Whitney Webb - On New Epstein Docs, CBDCs, Blackrock & Cyberattacks
Today’s show we have our special guest Whitney Webb. Whitney has been a professional writer, researcher and journalist since 2016. She has written for several websites and, from 2017 to 2020, was a staff writer and senior investigative reporter for Mint Press News. She is contributing editor of Unlimited Hangout and the author of the book One Nation Under Blackmail. You can find Whitney’s work at https://unlimitedhangout.com and support her at https://unlimitedhangout.com/join We discussed the new Epstein documents, Blackrock’s plans to monetize natural & how the US will implement a CBDC plus much more… Also we will be covering the trending stories on the day! So make sure to watch us LIVE! --💙Support this channel directly here: https://bit.ly/RussellBrand-SupportWATCH me LIVE weekdays on Rumble: https://bit.ly/russellbrand-rumbleVisit the new merch store: https://bit.ly/Stay-Free-StoreFollow on social media:X: @rustyrocketsINSTAGRAM: @russellbrandFACEBOOK: @russellbrand
Hello there you Awakening Wonders on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you download your podcasts.
We really appreciate you, our listeners, and want to bring you more content.
We will be delivering a podcast every day, seven days a week, every single day.
You'll get a detailed breakdown of current topics that the mainstream media should be covering, but if they are covering, they're amplifying establishment messages and not telling you the truth.
Once a week we bring you in-depth conversations with guests like Jordan Peterson, RFK Jr, Sam Harris, Vandana Shiva, Gabor Mate and many more.
Now enjoy this episode of Stay Free with Russell Brand.
Remember, there's an episode every single day to educate and elevate our consciousness together.
Stay free and enjoy the episode.
[Outro music]
[Outro music]
[Outro music]
Whitney, hello and thank you for joining us.
You must be very popular this time of year.
Um I don't know exactly what you mean by that but yeah I have gotten a lot of interview requests because Epstein stuff has happened recently and so yeah I tend to get more interview requests when when things happen there.
Because yes yes I suppose if like uh if something happens in the world of botany or biology David Attenborough might get a call if something happens on Epstein Island it's to Whitney Webb That we turn to understand what's been going on because I suppose it's one of those news stories that used to exist primarily as a peripheral and indeed conspiratorial subject.
This is, I suppose, one of the trends of the post-independent media world is subjects that were regarded as conspiracy theories like, you know, there are islands where Famous and influential people go and have illicit and indeed illegal criminal sexual encounters and they're being blackmailed as a result of it.
That, when I was, you know, 25, that was stuff that, oh that's Alex Jones, that's David Icke, that's not true, that's crazy.
Now it's just, it's the normal news.
So that must be, as nearly one of the primary independent journalists writing on this subject, and given that you're I would guess somewhat younger than I am, has this always been something that you've understood to be true or have you similarly gone through sort of gradients of shock and disbelief while covering this story and learning about it?
Yeah, so I think definitely prior to 2019, there were efforts to sort of obfuscate what was going on with Epstein, because he's obviously been sort of known since 2007, and to sort of attempt to join it together with other ideas that make it sound crazy.
You know, I think that was one of the functionalities of a movement.
QAnon, for example, that took, you know, aspects of truth about stuff, you know, for example, Jeffrey Epstein was doing and then sort of adding things that are not true or, you know, unable to be ever corroborated in order for people to more easily dismiss it, you know, or just dismiss the aspects of it that are true.
And I think, you know, there's been efforts to try and manipulate this scandal in particular.
And also, you know, I think another major problem Within the world of Epstein reporting for the mainstream and also the independent media is a tendency to focus on the most salacious bits of the story, which sort of distract from other aspects of, you know, the criminality of someone like Jeffrey Epstein, who was not just a sex trafficker, but was involved in a lot of financial crimes, has a lot of very extensive ties to Wall Street giants like JP Morgan.
To some of the biggest names in Silicon Valley, for example, a lot of this doesn't get scrutinized properly because of the extreme focus on, you know, certain figures who have been known to have been Epstein associates for some time.
So people like Bill Clinton, accusations against people like Alan Dershowitz, for example, Prince Andrew, you know, these are the names that just get circulated over and over again.
And a lot of stuff that, you know, You know, has been known about Epstein for years, sort of periodically gets rehashed, I guess, or, you know, slight details get added to it, but it tends to overly focus on as much like salacious stuff as possible.
I think in order to attempt to control the narrative and sort of paint Epstein just as a Sort of like a sex trafficker and a sex blackmailer when he was actually involved in a lot of other stuff and to keep the focus on particular names that are useful to the whole divide and conquer attempts in the United States.
So having it be Clinton versus Trump and things like that.
I mean, I think we still see that all the time.
And some other important names in the case, like Thomas Pritzker, for example, who's not sort of a guy that's very behind the scenes, but very powerful in the US don't get talked about very often.
Yes, I suppose which individuals you focus on might be part of the bias.
The fact that the salaciousness and a bias towards thinking about those things, there's all sorts of psychological and indeed biological reasons why that might be the case.
I wonder sometimes, Whitney, because I don't know that much about it, but when I sometimes see very extensive reported lists of people that might have gone to that island, that Would it have been that it was like parties full of really really attractive women or is it who to some degree were not there voluntarily or is it actually like people were kidnapped people they were under age they were coerced there was involuntary sexual activity taking place is there a whole range because when you're sort of seeing people that seem like pretty
I don't know, from the outside, vanilla celebrities.
Is it that what they would have experienced is... In fact, isn't there a famous piece of public content with someone talking about it and just going, I went to this island and it was amazing and there were all these parties and there was attractive women there and it didn't... At least it appears from that person's perspective, like, I was participating in this criminal, paedophilic evil, you know, like, is it so, like, what's actually happening when the people go there?
Um, yeah, so as far as I understand it, the girls that were there, it was a mix of girls that were sort of there voluntarily because they'd been promised certain things by Epstein and Maxwell, like help with a modeling career, for example, or promised, you know, help with paying for university, things of that nature.
And then some women who were there more or less involuntarily, like their passports had been seized by Maxwell, for example.
You know, there's examples of that where, like, they were forced into a much more exploitative relationship.
In my opinion, you know, it's both really exploitative because you're, you know, promising something that you're most likely not going to deliver on to these girls in order to get them to do stuff.
Or you're, you know, seizing their passport and, you know, going that much farther.
So there was different, you know, degrees of exploitative behavior.
To get these girls there, which I'm sure manifested in different, you know, behavior.
But I think the idea that Epstein wanted to project at these parties was sort of, you know, an ambiance to have, you know, people he was targeting for the purpose of sexual blackmail.
Obviously, you want those targets to be at ease so that they're more likely to engage in the type of behavior you want to catch them in.
So I'm sure there was an effort to make it seem like a billionaire playboy Uh, you know, type of environment.
Yeah, but ultimately the girls that were there, uh, were there because of these, you know, uh, exploitative mechanisms, um, of various types that Maxwell and Epstein used on their targets.
Exploited to varying degrees.
Although it is possible to imagine that some people there were just like, oh, I'm at this fancy party is what I'm there at.
But it's difficult to imagine that.
But it seems like some people that were continually there.
And also I suppose what you say is there are some things that are difficult to prove or corroborate, but it's difficult to know how exploitative, how criminal You know, even though any exploitation is obviously wrong, it's difficult to know how dark it could have got.
And also I suppose, but like you, I'm more interested, even though I'm interested in that stuff because I'm a human being, I'm interested in where it intersects with power, where it intersects with deep state agencies, and where it's being used to, in a sense, orchestrate Powerful people and significant events and it does appear that what Jeffrey Epstein is is a sort of a visible facet of systemic corruption that's financial as well as sexual and international and elitist.
Absolutely.
Yeah and that's I suppose what is being revealed and that's the information that's sort of being managed.
Yeah, I definitely think so.
There's definitely efforts to keep certain names out of the press.
So, for example, the JP Morgan case with Epstein that was, you know, eventually settled, so it didn't end up going to court.
Some of the names that were subpoenaed were the two co-founders of Google, and one of the cool co-founders of Google, Larry Page, completely disappeared and was never served that subpoena.
He was basically hiding from that.
That's very significant, especially when you consider that You know, Google was essentially created with CIA assistance and money and has collaborated, you know, relatively closely with the NSA and also like the military in the years since.
And these guys had some sort of shady dealings, apparently, at least the USVI felt so, but with Epstein and JP Morgan.
And, of course, the head of JP Morgan, Jamie Dimon, has a lot of connections to sort of the Wexner, the Leslie Wexner circle in Ohio.
Of course, Epstein being a key, you know, part of Wexner's network with, you know, Wexner's one of his most well-known benefactors.
And, of course, Leslie Wexner is a person that, despite the insane amount of connections and, you know, financing he gave Epstein, properties, complete control over his assets, essentially, he's been Very, I mean he hasn't been the target of any lawsuits really, or scrutinized very much by the mainstream press, and it's because he's an extremely powerful individual, worth several billion dollars still.
It seems like when you mention powerful institutions that have Curious origins, notably Google founders and the way that Google was founded.
I suppose it seems like the way that the this story is being covered is to kind of keep you to keep it buoyant at the level of oh Bill Clinton he was president like 30 years ago that's pretty crazy but the story could be This shows you the intersection of all kinds of forms of power and, in a sense, what the limitations are of the sphere of reality that most of us operate in.
And do you feel that that's something that's increasingly happening?
I mean, I know this isn't actually your particular area of expertise, I'm in a way a bit foolish to, but you've got so many, you've reported on so many things, but I just get a sense now, Whitney, while we're reporting on Davos, for example, and you can see figures from the WHO talking about disease X, and you can hear Bill Gates, another, you know, purported client and friend of Epstein's, of course, talking about more vaccines and more vaccines.
Meanwhile, there are a lot of Conversations now about excess deaths.
There's a recent report that suggests there's been an increase of eight percent in child death in this country and possibly beyond that.
And I'm wondering how you feel as an independent journalist that operates in all these spaces that 2024, for all of the kind of fear and trepidation that there is this year, there's an election in the United States, an election in the United Kingdom, is also like a sense of An avalanche of information about even the pandemic period and added to which, you know, the sort of Epstein story and ancillary stories that one might ponder as a result of it, the nature of power and the intersection between those different types of power.
Do you feel like it might be a point where it's difficult to maintain a cohesive, homogenized version of this is what reality is when you have so much inquiry, so much revelation, so many counter narratives?
Yeah, so I think what you're talking about is one of the main reasons why there's an increased push towards censorship from, you know, the US, the UK, and the EU, major efforts to regulate the internet in general, and also AI, and there's also You know, essentially, the blueprint for how to do this was written in, I believe, 2021 by Henry Kissinger and Eric Schmidt, the former Google CEO, basically talking about that we need to move to an internet model, essentially, where most information people are consuming for, you know, to form their political opinions is produced by generative AI, and that also we put AI in charge of censoring the narratives that we shouldn't have, sort of.
So, I mean, they definitely We're looking to move towards unprecedented models of narrative control, and it's precisely because, you know, independent media has had a lot of successes, but I think at the same time there's a lot of efforts to sort of muddy the waters with independent media, to try and blunt its impact that it's been having, you know, not just the censorship drive, but I think, you know, going forward, especially as we get closer to the elections, every
Particularly in the UK and the US, I think there's going to be a lot more efforts to censor the ability of counter narratives to, you know, get out there and reach people.
And you have a lot of these efforts in the UK, right, with the online safety bill, for example, and some of these other, you know, legislative initiatives that are trying to You know, again, regulate the internet, essentially, and where this is going long term is about having some sort of government issued ID tied to everything you do online through your internet service provider in the US, they call it the driver, they tried to do it in the Obama administration, it was called the driver's license for the internet.
But now in the More modern era, the goal is to have the digital ID that's being implemented in various countries around the world, have that be tied to what you're doing online so they know not just what you're posting, but what you're reading and consuming so that they can more effectively manage that with the artificial intelligence algorithms they want to put in charge, essentially, of managing all content online.
Race against time, when you describe it like that.
That there are these emergent technologies that can be used by censorship.
I'm astonished to hear the name Henry Kissinger mentioned in association with something so avant-garde.
And that while that's happening, that like most of us or many of us have access to and to a degree the ability to corroborate Information that seems more and more likely to make you disobedient and deeply cynical about the state and the establishment, if I could just use a simple term, than ever before.
I saw a speech recently by Barack Obama, I think he was at Stanford University in fact, and he was saying that we need more control.
So something like a version, of course an advocate version, Where he convivially conveyed the importance of being able to censor and control misinformation precisely because it muddies the water.
But I was struck when I was watching this significant figure of the establishment, this elder statesman of the establishment saying that independent media muddies the water, that that is precisely what The establishment indeed has to do to create enough doubt, enough uncertainty for us to sort of broadly be compliant, to broadly say, well, I will restrict my democratic choice to one of these two broadly similar parties.
And I suppose a significant outlier does come in the form of Donald Trump, he does seem to be the kind of an anti-establishment
avatar in so much as whatever you think of him or his policies is pretty plain the establishment are infuriated
by him, and there's more layers to this than I can imagine.
And it's interesting that the more he's indicted, the more he's in court, the more popular he becomes.
It seems that that would be an outlier.
And indeed, we've seen sort of like populist movements across Europe, and many of them do appear to have a sort of an ethno-national component.
or a nationalist component or a patriotic component. I don't know really where I land
anymore. I've sort of had to go on such a wild and carooming journey. But what broadly
seems to be in place is anti-globalism, anti-politics, anti-establishment.
And if forces emerge that are able to harness and direct that, it is going to be very
difficult, I would think, to maintain control without constant crisis and new
measures for asserting that control, likely technological, likely around currency. And I wonder
how you feel what will happen as populism and anti-establishmentism continues to rise and
top technology and authoritarianism simultaneously arise.
What do you predict will be things we'll see in the news cycle or indeed what things you're aware of, because you're reporting on them already, that are going to define this space, this fissure, this line for the next year or so?
Yeah, so unfortunately, I think a lot of some of these more anti-establishment politicians that are being put out in front of us are not really, they're more of a controlled anti-establishment than anything that's organically anti-establishment.
And I think sort of, you know, in Trump's case, the political persecution of Trump sort of reinforces his anti-establishment credentials among his base.
And it's important to keep in mind that a lot of that credibility, that anti-establishment credibility, he The reason he had lost that with his base is because of things like his continued assertion that Operation Warp Speed was a good thing and, you know, how he was responsible for that and the vaccine and, you know, a lot of other things that he did when he was in office that were very against his campaign rhetoric.
And, you know, what I think people frankly should do is pay a lot more attention To a politician's actions, particularly when they're in power, than just their campaign rhetoric, because oftentimes there's a big gap there.
So like in the case of Trump, for example, you know, when he was in office, he put people like John Bolton in charge, you know, as a national security advisor, who's a notorious war hawk, even though previously he had campaigned on being anti-war and against the neocons and the Iraq war and all of that.
But John Bolton is one of the most notorious neocons of all.
Um, and, uh, you know, other things, uh, happened during his term that are not good at all from an individual liberty standpoint.
For example, his attorney general, William Barr, legalized pre-crime in the United States, which is the exact, uh, some of, uh, that, that exact program really has been used to go after people that were present on January 6th, but didn't necessarily engage in anything that can traditionally be deemed illegal.
Um, you know, that framework was produced during the Trump administration.
Wow.
And I think for a long time, Americans and also elsewhere have sort of been pushed into choosing between the lesser of two evils and things like that.
But ultimately, that doesn't lead to good.
You're just getting, you know, one that's slightly better maybe than the other guy.
But a lot of that, you know, these differences at the end of the day are about political rhetoric more than actual action when these people are in office.
And There's definitely been, you know, an effort to oscillate between left and right and, you know, for decades to keep sort of, you know, the left-right paradigm going, which is one of the main ways that sort of these more global agendas are able to advance.
And people get frustrated with one and then switch to the other.
So, you know, there's an effort right now to frame Sort of these right-leaning figures as anti-establishment, not just with Trump, but people in Argentina, like Javier Mele, for example, or Bolsonaro in Brazil, for example, right?
A lot was said about Javier Mele's, you know, rise to power, that he was anti-establishment and all of this, and that he was going to depose the political elite in Argentina.
Um, and had a lot of campaign rhetoric similar to Trump.
Uh, but when Javier Mele came into power, he put a lot of career Wall Street people from JP Morgan, from Deutsche Bank, the Epstein banks, essentially, um, in charge of key parts of the economy.
He's not going to shut down the central bank.
He's not actually going to dollarize, which he campaigned on.
Um, and you know, several other things there.
And at his recent WEF address, he was essentially framing, um, the solution, uh, To the world's problems more or less as moving it away from government controlling thing to corporations controlling things and you know essentially what we have as seen through groups like the World Economic Forum is that ultimately it's all about public private partnership and the governments and the corporations essentially are controlled by the you know.
It's really the same group at the end of the day.
I mean, if you think about the US, for example, the government, the politicians are owned by corporate America.
So hand over more direct power to the private sector, the most powerful multinational corporations, or hand it to the government.
It's really the same people ultimately making decisions.
And it's this decisions that benefit the 1% Not regular people and so you know my concern is that people are going to again focus rather myopically on the campaign rhetoric and not on the actions of people when they've been in power and you know hold them hold them to account and instead you know sort of get in this space where people become
Sort of apologists for these politicians at times when they start doing things that go against their campaign rhetoric and promises, probably because they don't want to be wrong or don't want to admit that maybe they've been had or something like that.
But I think it's definitely, you know, groups like the World Economic Forum and these other entities have supporters both on the left and the right.
And I think there's a renewed effort to sort of reframe the current opposition in the U.S.
And also the UK really anywhere is being more like against unpopular initiatives.
So in the U.S., for example, you know, you have Trump speaking out against CBDCs, people like Ron DeSantis as well.
But I've done some recent reports recently that the plan in the U.S.
was never to have a direct issued CBDC.
The model instead is to have a synthetic CBDC, which is a U.S.
dollar denominated stablecoin that may not be a CBDC in name, but it's just as available and programmable as a CBDC is.
Or can be.
So the same dangers of a CBDC would be true for a, you know, a synthetic CBDC, which is basically, you know, a CBDC instead of being issued by the Federal Reserve or the Central Bank would be issued by Wall Street.
Is that really that much better?
Having Wall Street and Jamie Dimon and Bank of America program and surveil your money than it would be than having Jerome Powell, head of the Fed right now, do it?
I mean, not really, but this is The kind of, you know, bait and switch that I'm talking about here.
So you have Ron DeSantis and Trump say, you know, no to a CBDC.
But, you know, for example, Trump and Jared Kushner, who played a very prominent role in his cabinet, was, you know, privately promoting the idea of having this, you know, dollar denominated stable coin, why Trump was in office.
And there's been a lot of moves towards that on the part of the Fed, which in the US is owned by Wall Street.
So, You know, again, I think that this might be celebrated as some sort of win, you know, see no CBDCs in the US, it's a victory for freedom.
But if you're having, you know, the most corrupt people in the banking industry programming and surveilling your money, instead of the Federal Reserve, which is owned by Wall Street, anyway, in the US, it's not really a victory at all, but it's going to be framed as that.
Wow, you're brilliant.
Thanks.
Although, you know, thanks for taking away all of the populist hope that I was beginning to indulge.
But well, it's pretty fascinating, Whitney.
I mean, and I'll hand right over to you straight away.
But like it seemed as you, you We've laid out a set of various false dichotomies that we are offered, whether it's between a kind of centralised globalism predicated on state power, or centralised globalism predicated on corporate power, but the WEF wants partnerships between those entities anyway.
And then you talked about with the currencies, does it make any difference whether it's the Federal Reserve that's owned by Wall Street or Wall Street itself?
That's not what we were being offered.
And what does, and hello and welcome to all of our community members right now that are joining us live, and I'll be passing on your questions to Whitney, and indeed if you're watching this on Rumble right now, remember you could watch this content live if you become a member of our community.
This I think is an important question because I think the reason that the rhetoric of anti-establishmentism is becoming so successful is because that's precisely what people want.
Now, am I also correct, Whitney, because I'm assuming I'm correct about that bit, in assuming that what we're experiencing is now the availability and possibility, because of technology, because of the central, you know, because of the different types of cryptocurrencies, for example, because of the immediacy and democratic potential of the type of technology that we now harness, That decentralization and the disempowerment of these various occupants of these paradigms that you've outlined, whether it's corporate global power, state global power, you could now actually have
You could have communities that are self-governing, maximum amount of individual sovereignty, and I ask you all of this because for them to work as hard as they currently are to censor and control, to introduce measures such as you've already explained to us, artificial intelligence, censoring, It must mean that the inverse is true and when you, you know, one by one break down these apparent anti-establishment populist figures and say that in a sense they do exist within the framing of the establishment and, you know, you give clear examples of appointments made by people that campaigned as populist but governed as somewhat centralist.
What does represent anti-establishmentism now?
What political figures or movements or ideas are there Yeah, so I think the whole purpose of these controlled anti-establishment figures is precisely so people look to them and don't actually do anything themselves, presuming that these politicians are going to save the day, sort of as political saviors.
What I think were the real hope for anti-establishmentism lies is with regular people building alternatives to the establishment.
So really the only way to get out of this mess with where the establishment, you know, global power is taking us really comes down to people building alternative systems and divesting from the establishment as much as possible so that we're not dependent on these systems they're trying to force us into.
And the only way to really do that is to build something at the local level and actually actively create something new.
And I think the powers that be are hoping that we will remain dependent on them and dependent on the political figures they provide for us.
Instead of taking any sort of, you know, individual responsibility or accountability and, you know, community building ourselves, because the government, the corporations, you know, we don't need them, they need us, and they are essentially creating systems, whether it's digital ID, CBDC, or equivalents.
That are all about controlling the population at mass.
And part of this is tied up with speech and all of that.
And I as I see it, really, the only way is to start doing something, you know, us little people, you know, actually creating something decentralized, or we're not depending on these people at all, depending on, you know, the new money they want us to use, or the new ID system they want us to use, which is, you know, basically going to lead us to a A system where everything is surveilled and also where everything in the world is a financial product.
I mean, there's these efforts right now by Wall Street to turn parts of the natural world that have never been included in the economy to monetize them and securitize them through this model, this vehicle called Natural Asset Corporations.
Larry Flink of BlackRock was just talking about how they plan to tokenize everything, including human relationships.
You know, calling it social capital, human capital, all of this stuff.
Now there's natural capital.
I mean, they literally want to turn everything into a financial product that they can put on the blockchain and trade and surveil you at the same time, decide what you can and can't do.
It's completely insane.
The only way to not let that happen is to build something else so that you can say, no, I'm not going to participate in this crap authoritarian system.
I'm going to participate in this system instead.
And we have to build that.
And if we're reliant on people, whether it's Trump or Malay or any of these figures, no, people are not going to be building.
They're going to be waiting for these figures to build it.
And when these figures have been in power, they have not built those things.
End dependency now.
End dependency now.
Wherever you are dependent on this system, you are owned by this system.
That slavery is being replaced by dependency.
And if we are dependent on devices or new forms of currency, or we cannot control our food, and increasingly the control of food seems to be an issue, and more and more vital resources, and there are attempts to control energy.
It seems like that And I became a sort of a little befuddled and when you said that human relationships and children's dreams and sunsets yeah autumn are going to become like all being tokenized how
How could that work?
I mean, I suppose it's only one step on from Monsanto patenting seeds and Bill Gates's magnificent work across Africa and in India in measures for controlling agriculture.
What is this natural assets coup that BlackRock are up to?
Yeah, well it originally came mostly from the Rockefeller Foundation through this group they helped create called the Intrinsic Exchange Group, which produced this vehicle in collaboration with the New York Stock Exchange called Natural Asset Corporations.
And basically what these corporations do is that they identify a resource that hasn't been monetized yet, Let's say a lake, and then they're like, okay, we're going to own this lake now and we're going to determine how much it costs people to use our services like swim in the lake, get water from the lake, the ecosystem services by which, you know,
That lake either cleans turbid water or sustains fish that live in it.
You're going to be charged for all of that by the Natural Asset Corporation.
Someone owns a forest, one of these Natural Asset Corporations, they will monetize how the Ecosystem service by which trees turn carbon dioxide into oxygen so they can tax you on that.
It's a literal air tax, basically.
Well, not necessarily tax, but they'll charge you for it.
So there's all these efforts to basically bog down the little people in this new financial system with an insane amount of taxes, essentially, or charges for living.
But they don't own this, but they now have the financial vehicles to tokenize and securitize every living thing, essentially.
And that's essentially where this agenda is heading.
And basically, on the Intrinsic Exchange Group's website, they visually show this in a chart called the Opportunity, where they show the existing amount of assets in the financial system.
And if we include all of the stuff in the natural world that's never been included before, we can have six times the amount of assets in the global economy and the Wall Street casino can go on forever and ever and ever and ever and ever, you know, and that's essentially what this is about at the end of the day, but it's also a form.
Of controlling human behavior and human access to the natural world.
And this isn't just happening again with, you know, natural capital, it's also happening with human capital, social capital, there's all these terms for us, and there's efforts to tokenize and securitize all of it, essentially.
And BlackRock is definitely involved and very interested in all these efforts, sure.
And there's a lot of other groups that are as well.
But it's definitely a very disturbing trend and doesn't get talked about very much at all.
And I think people should be aware of it because it's very likely that a lot of these aspects of this effort to tokenize everything, essentially, particularly of the natural world, is going to be folded into UN climate change policy.
Because the people building UN climate finance policy right now are career bankers for Wall Street.
People like Mark Carney are in charge of this, who used to be head of the Bank of England, Bank of Canada, longtime head of Goldman Sachs, and a notoriously awful person who helped cover up HSBC's involvement with money laundering for drug cartels in Latin America, for example.
If you think this guy actually cares about the environment and not about grifting so hard that he's stealing from everyone on the entire planet, you are naive.
No offense.
Mark Carney, that's what he does.
And he's there with Mike Bloomberg, designing the UN climate policy right now.
And these guys are all working together with other Wall Street groups that are trying to tokenize and financialize and securitize everything.
It's crazy.
It's a perverted inversion of the beautiful acknowledgement of the sacredness of all things.
Like if you were to look at reality and say, well everything is sacred, the fish are being sustained in that lake, the trees are making the oxygen Breathable, we're all in harmony and unity with one another.
It's like taking that idea and going, we could be charging for that!
It's like an attempt to materialize essence.
It's an attempt to turn the ineffable into the financial.
And like you said, that's going to have But both an impact in terms of yes profit but more perhaps more importantly control and the ability to control behavior and even where it sort of starts to posit your psyche.
Like when we sort of talk about ideas as pervasive as As pervasive as dependency, personal autonomy, it feels like, it's a glib thing to say that what's required is a revolution of individual consciousness, but in a sense,
The only way that we can countenance this is if on the individual level we're able to begin to resist and have the ability to endure.
It kind of requires spiritual principles to even live with this kind of knowledge, I would imagine.
Does it?
Yeah, well, you know, I personally feel like in terms of like the revolution, I think for a lot of people it's going to be inward before it ends up becoming an outward thing.
I mean, a lot of people have been Uh, for lack of a better word, you know, programmed by society, by media, by other things to, uh, you know, essentially be good slaves of the establishment and keep your head down and, you know, um, uh, you know, look for, wait for the political savior and, you know, all these different, um, you know, aspects, uh, cultural aspects that have sort of been, you know, baked into us, um, that sort of make it difficult to, um, you know, resist a lot of the agendas that, um,
You know, I'm sure the vast majority of your audience is against, you know?
And, you know, in terms of a spirituality thing, I mean, I think there's efforts to manipulate that too, to an extent, on the part of the powers that be, but ultimately, I think it's very important for people to Think critically, not just like blindly believe people.
Think critically, use your brain.
They don't want you to do that.
And also, you know, reflect and take the time to think and reflect about things and see how you feel about it.
Not just like at a mental level, but just, you know, intuitively and all these other ways, because I think people oftentimes don't Don't really take the time to digest information that way.
And not just information, but also thinking about how we can tackle these problems and what we can do.
Because in terms of how to respond to this, you know, I think, like I said earlier, it's all about the local level, or the community level, or the family level, individual level, you know, increasingly localized, and that's going to be different for everyone.
And so it's important for people to know Where they stand, what their red lines are, and how they're going to avoid having to cross those red lines when a lot of these different things that we've been talking about for a long time, like digital IDs, CBDCs, etc., get rolled out.
If you refuse to participate in that system and you refuse to use the CBDC and refuse to get the digital ID, how are you going to resist that?
People need to think through these things and I think it's ultimately a very individual decision and it's not just mental.
For some people, it is like Yeah, it is, I think.
I've just got a bunch of questions from our incredibly patient audience, some of which are great, and some of which I actually am going to be trying to understand even as I ask them.
And I mean that in the sense that they are most cogent, not the opposite.
Firstly, SMH 56, we just now were talking about the power of spiritual awareness, and you offered us some great framing there.
Kay Cotwas, who often contributes wonderful questions in this chat, has generated this.
Unless Kay Cotwas is AI, and I don't think that's beyond the realm of possibility, when I read to you this, can you ask Whitney what role our materialist metaphysics and Hobbesian worldview play as justification for power, He adds that you've got a degree in religious studies so you probably have good insight into that.
I do have a degree in religious studies, but I may not be the best person to ask about this stuff.
But ultimately, I do think that there, you know, in terms of like cultural programming, for example, there's been an increased focus on like physical stuff at the expense of other things that I think humanity historically has valued a lot more.
Like family, friendships, real relationships were increasingly being led to You know, newer and newer consumer products and technologies that essentially are physically distancing us and also mentally and emotionally distancing us from stuff that has sort of like maintained humanity relatively sane for most of human
History.
And I think there was a big push with this, you know, during COVID to have everything like be online and they rolled out, you know, this whole idea of the metaverse that we should go, you know, live and conduct business and conduct our social lives in this online virtual world.
And all of that, you know, there is this push to do that.
And I think a lot of the people motivated by that and some of these transhumanist circles are very focused overtly on the material and I think generally the powers that be at the spiritual level are increasingly really predominantly focused on the material and a lot of those powerful figures that have that transhumanist bent are essentially looking to recreate universal consciousness and sort of like a god in the form of AI and technology and the implications for that for human society I think are pretty significant.
But that could probably take a lot longer to explain, so I'll leave it there.
Elsewhere in the chat, people are saying things like that you've got balls of steel and that you're the hottest nerd on the planet.
So I'm just providing that for some laps from Colette Dewhurst and Drew P. Weiner, who from the look in their images are both female contributors who want to honour you using that language, and I'm simply a vessel for it.
There's this question from J Gwynne Wild Whitney.
Are the current military aggressions between the US, Israel, Ukraine and NATO forces and Iran, Russia, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, Gaza, etc.
part of an agreement between the WF and member nations to use war spending to prop up the global banking system or are these conflicts happening organically?
Definitive answer now please.
Oh, that is a complicated question.
Well, OK, I definitely think a lot of the hostilities are definitely real and long standing, particularly in the case of Israel and Gaza.
You know, Israel's government, particularly the Likud party, has a long standing has had a long standing desire to essentially control the Gaza Strip and like ethnically cleanse it.
And I think a lot of there's been a lot of Opportunistic efforts to sort of use the current conflict and the events of October 7th to further those agendas.
But, you know, obviously in the case of the global economy with like a debt, particularly in the U.S., war spending is a necessity because the debt issue has passed like, you know, the U.S.
debt is like past $34 trillion, which is like an unprecedented amount.
So much of U.S.
government income is going just to servicing the debt and historically the way That is dealt with is through, you know, a mix of the war machine and, you know, money printing and things of that nature.
So I'm, you know, to keep the military industrial complex going in the US, which is, you know, intimately related to US economic performance.
Yeah, I think that's definitely part of it.
But ultimately, in terms of all these various nation state conflicts that are happening on the global stage, I think at some level, those are very real.
But at the same time, a lot of the governments, whether you know, The governments on opposing sides of those conflicts seem to agree on certain things, and that would include a lot of what we talked about that often comes under the umbrella of this, you know, globalizing, centralizing, controlling agenda.
Things like digital IDs, CBDCs, this is being pursued, you know, in every government essentially.
Essentially around the world, Russia and China are doing it, the US, the UK, the EU, all doing it, even though they're on opposing sides of these conflicts in Ukraine and elsewhere.
And, you know, during the COVID era, all of these governments were also on board for essentially the same policies and the same way to respond to COVID-19, lockdowns, mandates, and, you know, the experimental vaccine.
And have essentially been uninterested in, you know, any accountability for the consequences of that big experiment.
So what do we make of that?
You know, it seems like there is some sort of force among these governments that agrees on where to go, which is more broadly defined by the UN's Agenda 2030 set of policies, the Sustainable Development Goals.
You know, this is something openly backed by the West and also by Russia and China and the BRICS nations.
So they agree about all of this, and really, frankly, whether it's intentional or not, though I tend to lead towards it being intentional, mass war around the world and mass conflict will invariably create a more unstable environment that makes it easier to accelerate the adoption of those sustainable development goals.
Which, of course, are framed in very flowery language as being good, but when you actually get into the nuts and bolts of how those SDGs are set to be implemented and the initiatives, the public-private partnerships set up via, you know, under the, you know, auspices of the UN to deliver the Sustainable Development Goals, they are not good.
And it's essentially something that's being run by the bankers and corporations.
But because the UN has this veneer of being sort of a meeting of the, you know, the public sectors of the world where every country has an equal voice, regardless of size, you know, people haven't really seen it for what it is.
But I would direct people to a speech given by Kofi Annan when he was head of the UN in the late 90s at the World Economic Forum annual meeting, where he basically talked about how there had been a silent revolution.
Maybe he said quiet revolution at the UN, where essentially they'd been taken over by private corporations in terms of policy setting.
And I think that's very significant.
And of course, the UN has had a strategic partnership with the World Economic Forum for several years to sort of, you know, collaborate on all these Agendas, which is, you know, public-private partnership, which is essentially, in practice, fascism.
It's true though.
Since I've started asking other people's questions, I feel like I'm dealing with Oracle, because I'm asking you questions that I don't understand, and you're answering them.
It's a really weird experience.
So Primal Colin, a member of our community here, asks if you have any more news on the... and thanks for that really funny fascism ending.
That was a real good button.
Any more news on the WEF cyber crisis that is mounting or coming?
And do you get the sense that we are groomed for certain sets of crises through movies etc and people say oh yeah we gotta watch out there's gonna be a cyber crisis and then there is one.
Yeah, so they've been setting the stage for some sort of large-scale cyber attack for several years, and then the managing director of the WEF last January said that it would happen before 2025, which of course would leave us with 2024 at this point, and there's a lot of fear-mongering in the media, a lot of narrative setting from mainstream media and, you know, intelligence analysts that are cited anonymously by the media and other groups.
Pointing towards some sort of cyber calamity this year, which of course is notable given that this year most of the world is having elections.
So obviously any sort of big cyber event this year will disrupt a larger amount of elections than if it were to happen on some other year.
So I think that's an interesting coincidence as well.
But a lot of reporting I've done over the years about, you know, the cyber security aspect of this.
I mean, the vast majority of cyber security firms that are cited in mainstream reports about hacks, particularly those that attribute blame to nation states, they tend not to have any credible evidence to blame said adversarial nation-state and more often than
not these firms are tied to intelligence.
So they're usually tied to the CIA or Israel in the case of when this reporting happens in the U.S.
So one example would be this reported intrusion by the Chinese into U.S. infrastructure, but there
was no evidence that anything was actually done just that this alleged group that this group that's
allegedly Chinese was in there.
And the only group attributing this Chinese nationality to this group is a guy that works for Recorded Future, which was created by seed funding from In-Q-Tel, the CIA's venture capital firm.
So if you want to believe You know, a CIA front company essentially that China is attacking us.
You should actually read the article and not just the headline.
Because if you read the article, you'll see that it's a lot different than the headline suggests.
And that's also true for things attributed, for example, to hacks committed by Iran or by North Korea.
You know, it's either these groups that were created with In-Q-Tel seed funding or ones that are run by former, you know, top officials at Israel's Unit 8200, which is their, you know, cyber unit that's sort of like the NSA or GCHQ in the UK.
They tend to have a lot of these cyber security firms that maintain state links and they don't disclose them in the mainstream media reports and various nation states are blamed for this stuff.
And what's complicated here is that Not only do they not have a lot of evidence for attributing nation-state stuff, and then you have mainstream media running with it and blaming, but also, if you're familiar with the WikiLeaks release known as Vault 7, what that revealed, which was shortly before Julian Assange, his communications were cut off and he was arrested in London at the Ecuadorian embassy, is because
That particular release showed that the CIA had access to a series of tools that allowed them to essentially place fingerprints of any nation-state actor they wanted on hacks they were actually conducting.
So the CIA can conduct a cyber attack on, I don't know, let's say it's Ukraine and they can put the fingerprints of, you know, Russia in there and then blame Russia and then You know, basically frame any country they want for any sort of cyber attack.
And the other point of Vault 7 is that the CIA lost control of these tools.
So any country could be using them now.
So this is, you know, the big issue.
Yeah, yeah, that was the main one of the main points in releasing Vault 7 is that these tools got out.
And then so they were trying to sort of, I guess, democratize them and make sure everyone could see what was going on here.
Not just have it be this shadow war of nation-state attribution for cyber attacks.
So anyway, it's not just the fact that these cyber attacks are likely to happen, but it's going to be very difficult to actually know who's to blame.
And I think that's by design, and they have certain countries, of course, that they're going to blame for these things as a way to prompt the populations of countries like the U.S.
to be hungry for war with major powers, whether it's China or Iran.
Or, you know, Russia, what have you.
Sort of a setup for World War III.
Oh, they attacked our power grid.
They attacked this.
They attacked this.
I think there's a setup for that that we should be very wary of, because if you're familiar with things like 9-11, of course, there was a big push to, you know, off the fear and panic caused by that event to get the U.S.
to go to war in Iraq, even though there was no evidence ever linking Saddam Hussein to those attacks.
But because of the climate of fear and panic, they were able to manipulate the public Uh, into a war that was, um, for their benefit and not for the actual justification they gave.
And I think this was, you know, in the event of a large cyber attack this year, which has been framed by some as an imminent cyber 9-11, uh, we will get not only that same situation, we will also get a cyber Patriot Act, uh, where all of this stuff, like the regulation of the internet, the mass censorship, and all of this will be forced through as a supposed solution.
So, yeah, I think people should be really wary of the narratives that come out in the wake of any sort of event like this.
And unfortunately, over the years, not just Jeremy Juergens, who was involved with the cyber polygon of the WEF and all of this, but also a lot of other figures, for example, the head of DHS in the U.S., Alexander Mayorkas, says the next big cyber event in the U.S.
will be what he calls Killware.
Which is very scary sounding, but it's basically attacks on critical infrastructure, water systems, and all of this stuff.
You know, is essentially what they're framing as what is due to be attacked, the power grid, things of that nature.
Things on which, you know, a lot of human activity these days increasingly relies.
So, I think.
You know, what the goal here is to sort of create an event that creates as much fear and panic and disruption to daily life as possible in such a way that they can blame literally anyone they want and then push the ready-made solutions, which will be a mix of war and then increasing control over the digital realm in our lives.
Wouldn't you say that, mate?
I think Dissenting voices are going to be significantly attacked and shut down because the only kind of opposition will be people that can articulately or simply or broadly convey alternatives to the kind of compliance that the dread induced by your description of reality
Will create like it's sort of terrifying and I wonder if there's a kind of generational narcissism in my assumption that oh wow this is really heavy and it's sort of a precipitous and near immediate.
That we must start to unhook our heads from this and become awake and disobedient and able to, you know, like it's not like, I suppose we always envisage the sort of post-apocalyptic survival being subsequent to a war-like event, but it could be almost a bureaucratic event.
It could be like, It could have already happened in the form of the pandemic in a sense, that you're all going to stay in your homes now, you're all going to take these medications now, we're going to need you to use this ID, and that what's sort of required is the ability to say, well actually I'm going to try and live differently.
And unless the people that do that are heavily vilified, It's going to start to seem like a favorable alternative to the kind of waking incarceration that you're, you know, it seems like you're describing is on the horizon.
Yeah, well, I think, you know, with this particular event that they're setting the stage for, In the short term, what they want to do is create fear about having privacy.
They want privacy.
The end result of this to be that people fear privacy, specifically online privacy and financial privacy.
And obviously, the solution to both of those that's going to be pitched is digital ID and either central bank digital currency or one of these synthetic CBDCs that's like a stable coin.
Or a deposit token, because I think they're very aware that there's increasing resistance to these agendas at the current moment.
So I think they're looking for ways to create the appropriate boogeyman that creates enough fear in people's minds about people having privacy and the ability to be anonymous and private online in particular.
Which sort of points to this whole, like, you know, idea of blaming faceless hackers for things.
We have to unmask everyone that's online and there's been a lot of efforts to promote this already from people like Jordan Peterson and Nikki Haley and other figures like this.
Even Elon Musk on TwitterX has talked about we need to verify everyone on social media networks and all of that.
You know, there is a Definite push towards that end, and I would argue that a lot of it is ultimately tied up with these efforts to create pre-crime systems under the guise of stopping quote-unquote domestic terrorism, which is really, they're combining domestic terrorism with dissenting voices.
That's essentially the Agenda here and the only way to really combat this at the end of the day is to again divest from these systems and build something new that will keep your family safe and sane regardless of what transpires over time.
I don't want to fear monger or like scare anyone by talking about this stuff.
Obviously the powers that be have agendas they want to accomplish and they if they think that the public is not going to accept those things they will try and create events that create the conditions for people to accept And so I think what's important is for people to not panic, to look, take stock of their lives, and decide to not depend on these systems, how they're going to divest from things like big tech, Wall Street banks, things of that nature, and not be subjected to
Some of these ready-made quote-unquote solutions that will be forced through in, you know, legislation after any sort of crisis they're preparing.
So I think people should be very cognizant and very mentally prepared and also look at how they should be prepared, you know, in physical terms as well.
You know, from people I know, you know, in Argentina, for example, I live in South America and Chile and I know some people that lived through the 2001 economic collapse of Argentina And they, I mean, everyone I've talked to about that has told me that the best thing you can do is not panic when a crisis hits because if you're panicking, you're scared, you're not thinking straight, you increasingly think irrationally and you're going to make poor decisions that have, you know, generally poor outcomes.
Right.
So the best thing you can do is to take stock of all of this and realize that, yes, the situation is dire.
But if we start building something new, there are a lot more of us than there are of them.
And the power is ultimately in their hands.
And so much is being done right now to keep us feeling powerless and dependent on them.
And we have to break away from that if we want to protect individual freedom and sovereignty.
Wow, Whitney.
Thank you so much.
That's encouraging and inspiring and brilliant and closer in a way in which receipts are visible and where the evidence is demonstrated to the kind of evangelical conspiracies that I first became familiar with as a young man than the kind of rational legacy technological The version of reality that's being pushed, the kind of universal basic income, carrier card, AI, you know, the version that it's closer to the mad prognosis than the sane prognosis, and yet you are describing it rationally and also, thankfully, suggesting a way that we can respond emotionally and practically to it.
So thank you, Whitney.
That's invaluable work.
That you're doing.
I can see why you don't want to be tied down to sort of being the Epstein Island correspondent when you have such an incredible range of knowledge on such a breathtaking array of subjects.
