea. I mean it was less radical than actually what you’re proposing. You just wanted 15% across the board and exempting the low, low end. But second time you…

James Jaeger: Because that violates the strategy of getting everybody to suffer.

Jason Hartman: Fair enough, but I’m saying the media and powers that be would be more tolerant of a program that wouldn’t make the low, low end that you can buy votes from pay.

James Jaeger: Right.

Jason Hartman: So what I’m saying is that the second time he tried to make a bid for president, total media blackout. The media just would not cover him at all.

James Jaeger: Why? Because they were afraid he was flighting the poor?

Jason Hartman: I don’t know. They just wouldn’t cover him. It was too good an idea. I mean you’ve got these entrenched interests and it’s awfully scary. If the media doesn’t cover you..

James Jaeger: But you’ve got to remember, he wasn’t attacking the progressive. He was trying to jump for a flat tax. And Nelson’s strategy is not to do that. It’s simply to get rid of progressive tax on the grounds that it’s not fair. It’s unequal. Can you imagine Wolf Blitzer sitting there and fighting that? You say to Wolf oh well you want unequal taxes?

Jason Hartman: The question is will you ever get an interview with Wolf Blitzer. That’s the problem is will they cover you at all.

James Jaeger: You don’t care about Wolf Blitzer. The tax issue will get you 70% of the vote, controlling the Fed by either making the monetary expansion an automatic 4% or bringing us back to gold. By the way, Hultberg says don’t mention the word gold.

Jason Hartman: Right.

James Jaeger: Because the minute you say that, you marginalize yourself.

Jason Hartman: Yeah. Everybody thinks if you’re gold you’re a nut.

James Jaeger: You get rid of the word gold. Instead of using that you use the word control the fed. So that will get you 3%. The tax progressive income will get you 7%. And then he says the other two issues that’ll pull in the other 5% are the illegal immigration issue and the foreign policy issue.

Jason Hartman: What’s on the foreign policy side?

James Jaeger: Foreign policy side is basically let’s stop building 700 military bases all over the world.

Jason Hartman: Yeah, couldn’t agree more.

James Jaeger: Bring some of that money back home.

Jason Hartman: We have to get out of everybody else’s business. We’re just reaching way too far I think. Talk to me for just a moment here as we wrap up, James, about the issue of the tariffs. When I had Pat Buchanan on, he basically thinks that we should make these multinational companies pay to get into the American market. We’ve got the biggest consumer market in the world. 70% of our economy is basically consumer spending and that just means tariffs. But here’s the problem, as soon as you institute tariffs, then everybody has to pay more when they go to Wal-Mart and Costco and Target and wherever, and Americans want to buy their stuff cheap. They want to buy their cheap Chinese imports.

James Jaeger: Right. Here’s the thing. They can’t have their cake and eat it too.

Jason Hartman: Right, but which cake is more important? Jobs or cheap consumer products? I mean I have an opinion. I’m just kind of asking maybe a rhetorical question.
James Jaeger: Well, let’s put it this way, all those cheap products are coming from slave labor, underage kids making that stuff in China. And everybody’s credit cards now are limited, run out, and the lines of credit on a house are run out. Where are they going to continue to get the money to pay for those cheap Chinese products? They’re not. They need to get back to work in the factories of the United States. Pat Buchanan’s view is this. He’s not saying we need to put smooth Harley taxes on everything. He’s only saying that it’s not fair when the Europeans put a 15% back tax on our products flowing into their countries and yet we have no taxes on theirs coming into our countries. He’s basically saying we should parody them. If they do it to us, we should do it to them until they get the message that they’re going to have to take their taxes down.

Jason Hartman: And we’ve got to get the environmental movement in the United States to loosen up a little bit and let industry thrive, because the best thing for the environment is capitalism. If you look at some of these countries where you’ve had big governments and you look at the environmental destruction when nobody owns the land, nobody cares about the land. When it’s everybody’s property, it’s nobody’s property. When it’s everybody’s money it’s nobody’s money. And that is the problem. When I got to Cuba, Russian, and you look at the way they treat their environment it is appalling compared to a capitalist country where people own things. They care about what they own. I mean I would just ask every listener do you take better care of your own car or the rental car? Simple question.

James Jaeger: And, you know, the environmental movement, I mean look at the [00:44:48]. The [00:44:49] laws that came in basically demanded that the cars had to meet certain efficiency standards. Well, when they did that, the car manufacturers started making all the cars three times, four times lighter. And consequently, the number of deaths on the highway increased 25,000 a year. So here the environmentalists are basically telling people how to build cars, and to save the environment they’re killing 25,000 more people a year. Every time the government intervenes, it messes up unintended consequences.

Jason Hartman: Yeah, lots of unintended consequences. And imagine the environmental destruction of treating people at hospitals and what that costs and what that takes out of an economy. I would submit that the radical environmental movement doesn’t like people. And they might as well just come out and say it, but they never will. They want to reduce the population dramatically.

James Jaeger: The radical environmental…And I’m glad you use that word radical because I do think a good conservative is prudent about the environment and we should Segway into clean fuels.

Jason Hartman: Who doesn’t what clean air and clean water?

James Jaeger: Construction of all western civilization.

Jason Hartman: Western civilization has been very environmentally friendly. When you really start looking at it and comparing it, it’s just not a fair comparison. So James Jaeger, first of all, where can they get the movie Original Intent?

James Jaeger: They can go to www.OriginalIntent.us.

Jason Hartman: OriginalIntent.us. And in closing, what would you like people to know about the Original Intent movie or just in general the original intent of our founders and our constitution?

James Jaeger: Well, I’d simply like them to know that if we don’t get back to constitutional principles as envisioned in the original intent of the founders, we’re going to end up becoming more and more totalitarian, whether it be the left or the right, the far left or the far right. Actually, the totalitarians are both on the left if you want to look at the true political spectrum. But the totalitarian, when it comes through fascism, Marxism or communism, it’s going to basically take away all of our rights. And that’s just not a place Americans want to be.

Jason Hartman: You couldn’t be more right about that. Freedom, it’s like air. We don’t really notice it until it’s gone. And we need to really cherish our freedom. When you make your gratitude list and you think about what you’re thankful for, be thankful for your freedom and just understand and spread the word at how important it is to protect it. And a great start to that would be watching the movie Original Intent and buying a few extra copies for friends and family. James Jaeger, thanks so much for joining us today, appreciate it.

James Jaeger: My pleasure, Jason. Thanks for having me.

Narrator: Thank you for joining us today for the Holistic Survival Show, protecting the people, places, and profits you care about in uncertain times. Be sure to listen to our Creating Wealth show which focuses on exploiting the financial and wealth creation opportunities in today’s economy. Learn more at www.JasonHartman.com or search Jason Hartman on ITunes. This show is produced by the Hartman Media Company, offering very general guidelines and information. Opinions of guests are their own and none of the content should be considered individual advice. If you require personalized advice, please consult an appropriate professional, information deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.

The Holistic Survival Show

Transcribed by Ralph

 

Tags: , , , , ,