All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 11, 2024 - Jim Fetzer
47:18
Whitney Webb: Everyone will be WIPED out in 21 days
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I see Elon Musk as a person who has, like, a very specific persona he wants to project to the public, and then there's Business Musk, right?
Whitney Webb critically examines Elon Musk's dominance in the tech industry, highlighting his significant impact on several sectors.
I don't want you to necessarily take my opinion or take, you know, what I have to, what I write about it at just face value and just, like, believe me and, like, no, believe the source material because it matters and I'm not, like, making this up.
However, Webb raises concerns about the concentration of power and influence that comes with Musk's growing empire.
Are you aware that bankers lie and engage in illegal activity to expand their money and power, right?
Are you aware that those same bankers or CEOs or whoever are the bulk of donations to politicians?
Martin Luther King Jr.
was a pivotal figure in the American civil rights movement.
King's efforts were crucial in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
According to a case that was won by Martin Luther King Jr.' 's family in the late 90s, Hoover's FBI was responsible for killing Martin Luther King Jr.
There was a civil trial that was brought by King's own family, and the result of that was, yeah, it was the FBI.
If nothing happened to them then, what do you think's going on now?
My problem is that I feel like, thinking about my own family, for example, and how they view my work, or my grandparents, people like that, the way they were told things worked is not the way things were really working then.
And a lot of the American public, in my opinion, has sort of been fed this fairy tale that the government is your friend, the government's here to help, but essentially, if you look at the history, the government's the mob.
Look at a human life.
You come out of the womb, and you're immediately influenced in your perceptions by your parents, who've been through the process you're about to go through.
Very soon, ludicrously soon, after entering this world, you find yourself sitting at a desk with an authority figure, now telling you what is, what isn't, what's right, what's wrong, what's credible, what's not credible, when you can go to the toilet, when you can eat, when you can talk.
And this goes on through your formative years, where the systems version of everything, what I call the postage stamp consensus, because it's so narrow, is downloaded into people.
And then they go off into the institutions, they become journalists, they become scientists, they become doctors, they become politicians, they become CEOs or whatever.
And they take with them that core version of normal, and limitation, possibility, that they have been downloading all their lives.
And then the people in these institutions Then confirm to each other that this norm is normal.
So a journalist who's doing a story about, say, a health situation, won't go to an alternative practitioner who may have had great success in it.
He'll go to a doctor who'll give him postage stamp normal.
Obviously there's going to be people, you know, who are resistant to seeing things for the way they are because, you know, some people just, um, For whatever reason, feel too uncomfortable engaging with reality sometimes, you know?
They don't want to face the fact that, you know, the government and corporations are like extremely, you know, doing insane illegal stuff that's killing people or stealing insane amounts of money from people and ruining people's lives because they're like, well, I can't do anything to change that.
I don't necessarily think that's true, but some people interpret it that way, and they're like, I'm better off not engaging with this, and they prefer to, like, you know, stick their head in the sand.
So, you know, for example, Elon Musk, a lot of people maybe forget, you know, he's a big military contractor, and also, you know, the Space Force, that's also an intelligence agency, so he's technically a military and intelligence contractor.
In order to keep your contracting business with those things, there's certain rules you have to play by, and certain things, I would assume, You can and can't say or you'll lose those lucrative contracts.
And if you look at someone like Elon Musk and his business history, a lot of his companies would not have been successful without significant subsidies from the government.
So, you know, I feel like in order to get those deals, there's certain rules you have to abide by to an extent, at least when it comes to your business decisions and certain things.
So maybe he wants to project, you know, this persona of like, I'm one of the bros, I'm one of the guys, you know, I believe in free speech and all of this.
And certainly when he bought Twitter, that's what he said.
But then it became, you know, oh, yeah, free speech, but not freedom of reach.
And now it's sort of changing again with the appointment of this new And again, I don't really have any high hopes, and I didn't necessarily when Musk bought Twitter, just because I tend to be kind of skeptical and I guess you could probably say cynical about these types of people.
And I personally, just from my own experience with Epstein research, I have found Musk not to be very upfront about some of those connections there.
So, for example, a lot of people like to bring up the picture of him and Ghislaine Maxwell from 2014.
He'll say he was photobombed and all of this.
But he was.
He won't bring up the fact, well at least reporters seem to have forgotten, that Kimball Musk, his brother, who's on the board of Tesla and SpaceX, was introduced to a member of Epstein's entourage who had dated Epstein and lived at the apartments on 301-66, 66th Street East, where all these traffic girls lived.
A girl from there starts dating Kimball Musk, and somehow Epstein is allegedly granted access to SpaceX facilities and tours, and then is allegedly advising Tesla, according to the New York Times reporter James Stewart, who was told by someone else that Epstein was advising Tesla, and then goes before Epstein's 2019 arrest and most who was told by someone else that Epstein was advising Tesla, and then goes before Epstein's 2019 arrest and most of his public infamy, goes and asks him
And this is during a time when Musk is saying he's trying to secure capital to take Tesla private, I believe.
And this was allegedly involving one of the Saudi wealth funds of the Saudi government.
And at that time Epstein was a very, very close advisor to Mohammed bin Salman, who had recently come to power.
And if you remember back to when the Epstein story really, the scandal sort of broke in 2019, it wasn't just talking about his townhouse having all these pictures of him and Clinton.
There were a lot.
Elon Musk has, you have to look at the actions of Musk and then what he says.
And not enough people do that, whether it's for Musk or really anyone.
You have to look at people's actions, not just what they say, because someone can say all the right things and then, you know, be totally fucking you behind your back.
And if you're just going to take what they're telling you and the excuses and whatever, I mean, you'll never figure out what's actually going on.
And I think that's fair for Elon Musk as well.
Did he buy Twitter to say free speech or did he buy Twitter to have a mass of data to train AI on and to train all other sorts of products he has on?
Or did he make it, like he's openly admitted, did he buy it so he can turn Twitter, now X, into X the everything app that doesn't just become, you know, isn't just social media, it becomes half of the financial system and becomes American WeChat.
Elon Musk is the richest man in the world, but is he the richest man in the world just because of his own entrepreneurial whatever?
Or is it because his companies were held up by government subsidies that allowed him to become rich and he's the richest man in the world because he worked with the state?
Because, you know, corporate media, right?
Mainstream media, whatever, they don't really supply their sources a lot of the time for certain things, or they cite, you know, a national security official and don't challenge what they have to say at all, or like add any important historical context about how maybe that official got caught lying during the Iraq War, for example, or all sorts of kind of stuff like that.
So I try and add that kind of context.
And frankly, though, there's like a lot of stories that just don't get covered either by mainstream media or even independent media.
So much of independent media today is focused on like, complaining about mainstream media coverage and not necessarily reporting on original stuff, which I think is actually kind of a big A problem because I think at this point we all know that mainstream media sucks, right?
So there's definitely a need to like try and find the stories that aren't being covered because there's I mean a lot of stuff I think even too intentionally like some of the tactics of mainstream media and the people that control them is to put out a story that's like intentionally annoying and outrageous so that everyone focuses on that and doesn't focus on other stuff in the news cycle and other important stuff that is happening, you know slips through the cracks.
That there is a plan to make Orwell's 1984 reality.
We're seeing this, of course, with more and more control of people's privacy and the constant gathering of fine detailed data of people's lives.
But the key thing is this.
What directs people's lives?
What directs their opinions?
What directs their behavior?
Their perceptions.
Their perceptions of themselves, their perceptions of the world, their perceptions of world events.
The way they're sold those events.
Yeah.
Now, this is the point.
Where do we get those perceptions from?
We get them from information received.
It might be a personal experience information, or it might be the 10 o'clock news, or it might be the Daily Mail, or Yeah.
I mean, so think about what happened during COVID and there were all these signals sent by powerful people that something greater than COVID would soon be upon us, whatever that is.
I mean, so think about what happened during COVID and there were all these signals sent by powerful people that something greater than COVID would soon be upon us, whatever that is.
So whether it's a giant war, another world war of that sorts or, you know, something else.
COVID 2.0.
What we saw during COVID, insane issues with inflation that persist, right?
And insane supply chain issues.
It's probably a good idea to have a supply of stuff you need to survive in your house.
I mean, for X number of days, weeks, months, whatever.
I mean, that's different for every person, but it's definitely not.
I mean, it's definitely not a bad idea, and I don't think it's a tinfoil hat thing to say, like, oh, I'd like to be able to feed my family if they close all the grocery stores.
I mean, we sort of saw with COVID, like, how insane it was.
I mean, and I live in Chile and in South America, and I mean, when COVID started, there was some insane stuff there where you had to, like, show papers to get into grocery stores and stuff for a time.
Like, that could come back, you know?
I mean, it's not as crazy now as it might have been, like, four or five years ago to talk about To talk about that stuff.
And there's nothing wrong with being prepared.
There's probably something more wrong with being not prepared at all.
But you know, a lot of times, government incompetence like is the excuse.
So I mean, just talking about like, like financial policy and stuff.
I mean, You can, I think it's easier to pick apart like in those cases, because you can see the obvious like, who benefits and who doesn't sometimes more easily, and they'll like sort of be like, oh, well, we just, you know, like when the Fed printed a bunch of money during COVID and gave it to like BlackRock to manage, like was that incompetence, especially when BlackRock like wrote,
A plan at the end of 2019 of the monetary policy that the Fed followed exactly when COVID happened about what the Fed would need to do during a unforeseen crisis.
I mean, it's just like, was that incompetence or is that corruption?
You know, and I mean, a lot of times they try and absolve themselves of like obvious when they sort of get caught or start to get caught for something corrupt.
They'll be like, oh, don't look any further.
We're just really stupid.
Now I've just come back.
Um, literally a few days ago, from America, I've been filming there, and particularly Silicon Valley.
I call it the Devil's Playground.
If you now look at that, what is, when you visit it, a very small area of America, never mind the world, You've got companies, Facebook, Google, etc., that are increasingly a. dominating the gathering of data of people's lives, b. because of the way they have so impacted upon the channels of communication,
They dictate to such an increasing extent what people see and what people don't see.
They're trying to put AI in charge of the internet, and not just in charge of censoring what's on the internet, but also having AI make the lion's share of online content.
So supposedly by 2025, generative AI like ChatGPT is going to produce like 96 or something percent of everything you read online, which means their mainstream media journalists are going to be like completely replaced by it.
I think there have been some magazines that have been caught using Chat GPT to write their stories already.
I think Sports Illustrated was one.
Um, but only going to get, only going to get crazier.
And so when you have AI both like producing and then curating, i.e.
censoring, you know, everything, you know, then AI dominates the information environment and whoever programs AI and stipulates like what information is okay and who isn't has like unprecedented control.
And when you consider that most people today get their information from online or, you know, digital sources.
That's unprecedented control of what people, not just how the information that people like read and receive, but also, I mean, you're manipulating people, how people perceive reality.
And that obviously translates into how people behave.
And actually, Henry Kissinger, who I'm sure you know, died recently.
And the guy that he named as his heir, which is Eric Schmidt, the former Google CEO, wrote a book on AI explicitly about that and how AI is basically going to control how we perceive reality by taking control of online content in its entirety. wrote a book on AI explicitly about that and how
And that us becoming increasingly dependent on AI for everything is going to cognitively diminish people so that we won't be able to perceive reality or make sense of anything without AI doing it for us.
Facebook has had to say, actually, we're not doing it on purpose or it's just for advertising.
They are actually listening to conversations.
Obviously, you've not got a human being sitting there, although if they're targeting someone, it's a human being, but the general population, it's algorithms.
We're talking AI now.
I mean, the possibilities of human manipulation of communication and the gathering of data now are limitless, increasingly.
I mean, I think the whole idea of getting a lot of people to, like, use chat GDP and all of this stuff is to lead us down this path that Kissinger and Schmidt, among others, sort of are charting out for humanity, where if you... I mean, just, I mean, it's pretty much common sense, though.
Like, if you develop a skill and then don't do it for 10 or 15 years, for example, you kind of forget how to do it, right?
Or even, you know, I graduated from university, like, A little more than 10 years ago.
How well do I recall the stuff that I took in university?
Not great, right?
So there's this whole idea of if you don't use it, you lose it.
So if people are depending on AI to tell them where to turn when they're driving their car and, you know, no one uses like actual maps anymore.
I mean, I understand that it's convenient, right?
And I'm not saying like, oh, we need to go back to the 90s.
Right.
You know, it becomes after a while a slippery slope where people are just having the computer tell them everything to do.
Every step of their lives ends up becoming micromanaged to an extent.
And the idea is that AI, through all the data that It absorbs about us, knows so much about us.
Some of these people say it knows us better than we even know ourselves.
That allows for an unprecedented degree of manipulation.
The problem is that the people producing and programming AI and ultimately controlling AI and what it can do Do not have our best interests at heart, and it is not a good idea to basically hand them our brains in a bag.
Who owns AI, right?
It's pretty much Silicon Valley company.
So like even OpenAI, Sam Altman's thing, that's essentially like owned by Microsoft, right?
And so you have what, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Oracle, all of these companies essentially owning like Almost everything.
And all of those companies are contractors for the military and intelligence, right?
I guess throw Palantir in the mix too.
And when you consider something like Palantir, they profile people.
They suck up all of your data and then they profile you.
And Palantir can profile like whether or not they deem you subversive or not.
And what happens when AI You know, gets access of that and gets put in control of things like humanitarian aid, like they're talking about doing, or in charge of, you know, the government itself, which is also talked about in the Schmidt-Kissinger book.
It gets complicated.
So, you know, a lot of people have been talking about becoming sort of like social credit paradigm, for example.
So what happens if there's a big crisis, your country is like a war zone or the economy collapses, and you're dependent on humanitarian aid or some sort of aid from the government or some other group and there isn't enough for everyone, right?
And so they decide, oh, well, it's fair to put super intelligent AI in charge of it.
And then that AI is like, oh, well, this person's been very compliant and hasn't committed all of these thought crimes, but not you.
You know, who is it going to decide to Give the food rations to and stuff like that.
You know, that's the risk of a lot of this stuff when it gets put in charge of too many systems.
And then there's like a whole other side to it when you're dealing with stuff like AI weaponry, which we're seeing being used right now in the Israel-Gaza conflict to a significant degree where they're deciding assassination targets.
Uh, you know, suppose people that they're, they're deeming to be Hamas affiliated, which no one knows exactly how they're determining that.
I mean, it could be someone who is a second cousin of someone in Hamas or something.
Um, we don't really know because there's no transparency, but obviously the fact that they've gone from before this AI algorithm to identifying something like 15 to 20 targets a day to identifying hundreds of targets a day, something's going on.
The nature of the AI that's running things concentrates that power in such a small area, in such a small number of hands, and if you want to have control by the few of the vast number, you have to centralize power, and that's what is happening in Silicon Valley on a scale that beggars belief.
And then there's another issue of whether AI is actually accurate or not.
So, you know, they'll say, like with facial recognition, I think there was a report a few years ago in the UK that a lot of the facial recognition stuff that the Met Police and other law enforcement groups are using are insanely inaccurate.
But they want to Not, they want to continue using it and like deepen its involvement in identifying people, whether it's like live events and all sorts of stuff.
And I mean, it was insanely inaccurate.
I mean, I can't remember the exact amount, but it was like under 50% accurate.
So like flipping a coin is more accurate in that case.
And what happens when AI algorithms that choose who lives and who dies, you know, are put in charge of stuff and they're like 70% accurate or less?
Because, I mean, the government's really corrupt with contractors.
Like, they don't always pick the best contractor for the job.
So someone has connections that gets their AI in charge and they oversell their AI and say it's 95% accurate, but it's not audited by an independent company, right?
And so it's actually, like, in reality, 65% accurate or something.
And you're putting it in charge of, like, stuff that has a major effect on people's lives.
That kind of stuff is happening.
And it's, I mean, I'm talking about stuff that hasn't necessarily quite happened yet, but we're headed there.
When the internet started, which came out of an organization called DARPA, by the way, which is the technological development arm of the Pentagon, It was sold as the free flow of information.
You could post all kinds of opinions.
Now, if that didn't start like that, and right from the start, you can't say that, you can't do that, then it wouldn't have got this massive control and influence on the communications that go on between people.
So, you start with what people want.
And then, especially more recently, and faster and faster, you start doing, especially when you enter the realm of semi-monopoly, you start taking away the freedom of the free flow of information.
So, people now are having YouTube channels just deleted.
No explanation, just deleted.
On a big scale, when they're challenging the official narrative.
It's going to become very different for a lot of different reasons.
So I guess the risk with using like chat GPT or generative AI, for example, is like if you use it too much that like you can't write without it, right?
That's like the stuff people need to try and manage, I think.
And as far as, you know, what happens when all the content becomes chat GPT essentially, right?
I mean, it's not really going to be very useful to people, but there's a lot of people that aren't really going to be able to notice so much the difference because it's like legible English and it kind of makes sense.
And, you know.
But it's not going to be like human thought anymore.
Though there was a problem identified, I think, several months ago that once, you know, these AI algorithms start training off of data that humans didn't produce and it's training off of data or like content that it produced itself or another generative AI produced, its output becomes like goobly-duck nonsensical stuff.
So, I mean, it might just break itself.
We'll see what happens or if they're able to.
I guess remedy that.
But regardless of that, the internet is going to change a lot.
And this is a very like separate thing than what we've been talking about so far.
But there's a deliberate push to regulate the internet.
Obviously, there is some truth to the fact that it does make certain things more convenient.
It does technically free up certain people's jobs so they can have more time to do other stuff.
Yeah.
The problem is literally the worst people in the world are in charge of it.
And they want to use it to make everyone basically a complete idiot that's super easily manipulated and controllable.
And that is what needs to be resisted.
So, you know, if someone wants to make like an open source AI that, I don't know, does some stuff, I mean, I'm not going to be like, no!
Don't do that.
But you know, I think it's very important now more than ever to divest as much as possible from big tech, you know, Google and Oracle and, you know, all these other companies, Amazon, what have you, because they have too much power.
The people in charge have obvious problematic agendas.
And they basically, at least in the US, they own the government.
I think it's important to keep in mind that these people have been very serious and played very dirty and created insane instability just to keep the dollar the global reserve currency.
There's all sorts of things that are happening in Bitcoin right now that could be under that umbrella.
What's troubling is that the same individuals, like Adela, who have been major proponents of deindustrializing and depopulating Latin America, continue to push these harmful agendas.
And what's disturbing is that, you know, those same people at Adela, like the Rockefellers and the people that went on to fund the Club of Rome, have been big promoters, for example, of deindustrializing and depopulating Latin America by creating instability and creating all sorts of, you know, other issues or policies, having them implemented across the continent.
It was actually a national security memorandum authored by Kissinger that framed as a national security threat.
And it was actually a national security memorandum authored by Kissinger that essentially said the same thing and framed it as a, you know, as a national security threat.
So, you know, we have to consider that this kind of stuff, you know, Adela had lots of positive PR at the time and, you know, in Time Magazine, for example, and, you know, other outlets talking about how they were doing great things for Latin American businesses.
Throughout South America, Endeavor is recognized as a beneficial organization.
When you look at a group like Endeavor, you know, I'm sure it's, it's, I mean, it is framed as positive throughout South America.
But the problem is, is that the people that developed Endeavor, including, you know, Rottenberg and Kellner, you know, they have ties that are, as we document in the piece, are of concern.
And the people that essentially supercharged Endeavor by giving them millions upon millions of dollars to become what they are now, are definitely very disturbing figures.
Pierre Omidyar, the founder of eBay, and the Bronfman family, known for their influential business and philanthropic activities, have established some connections with Endeavor.
So, you know, mainly Pierre Omidyar of eBay and the Bronfman family.
Um, who, you know, have, uh, all sorts of ties to, you know, I mean, some of it we've already gone over, um, but there's definitely a lot more to be said about both of them.
If you look at philanthropy in general, you'll see that it's often controversial with many wealthy individuals and oligarchs being involved in ways that provoke debate.
And if you look at a lot of, you know, philanthropies in general, you will see that a lot of these very controversial oligarchs, you know, are very interested in funding young global leaders.
Whitney said that the World Economic Forum, WEF, has become infamous in recent years, largely due to the actions of its outgoing chairman.
I say that because, of course, the WEF, you know, World Economic Forum Young Global Leader Program, sort of became infamous in the past few years because of, you know, WEF, the outgoing chairman of the WEF, you know, Klaus Schwab saying on video that like, you know, the Young Global Leader Program is so great because, you know, we penetrate the cabinets and, you know, a lot of people pointed to that as being why, you know, during You know, all these young global leaders were in all these different cabinets throughout the world.
And that was why, you know, one of the reasons perhaps why so many countries got the same exact stance and policies as it related to.
Endeavor is a similar network where many of the people involved have connections to the World Economic Forum's Young Global Leaders Program.
And Endeavor is a similar network.
A lot of the people involved in creating it, also young WEF, young global leaders, so is Wenceslas Pizarres.
And, you know, these people aren't just in the public sector, they're also in the private sector.
Endeavor is dedicated to supporting and empowering the private sector specifically within emerging markets.
And Endeavor focuses expressly on the private sector in emerging markets, which, as we've discussed, you know, earlier, there's a major interest to have Latin America completely dependent on, you know, the United States and have it be, you know, financially yoked, you know, to the United States and have its, you know, resources are, you know, belong to United States.
I mean, there's people, you know, in power who have essentially said that maybe a little more indirectly in the past.
John Bolton, who served as National Security Advisor under President Trump, is known for his strong dislike of neoconservatism.
I mean, I'm pretty sure John Bolton, for example, who was Trump's national security advisor and is a very, very much disliked neocon has, you know, quotes to that effect about like, you know, Latin America's ours, basically.
And so, you know, there's efforts to sort of make that happen.
And I would argue that Endeavor is a way to sort of develop these corporate landscapes in a way similar to Adela and to make it look decentralized in name only.
But they share a lot of the same funding and they share a lot of the same connections.
And when those powerful people at the top come to call to those entrepreneurs, they can be influenced.
And I would argue again that perhaps the most important point here is that the main Endeavor-backed companies, a lot of them are based around Endeavor Argentina specifically.
um, are becoming the dominant platforms for e-commerce and fintech and crypto use.
Uh, and you know, also Bitcoin use obviously, um, in, in the, on the continent, especially at a time when, you know, this, what I would argue is an engineered economic crisis in places like Argentina decades in the making, you know, are forcing people onto these platforms.
And, you know, they're, you know, you, you had someone like Malay elected expressly because he's like, I'm going to dollarize and maybe he's not now, uh, but I'm not going to do it.
But, you know, stablecoin is, stablecoins are a way to sort of get that.
And these are, you know, the dominant force here as it relates to, you know, crypto, you know, payment rails.
So much of it is based around MercadoLibre, which is like the e-commerce giant of the entire continent and was, you know, one of the first Endeavor-backed companies in 1999.
Now you have Marcos Galperin being a big a big figure, but his co-founder, Mercado Libre, created Kazakh Ventures, which he made with another Endeavor entrepreneur, and they've gone to fund thousands of startups.
And all of these companies, a lot of time, I mean, it's just business sense.
You're beholden to your funding a lot of the time because you don't want to lose that funding.
And so they have influence with you.
They have clout.
There are several approaches to shaping private sector policy involving a variety of methods to affect decision-making processes.
And so there's a lot of different ways to influence private sector policy.
And if you're looking to move, you know, from the public to the private side of the public-private partnership, you need to have a lockdown on the private sector the same way you have it on the public sector.
If you want to have, you know, the control and power that you're seeking, you can't just ignore one whole half of that partnership, right?
And so I think this is a way to create a constellation And I'm not saying all Endeavor entrepreneurs are bad, or like bad people.
The point is, the people at the top, and the people like on the board, people like Reid Hoffman, for example, are not good, you know?
And they can exert influence on Endeavor entrepreneurs very, very easily.
And on the people that own the most important, critical companies for fintech in Latin America.
And while a lot of these same actors, as we discussed earlier, are basically seeking to push Latin America into covert dollarization with the intent of eliminating, really, their financial sovereignty in a way that could have major implications for the continent.
And, you know, if Bitcoin is about, like, promoting freedom and banking the unbanked, like, is this, you know, I think this is something that should be discussed.
And when it comes for the Internet or the financial system, they're going to make the enemy privacy.
They're going to make the enemy privacy 100%.
And the solution is going to be digital IDs and programmable, surveillable money.
It doesn't have to be CBDCs, by the way.
I mean, CBDCs, I think most people know, are likely, are going to be that, but it doesn't, it's not just CBDCs.
There is a goal, there is a push from the banks themselves.
Some of the most powerful banks in the world to have, at least in some countries, a different system that's not a CBDC, because with a CBDC, they can't do fractional reserve banking.
And so that's what deposit tokens are all about.
Tokenizing deposits, and you can make those programmable and you can surveil them.
It's essentially similar to a central bank digital currency, CBDC.
But without using that specific term, as it involves the bank maintaining control over all the reserves, And it's really just like a CBDC, but they won't call it that.
But the bank controls all the reserves, you know.
And maybe they'll bank some of their reserves at the Fed or whatever, but they can still do fractional reserve banking and credit creation and all of this stuff and not actually have to keep a one-to-one peg of reserves like CBDCs or like a fiat peg stable coin.
And so there's a push for that, too, at an international level.
It's not just in the U.S., but it's definitely happening in the U.S., and I would argue that's one of the reasons that you have the Federal Reserve, which is, again, owned by Wall Street banks in the U.S., being like, we're not going to do a direct-issued CBDC, and freedom advocates in the U.S.
are like, yeah, the Fed's on our side because of that.
No, it's not.
The Fed is 100 percent always on the side of Wall Street banks, and Wall Street banks They only don't want to CBDC because they don't want to give the Federal Reserve their power.
They want to keep their power and they want to keep doing fractional reserve banking.
I don't know.
I think there's a lot of people in Congress that get into Congress campaigning on certain issues and then once they're there long enough they backtrack completely.
There's a lot of examples of that historically and currently in the U.S.
for sure.
So, I mean, Elizabeth Warren is garbage.
The DNC got all this money, what, from Sam Bankman Freed?
You know, how anti-crypto are they really?
I think it's they're willing to play ball and set up regulations and be the kingmakers in the crypto industry.
I think there's a lot of... I think that's going to happen.
And then they're going to try and nix everything that doesn't serve them.
And again, financial privacy being the main thing that doesn't serve them.
But they also want to give unprecedented control to the DOJ to go and contact any crypto exchange or even tether, right?
And be like, freeze these wallets!
We've decided those wallets need to be frozen, you know?
So that's escalating, obviously.
And, you know, the whole thing that happened with Binance is like a big push towards that as well, because now Binance is basically going to have a chaperone appointed by the U.S.
government basically in charge of everything.
Their chief compliance officer is a guy that used to work for, you know, the Department of Justice.
There's all sorts of things that are happening in Bitcoin right now that could be under that umbrella.
But when you start to have people like BlackRock being like, you know what?
We actually like Bitcoin now.
That's a sign to pay attention.
You know what I mean?
Bitcoin is hope.
So I think people need to, in the Bitcoin space, need to be very aware that there is a fight being had right now about the future of Bitcoin.
You have to make a clear choice.
Will you fight to defend the integrity of Bitcoin?
Or will you allow it to be co-opted and potentially compromised?
And you have to decide which side you're on.
Are you going to fight for Bitcoin to be a tool of financial freedom?
Or are you going to allow it to be co-opted by the powers that be that it was supposedly designed to resist them and, you know, be something they can't control?
Are you going to give them control of it?
I mean, the answer should be no to any Bitcoin are worth respecting, in my opinion.
And what's interesting is that MBS, as soon as he came to power and during the Trump administration, was very close to Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who was also, we know from emails that have since come out, promoting the idea of stablecoins, like an official US dollar stablecoin.
Actually, I think it was like a Sam Altman blog post that he shared with Steve Mnuchin of the Treasury Department talking about, you know, the USD coin, which, you know, this is before Circle launched USDC, but interesting.
So it's very possible that these discussions were being had like some time ago, that it's not as recent as, you know, it may appear to be based on, you know, headlines that have been coming out recently.
Yeah, all I really want to add to that is that it's important to keep in mind that, like, when the petrodollar system has been, you know, the standard for keeping the dollar the global, you know, reserve currency, the U.S.
has gone to war and, like, Millions of people to defend that.
One of the likely motivations, obviously there's more than one, but one of the key ones in invading Iraq, I would argue, was the fact that Saddam Hussein, not long before the invasion, had started selling oil in euros instead of dollars and made a lot more money, showing by example to other oil, other OPEC members, that they could make more money selling in different currencies than the dollar.
And then, of course, you have the case of Libya, In 2011, where Gaddafi was trying to move to a gold-backed currency called the dinar and was selling that to African countries, a lot of which either use dollars or they use, you know, French financial stuff, and that's why you had the U.S.
and France essentially lead that regime change operation with devastating consequences for Libya, which used to be the safest country in Africa, then became the most dangerous, and has been cited as an example of, or a reason for why, you know, immigration got so out of control in Europe after that point.
So, you know, there are cases where, you know, the U.S. government, government or rather U.S.
empire is willing to go to extreme lengths to defend the dollar.
So the idea that they would just sit idly by and just like let dollarization happen without having some sort of plan in the works, especially knowing that they couldn't keep this going indefinitely and that the world was going to move at some point to a post oil economy.
You know, I think it's important to keep in mind that these people have been very serious and played very dirty.
And created insane instability just to keep the dollar the global reserve currency because it gives a lot of advantages just to the U.S.
And I fully feel that they intend to keep those advantages even if it means a different system.
Jeffrey Epstein's real job involved manipulating currency values and financial markets for his own benefit.
And that his real job was currency manipulation.
And that's why you have like letters to heads of state being like, I want to talk to you about Jeffrey Epstein and currency stabilization when that exact administration was developing a plan to stabilize Mexico's currency.
And someone tied up in the cabal of currency traders that Epstein was in, according to like the New York Times and stuff, was the person who shorted the peso One made millions of dollars.
And Epstein visits the Clinton White House 17 times.
The first time he's invited, it's by this Rubin, R-U-B-I-N, which, you know, Robert Rubin being the head of the Treasury at that time.
Well, not at that time.
He was head of the National Economic Council and became head of the Treasury.
But he's the first guy to invite him in, essentially.
And Robert Rubin was previously head of Goldman Sachs, which has a lot of connections both to Steve Mnuchin's family, and that's where Steve Mnuchin was originally.
And also to a lot of this network of billionaires that were sort of included Epstein's patron, Leslie Wexner, sort of the group of oligarchs that Wexner associates himself with were largely responsible for the rise of people like Robert Rubin within Goldman Sachs.
And Goldman Sachs has a very intimate connection with a lot of those, you know, families in that particular group, which the Wall Street Journal named the mega group in the late 90s.
And this includes the Bronfman.
So, for example, the top people, the Weinbergs, for example, who ran Goldman Sachs for a long time, were on Seagrams.
They managed trust for the Bronfman family and things like that, along with, you know, mob-connected figures like Lou Wasserman of MCA, who also had intelligence ties and backed, you know, most of the main presidential candidates of the latter half of the 20th century in the United States and made Ronald Reagan's political career happen.
And, you know, someone like Steve Bannon, too, was also involved around the same time that Pierce was associating with Epstein, very involved in trying to rehabilitate Epstein's image as he was moving to reinvent himself as, like, a science and tech investor.
So, like, why are these people making these decisions?
I mean, they obviously didn't care, because even at that point in time, after his first arrest, Epstein described himself as being socially radioactive.
So these are people that are just like, no, that's fine.
And like, we see something useful in you and we want to help you make that rebrand.
Whitney would argue that it relates to the role Epstein played in financial matters.
Why?
I would argue it has to do with the role that Epstein played in finances.
And that is also the reason, you know, why Leslie Wexner chose him to basically run and manage all of his money.
Uh, because right before Epstein came into the Wexner circle, uh, Wexner's, uh, tax law in the face and broad daylight, uh, the police investigation document says that it was organized in Leslie Wexner that did it.
And that Leslie Wexner is linked to organize that report was destroyed.
listed as unsolved and right and it happened the day before the lawyer was going to testify to the irs about unspecified tax havens and then epstein sweeps in and starts untangling wexner's complicated finances at the limited and
And then you have The Limited at that time having a figure on the board named Alan Tesler who was involved with aspects of the Promise Software scandal, which is where the intelligence and the CIA essentially put a backdoor into like every security agency, and Robert Maxwell was intimately involved with that.
But Alan Tesler, the architect of that, one of them was a man named Earl Bryan, and Alan Tesler was a lawyer for Earl Bryan and also on the board of The Limited and involved with all of it.
You know, really, this whole network at the same time.
I mean, a lot of very weird stuff is happening in this crowd.
But if you look at what they were doing, which, you know, I do in detail in my book, it's a mix of financial and trying to dominate tech.
And that's why you have, like, the Maxwell sisters after Robert Maxwell, the twins, create the first search engine and things like that.
And Isabel Maxwell goes on to be a major player in High-tech system.
Christina Maxwell teams up with a CIA top guy for, I forget, like the CIO of the CIA, to develop a company called Kiliad that was basically being used after 9-11 to analyze all of this anti-ironic data and all of this stuff.
It's important to understand that there was a deliberate effort to limit the discussion about Epstein.
It's endless.
Well, it's important to understand that there was an explicit effort to limit the discussion about Epstein.
So you don't look at anything else.
Essentially, this initiative has called to begin fusing commercial banks and financial authorities, like regulators, with national security and law enforcement agencies.
This policy could not be more insane or dystopian.
Making things even worse is the fact that WEPAC, of which the Carnegie Endowment and many of the other organizations behind this policy or members, not only call for this fusion to take place, they call to do so in ways, again, that may be illegal.
A merging of commercial banks, their regulators, and the intelligence agencies is a complete nightmare scenario, but this is exactly what the World Economic Forum has come to promote as a model public-private partnership.
But perhaps more critically for American citizens, this is a policy developed with the direct participation of the U.S.
Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the U.S.
Secret Service, the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the country's most systemically important commercial banks.
The establishment in this country supports these policies, and from what I can see, they have every intention of trying to make them a reality.
These American federal agencies, institutions, and commercial banks are playing a major role in developing regulations that will inevitably target Bitcoin.
They have made it very clear in media reports, press releases, and policy documents that they see financial privacy, the popularity of Bitcoin, and the value of Bitcoin as direct threats responsible for what they define Yet time and again the American people have been fleeced and looted by many of these same agencies and many of these same commercial and central banks.
The big banks like HSBC can launder millions of dollars for Nothing happens to them.
No one goes to jail.
The CIA has laundered untold millions through banks like BCCI, a bank which ran its own operation involving prepubescent kids.
And again, nothing was done.
No one went to jail.
FTX can launder aid money supposedly destined Funnel it back as campaign contributions to the same political party developing crypto regulations while painting Bitcoin as a national security threat.
Sam Beckman Freed was the only person arrested and right now he's not in prison.
▲
Export Selection