Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 9, 2024 - Jim Fetzer

01:08:57

Whitney Webb EXPOSES Kamala, Trump, Israel And More! (Interview)

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Okay.
	Welcome to Savvy Sav's podcast.
	I'm your host, Sabrina Salvati.
	My special guest today is journalist and author Whitney Webb, who is also the most requested guest for Savvy Sav's podcast.
	Whitney, I'm so delighted to talk to you today.
	Thank you so much for coming on.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	My pleasure.
	Thanks for having me.
	You have been the most requested guest for this show.
	A number of people have reached out to me and said, please get Whitney Webb on, especially when I was talking about Jeffrey Epstein.
	A lot of people said to bring you on.
	So I'm so glad to talk to you.
	And I do want to start off diving into the 2024 presidential election.
	Obviously, this time around there is a huge elephant in the room and that is Israel.
	And this is all around October 7th and the genocide that is taking place in Gaza.
	I think for the first time since hosting this show, I'm seeing a lot of people pay more attention to what Israel is, as the creation of Israel, the treatment of Palestinians, but also people are starting to pay attention to politicians' connection to the Israeli lobby, and they're starting to see that both Republicans and Democrats have that connection.
	Recently, Kamala Harris stated that she approves of a ceasefire.
	There was a conversation that she had privately with some of the uncommitted supporters, where she told them that she would be open to an arms embargo.
	But publicly, her campaign has said that she would not support an arms embargo.
	And I want to get your take on this, about this hold that These organizations like AIPAC and also J Street have on these politicians and how likely do you think it is that someone like Kamala Harris will actually support an arms embargo if she is elected?
	Yeah, so I think it's very unlikely that Kamala will actually support that once in office.
	I think people need to keep in mind, regardless of what party you're listening to, that campaign promises are sales pitches, and we have so many examples of people running for president saying one thing on the campaign trail and doing essentially the exact opposite once they get in office.
	And so Kamala, you know, as someone who's been in the office of Vice President, and we kind of know what her stance is, and we've seen what the Biden administration has done in relation to what's transpired in Gaza, and obviously she hasn't put any pressure on them at all as vice president, and she easily could have.
	And I think, again, it's just a way of trying to differentiate herself in terms of rhetoric from Trump.
	But I think in terms of practice and how it would pan out with her in the White House versus Trump in the White House, I think the difference is As it relates to US support for, you know, the Israeli war machine would essentially be unchanged.
	And I think that's pretty clear if you look at just the DNC and the Republicans historically in their relationship with Israel and, you know, essentially letting Israel dictate major aspects of US foreign policy, specifically as it relates to the Middle East.
	And being one of the driving forces behind a lot of efforts of the US to enact regime change in the Middle East, as well as being one of the main, I guess, you know, again, driving forces behind the invasion of Iraq after the, you know, in the post 9-11 era and all of that, a lot of that was drawn up.
	And documents created by US neocons that served in the Bush administration for Netanyahu on this policy document called a clean break, which essentially laid the groundwork for what would become the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and then later on the dirty war in Syria.
	And a lot of these people, you know, neocons have sort of rebranded.
	Richard Perle, for example, had a close relationship at one point with Peter Thiel and helped him set up Palantir, which is a company that has ties to the Biden administration as well, as well as to the Trump campaign.
	Avril Haines, the top intelligence official in the Biden administration, used to be a very high-ranking consultant and longtime consultant.
	for Palantir, for example.
	As far as APAC goes, as an organization, what a lot of people don't know is that they've also been caught being involved in espionage operations, even though they weren't charged for it formally.
	I forget the exact nature of what happened, but it was reported on pretty early on, I think, by Justin Raimondo of antiwar.com back when it was happening.
	And it was, I think, a guy at the Pentagon was passing classified information to officials at AIPAC who then pass it on to the Israeli government.
	And the case was essentially, like, shut down and very poorly handled.
	And pretty much everyone involved should have gone to prison.
	And there was also an espionage scandal involving AIPAC in the 1980s, and AIPAC is funded, a lot of it is funded by this group of Zionist billionaires, or historically has been, that are loosely known as the Mega Group, which is sort of the nickname that the Wall Street Journal gave them.
	back in the late 90s, but this was created in 1991 by Leslie Wexner and Charles Bronfman, and so intimately involves Wexner, the Bronfman family, the Crowns, who were actually a major force behind Obama's political career, and a lot of these other figures that have had an outsized role in donating to AIPAC, and Wexner in particular has a lot of influence on AIPAC as well.
	I think one of the top people at AIPAC a couple years ago essentially bragged that Most of the top people in the organization had previously, you know, been Wexner fellows.
	So, you know, undergone sort of like the Wexner philanthropic leadership training courses and all of that.
	And so a lot of these billionaires As I wrote in my book, One Nation Under Blackmail have historic ties to organized crime, specifically the Crown's, the Brownfman's, and Leslie Wexner himself.
	And so, you know, they've tried to sort of dominate a lot of U.S.
	foreign policy decisions as it relates to Israel and have, you know, questionable interests and a lot of their organized time.
	Crime ties, I think, are very important because if you look at the creation of the state of Israel, particularly its national security state in the late 40s, it involved a significant amount of organized crime figures in the United States who were trafficking weapons to the Haganah, which is the precursor to the IDF.
	And so once the Haganah transformed into the IDF and a lot of these other groups that were paramilitary groups before the creation of the state of Israel, they had all these ties to essentially what was the Jewish mob in the United States, and those ties persisted.
	And that particular network of organized crime is directly tied to these billionaires I just mentioned.
	And so I think that helps sort of flesh out why this relationship is that way and also helps explain why you have so many collaborations over the years between CIA and Mossad.
	And so, you know, I argued in some past work when I worked at Mint Press News that really what we have at this point is a bi-national security state because of a lot of policies that have been made.
	But it really goes back to this nexus at the end of You know, the end of the 1940s, when organized crime sort of got really involved, not just with U.S.
	intelligence, but also in the creation of Israel's national security state as well.
	And so AIPAC is sort of a lobby group for a lot of those interests, unfortunately.
	And also, you know, there's a lot of, I would argue there's some other interests here as well.
	So like Gaza, for instance, is being used.
	And historically, Palestine has been used by the Israeli you know, war industry for the purpose of testing weapons of war.
	And now you have some of these AI defense companies or other, you know, companies that are trying to transition into AI, like Palantir, teaming up with the IDF to essentially run live trials on, you know, their AI-powered death machines on civilians in Gaza.
	And it seems very unlikely because of the ties of the people that create those organizations.
	Or that fund them, you know, they have ties to really both parties here, whether it's Trump or, you know, or the Republicans or the Democrats.
	So, unfortunately, you know, these companies are obviously kind of interested in advancing their, I guess, bottom line and their products, but it's, you know, being tested in absolutely the worst way possible.
	And I've never heard any politician even reference that fact, or the fact that these AI weapons have been proven to be grossly inaccurate or being used to target, you know, entire families on the Gaza Strip on very, basically on metrics that nobody knows.
	A lot of these AI programs that have been used in And the war on Gaza are completely opaque and no one really knows how the kill lists they're drawing up are being developed.
	So, unfortunately, a lot of that's being done with U.S.
	Silicon Valley, with U.S.
	intelligence, and with U.S.
	military contractors.
	And those are the people that have an outsized influence on the country, and I think it's very unlikely that Republicans and Democrats will go against that, especially if AIPAC is successful in buying their silence, which there's major political contributions that AIPAC makes, which of course, you know, facilitates a lot of these policies at the congressional level as well.
	Journalist Rick Sterling, I interviewed him a while back and he was explaining to me that JFK wanted to have, back then it wasn't AIPAC, there was a different name for it, but similar idea.
	He wanted that organization to register as a foreign agent.
	Yeah, it was It was him and RFK, who was his attorney general, tried really hard to get, I forget the name, but yeah, it was a precursor to, it might have been the Zionist Organization of America, actually, ZOA, which is still around, and Morton Klein runs it, and he's very close to Trump world.
	Right, right.
	And so obviously that didn't happen.
	JFK was assassinated.
	So we didn't see that come to light.
	What is the likelihood of considering all these protests that have happened all across the world for the Palestinian cause?
	There have been thousands of people out in the street.
	There's thousands of people in the street yesterday in Chicago protesting the DNC convention, pushing Kamala and Biden.
	To move in a different way on this particular issue.
	The big demand has moved from a ceasefire to an arms embargo with Israel.
	What is the likelihood and please be just a hundred percent candid because I really want my viewers to not waste their time and think that they are going to be able to push someone in a different direction push a politician a different direction.
	What is the likelihood that today?
	Given everything that has happened and the numerous protests, that our government will move away from the state of Israel or cut ties with Israel or cut ties with organizations like AIPAC?
	Yeah, I think it's hugely unlikely, at least in the short to medium term.
	And there would have to be some major structural change in the US political system, I think, for that relationship to be broken.
	And there's a couple of reasons I say this, but one reason that's sort of overlooked that I reported on a lot when I worked For Mint Press News is that there's a particular billionaire who's very close to the Zionist fault, who's forgetting his first name, but his last name is Singer.
	And he created this organization called Startup Nation Central with a bunch of people with connections to the Israeli government.
	And basically his goal there was to have these Israeli intelligence-connected startups promoted specifically to U.S.
	companies to facilitate their mergers with U.S.
	companies as a way to have Israeli intelligence veterans in key positions in the U.S.
	tech industry to prevent any sort of meaningful embrace of the Boycott, Divest, Sanctions movement or BDS movement against Israel.
	And this was back in like 2012.
	So this has been something that they've been concerned about potentially happening, I would argue, for a long time.
	And there's been extreme efforts to sort of yoke together the infrastructure of the military and also the national security state of the U.S.
	to infrastructure service providers or software developers that are from Israeli intelligence.
	And some of these are quite disconcerting.
	In 2019, one of these companies that's a contractor to the U.S.
	military is a cybersecurity firm called Cyber Reason.
	And Cyber Reason did all of these very weird simulations with U.S.
	law enforcement about a hack disrupting a U.S.
	presidential election and what would be needed to have the election canceled and martial law declared.
	In the country, and this particular company was created by Israeli intelligence veterans, who one of whom the head of it overtly says that his work at cyber reason is the continuation of his work at Israel's unit 8200, which is essentially like the Israeli NSA equivalent signals intelligence.
	And they contract for major aspects of US military infrastructure now.
	So, you know, when you are a cyber security company, you also get a lot of access to the most essential systems that you're ostensibly trying to protect.
	But this is, you know, a foreign intelligence and foreign military, you know, using its veterans and sort of embedding them in major aspects of US, you know, national security infrastructure, which is a huge US national security risk, but it never gets talked about.
	And, you know, again, I would go back to the argument that the intention for decades has been to build a bi-national security state to prevent the US separating itself from Israel in any meaningful way.
	And I think that's also true of some other countries as well, like the UK, for example.
	And I think that's why you had Netanyahu a few years ago, referring to the Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance, which is really most of the English speaking world, saying that Israel is really the second eye of the Five Eyes, in that it, you know, essentially dominates a lot of this infrastructure, cyber security infrastructure.
	for these countries as well.
	And Netanyahu in 2012 oversaw the, well under his administration back then, oversaw the development of this cyber security, I guess you could say intelligence policy, where a lot of operations that used to be done in-house in Mossad and other Israeli intelligence agencies were going to be spun off into private cyber security companies.
	And so essentially admitting that the policy was to use the Israeli cyber security tech industry and also other aspects of the tech industry as fronts for Israeli intelligence.
	It's like an admitted policy they've had since 2012.
	And, you know, I think it's very unlikely that because of how extensive the connection of US critical infrastructure is to Israel, or companies tied to Israel, it would be very hard for any meaningful separation to take place.
	And I don't just mean that in terms of military.
	You may remember, you know, a year or two ago, maybe it was a little more recent, there was some sort of hack on some water system.
	I forget what state it was, but there was a lot of fear mongering about that, about hackers.
	And that particular, you know, water system or dam or whatever it was, was controlled by an Israeli company, or managed by an Israeli company.
	I guess some people argue that this is fine because Israel is supposedly the U.S.' 's greatest ally, but that's not necessarily true.
	Netanyahu, for example, pushing for the invasion of Iraq, for example, that was not really in the U.S.
	U.S.' 's best interest in terms of a national security perspective, along with the war on terror, and really, you know, the neocons in the U.S.
	were pushing it through, but neoconservativism basically seeks to align U.S.
	and Israeli foreign policy goals, basically conflating Israeli policy goals.
	with US policy goals.
	So, you know, that obviously complicates things, you know, even more.
	And so there's this very extensive relationship that a lot of people, I think, don't really understand.
	And it was intentionally set up this way, I think, to prevent the voice of the people from being heard.
	I totally hear where you're coming from, and thank you so much for saying that, because I don't think... I'm seeing a lot of people believe the rhetoric that Kamala Harris is saying, and I don't think people really understand just how deep this goes.
	And that brings me to Peter Thiel and J.D.
	Vance, because when it was announced by Donald Trump that he was choosing J.D.
	Vance, a lot of people, even some conservatives, were not happy about that pick.
	It made sense that Kamala Harris chose Tim Waltz if she's trying to win over some of the progressive base, so that made sense.
	But the J.D.
	Vance pick was kind of odd.
	He seems like he's kind of a wild card.
	He says some things that are just really weird, like saying that people should be punished for not having children, for example.
	But I'm curious to hear from you.
	There have been reports that J.D.
	Vance has some type of connection between what with himself and Peter Thiel, and that also that may have something to do with why Donald Trump made that pick.
	And I want people to hear about this too, because I'm hearing people say, well, Donald Trump is going to be, you know, anti-war and that he didn't start any, yeah, he didn't start any wars, but he implemented coups in Venezuela, et cetera.
	And people want to forget all those things.
	I just want people to realize how far the corruption goes on both sides.
	What is that connection there between JD Vance and Peter Thiel?
	Yeah, so J.D.
	Vance, as we know him today, wouldn't really exist without Peter Thiel.
	Peter Thiel started his venture capital career bringing him on to Mithril Capital, which is one of these VC firms that Peter Thiel has created, and then also financed his entire political campaign.
	Well, not entirely, but made the biggest donation to a Senate campaign in U.S.
	history to J.D.
	Vance to get him elected to the Senate.
	And also was a major donor to start up J.D.
	Vance's own venture capital firm, which is called Narya Capital.
	And it's funny because another person who donated a lot of money to J.D.
	Vance's venture capital firm is Eric Schmidt, who's actually a big Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden donor.
	That, you know, is the former head of Google and also the person that ran the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence.
	So basically the person that charted out the CIA and military's AI policy and has had an outsized role on science and tech policy in the Biden administration.
	So it just kind of goes to show you that, you know, these kind of elections, I would argue, are sort of like, are we choosing for Eric Schmidt or Peter Thiel, you know, Democrats or Republicans, because Silicon Valley oligarchs really dominate both parties, but they ultimately agree on a lot more than they don't.
	So you have, you know, for example, Eric Schmidt and Peter Thiel coming together and backing J.D.
	Vance's own VC firm, but they're also together on the steering committee of the Bilderberg Conference, which is sort of this closed-door conference of elites that's quite controversial.
	And even more secretive than things like the World Economic Forum's meeting and things like that, at least that's filmed and the public can watch it.
	Bilderberg is not quite that.
	But you'll have top intelligence figures, top government officials and top people from the corporate sector coming together to essentially collude about their agendas for the world going forward.
	So again, Peter Thiel and Eric Schmidt tend to agree on a lot more than they don't.
	But they back politicians that have different rhetoric, but ultimately implement the same policies at the end of the day, which is, you know, why we have this uniparty phenomenon that people over the past several years have been able to see.
	But, you know, it seems like whenever there is an election year and a lot of election related content is out, people that knew about the uniparty seem to kind of forget that it's a thing and think that there are meaningful differences.
	between the two parties.
	So as far as JD Vance goes, the ties to Peter Thiel are very important.
	He owes his political career to Peter Thiel, and he owes his very successful venture capital career to Peter Thiel.
	And Peter Thiel is a problematic individual.
	He frames himself as a libertarian, but if you actually look at what he says about economics and his beliefs there, he's really much more of a fascist.
	His view is that free market competition is bad, that monopolies are good, and in his practice, when he set out to make these de facto monopolies, which he did with PayPal and then Palantir, he built those monopolies with US intelligence from the very beginning.
	With Palantir, it's very overt, but it's also been admitted, as it relates to the origins of PayPal as well, that they were consulting every three and four letter agency in the United States as they were beginning to set up their company.
	So that, to me, is not a free market libertarian at all.
	That's someone who's a cartel market libertarian.
	And so he and some of the people in his network, I guess, which I sort of nicknamed the Tealverse, They basically adopt a lot of this so-called America First rhetoric, but in practice they're just as bad as the other side and support a lot of the same policies and the same wars and things like that.
	But aside from PayPal, one of the Things that is most concerning about Peter Thiel is his involvement in Palantir.
	I mentioned earlier he had connections to Richard Perle.
	He used Richard Perle while he was setting up Palantir to connect him with the person that was running a surveillance program that was at that time being defunded by Congress that was called Total Information Awareness and was supposed to be housed in DARPA.
	And it was one of these, I mean, it was even more invasive into Americans' lives than the Patriot Act even was, and that's why it was defunded and the Patriot Act was not.
	And essentially what Peter Thiel did was turn Palantir into a completely privatized version of total information awareness.
	Because they correctly gambled that people had complained about the military having this program because it was housed in DARPA, which is part of the Pentagon.
	But if it was just a private sector venture, people wouldn't complain as much.
	And they were completely accurate about that.
	And so Peter Thiel not only privatized that failed DARPA program as Palantir, he also privatized another DARPA program that was shut down, but part of the same circle of surveillance projects and proposed projects, and turned that into what is now Facebook.
	So Facebook existed.
	You know, before Peter Thiel got involved, but the person that provided the capital that put them on the on a map and actually like gave them, you know, enabled them to rise the way they have was Peter Thiel, who was on the board for decades and essentially directed a lot of their product development and what they would become.
	And I wrote an entire article about the similarities and development of Facebook to be a resurrection of the same DARPA surveillance program, where we freely give away our faces and everything we do in our lives, our events, where we are, our location, posting it for other people to see, but also for the government to harvest that data, which was the intention of that original DARPA program.
	And Palantir, more specifically, what it does is that it analyzes all of the data mined off the internet about you.
	So everything, for example, the NSA would suck up about your activity.
	Palantir turns all, you know, this massive swath of otherwise unusable data, because it's just so much, and then turns that into actionable intelligence, like turns it into something that intelligence agencies can interpret.
	And one of the things it does is that it labels Americans subversive based on their online activity.
	And this is very bad because the same group that made Total Information Awareness created this database for during the Reagan administration that became part of the Iran-Contra scandal.
	And unfortunately, that database still exists.
	And so any American deemed subversive enough is put on this list.
	And as of 2008, there were 3 million Americans on it.
	And because of these protocols that were created in this Reagan era called the Continuity of Government Protocols, if there's a vaguely defined national emergency deemed by the government to be severe enough, the people on this list can be detained or put under house arrest or whatever without any trial, just sort of have their constitutional rights suspended.
	So Palantir is the group that decides whether or not you're on that list.
	And they're a contractor for all 18 US intelligence agencies and also for our health system.
	They sucked up all the COVID data for both the United States and the United Kingdom and are training their AI on that and are basically, I would argue, trying to position themselves as building an AI system to serve as essentially a global brain because they run All the data for U.S.
	intelligence, they run all the data for the public healthcare system in the U.S.
	and the United Kingdom, or at least public health data and, you know, major policies made by the CDC and HHS.
	And they also run Wall Street.
	A lot of major Wall Street banks and hedge funds and all of that use Palantir's AI to predict things before they happen so they can make trades and things like that.
	So, you know, this is a hugely influential company with arguably too much power, and it's pretty much a clear CIA front company, I would argue.
	I would say that because the first people to fund Palantir, besides Thiel, who gave some of his own money to it, was the CIA's venture capital firm, In-Q-Tel.
	And for the first, like, five or six years as a company, their only client was the CIA.
	Palantir CEO Alex Karp says the CIA was always the intended client of Palantir.
	And I think in just a three-year period, early on in the company, the top engineers at Palantir visited CIA headquarters in Virginia over 200 times.
	Tweaking, they're having, you know, the CIA tweak and to help them develop their product.
	So, that's a very, very extensive relationship with the CIA.
	And to claim that, you know, someone like Peter Thiel is a libertarian that would, you know, presumably libertarians are about, like, limiting big government and the excesses of big government.
	And this is a guy that gave literally the most out-of-control surveillance tool to the most out-of-control intelligence agency in the United States and arguably the world.
	So, you know, this is not a guy that I think is good at all.
	The fact that he's, you know, a guy that he essentially created as Trump's vice presidential candidate, I think, should be really concerning for those reasons alone.
	But also, you know, Teal, back when Trump was in office the first time, was also a big part of Trump's transition team, picked major aspects, helped make major appointments on who was brought in at the Trump Pentagon, for example.
	And with J.D.
	Vance as the VP, you know, arguably his influence will be even greater than it was last time around, without Thiel even having to be openly donating to the Trump campaign.
	And Thiel isn't, as far as we know, but a lot of people deeply connected to Peter Thiel are, like Palmer Luckey, who runs Anduril, which is Thiel-funded, and Palmer Luckey is a Thiel Fellow.
	And Anduril develops all these autonomous drones for Ukraine, And I believe that they've partnered with Israel on the IDF, and they also, of course, develop it for, you know, the U.S.
	military.
	And they're building the virtual border wall with facial recognition technology on the U.S.-Mexico border, which is what Trump has promoted as the new, instead of a physical wall on the U.S.-Mexico border that he campaigned on previously, now he is all about the smart wall, which Palmer Luckey happens to be building.
	So we can assume that those contracts will increase under a future Trump administration.
	But unfortunately, it's also something very supported by Democrats as well.
	Actually, when Trump came out and said, oh, I'm going to build a physical barrier on the US-Mexico border, and Democrats complained about that, their response, the policy they gave in response was build a smart wall, which is not what Trump is doing.
	So, you know, this is something that will advance.
	Regardless of who's in office, unfortunately.
	And so a lot of these, you know, same Silicon Valley guys, again, whether it's Peter Thiel or Elon Musk or the PayPal mafia guys, I guess, because David Sachs is also backing Trump, you know, they have their particular rhetoric.
	We're anti-woke.
	And all of this stuff, we're America first, and then you have Reid Hoffman and Eric Schmidt and all of these guys, Bihir Omidyar, who owns PayPal, on the Democrat side, but at the end of the day, they agree about programmable, surveillable currency, they agree about digital ID, biometric digital ID, and increased surveillance, and all of that stuff.
	At the end of the day, just the metrics they use to sell it to their political base is different.
	So, people are probably familiar with the left-leaning talking points in favor of those things, but as far as Trump goes, for example, he's pitching digital ID, facial recognition, and biometric digital ID as a solution to voter fraud, which is a concern among the right-leaning base, and also illegal immigration.
	This is how we'll get illegal immigration under control, make everyone have a biometric digital ID, and implement you know, biometric checkpoints at every port of entry of the U.S., so airports, the border, wherever.
	And again, this is something that's also supported by Democrats because, again, it's a uniparty and the solutions that both parties suggest in the response to any sort of crises, whether real or manufactured, is, you know, either more control and more surveillance or it's war.
	You know, those are your two choices from either of these political parties that we have in the U.S.
	That is incredibly concerning, Whitney, and I just want people to understand that these parties are very similar, and I feel like there's the separation on the social issues, whether it's for women's rights or that type of thing, but when it comes down to the billionaire class, they both support the oligarchy, they both support Uh, the police state, these are the types of things I've been trying to get people to understand.
	And essentially everything that you just told me about Peter Thiel and JD Vance, what that says is that as much as Trump says he's going to go after the deep state again, people have to realize that is just rhetoric because he essentially has put the deep state as a part of his cabinet.
	Yeah, and you know, the Republicans traditionally frame themselves as the tough on crime party.
	And so because there's a lot of increased concern about security among his base, particularly on the border, you know, they were framing the stuff on the border and like military terms, it's an invasion, all of that, you know, I've argued that that's a way to manufacture consent for people to support military style solutions on the border or other ports of entry and sort of get us in.
	to sort of this techno-fascist system that was really built by the neocons back in the 80s and during the George W. Bush administration in the post-911 era.
	We have both parties, you know, advancing those types of policies, unfortunately.
	So, yes, it is definitely concerning, but I think it's important to Remind people during an election year that the powers that be agree on a lot more than they don't, and their policies harm everybody, and it's fine if you want to vote for any of these people.
	If you think one is the lesser of two evils, or will slow down the policy you hate the most more, or might do something to resolve a conflict or crisis, That concerns you, but like you said, they're beholden to, you know, the billionaires behind them or, you know, the club of billionaires in which they exist because, you know, at least one of the candidates running is a billionaire.
	And unfortunately, if you look at how things have been over the past 20 years in the US, Every crisis, economic crisis in the US, has resulted in a massive wealth transfer for us to them.
	In 2008, we had Obama preside over that.
	His entire cabinet was essentially picked by Citigroup.
	And then you had another one during the COVID era, which Trump presided over.
	And, you know, that essentially created the same situation.
	The economic response supposedly to COVID under Trump began several months before COVID was even declared a pandemic by the WHO.
	And it was arguably not about COVID at all.
	And it was this policy that was actually developed by BlackRock that they implemented called the Going Direct Plan.
	And in 2008, a lot of the bailout plans were also developed by BlackRock.
	So whether it's, you know, left or right, you can rest assured that essentially Larry Fink is going to run the U.S.
	economy.
	There you go.
	And then a lot of people assume that like Peter Thiel, because people are like, well, he started Rumble and they're allowing people to say what they want to say on Rumble.
	And I'm just kind of like, that doesn't mean he's still not trying to surveil people.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Because we don't really know, do we, what Rumble does with user data.
	So maybe they can say whatever they want and they're not going to be censored.
	But that having someone that, you know, the Palantir co-founder being behind it, And also someone like, you know, Howard Lutnick being involved, who's the head of counter Fitzgerald, who's now a co-chair of Trump's transition team, being involved.
	You know, these are not good dudes.
	And especially in the case of Peter Thiel and Palantir, they data mine all these websites like Rumble and YouTube and whatever.
	And profile Americans based off of that data.
	So you're basically, you know, Trump supporters arguably right-leaning constitution embracing Americans that own guns have always been the biggest target of the U.S.
	as it relates to this war on domestic terrorism that they've been developing for the past 20 years.
	And so I would argue that it's really a way to get Them to say things that at a future point might be considered incriminating and sort of, you know, profile people that they think may be a problem within that base at some point.
	And I think a lot of the efforts to get those particular people to back Trump is a way to sort of engineer their compliance.
	Because if you can convince You know, as far as the national security state goes, they've always been concerned about gun owners and particularly like veterans, people with military training and guns that don't trust the state and don't trust the government, right?
	But if you can convince those people that they're guys in the White House and that they have won, And that the guy in the White House is going to take out the quote-unquote deep state and all of this stuff, then, you know, they'll be more compliant and, you know, more likely to acquiesce to policies they may not acquiesce to under a different type of administration.
	So, I don't necessarily trust what's going on with Rumble at all.
	I think, you know, it's positive in the sense that they don't censor videos to the extent that YouTube does, but from the perspective of data mining and harvesting user data, this is something that is happening on all of the quote-unquote free speech platforms, whether it's Rumble or Elon Musk's X.
	And it's important to keep in mind that Elon Musk is a military and intelligence contractor.
	He's deepened his ties with US intelligence agencies, including the CIA.
	And those same agencies, particularly the Pentagon, have invested for the past I don't know, 15 years or so?
	Millions and millions of dollars in developing very sophisticated techniques of manipulating the public.
	Actually, one US Air Force research proposal talked about researching how to use social media to turn people into drones, essentially, which is just, like, very disturbing when you think about it.
	And, I mean, if a Pentagon contractor runs a major social media site that has a bot problem, do you think he will prevent the Pentagon's bots or the Pentagon's social media manipulation techniques from operating on his site?
	It seems very unlikely because of the conflict of interest.
	I would encourage people to keep that stuff in mind, and if you have Twitter and use it, if you haven't already, you should go in the settings and disable the part, the little switch, because every account by default surrenders its user data to Elon Musk's Grok AI, and so every tweet, every DM, everything you do on Twitter is being used to train his AI algorithm.
	So I don't really think it's about free speech for Elon, personally.
	That's right, that's right.
	And this brings me to Kamala Harris hiring two former BlackRock executives.
	So recently, for those who are not aware, Kamala Harris hired two former BlackRock executives to actually advise her economic platform.
	They had already worked with Biden as well, so it's not like these are people that she She didn't know wasn't aware of but to the people who are saying that Kamala Harris is progressive and she's this communist or which obviously people don't know what communism actually means.
	These exaggerations are ridiculous, but.
	This just goes to show you again, at the end of the day, you have to pay attention to what they do, not what they say, because BlackRock is an evil company, and I've talked about it on the show before many times, and the fact that she's willing to add two former BlackRock execs in, and she's developed this housing plan where she wants to give people $25,000 for a down payment if you're a first-generation or first-time home buyer, and they're a part of the advising with this.
	This is the same company Yeah, so I mean Kamala is very clearly part of the same DNC crowd that includes Biden, includes Obama, includes the Clintons.
	So people have to understand, like, they're not acting in good faith here.
	And what do you think that says about Kamala Harris that she's willing to work with two former executives of BlackRock, of all people?
	Yeah, so I mean, Kamala is very clearly part of the same DNC crowd that includes Biden, includes Obama, includes the Clintons, these kind of Democrat politicians who, like, frame themselves in terms of rhetoric as progressive.
	But in actuality, when you look at their policies, at best, they're, like, center-right, like, at best, you know?
	And so – It's really no surprise that she would have BlackRock so intimately involved in developing Her economic policy, because as I mentioned earlier, BlackRock is really a bipartisan economic advisor.
	So, for example, Larry Fink used to manage Trump's personal fortune, and he was tapped specifically by Trump in the lead-up to COVID to help develop the government's fiscal response to COVID.
	But really, it wasn't a fiscal response to COVID so much as a fiscal response to the US government's lockdown.
	policy, or rather the lockdown policies that were implemented in states but tacitly supported at the federal level.
	And again, in 2008, they helped organize the bailouts, which of course didn't really benefit Main Street, they benefited Wall Street.
	And the same was also true with the COVID policy and this whole idea of the going direct reset, which again is based on the research of John Titus, who published an article about going direct.
	I would really encourage you to go and read his investigation.
	It's his website.
	And for anyone interested in what is arguably the biggest wealth transfer from regular Americans to the oligarch class in American history, I would really encourage you to go and read his investigation.
	It's very eye opening.
	So essentially what happened with going direct is that, you know, previously there was this policy of quantitative easing or rather, you know, wanton money printing after the 2008 economic crisis that was going on, you know, in the U.S. Federal Reserve System.
	And so BlackRock created this plan at the end of 2019 for the next crisis, that in the next crisis, the Federal Reserve should consider going direct.
	And so what that meant is that they would do the same money printing they did before, but instead of giving it to public sector entities, they would put it directly in the hands of Wall Street.
	Like BlackRock.
	And then when the next downturn started, not necessarily when COVID started, but it actually started not long after BlackRock, like a month really, after BlackRock made that proposal, the repo market in the U.S.
	started to go totally haywire and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York started to intervene in that market and implement BlackRock's going direct policy.
	That continued from then all the way up until COVID was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization and then they just went into complete overdrive printing all of this money and handing out to Wall Street and then the BlackRock heavy involvement in what became the government's COVID fiscal policy overseen by people like Mnuchin.
	For example, they were put in charge of a lot of these funding facilities that the federal government set up, supposedly to bail out Main Street from the lockdown policies.
	And instead of BlackRock using that money to help regular Americans, they bought shares in their own ETFs and nothing happened.
	Nothing happened at all.
	And so this is a company that doesn't give a damn about the American people.
	All it cares about is creating profit for shareholders and the people whose money it manages, creating greater profits for them, which in the past included Donald Trump himself and a lot of other major oligarch figures that back Republicans and they also back Democrats.
	Larry Fink himself, I think, is pretty overtly a Democrat supporter.
	But again, this is a company that's so powerful And it's connections to the US government and US government fiscal policy are so intertwined that you're going to see BlackRock involved in the next crisis to come, regardless of whether Kamala wins or Trump wins.
	Because when Trump won, he called Larry Fink up and was like, Larry, develop a policy that, you know, The government was actually already implementing before then, but just gave him free reign to go even crazier and steal all of our, you know, hyperinflate the dollar and destroy regular Americans' purchasing power and then give all this extra money that was printed directly in the hands of BlackRock.
	And so, you know, a lot of the people now that blame all of the inflation on Biden, it was really Trump began that policy.
	But because of all the BlackRock people in the Biden administration, it was continued.
	Until, you know, the COVID fiscal response changed and they decided that COVID was over.
	And, you know, the BlackRock stuff is going to continue, like I said, regardless of who wins.
	And actually there have been really prominent people from, you know, the U.S.
	political sphere that have pointed out that the next administration is very likely to grapple with some major U.S.
	government debt crisis.
	And so I think it's very safe to assume that whether it's Kamala or Trump in office, you're going to have BlackRock brought in.
	to quote-unquote solve the US government debt crisis, because that's what that's who Obama called on in 08, that's who Trump called on during COVID, and Kamala surrounded herself with blackrock goons as far as her economic policy team is concerned.
	And, you know, I think it's very unfortunate, but it's very telling.
	And it's also important to point out that BlackRock is trailblazing this whole idea of tokenizing real-world assets.
	So basically, they're trying to make new forms of digital gold, kind of like I guess like Bitcoin's been called that, for example, but they're trying to basically tokenize major aspects of the natural world, which they say are like, you know, this rainforest, this national park is of a finite supply.
	It's of a finite size.
	So we can tokenize each hectare or each acre of that and link it to like a token or something and trade it on the blockchain and make all of this money.
	I mean, that's basically, you know, They're about to turn nature into a giant Wall Street casino, and it's going to be supported by Kamala or Trump because they framed it as, you know, sustainable development, and this is going to stop climate change, but it's not.
	It's going to create an entire new asset class for Wall Street and allow their insane casino to keep going for the next hundred years plus.
	Holy crap, Whitney.
	Yeah, Black Rock's terrible.
	Oh my gosh.
	Oh my gosh.
	And that's one of the companies I feel like a lot of people don't talk about.
	Even Bernie Sanders, when he called out the billionaires, he didn't call out Larry Fink.
	Yeah, very few do.
	And there's, you know, other groups that are in that same world of finance that are just as influential as BlackRock, like the Carlyle Group.
	And they have, like, very overt ties to the CIA.
	And no one talks about them either.
	And they own a bunch of this stuff.
	And Blackstone too.
	And you'll have a lot of these Wall Street guys and hedge fund guys.
	There's a bunch backing Trump.
	And there's a bunch backing Kamala.
	There's a bunch of Silicon Oligarchs backing Trump.
	And there's a bunch backing Kamala.
	But ultimately, they agree, like I said earlier, on a lot of the same Orwellian and horrible policy choices that regular Americans are tired of, and we're being sort of, you know, divided and conquered by focusing on a lot of these rhetorical differences.
	And people have essentially developed amnesia, I guess you could say, about what these people did when they were in power and in office.
	What were their policy actions?
	So I think people should focus on what their policies have been when they've been in power, and not so much on the rhetoric.
	Because, I mean, we know that with Trump and we know that with Kamala too.
	So one example, another example with Trump is that he campaigned on, he was going to reinstate Glass-Steagall, which is, the repeal of that happened during the Clinton administration, a Democrat, and largely created the 2008 economic crisis, and he claimed he was going to reinstate it, and then he gets an office and has all these You know, a Goldman Sachs guy becomes his Treasury Secretary and all of this stuff.
	And it was Goldman Sachs guy Robert Rubin who repealed Glass-Steagall.
	And Glass-Steagall doesn't get reinstated and it's said the banking industry gets even more deregulated under Trump.
	And that tends to be what happens more or less often with Democrats as well.
	Wall Street essentially always gets what it wants.
	And this particular faction of the Democrats, the Obama-Biden-Kamala crowd and The Clintons, of course, are very, very, very cozy with Wall Street and have been historically.
	And the same is true for Trump, who was actually bailed out in the 1990s by Wall Street.
	And I believe it was actually Rothschild Inc.
	specifically, and the person The banker there that helped bail him out, Wilbur Ross, Trump later made his Commerce Secretary, and when he was being bailed out, the head of that particular bank said that, you know, we could have let Trump fail, like it wasn't really in our interest to bail him out, but the Trump name is still an asset, so that's why we bailed him out.
	Like, he's still useful because of the Trump name.
	So, you know, I would argue that really both parties are always going to serve the billionaire class.
	And there's been a major effort to frame Trump as sort of a populist hero.
	And in order to do that this time around, there has to be a lot of amnesia about what he actually did when he was in office.
	And, you know, most Americans have had four years to forget about everything he did.
	And now you have people that are sort of apologizing for stuff he did or saying he didn't do stuff he actually did in a way that reminds me a lot of how liberals were during Obama's re-election campaign in 2012, acting like the only reason Obama didn't keep any of his campaign promises at all was because, oh, it was these guys or this person or the other party and all of that.
	And a lot of those same excuses are being rolled out For Trump right now, but you can't say that Trump is so amazing that he's going to destroy the deep state single-handedly and then say that he did all this bad stuff last time around because he couldn't control or rein in any of his executive appointees or cabinet officials.
	You can't have it both ways, unfortunately.
	That's right, and that brings me to Jeffrey Epstein and Mossad, probably one of the most Large cases that I have seen in the U.S. or large cases of injustice was the Epstein trial, especially when I did more research.
	And I found that this was not the first time that they had, I guess, in went to one of his homes.
	I believe they went to his home in Palm Beach before prior years prior.
	People that chose to deal with Epstein even after knowing about the Palm Beach raid, including people like Chomsky, for example.
	And this man was allowed to go on and continue doing what he was doing on this island in the Virgin Islands.
	The banks were all in on it.
	You have JP Morgan that was in on this as well.
	And it's just, it's crazy to me.
	It's shocking.
	Now, Jelaine Maxwell went down, but to me, I felt like she was just the fall guy because at the end of the day, Epstein, whatever, killed himself, whatever, in prison, whatever you want to call it.
	But Epstein is gone.
	Jelaine Maxwell seems to be the fall guy.
	And also, we still have not seen the list of names, the clients that were purchasing those girls.
	And that has not been released.
	And those people are still walking among us.
	And I wouldn't be surprised if some of the people in that book are politicians.
	Yeah, well, they're politicians and they're Silicon Valley oligarchs.
	Pretty much every Silicon Valley oligarch had some sort of major relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
	So the JP Morgan case that was brought against, well, that was brought against JP Morgan by the U.S.
	Virgin Islands as it related to that bank's relationship with Epstein.
	The people that were subpoenaed included the two Google co-founders and Elon Musk, and I believe another Silicon Valley figure.
	It's also known that Reid Hoffman, who created LinkedIn and is a big part of the PayPal Mafia and also a major backer of Kamala arguably had one of the closest ties to Epstein and Silicon Valley.
	Peter Thiel was meeting with Epstein pretty regularly.
	So, you know, some of the biggest names in Silicon Valley intimately involved with this guy.
	So I have kind of an unconventional conclusion about a lot of the stuff that ended up going down with Epstein.
	I think a lot of the focus on the coverage on sex trafficking distracts from the fact that Epstein, I think his main job wasn't sex blackmail and sex trafficking, though that obviously did occur.
	I think his main focus throughout the arc of his career, which really began in the 70s and then goes up until his arrest in 2019, was being a currency manipulator and a financial hitman, essentially, for intelligence agencies.
	So basically, you know, shorting currencies, collapsing currencies, or bumping currencies up.
	He was part of a group of people that did that historically.
	The first instance we have of Epstein sort of hobnobbing with the elite is with a man named Jimmy Goldsmith, who was like a notorious currency speculator and currency trader.
	And that's why we have, for example, in 1995, Lynne Forrester, Lynne Forrester de Rothschild now, wrote a letter to Bill Clinton when he was president in 95, saying she wanted to talk to him about Jeffrey Epstein and currency stabilization, why the Mexican peso was collapsing, which ultimately ended with things like Citigroup buying one of Mexico's biggest banks and all of this stuff.
	Anyway, there's a lot to say there, but basically one of the people that shorted that peso and made a bunch of money was part of the same group that Goldsmith was a part of, a guy named Joe Lewis, who was also incidentally part of the FTX scandal more recently.
	So Jeffrey Epstein, when he was interviewed by prominent journalists for the New York Times and others, was frequently seen trading currencies and involved in Forex markets.
	He was very involved in Bear Stearns' efforts to digitalize Forex trading and all of that.
	And back in the 80s, after he was sort of forced out of Bear Stearns, he developed some sort of financial relationship with U.S.
	intelligence.
	And according to him, he was helping hide or helping find stolen money for powerful people, mostly billionaires.
	So if you're hiding and also finding stolen money for people, not only are you a financial criminal, but you have a very intimate understanding of the shadow banking system, of money laundering and things like that.
	And so, and also he was involved, it appears, with a significant amount of tax evasion and how to structure nonprofits as a way to sort of, you know, you not really have them be framed as philanthropic organizations, but really they're like covert companies, which is why he was so involved in helping set up the Gates Foundation and helping set up the Clinton Foundation.
	And the Clinton Global Initiative and all of this stuff.
	So I think a lot of efforts have been made to have the focus on Epstein just be on the sex crimes and not on all the other stuff he was doing.
	Because if they were to focus on sort of the bigger picture, it would be very problematic for very, very powerful people on both sides of the political divide.
	But I do think it's absolutely true that there were efforts to use sexual blackmail to manipulate powerful people, or to buy them out, or to secure their compliance with certain things.
	Because if you have compromised someone, you can control and influence them in unprecedented ways.
	And so something I pointed out in my book is that sexual blackmail has been used by this network in which Epstein was part.
	You know, for decades.
	And it goes back to the same thing I referenced earlier about sort of this merging of intelligence and organized crime back in the immediate post-World War II era.
	Because traditionally, sex blackmail and that kind of stuff and sex trafficking, all of that, that's what the mob did.
	Same with arms trafficking.
	You know, these were mob rackets and later the CIA.
	In the US, at least, took over a lot of those rackets or helped run them in conjunction with these elements of organized crime, because a lot of these mobster guys later became key parts of CIA death squads and assassination teams and all of that stuff all over the world.
	So that's something that really has persisted throughout time.
	And so you know, in this particular world, in this particular network in which Epstein swam, this type of behavior was actually not that uncommon.
	So, for example, one of Epstein's clients in the 1980s was a very intelligence-connected arms dealer named Adnan Khashoggi.
	And Adnan Khashoggi had a yacht, and he would sexually compromise and blackmail people there, right?
	And another guy named Roy Cohn, who was very much tied up with The same, not necessarily with Epstein directly, but the same sort of like New York City based power networks that later Epstein became part of.
	Roy Cohn was also very involved in sexual blackmail with organized crime and was pretty much overtly like a lawyer for major figures in organized crime, while also having a major foot in the Reagan administration, for example.
	And Roy Cohn was also the mentor to Donald Trump and the place where Roy Cohn was very involved in Well, that he and his associates in that used to blackmail people was later sold to Donald Trump, who had questionable parties at the Plaza Hotel in New York in the early 90s, allegedly involving underage girls.
	Again, none of this has really been that investigated, but there is a lot of commonalities, and there's a lot of other sex blackmail scandals as well, like the Profumo affair that was sort of like a UK-US sex blackmail scandal.
	There's just been a lot of these throughout history, but I guess it's just not something you're taught in school.
	So for this particular network, again, that Epstein was inhabiting and the oligarchs he was serving or fronting for, this kind of stuff actually happened perhaps more often than not.
	So again, I think the media coverage attempting to frame Epstein as an anomaly is very mistaken in this regard, and it actually goes on a lot more extensively than we've been led to believe.
	And I certainly think that a lot of the people he was attempting to benefit as it related to blackmail, there's definite Israeli connections there.
	But again, I would argue that the network, and I argue in the book, that the network that Epstein was really working for is sort of this C.I.A.
	Mossad blob that grew out of sort of these parts of the C.I.A.
	that were very teamed up with organized crime.
	They sort of splintered off and created a quote-unquote private C.I.A.
	in the 60s and 70s, and that core group later became really involved with the Reagan administration, became like sort of the They became a lot of the main conspirators in Iran-Contra, for example, which is, you know, something Epstein was allegedly involved in himself.
	As it relates to arms trafficking, Robert Maxwell, Ghislaine Maxwell's father, also involved in Iran-Contra arms trafficking.
	And Robert Maxwell, of course, was a A major asset, if not an outright spy, for Israeli intelligence.
	And Epstein, according to people that worked with Maxwell during that time, said that Epstein was coming into the office and that they met Epstein because Robert Maxwell presented Epstein to them.
	saying that Epstein had been approved by Mossad higher-ups.
	And there's other figures that were tied up with Epstein in some capacity that have come out and said that there was an Israeli intelligence affiliation with Epstein.
	And we also know that he had a very close relationship with Ehud Barak, for example, who's the former Israeli prime minister and also former defense minister, who during this period, when Maxwell and allegedly Epstein were involved in these Iran-Contra arms sales, he was head of the entire Israeli intelligence directorate.
	So he would have been one of those higher-ups that would have approved Epstein during that period.
	But well after that, when the sex trafficking and sex blackmail stuff was allegedly going on, the apartments where the trafficked girls are said to have been kept was frequented by Ehud Barak.
	He would sleep over there.
	He was seen coming in and out of Epstein's residence as well after the first arrest in 2007.
	And also got a bunch of money from the Wexner Foundation for undisclosed purposes when Epstein was intimately involved in the Wexner Foundation, and the Wexner Foundation cannot explain what it was for.
	You know, there's all sorts of weird ties there.
	Also, the fact that Epstein put a lot of money into a company that Ehud Barak helped made that's an Israeli intelligence firm that's now taking over the U.S.
	911 emergency call system called Carbine 911.
	And another major investor in that was Peter Thiel's Founders Fund.
	What do you know?
	So, you know, these networks, it's very important to follow the money.
	And I think in Epstein, the case of Epstein, it's very important to follow the money as well.
	And, you know, if people want to sort of get the deeper picture of it, I would recommend my book, One Nation Under Blackmail.
	It's two volumes.
	So the second volume deals specifically with Epstein in his life, but in order to sort of set the stage for the network that he was working for, I tell that network story in Volume 1, going back to the 40s and sort of this union between organized crime and U.S.
	intelligence during World War II and how it deepened after that, the history of sex blackmail in the U.S.
	and a lot of these figures, Iran-Contra, including the Clintons' involvement in Iran-Contra and all sorts of stuff like that.
	And I think it really helps flesh out the idea that this is a bipartisan problem.
	This blob of organized crime and intelligence controls both parties.
	They're involved in all of these rackets that used to be the mob's rackets, whether it's arms trafficking, human trafficking, drug trafficking.
	This is all stuff we know the CIA does.
	They got it from the mob originally, and they do it in conjunction with these people.
	And also that a lot of these mob figures Including generational families that have been mobbed-linked for a long time are... Sorry, lost my train of thought there.
	But a lot of these figures... I forgot what I was going to say.
	Sorry.
	No worries.
	It happens.
	Yeah.
	Well, one thing I was going to mention is that just to kind of sum this all up, I've been telling my audience that obviously the two party system, which is again, one unit party, is not going to solve these issues.
	And I think a lot of people fall for this every election cycle, thinking that the person that they pick this time will be the one to do that.
	I've been advocating for people to organize locally within their communities, do mutual aid, these are the types of things that I do as well, and build dual power.
	And I feel like a lot of people just, they still are somewhat...
	I don't want to say brainwashed, but just hopeful that the next politician this time around will be the one to save the day.
	And even when it comes to third parties, while I'll be supporting Jill Stein, I still tell people Jill Stein is not going to be your superhero.
	Like you still have to do the work on the ground.
	You have to organize.
	How do you feel about that?
	And when we talk about like where a lot of the money comes from and the billionaire class and the control that these corporations have on these politicians?
	Yeah, so I absolutely agree with you that the solutions that we need to look for are local.
	If people want to vote for somebody, that's your choice.
	I'm not telling you what to do on election day, but unfortunately Americans and a lot of other people in the world have sort of this nasty habit of thinking that all they need to do in terms of political activism, no matter how bad things are, is just vote once every four years and then go back to sleep, you know?
	And I don't think that that is a winning approach at all.
	You know, you can vote for whoever you think is the lesser of two evils or whatever, which is what a lot of Americans have been doing for decades now, and expect a different result.
	But it seems very unlikely that it will result in anything different.
	And like you said, I think organizing locally and building resilient local communities is really the only way forward because the government is too corrupt and they're not going to come save you in the next crisis.
	Instead, during the next crisis, they will try and impose more surveillance and control over your lives and steal your money to transfer it to the oligarch class, which is what they've historically done every crisis we've ever had, ever, really.
	So as far as the Silicon Valley oligarchs, though, go, a lot of us are very dependent on their products.
	And if we don't want them to push us into this dystopian hellhole that they are building, that includes the ones that donate to Democrats and donate to Republicans, then we should try and divest from their services as much as possible.
	And look for alternatives, or at least not be so dependent on their products.
	Because if we're dependent, they can just do anything they want to us really.
	And I think there's going to be a lot of major efforts to sort of grab for control in unprecedented ways as it relates to Technology or even internet access and sort of like freedom of movement was denied to people during COVID, sort of deny people that if they don't get a biometric digital ID or if they don't want to use a CBDC or a private sector equivalent, because a lot of people are concerned about CBDCs.
	Central bank digital currencies because they're programmable and they're surveillable, but there's also private bank digital currencies that are being developed, especially stable coins, which is what Donald Trump has embraced.
	And even though he's he's against CBDCs, but he likes stable coins.
	But stablecoins are also just as programmable and surveillable, and some of those stablecoins, like Tether for example, overtly partnered with the FBI and the Secret Service and have overtly stated that they're basically an extension of US foreign policy abroad and the US government.
	These guys can program our money and surveil our money just as if it were a CBDC, so we're going to get that regardless of parties and office, and Wall Street is all in for that.
	And that's why you've seen a lot of these guys come out and sort of promote this idea of, oh, we don't like CBDCs, but stable coins are okay, and it's freedom and whatever.
	I don't know.
	It's all very weird, but it's ultimately not that.
	Yeah, so there's a lot that we can do locally to resist this, but it starts with building something with your neighbors and getting offline, at least some, because some of us have become really perpetually online, specifically in, you know, the COVID era and where we are now because of lockdowns and whatever, and some people are still remote working or just got used to it.
	And I think the more offline we are, the better off we will be, especially as we get closer to the election.
	I think the stuff we're going to get bombarded with in social media and the news cycle is going to be meant to break people's brains, get people really emotional, because when people are really emotional, they're easier to manipulate and they don't think critically.
	So the more offline you are, maybe you can look at headlines once in a while, but if you're like on Twitter more than like five hours a day, maybe you should think about getting back in the real world a little bit.
	And trying to, you know, build community with like-minded people that also want solutions to some of these problems.
	And if you have red lines, like you don't want to opt-in to digital ID, you don't want to opt-in to programmable, surveillable money, what are you going to do about it?
	How are you going to opt out?
	You probably will need other people to help back you up in those efforts.
	So it's really important.
	To focus on the policy agendas that you're specifically either opposed to or support and try and actualize as much as you can at the personal level, you know, how you're going to help advance that in your life or elsewhere.
	Maybe like I said earlier, the US government can't meaningfully boycott, divest and sanction Israel, but certainly us as consumers can divest and boycott Israel.
	A lot of that can be done, whether it's for Israel, whether it's for Silicon Valley.
	Power they spend a lot of effort convincing us we don't and that the only way things can change is that we either get a billionaire or a billionaire puppet in the white house or we start worshiping a tech billionaire is the savior of free speech in the united states and that's really not.
	Where change is going to come from, especially when you consider that it's been a war between the billionaires and us for a very long time, and that war is kicking up into high speed.
	And those billionaires are teamed up with intelligence agencies and other groups that have unprecedented abilities to manipulate us psychologically and emotionally.
	And a lot of the ways they're manipulating us that way is on social media and on the online world.
	So the more we can sort of Get a level, you know, sort of keep a level head and all of that.
	I think a lot of it has to do with spending more time in the real world and not so much on their world because the tech world, the online world as we know it today, is dominated by these guys.
	Yep.
	All right.
	Whitney Webb, thank you so much for your time.
	Yeah, absolutely.

▲