No, on a serious note now
He's right that there is a cadre of people at the top that control everything. I think a book was published a few years ago about the 200 families that control France. They monopolize industry, business, politics, etc. There are probably close to 1000 such families in the USA.
And this hits rather close to the mark despite the hysteria:
You want to introduce something you know the people won't like.This may be more power to the police, a further erosion of basic freedoms, even a war. You know that if you offer these policies openly the people will react against them. So you first create a PROBLEM, a rising crime rate, more violence, a terrorist bomb, a government collapse, or you get one of your Illuminati puppets like Saddam Hussein to go to war.
You make sure someone else is blamed for this problem and not you, the real people behind it all. So you create a "patsy", as they call them in America, a Timothy McVeigh or a Lee Harvey Oswald. You then use your media to tell people what they should think about your manufactured event and who they should blame for it. This brings us to stage two, the REACTION from the people - "This can't go on what are THEY going to do about it?"
This allows THEY to then openly offer the SOLUTION to the problems they have created - new legislaation which advances their agenda of centralisation of global power or the erosion of more basic freedoms.
Can anyone say, "Gulf of Tonkin"? What about the USA's initial green-light for Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait?
As for his claim that almost all the Presidents have been related to European Royals, I would not be surprised at all. It is an undoubtable fact that the vast majority of our Presidents have been aristocrats and have been drawn from the class that is nobility in all but name. But that of course is no proof that all these organizations - like the FFV [First Families of Virginia] - are cooperating with each other. Which is very farfetched
Would explain a lot.... I guess 
