To download for your own purposes (not to share), click here.
Chris Martenson: Welcome, everyone, to this Peak Prosperity podcast. I’m your host, Dr. Chris Martenson. And today, we’re going to take a deep dive with one of the very few remaining investigative journalists and certainly, one of the most fearless; Whitney Webb.
Now, we’ve received many, many requests to have Whitney on the show. And so, if you were one of those people sending in that suggestion; first, thank you. And second, you’re in for a real treat today.
However, I am going to put a caution on this episode. We’re going to cover topics that many would - and quite rightly - find upsetting. And I recognize that I have an unusually high tolerance for engaging in such inquiry and exploring concepts, no matter how dark or frightening they might be, as long as they come with data.
Now, many people, hey, they’re not built this way and that’s perfectly okay. I honor and respect that sort of diversity. And as always, if this content is not adding constructively to your life, then, I’ll trust you to make that determination.
So, how do I properly introduce Whitney? Well, she’s been writing for a long time about topics that the mainstream media has either been, let’s say, very slow to report on or, through sins of omission, has avoided entirely.
The theme, which we’ll cover today, usually revolves around what’s really happening beneath the surface. As is nearly always the case, that means exploring things that are not yet in the consensus view. It means assembling your own facts and making connections that are not yet well-explored. It’s a bit like a detective on a case, right? There’s a process that involves three things. First, the physical evidence, right? You’ve got bloodstains and things like that. Two, you’ve got these eyewitness reports, varying degrees of reliability. And three, then, you get the patterns that emerge both from what’s there and usually, as well, what’s not there, right? Remember the case of Sherlock Holmes’ case where it was the dog that did not bark that gave away the perpetrator, right? Yeah, because the dog must’ve known who this person was because it didn’t bark.
Well, sometimes it’s what’s missing that actually tells the tale. Whitney is a master of this process, honed over many years of being in the trenches, if I can put it that way. Whitney Webb, welcome to the program. It is so good to have you here.
Whitney Webb: Hi, thanks for having me. My pleasure.
Chris Martenson: Whitney, I’d like to start here. Tell us about your background and how you got started in investigative journalism.
Whitney Webb: Well, originally, I started off writing small articles for a site that is now defunct back in 2016. And then, shortly thereafter, I was hired for MintPress News where I started off as a staff writer. And before I left in the beginning of 2020, was their senior investigative reporter. Some people may know me from my work there. I did a series on the Jeffrey Epstein scandal that got quite widely circulated, to my surprise, because I went quite deep into the intelligence community ties of the Epstein/ Maxwell network, which was largely avoided by many outlets, including independent media. So, I was happy to see interest in the truth of that matter, specifically, from people.
Since then, I’ve launched my own thing and also, collaborate with the Last American Vagabond where other people write. My own website that I set up, I think around last June or July, is UnlimitedHangout.com where you can find all of my work, including some of which was published previously at MintPress and also, at the Last American Vagabond. If you’re interested in things I say during this interview that may seem fantastical _____ [00:03:36], I can assure you that they are sourced and documented within the often-lengthy reports on my website.
Chris Martenson: And that part of documentation, really critical, especially for my audience. So, we document everything. We look at the data. And it’s been astonishing the degree to which that that’s been suppressed. And we’ll get into that in just a minute.
So, I notice that you have a number of other writers at UnlimitedHangout. com. “Unlimited Hangout;” decode that name for us, would you?
Whitney Webb: Sure. It’s a play on words for a term used - well, originally coined - by the Central Intelligence Agency. And a lot of my work tends to focus on intelligence agencies in some capacities; if not directly then, indirectly.
Unlimited Hangout is essentially a media asset that provides part of the story, but only part, and a part that is shocking enough to get people enthused and interested and to trust this media asset. Who then, after gaining that trust, begins to start weaving in government, state or intelligence community talking points into the conversation after gaining that initial trust with the shocking initial information.
So, the intended idea behind Unlimited Hangout is that we endeavor to never do that and to provide all the facts and all the documentation and let people reach their own conclusions based on the evidence provided therein.
Chris Martenson: Now, there’s certainly the retail-level story. That’s the one we’re all fed. You can consume it any time you want, it’s free, it’s on every airport TV monitor playing CNN. So, that’s the retail level.
There’s a wholesale level where you know there’s something - there’s clearly things happening that we don’t know about all the time. And then, there’s some other forces beyond that driving that.
So, we’re going to be down here in these next couple layers. But let’s set the stage for people on something they can get their arms or minds around. So, I don’t know, it could be babies in incubators in the first war. It could be aluminum tubes in the second Iraq war. Can you give us an example of a limited hangout that sort of played its role and then, turned out to be completely false? Either of those or other ones; whatever works for you.
Whitney Webb: Yes, but I might need some time to think probably of the best, maybe most accessible example. Because there’s just really, more often than not, any sort of crisis that emerges is bound to have that take place. And I think that is certainly happening now with the crisis that’s - you know, the COVID crisis and all of that so a significant degree, or the 2008 financial crisis, September 11, 2001; things like that.
So, I guess probably maybe a controversial but accessible example would be the events of September 11, 2001. So, for example, the 9/11 Commission, the two chairs of that wrote a book where they essentially say that the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission which they led were unable to answer key questions about that day and that they were lied to by top military and intelligence officials. Thus, from the 9/11 Commission’s own admission, the official story - which is the 9/11 Commission story - is incomplete.
But however, numerous people in mainstream and, also, independent media assert that questioning that official story, despite what the leaders of the 9/11 Commission have said, is tantamount to crazy talk or just totally delusional to even engage in that type of conversation when, you know, that is an event that led to major policy shifts, led to wars, led to an erosion of civil liberties, had a massive impact. And I think it’s unfortunate that the realm of discussion on that topic has been forced to be so limited for so long. And you know, I think that’s pretty significant. And if the intelligence community was even lying to the 9/11 Commission, you can rest assured that media assets they have access to have also helped in preventing any sort of question about what happened that day, you know, have any sort of meaningful impact in the medias here.
Chris Martenson: I’m glad you brought that one up because for context, I think you can still find this fact out. The Commission was granted the luxurious sum of $15,000,000 in order to investigate arguably the biggest event in US history - in recent US history - that led to these massive, massive changes, wars, all kinds of really big impacts off that. $15,000,000. For context, $48,000,000 was spent investigating the blue dress under Bill Clinton’s time, right? So, just compare those numbers - $15,000,000 to investigate that day.
It’s interesting you bring that up because that was the thing that got me started. It’s actually a long chain of dots for us having this conversation, for me doing what I do today.
It began with a report that a friend of mine sent me that talked about there was this United States geological survey. A USGS plane flew over the Ground Zero of 9/11 and noted that in the basements of Buildings 1, 2, and 7, there were these heat signatures that were impossibly high. I mean, like 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit. And I’m a scientist by training. I’ve done my physics, my chemistry, my organic chemistry, and I understood that the exothermic potential of a fire, it was impossible for those heat signatures to be there based on the story I’d been told.
And I remember just how disorienting that was for me. Because I had data that said the story I’d been fed was completely impossible. You could get the best office fire, having pure oxygen, have fans going, and you won’t achieve the temperatures that we saw.
So, it had to have some other explanation, right? That’s what got me started because once you start pulling at something like that, you say, “Well, if that’s false…” And it turns out on that day, 9/11, there’s so much that’s physically impossible. Two-and-a-quarter seconds of freefall, this, that, and that.
I remember it, though, as being a very disorienting time. Because I was holding a narrative that I had to completely dismantle. And you have to give up a lot; faith in authority, trust in the government. There was a lot.
Why are you sitting there? Was there an event? Was there a moment where you just said, “This isn’t right,” and you knew it and it got you there?
Whitney Webb: Well, you know, actually for me, it was also 9/11 but it may have been a little different for me because I am currently 31 so, I was about like 10 years old when 9/11 happened. And the reaction among my sixth-grade class was a little weird. I just remembered people not even - in my sixth-grade class, just kind of being like, “Wait, what? This doesn’t…” you know, and those are sixth-graders.
And then, a few years later, you know, some of these 9/11 truth documentaries and some more information came out. And some things really caught my attention like the fact that the day before, the Pentagon had announced missing trillions. And of course, the part of the Pentagon that was hit by these apparently genius terrorists that can outsmart the whole US military is not the part where the military leadership is but instead, the accounting wing of the Pentagon that’s trying to find the trillions destroying all those computers, trying - with that information in it and also, the people that were in a position to be able to find that money. And you know, among other coincidences of that day, of which there are many.
And there were people that have devoted their careers to that day, specifically. But I just find it very fascinating but also, disturbing, that twenty years later or so, there is still, even within independent media which is supposedly more critically thinking and adversarial, the mainstream media, that there is even this, I guess, control of the narrative in the sense that people are bullied or sneered or attacked for even questioning even the slightest deviation from that official area that’s still frowned upon. Despite the fact that most of us in independent media can agree that the war on terror and a lot of the policies that followed were a disaster. And we know that the Bush administration lied about Iraq so, why wouldn’t they have lied about other things, even if they preceded the Iraq War? It’s the same people, the same liars, you know?
So, I think that would probably be a good example of limited hangout behavior. But there’s also people that, you know, promote that talking point aren’t necessarily bought-out media assets. But I think they may have been influenced by people that were and promote those talking points as their own, right?
So, I just want to stress that I don’t think absolutely everyone that holds that view is being paid off by the CIA or something. But I do think that there have been some who have been influential enough to basically set the tone both in mainstream and independent media spheres for something that was - with major ramifications, not just domestically in the US but globally.
Chris Martenson: I agree. And I want to talk about this part because for a long time, I’ve been branded by many as a conspiracy theorist, which it happens. Which now, for me, is actually code-speak for, “Oh, you’re daring to think of things that are running counter to the official narrative,” right? That often qualifies to get you as a conspiracy theorist.
But if it’s about data - so, this is what I always do. I always default to the base data, right? And I find that usually, the people bandying that about have no access to any of the data because they’re unfamiliar with it. They just know that this is verboten territory.
So, you just mentioned [interruption] something interesting. Yeah, you say that nobody has to tell the journalist how to write something that would slam somebody for daring to question 9/11. They kind of know it. How did that get started? Because for me, conspiracy theory - you would know better than me - but I believe that’s a CIA term that they put out there and they’ve weaponized and I think weaponized very successfully. What’s your relationship to that term and how it came about?
Whitney Webb: Well, you know, I’m not an expert on the JFK assassination but that’s when that term was born in order to discredit people who questioned the conclusions of the Warren Commission, which, of course, had numerous conflicts of interest with people involved in nefarious activity and malfeasance around the events that led to the death of the sitting President.
And of course, John F. Kennedy’s views on the Central Intelligence Agency, his promise to smash them into a thousand pieces and scatter them into the wind, his sacking of Allen Dulles, the CIA Director who believed himself to be all-powerful and was certainly very powerful, among other things. Certainly didn’t endear him to the intelligence community. And there is a lot of connections, of course, of people and events in his death to organized crime; specifically, the National Crime Syndicate led by Mayor Lansky, which teamed up with the precursor to the CIA, the OSS in World War II.
And then, the CIA under Allen Dulles continued that alliance, which originally was justified out of wartime necessity but continued not so covertly because a lot of those same organized criminals were in their assassination squads in efforts to do _____ [00:15:27] change, among other things.
Anyway, that’s a story for another day. But anyway, there’s a lot of questions about the Warren Commission. And actually, at this point in history according to polling, a majority of Americans have questions about the official story of the JFK assassination. But that was developed by the CIA in collaboration with media assets to sort of laugh away responsible criticism and make it basically a pejorative term. Despite the fact that conspiracy is something that someone in the US can actually be indicted for as a crime, conspiracies do happen. There are confirmed conspiracies throughout history going back thousands of years, you know, like the death of Julius Caesar and things like that, for example. So, it’s not like conspiracies don’t happen.
To develop theories about conspiracies happening - and theory is what prosecutors would do when prosecuting someone for the crime of a conspiracy. So, the term itself didn’t used to have this connotation it has but the CIA weaponized it, as such, as a way to sort of basically say that, “Oh, whoever theorizes about conspiracy theories is a crazy person.” And of course, since then, it’s been this tin foil hat-wearing thing and all these different associations have been added culturally to that.
Of course, that has taken place largely through the media; some of those media people and outlets being paid assets, others not.
But at this point, you know, it’s essentially used to go after anyone that strays from the official narrative and to essentially make examples of people so that other people in media don’t get that pesky idea of following the data wherever it leads. And instead, stick to safe topics and the official narratives about world events.
Chris Martenson: Yeah, I feel like much of this is sort of psychological territory, not facts. So, to me, a lot of people bandy about the conspiracy theory angle as a means of marginalizing me. They try and do it to push me out. It’s kind of like I think of that TV show, Survivor, you know, where they come and they snuff your candle out and you have to leave the island, right?
So, I feel like the people who use that term, they’re really trying to shame, marginalize, otherwise push you out, “You’re not welcome here anymore.” They’re going at that core human need to belong and they’re saying, “If you dare to think outside of the herd or the consensus view, you don’t belong,” right? Is how I feel it’s [interruption] still used.
Whitney Webb: It’s also, I think, an attack on your legitimacy as a researcher and a journalist is what conspiracy theory comes down to. Because that doesn’t happen to mainstream media people; people that subscribe to the narratives that are safe enough for you to be in mainstream media and for your career in mainstream media to continue unimpeded, right? It’s to follow those if you want success in media and all of this stuff and not to be bullied or labeled these things. And if you are labeled those things, they say, “Well, you’re not a legitimate real journalist. You’re a conspiracy theorist.” And this has happened on numerous occasions over the past several decades since that term was weaponized.
Chris Martenson: Yeah. So, I’ve had the good fortune to meet G. Edward Griffin a number of times and his wife, Pat. They’re just wonderful, wonderful people. Nicest, most affable guy you’d want to meet. But on Wikipedia who, by the way, my Wikipedia page got taken down less than three weeks after I started reporting on COVID. And my reporting was simple reporting. It’s just, “Here’s the facts,” right? “Here’s the WHO’s own pandemic guidelines. According to this, we’re in a pandemic,” a month before they said we were, right? So, my Wikipedia page got taken down instantly.
So, I go to this guy’s webpage - and I don’t know if you know him but he wrote The Creature from Jekyll Island. It’s a wonderfully beautifully-researched book. And when I sat down and interviewed him a while ago, I said, “Hey, Ed. Your book came out in the 90s. Has anybody ever credibly come forward and said, ‘Here’s where you got any one fact wrong in this book?’” He said, nope, he’s never had anybody come forward and say, “This date was wrong, the fact was wrong, the quote was wrong,” something. It’s never been challenged that way.
And here’s how Wikipedia classifies him. It says, “G. Edward Griffin, born November 7, 1931, is an American author, filmmaker, and conspiracy theorist. Griffin’s writings promote a number of right-wing views and conspiracy theories.” See how they put those two together? “Regarding various of his political defense and healthcare interests, he is the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island, which advances debunked conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve system.”
And then, they footnote it, 4. So, I’m like, “What’s footnote number 4?” And it’s a book written by this guy who’s not - he wrote something called Pranksters: Making Mischief in the Modern World. And the debunking book doesn’t even go into any of his facts. It’s ranked 1,578,000,000 on Amazon; it’s like this nothing book. And that’s their authoritative source for saying “debunked.” Right?
So, we run into this a lot. Do you have a Wikipedia page?
Whitney Webb: I don’t believe I do but I haven’t checked since I rarely use Wikipedia as [interruption]…
Chris Martenson: Sure.
Whitney Webb: … a crutch, if ever.
Chris Martenson: Yeah.
Whitney Webb: But I know that some people do; particularly, journalists that from the beginning of the Syria conflict, challenged those narratives, which turned out to be true. Of course, what they were reporting at the time, still today, very aggressively labeled conspiracy theorists. And it’s something that people that have stuck to their guns and stuck to the data and the facts from the beginning, even when it’s unpopular, you know, tend to experience more often than not. It’s unfortunate.
Chris Martenson: Yeah.
Whitney Webb: And I actually experienced something like that not with Wikipedia but with Patreon. I was de-platformed from Patreon earlier this year over an article I wrote about the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine. I wrote it in December and I never posted it to Patreon but Patreon said I must remove it from my website or I would be removed from Patreon.
They sent me this sample letter that they send to other people they accuse of medical misinformation. In there, they say, “Here’s a post of yours or something of yours as an example of misinformation that violates our policies.” And on mine, they left it blank, which I found interesting.
Chris Martenson: So, your example is blank?
Whitney Webb: Yes. So, I replied to them and said, “If you’re going to de-platform me and de-monetize me, can you at least provide an example of misinformation so I could respond?” They posted the link to this Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine. I said, “Could you point to any fact that is inaccurate or a counter-analysis, anything like that?” And they said, “Well, the issue isn’t whether it’s factually inaccurate or not. We’re just worried that people may read it and be more vaccine-hesitant. And so, because of that, we demand that you remove this from your own website,” something I never posted to Patreon, “if you wish to continue using our service.”
And so, I just went ahead and deleted my Patreon for them after that because I’m not going to censor factually-accurate content.
And of course, you know, if more people had read that, you know, the AstraZeneca vaccine has since been banned in several countries around the world or its use has been restricted to people 40 or 60 and up and things like that in different countries because of side effects. And a lot of the reporting I did there was about how the Jenner Institute at Oxford, which produces vaccine, has a history of fudging the data and engaging in dishonest practices with respect to animal and, also, human trials and violating informed consent, among other things. And of course, a considerable amount of effort or detail was given to their connections to the Welcome Trust. And I may have aired out some information about the Welcome Trust, the world’s largest and wealthiest private medical charity that I don’t think they wanted to be made public. And I also, in there, discussed Google’s investment in that vaccine through Vaccitech, which may suggest why they have been so aggressively, through YouTube, censoring things that are critical of different COVID-19 vaccines, whether factually accurate or not.
And you know, I did the discussion on that article with James Corbett. It was his first _____ [00:24:12] on his YouTube channel, which is now since been deleted.
So, you know, it’s pretty telling that this stuff has been happening to a very significant degree; specifically, in the last year and a half but it has happened before. This is just really that same agenda that’s been very open since 2016, essentially going into overdrive in the last year and a half.
Chris Martenson: Yeah, and to be clear, some of the side effects, as you called them, from the AstraZeneca vaccine include intracranial hemorrhaging and venous thrombosis and things that lead to heart attacks, brain damage, swelling. It’s pretty bad. Not for everybody but I mean, for more than any other vaccine I’m aware of, that one has some problems. But so do the mRNA vaccines. I mean, lots and lots and lots of problems.
So, it’s crazy. The Patreon says, “Factually accurate but we’re worried that this might lead to vaccine-hesitancy,” as if that was anything they could quantify or point to or otherwise say - there should’ve been some public debate. They could say, “Listen, we’ve had this big public debate. We’ve talked about how important it is to be vaccinated, we’ve talked about what happens if people aren’t vaccinated, and we’ve run the risk-benefit ratios and here’s where we come out,” right? Nobody’s even had that conversation, that I’m aware of, not out here at the retail level. Like I can’t find that conversation. Have you - are you aware of any such conversation?
Whitney Webb: No, not really that I’ve seen. I mean, essentially, anything that’s deemed vaccine-hesitant is censored immediately or scrubbed or has its headline changed.
I mean, you know, there’s been some shifts recently in mainstream narrative with respect to things like lab leak theory and stuff relatively recently; a very dramatic pivot on some things like that and maybe, I guess you could argue, ivermectin to a degree more recently with more high-profile people and things like that. You know, bringing that to the forefront and it’s somehow, because of that becoming more permissible to ask those questions and have those discussions more openly.
But last year, it was not. So, it’s also interesting to reflect on why those shifts happen, why they’re suddenly okay, and things like that.
But yeah, I haven’t really seen much critical reporting from the mainstream media as it relates to COVID-19, which I think is pretty indicative of why we are in the current situation we are in. But also, of course, I would argue that’s obviously directly informed by the extreme censorship stance that Big Tech has taken over the last year and a half. Mainstream media, just like many people in independent media, depend on Big Tech platforms more often than not for circulation and distribution of their content.
Chris Martenson: No, so many areas to talk about. But I want to - let’s back up just one second to this idea of information as power. Once upon a time, gold was power and oil’s been power. But information’s truly power; we know that. We know that the CIA’s been focused on it. I’ve talked with ex-CIA people from thirty years ago saying, “Oh, yeah, we were totally focused on information. It’s a theater for operational control.”
I remember way back in the early days of Reddit, they ran this thing showing that IP addresses with the most activity. And the IP address with the most activity was the one right out - it’s this little town in North Carolina right outside of Fort Hood, right? And it’s just weird, you know. And so, you can only imagine that there were cubicle farms of people, early sock puppet sort of accounts, right?
And then, Snowden comes along. In 2015, he releases this thing, there’s this PowerPoint from the GCHQ, which shows Gambits for Deception. It’s a 6x6 array; thirty-six separate strategies for derailing, sliding, slipping, controlling, shaming, marginalizing, swamping online conversations and that they were using bots to do that. All the way back in 2015, right? Like these are semantically accurate AI programs that you can’t detect are not humans controlling the conversation to create the impression that you’re swamped, this is what most people think.
Yeah, how much do you think that like out here in the world where most people inhabit - call it Twitter, Facebook - how much do you think they’re getting a view into the real world as [interruption] compared to a controlled world?
Whitney Webb: No, I think it’s all about - oh, sorry. I think it has - those influence operations are more sophisticated now and it’s all about managing people’s perception of reality and public opinion.
We also know that like polling companies have been manipulated to this effect. Maybe the most successful example for people of that in the US would be, you know, before the 2016 election and how wrong so many of those polls were.
It’s worth pointing out that one of the main polling companies with like COVID-19 is called Ipsos MORI. It receives a lot of funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. They have a conflict of interest with shaping public opinion, which polling is known to do both to governments and private sector and philanthropists. So, they tend to use those, more often than not, to try and get people who are on the fence to be like, “Well, this is what the majority’s doing so, I guess I want to be with everyone else.” And you know, they tend to try and manipulate human psychology to the greatest extent possible, I think, in that sense and social media has given them a major opportunity to do that.
What’s interesting, as well, and something I find fascinating, at least in the case of Facebook, not so sure if this is the case for Twitter because I’ve never looked into their origin so much. But Facebook has a lot of interesting ties to both DARPA and sort of the neoconservative establishment of the Bush administration upon its establishment.
So, prior to Facebook being created, DARPA had a program called LifeLog that is essentially analogous to what Facebook would become. It was shuttered the exact day that Facebook as a company launched.
One of the main early key players in Facebook was a man named Sean Parker who openly admits that the CIA approached him and tried to - and recruited him at age 16. He previously was involved with the founding of Napster.
Sean Parker later connects Facebook and essentially puts that company on the map by bringing in Peter Thiel, the first main outside investigator into Facebook whose investment made them viable as a company and allowed them to become the behemoth they are today.
And that exact time was also when Peter Thiel was setting up Palantir. And what Palantir was and also, what Facebook was, were efforts of the now-defunct Information Awareness Office at DARPA that was very controversial after 9/11. Was being run by General John Poindexter, an Iran contra criminal involved in continuity of government. And the Main Core stuff from the Reagan administration, he was brought on to essentially lead the Total Information Awareness Program, as it was called, which was shut down after a lot of pushback from Congress and the ACLU. And even mainstream media, the New York Times called it, “The end of civil liberties in the US entirely.”
And so, working with Richard Perle, one of the advisors to the Department of Defense and one of the _____ [00:31:24], essentially. Peter Thiel worked directly with Richard Perle - this is documented - to basically rebuild that program and that’s what Palantir became. And it’s no coincidence that, you know, Facebook, morphs into what LifeLog, another DARPA program that was intimately related to Total Information Awareness, he comes in with this money, what he’s trying to rebuild, that whole domestic terror apparatus, essentially. And that is what Facebook has become and that’s why it’s no coincidence now that you see Facebook so eagerly participating into Biden’s domestic terror strategy with this new popup window of, “Have you been exposed to extremist content? Report your friends and family as potential extremists,” and things like that. Which is a policy that DHS has been promoting and, you know, the domestic terror strategy calls for, as well. Which it’s no coincidence the domestic terror strategy focuses so much on the infosphere and social media - specifically, Facebook posts, which we’ve seen after January 6th, your Facebook posts and your Facebook history is enough to get you arrested for various different crimes in this new era in the United States in which we are living.
But as far as total domination and control of the cyber territory and the infosphere; oddly enough, this actually goes back to what many people - a document many people may know that was authored by the Project for a New American Century in September of 2000, Rebuilding America’s Defenses. People may know it because of the claim that a new Pearl Harbor year before 9/11 was needed to usher in a bunch of these policies. What’s fascinating is that the chapter that quote is in, the policies that is a direct reference to, is the creation of Space Force, which manifests several years later under the Trump administration in complete control of the cyber domain and talks about the future of cyber warfare both abroad and, also, domestically. And this desire of the neoconservatives back in this period to establish total control over the flow of information.
And of course, if you in an objective, nonpartisan way follow US politics, you are probably more - probably aware that the neoconservatives share many goals with the Democratic party. And they’re really not so different in terms of the agendas and practices they pursue. They are very different in terms of rhetoric. But in terms of agendas, you know, they essentially continue the agendas of their predecessors and whatnot.
So, you know, this agenda that’s laid out in this document has advanced considerably. But also, shows that, you know, what a threat independent media and critical thinkers are to this effort. Because obviously, any pushback against these narratives and these efforts to manipulate people’s perceptions is a direct threat to their dominance over the cyber domain.
You know, these aren’t actors that are necessarily concerned with truth and facts. You know, they’re concerned with narratives that are advantageous to their long-term strategic interests, which more often than not, don’t necessarily align with the facts and the truth. Or even what’s best for the American people and America as a nation. They tend to be best for what’s best for the national security state and maintaining the status quo and maintaining the oligarchy that works so closely with the national security state and things like that.
Chris Martenson: Now, you mentioned a word several times that to me, is the nexus of this. And I love facts and I love to stick to the facts as much as possible. But a little speculation, you know, the “why” of this all. You mentioned the word “control.” These people feel like authoritarian control freaks to me. Like everything that I see them doing results in them having more insight, more power, more control over my life whether that’s in digital currencies, my medical records. I hear - somebody may knock on my door and ask about my vaccinated status somebody or whatever the story is. And less and less and less for me in terms of freedom, all of that.
Now, it was the WEF - the World Economic Forum a/k/a the Davos crowd. 2015 or ’16, they put out a very helpful little video, really cute. It’s one I’m sure you’ve seen that starts with, “You’ll owe nothing and be happy.”
Number 8 - I want to talk to you about Number 8 on that, which is, “Western values will be tested to the breaking point.” To me, a Western value is independence, liberty, the right to free determination. I have certain rights, not privileges, under the Bill of Rights, right? Which include the right to my own body, my privacy, securing my papers, blah, blah, blah.
What [inaudible interruption] the nuclear - sure, yeah, love that addition. So, what does that mean? So, to me, if you want to undergo a cultural revolution, you kind of have to put some of these values under assault. That’s kind of how it’s done.
What do you think they meant by that; “Western values will be tested to the breaking point…?”
Whitney Webb: I tend to agree with you that it’s things like independence and things that are essentially in the Constitution, you know, that tyranny should be prevented and challenged if it does attempt to establish itself and things like that. That obviously runs counter to what the Davos crowd wants, which is global - public/private partnership, which is essentially a recipe for global fascism or communism. I mean, obviously, those are different systems but at the end of the day, they involve, basically, there being one entity that controls everything and you can get there with the public and private sector merging to that degree. It’s just will the private sector be more powerful than the public? Or will the public sector be more powerful than the private? Either way, you have a monopolization of power.
So, I tend to think in terms of discourse today when we’re talking about this effort to establish totalitarianism, some people get lost in the semantics of, “Oh, it’s communism. No, it’s fascism.” Well, what we’re really facing is an effort to monopolize the levers of control. You can call it whatever you want but the recipe for public/private partnership or civil/ military fusion and all these different words that they have for it is really a recipe for the same disaster.
So, you know, I would encourage people to focus on that. Because it tends to divide people that want to resist into different partisan crowds who are arguing about vocabulary when we technically all agree on what we want to resist.
So, you know, I think those are a lot of the value; specifically, independence, the importance of the individual, I think, is important, too, there. Because the WEF frames - it’s not accurate in practice - but they frame a lot of what they want to implement as collectivism and as good for the collective. And they sort of pull on some, you know, I guess, Star Trek-style morality, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and things like that.
But it’s not, you know, the WEF doesn’t actually care about the needs of the collective - of collective humanity as a whole. They care about the collective needs of the billionaire class and the elite that make up the Davos crowd. And essentially, what they want is to create a system that I tend to refer to as neo feudalism, where there’s this global elite class and there’s a global underclass. So, that’s why there’s been this attack on the middle class in numerous countries in the West and also, in other countries that are non-Western.
In this effort to establish a giant underclass in these wealth transfers we’ve seen in 2008 and, also, in the COVID crisis, which is arguably a larger wealth transfer than what transpired in 2008, have advanced significantly.
So, we are not that far from the era of; you will own nothing and be happy. But you know, the point here is with that phrase, you, the underclass, may own nothing but the elite billionaire class is going to own everything. And that’s why in the US, for example, you have Bill Gates buying up the farmland or BlackRock and Blackstone Capital buying up all the real estate. They plan to be the owners and you will be the rentees who own nothing and are at their mercy. They will control your money through Central Bank digital currencies. If you look at the model for that being piloted right now in China, which the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England and other central banks are very eager to follow - is that they have put an expiration date on money. So, you can’t decide if you save or your money. The government - or rather, the central banks - decide for you. And of course, in the US instance, the Federal Reserve, that’s not really a public institution despite its name, as I’m sure your audience knows.
So, it’s those actors, the central banks, that decide when you spend your money and when you don’t. You no longer have that type of financial control.
And in a broader effort, you know, the war on cash and also, this coming push to regulate and potentially outlaw cryptocurrency is an effort to end the ability for people to conduct anonymous financial transactions; a desire to surveil what everyone spends their money and also, to end people’s ability to have control over their own money.
And then, the UBI - Universal Basic Income - also ties into that to a degree, as well, but that’s also tied into some other complicated topics like pushes for automation and the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution, among other things. So, I really want to stress that this WEF vision of collectivism, which is designed to appeal to the left and progressive left, specifically in the West, is their talking point and their selling point. But in practice, it’s not what this is about at all.
Also, if there are any people on the left or progressive left watching this or you have friends that are, I would encourage you to point this out. You know, why are you trusting the billionaires to tell you what’s good for humanity when these are the people responsible for a lot of the crises that we are currently experiencing and have lied to us consistently about numerous things over the decades, you know? I would really hope that we stop trusting these people. But people look to leaders and to organizations and things like that in times of crises and they’re obviously manipulating that right now. But we trust them at great risk.
Chris Martenson: Well, it’s instinct to trust and it’s a much easier life if you don’t have to distrust everybody in your whole chain. It’d be great if we could trust. And I think there was a period of time when we could’ve, you know, back when maybe in the 50s - not to romanticize that far past - but back when there was some noblesse oblige, right? When CEOs said, “No, it would be unseemly for me to take more than forty times what my lowest paid worker is.” And now, they can take a thousand times and nobody blinks. They get applauded for that, right? It really feels like if it looks like, smells like, and acts like a giant looting operation, it just might be one, you know?
And so, a conversation I have quite regularly behind the scenes with one of my members is about; what’s the ticking clock? I feel like there’s this urgency to what we’re seeing today. And maybe this is just how you accomplish this move from a many-national - you know, you’ve got French people, US - and you want to go to this one-world thing, you have to push hard and fast. You have to overwhelm people psychologically. Maybe that’s it.
But I actually think the WEF gave it away. They had this beautiful slide presentation and they talk about it right there, right up front. It says, “Oh, by 2050, we’re going to need three planets of resources. We only have one.
So, you only have two levers if you believe that story. One is fewer resources per person. You second lever is fewer people. You get to decide how you want to maneuver those two levers but unless somebody’s going to argue we have a second and third planet hidden on the far side of the sun that we missed, right? This is the story. That’s what they lead off with. “We’re going to need three planets of resources. We don’t have them.” I think this explains much of their behavior set at this point in time.
And by the way, I’m not at all allergic to the “what” of that. I get that the math is actually very real. How they’re going about it, I had huge disagreements with. Do you at all think that - what’s your sense? What’s their ticking clock? Like what’s driving them here, do you think? Besides the usual [interruption], “I want more money?”
Whitney Webb: Okay. Yeah, so, a lot of these institutions, and also, powerful individuals driving a lot of these policies right now have ties that go back decades to Malthusian beliefs or institutions that promote Malthusiism - Malthusianism.
So, in the Piece of the World Economic Forum, their origins are closely tied to something called, “The Club of Rome,” whose first big paper was The Limits of Growth, talked about this specifically back in the early 70s and it was the topic of, I think, the earliest, if not maybe the second earliest, Davos annual meeting, World Economic Forum annual meeting during the early 70s. The Club of Rome was created by an Italian individual and a Scottish - I forget their exact affiliations - but they founded it at a Rockefeller-owned residence in Bellagio, Italy, and that is where this came from.
And of course, the Rockefeller family, since the beginning of the 20th century, have been intimately involved in eugenics. The Rockefeller family even went so far as to find Nazi eugenic scientists and various other institutions promoting eugenics in the US, which actually, before the Nazis did it in Germany, was actually very prominent in both the US and the UK. Very high-ranking members of society were part of the eugenics societies in both countries.
As an example, the British Eugenics Society had people like Winston Churchill as members. And the US, there was Margaret Sanger, John Maynard Keynes, the famous economist, was a member, as well.
So, within the elite circles in the US and the UK, this has been a very predominant philosophy for some time, even before the numbers.
Chris Martenson: What is that philosophy?
Whitney Webb: Essentially, that - well, I would argue that eugenics is a pseudoscience. They don’t really see it that way. But they essentially view themselves as better and more learned than the average person and thus, able to decide - make major decisions about the future of the human race and about improving fitness of the human race. A lot of it is tied to pseudo-Darwinian thought about survival of the fittest. But they determine, of course, in these elite circles, what constitutes fittest and what is fitness and what is not fitness.
And you know, this led to a lot of controversial policies in that period. In the early 20s, for example, the US Supreme Court ruled that a woman who had been abused throughout her whole childhood was too stupid to reproduce and they forced her - both her and her daughter - to be sterilized. And that was a decision of the State. So, you start involving the State in deciding who gets to reproduce and who doesn’t. It gets dicey very quickly.
And you know, these are - you know, the Rockefeller family, you know, they went on to advance these policies through things like the Population Council, which had a lot of very close ties to the Nixon administration and also, influenced Henry Kissinger’s National Security Memorandum about how in, I think it was the early 70s, ’74, about how the growth of the developing world was a direct threat to national security so, the US should take covert action to reduce the populations of those countries, focusing mainly on Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
So, as far as we know, that’s still US policy today. It’s still available on the USAID website for download, among other things. And it was classified, I think, until 1990 despite the fact that it was written several decades prior. But definitely, for decades was a guiding influence there; Kissinger, of course, having ties to the Rockefeller crowd and being one of the most influential thinkers and influencers still today in US politics.
And some of these eugenics societies, I should stress, are still around today but under different names. The Population Council’s still around today. Stephanie Psaki, the sister of Biden’s press secretary, is now the top advisor on human rights to the Department of Health and Human Services. Before that position, which she had in March 2021, she was a Director at the Population Council founded by the Rockefellers, which not that long ago back in the late 60s, was arguing to put sterilants in the drinking water without people’s consent in urban neighborhoods in the US, among other controversies. Like their past trustee’s involvement in the Tuskegee experiments, among other things like that. I think that’s pretty significant and I’m pretty amazed that hasn’t been talked about - talked about more.
In the case of the UK, for example, their eugenics society maintained that name until 1989; they renamed themselves the Galton Institute, naming themselves after the founder of eugenics, Francis Galton. So, it’s not exactly like they were really trying to distance themselves that much from eugenics. They say so but if you really wanted to distance yourself from eugenics, would you rename yourself to glorifying the legacy of the person who founded eugenics with very racist justifications for doing so? I don’t agree with that, personally.
But the Galton Institute has a lot of ties to what today is the Wellcome Trust. Actually, one of the lead developers of the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine, Adrian Hill, gave a speech at their 100-year anniversary celebrating 100 years of what is essentially eugenics.
Chris Martenson: Hello, this is Patreon calling. That’s what got you in trouble right there. You can’t point those facts out.
Well, I want to subtlely - not subtlely - I want to disentangle two things; the concept of eugenics and Malthusianism. I’m a Malthusian in the sense that I know - I’m a biologist by training - every organism grows into its available resource and then, usually overshoots and does that. And every piece of data I track as a biologist, you know, background, says we’re in overshoot, right? We’ve lost thiamine in the oceans. How do you wreck the B vitamin cycle? We don’t know but we’ve done it somehow; it’s amazing. We’re losing topsoil, we’re losing major aquifers, on and on and on.
There is a limit to growth at some point. There is some sort of limit. The question is; how do you get to that limit? Does nature just sort of balance things out perfectly? Not in my experience.
The question is; what do you do? I think this explains the WEF. I think there are people that are going, “What do we do?” And I think they’re thinking of things to do.
I happen to think we live in a complex system and complex systems have emergent behaviors and they can’t be controlled. So, I don’t agree with the control freak thing. If we put all our chips on black and we’re going to do the control freak thing and it’s going to - you know, it either works or it doesn’t, I think the “doesn’t” in that story is very dark. That’s why I do what I do.
Whitney Webb: What I do want to add to this discussion is the fact that this agenda, even if the data looks very concerning now - and there definitely is major environmental destruction and major environmental issues we have to grapple with now - this agenda for population control and eugenics precedes that data by many, many, many decades.
And in the case of the Rockefellers, for example, they, as a family, were major drivers of a lot of that environmental destruction and a lot of these government policies that have led to these issues that we see today.
So, you know, I think there’s a couple different levels here. You could argue maybe that the Rockefellers wish to create a situation where eugenics and these other pet projects of theirs would become viewed widely as a necessity in order to ensure the survival of the human race. But I really want to stress that this agenda precedes those stressors considerably. And you could argue that the people that were advancing that agenda way back then are responsible for a lot of the current situation as it is now.
And I think their agenda, ultimately, if you also, again, look at the Rockefeller family and things like their influence on the education system in the 20th century and whatnot is mainly focused on control; the desire for compliant automatons as workers, essentially, that maintain the lifestyle for the elites and who don’t challenge the status quo. And I think if you look at some of these more technocratic ambitions of these groups, as well as the transhumanist agenda or the surveillance agenda, it ultimately feeds into that.
And it’s no coincidence that you have the eugenics agenda and the transhumanist agenda intersect in a big way when that term was actually coined in 1957 by the founding director-general of UNESCO, brother of Aldous Huxley and a former President of the British Eugenics Society, Julian Huxley, who - well, first off, a year after World War II and everything that happened there, he called for eugenics - the unthinkable about eugenics to be made thinkable again. Very eager to do that right off from the bat after World War II. And then, a little over a decade later in 1957, he writes a book, I believe the title is New Bottles for New Wine. And in there, he argues that the new eugenics should become a combination of eugenics-related scientists like genetic engineering with transhumanist technologies like neurotechnology and things like that to create what is essentially a Human 2.0 and that is where he coins the term “transhumanism.”
So, from the perspective of these elite circles in which Huxley operated, you know, they viewed transhumanism as a successor sort of to eugenics. And I would argue that is to create the perfect person and whatnot.
But some of these eugenics, too - eugenesis, too - going back, you know, over 100 years, one famous example, H.G. Wells, the famous author, also a eugenicist, he talked openly about how at some point, the human race would fork and there would be an underclass that were squat and dobbin-like and ate bugs. Sound familiar? And there would be a tall, attractive, elite upper class and there would be this forking and that the underclass would serve the elite class and all of that.
So, you know, we can only suspect where this exactly will go with this. What we’re seeing now with this desire to create a neo feudal society and you will owe nothing and be happy and you will eat bugs and all of this stuff, it seems to look very similar to some of these agendas that are really over a century old.
Chris Martenson: Now, this is fascinating. So, again, from my biology background standpoint, nature is infinitely complex. And we now know that our DNA talks to the world around us and like bad experiences can be passed along. You know, we know that from the epigenetics. All that’s really clever.
So, the idea that you can sort of pick an overclass and an underclass; very bizarre to me. And two examples. There was just an article in the New York Times about this 10-year-old kid coming out of a homeless shelter from Nigeria and he’s now - he beat his first grandmaster at chess. He’s just this chess prodigy; rose out of the ashes, right? As it were.
And on the other side of that story, we would have Hunter Biden, right? Just sort of showing [interruption]…
Whitney Webb: Yeah, those are some extreme examples but yes, I see…
Chris Martenson: But that system you’re talking about, I feel like it would’ve sort of said the Bidens are what we need more of and the Nigerians are who we need less of, right? But in this example, we can see that nature said, “No, that idea that genius - genius pops out where it’s going to.” And we don’t know what kind of genius we’re going to need because we face a very different future from the past, right?
Whitney Webb: Yeah, this is a great point. Because I think ultimately, these people don’t really don’t really care about what nature does. They even see nature itself as something that should be controlled and dominated by them in service to their agenda of what is essentially control over what they think is best. And they see themselves as essentially guardians of the human species. And they - this elite group - gets to determine where we go as a species and where we don’t go.
And a lot of this ideology about dominating nature, you know, a lot of it has its roots in things like Calvinism and different versions of Christianity back several centuries and things like that. And even things like Manifest Destiny in the United States; this view that the land and nature is something to be controlled. Living in harmony with nature is savagery and things need to be civilized and brought to order, order must be brought to chaos, nature is chaotic and things like that.
So, you know, that tends to be the ideology here. And I would argue that that may ultimately lead to their downfall because they fundamentally don’t understand how nature works, as you pointed out. But also, in their efforts to replicate consciousness with artificial intelligence, they also don’t understand how consciousness works. These are arguably the most unconscious people in the entire world trying to replicate consciousness. They’re control freaks; they’re not necessarily the most intelligent. They may think that, trying to create intelligence in a godlike figure in their image. You know, if you make someone in the image - a machine in the image of Klaus Schwab, for example, I mean, it’s just going to be a deranged sociopath at the end of the day, not the godlike singularity that a lot of these people are expecting.
So, I think at the end of the day, you know, it’s this hubris, this obsession with dominance and control, that will lead to their downfall. The question is how much damage do they cause in the interim until that happens.
Chris Martenson: That’s all so perfectly well-said and right up the center of the pike for me. Because the older I get, the less I know for sure, right? And the more impressed I am with how intelligent nature is. I mean, wherever this coronavirus came from - I’m 99% sure it came out of a lab - but however it came about, it’s just 38 kilobits of information. And it does all of these complicated you couldn’t know about, right? And because of that, we’ve learned a lot - I’ve learned a lot. I thought vitamins were an expensive way to take a piss and now, I know that actually, vitamin D is a critically missing hormone in most people’s lives and that when you put it back in, amazing goodness results, right?
I learned that ivermectin is this crazy thing that it’s antiparasitic but it seems to have anticancer, it’s an anti-inflammatory, it’s also deeply antiviral. How would you have known about that unless you had intelligent people factoring through this highly intelligence piece of data called an RNA virus that came in that taught us a bunch of things, right?
You have to have humility and an open inquiry. But everything I’ve seen in COVID has been about shutting down that conversation, not learning from stuff, cramming down these top-down, you know, “We want these new things to come through.”
So, in the time we have, if you could, you know, the more I look into these mRNA vaccines that just popped out of nowhere, the more I realize they’ve been in development for a very long time. They, too, have a DARPA background. They, too, have like a really weird past that’s like; how did they know - how did Ralph Baric know to actually license that mRNA vaccine in December of 2019 before anybody knew there was this thing called this coronavirus coming along? How did all those things happen? I’m sure you’ve looked into it at least somewhat. I know you; you have.
So, what’s your view on these things? What is going on here with these mRNA vaccines? You know, next best thing since sliced bread? Or is there a darker thing going on here?
Whitney Webb: Right. So, I am more aware with the DARPA origins of these and that’s why back in January 2020, I was like, “Well, it’s going to be Moderna and Pfizer because they were the vaccines…” And I also thought maybe Inovio Pharmaceuticals, the DNA vaccine, would manage to come out but I think that was too controversial for people, the DNA vaccine. MRNA, they’re like, “Oh, doesn’t affect your DNA,” they can sell that more easily than they could with the DNA vaccine.
But anyway, all three of those were funded by DARPA. And of course, DARPA has a lot of - and the US military, more broadly - has a lot of interesting connections to the origins of COVID-19.
There was also a controversial lab leak at Fort Detrick, among other things, in 2019.
And of course, EcoHealth Alliance receives a massive amount of its funding from the US military and…
Chris Martenson: I want to know about these mRNA vaccines.
Whitney Webb: Oh, right, right. Okay, yeah, so…
Chris Martenson: Yeah, where do these things - where do they come from?
Whitney Webb: Yeah. So, DARPA, since the early 2000s, has had a lot of healthcare-focused projects, healthcare, they say. And one of their interests, going back to like 2010 or so, was in developing plug-and-play vaccines that could be developed more quickly and things like that.
So, around 2012 or so, this DARPA program manager - I believe his name is David or Daniel, I think it’s David Wattendorf - he’s not Special Innovations Director at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. He approaches the then Director of DARPA, Regina Dugan, and pitches her the mRNA vaccine idea, essentially. And by 2013 - well, Dugan, during that meeting, greenlights those efforts and that eventually results in DARPA’s investment in both Modern and Pfizer’s mRNA programs in 2013 several, several years before the COVID-19 crisis emerges.
Regina Dugan, shortly thereafter, after greenlighting this, goes and sets up a DARPA equivalent at Google and then, at Facebook, and now, runs the Wellcome Leap, which is the global health DARPA of the Wellcome Trust.
So, this is a very significant woman that was involved in essentially greenlighting this for the US military. And I think, you know, the DARPA connection has sort of been left out of the discussion here.
But as far as how this developed over time, I’m personally more familiar with Moderna’s efforts. Stat News, if you’re familiar with them, is a mainstream media health - specifically, healthcare-focused - news outlet. They have several very telling articles about Moderna from 2016 and 2017. One of them, the one from 2016, is about their extreme secretiveness as a company; how their CEO was very cutthroat and very extreme, and how they were the most highly-valued biotech company at the time but had zero products in the market and just had products in their pipeline and kept encountering difficulty after difficulty with getting products on the market and getting them past clinical trials.
The article in 2017 sheds light on some of those, how those difficulties were so pervasive that they needed a “Hail Mary” to save their company in the sense of being able to get products on the market because investors were starting to ask questions. Not necessarily the DARPA investors but some of the other ones that expected some sort of return on investment at some point after pouring a considerable amount of money into this very heavily-hyped company.
One of the problems that they kept experiencing was an issue with the nanolipid particles, which, of course, are in the COVID mRNA vaccine that Moderna produces, and the other one, as well. But in the Stat News article, it openly says that Moderna’s issue was if the quantity of nanolipid particles is too low, the vaccine doesn’t work and has essentially zero percent efficacy. If it’s too high, it’s toxic to the people that take it. The mRNA vaccine becomes toxic to the people that take it.
And there was no indication since then that that effort was ever resolved by Moderna and I think that’s pretty significant in terms of, you know, essentially what happened with COVID-19 is that; oh, well, we have to rely on technologies - vaccine technologies - that can produce a vaccine as quickly as possible. Thus, we must use mRNA. And that was essentially the sales pitch. A lot of these concerns about those platforms that were openly discussed in prior years were erased from the conversation. Now, those of us that are willing to report on it will point out the issues that have cropped up since it has been widely rolled out - more widely rolled out in some countries than others.
But there are concerns here. It was openly admitted before COVID that this was experimental. In mainstream media reports, it was largely touted as a cancer treatment. It was described as a gene therapy. And you know, that term, in reference to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, is a big no-no, which I find interesting how the goalpost moved so quickly on that when there’s no indication that a lot of their issues with their vaccine production platform were ever resolved.
Something else I do want to point out, as well, is that it’s not just the developers of these vaccines; it’s also the manufacturers. And the manufacturers of several of the COVID-19 vaccines in the US, the company that was chosen is known today as Emergent BioSolutions. It used to be known as BioPort. And they have very disturbing connections to the 2001 anthrax attacks, which oddly enough, rescued their troubled anthrax vaccine program, which they had a monopoly over anthrax vaccine there. The mandatory anthrax vaccine program was going to dump BioPort - now Emergent BioSolutions. They were going to issue a report - the Pentagon was - how to do that in September 2001.
Conveniently, the same wing of the Pentagon looking for the trillions was also working on that and was obliterated in 9/11 so, that report never comes out and the anthrax attacks, later tracked to a US military base or installation, rather, you know, happens shortly thereafter. And as opposed to people in politics and Congress, high-level people, questioning BioPort and demanding they be removed from this program are now asking for more and more of their vaccine not just for the military but also, for first responders, for firefighters, for policemen, for teachers; basically, reversing a very - what had previously been a very unfortunate situation for them.
And there’s a lot of other connections of that company not only to the US military but to groups that were doing experiments on being a function on anthrax for the CIA and the military during that time and teamed up with BioPort and all of that.
And since then, they’ve been involved in numerous scandals since the 2001 anthrax attacks, if that wasn’t enough, and honestly, should’ve had their business shut down numerous times.
One of the experts on them would be Dr. Meryl Nass. If you’re interested in learning more, I’d recommend checking out her extensive work on it and her involvement in the lawsuit brought against their anthrax vaccine that was toxic, poorly manufactured, among other things. This company was chosen to manufacture most of the COVID-19 vaccines in the United States and there were a lot of problems that happened there. Of course, we know now that they botched a bunch of the batches of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
But this could’ve easily been prevented by looking at Emergent BioSolutions’ extremely corrupt and troubling track record and also, the fact that their Head of Quality Control at this plant had no experience in chemistry or quality control or really pharmaceuticals of any type. He was a career military intelligence operative working in Afghanistan, Iraq, and was also a Persian and North Korean lingual analysis.
So, why was he put in charge of quality control supervision at this plant? You know, a lot of questions about Emergent BioSolutions.
I can stress, also, that the origin of Emergent BioSolutions, previously BioPort, the “Port” in “BioPort” stands for “Porton Down,” the Fort Detrick equivalent in the United Kingdom, which combined with former Joint Chiefs of Staff in the US, Admiral William Crowe, and this rather corrupt German-Lebanese family, the El-Hibris, who got into business with Crowe when he was Ambassador to the UK during the 1990s, a lot of scandalous stuff with the anthrax attacks.
But I think it’s very instructive, the history of Emergent BioSolutions. So, a lot of attention with these vaccines has been given to the developers but I think it’s also important to pay attention to the people manufacturing it because they get the formulas from the developers. But what is actually injected into people is - you know, that’s produced by the manufacturers so, we have to pay attention to both.
And the fact that Emergent BioSolutions, this company of all other companies, was given this power is very significant. The man responsible for that is the former - under Trump - the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at HHS, Robert Kadlec, who has a very scandalous history, has his own ties to the 2001 anthrax attacks. Numerous ties to lies about WMDs, about Sadam Hussein, that eventually led us into war, and numerous conflicts of interest with the El-Hibri family and Emergent BioSolutions himself. He used to be an Emergent BioSolutions lobbyist. He also used to be a lobbyist in the intelligence - major intelligence contractors and very shady individuals. And he cofounded a company with Fuad El-Hibri and BioPort/Emergent BioSolutions in, I believe, 2012.
So, pretty amazed that there was no pushback from that in Congress. But you know, as Rahm Emanuel said, “Let no crisis go to waste.”
Chris Martenson: Right. Well, so much to unpack there but let me back up a tiny bit. So, first, it was interesting, because I didn’t know this, where you said that there was a dose response on the mRNA that it crashes very quickly. Like you give too much and you’re out. What’s interesting is [interruption]…
Whitney Webb: [Overtalking] Highly toxic.
Chris Martenson: Highly toxic. They didn’t have any sort of dosing on this, which was weird to me. It’s 30 mcg. I don’t care if you’re a 25-pound overweight 12-year-old or a 400-pound overweight 59-year-old; it doesn’t matter. Everybody gets 30 mcg.
The second thing - and I got this from Robert Malone directly. We were talking with these poor people on the other end. They were Stanford administrators who were starting to enforce everybody has to get vaccinated. Robert Malone was on the other side saying, “From a bioethics standpoint, here’s some data,” right? They looked like deer in the headlights; they couldn’t get off that call quick enough. But he said [interruption]…
Whitney Webb: Data, yeah.
Chris Martenson: Yeah. He said, “There’s two things you need,” he said, “You need to understand something.” He said, “This was regulated as a vaccine, not as a gene therapy. It is a gene therapy. If it goes down the gene therapy pathway, there are three things you have to know. You have to know how long does the gene therapy remain in operation? That is; you have to track its degradation. If you put it in, how long is it there doing what it does?
Two; how much protein is it going to code for that gets actually made? You have to measure that.
Three; does the protein stay where you think it’s going to be, doing what it’s supposed to do?”
Whitney Webb: Or does it _____ [01:11:33] through the body, yeah.
Chris Martenson: Right. Those are the three things you’d want to know that’s different for a gene therapy than any other therapy. Other therapies, you’re sort of looking for distribution through the body and half-life and stuff like that. But here, you need to know; how long does the product continue to be made? How much of it is made? Where does it go?
He said, “We don’t know any of those things but here’s some data,” right? And there’s some very troubling data that it doesn’t stick around, right? We know that the lipid nanoparticles, at least, go to the ovaries sort of preferentially into all sorts of tissues, right? We know that the spike protein travels about in the blood for some period of time. And we know it does some damage to some people under those conditions.
So, despite that, it’s been nothing but vaccines, vaccines, vaccines; the pressure, the push is just off the charts. So, the question becomes, for me; when I look at the mRNA thing, I say, “Well, it could be the next best thing since sliced bread but you can introduce literally any protein this way into the human system and have it create an antibody response against it. Any protein.” Let’s say - I’m just making some up here - the proteins that coat the human egg, proteins that govern sperm motility, proteins that line the vessels of the cranium; whatever you want, you could, if you inject it into people, you could cause them - I don’t know, I’m just making stuff up here. If you had wild, crazy eugenesis dreams, right? You could say - you could give this vaccine to people and it would create antibodies against anything that you design and engineer to put in.
So, I would think you’d want to know very - quality control would be really important. So, I was trying not to laugh when you mentioned quality control because all I could think of was from The Office, all I could think of was Creed, you know? He’s in Quabity Control, you know? Like he can’t remember - like this guy has no experience, no ability to do quality control, and that’s one of the most important things, particularly within mRNA. You’re stringing letters together and they have to be done just right. And then, you have to package it just right. If you get any of that wrong, it has very dire consequences. You really want to get that part right.
Whitney Webb: Well, this is really scandalous with Emergent BioSolutions/BioPort. Because in the case of their anthrax vaccine, their plant producing that was shut down by the US government because they had mold in vials and just obvious visual contamination and stuff that was mandatorily injected into US servicemen and later, tied by several people to what is now known as Gulf War Syndrome when it was administered in the early 90s. And that was supposed to be off-written, supposedly, as a possibility. But really, the evidence points to it being linked to the anthrax vaccine. And numerous US servicemen that received it that had complications are very adamant about what they experienced. And it was later revealed in a lawsuit brought by veterans against the Pentagon over BioPort’s anthrax vaccine that the Pentagon was administering it on an experimental off-label use for which it was not approved. And they won.
And then, of course, the Pentagon finds a loophole a couple of years later and changes things around and gets to do it again. But you know, this just shows you the track record of this company, which is just totally outrageous. And the fact that they were given the COVID-19 vaccine contracts, given that history, is just scandalous in and of itself.
Chris Martenson: So, Whitney, how do you steep yourself in all of this and stay positive in any way as a parent? Like what’s your biggest concern for the future for your daughter?
Whitney Webb: Well, I mean, there are a lot of things to be concerned about, obviously. I do tend to - despite what I write about and discuss - I tend to be optimistic because as I mentioned earlier, I think the hubris of these individuals will be their downfall. I think they’ve aimed too high; I think they’ve even gone too far now. A lot of the narratives people were fed last year are tripping over each other. People that wanted to question this stuff before are starting to do so. And I think that’s why we’re seeing all these different issues come to the forefront.
Now, COVID wasn’t enough to scare people so, now, it’s climate change. Now, there’s potential famines being engineered. Now, there’s even aliens…
Chris Martenson: Aliens.
Whitney Webb: … next - right. Of course, the alien hype this year, exclusively coming from a report authored by the Pentagon and the CIA jointly. So, you can ask yourself why that was chosen to happen this year and not previous years. You know, it’s interesting. I mean, what better way to establish one-world government when the aliens come and things like that. Much easier to make that…
Chris Martenson: Lots of money.
Whitney Webb: … that sales pitch…
Chris Martenson: Space Force.
Whitney Webb: … as humanity against the aliens, right, and Space Force, as well. Money for Space Force, which I mentioned earlier, is a very longstanding agenda that precedes the Trump administration’s decision to create it by decades.
So, my concern is that - probably my biggest concern is that people, even those that are aware of what’s going on, decline to do anything to prepare for a lot of the crises that we are going to be facing down the line. Because, you know, as groups like the WEF say, you know, COVID was just the catalyst. There is much more to come.
Several of these groups, not just the World Economic Forum but the UN, Wellcome Leap, the Wellcome Trust, and a lot of these other groups, all oddly point to the year 2030 as the time when they want to have things locked down, essentially. That’s not that long from now. So, this is really the prime opportunity to prepare now before things degrade further.
I would argue the best way to prepare is to develop local resilient and resistant communities and become less - as independent of the government’s pushing this and the private sector corporations advancing this agenda as well as we possibly can. Because I think that’s the greatest way to starve them of their power.
I think more focus needs to be given to the academics, the researchers, who are helping facilitate and advance this agenda. A lot of them don’t know. And a lot of them aren’t used to any sort of public pushback. They’re used to be relatively isolated in their labs and whatnot. Perhaps send them emails about what they are being a part of and what they’re helping advancing and what that means for the future of our children and for the species.
These people are obviously moving to target children; babies as young as three months old. Wellcome Leap, these team-up of DARPA/Silicon Valley executives with Wellcome Trust, openly wants to prune 80% of young children’s brains from three months to three years old to an AI model of the perfect brain by 2030. Do you want that type of future for our children? That essentially means the end of human creativity and imagination and the production of essentially drone bee workers and automatons. And really, just undercuts everything it means to be human and things that most humans who are sane and not part of the World Economic Forum tend to enjoy.
So, we’re really at a point where it’s important to start drawing red lines about what we will and will not accept as a society.
So, you know, a lot of things that I would’ve thought would’ve been red lines have already been crossed. There’s a lot of parents, for example, that have allowed their infants and very young children to be part of COVID-19 experimental vaccine trials. I think that has emboldened some of these people to think, “Well, we can do whatever we want to kids.” And that’s how the Wellcome Leap’s First 1,000 Days program, as it’s called that I just mentioned, probably came to fruition. “Well, they’ll give us their kids for that. 80% shouldn’t be so hard down the line when people are increasingly desperate and whatnot.” The less desperate we are and the less likely we are to look to these predators in government in the public and private sector, you know, for handouts and free stuff and all of that, the better we can weather the storm and resist these agendas.
So, you know, the people in the best position to do that are those that are aware of these agendas. But my concern is that a lot of them will just, you know, keep their activism online, as it were, and not take any real-world action to prepare themselves, their families, and their communities for what’s coming.
And I think that’s ultimately where this is going because a lot of this agenda depends on us staying and taking action only in the virtual world and not doing so in the real world.
So, I would urge people, you know, do what you want online but make sure you combine that with real-world action that can resist these agendas and protect your communities.
Chris Martenson: The word that I love here; “resilient.” So, what does resilience mean to you? I can tell you that this is my home studio here. And right outside, I’ve got cows, I’ve got chickens, I’ve got a garden. I’m building soil. I’m building soil with an urgency; the same urgency that I saw these vaccines being rolled out with. I can’t explain it totally but - because I usually operate from the gut after synthesizing heavily in my brain.
My urgency says that we don’t have that much time to get resilient. I don’t know why. I can’t quantify that for you. Whether it’s Cyber Polygon, you know, there’s only so many times you can threaten me and have the threat come true before I start to believe that your threats are meaningful, right?
Whitney Webb: Right.
Chris Martenson: Right? So, Event 201 preceding the coronavirus release, or however that came out a month later, you know, whether it was the 772 bombing that was preceded by an emergency, all hands on deck training for what would happen if a two-bombing happened. Whether it was the planes being simulated highjacked over the US airspace on 9/11, on and on and on, Cyber Polygon.
So, that’s the one thing that concerns me a lot. Because if you do knock out the internet in some meaningful way, right? This is how we conduct our business. Like the whole just-in-time inventory system just shreds if this doesn’t work properly, right?
So, that’s why - to me, that’s what resilient is. It’s like literally bottom of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. I’m working on that as fast as I know how in my own - my life. What are you working on? What does that mean to you?
Whitney Webb: Yeah. So, I would agree with that. Well, unfortunately, because of what I do and being de-monetized, you know, I, and my age, I guess, you know, this isn’t an industry that pays particularly well. So, you know, I’m hoping that before the end of the year, I’ll be able to buy my own land.
I do have a background in agriculture, actually, in agricultural ecology. That’s what my degree was in university.
Chris Martenson: Oh, interesting.
Whitney Webb: Yeah. And I initially worked on that for the first part of my 20s before originally writing about environmental issues and then, starting to write about all this other stuff because I realized a lot of things weren’t being covered appropriately.
So, you know, I have a very intimate knowledge of the importance of having your own food supply and meeting your own essential needs. Because I saw this among people my age in the US. I’m kind of a black sheep in this sense probably. But I noticed that a lot of people in the United States my age - Millennials, what have you - don’t really know how to produce the things that they need. I saw that back, you know, in 2012 when I was graduating from college as a major concern to me that people my age were not resilient in the United States.
I’ve spent most of the past decade, leaving only recently because of very authoritarian policies, in Latin America. Part of that was because of the cost of living but also, because people there still know how to produce essential goods and can survive in the event of economic collapse, which has happened in places like Argentina not so long ago and things like that. You know, I figured that would be a good place to be.
Now I’m in the UK. Life has brought me a lot of changes, you know, and I’m hoping I’ll be able to rebuild that. But I think the fact that I have that knowledge and that experience does help. I have a large seed bank, you know, investing in some freeze-dried food until I can produce my own food to at least be able to support myself and my family a couple months if the worse comes to worse. I have a water filter, you know, things like that.
There are some things that everyone can do, even if you, like me, are stuck - not by choice - in an urban environment for the time being. There are all things we can do to be more prepared. The more prepared you are, the better off you will be.
You know, it’s very likely that there is going to be some sort of massive cyber incident because the end game here is to basically pursue what has been a decades-old agenda of both the European Union and the United States government - a driver’s license for internet access, a government-issued ID in order to be able to go online so that they can know exactly what content you’re consuming, what websites you’re visiting, etc., all under the guise of combating cybercrime. They weren’t able to do that in the years prior so, they must manufacture consent for that. What better way to have a massive cybercriminal attack that impacts everyone’s lives and has people demanding that there be massive regulation of the internet and the digital world, in general?
And this obviously is going to have major ramifications with crypto currency. They’ve already built that into that narrative with the whole ransomware side of things.
And conveniently, you know, this effort to reset the financial system, if you have a massive cyberattack that impacts the financial system, the economic bubbles that have been inflated for over a decade can be popped and faceless hackers can be blamed that you can attribute to a nation state you don’t like or a terrorist group you don’t like or far right groups in the US or whatever fits the domestic terror strategy. Whoever you want. As we’ve seen with these recent supply chain hacks, all it takes is the CIA saying, “It was likely these people,” and that is enough for mainstream media to say, “You did it.” No evidence needs to be publicly made.
Actually, the company with the SolarWinds hack that attributed - blamed FireEye, which was, according to Bloomberg, set up by the CIA - said that only Russia was disciplined enough to conduct that hack. That’s an opinion, not a fact. And then, their CEO got a postcard in the mail that he thinks was from Russian intelligence.
So, that’s the extent of the detective work being done attributing who’s responsible for what hack with major global geopolitical ramifications as this goes forward. But it’s pretty clear that, you know, what better way to absolve the banks and financial institutions and central banks that have been part of this economic bubble and corruption and malfeasance? You know, you can absolve them completely by blaming whoever you want. It’s the perfect excuse.
And I’ve done reports on this. The World Economic Forum partnered with most of the central banks of the world and Wall Street, as well as the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, to essentially map this out. And they also have a separate initiative that deals with other aspects of this agenda called the Partnership against Cybercrime, which is - members of that include the US Department of Justice, the FBI and the Secret Service, as well as the governments of the UK and Israel and Microsoft, other big tech companies, and Wall Street banks; all coming together to plan what to do to end anonymity as we know it online and even the possibility or illusion of privacy in the virtual world.
So, it seems very likely that this is in their long-term strategic interest and they have said so. And these are not small fish. These are big, influential players that have the power to affect this kind of policy change in the event that something happens. And you know, you can blame whoever you want; there’s no real investigation and there’s no critical reporting of these hacking claims. Which is something that has been very common in cybersecurity reporting for several years, relying only on cybersecurity companies, most of which have deep ties to state intelligence agencies so, that’s pretty telling.
So, I think people need to be prepared about; what will you do if you wake up one day and the internet’s gone? And you can’t use any sort of service or even business that depends on it to run. We, unfortunately, have to think about these questions. How long those outages will last, we don’t know. But the more prepared you are and the more time you spend even mentally preparing - if you can’t physically prepare, mentally preparing - that will help you. Actually, people that have experienced economic collapse in places like Argentina and Venezuela have openly said that one of the things that prepared them best was mental preparedness; thinking through these scenarios. And when they happen, not panicking and being able to think calmly and rationally about what to do as those events unfold.
So, you know, it’s important to stress the importance of mental preparedness, as well. But obviously, the more you can physically prepare for these possibilities that are starting to look more like inevitable than impossible, you know, the better off I think we’ll be.
Chris Martenson: Yeah, very well-said. So, I mean, this is just business by any other name, right? So, there was this underwear bomber mysteriously like just, you know, has an IQ well [interruption]…
Whitney Webb: Brought from TSA, yeah.
Chris Martenson: … well below 100, somehow gets led up to a desk and has got his passport somehow. Gets on the plane and oh, my gosh, almost set off an underwear bomb. Wouldn’t you know it? Michael Chertoff’s company, I believe is the one that had all those millimeter-wave scanners all prebuilt and ready to go, right?
Whitney Webb: Yes.
Chris Martenson: It’s just business, right? That’s called marketing; that’s what you do. And so, I know people who’ve told me that there are small companies that are fending off the most vicious waves of intrusion attempts. These are like milk processors. They’re mostly in the food business, right? That I’ve found.
Whitney Webb: Yes.
Chris Martenson: They’re getting just daily - but they’re like, “This isn’t like some hackers trying to get in with a little lame phishing attempt.” Like they are detecting multiple intrusion attempts - little tiny companies having to fend this off. And they say it feels like state actors to them. It’s too powerful, it’s too sustained.
Whitney Webb: I’m sure it is, yeah. Well, you have to look again at the strategic interest here of these powerful groups. And it’s not just an effort to reset the financial system. The “great reset,” as it is sometimes called, is an effort to remake pretty much every sector of the economy. And there has been a major focus on essentially moving the food system to a post-livestock food system. And probably the best person who I’ve seen cover that specifically and who focuses on that is Christian Westbrook of the Ice Age Farmer podcast on the YouTube channel. Because there is a lot of seeding of that narrative whether it’s from climate change or other angles. It’s definitely this effect to basically say livestock are bad, we need to get rid of them, and there needs to be either synthetic meat, lab meat, plant-based meat, or all these different bug…
Chris Martenson: Insects, don’t forget the insects.
Whitney Webb: Right, right. Or all these other protein alternatives, you know, need to replace livestock and things like that. And you know, basically, also, basically, take human farmers out of your equations, make them AI farm. They’ve piloted one in Australia; it’s been heavily promoted.
But I mean, if this was really about a green agenda, why not promote small-scale family farming or permaculture or responsible practices of animal husbandry or any number of things? They don’t want to do that. They instead want to bring in more machines and AI that are going to run on energy. And you know, maybe it’s green energy but they’ll require large massive data centers, they’ll require minerals that are mined in a way that is environmentally exploitative to developing nations or to even the US is believed to have rare earth minerals in places like Nevada. The US government plans to open up the mining of those to compete with China, which has most of them or mine the deep sea for these minerals and whatnot.
So, it’s not exactly environmentally friendly. The actual environmentally friendly alternative is to return to more historic methods of agriculture that have been proven to work in concert with nature and require less input and, you know, nature, the natural system does most of the work.
And you know, I think that is an obvious hole in the climate change thing, as is the fact that, well, if CO2 is really the issue, why not just plant trees instead of solve it with carbon markets? You know, these are discussions these people don’t want to have because there are obvious holes in their game here.
But what they ultimately want is to remake the food supply. Because going back to Kissinger, who we mentioned a couple times, he’s believed - or the quote is attributed to him, you know, if you control the food supply, you control the people. And I think these people behind this agenda ultimately see that as something that is definitely true.
Chris Martenson: Well, it’s absolutely an agenda. This year, I can’t get away from them. Maybe it’s just my Twitter feed, my social media feeds or the way I surf the news. But I keep reading about they’ve got the lab now that can produce 1,000 hamburgers a week of lab-grown meat. A guy I know very well, he’s a large animal vet in Maine. His 8-year-old came back from formerly called English, now called Language Arts, with an essay that they had to write on how fields could be more productively used to grow insects rather than cows in a farming community in Maine.
And so, these people have the power, Whitney, to float a trial balloon about this in March of 2020 and it’s already on the curriculum in Maine. That’s powerful. It’s very hard to do that otherwise.
Whitney Webb: Yeah. Well, one of the driving forces behind Ebtech and sort of this broader education changes that we’ve seen, you know, really since the 60s and 70s has been UNESCO. As I mentioned earlier, the founding Director-General of that was Julian Huxley, who came up with a lot of the ideology of what we previously discussed. That’s not very nice when you read between the lines and get down to what it actually means.
And for an in-depth discussion of that, John Klyczek, who’s a contribute to Unlimited Hangout, writes specifically on the education angle and how it’s been manipulated through various means and for various agendas. And people are interested in that whole UNESCO angle more.
But you know, there’s definitely an effort to target children, specifically. I think that’s why they rolled out Greta Thunberg; someone so young to be the face of this and to sort of get other kids onboard. We have movements like the Sunrise Movement that if you look into their funding, have a lot of billionaire connections, not exactly as grassroots as they like to claim to be. You know, basically, trying to get a lot of the _____ [01:34:21] onboard with talking points about collectivism and all of this stuff but lacking any sort of real discussion about what these things actually mean.
And that’s also true with, you know, politicians who are actually, in reality, more like Instagram influencers like AOC, for example, parroting a lot of these talking points, promoting a Green New Deal when, for example, she won’t include anything about the US military in the Green New Deal when they are the largest consumer of fossil fuels and the world’s biggest polluter, dumping several - more than ten tons of potentially toxic metals every year in Puget Sound in Washington State alone and responsible for most of the superfund toxic sites recognized by the EPA throughout the Continental US. No discussion of them.
And I think that’s pretty significant that in the Green New Deal, certain institutions and companies and organizations, just like they’re exempt from paying taxes, will be exempt from Green New Deal policies while it will be focused on this underclass that all of these policies are seeking to create and restrict their activities while not restricting the activities of the privileged elite, whether those are individuals or institutions.
You know, it’s pretty clear where this is going. But there’s a clear effort to capture the youth, get them young. And that involves manipulating the education curriculum; also, manipulating the TV shows that children watch and the media they consume and the heroes they look up to who are promoted to children as leaders and heroes of their generation and whatnot.
Chris Martenson: Well, in the UK - sorry to say - as far as the children go, you now have a Rainbow Dildo Butt Monkey reading.
Whitney Webb: Yes, I saw.
Chris Martenson: You can’t keep track…
Whitney Webb: Well, the US has their version of that, as well.
Chris Martenson: I know. We do, we do. We’ve got Drag Time Story Hour. So, we’ve taken up a lot of your time. I know we could keep going because your wealth of knowledge is amazing.
But I want to make sure that you get to that farm that you need and deserve. So, how can people support you? People, you should support Whitney. She’s doing amazing work here and I would love for people to be able to support you.
So, your Patreon’s down. How can people help you out here?
Whitney Webb: Well, if you go to my website, UnlimitedHangout.com, there is a Support Us tab, which provides you with many options. For people that prefer to use crypto currency, for people that don’t, for people that want to use PayPal, for people that don’t.
I also have a membership option available there where you get access to my premium content in a weekly “Ask Me Anything” opportunity where I will answer questions for members. And also, have a subscription option through Rokfin - R-O-K-F-I-N - that does help me monetize stuff and was able to help me replace my Patreon relatively quickly. So, I’m very grateful for that.
And also, the content that I do paywall - content at paywall is only for the first four or five days and then, I make it public. And so, it’s basically for early access because I don’t want to keep my content behind a paywall indefinitely. That’s not for everyone but that’s how I do it.
So, you can support me on there. It’s $10 a month and you also get access to the premium content of every other content creator that’s on the site. And there’s a mix of people that are well-known on both the left and the right on that platform for those that are interested.
Any support is greatly appreciated. It allows me to continue to do what I do. It also helps me to finance my upcoming book on the Jeffrey Epstein scandal; One Nation Under Blackmail that, unfortunately, I have a very gracious publisher who was willing to publish the contents of that book, which other publishers would deem too controversial. But unfortunately, because of their size, they weren’t able to pay me an advance so, have to just sort of work as I can. That’s why I’ve had to delay the book once or twice but I don’t plan to delay it any more.
So, you know, there’s different ways you can support me. Anything is greatly appreciated and allows me to do the work that I do and also, to pay these several great contributors that I have to produce the work they do for my site, as well.
Chris Martenson: One Nation Under Blackmail. When does that come out?
Whitney Webb: Early 2022.
Chris Martenson: Great.
Whitney Webb: Early next year.
Chris Martenson: We’ll look forward to that, yeah. And we’ll help promote that because…
Whitney Webb: Thank you.
Chris Martenson: … great story on there. That’s a fantastically well-researched story. I didn’t want to accidentally say a fantastic story because it’s a dark story. It’s not a good story in terms of…
Whitney Webb: Well, it’s not a bedtime story but it is very instructive…
Chris Martenson: It is.
Whitney Webb: … about how the power that be, the real government in the US operates. Because I’m not just talking about Jeffrey Epstein; I’m talking about this union between organized crime and intelligence agencies I mentioned earlier with the OSS and the National Crime Syndicate; how that never went away, how that continues, and how the successors to the National Crime Syndicate are largely responsible for funding Jeffrey Epstein. Leslie Wexner leading up that group. It’s very telling that he did not get enough press attention or critical reporting on his activities as that scandal unfolded. I would say that’s a testament to his influence and power.
Chris Martenson: Well, there was that guy from the Apollo group. He had to lose one of his two titles. I mean, what more could a man have to go through?
Whitney Webb: Oh, yeah, must’ve been rough for him, right? Oh, man. But you know, his ties to Epstein are quite documented. But there was no interest, for example, in pursuing the police report written by Ohio police in the 1980s that directly tied him to various organized crime groups. You know, that’s public record, it’s documented, that’s not something that’s made up. So, you know, I really wish more people would pay attention to that.
But anyway, all of that and much more will be in my book and explaining the influence of sexual blackmail and how that worked into electronic forms of blackmail a la Silicon Valley and backdoors and all of those things as the decades went by.
So, if you’re interested in that, you may like my book.
Chris Martenson: Alright. Well, I’m sure it’s just fabulously well-researched and well-written. So, thank you so much for your time here today and we’ll do this again, I hope. And I wish you all the best and continuing, again, people can go to your website and help support you there. And again, UnlimitedHangout.com; check it out, great articles there.
Whitney, thank you so much for your time today.
Whitney Webb: Thank you. Thanks for the opportunity.