61 raises your healthcare expenses dramati- cally. You can’t change that because your goal is, in fact, to poison the population and turn them infertile. What else is there about the culture? Charlottesville was a very interesting time. I was in Europe, but I was getting emails and talking to people who were living through it. I saw it as actually a 100% total op and scam. It was definitely an op. Farrell: That was the way that I saw it, also. I think it was a very serious one, but, nonetheless, I thought it was an op. It has achieved its purpose, which I think was to condition everybody to accept massive cultural change. Fitts: I don’t think it has achieved its pur- pose. There was a very interesting video, which I put on the website. It was one of the most interesting videos, and they had six Americans that CNN had on. It was like a marketing research group, and you could see that there was a diverse back- ground of people. The host asked them about Charlottes- ville, and, basically, the six people com- municated, “We don’t buy the story.” There was a black woman among them. The CNN host said, “This woman was killed by a right-wing person.” The black woman said, “We don’t know what happened. What we know is that she was killed because the police stood down.” Farrell: I agree in the sense that it didn’t accomplish its purpose, but what I meant to say by that is it achieved its purpose insofar as that portion of the population, which is already weaponized, to be active for this sort of dramatic cultural revolu- tion. It emboldened them to the point that now we see under attack, not just confederate generals or what have you, but the same thing now being used against the Founding Fathers. Fitts: I think that the complete goal was, because you had to get through the Civil War to get to the Founding Fathers, and I think that the goal was to get to the Founding Fathers. You can’t kill the Con- stitution until you can kill the brand and their name. Farrell: Exactly. That is the ultimate goal, as we discussed in Part I and I think that is the ultimate agenda here. They are going to play the culture card, “This is an old document. It’s outmoded. It was written in the 18th century. They didn’t know about our modern technol- ogy.” We’ve heard all of this before, and we tend to forget that, those people in Phila- delphia who were framing it, were coming out of a long tradition and a long phil- osophical analysis, which they had done dating back to Blackwell in the history of Common Law and all of that in England, through the 30 Years War, Peace of Westphalia, and studying the Republic of Venice, which many of them had done. They were looking at all of this long de- velopment – the Roman Empire and all of that – and were approaching things from a very informed view of human nature itself. Human nature is the one constant. It’s both good and bad. It’s a fallen nature so we have to build an instrument of governance that is going to last through all of the vicissitudes of human nature and technological change. These were not stupid men. They were living in an era of technological change. The industrial era was only starting. This idea of attacking the Constitution because it’s an outdated, outmoded document only indicates that you really don’t understand very well the people who wrote it. Fitts: I would say that certainly they don’t understand the people who wrote it, but they also don’t understand the governance system in which they exist. They don’t understand how it works, and they don’t understand the economy. When I was talking about the presentation given by the young activist to run for Pres- ident and implode the US government, from a financial standpoint, what he said to an audience was, “I propose that we abrogate your parents’ and grandparents’ pension funds. I propose that we abrogate and steal their trust fund for the social security, and we wipe out your family wealth. If they have businesses, we bankrupt those. Then after we’ve wiped out all of the money that you could ever possibly inherit or would sup- port your parents and grandparents with in their old age, I would propose that we take the rest of the assets that you as citi- zens hold in common with other citizens, and basically give them away to the most evil people on the planet. And I want you to know that this is a fashionable and groovy plan.” People said, “Well, that’s interesting,” but they didn’t have enough basic financial literacy to understand what he was saying, and I did. Farrell: This is my point. If you want to pull off a plan like that, you can only do it with a stupid, dumbed down population that is totally cut off from its roots. Fitts: Here is another thing: The people who were listening were not stupid. I wouldn’t even call them ‘dumbed down,’ but I would say that they don’t have any kind of basic economic or financial litera- cy, and they don’t know that they don’t. Farrell: That is stupidity, that is unedu- cated and that is the problem. If you’ve waged a culture war on the institutions and on the traditions of a culture to the extent that we’ve seen in the past 100 years, then eventually you reach a point where people can be relatively ra- tional and smart, but they don’t have the equipment to analyze things anymore and understand what is being said. They don’t even think in terms of analyzing or pars- ing the language of people very closely. Fitts: There are two things that I want to point out that are happening: They have lived their entire life under the umbrella and the protection of the Constitution, and they have no concept that there is an umbrella that they would allow to go away. Farrell: Part of this comes out of another meme that the same people are driving relentlessly, and this is the idea of Ameri- can exceptionalism. Every time I hear that I cringe. The reason is that it’s as if what we’re really saying is that nobody else is able to pull this off, but we’re Americans, and we can.