Whitney Webb on Jimmy Dore—watch while it is still available, plus my view.

Please watch it in full. When I want to transcribe important information, I literally have to transcribe the whole thing, and it was too long, so I had to remove very important information. I highly recommend that you watch the entire video — it is very important to listen to. It’s still a long post, but here you have a fragment that mentions recent strange events and compares them to Gladio.

30:23

“The clip you referenced seems different from the one I was commenting on. In the one I referred to, during the same Rogan interview, Musk parrots a narrative presented by a guest on his show, Sarah Adams—a former CIA targeting officer (though it’s hard to know how “former” such individuals really are). She echoed the narrative that the porous southern border has allowed Al-Qaeda operatives to enter the US and establish sleeper cells.

This narrative isn’t exclusive to the Biden administration. It’s not like Trump sealed the border during his term; decades of this have occurred under both Republican and Democratic leadership. The idea that Al-Qaeda is taking advantage of this to attack “because they hate us for our freedom” is frustrating, especially for those who’ve researched the national security state and foreign wars.

Al-Qaeda is, without question, a creation of intelligence services, particularly the US. There’s also likely involvement from Israel and the United Kingdom—essentially, the great triumvirate of intelligence operations. This narrative about sleeper cells conveniently serves as a way to justify certain policies.

For years, efforts have been underway to transition from the “War on Terror” abroad to a “War on Domestic Terror.” These plans trace back to the Bush-era neocons and have been expanded under every administration since 9/11, including Trump’s. The infrastructure for this has grown significantly and now defines domestic terrorists in troublingly vague terms.

Under the Biden administration, domestic terrorists include those who oppose government overreach or even forms of capitalism. This could include crony capitalism, stakeholder capitalism, or simply disliking the current economic system. The definitions are so broad that virtually anyone could end up on the “naughty list.”

During the Trump administration, the groundwork was laid for predictive policing—essentially pre-crime infrastructure. William Barr, as Attorney General, made this official US government policy. This wasn’t reversed by Biden, and there’s no indication that a future Trump administration would reverse it either, despite public opposition to Barr.

The “War on Domestic Terror” requires incidents of domestic terror to manufacture consent—just as the “War on Terror” abroad needed an initial attack to justify foreign intervention. This is where Gladio-style tactics come into play.

Operation Gladio, briefly, involved the CIA staging terror attacks in Europe to prevent governments from electing leaders deemed sympathetic to communism (e.g., Russia). These attacks were falsely blamed on leftist groups to push European governments and voters toward the political right.

The manipulation extended beyond elections. Intelligence services in Europe used these attacks to justify importing tactics from Operation Condor—a CIA-run campaign in South America involving military dictatorships and brutal suppression of dissent. In Europe, these attacks were used as justification for further authoritarian policies while creating the fear they needed to manipulate democratic outcomes.

Operation Gladio wasn’t just the CIA. It involved organized crime, the Vatican, and groups like the P2 Lodge in Italy—a Freemason-linked shadow government. These groups collaborated to manipulate public sentiment and push voters toward fascist-leaning outcomes, exploiting terror to achieve their goals.”

Regarding Gladio, almost no one knows about it. Here are a few videos that I highly recommend, which explain it:

42:22

“The idea of politicians presenting themselves as anti-establishment is far from new. Nixon and Agnew did so decades ago, though it was arguably more rhetorical than substantive. Today, some of the same figures who criticize the FBI and CIA as deeply corrupt are paradoxically asking the public to trust those agencies when it comes to the motives and identities behind recent attacks.

These figures also promote the idea that the U.S. is infiltrated by Al-Qaeda operatives poised to bring chaos in 2025. Oddly, many of them once argued that Al-Qaeda and ISIS were creations of the U.S. government, either directly or indirectly. This kind of narrative flip is a hallmark of effective narrative management.

Al-Qaeda is undeniably a U.S. creation, and fear of future attacks is likely to be used to justify a techno-tyranny. Citizens will be told that digital IDs, digital surveillance money, predictive policing, and big data-driven pre-crime systems are necessary to stop terror attacks. The real danger lies in how many people may fall for this narrative.

It’s crucial not to give in to fear or to consent to these measures. Digital IDs and similar technologies will only gain traction if people voluntarily comply and adopt them. Remaining skeptical and critical is key to preserving personal and collective freedoms.”

This is exactly what I am afraid of and what I want to warn people about. In the case of Whitney Webb, I have very similar views, so I don’t need to add much to what she says because it’s exactly the same as what I want to say.

4:04

“Terrifying possibilities arise when power is concentrated in the hands of intelligence-linked billionaires or corporate entities with access to advanced technology. During crises like COVID-19, we saw the rollout of policies like vaccine passports, which seemed less about public health and more like a trial run for broader digital ID infrastructure. Predictive policing technologies, such as those developed by Palantir, have also been tested in marginalized communities and even repurposed during the pandemic for vaccine distribution.

The shift toward digital IDs, biometric tracking, and predictive algorithms appears to be accelerating under different guises, whether addressing immigration, crime, or terrorism. For example, the concept of biometric entry-exit tracking, advocated by figures like Trump, ties into a larger agenda involving digital surveillance at every level of society. Initiatives like TSA’s biometric systems and private companies such as Clear normalize these practices under the guise of convenience or security.

Globally, the push aligns with frameworks like Interpol’s Global Policing Goals, which advocate for worldwide adoption of these systems. If narratives about sleeper cells or terrorism escalate, they could serve as a pretext to further restrict liberties. Fear is often used to justify surveillance measures like digital currency systems or pre-crime algorithms, sold as solutions to prevent terrorism or other threats.

Ultimately, these trends lead toward a “Fourth Industrial Revolution” where AI dominates decision-making, and society moves closer to a post-human future governed by tech oligarchs. It’s important to remain skeptical, resist fear-driven compliance, and critically examine the policies being marketed as solutions to crises.”

52:32

“Speaking of Trump, Donald Trump recently called on the CIA to act to stabilize the country in the wake of these New Year’s Eve terror attacks. This is a broad question, but was Trump ever a target of the deep state, and do you believe the intelligence services were behind the attempts on his life over the summer?

I didn’t pay very close attention to the exact narratives and anomalies with the Trump assassination attempts, but I noticed that before they started, there was a lack of enthusiasm among Trump’s base. People still remembered what had happened the first time around and weren’t necessarily as enthusiastic because he proved himself the first time around not to be the anti-establishment maverick he sold himself as. But the assassination attempts, whether you believe they were authentic or not, ultimately convinced people that Trump is indeed anti-establishment.

You have people like former CIA Director under Obama, John Brennan, saying, “Actually, Trump is doing some good stuff,” and others implying that the deep state was supposedly after Trump. But then, when you consider subsequent events after his election victory, it’s hard to believe in the omnipotence of the “deep state.” People speculate that the al-Qaeda narrative and other events were designed to complicate Trump’s foreign policy plans before he entered office. The use of al-Qaeda as a CIA boogeyman often aligns U.S. foreign policy interests with Israel’s regional interests.

The October 7th-style attacks and the conflation of ISIS with Palestine also have the markings of a strategy to build support for a new military presence in the Middle East. If Trump pursues that, it’s likely they will wind down Ukraine, just as Afghanistan was wound down before Ukraine was prioritized. They would redirect resources to the Middle East, but they first need to energize Trump’s base, which is tired of foreign wars. This would require manufacturing support for such a war. It feels more like a setup for future policies rather than an attempt to derail an agenda. Notably, Trump’s secretary of defense nominee is an advocate of extreme policies, including the destruction of the Al-Aqsa Mosque for a Third Temple—a stance shared by certain extremists in Netanyahu’s cabinet.

Trump’s foreign policy appointments don’t suggest a departure from neoconservative agendas. Rather, the rhetoric and events around him seem to benefit his policy goals rather than undermine them. To the question of whether the deep state was ever truly after him, I have some thoughts about Trump’s background that might help explain this.

Trump was bailed out by Rothschild Inc., a Wall Street branch of the Rothschild banking dynasty. This bailout was orchestrated by Wilbur Ross, who later became Trump’s commerce secretary, in what seemed to be a favor repaid. The Rothschild Inc. bankers justified the bailout by saying the Trump name itself was an asset. This was despite Trump’s connections to figures like Roy Cohn, his mentor, who was part of an organized crime milieu with significant political influence.

Trump’s connections to Israeli interests are notable. For example, Sheldon Adelson wielded considerable influence over Trump’s foreign policy during his first term. Adelson’s replacement of H.R. McMaster with John Bolton demonstrates this. Trump’s appointees and policy decisions reflect alignment with specific organized crime-linked interests that bridge the U.S. and Israel.

Jeffrey Epstein’s black book, published years ago, also provides some context. Epstein’s butler annotated the book, marking names involved in his operations, and Trump’s name was among those circled. This connection hasn’t been widely discussed. While Trump and Epstein reportedly severed ties over a real estate dispute in the mid-2000s, their close relationship in the 1980s and 1990s suggests deeper ties. Epstein, along with Ghislaine Maxwell, allegedly introduced Trump to Melania and had connections to Trump’s former girlfriend as well.

It’s important to consider that Epstein didn’t just exploit underage girls but also groomed women for powerful men, sometimes arranging marriages. This raises questions about whether Trump, among others, was compromised or controlled. His dependence on figures like Wilbur Ross and Sheldon Adelson suggests a level of indebtedness to the interests they represent.

In conclusion, Trump’s trajectory and policies seem more aligned with specific interest groups rather than being actively opposed by a so-called deep state. The connections between Trump, Israel, and organized crime-linked networks point to his being beholden to these groups rather than targeted by them.”

This Trump connection was also mentioned in the Eyes Wide Open episode:

33:40

“Roy Cohn was also very closely associated with and represented Donald Trump for a time. By many accounts, he was also Trump’s mentor.

Roy Cohn could be associated with giving Trump the idea for his famous Art of the Deal, as Cohn operated on an intricate system of deals and blackmail, which he learned from his mentor, a childhood friend’s father, Gene Pope Senior. Cohn was also the attorney for Francis Spellman, the Archbishop of New York and Cardinal of the Holy See, and as a reminder, one of the four powerful men in the Rosenstiel blue suite.

According to Gene Pope Junior, Cohn’s childhood friend, Cardinal Spellman was a critical power broker in mid-century New York, with Pope claiming that he had the ultimate say on who got appointed to bureaucratic roles in the city government.

Rumors also spiraled that Spellman was secretly gay. According to Cardinal Spellman’s biographer, John Cooney, the churchman’s homosexuality was essentially an open secret, with rumors of him seducing young altar boys circulating around the community and sources claiming that he had his favorite young priests. Spellman bragged about his ability to procure young boys from his diocese and would often flaunt his homosexual escapades.

His proclivity for homosexual relations was shared by his future lawyer and fellow New York power broker Roy Cohn, who was intrinsically linked to the McCarthy trials, serving as his assistant counsel.

It’s worth noting that Spellman was also very close to Hoover, who together legitimized Cohn and McCarthy’s witch trials. According to Whitney Webb, Cohn was in charge of procuring the young men at these parties, which, with his closeness to Spellman, would not be a stretch to deduce that he also had a role in this affair given his connections to young altar boys.

Anyways, I’ll let your imagination kind of put those pieces together.”

40:44

“Roy Cohn had also been caught by Susan Kaufman in bed with her then-husband, Lewis Rosenstiel, before he dragged her to the Blue Suite in 1958. She remarked that this was not normal behavior for a lawyer and his client. Cohn was also allegedly the one who procured the young men who were running around the Blue Suite as well. He was clearly at the center of this web in some way, and his continued closeness to the New York power elite, the Nixon and Reagan administrations, and future President Donald Trump would raise questions about further blackmail throughout these elite political circles.

Now that we have painted this picture and the players are all out in the open, I want to ask one final question: who is blackmailing who? I personally have two answers. Firstly, in my opinion—and this is the boring answer—it appears that the main target here is J. Edgar Hoover. His FBI largely looked the other way while the Mafia grew to a staggering level of power in the United States, and by all accounts, mobsters such as Meyer Lansky owned Hoover.

But this also raises my second answer: what if they were all blackmailing each other? Look at it this way: if each powerful member of this elite circle has dirt on each other, wouldn’t that make them all infinitely loyal to each other? One cannot be the weak link in this type of arrangement, as using the blackmail against each other ultimately compromises the blackmailer themselves.

Thus, we get into a weird situation where the blackmail is not so much active but is passive. By participating in the Blue Suite orgies, these men were binding themselves together on a common mission—in this case, I will argue, to protect organized crime and the global drug trade, two critical elements of Gladio.

As I’ve argued throughout this series, this tactic succeeded. Mob activity in the United States would continue to balloon throughout the 1950s and 1960s, especially as the FBI continued to look the other way while overwhelming evidence showed that the CIA continued to use mob elements for operations across the globe.

As we continue to unpack Gladio next time, we will see mob figures shine through as key members of the Gladio stay-behind networks. Furthermore, narcotics profits will continue to be an unaccountable funding source for Gladio operations across Europe, as will become evident in our investigation of the establishment of the French Connection and the beginning of French Gladio in the next episode.

Most importantly to the topic today, sexual blackmail continues to be a main fixture within the history of intelligence and, more specifically, within Gladio stay-behind networks.

Just as a few examples, if you want to see what I mean, let’s start with Marc Dutroux, who created a depraved network of pedophiles in 1990s Belgium that involved several high-ranking Belgian and NATO-affiliated figures. During the same period, Belgium was shaken by the Brabant attacks, which many researchers have argued have dubious ties to NATO, the CIA, and Belgian officials.

Another example is that of the Stockholm brothel. According to sources in Stockholm, Sweden—which, keep in mind, wasn’t even a NATO country—the CIA operated a honeypot brothel used to blackmail and entrap people within the Swedish underground. People affiliated with this brothel have been alleged by Olof Palme researchers to be connected to the assassination of the Prime Minister in 1986.

Finally, my favorite example—and one that my Turkish viewers will appreciate—is the case of the Susurluk car crash, where a prominent Turkish politician was in a car wreck with a high-ranking member of the fascist Turkish paramilitary group, the Gray Wolves, who have deep alleged ties to NATO, and a famous beauty queen. The Turkish deep state is infinitely complex and dense, but this small incident shows how the worlds of organized crime and NATO stay-behind organizations are tied to the larger power structure through sexual blackmail schemes.

Of course, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the Epstein case, the true depraved pinnacle of sexual blackmail.

I want to end on this point: I would argue that what was alleged to have taken place in the Blue Suite is a miniature version of what has been alleged in the Epstein case. The use of blackmail not as an active measure to get someone to do what you want, but as a passive tool to maintain cohesion across an entire network.

When people say conspiracies could never happen because there would inevitably be people who would fall out of line and either go against the conspiracy or speak out, remember that often behind these vast, seemingly endless conspiracies and networks lies a lot of dirt—and since everyone is dirty, everyone looks out for each other.”

Back to Whitney:

1:07:19

“As far as any truth you know coming about the Epstein case, if there are releases, I think they will be politically useful to the people releasing them. I don’t necessarily expect blanket releases. Why? Because I don’t think Epstein was exclusively working for Israel, though he definitely did. Just like Robert Maxwell, he had ties to multiple intelligence services, including American intelligence.

Also, many powerful people on Wall Street heavily relied on Epstein for a lot of things. A lot of my work really points to him being more of a financial terrorist than just a sex blackmailer. Sex blackmailing was secondary to the financial crimes he committed on behalf of very powerful billionaires linked to organized crime, like Leslie Wexner. There’s evidence he also did this for the Brans, which led to him being ousted from Bear Stearns in the early 1980s.

There’s also a lot of evidence that he was personally involved with the collapse of Bear Stearns in 2008, which led to a major wealth transfer benefiting people in this particular network.

To your point and the last question, one more Cabinet member you’ve been speaking about for as long as I can remember is George Soros. For the entire spectrum of the right wing—from MAGA to Mitch McConnell, Fox News to Newsmax—Soros has been enemy number one.

So I don’t understand why anyone who supports Trump or believes he’s anti-establishment didn’t realize the fix was in when he named Scott Bessent as Treasury Secretary. Bessent’s career was spent mainly at Soros’s hedge fund, where he was heavily involved in Soros’s most infamous moves.

He ran the London office, right?

Yes, and this raises the question: What does this say about Trump’s so-called Deep State dismantling agenda, appointing a Soros flunky as Treasury Secretary? Here’s what helps make sense of it: Who capitalized George Soros’s first fund back in the 60s? The Evelyn de Rothschild banking interest.

And what has Soros done most of his career? Currency speculation. That’s also what Jeffrey Epstein, Jimmy Goldsmith, and others tied to the same network did. Epstein, for instance, was deeply involved in currency speculation. Joe Lewis, who broke the British pound alongside Soros, was named by The New York Times as part of a currency trading cabal.

These currency speculators are rarely scrutinized or held accountable, even though they’ve been collapsing economies worldwide. Calls for accountability over the years have gone unanswered because the prevailing global power structure either saw no issue with it or directly benefited from it.

So, while Soros has been a convenient boogeyman, he’s certainly been involved in terrible things like financing color revolutions. But those revolutions are also financed by CIA cutouts like the National Endowment for Democracy and neocon groups who love regime change.

It’s all the same tactic—using fear to manipulate people into compliance. For example, Scott Bessent wasn’t just some minor associate of Soros. He was integral to Soros’s operations for decades, leading the family office during its most active years, including color revolution financing.

Yet conservative media, which endlessly attacks Soros, suddenly turns a blind eye when it comes to Trump’s appointments.

Trump’s Treasury Secretary pick and broader economic agenda reveal his allegiance to Wall Street. During the COVID crisis, fiscal policy under Trump handed enormous power to Larry Fink at BlackRock, who began printing money six months before the pandemic hit under the guise of COVID fiscal relief. This wealth transfer started as early as September 2019, during the repo market crisis, under the “going direct plan,” which you can research further in John Titus’s work.

Trump has deep ties to Larry Fink, who managed Trump’s personal money and whose career revolves around risk mitigation, even advocating for authoritarian governance to reduce market risk.

Trump’s transition team, led by Howard Lutnick of Cantor Fitzgerald, chose Bessent as Treasury Secretary. Lutnick himself has a joint venture with China Credit Trust, the same Chinese state-owned firm linked to Hunter Biden.

Right-wing media completely ignored these ties. Why? Because their outrage only activates when it involves Democrats or liberals. When Trump appointees show the same or closer ties to problematic entities, there’s silence.

This is why it’s critical to separate rhetoric from policy. Politicians lie, and they will always manipulate fear to achieve compliance. Both parties use the same tactics to keep people distracted and divided.

The key takeaway is to focus on actions, not words. For instance, digital ID and centralized digital currencies (CBDCs) will only work if people comply. The best way to resist is by refusing to use systems that lead to technocratic control. This isn’t about party loyalty; it’s about choosing not to sleepwalk into a dystopian system.

Fear is the most powerful tool of control. Refusing to comply and avoiding systems that feed these power structures is the best way to ensure freedom.”

I would like to write much more about it, but it’s already so long that I need to hold myself back. However, I am afraid of the ease with which they were able to ignite hatred toward Muslims in Western society. Partially because of this, I posted:

The Myth of the “Clash of Civilizations”. Edward Said (Islam, Gramsci and ideology – so how our world is created)

To quote Whitney:“The idea that Al-Qaeda is taking advantage of this to attack "because they hate us for our freedom" is frustrating, especially for those who’ve researched the national security state and foreign wars.”

We created Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and all organized crime and evil shit in this world. All of it was created and organized by Western intelligence agencies. All this nonsense — "because they hate us for our freedom," "they hate us because their culture makes them evil," "they hate us because their religion makes them evil," "they hate us because they are backwards and stupid," etc.—people actually believe in this “Clash of Civilizations” absurd narrative. Then I hear people saying, "But they teach children to kill Westerners and Christians." Yes, but did you ask yourself how such people got into power? Who created and supported them? It’s our Western intelligence organizations that make sure such people get into power. So, our oligarchs create such situations and tell you bullshit like "because they hate us for our freedom" and want you to believe it. That’s why they love religious people and churches — because now you have Christians believing they are in some kind of religious fight between good and evil, between Christians and Muslims. Now, those stupid Christians will go into Arab states and kill people thinking they are doing God's work, when in reality, they are doing the work of oligarchs who manipulated them using religion. How many of our Western soldiers joined the fight because they thought they were taking part in some kind of “Clash of Civilizations” between Christianity and Muslims, between Good and Evil? I am really terrified by the ease with which they were able to convince people about this absurdity.

I will leave you with this: