Music.
Welcome back to Unlimited Hangout. I'm your host, Whitney Webb in the last episode, we were joined by John Titus to discuss the outside influence of Blackrock on us, government, fiscal policy, especially during crises, and how this phenomenon is completely unaffected by which US political party is in
power. In that discussion, we also noted how things are unlikely to change anytime soon, with Kamala economic team run by Blackrock veterans and Trump having personally given free rein to Blackrock Larry Fink Trump's former personal money manager, to essentially design the US government's fiscal response during the COVID 19 crisis, which was, of course,
wanton money printing. Such sentiments were recently reflected by Fink himself, who was quoted by the Financial Times earlier this week as saying that quote really doesn't matter. End quote, for financial markets, Fink also stated that quote, I'm tired of hearing. This is the biggest election in your lifetime. The reality is, over time, it doesn't matter. We work with both administrations and are having conversations
with both candidates. End quote, Fink's recent statements are a surprisingly honest admission with the US presidential
election cycle. This year, it has been truly remarkable to see so many people who previously espoused rejecting the two party paradigm, especially during COVID, insisting that voting for one of the two parties is once again the only way to prevent the worst of the two evils from occupying the White House, reminding people that both parties are corrupt and showing them the repeated patterns all continue regardless of which party wins the White House or the legislature, is met with
angry rebuttals of how such facts are black pilling and offer no hope. I would argue instead that it offers no hopium, the political drug that keeps Americans plugged into the political spectacle, while the close network of oligarchs that funds both parties continue to steal our money and our freedom, using our money to finance Killing Fields abroad and to build a digital prison that will separate us from them, the livestock from the ranchers, despite the accusations of black
pilling and offering no hope or solutions. Accurately depicting our political reality is nothing of the sort. It is, in fact, a
key requisite to actually solving the problems we face. If we believe that the only obstacle to forging a better world is ensuring that that one very, very terrible political party doesn't get back in the White House, our solutions to problems will be focused around voting once every four years for the candidate who says the thing and that both candidates ultimately offer the same overarching policy agenda and whose real differences are largely related to their sale
pitches for those same policies. We know the solution lies not in choosing directly. It is an attractive lie that the right person in the right place will magically rid the country and the world of its ills. But while attractive for many, a lie is a lie and will do nothing more than provide continued cover for the deceivers who have largely created the problems we now
face. Joining me to discuss these issues and more is James Corbett of The Corbett Report. James, who is surely well known to my audience, is an award winning investigative journalist who has hosted the corporate report since 2007 which has produced documentaries, podcasts and more on a variety of topics.
He is a true veteran of the independent media space, and he has remained consistent in his views and analysis now for decades, and is, at least in my case, one of the voices I continue to trust the most for fact based, level headed analysis of current events. James is a returning guest to the unlimited hangout podcast, and it is my pleasure to welcome him back. Great to have you back on the podcast, James, how are things with you? Things
are wonderful. Thank you for having me here, and I'm happy to be on the program once again to discuss incredibly important things. I don't know if you noticed, but the world is getting crazier and crazier. So I'm here to talk about it.
Yeah, and it seems like some people are getting crazier too. Because, you know, election season wouldn't be complete without, you know, fervor of, you know, each different flavor of political party in their their acolytes getting very excited and also very agitated about, uh, what they expect to come. Isn't that fun? So is there anything about this iteration of us, the US, presidential political spectacle, that you find unique compared to previous cycle this time, I would
not use the word unique to describe the phenomenon that you're described, that you're talking about there, because I mean, the only thing that truly is a marvel, and something that I every time kind of gobsmacks me is that just when I think there can be no possible way to lure people back into the voting booth, yet again, to leave their suggestion in the slave vote a suggestion box, there is always, always some new twist, some some spin on it that makes it the most. Most important selection
of your lifetime, this selection being no different. So yes, I'm constantly amazed at the way that they keep inventing narratives that puts spin on something that people have done all their life and received absolutely no tangible benefit from. Have seen no genuine change in course, in terms of their life, but they will continue to do it. So that's really the only surprising thing to me, is that they continue to find different ways of reframing essentially what is always the
same narrative. You get to choose between which Deep State master will lead over you, or at least whichever puppet will be installed in the Oval Office as we again think about what has happened this year, as it has been unveiled to the public, who apparently, mostly were unaware of it. Yeah, you know that guy who's sitting in the Oval Office? He's not really running anything. He's not really home. There's no one there, so who is
actually running things? Wow, I don't know who cares. Now, go back to the voting booth and select the next puppet to be placed in the Oval Office. Again, when you really look at what has happened this year, it's, it's pretty amazing, but here we are yet again. So that that, to me, is the ultimate magic trick is to get people to continue to vote in these meaningless selection processes. Well, I
think that's that's the goal. I think if people were to actually not participate, that's what they really fear. So I think they've done their best to invent new circumstances and situations and aspects of the spectacle that, I guess, keep people entertained enough, or sucked in enough or or something like that, to keep people or to, you know, bring people that may have left the fold during COVID, or, you know, something like
that, sort of back in. And I think also, you know, an aspect that of why this may be is related to how like social media, and also like independent media has developed, and sort of this collapse of mainstream media credibility with the public, and how a lot of these people and so called independent media now or that aren't ostensibly part of the mainstream, but were and are now, quote, unquote independent people like, you know, Tucker Carlson, for example, the role
of the importance of over fact, and you know, some of the things that have been going on in this particular media sphere and how that feeds sort of the hopium phenomenon that I know you've written a lot about. So I don't know if you have any thoughts on you know why this? Some of the things that have happened that have allowed people to be sucked back in to this, this cycle that you know, as you noted, invariably has the same results no matter what happens?
Yes, I do have some thoughts on that. And in fact, I, as you may or may not know, I've looked at the phenomenon of mass media and its development over the course of centuries, because that, to me, really is one of the driving factors in political, cultural, social organization, perhaps one of the like fish not realizing that they're swimming in water. We don't realize that we are essentially swimming in media in
a mediated age like the one we're living in. So I see it on an almost structural level, the disintegration of the mass media has been the disintegration of spectacle, shared spectacle, which was the creation of a shared culture, which presumably we can all go back to our earlier years, maybe even our childhood, to remember there were that. There was the time when everyone knew the the big movie that was playing right now. Everyone saw the big sports game that happened last night.
Everybody saw that that episode of Friends or Seinfeld, or whatever it was, and everyone could talk about that, as has been noted time and time again, that shared culture is disintegrating as people have branched out on the internet and are now in their little bubbles. But I would say that the one uniting shared spectacle that still exists that really brings everyone back to the table is the political spectacle. And there really is an overlap between business, show business,
and politics that is undeniable at this point. I mean, people used to joke about Ronald Reagan and, you know, Hollywood actors being in positions of political power. Well, now we have, I mean, the parody of that even. What is that? It's reality TV star Donald Trump lining up to get back in the Oval Office.
It's I just find that interesting that really politics has become the spectacle again, but on the the note of the the mainstream alternative media that has developed over the past, certainly over the past few years really consolidated, and interestingly consolidated around social media platforms like rumble, which I know, you know, is, of course, funded by people like Peter Thiel. So it always swirls back around the same individuals. Yes,
it was also taken public by Howard lutnic of cantor. Fitzgerald, and he is a very interesting figure. He was Jeffrey Epstein's neighbor, and two years before 911 He is quoted in, I forget what newspaper, but a major newspaper, saying, I can't wait to replace my whole trading floor with E speed. And then on 911 the company with the highest death count is Cantor Fitzgerald, interesting,
interesting guy. One of those things that line up. Yes, I just find it interesting that that platforms like rumble and increasingly Twitter slash x have been the congregating place for a lot of these mainstream alternative media figures who have made their their their bona fides in the minds of the public by being in some way taken off of their media, mainstream media platforms, in some way marginalized, so that they can
cry. Well, we've been censored, so therefore, you know, we're true and hey, you can catch us on rumble or Twitter or what have you, which is an interesting part of this, but you also raise the specter of hopium, and I think that's an incredibly important part of understanding this political spectacle and the function that it has in our society here in the 21st century, and for people who are unfamiliar with the concept I am I certainly obviously cannot claim to have
coined that term, but I do think that there has been a market uptick in use of that term Since I released my hopium episode several years ago, back when I was still on YouTube, if I remember correctly. So the concept is that there is a real thing called Hope, which is a beautiful and important part of the human experience that we do need hope, which is a vision for the future that will compel us and impell us towards reaching out, doing new things, trying, trying new things, trying to
extend ourselves. That is hope, and it is a beautiful thing that is part of the human experience, and we need that. But unfortunately, the political spectacle comes along with its hopium, which is the synthetic substitute for actual hope, which in the exact same way that, for example, opioids will give people the simulacrum of happiness. It isn't an actual happiness, and once that starts to wear off, they'll need a bigger fix, and they will realize it's ruining their
lives. I think similarly, the political spectacle is the simulacrum of actual action in the real world. No, you don't have to actually do anything. You don't have to build anything or create anything. You just flip a lever, you just push a button, you vote for a candidate, and that is your action in the world. And then you go back to sleep for a couple of years. And that, unfortunately, is the function
of hopium, and unfortunately, it works extremely well. And I, in the episode that I did, I framed that around the Q anon phenomenon, which, as people may or may not remember, one of the key messages of Q anon was, sit back and enjoy the show. Well, of course, exactly it is a political spectacle. You are meant to be in the audience, sitting there as a participant, watching things unfold. And if they can get you in that position, you will be absolutely no threat whatsoever to the status quo.
You know, what's interesting is, um, as we've seen, you know, something like Bitcoin, for example, become a political
issue. The same ideology that you just laid out that's sort of behind Q Anon, sort of like, sit back and trust the plan is also being promoted to Bitcoiners, being told that just let Larry Fink and Wall Street have their way, or a future Trump or whatever administration with Bitcoin, even if it, you know, makes it serve the state and Wall Street and doesn't benefit financial freedom and what have you, because Bitcoin is a Trojan horse, and it's so great and amazing that as long as you hold
on to it and do absolutely nothing with it, and do absolutely nothing to ensure that it will be all the things you want it to be, and let it be Larry Fink's play thing, it will Trojan horse the whole system from the inside, and destroy think and destroy the bankers and all of this stuff. So it's interesting to see how that same, the prop, the efforts to propagate that mentality are now, you know, have now kind of
spread well beyond the Q anon phenomena, I guess. And I also think it's interesting as it relates to hopium, this, this cycle, at least, that it seems like this cycle more than previous ones. There has been an effort to suck in libertarians and people sort of of that political bent into into hopium. And it's been, I think I'd actually kind of started before
this election really picked up steam in the US. I think it's kind of started with Javier Malay in Argentina, this idea that, Oh, a libertarians and president, and he's going to do all of these things. But really, the track record of Malay thus far doesn't necessarily line up with that, you know, like putting JP Morgan bankers that used to run Argentina's, you know, debt slavery model for that bank, you know, and to run the economy, among other things. So do you have any thoughts
about that? Because I know that you you know. At even though you're a voluntary you subscribe to volunteerism. Over the years there have you've definitely been influential in libertarian circles, so I'm curious about your thoughts.
Yes, well, I guess it really does come down to one's definition of libertarian, but the idea of libertarian that I understand does not have anything to do with what is often put under that rubric, or put under that name. And I think the prime example of that is, well, again, a subject you will know if, if gates is most amazing PR move was to turn himself into a philanthropist here in the 21st century,
through the wonderful efforts of his eponymous foundation. Then Peter thiel's greatest PR maneuver has been to get himself branded as a libertarian and to have people unquestionably calling call him that for the last few decades, when really all of his maneuvers have been what I would say is in the exact
opposite direction of anything resembling libertarianism. For example, absolutely obviously, he's made his a large portion of his fortune directly, actively colluding with the deep state in setting up surveillance and targeting systems to be used against the public, which he then used that wealth to leverage into political power through, of course, Ted Cruz and JD Vance, he was an important Part of the Trump transition team, and I had his own office in Trump Tower, got people
installed in the in the White House, and, of course, a steering committee member of Bilderberg. So yeah, this is, I don't know what universe you could reside in, in which this is the libertarian, but that is, that is the way this label is applied. So I think anytime someone is throwing that label around as a pejorative, I would just like to get them to get
some sort of definition on the table. Again. I'm sure many different people will have different definitions, but there is no definition I can imagine in which Peter Thiel would fit that label.
Well, it's truly astounding, too, when you consider that supposedly one of the cornerstones of libertarian ideology is the importance of the free market. And Peter Thiel is on record saying that free market competition is for losers, and that you should find a niche and corner it and build a monopoly. And when he's tried to do that, he builds that monopoly directly with, as you noted, you know, national
security agencies overtly with Palantir, but also PayPal. You know, PayPal co founder Max Levchin has said on the record that when they were creating PayPal, they went to every three letter agency that would talk to them and setting up their
business. So, you know, I think that's that's pretty telling as well, and that's certainly not a libertarian right and so I but I think there's also an effort in that to use teal and some of these other people to sort of rebrand libertarianism and have it really be what, you know, I mean, essentially what teal has done is corporatism, and his definition of capitalist, he says, as someone who just accrues capital. So the most successful capitalists or, you know, the fat cats on top of
everything. And obviously capital, you know, accruance is not equitable, you know. And so I think sort of, his idea of a capitalist sounds a lot like Neo feudalism, maybe Mussolini style, corporatism, which, you know, is fascism, and certainly not libertarianism. He's definitely not interested in drinking the state. So speaking
of Mussolini, it was one of Mussolini's teachers, Vilfredo Perrito, who, well at any rate, seems to have convinced Mussolini to move away from socialism and towards an elitist mindset, who seems to have been rehashed and rebranded for our 21st century by poli sci 101 level masterminds who have taken his theory of the circulation of elites and are running with that. And essentially, Pareto had a sociological idea for the
organization of society. He He essentially thought there were elites and non elites, and he would define that in perhaps meritocratic terms, there are people who are just more capable will achieve more in their life, et cetera. And those are the elites. And there are governing elites and non governing elites. And he was specifically interested in governing elites so people who were in positions of power, who were unusually above average in competence and intelligence and what have you.
And these people are essentially going to be the ruling class, but there will be, there will be different factions of ruling class, and some will be more amenable to the interests of the general public, and some will be more voracious and then appeasing their own appetites at the expense of the public. And so essentially, it is the public's job to become followers
and to throw their support behind this or that leader. Our choice is to get to choose which faction of the elites we will support, and from that well, we could see, you see Trump and the people surrounding him are, they're the good elites who are on the. People's side and the evil people surrounding Harris there. Or flip it if you happen to be a Democrat persuasion, it's the good elites on the Harris side and the bad elites,
whatever you want to say about it. But that is essentially the sociological idea that is being propounded right now as one way to bring people back into that circus, to observe the political spectacle.
Yes, and it's interesting that when this this talking point, began to circulate, the idea of we must back our elites over the terrible lefty elites or whatever, that also someone like Mark Zuckerberg. I don't know if you're aware he attempted to rebrand as a libertarian recently grew at his hair a little bit. Said, Trump looked badass, quote, unquote, after the first assassination as a libertarian and had a new look to go with it and all of that. Very interesting. Of course, all
of these Silicon Valley nerds were billionaires, were libertarian. That was the founding ethos of Silicon Valley, which we know, of course, is a lie. Silicon Valley was founded through military and intelligence agencies. That's what it was. It was an adjunct US military industrial complex. But the mythos that were fed is that it was just a bunch of barefoot sandal wearing hippie dippie garage Tinker Exactly. Garage tinkerers libertarian in their ethos, they they were,
they were the techno libertarians. They thought that tech, technology would free us and create this wonderful direct democracy and all of that whatever. Anyway, people know that. And I think Zuckerberg is trying to play into and tap into that. But Zuckerberg mentally a minion of the teal verse. I mean, obviously teal, absolutely, was an incredibly was the founding angel investor who stepped in and made Facebook into what it was. And Zuckerberg has always looked up to teal and
always listened to him. And I think we have to see him as as some sort of proxy for for teal and his interests at this point, absolutely, we could go back, for example, I believe it was 2016 in which Zuckerberg, for example, held a conference with a bunch of right wing media pundits at that time to try to say, you know, look, Facebook isn't we're not censoring conservatives. We'll talk to anyone. And how can we jigger our algorithms to make it better for you guys. And of course,
then suddenly you get daily wire and outlets like that. Yeah. But
what's interesting is that, you know, since the 2016 election, he was kind of a boogeyman of the right, but now that dealverse is sort of about to come back into likely into power. He's He's rebranded this way, but I don't know. We'll see
if it actually works on Trump's base or not. But you know, as such, as we've noted earlier, a lot of people are more gullible than perhaps we had anticipated since a lot of people expressed, you know, discussed at the two parties, you know, in lockstep throughout the world on things like COVID and some other issues
related to global technocracy. So since we're talking about Zuckerberg and we've talked a little bit about Twitter, but not so much about musk, I own this cycle compared to previous cycles, particularly because Twitter, of course, is now owned by musk, who is very overtly backing a particular candidate and has particular ambitions for Twitter, which is essentially to turn Twitter, or x, as it's now called, into a digital bank that essentially will quote, unquote, pay its users by monetizing the
human behavioral data farm that Twitter is. And how perhaps, you know, some of the I think it's had an outsized influence on, you know, the mainstream alternative media, as you referred to it earlier, some of these voices on Twitter that have sort of become dependent on Twitter monetization and the algorithm and sort of doing things that Musk likes in order to get more clicks and views and things like that. Yes,
the musk slash dark Maga phenomenon. I I think I am on the side of of Ryan Christian, last American Vagabond on this I think Musk is laughing at the dark mega followers who really believe this act that he seems to be putting on right now. And I think it is a political act that he is engaged in right now.
Keep in mind, this is the same Musk who quit one of Trump's advisory committees back in 2000 I want to say 2017 2018 because Trump ended the Paris Accords. So this is, this is now the man who's, of course, was a darling of the left for so long, and is now suddenly rebranded and is completely the other way. I don't trust him. As far as I could throw him, and I probably couldn't throw him that far. That far, so make of that what you will. I think Musk is in it to protect his own interests,
and I think that's what he's doing. And it is interesting that Twitter has as you be, as you say, has become this space in which you have to act and. Say things in a certain way in order to tickle Musk's fancy in particular in just the right way, so that he can help promote, or at the very least not crack down on your particular channel. But speaking of crackdown, I think that could be one way that this plays out.
For example, one could well imagine how, just as in 2016 the predominant narrative that that came out of that was, Oh, my God, you know, Facebook and Russian hackers stole the election. One could imagine a situation in which it's, it's look at this rampant chaos on Twitter has caused this horrible divide in our society. And if Harris gets into power, one could imagine that would be the the, at least the fig leaf for justification of further crackdown on free speech on the
internet generally. So there's a lot of ways that this can play out. And I don't know what game Musk is playing in all of this, but I, as I say, I don't think I trust I don't trust that he's had some sort of political conversion in the past few years. I think he's just playing whatever side will be most convenient to him. And as again, as I'm sure you know, it isn't just JD Vance. Isn't just a product of teal. Apparently, Musk made his support of the Trump campaign conditional on JD
Vance being the VP pick as well. So whatever, whatever supposed riff there is between teal and musk, it doesn't obviously mean much at the end of the day, as they're both puppeteering the same puppets. Well,
I think they're, you know, teal and, or rather, you know, teal and the network of people around him, including people like Palmer lucky and anderil and then musk, I think, are meant to be sort of the next generation of pentagon and, you know, military intelligence contractors, which, of course, you know Musk is now with Starlink and SpaceX and all of that. But then you have, you know, and drill, which is funded by Thiel and Palmer. Lucky, he had a field Thiel fellowship.
He's very close to Peter Thiel building the virtual border wall that Trump supports over a physical barrier, which previously, before the 2016 election, was the Democrats policy suggestion for securing the southern border in the US. What do you know? And I think there's also this talking point that's been being circulated throughout the media sphere
that's popular, popular with Trump's base. You know, Eric Prince has sort of rebranded and become this very anti establishment figure now, even though, you know, he's a CIA death squad leader or was and he essentially, what he argues is, you know, Raytheon and all of these military contractors are inefficient and waste a lot of money, which is true, but his idea is essentially to use AI and a lot of these other AI powered companies, like defense contractors that are connected
to teal or or Musk to do that instead and sort of replace, he doesn't overtly say that, but it's sort of the argument that's being made, right? The argument that Andrew makes that like we're the answer to Raytheon, yeah. So it's very fact
this was one of the one of the narratives of what really happened in 2016 the 2016 selection cycle is again, as I'm sure you're well familiar with teal, in his Trump transition role, was able to implant, for example, former quote, unquote, former Palantir staffers and advise and consultants in the Pentagon, for example, Chief of Staff and one of The senior advisors to the then defense secretary, Jim Mattis, was ex Palantir, and of course, it was just what a year or two later
that the Pentagon finally relented on a proposal that Palantir had been putting forward for years. At that point, to have open contract bidding on contracts that had, I believe, were formerly locked down by Lockheed Martin, but they wanted an open, open bidding process, and they got
that. And of course, Palantir ends up getting the biggest contract of their entire company history, $800 million with the Pentagon as a direct result of that, just a coincidence, I'm sure, just with all of the ex Palantir staffers swarming
around the Pentagon. And so yes, the attempt to essentially supplant the old military industrial complex and replace it with the sort of the teal verse version of that is definitely one of the reasons I think that there has been such heavy investment in this selection cycle by the teal verse.
Yes, I think it's interesting too, because the argument is not no is no longer no more wars, no more illegal wars, or no more wasting taxpayer money on war. It's use taxpayer money more efficiently to in AI to kill more people faster. It's essentially what the argument seems Yes, and in fact, and there's even been calls to put Eric Prince in charge of the Pentagon. I mean, it's mind boggling that we're at a point where that can be suggested and not just like laugh, yeah,
well, I want to laugh because I cannot believe or accept that that will happen. But it may. And I think you've just touched on one of the most important parts, uh, that. I think, quite clearly expose the fact of the hopium, of the political spectacle that is taking place around us that will not change people's lives significantly. Is, you're exactly right. The the 2016 campaign trail Trump, who was talking about, you know, ending NATO, and all of that, of
course, was instantly replaced by actual President Trump. No, NATO is great. We're supporting it more than ever, and all of that, but more so the the old rhetoric, as you say, about, oh, we don't need wars of foreign aggression. And all of that has been completely and utterly supplanted. And is the prime example of that is, of course, the Israel issue. And show me the, show me the presidential candidate who's going to go against Israel, and is going to, in any way question the US
Israel military relationship of there is none. And perhaps the only real difference is who will be running the Pentagon contracts to help supply the Israeli war machine and its genocide in Gaza. And that's the only question. And I guess you know it's going to be lavender, AI and Palantir, and I
think it's going to be Palantir either way. I mean, the the Director of National Intelligence, the top intelligence official in the Biden administration, Avril Haines, is, was a long time consultant to Palantir. Well,
there you go. Before definitely ties to both parties, yeah. So, you know, that's obviously very unfortunate, and it seems like yes, every candidate, including the quote, unquote independent candidates that have now, you know, like Kennedy, that have now endorsed Trump, um, have been very overt about, you know, essentially, um, you know, let's disappear and eliminate Palestine in the Palestinians. And there seems to be a competition, basically, with who will enable Israel's war with
Iran first and allow the US to be involved. And for some reason, there's people that claim to be against the Neo cons and all of this, but are seem to have forgotten that the whole one of the main tenets of Neo conservatism, if not the main one, is to align US foreign policy with Israeli foreign policy or regional policy goals,
which, let's not forget, is for Greater Israel, the construction of a state that has been proposed at various times, but formulated, for example, in internal Israeli government documents from the 1980s that were calling for, say such things as the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, which would eventually lead to Domino's falling in places like Syria and Lebanon and Iran, oh, exactly as has been playing out
over the past couple of decades. I wonder why that is well, of course, this is a plan, and unfortunately, as you say, no one is even hinting at the idea that it could be possible to broach the subject of perhaps having an open question about whether the US should be supporting this. No candidate is even willing to put that on the table.
Yeah, and it's kind of mind boggling to me too that now if you are to say publicly, for example, I do not want to vote for either of the war criminals running, you are told by people that you know, you're terrible, essentially, that's a lot of, maybe it's just Twitter, I don't know. And you know how it is with, you know, Musk running it and all that, all that, because he's also been made it very clear that he supports what
Israel is doing. But, you know, it's kind of mind boggling that, you know, well, I don't know if I would really say that, because a few years ago, when I worked at mint press news, I wrote an
op ed called during the early Trump administration. It was called the US has become a nation of passive Neo cons, and basically talked about how, after the Iraq War, protests and also protests about like Occupy Wall Street, things like that, the there's been a massive effort to cultivate passivity in the population and make us become enablers of the neocon agenda. And I don't know, it just seems like that has reached
the ultimate end goal, perhaps. I mean, you had people on the left cheering for it, you know, the war in Ukraine, and let's get Putin and then you have people, you know, cheering for essentially, war with Iran. Now's the time. Do I strike a strike Iran? Because Hezbollah is weak, and Hamas has been practically eliminated, blah, blah. And, I mean, it's mind
boggling how successful of a rebrand it has been. And then the idea that, like, oh, Dick Cheney backed Kamala Harris, that means that's the neocon party, and there's no Neo cons in the other party. I mean, it's the talking points that are going around are truly mind boggling. And I think part of it is also related to this effort to sort of alter the definition of what the quote, unquote, Deep State is along partisan lines.
So for example, on the left, it seems like the term Deep State just means, oh, anyone that uses that term is a conspiracy and a qtard and all of these things. And so I shouldn't take them seriously, the fact that they're even though, you know, of course, the deep, deep the term right that refers to the unelected bureaucracy, the unelected officials that allow policy to continue no matter what party is. And often. This. But to the right, it seems like the deep state refers to elected
officials of the other party. So you know, people like Biden and Kamala Harris are the deep state, and that, as long as we prevent them from coming back, you know, we win and all and all of this stuff. So I'm curious about your, your thoughts about this successful effort to rebrand Neo conservativism under different names. I guess perhaps now libertarianism, it's now libertarian, maybe. Or, you know, some of these, these efforts to sort of weaponize the the deep state. Yes,
it's a good point. I think you've kind of hit the nail on the head. Because, yes, I think to anyone on the right side of the political spectrum, anyone on the left side is the deep state, and to the people on the left the if you talk about the deep state, you're you're a coug, and so you don't belong in
polite society. However, I will say that there is another aspect to that, which is I, for example, back in 2016 I wrote an editorial on Deep State rising, the mainstreaming of the shadow government, where I noted the curious phenomenon at that time. Specifically, it was January of 2016 so before Trump was even a blip on the political radar, really, you started to get all
of this mainstream media coverage of the deep state. You had books, Deep State inside the government, secrecy, industry and the deep state, the fall of the Constitution and the rise of a shadow government, you had articles at Salon, salon.com not known for its, you know, right wing conspiracy theorizing, as well as outlets like the American Conservative it was talked about by mainstream financial analysts at the time Bill Moyers had a guest on talking about the anatomy of the
Deep State. The Boston Globe was talking about the secret government that won't change no matter who you vote for. The New York Times was talking about America's establishment has embraced the deep state. The World Bank on its blog was talking about, it was a bizarre time, well, but and so I was at the time, I was just pondering, what does what does this mean? Why are they bringing this, this term, into public consciousness
at this particular time. Because, as we know, anyone who has actually studied this issue, know that in essentially, the person who spearheaded the research into the deep state phenomenon, deep politics in the English language, at least, was Peter Dale Scott who had imported it, obviously from from Turkish, where there there was the whole sister link incident that exposed the Turkish Deep State, and that's where the term
was really originating from. But it talked about that nexus of power between military and mobsters and government and drug runners and all of that, and so that, that's the deep politics and deep state that people like Peter Dale Scott were researching and writing about it, seemingly in the wilderness for decades. And so suddenly, in 2015 2016 it suddenly started to emerge into mainstream talking as a talking point. And then, interestingly, as Trump took power, I wouldn't even, I
shouldn't even say that. It's a ridiculous way of putting it. As Trump sat in the Oval Office. Suddenly, the narrative started to emerge. Yes, there is a deep state. It's just this sort of everyday bureaucrats and workers that staff all these different agencies. And don't worry, guys, there were, of course, several op eds and editorials being written in major mainstream newspapers about Yes, the deep state exists, and it's a good thing, because these are the bureaucrats who aren't going to
go crazy. They're not going to go with whatever mega is saying and whatever Trump tells them to do. They're the people who are in charge. So don't worry about it. And I think that really became to the extent that the left will talk about Deep State, I think that is the way that they are meant to see it now is don't worry the deep state is just the regular bureaucrats and
staffers who sit there at their desks all day. But no for again, for people who have actually researched this, read Peter Dale Scott and people like that, Alfred McCoy talking about the politics of heroin and things like this that talk about the connection between intelligence, military, drug runners, mobsters, government officials. Read your book, right? Obviously, I mean, this
has been about, this is essentially the same thing. Yes, it all goes back to the
same nexus of power. Because really, when we really start to look at it, we start to understand that the political
spectacle is a spectacle that is meant to divert attention. And I've, I've made the analogy a few times to the president of the galaxy or the president of the universe in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Zaphod Beeblebrox, who is this ridiculous character who, in the context of the story, is literally just meant to essentially divert the public's attention from the people who are actually making decisions so that they can get along with the boring business of, you know,
ruling the galaxy, while this crazy person is the person that everyone in the galaxy is actually watching. And I really do think that that is essentially where we've arrived, where the person in the Oval Office, or the person vying for the Oval Office, that that is the spectacle that is, diverts our attention from the people who are actually. Wielding power still largely in the shadows, even though the term Deep State has in some way been mainstream,
yeah, well, I think it's also been weaponized to an extent too, but I don't know. It's definitely a key part in of some of the political psyops going on right now. I want to turn to something that I think is kind of unique to Trump, as opposed to the other party, in this sense, and I think part of it is related to efforts to maintain the illusion that he's anti establishment, when, of course, his policy record, and even his what the policy, the few policies he actually
campaigns on show is inaccurate. But there's sort of this phenomena of canceling, right? That's been going on the past few years. And this idea of like can, it seems to me that there's been an effort to use quote, unquote, canceling to create basically controlled assets that poses anti establishment. And it makes me think of sort of the World Economic Forum that their meetings. And in the wake of COVID 19, we're all about a
couple years in a row. Actually, we're about rebuilding trust with the public, and it seems like, at least by doing that with the with, you know, right leaning Americans who, of course, have the guns, have been a major focus of like, trying to sort of pacify them and have them rally around, you know, Trump is the person who's going to save everything and ensure that the people that are armed, you know, stay in their
armchairs and stay docile. And I think it's interesting how, you know, basically, by, by sort of having this whole narrative that, oh, the deep state, or these people, these powerful people, hate Trump, Bill Gates, Reid Hoffman, hate Trump so much. You know, people like that. It's sort of in as well as Q anon have sort of absolved Trump of really having to be either held account to any of his past policies or really having to campaign on policy at all. It's more just, you know,
don't you see these people hate him. Why do they hate him so much? You know, obviously he's doing something right, but not necessarily right, like, if you're an intelligence agency, for example, and you know, you can make someone appear anti establishment and get quote, unquote anti establishment Americans to trust them, just by, like, having some sort of big canceling events, you know. And that's the lowest bar you need to meet. It's actually a quite easy bar to meet, right?
I certainly, yeah, I certainly don't think that Trump would be smart enough to even play such a role. But I absolutely agree that that is essentially the function of the the the over the top, demonization of the Trump phenomenon and What? What? Is happening, creation of the Whoa, here's the rogue Maverick that will say the things that you can't be said, and we can't control them guys. And when he gets, if he gets into power, oh, my god, it'll be so bad for the
deep state. Uh oh, he's gonna, he's gonna put into the digital border wall with the digital ID. And he'll, he'll start, you know, he'll bring the cryptocurrency. Don't worry. The good kind, not that. Cbdc, scary kind. It'll be the good kind, etc, etc, yeah,
it'll be the private sector, programmable surveillance money, not the public. It'll be
from Bank of America. You know, what's to worry about? Um, no, that's, that's exactly the best move that could possibly happen from the deep state's perspective. Because, of course, they would like the public to be, to be on board with this agenda, and to think, well, it's coming from this Maverick who's out there to destroy the system. So as one example of how that can play out, for example, I mentioned back after that Facebook meeting, back in I think 2016 Don't worry, guys,
we're listening. We're not censoring conservatives. We're boosting conservatives. And suddenly outlets like the daily wire start get to get boosted in the Facebook algorithm. It's precisely because they know daily wire is going to be
within, at least within the Overton window. And yeah, they may be on the right side of that Overton window, but they're certainly not going to be talking about 911 truth or anything, you know, anything remotely resembling something that would truly be a threat to the deep state and powers that shouldn't be so similarly, Trump, again, I don't I honestly, I couldn't imagine that he would be cognizant enough to be able to play a role in all of this, except as they
know that he is going to be playing ball within the system, and that he can be easily led and misled as well. We've just had four years of him being quote, unquote in power to prove exactly that and how he was led along at every at every opportunity and warp speed and the lockdowns and everything took place under Trump. Do you remember that? Well, most people have forgotten it because they remember the character that he is playing more so than the actual things he has done, and
that that really is, that's it. It's a spectacle. Well,
they tend to kind of absolve him of anything he did when he was in power. Last time, oh, it was these people he put in and then later they left power and turned on him. And he won't do that. He won't make those mistakes. Weeks again, this time, even though Howard lutnic and Jared Kushner, yeah,
I was gonna say two words. Jared Kushner, he's gonna be in the Oval Office again. So,
yeah, well, if not overtly, covertly, that's for sure. Um, but I think you know, this effort to sort of manufacture anti establishment credentials for Trump without him actually doing thing, anti establishment really got a big went into overdrive this year with the the assassination attempts and how that has sort of impacted Trump space pretty significantly.
Because there was a before they began. There was a noted, I would say, lack of enthusiasm around Trump, not necessarily, completely unenthusiastic, but it became notably more
enthusiastic after the first one. And of course, you know, there were a couple more minor, I guess you could say iterations of that first one, and people that have looked into the, you know, quote, unquote assassination attempt, as is true for, you know, any sort of high profile shooting in the US generally, the official narrative doesn't pass the sniff test, but I haven't personally looked at it, so I don't want to opine on the specifics of those, but I think the ultimate impact
of them has been pretty significant. Curious about your thoughts on that, because that's sort of different than than previous cycles, I think some sort of assassination attempt or something that people think, yes, one Yeah,
it's certainly an upping of the ante. And it's an upping of the spectacle side of it. What could possibly be more spectacular than the site of an assassination attempt, at any rate, if not an assassination itself. Now I do, I do wonder about the chess moves involved there, because it certainly does seem like absolutely this was a setup scenario where, if the Secret Service had been doing anything resembling its standard protocol, obviously, what we saw take place there would not have
happened at all, obviously. So clearly, whatever happened was made to allowed to engineer to happen in some fashion. But then what would have been the result if Trump was actually if, if it proceeded and Trump was actually assassinated? I'm not sure I know the calculus on that one, but I certainly do know the calculus from the incredible spectacle of seeing someone just almost being assassinated and standing up and saying, fight,
fight, fight with the iconic photograph. All of that, obviously, to burnish it certainly does have the effect of burnishing credentials with people who want to think this is the maverick who's literally taken a bullet from the for the team. This is the man they're going after. So we have to support him even harder. Because if there is anything we learned from the assassination of JFK, for example, it's that, well,
once you've been assassinated, you are a saint on Earth. And I can, I can say that with some degree of authority, because I have attempted to set the record straight a few times on the fact that actually, you know, JFK was not trying to end the Federal Reserve. In fact, he was actually making moves to give the Federal Reserve more power to ultimately end the issuing of the silver certificates that were set by law to happen at
certain prescribed intervals. And he was actually giving power over so that could be ended, etc, etc. I've talked about this, gone through the specific executive orders, things that he's actually written, and I will still get pushback from people who, no, you don't understand. JFK was a saint on earth. He was being assassinated because he was taking down the
deep state. Well, I certainly do think that there is absolutely a connection between what was happening in Vietnam, for example, or his threat to splinter the CIA into 1000 pieces. That doesn't mean everything JFK did was an alloy good. Certainly not, yeah, absolutely. And, I mean, and
he was very blackmailed, had lots of mistresses, all sorts of people knew about it. His vice president was mobbed out the wazoo. LBJ, who later becomes president, right? And, of course, you know, the Kennedy family itself is born out of the same networks that really, you know, the Nexus I talk about in my book of, you know, organize the, basically the organized crime people that became incredibly powerful during the Prohibition era because of bootlegging, later merging with
intelligence agencies. The, you know, Joe Kennedy, the patriarch of the Kennedys was bootlegging and very involved in those same networks, and, you know, obviously a flagrantly illegal activity that helped make his family both, you know,
financially and politically powerful. And I think because of the ease of, sort of, at least the perceived ease of controlling JFK through sex and mistresses and and blackmail, which already, you know, at that point in the 60s, was pretty well established by this particular group, you know, at least a few decades in of their, you know, use heavy use of that to control powerful people. You know, I think, yeah, there is an
effort to sort of. Sanctify Kennedy, sure, and I mean to to an extent, also, you know RFK as well, who obviously was much cleaner than than JFK on things like sex and other things like that. I'm not sure I would say, like,
why are they shared? But beyond that, beyond,
apparently, not as bad, right? Documentable,
playing around with multiple women. But beyond that, RFK was eyeballs deep in the operations to to take out Castro in Cuba, that, of course, Operation mongoose and others that ultimately had some part to play in the assassination itself. And I think that's obviously is that's an important part of the whole story that is really not brought out enough that RFK was intimately involved in plans for staging false flag operations
and others. And although JFK, thankfully didn't sign off on Operation Northwoods, RFK was engineering and directing various operations in Cuba. That, again, is a whole part of the story. RFK was not a clean operator by any means. Well,
definitely not. I mean, really, no one in the family really ever has been, arguably. I think that's become particularly apparent as well with RFK Jr. But what I think is interesting about what we've just discussed in the context of these assassination attempts, quote, unquote, on Trump. I think it's sort of related to, I suspect that there may be sort of mainstream, at least, within the right what had previously
been qanon Talking Points or views. So of course, like Kennedy, the Kennedy clan and family as sort of saints, has definitely been a key part of the Q anon thing, the idea that JFK Jr is JFK
Jr still actually Q. Is that still a thing?
Well, there's, I think there's a lot of theories about Q, you know, I
remember that JFK Jr is literally Q, and he is going to present himself at some rally, some point, I mean, at Dealey
Plaza. And there was a crowd of, like, you know, 60 people waiting for resurrected JFK, Jr, to descend from the clouds and lead them to victory, something like that. Yes, but there's this idea of the Kennedy mythos there that's been propagated. And I think you know the idea of, you know, these assassination attempts, of course, the last you know presidential candidate that was assassinated, you know, it was RFK, if I remember correctly, and it sort of links Trump, in that sense, to the
Kennedys. And then you have RFK Jr endorsing Trump and making comparisons about Trump to, you know, his father and uncle and things like that. And I sort of wonder if there is going to be an effort to sort of mainstream some of the Q and on things. And I say this not just because of what I just laid out, but also because of sort of these figures like Tucker Carlson, for
example. You know, now that he's not on mainstream media has sort of given air time to what would have previously not been allowed on his show at all, what are considered sort of fringe views and not necessarily inaccurate, but some that have been weaponized by key went on, in a sense, so like the idea of, for example, of, you know, pedophiles and power and things like that, absolutely a real phenomena. But you know, Tucker Carlson had like Roseanne Barr on, I believe who went on being
like the Democrats are all pedos and all of this stuff. Well, it's obviously not exclusive to one party, but, you know, airing sort of that out, which had previously, you know, back a few years ago, been seen as a sort of a Q anon thing. And you know, when the Podesta leaks and all that stuff happened, Q anon sort of came out to sort of grab those people that were outraged by some of those related revelations in there. And Tucker's response is just sort of to say nothing and just like,
laugh, you know? So I think it's kind of unusual. And then, you know, Tucker saying, like, oh yeah, yes, there's aliens among us, but they're really demons, and they live underground and all of this stuff. I mean, can you imagine Tucker saying that when he was on Fox? I don't know, and I don't really trust his rebound at all, as I understand that his rebrand has been funded by Peter Thiel, right, his new media operation, sorry, the
name, the term rebrand brings Russell Brand and his sudden Christianity conversion to mind. Yes,
well, it's related. Well, the Christian rebrand of Russell Brand ended up leading him to promote the hallow prayer app, which, lo and behold, is funded by JD, interesting, yeah, a lot of people in Rumble World,
interesting. Well, okay, actually, before we leave the assassination topic, there's another important thing that just occurred to me. One of the ways that assassination can be used, of course, is like the the assassination, assassination attempt on Reagan, which was predicted, remarkably enough, on air by May Brussel. May Brussel, on her program, talked about it 24 hours in advance. There's it looks like there's going to be a
coup taking place in the Reagan White House. And it looks like Alexander Haig and Vice President Bush are are planning something. And then, lo and behold, Hinckley. Goes crazy and ends up shooting Reagan, well
actually, right after having dinner with
the Bucha, yeah, there was, yeah, there's a whole bunch of connections there. And, in fact, there's actually really an interesting analysis that I heard recently about, well, actually, it wasn't Hinckley that was at shooting, etc, etc. Anyway, like, as you say, like with every spectacular shooting event in American politics, that one sticks to high heaven as well. But what was the real upshot of that? Well, one was that on the Dale on the day who actually declared himself in
charge of the US government was Alexander Haig. So interestingly enough, he just assumed charge of the government in those hours when Reagan was out of office. But ultimately, what was that? Of course, it was the threat to Reagan himself. You are not in charge here. And Bush from that point forward, it was the Bush presidency. He was running the White House from the from the VP, absolutely. And I think similarly, think about the the phrase, the phrase we always use one heartbeat away from the
presidency, the VP, right? And if it were to be Trump, who would that be? Of course, it would be JD Vance. And do you think there might have been a message there in this multiple assassination attempts? Hey, you know, you're only as good as your Secret Service protection. And, boy, that can disappear in a hurry. Can it so you better you
should really give vanderel more security contracts. Exactly, right?
Yeah, something like that. Who knows?
Yeah, interesting. Well, I believe after the first assassination attempt, Eric Prince was consulted about security stuff for the Trump campaign. So we'll see how influential he ultimately ends up being, if and when Trump ends up winning, which I honestly think is increasingly likely, given where they want to take things, and also because people seem to be very unaware that Trump, just like Kamala, they agree on so many policy issues we mentioned earlier, biometric
digital ID. Trump is on record saying we need a biometric Entry Exit tracking system in the country. He's pitching it as a solution to mass migration, which is actually what the Tories in the UK did recently. They pitched digital ID as a solution to illegal immigration, and of course, now it's a labor government, and they're pitching the same thing, but it will stop online hate speech and cyber bullying, and it's a similar there's a lot of cross pollination between, you know,
US and UK policy. And it seems like, you know, the left, the quote, unquote, I shouldn't really even call them the left. The Democrats, they're talking points about digital ID, are rather similar to labors as well. But ultimately, the solutions the same. You know, it's just the sales pitches that
differ, and also market based climate solutions. You know, as I mentioned earlier, Howard lutnic, the you know, who's choosing the talent, he said, for Trump's transition team, is one of the earliest pioneers of carbon trading, going back to the late 90s, and has been very involved in trying to create carbon markets, including with this company, he's on the board of called satologic, which is chaired by Trump's former
Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin. And also on the board is Joe Dunford, who was head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Trump, so basically head of the military for all intents and purposes and satologic has been trying to build a carbon market for the Americas on the Bitcoin Blockchain. And very weird. So you're getting it sort of from the quote, unquote right as well as the left. And really, you know, carbon trading. And carbon emissions trading was created by a Drexel Burnham Lambert alum.
Drexel Burnham Lambert being the junk bond basically criminal bank, and it was Michael Milken running the junk bond division that fueled all these corporate raiders of the era who took over corporate America and had a lot of ties to the savings and loans crisis, which, of course, involves bush and some of these
CIA networks and what have you, and very insane stuff. But anyway, that Drexel Burnham Lambert VP, or former VP Richard Sandor, he created Emissions Trading for the administration of Bucha senior, and was also tapped by Marie strong at the first Rio Summit in like 92 or something, to create a market based solution for quote, unquote, climate change by by creating some sort of, you know, new market. And he Sander had previously invented basically what her financial derivatives a
few years prior. So it's really not, even though it's been framed as a left wing thing, it's really something that, you know, came out of the other side of the political divide. And despite a lot of divide about, you know, whether climate change is real or not, between the left and the right, the solutions are essentially the same right as is the whole idea of programmable and surveillance money with you have, you know, Democrats like
Elizabeth. Warren, for example, talking about, we should it's time for a cbdc, and then, you know, you have Trump sort of embracing not just Bitcoin, but stable coins. And Howard lutnic is intimately connected to the largest stable coin, which is $1 stable coin called tether. He's a custodian for most of their treasuries, and that's now a major way to finance US debt. It's all very crazy. So tether is overtly partnered, by the
way, with the FBI and Secret Service. They're on their platform, and they seize people's money at the behest of governments like Israel and the US, even if those people don't live in the US. So it's really not an improvement over the old system. It's really just as Orwellian as a cbdc would be. And, you know, there's infinite other examples of overlap, one being biotech as well. I'm interested to get your take on that, because I know you've been, you know, railing against,
rightly so, GMOs for a long time. And when Trump was in office, previously, he deregulated GMO crops quite extensively, and, of course, promoted this is essentially what was a GMO vaccine and mRNA vaccine through Operation warp speed. And a lot of his backers, Musk included, as well as JD Vance himself, are very invested in the biotech industry. But yet you have someone like RFK Jr, who sort of rose to prominence over the last few years railing against GMOs of either in
agriculture or in vaccines. Now, sort of, you know, promoting the idea that a vote for Trump will make Americans healthy again, and things of that nature. So I'm particularly interested on your thoughts on that matter.
Yes, it's an incredibly important question, and I would be very interested to see how that dynamic will play out. It would seem to me that Trump is simply accepting the Kennedy endorsement because it will obviously accrue to his politically speaking, but I would imagine that Kennedy would be sidelined in short order in the event of a new Trump
administration. I don't think that those certainly, if, as long as Kennedy is continuing to promote those ideas, I don't think he'll get very far with them, because we've seen the business interests and how they can override what's going on.
But actually, I wanted to go back to the climate finance issue, because again, as I know you know, this is the multi trillion dollar boondoggle that is, of course, every major power at the table is going to be interested in getting their snoot into it, and it is going to be the the never ending gift if and when it is established properly in institutional
structures. So yes, one can imagine that there will be players on both sides of the so called political aisle that will be interested in that just one example of the boondoggle that's taking place just from this week, Oxfam International just published a new audit of the World Bank that shows that between 2017 and 2023 as as much as $41 billion of the funds that were distributed by the World Bank to climate causes could not be accounted for due to poor accounting standards. So yes,
again, surprise, surprise. Where have we heard that before? Well, it's like the Pentagon audit and everything else and, oh, by the way, as it also just comes out in a new peer reviewed study, turns out that the the mysterious methane surge that has been taking place since 2020 in which we've been told, of course, has been due to agriculture and farming and cow burps, etc. That's, that's what's causing this horrible
rise in methane. Well, as it turns out, they they knew the methane was going up, but the one thing they didn't actually test for was the isotope of methane. They forgot, for example, to test whether this was C 13 carbon 13 ratio methane, which, oh, by the way, is related to the fact of whether or not this is produced through from agriculture, from
human, ostensible human sources, or from microbes. And as it turns out, oh, when you actually do the carbon 13 testing, no, it turns out that 90% of this rise in methane has been through microbes, not anything to do with human activity. I wonder if that means we won't have to eat zabugs. Well, I imagine no that that somehow doomsday will not be called off for that. But this is, this is the type
of, let's just make a new market for microbe emission trading exactly
right as an opportunity. And just to speak to your point that it's both sides of the remember who set up the the first climate derivatives, weather trading, derivatives market, Enron, of course, in bed with the Bush administration, so the Bush family. So there you go. So yes, absolutely, that is the boondoggle that will continue to pay once it really gets established in international institutional frameworks.
Well, I think it's going to be a big part of this effort to resolve the US government debt crisis you're having very mainstream US politicians, sitting members of Congress saying that the next president will definitely face a US government debt crisis that threatens the dollar. So I think in the case of Trump, it's pretty clear that his solution, from what he said, is going to be, you know, the use of stable coins, which gobble up treasuries like no tomorrow.
They hold more treasuries with US government debt than. Many nation states. Now, I forget exactly the number, but it's very, very significant and likely to be more going forward. And of course, PayPal has recently put out their stable coin. That's likely with, you know, their stable coin regulation making its way through the house, likely to very much favor py USD, as it's called, in their efforts, you know, decades in the making to make a new world currency. They
may actually have it now, um, which is interesting. But also, uh, something that I came across in looking into uh, RFK juniors, former VP pick Nicole Shanahan, who, as I'm sure you're aware, was formerly the wife of Sergey Brin, the Google co founder that was, banked by JP Morgan, with Jeffrey Epstein's assistance, was wrote a paper, of course, before she was a vice presidential candidate or really known to anyone about quantitative, about quantitatively easing into
carbon markets, and how the US government should make some sort of carbon coin. And you know, quantitatively ease, which means money printing and sort of inflate into into that. So I think there's going to be an effort to creatively store US government debt all over the world in new ways. And it's pretty much been overtly said by people that promote the adoption of dollar stable coins, which is a lot of people in Trump World.
This cycle, at least, is a major way to expand dollar hegemony and essentially dollarize whole nations, but covertly, not overtly. So it's not formal dollarization like happened in El Salvador and Ecuador. It's informal because you're having people use $1 denominated or something linked to the dollar, like tether, instead of, you know, their local currency, which is actually happening in Argentina and Brazil in very
unprecedented numbers, which is kind of significant. And then you have people like former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers being like, yeah, stable coins are a way to dollarize the whole world. So definitely things that aren't getting enough coverage, but lead us to the ultimate, same Orwellian hell hole that CBDCs were heralded to do. So I think, you know, these are things that people really need to take heed of, especially those opposed to the technocratic agenda, whether you
call it agenda 2030, or or something else. And I think you know, in the interest of time, perhaps we should lead to solutions to this problem. Because I'm sure James, just like has happened to me, if you were to voice any of the opinions that we have done over the past, you know, hour or so, invariably, a lot of the pushback is that, oh, you saying these facts means you offer no hope and no solutions, and you're a doom pillar and a black pillar and go away. Your facts
don't make me feel good, essentially. So I think there actually are solutions to this problem. So as I, you know, said in the introduction, to this podcast, you know, first of all, diagnosing the problem accurately is very important to solving the problem, and so that's why it's important to note that both parties are fundamentally corrupt, despite
their best efforts to sign up the public otherwise. But you know, in my opinion, if you look at the commonalities between the two candidates, as we have done most recently, and as it relates to sort of this, this overarching technocratic agenda for global governance, one of the solutions I think, that people should pursue is saying no to the policy agendas directly and not really focusing so much on politician a or politician B, or famous person A, or famous person B. And I
think one of the fundamental ones of that, of course, would be digital ID, which, in case of, you know, agenda 2030, and the Sustainable Development Goals is considered to be the cornerstone of that broader agenda, and is important for essential, they say, to implementing more than half of all of the different goals that are, you know, sub goals of the
17 Sustainable Development Goals. And then, of course, I think also exiting the two party paradigm is important, because I think the the unprecedented efforts to keep people sucked into the spectacle year after year shows that, you know they need people to do that. They don't want people exiting the two party paradigm. Anyway, that's my opinion. Of course, I'm sure you have many more. I know you on court report.com have had a long running series called solutions. Watch. That's,
in my opinion, very, very good. So I'll throw the floor to you to talk about how we can solve some of these problems.
Yes. Well, if people are interested in that series, I hope they will go to quarter report.com. Check out solutions. Watch where week in and week out, although there has been a few week break. But I generally every week I'm talking about different aspects of the solutions that are possible. Um, they all tend to, or I won't say all, but a lot of them tend to lead back to the same, the same fundamental underlying concepts, which is, I think yes, mass non adoption and non compliance is
absolutely important. It's absolutely necessary that people do not take the digital ID, that they do not use whatever digital currency is going to be foisted upon them. But it's easy to say that it's another thing to do it, for example, exactly as. We learned during the scandemic Nonsense, it was, I suppose, easy to have high faluting ideals, but I won't let I won't let government tell me to stay at home. I won't let people tell me to wear a mask or to take the jab. But it really depended on
your circumstances. And are you? Are you an employment position that is going to necessitate you to take certain medical interventions, etc? So yes, it's one thing to have ideas about what you will and will not do. It's another thing to actually be prepared to live that out. And one of the things that the past few years of craziness has taught us is that it is an exceptionally important that you do have a community of some
sort. And that doesn't necessarily mean that you are living cheek to jowl with a bunch of people who all think exactly like you do, but it does mean that you are at least aware in your area, for example, what what businesses exist, what people and networks and communities and things you can tap into in times of emergency, no matter what that emergency might be, that you can at the very least survive any passing
emergency. And why not use that as the basis for forming actual, sturdy communities from which you can then scale up and hopefully actually create a system that we want, instead of using our time, our energy, our attention, our resources, in building up the the the beast system, as it were, we're we're constantly giving Our time, attention and energy to the political spectacle and to all of the various businesses associated with the people that are really puppeteering that
spectacle. Wouldn't it be nice if we could take that time, energy, intention and resources, and divert them towards community structures that we build from the bottom up? And I think that has to be a fundamental part of the solution. Because, yes, I think, and it also doesn't mean a that we have to do everything all at once, either we, 100% can convert to living on clouds overnight or or it's not worth doing at all. Also, I think it's important to understand that
there are steps. We don't have to reinvent the wheel with things and go through complicated processes, good enough will do and so, for example, one very, very, very simple idea that Catherine Austin fits that so Larry had was cash Fridays. How about just one day a week? You see if it is possible for you to fulfill your daily needs that particular day in cash, instead of using a car, or instead of using some other form of payment, why not just see if it is possible to source
everything you need that day with cash? And then if that is possible, hey, maybe you can expand cash Friday to cash Thursday and Friday, or cash weekend, or cash week, or cash every day, and see if you can facilitate an economy around that. And that could be part of a process of, as I say, finding out what is in your community, developing that I think that is the process that is actually important, more so than stepping into a voting booth to cast your suggestion in the slave
suggestion box. Vote harder guys, it'll work this time. As a voluntaryist, I fundamentally believe it is actually an initiation of force, and therefore morally wrong to actually participate in that democratic process. But you know
what? I won't even care that much when people inevitably do step into that voting booth and pull a lever for one candidate or another, not only because their vote literally doesn't count, and it will be counted by the Kim voting machines and the voting machines will tell you who won this election process, but also because, again, it's it's utterly trivial and insignificant. It's when people wrap their identity, their entire lives, around this event that takes place once every four
years, as if it's truly meaningful. That is exactly the energy that the real deep state actually needs in order to function the way that it wants to, to capture your attention, your energy and your resources. Let's turn away from it. And hey, you know what? Whatever go step in the booth and pull whoever for whoever you want. I don't care. But how about you spend the rest of the four years not thinking about that, not talking about that, not doing that, but building communities.
And I think that is what is going to see us through, or is going to be the thing that collapses around our heads when we realize that the emergency is taking place and we don't have anything set up to catch us from that fall
absolutely and I would the only thing I would add to that is that I think there are also people who don't necessarily subscribe to the two party paradigm, but still allow their attention to be monopolized by the spectacle. And I think that includes people in independent media as well, who, you know, I mean, obviously, for reasons of, you know, the media is their job. You know, we're plugged in 24/7 and, you know, arguing with
Twitter trolls all the time and all of this. And I mean, it happens, but you know, personally it, I think they want whether you subscribe to the two party paradigm or don't. The goal, as you pointed out, is to suck all our attention away from things that actually mattered and have us waste our time doing that and not actually building anything locally, or building
any sort of solution that is helpful. And so. I would caution people to keep that in mind, given the very addictive nature of social media, intentionally So, and also, I think it's important for people to make good use of their time online, since social media is just increasingly weaponized. You have US military studies from 2014, 10 years ago, talking the US Air Force, particularly, talking about how they were studying how to use social media to control people as if they
were drones. You know, people that think they are immune to this stuff aren't necessarily so. And now that you know, you have pentagon and intelligence contractors overtly running social media networks to think that those type of, you know, tactics aren't being used, or that necessarily the people you're arguing with online are even real in an a, you know, generative AI powered bots and all of this, you know, as I've written before, on AI, if you read the Kissinger Eric Schmidt
book on AI. Essentially, what they state there is, the goal is to have people not know what's real and what's not anymore, and have aI tell them what is real and what is not. So that we become dependent on AI to interpret information for us, and we need to be careful those of us that are able to see through election time rules that we don't fall victim to those kind of things as well. So offline time is very important anyway. That's all I'd like to add. Do you have any closing
thoughts, James? Before we wrap up?
I wholeheartedly concur with that sentiment, and that is something that I at the very least want people to
contemplate. As it turns out now, it's the latest poll that I saw, and this was several years ago, is that people spend as much as 16 hours a day in mediated reality, looking at screens, talking to people through devices, etc. That's, that's almost all of your life is spent in mediated reality, and very high that's, that's a worrying phenomenon, and something that at the very least, I think we should be
cognizant of and thinking about. So I, any rate, I'm doing my part to help spread awareness of these issues, and I'm not here to tell people what to do with their lives, but I can certainly make suggestions. So as I say, I hope people check out my solutions, watch series, and if you're interested in the idea of the spectacle and where where this mass media phenomenon is going, I would suggest people check out my media matrix documentary. But other than that, I think we have definitely
covered a lot of ground today. Well,
absolutely. And thanks so much for your time, James, I know you're very busy. You alluded to all this great work that you have done, and you've mentioned your website a couple times earlier, but if you could remind people where they can find your work and support you, I think that would be a great addition to this podcast. Sure
Corbett report.com is the place to go. That's C, O, R, B, E, T, T, report.com. And I am on several platforms, including rumble, actually, Odyssey and others. Besides, I'm not on Twitter. I'm not on YouTube, of course, famously, infamously, I was scrubbed from YouTube several years ago, and I'm not on Instagram, tick tock or any of those types of platforms,
either. So the best place to go is corporate report.com and there you can find literally 1000s of hours of archived audio and video that I've created over the course of the past 17 years, which in internet terms, I think it's about 170 years. I've been doing this a long time, so yeah,
you absolutely have been doing it a long time. In my opinion, you were one of the best. So thanks so much for joining me today and sharing your thoughts and analysis, which I value very highly with my audience. Very much appreciated. Thanks to everyone for listening to this podcast.
If you enjoyed it, please share. Please consider supporting if you are able and sort of echoing what James says, If you're not familiar, I have a major issue with people impersonating me on social media or other video platforms where I do not have channels or accounts. So in my case, also please definitely either sign up to the unlimited hangout newsletter or check unlimited hangout.com if you want to know what I'm actually saying and doing and not what people say I'm saying and doing
over, you know, bought narrations of my face. And I think we'll all be better off that way. And I think it's not going to be just, you know, I'm sure it's happening to other people as well. So important to keep that in mind. And again, thanks to everyone who supports this podcast and catch You all on the next episode. Thanks very much. You