TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 describes digital identity as not just a passport on your iPhone but something that entails “just about everything the government would like to know about you.” He cites a Dutch media example where the CEO of one of the largest Dutch banks proposed a “personal carbon credit,” calling it a “carbon wallet.” He notes this aligns with plans some say the World Economic Forum has for us. She suggested that if everyone gets an individual personal carbon credit, rich people who “wanna go on holiday a little too often” could buy personal carbon credit from others who “can’t afford buying plane tickets or eating meat too often,” thereby swapping credits. Speaker 1 elaborates with a concrete scenario: if Bill Gates or Leonardo DiCaprio’s carbon footprint becomes too large, “some peasant living in his hovel upcountry somewhere” could sell his carbon allowance to Leonardo DiCaprio, so DiCaprio can park his yacht in Saint Tropez for a couple of extra days. The exchange is described as “Exactly right,” illustrating that the rich would buy from the poor in order to indulge in travel or activities that emit more carbon. Speaker 0 concludes that “the rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer,” and notes that these ideas are being stated openly as if they’re not controversial. He characterizes the concept as neo feudalism, labeling it as such.

Three major corporations, BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard, collectively own each other and 89% of the S&P 500. They are now aiming to purchase every family home in America, with a projected ownership of 60% of single-family homes by 2030. Larry Fink, the CEO of BlackRock, is part of the World Economic Forum and supports the idea of a "great reset" where people own nothing and are happy. These corporations often disrupt the housing market by making last-minute cash offers through ambiguous LLCs.

The Federal Register in 2023 reveals that the New York Stock Exchange and the Securities and Exchange Commission are collaborating to establish natural asset companies. These corporations will hold rights to ecological performance in areas like national reserves and farmlands, taking over management from public land agencies. The companies can license these rights from governments or private landowners, including publicly owned areas like national parks. The aim is to privatize these areas for conservation, restoration, or sustainable management. Wall Street, particularly BlackRock, stands to benefit greatly from this, with the potential for trillions of dollars in economic value.

Update on the World Economic Forum: Klaus Schwab stepped down; the Nestle guy who believed that water wasn't a human right stepped in as co-chair, and now he's gone. We have somebody else moving in there. BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager, runs almost $12 trillion in assets in 2024. Larry Fink points those assets toward new technologies and informs investors where the next opportunities are going to be; "The faster that we could find ways to mitigating the rising temperatures... we don't have much time... we need to be learning about these new, the new technologies and how to move forward. And as Bill Bill in his book wrote about, we we need to employ $50,000,000,000,000 to get to a to a green world." A critic counters: "$50,000,000,000,000 of taxpayer money towards an absolute disastrous hoax that only makes us richer." "Anybody who hatches a scheme that has Bill Gates laughing like a Scooby Doo villain should really alarm people at that point." "Behaviors are gonna have to change... At BlackRock, we are forcing behaviors." Missouri AG Andrew Bailey filed suit against BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard for illegally manipulating the energy markets, stating: "Over several years, the three asset managers acquired substantial stock holdings in every significant publicly held coal producer in The United States, thereby gaining the power to control the policies of the coal companies. Using their combined influence of the coal market, the investment cartel collectively announced in 2021 their commitment to weaponize their shares to pressure the coal companies to accommodate green energy goals." The piece notes that while some pause exists, "This is going full speed ahead."

Speaker 0 describes a deliberate effort to push retail investors toward crypto and programmable money to prototype and profit from it, while keeping them away from “real assets.” The idea is that if retail participants buy into programmable money, they will not compete with the equity holders, managers, and central banks who want to acquire gold and land without retail interference. By drawing retail money into the financialized system, those in power can build a “control grid” and limit retail influence over real assets. Speaker 1 reacts, noting the emphasis on “printed so much money” and asking why this leads to control of real assets. Speaker 0 explains that there has been a continuous expansion of paper, debt, derivatives, and financial assets, even as real asset creation—via new businesses and technology—also grows. The acceleration of financial assets outpaces real asset creation. A reference is made to a 2018 remark by the German finance minister at a Shanghai meeting: “the debt growth model is over,” and that there are “no reforms now that are not real reforms.” This is interpreted as signaling an end to the game of expanding debt, with everyone scrambling to gain control of real assets. In this context, huge profits begin to attract participants into distributive ledger programmable money, with the aim of pulling retail money away from real assets to build a control grid, while those who control programmable money simultaneously position themselves to seize real assets.

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 Federal Register in 2023 reveals that the New York Stock Exchange is collaborating with the Securities and Exchange Commission to establish a new type of company called a natural asset company (NAC). NACs will hold rights to ecological performance in areas like national reserves and farmlands, taking over management responsibilities from public land agencies. These rights can be licensed from governments or private landowners, including publicly owned areas like national parks. The aim is to privatize these areas for conservation, restoration, or sustainable management. Wall Street, particularly BlackRock, stands to benefit greatly from this, with the potential for trillions of dollars in economic value.

Three giant corporations, BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard, collectively own each other and 89% of the S&P 500. They aim to buy every single family home in America, potentially owning 60% of them by 2030. Larry Fink, the CEO of BlackRock, is on the board of the World Economic Forum. Their goal is for people to own nothing and be happy. Often, when someone is about to buy a home, an LLC with an ambiguous name, which is actually owned by BlackRock, swoops in with a cash offer, pushing the buyer out of the market.

"Aladdin now controls $21,000,000,000,000 of our global economy." "Aladdin is the brainchild of Larry Fink, the founder of BlackRock." "The genie is out of the bottle, and Aladdin has already reached a tipping point where one robot controls more wealth than any person or country." "On Aladdin's 20 birthday, Larry launched a top secret project at BlackRock, codenamed Monarch, led to the firing of its fund managers and replacing their funds with Aladdin's funds." "Joe Biden has appointed BlackRock executive Brian Deese as head of the National Economic Council, which basically means the oversight of Latin and BlackRock is now the responsibility of BlackRock."

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.

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.

Speaker 0: So who are the people that actually get to be inflation? Well, they're the ones that are climbing up the network. They're the compromised ones. Why? What do they get? They get 0% money. The most corrupt money in the world is quantitative easing. Right? You essentially get the banks to buy the government's debt, and then central banks, put it on their balance sheet. So this is just pure corruption. This is below interest money. What about the banks? They get to create it for free. You know, they actually get to create it. They get a thousand decks on you you're paying 10%. They get they get to lever that up a 100 times. They get a thousand percent. And remember, this is all a debt based Ponzi scheme. The money to pay the interest doesn't exist, so you gotta find another person to take on the debt. You're either if you have a positive money in your in your bank balance, it's because somebody else is in debt. The money doesn't exist unless somebody else is in debt, and the money to pay the interest doesn't exist. So we create this economic environment where your money is continually being debased, and then you need to speculate in order to beat inflation. Now if you do a bit of speculation and you just invest some of your money in stocks, what happens? You're suddenly like, I don't know what stock to buy. I'm I'm not a professional trader. So there's a company out there, BlackRock, that will just buy all the stocks for me, and I just can give them a £100 a month or something. And, now I don't need to figure out what stock to buy. Okay. So now BlackRock is taking everyone's investment money that can't be bothered to figure out what stock through ETFs and index ones. Then they're taking everyone's pension. Then they're taking everyone's insurance contributions because you're trying to hedge some of the risk. And then when you get your house, you have to have insurance. And so where did BlackRock and all the asset managers in this financial industrial complex get all the money? It's your money. You paid for it. So then what do they do? Well, the banks create all of these. They they create new money every time they issue a mortgage. And then they say, do you know what? I don't even wanna take the risk of these mortgages anymore. What if can I just package it up and give it to someone else? So Larry Fink says, yeah. I've got all this money. All these people are putting these pension money in. Why don't we create something called a mortgage backed security? Let's package up all of these mortgages. Just put them into one product. And then what I can do is we can slap a credit rating on it. And if everyone complies, then they get this credit rating. Credit rating is not it's about compliance with the network. So now you've got all the banks are creating the money, and then they create these mortgage backed securities that allows them to control effectively all the real estate and transfer it. But who do they sell it to? They sell it to you. And so they created the money. They created the mortgage backed security, and then they sold it to your pension. So you paid for the very system for them to get the 0% money in the first place, and they're charging a fee for it. And what else do they get? They get a board seat on every company.

BlackRock, a major global asset manager, controls 40% of investable assets worldwide. They have investments in various industries like food, medicine, weapons, transportation, and media. This is public information. To sustain the economy, they create crises to boost demand. For instance, a war is necessary for a $90 billion weapon industry, a climate crisis drives demand for green energy, a pandemic is needed to sell vaccines, and drama fuels media traffic. This entire ecosystem is controlled by the upper class, and it's not a coincidence that we are always in a state of crisis.

BlackRock aims to unlock and take control of natural assets not in the financial system and turn everything alive into a tradable Wall Street product. The plan is to build new asset classes on a universal ledger on blockchain with Aladdin-like risk management. The narrative ties this to a green model and decarbonization, saying the carbon market would unlock new assets and create debt. In the natural asset corporation model, one would identify a natural asset and issue shares at no cost to sell them. It's literally "it's literally just pointing out something outside and being like, this is mine. I'm going to fractionalize it and sell it to people and you're producing money in like, you know, out of thin air." The speaker claims this is financializing nature, framed as saving the planet but framing it as the only way to save the planet, the insane debt racket.

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.

The lust to control other human beings is a story as old as time. There's a very strong drift in the direction of globalization, of the ultimate centralization of control in the hands of unelected officials at supernational organizations. They want all of the resources of the world in their pocket. The bigger picture is that an attempt is underway now to collapse liberal democracy and replace it with global technocracy. This is a coup. They're saying we can control with rules. We don't need currency anymore. It's like an inverted prison. You are supposedly free to roam about, but everything you want to access is behind lock and key. The potential for social control is gigantic and potentially irreversible. All three strategies are built on the premise of a climate crisis caused by carbon dioxide.

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 contends that concerns over rising power bills due to AI data centers are about to worsen as BlackRock and Blackstone buy up local power utilities. The piece, attributed to The New American, claims globalist equity firms are acquiring local energy companies nationwide to support AI infrastructure, provoking pushback from ratepayers and regulators. The Associated Press is cited as reporting that private equity giants are purchasing utilities to power AI-driven data centers, raising ratepayer and regulator concerns, with Oregon Citizens Utility Board noting increased public discussion at Public Utility Commissions. Speaker 0 notes a widespread anxiety about electricity costs tied to aging and expanding power infrastructure, including lines, poles, transformers, and generators, as utilities harden for extreme weather. The narrative asserts that apart from general cost increases, the core issue is the AI race, and that large international asset firms are eager to back a technology with potential for surveillance, manipulation, and control, while also seeking strong returns on investment. It claims these firms have historically used monetary power to push corporate support for climate alarmism and transgender activism, and that BlackRock and Blackstone together controlled more than $13 trillion in assets (BlackRock about $12 trillion; Blackstone about $1.2 trillion). It states only the U.S. and China have GDPs larger than $13 trillion. Concrete buyouts and investments are listed: January 2024, Blackstone bought a 20% stake in Northern Indiana Public Service Company for $2.1 billion, with the utility planning to boost green energy production afterward. In January 2025, Blackstone outright bought Potomac Energy Center, a natural gas power plant in Loudoun County, Virginia, for $1 billion, described as Blackstone’s most recent investment in power infrastructure for AI. In March 2025, Wisconsin’s Public Service Commission approved the buyout of Superior Water, Light, and Power by Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and BlackRock subsidiary Global Infrastructure Partners, with BlackRock taking a 60% majority stake. A separate deal: Blackstone bought Hilltop Energy Center, a natural gas power plant in Pennsylvania, for $1 billion, with executives Bilal Khan and Mark Zhu describing the acquisition as AI-focused. Blackstone is also seeking regulatory permission to buy Albuquerque-based Public Service Company of New Mexico and Texas New Mexico PowerCo, while BlackRock and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board’s attempted purchase of Minnesota Power faces regulatory turbulence; a Minnesota sale could determine how such firms expand in a sector linking households, data centers, and power sources. Speaker 0 adds that the rise of AI is providing these firms with an “excuse” to control infrastructure, and mentions Yuval Noah Harari and the WEF. It cites the WEF’s “you will own nothing” rhetoric and notes Harari’s hypothetical about future irrelevance, Neuralink, and a broader agenda including surveillance, ownership consolidation, and potential reductions in access to private property. It asserts Larry Fink of BlackRock is at the WEF and CFR, and that BlackRock’s broader investments include real estate, farmland, timberland, and single-family rental homes, as part of a “build to rent” scheme. The piece warns that one corporation controlling vast natural resources and power utilities amid rising prices would be disastrous, urging citizens to resist BlackRock’s influence. It contrasts China’s influence with BlackRock’s power, condemning ESG models and the World Economic Forum’s agenda toward a “great reset,” digital currency, digital ID, and reduced access to resources. Speaker 1 interjects with a separate 1999 statement about how genetic engineering will change us and implies a need to start conversations now, arguing that one direction relinquishes power to others while the other empowers individuals to fix themselves. Speaker 0 reiterates that the conversation centers on power, AI, and control, warning against allowing a single corporation to own essential resources. The closing note references the January 1999 statement on genetic engineering, while Speaker 1 emphasizes taking personal power to fix oneself, framing the discussion as a shift in responsibility.

Three major corporations, BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard, collectively own each other, essentially forming one giant corporation. They also own 89% of the S&P 500 and have now set their sights on buying every single family home in America. If they continue on this path, they will own 60% of all single-family homes in the country by 2030. The CEO of BlackRock, Larry Fink, is on the board of the World Economic Forum, which promotes the idea of owning nothing and being happy. These corporations often outbid individuals looking to buy homes, using LLCs with ambiguous names that can be traced back to BlackRock.

The same individuals who claim to care for public health and the environment are actually harming both. Their push for electric vehicles and AI data centers requires extensive mining, threatening ecosystems in Latin America and Africa for resources like nickel and cobalt. This process also demands significant water, which they aim to privatize through carbon markets, effectively commodifying essential life resources. The concept of carbon credits originated from a banker linked to past financial scandals, illustrating a pattern of exploiting crises for profit. Instead of saving the planet, these actions are detrimental. We must reclaim our role as creators and supporters of one another, and work to eliminate those who are damaging our world.

Speaker 0: The argument is that BlackRock, by unlocking and taking control of as many natural assets as possible that aren't currently part of the financial system, can deepen and expand its control over not just people in the existing financial system, but really over the natural world as well and essentially turn everything alive into a tradable Wall Street financial product. The goal, as described for Larry Fink in particular, is to develop new asset classes that can be used to fuel their existing business model and perpetuate it for millennia forward. One idea discussed for years is natural assets, what they call nature's economy—actual assets as possible that aren't currently part of the financial system—as a way to perpetuate what they do and broaden their control over the natural world, turning the natural world into tradable financial products. The supposed plan includes having all of this on a universal ledger on blockchain, presumably, and making it trackable and surveillable, so that it can be surveillable and automated. In this framework, Larry Fink would have his risk management AI—Aladdin—exercise control over these assets in unprecedented ways, to serve their benefit. Concurrently, there is movement toward a new financial governance system that pushes infrastructure toward a “green model” or decarbonization. The broader aim of the global carbon market, according to the narrative, is to unlock many new assets and far more collateral, enabling the creation of new debt and expanding the existing models to unprecedented levels, effectively perpetuating them indefinitely. A central feature of the natural asset concept, at least in the natural asset corporation model, is that you identify a natural asset such as a forest, river, or lake, and then, at no cost to you, you issue shares in that natural asset and sell those shares. The implication is that you can point to something in the natural world and declare it yours, fractionalize it, and generate money almost out of thin air by selling those shares. The natural world is vast, and the claim is that they’re financializing it all, framing it as the only way to save the planet. But really, it’s the only way for them to save their insane debt racket.

In the future, everything of value in the world will be represented by tokens on a blockchain, not physical items. This shift will eliminate the need for paper transactions and traditional financial institutions like DTCC. All transactions will occur in digital assets, leading to significant wealth creation opportunities.