Introduction: James Jaeger is an award-winning filmmaker who co-founded Matrix Productions, which has partnered with Cornerstone Entertainment to produce a series of political documentaries. One of the first was "Fiat Empire" about the Federal Reserve System, featuring Congressman Ron Paul, which garnered a Telly Award and went viral as the #1 film on the Internet for six months. Matrix Productions continues to develop, produce and market motion pictures. Currently in production is "Molon Labe."

Daily Bell: What's going on? How have you been?

James Jaeger: I have been quite busy since last March working with Edwin Vieira and Oath Keepers on a new movie entitled "MOLON LABE – How the Second Amendment Guarantees America's Freedom." We have an incredible "cast" of experts in the can: Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Alex Jones, G. Edward Griffin, Chuck Baldwin, Stewart Rhodes, Larry Pratt, David R. Gillie, Jack Rooney and Edwin Vieira, who wrote the book, The Sword and Sovereignty, which inspired the movie. The first rough-cut is done and the movie will be released hopefully on Labor Day or Constitution Day. You can watch a trailer with clips of the experts at http://youtu.be/Ay7Thif3UOQ.

Daily Bell: You've been tracking the Snowden affair. Give us your take.

James Jaeger: This exercise gives everyone the opportunity to really see who is who on the world stage. Americans (and the rest of the world) seem to be abhorred with the Empire's surveillance – all neatly "justified" by the War of Terror, yet their elected representatives in Congress and the executive (and the government's lapdogs in the mainstream media) continue to work for the military-industrial complex and the globalists' agenda. It's as if the Fourth Amendment didn't even exist.

Daily Bell: It's like a Hollywood movie, almost too good to be true. Are we too cynical?

James Jaeger: You can be sure more than one screenplay is being written right this second. In fact, I would even be one of the writers if someone were to engage me for at least Writer's Guild minimum. So no, you are certainly NOT being too cynical. And you know what, as much as I bitch and moan about Hollywood, I think Hollywood has the right attitude about the Snowden affair: he's a hero exposing one of the main rungs of the police state the Globalists are attempting to build. But at this time any screenplay on the Snowden affair can obviously only be a work-in-progress because things are still developing. Like Robert Redford in "THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR," Snowden has probably researched every plot and will hopefully end the show with a twist none of the movie-challenged apologists of the Empire will have foreseen.

My continuing observation of the MSM, however, indicates that they have pretty much covered over Snowden with Zimmerman. Only RT seems to be continuing the coverage, and the latest is that Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua are now offering asylum to Snowden. My prediction is Venezuela will be the one to get him, as Venezuela is the 4th largest supplier of oil to the US (something like 800,000 barrels per day), so the U.S. isn't going to give Maduro too much grief over Snowden.

Daily Bell: Naomi Wolf has doubts and we published them. Let's go down the list of Naomi Wolf. Your responses … Here are her points:

He is super-organized, for a whistleblower, in terms of what candidates, the White House, the State Dept. et al call 'message discipline.' He insisted on publishing a power point in the newspapers that ran his initial revelations. I gather that he arranged for a talented filmmaker to shoot the Greenwald interview. These two steps – which are evidence of great media training, really 'PR 101? – are virtually never done (to my great distress) by other whistleblowers, or by progressive activists involved in breaking news, or by real courageous people who are under stress and getting the word out. They are always done, though, by high-level political surrogates.

In the Greenwald video interview, I was concerned about the way Snowden conveys his message. He is not struggling for words, or thinking hard, as even bright, articulate whistleblowers under stress will do. Rather he appears to be transmitting whole paragraphs smoothly, without stumbling. To me this reads as someone who has learned his talking points – again the way that political campaigns train surrogates to transmit talking points.

He keeps saying things like, "If you are a journalist and they think you are the transmission point of this info, they will certainly kill you." Or: "I fully expect to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act." He also keeps stressing what he will lose: his $200,000 salary, his girlfriend, his house in Hawaii. These are the kinds of messages that the police state would LIKE journalists to take away; a real whistleblower also does not put out potential legal penalties as options, and almost always by this point has a lawyer by his/her side who would PROHIBIT him/her from saying, 'come get me under the Espionage Act." …

It is actually in the Police State's interest to let everyone know that everything you write or say everywhere is being surveilled, and that awful things happen to people who challenge this. Which is why I am not surprised that now he is on UK no-fly lists – I assume the end of this story is that we will all have a lesson in terrible things that happen to whistleblowers. That could be because he is a real guy who gets in trouble; but it would be as useful to the police state if he is a fake guy who gets in 'trouble.'

In stories that intelligence services are advancing (I would call the prostitutes-with-the-secret-service such a story), there are great sexy or sex-related mediagenic visuals that keep being dropped in, to keep media focus on the issue. That very pretty pole-dancing Facebooking girlfriend who appeared for, well, no reason in the media coverage…and who keeps leaking commentary, so her picture can be recycled in the press…really, she happens to pole-dance? Dan Ellsberg's wife was and is very beautiful and doubtless a good dancer but somehow she took a statelier role as his news story unfolded…

Snowden is in Hong Kong, which has close ties to the UK, which has done the US's bidding with other famous leakers such as Assange. So really there are MANY other countries that he would be less likely to be handed over from…

Media reports said he had vanished at one point to 'an undisclosed location' or 'a safe house.' Come on. There is no such thing. Unless you are with the one organization that can still get off the surveillance grid, because that org created it.

I was at dinner last night to celebrate the brave and heroic Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights. Several of Assange's also brave and talented legal team were there, and I remembered them from when I had met with Assange. These attorneys are present at every moment when Assange meets the press – when I met with him off the record last Fall in the Ecuadoran embassy, his counsel was present the whole time, listening and stepping in when necessary. WHERE IS SNOWDEN'S LAWYER as the world's media meet with him? …

James Jaeger: First of all, I have never seen Assange's lawyer anywhere near him when he has done press releases. Nevertheless, her point is possible: Snowden COULD be a set up, but I doubt it. Even though Hong Kong was once run by the Brits, I doubt they have much influence there now. I thought it was a brilliant move for Snowden to go to China, but what proof do we really have that he actually was in China – or Russia for that matter? And where he will go, who knows? It would be funny if the whole world continued to think he was holed up in a Russian airport for three or four months when he's really sipping margaritas on a warm beach on some tropical island.

Snowden's interview was directed and shot by Laura Poitras, a competent documentary filmmaker, and as a film editor myself since 1964, I can tell you this interview was carefully edited. The released footage was only 12 minutes and 35 seconds (12:35). I routinely shoot hour-long interviews and then only use 10 or 15 minutes of the footage. So for all we know, Glenn Greenwald could have been interviewing Snowden all day long and just cut out 12 minutes of the most cogent, best-executed segments. That's what I would have done. Again, add to this the idea that the footage was carefully edited, and it's easy to get the very metered-presentation Naomi may be suspicious about.

As an example, look at 44 seconds (:44) into the interview and you will see a jump-cut. This is where the sound track of Greenwald asking a question runs continuously (voice-over) whereas the picture jumps (evidencing a jump in time, perhaps to a shot where he was more composed). And I know this is a jump-cut, not an A to B camera cut in real time, because Snowden's head is leaning forward in the outgoing shot and straight up in the incoming shot. A similar jump-cut occurs at 3:56 and there are other jump-cuts at 2:05, 3:13 and 5:21 and probably throughout the interview. (I didn't have time to analyze the entire video.)

So the bottom line is, Snowden may have been nervous and flubbing his lines (a little or a lot) but the filmmakers did their jobs and made him look effortless, made him into a well-crafted "star." As a filmmaker, I try to do this in my films. My job is to not only tell the story but also remove the flubs and stutters and cutaway from the experts any time they grimace or look bad. We are, after all – like any media or film company is supposed to be – in the business of enhancing the value and exposure of people who are truly doing good things. And now, Edward Snowden, as such a person, deserves to be an international "star" if not an international hero.

Daily Bell: Okay, thanks for that. You've been compiling lists of journalists who are defending Snowden. Give us a sense of who they are.

James Jaeger: Here's a title roll of what I call "SURVEILLANCE STATE APOLOGISTS" and "SNOWDEN SYMPATHIZERS" compiled in chronological order as they appeared in the media. The methodology I have been using to compile these ongoing lists is as follows: I have a notebook with a two-column Ben Franklin Balance Sheet-type template and a DVD recorder running. At good news times (early mornings, evenings and Sundays) I flip RANDOMLY between CNN, FOX NEWS, RT, C-SPAN, CNBC and MSNBC looking for any and all coverage of the Snowden affair that happens to be on. The DVD recorder also records my channel changes as evidence that I am not being biased to news sources (because some of these channels are left-leaning, some right-leaning). When I spot a pundit, talking head and/or government official discussing Snowden, I write down the name as it's verbalized or appears on a title card. Then I listen carefully to what the person says about the surveillance issue and Snowden. If they are clearly against what Snowden has done, calling for his head or "justifying" surveillance with war-of-terror-rhetoric, I put them in the "Surveillance State Apologist" column. If they do not do any of the former, but state that Snowden is a hero or that he has done the US and/or world a great service exposing the surveillance state, I place them into the "Snowden Sympathizer" column.

If you see names in BOTH columns (both lists) it's because I have seen these individuals making statements that reflect both categories, so I'm not yet positive where they belong. Some of these people are still evaluating how they feel and others are just worms just trying to hedge their bets. If you see the same name on the same list two or more times, it's because I have witnessed that person that many times.

This data summary is not completely accurate or final, but as mentioned, I DO have everything recorded on DVD so I can go back and substantiate, revise and refine anything in the survey. I encourage others to do this simple "data collection" and "situation analysis," as well. After all, if the government and their lap-dog media are always surveying WE THE PEOPLE, why can't WE survey them right back?

SNOWDEN SYMPATHIZERS

Glenn Greenwald

Julian Assange

Tamron Hall

Laura Poitras

Monica Crowley

Wendy Walsh

Piers Morgan

Bill O'Reilly

Rush Limbaugh

Katherine Hain

Michael Moore

Karen Finney

Chris Hayes

Marc Ambinder

Anderson Cooper

Bill Maher

Rachel Maddow

Sean Hannity

Mike Huckabee

Ron Paul

Thomas Drake

Bill Binney

Jesselyn Radack

Sen Ron Wyden

Sen Mark Udall

Joe Scarborough

Sen Jon Tester

Neil Cavuto

Kirsten Powers

Merrill Drown

Monica Crowley

Sen Bobby Scott

James Risen, NYT

Peggy Noonan

Andrea Mitchell

Mary O'Grady, WSJ

(Snowden to Moscow)

Sen Dick Durbin

Rep. Loretta Sanchez

James Corbett

Russell Tice

William Binney

Mark Weisbrot

Carly Fiorina

Chuck Todd

Dana Milbank, Wash Post

Tony Goslin, UK reporter

Gerold Hurre

Norman Solomon

John Stossel

Laura Ingraham

Elizabeth Goitein

Michael Cohen

Peter Lavelle

SURVEILLANCE STATE APOLOGISTS

Sen. Lindsey Graham

Rep. Peter King

James Woolsey

James Clapper

Karl Rove

Sen. John McCain

Gen. Spider Marks

Mika Brzezinski

Greg Miller, Wash Post

Robert Baer

Juan Williams

Brit Hume

Jane Feinberg

Al Franken

Ari Fleischer

Jeffrey Toobin

Lanny Davis

Lawrence O'Donnell

David Axelrod

Daniel Henninger, WSJ

Mika Brzezinski

James Clapper

Jeffrey Toobin

Rep. Mike Rogers

William Hague

Rep. John Boehner

Ambassador John Bolton

Josh Earnest

Sen. Harry Reid

Jonathan Kay, NY Post

Martin Bashir

Gen. Keith Alexander, Dir NSA

Sen Mary Landrieu

Rand Beers, DHS

Robert Mueller

Jim Pinkerton

Monica Crowley

Roger Simon

Tom Brokaw

Dick Cheney

Sen Saxby Chambliss

David Ignatius, Wash Post

Andrea Mitchell

Gen. Michael Hayden

David Gregory

Joseph Rago, WSJ

Paul Gigot, Fox News

(Snowden to Moscow)

Sen Dick Durbin (D-IN)

Sen Tom Coburn

Sen Peter King

Brit Hume

William Kristol

Carly Fiorina

Dana Milbank, Wash Post

Joe Watkins (R strategist)

Richard Grenell

Katherine Harris, Fox

Mark Zaid, National Security Atty

John Stossel

Charles Wolf

My continued observation of the MSM indicates that they have pretty much covered over Snowden with Zimmerman. Only RT seems to be continuing the coverage, and the latest is that Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua are now offering asylum to Snowden. My prediction is Venezuela will be the one to get him, as Venezuela is the 4th largest supplier of oil to the US (something like 800,000 barrels per day), so the U.S. isn't going to give Maduro too much grief over Snowden.

Daily Bell: Who are the journalists and media types defending the NSA? Any surprises?

James Jaeger: The Snowden affair started out with many weird bedfellows but may be morphing into the usual antagonists as the government brings pressure on the pundits to tow the company line. Other than Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore "teaming" up on this, I was amazed to see the "big cop" himself, Bill O'Reilly, jump in there in defense of privacy after his initial, obligatory homage to the war of terror and "national security." On roughly 10 June 2013, Bill showed aerial shots of the new 5 zettabyte data complex being built in Bluffdale, Utah. Bill ran the aerial shots about five or six times throughout his show. Since then, I have not seen these shots run by ANY other mainstream channel nor have I seen them back on "THE FACTOR." I have also NOT seen any pundits in the American media mentioning the Bluffdale site, with the sole exception of one or two guests on RT. There seems to be a media BLACKOUT on the 5 zettabyte (some say 1 yottabyte) complex. The public is only aware of the PRISM project at this time – and as of 28 June 2013 the mainstream media seems to be backing off the Snowden story. Only RT has been consistently carrying it.

Again, after delivering his obligatory recital that it was wrong for Edward Snowden to reveal government materials, Bill O'Reilly spent the rest of the show decrying the surveillance state, even arguing with surveillance state-apologist, Karl Rove. Rove was completely bent out of shape on the show. You could see that he was physically freaking inside when O'Reilly fingered him as one of the architects of the surveillance state during the Bush II regime. Rove was spinning so fast in the "No Spin Zone" O'Reilly was visibly embarrassed and actually backed off, ostensibly so Rove didn't have a heart attack right there on the set. Lloyds of London has insured the Rolling Stones for debauchery, but I don't think Bill has a "Traumatized & Bullied Guest" policy, as he probably could never afford the premium.

Daily Bell: The AP says its reporting has been chilled by surveillance. Any response?

James Jaeger: Well, figure it out. A 5 zettabyte site is 5.0 X 10 , 21st bytes of information and a 1 yottabyte site is 3 orders of magnitude (1,000 times) larger at 10 , 24th bytes. That's a 10 with 24 zeros after it. This "thing" – which is going operational in September – will be able to record all emails, phone conversations, TV, radio shows, YouTube videos, photographs, websites, Internet searches and even parking receipts, travel itineraries and bookstore purchases for every person on the planet Earth for the next 100 years.

Even still, an NSA spokesperson had the gall to state: "Many unfounded allegations have been made about the planned activities of the Utah Data Center and one of the biggest misconceptions about NSA is that we are unlawfully listening in on, or reading emails of, US citizens. This is simply not the case."

Well, that may 'not be the case' with the PRISM program, but come September 2013, all bets are off. The NSA will have the capacity of "listening in" so why wouldn't they? This places a chill over every citizen in not only America but the world. It should also chill all news reporters, pundits, filmmakers, writers, thinkers, philosophers, patent and copyright holders, strategists and communicators in every branch of the arts and sciences. Maybe TODAY you are like John Stossel – more concerned about the other "100 things government does" – but TOMORROW you may decide it's necessary to become the next Thomas Paine in order to arrest further destruction of the Declaration of Independence. BUT you're in the 5 zettabyte sys, so you chill and go back to eating your spaghetti and hot dogs. You're chilled because your rogue gov has mapped your social network and can send in a drone to wipe you and your kitchen table off the map any time it wants. Nice. And no one would even know about it because they could wipe you before the public was even aware you EXISTED! So when police state apologists like Cheney, Alexander, King, Woolsey, Hague and Clapper tell you that "we are only collecting metadata" – you should go into HIGH ALERT.

Metadata is what computers use to "talk" to each other – no humans even needed. It's part of what's called the "semantic web" and it's been in development for years. By connecting origination and termination points of all phone numbers, IP Addresses and MAC numbers, they can identify every device you own or use: your phone, your computer, your routers and other machines (as MAC means Machine Access Code).

A phone number takes very few bytes of storage because a phone number is only 10 digits long (xxx-xxx-xxxx). That's only 10 bytes of storage. Connect two citizens' phones and that's only 20 bytes. Connect all 100 family, friends and associates of a citizen and that's only about 1,000 bytes of storage (10 X 100 = 1,000). Now add in another 1,000 bytes for the addresses of their major nodes (the handful of people they call most) – and you need maybe 2,000 bytes to store, or "quarry" all this innocent METADATA. But let's be conservative; let's say we use 1 million bytes, one meg, of data for each and every citizen in the US, such being 230 million people. That's 230,000,000 X 1,000,000 = or 23 terabytes (2.3 X 10 , 14th bytes). Any film editor in Hollywood has 23 terabytes on his NLE computer system, whereas the Bluffdale data storage center will have between 10 , 21st and 10 , 24th bytes. That's 7 to 10 orders of magnitude more capacity, so they could easily allocate a meg per year to all 7 billion people on Earth for the next 100 years. A meg for all 7 billion people would only be 7 x 10 , 15 bytes per year and for 100 years it would only be 7 X 10 , 17th bytes. Recall, Bluffdale will store as much as 10 , 24th bytes, 7 orders of magnitude more than the mere 10 , 17th bytes needed for every human on Earth. Factor in the wash that less than half the human population doesn't have computers and the other half uses storage-intensive applications (one of the most intense at this time being 1080p video) and we can see that the Bluffdale site will also be able to easily handle that. So all porn will easily be storable for the next 100 years along with each and every user. AND, if the NSA really likes porn, it will even be able to store it in 1080p (for future "evaluations"). Once quantum computing comes online, as futurists expect, the Bluffdale site's storage capacity will be available on USB thumb drives.

But how does all this apply to the Bill of Rights, which states in the 4th Amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The key words are SEARCHES and SEIZURES and with these words, the NSA's assurance that they are not "unlawfully listening in " is made invalid. When the government "quarries records from the telecom providers," as the former NSA chief stated on national TV, it is, in essence, seizing the "papers and effects" of WE THE PEOPLE. It may only be seizing a copy of our "papers and effects" but the fact that that copy embodies intellectual property that has an automatic COPYright on it the moment it is put into tangible form as an email, phone recording, photograph, website or motion picture makes the act of "quarrying" information with the PRISM program or in the Bluffdale servers illegal not only under copyright law but constitutional law. The act of quarrying data is that act of seizing data, and data is the same as the "papers and effects" referred to in the Fourth.

Daily Bell: Who's to blame for all this? Democrats? Republicans?

James Jaeger: Both. The government says it only reads the "quarried" data if there is the "predicate" of a suspected terrorist. Well, the moment it reads through the 5 zettabytes of "papers and effects" that were electronically SEIZED it is involved in the act of SEARCHING. So even though the government is "seizing" first and "searching" later (the opposite of the framers' wording in the Fourth), it's just as illegal. And this is why Edward Snowden is a hero not a traitor. The government and the congress members that passed or support the legislation that created PRISM and BLUFFDALE are the traitors. The reason they are traitors is because they have violated their oaths of office. The oath they took upon entering public service states that they must obey the Constitution – not the Globalist Agenda. The Fourth Amendment is part of the Constitution and it says they may not search and seize our "papers and effects." But they ARE searching and seizing (via the PATRIOT Act-infested NSA), thus they have broken their oaths of office and are traitors, or abettors of treason, at the very least.

Daily Bell: Is this kind of surveillance state justified on any level? Is it legal under the US Constitution?

James Jaeger: No. Surveillance, with or without seizure, does not provide security; in fact, it places security at risk. The Fourth says, or at least implies, that WE THE PEOPLE have the right to be secure as people: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons…" Thus, the next problem with the surveillance state is the fact that it opens the door to arbitrary government, the hallmark of tyrannical government. The "predicate," as General Hayden says, may today be the word "Islamic terrorist," but what is to secure WE THE PEOPLE that the "predicate" may tomorrow not be the term "Tea Party activist" or "NRA member" or "Scientologist" or "Baptist" or "Jew"?

So the surveillance state – no matter how much military-industrial complex apologists like Lindsey Graham desire it – is blatantly anti-constitutional and places the nation at far greater risk than any "security" Graham and his entrenched cohorts in Congress could provide. The surveillance state – with a 5 zettabyte NSA data collection complex the mainstream media is no longer mentioning – provides only the quality of life tolerated by a person incapable of solving the world's problems without force.

Thus, when war-mongering freaks like Senator Lindsey Graham say things like, "In Rand Paul's world you have almost no defense against terrorists," peace-loving freaks like myself ask, "In our world what defense do we have against rogue politicians, usurpers and tyrants?"

Daily Bell: Now that it is exposed, will it begin to shrink?

James Jaeger: WE THE PEOPLE must DEMAND that the Bluffdale site never open, that the entire PRISM program be shut down and that the PATRIOT Act be rescinded. Beyond that, I think each and every member of Congress who voted for any of these programs needs to be impeached at the very least.

None of this even mentions the most significant reason the NSA is horrified by the Snowden revelations. Booz Allen Hamilton, the firm that employed Snowden, is allegedly one of the masterminds behind the recent LIBOR and FOREX market riggings. The American military-industrial complex depends on confidence that the world economy will continue to accept the dollar as the "de facto reserve currency" and that the US bond market will remain strong. But because of the treadmill unconstitutional fiat currency has placed the world's banking system on, the power elite (discussed by C. Wright Mills) that dominates the military-industrial complex has recently had to resort to multi-trillion dollar market manipulations to keep things afloat. This kind of manipulation – which amounts to high-level "check kiting" – is intensely dependent on data and intelligence – the exact kind of data and intelligence an Edward Snowden working at a Booze Allen Hamilton is able to aggregate so that trillions of dollars can be channeled into America's global military adventures. This may be the real reason the bought-and-paid-for American congressmen are "obligated" to be against Snowden – their campaign contributions come from the very people and entities that are dependent on the surveillance state.

Daily Bell: What is its history, do you think? It came out recently that Hemingway had been comprehensively investigated for spying by J. Edgar Hoover himself, and this apparently led directly to his suicide. Is there a necessity for such overwhelming attacks on people's privacy?

James Jaeger: Of course, we all know what power Hoover wielded with his spy- and dossier-network. The recent surveillance and intimidation games the NSA and IRS are playing were no doubt learned well in the Hoover years. But what's interesting is how the word "dossier" has been cleverly omitted from the public discourse. As our new movie "MOLON LABE" discusses, the Department of Homeland Security has been modeled after a 1950s- style security department of Stalin's Russia. And from the movies we all know how much they loved dossiers in that era. Today we have almost an exact duplicate era, but this time the usurpers, rogues and tyrants have computers. This is why citizens MUST stop all this surveillance nonsense and rescind the PATRIOT Act immediately. We will know when we are being successful at this because the DC usurpers, rogues and tyrants will probably pull off, or attempt to pull off another 9/11-type false flag. As Alex Jones says, 'whether 9-11 was in fact a false flag or not makes no difference because the globalists are USING it like a false flag in effect.'

So we must be prepared for a false-flag op like a 9/11 (or worse) because this will be the last spastic card the rogues, usurpers and tyrants in DC will be able to play in order to reinstate their "security" narrative to "justify" the police-surveillance state they are trying to build for their one-world government.

WE THE PEOPLE must be prepared for this Cheney-type event and must LAUGH at it, if it happens. Not that we will laugh at any who are hurt but we must laugh because the statistics behind the so-called "war on terrorism" are so laughable when put into perspective.

Daily Bell: Do these sorts of investigations make us safer?

James Jaeger: Well, to answer that, let me put those statistics into perspective. According to the National Counter Terrorism Center and the GAO (Government Accounting Office), about 1,900 people are killed by international terrorism every year and about 70 of them are Americans. Concomitant with this, about 140 people are killed by peanut allergies each year and about 450,000 die from coronary heart disease. Even given this, our Lindsey Graham-infested Congress – with its deserved, 20% approval rating – sees fit to spend over $160 billion a year on the "war on terror" but only spends about $3 billion each year on the "war on heart disease." So each year 6,429 times more Americans die from heart disease than terrorism yet Congress spends 53 times more money to save 70 lives than it does to save 450,000 lives. NOW the government wants to make the 70 people killed by terrorism even MORE "secure" by constructing a $4 billion surveillance complex in Bluffdale, Utah that will have the ability to snoop on every man, woman and child on Earth.

It's obvious that the surveillance machinery being built is NOT for any so-called "war on terror." It's to dominate and control the peoples of the Earth by the globalist power elite – less than .001% of the population. THIS is what Edward Snowden means by the term, "turnkey tyranny."

Daily Bell: Let's catch up on some of your other activities. How is your YouTube channel, OriginalIntentDoc, doing? Last time we spoke you said there were over 15,000 screenings per day.

James Jaeger: We set up a YouTube site at www.YouTube/OriginalIntentDoc where all five of our political films are available, including the trailer for "MOLON LABE," which is in post production at time of this interview. To date, the site has 1,783,977 views and 2,388 subscribers. There have been periods where we have received as many as 100,000 screenings per day, but the long-term average is about 14,000 people per day. Not a lot, but what are their alternatives other than CNN, FOX, MSNBC and RT?

Daily Bell: Let's go down the list in reverse order of production: "SPOiLER," "CORPORATE FASCISM," "CULTURAL MARXISM," "ORIGINAL INTENT" and "FIAT EMPIRE." What are these movies and what kind of feedback have you been getting?

James Jaeger: Well, around 2005 we put out "FIAT EMPIRE," featuring Ron Paul, G. Edward Griffin, Edwin Vieira and Ted Baehr and discussed the Federal Reserve System. The film went viral and won a Telly and sort of launched my political film career even though I have been making documentaries for about 30 years, almost all up on that YouTube site I mentioned earlier. "FIAT EMPIRE – Why the Federal Reserve Violates the US Constitution" brought to my attention the idea that principles behind the US Constitution are not as well understood as they could and should be. So starting with Article I, we addressed the fact that the money supply is supposed to be redeemable in gold and silver but, thanks to the New York banks that formed the Fed in 1913, it no longer is. I believe that, because central banks can "print up" any amount of money they want (known as "monetizing debt" and now "quantitative easing") this is the cause of the financial problems the US and world are now experiencing. I know this sounds absolutist, but when one considers that half of every financial transaction – money is controlled by a Fed Open Market Committee of maybe 21 men adjusting interest rates and the money supply, it creates plausibility. So "FIAT EMPIRE" addresses these issues.

"ORIGINAL INTENT" goes into other places we fail to follow constitutional principles and it was released about 2007. We addressed the 501c corporations in that film and stated that the reason the power elite maintains an insanely complex tax code is so political enemies can be harassed and political allies rewarded. All this is, of course, just now emerging in the mainstream media with the current IRS scandals, but better late than never. There are many other issues discussed in "ORIGINAL INTENT" and every person who claims to be an American citizen should watch this film.

Because "ORIGINAL INTENT – How the Democratic and Republican Parties Are Destroying the American Dream" is over three hours long, many of the semi-illiterate, public-schooled people around the country, who are also partisan, told me that they were falling asleep midway through it. So I simply broke the film into two films, "CULTURAL MARXISM," a film for the Republicans and "CORPORATE FASCISM," a film for the Democrats. Little do most people realize that these two films were cut from the same cloth, yet they both swear by whichever film they are partisan to. As a result, there have been a few more sales/views of "CULTURAL MARXISM – The Corruption of America" than "CORPORATE FASCISM – the Destruction of America's Middle Class," but both of these two films FAR exceed the sales/views of "ORIGINAL INTENT" – more evidence that the country is partisan, if not dumbed-down, to the point of disaster.

Also kind of funny and pathetic is the fact that Hollywood's Internet Movie Data Base lists all my films except "CULTURAL MARXISM" and "ORIGINAL INTENT." Why? Because we discuss the Marxist influence on the anti-Christian, anti-traditional values-Hollywood and -New York mainstream media in "CULTURAL MARXISM." The movie explores things like why almost every movie that comes out of Hollywood has a protagonist or antagonist that's either divorced and/or homosexual and/or bi-sexual and/or transvestite or involves a supporting character that is same. I challenge anyone reading this to send me a list of movies that has none of these items.

But watch "CULTURAL MARXISM" first, as there is much more to it with respect to the cultural Marxist ploys being applied to the nation through such technologies as "critical theory" and "androgyny." In short, Hollywood movies are designed to undermine the nuclear family, the basic building block of the middle class, the engine of capitalism. But someone out there gets it, as "CULTURAL MARXISM" is technically my best selling/screened movie and it's re-ordered more than "FIAT EMPIRE" at this time.

"SPOILER – How a Third Political Party Could Win" continues and elaborates on the themes in "ORIGINAL INTENT – How the Democratic and Republican Parties Are Destroying the American Dream." It also proposes a solution: Americans should abandon both the Democratic and Republican Parties because both are puppet factions of the globalists who are attempting to destroy the United States and make it into but a province of their one-world government. By endlessly expanding the government through WELFARE and WARFARE programs, the Dems and GOP, respectively, are destroying the republic guaranteed by the Constitution. They are doing this by wresting the "power of the purse" and the "power of the sword" from WE THE PEOPLE. The former is the bogus fiat currency they have reduced our money to and the latter is the atrophy of the Militia of the Several States.

The bald fact is: WE THE PEOPLE will NEVER regain the power of the purse OR the power of the sword until and unless we re-establish the 50 Militias in each and every one of our 50 states. The only thing that can oppose and neutralize the federal government's usurpations of political power – like the rogue members of Congress who have been building the surveillance state discussed earlier – is a military force of superior capacity to their unconstitutional, global standing army. This is what the Militia are for and what "MOLON LABE – How the Second Amendment Guarantees America's Freedom," my current film in post production, is all about. Again, watch the trailer at youtu.be/Ay7Thif3UOQ and visit the official site at www.molon.us.

Daily Bell: These are documentaries. That's where you're going to stay?

James Jaeger: Unless "MOLON LABE" is wildly successful, it will be my last political documentary. I have been nursing my TESLA project along and have a new one called "ECOSPHERES" under evaluation at Warner Bros at this time. I have no idea what I will do next. Maybe I'll just film rock bands and football games and move to Colorado where pot is legal.

Daily Bell: Any chance you'll win an Oscar like Michael Moore?

James Jaeger: No. Hollywood wouldn't give me an Oscar if I was the last filmmaker on Earth.

Daily Bell: He's been kind of quiet lately. Has he been exposed?

James Jaeger: He said after "SICKO" that that's it. He can't push the wagon up the hill any more. I don't blame him. There are only so many films in each of us. These things tear too much of our bodies and minds out each time. People have NO IDEA how much fun making movies is NOT.

Daily Bell: Why have you called this "the golden age of documentary films"?

James Jaeger: Because everyone can afford a camera and non-linear editing system. An earlier Daily Bell interview with me goes into the details.

Daily Bell: Give us another update on Hollywood. Steven Spielberg just came out and predicted that the Hollywood model was finished. He predicted disaster. Your take?

James Jaeger: You are referring to the comments Steven Spielberg made on 12 June 2013 while speaking to students at the University of Southern California's opening of the new Interactive Media Building. Spielberg said that there is eventually going to be a "meltdown" when three or six megabudget movies crash, changing the paradigm. I assume he means the "star system" which replaced the "studio system" after the Paramount Consent Decree.

What Spielberg is specifically referring to is the insane sums the studios spend on "tentpole projects." A tentpole project is a movie that costs two or three times more than the average movie, which costs $115 million (production + marketing budget). The tentpole projects, because of their costs, are usually based on proven franchises like "IRON MAN" or "STAR TREK" and the profits from these pictures are supposed to hold up (shelter) the rest of the studio's output (tent full) of movies. But in reality, the rest of the studio's output is designed to shelter the tentpole pictures. A studio's goal is to make about 30 pictures a year whereby most of them break even but one or two are massive hits, thus putting the studio into the black.

The problem in the movie industry is it's mostly a number's game because a $50 million movie can often earn $700 million as easily as a $300 million movie. But you are into profits six times sooner with the $50 million movie. So why does Hollywood insist on these megabudget movies, which place the industry at risk, as Spielberg, AND Lucas (who was also there), agree? I would proffer EGO! The big pictures also keep the industry slaver working. Look at the thousands of people listed at the tail of every mega-feature. All these people have to be kept warmed-up for the next pictures. It's like the space program: You stop running Moon missions for 30 years and you get rusty. You stop making megabudget pictures for even three years and all the special FX crews fall apart.

But all of this is crap. Here's what's really going on in Hollywood that even Steven and George don't seem to see because they are buried too deep in the forest. Ask yourself: WHAT building are they there to open? They are there to open the new INTERACTIVE Media Building. "Interactive," as in games, games as in the "virtual reality" I referred to in an earlier Daily Bell interview. Specifically, The Hollywood Reporter stated the following: "Lucas and Spielberg also spoke of vast differences between filmmaking and video games because the latter hasn't been able to tell stories and make consumers care about the characters. Which isn't to say the two worlds aren't connected. Spielberg, in fact, has teamed with Microsoft to make a 'TV' show for Xbox 360 based on the game Halo and he is making a movie based on the Electronic Arts game Need for Speed."

By this Lucas and Spielberg are subtly acknowledging that interactive games – were they to develop characters better – would be a new paradigm. This is exactly what I stated in the earlier Daily Bell article. This is why movies are dead. Narrative drama will continue on big and small screens, theaters and TVs. Who cares? Yep, everyone will be fighting over who gets to be on the biggest screen. Who cares? The resolution and delivery systems will improve on the big AND little screens. Who cares? Soon they will all be big screens and everyone one will still be yapping about not being on a big-enough screen. Who cares? None of this is the story. It's EGO! The story is the interaction. Movies will become interactive and THAT has nothing to do with the size of the screens. This is why Spielberg and Lucas are delivering their speech to the opening of the INTERACTIVE building at USC.

Spielberg also suggests that features may be in theaters for as long as a year and the ticket prices will be elastic. The latter is a good idea. I for one only go to the theater when I want to take advantage of the $1 million sound and projection system AND – if I'm an "ALIEN" freak or a "BATMAN" freak – I have to see it immediately. People like me thus will pay $25 for a ticket, as Spielberg suggests. But I won't pay $25 to see "LINCOLN" or "YOU'VE GOT MAIL."

The 3D that James Cameron invented (originated on digital media) as distinct from the 3D IMAX invented (originated on 65mm negative) is the better process, especially when screened in the largest theater at the multiplex. Again, under these conditions Spielberg's price elasticity really makes sense especially to watch movies like "AVATAR," now the highest grossing picture in history ($1.8 billion in WW BO), which many, including myself, watched multiple times.

But any movie that has a complex plot should not play in theaters (unless it "grows legs") because you can't rewind and replay passages when you miss plot-points and dialogue. It usually takes me three to four hours to watch a typical two-hour movie because I play sequences over and over to savor every molecule of the effort. I can't do this in a theater.

Lastly, the "star system" is kind of dead in another way. For one, over 40-year-old stars are dominating the Biz and there are fewer newer, younger stars coming up.

Daily Bell: We just wrote an article pointing out that Hollywood had no heroes left, the reason for the overwhelming focus on superheroes as big box office releases. We've never seen anything like it. Before this super hero craze, the big blockbusters focused on the Italian mafia. So in the past years it's been either Mafioso or fictional superheroes. What does that say about the culture?

James Jaeger: I don't know but Hollywood's fetish with sequels is a lazy man's way to cash flow, as it substitutes the banal for the original. This is why Spielberg said that cable television is more "adventurous" than film nowadays. I agree. However, I would add that cable TV's days are numbered. CATV will soon be replaced entirely by TCP/IP streaming. I predicted this in 1995 when we released the Matrix Internet Distribution business plan. In the last analysis, all that matters is the delivery of TCP/IP packets. Anything can be delivered with these packets: text, pictures, sound, movies, data. The cable companies are much in the same position AOL was in when the Web started. The public thought AOL was the entire universe, never dreaming that it was actually just a small pond of corralled users in a WAN (Wide Area Network). Warner Bros. even got suckered in. Remember AOL-Time/Warner? The Internet, which the World Wide Web floats on, is the planet and the WWW is the ocean. Cable TV is ponds and lakes of over-charged users. What has to happen is many, many TCP/IP delivery networks MUST be developed, deployed and maintained or companies like COMCAST and VERIZON will eventually monopolize the Internet carrier: TCP/IP. If this happens, your universe of cheap, high-quality data-delivery collapses. Technicians need to make sure everyone can get TCP/IP not only through cable TV providers and phone companies, but cellular networks, satellites, AM and FM broadcasts, line-of-sight lasers and MOST IMPORTANTLY, through the new peer-to-peer networks (such as what they are deploying in the Australian outback).

Internet streaming is the new frontier. Super-long length and episodic narrative dramas a la, "BREAKING BAD," "WALKING DEAD," "HOUSE OF CARDS" and "MADMEN" are delivering superb entertainment value, especially when watched back-to-back. Advertisers are, of course, art destroyers. And who wants to watch just one episode every Sunday . . . chock full of annoying ads, no less? The new money-making paradigm, IMO, is what Netflix delivers: as many as five or six seasons of a "WALKING DEAD" with up to 14 episodes per season all at once and with ZERO obnoxious ads. I will gladly PAY a Netflix for THIS kind of entertainment provided they can keep the obnoxious and irritating TV spots far away. The cable companies deserve to die because they double-crossed everyone with a bait-and-switch. They dragged everyone away from free TV with promises of programming with NO commercials. But little by little they started stuffing their programs with commercials AND they continued to charge ever more for their monthly subscriptions. They thus have two revenue sources and to hell with the customers. How else could Comcast generate enough money to purchase Universal studios? But if Spielberg's predictions are correct and Universal "implodes" this may be the weight that pulls down Comcast. But as long as we have TCP/IP and streaming companies like Netflix, good riddance. I for one detest the endless games Comcast and Verizon play with their advertising, billing and multi-play packages. It's totally insane.

Daily Bell: Okay. Where does the industry go from here? You said it was dead last time. Maybe Spielberg read your interview. Are the big studios dying?

James Jaeger: I was referring to the longer term when CGI gets to the point of photo-realistic stars and special effects software is on everyone's desktop. Again, Spielberg's worries center around the idea that when you have movies that cost as much as $375 million, such as "IRON MAN 3," it's great if it makes $1.2 billion, the projected amount as of 14 June 2013, as that's a profit of about $400 million for Marvel and Disney. But what happens if you have a bunch of these expensive movies and they don't perform. Consider this: "THE GREAT GATSBY" cost $280 million, "STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS" cost $365 million, "HANGOVER PART III" cost $253 million and "FAST AND FURIOUS" cost $335 million. The average cost of a Hollywood movie is about $115 million, so we can see that these "tentpole" pictures are quite expensive. What happens if three or six films, budgeted in this range, all flop at once?

Compare this risk with Netflix's "HOUSE OF CARDS," which cost only $100 million yet this series jumped their subscriber base by 2 million people, up to 29 million. I have a Netflix account and pay about $28 per month. If I am typical, $28 x 29 million subscribers is revenue of $812 million per month for Netflix. And this is only domestic US subscribers. Netflix has about 36 million subscribers if you consider worldwide. Need I say more?

So in essence, the movie theater has moved into the living room because of a) technology and b) the Justice Department. In 1940 the Justice Department cut off the exhibition wings of the Hollywood studios, with the Paramount Consent Decree. This destroyed the "studio system" and along with it thousands if not millions of jobs and well-written movies. Now the people that used to write wonderfully-plotted movies are all working special FX to keep everyone's attention off the crappy plots. Today, movie plots are little more than vehicles for special FXs in endless hackneyed, grossly-expensive sequels, prequels, remakes and re-boots. To counter all this, the studios should demand the right to own their own theaters and do their own exhibition. What other industry has no right to market its own products? The government is the source of much of the corruption and aberration of the movie industry.

Double bill movies should be brought back. Other than the current hit, if any, most of the theaters in a multiplex are almost empty or only half full. Patrons should be able to pay for a ticket and then get to wander around the multiplex watching whatever and as many movies as they want all day. The seats are empty anyway. The theaters must pay the electric bills whether there are 20 people in the complex or 200. If moviegoers are there all day, they will be more likely to hit the concession stand for more food more often. Spielberg's idea about making ticket prices elastic is something I have been suggesting for 20 years at the FIRM site. I still feel it's a good idea. If none of the above happens, ticket prices should be lowered. For a non-megapicture, $10 – $12.50 is ridiculous, unless you can wander around the theater. Also, why haven't theaters been selling VHS tapes and DVDs right there at a concession stand since day one?

Filmed-entertainment is set to break the $100 billion mark in 2016 with an annual growth rate of about 3.6% but INTERACTIVE video games are growing at almost 7% a year and will hit $83 billion in 2016. So do the math. In the next 25 years, virtual reality, which is an extension of INTERACTIVE video games, will catch up and eventually make filmed-entertainment obsolete. Add to this photo-realistic animation and retina projectors and you will kiss movie theaters, TV screens and maybe actors goodbye for vast swaths of the cinematic landscape. Again, all this will happen in the next 25 years. We discussed this in an earlier Daily Bell interview.

Daily Bell: They haven't had much luck with copyright enforcement recently. What's your take on the Kim Dotcom affair?

James Jaeger: I don't yet know how I feel about all this. As a copyright holder myself, I don't like the idea of working on a movie for years and then having people steal it. I also don't like the idea of studios and record companies hiring talents and then stealing 95% of their labor with "writer for hire" copyright deals.

Daily Bell: Update us on "TESLA – The Poet of Electricity."

James Jaeger: I spoke to my contact at Warner Bros. and there is a possibility I may be able to send in the "TESLA" project down the line. If that doesn't happen I am going to hire a casting director and have them help me package the supporting parts of the movie with A-list talents. Then I will take the package to the studios and they may help me get a suitable director. I could direct it if the production budget didn't have to exceed $25 million.

Daily Bell: Still optimistic about the US freedom movement?

James Jaeger: I am only optimistic about the freedom movement to the degree WE THE PEOPLE regain the power of the purse and the power of the sword. This is why Edwin Vieira's new book, The Sword and Sovereignty, is a must-read for everyone. It's at Amazon.com.

Daily Bell: What are your feelings about Rand Paul these days? Is he making the proverbial difference?

James Jaeger: I am very pleased with how Rand Paul has come along. He has taken the training wheels off and is as savvy as his dad now. I expect to see some great leadership from him down the line and hope to interview him for one of my movies in the future.

Daily Bell: Obama seems to be breaking down. Is he going to be impeached the way Richard Nixon was? Does somebody want him out?

James Jaeger: I don't really pay much attention to partisan politics given the people in the executive and Congress don't really call the shots.

Daily Bell: We'll ask you what we did last time. Is the system irreparably broken?

James Jaeger: I don't know if it's irreparably broken. When one looks at things previous generations went through, like the Civil War and the World Wars, a few towers coming down in NYC is pretty mild. The only scary thing we all need to keep frosty on is the capabilities of technology to enslave us. If we don't get rid of that PRISM program and the Bluffdale data storage center, we are going to be in trouble. WE MUST DEMAND THOSE ARE DISBANDED. If they are not, citizens are going to get drastic. I'm not talking about hurting any people but I can easily see thousands, if not millions, of people all over the US getting out their BB guns, pellet guns and/or 22s and shooting out all the surveillance cameras around the nation. It would be a rash of "constructive" vandalism like nothing we have ever seen, but it would send a message to those who feel it's okay to invade privacy in the name of "security." All these "security" measures are making us more and more INSECURE because they give the government the ability to exercise turnkey tyranny.

Also, one of the things the young people – fed up with the surveillance state – are doing to thwart NSA snooping is they copy and paste all or part of a list of keywords into each of their emails and all over their websites and Facebook pages. The keywords are words like: "explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charges, ambush, sniping, motorcade, IRS, BATF, jtf-6, mjtf, hrt, srt, hostages, munitions, weapons, TNT, rdx, amfo, hmtd, picric acid, silver nitrite, mercury fulminate, presidential motorcade, salt peter, charcoal, sulfur, c4, composition b, amatol, petn, lead azide, lead styphante, ddnp, tetryl, nitrocellulose" . . . There's a full list at http://pastebin.com/ELWZ5kwE

Daily Bell: What's going on with "MOLON LABE"?

James Jaeger: "MOLON LABE" is done with principal photography and in post production. We were able to interview most of the people we set out to get. However, Jesse Ventura has not yet been able to nail down an interview date even though he has agreed to be in the movie. We will leave the door open for him until the fine. We have both Alex Jones and Pat Buchanan in this film. These are two very knowledgeable geniuses with entirely different presentation styles and different audiences; however, most of what they say is similar if not identical. It's wonderful having them in the film and fun cutting between them. Also, Ed Griffin is in the film and he does his usual spectacular job as a communicator. Larry Pratt, head of Gun Owners of America, and Stewart Rhodes, head of Oath Keepers, are in the film and between these guys and Edwin Vieira (an attorney with four degrees from Harvard) you get the real story on the Second Amendment and the five reasons WE THE PEOPLE have the inalienable right, and duty, to keep and bear arms. "MOLON LABE" (power of the sword) will thus be the sister film to "FIAT EMPIRE" (power of the purse).

Daily Bell: Are guns necessary for a peaceful society?

James Jaeger: You will have to watch "MOLON LABE" to find out.

Daily Bell: Will you be making a documentary about Snowden?

James Jaeger: Again, I'm sure someone is already halfway through page 31 of their screenplay; however, if any of your readers are of means and want to develop a screenplay, I am open to the idea. I have been following the saga carefully and will continue to do so but I'm sure when Hollywood's version of this thing comes out it will be as disappointing as "ZERO DARK THIRTY."

Daily Bell: What will history say, do you think, about this point in time for the US and for its "exceptionalism" in general?

James Jaeger: I think many Americans are exceptional and there are even a few people in the government who are exceptional, but my generation, the Baby Boomers, for the most part has been lost to drugs and alcohol. When this is factored in, it is no surprise the economy and middle class are in the condition they are in. People need to stop drinking and stop taking pharmaceuticals and other drugs and start meditating at least five minutes every other day. We should stop eating the crap-food that's all over and take a full complement of vitamins every day.

Daily Bell: Is it retrievable?

James Jaeger: If we can get our minds back, at least some portion of them, and show the next generation our mistakes, I am hopeful they will be able to put things back on the rails. Again, the high-tech totalitarian state must be reversed. Pat Buchanan feels the moment of globalization has passed; however, he acknowledges that it may only be temporary, so maybe this is the window of time we have been given to make a difference.

Daily Bell: Can republics ever go back? Some say no. Empire and then unwinding is inevitable.

James Jaeger: That's right, but consider this: If empire succeeds this time, we are really talking GLOBAL empire. The Roman Empire was just a tiny little empire mostly scrawled around the Mediterranean. Every other empire in history only covered portions of the planet, never the entire world. The portions that were not covered were able to erode the empire so empires came and went – five in just the last century.

A global empire is an entirely different creature. A global empire is a function of global technology. F.A. Hayek says the centralized, totalitarian state never succeeds because the communication lines have to become more forceful to the degree they are long. But that force is only severe because the emanation point in a low-tech empire must be severe to cover the distance. In a high-tech global empire you can project force across an ocean as easily as you can project it across the neighborhood. Thus, the recipients may not even be aware that they are being "forced."

Already the vast media propaganda machine combined with the government schools and the feature-length motion picture are dictating culture and behavior. So-called "hate speech" is no different than a "gun-free zone." Both are small patches of rust expanding and eating their way through the steel foundations of constitutional principles. I tried to get a film off the ground last year called "GLOBALIZATION," which explores the role of centralized intelligence vs. distributed intelligence, external ethics vs. internal ethics, central planning vs. free markets, but it's still rusting on the shelf.

Daily Bell: Any last points you want to make?

James Jaeger: Help us get "MOLON LABE – How the Second Amendment Guarantees America's Freedom" done. We still need donations. Go to www.molon.us/donate and do what you can. We will acknowledge you with a screen credit commensurate with your contribution.

Daily Bell: Thanks for sitting down with us for another update.

James Jaeger: You are welcome. Thanks for the opportunity.

Let's discuss filmmaker Michael Moore briefly, who is mentioned in this interview. In fact, let's compare him to Jaeger. James Jaeger is like Michael Moore except that Moore is a socialist provocateur and not a serious man. He lives in a big house in Michigan and indulges himself while railing against the selfishness of others.

Jaeger, on the other hand, is a serious person with an adult perspective about society and how it works, and should work. Jaeger is by now steeped in the traditions of free-market thinking and may know more – as do others in this modern age – about the human condition than even the greatest philosophers of the past.

Moore has used his quick-wittedness to confuse people about the human condition. Jaeger has used his talents to clarify it. If you are a serious person, concerned about your life and times, then you might well prefer Jaeger to Moore.

In fact, it is somewhat depressing that Moore is currently far more popular and feted than Jaeger. However, in years to come, Jaeger will be more popular than Moore, in our humble opinion. This is because Jaeger is trying to tell the truth about social conditions as best he can whereas Moore is merely in the employ of his socialist/globalist paymasters.

This is the dilemma of any artist: Do you express yourself clearly and honestly, or do you use your talents indiscriminately to advance the often-dishonest agendas of others? Jaeger falls into the former category and that's why we're pleased to bring interviews with him to you … even when we don't agree on everything. But we certainly agree with a lot. Hope you enjoy reading them as much as we do conducting them.