Catherine Austin Fitts — Using Bitcoin and Stablecoins to Expand Dollar Dominance with Whitney Webb (Digital AI, Digital Money, AI, Economic Crises, and the Americanization of Europe)

This will be a long one, but it’s very important and interesting. I previously wrote about Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) and Digital IDs, based on the work of Whitney Webb. Here, she explains how the West plans to “fix” the economy:

“In the 1990s, there was an effort to encourage hedge funds and offshore funds to balloon their balance sheets with treasuries. It was essentially a game to create large new markets for U.S. treasuries. It seems like the same strategy is now being applied with stablecoins.”

What I don’t like is that BRICS is also creating CBDCs and Digital IDs. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who believes Russia, China, and BRICS are working against our Western oligarchs is mistaken. China is not truly communist—it’s state capitalism. However, it’s still capitalism, and they are still controlled by our Western oligarchs. When China opened up to capitalism, they exposed themselves to the inherent issues of the system, which now owns them. The same applies to Russia.

Previously, I wrote about my predictions for this year, stating it could be one of the deadliest. Even if their plans for digital money and Digital IDs materialize, it doesn’t change the fact that, with AI, they no longer need as many humans. Regarding population control, as I mentioned in a previous post, the cost of energy is artificially increased. This is done to reduce the population.

Think about it—what would happen if we suddenly reduced the cost of energy by half, effectively reducing the cost of everything? Would the global population increase or decrease? They don’t control us directly, but they control money, the economy, and markets. While they can’t impose a one-child policy worldwide like in China, they can create artificial scarcity by increasing energy costs, which in turn creates scarcity in everything else.

In the past, they needed us for intellectual work, but they treated the human population like stock. Now, with AI, they don’t need as many humans. They might try to reduce the human population—not entirely, but perhaps by half. Robotics isn’t advanced enough to replace all human labor, so they can’t eliminate everyone, but they no longer need as many of us.

I’m not saying they’ll start mass executions, but since humans were once necessary, we avoided a world war. Now that they no longer need so many of us, what’s stopping them from starting one to reduce the population? Alternatively, they might create a massive economic crisis leading to starvation or unleash a deadly epidemic.

I don’t think they’ll immediately reduce the population outright, but I fear they may pursue options like a world war to achieve goals they previously couldn’t because they needed us. Now that this is no longer the case, what’s to stop them?

In the main video, their economic and control plans are explained. However, what Whitney Webb doesn’t address is how they controlled the human population before and how AI advancements mean they no longer need as many of us—which is deeply concerning.

We don’t yet have full AGI (Artificial General Intelligence), at least not publicly. But in my last post, I discussed a significant milestone. Even if AGI isn’t officially here, it’s likely already achieved behind closed doors. The result will be that they no longer need so many humans. Instead, they’ll need more server rooms and computers for their AI. Knowing this makes me extremely worried.

16:06

“It’s insane that this happens in January. As Whitney mentioned, this is a significant about-face. We see the public sector not yet stepping in, but the private sector is really taking the lead and pushing things forward. Now, Trump is turning to Truth Social, doing his thing—saying, “Hey, let’s rally this voter block and make some moves.”

Presumably, we’re now seeing what I’d say is the leading candidate for the next presidency. He’s very specifically saying there’s going to be a plan to pay off this $35 trillion debt. He even mentioned cutting a Bitcoin check—or a crypto check, as he put it—just a couple of days after his speech. That speech was essentially his coming-out party for the Bitcoin space.

Many of us paying attention know that Trump is more of a rhetoric-versus-action kind of guy. While he was in government—nicely put—he infamously tweeted that he didn’t like Bitcoin because it competes with the dollar. He said, “I like the dollar; I don’t like Bitcoin.” But what did he actually do?

He brought in Steven Mnuchin, who in turn brought in Brian Brooks, a former VP of Coinbase who had worked with him at OneWest. Brian Brooks then became the head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and issued a bulletin allowing banks to hold crypto assets. There was even a specific bulletin on stablecoins.

As Whitney mentioned, Jared Kushner was also talking to Mnuchin about potentially looking into stablecoins. The Trump administration effectively made it legal for banks to custody crypto assets. Despite Trump’s anti-Bitcoin tweets, his administration laid the groundwork for holding crypto assets—particularly stablecoins—within the U.S. regulatory framework. This is significant because the U.S. is essentially the financial system’s global regulator, and this move made it possible for major asset holders to custody Bitcoin and stablecoins.

In his recent speech, Trump continued with his rhetorical style. He said, “We’re going to ban CBDCs, (central bank digital currency)” and the crowd went wild. They loved it and were eating it up. Then, just a few sentences later, he asked, “How many people have heard of stablecoins? Raise your hand.” He talked about using stablecoins, and everyone raised their hand, signaling they understood. He framed it as a way to expand the dollar globally.

Trump has significant connections with Howard Lutnick, the CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald, which is one of the largest securities dealers. While the DTCC (Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation) handles the actual settlements, Cantor Fitzgerald is hugely important in the U.S. Treasury market, traditionally being the leading dealer.

Around 70% of U.S. Treasuries are handled by them—it’s wild. Trump also gave a speech there, and Cantor Fitzgerald holds the T-bills, or short-duration bonds, for Tether, the largest stablecoin issuer.”

27:58

“In the 1990s, there was an effort to encourage hedge funds and offshore funds to balloon their balance sheets with treasuries. It was essentially a game to create large new markets for U.S. treasuries. It seems like the same strategy is now being applied with stablecoins.

This time, it’s about balance sheets again. With the yield curve inverted due to a high inflationary environment, where purchasing value decreases by more than 2% a year, long-term bonds like 30-year treasuries are no longer attractive. There’s no reason to buy them because short-term instruments like 30-day T-bills offer higher yields—around 5.5%—compared to the much lower yields of long-term bonds.

Currently, most of the buying in the debt market involves short-duration treasuries, mainly T-bills. The fastest-growing demand for these short-duration bonds comes from stablecoin issuers, who are snapping them up at an unprecedented pace. The stablecoin market has grown close to $200 billion, with these issuers becoming significant buyers of T-bills.

When examining major creditors of the U.S., Japan and China traditionally rank first and second, alternating positions over time. China has dropped from holding $3 trillion in U.S. debt to approximately $800 billion, while Japan holds slightly over $1 trillion. Beyond foreign creditors, U.S. pension funds—retirement accounts for American workers—are the largest buyers of U.S. treasuries. Stablecoin issuers, however, are rapidly rising in influence and might soon be on par with smaller nation-states in terms of their treasury holdings.

For example, Tether’s market cap grew from $10 billion in 2020 to roughly $150 billion today. The narrative is shifting toward using stablecoins to sell U.S. treasuries globally, effectively enabling the U.S. to extend its financial dominance.

There’s significant public skepticism about central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), often viewed as overly Orwellian due to concerns about government overreach. However, the government has little interest in directly managing retail accounts. Instead, private companies like PayPal, Tether, and major banks are taking on the role of expanding digital dollars through stablecoins.

The dollar system has been digital for a long time, with private banks driving dollar creation. Stablecoins now offer a way for the U.S. Treasury to attract buyers without the overhead of managing individual accounts. Companies like PayPal can take user balances from Venmo, Xoom, or email-linked accounts and convert them into stablecoins. These stablecoins can then buy treasuries, generating a yield of 5.5%, which these companies don’t have to pass on to consumers.

This system is a highly profitable arbitrage for stablecoin issuers. They can expand dollar supply by buying more treasuries, effectively becoming a public-private partnership. However, this dynamic also grants the U.S. government leverage over stablecoin issuers. For example, if a company like Tether or Cantor Fitzgerald, which holds $100 billion in U.S. debt, wants to continue operations, they must comply with U.S. regulations. Non-compliance could result in the government restricting or ceasing their ability to purchase more treasuries.

This raises questions about custody and centralization. Major custodians like Coinbase might dominate this space, leading to a highly centralized system where most stablecoins and related assets are held in a few centralized repositories.

Although Bitcoin is often lauded as decentralized, the infrastructure around it—such as ISPs, data centers, chip manufacturers, and energy providers—is becoming increasingly centralized. For instance, internet service providers and companies like Facebook, Amazon, and Google are consolidating control by laying fiber optic cables worldwide and acquiring smaller ISPs. Facebook, for example, is developing infrastructure across Africa, wrapping the continent in fiber optic cables to control its digital infrastructure.”

34:56

“Over the past month, it’s become increasingly clear that while many claim Trump opposes central financial control and CBDCs, he is actively promoting digital ID systems. These are being framed as solutions to issues like immigration and, to some extent, election fraud, though immigration has become the primary focus.

During his first term in office, Trump became the only U.S. president to issue an executive order advancing the biometric entry-exit tracking system for both American citizens and noncitizens entering and leaving the country. This system was initially part of the Patriot Act policy framework. Under Trump, significant advancements were made, and he has made it clear that he plans to push it further if given the opportunity.

A key component of this agenda is the so-called “smart wall” on the U.S.-Mexico border. In his first term, Trump abandoned his initial pledge for a physical border wall and embraced the idea of a smart wall. This concept had previously been the Democrats’ alternative to a physical barrier, demonstrating its bipartisan nature. Many of its strongest supporters in Congress share a common background as former CIA analysts.

Peter Thiel’s company has a significant role in the development of the smart wall. A Thiel-funded company, Anduril, was co-founded by Trey Stevens, a key figure at Thiel’s Founders Fund, and Palmer Luckey, a Thiel Fellow best known for creating the Oculus Rift virtual reality system, which was sold to Facebook. Thiel has longstanding ties to Facebook, having been instrumental in its rise and serving on its board during the Oculus acquisition.

Anduril, established during the Trump administration, produces the virtual border wall as well as autonomous drones currently being used in Ukraine. These drones interface with Clearview AI, another Thiel-linked company. Clearview AI has developed a comprehensive facial recognition database by scraping images from platforms like Facebook. The company has boasted about its ability to help law enforcement identify individuals, such as those present at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

These companies operate as defense and surveillance entities, functioning as “honeypots” that centralize power under the guise of national security and control. While Anduril publicly aligns with an “America First” narrative and appeals to pro-Western and pro-military sentiments, it is a bipartisan player. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have awarded it substantial contracts. For example, Anduril has praised the Biden administration while maintaining visible ties to Trump’s political sphere. This bipartisan support ensures their continued success, regardless of who holds power in Washington.

The push for a biometric surveillance state has become a bipartisan effort, with both sides leveraging the narrative to advance these systems. Notably, the right, which was strongly opposed to such measures during the COVID era, has now embraced technologies like smart walls, drones with facial recognition capabilities, and digital IDs. These systems are being framed as necessary tools to combat what is described as an “invasion” at the border.

However, the implications of these measures extend beyond the border. For example, enforcing mass deportation would require scanning everyone and everything, leading to the normalization of widespread biometric surveillance.

Over the past month, it’s become increasingly clear that while many claim Trump opposes central financial control and CBDCs, he is actively promoting digital ID systems. These are being framed as solutions to issues like immigration and, to some extent, election fraud, though immigration has become the primary focus.

During his first term in office, Trump became the only U.S. president to issue an executive order advancing the biometric entry-exit tracking system for both American citizens and noncitizens entering and leaving the country. This system was initially part of the Patriot Act policy framework. Under Trump, significant advancements were made, and he has made it clear that he plans to push it further if given the opportunity.

A key component of this agenda is the so-called “smart wall” on the U.S.-Mexico border. In his first term, Trump abandoned his initial pledge for a physical border wall and embraced the idea of a smart wall. This concept had previously been the Democrats’ alternative to a physical barrier, demonstrating its bipartisan nature. Many of its strongest supporters in Congress share a common background as former CIA analysts.

Peter Thiel’s company has a significant role in the development of the smart wall. A Thiel-funded company, Anduril, was co-founded by Trey Stevens, a key figure at Thiel’s Founders Fund, and Palmer Luckey, a Thiel Fellow best known for creating the Oculus Rift virtual reality system, which was sold to Facebook. Thiel has longstanding ties to Facebook, having been instrumental in its rise and serving on its board during the Oculus acquisition.

Anduril, established during the Trump administration, produces the virtual border wall as well as autonomous drones currently being used in Ukraine. These drones interface with Clearview AI, another Thiel-linked company. Clearview AI has developed a comprehensive facial recognition database by scraping images from platforms like Facebook. The company has boasted about its ability to help law enforcement identify individuals, such as those present at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

These companies operate as defense and surveillance entities, functioning as “honeypots” that centralize power under the guise of national security and control. While Anduril publicly aligns with an “America First” narrative and appeals to pro-Western and pro-military sentiments, it is a bipartisan player. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have awarded it substantial contracts. For example, Anduril has praised the Biden administration while maintaining visible ties to Trump’s political sphere. This bipartisan support ensures their continued success, regardless of who holds power in Washington.

The push for a biometric surveillance state has become a bipartisan effort, with both sides leveraging the narrative to advance these systems. Notably, the right, which was strongly opposed to such measures during the COVID era, has now embraced technologies like smart walls, drones with facial recognition capabilities, and digital IDs. These systems are being framed as necessary tools to combat what is described as an “invasion” at the border.

However, the implications of these measures extend beyond the border. For example, enforcing mass deportation would require scanning everyone and everything, leading to the normalization of widespread biometric surveillance.”

50:04

“I need to bring this back to Israel because Israel has been a significant player in the development of Bitcoin, in Trump’s life, in Congress’s decisions, and in the lives of RFK and the current administration. Israel has long aimed to be a leader in IT infrastructure for digital money and cybersecurity.

I would argue that this ambition goes much deeper than simply wanting to dominate fintech; it’s about being at the core of global technological power. This has been a central agenda for Netanyahu throughout his decades-long tenure as Prime Minister, despite some intermittent breaks in his leadership. His policies have consistently aimed to make cyber capabilities a key avenue for Israel to exert global influence.

This is particularly concerning given Israel’s history of backdooring technology products. Since 2012, under Netanyahu, Israel has openly used cybersecurity companies and other tech firms to carry out projects for Mossad and other intelligence agencies. These projects were previously conducted in-house. As a result, much of the Israeli tech and cybersecurity sector effectively functions as a front for Israeli intelligence operations.

This has significant implications when considering financial surveillance, database management, and the profiling of individuals. For instance, just recently, it was reported that anyone wishing to market on Twitter must send their biometric data to an Israeli company. This highlights the extensive reach of these Israeli-linked entities.

Elon Musk’s involvement also raises questions, particularly with projects like Neuralink. For many, the idea of being linked to satellites or biometric systems through such technology is deeply uncomfortable. Conservatives, especially, should recognize that if Trump is advocating for a digital ID system, there is a strong likelihood that it could be operated through Israeli IT infrastructure.

When considering the integration of Bitcoin into a dollar-based system, numerous security measures are necessary to safeguard cryptographic keys. However, Israel’s intelligence agencies, with their history of backdooring software and hardware, complicate this effort. These agencies control critical elements of IT infrastructure, such as ISPs, chip manufacturing, software, and network equipment, including switches.

The broader question then becomes: how can other nations compete with the U.S. and Israeli dominance in these sectors? If the U.S. were to inflate gold or Bitcoin to unprecedented levels, the financial gains would be controlled by those already in power, leaving others to grapple with the realities of hardware and software vulnerabilities.

In the Bitcoin space, for instance, there has been a noticeable co-opting by politicians and Wall Street. This has diluted its revolutionary potential. While Bitcoin’s value could be inflated to benefit the U.S. financially, the infrastructure backing Bitcoin ensures that any nation-state attempting to compete would face significant hurdles, particularly those tied to Israeli and U.S. technological dominance.

Israeli intelligence plays a particularly intriguing role in this context. By establishing systems capable of seizing or controlling assets, they can selectively determine who benefits financially. This selective control amplifies their influence on global financial systems.

It’s also important to consider the broader implications of U.S. agencies like the FBI working in collaboration with platforms such as Tether. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which has strong ties to the Israeli government, often influences FBI metrics regarding hate speech or other vague criteria. Historically, the ADL has been funded by figures such as Leslie Wexner, connected to the Epstein scandal, and the Bronfman family, with ties to the NXIVM scandal and organized crime. These power structures extend their influence internationally, including in Canadian politics through figures like Justin Trudeau.”

58:11

“We were discussing this the other day: who really built the Federal Reserve? It was the infrastructure providers and bankers—Morgan, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, and the railroads—coming together with Wall Street. They created the Fed. So, who is going to make the new Fed? It will be the people dominating the infrastructure: the issuers, the entities running Ethereum and Bitcoin, the companies holding Bitcoin, and those owning the associated infrastructure.

Central bankers might believe they still have ultimate control, but the reality is shifting. In the U.S., as in other countries, the Federal Reserve is owned by private entities. The eventual move seems to be eliminating central banks in places like Argentina under Javier Milei or possibly in the U.S. under Trump. Many libertarians cheer this development, but the critical question is: what will replace the central banks? The answer might be something worse—a different type of private bank with even less oversight.

If the private forces controlling the Federal Reserve could bypass existing “red tape,” they would have unfettered control over the money supply. This aligns with ambitions openly stated by figures like Peter Thiel, who advocate for removing the state from money issuance and handing control to private entities. This would result in a system of “warlord central banking” or cartel banking.

Their strategy appears to involve a phase-shift dialectic. They present central banks as inherently flawed and then offer a “solution” that is arguably worse. For instance, Milei speaks at Davos to a room full of billionaires, promoting free markets. Of course, billionaires cheer—after having plundered the world, printed trillions, and bought up assets, they now own the infrastructure for everything: wheat, oil, the internet, and more.

In this scenario, many support dismantling the central bank and dollarizing economies, allowing foreign entities to dominate critical sectors. They advocate selling lithium and land rights, pushing toward commodity-backed coins instead of treasury-backed stablecoins. Once they’ve amassed the wealth, they shift to a deflationary system to consolidate their position.

This is the dialectic they’ve created: public institutions are vilified, while the private sector is elevated. Figures like Tucker Carlson criticize the CIA, yet entities like Palantir, Citigroup, and private sector players remain unchecked. The public sector is being demolished to shift control entirely to the private sector.

It’s important to remember that the current mode of governance is a public-private partnership. This transition is not about decentralization but about consolidating power in fewer private hands. Ironically, while the Federal Reserve system has a degree of decentralization with multiple banks, the emerging model—dominated by entities like Paxos, PayPal, and Tether—might be even more centralized. Custodians like BNY Mellon will still control much of the infrastructure, making this system even less transparent and accountable.”

1:15:59

“What Bitcoin is—that’s what the decentralized revolution is all about. It’s about digitalizing the dollar, tokenizing treasuries, and spreading them across the world. That’s what it’s all about. But what an accomplishment it is to make a US Treasury fashionable again. You have to admit it—it’s quite a marketing achievement. It’s impressive.

It is kind of astounding how, for so long, the marketing of Bitcoin has been centered on stopping irresponsible fiscal policy and preventing hyperinflation. And now, it’s being used to enable all of those things on unprecedented levels.

I felt, while watching 2024, that I was witnessing a fusion of the disassembly of federal credit with the Howdy Doody show—the How Letnik show.”

The narrative that Whitney Webb discusses about the government being bad aligns well with what I wrote regarding Europe. Whitney even mentioned that they intentionally created the migrant crisis in the US, giving them an argument for implementing digital IDs. I argued that the same thing happened in Europe. They destroyed Libya and Syria, creating a migrant crisis intentionally, so they could use these crises, which they designed, to achieve their long-term goals.

These misguided ideas, such as the one in Argentina with Javier Milei, are similar to those of Marine Le Pen and the AfD in Europe. It’s ironic how no socialist or leftist movements acknowledge the migrant crisis. If you recognize the crisis and acknowledge it, you’re often forced to align with right-wing economic ideas.

I previously wrote that, in Europe, structural changes are preceded by crises. The party that acknowledges these crises—created intentionally—is also the party that introduces the structural changes desired by the elites. The migrant crisis wasn’t caused by communists—it was engineered by global capitalists. These crises are then exploited to introduce right-wing policies, dismantle social welfare systems, and increase the profits of globalists.

All this talk of communism being the problem is a distraction. What’s happening now is the result of global capitalism. These global capitalists want you to believe it’s the fault of communism or socialism, discrediting these systems and shifting blame away from themselves. I’ve written before that their ultimate goal is to bring Thatcher- and Reagan-style policies to the EU—to dismantle social welfare systems, privatize, and deregulate everything.

After all, the free market is portrayed as a miracle solution. According to this narrative, everything wrong in the world is due to imaginary communism or socialism. So, they advocate removing labor regulations, scrapping other regulations, and privatizing everything because “the free market will fix it all.”

Their real aim is to make the EU as profitable for oligarchs as the US. This includes proposals like privatizing healthcare or even the prison system, ignoring the consequences of similar actions in America. Just compare the standard of living in Europe with that of the US. If you’re an oligarch, the US is better. But for the average person, Europe is far superior.

Since the world is run by a global capitalist oligarchy—not some imaginary communists—they want to Americanize Europe, making it more profitable for themselves.

The most ironic part is that people don’t understand this. They are, quite literally, asking for Europe to be Americanized, which will ultimately work against their own interests. This is what they want in Europe:

Gonna need a minute to recover from that one #shorts

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

They want to Americanize Europe, so they aim to increase military spending, raise the incarceration rate, and increase the number of people who believe in angels. This is the agenda of the right wing in Europe, and people actually cheer for it.

None of this is your fault, but you, nonetheless, are without a doubt, a member of the WORST-period-GENERATION-period-EVER-period. So when you say that Communism and Socialism is a problem in Europe, I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.