Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 29, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

01:39:35

Interview with Author Whitney Webb - Viva Frei Live!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	...watching very closely.
	Obviously Canadians are watching very closely.
	Obviously everyone in China should be allowed to express themselves, should be allowed to...
	Share their perspectives and indeed protest.
	We're going to continue to ensure that China knows we'll stand up for human rights.
	We'll stand with people who are expressing themselves.
	We also need to make sure that China and places around the world are respecting journalists and their ability to do their job.
	We'll continue to make that very clear.
	I'm sorry, everybody.
	First of all, I'm sorry I was late because I thought I had the right video up, but what I actually had was my Can you imagine, by the way?
	30 seconds.
	He had 30 seconds of a soundbite clip.
	Five seconds of it.
	That is roughly 18% was him.
	That is to say, 18% of whatever Justin Trudeau says on a good day.
	Is audible diarrhea.
	The rest is actually just verbal diarrhea.
	That sound bite is not an old sound bite from before the protests in Ottawa, before Trudeau came in with the militarized police and literally stomped elderly indigenous ladies.
	Literally.
	That's not from before.
	That was, as far as I know, one of the first statements, if not the first statement that Trudeau made about the protests in China.
	After he himself having violently suppressed protests in Ottawa, not just violently suppressed protests in Ottawa, during his testimony, where he hemmed and hawed a lot less, which shows you that he was very well prepared for his testimony.
	In his testimony, he said, I find the idea of protesting, or he didn't say it quite like that.
	He said, protesting to affect policy change is something that I find...
	Worrisome.
	Protesting to affect policy change in Canada.
	Worrisome.
	Violence suppression, stomping people with horses, pepper spray, batons, stun guns, or not stun guns, concussive grenades for Canadians.
	He stands up for Chinese protest.
	Stands up for protest in India, too.
	Stands up pretty much for protest everywhere that's not Canada and against everyone who's not him.
	Some might call that...
	A dictator.
	All right, people.
	We've got an amazing one.
	It's early in the morning.
	I haven't eaten breakfast yet, but I've had my cup of coffee.
	So I'm not groggy.
	I'm not taking my kid to school today.
	My wife is doing that.
	So this is going to be amazing.
	I might stop with the Whitmer joke, but I'll do it once.
	Whitney Webb is coming on.
	If you don't know who Whitney Webb is, I think more of you know who Whitney Webb is because it was crowd...
	Not influence, but insistence that this happened in the first place.
	So I think a lot of you know who Whitney Webb is, but if you don't, you're going to know her after this.
	Amazing.
	She's like a younger female Barnes.
	She's like a younger, less cynical, calmer.
	I think she's definitely more thoroughly researched than me.
	I am learning from Whitney Webb in real time, but we have a unique interest in the same subject matter.
	Which seems to be the collapse of Western society and the corruption of all things administrative and government.
	Amazing.
	Standard disclaimers.
	We're going to go over to Rumble exclusively in a bit.
	Not so that we can talk about things that we can't talk about here because I'm going to put the entire interview up on YouTube tomorrow.
	We're going to go there because we're actually going to go support a platform that supports free speech and I'm working with them now so that we can actually make that happen in real time and get people there.
	So that there'll be a competition to YouTube.
	So we're going to go over there in a bit.
	Standard disclaimers.
	Thank you for the super chat.
	Fuentes is a...
	Okay, I'm not going to read all this.
	I don't want to be accused of making statements that I cannot substantiate.
	But I can go to the opinion part.
	He hurt Trump more than Dems could.
	Got Ye to continue his self-destruction and set up the stage for the deplatforming of Tim Pool.
	The DNC and FBI are happy with Fuentes.
	I've heard theories that...
	About Miley Annopoulos, but...
	Theories, we'll talk about that later.
	Today, Super Chats.
	30% goes to YouTube.
	If you don't like that, go over to Rumble.
	The link to Rumble is in the pinned comment in the chat.
	We are live on Rumble.
	I had accidentally indicated 9.30, but it looks like people knew that it started now.
	What else?
	No medical advice, but we might talk about some stuff.
	No legal advice and no election fortification advice.
	I think we're probably going to stay away from the election stuff today.
	For now, we're going to go to Epstein.
	Euthanasia in Canada.
	A concept called transhumanism.
	We're going to get into a lot of it.
	But first, we're going to get into the...
	Who is Whitney Webb?
	Whitney, I'm bringing you in.
	Three, two, one.
	All righty.
	Hi, hello.
	How is it going?
	I'll let the chat tell me if the audio is balanced.
	It sounds good to me.
	Whitney, good morning.
	Good morning.
	It is nice to meet you.
	We met, for full disclosure to everyone, two minutes before the first time.
	I got a few questions, but I like to keep it all fresh.
	Whitney, so for those who may not know who you are, I say the 30,000-foot overview elevator pitch.
	And then I get into a little bit of childhood, just so we can get to understand the person.
	And then we're going to get into, on the one hand, your two-volume book.
	Yeah.
	Massive, massive.
	I'm sharing the link around now, the Amazon affiliate link, because it's available on Amazon.
	I need an audiobook, but we'll get there.
	It's coming, the audiobook.
	Are you going to narrow it?
	No, I don't have time, but someone else is doing it.
	It should be out in January.
	Fantastic.
	I cannot read.
	I cannot read with my eyes.
	I can only read with my ears.
	Whitney, for those who don't know you, who are you?
	I'm a writer and researcher.
	My website is unlimitedhangout.com.
	Before that, I was a senior investigative reporter at Mint Press News.
	Before that, I was a staff writer there.
	And I've been writing professionally since 2016.
	I'm currently 33 years old.
	Apparently, people claim that's proof I'm a Freemason, but I guess everyone born in 1989 is currently a Freemason for a year, so lucky us.
	In Quebec, we call it l 'âge de Jésus, like the age of Jesus, because that's...
	Ah!
	You know, that might not have a good connotation.
	So, yeah, they call it La Digest.
	Okay.
	I was 33 once as well.
	It's a beautiful year.
	Unfortunately, you have to be 33 to get to 34 and everything after.
	So, investigative journalist, writing as of 2016, if I may ask, born and raised, what part of the world?
	So, I grew up in Florida, Sarasota.
	Not for me, Florida.
	So I ended up leaving.
	I went to college at Davidson, which is in North Carolina.
	And then not long after that, I took a job in South America and have pretty much been in South America since then.
	And when you say Florida is not for you, do you mean like the flatness, the heat, the humidity?
	Yeah, so I'm like really pale and I don't tan.
	I'm also allergic to mosquitoes and I don't like being covered in sweat if I'm outside for less than 30 seconds.
	So it just didn't work out.
	Do you have Irish blood?
	No, but my family is mostly from, is like Scott Irish or British in general.
	Yeah, it's all pretty much from over there.
	The only reason I ask is because the only person I knew in my life who had an allergy to mosquito bites, I went to camp with, he was an Irish kid.
	He would get, you know, bitten by mosquitoes.
	It would be golf ball welts.
	Yeah, that's what happened to me all as a kid.
	It's hard because then you're like covered in chemicals to like not get, you know, bug spray, DEET and stuff.
	Like every time you want to go outside and it's not.
	It's not as fun.
	Where I live now, I don't have any of those problems.
	Florida was not the climate for me.
	I'll just leave it there.
	I'm from Canada.
	I'm in Florida now.
	I love everything about it.
	Not except for the climate.
	There's no mountains.
	There's no rivers.
	You can't just jump into the fresh water.
	The mosquitoes don't bother me because they're worse in Quebec.
	I don't know what people complain about here, but maybe I haven't had the bad season yet.
	Parents?
	What did they do for a living?
	My mom was a stay-at-home mom.
	My dad's a lawyer.
	All right.
	Yeah.
	That might explain a few things.
	All right.
	My dad's a lawyer as well.
	So that might explain a few things.
	So you're 33. What did you study in university to get into what you're doing now?
	So I double majored.
	One major was in biology, but really more focused on agroecology.
	I was really interested in self-sufficiency and growing my own food type of stuff from pretty young, I guess.
	But it's been a long time since I've worked in that world.
	So when I left university, I ended up helping manage a farm in South America.
	That's how I first sort of came down here.
	And then my other major was in religion, but in the academic study of religion, so not like theology.
	It's more like interdisciplinary, so a mix of history and anthropology and different stuff.
	And so over the course of my life, like before I was writing, both have been helpful at different times.
	I did some stuff with farm management and some of the hard science background was useful when reporting about stuff in the COVID era.
	And even before then, I used to work part-time as a translator for scientific papers written by Chilean academics and universities here into English so they can be published in international journals and stuff.
	You know, that's been helpful.
	And then the religion stuff was actually quite useful when it came to reporting on stuff that I used to do a lot more of back when I was at Mint Press, like geopolitics stuff, because in studying, like, different religions around the world, you have to learn a lot of history and a lot of, you know, just different things about different cultures, and that was definitely an asset.
	Uh, early on in, in writing.
	So, and I also had to do, like, loads of writing.
	Uh, Davidson's, like, a liberal arts school, so it's very writing intensive, so I had to learn how to write long essays pretty quickly, I guess, especially with two majors, and so I just, uh, uh, that was probably the most useful thing I got out of university, was being able to...
	You know, produce something written pretty quickly.
	Well, the ability to write, read, and understand seems to be something that's less and less common from people coming out of university.
	And you came out of university, like, recently, within the last decade.
	Yeah, yeah, about 10 years ago or so.
	Yeah, 22. And I'm not familiar with Mint Press, but what type of publication is Mint Press?
	So Mint Press is like an online publication.
	They focus on a lot of different stuff, mostly approaching things from like an anti-imperialist point of view.
	They do a lot of stuff on geopolitics, very critical of U.S. and generally Western foreign policy.
	They cover a lot of stuff.
	At least when I was there, I covered a lot of stuff about intelligence agencies in Silicon Valley.
	There is a lot of focus on the Israel-Palestine conflict at MetPress as well.
	So when I was there, I did a lot of coverage on that.
	And I left in 2020, you know, set up my own site Unlimited Hangout.
	And I also teamed up with Ryan Christian of The Last American Vagabond.
	And we've done collaborative stuff on and off over the years together.
	And hopefully now that the book is done, I can, you know, be a more regular contributor to his project as well.
	Fantastic.
	And I'm being fact-checked by the...
	By the chat.
	Yes, people.
	Officially, the Everglades are a very slow-moving river, but you all know what I'm talking about.
	Cold, fast-moving rivers from mountain water with brook trout.
	Yeah.
	Well, the rivers in Florida are actually kind of great.
	Like, sometimes there'll be manatees in them and stuff.
	I mean, that's awesome.
	But then other rivers will have alligators, and that's less awesome.
	So, you know, it all depends.
	I'm going to move over to Rumble right now, everybody.
	The link is in the chat.
	Let's go to Rumble because we're going to get into the book now.
	One Nation Under Blackmail.
	How you got into the book.
	How you go about writing a Bible of corruption, so to speak.
	So, ending on YouTube.
	Going to Rumble.
	This changes nothing from our perspective, Whitney.
	I'm just going to remove YouTube.
	Move over to Rumble, people.
	See you there in 3, 2, 1. Alrighty.
	So, you're journalizing for Mint Press.
	2020.
	I guess this is just at COVID or just before?
	Yeah.
	So, I mean...
	I really liked Mint Press and liked writing for them.
	But in early 2020, people were getting censored, including big-ish sites like Zero Hedge, for example, for talking about things like the lab leak theory, which, of course, there's been a 180 on that since then.
	And so I was writing a piece for them that was about DARPA and the Wuhan Institute of Virology and gain-of-function stuff back in January 2020.
	Before the lockdowns and the craziness, really.
	And, you know, they were worried about getting censored for putting it out.
	And I put it out on my friend's site, The Last American Vagabond.
	And then it just sort of, you know, seemed like, you know, I didn't know if that case was going to repeat itself.
	So I didn't want to have my hands tied, really, when it came to writing about stuff that was developing with the COVID situation.
	Because, you know, I think it was really important to take those risks, even though it meant deplatforming and stuff for people like Ryan and people.
	Like myself as well and lots of other people, obviously.
	But, you know, it was worth it because it was really important to really hammer out stories back then.
	So, you know, even now that people, you know, are reevaluating stuff that happened the past two years or mainstream media has gone back and done 180s on all sorts of stuff, it's important to document what was happening at the time and show that it was possible to know then what we know now.
	And if it wasn't for the censorship and the smearing and all sorts of stuff, you know, we would be in a...
	Very different situation.
	And most likely, a lot more people would be alive right now if things like early treatment hadn't been suppressed and all other sorts of policies hadn't been pushed through that we know now were completely ineffective, whether it's lockdowns or masking or the vaccine.
	If only they were only ineffective, we'd all be better off.
	I'll ask you this, because some people say hitting the bullseye is nothing praiseworthy if it's by fluke.
	What methodology, what are you seeing before everybody else is seeing it that's there for you to come to an educated conclusion and not just a random prediction?
	What are your sources and what's your information to say, this looks like it's coming from a leak in Wuhan, China?
	And I don't know when you got onto the man-made gain-of-function aspect, but what information did you have back then that other people had access to but chose not to look at?
	Oh, I was just looking at DARPA, really, because DARPA is something I've written about for a long time, and I was, you know, looking into gain-of-function stuff as it related to, like, the 2001 anthrax attacks, and a lot of those entities that were involved in some of the suspect, you know, events that surrounded the 2001 anthrax attacks were involved in things in, like, event 201 before COVID.
	Explain what event 201 is.
	We both know, but some people are going to freak out when you say this.
	Oh, okay.
	So there was this fictitious scenario that was the World Economic Forum, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, opened philanthropy, which is Facebook co-founder Dustin Muscovitz, and it was basically simulating a coronavirus, novel coronavirus outbreak, and I think October 2019, that spreads around the world and necessitates.
	Censoring misinformation and lockdowns and all other sorts of stuff and novel therapeutics and vaccines and whatever.
	And it wasn't the only, actually, in 2019 scenario simulation like that.
	The U.S. military, in conjunction with Robert Kadlich at HHS, ran something called Crimson Contagion throughout most of the year of 2019 that was also simulating a coronavirus.
	Oh, I think it was a pandemic influenza, but more or less some sort of coronavirus.
	You know, outbreak globally that shuts everything down.
	And it was, you know, a very extensive simulation.
	And I think you had even more than just those two in 2019 alone.
	So there was definitely some weird stuff going on.
	And to be honest, remembering back to that article, I mean, you can find it if you look for it.
	And all my sources are there that I had at the time.
	But, you know, it's been a few years since I've really dealt with that material.
	So like exactly.
	No, but that's good enough.
	What I mean to say is for people to understand how some people see ahead of the curve, it often involves just understanding what came before to let you know where the direction is.
	2019, people have heard about it.
	What was it called?
	Event 201?
	Yeah.
	Or 201, depending on how you say it.
	Do you recall?
	Was there a rationale as to why this was being done in 2019?
	This is just...
	Preparedness a year before?
	Well, that's how they're pitched, these simulations and scenarios.
	But they've had them for several years.
	So there was one called Cladex, I think, a couple years before Event 201 that was hosted by the same people.
	And then in 2005, they had one called Atlantic Storm.
	And then before that, they had one called Dark Winter, which is directly related, really, to the 2001 anthrax attacks that took place just a few months after the Dark Winter exercise.
	And most of these simulations...
	I talked about just now are hosted or written or planned largely by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, as it's known today.
	But back in 2001 was the Center for Civilian Biodefense Studies, I believe.
	And they have, you know, the person that was in charge of that for a long time, Tara O'Toole, is now at the CIA.
	She was the mentor for a long time to a man named Thomas Inglesby, and he was the moderator at Event 201, but was involved in writing Dark Winter and some of these other simulations and stuff.
	And they're very much tied up with the national security state.
	If you're familiar with Event 201, you had Deputy Director of the CIA, Avril Haines, who, if I'm not mistaken, under Biden is currently Director of National Intelligence.
	So she's technically in charge of all the all 18 US intelligence agencies, including the CIA right now.
	And she's there at event 201.
	And I think there's, you know, numerous collection connections like that, if you bothered to to look for them to this.
	I've written about, you know, those connections pretty...
	Pretty extensively.
	So, you know, more often than not, what they end up concluding in these simulations, if you look at it over time, like an Atlantic storm, right?
	So that was in 2005.
	It was a simulation of, you know, bio-warfare, bio-terrorism, but it was involving Europe and the U.S. And their conclusion after doing the whole simulation is, oh, we need a global government.
	That's the only way.
	They have these sorts of, you know, baked, I would argue they're sort of baked in conclusions and they conduct the simulation to like, you know, justify why this solution is the best policy for something that hasn't happened yet.
	Like they're planning in advance the policies they want to enact on something.
	When the particular event they're simulating comes to pass, if it comes to pass, right?
	And on two of these occasions with Dark Winter and then with Event 201, we have those events follow in just a few months after they're simulated.
	And if you...
	Look at other events in history.
	September 11, 2001 is a good example.
	There's a series of odd simulations that precede those events, and it's happened in other cases as well.
	If you have an extreme lack of trust in what the government tells you about stuff, then you probably will be ahead of the curve a lot of the time, as long as you look elsewhere to see what they're trying to distract you from or what they're not telling you.
	Right?
	You remind me, in your Glenn Beck interview, you mentioned that you had trust problems with adults from youth.
	Is there any specific event as to why that occurred, or is it just general cynicism?
	Yeah, I don't really want to go into it because it's stuff with my parents and stuff that was really not good that happened, and there's a reason why me and my siblings don't really involve ourselves.
	Uh, with them that much anymore today, right?
	But you eventually, you know, depending on your experiences when you're, like, a teenager and a kid, um, you kind of, if you realize from a young age that, like, adults will lie to you or make your life harder to make their lives easier to cover up something that was, like, not good that they did and make other people suffer for it and stuff, and you can sort of see through.
	You know, you don't really trust authority as much, I guess you could say, from an early age.
	And then I had, you know, trust issues with teachers, like my favorite teacher in high school.
	You know, I would like vent to him about stuff and I thought it was really friendly and then he like hit on me and that was really like gross and stuff, you know.
	So like sometimes you have those breaches of trust growing up and I think everyone has them.
	I think just for me, like I had a lot of them.
	In a pretty short span of time, so I just didn't trust people.
	And then I got to university, and I took some history courses and stuff, and I was like, why did I not learn about this in high school?
	This seems really important and stuff, you know?
	And then you sort of start to realize that you're fed a particular narrative about stuff when you're in school, and a lot of it turns out to either be not true or, you know...
	Intentionally manipulated to be very favorable to certain parties and leave out very important historical events.
	For anyone that's attended U.S. Public High School, more likely than not, your American history class focused mostly on the 1700s and 1800s, and then the 20th century, you do in the last two weeks of the school year.
	You would think that a lot of those events in the past 100 years would deserve A lot more attention because those are things that more directly have influenced our present than things like the Revolutionary War and the Civil War at this point, you know?
	And there's a lot that they just leave out.
	So, you know, I just realized that stuff, I think, at an earlier age than some people just because of my experiences.
	I think when people have really close relationships with their parents, they tend to not question authority so much, maybe.
	Maybe that's not true.
	I don't know.
	But in my experience, that sort of seems to be the case because you don't really have any reason to question if things are rosy at home.
	It is interesting.
	I mean, the idea that some people tend to think the government is, for some reason, more trustworthy than private enterprise that they do not trust.
	And I would say I grew up with a healthy...
	What's the word?
	Contempt for authority, but not as a result of any...
	Violations of trust, just general rebelliousness.
	But then you get into the practice of law and you realize that, my goodness, you can't really trust anybody, and you certainly should not trust anybody with more than you can allow them to steal from you, which is one of the lessons my father taught me.
	Okay, so fantastic and interesting.
	You know a little bit earlier on that you can't trust the government, and some people seem to have forgotten that, Rage Against the Machine being one of them.
	So Dark Winter, this is interesting, Dark Winter preceded the Anthrax incident by a few months.
	I forget what the other one, the one in the middle was, but then you have Event 201 in 2019 about a global pandemic.
	I mean, and it's like they played it out like the movie Contagion as to not this is what's going to happen, but rather this is what we're going to do.
	All right, and that was all in the context of you going out on your own.
	Seeing a bit ahead of the curve and also seeing ahead of the curve of the censorship.
	So you start your own website and it's called, what was it called again?
	Unlimitedhangout.com.
	Unlimited Hangout.
	I was going to go with Hangout Gang, but that's Tom McDonald.
	And then what happens after that?
	The world is on lockdown.
	Are you in Chile?
	Yeah, I'm in Chile.
	The lockdowns here were awful.
	It was basically like being under house arrest.
	So I basically, after a while, my partner, he's British, and so I went over to Britain for a bit and, you know, I planned to move there.
	I, like, sold my stuff here and, you know, went over there.
	And, you know, if the lockdowns hadn't been so extreme in Chile, I probably wouldn't have done that.
	But the lockdowns here, I mean, it was really nuts.
	I don't know if it was this bad in other places in the world, you know, but it was definitely...
	Like, as extreme as the ones in China, probably.
	Except there wasn't an app, necessarily.
	But in lockdown, you couldn't leave your house unless you had papers, and you were only allowed to get those papers, like, twice a week to buy food.
	And they were good for three hours a pop.
	So there were people that, like, didn't follow the rules, depending on what loophole they had.
	But, like, my license was, like...
	Not suspended, but it like expired.
	And so I wasn't able to renovate it or renew it, sorry, because everything was closed.
	And so I just didn't want problems with the police.
	And so I don't know.
	It was really complicated.
	Daycares were shut down.
	It was really hard to go and do stuff.
	And very Orwellian stuff, mask mandates everywhere.
	Really extreme.
	And I wanted my daughter to not...
	Lose out on socializing.
	She was at a really critical age when all this happened, about three or so.
	So daycares in the UK, even with lockdown, were allowed to continue operating.
	And businesses were closed, but you could go and walk around.
	So that seemed a lot more appealing.
	And what was done to the Chilean population is just really devastating.
	I mean, you had probably the highest vaccine uptake here among teens and kids in the world.
	If I'm not mistaken.
	And the way they did it is they had these basically like house arrest lockdowns.
	And then once the vaccine came out, they were like, if you get vaccinated, you get this vaccine passport.
	And then you can leave your house whenever you want.
	So it was like, get vaccinated and be under house arrest forever.
	And don't be, or sorry, don't get vaccinated.
	You're under house arrest forever.
	Get vaccinated.
	You can have your freedom back.
	Right?
	And so a lot of people did it.
	And now, including kids three and up.
	That's how, you know, and it was really pervasive.
	I think between three and five, like 50% of kids got vaccinated.
	And then above that, from like six to eight, six to 17, it's like close to 80 something, maybe 90%.
	Really high.
	And so you have kids like in daycares here having heart attacks.
	You have kids in middle school recess, you know, just dropping.
	And stuff.
	And, you know, the Chilean media acts like nothing happened.
	But I think if people hadn't been so poorly treated, you know, basically treated like criminals, you know, because of the quarantines and stuff, I don't think the vaccine uptake would have been so high.
	People were really desperate to live their lives again.
	So, you know, I found it just awful.
	But anyway, you know, Chile's not exclusive.
	In that sense, but it's definitely paying the price, I think, now.
	But anyway, I was in Britain for six months.
	I had problems staying there longer, and I don't want to get too personal, but my oldest daughter, who's about to turn five, her father's Chilean.
	We separated around the time she was two or something.
	Chile has very strong custody laws in the sense that you can't take...
	Kids out of the country for very long unless you have both parents' permission.
	And so because of sticky situations in that regard, I had to return to Chile.
	And at the time, I was probably like six or seven months pregnant with my son.
	And so Chile, not long after I came back, had the borders closed to foreigners.
	And so his father couldn't be there when he was born because they wouldn't let him in.
	And, like, all other sorts of stuff.
	You know, it was probably, like, four or five months until he could come to Chile as an unvaccinated foreigner.
	So, I mean, this, it's just, COVID was a mess for my personal life.
	And I lost daycare for a big chunk of it.
	And I had to write a book during it.
	Because, you know, I signed a contract with a publisher.
	So I had, like, a deadline and an obligation to do the book.
	And that was in January 2020 before the lockdowns when I signed that, right?
	And so things were, it was just a really crazy time, but I know that, you know, that's just my story.
	Everyone has a story like that right now.
	It is, what happened, what was done to the world under COVID is, I want to live long enough to see how this gets digested in retrospect by future generations.
	Hoping that future generations are free to digest this and judge it the way they should.
	So the book, first of all, I'm going to look into some Chilean statistics after this, but I think we might get back to that COVID Chilean statistics.
	The book, you signed the contract in January 2020, and the book is One Nation Under Blackmail.
	I guess one question is going to be, did you know it was going to be two volumes when you started it?
	No.
	It got too long.
	So what I'll say about that then is, so I finished the manuscript earlier this year and in like Microsoft or like a word processor, it was like 600 pages.
	So I thought...
	Oh, that's going to fit in one book.
	No problem.
	And it turns out that once you, like, turn it from, you convert it from, like, Word.
	I mean, this is my first book, so I had no idea, right?
	But you take it from Word document to, you know, getting ready for publication, and it gets much longer.
	So it was over, it was, you know, about a thousand pages.
	And, you know, pre-orders had been sold by the publisher, and because of the cost of publishing and supply chain stuff changing and prices going up, they made the decision to split it into two volumes, and I had nothing to do with that.
	It was originally intended to be one book, but the one book was always going to be written in two parts.
	So it wasn't easy to decide where to cleave it.
	And now, the thesis or the one-liner of the book, I mean, it was...
	Is it...
	Was Epstein-focused, or was it supposed to be just a history of corruption leading up to the present?
	It's a history of corruption leading up to Epstein, because you can't really understand what Jeffrey Epstein was up to unless you understand the context, right?
	So mainstream media has painted Jeffrey Epstein as an anomaly, right?
	Basically, the narrative is, well, yeah, he was a bad guy.
	We'll admit that.
	But now he's dead, so everything's fine.
	And, you know, that's absurd.
	Obviously, someone like Epstein was allowed to operate the way he did with everyone knowing about it with impunity because he had a network of support.
	That network precedes Epstein by a number of years.
	And it continues to exist now that he's gone.
	So the problem isn't really Epstein.
	The problem is the network.
	Yeah?
	And so in order to understand this network, you have to understand the history of this network, what they've been involved in.
	And, you know, hopefully in future work I can show what they've been involved in more recently, because more or less the timeline of the book ends around Epstein's first arrest, which is around 2006-2007.
	And there's a lot that comes after that, too, but, you know, I didn't want to give you a 2,000-page book, you know?
	Well, the thing is, I'd say 90-plus percent of what 90-plus percent of the population knows of Epstein actually only post-dates 2013, like the Florida deal.
	So this is interesting, like we're talking about COVID and how you saw ahead of the curve there, and then you go back to event 201, then you go back to 2005, then you go back to, you know, 9-11.
	And, you know, it's pulling back the layers of the onion in as much with Epstein as well.
	So, yeah, people will look at Epstein and say he's the devil, he's the demon, he was the only person involved.
	Others will say it could have been anybody in Epstein's shoes.
	It was a network.
	Flesh that network out.
	I mean, our crowd will probably know a little bit more than most people, but it goes back to Ghislaine Maxwell's dad.
	It goes back to potentially Masada.
	Flesh that out, but in less than a thousand pages.
	Oh, man.
	Okay, so basically where I start off the book is actually back in the 40s.
	And what I start off the book with is talking about something called Operation Underworld.
	And this is when the U.S. intelligence apparatus, as it existed in the World War II era, they formally aligned themselves with organized crime, specifically the National Crime Syndicate, which was really a combination of the Jewish mob and the Italian mafia.
	Yeah.
	And so this particular group of organized criminals get in bed with intelligence and they basically end up fusing by developing the symbiotic relationship that develops over the years.
	And they essentially fuse and become like the same entity more.
	Can I stop you for one second?
	Did you actually say it's called the National Crime Syndicate?
	Criminals call themselves the National Crime Syndicate?
	So this was back in like the 20s and the 30s and the 40s.
	And yeah, I mean, if you look up the term, it's a real term and was sort of referring to these different, I guess it was sort of decentralized, not as centralized as some people have made it out to be.
	But it was different, you know, criminal groups that came together because they realized that in collaborating, they could expand their power more rapidly.
	And when you're organized...
	All you care about is expanding your money and power, expanding your rackets and perpetuating them until the end of time, basically.
	And so to do that...
	They teamed up.
	So if you think about organized crime, and I think this is probably familiar to most people, in the early 20th century, more or less, most organized crime groups in the U.S. were divided sort of into ethnic enclaves.
	You know, the Jewish mob, the Italian mafia, there was Irish organized crime groups and so on.
	It was all by different ethnicities.
	And so the National Crime Syndicate...
	We're sort of a team up of Mayor Lansky with Lucky Luciano, and they had been childhood friends, and they realized if they could sort of bridge this ethnic enclave model and collaborate, that they'd be the guys on top in the organized crime world.
	And they were right about that.
	All right.
	So these are the people that were involved in all sorts of things well before Operation Underworld, including the takeover of the Democratic Party in New York City.
	And that's part of why Operation Underworld happened.
	So they realized that in order to take over, to really get political power or to protect their rackets, they needed some state protection.
	So they wanted to take over a political party.
	The way to take over the Democratic Party at that time was, you know, through Tammany Hall on one end, which was, you know.
	Basically became irrelevant because its organized crime ties were so obvious to the public, but also by taking over the unions.
	So they basically became, they took over the unions and then they took over key parts of the groups that ended up were responsible for elections within the party.
	Yeah, the primaries and vote counting and stuff.
	And then did a couple threatening of officials here and there, got their people in power.
	And Operation Underworld ended up happening the way it did because the intelligence apparatus wanted to collaborate closely with the Dock Workers Union in New York City Harbor.
	And that union was controlled by the mob.
	So they were like, if you want to work with them, you have to work with the mob.
	Right.
	And at that point, the mayor of New York, a guy named William O'Dwyer, was basically owned by the mob and was meeting with people like Frank Costello, why he was mayor and later got exposed for his administration being super corrupt and basically shaking down people all over the city and stuff.
	And that particular model...
	It hasn't really changed, but this is how it developed, right?
	And one of the main tactics of this particular crime syndicate was sex blackmail, setting people up and blackmailing them.
	One of the first people, prominent people, that was blackmailed by people like Mayor Lansky was J. Edgar Hoover, the director of the FBI, and it's for that reason that Hoover never went after organized crime.
	As FBI director, he falsely claimed it was a local problem and not going on in an organized way at the state or national level.
	And it provably was.
	So, you know, there's a lot that I could say in this particular background here, but you see how this is developing and eventually when organized crime and intelligence come together, sex blackmail becomes one of their tools.
	Let me ask you this with Hoover.
	The blackmail material they had on him, was it?
	Engaging in activities with underage people, or was it his...
	Not underage people, but his deputy, Clyde Tolson.
	Because it's very well known now that J. Edgar Hoover was homosexual, but in that period of time, that would have destroyed his career, right?
	And so they caught him, they took...
	Pictures of him and compromising positions with Clyde Tolson.
	And these were shared with early intelligence people like James Jesus Angleton, who was one of the most prominent counterintelligence people in the CIA from its founding onward.
	And, you know, so basically, in that example alone, you can see then how organized crime and intelligence are sharing intelligence, i.e.
	blackmail, which, you know.
	It counts as intelligence to these people, and then they can use that as leverage.
	So the mob can use it as leverage, and now intelligence can use it as leverage over FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, which is the highest law enforcement body in the United States.
	So there's lots of stories.
	This is just an early example, but there's lots of examples of this happening, the corruption of our core institutions in this type of way.
	Throughout American history.
	So it's very important to understand how we get here right now.
	Because there is an easy, not easy necessarily, but it's easy, at least with the book now, because I cite everything I talk about, including what we've discussed here in great detail.
	You can go and follow these events.
	And please, follow up on what I say.
	I have lots of footnotes, lots of them in the book.
	So if you want to research this stuff for yourself, please do so.
	So, well, I knew Hoover had a sordid, by the standards of the time, he had things to hide.
	I guess he discovers the technique, establishes the FBI for the purposes of, or doesn't establish it, but rather weaponizes it for the purposes of doing to others what had been done to him.
	Yeah, he used Blackmail extensively himself because he realized how powerful it was, right?
	And so he had dossiers on friend and foe alike.
	I mean, it's well known that his office was just full of files on people, including extensive files on their sex lives.
	And so if you look at power struggles in the U.S. system, like the McCarthy...
	Hearings are a good example.
	You know, you see, you know, McCarthy and Roy Cohn going after people, trying to dig up dirt on them.
	And actually, the McCarthy hearings, at least for McCarthy and Cohn, ended up falling apart because Cohn tried to blackmail the army to prevent his associate, David Shine, from being sent overseas to fight in, I forget which war.
	So, you know.
	There's a whole pretext of blackmail there, but there were, like, struggles, you know, the weaponizing of the press, releasing damaging information on this guy or that guy.
	There were power struggles of that nature between people like Alan Dulles, the CIA director, and McCarthy, and lots of other officials between McCarthy.
	I mean, it really was, like, a big power struggle.
	And you had Hoover in there, too, and then Hoover and Dulles, and, like, all these guys going at each other's throats all the time.
	I mean, it's a very interesting history to go back and look at, because, I mean...
	They fought really dirty back then.
	I mean, it's really unreal because I think a lot of, you know, just general American understanding of scandals like that, you know, you end up remembering a very simplified, sanitized, I guess you could say, version of those events.
	But really, if you get into the details of it, it's actually really interesting and just like...
	Very cutthroat and crazy, and you're like, I can't believe they tried to get away with that, or they tried to do this to that guy, and all this stuff.
	Or they did get away with it for many, many years, and some people still don't know what ever happened.
	Right, right.
	All right, so then how does this all work its way into, I know it's going to start at least with Robert Maxwell, Ghislaine Maxwell's father, and then getting into Epstein, and then getting into the entire network.
	What was it?
	How did two people get convicted of child sex trafficking without any clients?
	We don't know who the clients are.
	We may never know.
	But okay, how did it get into there and Robert Maxwell's role in all of this?
	Okay, so the jump from what I'm just talking about to Maxwell is a bit complicated.
	So basically what you end up having in the 1980s.
	Is this power nexus that becomes responsible for things like Iran-Contra, among other things.
	And in that particular network, you have a mix of U.S. intelligence, Israeli intelligence, and also an offshoot of the CIA that in the book I call a private CIA that basically sort of...
	It was an offshoot of the CIA by longtime veterans of the agency who were clashing with the Carter administration's effort to sort of have more top-down control of the CIA and make it less autonomous during that period of time.
	I don't know.
	Iran-Contra is really complicated.
	But anyway, on the Israeli intelligence side of that, you have Robert Maxwell being involved.
	So Robert Maxwell, his connection to Israeli intelligence goes back to the 60s or so.
	And he also had a relationship with intelligence agencies, several different intelligence agencies, most specifically the KGB and the Soviet Union and also Bulgarian intelligence and other Soviet bloc country.
	He also had a relationship with British intelligence as well, obviously, because he's based in Britain and adopted the name Robert Maxwell.
	He wasn't born with that name because he served in the British military in World War II.
	He's originally from Czechoslovakia.
	What's his real name?
	John Ludwig Hock.
	Or something like that.
	H-O-C-H is the last name.
	You've got to have a westernized last name in order to...
	Okay.
	Maxwell, very British.
	Well, he wanted to be a businessman too, right?
	So in the 60s, including around the time he was recruited by Israeli intelligence, he was also like a labor MP in Britain.
	He was trying to build a media empire, which was based around Pergamon Press.
	And then he almost loses Pergamon Press and then sort of claws.
	He draws it back and then begins building this media empire.
	But at the same time, he's involved in intelligence activities as well.
	And so part of his involvement, for example, with Iran-Contra is with arms dealing, and he's doing this alongside people like Nicholas Davies and Ari bin Manasha.
	And allegedly in this period of time is when he meets Epstein.
	And allegedly that's because Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell at some point in the, apparently the early 80s or so, were romantically involved.
	And that connection was forged that way.
	That's the allegation.
	One more slight parentheses, because I know en diagonale, as we say in Quebec, about the Iran-Contra, but...
	If you could take two minutes to explain that scandal and why it might be bigger and deeper than most people tend to appreciate just based on the words alone.
	Yeah, so most people think of Iran-Contra as an arms for hostage scandal.
	It's actually much more than that.
	So in order to really understand, in my opinion, Iran-Contra, I mean, there's a reason I devote like two chapters to it in volume one.
	Because you had to talk about different aspects of it, and it's very important in the context of what Epstein was doing in the 90s of the Clinton White House to understand Bill Clinton's involvement when he was governor of Arkansas and Iran-Contra stuff.
	But anyway, basically, I guess the best way to explain it, without going into a long-winded explanation of all its peculiarities and different aspects, is basically the problem that Bill Casey, CIA Director Bill Casey, had.
	When Congress told him, we're not going to let you finance lethal aid to the Contras in Nicaragua.
	And so, you know, by that point, Casey had invested a lot of time and money in building up the Contras in Nicaragua to counter the Sandinistas that had taken over control of that country, which previously was basically a U.S.-backed dictatorship in Nicaragua, right?
	The Samosa family, I believe, were the people in charge.
	So he wanted to find a way to get around that, but not just to get around it for the Contras.
	He wanted to find a way to not ever have to ask Congress for money and thus, you know, have to deal with congressional oversight of his activities again.
	So he wanted to find a way to basically self-finance covert operations off the books.
	And so basically what this meant is that in order to do that, you have to produce money.
	That is going to be off the books, too.
	And so this ended up being things like narcotics trafficking, arms trafficking, things like that, and then laundering the money, and then that money becomes utilized by this intelligence apparatus to finance either the Contras, but really more than just the Contras, any paramilitary group you want or any covert operation you want to conduct and you don't want to have to inform Congress or the President about.
	Right.
	And this got out of hand very quickly, obviously.
	And there were a lot of efforts to cover it up.
	If you're familiar with the work of Gary Webb, for example, he exposed one of the major drug angles of the whole thing and had his life ruined for it.
	But he's been proved right over and over again, even in the years since his death in, I think, 2004.
	Gary Webb was the individual who was attributed a suicide to his death with...
	Two self-inflicted gunshot wounds?
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Mm-hmm.
	And then another journalist who wrote about these same actors and was due to publish a book on them was Danny Casolaro, and he died in 1991 in what was framed as a suicide but was obviously murder.
	And so what Danny Casolaro wrote about was the group behind Iran-Contra and some of their activities.
	He called this particular group the octopus.
	Yeah.
	And Jeffrey Epstein was a part of that network, 100%.
	He was involved in, and it's not just through the Maxwell connection either.
	In this Iran-Contra period, he is, one of his main clients is Adnan Khashoggi, who was one of the main arms dealers and one of the guys that got Iran-Contra off the ground.
	And, you know, basically, Epstein was Khashoggi's banker.
	In that period.
	And Khashoggi's main bank in this period was the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, BCCI, which was basically a private intelligence apparatus masquerading as a bank.
	And it collapsed in a spectacular fashion in 1991.
	But its origins go back to Pakistani intelligence and the CIA.
	And the bank itself was involved in the sex trafficking of minors.
	The bank.
	Right?
	That Epstein and Khashoggi and these guys had a relationship with them, which was a major facilitator of these illicit cash flows for off-the-books operations, basically.
	And then at the same time, you have...
	Epstein's mentor in this period is a British arms dealer with alleged British intelligence connections named Douglas Lees.
	And Douglas Lees was involved with Khashoggi in this period as well.
	And Epstein was part of arms deals in that period, but not necessarily to Iran, because this particular apparatus wasn't just selling weapons to Iran.
	It was selling weapons to both sides of the Iran-Iraq war.
	The name Khashoggi.
	Oh, no, you're not frozen.
	I thought I was frozen for a second.
	The name Khashoggi comes up as the journalist who was murdered.
	That's the nephew of Adnan Khashoggi, Jamal Khashoggi.
	I guess I don't know what's a common last name in certain parts of the world, so I don't know if that's like a Smith type.
	No, no, they're directly related.
	Yeah, but Adnan Khashoggi is the uncle of Jamal Khashoggi.
	You have the curse of too much information where people are going to listen to this and just say, You're crazy.
	I'm sorry.
	They're going to say you're crazy.
	I have a book and like thousands of footnotes to back it up of really high quality sources.
	So, I mean, you know.
	Read the book and then just prove me wrong on stuff that's in the book.
	You know, go and try.
	You know, I tried to make a very airtight case about all this stuff.
	But when you're summarizing, I mean, in an interview, you obviously have to summarize it.
	Like in talking to you today, I can't go into the same depth of detail as I can go into in the book.
	And that's the benefit of the book, right?
	Is that it's all laid out there.
	And there's all the citations where I get everything is in there.
	And you can follow it for further reading.
	And I really encourage people to do that.
	Don't just take my word for it.
	Go and follow up on this stuff or, you know, fact check me.
	You say it's the benefit of the book.
	I say it's the benefit of the interview because I'm not tuned out, but too much information.
	I was re-listening to Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent, and I like the 30,000-foot principles, but then you get into chapters on chapters of stuff, which, you know, unless you have a unique interest in it, it might not be of unique interest to you.
	This Epstein business...
	When the audiobook comes out, I'll be listening because it's the stuff of nightmares in reality that is too cynical and corrupt for people to actually believe.
	The one question, nobody's allowed asking it or nobody seems to have an answer, and now that he has committed suicide, it's all neatly wrapped up.
	How did he make his money in life?
	Epstein, not...
	Not Maxwell's.
	How did Epstein make his money?
	Yeah, I think he was a serial money launderer and I think he was a massive financial criminal.
	And so I think part of the reason the mainstream media only focuses on Epstein from 2000 to 2006 and exclusively on his sex crimes is so they don't have to engage with the financial crime side, which is very extensive.
	You're looking at someone who was involved in intelligence-linked shadow banking of a major U.S. intelligence scandal.
	I ran Contra.
	And he goes from that to helping mastermind one of the biggest Ponzi schemes in U.S. history at Towers Financial.
	And despite being named as the mastermind in grand jury proceedings, his name is dropped from the case.
	And that same year his name was dropped from the case, he's attending very suspect Clinton White House fundraisers, including one in 1993 that, oddly enough, makes an appearance in Vince Foster's quote-unquote suicide note.
	Yeah.
	It's amazing.
	I literally just read a rumble rant from Matt G. Hammond that says, is Vince Foster involved in any of this?
	And we're getting there.
	Yeah, please go on with this because I've got a couple of questions of Vince Foster and, you know, what became the stuff of lore for the Clintons.
	Yeah.
	So the official story about Vince Foster's death is very complicated and hard to believe.
	And, you know, I'm not really...
	I go into detail in the book about why the official story is not credible.
	But basically what I want to focus on right now is the quote-unquote suicide note.
	Because that's pretty easy to explain and that's all we really need to understand to understand this fundraiser I just mentioned.
	So Vince Foster's body is discovered in this park.
	Yeah, and then police come and search his office.
	And there's all these obstacles for them to even get to the office because, you know, a bunch of weird stuff is going on in and around his office because people at the White House know the body was found before the police even come and whatever and are sort of scrambling.
	Anyway, so the police get there.
	On this, you know, in the evening of this day, and they go and they look in Vince Foster's office, they search it, and his briefcase is empty, yeah?
	And roughly 36 hours later, the first lady's office, i.e.
	Hillary Clinton's office, say that they discovered a suicide note in the briefcase that police had previously observed as being empty, yeah?
	And so the allegation has been made, and it's probably true.
	That Hillary Clinton was worried about some stuff as it related to Vince Foster, and this suicide note was planted there to sort of exonerate her about something, right?
	And given the evidence, that seems what happened.
	And so if you read the quote-unquote suicide note that has been regarded even in mainstream media as a forgery, handwriting experts and all that.
	Chimed in and said this isn't what he wrote, and it wasn't there when he died, blah, blah, blah.
	But anyway, there's only one mention of Hillary Clinton in that letter, and it's about this fundraiser that Clinton was involved in.
	Sorry, that Epstein was involved in.
	It was a fundraiser ostensibly to refurbish decorations in certain rooms of the White House.
	It was a White House Historical Association fundraiser, but it's odd because you have the People like, not just Epstein, who's involved in shadow banking, but you have other people involved in shadow banking as well, including one of the top figures in bringing BCCI, the private intelligence bank I just mentioned, into the U.S. financial system, Clark Clifford.
	He's at the top of the list of people that were involved in this fundraiser.
	And Vince Foster's role, according to the New York Times, would have been to determine if there was anything fishy about the money in that fundraiser.
	And that's the only mention of Hillary Clinton in there.
	And so...
	Anyway, it's just interesting considering all of that and then considering that Epstein's name is dropped from a major criminal case.
	And then he's involved in this fundraiser and shaking hands with Clinton.
	He and Ghislaine Maxwell at a donor reception for this fundraiser.
	And it's the only mention of Hillary Clinton in the suspect's suicide note is she and Kaki Hawkersmith, her decorator, did nothing wrong as it related to redecorating the White House.
	And there was nothing to see here.
	Just...
	Bizarre.
	And anyway, you go from that and then the next time Epstein...
	He's involved with a series of meetings with a guy named Mark Middleton, who is dead now under very suspicious circumstances.
	And Mark Middleton was intimately involved in, depending on who you talk to, a scandal that's either called Chinagate or that's called the 1996 campaign finance controversy.
	And either way, again, it's dealing with very suspect and very illegal fundraisers around the Clinton family.
	And then after Clinton leaves office, you have Jeffrey Epstein helping him set up the Clinton Foundation.
	So you have Jeffrey Epstein just on the Clinton side of things, being very involved in suspect money flows throughout the 1990s.
	And you have that same theme with Leslie Wexner.
	Jeffrey Epstein's main benefactor that we know of during this same period.
	So this is obviously a serial financial criminal who was benefiting very powerful people with his expertise in financial crime.
	Okay, I'll digest that slowly, but that's not all new information to me, but I think it's going to be new to a lot of people.
	I guess the one question in all of this, I mean, it's a dumb question.
	Why the media, why they don't talk about it?
	I mean, it's either too complicated or it goes too deep and a state-controlled media...
	It opens a can of worms.
	They can't go into the extent of the Jeffrey Epstein-Clinton-White House relationship.
	They can't.
	I'll give you an example.
	Last December, the Daily Mail in the UK...
	Published pictures of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell shaking Bill Clinton's hands in 1993.
	Before that, the U.S. mainstream media narrative had been they didn't meet until many years after.
	Not a peep from mainstream media.
	You think that would matter, that someone in the U.S. media would cover it because it's a U.S. president and a U.S.-based pedophile, right?
	Who garnered a lot of media attention.
	Is that not worthy of informing the American public that there was an earlier connection than previously reported?
	Why did they ignore it?
	Why did five months later, a guy named Mark Middleton, who was protected not just by Bill Clinton, but by George W. Bush from being prosecuted, why did he, after those revelations and the fact that he was meeting with Epstein 17 times in less than two years, he ends up dead in May, hanging by the neck from a tree with an extension cord and a shotgun wound to the chest, and it's ruled a suicide.
	And no pictures and videos from the scene of his death are allowed to be publicly released.
	And why does no one in the U.S. media report on Mark Middleton's death except for local media in Little Rock, Arkansas?
	It doesn't get any coverage.
	Wouldn't that matter in the U.S.?
	Why won't they talk about it?
	Why won't they talk about the fact that it's a provable lie that Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Gates met in 2011?
	There's attestations that they met in the 1990s all over the place.
	Okay, I'll steel man that one in a second, but...
	Mark Middleton's suicide.
	So we've dealt with Gary Webb, who allegedly committed suicide by shooting himself in the head twice.
	Mark Middleton alleged to have committed suicide by hanging himself from a tree with an extension cord.
	How does one inflict a shotgun blast to the torso?
	Yeah, how do you hang yourself by the neck with an extension cord and then manage to shoot yourself in the chest with a shotgun?
	Well, people who are not going to believe this are going to go look this up right afterwards.
	I did my homework to some extent.
	I just, you know, I can't believe reality sometimes.
	I can't believe the reality that we're expected to believe sometimes.
	All right, so I guess, I mean, flat.
	So here's the answer.
	Well, here's the thing, though.
	Why wasn't Mark Middleton covered at any point by U.S. media?
	He's meeting with Jeffrey Epstein at the White House in the 90s 17 times, at the same time that Mark Middleton is involved in what was investigated by Congress and deemed to be a major national security scandal.
	George W. Bush, the first time he ever invoked executive privilege as president, was to prevent documents about Mark Middleton being made available to congressional investigators.
	And then 9-11 happens a couple weeks later, and no one in Congress cares about Mark Middleton anymore.
	Mark Middleton testified to Congress about all this stuff.
	He pleaded the fifth 28 times, including to the question, are you a foreign agent?
	And they released the fact that Epstein is meeting with this guy a lot more than previously reported, and then he ends up dead after being protected for, like, decades by two presidents.
	And it doesn't get coverage at all.
	Why does it get no coverage?
	Well, I mean, if anybody...
	Because obviously there's something there.
	That's my point.
	And I'll say, like, to the extent that we know of things that people thought were the stuff of conspiracy lore, Operation Mockingbird, mainstream media acting as spokespeople or propagandists for intelligence, I mean, it might make total sense.
	No way to spin it.
	Media blackout.
	Although, I mean, some people might say there wasn't a media blackout at the time and yada yada, but it was covered here, it was covered there, much like they're going to say in 10 years' time.
	COVID affecting menstruation was covered here, was covered there, but two years late and manipulated coverage after the fact.
	Okay, well, where do we go from it?
	First of all, as you're writing this and as you're researching this, and how do you do this type of research from where you are?
	You're in Chile at the time?
	Or Chile?
	Yeah, yeah.
	All my research I've done from Chile.
	Okay.
	And you access resources online, and I don't know.
	Yeah.
	I mean, most of my stuff about Mark Middleton, a lot of it comes from Senate and congressional reports, the evidence that they collected and is available through archives or official websites.
	You know, of the government investigation into what happened there.
	And then there's, of course, media archives.
	You know, there was a lot of reporting, for example, on this particular scandal by the Los Angeles Times that you can't necessarily access on their website, but you can access through, you know, search engines that...
	You know, search through old newspapers, like newspapers.com, for example.
	And, you know, there's the British equivalent of that, the British newspaper archive.
	I mean, you have to go through this kind of stuff.
	It's possible to do.
	But my point is, okay, if I'm able to dig up all this stuff from Chile using these types of Internet resources, and you think about outlets like the New York Times, right, that have...
	A lot more resources than I do.
	Access to much better databases and to much better sources in terms of people.
	Yeah.
	And they can't find this stuff?
	Am I supposed to believe that?
	Nope.
	Whitney, I envision you, as you're writing this book, I'm visualizing Nick Cage in 16mm while he's watching the horrible video.
	What is your...
	I know you answered the question on Glenn Beck.
	Does it make you feel optimistic or absolutely no faith in humanity?
	But as you're writing this book, are you not sinking into depths of despair that are difficult to pull yourself out of?
	Yeah, so like I said on that interview, I mean, you have days where you're optimistic and I guess days where you're not, depending on how things are going.
	But really, I think...
	What's happened here is that I'm continuing a story that people have tried to tell before.
	People like Danny Casolaro have tried to talk about the octopus.
	And people have looked into Danny Casolaro and talked about all the scandals he was reporting on from the 1980s, but they don't follow that group necessarily through what they did after Casolaro died.
	That group still continued to exist and was still active after Casolaro was murdered.
	What were they doing after that?
	It matters, you know?
	And Gary Webb was talking about the same group and what they were doing in the early 90s and the late 80s.
	And a lot of people focus on, you know, what he talked about in Dark Alliance.
	But they don't continue following that group to the present.
	They're still around and they're still very influential.
	So it's very important.
	To inform people the nature of the power structures that are running our lives.
	And so I guess I would say I'm ultimately optimistic because I think once the American people know, they won't stand for it.
	The question is, you know, correcting the record and making a documented fact-based case for why the government is essentially organized crime.
	And do people in the U.S. want to be ruled by the mafia, the mob?
	I gotta say, a lot of them do.
	I'm not sure how much better or worse the Canadian government is, but a lot of people seem to think, for whatever the reason, nobody goes into politics with ill intentions.
	They're benevolent.
	Whitney, so let's get...
	We'll finish on Epstein, but people will go read the book to get the details.
	But the one thing I've always been intrigued about, the deal that Epstein got...
	Was it 2013 in Florida?
	No, it was earlier.
	So it was during his first court case and arrest, which spanned around 2006 to 2008.
	Okay.
	And so the sweetheart deal, as it's called...
	It occurred somewhere in there with the intercession of people like Alex Acosta, who was later Trump's Secretary of Labor, and told Trump's transition team the reason he signed off on the sweetheart deal was because he was told Epstein belonged to intelligence and was above his pay grade and to leave it alone.
	So basically people came to Alex Acosta and were like, just sign this paper, because if you try and allow this guy to be prosecuted the way he should be prosecuted, he's above your pay grade, like you'll either lose your job or something else.
	I mean, that's the implication of being told that, right?
	So right away, you're being told that this guy was protected by very powerful interests.
	I think that's pretty clear.
	So what's interesting is right before he was sentenced, if I'm not mistaken, I forget the exact timing, but the only trip abroad he made was to Israel and he stayed in Tel Aviv and toured military bases.
	Now, if you are accused of pedophilia and you belong to intelligence, allegedly, and all of this stuff, right before you're due to be in trouble, why would you go there?
	Also, why would you, as a person that's about to be charged for pedophilia, be given a tour of military bases if you're just a tourist?
	Obviously, you're not just a tourist, you know?
	So there's something very weird going on there, I think.
	And so, you know, I think the Israeli intelligence connection tie with Epstein is strong, yeah.
	But I think...
	Just like Robert Maxwell, you have a relationship with more than one intelligence service when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein as well.
	And it's very possible that, like Robert Maxwell, he was most connected to Israeli intelligence, but there's definitely CIA connections with Epstein.
	And when you're looking at Robert Maxwell, again, you have British and Eastern European Russian.
	Intelligence connections, too.
	So when we're talking about the intelligence ties here, I think it's very important for people to remember.
	And what I try and show in the book, too, is that intelligence agencies don't necessarily work the way you think they do.
	A lot of people conceive of the CIA or Mossad or MI5, right, as sort of monoliths.
	And they're not like that.
	So you have factions in these intelligence agencies.
	You have these transnational power structures.
	And this particular group that I focus on in the book, The octopus, they have a lot of ties to organized crime, corporate America, drug cartels, U.S. intelligence, Israeli intelligence, intelligence agencies in Latin America.
	I mean, it's quite extensive, right?
	And so if you're operating, you know, you're employed by the CIA example, but you become part of this faction, you know, a lot of people in this particular faction have no allegiance to the U.S. Or U.S. national security.
	Their allegiance becomes to that faction, really this organized crime syndicate, and expanding the money and power of that faction.
	Right?
	Yep.
	And so that's essentially what you have here.
	So people, you know, tend to be like, oh, okay, so he's just associated with this intelligence.
	It's never like that.
	And at the same time, you know, people's relationship with an intelligence agency can evolve.
	You can start off as an asset, become an agent, you can have all these different roles, you can have roles with multiple intelligence agencies.
	And as I mentioned earlier, sometimes you get private intelligence apparatuses, or apparati, like private CIA's spin off from these intelligence agencies.
	And who were they working for then?
	Like David Rockefeller, he had his own private intelligence apparatus back in the day.
	And that happens.
	And sometimes they work with or against the intelligence agency of the country in which they are in.
	There's a lot that goes on in these covert worlds.
	And I think sometimes Hollywood has sort of done us a disservice in making us think it...
	Works a particular way.
	It doesn't necessarily work that way.
	Well, Hollywood might be partially in on...
	Yeah, well, if you look at MCA, Universal Studios, Lou Wasserman, people like that, yeah.
	Lou Wasserman came out of organized crime.
	He was tied up with Moe Dallas.
	He ran MCA, Music Corporation of America, that became Universal Studios.
	He was very instrumental in the political rise of Ronald Reagan.
	He backed Jimmy Carter.
	He backed Bush Sr.
	And he backed Bill Clinton.
	A big-time fundraiser and a major force behind Hollywood and also Hollywood's team-up with the national security state to influence and propagandize the American public.
	You know what you need to do?
	I think it probably exists like an interactive encyclopedia of this entire story where you can just like...
	Zoom in on specific issues and then open that up and expand to different players.
	There's programs for that, but I haven't had time to go and do that with the book.
	It's definitely a project at some point, because I think this is important to understand the history and how power really works, because power doesn't work the way we think it works, right?
	I mean, I doubt most of your viewers think that Joe Biden is actually running the United States right now.
	I doubt.
	There's a very small minority of viewers watching now who think Joe Biden is a decision maker in American politics.
	Let's, I guess, close the parentheses on Epstein.
	He killed himself.
	You believe that?
	Sorry.
	Not to laugh at it, but...
	It's preposterous.
	I mean, there's no way he killed himself without assistance.
	It's either he killed himself with assistance and it was like, if you don't kill yourself, we'll kill you.
	Here's the tools.
	Do it.
	Or it was, hi, you're gone.
	Bye.
	One of the two.
	And, you know, the fact that mainstream media just says one story and it's totally improbable and they run with it, you know.
	I don't think a majority of Americans believe the official story about Epstein's death, but it's basically become a meme, you know?
	But the thing is, if they're successful in making up a ludicrous death story for someone like Epstein, can you think about how many other quote-unquote suicides or ludicrous cover stories were something else?
	Oh, and back before you had the democratization of sort of access to information via the internet, how on earth would you ever verify?
	Gary Webb's alleged suicide.
	Middleton's alleged suicide.
	You'd have to rely on whatever scant reporting you could find in paper version.
	Now you can, you know, get people on the interweb at 4chan to locate where Shia LaBeouf's flag is, and he will not divide us in the mountain range.
	What I was going to say was, to get you to believe the absurd lie, he killed himself.
	None of the cameras worked.
	The security guards who were asleep or something, they were relocated.
	What's the word?
	Repositioned.
	No criminal charges.
	And move on.
	Someone in the Rumble Rants section was asking, will they ever release the client list?
	So we've got a conviction for trafficking, and we don't know the client list.
	How does that work?
	You're not going to get the client list.
	I can't, very, very unlikely that you're going to get the client list.
	I'll give you an example.
	So one of the early sexual blackmail ops that I write about in the book, it took place in the 60s, and it targeted John F. Kennedy in the time he became, he was president-elect and inaugurated.
	He slept with a woman named Mariella Novotny that was basically being used by a mix of organized crime and British intelligence interest.
	She was brought to the United States.
	She was involved in the network that was responsible for what in the UK is remembered as the Profumo scandal, which brought down the existing government at the UK in the time.
	And then she was brought to the US by a guy named Harry Towers, who was nominally a television executive, I believe, but obviously something else.
	Anyway, the FBI, you know, found her out and they were going to prosecute her and they had her client list.
	Yeah.
	And somehow she manages to escape.
	Apparently, with the help of the CIA and affiliated factions and British intelligence sort of spirit her off.
	And the FBI, instead of doing anything with a client list, they destroy it.
	I'm reading some of the chats.
	So, you know, that's just the history, right, of the FBI.
	And if you look at how the FBI has interacted with this group since Hoover, which is most of the FBI's history, they cover up for these interests.
	They don't investigate them.
	They investigate people that try and expose these interests.
	Well, we're seeing that with Assange, with James O 'Keefe, but people are saying, well, the judges are on the client list.
	Not affirming that as truth or falseness, but people will hypothesize as to how it can be.
	Well, we don't know who's on the client list, right?
	But there's a reason they're hiding it.
	I think that's very clear.
	But I doubt it's going to come out.
	Look at what happened to Ghislaine Maxwell since she was convicted, right?
	Now she's in low-security, happy-fun-day yoga volleyball prison.
	And had a lovely Thanksgiving vegan dinner, apparently, or whatever.
	Does that sound like, you know, if she was willing to cooperate and expose all this stuff, would she be treated like that?
	Or would she end up like Epstein?
	You know what's amazing is, like, even if the list were to be leaked by some renegade journalist, some whistleblower, like Hunter Biden's laptop, they would say it's misinformation.
	No one would know what to believe.
	It's like the era of...
	Post-truth, where you can see the truth, they'll tell you it's a lie, and then a few years later, once the world has moved on to something else.
	Yeah, so I think it's useful here to sort of bring together a lot of different things we're talking about and the points you just brought up.
	I opened my book with a quote.
	It's from a CIA whistleblower during Iran-Contra testimony, and he's talking about the octopus here, yeah?
	So if I can just read segments from that, I think you'll understand what we're dealing with here.
	He says in this testimony, he says, who are these people?
	They are the group that is popularly called the Enterprise.
	And this was the name of this power nexus we've been talking about in Iran-Contra testimony.
	He says it's a mix of Republicans, Democrats, mercenaries, ex-officio, mafia, and opportunists.
	They are CEOs.
	They are bankers.
	They are presidents.
	They own airlines.
	They own national television networks.
	They own six of the seven video documentary companies in Washington, D.C. They do not give a damn about the law or the Constitution.
	or the Congress or the oversight committees except as something to be subverted, manipulated, and lied to.
	They abhor sunlight and love darkness.
	They deal in innuendo and character assassination, planted stories, the incomplete thought and sentence.
	They burn and shred files if caught.
	They commit perjury and when caught, they have guaranteed sinecures or jobs with large U.S. corporations.
	Now, this is a really important part here.
	If you let them, they will take over not only the CIA, but the entire government and the world, cutting off dissent, free speech.
	A free media, and they will cut a deal with anyone from the mafia to Saddam Hussein if it means more money and power.
	They stole $600 billion from the savings and loans and diverted our attention to the Iraqis.
	They are ripping off America at a rate never before seen in history.
	They flooded our country with drugs.
	They cut deals with Haro in Mexico, Noriega in Panama, the Colombian drug cartels Castro, and recently the Red Mafia in the KGB.
	They ruined their detractors.
	They fear the truth.
	If they can, they will blackmail you.
	He said this in 1990.
	What has happened since?
	That?
	I mean, it seems that that had already happened to some extent.
	He was describing the past, present, and predicting the future.
	Yeah, but what are they doing now?
	Cutting off dissent, free speech, and a free media.
	And once they do that, what happens?
	Well, someone in the chat in Rumble says China, but...
	Well, Klaus Schwab said it recently, right?
	China's the model.
	But it'll be worse here than it is there right now if these people are not stopped.
	I guarantee that.
	If you look at the people behind the National Security Commission on AI, which is creating the policy for the national security state, i.e.
	the military and the intelligence community as it relates to AI.
	They say that the only way for the U.S. to maintain economic and military hegemony and beat China is to enact surveillance technology and this type of, you know, control technology far beyond what we see in China today.
	And they say that it's because...
	So currently in China, you have a larger population producing more data than Americans per capita.
	So now with a smaller population, we have to be producing just as much data, if not more data, right?
	So we have to have these types of technologies inserted into our lives in a way that is much more extreme than what is currently in force in China today.
	And the people on this commission are the intelligence community, the military, and the top people in Silicon Valley.
	It was run by Eric Schmidt.
	And I think the vice chair was a deputy secretary of defense or something like that.
	And if you listen to Eric Schmidt, he just wrote a book with Henry Kissinger about the age of AI and how basically the AI is going to be in charge of government soon and all sorts of stuff.
	But this particular group, the National Security Commission on AI, before COVID said, in order to beat China, quote-unquote beat China, we have to eliminate legacy systems in the U.S. To them, legacy systems are things like private car ownership, in-person doctor visits, using cash at a store.
	All of that stuff they want to get rid of and they want to make it on an app on your phone that they can surveil you and control you and just data mine off of you.
	And if you are the national security state, what do you care about the most?
	Military and economic hegemony.
	And that's how they're selling it.
	And so that's what these people, one of the main power factions in the U.S. Uh-oh, hold on.
	What just went...
	Is that my internet?
	Sorry, I froze for a second.
	Okay, good.
	Let the rubers begin.
	Sorry.
	No, but what I was trying to say if I got cut off is that this is the ambition.
	From 2019, before COVID, right?
	And they used COVID to advance a lot of this and push for all this contactless stuff and the end of in-person interaction, really, in favor of using and generating more data and all of this stuff.
	But this is one of the most powerful factions in the U.S. today, is the fusion of Silicon Valley and the national security state.
	Most Silicon Valley companies, the big ones, are also military and or intelligence contractors.
	And a lot of the big Silicon Valley companies today, Google, Facebook, Palantir, they all have direct ties in their origin stories to the national security state.
	Either the military or the CIA.
	These guys work together and they have a very particular agenda and they do not care about democracy.
	Actually, in their documents in this National Security Commission, one of the things they promote the most as a major change that needs to happen in the U.S. is that we adopt what they call the Chinese model of the civil-military fusion concept.
	And that's basically, you know, the way they describe it in practice would be like fascism.
	You say this now, and as I was just listening to the week of policy discussion from Canada of the Public Order Emergency Commission, where they had their six weeks of facts and now they're talking policy, and you literally hear these people appointed to the panel to discuss the policy recommendations, talking about how, you know, if the government says disperse and you don't, well, then we freeze their bank accounts and starve them out.
	And, you know, it would be very effective.
	Now we just have to discuss whether or not we can justify it constitutionally, but, you know, live under a perpetual state of emergency where the government says emergency, civil rights don't apply anymore.
	Freeze off their bank accounts like they are doing in China currently to obtain maximum compliance.
	You can't live.
	They don't have to kill you.
	Wow.
	But that's the future we're moving into.
	Look at central bank digital currencies.
	The whole point of that is programmable money so that they can just turn off your money if you do the wrong thing.
	You support the wrong cause, your money's off.
	Your bank account's gone.
	You can't spend your money.
	And even if you don't do anything wrong, if you look at most of the pilots for central bank digital currencies right now, they have expiration dates, the money.
	So if you don't spend your money by that date, it's worthless.
	From the off with central bank digital currencies, you don't decide if you save or spend the state.
	The central bank decides that for you.
	What else will they decide?
	They can program any functionality into that money.
	You're under lockdown and you're not allowed to buy or go five kilometers beyond your house.
	Your money won't work five kilometers beyond your house.
	It's decided that it's too bad for climate change for you to have a chocolate bar.
	You can't buy chocolate at the store anymore.
	All of that kind of stuff, whatever policy it is, no matter how invasive or reasonable or irrational it is, it doesn't really matter.
	They have that power with this money.
	So what we saw in Canada with the trucker protests and how bank accounts were weaponized, that is a taste of what is to come.
	And that is why it is so important to look at building parallel economic systems, because what they are going to try and do is use that control of the financial system to herd us all into smart cities and basically would amount to digital concentration camps and just Orwellian surveillance nightmare cities, basically.
	And if we are slaves to the financial system...
	That may happen for some of us if we do not adapt and make plans to have our money...
	Function differently outside of these systems.
	You know, that's what people in the Bitcoin space are trying to do, but it doesn't even have to be that, right?
	You can go back to trading and bartering.
	You can make a local currency in your community.
	A great resource for this is someone like Catherine Austin Fitz, who's done a lot of work about the different parallel economic systems you can develop in your community to not have to rely on these super corrupt banks and corporations for your livelihood and your existence.
	We have outsourced our wealth and also our basic needs to corporations and banks that are trying to enslave us right now.
	And we have to take that power back or they will enslave us.
	And it's very simple, but it requires that we start taking responsibility for ourselves and our communities.
	And it needs to happen now.
	I started this off by saying that you reminded me of a younger female Barnes.
	Now you're reminding me of a younger female Alex Jones.
	And not in any bad way, by the way.
	The idea is like...
	When you start making these, not scary predictions, but these sci-fi Orwellian predictions of the future.
	But it's policy.
	We can see it now.
	You know, maybe before COVID, it sounded sci-fi and crazy.
	But, I mean, a lot of people are paying more attention to groups like the World Economic Forum now.
	Going back years and years, these smart city policies and designs have been on the books.
	And most major metropolises in the world have some sort of smart city plan that's either already being implemented or is set to be implemented soon.
	No, I say if someone only heard that segment, they'd say, okay, well, that's wacky talk.
	If they hadn't heard the last hour and 25 minutes leading up to that, they wouldn't know.
	It's not just not wacky talk.
	It's the sad way of describing the reality.
	Other people are going to say, oh, it would be a seamless society.
	I'd have a rice-sized chip in my hand like they installed in 6,000 people in Sweden, and I just have to swipe it.
	And it's so convenient.
	How convenient?
	Well, convenience is the carrot that's being used to lead people into a slavery system.
	Because, you know, Bob Moran, if you're familiar with him, he had a really great cartoon about convenience.
	And it was, you know, this guy on a computer, he was like, oh, how convenient.
	And then on the smartphone, oh, how convenient.
	And then by the end of it, he's in a prison cell.
	He's going, ooh, how convenient.
	Because he doesn't have to worry.
	His food is brought to him.
	He can just lay down and sit in bed all day.
	How convenient, right?
	And eventually...
	I was going to say, stick a VR set on his head and he can live a better life in that prison in his mind's eye.
	That's the whole point of the metaverse.
	It's basically the Matrix.
	And it's an awful idea.
	So, there was this really disturbing article I read about the metaverse.
	I think it was written by an ex-CIA analyst.
	And at the end of it, he said something like, the more miserable life becomes in the real world, the better life will look in the metaverse.
	So, you know, this manufactured food and energy squeeze we have right now, how bad are they going to make things for people?
	And then they'll be like, well, come to the promised land of the universe and become a human battery, basically, or something like that.
	I mean, who knows how exactly it'll manifest or, you know, none of it's good.
	Or in Canada, make life sufficiently miserable that you have people who...
	Yeah, who choose euthanasia because they're either too poor or they're being lobbied in some cases by nurses that they should consider killing themselves.
	Because you're a burden on the healthcare system, so go kill yourself.
	A burden on the healthcare system.
	It's not going to get any better for you.
	The government doesn't have deep pockets to give you accommodated living, so have you thought about a maid's?
	All right.
	Well, people want something of a white pill, Whitney.
	I mean, what organizations, what entities are pushing back?
	How can people do it in a lawful way?
	People can do it.
	There is a huge white pill because all it is is people have to get off their knees.
	People have to take responsibility for themselves and their communities and start building something else than a system that's run by criminals.
	If you don't want to be ruled by criminals, make another system.
	That's all we can really do.
	Because the system as it exists right now has been weaponized against us and only leads to one place.
	Yeah.
	So, I mean, there's different groups that you can send your money to, whatever.
	But really, at the end of the day, if your money isn't going to investing in your local existence, your local community, your local neighborhood, parallel systems at the local level that will keep you and your family alive, you know.
	If you're donating to some organization thousands of miles away from you, how big will that impact be in your life when push comes to shove?
	Whitney, what are you working on now?
	The book is out.
	Do you want to sleep for a year afterwards or do you have an immediate project you want to get on?
	I wish.
	Yeah, it would be nice to take some time off, but I mean, I always figured I would actually take proper time off once they turn off, you know, they shut down the internet or something like that because then I can't really work anymore.
	Me neither.
	Do not shut down the internet, people.
	I'll be on the street corner doing ranting and ravings about the world.
	Yeah, so what do you have next on your...
	Yeah, so I have an investigation about the whole FTX thing coming out in the next couple of weeks.
	And I have a series that I'm co-writing with a really brilliant writer named Ian Davis, who's based in Britain, about the Sustainable Development Goals.
	So you may have heard about Agenda 2030, but really Agenda 2030 is agenda for the Sustainable Development Goals.
	Like the Sustainable Development Goals are Agenda 2030.
	Yeah.
	And so there's 17 of them.
	And so we're trying to go under the hood of each sustainable development goal and show you what's really going on.
	Because each goal has a very flowery little phrase that describes it.
	But when you get into the policy documents, the public-private partnerships that are responsible for developing the policy that countries are then expected to implement as part of Agenda 2030, then you start to see what it's really about.
	Right?
	And so what we're trying to do is show, you know, pretty much what every sustainable development goal is really about.
	And what they're ultimately about is creating a new financial system that benefits the elite, but not you.
	And centralizing control over everything about your life from the most micro to the most macro.
	You know, it's basically...
	Showing you that this flowery agenda that they're framing is the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
	We need to come together and community, blah, blah, blah, and all of these buzzwords.
	You know, it's obviously about creating, when you look at what's actually going on, it's creating a neo-feudal system.
	So most of us will be serfs and then there'll be the elite technocrats on the top who make all the decisions for everyone's lives.
	And you just have to do what's best for the community, but the community doesn't get any say in it.
	Right.
	That's just the people at the top.
	You gave me a good idea.
	I'm going to tweet it out right after this.
	If one subscribes to the idea of confession through projection, you then understand what they actually mean when they say for the greater good.
	And it ain't for the greater good.
	But Whitney, let me read, if I could, a couple of rubble answers for some questions.
	Denise Antu says, Eric Schmidt that was just elected to the Senate from Missouri.
	No, Eric Schmidt is the former CEO of Google, or Alphabet, which is the parent company of Google.
	And he's an awful human being.
	He's been called by the New York Times the next Henry Kissinger.
	As a compliment or as an insult?
	Apparently as a compliment, if you can believe it.
	But who wants to be called that?
	Pamela Walker says, what happens next?
	Welcome to the Book of Revelations.
	Does Whitney think university is less propaganda than public school?
	Because college kids are coming back totally woke, no good.
	I think it depends on the university you go to and the type of courses you take.
	I think if you're going to take a journalism course, you're probably going to get a lot more propagandized than someone that...
	The majors in something else, I don't know.
	It depends on how much the curriculum prioritizes critical thinking and you developing your own analysis, independent analysis of a set of facts.
	Thankfully, at the school I was at, I was able to do that kind of work and develop those skills, but I don't think that's necessarily true in a lot of universities today.
	It depends a lot on the professor, really.
	If the professor only wants to hear you in essays, regurgitate back to them their own views, otherwise they fail you, then you'll just start regurgitating their own views.
	You won't be thinking outside the box or thinking on your own.
	And I think at a lot of universities that tends to happen, you have these more activist professors that aren't there so much to, you know, help you develop your skills along your own intellectual journey.
	They're there to impose the results of their personal intellectual journey onto their students.
	Which is obviously very different, and in my opinion, really against the spirit of what university-level education should be.
	Right?
	And probably was decades and decades and decades ago.
	But yeah, I definitely see that there's a lot of propaganda aimed at young people today, specifically the ones related to the WEF agendas.
	If you look at, you know, like WEF training slides and stuff, they talk about focusing on the youth.
	And I mean, if you think about like Kamala Harris, her Freudian, not so Freudian slip, I guess, the other day, where she's like, what do we know about the age group between 18 and 24 or something like that?
	And she's like, they're stupid!
	Ha ha ha!
	You know?
	I mean, they don't have as much real-world experience, and if they're being told, these are the bad guys, this is true, and look at these anti-science, anti-whatever people, you should hate them, you know, a lot of them will.
	A lot of them will.
	But they don't really look at the deeper facets of the movements and propaganda narratives that are being put out in front of them for them to eat up, you know?
	Anyway, that's a lot more complicated discussion, especially if we get into stuff like modern environmentalism and the idea that humanity is the problem and humanity's population size needs to be reduced.
	And, you know, models from the past like limits to growth and the population bomb from the 70s and 60s that were never accurate or true, but they still repeat those same.
	Talking points today.
	And, you know, I mean, there's just a bunch of stuff that we could get into, but it would take a while to unpack.
	Hopefully you'll come back because...
	And also you can't give it all away because you have to...
	You got to save this jewels of information for your platform.
	If you come back, please, because there's more to talk about.
	One...
	I can't even read.
	Critical Thought says...
	Thought spelled the internet way.
	David, will you ask Mrs. Webb her preferred venue for people to purchase her book?
	Does it matter or do you...
	It doesn't really matter to me.
	I mean, get whatever is cheaper.
	So there's like, or whatever you prefer.
	Like some people don't like the electronic version, even though that's cheaper and they want the physical copy.
	If you want the physical copy and you're in the continental US or close to there, it's probably a good idea to buy directly from the publisher, which is trineday.com.
	Like if you want both books, they have a bundle where you can get both physical copies of volume one and volume two for reduced price than buying them both separately.
	But if you want, you can buy it from Amazon.
	I mean, you can buy it.
	From whatever.
	But, you know, if you buy through Amazon, right, a chunk of that money is going to go to Jeff Bezos.
	And if you buy from the publisher, it won't.
	So, I mean, it's really up to you when it comes to those kind of decisions.
	Like, I'm not going to tell people what to do.
	I just would like that people read it, whatever that ends up being, you know.
	But there's an e-book version that you can get from wherever.
	There's a Kindle version for people that have Kindle and do that through Amazon.
	And like I mentioned earlier in the program, there's an audio book due out in January.
	Fantastic.
	And last question.
	You don't strike me as being the type of person who's going to hypothesize on something that you have not looked into yet.
	What do you think happened to Seth Rich from Matt G. Hammond?
	Okay, so I didn't investigate the Seth Rich stuff very much, but I mean, it's obviously very sus.
	And then you had Seymour Hersh admit that he was the source of those DNC emails that were later published by WikiLeaks.
	It's hard to know.
	Once again, I tend to be very skeptical of official stories when it comes to people that do that sort of stuff that Seth Rich, according to someone as credible and Pulitzer Prize winning as Seymour Hersh said, if he really was that, like Seymour Hersh claims.
	Yeah, I'd be skeptical about the claim that his death and murder was not related to those events.
	A 4 a.m. murder robbery that...
	Didn't take his wallet, right?
	Didn't take his wallet or watch.
	Whitney, this has been eye-opening for some.
	It will be blackpilling for others, but I do like the white pill moment.
	Will you come back on and talk about other stuff?
	The FTX, once you're done with that and put that info out, you'll come back and discuss FTX.
	Sure.
	Yeah, I have a podcast out right now, actually, that I had two guests, Marty Bent and Mike Krieger, that you can go listen to on my podcast, which is called Unlimited Hangout.
	You can find it wherever podcasts are, really.
	I'm putting all of your links in the pinned comment on both YouTube and Rumble.
	Okay.
	Flip me those afterwards, and I'll pin them, because yes.
	Sure, but I have a new investigation coming out that's about some of the under-the-hood stuff of FTX that I haven't seen covered anywhere else, and it should be important.
	It ties in FTX to some of the entities and groups we have discussed today.
	I could stay here all day, but I feel like I'm stealing from your brain.
	I'll put the links up.
	Whitney?
	Thank you.
	I mean, amazing stuff.
	Stick around here.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone in the chat, I will see you.
	I think I'm going to be going live later today with Sean Hartman, whose son passed away after getting the vaccination in Canada.
	That's going to be at 6.30.
	But Whitney, this has been phenomenal.
	All of Whitney's links are going to be pinned so you can find them.
	Whitney, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone in the chat, thank you.

▲