Selection 2024 with James Corbett

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Unknown (00:00):
Music.

WW (00:19):
Welcome back to Unlimited Hangout. I'm your host, Whitney
Webb in the last episode, wewere joined by John Titus to
discuss the outside influence ofBlackrock on us, government,
fiscal policy, especially duringcrises, and how this phenomenon
is completely unaffected bywhich US political party is in
power. In that discussion, wealso noted how things are
unlikely to change anytime soon,with Kamala economic team run by

(00:43):
Blackrock veterans and Trumphaving personally given free
rein to Blackrock Larry FinkTrump's former personal money
manager, to essentially designthe US government's fiscal
response during the COVID 19crisis, which was, of course,
wanton money printing. Suchsentiments were recently
reflected by Fink himself, whowas quoted by the Financial
Times earlier this week assaying that quote really doesn't

(01:06):
matter. End quote, for financialmarkets, 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 administrationsand are having conversations
with both candidates. End quote,Fink's recent statements are a
surprisingly honest admissionwith the US presidential
election cycle. This year, ithas been truly remarkable to see

(01:28):
so many people who previouslyespoused rejecting the two party
paradigm, especially duringCOVID, insisting that voting for
one of the two parties is onceagain the only way to prevent
the worst of the two evils fromoccupying the White House,
reminding people that bothparties are corrupt and showing
them the repeated patterns allcontinue regardless of which

(01:48):
party wins the White House orthe legislature, is met with
angry rebuttals of how suchfacts are black pilling and
offer no hope. I would argueinstead that it offers no
hopium, the political drug thatkeeps Americans plugged into the
political spectacle, while theclose network of oligarchs that
funds both parties continue tosteal our money and our freedom,

(02:09):
using our money to financeKilling Fields abroad and to
build a digital prison that willseparate us from them, the
livestock from the ranchers,despite the accusations of black
pilling and offering no hope orsolutions. Accurately depicting
our political reality is nothingof the sort. It is, in fact, a
key requisite to actuallysolving the problems we face. If

(02:30):
we believe that the onlyobstacle to forging a better
world is ensuring that that onevery, very terrible political
party doesn't get back in theWhite House, our solutions to
problems will be focused aroundvoting once every four years for
the candidate who says the thingand that both candidates
ultimately offer the sameoverarching policy agenda and
whose real differences arelargely related to their sale

(02:52):
pitches for those same policies.We know the solution lies not in
choosing directly. It is anattractive lie that the right
person in the right place willmagically rid the country and
the world of its ills. But whileattractive for many, a lie is a
lie and will do nothing morethan provide continued cover for
the deceivers who have largelycreated the problems we now
face. Joining me to discussthese issues and more is James

(03:16):
Corbett of The Corbett Report.James, who is surely well known
to my audience, is an awardwinning investigative journalist
who has hosted the corporatereport since 2007 which has
produced documentaries, podcastsand more on a variety of topics.
He is a true veteran of theindependent media space, and he
has remained consistent in hisviews and analysis now for
decades, and is, at least in mycase, one of the voices I

(03:37):
continue to trust the most forfact 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 backon the podcast, James, how are
things with you? Things

JC (03:50):
are wonderful. Thank you for having me here, and I'm happy to
be on the program once again todiscuss incredibly important
things. I don't know if younoticed, but the world is
getting crazier and crazier. SoI'm here to talk about it.

WW (04:02):
Yeah, and it seems like some people are getting crazier too.
Because, you know, electionseason wouldn't be complete
without, you know, fervor of,you know, each different flavor
of political party in theirtheir acolytes getting very
excited and also very agitatedabout, uh, what they expect to
come. Isn't that fun? So isthere anything about this
iteration of us, the US,presidential political

(04:25):
spectacle, that you find uniquecompared to previous cycle this
time, I would

JC (04:29):
not use the word unique to describe the phenomenon that
you're described, that you'retalking about there, because I
mean, the only thing that trulyis a marvel, and something that
I every time kind of gobsmacksme is that just when I think
there can be no possible way tolure people back into the voting
booth, yet again, to leave theirsuggestion in the slave vote a

(04:52):
suggestion box, there is always,always some new twist, some some
spin on it that makes it themost. Most important selection
of your lifetime, this selectionbeing no different. So yes, I'm
constantly amazed at the waythat they keep inventing
narratives that puts spin onsomething that people have done

(05:13):
all their life and receivedabsolutely no tangible benefit
from. Have seen no genuinechange in course, in terms of
their life, but they willcontinue to do it. So that's
really the only surprising thingto me, is that they continue to
find different ways of reframingessentially what is always the
same narrative. You get tochoose between which Deep State

(05:36):
master will lead over you, or atleast whichever puppet will be
installed in the Oval Office aswe again think about what has
happened this year, as it hasbeen unveiled to the public, who
apparently, mostly were unawareof it. Yeah, you know that guy
who's sitting in the OvalOffice? He's not really running
anything. He's not really home.There's no one there, so who is

(05:58):
actually running things? Wow, Idon't know who cares. Now, go
back to the voting booth andselect 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 thatthat, to me, is the ultimate
magic trick is to get people tocontinue to vote in these

(06:20):
meaningless selection processes.Well, I

WW (06:23):
think that's that's the goal. I think if people were to
actually not participate, that'swhat they really fear. So I
think they've done their best toinvent new circumstances and
situations and aspects of thespectacle that, I guess, keep
people entertained enough, orsucked in enough or or something
like that, to keep people or to,you know, bring people that may

(06:45):
have left the fold during COVID,or, you know, something like
that, sort of back in. And Ithink also, you know, an aspect
that of why this may be isrelated to how like social
media, and also like independentmedia has developed, and sort of
this collapse of mainstreammedia credibility with the
public, and how a lot of thesepeople and so called independent

(07:06):
media now or that aren'tostensibly part of the
mainstream, but were and arenow, quote, unquote independent
people like, you know, TuckerCarlson, for example, the role
of the importance of over fact,and you know, some of the things
that have been going on in thisparticular media sphere and how
that feeds sort of the hopiumphenomenon that I know you've
written a lot about. So I don'tknow if you have any thoughts on

(07:28):
you know why this? Some of thethings that have happened that
have allowed people to be suckedback in to this, this cycle that
you know, as you noted,invariably has the same results
no matter what happens?

JC (07:41):
Yes, I do have some thoughts on that. And in fact, I, as you
may or may not know, I've lookedat the phenomenon of mass media
and its development over thecourse of centuries, because
that, to me, really is one ofthe driving factors in
political, cultural, socialorganization, perhaps one of the

(08:02):
like fish not realizing thatthey're swimming in water. We
don't realize that we areessentially swimming in media in
a mediated age like the onewe're living in. So I see it on
an almost structural level, thedisintegration of the mass media
has been the disintegration ofspectacle, shared spectacle,
which was the creation of ashared culture, which presumably

(08:25):
we can all go back to ourearlier years, maybe even our
childhood, to remember therewere that. There was the time
when everyone knew the the bigmovie that was playing right
now. Everyone saw the big sportsgame that happened last night.
Everybody saw that that episodeof Friends or Seinfeld, or
whatever it was, and everyonecould talk about that, as has

(08:47):
been noted time and time again,that shared culture is
disintegrating as people havebranched out on the internet and
are now in their little bubbles.But I would say that the one
uniting shared spectacle thatstill exists that really brings
everyone back to the table isthe political spectacle. And
there really is an overlapbetween business, show business,

(09:08):
and politics that is undeniableat this point. I mean, people
used to joke about Ronald Reaganand, you know, Hollywood actors
being in positions of politicalpower. Well, now we have, I
mean, the parody of that even.What is that? It's reality TV
star Donald Trump lining up toget back in the Oval Office.
It's I just find thatinteresting that really politics

(09:31):
has become the spectacle again,but on the the note of the the
mainstream alternative mediathat has developed over the
past, certainly over the pastfew years really consolidated,
and interestingly consolidatedaround social media platforms
like rumble, which I know, youknow, is, of course, funded by
people like Peter Thiel. So italways swirls back around the

(09:53):
same individuals. Yes,

WW (09:56):
it was also taken public by Howard lutnic of cantor.
Fitzgerald, and he is a veryinteresting figure. He was
Jeffrey Epstein's neighbor, andtwo years before 911 He is
quoted in, I forget whatnewspaper, but a major
newspaper, saying, I can't waitto replace my whole trading
floor with E speed. And then on911 the company with the highest

(10:17):
death count is CantorFitzgerald, interesting,

JC (10:21):
interesting guy. One of those things that line up. Yes,
I just find it interesting thatthat platforms like rumble and
increasingly Twitter slash xhave been the congregating place
for a lot of these mainstreamalternative media figures who
have made their their their bonafides in the minds of the public
by being in some way taken offof their media, mainstream media

(10:44):
platforms, in some waymarginalized, so that they can
cry. Well, we've been censored,so therefore, you know, we're
true and hey, you can catch uson rumble or Twitter or what
have you, which is aninteresting part of this, but
you also raise the specter ofhopium, and I think that's an
incredibly important part ofunderstanding this political
spectacle and the function thatit has in our society here in

(11:06):
the 21st century, and for peoplewho are unfamiliar with the
concept I am I certainlyobviously cannot claim to have
coined that term, but I do thinkthat there has been a market
uptick in use of that term SinceI released my hopium episode
several years ago, back when Iwas still on YouTube, if I
remember correctly. So theconcept is that there is a real

(11:28):
thing called Hope, which is abeautiful and important part of
the human experience that we doneed hope, which is a vision for
the future that will compel usand 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

(11:49):
unfortunately, the politicalspectacle comes along with its
hopium, which is the syntheticsubstitute for actual hope,
which in the exact same waythat, for example, opioids will
give people the simulacrum ofhappiness. It isn't an actual
happiness, and once that startsto wear off, they'll need a

(12:11):
bigger fix, and they willrealize it's ruining their
lives. I think similarly, thepolitical spectacle is the
simulacrum of actual action inthe real world. No, you don't
have to actually do anything.You don't have to build anything
or create anything. You justflip a lever, you just push a
button, you vote for acandidate, and that is your

(12:33):
action in the world. And thenyou go back to sleep for a
couple of years. And that,unfortunately, is the function
of hopium, and unfortunately, itworks extremely well. And I, in
the episode that I did, I framedthat around the Q anon
phenomenon, which, as people mayor may not remember, one of the
key messages of Q anon was, sitback and enjoy the show. Well,

(12:55):
of course, exactly it is apolitical spectacle. You are
meant to be in the audience,sitting there as a participant,
watching things unfold. And ifthey can get you in that
position, you will be absolutelyno threat whatsoever to the
status quo.

WW (13:08):
You know, what's interesting is, um, as we've seen, you know,
something like Bitcoin, forexample, become a political
issue. The same ideology thatyou just laid out that's sort of
behind Q Anon, sort of like, sitback and trust the plan is also
being promoted to Bitcoiners,being told that just let Larry
Fink and Wall Street have theirway, or a future Trump or

(13:30):
whatever administration withBitcoin, even if it, you know,
makes it serve the state andWall Street and doesn't benefit
financial freedom and what haveyou, because Bitcoin is a Trojan
horse, and it's so great andamazing that as long as you hold
on to it and do absolutelynothing with it, and do
absolutely nothing to ensurethat it will be all the things
you want it to be, and let it beLarry Fink's play thing, it will

(13:53):
Trojan horse the whole systemfrom the inside, and destroy
think and destroy the bankersand all of this stuff. So it's
interesting to see how thatsame, the prop, the efforts to
propagate that mentality arenow, you know, have now kind of
spread well beyond the Q anonphenomena, I guess. And I also
think it's interesting as itrelates to hopium, this, this

(14:13):
cycle, at least, that it seemslike this cycle more than
previous ones. There has been aneffort to suck in libertarians
and people sort of of thatpolitical bent into into hopium.
And it's been, I think I'dactually kind of started before
this election really picked upsteam in the US. I think it's

(14:34):
kind of started with JavierMalay in Argentina, this idea
that, Oh, a libertarians andpresident, and he's going to do
all of these things. But really,the track record of Malay thus
far doesn't necessarily line upwith that, you know, like
putting JP Morgan bankers thatused to run Argentina's, you
know, debt slavery model forthat bank, you know, and to run
the economy, among other things.So do you have any thoughts

(14:57):
about that? Because I know thatyou you know. At even though
you're a voluntary you subscribeto volunteerism. Over the years
there have you've definitelybeen influential in libertarian
circles, so I'm curious aboutyour thoughts.

JC (15:10):
Yes, well, I guess it really does come down to one's
definition of libertarian, butthe idea of libertarian that I
understand does not haveanything to do with what is
often put under that rubric, orput under that name. And I think
the prime example of that is,well, again, a subject you will
know if, if gates is mostamazing PR move was to turn

(15:32):
himself into a philanthropisthere in the 21st century,
through the wonderful efforts ofhis eponymous foundation. Then
Peter thiel's greatest PRmaneuver has been to get himself
branded as a libertarian and tohave people unquestionably
calling call him that for thelast few decades, when really
all of his maneuvers have beenwhat I would say is in the exact

(15:54):
opposite direction of anythingresembling libertarianism. For
example, absolutely obviously,he's made his a large portion of
his fortune directly, activelycolluding with the deep state in
setting up surveillance andtargeting systems to be used
against the public, which hethen used that wealth to
leverage into political powerthrough, of course, Ted Cruz and

(16:17):
JD Vance, he was an importantPart of the Trump transition
team, and I had his own officein Trump Tower, got people
installed in the in the WhiteHouse, and, of course, a
steering committee member ofBilderberg. So yeah, this is, I
don't know what universe youcould reside in, in which this
is the libertarian, but that is,that is the way this label is

(16:41):
applied. So I think anytimesomeone is throwing that label
around as a pejorative, I wouldjust like to get them to get
some sort of definition on thetable. Again. I'm sure many
different people will havedifferent definitions, but there
is no definition I can imaginein which Peter Thiel would fit
that label.

WW (16:56):
Well, it's truly astounding, too, when you consider that
supposedly one of thecornerstones of libertarian
ideology is the importance ofthe free market. And Peter Thiel
is on record saying that freemarket competition is for
losers, and that you should finda niche and corner it and build
a monopoly. And when he's triedto do that, he builds that

(17:17):
monopoly directly with, as younoted, you know, national
security agencies overtly withPalantir, but also PayPal. You
know, PayPal co founder MaxLevchin has said on the record
that when they were creatingPayPal, they went to every three
letter agency that would talk tothem and setting up their
business. So, you know, I thinkthat's that's pretty telling as
well, and that's certainly not alibertarian right and so I but I

(17:42):
think there's also an effort inthat to use teal and some of
these other people to sort ofrebrand libertarianism and have
it really be what, you know, Imean, essentially what teal has
done is corporatism, and hisdefinition of capitalist, he
says, as someone who justaccrues capital. So the most
successful capitalists or, youknow, the fat cats on top of
everything. And obviouslycapital, you know, accruance is

(18:06):
not equitable, you know. And soI think sort of, his idea of a
capitalist sounds a lot like Neofeudalism, maybe Mussolini
style, corporatism, which, youknow, is fascism, and certainly
not libertarianism. He'sdefinitely not interested in
drinking the state. So speaking

JC (18:25):
of Mussolini, it was one of Mussolini's teachers, Vilfredo
Perrito, who, well at any rate,seems to have convinced
Mussolini to move away fromsocialism and towards an elitist
mindset, who seems to have beenrehashed and rebranded for our
21st century by poli sci 101level masterminds who have taken

(18:45):
his theory of the circulation ofelites and are running with
that. And essentially, Paretohad a sociological idea for the
organization of society. He Heessentially thought there were
elites and non elites, and hewould define that in perhaps
meritocratic terms, there arepeople who are just more capable
will achieve more in their life,et cetera. And those are the

(19:07):
elites. And there are governingelites and non governing elites.
And he was specificallyinterested in governing elites
so people who were in positionsof power, who were unusually
above average in competence andintelligence and what have you.
And these people are essentiallygoing to be the ruling class,
but there will be, there will bedifferent factions of ruling

(19:29):
class, and some will be moreamenable to the interests of the
general public, and some will bemore voracious and then
appeasing their own appetites atthe expense of the public. And
so essentially, it is thepublic's job to become followers
and to throw their supportbehind this or that leader. Our
choice is to get to choose whichfaction of the elites we will

(19:51):
support, and from that well, wecould see, you see Trump and the
people surrounding him are,they're the good elites who are
on the. People's side and theevil people surrounding Harris
there. Or flip it if you happento be a Democrat persuasion,
it's the good elites on theHarris side and the bad elites,
whatever you want to say aboutit. But that is essentially the

(20:12):
sociological idea that is beingpropounded right now as one way
to bring people back into thatcircus, to observe the political
spectacle.

WW (20:22):
Yes, and it's interesting that when this this talking
point, began to circulate, theidea of we must back our elites
over the terrible lefty elitesor whatever, that also someone
like Mark Zuckerberg. I don'tknow if you're aware he
attempted to rebrand as alibertarian recently grew at his
hair a little bit. Said, Trumplooked badass, quote, unquote,

(20:43):
after the first assassination asa libertarian and had a new look
to go with it and all of that.Very interesting. Of course, all

JC (20:52):
of these Silicon Valley nerds were billionaires, were
libertarian. That was thefounding ethos of Silicon
Valley, which we know, ofcourse, is a lie. Silicon Valley
was founded through military andintelligence agencies. That's
what it was. It was an adjunctUS military industrial complex.
But the mythos that were fed isthat it was just a bunch of

(21:12):
barefoot sandal wearing hippiedippie garage Tinker Exactly.
Garage tinkerers libertarian intheir ethos, they they were,
they were the technolibertarians. They thought that
tech, technology would free usand create this wonderful direct
democracy and all of thatwhatever. Anyway, people know
that. And I think Zuckerberg istrying to play into and tap into

(21:35):
that. But Zuckerberg mentally aminion of the teal verse. I
mean, obviously teal,absolutely, was an incredibly
was the founding angel investorwho stepped in and made Facebook
into what it was. And Zuckerberghas always looked up to teal and
always listened to him. And Ithink we have to see him as as
some sort of proxy for for tealand his interests at this point,

(21:58):
absolutely, we could go back,for example, I believe it was
2016 in which Zuckerberg, forexample, held a conference with
a bunch of right wing mediapundits at that time to try to
say, you know, look, Facebookisn't we're not censoring
conservatives. We'll talk toanyone. And how can we jigger

(22:19):
our algorithms to make it betterfor you guys. And of course,
then suddenly you get daily wireand outlets like that. Yeah. But

WW (22:26):
what's interesting is that, you know, since the 2016
election, he was kind of aboogeyman of the right, but now
that dealverse is sort of aboutto come back into likely into
power. He's He's rebranded thisway, but I don't know. We'll see
if it actually works on Trump'sbase or not. But you know, as
such, as we've noted earlier, alot of people are more gullible

(22:47):
than perhaps we had anticipatedsince a lot of people expressed,
you know, discussed at the twoparties, you know, in lockstep
throughout the world on thingslike COVID and some other issues
related to global technocracy.So since we're talking about
Zuckerberg and we've talked alittle bit about Twitter, but

(23:08):
not so much about musk, I ownthis cycle compared to previous
cycles, particularly becauseTwitter, of course, is now owned
by musk, who is very overtlybacking a particular candidate
and has particular ambitions forTwitter, which is essentially to
turn Twitter, or x, as it's nowcalled, into a digital bank that
essentially will quote, unquote,pay its users by monetizing the

(23:31):
human behavioral data farm thatTwitter is. And how perhaps, you
know, some of the I think it'shad an outsized influence on,
you know, the mainstreamalternative media, as you
referred to it earlier, some ofthese voices on Twitter that
have sort of become dependent onTwitter monetization and the
algorithm and sort of doingthings that Musk likes in order

(23:55):
to get more clicks and views andthings like that. Yes,

JC (23:59):
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 thedark mega followers who really
believe this act that he seemsto be putting on right now. And
I think it is a political actthat he is engaged in right now.

(24:19):
Keep in mind, this is the sameMusk who quit one of Trump's
advisory committees back in 2000I 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 darlingof the left for so long, and is
now suddenly rebranded and iscompletely the other way. I

(24:39):
don't trust him. As far as Icould 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 itto protect his own interests,
and I think that's what he'sdoing. And it is interesting
that Twitter has as you be, asyou say, has become this space
in which you have to act and.Say things in a certain way in

(25:01):
order to tickle Musk's fancy inparticular in just the right
way, so that he can helppromote, or at the very least
not crack down on yourparticular channel. But speaking
of crackdown, I think that couldbe one way that this plays out.
For example, one could wellimagine how, just as in 2016 the
predominant narrative that thatcame out of that was, Oh, my

(25:24):
God, you know, Facebook andRussian hackers stole the
election. One could imagine asituation in which it's, it's
look at this rampant chaos onTwitter has caused this horrible
divide in our society. And ifHarris gets into power, one
could imagine that would be thethe, at least the fig leaf for
justification of furthercrackdown on free speech on the

(25:44):
internet generally. So there's alot of ways that this can play
out. And I don't know what gameMusk is playing in all of this,
but I, as I say, I don't think Itrust I don't trust that he's
had some sort of politicalconversion in the past few
years. I think he's just playingwhatever 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 aproduct of teal. Apparently,

(26:08):
Musk made his support of theTrump campaign conditional on JD
Vance being the VP pick as well.So whatever, whatever supposed
riff there is between teal andmusk, it doesn't obviously mean
much at the end of the day, asthey're both puppeteering the
same puppets. Well,

WW (26:23):
I think they're, you know, teal and, or rather, you know,
teal and the network of peoplearound him, including people
like Palmer lucky and anderiland then musk, I think, are
meant to be sort of the nextgeneration of pentagon and, you
know, military intelligencecontractors, which, of course,
you know Musk is now withStarlink and SpaceX and all of

(26:43):
that. But then you have, youknow, and drill, which is funded
by Thiel and Palmer. Lucky, hehad a field Thiel fellowship.
He's very close to Peter Thielbuilding the virtual border wall
that Trump supports over aphysical barrier, which
previously, before the 2016election, was the Democrats
policy suggestion for securingthe southern border in the US.
What do you know? And I thinkthere's also this talking point

(27:08):
that's been being circulatedthroughout the media sphere
that's popular, popular withTrump's base. You know, Eric
Prince has sort of rebranded andbecome this very anti
establishment figure now, eventhough, you know, he's a CIA
death squad leader or was and heessentially, what he argues is,
you know, Raytheon and all ofthese military contractors are

(27:31):
inefficient and waste a lot ofmoney, which is true, but his
idea is essentially to use AIand a lot of these other AI
powered companies, like defensecontractors that are connected
to teal or or Musk to do thatinstead and sort of replace, he
doesn't overtly say that, butit's sort of the argument that's
being made, right? The argumentthat Andrew makes that like

(27:53):
we're the answer to Raytheon,yeah. So it's very fact

JC (27:56):
this was one of the one of the narratives of what really
happened in 2016 the 2016selection cycle is again, as I'm
sure you're well familiar withteal, in his Trump transition
role, was able to implant, forexample, former quote, unquote,
former Palantir staffers andadvise and consultants in the
Pentagon, for example, Chief ofStaff and one of The senior

(28:20):
advisors to the then defensesecretary, Jim Mattis, was ex
Palantir, and of course, it wasjust what a year or two later
that the Pentagon finallyrelented on a proposal that
Palantir had been puttingforward for years. At that
point, to have open contractbidding on contracts that had, I
believe, were formerly lockeddown by Lockheed Martin, but

(28:42):
they wanted an open, openbidding process, and they got
that. And of course, Palantirends up getting the biggest
contract of their entire companyhistory, $800 million with the
Pentagon as a direct result ofthat, just a coincidence, I'm
sure, just with all of the exPalantir staffers swarming
around the Pentagon. And so yes,the attempt to essentially

(29:02):
supplant the old militaryindustrial complex and replace
it with the sort of the tealverse version of that is
definitely one of the reasons Ithink that there has been such
heavy investment in thisselection cycle by the teal
verse.

WW (29:17):
Yes, I think it's interesting too, because the
argument is not no is no longerno more wars, no more illegal
wars, or no more wastingtaxpayer money on war. It's use
taxpayer money more efficientlyto in AI to kill more people
faster. It's essentially whatthe argument seems Yes, and in

(29:42):
fact, and there's even beencalls to put Eric Prince in
charge of the Pentagon. I mean,it's mind boggling that we're at
a point where that can besuggested and not just like
laugh, yeah,

JC (29:50):
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 mostimportant parts, uh, that. I
think, quite clearly expose thefact of the hopium, of the
political spectacle that istaking place around us that will
not change people's livessignificantly. Is, you're
exactly right. The the 2016campaign trail Trump, who was

(30:14):
talking about, you know, endingNATO, and all of that, of
course, was instantly replacedby actual President Trump. No,
NATO is great. We're supportingit more than ever, and all of
that, but more so the the oldrhetoric, as you say, about, oh,
we don't need wars of foreignaggression. And all of that has
been completely and utterlysupplanted. And is the prime
example of that is, of course,the Israel issue. And show me

(30:37):
the, show me the presidentialcandidate who's going to go
against Israel, and is going to,in any way question the US
Israel military relationship ofthere is none. And perhaps the
only real difference is who willbe running the Pentagon
contracts to help supply theIsraeli war machine and its
genocide in Gaza. And that's theonly question. And I guess you
know it's going to be lavender,AI and Palantir, and I

WW (31:01):
think it's going to be Palantir either way. I mean, the
the Director of NationalIntelligence, the top
intelligence official in theBiden administration, Avril
Haines, is, was a long timeconsultant to Palantir. Well,
there you go. Before definitelyties to both parties, yeah. So,
you know, that's obviously veryunfortunate, and it seems like
yes, every candidate, includingthe quote, unquote independent

(31:22):
candidates that have now, youknow, like Kennedy, that have
now endorsed Trump, um, havebeen very overt about, you know,
essentially, um, you know, let'sdisappear and eliminate
Palestine in the Palestinians.And there seems to be a
competition, basically, with whowill enable Israel's war with
Iran first and allow the US tobe involved. And for some

(31:44):
reason, there's people thatclaim to be against the Neo cons
and all of this, but are seem tohave forgotten that the whole
one of the main tenets of Neoconservatism, if not the main
one, is to align US foreignpolicy with Israeli foreign
policy or regional policy goals,

JC (32:04):
which, let's not forget, is for Greater Israel, the
construction of a state that hasbeen proposed at various times,
but formulated, for example, ininternal Israeli government
documents from the 1980s thatwere calling for, say such
things as the overthrow ofSaddam Hussein in Iraq, which
would eventually lead toDomino's falling in places like
Syria and Lebanon and Iran, oh,exactly as has been playing out

(32:27):
over the past couple of decades.I wonder why that is well, of
course, this is a plan, andunfortunately, as you say, no
one is even hinting at the ideathat it could be possible to
broach the subject of perhapshaving an open question about
whether the US should besupporting this. No candidate is
even willing to put that on thetable.

WW (32:46):
Yeah, and it's kind of mind boggling to me too that now if
you are to say publicly, forexample, I do not want to vote
for either of the war criminalsrunning, you are told by people
that you know, you're terrible,essentially, that's a lot of,
maybe it's just Twitter, I don'tknow. And you know how it is

(33:08):
with, you know, Musk running itand all that, all that, because
he's also been made it veryclear that he supports what
Israel is doing. But, you know,it's kind of mind boggling that,
you know, well, I don't know ifI would really say that, because
a few years ago, when I workedat mint press news, I wrote an
op ed called during the earlyTrump administration. It was
called the US has become anation of passive Neo cons, and

(33:31):
basically talked about how,after the Iraq War, protests and
also protests about like OccupyWall Street, things like that,
the there's been a massiveeffort to cultivate passivity in
the population and make usbecome enablers of the neocon
agenda. And I don't know, itjust seems like that has reached
the ultimate end goal, perhaps.I mean, you had people on the

(33:54):
left cheering for it, you know,the war in Ukraine, and let's
get Putin and then you havepeople, you know, cheering for
essentially, war with Iran.Now's the time. Do I strike a
strike Iran? Because Hezbollahis weak, and Hamas has been
practically eliminated, blah,blah. And, I mean, it's mind
boggling how successful of arebrand it has been. And then

(34:15):
the idea that, like, oh, DickCheney backed Kamala Harris,
that means that's the neoconparty, and there's no Neo cons
in the other party. I mean, it'sthe talking points that are
going around are truly mindboggling. And I think part of it
is also related to this effortto sort of alter the definition
of what the quote, unquote, DeepState is along partisan lines.

(34:38):
So for example, on the left, itseems like the term Deep State
just means, oh, anyone that usesthat term is a conspiracy and a
qtard and all of these things.And so I shouldn't take them
seriously, the fact that they'reeven though, you know, of
course, the deep, deep the termright that refers to the
unelected bureaucracy, theunelected officials that allow
policy to continue no matterwhat party is. And often. This.

(35:01):
But to the right, it seems likethe deep state refers to elected
officials of the other party. Soyou know, people like Biden and
Kamala Harris are the deepstate, 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 curiousabout your, your thoughts about

(35:24):
this successful effort torebrand Neo conservativism under
different names. I guess perhapsnow libertarianism, it's now
libertarian, maybe. Or, youknow, some of these, these
efforts to sort of weaponize thethe deep state. Yes,

JC (35:39):
it's a good point. I think you've kind of hit the nail on
the head. Because, yes, I thinkto anyone on the right side of
the political spectrum, anyoneon the left side is the deep
state, and to the people on theleft the if you talk about the
deep state, you're you're acoug, and so you don't belong in
polite society. However, I willsay that there is another aspect
to that, which is I, forexample, back in 2016 I wrote an

(36:00):
editorial on Deep State rising,the mainstreaming of the shadow
government, where I noted thecurious phenomenon at that time.
Specifically, it was January of2016 so before Trump was even a
blip on the political radar,really, you started to get all
of this mainstream mediacoverage of the deep state. You
had books, Deep State inside thegovernment, secrecy, industry

(36:21):
and the deep state, the fall ofthe Constitution and the rise of
a shadow government, you hadarticles at Salon, salon.com not
known for its, you know, rightwing conspiracy theorizing, as
well as outlets like theAmerican Conservative it was
talked about by mainstreamfinancial analysts at the time
Bill Moyers had a guest ontalking about the anatomy of the
Deep State. The Boston Globe wastalking about the secret

(36:42):
government that won't change nomatter who you vote for. The New
York Times was talking aboutAmerica's establishment has
embraced the deep state. TheWorld Bank on its blog was
talking about, it was a bizarretime, well, but and so I was at
the time, I was just pondering,what does what does this mean?
Why are they bringing this, thisterm, into public consciousness
at this particular time.Because, as we know, anyone who

(37:05):
has actually studied this issue,know that in essentially, the
person who spearheaded theresearch into the deep state
phenomenon, deep politics in theEnglish language, at least, was
Peter Dale Scott who hadimported it, obviously from from
Turkish, where there there wasthe whole sister link incident
that exposed the Turkish DeepState, and that's where the term

(37:27):
was really originating from. Butit talked about that nexus of
power between military andmobsters and government and drug
runners and all of that, and sothat, that's the deep politics
and deep state that people likePeter Dale Scott were
researching and writing aboutit, seemingly in the wilderness
for decades. And so suddenly, in2015 2016 it suddenly started to

(37:52):
emerge into mainstream talkingas a talking point. And then,
interestingly, as Trump tookpower, I wouldn't even, I
shouldn't even say that. It's aridiculous way of putting it. As
Trump sat in the Oval Office.Suddenly, the narrative started
to emerge. Yes, there is a deepstate. It's just this sort of
everyday bureaucrats and workersthat staff all these different

(38:13):
agencies. And don't worry, guys,there were, of course, several
op eds and editorials beingwritten in major mainstream
newspapers about Yes, the deepstate exists, and it's a good
thing, because these are thebureaucrats who aren't going to
go crazy. They're not going togo with whatever mega is saying
and whatever Trump tells them todo. They're the people who are
in charge. So don't worry aboutit. And I think that really
became to the extent that theleft will talk about Deep State,

(38:37):
I think that is the way thatthey are meant to see it now is
don't worry the deep state isjust the regular bureaucrats and
staffers who sit there at theirdesks all day. But no for again,
for people who have actuallyresearched this, read Peter Dale
Scott and people like that,Alfred McCoy talking about the
politics of heroin and thingslike this that talk about the
connection between intelligence,military, drug runners,

(38:59):
mobsters, government officials.Read your book, right?
Obviously, I mean, this

WW (39:06):
has been about, this is essentially the same thing. Yes,
it all goes back to the

JC (39:10):
same nexus of power. Because really, when we really start to
look at it, we start tounderstand that the political
spectacle is a spectacle that ismeant to divert attention. And
I've, I've made the analogy afew times to the president of
the galaxy or the president ofthe universe in The Hitchhiker's
Guide to the Galaxy, ZaphodBeeblebrox, who is this

(39:31):
ridiculous character who, in thecontext of the story, is
literally just meant toessentially divert the public's
attention from the people whoare actually making decisions so
that they can get along with theboring business of, you know,
ruling the galaxy, while thiscrazy person is the person that
everyone in the galaxy isactually watching. And I really
do think that that isessentially where we've arrived,

(39:51):
where the person in the OvalOffice, or the person vying for
the Oval Office, that that isthe spectacle that is, diverts
our attention from the peoplewho are actually. Wielding power
still largely in the shadows,even though the term Deep State
has in some way been mainstream,

WW (40:06):
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 psyopsgoing on right now. I want to
turn to something that I thinkis kind of unique to Trump, as
opposed to the other party, inthis sense, and I think part of
it is related to efforts tomaintain the illusion that he's

(40:28):
anti establishment, when, ofcourse, his policy record, and
even his what the policy, thefew 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 likecan, it seems to me that there's
been an effort to use quote,unquote, canceling to create

(40:49):
basically controlled assets thatposes anti establishment. And it
makes me think of sort of theWorld Economic Forum that their
meetings. And in the wake ofCOVID 19, we're all about a
couple years in a row. Actually,we're about rebuilding trust
with the public, and it seemslike, at least by doing that
with the with, you know, rightleaning Americans who, of
course, have the guns, have beena major focus of like, trying to

(41:14):
sort of pacify them and havethem rally around, you know,
Trump is the person who's goingto save everything and ensure
that the people that are armed,you know, stay in their
armchairs and stay docile. And Ithink it's interesting how, you
know, basically, by, by sort ofhaving this whole narrative
that, oh, the deep state, orthese people, these powerful

(41:35):
people, hate Trump, Bill Gates,Reid Hoffman, hate Trump so
much. You know, people likethat. It's sort of in as well as
Q anon have sort of absolvedTrump of really having to be
either held account to any ofhis past policies or really
having to campaign on policy atall. It's more just, you know,

(41:55):
don't you see these people hatehim. Why do they hate him so
much? You know, obviously he'sdoing something right, but not
necessarily right, like, ifyou're an intelligence agency,
for example, and you know, youcan make someone appear anti
establishment and get quote,unquote anti establishment
Americans to trust them, justby, like, having some sort of
big canceling events, you know.And that's the lowest bar you

(42:17):
need to meet. It's actually aquite easy bar to meet, right?

JC (42:22):
I certainly, yeah, I certainly don't think that Trump
would be smart enough to evenplay such a role. But I
absolutely agree that that isessentially the function of the
the the over the top,demonization of the Trump
phenomenon and What? What? Ishappening, creation of the Whoa,

(42:43):
here's the rogue Maverick thatwill say the things that you
can't be said, and we can'tcontrol 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 thecryptocurrency. Don't worry. The
good kind, not that. Cbdc, scarykind. It'll be the good kind,

(43:05):
etc, etc, yeah,

WW (43:06):
it'll be the private sector, programmable surveillance money,
not the public. It'll be

JC (43:12):
from Bank of America. You know, what's to worry about? Um,
no, that's, that's exactly thebest move that could possibly
happen from the deep state'sperspective. Because, of course,
they would like the public tobe, to be on board with this
agenda, and to think, well, it'scoming from this Maverick who's
out there to destroy the system.So as one example of how that
can play out, for example, Imentioned back after that

(43:35):
Facebook meeting, back in Ithink 2016 Don't worry, guys,
we're listening. We're notcensoring conservatives. We're
boosting conservatives. Andsuddenly outlets like the daily
wire start get to get boosted inthe Facebook algorithm. It's
precisely because they knowdaily wire is going to be
within, at least within theOverton window. And yeah, they
may be on the right side of thatOverton window, but they're

(43:56):
certainly not going to betalking about 911 truth or
anything, you know, anythingremotely resembling something
that would truly be a threat tothe deep state and powers that
shouldn't be so similarly,Trump, again, I don't I
honestly, I couldn't imaginethat he would be cognizant
enough to be able to play a rolein all of this, except as they

(44:18):
know that he is going to beplaying ball within the system,
and that he can be easily ledand misled as well. We've just
had four years of him beingquote, unquote in power to prove
exactly that and how he was ledalong at every at every
opportunity and warp speed andthe lockdowns and everything
took place under Trump. Do youremember that? Well, most people

(44:40):
have forgotten it because theyremember the character that he
is playing more so than theactual things he has done, and
that that really is, that's it.It's a spectacle. Well,

WW (44:49):
they tend to kind of absolve him of anything he did when he
was in power. Last time, oh, itwas these people he put in and
then later they left power andturned on him. And he won't do
that. He won't make thosemistakes. Weeks again, this
time, even though Howard lutnicand Jared Kushner, yeah,

JC (45:04):
I was gonna say two words. Jared Kushner, he's gonna be in
the Oval Office again. So,

WW (45:09):
yeah, well, if not overtly, covertly, that's for sure. Um,
but I think you know, thiseffort to sort of manufacture
anti establishment credentialsfor Trump without him actually
doing thing, anti establishmentreally got a big went into
overdrive this year with the theassassination attempts and how
that has sort of impacted Trumpspace pretty significantly.

(45:30):
Because there was a before theybegan. There was a noted, I
would say, lack of enthusiasmaround Trump, not necessarily,
completely unenthusiastic, butit became notably more
enthusiastic after the firstone. And of course, you know,
there were a couple more minor,I guess you could say iterations

(45:51):
of that first one, and peoplethat have looked into the, you
know, quote, unquoteassassination attempt, as is
true for, you know, any sort ofhigh profile shooting in the US
generally, the officialnarrative doesn't pass the sniff
test, but I haven't personallylooked at it, so I don't want to
opine on the specifics of those,but I think the ultimate impact

(46:14):
of them has been prettysignificant. Curious about your
thoughts on that, because that'ssort of different than than
previous cycles, I think somesort of assassination attempt or
something that people think,yes, one Yeah,

JC (46:27):
it's certainly an upping of the ante. And it's an upping of
the spectacle side of it. Whatcould possibly be more
spectacular than the site of anassassination attempt, at any
rate, if not an assassinationitself. Now I do, I do wonder
about the chess moves involvedthere, because it certainly does
seem like absolutely this was asetup scenario where, if the

(46:50):
Secret Service had been doinganything resembling its standard
protocol, obviously, what we sawtake place there would not have
happened at all, obviously. Soclearly, whatever happened was
made to allowed to engineer tohappen in some fashion. But then
what would have been the resultif Trump was actually if, if it

(47:13):
proceeded and Trump was actuallyassassinated? I'm not sure I
know the calculus on that one,but I certainly do know the
calculus from the incrediblespectacle of seeing someone just
almost being assassinated andstanding up and saying, fight,
fight, fight with the iconicphotograph. All of that,
obviously, to burnish itcertainly does have the effect

(47:34):
of burnishing credentials withpeople who want to think this is
the maverick who's literallytaken a bullet from the for the
team. This is the man they'regoing after. So we have to
support him even harder. Becauseif 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 somedegree of authority, because I

(47:56):
have attempted to set the recordstraight a few times on the fact
that actually, you know, JFK wasnot trying to end the Federal
Reserve. In fact, he wasactually making moves to give
the Federal Reserve more powerto ultimately end the issuing of
the silver certificates thatwere set by law to happen at
certain prescribed intervals.And he was actually giving power

(48:16):
over so that could be ended,etc, etc. I've talked about
this, gone through the specificexecutive orders, things that
he's actually written, and Iwill still get pushback from
people who, no, you don'tunderstand. JFK was a saint on
earth. He was being assassinatedbecause he was taking down the
deep state. Well, I certainly dothink that there is absolutely a
connection between what washappening in Vietnam, for

(48:36):
example, or his threat tosplinter the CIA into 1000
pieces. That doesn't meaneverything JFK did was an alloy
good. Certainly not, yeah,absolutely. And, I mean, and

WW (48:46):
he was very blackmailed, had lots of mistresses, all sorts of
people knew about it. His vicepresident was mobbed out the
wazoo. LBJ, who later becomespresident, right? And, of
course, you know, the Kennedyfamily itself is born out of the
same networks that really, youknow, the Nexus I talk about in
my book of, you know, organizethe, basically the organized

(49:08):
crime people that becameincredibly powerful during the
Prohibition era because ofbootlegging, later merging with
intelligence agencies. The, youknow, Joe Kennedy, the patriarch
of the Kennedys was bootleggingand very involved in those same
networks, and, you know,obviously a flagrantly illegal
activity that helped make hisfamily both, you know,

(49:30):
financially and politicallypowerful. And I think because of
the ease of, sort of, at leastthe perceived ease of
controlling JFK through sex andmistresses and and blackmail,
which already, you know, at thatpoint in the 60s, was pretty
well established by thisparticular group, you know, at
least a few decades in of their,you know, use heavy use of that

(49:54):
to control powerful people. Youknow, I think, yeah, there is an
effort to sort of. SanctifyKennedy, sure, and I mean to to
an extent, also, you know RFK aswell, who obviously was much
cleaner than than JFK on thingslike sex and other things like
that. I'm not sure I would say,like,

JC (50:13):
why are they shared? But beyond that, beyond,

WW (50:18):
apparently, not as bad, right? Documentable,

JC (50:21):
playing around with multiple women. But beyond that, RFK was
eyeballs deep in the operationsto to take out Castro in Cuba,
that, of course, Operationmongoose and others that
ultimately had some part to playin the assassination itself. And
I think that's obviously isthat's an important part of the

(50:41):
whole story that is really notbrought out enough that RFK was
intimately involved in plans forstaging false flag operations
and others. And although JFK,thankfully didn't sign off on
Operation Northwoods, RFK wasengineering and directing
various operations in Cuba.That, again, is a whole part of
the story. RFK was not a cleanoperator by any means. Well,

WW (51:04):
definitely not. I mean, really, no one in the family
really ever has been, arguably.I think that's become
particularly apparent as wellwith RFK Jr. But what I think is
interesting about what we'vejust discussed in the context of
these assassination attempts,quote, unquote, on Trump. I
think it's sort of related to, Isuspect that there may be sort

(51:26):
of mainstream, at least, withinthe right what had previously
been qanon Talking Points orviews. So of course, like
Kennedy, the Kennedy clan andfamily as sort of saints, has
definitely been a key part ofthe Q anon thing, the idea that
JFK Jr is JFK

JC (51:43):
Jr still actually Q. Is that still a thing?

WW (51:47):
Well, there's, I think there's a lot of theories about
Q, you know, I

JC (51:52):
remember that JFK Jr is literally Q, and he is going to
present himself at some rally,some point, I mean, at Dealey

WW (51:58):
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, somethinglike that. Yes, but there's this
idea of the Kennedy mythos therethat's been propagated. And I
think you know the idea of, youknow, these assassination
attempts, of course, the lastyou know presidential candidate

(52:19):
that was assassinated, you know,it was RFK, if I remember
correctly, and it sort of linksTrump, in that sense, to the
Kennedys. And then you have RFKJr endorsing Trump and making
comparisons about Trump to, youknow, his father and uncle and
things like that. And I sort ofwonder if there is going to be

(52:40):
an effort to sort of mainstreamsome of the Q and on things. And
I say this not just because ofwhat I just laid out, but also
because of sort of these figureslike Tucker Carlson, for
example. You know, now that he'snot on mainstream media has sort
of given air time to what wouldhave previously not been allowed
on his show at all, what areconsidered sort of fringe views
and not necessarily inaccurate,but some that have been

(53:02):
weaponized by key went on, in asense, so like the idea of, for
example, of, you know,pedophiles and power and things
like that, absolutely a realphenomena. But you know, Tucker
Carlson had like Roseanne Barron, I believe who went on being
like the Democrats are all pedosand all of this stuff. Well,
it's obviously not exclusive toone party, but, you know, airing

(53:23):
sort of that out, which hadpreviously, you know, back a few
years ago, been seen as a sortof a Q anon thing. And you know,
when the Podesta leaks and allthat stuff happened, Q anon sort
of came out to sort of grabthose people that were outraged
by some of those relatedrevelations in there. And
Tucker's response is just sortof to say nothing and just like,
laugh, you know? So I think it'skind of unusual. And then, you

(53:47):
know, Tucker saying, like, ohyeah, yes, there's aliens among
us, but they're really demons,and they live underground and
all of this stuff. I mean, canyou imagine Tucker saying that
when he was on Fox? I don'tknow, and I don't really trust
his rebound at all, as Iunderstand that his rebrand has
been funded by Peter Thiel,right, his new media operation,
sorry, the

JC (54:05):
name, the term rebrand brings Russell Brand and his
sudden Christianity conversionto mind. Yes,

WW (54:12):
well, it's related. Well, the Christian rebrand of Russell
Brand ended up leading him topromote the hallow prayer app,
which, lo and behold, is fundedby JD, interesting, yeah, a lot
of people in Rumble World,

JC (54:27):
interesting. Well, okay, actually, before we leave the
assassination topic, there'sanother important thing that
just occurred to me. One of theways that assassination can be
used, of course, is like the theassassination, assassination
attempt on Reagan, which waspredicted, remarkably enough, on
air by May Brussel. May Brussel,on her program, talked about it

(54:47):
24 hours in advance. There's itlooks like there's going to be a
coup taking place in the ReaganWhite House. And it looks like
Alexander Haig and VicePresident Bush are are planning
something. And then, lo andbehold, Hinckley. Goes crazy and
ends up shooting Reagan, well

WW (55:04):
actually, right after having dinner with

JC (55:07):
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 Iheard recently about, well,
actually, it wasn't Hinckleythat was at shooting, etc, etc.
Anyway, like, as you say, likewith every spectacular shooting
event in American politics, thatone sticks to high heaven as
well. But what was the realupshot of that? Well, one was

(55:29):
that on the Dale on the day whoactually declared himself in
charge of the US government wasAlexander Haig. So interestingly
enough, he just assumed chargeof the government in those hours
when Reagan was out of office.But ultimately, what was that?
Of course, it was the threat toReagan himself. You are not in

(55:50):
charge here. And Bush from thatpoint forward, it was the Bush
presidency. He was running theWhite House from the from the
VP, absolutely. And I thinksimilarly, think about the the
phrase, the phrase we always useone heartbeat away from the
presidency, the VP, right? Andif it were to be Trump, who
would that be? Of course, itwould be JD Vance. And do you

(56:10):
think there might have been amessage there in this multiple
assassination attempts? Hey, youknow, you're only as good as
your Secret Service protection.And, boy, that can disappear in
a hurry. Can it so you betteryou

WW (56:22):
should really give vanderel more security contracts.
Exactly, right?

JC (56:26):
Yeah, something like that. Who knows?

WW (56:30):
Yeah, interesting. Well, I believe after the first
assassination attempt, EricPrince was consulted about
security stuff for the Trumpcampaign. So we'll see how
influential he ultimately endsup being, if and when Trump ends
up winning, which I honestlythink is increasingly likely,
given where they want to takethings, and also because people

(56:52):
seem to be very unaware thatTrump, just like Kamala, they
agree on so many policy issueswe mentioned earlier, biometric
digital ID. Trump is on recordsaying we need a biometric Entry
Exit tracking system in thecountry. He's pitching it as a
solution to mass migration,which is actually what the

(57:12):
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 pitchingthe same thing, but it will stop
online hate speech and cyberbullying, and it's a similar
there's a lot of crosspollination between, you know,
US and UK policy. And it seemslike, you know, the left, the
quote, unquote, I shouldn'treally even call them the left.

(57:33):
The Democrats, they're talkingpoints about digital ID, are
rather similar to labors aswell. But ultimately, the
solutions the same. You know,it's just the sales pitches that
differ, and also market basedclimate solutions. You know, as
I mentioned earlier, Howardlutnic, the you know, who's
choosing the talent, he said,for Trump's transition team, is

(57:56):
one of the earliest pioneers ofcarbon trading, going back to
the late 90s, and has been veryinvolved in trying to create
carbon markets, including withthis company, he's on the board
of called satologic, which ischaired by Trump's former
Treasury Secretary SteveMnuchin. And also on the board
is Joe Dunford, who was head ofthe Joint Chiefs of Staff under

(58:16):
Trump, so basically head of themilitary for all intents and
purposes and satologic has beentrying to build a carbon market
for the Americas on the BitcoinBlockchain. And very weird. So
you're getting it sort of fromthe quote, unquote right as well
as the left. And really, youknow, carbon trading. And carbon

(58:40):
emissions trading was created bya Drexel Burnham Lambert alum.
Drexel Burnham Lambert being thejunk bond basically criminal
bank, and it was Michael Milkenrunning the junk bond division
that fueled all these corporateraiders of the era who took over
corporate America and had a lotof 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

(59:07):
anyway, that Drexel BurnhamLambert VP, or former VP Richard
Sandor, he created EmissionsTrading for the administration
of Bucha senior, and was alsotapped by Marie strong at the
first Rio Summit in like 92 orsomething, 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

(59:30):
previously invented basicallywhat her financial derivatives a
few years prior. So it's reallynot, even though it's been
framed as a left wing thing,it's really something that, you
know, came out of the other sideof the political divide. And
despite a lot of divide about,you know, whether climate change
is real or not, between the leftand the right, the solutions are

(59:51):
essentially the same right as isthe whole idea of programmable
and surveillance money with youhave, you know, Democrats like
Elizabeth. Warren, for example,talking about, we should it's
time for a cbdc, and then, youknow, you have Trump sort of
embracing not just Bitcoin, butstable coins. And Howard lutnic
is intimately connected to thelargest stable coin, which is $1

(01:00:13):
stable coin called tether. He'sa custodian for most of their
treasuries, and that's now amajor way to finance US debt.
It's all very crazy. So tetheris overtly partnered, by the
way, with the FBI and SecretService. They're on their
platform, and they seizepeople's money at the behest of
governments like Israel and theUS, even if those people don't
live in the US. So it's reallynot an improvement over the old

(01:00:36):
system. It's really just asOrwellian as a cbdc would be.
And, you know, there's infiniteother examples of overlap, one
being biotech as well. I'minterested to get your take on
that, because I know you'vebeen, you know, railing against,
rightly so, GMOs for a longtime. And when Trump was in
office, previously, hederegulated GMO crops quite

(01:00:57):
extensively, and, of course,promoted this is essentially
what was a GMO vaccine and mRNAvaccine through Operation warp
speed. And a lot of his backers,Musk included, as well as JD
Vance himself, are very investedin the biotech industry. But yet
you have someone like RFK Jr,who sort of rose to prominence
over the last few years railingagainst GMOs of either in

(01:01:20):
agriculture or in vaccines. Now,sort of, you know, promoting the
idea that a vote for Trump willmake Americans healthy again,
and things of that nature. SoI'm particularly interested on
your thoughts on that matter.

JC (01:01:33):
Yes, it's an incredibly important question, and I would
be very interested to see howthat dynamic will play out. It
would seem to me that Trump issimply accepting the Kennedy
endorsement because it willobviously accrue to his
politically speaking, but Iwould imagine that Kennedy would
be sidelined in short order inthe event of a new Trump

(01:01:54):
administration. I don't thinkthat those certainly, if, as
long as Kennedy is continuing topromote those ideas, I don't
think he'll get very far withthem, because we've seen the
business interests and how theycan override what's going on.
But actually, I wanted to goback to the climate finance
issue, because again, as I knowyou know, this is the multi
trillion dollar boondoggle thatis, of course, every major power

(01:02:15):
at the table is going to beinterested in getting their
snoot into it, and it is goingto be the the never ending gift
if and when it is establishedproperly in institutional
structures. So yes, one canimagine that there will be
players on both sides of the socalled political aisle that will
be interested in that just oneexample of the boondoggle that's

(01:02:36):
taking place just from thisweek, Oxfam International just
published a new audit of theWorld Bank that shows that
between 2017 and 2023 as as muchas $41 billion of the funds that
were distributed by the WorldBank to climate causes could not
be accounted for due to pooraccounting standards. So yes,

(01:02:57):
again, surprise, surprise. Wherehave we heard that before? Well,
it's like the Pentagon audit andeverything else and, oh, by the
way, as it also just comes outin a new peer reviewed study,
turns out that the themysterious methane surge that
has been taking place since 2020in which we've been told, of
course, has been due toagriculture and farming and cow
burps, etc. That's, that'swhat's causing this horrible

(01:03:21):
rise in methane. Well, as itturns out, they they knew the
methane was going up, but theone thing they didn't actually
test for was the isotope ofmethane. They forgot, for
example, to test whether thiswas C 13 carbon 13 ratio
methane, which, oh, by the way,is related to the fact of
whether or not this is producedthrough from agriculture, from

(01:03:42):
human, ostensible human sources,or from microbes. And as it
turns out, oh, when you actuallydo the carbon 13 testing, no, it
turns out that 90% of this risein methane has been through
microbes, not anything to dowith human activity. I wonder if
that means we won't have to eatzabugs. Well, I imagine no that
that somehow doomsday will notbe called off for that. But this

(01:04:04):
is, this is the type

WW (01:04:05):
of, let's just make a new market for microbe emission
trading exactly

JC (01:04:09):
right as an opportunity. And just to speak to your point that
it's both sides of the rememberwho set up the the first climate
derivatives, weather trading,derivatives market, Enron, of
course, in bed with the Bushadministration, so the Bush
family. So there you go. So yes,absolutely, that is the
boondoggle that will continue topay once it really gets
established in internationalinstitutional frameworks.

WW (01:04:32):
Well, I think it's going to be a big part of this effort to
resolve the US government debtcrisis you're having very
mainstream US politicians,sitting members of Congress
saying that the next presidentwill definitely face a US
government debt crisis thatthreatens the dollar. So I think
in the case of Trump, it'spretty clear that his solution,
from what he said, is going tobe, you know, the use of stable

(01:04:54):
coins, which gobble uptreasuries like no tomorrow.
They hold more treasuries withUS government debt than. Many
nation states. Now, I forgetexactly the number, but it's
very, very significant andlikely to be more going forward.
And of course, PayPal hasrecently put out their stable
coin. That's likely with, youknow, their stable coin
regulation making its waythrough the house, likely to

(01:05:15):
very much favor py USD, as it'scalled, in their efforts, you
know, decades in the making tomake a new world currency. They
may actually have it now, um,which is interesting. But also,
uh, something that I came acrossin looking into uh, RFK juniors,
former VP pick Nicole Shanahan,who, as I'm sure you're aware,

(01:05:36):
was formerly the wife of SergeyBrin, the Google co founder that
was, banked by JP Morgan, withJeffrey Epstein's assistance,
was wrote a paper, of course,before she was a vice
presidential candidate or reallyknown to anyone about
quantitative, aboutquantitatively easing into
carbon markets, and how the USgovernment should make some sort

(01:05:58):
of carbon coin. And you know,quantitatively ease, which means
money printing and sort ofinflate into into that. So I
think there's going to be aneffort to creatively store US
government debt all over theworld in new ways. And it's
pretty much been overtly said bypeople that promote the adoption
of dollar stable coins, which isa lot of people in Trump World.

(01:06:19):
This cycle, at least, is a majorway to expand dollar hegemony
and essentially dollarize wholenations, but covertly, not
overtly. So it's not formaldollarization like happened in
El Salvador and Ecuador. It'sinformal because you're having
people use $1 denominated orsomething linked to the dollar,
like tether, instead of, youknow, their local currency,
which is actually happening inArgentina and Brazil in very

(01:06:42):
unprecedented numbers, which iskind of significant. And then
you have people like formerTreasury Secretary Larry Summers
being like, yeah, stable coinsare a way to dollarize the whole
world. So definitely things thataren't getting enough coverage,
but lead us to the ultimate,same Orwellian hell hole that
CBDCs were heralded to do. So Ithink, you know, these are
things that people really needto take heed of, especially

(01:07:04):
those opposed to thetechnocratic agenda, whether you
call it agenda 2030, or orsomething 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 youwere to voice any of the
opinions that we have done overthe past, you know, hour or so,
invariably, a lot of thepushback is that, oh, you saying

(01:07:26):
these facts means you offer nohope and no solutions, and
you're a doom pillar and a blackpillar and go away. Your facts
don't make me feel good,essentially. So I think there
actually are solutions to thisproblem. So as I, you know, said
in the introduction, to thispodcast, you know, first of all,
diagnosing the problemaccurately is very important to

(01:07:49):
solving the problem, and sothat's why it's important to
note that both parties arefundamentally corrupt, despite
their best efforts to sign upthe public otherwise. But you
know, in my opinion, if you lookat the commonalities between the
two candidates, as we have donemost recently, and as it relates
to sort of this, thisoverarching technocratic agenda
for global governance, one ofthe solutions I think, that

(01:08:12):
people should pursue is sayingno to the policy agendas
directly and not really focusingso much on politician a or
politician B, or famous personA, or famous person B. And I
think one of the fundamentalones of that, of course, would
be digital ID, which, in caseof, you know, agenda 2030, and
the Sustainable DevelopmentGoals is considered to be the
cornerstone of that broaderagenda, and is important for

(01:08:35):
essential, they say, toimplementing more than half of
all of the different goals thatare, you know, sub goals of the
17 Sustainable DevelopmentGoals. And then, of course, I
think also exiting the two partyparadigm is important, because I
think the the unprecedentedefforts to keep people sucked

(01:08:57):
into the spectacle year afteryear shows that, you know they
need people to do that. Theydon't want people exiting the
two party paradigm. Anyway,that's my opinion. Of course,
I'm sure you have many more. Iknow you on court report.com
have had a long running seriescalled solutions. Watch. That's,
in my opinion, very, very good.So I'll throw the floor to you

(01:09:17):
to talk about how we can solvesome of these problems.

JC (01:09:20):
Yes. Well, if people are interested in that series, I
hope they will go to quarterreport.com. Check out solutions.
Watch where week in and weekout, although there has been a
few week break. But I generallyevery week I'm talking about
different aspects of thesolutions that are possible. Um,
they all tend to, or I won't sayall, but a lot of them tend to
lead back to the same, the samefundamental underlying concepts,

(01:09:41):
which is, I think yes, mass nonadoption and non compliance is
absolutely important. It'sabsolutely necessary that people
do not take the digital ID, thatthey do not use whatever digital
currency is going to be foistedupon them. But it's easy to say
that it's another thing to doit, for example, exactly as. We
learned during the scandemicNonsense, it was, I suppose,

(01:10:03):
easy to have high falutingideals, but I won't let I won't
let government tell me to stayat home. I won't let people tell
me to wear a mask or to take thejab. But it really depended on
your circumstances. And are you?Are you an employment position
that is going to necessitate youto take certain medical
interventions, etc? So yes, it'sone thing to have ideas about
what you will and will not do.It's another thing to actually

(01:10:25):
be prepared to live that out.And one of the things that the
past few years of craziness hastaught us is that it is an
exceptionally important that youdo have a community of some
sort. And that doesn'tnecessarily mean that you are
living cheek to jowl with abunch of people who all think
exactly like you do, but it doesmean that you are at least aware
in your area, for example, whatwhat businesses exist, what

(01:10:49):
people and networks andcommunities and things you can
tap into in times of emergency,no matter what that emergency
might be, that you can at thevery least survive any passing
emergency. And why not use thatas the basis for forming actual,
sturdy communities from whichyou can then scale up and
hopefully actually create asystem that we want, instead of

(01:11:11):
using our time, our energy, ourattention, our resources, in
building up the the the beastsystem, as it were, we're we're
constantly giving Our time,attention and energy to the
political spectacle and to allof the various businesses
associated with the people thatare really puppeteering that
spectacle. Wouldn't it be niceif we could take that time,
energy, intention and resources,and divert them towards

(01:11:34):
community structures that webuild from the bottom up? And I
think that has to be afundamental part of the
solution. Because, yes, I think,and it also doesn't mean a that
we have to do everything all atonce, either we, 100% can
convert to living on cloudsovernight or or it's not worth
doing at all. Also, I think it'simportant to understand that

(01:11:55):
there are steps. We don't haveto reinvent the wheel with
things and go throughcomplicated processes, good
enough will do and so, forexample, one very, very, very
simple idea that CatherineAustin fits that so Larry had
was cash Fridays. How about justone day a week? You see if it is
possible for you to fulfill yourdaily needs that particular day

(01:12:18):
in cash, instead of using a car,or instead of using some other
form of payment, why not justsee if it is possible to source
everything you need that daywith cash? And then if that is
possible, hey, maybe you canexpand cash Friday to cash
Thursday and Friday, or cashweekend, or cash week, or cash
every day, and see if you canfacilitate an economy around
that. And that could be part ofa process of, as I say, finding

(01:12:40):
out what is in your community,developing that I think that is
the process that is actuallyimportant, more so than stepping
into a voting booth to cast yoursuggestion in the slave
suggestion box. Vote harderguys, it'll work this time. As a
voluntaryist, I fundamentallybelieve it is actually an
initiation of force, andtherefore morally wrong to

(01:13:02):
actually participate in thatdemocratic process. But you know
what? I won't even care thatmuch when people inevitably do
step into that voting booth andpull a lever for one candidate
or another, not only becausetheir vote literally doesn't
count, and it will be counted bythe Kim voting machines and the
voting machines will tell youwho won this election process,
but also because, again, it'sit's utterly trivial and

(01:13:24):
insignificant. It's when peoplewrap their identity, their
entire lives, around this eventthat takes place once every four
years, as if it's trulymeaningful. That is exactly the
energy that the real deep stateactually needs in order to
function the way that it wantsto, to capture your attention,
your energy and your resources.Let's turn away from it. And

(01:13:46):
hey, you know what? Whatever gostep in the booth and pull
whoever for whoever you want. Idon't care. But how about you
spend the rest of the four yearsnot thinking about that, not
talking about that, not doingthat, but building communities.
And I think that is what isgoing to see us through, or is
going to be the thing thatcollapses around our heads when
we realize that the emergency istaking place and we don't have

(01:14:07):
anything set up to catch us fromthat fall

WW (01:14:11):
absolutely and I would the only thing I would add to that
is that I think there are alsopeople who don't necessarily
subscribe to the two partyparadigm, but still allow their
attention to be monopolized bythe spectacle. And I think that
includes people in independentmedia as well, who, you know, I
mean, obviously, for reasons of,you know, the media is their
job. You know, we're plugged in24/7 and, you know, arguing with

(01:14:35):
Twitter trolls all the time andall of this. And I mean, it
happens, but you know,personally it, I think they want
whether you subscribe to the twoparty paradigm or don't. The
goal, as you pointed out, is tosuck all our attention away from
things that actually matteredand have us waste our time doing
that and not actually buildinganything locally, or building

(01:14:56):
any sort of solution that ishelpful. And so. I would caution
people to keep that in mind,given the very addictive nature
of social media, intentionallySo, and also, I think it's
important for people to makegood use of their time online,

(01:15:19):
since social media is justincreasingly weaponized. You
have US military studies from2014, 10 years ago, talking the
US Air Force, particularly,talking about how they were
studying how to use social mediato control people as if they
were drones. You know, peoplethat think they are immune to
this stuff aren't necessarilyso. And now that you know, you
have pentagon and intelligencecontractors overtly running

(01:15:42):
social media networks to thinkthat those type of, you know,
tactics aren't being used, orthat necessarily the people
you're arguing with online areeven real in an a, you know,
generative AI powered bots andall of this, you know, as I've
written before, on AI, if youread the Kissinger Eric Schmidt
book on AI. Essentially, whatthey state there is, the goal is

(01:16:03):
to have people not know what'sreal and what's not anymore, and
have aI tell them what is realand what is not. So that we
become dependent on AI tointerpret information for us,
and we need to be careful thoseof us that are able to see
through election time rules thatwe don't fall victim to those
kind of things as well. Sooffline time is very important
anyway. That's all I'd like toadd. Do you have any closing

(01:16:26):
thoughts, James? Before we wrapup?

JC (01:16:28):
I wholeheartedly concur with that sentiment, and that is
something that I at the veryleast want people to
contemplate. As it turns outnow, it's the latest poll that I
saw, and this was several yearsago, is that people spend as
much as 16 hours a day inmediated reality, looking at
screens, talking to peoplethrough devices, etc. That's,

(01:16:48):
that's almost all of your lifeis spent in mediated reality,
and very high that's, that's aworrying phenomenon, and
something that at the veryleast, I think we should be
cognizant of and thinking about.So I, any rate, I'm doing my
part to help spread awareness ofthese issues, and I'm not here
to tell people what to do withtheir lives, but I can certainly
make suggestions. So as I say, Ihope people check out my

(01:17:09):
solutions, watch series, and ifyou're interested in the idea of
the spectacle and where wherethis mass media phenomenon is
going, I would suggest peoplecheck out my media matrix
documentary. But other thanthat, I think we have definitely
covered a lot of ground today.Well,

WW (01:17:23):
absolutely. And thanks so much for your time, James, I
know you're very busy. Youalluded to all this great work
that you have done, and you'vementioned your website a couple
times earlier, but if you couldremind people where they can
find your work and support you,I think that would be a great
addition to this podcast. Sure

JC (01:17:39):
Corbett report.com is the place to go. That's C, O, R, B,
E, T, T, report.com. And I am onseveral platforms, including
rumble, actually, Odyssey andothers. Besides, I'm not on
Twitter. I'm not on YouTube, ofcourse, famously, infamously, I
was scrubbed from YouTubeseveral years ago, and I'm not

(01:18:01):
on Instagram, tick tock or anyof those types of platforms,
either. So the best place to gois corporate report.com and
there you can find literally1000s of hours of archived audio
and video that I've created overthe course of the past 17 years,
which in internet terms, I thinkit's about 170 years. I've been
doing this a long time, so yeah,

WW (01:18:21):
you absolutely have been doing it a long time. In my
opinion, you were one of thebest. So thanks so much for
joining me today and sharingyour thoughts and analysis,
which I value very highly withmy audience. Very much
appreciated. Thanks to everyonefor listening to this podcast.
If you enjoyed it, please share.Please consider supporting if
you are able and sort of echoingwhat James says, If you're not

(01:18:44):
familiar, I have a major issuewith people impersonating me on
social media or other videoplatforms where I do not have
channels or accounts. So in mycase, also please definitely
either sign up to the unlimitedhangout newsletter or check
unlimited hangout.com if youwant to know what I'm actually
saying and doing and not whatpeople say I'm saying and doing

(01:19:05):
over, you know, boughtnarrations of my face. And I
think we'll all be better offthat way. And I think it's not
going to be just, you know, I'msure it's happening to other
people as well. So important tokeep that in mind. And again,
thanks to everyone who supportsthis podcast and catch You all
on the next episode. Thanks verymuch. You

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

24/7 News: The Latest

Crime Junkie

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Selection 2024 with James Corbett

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}On Purpose with Jay Shetty

24/7 News: The Latest

Crime Junkie

All Episodes

Selection 2024 with James Corbett

On Purpose with Jay Shetty