CRISIS POLITICS: A Means of Control | Whitney Webb | BIG PICTURE

Video Transcript

Welcome to Truly Right View
Let The Truth Be Told!

Are you ready to hear the real truth unfiltered by bias media or government intervention?
Subscribe to the Truly Right View Channel

welcome to the big picture I’m James Patrick I flew to Chile to interview Whitney Webb this interview is shot as a part of the making of the documentary film cbdcs the end of money I think it’s quite clear that the way to force onboarding of a cbdc or this type of digital currency system is going to be some sort of Crisis some sort of event I think the immigration crisis any sort of refugee situation uh that’s going to be used to push for digital IDs um I think it’s just a very easy excuse for them uh a way for them to quickly manufacture consent because you know all these people we don’t know who they are they could be criminals they could be anybody we have to know who everybody is and it’s going to be sold as a way to provide security to the insecurity created by the migrant crisis so I think there’s been growing awareness for some time that there’s lot of bipartisan consensus about most of the policies of the US government like endless war for example and uh some people refer to it as the unip party but people also forget that too and so um what a lot of people call this uh the two-party model you know people refer to it sometimes as the Left Right Paradigm but I think not a lot of people truly understand how that Paradigm works if you think about it as the left hand and right hand of the establishment you’ll have one of those hands create a problem intentionally and then the opposing hand comes in and offers the solution but the solution was always what the establishment wanted uh but it sold as a solution to a problem created by the other side so it creates the illusion that the opposing Force um create solved a problem but in reality the problem was manufactured uh by one hand of the system and then the solution was offered by the other hand the man that claims to have created cbdcs is a man from Barbados named Oliver Gail he created uh one of the fir well arguably the first cbdc project in the Caribbean and then went on to have a key role in creating the Nigerian cbdc the enira so the way the cbdc in Nigeria was set up is that in order to access the cbdc you have to have a national identification number which is the Nigerian digital ID project so you have to have a digital ID in order to be able to access the Nigerian cbdc and the way they tried to get people to onboard to the CBD system was by essentially um cutting off the vast majority of the cash in circulation in Nigeria and so despite the fact that they created these conditions to coers people into using the cbdc the populace resists and that suggests that the idea um of cbdcs being a tool for financial inclusion um you know the public doesn’t seem to believe that right in Nigeria uh these people that ostensibly have suffer from this identity Gap that suffer from Financial exclusion don’t want the financial inclusion that they’re being offered by the cbdc they don’t see any real benefit they see it as a as a tool of of the state and the state in Nigeria and in other African countries where you know these sort of systems are being rolled out the governments have abused these systems to go after uh journalists or other people and violate human rights and all sorts of things so it’s not a tool for increased human rights it’s not a tool for increased inclusion it’s inherently exclusionary and it’s a surveillance tool so if Nigeria’s Tac of uh you know drastically reducing the amount of cash in circulation didn’t work then I think it’s quite clear that the way to force onboarding of a cbdc is going to be some sort of Crisis some sort of event where people uh will be made an offer they can’t refuse essentially whatever that crisis is that creates the situation where people will have you know very little choice but to onboard to this new digital currency system uh it could manifest in a number of ways but regardless of how it manifests what the narrative is going to be is that privacy is dangerous anonymity is dangerous specifically Financial privacy is dangerous those are going to be the narratives that come out of this event and that’s going to be a way to force onboarding both onto digital currency that can be tracked to stop Terror financing or or things of that nature and also we have to know who everybody online is or we have to know who everybody is and interacting with these systems we need digital ID okay it’s very much tied up with uh efforts to regulate the internet the effort to regulate the internet specifically in the United States has been going on for years under the Obama Administration they they called it the driver’s license for the internet the idea is to have a governmen issued ID be necessary for you to access the internet and in doing so they know not just what you’re posting and saying online they know what information you’re reading online as well but the difference is once it’s directly connected to a government issued ID um they could prose prosecute you for things like publishing misinformation and all of that and there’s actually been pushes from people like former Google CEO Eric Schmidt to punish people who publish alleged disinformation and that the need uh that it’s necessary to have IDs connected to social media accounts and to people’s internet access as a means of facilitating those kinds of arrests or you know law enforcement activity well there’s a couple reason why I think they’d want to have private banks have like a major role in this digital currency system to come if there’s a private sector entity banking you and managing your money it’s much easier for them to bank you than the federal government so for example if the Federal Reserve were to do a direct issue cbdc it would be harder for them to freeze someone’s bank account uh or debank them in any sort of significant way as opposed to a private company where you have uh for example uh precedents were JP Morgan Chase for example debanked uh Dr marola and and some of his Executives and didn’t give any reason as to why they just said we can no longer uh provide you with financial services no questions asked that would be very hard to do in the case of a direct issued cbdc this is something similar to the argument that’s been made uh for social media companies censoring they say oh but they’re private companies so they can restrict speech however they want but we know now that their restrictions on private speech have been a result of public sector pressure right so again people need to keep in mind that this is a public private partnership that’s the prevailing model in the United States the digital Dollar in the United States is also going to be a public private model you’ll have the fed the Central Bank working with the private banks that own the FED in the United States and that will be the the partnership between them will be the system it’s not going to be all public it’s not going to be all private it is a partnership If the Fed were to do a direct issued cbdc it would take them a few years to design um experiment and deploy it if you’re using these existing dollar Peg stable coins those are already here they’re already on blockchains um and a lot of those phases that would take the fit a few years have already been accomplished if you choose to use those and if you regulate them so that they have to for example keep their Reserves at the fed you know then you’re able to sort of have the same kind of system uh but you don’t have to go through um the process of creating a direct issued cbdc China for example they already have their cbdc so the US is behind so to remain competitive they say and and have a first mover Advantage we should go with the digital dollars that are already here so that’s dollar Peg stable coins the banks that are involved in this new system it’s very unlikely it’s going to be the existing Banks we have in the US right now and that’s because just like in 20 8 and more recently with the Silicon Valley banking crisis every time there’s a major financial crisis there seems to be a major Bank consolidation wave and you have Janet Yellen the treasur the the treasury secretary um saying during the Silicon Valley Bank crisis you know in front of Congress that they are essentially only going to uh rescue uh systemically important Banks which is a designator that Yellen can you know she essentially decides who’s an A Bank worth saving and who’s not and this is sort of the perpetuation of the too big to fail model that we heard about in 2008 so one indication the system is being rolled out in this way is uh looking at the people developing the infrastructure and what type of digital currencies they’re supporting so one of the biggest developers right now of cbdcs is this company called R3 that’s backed by some of the biggest Wall Street banks in the world um and they were named by Central Banking magazine as the cbdc partner of the year last year and they’re developing a Litany of cbdcs for countries all around the world but that’s just one part of what they do they have this thing they call a digital currency accelerator and the three types of digital currencies are three develops are cbdcs staple coins and tokenized deposits or dep deposit tokens and some banks in the US have already rolled out deposit tokens City Group JP Morgan uh JP Morgan actually had a research paper out last year about how um cbdcs are inferior to deposit tokens and how deposit tokens are better so Oliver Gail who defines himself as the founder of cbdcs um has more recently co-founded a company called fluent Finance what fluent Finance is is is you know they attempt to create a trustworthy dollar Peg stable coin that they call us plus and it’s sort of framed as an answer to Dollar Peg stable coins like tether that have been controversial for having opaque reserves so the whole thing about us plus is having trackable reserves in real time and and all of this and so it’s an attempt to create a very extremely trustworthy and and backed by a Consortium of banks a bank-led US dollar pig stable coin so if the inventor of cbdcs is moving into stable coins he probably knows that there’s something there so what what first got you interested in this cyber pandemic so not that long after the co um you know era began and the world economic Forum started to be looked at you know scrutinized more particularly uh by Independent Media you know people had noticed the overlap between the world economic forum and event 2011 for example in in the covid crisis and so during the covid crisis people paid a lot of attention when the world economic Forum launched its cyber polygon simulations uh that were about cyber attacks and during that same period of time you had CL Schwab um you know the best known face of the world economic Forum saying that after Co there would be some sort of what he called a cyber pandemic that would have consequences that would make CO’s uh impact on society seem uh relatively insignificant by comparison I think the whole idea of a of a Cyber attack um is sort of contradictory to a lot of the stuff that was pushed for during the co era where we were pushed increasingly out of uh the physical world into the digital world and then the digital world is also under attack from cyber attacks and what have you so I think ultimately the goal is to use cyber attacks as a means of centralizing control of the digital world and BAS some of these like simulations you think it’s going to come in the form of like a of a a false hacker attack or who’s going to be the villain in this scenario yeah so one thing that gets overlooked a lot with cyber polygon and some of these other related simulations about coming cyber attacks is that they seem to involve the big Banks and some of them even involve central banks there’s a major theme of banking here which I think has been unfortunately overlooked and it sort of implies that one of these cyber attacks of the Cyber pandemic will be on the financial system to some degree so for example if you look at Cyber polygon it was uh the we but it was done in partnership with Russia’s largest bank spur bank and was uh one of the opening speakers of it was the Russian Prime Minister um and things like that which is in direct contrast for example to the supposed Russian hacker narrative that’s been propagated extensively in US mainstream media the US government had no problem and no criticis at participating in cyber polygon and no criticism of the we for host co-hosting their cyber simulation um uh Cyber attack simulation with the supposed hackers at large that supposedly interfered in the US elections they said that they did that well okay so in 2016 and 2020 there were a lot of you know narratives propagated by us mainstream media about Russian hackers and none of those mainstream media Outlets criticize the we for doing their big Cyber attack simulation and partners ship with the Russian government oh they did it with the Russian government yeah it it cyber polygon was the we and uh a subsidiary of spur Bank Russia’s largest privately owned bank and also the Russian Prime Minister uh gave like the opening remarks and it was Affiliated to some agree with with the Russian government yeah um so there’s been a few entities besides the we that have sort of gamed out these Cyber attack simulations in a very significant way uh one of them is the financial services ISAC or information sharing and Analysis Center uh which is essentially the biggest private banks in the United States coming together to share information and planned uh shared responses to potential crises including a Cyber attack on the financial system and Fs ISAC is Affiliated to an extent with the w and also with the Carnegie endowment and the Carnegie endowment has similarly uh charted out potential Solutions if and when there is a major Cyber attack on the financial system and they did so in partnership with theed Federal Reserve the European Central Bank and some of the biggest private banks in the world like JP Morgan Chase their proposed solution is to uh merge Banks banking regulators and intelligence agencies as far as information sharing and Analysis goes so that’s essentially um having Banks share your private transaction data directly with the CIA or any other us intelligence agency that asks just kind of like a digital fusion fusion Center an updated version of yes MH yeah um and I mean doing so is inherently unconstitutional people would not consent to that if it were not for a major crisis that affects the banking sector yeah often times they try and pilot these Solutions before they’re actually implemented and if there isn’t sufficient onboarding or uptake by the public invariably an event comes along that creates fear and panic among the public to a very significant degree and they are CL they begin clamoring for solutions to this P this problem that’s causing the fear and panic and the solution is often something that’s been uh tested or or pitched years prior one example of this is you know the Obama Administration tried to make a driver’s license for the internet directly issue uh you know um directly link your government issued ID to your online activity and now we’re seeing a push to do the same under the guise of stopping misin or stopping cyber crime and things like that it’s mainly coming from us UK and Israeli intelligence and the big Banks uh through entities like the world economic forum’s partnership against cyber crime for example you basically think that that’s going to be this could be the the great taking Catalyst or or you just see a series of events that that’ll erode people’s rights or what the Cyber attack seems like a very possible scenario because it’s a way for the bank to absolve themselves of any role in a financial crisis um it’s an easy way to uh consolidate Banks so that only systemically important ones survive the hack um and it could also potentially be a very effective means of onboarding people onto this new digital currency Paradigm so for example let’s say this financial um cyber this Cyber attack on the banks takes place and they say well the existing money in your account has disappeared the haers took it but we can return to you the exact same amount of money you had but it won’t be in the dollars you had before it will be in usdc or this dollar back stable coin or it will be this token so you can get an equivalent amount of money back right um from the money that was stolen from you but it has to be this new money it has to be part of this new system there’s the potential here for people to steal money from you and then essentially give it back to you but with new conditions and with a new like social contract yeah you voluntarily accepted this new system and voluntarily onboarded to this um new paradigm but it’s a coercion to an extreme degree all of your money was stolen right and now you can only get it back if you take it in the form of the digital dollars that we approve of or the you know the cbdc depending on where you are you know so the head of d s Alexander mayoras has said on record that the next big threat to Americans is a cyber cyber security event that he called kware and kware certainly sounds very scary but if you read the existing definition of it it does it it refers to cyber attacks on essential infrastructure that has the potential to kill people so it doesn’t necessarily kill people like in the name but it attacks things like Water Systems the power grid essential infrastructure uh that people rely on every day this company called cyber reason in 2020 actually simulated a massive kill Weare attack that was targeting a US presidential election and the way they conducted this kware simulation which they did with DHS and some US law enforcement agencies uh was to get the US presidential election canceled and martial law declared so they basically through that simulation established what types of hacks uh could succeed in achieving uh the Declaration of Martial law on the insolation of a US presidential election which is pretty un pretty extreme so yeah so why are they doing that why I don’t know why does an intelligence linked company want to simulate with DHS and law enforcement um a a series of hacks that disrupt National infrastructure doing during a US presidential election and martial law is declared well if you look at all of this through the lens of risk management from the elites perspective let’s take the words of Larry Frink for example of Black Rock who’s been obsessed with risk management his whole career he has a quote he’s on video saying um that he that the markets do not like democracy democracy is messy they like totalitarian governments because the risk is low Elon Musk is the one of these figures that’s trying to sort of position himself as a a free speech champion in one of these figures uh that’s on the populist right but in reality a lot of the policies that Elon mus promotes like carbon taxes for example um have traditionally been uh policies promoted like the world economic forum and entities like this that are seen as being uh globalist and not populist in nature uh people forget that Elon Musk is someone who whose business has depended to a large degree on government subsidies and currently a lot of his companies either depend on mass adoption of electric vehicles via uh policies linked to the sustainable development goals to phase out fossil fuel vehicles um or they um are contractors for the Pentagon and intelligence like SpaceX so you’re saying the guy looks like a front or well I think there’s a conflict of interest with Elon Musk so for example take his recent ownership of Twitter now called X um the Pentagon has spent the better part of the last decade developing very sophisticated tools to manipulate social media including Bots and other techniques that per the Air Force in one of their contracts said was aimed at controlling people with social media like we control drones do you think that Elon Musk as a pentagon and intelligence contractor would restrict the pentagon’s use of those tools they spent millions of dollars in over a decade developing I don’t think so I think we’re being pushed towards essentially the same policies but by a different group of quote unquote leaders who are um trying to frame themselves as the opposite side of the political divide uh because the existing side that was pushing those was you know they were using sort of more like left-leaning political rhetoric and so because they got pushed back they’re trying to sell those same policies in a different rapper that’s sort of cloaked in this rhetoric of populism and right-leaning uh politics I think there’s essentially a consensus that some other some other very significant financial crisis is in the cards for the next several years and if you are the big Banks and you know that’s going to happen you probably want to avoid a scenario like what happened in 2008 where the public knew that you were the source of the malfant and the economic problems which of course spond movements like Occupy Wall Street if you want to avoid that how what is the best way to absolve yourself of any sort of blame for mismanaging or losing people’s money if you can say that hackers took it then you’re totally disolved and whoever the hackers are the ones to blame and um us intelligence or really any intelligence agency today can frame anyone they want for a Cyber attack we know this from one of the last Wikileaks releases called Vault 7 where uh it revealed that among the cia’s hacking tools were the ability to place the Fingerprints of adversary States or really any group they wanted into hacks that were actually conducted by the CIA itself basically a tool to create cyber false Flags for any purpose and the current CIA director is the person that was in charge of the Carnegie endowment when they ran or when they created these papers with the biggest private Banks and central banks in the world about a a Cyber attack on the financial system and how that would push for a merging of data sharing between Banks and the CIA and intelligence he’s SP a lot of your time thinking about these crazy these crazy projects like how how would you summarize the this sort of incessant obsession with controlling people and things and that that these guys have yeah so I think one of the reasons they want this new system that ultimately amounts to a control system is because they see it as the ultimate form of risk management um they essentially want to move to a system that’s not unlike the feudal system that existed in medieval Europe where you have you know a privileged Untouchable upper class and a low class of surfs um but if you implement a system this way with the with you know the technology they’re using and all of that you don’t have to worry about peasant rebellions you can manage the risk of the underclass so you surveil them constantly uh you can turn their money on and off you can turn their access to services and really anything else on and off as well under the digital ID functionality um it’s uh a way to keep people in line in a way that didn’t exist in you know feudal Europe and under that model but they’re clearly moving uh to that model and it’s interesting because the UN essentially admits that they talk about the acceleration of the adoption of all these um of all this digital infrastructure is exacerbating the wealth Gap and making the billionaires even more wealthy but the billionaires and the bankers are the people that are designing all these un policies you know people um you know like Mark Carney Mike Bloomberg Bill Gates um all of these guys are the ones influencing these policies more than anyone they admit that they’re exacerbating the wealth Gap but full steam ahead on on these policies anyway so I mean they’re obviously going to keep exacerbating it and a lot of those guys that are designing and maintaining the technology or deciding what it does are going to be in a very different class than the rest of us who are you know having this te this system imposed upon us we’re not the ones designing it we don’t have a a stake in the stakeholder capitalism model you know we’re uh the policy subjects not the policy makers we don’t have any we’re not we don’t have any influ Ence on these policies the people that do have that influence are oligarchs and bankers and you know the elite essentially they want to give the um illusion that you that it’s a decentralized system that you’re in control of your data that you uh have uh Power but you know if you look at how the infrastructure is set up those are really just marketing you know it’s marketing it’s talking points it’s not how these things actually are when they’re implemented in practice and the way they’re creating the infrastructure is create uh centralized data depositories centralized policymaking bodies you know things like that um but they want to give the public the illusion that they’re being implemented in essentially the complete opposite way

Truly Right View: Advocating for Free Speech in the Age of Political Censorship

Introduction: What is Free Speech Today?

In a world where political discourse is dominated by big tech, cable news, and social media influencers, free speech is constantly under threat. From censorship of conservative viewpoints to the silencing of dissent on controversial issues, we are witnessing an alarming trend of restrictions on the most fundamental rights of any citizen in our Constitutional Republic: the right to speak freely.

But what does free speech truly mean in today’s context? Are we protecting it, or are we allowing authoritarian ideologies like socialism, communism, fascism, and dictatorships to erode it?

The Constitutional Perspective: Why Free Speech is Non-Negotiable

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution is crystal clear: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” The Founding Fathers understood the importance of free speech in preserving a free society. Without it, the ability to challenge government, expose corruption, and advocate for truth would be crushed.

Yet today, under the guise of protecting people from “misinformation” and “hate speech,” powerful institutions are curbing our ability to express ideas that do not conform to their narratives.

Do we not see this as a slippery slope toward authoritarianism?

Shouldn’t we, as citizens, be the ones who decide what we can or cannot hear, not a centralized body or corporation?

Social Media and Cable News: Platforms or Gatekeepers?

Social media was once hailed as the bastion of free speech. It allowed ordinary individuals to share their thoughts, advocate for causes, and hold the powerful accountable. However, over the years, major platforms like Twitter (now X), Facebook, and YouTube have become gatekeepers rather than facilitators of free expression.

Algorithms favor certain ideologies, while alternative viewpoints—especially those with a more conservative or constitutional slant—are shadow-banned, demonetized, or outright censored.

Does this not resemble the tactics of monarchies, communistic or fascist regimes that control what their citizens can see and hear?

Shouldn’t a true democracy allow the free flow of ideas, even if those ideas challenge the status quo?

Social Media Influencers: Fighters for Freedom or Puppets of Censorship?

Many social media influencers, especially those aligned with constitutional values, have become modern-day warriors for free speech. Yet, they face intense backlash, censorship, and de-platforming for voicing opinions that challenge globalist or left-leaning narratives.

How many times have we seen influential voices banned simply for questioning government policies, election results, or health mandates?

Isn’t it concerning that only a select group of elites can decide what is “acceptable” discourse?

While some influencers fall in line with these restrictive policies, others have emerged as champions for free speech, using their platforms to resist censorship and uphold constitutional rights. The question is: Will we support these voices, or will we allow them to be drowned out by corporate and governmental censorship?

The Dangers of Socialism, Communism, and Fascism: A Threat to Free Speech

At the heart of socialism, communism, and fascism lies a common tactic—control over speech. These ideologies have historically sought to suppress dissent, limit expression, and create a monolithic narrative that favors those in power.

Look no further than authoritarian regimes past and present, where dissenters are imprisoned, media is state-controlled, and free speech is criminalized. Can we really ignore the striking similarities between these oppressive ideologies and the current state of political discourse in America?

Is the suppression of speech today not a precursor to more draconian measures tomorrow?

Should we not fight to preserve the right to freely express political, social, and economic ideas?

The Truly Right View: Defending Freedom in the Digital Age

At Truly Right View, we believe in the unwavering defense of free speech as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. We reject the encroaching influences of socialism, communism, fascism, and any form of dictatorship that seeks to undermine this fundamental right.

Our platform is dedicated to bringing you uncensored news, analysis, and commentary from a truly constitutional perspective. We provide a space where voices that have been silenced or marginalized can be heard, and where you—the citizen—can engage in the free exchange of ideas.

Join the Fight: Sign Up for Our Channel and Newsletter

Do you value free speech?

Do you believe that the right to express your thoughts, opinions, and beliefs should never be compromised, no matter how controversial they may be?

If so, we invite you to join the fight for free speech by subscribing to the Truly Right View channel and newsletter. Stay informed on the latest developments in free speech advocacy, political commentary, and constitutional rights. Together, we can stand against the creeping influence of censorship and authoritarianism.

Why wait for others to defend your rights?

Become part of a movement that fights for the truly free society envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

Will You Speak Up or Stay Silent?

In the end, the future of free speech rests in our hands. We can either stand idly by as it is eroded by corporate and governmental overreach, or we can take action to protect and preserve it.

Will you speak up for your rights, or will you allow them to be taken away piece by piece?

The choice is yours.

Subscribe to the channel for Truly Right View today, and support our patriots shop together, let’s ensure that free speech remains the bedrock of our Constitutional Republic.