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