reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Right now, we are in a political war between the mega rich and everybody else. And the question is, if you're the mega rich, how are you going to control the many when you are few? The way you're gonna do it was with programmable money, but programmable money doesn't click in and work well unless you've got everybody on the grid. You need to be able to track them. You need to be able to watch their behavior. You need to be able to influence their behavior, and then you've got complete control. It's digital money that can be integrated with a social credit system. So it says, if you didn't take your vaccine shot this month, we're gonna turn off your money. That is a coup d'etat. That is the end of human liberty in the West.

Joe Biden's administration is prioritizing the creation of a central bank digital currency (CBDC), with the Federal Reserve and the Bank for International Settlements involved. The goal is to eliminate cash and have everyone use CBDCs for better tracking and control. CBDCs can be programmed to restrict certain purchases, like if someone exceeds their carbon footprint. This is seen as a dangerous tool for tyranny and a step towards a surveillance state. The idea of CBDCs is highly unpopular among Americans, but the plan is to gradually push it through and eventually demonize cash. It is crucial to resist this development, as once implemented, it will be difficult to reverse.

Speaker 0 argues that there is a shift toward bankers increasingly controlling both monetary and fiscal policy, describing it as a "financial coup d'etat." They claim that for centuries there has been a balance of power between the people's representatives who control fiscal policy (taxation) and bankers who control monetary policy. According to Speaker 0, bankers have decided to use digital technology to assert control over both sides of government policy, leveraging CBDCs (central bank digital currencies), stablecoins, and asset tokens as programmable money. They assert that this move is underway and cite Davos as evidence, noting that Larry Fink, the acting co-chair of the World Economic Forum, is aggressively promoting the idea of moving the entire financial system into a digital control grid. The speaker contends that the descriptions of the bankers’ intentions are becoming very open and explicit, and that the result would be the abolition or collapse of the republic in favor of a system where bankers control both monetary and fiscal policy. The speaker questions whether legislative representatives would remain in any executive or ceremonial role, describing the future as fluid and capable of many directions. They emphasize that the transition has been very incremental for decades, facilitated by the federal government not running its financial statements and operations in accordance with the law and not disclosing them properly. This, they claim, has allowed the shift to occur with the public largely unaware or complacent. Speaker 0 notes that many Americans have accepted the current system because they benefit from it in the short term—“as long as I get my check, I’m okay with the system as it is.” They frame this acceptance as part of the reason the changes have progressed with limited public pushback. In sum, the speaker contends that the bankers are moving to extend control from monetary policy into fiscal policy through digital technologies and programmable money, a process they describe as a quiet, long-running coup that could redefine the balance of power in government.

The speaker describes Thailand implementing a biometric-based system that consolidates everything under one roof and ID folder, enabling authorities to “switch you off at the touch of a button.” Suddenly, over 3,000,000 people had their bank accounts shut down, causing a banking crisis as biometric data is used in every facet of life. Every banking transaction is monitored and scrutinized; any perceived discrepancy is flagged as fraud and punished without due process. Regulations overwhelmed the system, resulting in a full-fledged banking crisis. Over 3,000,000 Thai bank accounts were frozen instantaneously without warning. Transactions are denied, and when people contact their bank to understand why payments failed, they learn that their entire account has been frozen. The bank is investigating them for suspicious activity and potential money laundering or fraud, with no warning, no call or letter, and no clarification about which transaction was flagged. People are completely locked out of their accounts, losing the ability to purchase, fill their gas tanks, or buy groceries. They have been removed from the financial system, and there is no indication of when, or if, they will regain access to their funds. This is the reality for millions of people banking in Thailand. The situation caused widespread fear and panic, leading retailers to stop accepting cards and demand cash, as they also worry about being removed from the banking system. Confidence in the government and the entire banking system evaporated. People rationally fear that their accounts will be targeted next without warning. Government overreach backfired, causing people to withdraw from the banking system altogether, and the speaker notes this as a positive development to see people keeping cash alive. The speaker suggests the episode serves as a test case for what digital ID is going to do and as a warning against accepting it. The closing remark states that the controversy over Charlie Kirk is less important than what will be done with this technology. What matters, according to the speaker, is what they’re going to do with it.

After listening to Richard Werner on Tucker Carlson, Speaker 0 claims the globalist elites are implementing Agenda 2030. Speaker 0 recalls that in 2023 Werner said the original plan was for people to accept central bank digital currencies as chips under the skin, and that universal basic income would be used to force adoption of the chip in order to receive the income. Speaker 0 then says the updated narrative is that AI will cause massive job loss, making universal basic income necessary. Speaker 0 adds a “clincher” from Werner: the large centralized AI centers are said to be built to generate energy needed to implement central bank digital currencies and to monitor all people and transactions in real time. Speaker 1 responds that they “don’t have so much power” to control millions of people, and then argues that the construction of hundreds, and even thousands, of data centers is meant to micromanage the world’s population through a “new financial world order.” Speaker 1 states that they are working on solving that organizational challenge and says that “AI is really about that.” Speaker 1 contrasts this with what Speaker 1 says AI would be if it were about productivity, arguing that decentralization and subsidiarity would be applied, and claiming that decentralization would make organizations more productive and efficient. Speaker 1 says there are examples in contexts such as warfare, the military, and businesses. Speaker 1 concludes that instead of decentralization, “they’re creating highly centralized structures,” which Speaker 1 says shows it is not about actual productivity but about control, requiring large resources.

The speaker argues that AI excels at simulating anything that can be expressed mathematically, and since financial transactions can be expressed mathematically, AI can be used to monitor and influence financial behavior. The core concern is that with programmable money and close tracking of individuals, it becomes possible to turn money on and off and to use AI and surveillance systems to manage and control behavior. The speaker gives a provocative example: a question about what happens if authorities demand a transgender change for a child or threaten to turn off money, illustrating a system in which programmable money is integrated with surveillance and behavior-modification mechanisms. The proposed system would enable surveillance, tracking, and conditional access to money—financing incentives or penalties tied to behavior—and could be integrated with digital ID. The speaker argues that once programmable money is paired with digital identity, it amounts to complete control. This is framed as a problem because, on a global scale, there are divide-and-conquer tactics masking the underlying issue: a political struggle between the mega rich and everyone else. According to the speaker, the megacorporate or ultra-wealthy perspective would try to control the many when they are few, and programmable money is the tool to achieve that control. The claim is that for programmable money to function effectively, everyone must be on the grid, allowing the system to track and observe behavior and influence it, thereby exerting total control. The speaker emphasizes that this is not limited to wearables or an Internet of Bodies; it represents a coup d'etat and the end of human liberty in the West. Key points emphasized include: - AI’s strength in simulating mathematically expressible phenomena, including financial transactions. - Programmable money enabling on/off control of individuals’ finances when coupled with surveillance. - The potential for incentives and penalties to be tied to behavior through money. - The necessity of a digital ID to realize complete control. - The notion that such a system is tied to political and economic power dynamics between the mega rich and others. - The idea that universal inclusion on the grid is required for programmable money to work, leading to pervasive tracking and behavior influence. - The assertion that this would constitute a coup d'etat and threaten the end of human liberty in the West.

Speaker 0 argues that you must get your wealth out of the system and downsize all of your assets and resources, especially if you are a public figure and you have any presence on social media. The guidance is that if you’re fighting this “good fight” and you have a public presence online, you need to be downsizing your wealth and assets. The speaker stresses moving as much of your wealth into Bitcoin as possible, so that nobody knows you have it and there is no way to prove you possess it. Once it’s moved into Bitcoin, it’s described as “gone,” in the sense that it cannot be easily traced or proven in the same way as traditional holdings. The warning continues that you should avoid having Bitcoin on any centralized exchanges in a way that makes it obvious whose name is tied to the holdings. The explicit instruction is to get the money into Bitcoin and keep it off centralized exchanges where it can be seen in your name. After acquiring Bitcoin, the recommended setup is a cold storage air-gap multisig wallet. The speaker emphasizes that you should not leave Bitcoin in a system that can be easily accessed or monitored; instead, use cold storage that is air-gapped and protected by a multisignature scheme. The speaker describes the consequences of losing access to private keys: if you lose your private keys, you lose all your Bitcoin. The phrasing used is that you should “go on a boat ride and you fucking lose your private keys and it sucks,” underscoring the irreversible loss associated with losing keys. Overall, the message centers on aggressively relocating wealth into Bitcoin, prioritizing anonymity and security through cold storage and multisig setups, and recognizing the high risk of permanent loss if private keys are lost or compromised. The repeated emphasis is that you must get your wealth out of the system, stay light on your feet, and move assets into Bitcoin to maintain anonymity and reduce traceability.

Speaker 0 argues that control is in the hands of unelected officials at supranational organizations, and that they want all of the world’s resources in their pocket. Speaker 1 says the bigger picture is an attempt to collapse liberal democracy and replace it with global technocracy. Speaker 2 calls this a coup, asserting that “we can control with rules” and “we don’t need currency anymore.” Speaker 3 describes it as an inverted prison, where you are supposedly free to roam about, but “everything you want to access is behind lock and key.” Speaker 1 warns that “the potential for social control is gigantic and potentially irreversible.” Speaker 4 outlines plans to commandeer land, reduce farming, radically change the food we eat, transform the supply of electricity, dictate how we use it, and replace currency with a system of credits, all built on the premise of a climate crisis caused by carbon dioxide. Speaker 5 counters with, “I do not think there’s a climate crisis,” basing that claim on climate data sets built to answer questions like that. Speaker 0 states, “The government is very clear that they want a catastrophic story,” and adds that there is no single science paper proving conclusively that humans control all or most of the global climate, while accusing Europe’s net-zero push of being “effectively economic suicide,” arguing politicians are “purposely impoverishing ordinary people” and deindustrializing Europe. Speaker 6 comments on the damage done “in the name of saving the planet” and asks, “what is it we’re actually saving if we’re paving it over.” Speaker 0 calls this a global war on agriculture. Speaker 4 notes that many farms are selling up, leading to fears of food shortages. Speaker 2 states, “If I can switch everybody from real food to pharma food, then 100% of the agriculture industry can go through my publicly traded stocks, and I have complete control.” Speaker 3 terms it “the biggest public relations scam in the history of the world,” but also says it is a blueprint and an action plan. Speaker 0 contends that “All life on Earth is going to be radically changed.” Speaker 4 predicts that “Everything will be monitored,” including the environmental consequences of every human action. Speaker 2 complains that “the general cannot fathom the psychopathy of the vision that they're facing.” Speaker 3 warns that once a digital ID is in place, “it's game over for humanity.”

I am against the U.S. Government issuing a digital currency directly to citizens. It would give the government too much power and control, potentially leading to the elimination of cash and complete control over our lives. I warned the people of Italy about this when they were considering vaccine passports and central bank digital currencies. In China, if you don't meet a certain social credit score, the government can restrict your spending abilities. They can limit your credit cards to only work at nearby grocery stores, preventing you from buying gasoline, traveling, or purchasing items and food from other parts of the country or abroad. This kind of government control is concerning and could lead to serious consequences for all of us.

The discussion focuses on decentralization and fears that open-source AI could be heavily censored or banned in the future, depriving people of local compute and forcing reliance on cloud systems that could be controlled. One major concern raised is “lawfare” against open-source repositories such as Z Library and Anna’s Archive. The described pattern is that large tech companies first gain access to valuable data, use it to train AI systems, and then governments intervene with legal actions that restrict access—framing the restriction as unfair—ultimately limiting what academics and individuals can use to train their own models. The result is portrayed as a situation where only large AI providers remain viable, while local inference becomes less competitive. The transcript contrasts this with China’s approach, stating China has “decided not to play this game at all” by allowing data sources to proliferate and not burning its own libraries of Alexandria. It claims that about half to two thirds of available open-source information is in Chinese, and that this could reach ninety percent. The claim is that this makes it easier to access open-source models and run them locally, including Chinese models such as Qwen and DeepSeek, which can be loaded from Hugging Face and run on a powerful machine. It emphasizes that running these models locally “won’t be able to” work on a normal gamer rig and requires specialized hardware purchased directly from Nvidia, with an example of starting around ninety-six gigabytes of RAM. The goal stated is local inference once models are available and can be run on local systems. A further concern described is a shift in political messaging: rather than stopping AI data centers, figures like Elizabeth Warren are said to be pushing for taxing people who use artificial intelligence. The transcript argues that this could become a mechanism to increase taxes while leaving people unemployed, with ongoing financial burdens. It claims that using centralized AI services such as Anthropic’s Claude, Google Gemini, and OpenAI’s Codex would mean paying the tax to “essentially only three main cartels.” The transcript concludes by describing a future enforcement model likened to marijuana interdiction, where “commissars” would ask about what is running on data servers and what inference is being conducted, and then impose taxes to regulate and charge for “cognitive labor” produced by AI models.

A discussion centers on a new proposed law, HR 8250, which would require operating system providers to verify the age of any user of an operating system and for other purposes, covering Windows, macOS, iOS, and Android, with open-source Linux considered in the debate. The claim is that this could serve as a Trojan horse to control people through a digital ID system, rather than being merely safety-focused. Speaker 1 references Catherine Austin Fitz, who says that if global elites deploy digital ID systems, they will control all aspects, including health freedoms and financial transactions. She argues that once financial transaction control is in place, all protections in health and food freedoms could be negated, and a 100% digital system with a digital ID and programmable money would allow authorities to dictate health decisions, vaccine status, gender-transition decisions for children, and other policies by turning off funds. Speaker 0 notes that Fitz is not hyperbolic and mentions Austin Steinbart, founder of the Quantum Party of America, who is joined by Speaker 0 to discuss the issue further. Speaker 2 (Austin Steinbart) asserts that the HR 8250 proposal is a disaster and goes beyond a digital ID concept by embedding age verification into the core of every device. He says the bill is six pages long and delegates enforcement to the FTC, creating ambiguity about whether biometrics, ID cards, or face scans would be used, leaving the mechanism up to the executive branch. He points out that the proposal could coordinate with companies like Apple (potentially via Face ID) and Microsoft to embed verification, while raising questions about how open-source Linux distributions would be forced to comply. He notes that Linux is open-source and typically users have root access, enabling workarounds or removal of such core files, and questions how a retrospective integration would work on devices like POS systems or hotel front-desk computers. Speaker 0 asks how the implementation would occur and whether the digital ID is the core objective beyond age verification. Speaker 2 confirms that the core goal is a universal digital ID across platforms, tying to privacy and cybersecurity concerns by requiring every service to interact with core OS files to verify age, with California already moving toward age verification that apps and websites would rely on. Speaker 0 links this to a broader move toward a central bank digital currency (CBDC) and a digital ID, quoting a sound bite from Catherine Austin Fitz about health identifiers affecting travel and other activities. Speaker 3 (a figure from the World Economic Forum) is cited, emphasizing tokenization of financial assets and the rapid rollout of a digital wallet and digitized currencies globally, with a critique that many countries are unprepared for such changes. Speaker 2 clarifies that blockchain or tokenization per se isn’t inherently bad, but concerns arise when centralized actors with anti-freedom aims design and control the system, shaping speech and policy. They discuss the potential benefits of tokenized assets in theory, while warning that centralized control could enable censorship and restricted financial activity. Speaker 0 ends by urging viewers to contact members of Congress to oppose HR 8250, urging them to “burn this thing down,” and thanks Speaker 2 for the analysis.

Donald Trump suggested Elon Musk audit the federal government. One speaker believes AI can democratize government and increase transparency, or enslave citizens to the government and intelligence agencies, and that Musk understands this best. The Pentagon has failed every audit for the last 20 years and lost $4.3 trillion in the last audit. This money was primarily lost on equipment purchases whose locations are unknown, forcing the Pentagon to repurchase them. These problems are solvable with AI, which could track stockpiles and warehouses to identify the location of equipment.

Aaron Day discusses the Epstein files’ implications for Bitcoin and global finance, presenting a tightly linked web of players and events. - The hijacking of Bitcoin is framed as a deliberate shift from Bitcoin’s original vision of peer-to-peer digital cash to digital gold and a store of value for Wall Street, with slow, expensive transactions for everyday use. The article on brownstone.org, “the hijacking of Bitcoin,” by Aaron Day, is central to this claim. - Original Bitcoin vision and early adoption: Bitcoin’s white paper envisioned peer-to-peer digital cash, a global currency usable for day-to-day purchases with low transaction fees. By 2017, major retailers accepted Bitcoin (Overstock.com, Microsoft, Expedia, Subway franchises), and Bitcoin was faster and cheaper than traditional systems. By late 2017, average transaction fees rose to about $50 and finalization times stretched to 7–10 days, leading to a shift in narrative toward Bitcoin as digital gold and a store of value. - The block size fight (2015–2017) and its subversion: The discussion centers on the block size debate and the decision to throttle Bitcoin to seven transactions per second by capping blocks at one megabyte. Blockstream, a for-profit company founded by early Bitcoin Core developers, is described as promoting second-layer solutions and benefiting from smaller block sizes. The original vision called for higher throughput and scalability, but Blockstream allegedly aligned with interests favoring smaller blocks and second-layer implementations. - MIT funding and Epstein’s involvement: Brock Pierce, who served as chair of the Bitcoin Foundation, allegedly advised Jeffrey Epstein on cryptocurrency starting from a 2011 MindShift Conference at Little Saint James Island. Epstein’s influence extended into funding core Bitcoin developers through MIT after the Bitcoin Foundation collapsed in 2015. Joy Ito, head of MIT, allegedly exchanged emails indicating Epstein’s money was earmarked to fund named developers (Gavin Andresen, Vladimir Vanderland, Corey Fields). Epstein’s funding coincided with MIT taking over developer funding as the Bitcoin Foundation waned. - Brock Pierce’s intertwined roles: Brock Pierce is linked to Epstein, the Bitcoin Foundation, Blockstream, and Tether. Pierce’s trajectory includes cofounding Tether, a stablecoin, and later pressuring the narrative shift to digital gold. Blockstream’s investors included traditional finance figures tied to Epstein’s network. Epstein allegedly invested in Blockstream before the Bitcoin Foundation’s collapse, and Blockstream benefited from a Bitcoin ecosystem that would throttle block sizes. - Tether, stablecoins, and price manipulation claims: Pierce co-founded Tether, a stablecoin whose 1:1 peg to the dollar is claimed to have been maintained without full backing. A University of Texas study reportedly found that over 50% of Bitcoin’s 2017 price appreciation was due to Tether being used to buy Bitcoin. The CFTC and New York State investigations allegedly found Tether not fully backed, with as little as $0.26 backing per $1 in circulation according to those findings. Tether’s role is tied to Bitcoin’s price rise and the store-of-value narrative. - Howard Lutnick and the Genius Act: Howard Lutnick, Epstein’s ally and neighbor, is described as having funded Tether (Cantor Fitzgerald reportedly invested $600 million), with Cantor Fitzgerald gaining an exclusive contract to manage U.S. treasuries backing Tether. Lutnick reportedly lied about his ties to Epstein during Senate testimony and later became Commerce Secretary after involvement with Bo Hines, a crypto adviser who helped draft the Genius Act. The Genius Act purportedly requires private stablecoins to be backed by U.S. treasuries and to comply with financial surveillance, benefiting Lutnick’s firm, which manages treasuries. The Genius Act is portrayed as a backdoor to a centralized, surveilled monetary system, and the act positions stablecoins as a key funding mechanism for U.S. debt (billions added to treasury issuances). - The Clarity Act and tokenization fears: A forthcoming Brown Center Institute piece on the Clarity Act is described as not just about crypto rules, but about tokenizing everything—stocks, 401(k)s, commodities, oil, agriculture, and eventually real estate—under centralized surveillance. The Clarity Act is presented as enabling programmable, trackable, censorable digital tokens for all owned assets, with BlackRock’s Larry Fink cited as indicating widespread tokenization. The Clarity Act is said to be moving through Congress after passing the House. - Broader implications and calls to action: The interview frames technocracy, digital currencies, and centralized tokenization as accelerating far more quickly than imagined. Aaron Day advocates publicizing and understanding how corrupt arrangements and tokenization schemes integrate Epstein’s network with MIT, Blockstream, Tether, and political leadership. The proposed personal strategies include exiting fiat, avoiding government-regulated stablecoins, using privacy coins, gold, and silver; exploring private healthcare and medical tourism; forming trusts; and building parallel systems to reclaim free will amid what is described as technocracy. - The conversation closes with references to continuing coverage and a promised deeper dive into the Genius Act and Clarity Act, accompanied by show notes and links at corbettreport.com/epstein Bitcoin and brownstone.org.

Donald Trump suggested Elon Musk audit the federal government. One speaker believes AI can democratize government and increase transparency, but could also enslave citizens to the government and intelligence agencies. They feel Musk understands this best and could deploy AI effectively. The Pentagon has failed every audit for the last 20 years and lost $4.3 trillion in the last audit, mostly due to being unable to locate purchased equipment. AI could fix these problems by tracking stockpiles and warehouses to eliminate government waste.

The speaker discusses the potential risks of decentralized technology. They explain that while this technology aims to liberate individuals and give them control over their personal information, it could also be used by centralized powers to trap people. The speaker suggests that governments could create their own centralized blockchain, turning their currency into a permissioned cryptocurrency. This would allow governments to have complete knowledge of individuals' transactions and diminish privacy. They mention the example of the Marshall Islands, which passed a law for a decentralized currency but most governments may not be willing to give up control over their monetary policy. The interviewer mentions that Joseph Flubin, a co-founder of Ethereum, disagrees with this pessimistic view, considering it fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD).

Together because they are completely interlinked. Epstein is linked with Howard Lutnick, our commerce secretary whose firm manages the treasuries that back tether, the largest stable coin. And Brock Pierce, who was Epstein's crypto adviser, who was a cofounder of Tether and was the head of the Bitcoin Foundation before it collapsed, and then MIT took over the developers is right in the middle of this. So in essence, the endgame of this is what they have figured out as a way to have a backdoor CBDC where they specifically profit. I'm starting to call this now the creature from Epstein's Island because in the end, what are we getting out of this? We have something called USAT, which is the new official stable coin that complies with the genius act. So we have a situation where it's a digital token backed by fiat, backed by treasuries that can be programmed, tracked, and censored. And the biggest financial beneficiary is Howard Lutnick's firm. They managed to create so think about it this way. He's managed to create a central bank digital currency where only one firm profits from all of the fees for managing the treasuries. This is the biggest financial heist probably in human history. And it is connected directly to Epstein and Brock Pierce and the hijacking of Bitcoin. That's how they're linked. Now, do I think were they playing five d chess and this is what they thought was gonna happen? I don't know. May be if so, it's very clever or were they opportunistic about it? But make no mistake about it. These government regulated stablecoins are backdoor CBDCs in not in the sense that they're issued by the central bank, but in the sense that they are controlled and surveilled by the government and tracked by the government, which after all is the thing that people are worried about with CBDCs. The concern isn't really so much about the central bank. Of course, the central bank is complete unnecessary third party, but financial surveillance comes from Congress. All of the bank secrecy laws, all of the tracking and the suspicious activity reports, this is Congress. This is not the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve does not initiate any of that. So this is in many respects worse than the creature from Jackal Island. This is worse than the creation of the Federal Reserve itself because what it's done is created a digital dollar where one political member of a cabinet, his family and his company is the biggest single beneficiary. One of the things that came out of the Epstein file is Lutnick's claim that he was disgusted by Epstein and had nothing to do with him after 2006. The emails show Lutnick emailing Epstein coordinating to visit Epstein on Epstein's Island with his yacht and with his family. There's another email showing Lutnick contributing $50,000 to an event that Epstein was running. Lutnick flat out lied, and I will have to check whether that was under oath about his relationship and association with Epstein. He was a next door neighbor of Epstein and bought his house from Epstein. The connections here are overwhelming. It's so much data to map that I'm using AI to start making initial connections, then humans correct. How do these pieces fit from a timetable perspective? This is game changing. Epstein's hijacking of Bitcoin has not been widely acknowledged, and some Bitcoin Maxis resist this information. I urge people to do their own research, not to rely on spin. Look into Epstein's emails via Jmail and other sources. The information is out there, including the Epstein files, and the article I wrote for Brownstone at brownstone.org with screenshots of emails. Do your research. Don't accept a single influencer's take. Epstein literally funded changing the Bitcoin protocol to make it digital gold, yet there is no indication he actually held Bitcoin. This warrants investigation. Roger Ver, once a prominent Bitcoin advocate, has described hijacking in his own book, and his later treatment suggests suppression. The broader point is that there are deeply interwoven connections among Epstein, Lutnick, Pierce, Tether, and the Bitcoin ecosystem, with implications for who profits and how governance and surveillance could unfold.

It is crucial to avoid being tracked by the system controlled by Mr. Global. The goal is to establish a fully digital system that can be centrally controlled. This would allow for limitations on money based on location and restrict what and when you can purchase. Additionally, it could enable taxation without consent and complete control over individuals. For instance, if a vaccine mandate is issued, disobedience could result in the suspension of financial transactions and access to assets.

The speaker suggests that in order to promote central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) and eliminate cryptocurrencies, the current ecosystem needs to be portrayed as unsafe. They mention the possibility of the CIA running psychological operations (psyops) to destabilize crypto and other global currencies competing with the US. The speaker also highlights the importance of wealthy individuals in America who have a significant amount of their wealth in dollars and are willing to protect it. Overall, the speaker believes that powerful entities are taking action to control the financial landscape.

Speaker 0: I had a guy who worked, very, very, very high up at Citibank. And he told me around 2008, he said, Glenn, you know, don't worry about the financial system. And I'm like, uh-huh. And he said, you know, we're never gonna go broke. I mean, do you know how much just the national parks are worth? And I looked at him and said, are you seriously telling me that we should commoditize the national parks? And he said, it's gonna happen. And I wonder now if this is what he was talking about. If it was just a digital not actually selling them, it's just a digital commoditization of our parks. Speaker 1: Yeah. So apply this now to the the phrase that we all heard during the COVID era, you'll own nothing and be happy. Well Yes. There's certain people that want to own everything, and that includes things that have never been able to be owned before that were considered things like the public commons, like rivers, lakes, the ocean itself, natural forests, all sorts of it. These people want to put all of that into the financial system, fractionalize it, tokenize it, and sell pieces of it around, use it to speculate on. Mean, it's It's very insane. Yeah. And so, this is just one aspect of digital currency play. Obviously, there's a lot more than that just going on as well. I would argue that a lot of this push, particularly in The US for dollar stablecoins supposedly being better than a central bank digital currency, also falls into this paradigm we talked about earlier of, you know, moving from the public to the private of the public private partnership because a lot of these stablecoin issuers, you know, if the the big concerns about CBDCs was that they're seasable, they're surveillable and they're programmable, Well, all of those three things also can apply to stablecoins. The only difference is that you would have a private company issue it and control it. But we've seen time and again how a lot of these private entities are willing to do that. When contacted, just look at how Bank of America behaved with January 6, people accused of wrongdoing on that day, for You know, they have no qualms in doing that and engaging in those type of activities. And the biggest dollar stablecoin issuer, Tether, which just hired Bo Hynes from the White House, they have openly said that they are a close partner of the US government for dollar hegemony globally and have uploaded the FBI, the Secret Service and other aspects of the US government onto its platform directly and have seized tethers from people just because government told them to, and this was during the Biden administration. So they obviously are willing to do that under any administration, and it's essentially functioning as a de facto public private partnership, even though we're being told it's a it's much better than a CBDC, but in terms of its impacts on civil liberties, you know, that's not necessarily true. So, again, vigilance is is important here.

All the great work that you have done in health and all the great work you have done in food to preserve food and health freedoms, the minute they get financial transaction control, they will delete all of it. Financial control and controlling the financial transaction train tracks is the meta control that they will use to control food and health. if these guys get a 100% digital system with a digital ID and programmable money, guess what? They're going to dictate, you don't get your vaccine this month, they're going to turn off your money. And when I read it I couldn't understand how do they think they're going to market this, and that's when I realized, oh, programmable money is how they're going to market.

Speaker 0 argues that facial recognition will be used to unlock your digital identity, which will be a tool of control for upcoming agendas. Speaker 1 notes that elements of this control are already with us, citing Alexa as an example. Speaker 0 contends you are never alone in your home, because all devices and smart appliances are connected on a wireless network, many with cameras and microphones, monitoring everything all the time. Smart appliances communicate with the smart meter, sending real-time usage data. If a Ring camera is in the home, a mesh network is formed and all devices are being tracked within the home, including location and usage, with data going to Amazon’s servers. Speaker 1 adds that when you leave your home, modern vehicles are connected to the Internet and tracked continually. On the streets, smart LED poles and smart LED lights form a wireless network that track your vehicle. They claim data is collected 24/7 continuously on every human being within these wireless networks. Speaker 0 asserts this is not good for health due to electromagnetic radiation. Speaker 0 further states that in the long term the plan is to lock up humanity in smart cities, a super set of a fifteen minute city. Speaker 1 says they’ve sold smart cities to state and local governments and countries as about sustainability and the city’s good, but claims the language from the UN and WEF and their white papers is inverted. The monitoring is described as about limiting mobility and no car ownership. Surveillance via LED grid is described as why smart lighting is death. Water management is about water rationing; noise pollution about speed surveillance; traffic monitoring about limiting mobility; energy conservation about rationing heat, electricity, and gasoline. Speaker 0 explains geofencing as an invisible fence around you where you cannot go beyond a certain point, related to face recognition, digital identity, and access control. Speaker 1 mentions that smart contracts can enable Softbrick to turn off your digital currency beyond a certain point from your house. The world is described as turned into a digital panopticon. Speaker 0 concludes that this means you can be monitored, analyzed, managed, and monetized.

People saw Trump as a threat to democracy, but he was really a threat to the bureaucracy. Elected officials have little power compared to the bureaucracy, and Doge is the first real threat to it. Usually, the bureaucracy absorbs revolutions, but this time, power might actually return to the people. The small decisions within the bureaucracy lead to massive financial outcomes. We saw cases where billions were sent to newly formed NGOs with no prior activity. Government-funded NGOs are a nightmare, a way to bypass laws. These nonprofits are used for people to cash out, becoming wealthy and paying themselves huge sums. It's one of the biggest scams ever.

The speaker argues that authorities are “ramping things up” aggressively, framing it as a process where people are effectively “sleeping” while a “cage” of surveillance and control is being built. They say officials believe they are running out of time because more people are “waking up,” and that critical voices are becoming louder, which they claim is why the ramp-up is happening. They point to multiple developments as signs of movement toward a “totalitarian police” and “surveillance state.” The speaker describes “fifteen-minute ghettos,” saying these are being erected in Great Britain and spreading to Ireland and the Netherlands. They also reference action against farmers, stating that farmers have been “bashed down,” and that the stated purpose—making life better—is described as not matching the outcome: if farmers do not produce food, “you won’t have anything to eat.” The speaker connects this to Bill Gates buying farmland, asking why he would do so “like crazy,” and asserts the reason is that controlling food leads to total control of people. They then highlight digital identity, saying it is framed as making life easier while the government gains total control. As an example, they cite China’s “social credit system” and state they consider this the future, emphasizing that it is “happening now,” not decades away. Finally, the speaker calls digital currency the “creme de la creme of all control mechanisms,” describing a scenario in which refusing an mRNA shot would lead to cancellation of an account, resulting in an inability to buy food or “do anything anymore,” and concludes that these steps are aimed at erecting a totalitarian surveillance state.

"We move into this digital currency era where the banks are issuing these stable coins, these deposit tokens that are programmable money." "They're going to be sharing this data in the same database that the CIA and any other intelligence agency can access whenever they want without a warrant." "No more secret FISA courts or you don't need any of that infrastructure anymore. It is the new system." "Retail CBDC is not nearly as common today as wholesale CBDC." "Wholesale CBDC works as this two tier system." "the CBDC really only serves as a means of interbank settlement and isn't public facing at all." "FedNow, for example, of the Federal Reserve, that was launched solely as a means of interbank settlement, really." "When you have people like Trump and Ron DeSantis say no CBDC, they mean no public facing CBDC. They don't mean no wholesale CBDC."