Great Reset Elites are Planning a Post-Human Future | Whitney Webb | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 269

The last time I spoke with this week's

guest, the great reset was in full

swing. Klaus Schwab and the World

Economic Forum ruled the world. And my

guest predicted that the global elites

were going to use AI and transhumanism

to create a new class of slaves. Now,

fast forward 3 years and it seems like

Donald Trump has destroyed the WF and

ESG in America. The rest of the world is

spiraling towards total government

control and AI is becoming a part of our

daily lives. So what's happening now?

Where does she see us now? Is the great

reset really dead? Uh or have the global

elites just pivoted? And and what's

happening with um digital ID, which has

just been uh released? Is that part of

everything kind of spooky that we've

talked about in the past? Please welcome

back to the podcast one of the world's

leading researchers on these issues,

Whitney Webb.

[Music]

Hello, Whitney. Welcome back. Glad to

have you.

>> Hi. It's been a while. My pleasure.

Thanks for having me back on.

>> You bet. Um, you know, last time we

spoke it was I think it was right after

COVID. You had just released your book

on Epstein, which is fabulous. Um uh I

just had released a book on the World

Economic Forum and the Great Reset

>> and we were talking about this about the

Great Reset and the World Economic Forum

and you said that's only really one part

of this big global octopus.

And uh and I was so hyperfocused on the

World Economic Forum and what they were

doing. I have to ask you,

has the World Economic Forum been

sacrificed? Did we win? Because it kind

of went to the wayside, but I know

they're not gone. Claus Schwab was

exposed. Of

>> course, they're not,

>> right? They're not gone. So,

>> have they just mutated? Is somebody else

taking their place? Did they pass the

torch? What What is happening?

>> Yeah. So I would argue let's look let's

let's go back to what the W is by its

own description. It's the premier

promoter of the public private

partnership. So I think a lot of the

policies they attempt to sell people

through the public sector i.e.

governments was exposed and I think

they've gone to the other side of the

public private partnership

um and are trying to uh market some of

their policies that are uh unpopular

with significant segments particularly

in the west uh you know via the private

sector I would uh

>> can you give me examples

>> I think that's what's happening

>> uh yeah so I guess one example would be

uh let's take what's happening in in

Britain for example with uh the

so-called Brit card and and digital ID.

So obviously there's been a lot of

political push back to that um from from

Kier Starmer

his uh in intention to uh frame this as

a way to solve illegal immigration which

is absolutely a ludicrous idea.

>> Yeah. Madness.

>> Uh yeah. Yeah. Completely uh insane. And

so, um, and then they of course come out

and said that soon, you know, it wasn't

just limited to, uh, its use as an

alleged work permit. It would expand to

all, uh, facets of life. Um but actually

um if you look at how the UN has labeled

or has sort of laid out the the its plan

really uh to have digital ID implemented

at a global scale. It's not to have it

be a centralized digital ID like the

brick card has been proposed. um instead

it's meant to be a vendor agnostic

system whereby you would have different

vendors um sell a digital ID type of

platform and so to the public the public

would see it as decentralized and all

these different private sector uh

partners in digital ID that they have

the illusion of choice between them but

really all that data is meant to be

interoperable

um and so that it can all be harvested

off of any of these um you

uh different digital ID platforms and

coalated in a mass in a in a single

database. Uh because ultimately if you

were to have something like Britard for

example happen, you would have all of

the data be harvested into a single uh

library, what Tony Blair's institute for

example calls the national data library.

>> Um something like that. So, you could

have that happen with Kier Starmer's

Brick card or something else um that it

comes from, I don't know, five or six

five or six different companies offering

different forms of digital ID. Uh but

all of that data could still be

harvested um you know, from all of those

um different vendors because they all

agreed to specific standards. And if you

look at some of these alliances about

digital ID uh that were a focus during

um COVID for example like the ID 2020

alliance for example uh they were all

about getting all these different

vendors of digital ID to agree to the

same set of international standards so

that they could harvest the data from

any digital ID no matter who makes it

and have it held in the same global

centralized database. So um there are

different ways to get

what they ultimately want, but it all

comes down to public perception. So, a

colleague of mine who I've worked with

closely on digital ID um uh for a few

years now um Ian Davis recently wrote

about what's going on in the UK. He's

based there. Um and he posited that

maybe what Kier Starmer is doing is

actually a bait and switch. um that to

create all this unpopularity about this

style of digital ID, but then someone

later could come in riding the wave of

the discontent that this is creating and

then offer a new solution uh which would

be more along the lines of what I just

described which is actually how the UN

itself and STG16

uh which is the STG that includes uh

digital ID uh you know the road map laid

out there uh is not the same as the one

laid out uh by Kier Starmer. So in in in

that you still have a public private

partnership, right? But it would be the

private leading as opposed to the public

leading. Um and what we're seeing come

out of the UK right now is is being sold

as a public leading thing and it's

grossly unpopular. Um and I think

they're a lot smarter than people give

them credit for. Um, I mean, they're uh

fundamentally very uh manipulative and

they want us to get stuck with the same

um policy, but they're very apt at

selling it uh different ways and they

know that they've become very unpopular

with large segments of the population.

Um, and so, you know, like a chameleon,

they have to take a different form, but

ultimately the goal is to lead people to

the same um type of uh you know,

technocratic uh Orwellian system.

>> Couple things. First of all, I have for

years now

looked at what is being done to us with

both horror and also

in a way strange admiration. They they

they are so thorough. They are so

wellthought out. The structure of this,

the fallbacks, the the use of behavioral

scientists and everything else. At some

point a book is going to be written that

says look at how all of this was

designed. I mean it is

>> probably many books.

>> Yeah. It is it's really

it's it's it's

incredible to me how many great minds

have spent so much time trying to

enslave their fellow human beings, you

know.

>> Yeah. Uh I I think it's because a lot of

the people uh that seek to uh en enslave

the vast majority of of humanity uh have

a a lot of capital uh that they uh want

to uh devote to this unfortunately. Um

and um unfortunately we also know that

money can buy you essentially anything

in today's world including armies of

behavioral psy psychologists and any

other number of other specialists. Um

but ultimately you know I think a lot of

them are increasingly relying on um

artificial intelligence to be able to do

this uh at scale. And so I think um uh

this admin of the era of you know AI

generated content also enables them to

um you know tweak uh things faster and

also to um manipulate our attention in

ways that uh you know are just really

being uh discovered and maybe won't be

discovered uh you know for a long time.

um with you know increasingly

significant impacts on on human behavior

behavior and also on human uh

perception. So um yeah I think

ultimately it's never been more

important to be a critical thinker and

to do as much of your own research as

possible and the best way to do that

research like what I just talked about

regarding you know the UN and digital ID

and how they say it you know it's in

their own documents you just have to go

in and read it and not everyone can do

that. Um but if these are issues that

particularly concern you, we abs

absolutely should uh you know make make

that effort. And also I think uh you

know in the co era for example a lot of

people were against these particular

policies digital ID uh being one of

them. But these people will repackage

and rename and sell you the same policy

under different metrics and under a

different name with a different face

that they deem, you know, uh, you know,

polling shows they're more politically

palatable to that particular demographic

or what have you. So, I think the more

we focus on the policies that we don't

want, uh, the better off we'll be

instead of the person selling it to us.

Um,

>> and you know, the new buzzword that's

following it around.

>> And we never seem to learn. I mean, this

is what they did with the Federal

Reserve, you know, with the Federal

Reserve Act 1913.

>> This is what they did with the Patriot

Act. That thing was written, you know,

two years, three years before 9/11. They

tried to package it. Didn't work. Just

repackaged, waited for the right moment.

I mean, this is the way they do it. For

anybody who is not truly up on digital

IDs and why this is so important, can

you explain what digital ID means if we

begin to implement them?

>> Yeah. Yeah. Well, digital ID is really

the lynch pin to uh you know the

sustainable development goals as well as

this mass surveillance paradigm that's

being sold to us uh by oligarchs on the

left and the right. It would be your

unique identifier for the digital world.

The goal is to have it be uh the way for

you to uh offer your credentials to

every service uh that you access period.

Everything ranging from healthcare to

telecommunications, your social media

accounts. And as things become

increasing increasingly digitally

connected, you know, perhaps even your

appliances, if they're smart appliances,

at some point won't uh function without

you having the proper credentials uh to

show that it's you.

So ultimately, if people want to uh

fight against this mass surveillance par

uh paradigm and these efforts to usher

us into into you know a very dark I

would argue a technocratic future, the

most important thing is to not comply uh

with digital ID because it's the single

most important piece of infrastructure

uh that they need and they need us to

voluntarily consent because even if they

roll it out um and people but it it will

fail if people decline to use it. So

ultimately so much effort is being spent

on convincing us to adopt it. And so we

need to be laser focused on that policy

and say no thank you.

>> Let me play the devil's advocate that

you hear every time every time we take a

bad bad step towards more digital

surveillance. Well, I don't have

anything to hide. I don't really care. I

don't have anything to hide. Why why why

is that,

you know, a a kindergarten answer?

Well, I would argue because a lot of

these uh companies that are engaged in

these uh mass surveillance or the

contractors really that are engaged in

in mass surveillance don't ultimately

have just watching what you're doing uh

as being enough for them. They're

ultimately interested in things like

predictive analytics and predictive

policing. So based on your behavior now

and your behavior in the past, they want

to use artificial intelligence to

determine what you may do in the future.

And in the case of predictive policing,

that would be well, we've determined

that you may commit a crime in the

future, and so we're going to uh, you

know, uh, send you to uh, a

court-ordered physician or, you know,

detain, issue house arrest to protect to

stop crime before it happens.

Essentially,

>> um, is where a lot of these companies

Well, yeah. uh and unfortunately it is

that and there's a lot of companies that

have uh made um massive inroads uh in in

that type of technology even though it's

been hugely discredited. Um there's

several companies I think the most

notorious at this point is called or was

called PRP pole. They've since rebranded

but they were uh less accurate than a

coin toss and people were being uh you

know deprived of of their liberty uh

because of a of an algorithm that was

hugely inaccurate. uh and ultimately you

know if you look in the UK for example

some of these algorithms for facial

recognition have been rolled out even

though they've been shown over there too

to be hugely inaccurate and there's no

interest in changing uh vendors even

when this inaccuracy is demonstrated. So

to me that says that their goal is to

have us induce immed obedience by the

fact that you're being watched all the

time and anything you may do uh could be

used against you even if you're not

doing anything wrong now. um an

algorithm could determine that uh

certain you know errant behaviors uh

warrant you being added to a list of

some type and actually Larry Ellison of

Oracle who is one of the main funders of

Tony Blair's uh institute that's one of

the biggest pushers for digital ID uh in

the UK said this at an Oracle uh

shareholder meeting that you know we're

recording and surveilling everything and

citizens will be on their best behavior

>> terrible because they have to

essentially paraphrasing

>> the fact that Donald Trump is listening

Listening to that guy is terrifying to

me. I mean, he is he has put some people

around him on this tech board that are

not friends of freedom and liberty.

They're just not. Larry Ellison is

leading that pack.

>> Yeah. A lot of them are are are, you

know, I would argue overtly and also

covertly globalist. Um you have people

uh you know in that network you just

mentioned serving for example on the

steering committee of the Bilderberg

group uh which is you know a well-known

closed door meeting uh globalist conflab

um and unfortunately um you know I think

they've been some of them anyway have

been able to characterize their policies

as uh libertarian for example uh even

though some of those same oligarchs are

on record saying that the free market is

for losers. uh if you want to get rich

build a monopoly and build monopolies uh

they have unfortunately uh but I think

again this is what uh I was saying

earlier about um the world economic

forum you know there's an effort to sell

this uh since they couldn't sell it from

the left uh the goal now is to try and

sell it somehow uh from the right uh and

to try and frame it under metrics and

dialectics that'll be more appealing uh

to the group that was most against these

policies just a few years ago. Um, and

unfortunately, you know, with AI and all

of that, it potent we could happen. It

could happen if people aren't aren't

vigilant. You know, just a few years

ago, someone like Elon Musk was a major

promoter of things like carbon markets

>> um and pricing carbon for example. And

that was actually why he had a falling

out with Trump in Trump's first

administration was because uh Trump

pulled out of the Paris agreements and

Elon Musk was like, "Well, I can't have

that." Um, so have these oligarchs

really changed or have they instead

tried to make themselves more appealing

because they've noticed the change in

public opinion uh and want to uh try and

get you know us to continue to buy into

uh their solutions uh that they uh have

a lot of money to spend convincing us

are actually good and rebranding them.

>> So how

>> and again this is why I say it's

important to focus on the policies

specifically. How do we um well wait

before I get there, let let me go back

to digital ID. Tie this into a digital

currency

because this is the this is the the

highway system for that, isn't it?

>> Sure. Yeah. Well, um Larry Fank is now

running, I believe, the World Economic

Forum. He's acting chairman. And uh in

addition to saying that everything Yeah.

In addition to saying that everything

will be tokenized, he's uh said that

everything will soon be uh on the same

universal uh digital ledger or database.

Um and that everything on that database

will have a unique identifier number. So

for you as an individual, your

identifier number uh will presumably be

your digital ID or directly linked to

that. But everything will have a digital

ID. Uh the tokenization agenda in

particular seeks to tokenize uh not just

you know assets that we traditionally

think of um like real estate for example

or or gold or you know physical assets

as well as digital

>> assets like Bitcoin uh there's a a major

effort uh connected with people like

like F and also people like Mark Carney

who's now uh prime minister of of Canada

to tokenize uh the the natural world and

transform it into financial assets.

assets and there was an attempt to do

this to an extent under the Biden

administration I believe through this

the department of interior uh with

natural asset corporations but that has

not gone away uh and there are groups um

for example uh one of the creators of

the ETF uh model originally uh which

Black Rockck now now owns Eyesshares his

name is Peter Kesz I think is how you

pronounce it he's trying to turn um the

Amazon rainforest uh into a digital

commodity uh sort of similar to bear uh

bit Bitcoin in terms of like the the

scarcity uh idea that you know each

hectare of the Amazon rainforest would

represent um you know a token and then

and then financialize it that way and

then each hectare would then be have its

unique identifier right on on the on the

blockchain

>> and and would be you know serviced uh by

surveillance drones and all sorts of

stuff. So even our most like natural the

places we conceptualize as the most

natural places on earth, these people

want to come and place surveillance

technology and you know tokenize it and

put it on a blockchain and use it to um

you know I would argue in the case

particularly of natural asset uh

corporations and the group behind it the

intrinsic exchange group um they just

want to open up a huge new asset class

they call it nature's opportunity so

that they can continue engaging in the

same type of uh bad behavior that for

example bought us brought us the 2008

financial crisis u by you know uh

quintupling basically uh the amount of

assets currently in play um it's um

>> you know I had a guy

>> very insane

>> I had a guy who worked u very very very

high up at uh city bank and he told me

around 2008 uh he said Glenn you know

don't worry about the financial system

I'm like aha and uh he said um you know,

we're never going to go broke. I mean,

do you know how much just the national

parks are worth? And I looked at him and

said, "Are you seriously telling me that

we should commoditize the national

parks?"

And he said, "It's going to happen."

>> And I wonder now if this is what he was

talking about, if it was just a digital,

not actually selling them, it's just a

digital

commoditization of our parks.

>> Yeah. So apply this now to the the

phrase that we all heard during the co

era, you'll own nothing and be happy.

Well, there's certain people that want

to own everything. And that includes

things that have never been able to be

owned before that were considered things

like the public commons like rivers,

lakes, the ocean itself, natural

forests, all sorts of it. These people

want to put all of that um into the

financial system, fractionalize it,

tokenize it, and sell piece of it, sell

pieces of it around. Uh you know, use it

to speculate on. I mean, it's it's it's

very bonkers. So,

>> yeah. And so, this is just one aspect of

the the digital currency play.

Obviously, there's a lot more than that

just going on as well. Um, I would argue

that a lot of this push, particularly in

the US, um, for dollar stable coin

supposedly being better than a central

bank digital currency, also falls into

this, uh, paradigm we talked about

earlier of, you know, moving from the

public to the private of the public

private partnership because um, a lot of

these stable coin issuers, you know, if

the concern the big concerns about uh,

CBDC's was that they're seizable,

they're surveillable, and they're

programmable. Well, all of those three

things also can apply to stable coins.

The only difference is that you would

have the p a private company issue it

and control it. But we've seen time and

again how a lot of these private

entities are willing to do that. Uh when

contacted, just look at how Bank of

America behaved with January 6. Uh

people accused of wrongdoing on that

day, for example. Um you know, they have

no qualms in doing that uh and engaging

in in those type of activities. And the

biggest uh dollar stable coin issuer uh

Tether which just hired Bo Hines uh from

the White House um they have uh openly

said that they are uh a close partner of

the US government for dollar hegemony uh

globally and have uploaded uh the FBI,

the Secret Service and other aspects um

of the US government onto its platform

directly and have seized uh tethers you

know from people uh just because you

know the government told them to and

this was during the Biden

administration. So they obviously are

willing to do that under any

administration and it's uh essentially

functioning as a de facto public private

partnership even though we're being told

um it's a it's much better than a CBDC

but in terms of its impacts on civil

liberties you know that's not

necessarily true. So again vigilance is

is important here.

More with Whitney in just a second, but

right now the average American is still

finding it difficult to pay expenses

every month and in most cases there is

nothing left over to cover the extras.

Most aren't getting a big raise and

expenses are being so high it can be

really hard to manage without grabbing

for the credit cards. But listen, if

you're a homeowner and you are

frustrated with that endless cycle that

only produces more debt, I want you to

take 10 minutes today and give American

Financing a call. If you're constantly

carrying a credit card balance every

single month with an interest rate in

the 20s or even 30s, American Financing

can show you how to put your hard-earned

equity to work and get out of debt. They

have salarybased mortgage consultants

that are saving customers an average of

$800 a month. And that could be you. So

get started today. You may not have to

make next month's mortgage payment. No

upfront fees. Doesn't cost you anything.

To find out how much you could be

saving, call American Financing

800962440.

800906-2440

or americanancing.net.

Let me go to AI because it's all

connected unfortunately.

Um

AI AI is one of the most exciting things

man has ever come up with and also the

most terrifying thing man has ever I

mean it it makes uh nuclear weapons look

like romper room or you know some sort

of preschool game. Um it is uh

it is frightening in the fact that you

don't really know who's programming it.

Um it's going to be ubiquitous. It's

going to be everywhere.

>> It will know

>> everything that you're doing looking

for, etc., etc.

>> Um

>> uh but it is now also crossing the

lines. Where was it? Was it Albania that

just put their first minister

digital minister

>> into place?

>> It would be like having, you know, Pete

Hegth, you know, replaced with a an

avatar and it doesn't seem to be that

big of a deal to a lot of people. You

want to tell that story and what that

means?

Well, I think people have been

increasingly normalized uh to sort of to

the dissolution between the digital and

and virtual worlds. And that's not by

coincidence. So, going back to the World

Economic Forum, the goal of the the

West's so-called fourth industrial

revolution is to blur those lines uh

very overtly. And so, you know, what

we're seeing here are stepping stones

leading us to an increasingly uh

encroaching all digital system. And, you

know, it it probably began some time

ago. Um, I'm sure you remember several

years ago, uh, Muhammad bin Salman, for

example, gave citizenship to a robot and

that was kind of framed as novel, but

you know, there there's been an effort

to normalize these kinds of of things

with respect uh to the government. So

now they're having um,

>> you know, AI run the government under

the guise that it's it's more efficient,

it's more trustworthy and all of that,

but again, who is accountable if the AI

makes a mistake? Because AI does make

mistakes. AI also hallucinates and uh

returns results that are essentially

indicative of an ear reality, something

that is completely uh not true. Um and

so who is accountable in those cases? Uh

can they hold the AI minister directly

accountable? Not really. Does the

accountability fall to the person who

programmed the AI? uh it it it obviously

opens up a pretty sticky uh situation,

but uh I would in in the case of this

argue that this is in furtherance of of

an agenda that was actually laid out by

Henry Kissinger and Eric Schmidt in

their book um oh I forget what it's

called uh sorry about that but they they

wrote a couple books on AI and the

earlier one I think it's AI in our human

future is the subtitle or the age of AI

something like that um they essentially

argue that um we should put AI in charge

of government because they assume they

they obviously believe that AI is a form

of a super intelligence. Therefore, it

knows better than humans do. And so even

when it returns these uh unreal,

irreality uh results, we should take

that as uh as a sign that it can see

things humans cannot see. We should just

trust that it's there because we should

trust that it's super intelligent and

sort of uh you know offset uh give give

it power over our lives supposedly

because it's a better arbiter uh of

what's real and what's not uh than we

are which is um I think that is uh just

insane. Also, sorry to keep repeating

that word, but it's hard. Some of this

is really

>> insane.

>> Um, just bonkers stuff. Yeah. And in

addition to that, Kissinger and Schmidt

laid out that their biggest interest in

AI uh was its impact on human

perception. And ultimately, if you're

able to uh completely control how people

perceive reality, you control their

behavior. you don't need mind control at

the end of the day or any of these

things in the back that uh you know the

CIA and national security agencies were

experimenting with. You know, you don't

need that if you can completely control

uh their perception of what's going on.

Um and so the goal uh as they lay out

here or laid out in that book uh is uh

to have people rely on AI for their

perception of essentially everything. Um

and that eventually by doing so uh

people would be what they uh the term

they used was cognitively diminished to

the point that they wouldn't be able to

understand how AI acts upon them

anymore. But that wouldn't be true for

everyone. There would be a small class

that is not uh affected that way and

they would be the class that programs

and maintains the AI determines what it

does. But the rest of us um a large

underclass would be acted upon by the AI

but again uh lose the mental capacity to

understand what it's doing to them and

that eventually it would start

determining their preferences for them

and all sorts.

>> This is such evil. I mean there is no

other way to describe this other than

evil. When you are taking humans who are

built to act, not to be acted upon, and

you purposely

>> put them into a class that you can act

upon, that is there's no better

word to define it than evil.

>> Yeah. Well, the term, you know, that

gets thrown around a lot for this is

posthuman future. But what what is more

evil

>> to humanity than that? just eliminating

us and and turning us into what some of

these um libertarian oligarchs called

technoplastic beings. I mean, some of

them think that uh humans are nothing

more than uh bootloaders for digital

intelligence. I mean, that's how we are

perceived by a lot of these tech

oligarchs because again, a lot of their

goal and they've been relatively open

about this is to live forever uh but in

defiance of natural law. So using

technology to allow them to uh become

gods. A lot of these uh tech oligarchs

including like the co-founders of Google

uh have been pretty uh open about that.

And even someone like Jeffrey Epstein

for example who was uh very interested

in in eugenics and AI and all of that

was interested in in you know those

technologies for those same ends. I mean

there's a a whole group of I would I

would call them pretty sick billionaires

uh who want to use this technology uh to

better themselves in that way and live

forever while the rest of us become

cognitively uh um become we become

cognitively incapable of questioning

what ultimately is amount to slavery.

>> We should say no.

>> I know we should

>> I think that should be pretty clear.

>> I don't know if we do. Um, where do you

find hope in all of this?

>> So, uh, yeah, I get asked this question

a lot because when I'm talking about

these systems, it's it it's obviously

dark and it's obviously wrong. But

again, like I said earlier, it's I don't

I don't think it's hopeless because they

are spending so much money and so much

energy on getting us to consent to these

policies. Um, you can build these

digital systems that once you're in them

will imprison you. uh but if no one uses

these systems they can't do anything. Um

so a lot of there's a lot of efforts for

example to use them to implement them on

existing user bases of massive social

media websites uh for example but if

people decline to use it or people leave

these platforms um or stop using these

uh you know certain digital

infrastructure tied to these people it

will collapse. They need people

>> what are the ones we should be avoiding

right now?

Well, I think people should do their own

research uh and look at who owns what.

But a lot of these uh billionaires uh

you have, you know, people like Larry

Ellison and Eric Schmidt, the Google

guys, people like Peter Almidar who were

on the left, Reed Hoffman, Bill Gates,

right? And then you have, you know,

people like Elon Musk uh and and Peter

Teal and the the PayPal mafia crowd,

most of them uh frame themselves as

libertarian. If you look at um uh their

philosophy, their own words, um they're

overtly transhumanist, um a lot of them,

despite saying things to the contrary,

want global government in some form. Uh

and you know, the ones on the supposedly

libertarian side frame it as having a

CEO in charge of everything, but a CEO

that would govern as a dictator. So I

don't ultimately see that as as much

better given all this technology that's

uh would be in the hands of this one or

you know these this this very small uh

group of people. Um but they don't own

everything. They own a lot of technology

uh obviously and tech in technological

platforms, social media um and all sorts

of things. Uh but it's up to people if

they want to continue using those

services and supporting these people uh

because ultimately they need us to make

their system work. They want to harvest

us for data and like I said earlier they

want to use us as as bootloadaders for

their digital intelligence and they

can't continue to improve and feed the

AI without us doing it for them. They

can't do it alone. So,

>> um I think the more we

>> But people are not

they're not likely to leave things that

make their life easier. They're just

not.

>> Yeah. Well, that's that's the price of

convenience, isn't it? And I think a lot

of the effort to enslave us has been to

uh uh cajul us and uh influence us with

with convenience and comfort. Uh but

also in theory, you know, prison is

comfortable, right? in the sense that

you have a roof over your head and they

bring you food. Um, and I mean it it you

know a digital prison without walls uh

you know could be similarly comfortable

and you wouldn't have to lift a finger

to fight uh you know for your freedom

but we can still uh oh sorry you

wouldn't have to lift a finger to fight

for your freedom. You would just

willingly walk into the system right um

but we those of us that don't want to

live in the system have to do something.

And so I think we're at the at at a at a

crossroads and have been for several

years uh where those of us that don't

want to uh walk into this have to

actively build alternatives. And if you

don't have, you know, uh a ton of people

in your community uh doing that, maybe

you should reach out and build

awareness. Uh but if you have people

that are aware of this around you, um

it's it's important to build, I would

argue, local resilient networks that

don't depend on on this infrastructure.

There's still open-source alternatives

to a lot of the um you know, big tech

platforms uh out there. Uh and

I I still think I'm still hopeful that

there is time. Uh but you know

ultimately at the end of in end of the

day you know if they're pushing us

towards a posthuman future I think at

some point people will realize uh that

they don't want to lose what makes us

human. And so so much of what we're

being pushed to use AI for are things or

creative pursuits that help define us as

human right uh making art making music

writing. um these are the things that

we're being told to outsource uh to

artificial intelligence not necessarily

the tedious stuff right so what's going

to be left for us when we uh outsource

of this all to AI will we allow

ourselves to be cognitive cognitively

diminished to the point that we can't

even create anymore and then what kind

of you know humans are we at that point

so I think it's very important to um

encourage uh analog alternatives to that

kind of stuff and to engage in uh in

creativity And uh there's a lot of

opportunity for that especially for

people that have uh children. You know,

children are very creative and we need

to uh promote that to them instead of

being like here's a tablet, learn how to

scroll by the time you're three or four

>> um and navigate the the algorithms. You

know, if we do nothing and we don't

shift that cultural uh uh behavior or

what's being made, you know, common

cultural behavior now, then yeah, it

will be very problematic. And so I

think, you know, it's a very important

time right now for parents uh to make

sure your kids are are well and anchored

in in the real world and not just uh you

know uh checked out to launch and

trusting uh you know potentially

trusting algorithms more than you. I

mean there's these efforts to have

domestic robots in the house. A lot of

the ads show show you know young

children develop developing emotional

relationships with these robots saying I

love you and all of this stuff. It is

that is not good. I absolutely agree. Uh

and so you know just because you want to

focus on yourself or X Y and Z is is no

excuse to have you know the emotional

connection your child needs be built

with a machine programmed by who knows

who. I mean so many of these big tech

figures also had relationships to

Jeffrey Epstein a pedophile. Do you want

to trust those people uh to program

stuff uh that's around your kids and and

talks to them and you know potentially

manipulates them when you're not there?

So, you know, it's not just with that

too. I mean that that is the idea of

taking active responsibility for things

in your life and we need to do more of

that. And culturally, Americans have

been the best at that for a very long

time. But we there have been a lot of

efforts to condition us out of that. And

a lot of it has been through this um

effort to cultivate the importance of

comfort above all else and convenience.

you know the idea of rugged

individualism in the US uh unfortunately

has been uh you know greatly reduced and

I think it's important for us to take

active responsibility because you know

the the pull of AI is to get is is for

is uh for us to be passive and do

nothing and just let it wash over us and

uh oh you don't have to do that anymore

AI can do that and AI can do this for

you and and this and that. Um and if

we're not uh focused on uh the things

that we like to create and that we like

to do um and uh active, you know, we

will recede and that is how the

posthuman future will happen. There is

still a lot of time for agency. Um but

people just need to be

>> really aware of what's going on and

determined to to change it.

>> Is there anything to I mean do you use

AI at all for anything?

>> Nothing. You're completely off it. You

don't use it.

>> No, I'm I'm uninterested in using it. I

mean, I didn't I mean, it wasn't always

around. You know, I'm I'm 35 now, and

you know, when I was in university,

there was no AI. I learned how to write

and do what I do now without it. So, why

would I need it? Especially when I'm

aware that, you know, the whole idea if

you don't use it, you lose it. So, I

stop uh you know, let's say for example,

a person who does work similar to me uh

stops researching, has AI do their

research for them. Well, they'll come

back in a year or two and be like, "Wow,

I kind of forgot how to do this. I don't

remember how to do it anymore. It's

gotten a lot harder for me." Right? The

same idea if you stop doing mental math

because you're constantly relying on a

calculator. Uh it gets harder. Uh that's

the idea of cognitive

>> diminishment. Ray Kerszsw called it. Ray

Kerszswhile told me that uh No, it'll

just free your mind up to do other

bigger, more important things. And I

didn't believe

>> that's not happening.

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah. I didn't think it would.

>> We can already see that's Yeah. We can

already see that's not uh that's not

happening.

>> So I I think people again need to take

active control of not just their

physical lives as much as possible, but

their mental lives too. And have to

remember that you know uh even on big

social media platforms like uh X

formerly Twitter for example they've

openly said that the AI Grock is going

to be running the algorithms period uh

come November you know so AI uh is is

inescapable in those types of

environments and we have to remember

that um we have to be aware that there

is an effort to influence us towards

these policies. Um, and a lot of people

go on to social media assume it's uh,

you know, the new public square and you

know, free, you know, that it's better

for free speech now and all of that, but

aren't um, aware that really every time

you're going on these platforms, it is a

cognitive battlefield. Uh, and again,

this is why I want really want to stress

stretch sorry stress that critical

thinking has never been more important.

there's a reason they've tried to breed

it out of the school systems uh in the

US and uh social media chat GPT the chat

bots all of that are meant to further

eliminate that from us so it's never

been uh more important to scrutinize uh

things and and go into these envi

digital environments uh realizing them

for what they are um and some people get

benefits from them but some people uh

don't necessarily anymore uh and there's

been a lot um even studies that have

been leaked from places like Facebook

where they've manipulated your

algorithms to depress you to make you

feel feel very negative and feel

despondent um and all of that and yeah I

mean if we give in to those kind of

emotions then we we'll just do nothing

right to change uh our situation and do

nothing uh while we're at this crossro

crossroads that we're at that I

mentioned earlier uh so there's an

effort to emotionally manipulate us uh

there as well what you know they can

determine what you see and they know you

know you're you're well studied because

of all the data that has uh you have

generated during your time in the

digital environment and they can use

that to determine exactly what type of

demographic you are exactly what uh you

would need to see to shift your

viewpoint from viewpoint A to viewpoint

B

>> um and uh you know the type of

manipulations they can do um you know

they can do at a tremendous scale now

with AI and we also have to keep in mind

that during the Obama administration

They lifted the ban on the use of

propaganda on the domestic American

population that had been in place for

many decades. And a lot of people

unfortunately uh forget that.

>> I was just talking to a senator the

other day and saying why haven't you why

haven't you stood up and said and he

said I have but nobody wants to listen.

That that needs to be repealed. That

needs to be changed back to the way it

originally was. It it's in it's insane.

Um uh look, can we talk about the way

countries are behaving right now? Um

with all of the flaws of Donald Trump,

it is he is

at least appears to be the only one that

is fighting for

uh the country or his country. I I see

some of these others that I think the

the head of Hungary is doing the same,

but you see these prime ministers and

these presidents everywhere and

they are so disconnected from the people

and they're all for this global thing

where everybody is like, "No, I like my

flag. I like being Italian. I like being

English. I like being American. I like

being Canadian.

And yet that's all being erased. And

it's all happening in the same language

at the same time in their political

systems. We're passing the same laws.

We're doing the same things. And yet

we're each of us convinced it's only our

country because we have this politician.

We got to get this politician. How do

you break through to people to say,

"Look, dummy. Look past the borders.

Look past our politician. Like or

dislike, doesn't matter. Look past them.

It's happening everywhere. This is a

global movement.

>> Yeah. I would probably start with

pointing out that for example in our

Congress, it's not like the congressmen

themselves write all of the legislation

that they pass, right? A lot of that

comes pre-written from think tanks. And

a lot of those think tanks have certain

things in common. They share a lot of

the same uh oligarch connections for

example. So the world economic forum

arguably is one such think tank. Um

another one would be the Carnegie

endowment for example that for a long

time was dominated by uh the Pritsker

family. Bill Burns Biden and CIA

director used to be the head of that for

example. Um they're another one that has

a lot of influence uh that way. CSIS,

which has another, I believe, Pritsker

on the chairman, uh, as its chairman,

the one that was most tied up with the

Epstein scandal, uh, is there. And, you

know, the Pritskars, uh, not to pick on

them, but they're just, you know, one of

these families that doesn't really get

talked about very often, instrumental in

the rise of Barack Obama in Chicago

along with the Crown family, uh, for

example. Uh, but, you know, their family

has ties to organized crime going back

to like the 30s or something like that.

So unfortunately a lot of um these

powerful figures have uh shady

connections but a lot of money and have

rebranded as philanthropists and in

doing so have allow uh you know have

gotten these uh trustee or influential

roles at these think tanks which then uh

you know fund you know various fellows

and other uh people that write the

actual legislation that ends up in the

hand of your congressman right and the

congressman is told by the different

lobby groups

um you know this legislation is uh you

know covers these topics and and here

you go you know and I mean I think it's

only a few uh people in in our

legislature like uh you know maybe Rand

Paul or a Thomas Massie who will point

out and be like I just got this

legislation on my desk desk uh and I

have to vote on it in 48 hours and it's

you know a couple thousand pages right

>> have any congressmen how many

congressmen have actually read this

whole

you know and so I tend right

>> and I tend to think that this is a very

common it appears to be common in other

countries uh around the world and so you

would have um you know a lot of these

think tanks that we know in the US some

of them have subsidiaries in other

countries like Latin America or Asia

where have you um and so that's how you

get you know I think the most uh easiest

example would be you know in the co era

how a lot of the a lot of countries

regardless of what they had whether they

had leaders on the left or the right um

adopted a lot of the same legislation

and policies in a very very very uh

short period of time. But also if you

look at Europe for example and the idea

uh the the policies and ideas that have

led to the current uh you know uh

immigration crisis there um you know it

was coming from left and from right the

legislation was coming from certain

think tanks um and I think people need

to look at these other layers of power

that are behind uh the politician.

there's the the the think tanks and

there's also the people that fund those

think tanks and a lot of those a lot of

that money also directly funds campaigns

of of politicians right and um I think

unfortunately a lot of the media uh for

a long time obviously mainstream media

um you know doesn't really look at those

connections arguably because a lot of

those a lot of that same money

influences the corporations that own

them right Yeah,

back with Whitney in just a second.

First, if you wake up every morning

wondering how pain is going to affect

your day, Michael from Connecticut used

to, not anymore. Let me tell you his

relief factor story. Uh, Michael was

dealing with elbow pain, which was, you

know, everything he used his hand and

arm for, it made it really, really hard

to do anything. He tried to work until

um he just couldn't anymore. And then he

tried Relief Factor. Nothing worked

until Relief Factor. And then he started

working again. He said, "My elbow pain

went away." Uh, and on top of that, he

said, "I have more energy." If you're

living with aches and pain, see how

Relief Factor, a daily drug-free

supplement, could help you feel better

and live better. Join the over 1 million

people who have turned to Relief Factor,

just like Michael. Call now. Try the

3-week quick start. It's $19.95, less

than a dollar a day. Don't let pain keep

you from living every day that you want.

It's relief.com. 8004reief. 800 the

number relief.com.

Is there I mean I' I've been looking at

South Korea since Charlie Kirk died. Um

I was asked to take on a couple of

things that he was doing and one of them

was South Korea and I had no idea what

was going on in South Korea. I mean, I I

knew somewhat, but I knew that there was

a president that uh was an awful lot

like Donald Trump was, you know,

fighting against a lot of the literal

Chinese communists that had infiltrated

his country and they they did all kinds

of stuff. A lot of the stuff they did to

Donald Trump, but he was backed into a

corner and made a huge mistake and he

went authoritarian and he's like, "I'm

suspending cuz I don't believe any of

you guys. you're all you're all part of

this. I'm suspending the legislature and

declared martial law until it could be

sorted out. Well, the people rightfully

went what? They revolted. They threw him

out. He was impeached. Uh by the I think

by the end of the day he was out. Um but

that swung everything towards the

revolutionaries on the other side. Uh,

and you know, they're they've opened

their border to China, to North Korea,

letting people just just flow in. Um,

and they are now starting to persecute

anybody who had a conservative point of

view, anybody that was involved, you

know, from 5 years ago with this

president, uh, or voted that way. And

now churches and pastors are going to

prison.

And it is

really frightening to watch this. And

I've been watching it and I thought,

"Wow, I think this is the playbook here

for America and any of these people like

Donald Trump that, you know, they say,

well, they have, you know, tendencies

towards authoritarianism."

Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. And I'm

the I'll be the first to stand up if you

start breaking the Constitution. But I'm

I'm watching what's happening for

instance in Chicago

and I'm thinking, okay, if I'm the

average person, I'm like, well,

something has to be done. And that's

your first mistake. When something has

to be done and it doesn't, you don't

follow it with something constitutional

must be done. You you find you find

yourself in a whole different ballgame.

We're entering a time where the left is

causing so much chaos on the streets.

They are I mean they they it has

something has to be done. You know what

I mean? And then you have because of

that you have this growing feeling on

the right saying, "Yeah, I know

something has to be done and it just has

to stop."

That's where South Korea ended. And I

fear that if we're not really super

careful, that's where we're going to

end. And that's by design.

>> Does that make sense or is that just

crazy talk?

>> Um, yeah. I don't think it's crazy. But

what it does remind me of is something

that happened several decades ago,

mainly in Europe, that was called

Operation Gladadio. I don't know if

you're familiar, but it basically

involved intelligence agencies uh

organized crime and elements of the

Vatican

>> um funding uh terror attacks against

civilians. Um and they were framed in

that particular case as being terrorist

attacks from the left. But the ultimate

goal uh was to create so much terror

that people would give up their uh

liberty for feeling of security, feeling

it was safe to take the bus again, that

it was safe um

>> to live a semblance of a normal life.

It's sort of similar to what happened

during co people would give up so much,

right? Take um the injections, get the

vaccine passport just to have a a a

semblance of a normal life, right? But

this is the same way to do that but with

violence. Um, and who ultimately wins at

the end of of the day, I think, is what

we should be asking here. And we need to

keep in mind, too, that particularly in

the United States, every president since

September 11th has opted to expand um

the so-called war on domestic terror.

>> And uh you know, you'll have a Democrat

president in and they'll weaponize it

against the right and vice versa. And we

have and but either way, the more it

grows, the more it endangers our

constitutional rights. Correct.

>> And so I think it's very important um to

uh again be extra vigilant um about that

because ultimately what they want what

what the powers that be uh want is that

same Hegelian dialectic of problem,

reaction, solution. they want to solicit

that reaction or which has us consent to

the solution uh that they wanted to

implement anyway. And so I fear that

because of the increased power of an

entity like Palunteer in the US

government now that the the next shoe to

drop will there will be a huge push uh

for pre-rime predictive policing as

discussed earlier and uh Trump uh nearly

fell for that trap in uh 2019 when there

were a spate of mass shootings. So,

William Bar, who was an attorney

general, uh it got barely any media

coverage, but he created the uh the

legal infrastructure for pre-rime in the

United States through a program called

DEP. Um and then after that, uh

>> explain what for anybody who doesn't

know what that is, explain it.

>> Uh DEP is an acronym. I forget exactly

what it stands for, but it's like

deterring. It's something about

deterrence ear through early detection

or something like that.

>> Uh but basically the legal

infrastructure set up by Billbar there

was that you could ostensibly um arrest

someone before they committed a crime

preemptively and there have been only a

handful of arrests through deep vi VMI

understanding but because it's there

anything could happen that could make it

uh be deployed at scale. And so that was

particularly concerning at the time

because after that uh because of the

outrage about the spate of shootings at

the time that I think began with the El

Paso uh Walmart shooting of that year.

Um

>> Trump said that social media platforms

need to develop tools uh where uh they

look at what users are saying and uh

determine who will be a shooter before

they can commit an act of violence. I'm

paraphrase paraphrasing there. Um and

then uh his uh administration was

considering but did not implement um a

uh health focused version of of uh the

Pentagon's DARPA. They were calling it

HARPA and that the pilot program of uh

the proposed DARPA would be another

acronym and I'm sorry that I don't

remember what it stands for but it's

quite long. It's called Safe Homes. And

uh the biggest uh lobbyists of this to

the president at the time were Jared

Kushner and his daughter uh Ivanka. Um

and basically what that program proposed

was for an AI to go over all of American

social media posts and determine what

they called early warning uh early

warning signs of neurossychiatric

violence. And if that and if a user's

profile was flagged, all sorts of things

could be triaged from that, including uh

you know, court-ordered physician

appointments and all sorts of things

that sound terrible. Uh Trump, according

to the Washington Post, liked the idea,

but he ultimately didn't pass it. So,

you can take the post reporting uh

however you want, I guess. But what did

happen, the Biden administration did

create HARPA, but they created it under

another name. They called it ARPAH and

they framed it as uh this is how we're

going to cure cancer. But a lot of the

same uh programs are still there. The

same architects of that HARPA proposed

to Trump for those purposes in 2019 were

also involved in the creation of ARPA H

uh which has been pushing for uh you

know uh people to wear wearables for

example which are you know

>> Mhm.

You could theoretically uses

surveillance devices, but you wear them

on your body, right? Um, and they might,

you know, Palanteer runs a lot of that

same data as well. And if they were ever

to combine and end the silo between

healthc care and law enforcement since

they contract to both, there is a

potential for very very um you know

Orwellian uh terrifying stuff when it

comes to predictive policing and

predictive analytics. Uh so you know I

it it again depends on who is around the

president and how much he listens to

them. Uh but I think it's uh since that

happened in 2019, you know, there was an

attempt to get him to implement that

program then and if there is a big

enough um event again uh that could uh

lead to huge calls to do something

um you know we could see that be

marketed as the quote unquote solution.

And who wins there? Well, the big tech

oligarchs that control all of the

infrastructure that would be behind

pre-rime and the AI algorithms. And

what's troubling too about the war on

domestic terror um is that it the

definition for it, the government's

definition for it across uh uh

administrations is incredibly incredibly

vague. So one example is that you can be

defined a domestic terrorist if you feel

like you have to um uh stand up against

government perceived government

overreach is the term.

>> So that could very easily be anyone on

either side of the political aisle.

>> Yeah. So, um, again, when we see when we

want to suspend civil liberties and

constitutional rights for just one

segment of the population because we're

told it's necessary so that we can feel

safer.

What ultimately happens historically is

that those rights go away for everybody

except the people at the very very very

top that are controlling these systems.

Um, for anybody who doesn't know what

Palunteer is, who's running it, why it's

so dangerous, will you take us down that

road?

>> Uh, sure. I would be happy to. So, um,

my work on Palunteer argues that it was

an effort to privatize this program that

was pushed on the public after 911 that

was called total information awareness

that was also housed in the Pentagon

DARPA. Um

there was a huge outcry about this

program at the time because it was uh I

would argue rightly described as uh

eliminating uh the constitutional right

to privacy because everyone's data was

being sucked in and everyone's data was

being spied on. And the ultimate goal of

TIA, total information awareness,

was to have a pre-rime system in the

United States that would stop, they said

at first terrorist attacks before they

could happen. But they're not just

looking at terrorists, they were looking

at everybody. So obviously it was moving

towards predicting crime before it

happens. And it also had a health

component where they said they would uh

hopefully predict uh bioteterror attacks

before they happen. This is again during

the anthrax. uh the aftermath of the

anthrax attacks of 2001 uh but also that

they would predict pandemics before they

happen and a lot of that uh renewed

interest in that you could say uh

occurred during the co era right and so

as this program was getting into trouble

and they tried to change their name and

tried to do all these things to keep

Congress from defunding them uh

Palunteer uh was incorporated uh by

Peter Teal and Peter Teal and Alex Karp

who were two of the Palunteer

co-founders

uh talked to Richard Pearl who put them

in touch with the person who was running

total information awareness and they

basically said uh you know they viewed

him as uh point John Po Dextter was his

name they viewed him as the godfather of

modern surveillance and they wanted u to

essentially recreate what he was doing

but they did so as an entirely private

entity and in doing so because the

government wasn't directly involved a

lot of the outcry just dissipated and

the earliest funders of Palunteer um

were uh Teal himself, but also the CIA's

Inqel and the CIA uh was Palanteer's

first client uh and was their only

client, I believe, for their first five

or six years as um a company. Uh Alex

Corpus said the CIA was always the

intended client of Palunteer. Uh you had

Palunteer engineers going to CIA

headquarters every two weeks having them

uh tweak their product. Uh, it appears

to be, I would argue, a CIA front

company. And the CIA, particularly its

chief information officer at the time, a

fellow named Alan Wade, had also been

one of the biggest cheerleaders of total

information awareness.

And he was also um, apparently a

business partner of Galain Maxwell's

sister Christine Maxwell. They tried to

make a homeland security software

program together um called Kilad

>> which is uh you know worthy of scrutiny

as well and I have uh some writing about

that or some more information about that

in my in my book. Well, basically that

uh there was this scandal in the 80s um

that involved Robert Maxwell uh her

father called the promise software

scandal and it was where the CIA and

also Israeli intelligence put back doors

into um this uh software program that

was marketed to countries and to

corporations and banks um throughout the

world. And Christine Maxwell had

actually been directly involved with the

front company that her father used to

market that software. Um and then uh

actively after his death in 1991 said

that she and her sister, her twin

sister, also Gileain's sister, um were

trying to rebuild their father's uh

legacy. And so they uh created this tech

company uh that became one of the early

search engines, but they developed a

very close working relationship with

Bill Gates and Microsoft, which is

probably how Bill Gates actually met

>> uh Jeffrey Epstein many decades before

uh they officially met. And there's

other attestations to that as well. But

basically um the software that she

created with Wade Kilad uh was a proto

Palunteer and the promise software was

actually very similar to um Palunteer as

well. But uh the software had been

stolen from a fellow named Bill Hamilton

and his company Inslaw uh Inc. And so uh

they had been the Hamiltons had been

suing uh the US government to try and uh

get payments restored to them for the

use of their uh software, but it was

stolen illicitly. And so by turning it

sort of laundering it into these

different um companies, they were able

to avoid ever paying the Hamiltons any

money for the software that they

essentially stole. Um, and so anyway, I

don't want to get too um

>> off the topic of of Palunteer, but you

know, these are the characters that

essentially uh created it. And it uh it

labels people as there's a label you can

label someone as a subversive

>> um in the Palunteer system. Um and it

collects essentially everything um about

you. And so currently it's being used to

target and uh classify uh immigrants for

deportation, but it has those same

capabilities that could be used against

uh you know actual American citizens

domestically if the war on domestic

terror was ever to begin in earnest. Um

and so I find it an immensely concerning

company. Particularly its interest in uh

predictive policing and pre-rime which

it was one of the earliest uh piloters

of uh of predictive policing. I believe

they started in New Orleans. And there's

also the fact that um you know the

co-founder of of Palunteer, Peter Teal,

uh was dis relatively dishonest, I would

argue, about his meetings with Jeffrey

Epstein. Uh he was uh trying to get uh

well, he was involved in funding a

company that also has pre-rime uh

pre-rime uh capabilities uh that was uh

championed by Ahood, Barack, and

Epstein. Uh Epste put a lot of money

into it. It's called Carbine. Um and uh

there were meeting newly released emails

showed that they were all sort of

talking to each other about Teal

investing directly in Carbine and Teal

invested. Um you know uh I think he one

of his venture capital uh firms received

a significant amount of money from

Epstein and he had not been uh very

upfront about that um until you know

relatively recently. Um so I think um

you know that company too, Carbine uh

have it has creeped into a variety of uh

uh counties across the US taking over

the 911 emergency call systems. And if

Congress is to pass legislation uh that

would federalize the 911 system, make it

a all national system, which there is a

push to do, um you know, Carbine is has

been the top lobbying firm for that. Um,

but they have a pre-rime component where

if you um they call it the Crecords

component, but you can't find it on

their website anymore after um there

were reports on it. Um, but essentially

it would comb all of the data off of

your smartphone and use it, put it into

its pre-rime uh analytics to determine

>> if you might be calling 911 again in the

future or be the reason 911 is called.

and that eventually street lights uh in

smart cities would call 911 uh for you

on their own.

>> Sometimes the most powerful innovations

aren't about adding more stuff. They're

about taking things away. They're about

creating less clutter, less confusion,

less fiddling around. And that's exactly

what Audient did with the new Atom X

hearing aid. Instead of tiny little

buttons and frustrating apps or endless

configuration screens, they just put a

simple touchcreen right on the charging

case. So you have your ears, you put

them in and you just tap and adjust and

you hear. It's really simple. No more

squinting, no more need for techsavvy

grandkids. Just a beautifully designed

ready to go device that makes is made by

aologist who listen to people what they

want. Here's the best part. You don't

need a prescription. You don't need a

waiting room. You don't need a $1,000

loan. The Atomax starts at 98 bucks.

It's hearing without the hassle. Clarity

without the cost. And for the first time

in a long time, you will hear your

family's laughter at dinner. The

pastor's message. The punchline on TV.

And you'll smile because you didn't miss

a thing. The Adam X from Audient.

Finally, somebody got it right. Don't

wait. Visit audihheering.com.

audihering.com. Take control of your

hearing today. audiheering.com.

Is it um it does it ever amaze you how

small the circle is? There's not a lot

of people doing these things. I mean, it

is, but not when you look at it

globally.

>> It's it's like

>> I think it amazed me at first, but now

it's like, oh yeah, it's those guys. Um

you know,

>> what do you think the number is? What do

you think the number is that's actually

knows what they're doing and is doing

it?

At most, I would say it's probably a

couple hundred.

>> Is that probably smaller than that, but

well, you know, especially with the

technology they have today, it's never

been easier for the few to control the

many. And they want to make it so that

um you know, the peasants,

>> yeah,

>> uh the surfs can't uh you know, fight

against their rule anymore.

Um, and again that's why we have to uh

resist this as much as possible. But I

uh unfortunately think that to try and

get us to consent because again they

need our consent. They will throw the

kitchen sink at us to try and get us to

consent.

Uh they they could make life very

difficult. They could I mean you know

>> Oh yeah. use acts of of terror like they

did in in something like Operation

Gladadio to make people so afraid for

their lives that they will give up all

of their liberties.

>> They did. This is what the communist did

feel safer.

>> This is what the communists did to take

over. I think it was Hungary. You know,

the the the NATO thing was we'll have

peace, but you can't go in unless

invited. You can't turn any countries uh

into uh Russian satellite countries

unless invited in. And so they just went

in and they they did pretty much what's

happening now, you know, and built the

framework for it to fall in and then

caused chaos in the streets. They had

tanks parked right on the border and

when the chaos got to a certain level,

their people inside the government of

Hungary said, "We need help." And Russia

rolled ac and they were communist

country overnight. I mean, it's it's not

a it's not a hard thing to figure out.

They do it over and over again.

But I would argue too that this is

bigger than just national governments.

This is um

>> oh yeah

>> people yeah I don't know what to call

them but oligarchs again it's a small

number of people and they have their men

as it were in every government

everywhere.

>> Um I'll give you an example that I find

particularly interesting. So Samuel

Pisar uh remembered as a human rights

lawyer, maybe remembered better uh in

the last administration because he

helped raise Anthony Blinken who was his

stepson.

>> Uh he was also a very close friend of of

Robert Maxwell. um he testified to

Congress in the early 70s and he talked

about something called the rise of the

trans ideological corporation and he

said that the western multinational

corporations of uh yeah in the west

right um had started making all of these

joint ventures with the state-owned

communist companies um of Russia and of

China and that what was happening is

that they were basically creating a

global government of economic power that

was making the nation state entirely

irrelevant. This is in the early 1970s

and a congressman, I forget who it was,

uh asked Pisar, "Is this a bad thing?"

And Pisar was like, "Not necessarily."

>> Yeah.

>> And at the same time, his pal Robert

Maxwell was making all of these

connections uh to entities like the KGB

uh to uh Israeli National Security

Agencies in the UK, also in the US,

across the board. uh and giving them

this backdoor software while also trying

to tie together a bunch of organized

crime families across the world starting

with the Yakuza in Japan to Simeon

Mogulich and uh you know Soviet in the

Soviet Union and to mob bosses in the

United States. I mean it I I don't mean

to laugh but it's just truly astounding.

And this was going I mean this was the

70s and he just brazenly admitted it to

Congress. Well, Carol Quigley,

>> he said one of the

>> Do you remember in the 60s Carol

Quigley? He did the same thing. They

made him a pariah for a few years, but

he was like proud of it. No, we're going

to end war. We're going to just tie

everything together financially and

then,

>> you know, you'll have these police

actions and the world changed exactly

the way he said it was going to change.

I mean, they're they're proud of it.

They want to tell you. They're proud of

what they do.

>> Yeah. Uh I think he in particular

Quigley was talking about uh this being

affected by the so-called roundt groups

like the Council on Foreign Relations,

the Trilateral Commission

>> uh of which Kier Starmer is a is a

member if I'm not mistaken. Um and uh

yeah, again these these think tanks are

very powerful. I think actually as it

relates to the CFR, there's a video of

Hillary Clinton uh calling it the

mothership when she was Secretary of

State.

>> Wow. where uh where where her where the

foreign policy directives really come

from. Something to that effect.

>> Is it possible to break this

>> without breaking society? Is it possible

to break and stop this?

>> So I think it is. But I think also that

people have to realize that to untangle

uh these powerful interests from our

lives and from our world uh it they

won't go down easily but they will go

down more easily if more of us act and

more of us also know and understand that

they uh in a lot of cases there are

efforts to try and make us

uh resort to violence. Yes, that's what

they want. And I think um

>> in the last administration it should

have been very obvious to conservatives

that there was an effort to go them

towards violence. Um and I think that

will pingpong from left to right. It

will go you know it it it they want to

just get people that want to fight

against this on both sides and they want

to demonize them uh so that they can be

sort of swept up in this war on on

domestic terror. So violence is

absolutely not the answer. But what can

we do? I think it's important again uh

what we have to focus on what we can

actually control you know overnight we

can't um you know a person like me can't

dismantle uh the W or the CFR or any of

these things but what can I do what can

I actually control right um and so I can

control um you know where I uh how I

live my life how I raise my children uh

whether I'm dependent on uh the

infrastructure of people that I know are

bad whether that's the power grid or how

I use social media or any of these other

things you know people need to take

stock of of their life and what they can

control but ultimately what it comes

down to also and I think one of the most

important uh points I have to convey

today um is that they want our consent

so badly and they need it uh for this to

work and that includes in a lot of

>> why do they need

>> I think it comes down to a a user base

Um, so for example, if uh there's a CBDC

or a stable coin launched by a

government somewhere and no one uses it,

it fails. If digital D ID is a lynch pin

to all of this stuff and no one uses it,

it fails.

And I think they just don't think that

we they think uh they can use uh you

know a carrot you know in the carrot and

stick analogy to lure us in and then

once we are in out comes the stick and

um

>> I think a lot of this if it's not

through uh you know fear which is you

know the go-to way to control people

whether it's the COVID type of fear or

you know the domestic terror uh type of

fear You know, that's one way, but also

money. Our money is a key way uh to try

and attacking people's wealth in wealth

transfers. Uh because people that are

more likely to go into these digital

prisons, uh they will be desperate. And

so you want uh desperate people also

don't think rationally. And so at a

certain point uh you worry about your

survival

>> and you uh stop worrying about you know

maybe your civil liberties or maybe even

the constitution and that needs

Yeah.

>> And so I think we how do we protect

ourselves and insulate ourselves and our

communities from events that would that

are leading us towards that reaction and

the problem reaction solution paradigm?

>> Can I ask you where do we where where do

we stand on um

the race for AI and does it matter?

I mean, I see things I see things that

are being developed for the Pentagon and

for China that are terrifying. I don't

think people understand war. It It's

going to be as if you fought in the

SpanishAmerican War and all of a sudden

you were transported to, you know, uh,

World War II. Um, nothing is going to be

the same. Everything that we have is

going to be outdated. Every I mean the

killing that is possible in the very

near future with AI is breathtaking.

Am I wrong on this? Please say yes.

>> No, I don't think you're I don't think

you're wrong on that. Uh I think it is

incredibly deeply unsettling. Um it

allows uh not just war but war crimes to

be committed at scale with minimal human

involvement. And uh yeah,

>> if Hitler had just the technology, just

if Hitler had the technology just that

we know of today, there wouldn't be a

Jew on on the planet. There wouldn't be

one.

>> I mean, you can track people, you can

hunt them down, you can grab them, you

can you can convince them to do I mean

the the power. So

tell me where we are with AI on the

China and our race towards it and all of

this stuff. I I don't see us building

all these power. I've I've I've talked

to the president about, hey, we're going

to build all these nuclear power plant.

Well, you better hurry because if you're

actually fighting that war, we're not

going to have the power to run these

places. So where are we on all of this?

Well, I guess there's a couple different

ways um to to go here. Um and I'm not

really sure the best place to start, but

I guess um what I think of in in you

asking that question is um there was

this National Security Commission uh

called the National Security Commission

on AI. Eric Schmidt, unsurprisingly,

um, led it

>> and yeah, he and he, um, basically some

of in some of the documentation that

came out of, uh, of of that commission

via foyer request uh, showed that they

felt that the only way for the US to

catch up to China, and I'm par, this is

my opinion, um, was essentially to

become China, right? In the name of

beating China, we have to do all the

things. um God that sounds like a very

gets criticized about China. So the idea

was in China they use AI for everything.

AI has crept into every um

>> facet of a person's life in a Chinese

mega city. And so um we need to make

Americans uh use AI just as much if not

more in order to leapfrog uh Chinese AI

capabilities.

So, what did they suggest? And this is

right before COVID, by the way. Uh, they

suggested an end to in-person shopping

and an end to in-person doctor visits.

Um, an end of uh car ownership that we

should only use fleets of self-driving

Ubers that we rent. Um, and you know,

basically live through our phones and

live through apps uh that are powered by

AI because uh they argue China has a

larger population. It has a user base

that is feeding Chinese AI uh with so

much more data than Americans are

feeding American AI. Uh so we have to uh

harvest more data

>> from Americans faster

>> um in order to catch up.

So, um, at the at at the same time too,

you have a lot of big tech oligarchs

that have a lot of ties to China and

Chinese industry,

>> um, and Chinese tech companies that run

those things in China. Um, and you know,

I would argue, you know, is the AI uh,

arms race all the fear jinned up about

it just to sort of get us to acquies to

that same type of system here? And

sometimes, yeah, I uh that's what it

sometimes seems like to me.

>> An amazing final segment uh with Whitney

here in just a second. First, let me

tell you about Moxy. The seasons are

changing, the air is getting cooler,

days are getting shorter, and while

you're switching out the wardrobe or

putting on an extra blanket on the bed,

something else is happening. Something

you don't know until you already until

they're already inside. And that is uh

the through the leaves and the crawl

spaces and and everything else. Pests

are coming in. Ants, the silverfish, all

of them looking for the same thing

you're looking for. Warm place to hide

out for the winter. So unless you've

made it clear they're not welcome. That

place might be your house. Moxy. Moxy

pest control. They know exactly how this

plays out. They've been through it a

thousand times. They don't just show up

and spray something around your house.

They plan. They strategize. They build a

perimeter and they protect what's yours

from everything that isn't yours. This

isn't just about bugs. It's about the

line between what's out there and what

belongs inside of your home. The seasons

may change, but your peace of mind

doesn't have to. Celebrate 25 years in

business. Now you can get your first

pest control service for $25. Visit

moxyservices.com/beck.

Use the promo code Beck and get it.

First service $25.

Well, it is always fascinating to talk

to you. I can we talk about Jeffrey

Epstein for just a second? Um because

you are the foremost expert on that

whole web. Um

>> Oh, well thank you.

>> Well, you are um I mean I I was thinking

about it today when we were getting

ready to do the interview. I'm thinking

I don't there's nobody that knows more

about it than you. Do you think?

>> Well, you know, I would say my expertise

in my book, you know, about Epstein only

really goes up to um his first arrest.

And so I don't really consider myself an

expert in all the litigation that

followed that and all the civil cases

between his accusers

um and a lot of the court stuff and also

I feel like there's plenty of other

journalists that have covered um victim

testimonies and what victims have said

um

>> but

Jeffrey Ebstein and where he came from,

what he was, there's nobody better than

you.

>> Um

>> thank you. So is there a

is there a black book?

>> So I would say first of all there is a

black book that has been published. It

was published by Gawker in 2015. It was

obtained by journalist Nick Bryant. Um

and that is the black book we have. Um

there is obviously documentation and

documents that the US government still

has that it has very openly over the

past several months uh made various

excuses for about why it will not

release them. Um as far as the black

>> uh no I don't

>> okay

>> um but I can I can guess about some

things. So, but there are also a few

questions that they could just answer

that don't necessarily involve document

releasing. Like, why was Zoro Ranch

never raided?

It's one of it's in the continental US.

It's an Epstein property. The New York

townhouse was town raided. Why were

there not simultaneous raids on all of

his properties on US territory not

coordinate that?

>> Uh, well, I don't know. I mean, Zoro

Ranch, there's a lot of um

>> that's New Mexico, right?

>> Spec in the New Mexico property. There's

a lot of speculation about what happened

there uh with women in particular. Um

and uh why was it never raided? I just

find that uh incredibly strange. And

also, you know, there's attestations

during the 2019 uh raid on the New York

townhouse. Uh that there were binders of

CDs um and you know, hard drives. You

know, what was what was the content? I

mean, Pam Bondi has now, more recently,

after saying she was going to release

them, turned around and said that

they're all CP. Um, I don't necessarily

know if that's true, but again,

>> a child porn. I just

>> Okay. All right. Yeah, fine.

>> Preferred to use the abbreviation.

Sorry.

>> Yeah, that's all right.

>> Yeah. Um, but there's all sorts of um

things that that could actually be.

Again, we don't know. Um,

again, I, as I've said for a long time,

I think the Jeffrey Epstein case is a

bipartisan issue. Um, there's a lot of

powerful people that went to him, and it

wasn't exclusively, uh, for sexual

deviency. there uh I I've argued for a

long time that Epstein was involved in

financial criminality uh money

laundering uh tax evasion and it seems

that there are a lot of very powerful uh

oligarch figures and many of them very

powerful big tech figures whose money he

was uh managing um and one one example

of that that came downwind of the USBI

uh case against u you know JP Morgan uh

was Sergey Bren in particular the Google

co-founder um and a lot of uh but those

cases were settled. Um the son of a

judge was murdered when she was

overseeing the Deutsche Bank uh Epstein

case. I think there's a a major interest

in not having those financial um uh

relationships fully untangled. Um and I

think um you know because of how

interwoven

um these these networks are um you know

it's it's uh not politically uh salient

for uh the Trump administration to

release them all for whatever reason. Um

>> can I can I ask you a question? I don't

know. How do you h how do you decipher

between an actual conspiracy

and I mean one that's been driving me

crazy is that Charlie Kirk was shot in

the back by a MSAD agent who used a

hatch that was in the grass right behind

him and shot him from behind. I mean

just crazy stuff. How do you when you're

looking at something? How do you go

about going ah that's worth looking into

that's not

>> well I think at this point for me it's

it's uh intuition and also the fact that

a lot of my work is historical so I look

back many decades and so if I get

inkling of something suspect happening

now and the the parties involved happen

to be directly connected to people that

I know engaged in wrongdoing and crime

in the past

>> then I I tend to be more inclined

because there's a there are pattern

patterns and a lot of these people

repeat the same tactics and the same

patterns uh of criminality over and over

again. Uh but I think also um yeah there

was a deliberate effort to try and

undermine the reporting on real

conspiracies by muddying the waters and

flooding it with crap language.

>> It was a CIA operative, wasn't it? It

was that said discredit people by

calling them conspiracy theorists.

>> Uh after the Kennedy assassination. Yes.

And so, but in addition to that, more

recently, uh, Samantha P's husband, Cass

Sunstein, uh, wrote a bizarre paper. I

forget exactly when. I think it was in

the Obama era. Exactly what the quote

is.

>> It said, uh, even if it turns out to be

true,

discredit.

That was, it was like it was your first

go was to call it a conspiracy theory.

Even if it turns out later to be true,

it doesn't matter. Discredit, discredit,

discredit.

>> Yes. But in addition to that, there was

an there was something about

infiltrating conspiracy movements.

That's right.

>> In order to push the needle to a

narrative that's was more favorable uh

to the powers that be. So he as one

example he said a lot of conspiracy

uh the conspiracy movement in the US at

that time did not trust the government.

So, how do we make a conspira infiltrate

conspiracy movements to make them trust

the government? And I would argue that

something like QAnon, it likely was

downwind of that.

>> Wow. I never thought of that.

>> But, but there's very it's very possible

um that that continues now. Uh I would

argue it does, especially, you know,

they know that a lot of this information

about past conspiracies or even current

ones, you know, can't always be put back

in the bottle. But if you muddy the

waters, you flood the zone, to use one

of their terms, with things that are are

dubious, you know, it becomes very hard

for people uh to sift through the

content.

>> And then we're left doing what Eric

Schmidt and Henry Kissinger proposed,

relying on AI to sift through all of

that for us, to tell us the right

answer. Um, so again, critical thinking

very important. Um, but I think, you

know, because trust is at is at an

all-time low. Um, you know, there's it

just depends on the person, uh, I mean,

obviously there's a lot of people that,

uh,

um, you know, are terminally online and

sort of drift into places where they

might think things are true that, um, I

I, you know,

>> certain people would definitely not

agree with. Um but again I think it just

comes down to individual discernment and

critical thinking which are uh qualities

that are not taught to people uh anymore

in in schools and uh you know it starts

with with parents teaching that type of

um discernment. And for me personally

you know I I think history adds a lot of

the necessary context to having that

ability to discern. Um and so I would

you know urge people to look at um you

know what these particular networks um

have done decade over decade. You know

what the reason my book is so long and

is in two volumes is because you know I

thought that the repeated patterns by

the repeated individuals that are all

connected together would show that

obviously there is something wrong here.

uh maybe we won't get an emission you

know from Bill Gates and writing about

his Epstein relationship or you know

from uh intelligence agencies that they

had connections to Jeffrey Epstein and

affidavit. It's very unlikely we'll get

those documents. So what can we look at

in uh in in you know the public record

that's publicly available? And uh

obviously I think you know my book shows

that there's various instances the same

individuals repeating the same tactics

um over and over again using a lot of

the same institutions to do so. Um and

how you know the it just stacks so much

that it becomes to me quite obvious that

something is is very wrong um with that

particular network. And when you have so

many instances of financial crime, arms

trafficking, sex trafficking

concentrated with such a in such a small

group of people, many of whom have ties

to the organized crime uh gangs from,

you know, America's notsodistant past.

Um, you know, it to me it looks like

that a lot of those people rebranded and

basically the main thesis of my book is

that those organized crime interests got

in bed with our our intelligence

agencies. Um, and some of those

organized crime figures rebranded as

philanthropists or other things. Um but

ultimately um you know it's what that

that entity that fused entity ultimately

wants is an authoritarian

uh government

and we have to u fight against that

despite you know all the things that

they could throw on us and all the

manipulations

um that they may target us with. Um,

which again I think over the ne over the

short term it's going to be more than

we've probably ever seen uh before but

people have to be very steadfast in uh

how much the constitution matters to

them that constitutional rights are for

every American not just the American

that we happen to agree with. Yes. And I

think that who benefits the most if we

start hating our neighbor and want to

kill them

>> you know. Um, so

>> last question.

What keeps you up at night? What are you

looking at the future over the horizon

and going, "Oh my gosh." Well, there's

more than a few things I guess I would

say right now, but I'm I'm very

concerned, you know, as as a parent, you

know, seeing a school um

kids that go to school with my children

or that we just know or or seeing other

kids uh of other people online just how

sucked into um technology they are and

some and some of them how much they

identify with the technology more than

the real world. That worries me greatly,

especially considering that we saw this

push a few years ago um for the the

so-called metaverse as it were. Um and

getting people to want to live in a

virtual

uh reality.

>> Um and actually this political

philosopher who's very close to to Peter

Teal, um Curtis Yarvin, he has this

quote about what should be done with the

undesirabs of society. He calls it a

humane alternative to genocide. And it

sounds just like something Claus Schwab

would say. It was basically, you know,

the best. I have the quote. I could read

it to you. It's on my desk.

>> It's probably like uh Yaval Harrari's

quote.

>> It It truly is. But this is somehow

someone that is popular uh in certain

right-leaning circles in the US right

now. Um but I

>> What's his name? I got to look him up.

>> Uh Curt Curtis Yarvin.

>> Okay. Okay. Uh he said the best humane

alternative to genocide I can think of

is not to liquidate the wards meaning

people either metaphorically or

literally but to virtualize them. A

virtualized human is in permanent

solitary confinement waxed like a bee

larvae into a cell which is sealed

except for emergencies.

>> Oh my god. This would drive him insane

except that the cell contains an

immersive virtual reality interface

which allows him to experience a rich,

fulfilling life in a completely

imaginary world.

>> It is the Matrix.

>> It's the Matrix. Uh, and I think I just

worry about how uh I I know I see

parents that are my age that probably

shouldn't be parents at all that just

pass, you know, tablets or phones to

their kids and just want to focus on

their own stuff or their own screens and

don't parent. And we are and those

people are inadvertently socially

engineering their children to live in

that kind of reality if they are deemed

undesirable or you know part of this

underclass that AI is going to act upon.

Um, and that's what really unsettles me.

Uh, because I think a lot of this, um,

if they can't do it, um, you know, now,

they'll absolutely try in future

generations. And if we don't prepare

them for this and prepare them to live

and stand up for the real world and to

stand up for what it means to be human,

if they forget, if they never learn

Yeah.

>> Uh, you know, what it means, we could,

then, yeah, I think we could lose it.

And so, you know, I think uh there's

never been a more important time uh to

to be a good parent.

>> Wow.

>> Uh than right now.

>> Good for you. I I just I really love

talking to you. You're so bright and so

centered and that's rare. Thank you.

>> Thanks.

>> You bet.