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

McDonald's has classics.

But then there's the classic.

Two beef patties, sesame seed bun, made perfect with iconic Big Mac sauce.

And now I can snag one with fries and a soft drink with a $9 Big Mac extra value meal.

That's a Big Mac, medium fries, and an ice-cold Coke, all for $9.

Score the classics at Mickey D's.

They're classics for a reason.

But up, ba-ba-ba.

Prices and participation may vary.

Cannot be combined with any other opera or combo meal.

Promotion pricing may be lower than meal pricing.

Coca-Cola is a registered trademark of the Coca-Cola Company.

And now, a Blaze Media Podcast.

Hello, America.

You know, we've been fighting every single day.

We push back against the lies, the censorship, the nonsense of the mainstream media that they're trying to feed you.

We work tirelessly to bring you the unfiltered truth because you deserve it.

But to keep this fight going, we need you.

Right now, would you take a moment and rate and review the Glenn Beck podcast?

Give us five stars and lead a comment because every single review helps us break through big tech's algorithm to reach more Americans who need to hear the truth.

This isn't a podcast.

This is a movement and you're part of it, a big part of it.

So if you believe in what we're doing, you want more people to wake up, help us push this podcast to the top.

Rate, review, share.

Together, we'll make a difference.

And thanks for standing with us.

Now let's get to work.

The last time I spoke with this week's guest, The Great Reset was in full swing.

Klaus Schwab of 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 three years, and it seems like Donald Trump has destroyed the WEF 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?

Or have the global elites just pivoted?

And what's happening with

digital ID, which has just been 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.

Hello, Whitney.

Welcome back.

Glad to have you.

Hi, it's been a while.

Thank you.

My pleasure.

Thanks for having me back on.

You bet.

You know, last time we spoke,

I think it was right after COVID.

You had just released your book on Epstein, which is fabulous.

Thank you.

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

I was so hyper-focused 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.

Klaus Schwab was exposed.

Of course they're not.

You're right.

They're not gone.

So

have they just mutated?

Is somebody else taking their place?

Did they pass the torque?

What is happening?

Yeah, so I would argue,

let's go back to what the WEF is by its own description.

It's the premier promoter of the public-private partnership.

So I think a lot of the policies that 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 and are trying to market some of their policies that are unpopular with significant segments, particularly in the West, you know, via the private sector.

I would can you give me examples?

I think that's what's happening.

Yeah, so I guess one example would be, let's take what's happening in Britain, for example, with the so-called Brit card and digital ID.

So obviously there's been a lot of political pushback to that

from Keir Starmer,

his

intention to frame this as a way to solve illegal immigration, which is absolutely a ludicrous idea.

Madness.

Yeah.

Yeah, completely insane.

And so,

and then they have, of course, come out and said that soon, you know, it wasn't just limited to

its use as an alleged work permit.

It would expand to all facets of life.

But actually,

if you look at how the UN has labeled or has sort of laid out

its plan, really, to have digital ID implemented at a global scale, it's not to have it be a centralized digital ID like the Brit card has been proposed.

Instead, it's meant to be a vendor agnostic system whereby you would have different vendors

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 partners in digital ID that they have the illusion of choice between them.

But really all that data is meant to be interoperable.

And so that it can all be harvested off of any of these, you know, different digital ID platforms and collated in a mass in a single database.

Because ultimately, if you were to have something like BritCard, for example, happen, you would have all of the data be harvested into a single library, what Tony Blair's Institute, for example, calls the National Data Library.

Something like that.

So you could have that happen with Keir Starmer's Britcard or something else

that comes from, I don't know,

five or six different companies offering different forms of digital ID, but all of that data could still be harvested

from all of those

different vendors because they all agree to specific standards.

And if you look at some of these alliances about digital ID that were a focus during COVID, for example, like the ID 2020 alliance, for example, 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 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

for a few years now, Ian Davis, recently wrote about what's going on in the UK.

He's based there.

And he posited that maybe what Kirstarmer is doing is actually a bait and switch, 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, which would be more along the lines of what I just described, which is actually how the UN itself and SDG 16, which is the SDG that includes digital ID, you know, the roadmap laid out there, is not the same as the one laid out.

by Keir Starmers.

So

in that, you still have a public-private partnership, right?

But it would be the private leading as opposed to the public leading.

And what we're seeing come out of the UK right now is being sold as a public leading leading thing and it's grossly unpopular.

And I think they're a lot smarter than people give them credit for.

I mean, they're fundamentally very manipulative and they want us to get stuck with the same

policy, but they're very apt at selling it.

different ways and they know that they've become very unpopular with large segments of the population.

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 type of, you know, technocratic Orwellian system.

A couple of 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 are so thorough.

They are so

well thought out.

The structure of this, the fallbacks,

the use of 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.

I think it's because a lot of the people that seek to enslave the vast majority of humanity have a lot of capital that they want to devote to this, unfortunately.

And

unfortunately, we also know that money can buy you essentially anything in today's world, including armies of behavioral

psychologists and any other number of other specialists.

But ultimately, I think a lot of them are increasingly relying on artificial intelligence to be able to do this at scale.

And so I think

this admin of the era of AI generated content also enables them to

tweak things faster and also to

manipulate our attention in ways that are just really being discovered and maybe won't be discovered for a long time with

increasingly significant impacts on human behavior and also on human

perception.

So,

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.

But if these are issues that particularly concern you, we absolutely should

make that effort.

And also, I think

in the COVID era, for example, a lot of people were against these particular policies, digital ID 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

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, the better off we'll be instead of the person selling it to us

or 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.

Yes.

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, well, digital ID is really the linchpin to, you know, the sustainable development goals, as well as this mass surveillance paradigm that's being sold to us 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 the way for you to offer your credentials to every service that you access, period.

Everything ranging from healthcare to telecommunications, your social media accounts.

And as things become

increasingly digitally connected, you know, perhaps even your appliances, if they're smart appliances at some point, won't function without you having the proper credentials to show that it's you.

So ultimately, if people want to fight against this mass surveillance paradigm and these efforts to usher us into

a very dark, I would argue, technocratic future, the most important thing is to not comply with digital ID because it's the single most important piece of infrastructure that they need.

And they need us to voluntarily consent because even if they roll it out and people, 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 is that,

you know, a kindergarten answer?

Well, I would argue because a lot of these companies that are engaged in these mass surveillance or the contractors really that are engaged in mass surveillance, don't ultimately have just watching what you're doing 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,

you know, send you to a court-ordered physician or, you know, detain, issue house arrest to protect, to stop crime before it happens, essentially.

Minority is where a lot of these companies, well, yeah,

unfortunately, it is that.

And there's a lot of companies that have made

massive inroads in that type of technology, even though it's been hugely discredited.

There's several companies.

I think the most notorious at this point is called, or was called Predpol.

They've since rebranded, but they were less accurate than a coin toss and people were being

deprived of their liberty because of an algorithm that was hugely inaccurate.

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 vendors, even when this inaccuracy is demonstrated.

So to me, that says that their goal is to have us induce and be obedience by the fact that you're being watched all the time and anything you may do could be used against you, even if you're not doing anything wrong now.

An algorithm could determine that certain errant behaviors warrant you being added to a list of some type.

And actually, Larry Ellison of Oracle, who is one of the main founders of Tony Blair's Institute, that's one of the biggest pushers for digital ID in the UK, said this at an Oracle shareholder meeting: that, you know, we're recording and surveilling everything, and citizens will be on their best behavior

because they have to, essentially, paraphrasing.

The fact that Donald Trump is 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, you know, I I would argue, overtly and also covertly globalist.

You have people, you know, in that network you just mentioned, serving, for example, on the steering committee of the Bilderberg Group,

which is, you know, a well-known closed-door meeting

globalist conflab.

And unfortunately,

you know, I think they've been, some of them anyway, have been able to characterize their policies as

libertarian, for example, even though some of those same oligarchs are on record saying that the free market is for losers.

If you want to get rich, build a monopoly.

And build monopolies they have, unfortunately.

But I think, again, this is what I was saying earlier about

the World Economic Forum.

You know, there's an effort to sell this since they couldn't sell it from the left.

The goal now is to try and sell it somehow from the right.

and to try and frame it under metrics and dialectics that'll be more appealing to the group that was most against these policies just a few years ago.

And unfortunately, you know, with AI and all of that,

we could happen, it could happen if people aren't vigilant.

You know, just a few years ago, someone like Elon Musk was a major promoter of things like carbon markets and pricing carbon, for example.

And that was actually why he had a falling out with Trump in Trump's first administration, was because Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreements and Elon Musk was like, well, I can't have that.

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 and want to try and get us to continue to buy into their solutions that they have a lot of money to spend convincing us are actually good and rebranding them.

And again, this is why I say it's important to focus on the policies specifically.

How do we

well, wait, wait, before I get there, let me go back to digital ID.

Tie this into a digital currency.

Because

this is the highway system for that, isn't it?

Sure.

Yeah.

Well,

Larry Fink is now running, I believe, the World Economic Forum.

He's acting chairman.

And

in addition to saying that everything will be tokenized, he's said that everything will soon be on the same universal universal digital ledger or database, and that everything on that database will have a unique identifier number.

So for you as an individual, your identifier number will presumably be your digital ID or directly linked to that.

But everything will have a digital ID.

The tokenization agenda in particular seeks to tokenize not just assets that we traditionally think of,

like real estate, for example,

or gold or physical assets as well as digital assets like Bitcoin.

There's a major effort connected with people like Fink and also people like Mark Carney, who's now prime minister of Canada, to tokenize

the natural world and transform it into financial assets.

And there was an attempt to do this to an extent under the Biden administration, I believe, through the Department of Interior with natural asset corporations, but that has not gone

And there are groups,

for example, one of the creators of the ETF model originally, which BlackRock now owns, iShares.

His name is Peter Kinez, I think is how you pronounce it.

He's trying to turn the Amazon rainforest into a digital commodity,

sort of similar to

Bitcoin in terms of like the scarcity idea that each hectare of the Amazon rainforest would represent

a token and then financialize it that way.

And then each hectare would then have its unique identifier

on the blockchain.

and would be serviced 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 in, place surveillance technology and tokenize it and put it on a blockchain and use it to,

you know I would argue in the case particularly of natural asset corporations and the group behind it the intrinsic exchange group 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 bad behavior that for example bought us brought us the 2008 financial crisis

by you know can uh cantupling basically the amount of assets currently in play um it's um you know i had

very insane.

I had a guy who worked very, very, very high up at Citibank.

And he told me around 2008, he said, Glenn, you know, don't worry about the financial system.

And I'm like, uh-huh.

And he said,

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 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 phrase that we all heard during the COVID 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 into the financial system, fractionalize it, tokenize it, and

sell pieces of it around,

you know, use it to speculate on.

I mean, it's, it's, it's very bonkers.

Yeah, and so this is just one aspect of the digital currency play.

Obviously, there's a lot more than that just going on as well.

I would argue that a lot of of this push, particularly in the U.S.,

for dollar stablecoins, supposedly being better than a central bank digital currency, also falls into this paradigm we talked about earlier of, you know, moving from the public to the private of the public-private partnership because a lot of these stablecoin issuers, you know, if the concern, the big concerns about CBDCs was that they're seizable, they're surveillable, and they're programmable.

Well, all of those three things also can apply to stablecoins.

The only difference is that you would have 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 when contacted.

Just look at how Bank of America behaved with January 6th, people accused of wrongdoing on that day, for example.

You know, they have no qualms in doing that, in engaging in those type of activities.

And the biggest dollar stablecoin issuer, Tether,

which just hired Bo Hines from the White House,

they have openly said that they are a close partner of the U.S.

government for dollar hegemony globally and have uploaded the FBI, the Secret Service, and other aspects of the U.S.

government onto its platform directly and have seized tethers

from people

just because 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 essentially functioning as a de facto public-private partnership, even though we're being told

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

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 salary-based 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 800-906-2440-800-906-2440 or AmericanFinancing.net.

Introducing Meta-Ray-Band Display, the world's most advanced AI glasses.

With a full color display built into the lens of the glasses, it's there when you need it and gone when you don't.

Send and receive messages.

Translate or caption live conversations.

Collaborate with Meta AI and more.

Be one of the first to try Meta Ray-Band Display.

Visit meta.com slash Meta Rayband Display to book a demo and find your pair.

Let me go to AI because it's all connected, unfortunately.

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 makes

nuclear weapons look like a romper room or, you know, some sort of preschool game.

It is frightening in the fact that you don't really know who's programming it.

It's going to be ubiquitous.

It's going to be everywhere.

It will know everything that you're doing, looking for, et cetera, et cetera.

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 Hagseth, you know, replaced with 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 had been increasingly normalized to sort of to the dissolution between the digital and virtual worlds.

And that's not by coincidence.

So going back to the World Economic Forum, the goal of the WEF's so-called fourth industrial revolution is to blur those lines very overtly.

And so, you know, what we're seeing here are stepping stones leading us to an increasingly encroaching all-digital system.

And, you know, it probably began some time ago.

I'm sure you remember several years ago, Muhammad bin Salman, for example, gave citizenship to a robot.

And that was kind of framed as novel.

But, you know, there's been an effort to normalize these kinds 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 returns results that are essentially indicative of an irreality something that is completely not true

and so who is accountable accountable in those cases?

Can they hold the AI minister directly accountable?

Not really.

Does the accountability fall to the person?

who programmed the AI?

It obviously opens up a pretty sticky situation.

But I would, in the case of this, argue that this is in furtherance of an agenda that was actually laid out by Henry Kissinger and Eric Schmidt in their book.

Oh, I forget what it's called.

Sorry about that.

But they wrote a couple books on AI.

In the earlier one, I think it's AI and Our Human Future is the subtitle, or the Age of AI, something like that.

They essentially argue that

We should put AI in charge of government because they assume,

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 unreal, irreality

results, we should take that 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

offset,

give it power over our lives supposedly because it's a better arbiter of what's real and what's not

than we are, which is,

I think that is...

just insane also.

Sorry to keep repeating that word, but it's hard.

Some of this is really

just bonker stuff.

Yeah.

And in addition to that, Kissinger and Schmidt laid out that their biggest interest in AI was its impact on human perception.

And ultimately, if you're able to

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

the CIA and national security agencies were experimenting with.

You know, you don't need that if you can completely control their perception of what's going on.

And so the goal, as they lay out here, or laid out in that book, is to have people rely on AI for their perception of essentially everything.

And that eventually by doing so, people would be what they, 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 affected that way.

And they would be the class that programs and maintains the AI, determines what it does.

But the rest of us,

a large underclass, would be acted upon by the AI, but again, 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 of things.

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 post-human future, but what is more evil to humanity than that?

Just eliminating us and turning us into what some of these libertarian oligarchs call technoplastic beings.

I mean, some of them think that humans are nothing more than 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.

but in defiance of natural law.

So using technology to allow them to become gods.

A lot of these tech oligarchs, including like the co-founders of Google, have been pretty open about that.

And even someone like Jeffrey Epstein, for example, who was very interested in eugenics and AI and all of that, was interested in

those technologies for those same ends.

I mean, there's a whole group of,

I would call them pretty sick billionaires who want to use this technology to better themselves.

in that way and live forever while the rest of us become cognitively

because 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.

Where do you find hope in all of this?

So, yeah, I get asked this question a lot because when I'm talking about these systems,

it's obviously dark and it's obviously wrong.

But again, like I said earlier,

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.

You can build these digital systems that once you're in them will imprison you.

But if no one uses these systems, they can't do anything.

So a lot of, there's a lot of efforts, for example, to use the, to implement them on existing user bases of massive social media websites, for example.

But if people decline to use it, or people leave these platforms or stop using these, you know, certain digital infrastructure tied to these people, it will collapse.

They need people to be able to What are the ones we should be avoiding right now?

Well, I think people should do their own research and look at who owns what.

But a lot of these billionaires, you have people like Larry Ellison and Eric Schmidt, the Google guys, people like Peter O'Midiar, who were on the left, Reed Hoffman, Bill Gates, right?

And then you have people like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel and the PayPal Mafia crowd.

Most of them frame themselves as libertarian.

If you look at

their philosophy, their own words, they're overtly transhumanist.

A lot of them, despite saying things to the contrary, want global government in some form.

And

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 much better given all this technology that

would be in the hands of this one, or you know,

this very small group of people.

But they don't own everything.

They own a lot of technology, obviously, and technological platforms, social media,

and all sorts of things.

But it's up to people if they want to continue using those services and supporting these people, 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 bootloaders 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

I think the more we

people are not

likely to leave things that make their life easier.

There's not.

Yeah, well, that's the price of convenience, isn't it?

And I think a lot of the effort to enslave us has been to

cajole us and influence influence us with convenience and comfort.

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.

And I mean,

a digital prison without walls, you know, could be similarly comfortable.

And you wouldn't have to lift a finger to fight, you know, for your freedom, but we can still

oh sorry, you wouldn't have to lift a finger to fight for your freedom.

You would just willingly walk into the system, right?

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 a at a crossroads and have been for several years where those of us that don't want to

walk into this have to actively build alternatives.

And if you don't have, you know, a ton of people in your community doing that, maybe you should reach out and build awareness.

But if you have people that are aware of this around you,

it's important to build, I would argue, local resilient networks that don't depend on this infrastructure.

There's still open source alternatives to a lot of the

big tech platforms out there.

I still think that I'm still hopeful that there is time.

But ultimately, at the

end of the day,

if they're pushing us towards a post-human future, I think at some point people will realize 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, are creative pursuits that help define us as human, right?

Making art, making music, writing, these are the things that we're being told to outsource to artificial intelligence, not necessarily the tedious stuff, right?

So what's going to be left for us when we outsource of this all to AI?

Will we allow ourselves to be 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

encourage analog alternatives to that kind of stuff and to engage in

creativity.

And there's a lot of opportunity for that, especially for people that have children.

You know, children are very creative and we need to promote that to them instead of being like, here's a tablet, learn how to scroll by the time you're three or four

and navigate the algorithms.

You know, if we do nothing and we we don't shift that cultural

behavior or what's being made, common cultural behavior now, then yeah, it will be very problematic.

And so I think it's a very important time right now for parents to make sure your kids are well and anchored in the real world and not just

checked out to launch and trusting, 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, you know, young children developing emotional relationships with these robots, saying, I love you, and all of this stuff.

It is, that is not good.

I absolutely agree.

And so, you know, just because you want to focus on yourself or X, Y, and Z 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 paedophile.

Do you want to trust those people to program stuff that's around your kids and talks to them and, you know, potentially manipulates them when you're not there?

So, you know.

It's not just what that too.

I mean, 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 there have been a lot of efforts to condition us out of that.

And a lot of it has been through this

effort to cultivate the importance of comfort above all else and convenience.

You know, the idea of rugged individualism in the U.S.

unfortunately has been

greatly reduced.

And I think it's important for us to take active responsibility because

the poll of AI is to get, is

for us to be passive and do nothing and just let it wash over us.

And,

oh, you don't have to do that anymore.

AI can do that and AI can do this for you and this and that.

And if we're not focused on the things that we like to create and that we like to do

and active, you know, we will recede.

And that is how the post-human future will happen.

There is still a lot of time for agency, but people just need to be

really aware of what's going on and determined to change it.

Is there anything to, I mean, do you use AI at all for anything?

Nothing.

You're completely off.

You you don't use it.

No, I'm uninterested in using it.

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

You know, 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,

you know, let's say, for example, a person who does work similar to me stops research and 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 reliant on a calculator uh it gets harder uh that's the idea of cognitive diminishment ray kurzweil called it ray kurzweil 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.

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 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, even on big social media platforms like X, formerly Twitter, for example, they've openly said that the AI Grok is going to be running the algorithms period come November, you know, AI

is

inescapable in those types of environments.

And we have to remember that we have to be aware that there is an effort to influence us towards these policies.

And a lot of people go onto social media, assume it's

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 aware that really every time you're going on these platforms, it is a cognitive battlefield.

And again, this is why I really want to

stress that critical thinking has never been more important.

There's a reason they've tried to breed it out of the school systems in the U.S.

And social media, chat GPT, the chat bots, all of that are meant to further eliminate that from us.

So it's never been more important to scrutinize things and go into these digital environments, realizing them for what they are.

And some people get benefits from them, but some people don't necessarily anymore.

And there's been a lot, even studies that have been leaked from places like Facebook where they've manipulated your algorithms to depress you,

to make you feel very negative and feel despondent and all of that.

And yeah, I mean,

if we give in to those kind of emotions, then we'll just do nothing, right, to change our situation and do nothing while we're at this

crossroads that we're at that I mentioned earlier.

So, there's an effort to emotionally manipulate us there as well.

They can determine what you see and they know

you're well studied because of all the data that 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 you would need to see to shift your viewpoint from viewpoint A to viewpoint B.

And, you know, the type of manipulations they can do,

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, forget that.

I was just talking to a senator the other day and saying,

why haven't you stood up and said, and he said, I have, but nobody wants to listen.

That needs to be repealed.

That needs to be changed back to the way it originally was.

It's insane.

Look, can we talk about the way countries are behaving right now?

With all of the flaws of Donald Trump,

he is

at least appears to be the only one that is fighting for

the country or his country.

I see some of these others that I think 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

oligarch connections, for example.

So the World World Economic Forum arguably is one such think tank.

Another one would be the Carnegie Endowment, for example, that for a long time was dominated by the Pritzker family.

Bill Burns, Biden's CIA director, used to be the head of that, for example.

They're another one that has a lot of influence that way.

CSIS, which has another, I believe, Pritzker on the chairman

as its chairman, the one that was most tied up with the Epstein scandal is there.

And, you know, the Pritzkers, 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, for example.

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

these powerful figures have shady connections, but a lot of money and have rebranded as philanthropists.

And in doing so, have allow, you know, have gotten these trusty or influential roles at these think tanks, which then, you know, fund, you know, various fellows and other

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,

you know, this legislation is, you know, covers these topics 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 Massey, who will point out and be like, I just got this legislation on my desk and I have to vote on it in 48 hours and it's a couple thousand pages.

Have any congressmen, how many congressmen have actually read this whole thing?

And so I tend, right.

And I tend to think that this is a very common, it appears to be common in other countries around the world.

And so you would have, you know, a lot of these think tanks that we know in the U.S., some of them have subsidiaries in other countries like Latin America or Asia, where have you.

And so that's how you get, you know, I think the most

easiest example would be, you know, in the COVID era, how

a lot of countries, regardless of whether they had leaders on the left or the right,

adopted a lot of the same legislation and policies in a very, very, very short period of time.

But also, if you look at Europe, for example, and the idea,

the policies and ideas that have led to the current

immigration crisis there,

it was coming from left and from right.

The legislation was coming from certain think tanks.

And I think people need to look at these other layers of power that are behind the politician.

There's

the think tanks and there's also the people that fund those think tanks.

And

a lot of that money also directly funds campaigns of politicians, right?

And

I think unfortunately, a lot of the media, and for a long time, obviously mainstream media,

you know, doesn't really look at those connections, arguably because

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.

Michael was dealing with elbow pain which was

you know everything he used his hand and art and his 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 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 can help you feel better and live better join the over 1 million people who have turned to relief factor just like Michael.

Call now for the three-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 factor.com, 800 for Relief.

800, the number four relief, relief factor.com.

Running a business means I wear lots of hats.

Luckily, when it's time to put on my hiring hat, I can count on LinkedIn to make it easy.

I can post a job for free or pay to promote it and get three times more qualified candidates.

Imagine finding your next great hire in 24 hours.

86% of small businesses do.

With LinkedIn, I can also easily share my job with my network.

No other job site lets me do that.

Post your free job at linkedin.com slash achieve.

That's linkedin.com slash achieve.

Terms and conditions apply.

Is there, I mean, I've been looking at South Korea since Charlie Kirk died.

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 knew somewhat, but I knew that there was a president that

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 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, because I don't believe any of you guys.

You're all part of this.

I'm suspending 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.

I think by the end of the day, he was out.

But that swung everything towards the revolutionaries on the other side.

And, you know, they've opened their border to China, to North Korea, letting people just

flow in.

And they are now starting to persecute anybody who had a conservative point of view, anybody that was involved, you know, from five years ago with this president 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'll be the first to stand up if you start breaking the Constitution.

But 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 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, 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?

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 Gladio.

I don't know if you're familiar, but it basically involved intelligence agencies, organized crime, and elements of the Vatican funding terror attacks against civilians.

And they were framed in that particular case as being terrorist attacks from the left.

But the ultimate goal was to create so much terror that people would give up their liberty for feeling of security, feeling that it was safe to take the bus again, that it was safe.

to live a semblance of a normal life.

It's sort of similar to what happened during COVID.

People would give up so much, right?

Take the injections, get the vaccine passport just to have

a semblance of a normal life, right?

But this is the same way to do that, but with violence.

And who ultimately wins at the end 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

the so-called war on domestic terror.

And,

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.

And so I think it's very important

to, again, be extra vigilant about that, because ultimately what they want, what the powers that be want is that same Hegelian dialectic of problem, reaction, solution.

They want to solicit that reaction, which has us consent to the solution that they wanted to implement anyway.

And so I fear that because of the increased power of an entity like Palantir in the U.S.

government now, that the next shoot-a-drop will, there will be a huge push for pre-crime, predictive policing, as discussed earlier.

And Trump nearly fell for that trap in 2019 when there was a spate of mass shooting.

So William Barr, who was an attorney general,

it got barely any media coverage, but he created

the legal infrastructure for pre-crime in the United States through a program called DEAP.

And then after that,

explain what for anybody who doesn't know what that is, explain it.

DEAP is an acronym.

I forget exactly what it stands for, but it's like deterring.

It's something about deterrence

through early detection or something like that.

But basically, the legal infrastructure set up by Bilbar there was that you could ostensibly arrest someone before they committed a crime preemptively.

And there have been only a handful of arrests through deep VMI understanding.

But because it's there, anything could happen that could make it be deployed at scale.

And so that was particularly concerning at the time because after that, because of the outrage about the spate of shootings at the time that I think began with the El Paso Walmart shooting of that year.

Trump said that social media platforms need to develop tools where

they look at what users are saying and determine who will be a shooter before they can commit an act of violence.

I'm

paraphrasing there.

And then

his administration was considering, but did not implement

a

health-focused version of the Pentagon's DARPA.

They were calling it HARPA, and and that the pilot program of the proposed HARPA 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 the biggest lobbyists of this to the president at the time were Jared Kushner and his daughter, Ivanka.

And basically, what that program proposed was for an AI

to go over all of Americans' social media posts and determine what they called

early warning signs of neuropsychiatric violence.

And

if a user's profile was flagged, all sorts of things could be triaged from that, including

court-ordered physician appointments and all sorts of things that sound terrible.

Trump, according to the Washington Post, liked the idea, but he ultimately didn't pass it.

So you can take the post reporting 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 ARPA-H,

and they framed it as, this is how we're going to cure cancer.

But a lot of the same 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.

which has been pushing for, you know, people to wear wearables, for example, which are, you know,

you could theoretically use as surveillance devices, but you wear them on your body, right?

And they might, you know, Palantir runs a lot of that same data as well.

And if they were ever to combine and end the silo between healthcare and law enforcement, since they contract to both, there is a potential for very, very,

you know, Orwellian, terrifying stuff when it comes to predictive policing and predictive analytics.

So, you know,

it again depends on who is around the president and how much he listens to them.

But I think it's 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 event again

that could lead to huge calls to do something.

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-crime 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

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

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

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.

For anybody who doesn't know what Palantir is, who's running it, why it's so dangerous, will you take us down that road?

Sure, I would be happy to.

So my work on Palantir argues that it was an effort to privatize this program that was pushed on the public after 9-11 that was called Total Information Awareness that was also housed in the Pentagon STARPA.

There was a huge outcry about this program at the time because it was,

I would argue, rightly described as eliminating 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-crime 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 hopefully predict bioterror attacks before they happen.

This is again during the anthrax, the aftermath of the anthrax attacks of 2001, but also that they would predict pandemics before they happen.

And a lot of that renewed interest in that, you could say, occurred during the COVID 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, Palantir was incorporated by Peter Thiel.

And Peter Thiel and Alex Karp, who were two of the Palantir co-founders, talked to Richard Pearl, who put them in touch with the person who was running Total Information Awareness.

And they basically said,

you know, they viewed him as

John Poindexter was his name.

They viewed him as the godfather of modern surveillance.

And they wanted 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 Palantir

were Teal himself, but also the CIA's NQTEL.

And the CIA

was Palantir's first client

and was their only client, I believe, for their first five or six years as a company.

Alex Korpus said the CIA was always the intended client of Palantir.

You had Palantir engineers going to CIA headquarters every two weeks, having them tweak their product.

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 apparently a business partner of Ghelene Maxwell's sister, Christine Maxwell.

They tried to make a homeland security software program together called Kilead,

which is

worthy of scrutiny as well.

And I have some writing about that or some more information about that in my book.

Well, basically, that

there was this scandal in the 80s that involved Robert Maxwell, her father, called the Promise Software Scandal.

And it was where the CIA and also Israeli intelligence put back doors into

this software program that was marketed to countries and to corporations and banks throughout the world.

And Christine Maxwell had actually been directly involved with the front company that her father used to market that software.

And then actively after his death in 1991, said that she and her sister, her twin sister, also Ghillaine's sister, were trying to rebuild their father's legacy.

And so they created this tech company 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 Jeffrey Epstein many decades before they officially met.

And there's other attestations to that as well.

But basically, the software that she created with Wade, Kileyad, was a proto-Palantir.

And the Promise software was actually very similar to Palantir as well.

But the software had been stolen from a fellow named Bill Hamilton and his company, Inslaw Inc.

And so they had been, the Hamiltons had been suing

the U.S.

government to try and get payments restored to them for the use of their software, but it was stolen illicitly.

And so by turning it, sort of laundering it into these different companies, they were able to avoid ever paying the Hamiltons any money for the software that they essentially stole.

And so anyway, I don't want to get too

off the topic of Palantir, but these are the characters that essentially created it.

And

it labels people as there's a label you can label someone as a subversive

in the palantir system and it collects essentially everything about you and so currently it's being used to target and classify immigrants for deportation but it has those same capabilities that could be used against you know actual American citizens domestically if the war on domestic terror was ever to begin in earnest

and so I find it an immensely concerning company particularly its interest in predictive policing and pre-crime, which it was one of the earliest piloters of predictive policing.

I believe they started in New Orleans.

And there's also the fact that, you know, the co-founder of Palantir, Peter Thiel,

was relatively dishonest, I would argue, about his meetings with Jeffrey Epstein.

He was trying to get, well, he was involved in funding a company that also has

pre-crime capabilities that was championed by Ehud Barak and Epstein.

Epstein put a lot of money into it.

It's called Carbine.

And there were meetings,

newly released emails showed that they were all sort of talking to each other about Teal investing directly in Carbine.

And Teal invested,

you know, I think one of his venture capital firms received a significant amount of money from Epstein, and he had not been very upfront about that until, you know, relatively recently.

So I think

that company too, Carbine,

it has creeped into a variety of

counties across the U.S.

taking over the 911 emergency call systems.

And if Congress is to pass legislation that would federalize the 911 system, make it an all-national system, which there is a push to do,

Carbine has been the top lobbying firm for that.

But they have a pre-crane component where if you, they call it the C records component, but you can't find it on their website anymore after there were reports on it.

But essentially it would comb all of the data off of your smartphone and use it, put it into its pre-crime analytics to determine if you might be calling 911 again in the future or be the reason 911 is called.

And that eventually streetlights in smart cities would call 911 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 Audion 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 touch screen 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 tech-savvy grandkids.

Just a beautifully designed, ready-to-go device that

is made by audiologists 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 Atom X starts at $98.

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 at church, the punchline on TV, and you'll smile because you didn't miss a thing.

The Adam X from Audion.

Finally, somebody got it right.

Don't wait.

Visit audienhearing.com, audienhearing.com.

Take control of your hearing today.

Audianhearing.com.

If you used Babel, you would.

Babel's conversation-based techniques teaches you useful words and phrases to get you speaking quickly about the things you actually talk about in the real world.

With lessons handcrafted by over 200 language experts and voiced by real native speakers, Babel is like having a private tutor in your pocket.

Start speaking with Babel today.

Get up to 55% off your Babel subscription right now at babel.com slash Spotify.

Spelled B-A-B-B-E-L dot com slash Spotify.

Rules and restrictions may apply.

Is 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 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,

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,

you know, the peasants,

the serfs can't, you know, fight against their rule anymore.

And again, that's why we have to resist this as much as possible.

But I 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.

They could make life very difficult.

They could, I mean, you know,

use acts of terror like they did in something like Operation Gladio Gladio to make people so afraid for their lives that they will give up all of their liberties.

They did this is what the communists did.

This is what the communists did to take over.

I think it was Hungary.

You know, the NATO thing was, we'll have peace, but you can't go in unless invited.

You can't turn any countries

into

Russian satellite countries unless invited in.

And so they just went in and

they did pretty much what's happening now, you know, and built the framework for it to fall in and then cause 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 across and they were a communist country overnight.

I mean,

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

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.

I'll give you an example that I find particularly interesting.

So Samuel Pissar, remembered as a human rights lawyer, maybe remembered better in the last administration because he helped raise Anthony Blinken, who was his stepson.

He was also a very close friend of Robert Maxwell.

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,

yeah, in the West, right, had started making all of these joint ventures with the state-owned communist companies 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, asked PSAR, is this a bad thing?

And PSAR was like, not necessarily.

Yeah.

And at the same time, his pal Robert Maxwell was making all of these connections.

to entities like the KGB,

to

Israeli national security agencies in the UK, also in the US, across the board,

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 Mogulovich and, you know, Soviet in the Soviet Union and to mob bosses in the United States.

I mean, 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 here.

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 proud of it.

They want to tell you.

They're proud of what they do.

Yeah, I think he in particular, Quigley, was talking about this being affected by the so-called roundtable groups like the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission,

of which Keir Starmer is a member, if I'm not mistaken.

And

yeah, again, these think tanks are very powerful.

I think actually, as it relates to the CFR, there's a video of Hillary Clinton calling it the mothership when she was Secretary of State.

Wow.

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 these powerful interests from our lives and from our world,

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

in a lot of cases, there are efforts to try and make us

resort to violence.

That's what they want.

And I think

in the last administration, it should have been very obvious to conservatives that there was an effort to goad them towards violence.

And I think that will ping pong from left to right.

It will go, you know,

they want to just get people that want to fight against this on both sides, and they want to demonize them so that they can be sort of swept up in this war on domestic terror.

So violence is absolutely not the answer, but what can we do?

I think it's important, again,

we have to focus on what we can actually control.

You know, overnight we can't,

you know, a person like me can't dismantle the WEF or the CFR or any of these things, but what can I do?

What can I actually control, right?

And so I can control.

you know, where I,

how I live my life, how I raise my children, whether I'm dependent on 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 their life and what they can control.

But ultimately, what it comes down to also, and I think one of the most important points I have to convey today

is that they want our consent so badly and they need it.

for this to work.

And that includes

in a lot of

I think it comes down to a user base.

So for example, if there's a CBDC or a stablecoin launched by a government somewhere and no one uses it, it fails.

If digital ID is a linchpin to all of this stuff and no one uses it, it fails.

And I think they just don't think that we, they think they can use, 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

I think a lot of this, if it's not through, 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 type of fear, you know, that's one way, but also money or money.

is a key way to try and attacking people's wealth and wealth transfers, because people that are more likely to go into these digital prisons,

they will be desperate.

And so you want desperate people also don't think rationally.

And so at a certain point, you worry about your survival and you stop worrying about, you know, maybe your civil liberties or maybe even the Constitution.

And that's the hierarchy of needs.

Yeah.

And so I think, 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 stand on

the race for AI and does it matter?

I mean,

I see things that are being developed for the Pentagon and for China that are terrifying.

I don't think people understand war,

it's going to be as if You fought in the Spanish-American War and all of a sudden you were transported to, you know,

World War II.

Nothing is going to be the same.

Everything that we have is going to be outdated.

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 wrong on that.

I think it is incredibly deeply unsettling.

It allows not just war, but war crimes to be committed at scale with minimal human involvement.

And 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 the planet.

There wouldn't be one.

I mean, you can track people, you can hunt them down, you can grab them,

you can convince them to do.

I mean,

the power.

So

tell me where we are with AI on

China and our race towards it and all of this stuff.

I don't see us building all these power plants.

I've talked to the president about, hey, we're going to build all these nuclear power plants.

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 of different ways

to go go here.

And I'm not really sure the best place to start, but I guess

what I think of in you asking that question is there was this National Security Commission called the National Security Commission on AI.

Eric Schmidt, unsurprisingly,

led it.

Yeah, he and he

basically in some of the documentation that came out

of that commission via FOIA request showed that they felt that the only way for the U.S.

to catch up to China, and I'm pair, this is my opinion, was essentially to become China, right?

In the name of beating China, we have to do all the things

that Americans criticize

about China.

So the idea was in China, they use AI for everything.

AI has crept into every

facet of a person's life in a Chinese megacity.

And so we need to make Americans use AI just as much, if not more, in order to leapfrog Chinese AI capabilities.

So what did they suggest?

And this is right before COVID, by the way, they suggested an end to in-person shopping and an end to in-person doctor visits,

an end of

car ownership that we should only use fleets of self-driving Ubers that we rent

and basically live through our phones and live through apps that are powered by AI

because they argue China has a larger population.

It has a user base that is feeding Chinese AI with so much more data than Americans are feeding American AI.

So we have to

harvest more data from Americans faster

in order to catch up.

So

at the same time, too, you have a lot of big tech oligarchs that have a lot of ties to China and Chinese industry

and Chinese tech companies that run those things in China.

And, you know, I would argue, you know, is the AI arms race, all the fear ginned up about it just to sort of get us to acquiesce to that same type of system here?

And sometimes, yeah,

that's what it sometimes seems like to me.

An amazing final segment with Whitney here in just a second.

First, let me tell you about Moxie.

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 they're already inside.

And that is

through the leaves and the crawl spaces and everything else.

Pests are coming in.

Ants, the silverfish, all of them looking for the same thing you're looking for, a 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.

Moxie, Moxie 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 slash Beck.

Use the promo code Beck and get it first service $25.

This episode is brought to you by CBS.

DMV is a brand new workplace comedy turning misery into magic and chaos into comedy.

Starring Harriet Dyer and Tim Meadows, DMV is here to serve you laughs.

Watch Mondays at 830, 7.30 Central on CBS and streaming on Paramount Plus.

Well, it is always fascinating to talk to you.

Can we talk about Jeffrey Epstein for just a second?

Because you are the foremost expert on that whole web.

Oh, well, thank you.

Well, you are.

I mean, 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 you know, I would say my expertise in my book, you know, about Epstein only really goes up to 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

and a lot of the court stuff.

And also, I feel like there's plenty of other journalists that have covered victim testimonies and what victims have said.

And so, you know, I don't consider myself Jeffrey Epstein and where he came from, what he was.

There's nobody better than you.

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.

And that is the black book we have.

There is obviously documentation and documents that the U.S.

government still has that it has very openly over the past several months made various excuses for about why it will not release them.

What do they do?

As far as the black book,

no, I don't.

Okay.

But 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 Zorro Ranch never raided?

It's one of, it's in the continental U.S.

It's an Epstein property.

The New York townhouse was town raided.

Why were there not simultaneous raids on all of his properties on U.S.

territory?

What do you allege?

Not coordinate that.

Well, I don't know.

I mean, Zoro Ranch, there's a lot of

spec in the New Mexico property.

There's a lot of speculation about what happened there with women in particular.

And why was it never raided?

I just find that.

Incredibly strange.

And also, you know, there's attestations during the 2019 raid on the New York townhouse uh that there were binders of cds um and there was you know hard drives you know what 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 um but again

a child porn

sorry yeah fine preferred these abbreviations 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 deviancy.

There, uh, 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 figures whose money he was managing.

And one example of that that came downwind of the USBI case against

J.P.

Morgan was Sergey Brin in particular, the Google co-founder.

But those cases were settled.

The son of a judge was murdered when she was overseeing the Deutsche Bank Epstein case.

I think there's a major interest in not having those financial

relationships fully untangled.

And I think, you know, because of how interwoven

these networks are,

you know,

it's not politically

salient for the Trump administration to release them all for whatever reason.

Can I ask you a question?

I don't know.

How do you decipher between

an actual conspiracy

and

one that's been driving me crazy is that Charlie Kirk was shot in the back by a mossad 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 intuition and also the fact that a lot of my work is historical.

So I look back many decades.

And so if I get an inkling of something suspect happening now and the parties involved happen to be directly connected to people that I know engaged in wrongdoing and crime in the past, then I tend to be more inclined because

there are patterns and a lot of these people repeat the same tactics and the same patterns of criminality over and over again.

But I think also,

yeah, there was a deliberate effort to try and undermine the reporting on real conspiracies by muddying the waters and flooding it with crap.

Yeah,

it was a CIA operative, wasn't it?

It was that said discredit people by calling them conspiracy theorists.

After the Kennedy assassination, yes.

And so, but in addition to that, more recently, Samantha Power's husband, Cass Sunstein,

wrote a bizarre paper.

I forget exactly when.

I think it was in the Obama era.

That's exactly what the quote is.

It said,

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 something about infiltrating conspiracy movements in order to push the needle to a narrative that was more favorable to the powers that be.

So he, as one example, he said, a lot of conspiracy, the conspiracy movement in the U.S.

at that time did not trust the government.

So how do we make a conspiracy infiltrate conspiracy movements to make them trust the government?

And I would argue that something like QAnon likely was downwind of that.

Wow.

I never thought.

But

there's very, it's very possible that that continues continues now.

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 dubious, you know, it becomes very hard for people to sift through the content.

And then we're left doing what Eric Schmidt and Henry Kissinger propose, relying on AI to sift through all of that for us, to tell us the right answer.

So again, critical thinking, very important.

But I think, you know, because trust is

at an all-time low, you know, it just depends on the person.

I mean, obviously, there's a lot of people that,

you know, are terminally online and sort of

drift into places where they might think things are true that

I, you know,

certain people would definitely not agree with.

But again, I think it just comes down to individual discernment and critical thinking, which are qualities that are not taught to people anymore in schools.

And, you know, it starts with parents teaching that type of discernment.

And for me personally, you know, I think history adds a lot of the necessary context to having that ability to discern.

And so I would, you know, urge people to look at, you know, what these particular networks

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.

Maybe we won't get an omission, you know, from Bill Gates and writing about his Epstein relationship, or, you know, from

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

the public record that's publicly available?

And obviously, I think my book shows that there's various instances, the same individuals repeating the same tactics over and over again, using a lot of the same institutions to do so,

and how

it just stacks so much that it becomes to me quite obvious that something is very very wrong with that particular network.

And when you have so many instances of financial crime, arms trafficking, sex trafficking concentrated with

such a small group of people, many of whom have ties to the organized crime gangs from America's not so distant past,

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 intelligence agencies.

And some of those organized crime figures rebranded as philanthropists or other things.

But ultimately,

you know, it's what that entity, that fused entity ultimately wants is an authoritarian government.

And we have to fight against that despite, you know, all the things that they could throw on us and all the manipulations

that they may target us with,

which again, I think

over the short term, it's going to be more than we've probably ever seen before.

But people have to be very steadfast in how much the Constitution matters to them.

That constitutional rights are for every American, not just the American that we happen to agree with.

And I think who benefits the most if we start hating our neighbor and want to kill them?

You know,

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

kids that go to school with my children or that we just know or or seeing other kids uh of other people online just uh 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 for the so-called metaverse, as it were, and getting people to want to live in a virtual

reality.

And actually, this political philosopher who's very close to Peter Thiel,

Curtis Yarvin, he has this quote about what should be done with the undesirables of society.

He calls it a humane alternative to genocide.

And it sounds just like something Klaus Schwab would say.

It was basically, you know, the best.

I have the quote, I could read it to you.

It's just on my desk.

It's probably like Yaval Harari's.

Quote.

It truly is.

But this is somehow someone that is popular in certain right-leaning circles in the U.S.

right now.

What's his name?

I got to look him up.

Curtis Yarvin.

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 larva 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.

And I think

I just worry about how

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 part of this underclass that AI is going to act upon.

And that's what really unsettles me because I think a lot of this, if they can't do it,

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,

you know, what it means, we could, then, yeah, I think we could lose it.

And so, you know, I think there's never been a more important time

to be a good parent

than right now.

Good for you.

I just, I really love talking to you.

You're so bright and so centered, and that's rare.

Thank you.

Thanks.

You bet.

Just a reminder, I'd love you to rate and subscribe to the podcast and pass this on to a friend so it can be discovered by other people.