"Elites Will Create A New Class Of Slaves" - BlackRock's Next Plans Will Shock You | Whitney Webb

when a crisis is happening, people tend to have emotional responses and tend to be coming from a place of fear and that tends to prevent people from thinking critically or calmly or rationally about situations or about policies. And so a lot of you know, during COVID obviously a lot of focus was on COVID-19 itself on the biosecurity situation, not just so much on the financial situation. But for example, if there was you know, a major crisis going forward that would greatly impact Americans ability to engage in economic activity or have their purchasing power, you know, close to wiped out or something. I think you would see a lot of people really beg for any policy response. Solve this crisis now, we need something and not really have people think about what is the best policy response um to this kind of crisis. People aren't going to think calmly and bring everything to the table and there isn't it's very unlikely there will be some sort of calm open public debate about it. Generally what happens is that the government says uh people are scared and emotional. They clamor for some sort of solution from the government and the government offers some sort of solution. And you know, like with COVID-19, BlackRock anticipated the next downturn about a month before the repo market started going haywire and presented to central bankers, this is the policy policy you should implement during the next downturn and it's very possible that BlackRock is working on policy papers you know, for central bankers or other people in um you know, the US government about what policy should be implemented if you know, this type of crisis happens or that type of crisis happens. It seems like they seem to be designing the policies I guess and they've you know, had you know, in the Biden administration over the past four years, you know, they've been leading his former BlackRock executives have been leading his economic team bringing us to where we are now and likely what will influencing what will happen over the next couple years whenever or up until this crisis emerges. So, it seems um you know, very likely that they'll be uh you know, dominating uh you know, fiscal response again and then people uh because they're not really aware of how this is developed or really uh you know, there's just not a lot of media coverage about you know, for example, the role of BlackRock in uh the Biden administration or in you know, on Kamala's economic team specifically. Uh I've seen very little coverage if any of that. Uh recently, maybe a few blips here and there of when those people are appointed, but nothing uh significant beyond that. And then of course, there was very little scrutiny um of US COVID fiscal response um I think as well. Um and it's just sort of written off as uh this is what the government had to do to respond to the crisis in a lot of situations, but I don't think that's necessarily true because again, um you know, that uh fiscal response uh began well before uh you know, COVID was declared a a pandemic by the World Health Organization preceding that by like several months, right? So, um I don't know. I I think it's um uh a complicated situation. It's complicated to anticipate what will exactly happen, but again, history and tends to repeat itself in these cases and the fact that you have BlackRock so embedded with the Democrats specifically and also have this historical precedent with uh Trump when he was in office last time, it seems very likely that they'll be doing this again. So, I guess my role in this is to try and generate awareness so we can have a discussion before that time of crisis when people are emotional and afraid and concerned about their money um about whether we should be having BlackRock uh at the helm of this when the next crisis emerges. I would say no. Yeah. Okay, so let's ask the obvious question. Who should be in charge in that moment? Who Who do we put in charge of fiscal policy? In times of crisis or otherwise. I don't necessarily have the best uh answer to that, I guess, because I think our current system, specifically as it relates to, you know, the US Treasury Department, has consistently been a revolving door for the last several decades with Wall Street. And like, you know, like Goldman Sachs, for example, has had very significant Treasury former Goldman Sachs executives have held very prominent roles at the Treasury when crises have emerged. So, as an example, you have one of the top guys at Goldman Sachs, Robert Rubin, being a key figure in the Clinton administration's economic policy as Treasury Secretary and help helping engineer the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which creates, you know, arguably the 2008 financial crisis when George W. Bush's Secretary Treasury at the time the crisis happens is Henry Paulson, another former top guy from Goldman Sachs that allegedly told members of Congress that they didn't bail out the banks that martial law may be declared in the United States, for example. And then, when the COVID fiscal response happened, Steve Mnuchin is a former top Goldman and Sachs executive, as well. So, you and as far as, you know, the big parties, Democrat and Republican, they tend to appoint people to Treasury that come from the these top Wall Street banks that have a history of predatory and arguably criminal behavior. And so, you know, I think there needs to be a much larger um structural change, I guess, to prevent that type of revolving door policy if we're going to see any sort of meaningful fiscal response to a crisis that actually does take, you know, the needs of regular Americans into account, because historically that is not what has happened. And the people that come to Treasury tend to have the best interest of Wall Street at heart and not the best interest of regular Americans at heart. And I think, again, that's sort of a phenomenon that's not exclusive to Treasury, either. You have this type of revolving door phenomenon in really most aspects if not all um of the US government where you sort of have regulatory capture um you know of the people supposedly regulating those industries the the industries themselves tend to have put their top people at least these days you know into those major regulatory positions through this revolving door phenomena. So I think we need to find a meaningful way to stop that before we can expect that um you know major government fiscal response would be designed with the interest of regular Americans at heart with mainstream at heart and not Wall Street at heart. Okay, the question becomes how do we do that? So walk me through just so that we're not talking abstract stuff or really bringing it down to earth. What are the interests of Main Street or the average American? Well, I think regular Americans would like to stop having their money stolen from them or being misused on things where it's basically being sent to enrich multinational corporations particularly in the war industry where you have a lot of you know there's been a lot said over the past several years decades really about the military industrial complex and how a lot of the wars that US empire goes to start in other countries generates a windfall profit you. I'm going to stop you really fast just because you know this stuff so well that you'll fractal into 10 more extremely valid issues, but I want to start with you just said regular Americans want to stop their money being stolen from them. I will say I don't think the average American realizes that their money's being stolen. Whenever I bring that up I feel like I'm screaming into the void. So how exactly are Americans dollars being stolen from them? Okay, I would say it's going to things that are not actually building necessary infrastructure or or providing Americans needs. So money's being taken from from them via tax and just misspent. Yeah, I think taxpayer money has been has been people taxpayer wealth and the money brought in through taxes has been misused and essentially stolen for a very long time. If you look at the work of Catherine Austin Fitts and Mark Skidmore, for example, they um noted that like 21 trillion dollars of US taxpayer money essentially was stolen and they can't really explain what happened to it. So you know, that alone is very significant. Let me ask is taxation in and of itself theft? Um I mean, I I think under the current system because you know, if if anyone's familiar with my work and my books, for example, I sort of argue that our government has been overtaken by this network of organized crime and intelligence agencies that have essentially fused their operations and did so in the immediate post-World War II era and I think financing their operations when they're at the helm is not good and and that the fact that our money is is being taken from us ostensibly to provide services to us and if you believe in the development agenda abroad, the rest of the world, but we know if you look into it that that's not actually what is happening. This money is being used to benefit this particular group that has taken control of our institutions and is very corrupt. I think in that case, yes, it's not it's not good at all. In an ideal system, you know, perhaps I'd have a different opinion, but that's not the system we have as it is right now. So I think you know, in this situation, we need to really look at how our taxpayer money is being spent, and a lot of it is spent on um weapons. A lot of the of it is being sent to other countries with no, you know, uh stipulations on how that money is used, no oversight. Uh an insane amount of money was spent on {quote} {unquote} nation-building during the war on terror in Afghanistan and and Iraq, for example, with really nothing to show for it. Um and arguably, and and some people have really effectively argued that it was really a money-laundering operation at the end of the day. A way to sort of take taxpayer money and then have it, you know, go to the hands of these contractors and other entities, and it ends up elsewhere with nothing to show for it um in in these particular um situations. And I think there's plenty of waste and plenty of examples um also in the US domestically, where contractors have been given taxpayer money to do things, and they don't actually uh do the things that they're supposed to do, and there's really very little accountability for those things when they happen uh because a lot of people aren't really um aware or really follow up on where their taxpayer money um is going, and there's a lot of trust uh that I think people have uh placed in congressional representatives that they're going to do that due diligence for them, but um most people in Congress are multi-millionaires who are funded by billionaires and multi-billionaires, and tend to have the interests of those people at heart, and not exactly uh you know, the regular Americans uh who are in a very different economic situation uh situation than them uh at heart. And so, I think also, you know, over the past several decades, we've also had the situation of uh you know, outsourcing our our industry, you know, to other countries beginning during uh or really not exactly sure where to pinpoint it, but, you know, several decades ago, um and that has also obviously had a major impact on uh on the United States as well. And I think there's a major effort um from the Silicon Valley crowd, oligarchs of which fund both parties, to sort of um onboard, I guess you could say, the American people onto sort of this new system that's coming into place where it's sort of very focused on or this basic I guess sort of this coming together of digital IDs, digital wallets, UBI, a lot of these things are sort of being slowly developed and um sort of like promoted to people, but I think ultimately, you know, um you would only have that type of situation where UBI is necessary. I just want to make sure that we we go point by point right now. Okay, so all of that makes sense to me, but I want to go back cuz when I think about what the interests of the average American are, it's I want to be able to take care of my family. I want things to come in at a reasonable cost. I want to be able to save for the future. I want to leave something for my kids, and I want to make sure that my kids have a better future than I have. I feel like if you have that for the vast majority of any nation, I literally think it's completely agnostic. I think that's just what humans crave. If if you have that for people, you will have a healthy, thriving society. Um assuming we're in agreement with all of that, even if you're BlackRock and you're super greedy, it does not make sense to hollow out the middle class because eventually, as history teaches us, they come for you. And when they come for you, they come with pitchforks and guillotines, and it it's not a good look. So, what is it about this moment where the elite are so deranged that they are from where I'm sitting playing with fire. Do they just think that we're so stupid that we'll never rebel? Are they counting on this time will be different cuz they have more control? I don't I don't understand why they would do this. Yeah, it's hard to know exactly why, but I think it's important to say that I um at least in my opinion, I think where the powers that be, however you want to define that, um are taking people is essentially leading us to some sort of two-tier society where there is really no need for a middle class, and it's really more accurately accurately described as like a neo-feudal uh style society where you have a large underclass managed by sort of this more elite group uh that would do the managing, and I think it really falls under um what some people have referred to as technocracy, a sort of this idea of more of like a scientific uh dictatorship. Um and there's actually this prominent um figure from the Club of Rome, a Dennis Meadows, and the Club of Rome is uh an entity that has a very intertwined history with groups that have become infamous over the past several years like the World Economic Forum, for example. Um but Dennis Meadows essentially said something to the effect that, you know, for the good of people and the planet and the economy, and in his words, um that it was going to be necessary to either reduce the world's population so that people could have freedom and use resources the way they want, or that uh there would have to be a scientific dictatorship imposed on 8 billion or 7 billion people in order to to ensure uh accurate allocation of resources and all of this stuff by a educated technocratic scientific elite. And there are some thinkers in Silicon Valley, like Eric Schmidt, for example, who wrote a book on AI with Henry Kissinger, that essentially say that there's going to be this sort of future brought to us by AI um where there will be the class of people that understand how AI works that program and maintain it and then there will be this underclass really. They don't say underclass but I I would say that of people who AI acts upon who can't understand what AI is doing to them and eventually because of their dependence on AI will become cognitively diminished and mentally unable essentially to make decisions from their for their for themselves without AI's help and there's a lot of other indications I would argue whether it's UBI which again is going to be for not I don't think you know the top oligarchs in Silicon Valley like Bill Gates and and Reed Hoffman and and Peter Thiel are going to be receiving UBI. I think it's intended to be for um other people that aren't necessarily in that economic tier. I think it's very likely you're going to see if these people succeed in their designs you are really more of a two-tier society without any sort of need for a middle class. And so I think that's part of why um it's been happening and I think you know as to why they might be playing with fire. I think perhaps they're confident that they have a lot more that there's it's much easier to manipulate people now than perhaps in times past. For example there was a 2014 research study that was funded by the US Air Force that was about try using social studying how to use social media to control people like drones which I think is a very disturbing research proposal in and of itself but basically basically this idea that you could use social media networks by tailoring what information people see and don't see down to the individual based on data mined about them off of the internet and then analyzed by by um various algorithms to basically you know essentially mind control people and you know in the world world in the words I guess of that Air Force proposal and, you know, other militaries around the world have spent millions upon millions of dollars over the past decade plus researching how to manipulate people on social media platforms. So, I think it's very possible that they think they they can manage it since a lot of, you know, discourse has become increasingly online and that, you know, they can really alter how people perceive reality to unprecedented degrees. And another thing that's brought up in this book by Schmidt and Kissinger talks about you know, eventually people won't be able to know what's real and what's not. You know, either pointing to things like AI deep fakes and things like that. But, you know, what if these deep fakes are wielded by the state to manipulate people? And what if we're led to believe that things happened when they didn't happen? You know, this can be the a lot of the fear-mongering about deep fakes is when it's in the hands of, you know, an alleged cybercriminal or someone like that. But, you know, uh there's states around the world that have an arsenal of these digital weapons that are meant to manipulate us in in our our perception of reality and what's real. And if you can, you know, use AI or other means to control how people perceive reality, you can control their behavior and a lot of other things. So, I think um I think they're confident in that and obviously there's probably other things that I'm leaving out, but that's, you know, sort of what comes to mind at least at first for me when in regards to that question. Is that all? Uh one of my notes is this is dark. This is very dark. Let me so that I can get a barometer on your world view. Let me ask you which of the following scenarios would be better. AI comes into existence. It has what from our perspective is god-like intellect. It really does know where best to allocate resources to people to maximize human flourishing. But, you have to completely submit to the algorithm. Okay? So, human flourishing maximized, yay, but you have no autonomy, you do what the algorithm tells you to do. Or the sort of messiness of the human experience, freedom first, you have every right to make stupid and self-destructive decisions. But you don't get to take advantage, obviously, of the algorithm's brilliance. Which of those two would be better? Um, yeah, I am definitely human first uh in in that when when you put it like in in these two uh you know, specific situations. Um, I think um, it's kind of dangerous for all of us to or all of us a lot of us to outsource our creative ability to AI, have AI create for us uh because essentially when you're um not performing those activities yourselves, it sort of um falls under if you don't use it, you lose it paradigm. So, like a lot of us don't really do mental math anymore because we all most people have a calculator in their smartphone, for example. And so, you know, you don't use that ability, eventually you lose it. So, what happens if AI becomes, you know, um the main generator of creative content and people forget how to make art because they haven't done it in so long and things like that. Um, I think it's possible. I know there's uh people I've talking to um who I think are very intelligent that argue for sort of a middle scenario between the two you pointed out. I personally tend to fall in a more sort of like I I prefer prefer the analog uh future to a purely digital future uh personally. But I think there's a way to do it where we don't really have uh this situation where the AI algorithm is running our lives and we don't have any agency anymore. Um, I think that's very dangerous and I think also there's been a lot of hype um about AI and its ability to reach that sort of god-like intellect level. I think it's very possible that you could have that essentially faked by some entity and they could claim that, which has happened in the past. Uh you had a Google engineer or perhaps ex-Google engineer a few years ago um attempt to say that a chatbot that he was working with was sentient uh and it was not. So, there's the possibility that someone could come out with that story and if it was widely adopted and enough people said it was, it could be believed to be so and wouldn't actually be that. And in that type of scenario, I think that's dangerous because it sort of gives this Wizard of Oz functionality, for example, to the government. Uh we made this policy, you hate it and uh we but the computer said so so that's why we did it. You know, it's the computer's fault, it's not our fault. It's a way to sort of offshore responsibility onto the algorithm and away from uh the people at the top. Um and uh I don't really think that's uh the way to go personally. But, I'm not trying to say like eliminate AI and don't use it. I personally am not into it, but I have uh a lot of friends that are um and so I'm not trying to be like that negative about it in that sense, but I also think this whole idea that we should uh surrender ourselves to the algorithm cuz it's so much more intelligent than us, which is sort of implicit in that Eric Schmidt-Kissinger book. Um yeah, I definitely don't agree with that at all because I think humans should not surrender their agency and I think it's sort of um i- in that scenario I sort of just laid out if it's overhyped and it's claimed that it reached that, you know, people could surrender their agency to something that isn't actually uh possessing this god-like superintelligence um and but have just been told it is. And I think, you know, that that potentially could be very dangerous. If you liked that clip, check out the full powerful episode here and I'll see you there.