It Begins: This Is Their Plan For 2026 (and they’re not hiding it) | Whitney Webb
Whitney Webb reveals how U.S. elites plan to roll out a hybrid CBDC via Fed-regulated stablecoins like US Plus, backed by R3 (Wall Street’s CBDC Partner of the Year) and banks like Citigroup and JP Morgan, using crises—such as immigration—to justify digital IDs tied to financial control. Pilots like Cyber Polygon (WEF-backed) and Carnegie Endowment’s unconstitutional bank-CIA mergers show coordinated testing, while cases like JPMorgan freezing Dr. Mercola’s accounts preview private enforcement. The goal: accelerate surveillance capitalism under the guise of security, mirroring China’s digital yuan but with corporate complicity. [Automatically generated summary]
You'll have the Fed, the central bank, working with the private banks that own the Fed in the United States.
The partnership between them will be the system.
It's not going to be all public.
It's not going to be all private.
It is a partnership.
If you're using these existing dollar pig stablecoins, those are already here.
They're already on blockchains.
And a lot of those phases that would take the Fed a few years have already been accomplished if you choose to use those and if you regulate them so that they have to keep their reserves at the Fed.
I think it's quite clear that the way to force onboarding of the CBDC or this type of digital currency system is going to be some sort of crisis, some sort of event.
I think the immigration crises, any sort of refugee situation, that's going to be used to push for digital IDs.
I think it's just a very easy excuse for them, a way for them to quickly manufacture consent because, you know, all these people, we don't know who they are.
They could be criminals.
They could be anybody.
We have to know who everybody is.
And it's going to be sold as a way to provide security to the insecurity created by the migrant crisis.
So I think there's been growing awareness for some time that there's a lot of bipartisan consensus about most of the policies of the U.S. government, like Endless War, for example.
And some people refer to it as the UNA party.
But people also forget that too.
And so what a lot of people call this, the two-party model, you know, people refer to it sometimes as the left-right paradigm.
But I think not a lot of people truly understand how that paradigm works.
If you think about it as the left hand and right hand of the establishment, you'll have one of those hands create a problem intentionally, and then the opposing hand comes in and offers the solution.
But the solution was always what the establishment wanted, but it's sold as a solution to a problem created by the other side.
So it creates the illusion that the opposing force solved a problem, but in reality, the problem was manufactured by one hand of the system and then the solution was offered by the other hand.
The man that claims to have created CBDCs is a man from Barbados named Oliver Gale.
He created one of the first, well arguably the first CBDC project in the Caribbean and then went on to have a key role in creating the Nigerian CBDC, the e-NIRA.
So the way the CBDC in Nigeria was set up is that in order to access the CBDC, you have to have a national identification number, which is the Nigerian digital ID project.
So you have to have a digital ID in order to be able to access the Nigerian CBDC.
And the way they tried to get people to onboard to the CBD system was by essentially cutting off the vast majority of the cash in circulation in Nigeria.
And so despite the fact that they created these conditions to coerce people into using the CBDC, the populace resists.
And that suggests that the idea of CBDCs being a tool for financial inclusion, you know, the public doesn't seem to believe that, right?
In Nigeria, these people that ostensibly have suffer from this identity gap that suffer from financial exclusion don't want the financial inclusion that they're being offered by the CBDC.
They don't see any real benefit.
They see it as a tool of the state.
In the state in Nigeria and in other African countries where these sort of systems are being rolled out, the governments have abused these systems to go after journalists or other people and violate human rights and all sorts of things.
So it's not a tool for increased human rights.
It's not a tool for increased inclusion.
It's inherently exclusionary and it's a surveillance tool.
So if Nigeria's tactic of drastically reducing the amount of cash in circulation didn't work, then I think it's quite clear that the way to force onboarding of the CBDC is going to be some sort of crisis, some sort of event where people will be made an offer they can't refuse, essentially.
Whatever that crisis is that creates this situation where people will have very little choice but to onboard to this new digital currency system, it could manifest in a number of ways, but regardless of how it manifests, what the narrative is going to be is that privacy is dangerous, anonymity is dangerous, specifically financial privacy is dangerous.
Those are going to be the narratives that come out of this event, and that's going to be a way to force onboarding both onto digital currency that can be tracked to stop terror financing or things of that nature.
And also we have to know who everybody online is, or we have to know who everybody is interacting with these systems.
We need digital ID.
It's very much tied up with efforts to regulate the internet.
The effort to regulate the internet, specifically in the United States, has been going on for years.
Under the Obama administration, they called it the driver's license for the internet.
The idea is to have a government-issued ID be necessary for you to access the internet.
And in doing so, they know not just what you're posting and saying online, they know what information you're reading online as well.
But the difference is, once it's directly connected to a government-issued ID, they could prosecute you for things like publishing misinformation and all of that.
And there's actually been pushes from people like former Google CEO Eric Schmidt to punish people who publish alleged disinformation and that the need that it's necessary to have IDs connected to social media accounts and to people's internet access as a means of facilitating those kinds of arrests or law enforcement activity.
Well, there's a couple of reasons why I think they'd want to have private banks have like a major role in this digital currency system to come.
If there's a private sector entity banking you and managing your money, it's much easier for them to bank you than the federal government.
So for example, if the Federal Reserve were to do a direct issue CBDC, it would be harder for them to freeze someone's bank account or debank them in any sort of significant way, as opposed to a private company where you have, for example, precedents where JPMorgan Chase, for example, debanked Dr. Mercola and some of his executives and didn't give any reason as to why.
They just said, we can no longer provide you with financial services.
No questions asked.
That would be very hard to do in the case of a direct issued CBDC.
This is something similar to the argument that's been made for social media companies censoring.
They say, oh, but they're private companies, so they can restrict speech however they want, but we know now that their restrictions on private speech have been a result of public sector pressure.
So again, people need to keep in mind that this is a public-private partnership.
That's the prevailing model in the United States.
The digital dollar in the United States is also going to be a public-private model.
You'll have the Fed, the central bank, working with the private banks that own the Fed in the United States.
And that will be the partnership between them will be the system.
It's not going to be all public.
It's not going to be all private.
It is a partnership.
If you're using these existing dollar peg stablecoins, those are already here.
They're already on blockchains.
And a lot of those phases that would take the Fed a few years have already been accomplished if you choose to use those.
And if you regulate them so that they have to keep their reserves at the Fed, you know, then you're able to sort of have the same kind of system, but you don't have to go through the process of creating a direct issued CBDC.
China, for example, they already have their CBDC.
So the U.S. is behind.
So to remain competitive, they say, and have a first-mover advantage, we should go with the digital dollars that are already here.
So that's dollar peg stablecoins.
The banks that are involved in this new system, it's very unlikely it's going to be the existing banks we have in the U.S. right now.
And that's because just like in 2008 and more recently with the Silicon Valley banking crisis, every time there's a major financial crisis, there seems to be a major bank consolidation wave.
And you have Janet Yellen, the Treasury Secretary, saying during the Silicon Valley bank crisis, you know, in front of Congress, that they are essentially only going to rescue systemically important banks, which is a designator that Yellen can just, you know, she essentially decides who's a bank worth saving and who's not.
And this is sort of the perpetuation of the too big to fail model that we heard about in 2008.
So one indication the system is being rolled out in this way is looking at the people developing the infrastructure and what type of digital currencies they're supporting.
So one of the biggest developers right now of CBDCs is this company called R3 that's backed by some of the biggest Wall Street banks in the world.
And they were named by Central Banking Magazine as the CBDC Partner of the Year last year.
And then they're developing a litany of CBDCs for countries all around the world.
That's just one part of what they do.
They have this thing they call a digital currency accelerator.
And the three types of digital currencies R3 develops are CBDCs, stablecoins, and tokenized deposit tokens.
And some banks in the U.S. have already rolled out deposit tokens.
Citigroup, JP Morgan.
JP Morgan actually had a research paper out last year about how CBDCs are inferior to deposit tokens and how deposit tokens are better.
So Oliver Gale, who defines himself as the founder of CBDCs, has more recently co-founded a company called Fluent Finance.
What Fluent Finance is, you know, they attempt to create a trustworthy dollar pig stablecoin that they call US Plus.
And it's sort of framed as an answer to dollar pig stablecoins like Tether that have been controversial for having opaque reserves.
So the whole thing about US Plus is having trackable reserves in real time and all of this.
And so it's an attempt to create a very extremely trustworthy and backed by a consortium of banks, a bank-led U.S. dollar pig stablecoin.
So if the inventor of CBDCs is moving into stablecoins, he probably knows that there's something there.
So one thing that gets overlooked a lot with Cyber Polygon and some of these other related simulations about coming cyber attacks is that they seem to involve the big banks.
And some of them even involve central banks.
There's a major theme of banking here, which I think has been unfortunately overlooked.
And it sort of implies that one of these cyber attacks of the cyber pandemic will be on the financial system to some degree.
Cyber Attacks and Big Banks00:02:15
So for example, if you look at Cyber Polygon, it was the WEF, but it was done in partnership with Russia's largest bank, Spurbank, and was one of the opening speakers of it was the Russian prime minister, things like that, which is in direct contrast, for example, to the supposed Russian hacker narrative that's been propagated extensively in U.S. mainstream media.
The U.S. government had no problem and no criticism participating in Cyber Polygon and no criticism of the WEF for co-hosting their cyber simulation, cyber attack simulation with the supposed hackers at large that supposedly interfered in the U.S. elections.
They said that they did that?
Well, okay, so in 2016 and 2020, there were a lot of narratives propagated by U.S. mainstream media about Russian hackers.
And none of those mainstream media outlets criticized the WEF for doing their big cyber attack simulation in partnership with the Russian government.
Oh, they did it with the Russian government?
Yeah, Cyber Polygon was the WEF and subsidiary of Spurbank, Russia's largest privately owned bank.
And also the Russian prime minister gave like the opening remarks and it was affiliated to some agree with the Russian government.
So there's been a few entities besides the WEF that have sort of gamed out these cyber attack simulations in a very significant way.
One of them is the Financial Services ISAC or Information Sharing and Analysis Center, which is essentially the biggest private banks in the United States coming together to share information and planned shared responses to potential crises, including a cyber attack on the financial system.
And FSISAC is affiliated to an extent with the WEF and also with the Carnegie Endowment.
And the Carnegie Endowment has similarly charted out potential solutions if and when there is a major cyber attack on the financial system.
And they did so in partnership with the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, and some of the biggest private banks in the world, like JPMorgan Chase.
Their proposed solution is to merge banks, banking regulators, and intelligence agencies as far as information sharing and analysis goes.
So that's essentially having banks share your private transaction data directly with the CIA or any other U.S. intelligence agency that asks.
This is kind of like a digital fusion center, an updated version of yes.
Yeah.
Panic and Consent00:00:29
Doing so is inherently unconstitutional.
People would not consent to that if it were not for a major crisis that affects the banking sector.
Oftentimes they try and pilot these solutions before they're actually implemented.
And if there isn't sufficient onboarding or uptake by the public, invariably an event comes along that creates fear and panic among the public to a very significant degree.
And they begin clamoring for solutions to this problem that's causing the fear and panic.