Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 15, 2024 - David Icke

45:08

Are we starting to see a real life 'Minority Report'? - Whitney Webb on Gareth Icke Tonight

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	OK, are we ready?
	I'll just move a little bit to the left.
	I don't want people thinking I'm too far right.
	OK.
	Hello and welcome to Chairman Starmer's People's Republic of England.
	Please leave your free thought and opinions in the bins provided, because you won't find much use for them here.
	Just a few short weeks ago we were told that Britain's prisons were overcrowding, and so the government was going to make the difficult decision to release some prisoners, some of which were convicted of violent crimes and crimes against children.
	And now we know why.
	The room was desperately needed for people that post stuff.
	An inaccurate social media post is as much of a danger to the wider society as a violent criminal or a sex offender, it seems.
	Because if you post something online that isn't accurate, then other people may act upon that information and therefore you're as guilty as those that carry out that act.
	I mean, there's a bigger question of who decides what's accurate and what isn't and who fact-checks the fact-checkers.
	And if you're posting your opinion, who's to say it's inaccurate?
	It's your opinion.
	But that aside, let's pretend that Chairman Starmer and his funny handshake pals in the Crown Prosecution Service are acting sincerely.
	Let's pretend they genuinely think that posts on social media can lead to very real harms and should therefore face the full force of the law.
	In 2021, Chairman Starmer posted the following.
	The AstraZeneca vaccine is safe, effective, and saving thousands of lives.
	Trust in our doctors and scientists.
	When it's your turn to get the jab, do so.
	Okay, now the AstraZeneca jabs have killed and injured many, many people, and they're eventually taken off the market.
	So Chairman Starmer posted something inaccurate and promoted something that killed and injured people.
	So by his very own logic, he should be getting a knock on the door, right?
	Course not.
	Now, while I'm, you know, calling him Chairman Starmer for comical effect, I know this guy isn't in charge of anything.
	He's an empty vessel.
	He's a suit for hire.
	He's an ignoramus who is useful in the short to medium term to forward an agenda of censorship and control.
	But he'll be tossed aside when he's served his purpose.
	The clown already looks like a rabbit in headlights because that's exactly what he is.
	He will go down as one of the most despised Prime Ministers in UK history.
	And think of the competition.
	Now, once the pushback against him grows untenable, he'll be chucked to the walls to satisfy the growing pack.
	But the agenda will continue without him.
	Because he's a cog in a despicable machine, but he's far from the one driving it.
	The Labour Party have a mandate in terms of MPs in Parliament, but in terms of the number of votes, they don't have any real mandate at all.
	Not far off, 70% of the country didn't want him on election day, and that number will only continue to grow as the true colours flow ever more clearly, even for those that still support him now.
	You see, left and right, they're two cheeks of the same arse.
	But there are slight differences between the cheeks' supporters.
	The current version of the left still calls itself liberal, but that, of course, is an inversion of the truth.
	It's actually massively authoritarian and ball-achingly arrogant.
	It believes its worldview is the correct one.
	It's surrounded by an echo chamber of mainstream media, films, entertainment, and most of social media, all parroting the same worldview, which makes the I'm right mentality even stronger.
	And if I'm right and someone else disagrees with me, then what are they by very definition?
	They're wrong.
	Correct.
	Well done.
	Yes, they are wrong.
	And if they're wrong, then why should we hear their wrongness?
	The fake liberal left don't want to know the shades of grey.
	They don't want to know why someone has a particular opinion, what their lived-in experience is that drew them to that way of thinking.
	All that matters is, they don't think like me.
	And therefore, in the current immigration conversation, they must be one of three things.
	Racist, stupid, or stupid racists.
	They have to be nasty or stupid.
	It was the same with Brexit.
	You were either racist or you were fooled by a racist.
	With Covid, you were either an anti-vaxxer, granny-killing grifter or you were fooled by one.
	And this mindset won't come to the table for a chat because it doesn't see why it should.
	You're wrong to have your view and therefore one more wrong view in Chairman Starmer's gulag is a good thing, right?
	Well, what they don't realise is that this is just the beginning, because no one aligns with the state on everything.
	So eventually, you know, further down the road, the I Am Right Brigade will come unstuck with some wrong think of their own.
	And when they're desperately looking around, seeking an ally in the darkness, a voice that will speak on their behalf, all they'll be met with is silence.
	Because those that would have stood with them, they've already been led off to the metaphorical and possibly literal dungeons.
	And when that realisation hits, they'll wonder, how was this allowed to happen?
	Why didn't someone fight back when this fascism was in its infancy?
	And at that point, The penny comes crashing down, like a fireball from the furthest reaches of the cosmos.
	The realization will be earth-shattering, and their inner voice will bellow like, I don't know, Brian Blessed in some Shakespearean tragedy, only louder.
	You didn't allow it to happen, mate.
	You rejoiced in it.
	You celebrated it.
	You cheered it on.
	You punched the air.
	You necked a pint to commemorate it.
	You proudly wore the T-shirt.
	And now, that bed that you so joyfully helped to make, well it's yours to lay in, isn't
	it?
	Our final guest this evening joins us from Chile.
	Whitney Webb is an investigative journalist and author and as a regular on the show needs absolutely no introduction whatsoever.
	She's one of very few journalists that actually do their job these days and that means questioning and investigating everyone not just the people they aren't politically aligned with.
	You can head over to unlimitedhangout.com and subscribe to Whitney's work there but we're lucky enough to have her on the show Now, Whitney, welcome.
	I know in Chile, obviously, you've got issues with power cuts and all sorts.
	So if we cut in and out and stuff like that, then we'll just have to, do you know what I mean, manage that.
	But you're 7,000 miles away.
	How does the UK look to you right now?
	Yeah, well, what's going on in the UK is really unprecedented, but unfortunately the roadmap has been laid.
	And it's not just a roadmap laid for the UK, it's really laid out for pretty much most of the West and also really the world at large.
	And the reason I say this is because There's an effort that I wrote about back in 2021, that's part of this working group within the World Economic Forum called the Partnership Against Cybercrime.
	And their documents show a deliberate effort to frame speech they don't like, or what they regard as misinformation.
	To define that as cybercrime, so essentially an effort to define speech online in the same terms as, you know, hacking a database, hacking people's money or personal information.
	You know, being essentially on par with that type of quote-unquote crime.
	And the main entities involved in that, in that partnership against cybercrime, you can look up the members online on the World Economic Forum website.
	It's mostly the big tech companies and the big banks and a few intelligence agencies.
	And those intelligence agencies are American, they're Israeli, and they're British.
	And so you've had the involvement of these three governments in that particular policy agenda for many years now.
	And the exact, well, the person who's nominally in charge of this partnership against cybercrime is a career Israeli intelligence operative named Tal Goldstein, who was sort of the Architect of a lot of what later became Netanyahu's cyber security and general cyber policy, which included turning a lot of tech companies into front companies for Mossad and other Israeli intelligence agencies.
	So, you know, a lot of the people here are big advocates of public-private sector fusion and have this agenda not only to define speech as cybercrime, but also to push for digital ID for internet access as a way to stop everything from cyberbullying to hate speech.
	Basically, it's a large-reaching agenda to end anonymity online.
	So I would argue what we're seeing now in the UK is the first push to criminalize speech online, but after that they're going to push for something that's been a project of the Labour Party, you know, since Tony Blair was in charge of it, which is to impose, you know, ID on, you know, the British people everywhere.
	And of course, this time, it's going to be a digital ID.
	And the idea is to have it be a necessary requisite for you to access the internet at all through your internet service provider.
	And of course, once you end online anonymity and you have a government-issued ID linked to your speech, it's much easier to prosecute people for online speech.
	So some of, you know, like the unfortunate person who was recently convicted for a social media post and is now going to prison in 20 months, maybe their account wasn't so anonymous, but even for those that attempt to post, views that maybe the establishment doesn't like on accounts not linked to their name or publicly to your actual identity at all.
	The goal is to have everything you post and also consume and read online, you know, be something that law enforcement could take a look at and decide, you know, if you end up on the naughty list or not, so to speak.
	And then if you're a publisher of that information, you can be defined as a cyber criminal.
	And what you do as well is you get rid of whistleblowers, don't you?
	There's so many people that would blow the whistle from within an institution that they could do that anonymously.
	I mean, we've had people on the show here where their voices are changed and their faces are covered.
	I don't even know what they look like.
	But that wouldn't be allowed anymore.
	Yeah, which I'm sure is probably part of it.
	I mean, something that people were talking about, and I'm sure we've actually mentioned this before in conversations, A few years back was the idea that conspiracy theorists, for want of a better term, would be labelled as domestic terrorists in order to basically use laws to silence them and even imprison them.
	Is this something that you think will come out of this as well?
	It will evolve out of this crackdown on the far right, whatever the far right is.
	I don't even know what that means anymore.
	Yeah, I think that's absolutely something that we should be concerned about.
	I'm not as far as familiar with domestic terror laws as they exist in the United Kingdom.
	But I know that in the U.S., the Biden administration has developed a framework for the domestic policy or domestic terrorism policy, which, again, is something that every administration since George W. Bush has built on top of, including Obama and including Trump and, of course, including Biden.
	And in the in the case of Biden's administration, they define people that oppose all forms of capitalism as potential domestic terrorists.
	And this includes the left stakeholder capitalism, for example, which is really, you know, the public private partnership model that's more in line with the Mussolini fascist corporatist So you can, you know, oppose that and be defined as a cybercrime.
	If you're deemed to be a radical environmentalist or a radical advocate for holding the government to account for perceived overreach, you can be labeled, you know, a domestic terrorist.
	And a lot of this has been done by a company, Palantir, for the U.S.
	national security state for, you know, most of the past two decades now, using your online activity and what they can data mine largely from social media.
	sites, but also, you know, elsewhere to profile you.
	And so, you know, in the United States, you know, Palantir has has been, you know, caught labeling people subversive, attaching the subversive label to them on behalf of US intelligence agencies, and Palantir.
	Was created by a man named Peter Thiel, who's very intimately connected to Trump's vice presidential candidate, J.D.
	Vance, but was also really the force behind the growth and rise of Facebook, which, of course, has been used to fuel Some of this profiling and also the creation of a facial recognition dragnet through a company also funded by Peter Thiel that's called Clearview AI that has actually, they brag about using their facial recognition database built off of Facebook to identify people that were present at the U.S.
	Capitol on January 6, 2021, all Trump supporters, obviously, and reporting them to law enforcement.
	So you essentially have, you know, a situation where a lot of these entities, including ones that are backing the person that claims to be against all of this, you know, intimately involved with efforts to label people, you know, domestic terrorists based on their online activity.
	And of course, that's going to include online speech as well.
	And certain viewpoints, as I pointed out, have been labeled by one administration, at least the Biden administration as, you know, worthy of inclusion on those lists when these are, you know, I would argue very valid viewpoints and not something that should be considered a crime at all.
	But perhaps for the establishment and where it's going, you know, this is the war on You know, speech is really a war on dissent at the end of the day.
	So this is all about controlling dissent and controlling speech and controlling what people what information people can access and criminalizing people for the information that they put out and also that they consume.
	And they can also, like you were saying about making profiles on people, because obviously most people at home will have probably watched the film Minority Report, and even if they haven't, you've probably heard of it.
	But pre-crime, which is basically the basis of the film, it's no longer a Hollywood movie plot, is it now?
	This stuff via AI is literally happening now.
	Yeah, and this is something that's been a major push, at least in the United States, you know, of the national security state since after 9-11.
	And it's something that they've been very focused on for a long time.
	And now with the proliferation of artificial intelligence technologies that focus on, you know, what they call predictive analytics, predicting what will happen before it happens, we're seeing, you know, this being applied not just to, you know, law enforcement and pre-crime, but also stopping pandemics before they happen and things like that.
	And you know, the same companies like Palantir, for example, that are involved in labeling people and trying to determine who's likely to commit a crime before it happens and things like that, are also involved in US government efforts to identify a pandemic before it happens, again, using artificial intelligence.
	And it's important to point out as far as AI goes, that the accuracy of these algorithms is not independently tested.
	So we don't actually know how accurate they are.
	And some of these companies that are predicting, or even facial recognition companies that are identifying people in the streets, they're not 100% accurate.
	And some of them are woefully inaccurate.
	I believe in the UK in particular, some of these facial recognition algorithms that are used by the Met Police, for
	example, have been found to be notoriously inaccurate, you know, below 50%. So like worse than a coin toss, but they
	haven't, you know, changed vendors or anything like that, despite those, that very bad accuracy. So again, I would
	argue, you know, accuracy isn't the point, but it's about having
	an excuse sort of having a Wizard of Oz situation, a man behind the curtain who can declare emergency or declare a
	pandemic or a crime or a terrorist attack without having to go to all the effort of doing anything like false flag
	events or, you know, orchestrating what we saw during the COVID-19
	crisis and all of that.
	It won't be necessary to do that anymore in order to facilitate The policy response they want at the end of the day, which invariably is always going to be more surveillance and control for them over us, right?
	And unfortunately, you know, a lot of this pre-crime stuff has been, again, advanced by every administration in the post 9-11 era in the United States, and this includes Trump, who during a spate of rather suspect shootings in the United States, including the El Paso Walmart shooting of 2019, which again, for anyone that's looked into that, it's very dubious, the official narrative, as are most of these Most of these events, Donald Trump called on Silicon Valley, namely social media networks, to profile their users to stop mass shootings before they happen.
	So basically institute pre-crime, you know, software functionality into their platforms to profile, you know, innocent users.
	And there was also efforts to consider within the administration This policy, this program that it's an acronym, but it was called Safe Homes.
	And the whole idea of it was using AI to profile people's online speech in order to determine if they were showing early neuropsychiatric warning signs of violence with the idea of preventing shootings or violent acts before they happen.
	And this was the ambition of the neocons back in the George administration.
	And their surveillance efforts of that era that were housed within DARPA, which is part of the Pentagon, called Total Information Awareness.
	And, you know, their ambitions for that type of surveillance dragnet and pre-crime precedes the post 9-11 era.
	But that's because, you know, 9-11 manufactured the consent for them to think that they could, you know, get these programs pushed through.
	But you know, those particular guys were trying to do that during the Iran-Contra era in the 1980s.
	They were efforts of the US military to do essentially the same thing, you know, back in the Vietnam War era.
	And you could argue, you know, as soon as there were computers, even the big clunky ones that took up several rooms, you know, there were efforts to, you know, profile people and use them for these sorts of purposes, as far as the state is concerned.
	So, unfortunately, this is a very long standing agenda, and the technology is here to have it play out.
	But again, it depends on, you know, whether or not we acquiesce and we Let them install this paradigm upon us.
	And so some people have gotten mad at me for reminding people that the Trump administration was very much involved in these types of efforts and in promoting these policies.
	But again, you know, maybe he's campaigning on different metrics or saying different things on the campaign trail.
	But we have to remember that politicians, when they're campaigning, are giving sales pitches.
	And when they've been in office before, they show us who they really are and what policy actions they actually take when they have power.
	And so it's important to be very vigilant about those things.
	And I think it's very clear that whether Trump or Kamala Harris or anyone else, you know, gets elected in the next U.S.
	presidential election later this year, these are the types of policies that they're going to support because it's a very bipartisan.
	Agenda, and you know, it's the American people that lose at the end of the day.
	And again, you know, this is a roadmap, you know, that's sort of been shared by other countries besides the United States, namely all of the Five Eyes countries, which includes, you know, pretty much the entire English speaking world.
	You know, all of those governments are essentially on lockstep on a lot of these agendas and including efforts to create You know, biometric digital ID, which Trump is actually selling as a solution to the migration issue in the United States, and I'm sure in the UK, they'll be selling it even though it's the left-leaning party in power over there right now.
	But I mean, really, this bipartisan global agenda.
	Aimed at complete surveillance of the population.
	And a lot of people, when these points are brought up, say, well, I'm not doing anything wrong, and I have nothing to hide, so it's fine.
	But when you consider that this is all going towards a predictive functionality in pre-crime, it doesn't matter what you're doing.
	If the AI, whether it's erroneous or not, you know, but very likely possibly erroneous, suspects that you may commit a crime in the future based on something innocuous that you did, or that seemed innocuous to you, but perhaps to the algorithm was not, you know, you could, you know, stand to lose your freedom entirely.
	And this is something that we should absolutely reject because it doesn't make people safer.
	Even though it's been sold that way, it's not more accurate.
	And essentially, what it does is that it just allows an even smaller group to control even more.
	People and, you know, again, there's widespread efforts to manufacture consent for this, whether it's to right-leaning people or left-leaning people or people in the middle.
	And I think we're going to see unprecedented efforts to sell it.
	But again, it's something just like digital ID.
	It only happens if we agree to it.
	A digital ID, just like the vaccine, right, are going to be framed as voluntary choices.
	And it may be very inconvenient to refuse these things.
	But it's something that we must do.
	Because if, you know, it's really the linchpin in a lot of these plans that we've been that we've been discussing so far.
	So I think, you know, a lot of people should focus on how they're going to refuse to comply with the digital ID push.
	Which is really, I would argue, what a lot of the vaccine stuff was a trial run for, and vaccine passports were really just a trial run for digital IDs.
	So it would be helpful, I think, to revisit some of the strategies and things that people did to avoid complying with those orders.
	Um, you know, as it relates to the digital ID thing, which I think we're going to see an unprecedented push for in the next couple of years.
	I mean, it's already starting, but I think it's going to pick up precipitously over the next, you know, one to two years.
	Absolutely.
	And they say here as well that the government wasted so much money on track and trace.
	So they didn't waste the money.
	They set the system up and the system's already there and it's still ready to go.
	They built the infrastructure.
	Exactly.
	And what I don't get with what you said there, you know, that people say, well, if I'm not doing anything wrong, I don't care about being spied on.
	It's like, and I've heard that many times.
	People, I'm not doing anything wrong.
	It's like, But no one's saying, I don't care about being spied on in the shower because, you know, I'm in good shape.
	You wouldn't say that.
	You'd be straight on the phone to the police that I'm being watched by some weird guy.
	Right.
	So I don't understand that.
	Also, you know, you've obviously been researching for years and, you know, trying to uncover what's going on in the world.
	So you're probably well versed enough and have been doing it long enough to remember When people distrusted billionaires, particularly people within the alternative media, they distrusted billionaires now.
	These people are the gods of the alternative.
	How did that happen?
	I don't even know how that happened.
	Well, I think, you know, again, a lot of it has to do with Silicon Valley.
	Even though alternative media have long framed themselves as different from mainstream media, mainstream media and alternative media for views and income have largely become dependent on the same algorithms that are controlled by the same oligarchs that also are the oligarchs that in the United States fund both parties, right?
	And are essentially a lot of this stuff about digital ID, you know, are their agendas.
	At the end of the day, or at least agendas that they overwhelmingly support.
	So sorry, I lost my train of thought.
	Like you've mentioned Teal a bunch of times, Peter Teal is everywhere.
	I keep checking my bank account.
	I've not had a penny off the guy.
	It's annoying me a little bit.
	But I think he's set up a situation now where so many people within the alternative, particularly through Rumble and people like that, which is Peter Teal, obviously, yes, they're dependent on their money.
	Yes.
	Yeah, and a lot of people don't want to bite the hand that feeds, you know, but I think people again need to ask themselves why they ever entered alternative media in the first place.
	Was it to fight the good fight and wake people up or was it to make a career?
	For me, it's definitely not a career.
	I, you know, before I wrote, I like managed like farms in South America that were pretty small scale.
	And like, I'm a gardener, you know, I only really did this because I was really mad about what's happening.
	And when you realize that it's a completely global and encompassing agenda, it's very hard to sit idly by and do nothing about it.
	And I think a lot of people, unfortunately, have in alternative media have gotten very comfortable.
	And, you know, I've definitely seen people been very flattered by famous people who are, you know, Thiel funded or funded by someone else, you know, be flattered by being approached by celebrities and sort of, you know, maybe self-censor, change what they cover in an effort to sort of curry that.
	I mean, there's a lot of ways to manipulate people in alternative media that aren't necessarily a direct buyout.
	And a lot of that, I think, too, is the algorithm, people shaping the type of content they produce in order to get more clicks.
	And, you know, more likes on social media and all of that, you know, those have become sort of the incentives for a lot of people.
	And that has sort of facilitated this transformation where alternative media has become, you know, really what it is today.
	And you have people that are trying to curry favor with Elon Musk because of the power he wields on a prominent social media platform, hoping for a retweet, hoping for, you know, something like that.
	To boost clicks and numbers instead of, you know, being like, isn't this the brain chip guy that is a contractor for the Pentagon and all of this stuff?
	I mean, a lot of critical thinking has unfortunately gone out of the window.
	And, but I think a big part of it too, is that a lot of people that are media consumers have gone from mainstream media to alternative media without changing how they approach media consumption.
	So what do I mean by that?
	What I mean is, you know, people Traditionally, with mainstream media would just watch the talking head on TV or whatever and be like, Oh, this is truth.
	And I'm going to take what this person says at face value and not look any deeper, not do my own research.
	And a lot of people have moved from mainstream media talking heads to what are, you know, what, you know, your father, David Icke is referred to as mainstream alternative media talking heads.
	And that same dynamic between consumer and the talking head has not really changed, right?
	So it's very important for people to become responsible media consumers.
	Do your own research and engage with the source material.
	If the person provides it, a lot of these people do not.
	Whether it's an alternative or a mainstream media, it's just take our word for it.
	And I think there really needs to be a revolution in that sense.
	Because unfortunately, at this point, it's very unlikely that we're going to change the algorithms on sites like YouTube or Twitter.
	They're fundamentally controlled and to get more controlled.
	And for so long, people have thought, oh, as long as I just keep popping platforms, you know, going to Rumble or going to some other alternative that's also funded by a Silicon Valley oligarch, you know, that this will somehow solve the problem.
	And really, I don't think that's true.
	I think alternative media should consider considering the landscape we're facing, doing things like getting back into print, trying to do things locally, raise awareness locally.
	And find ways to connect with their audience that doesn't include social media middlemen, whether that's promoting things like RSS feeds, where you can build your own newsfeed by plugging in the sites you like and follow or the shows you like and follow without having to have a social media middleman that would manipulate your newsfeed anyway, in the picture at all.
	Um, you know, I think there's a lot of things that we're considering, but unfortunately, you know, most people recognizing there's a problem in alternative media, again, because they've gotten really comfortable with how things have gone.
	And there's definitely been an effort to extensively co-op people that became dissident voices during the COVID era.
	First hand, I've, yeah, and I've, you know, experienced offers that I've definitely rejected, have no interest in playing that game at all.
	But, you know, it's a wide reaching effort.
	And, you know, if you consider that, you know, as soon as the COVID era started, the World Economic Forum's focus pivoted to what they called rebuilding trust.
	A key part of that for them has been the manipulation of alternative media.
	And I think a lot of people, you know, have are prominent alternative media influencers think they may not be easily manipulated.
	But I know at least in the in the US, the US military has poured 100 hundreds of millions of dollars over the past 10 years into what the Air Force and one, you know, research proposal called manipulating people on social media, like So that they, you know, behave like drones, they're essentially hypnotized and lose their ability to think critically.
	And these type of manipulation tactics are used, you know, if that was developed by the military and a military contractor now owns Twitter, do you think that stuff has stopped?
	I mean, absolutely not.
	Exactly.
	And I turn of media can be manipulated by that stuff just as easily.
	And I think it's very important that there's a lot more awareness about how what we see on social media is very manipulated, whether it's likes or retweets, how the algorithm manipulates us, there's not a lot of discussion about that.
	And I think a lot of people need to be encouraged to find alternatives outside of that, if we're going to stay sane and mount any sort of resistance to these policy agendas that again, are global Yeah, I think it's something else as well.
	For me, I'm always suspicious.
	If someone's constantly telling me what I want to hear, I'm suspicious of them.
	And there's a lot of that going on within the alternative media where, you know, they won't question Trump.
	So you keep telling people that they've got a saviour coming.
	And something else that's promoted as a saviour is, of course, Bitcoin.
	But as with anything, you know, there's always grey areas.
	And of course, you co-authored an article on Unlimited Hangout about the Bitcoin situation in South America, particularly the involvement to US, against once again, US billionaires, with intelligence agency ties.
	Is this another way that basically the US can control Latin America?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	So there's a big play going on right now to proliferate the US dollar through US dollar denominated stable coins, they're called, which is a digital currency.
	And actually, if you have been paying attention to what the Federal Reserve, the US Central Bank says, or what prominent people in the crypto industry have said, like Brian Armstrong, the CEO of Coinbase, for example, The de facto CBDC for the United States is going to be a digital dollar stablecoin.
	It's not going to be a CBDC, and that's why you've seen Trump come out and reject CBDCs publicly.
	It was always going to be a private bank digital currency, not a central bank digital currency in the U.S., and it's very likely that other countries in the West may follow that model as well.
	But in the case of the United States, the goal is to service the US national debt first by linking the US dollar to Bitcoin, which Bitcoin is, you know, really the only form of digital credit that exists.
	So they're basically, the goal is to use it sort of as a debt sink for inflation.
	So, you know, a lot of people in the Bitcoin space have long been You know, courted by talking points that, you know, Bitcoin is going to stop irresponsible central bank policy and irresponsible fiscal policy.
	But what's been proposed by people like Trump at the recent Bitcoin conference and others in the US political sphere would actually enable that extreme irresponsibility and allow it to reach new heights.
	And so.
	There's a goal to basically yoke together the US dollar, Bitcoin, and then these stable coins with stable coins being sort of the retail facing aspect of that.
	And that's why you've seen people like Trump and other people in the political sphere in the US say that Bitcoin is going to become really a technology for asset storage.
	It's not going to be a currency.
	It's going to be something where people hold their savings, but they don't touch and they don't sell, they don't transact.
	With it, which has been the big push by the efforts in Wall Street, for example, people like Larry Fink, who have done their 180 about Bitcoin and come out and been like, oh, I love it now, but only if it's this.
	you know, asset and it's not a trans- something that we can transact with.
	And so what you'll be allowed to transact with again are these dollar stable coins.
	And these stable coins are just as programmable and surveillable as a CBDC would be.
	So again, the threat here, I would argue, is about programmable, surveillable money, not whether it's issued by a central
	bank or a private bank, because the money most of us use now is issued by a central
	bank, right?
	Not that it's good or the best system.
	I certainly am a big critic of a debt-based monetary system and fiat in general.
	But I certainly don't think that this is the solution.
	And so you have some of, for example, the biggest stable coin in the world is Tether, USDT.
	They've onboarded the FBI and Secret Service onto their platform, frozen wallets of people at the behest of those agencies and other aspects of the US government and have openly said that their goal is to be a close partner in expanding US dollar hegemony globally.
	So for people that have been like, oh, the petrodollar recently ended, this is the end of the US dollar and all of this, I think, are sorely mistaken.
	The goal is to dollarize the entire world, which is something that has happened historically in Latin America, where you have, you know, the dollar formerly become the currency.
	of countries like Ecuador and El Salvador, and other places that just had their economy totally devastated largely by the design of the Wall Street bankers.
	That's definitely true for like the Latin American debt crisis of the 90s.
	It was Really an effort of intent.
	JPMorgan and some of those other entities that are, of course, still around today.
	But this is a way to covertly dollarize them.
	So when you have economic warfare and leading to hyperinflation or the debasement of currencies globally, it is leading these people and it's happening largely in Latin America right now, particularly in places like Argentina, leading them to the dollar.
	And what we're really these dollar stable coins that it's much different than leading people towards cash, where cash isn't surveillable and programmable.
	Now we're having people being dollarized and onboarded to the digital dollar.
	That's, you know, private, privately issued, but also very much partnered with the United States government.
	It's a public private partnership.
	And it's, you know, going to allow the US government to engage in unprecedented financial surveillance in the US and beyond.
	And there's a particular group that is dominating the payment rails for all of that in the United States and also Latin America, and they're intimately connected.
	So in the United States, you know, it's really a lot of it goes back to the so-called PayPal mafia, the people that were there at the beginning of PayPal, really, and then went on to create other companies that are also a lot of them involved in the digital finance space.
	And Through companies were through incubators that they're connected to, like this Endeavor Network that we wrote about recently, they've essentially shaped the creation of the companies that run the payment rails for these stable coins and Bitcoin and all of that.
	And in Latin America, like MercadoLibre, Ripio, and some of these other things, and most of them come out of this Endeavor branch.
	That's based in Argentina, that's become very cozy with the government of Javier Mele, who was sort of framed as this libertarian firebrand, but stuffed his cabinet full of bankers and has been promoting the idea of, you know, putting major U.S.
	Silicon Valley companies like Facebook and Google in charge of major aspects of Argentinian government policy, including the education ministry, for example.
	And, you know, he was a big advocate on the campaign trail of dollarizing Argentina as a way to sort of, you know, solve the economic woes of that country, which again, if you look at what happened to Argentina, and where it, why it is where it is now, it intimately has, it involves Wall Street and the United States government, and intelligence agencies so extensively.
	And ultimately, you could argue that this was really the goal.
	But ultimately, this Endeavor group, in particular, is also very involved with the Brompman family, who are an oligarch family that have historical ties to organized crime, a lot of ties to the Epstein Network, and the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, and, you know, people like Leslie Wexner.
	And that particular orbit as well.
	And then the other side of it would be Pierre Omidyar, who's the creator of eBay that, you know, bought PayPal and then later spun it off.
	And so a lot of these companies that Endeavor has incubated end up entering partnerships with PayPal or getting investments in PayPal or investing in any of these family of companies that share essentially the same oligarchs.
	Behind them, and you know, I think last time I was on the show, we talked about how essentially the same network was attempting to impose a carbon market on both North and Central and South America, and by placing it on the Bitcoin blockchain.
	So a lot of what the goal is with these stable coins and all of that is also to sort of, I would argue, build in this kind of programmable functionality for the global carbon market they've been trying to impose on the world for some time.
	And once they have control of the money, they can absolutely do that.
	Because, I mean, what is the programmability going to be?
	I mean, some of these prominent stablecoins, like Circle, just talk about, you know, taking your taxes directly out of your stablecoin holdings at some point.
	Or taking, and I mean, that could, of course, include in the future, a carbon tax.
	One of the main authors of the stablecoin legislation in Congress right now in the United States, Kirsten Gillibrand, is a big advocate for a carbon tax, right?
	You know, a lot of these agendas ultimately go together.
	And I think people are ignoring them at their own peril and thinking, oh, as long as you know, someone like Donald Trump or whoever else say they're against CBDCs, you know, we have nothing to worry about.
	I don't think that's true at all.
	I think it's an absolute bait and switch, unfortunately.
	And, you know, at the end of the day, you know, I think we're seeing major efforts to not just expand the dollar hegemony globally, but really, you know, economically enslave the planet using the dollar and allowing sort of the insane debt policy.
	of the United States to continue unimpeded, you know, essentially continue what it's doing, the financial criminality that sort of brought us to the economic crises of the past several decades, right, allow that to proliferate and continue, and then be able to surveil and control people's money in a way that's completely unprecedented, which, again, is the threat of CBDCs, but it's also a threat Inherent and stable coins.
	And it's very interesting that in the Bitcoin media space in particular, you don't hear a lot of criticism about stable coins.
	But then you look into a lot of the funding of a lot of the influencers in the Bitcoin media space, and you invariably find a lot of money from Tether.
	In groups like that.
	So again, there's a lot to say on this.
	I think my colleague Mark Goodwin and I that have been writing about this for Unlimited Hangout, we've written like over 30,000 words about this.
	But we've done other interviews that are, you know, make it easier to get, you know, the takeaways and all of that.
	But, you know, there's a lot of details here that show this is effectively what's happening and that there's major efforts to co-op Bitcoin and make it, you know, a tool of You know, essentially the worst people in the world that have been stealing our money with the involvement of the government for a very long time and are seeking to financially surveil and enslave us.
	And we should be very wary about this kind of stuff going into the future and realize that the fight against things like CBDCs and digital ID is not necessarily limited to CBDCs.
	I think we have to be very wary about these stable coins as things progress.
	In the future, and it's very likely in the next couple of years, there will be a major economic crisis in the US, they've essentially, there's been major politicians in Congress that have said, you know, a debt crisis in the US is essentially inevitable.
	And so a lot of these policies I've just lined out are likely to be foisted upon the public relatively quickly, maybe to the cheers of people, you know, from the Bitcoin media space, or, you know, the Trump camp or whatever, or people that have campaigned against CBDCs, but people need to be aware of the threat of programmable, surveillable money.
	And that a lot of these stablecoin issuers are not good people.
	Tether, for example, intimately tied to the FTX scandal.
	I mean, people forget about that all the time.
	The other biggest stablecoin after them, Circle's USDC.
	Circle has a very strong alliance with BlackRock.
	a very strong strategic alliance with them.
	And BlackRock actually has their own yield bearing stable coin
	they put out called BUIDL that Circle offers, has a monopoly on the conversions of that,
	at the moment.
	So there's really no good options there.
	And so if people, I would argue, want to use Bitcoin for something that could provide sound money and all of that, need to look at ways to make it not a tool of the bankers, if that's even possible.
	And, you know, build You know, robust privacy tools on top of the layer one of Bitcoin and, you know, make efforts to scale it so that it could be used as a, you know, a means of transaction and not just, you know, a digital credit sink for, you know, the debt barons and, you know, the central banks and, you know, irresponsible people in government, which is what's happening now.
	Of course.
	See, this is why you're so good at what you do, Whitney, because you don't focus on the trees.
	You're always out there looking at the wood and going, well, actually, you know, this and this and this.
	It's, you know, it's so important that you kind of look out at the whole forest and just, actually, all these things are connected.
	It's not just one part.
	And, you know, you might revel in one Victory or perceived victory, but actually X, Y and Z. But Whitney, thank you so much for joining us.
	The connection wasn't too bad at all.
	There was like one or two glitches.
	I was thinking, is it going to go?
	But it didn't.
	It held out.
	So that was fantastic.
	Well, thankfully.
	And people at home, I would urge you to go to UnlimitedHangout.com because that's, you know, where you've got all these articles, like you said, 30-odd thousand words on these subjects and putting them all together.
	And it's It's important that people know, you know, because people will look at Trump as a hero or they will look at Bitcoin as the answer.
	And it's like, well, actually, you know, take a step back and, you know, kind of have a look at the whole thing.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	And yeah, thank you so much for bringing up my website because there is an effort right now on social media and mainly on YouTube to take small out of context clips of interviews I give and then put them with a bunch of other narration that is not for me at all, claiming I endorse things I do not endorse or endorse people I would never endorse or say things I would never say.
	And they have been pushed to the very top of when you search my name and a lot of these big social media websites are on YouTube or on Twitter or whatever.
	I'm trying to essentially bury what I actually have to say.
	So if you'd like to always have a good handle on what I'm actually saying and what I actually believe, again, I would encourage you to subscribe directly to my newsletter.
	UnlimitedHangout.com and you can, you know, every article we put out, whether it's mine or someone that contributes to Unlimited Hangout, you will be notified and also of interviews I do, so you can find the full interview and not these clickbaity things that claim that I endorse financial services I don't endorse or endorse Elon Musk, who I would never in a million years endorse, and things like that.
	I think a lot of There's a lot to be said that as far as you know, the censorship agenda goes targeting people in alternative media that don't want to play these games that a lot of other people are unfortunately playing are, you know, there's efforts to sort of what people like James Corbett have called repersoning people.
	So you know, for example, I don't have a Facebook account, but people have popped up pretending to be me quite effectively and have gained like several thousand followers of people who think it's me that they're talking to.
	And so eventually, when dissident voices are Deplatform from places like Twitter, or Facebook, or, you know, YouTube or whatever, they can just pop up a new channel claiming to be that person saying they're back and then, you know, trick people and use, you know, a trusted voice that wouldn't sell out.
	Uh, to lead people to a particular conclusion, uh, even with that, if that person's not involved at all.
	So, uh, just wanted to mention that because I think it's, uh, it's very sinister, but definitely something that's happening, not just to me, but it's happening to me.
	Um, and it's sure to happen to a lot more people, um, going forward.
	So if you can go directly to the source of the person, uh, whose content you trust, uh, you should definitely do that.
	100%.
	Thank you.
	Thank you so much, Whitney.
	I always love talking to you and I'll talk to you again soon, I hope.
	I hope the electricity comes back and stuff for you.
	Life gets a bit easier.
	Yeah, that would be nice.
	Thanks.
	Always a pleasure, Gareth.
	Thank you.
	Take care, Whitney.

▲