"Catherine Austin Fitts responds to Malone's $25 Million Lawsuit against the Breggins: The Refiners Fire"

by Paul Alexander

I would stop playing the victim card, I would take a lead from RFK. I would withdraw the lawsuit and shift from shutting up and bankrupting the good guys, to taking on some of the really bad guys


Dec 14, 2022

‘Hear, hear. So far, he's lost at least one subscriber, and I'm a retired attorney! One of the earliest statements I heard him say years back was that his stance with the resisters would cost him an eventual Nobel prize for the mRNA technology. Thought that was an odd sentiment, but his Napoleonic streak has become clearer. He needs to get better advice from a better lawyer before his image is reduced to a bully, while the Breggins are hailed as martyrs.’




Catherine Austin Fitts 00:00

When I was a government official, I discovered a process that I began to call the refiners fire. And the refiners fire is what happens, it can happen in the market, but it can also happen in a political or democratic process when a group of people start to debate and discuss a policy. So let me tell you where the expression refiners fire comes from. It comes from Malachi in the, in the Bible using King James. Quote: "But who may abide the day of his coming and who shall stand when he appeareth for he is like a refiners fire." There are fires fire refers to refining precious metals, and driving the impurities out of silver and gold, you can read more uses, in fact, that example, in Malachi. And you hear this a lot at Christmas time because in Handel's Messiah, there's a very famous passage where he uses these words again, "But who may abide the day of his coming, and who shall stand when he appeareth for he is like, a refiners fire." What you discover when you work in government is you work on could be regulations for a new piece of litigation, a new piece of legislation, or you decide you need to change your policy. So oftentimes, if you were the FHA Commissioner, and you ran the FHA funds, then you the, you're supposed to run the funds on a self-supporting basis, you would realize, okay, well, we need to increase revenues, or we need to lower expenses, or we need to do something that's going to change the policies. And so you figure out, Okay, it looks to us like our three options for changing our policy, one, two, and three, and we've decided to makes the most sense. And then what you do is you circulate that for comment, and the next thing you know, you know, I'll never forget, when the Texas Home Builders got really upset that I didn't think that federal credit should be used to finance swimming pools. And all of a sudden, you get an uproar in and outroar of different people criticizing what you're proposing and suggesting other things. And the debate can be wild and come from all sorts of places you never expected and you go through planning know, it's kind of like sitting in the middle of the town square, and you take the tomatoes getting thrown at you, and it goes on and on and on, there's so much discussion, you learn that the whole thing was much more complicated than you realize, because you're hearing from lots of people who are dealing with the policies in the trenches. And when the whole process is said and done. It's a, it is a little bit like the sausage factory, you get so much more intelligence. And what comes out the other end is a much better policy, because the shared intelligence is going to work is very much how markets work. But it's it's the process that comes about when people are free to speak their mind and express their opinions. It's one of the reasons that free speech is so powerful important because it allows us to share intelligence and get smarter and smarter. And it can be very messy, it can be very surprising. It can be very hurtful, it can be very unexpected. You worked hard to generate a policy and now everybody's telling you how stupid you are. Now, that's that's a legitimate refiners fire. And it can be pretty excruciating. But it does get the impurities out of the metal. And it does improve the policy creation very, very significantly. And it's one of the reasons that the democratic process really does work. Now, you will also have people who play dirty and get really ugly in it. And it can be extremely painful. One of my favorite examples of the ugliness is there's a documentary called Sputnik fever, I think. And it's about when the Russians got the Sputnik satellite up and, and the war machine into the deep state really turned on Eisenhower and tried to get him to do certain things. And he, Eisenhower was masterful in the way he played it. It was unbelievable, but it shows you an example of a politician who's a true master at the refiners fire and knows how to play it even when it gets really, really dirty. Another great example of the refiners fire getting very, very dirty is the documentary about the Dixie Chicks called shut up and sing. They weren't trained to deal with it, and it almost knocked him over but miraculously, they stayed together and overcame it, but it's, it's a great example of how dirty it can get now, I have a lot of experience dealing with the refiners fire so I dealt with it as Assistant Secretary the, my appointment was not without controversy. So first, I lived through that I'd seen it a lot when I was on Wall Street. But it's it's one thing to watch it. It's another thing to be in the hopper. Then when I was financial advisor, and my company was financial advisor to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, I dealt with it in many respects. And then eleven years of litigation, where you're dealing with the dirtiest of professional, not only smear campaigns, but intelligence operations, they use your family, they use your neighbors, they use your friends, they, they turn employees against you, it's just you can't imagine how dirty it gets it is total all out spiritual, legal, financial warfare, and talk about driving the impurities out of your soul. It's unbelievable. And then of course, after the litigation was over, I was hoping I could go back to cooperating with the establishment. But of course, that was naive. And so I've been dealing off and on with a refiners fire since. So I know a lot about the refiners fire. And I will tell you, the first I want to tell you about the best person I've seen, who can handle it. If you read my book review of Robert F. Kennedy's book, American values, you get a sense of what or of course you read the book, it's, it's very good, it's well worth reading, you get a sense of what it's like to be a Kennedy and to train from the youngest age to, you know, sit in the town, square and debate, debate your ideas, defend your ideas, promote your ideas, work hard to get your ideas implemented, and do it in a democratic process, and respect that process. And Kennedy, you can tell from reading the book, but from working with Kennedy, or knowing Kennedy, he has exceptional training and doing that. And remember, he had to do it when you're living with the snakes in the grass you're living with and working with and dealing with the people who organize to kill your father and your uncle. I had the opportunity last year to travel with Kennedy and Burn in Milan on a speaking tour. And I watched some of the reporters play dirty family cards on him. I've had the family card played on me in very, very dirty ways. But if you see how they played it on Kennedy, it's exceptionally dirty and much more public. They've also tried to use his wife and kids. It's as brutal as it gets. I've never seen him online. I've never seen him complain. I've never seen him play victim. I've never seen him ask for sympathy, although Lord knows he could have. He always comes from a place of power. And understanding that this is how the process works. You know, whether it's just the legitimate discussion of policy and debate or you know, it gets dirty, he understands. First he stays at a higher mind. He doesn't let them get into his skin that he shows it. You know, he sort of understands Oh, God, here it goes. Again, he keeps them outside. And then he proceeds to use his resources to get important things done. So he doesn't just attack you know, or Sue or go into court or waste resources on people who go after him on personal things and play dirty. He's not trying to bully the people who criticize him that I've ever seen, whether it's legitimate criticism or illegitimate criticism, and he gets plenty of illegitimate criticism. I spoke with one writer in Knoxville, who's writing a book about him and the topic came up about Kennedy's qualifications to hold a high public office. And I gave him an exceptionally high mark, because with his experience and ability to manage the refiners fire, what it means is, you're not going to trick him by getting under his skin to move away from achieving the important things. He's clearly got his eye on how to use whatever power resources he has to get important things done, as opposed to protect his ego or put salve on a thin skin. That's what your critics try and do. They try to get under your skin to trip you up. And that's how they trick you into using taxpayers money and taxpayers credit to satisfy your personal needs or personal goals. And of course, that's how you lose in the bigger game. Why am I talking about the refiners fire? That's background because I want to talk about the lawsuit brought by Dr. Robert Malone against Dr. Peter Breggin and his wife, Ginger. 

Catherine Austin Fitts 09:43

After Malone filed the lawsuit, Peter wrote an article about it. And then Dr. Malone wrote an article about it and sent a link to me and about 100 other people. So I kind of feel like both Peter And Dr. Malone have invited me to comment and then Jon Rappoport wrote substack and send it to me. And then I've gotten a series of questions and ask Catherine about the lawsuit, which is why I'm addressing this and ask Catherine but we'll pull it out as an excerpt. So, bottom line is I feel like I've been invited to comment by all the parties involved and, and in the spirit of not wanting to give offence I hope I don't offend any of the parties whether it's Peter or Dr. Malone or Rappoport, this is simply giving you my two cents on the thing. So history on this. I've long been a serious admirer of Peter Breggin and his wife, Ginger. Because of their work stopping the weaponization of mental health I first learned about them through Truthstream media's wonderful documentary The Minds of Men, I cannot recommend that documentary enough and to say what Peter has accomplished in his life is absolutely astonishing. The one of the most evil uses of any profession to do harm is the use of psychiatry to engineer political control. It's it's pretty horrible, and no one's fought it harder than Peter, and his accomplishments in that vein, simply take my breath away. So as a result of that, I've done several interviews with Peter or had him on the Solari report and tried to steadily follow his work. What happened was a theory started to be promoted about two years ago by a Belgian psychoanalyst or therapist named Mateus Desmet called mass formation, which I saw as being simply not a useful theory. And if you want to understand mass formation, I think the best comment that's been written about it was just published by Whitney Webb and Unlimited Hangout. It's called mass atrocity, a COVID-19, mass atrocity versus mass formation. And the authors clearly come down on the notion that the COVID-19 pandemic was a mass atrocity. And but it does a very good description of why mass formation makes no sense. One of the people who wrote it is written by three authors did a presentation on the Doctors for COVID Ethics Symposium, which is about a 30 minutes for video and discussion of these issues. And you can see it in the stream for the Doctors for COVID Ethics Symposium, but if you want to understand mass formation, it's one of the things written, it was presented clearly in a book by Mateus Desmon called the Psychology of Totalitarianism, [which or chronic] are reviewed on the Soleri report, you can find it on the website. And then Peter Breggin wrote a review of it as well. And it was interesting because I, I agreed to read the book at the same time Peter agreed to, to read the book. And I found it an exceptionally painful book to read, Peter began to criticize mass formation. And Peter is brilliant. He's intense, he's aggressive. And one of the reasons he started to criticize it was he's written a book describing the real problems we have with the intersection between psychopaths and political power. And this has been a problem throughout human history where psychopaths, a certain percentage of the population, are born without empathy. It's hard for everybody else to understand that, that people are like that, that they exist. And, and the psychopaths are very good at finding each other and organizing to achieve political power. And now, with this centralization afforded by digital technology, it's really dangerous. So Peter written a book, one of his most recent on the problem of predators, and the sort of the theory of mass formation attributes to totalitarianism to the psychological hysteria of the general population, as opposed to psychopaths who engineer, you know, tyranny. Anyway, so there's a there's a profound disagreement. And I think one of Peters greatest concerns was that Dr. Malone had associated the word psychosis or hypnosis with mass formation, and it looked like something that could be used to essentially forgive the people who'd implemented mass atrocity. One of the interesting things if you go back and you look at Peters history, Peter is a master of jumping into the middle of the town square and debating through the refiners fire, leading a discussion in the refiners fire battling out in the refiners fire. And he kind of loves that he loves the democratic process of getting in there and figuring these things. He's out debating it out. And he's great at it. I wouldn't say he's great at Kennedy at it but he's he's definitely up there. 

Catherine Austin Fitts 15:07

He's really great at it. I certainly better than me on it in front of his fire, I get very frustrated with it. I'm, you know, I've learned to be good at it. And you know, I can decide to do it. But you know, some people just have a natural gift and I think Peter has that natural gift.

Catherine Austin Fitts 15:20

Well, Rick had written a book review of, of Desmond's book that Peter really picked up the discussion and wrote a much longer book review of the Psychology of Totalitarianism, and started to criticize Malone for his insert of use, he's started to write a series of articles about Malone, at the heart of it is, is Peter's real policy concern about the weaponization of mental health, which is a far broader topic than, than just mass formation. But it's an important one. And it's very, very important right now that Peter is free to, you know, to do that. And what's interesting is, I just think if you look at, at what he was writing about Malone, my expectation was that he wasn't intended to write more articles about Malone it sort of said his piece, which is why it's too bad Malone by bringing the lawsuit has kept us going at the root of the discussion is a very important policy debate. And that is the rule of law versus the rule of man. You know, should people who engage in mass atrocity be held accountable for breaking the law? And my answer is, yes, I think, you know, I always say crime that pays his crime that stays and we see far too much sovereign immunities, and sort of legal indemnifications, that is literally allowing a mass atrocity to be engineered. That's sort of Peter and Ginger, who I think are, are lovely people. Now I've heard plenty of criticisms of them, which underscores the fact that they're human, they're not perfect, but I found them to be lovely people. And whenever I disagree with Peter, I can call Peter and, and say, Peter, I totally disagree with you. And we just found that out. And he's completely opening to listening. And he will change his mind. I've seen him do it. And so I've never seen a situation where if you go into the refiners fire on the other side of Peter, you don't come out in a great place, because he loves the debate. But he also tries to get something done. And he's just not somebody who, who enjoys hurting people's feelings. That is not who he is. Let me make a couple of points about Dr. Malone. The first point which is very, very important, both as a matter of ethics and law is that Dr. Malone has publicly expressed his desire to serve in a senior US Government position. And what that does is that changes both the ethical standards and the libel standards related to debating his policies, his positions, his qualifications, or his character. Essentially, if you're asking if you're throwing your hat in the ring for a public position, then questions or comments about your everything from your character to your qualifications, your opinions are the policies that you would use. When you were in a position to impact health laws, regulations, enforcement or other policies, especially those funded with taxpayer um, dollars. This all puts you clearly right smack in the middle of public square, and it's all fair game. Everything's fair game once you throw your hat in the ring. So I haven't read the libel laws for many years since I edited the Dillon Read book. But my recollection of what they were at that time is you just put yourself in the public square. So what you're doing is you're ringing the bell and saying, I invite the refiners fire. That's how it works. Welcome to vetting 101. Okay, so Sam Malone has put himself in the public square. That's number one. The second thing is I don't post Dr. Malone stuff and material ancillary. And the primary reason is because of his position on the vaccine pipeline, if you watch the debate, that Del Bigtree led at [Bath], Dr. Malone, as well as numerous other people in the discussion clearly come down on the side of preserving the vaccine schedule down. My attitude is I don't understand what the theoretical benefits of immunology have to do with continued poisoning of our children, you know, by companies and regulators with a long history of serial felonies, you know, there's no reason to believe that anything coming through that pipeline at this point is what they say it is. I mean, what we seen as you know, we've watched a quote, vaccination process where the variability of the material in the vials is so extraordinarily great that you have seasoned pharmaceutical executives opining that it's not, not only is it not a vaccine, it's not a pharmaceutical, and it's not a medicine, therefore it's a weapon. So we're talking about serial felonies that are extraordinary by both the regulators and the companies. So I don't understand to me the theoretical benefits of immunology, which to me are theoretical, never been proven, but I don't see what they have to do with continuing poisoning of our children by serial felons. I mean, this is would you turn over the power to inject mysterious ingredients into the bodies of our children by the Russian mafia? No, I don't think so. Well, I don't see what the difference is. Now, I would note that, according to my friends at CHD, Dr. Malone has done very good work defending ivermectin hydroxychloroquine. And trying to protect the use of early intervention with drugs of that kind. And he's been helpful in defending Dr. NASS, and they feel he's done good work in that area. So I just want to point that out. But the reality is, I don't want to promote anybody who promotes continued poisoning by serial felons, which to me has nothing to do with immunology. This is not a vaccine schedule. It's a poisoning scheduled by serial felons. And that's been proven there has to be accountability for mass atrocity. I would also recommend that you watch Sasha Latypova, and Katherine Watts presentation at the doctors for COVID Ethics symposium, the fifth one, it's the end of the third section, it's part three of the third section. And Sasha has PowerPoint presentation in 15 minutes is is called intends to harm. And what the case she makes is that the COVID-19, mass atrocity was a mass atrocity committed under military law. And the evidence for that is compelling. Now, in the midst of that, to attribute this to a mass formation, I, where I come from, we call that horse pucky. So something is wrong, Peter, as a result of some of these things, has been critical of Dr. Malone. But I have not seen him. I've never heard or saw him do anything other than what in my book was simply engaging in the refiners fire now, I can't swear I've read everybody, you know, between what Peter wrote and Dr. Malone wrote, it's way too much stuff to read carefully. So I'm not saying I've read everything, but from everything I did read or skim. All I saw Peter doing was engaging in the refiners fire. Now he's brilliant, and he's aggressive, and he's intense, but I never saw him defame Dr. Malone that I heard of. There were places where he was tougher than I would have been because Malone has establishment credentials. So just bring in so do I. And, you know, I've been roundly criticized for having establishment credentials. So I know how that feels. To me having established the lots of people who came up the establishment, you know, who left the establishment and the fact that they have establishment credentials. I'm not as critical. The one defamation I did see was I heard Dr. Malone on a John B. Wells program. And it was very clever the way it was done. And when when he said, you'll often hear me say, I wonder if Hill and Knowlton came up with that one. It was that was definitely a Hill and Knowlton when he he said, you know, Breggin says 86, he's getting on in age and I have it from I think you refer to other people, I'd have to go back and listen. So if you want the exact language, I'd go listen to the John B Wells show, but he said, you know, he's his cognition is slipping. Now, if you watched any of Breggin's shows criticizing Malone, I assure you, his cognition was not slipping one bit it was it was better than me when I was 35. Okay, Breggin is brilliant. He's absolutely brilliant. If there's one thing Peter Breggin is not doing his cognition is not slipping. So the notion that he should pull that out interestingly enough, that very same week someone in the Netherlands which is right next to Belgium, said the Desmet said play the same card in a show that he did here, but I didn't hear it that was just secondhand. If that's the case, there was a little coordination and I do you know, was very Hill and Knowlton but Breggins' cognition was not slipping one bit, but it was very clever the way more Malone did it. Here's what I would say. Well, Dr. Malone is inability to participate, or, or really lead in, the refiners fire, in my opinion renders him, someone who's not suitable for public office. Given how emotional upset he described his reaction to Peters criticisms, you know.

Catherine Austin Fitts 25:21

What I would say to Dr. Malone is, if you think Peter Breggin was tough, you have not seen anything yet. This is on a scale of one to 10, 10 being the toughest refiners fire. You know, this is like at 2.5. And if you are this upset on a 2.5, I beg of you not to subject yourself and your wife, and your friends to what will happen if you enter public office. The refiners fire has killed people who react emotionally or take it personally. And I've seen it destroy people. And I would just beg, if you do not subject yourself to that it's a killing field. Really, someone like Peter is great at it. But if you are this upset over Peter Breggin, I just, I can't tell you how ugly it can be. What you and your wife will face is much, much worse. And it's funny because I love horses. And one of the things I've seen from some of your web material is you have a beautiful horse farm, and absolutely beautiful horses, I would go back to the horses rather than, than subject myself to that killing field because I think you could get yourself in real trouble. The second thing is suing the Breggins, let alone for $25 million. To sue an 86-year-old guy and his wife for $25 million. I mean, that's not what you do. If you believe in addressing and debating, in a way that respects the First Amendment and free speech. What you do is you debate them, you can debate them in writing, you can debate them in getting on a show and, and debating them fair and square. But I wish you had done that. And my understanding is you had that opportunity and didn't want to do it. So I have to question your commitment to free speech and the First Amendment. Because if I were you, I would have to me you debate a guy. And if you continue to, you know, you call him out, if you think he's defaming you you call him out, and you debate him about it. And you debate him about it until if he keeps doing it, then you, if you feel you have to sue him now, I'd rather be like Kennedy, I use those resources someplace else. But what you're telling me is that, that you and the refiners fire are not compatible. And so I kick that to you. It's your decision what you do about that. But if I were you, and I know you haven't asked my opinion, other than to invite my comment by sending me yours, I would stop playing the victim card, I would take a lead from RFK. He's your friend too. I would withdraw the lawsuit and shift from shutting up and bankrupting the good guys, to taking on some of the really bad guys who need to be held accountable for mass atrocity. We're staring down the barrel of a mass atrocity that is ongoing. And we need all of our resources to stop it. And that's I think it's more important to stop mass atrocity than to, you know, then to protect our thin skin on the refiners fire. So those are my thoughts about the lawsuit in one way or another. I hope it gets ended quickly or settled. I think it's a complete waste of everybody's time and money. As you can probably tell.’