Whitney Webb

I really appreciate the shout-outs and Ian’s kind words about my book, but there are some things I don’t think were portrayed necessarily accurately about my work, both regarding Epstein and otherwise, and I think I should take the time to clarify those things. I’m not looking to cast shade on anyone with this clarification, just that I think I am the most qualified person to represent my own work and when other people do it, not on my behalf but their own, it can sometimes lead to misconceptions. My interest is ultimately in my work being accurately conveyed, particularly to large audiences. Obviously the best way to understand my book is to read it, but many who watch the Rogan podcast, for example, won’t. I would happily make these clarifications on Rogan’s platform or another platform of similar size if I ever got invited. One thing I’d like to clarify is that my books do not make the claim that “Epstein was Mossad,” the book instead argues that Epstein was an important part of a network – though arguably middle management – for a group composed of transgenerational organized crime interests (most of whom are the remnant of the Jewish mob component of the National Crime Syndicate and who promote ethno-fascist policies including via their ethnically focused philanthropy, among other activities) and major factions within both American and Israeli intelligence. They are not synonymous with either intelligence agency but arguably dominate the leadership of those intelligence agencies. Evidence for Epstein’s ties to Israeli intelligence links him with Israeli military intelligence as opposed to Mossad, which are different parts of the Israeli intelligence apparatus (For example, it would be like confusing the DIA with the CIA). However, as noted above, Epstein was ultimately working for a network that greatly influences and exerts significant control over both the US and Israel (among other places) and that network is more loyal to itself than any one nation and also involves multiple intelligence agencies. While many people do casually use Mossad as a catch-all term for Israeli intelligence, I don’t agree with that and not making the accurate distinction creates an opening for dishonest actors to discredit the work that I and others have done on this topic when not framed properly. Another thing I’d like to clarify is the implication that my historical reporting on the Epstein case is commendable, while my more current reporting on technocracy is significantly less so. My book on Epstein concludes with an entire chapter discussing how Epstein became irrelevant and thus expendable because the union of Big Tech with the intelligence apparatus, particularly those intelligence agencies most corrupted by the “Epstein network”, with a major focus on the national security contractor Palantir and its co-founder Peter Thiel. While Ian is an admitted fan of my book, the reporting on technocracy that he describes as more of a turn-off for most than my Epstein book is actually in the book on Epstein itself and is arguably the main conclusion as it related to the present, from the book. There, I note that Palantir is the privatization and recreation of a nefarious neocon project developed by top figures from the Iran-Contra scandal and how tools like it, and its Unit 8200-developed equivalents from Israel, have amassed so much information on us and can also plant false or incriminating evidence on one’s devices without their knowledge, have made the type of sex blackmail ops once practiced by Epstein and other figures mentioned in the book no longer needed or relevant. I am not sure if Ian has discussed Thiel or Palantir very much (I don’t believe he has but may be wrong on that), but a lot of my concerns about technocracy and the current administration are intimately related to both and those concerns are very well documented in One Nation Under Blackmail (which was published even before the official confirmation of Thiel-Epstein meetings). Of course, Peter Thiel’s errand boy now being Vice President of the US and the many Thiel or Palantir-adjacent figures in this administration make this not politically expedient to point out, particularly if the views you publicly propagate involve claiming that the current administration is a major departure from the Epstein network, which I argue – in my book as well as today – that it is likely not. In that same vein, I think it is important to push back as nicely as possible on Ian’s suggestion that the Erik Prince “unplugged” phone seems to be a good investment for those concerned about illegal surveillance. While Ian has since described that as an “off-handed” comment and that he hasn't researched the phone, I think both he and everyone should know the following. Prince has a close relationship with and hired the Unit 8200 alumnus and co-founder of the Epstein and Thiel-funded (and Ehud Barak-chaired) Carbyne911, which seeks to harvest as much data off of your phone as possible when you call 911 and feed the same pre-crime paradigm with that data that Palantir is also seeking to develop (Carbyne is discussed in my book as well). With this woman (her name is Lital Leshem), Prince has developed a very suspect company to funnel technology and products developed by foreign military/intelligence (in this case, Israel) to the US military, creating a loophole for acquisition of what would normally be forbidden products for the US military. In addition, the “unplugged” phone itself was also developed by Unit 8200 almuni. This is significant as Israel has an admitted policy of using companies created by “former” Unit 8200 operatives as fronts for activities Unit 8200 and Mossad once conducted “in house”. For anyone concerned about sex blackmail, Israeli intelligence espionage and/or pre-crime, stay as far away from this phone as possible. Sources for some of the points made above are contained in reporting that I published after my book came out, so I will post those links below. To conclude, I am more than happy to and very capable of representing my own work to any audience, and when other people try to represent my work instead of me, even if well-intentioned, it can lead to misconceptions about me, my work and my conclusions and I think it is well within reason for me to do my best to ensure that my work is portrayed as accurately as possible.