Project Veritas Warns: 'Pfizer, Stay Tuned!'





Liz discusses the concept of institutional capture and its implications in the United States. Institutional capture refers to the situation where experts who control various institutions such as government agencies, political organizations, and private institutions present themselves as altruistic but are actually corrupted by ideology and financial interests. Liz argues that these experts, who follow a neo-Marxist ideology, use technocracy to socially engineer society, making it easier for them to rule by science and technology instead of individual people’s decisions and values.

Liz gives examples of institutions that she believes are captured, including the Department of Justice, FBI, Department of Education, and teachers’ unions, among others. She argues that these institutions have been infiltrated by radical leftists who seek to control people’s lives through ideology, financial interests, and manipulation. Liz advises viewers to adopt a skeptical mindset and not blindly trust experts, but instead to always require verification and to question what experts say.

Liz then talks about the case of Jennifer Seibel Newsom, the wife of California Governor Gavin Newsom, who is accused of pushing radical gender ideology in schools through her non-profit organization, The Representation Project. Since 2012, Newsom’s group has reportedly charged schools an average of $270 to stream these films. Liz believes that Newsom is one of the faces behind the institutional capture of the school system and that her organization is using films to indoctrinate youth into radical gender ideology.

Finally, Liz talks about how some high-profile Democrats, such as NBA star Steph Curry, are hypocritical in their support of political policies. Curry is pushing for socialism and income redistribution while living in a mansion and being one of the wealthiest individuals in the United States. Curry is also opposed to government-sponsored, subsidized low-income housing to be built within viewing distance of his mansion in California. Liz believes that Curry’s actions are an example of technocracy, where the experts and the ruling class are not nameless and faceless, but real people who are captured by ideology and financial interests.

Liz ends the episode by mentioning Project Veritas’s recent expose on Pfizer and how it shows that experts and institutions are not always trustworthy. She encourages viewers to adopt a skeptical mindset and to question what experts say, as they may be influenced by ideology and financial interests.

Show Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain typos, mistakes, and/or incomplete information.

Hi guys, welcome to The Liz Wheeler Show. So last Friday, we had a discussion about our institutions being captured in this nation, or institutional capture. What that means, it means that the “experts” that populate and control our institutions, some of them governmental institutions like the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Department of Education, the agencies of the Executive Branch, some of them political but some of them non-political or quasi-political, some of them private institutions like the teachers unions, and the education system itself, the medical industry, the American Academy of Pediatrics, a lot of these official organizations that present themselves as being experts, they try to direct our lives and control our lives, and they present that control or that direction as being altruistic.  

You know, we have science-based evidence for you, we know what’s best, this is our field of study, we can show you and guide you and teach you and be the experts in this field when you are not the experts in this field. And we talked about last week how our institutions have been captured by radical leftists, and not just radical leftists, but by those who embrace a neo-Marxist ideology, and the official word for the goal of  institutional capture is technocracy.  

Technocracy is very simply defined as rule by the experts, and it’s a stepping stone essentially from a from a free-market society, or a free society, to a socialist, communist, Marxist or collectivist society, and technocracy is the stepping stone which socially engineers a society so that it is ruled by experts, by “technology,” by “science” instead of just by people’s decision, their choice, and their own minds, their values as individual people. 

So we talked a little bit about technocracy and how this can be a very earth-shattering revelation for a lot of people to lose faith, institutions that they previously deferred to, whether you’re a young mom and you’ve always deferred to your pediatrician because you thought oh, your pediatrician knows the best practices for parenting, they know the best practices for how to raise children, and then you realize oh my goodness, these pediatricians are forced to follow the practices as handed down by the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics, both of which are ideologically and financially corrupted, ideologically by neo-Marxism and financially corrupted by everyone from formula manufacturers, to vaccine manufacturers.  

And they actually are providing guidance and rules that are not only incorrect, some of them are outright dangerous and bad advice. It can be a very earth-shattering, I don’t know a better phrase to describe this, but it can be a very earth-shattering thing to realize that maybe there’s no such thing as an expert in the context of technocracy. Maybe there’s no one that can just through science and technocracy dictate to you how to live your life, so maybe the best way to look at our society, and to look at your own life, is to do so through a lens of skepticism, to always require verification, not to take anybody’s word for it based on their own claim of expertise.  

Again, this can be a really big deal to do, and so last week I said one of the things that I like to do is I like to provide you and myself with ammunition to fully understand what I just described in the practical or in the concrete way. So what I described was very hypothetical. I described it in a very philosophical sense, but what’s the practical proof that this is true? To be convinced and then to change our behavior accordingly, we have to fully see for ourselves, feel the tangible evidence that these institutions have been corrupted. 

So last week, last Friday we talked about some of these institutions and walked through, you can go back to last Friday’s episode and look at this, and walk through some of the institutions that have been corrupted by technocracy, technocrats who themselves are adherents to radical leftist ideology. So fast forward to today, I want to do sort of a part two of that. I want to first of all say, live your life through the lens of skepticism. It’ll change your life. Do not defer to these experts. And I want to talk about the experts themselves, not the actual institutions but the experts, and yes, that is in a “the experts” himself. This episode is people-centric. 

These are the people who have infiltrated our institutions, who bill themselves and the institution bills these people as the experts. They’re not nameless faceless, standards of care rules and regulations, scientific studies and outcomes. These are the actual people behind policies that, while they’re billed as science, are actually just ideology draped in pseudoscience. These are the folks. We’re going to start by talking about some updates on the Project Veritas expose. Project Veritas says that they have a direct message for Pfizer. We ‘re also going to talk about basketball player Steph Curry’s hilarious letter to his city. He doesn’t want to see poor people evidently by his mansion nearby. Steph Curry is a Democrat. 

And we’re going to talk about Gavin Newsom’s creepy wife. Gavin Newsom’s creepy wife is making a lot of money off showing your kids movies and films, super creepy movies and films that she made. These films are being shown to your children in classrooms, and they are rife with radical gender ideology. So let’s get to it. 

Okay, by the way, a lot of you guys have asked me about Trump bashing DeSantis and what I think about this. So before we get into the technocracy stuff, the institutional capture, and the experts who’ve infiltrated our institutions, let’s just address this really quick. This is one of those stories that I don’t care about at all. I do not care about Trump bashing DeSantis. And this is politics, right?  

This is politics, this is the primary, except it’s the pre-primary. I’ll care about this a lot more this time next year when the primary is real. Right now, it’s still like a hypothetical primary in the future. What’s happening now has honestly very little bearing. The tit-for-tat stuff has very little bearing on  what will happen this time next year, because people now are not thinking about who they want to vote for. It’s so far in the future. They’re not even considering that.  

So this is the primary, no politician is entitled to any office, nobody is entitled to anything. So fight it out, if you want to. Fight it out prove to us who’s best. Present your policies and convince us to vote for you. If this happens through debate, great, more power to you. And at this point, , like I said, it’s a little bit too early. Trump’s comment towards DeSantis is that if DeSantis chooses to run in 2024, it would be a “act of extreme disloyalty,” so I have a couple comments on this.  

First of all, I think that shows that President Trump acknowledges that DeSantis would be a viable threat to Trump’s candidacy for their Republican nominee for president, because if you compare Trump’s response to the idea of a DeSantis run to Trump’s reported response to when Nikki Haley called Trump and said hey, I’m going to run for president, or I’m considering running for president, the response is quite different. So according to reports, when Nikki Haley called Trump, he actually said great, good, I encourage you to run, go for it, in like a very genial and friendly way.  

Which poor Nikki Haley, I don’t think that that reflects well on her because it shows Trump’s not afraid of her at all, in the competitive sense. So his response to DeSantis shows that he wants to preemptively stop DeSantis from running. Why? Because he fears that DeSantis might defeat him. His attack doesn’t make a lot of sense to me because it’s not accurate. When Trump tries to bash DeSantis about COVID lockdowns, the allegation that Trump is levying isn’t even true. it’s outright false, it’s like revisionist history almost. 

So it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me why he would do that. Also, just from a strategic standpoint, if Trump compares himself to DeSantis on COVID, then he’s gonna lose. Trump to DeSantis head-to-head just on COVID-19, I mean Trump’s the one who got us Fauci, and elevated Fauci to the position, and then didn’t fire him. He encouraged Georgia to continue lockdowns, he condemned DeSantis, actually, when DeSantis reopened schools. Trump repeatedly wore a mask, he spearheaded Operation Warp Speed, which produced these terrible COVID-19 vaccine,s which Trump still does not denounce, and he failed to see the deep state hard at work in this entire operation.  

So it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me why Trump would pick on DeSantis now, why he would levy these allegations, which are false, and why he would try to set up this this one-to-one with DeSantis on COVID. He’s not going to win that argument if he does that, but like I said, I actually don’t really care about this much until this time next year, so we’ll cover this as it happens, but it’s a little too early for this kind of fight.  Okay, let’s talk about Gavin Newsom’s wife here.  

Okay, so Gavin Newsom’s wife, her name is Jennifer Seibel Newsom. She runs an organization, a non-profit organization called The Representation Project. Now in this day and age, with all these woke terms, even the name of that organization is a little bit of a red flag here, but The Representation Project is charged, they claim that they’re fighting sexism and they’re doing so through making movies and showing these movies in schools in your children’s classrooms.  

So the Daily Caller reported on this, and this is what they said. Jennifer Seibel Newsom’s non-profit The Representation Project, a group focused on fighting sexism through films and activism, charged California’s Public Schools between 49 to 599 dollars to stream the documentaries on “gender justice” to their students. This, according to Open the Books, since 2012 Newsome has earned nearly 1.5 million dollars in film licenses and nearly 1.7 million dollars in sales from documentaries such as The Great American Lie, a story about systemic inequalities and gender and fair pay, about unfair work dynamics for women within their homes. This is what the Daily Caller writes.  

Approximately 2.6 million students in 5,000 schools across all 50 states watched the documentaries, which Newsom wrote and directed. Opened the Books report, Newsom’s group charged schools an average of 270 dollars to stream the films.  so we talk often about the institution of public schools and how it’s been corrupted by mostly the Department of Education and teachers unions, that collusion, and how teachers unions are corrupted with people like Randy Weingarten, who are radical leftist activists who really want to use the school system to indoctrinate youth into being neo-Marxist revolutionaries. They really want to social engineer the next generation of our nation.  

And we talk often about the institutions, how if you walk into these classrooms, you can see pride flags and Black Lives Matter flags and posters about neo-pronouns, and if you go into teachers union conferences you can see DEI training and CRT training and SEL training, SEL is social emotional learning, and it’s just as toxic as Critical Race Theory, just as toxic as DEI, diversity equity and inclusion, but what we don’t often talk about is the creators of this curriculum, the creators of the curriculum that teachers unions harness. 

We talk about the power teachers unions have over choosing curriculum, but we don’t talk about the creators of the curriculum, and the creators of the curriculum are clearly very important because that’s what’s being poured into the minds of your child. This woman, Gavin Newsom’s wife, Jennifer Newsom, she is one of the faces behind the curriculum being taught to your children. She is one of the proverbial “experts.”  

She is speaking to your child, telling them what is true and what is not true, what is right and what is wrong, through her warped lens of neo-Marxist ideology, so it’s not just the institution that we should focus on. The institution itself can be neither moral or immoral when it’s something like a school system, right? there’s nothing inherently right or wrong, good or bad about the idea of a classroom. It’s the people running it, the organizations running it, and then the people who are behind the organizations. And so when we talk about institutional capture, the school system’s not just captured by the teachers unions.  

The teachers unions themselves are leveraging so-called expert groups, groups that claim expertise in various disciplines, like in this case she is trying to fight sexism through film, and making making films that she charges classrooms to show to their children. This is a face behind the institutional capture, and I think it’s easier to understand how infiltrated our institutions are, how weaponized our institutions have become when we see the faces behind the institutional capture. That’s one.  

The next one is actually a story that kind of made me laugh. It’s about Steph Curry, who is obviously a basketball star. He’s like the fifth highest-paid athlete in the entire world from last year, I think. And we’re going to talk about that in just a second. 

Okay, so you might be wondering, well what does an NBA basketball star have to do with institutional capture? Let me tell you what he has to do with institutional capture. Steph Curry is one of the most high-profile Democrats in our country. He has stumped for Obama, he has stumped for Biden, and when he does this, when he engages in this this activism for Democratic politicians, he does so in the name of income inequality.  

This is what he has said before, this is what he said in 2021. He said, bridging the racial wealth gap is one of the biggest challenges of our generation. Uncovering solutions and creating opportunities is something profoundly committed to. So bridging the racial wealth gap, so he takes that statement and he then supports Democratic politicians, whose policies make life for low-income Americans more difficult. It makes rising out of poverty much more difficult, sometimes next to impossible, and this is done all in the name of politics.  

When the Left talks about bridging income inequality, what they’re talking about is they’re advocating for socialism, for redistribution of wealth, for spreading the wealth around, for government stealing from one person to give to another, stealing from those who have and giving to those who have not, instead of encouraging people to take part in a free market economy, instead of helping people who need help, but also not trapping them in a cycle of poverty and dependence on government programs. Democrats don’t do any of that. Democrats make the problem worse.  

Steph Curry has been one of the biggest supporters, the most public, high-profile Democrat in the country. So that’s the background of the story. Then we fast-forward to this week, and Steph Curry has written a letter. He and his wife wrote a letter to their city, and in this letter, he writes that he does not want government-sponsored, subsidized, low-income housing to be built within viewing distance of the mansion he owns in California.  

I kid you not, this is what he writes in his letter. He says, as Atherton residents, we have been following along with the housing element updates, with special interest in the 23 Oakwood property. We hesitate to add to that not in our backyard, literally rhetoric, but we wanted to send a note before today’s meeting. Safety and privacy for us and our kids continues to be our top priority, and one of the biggest reasons we chose Atherton as home. We kindly ask the town adopts the new housing element without the inclusion of 23 Oakwood.  

Should that not be sufficient for the state, we ask that the town commits to investing in considerably taller fencing and landscaping to block sight lines onto our family’s property. I read this, and by the way, you want to take a look at what Steph Curry’s mansion looks like? We have a photo. We have a couple of photos of what this 30,000 square-foot property looks like. It’s a mansion. This is bigger than some Hollywood mansions. It’s exactly what you would expect the fifth highest-paid athlete in the world, where you would expect him to live.  

It’s funny, to me, when people like Steph Curry, such a high-profile Democrat, push for solutions to the racial wealth gap and income inequality, while living in a mansion like this, that’s funny enough as it is. Socialism, when you are living like the ruling class, but then to say I, as a Democrat, don’t want this government-subsidized housing that I support to be within sight, I don’t want these poor people to be in my neighborhood, to be within my vicinity, or if they have to be here oh, my goodness, please put a bush between me and a fence between me and this objectionable poor person.  

This is a perfect representation of the institution of the Democratic Party. We talk about institutional capture, maybe it’s the NBA that’s been institutionally captured, pushing all these woke agenda items. It’s not nameless, it’s not faceless, it’s populated by people like Steph Curry, who are just hilariously, hilariously hypocritical in their support of a political policy. But then when it negatively impacts them, they oppose it outright in a rather snobby, rather elitist way.  

It’s technocracy. The experts and the ruling class are not nameless. They’re not faceless. We learned that specifically this past week during Project Veritas’s expose into Pfizer. We all know that Pfizer’s vaccine, and we’re gonna have to censor a lot of this on YouTube because YouTube doesn’t doesn’t allow this type of discussion, doesn’t allow this kind of journalism, so you can go over to, this entire section will be available for free uncensored on, but just a little heads up, I know it’s annoying when we have to hit the censor or the bleep out button over here on YouTube, but you know why. If I don’t, I get strikes against my channel, and threats that I’ll get kicked off YouTube all together, so if it’s annoying, know that I agree with you, and blame YouTube and not me. You can go to to access this for complete for free.  

The takeaway from this episode is, you know these experts in the institutions that govern our life, whether it’s a governmental institution that actually rules us, or whether it’s civil institutions that provide all of these guidance that we’re supposed to adhere to, they’re not nameless, they’re not faceless. These so-called experts, they’re real people, and when you look at the real people, you can see how captured they are by ideology, how incompetent they are, and it’s easier to be skeptical. It’s easier to question everything.  

It’s easier to properly order our response and our decision-making process based on reality, versus based on deferring to an expert who really might not be an expert that we want to rely on. Thank you for watching today, thank you for listening. I’m Liz Wheeler, this is the Liz Wheeler Show. If you haven’t already, give this video a thumbs up, hit the subscribe button below, and ring the bell to make sure you never miss a video. 

Read More


Trending stories, leading insights, & top analysis delivered directly to your inbox.

Related Stories

Related Episodes

Scroll to Top