正在加载视频...
视频加载失败
🚨Iran war: A Rothschild plot? Iran’s real ‘sin’ isn’t its nuclear program — it was rejecting the globalist digital money model, US investment banker Catherine Fitts argues. When US Army General Wesley Clark was told in 2001 that the US was “going to invade seven countries in five years,”... show more
0 条评论
暂无评论
原始帖子的评论将显示在这里
!["If you go back to 9/11, when Wesley Clark said, 'We're going to invade 7 countries in 5 years,' ...[those] were the countries [whose] central banks were not on board to do programmable money... I think one of the reasons we're seeing so much tension around Iran is because Iran right now is the big leakage in the system." This clip of Catherine Austin Fitts, a former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, investment banker, and founder of the Solari Report (The Solari Report | Catherine Austin Fitts), is taken from a conversation with Tucker Carlson (Tucker Carlson) posted to YouTube on February 27, 2026. ---------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- Fitts: "Since 1913, the United States has had a governmental structure where the central bank, the Federal Reserve, which is the Board of Governors in Washington, and the 12 central banks, manage monetary policy. So they basically, working with the banks, run the financial transactions. The New York Fed runs the governmental accounts, they control the government bank accounts. "And their policies of fed funds, interest rate and money onto the reserve tracks affects the money supply and basically the money supply and how the money works, okay? So it's more complicated than that because they have lots of regulatory functions, but the people vote for their representatives. "So whether it's the State House or the Congress, they vote for elected representatives from their jurisdiction and area. And those people decide fiscal policy, which is what taxes do we collect, what tariffs do we collect, what bonds do we sell and raise money, and how does that money get spent? "So my representatives, your representatives, are determining fiscal policy, and the bankers are determining monetary policy. And it's a balance of power between the people and the bankers. Now with the digital control grid and programmable money, the bankers can assert control of fiscal policy and they can just decide what the taxes are and take them out of your account. And they can essentially determine the rules of how it all gets spent. "And so it's a very— it's sort of a financial coup d' etat that over time they want to assert complete control of fiscal and monetary policy. And essentially the legislatures will go to being sort of show and tell or go out of business. We're moving quickly in that direction where the legislatures in every country are becoming less powerful, in many cases irrelevant. "So here's my theory though. If you go back to 9/11, and when Wesley Clark said, 'We're going to invade seven countries in five years,' what you were talking about were the countries where those central banks were not on board to do programmable money, and their governance structures were not on board with essentially because of Epstein, I'll call it the Rockefeller–Rothschild model, there was an effort to say, okay, we're gonna basically assert control of the central banks in those countries. That's my interpretation. "And I think one of the reasons we're seeing so much tension around Iran is because Iran right now is the big leakage in the system." Carlson: "How? Wait, it's not about their nukes?" Fitts: "No. Well, Iran's central bank counts. One of the reasons it counts is because their oil and energy is very important, including for China. And that's very important in the BRIC system. What the BRIC system is trying to do is to create independent payment systems. "But if you're going to come out with programmable money with digital IDs that are interoperable globally and programmable money that that controls in each jurisdiction centrally. You can't afford leakage, and so you've got way too much leakage in the system to proceed with what they're trying to do. "And Iran is, and the BRIC nations are a sticking point and certainly Iran's oil feeding China gives China greater independence."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2027470467448377612/amplify_video_thumb/2027468301073555456/img/E812SWXdkTAk8MAe.jpg)
!["They'll be able to just take the money out of your account." Ex-investment banker Catherine Austin Fitts: Programmable central bank digital currency (CBDC) "is a way of implementing taxation without representation". "The president of the Minneapolis [Federal Reserve], in 2023, said we should never do this because... they'll be able to just take the money out of your account." Neel Kashkari: "I keep asking anybody... to explain to me what problem this is solving." "I can see why China would do it. If they want to monitor every one of your transactions, and if you want to directly tax customer accounts, you could do that with a central bank digital currency." "So I get why China would be interested. Why would the American people be for that?" Credit: Andrew Bridgen The Solari Report | Catherine Austin Fitts Liz Gunn](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1986345528083271922/amplify_video_thumb/1986345427898191872/img/mZJmpH_UAF1sY_nv.jpg)
![The Trump admin is GASLIGHTING us re: no CBDCs They know they can't do CBDCs because of the Constitution, so they're backdooring them with stablecoins Iain Davis explains— "the idea of a [CBDC] is that it will give these private institutions total control of a new digital international monetary and financial system" "CBDC is programmable money that slots into that system. That's why they want it" "That's not going to work in the US because... it's a constitutional right in the United States that the people, and only the people, oversee what they call the power, quote–unquote... to coin money" "So what are you going to do about it? You need some sort of work-round" "So stablecoins and things like deposit tokens or tokenized deposits are variations of programmable digital currency. But rather than being issued by a central bank, they're issued by a commercial bank" "stablecoins... slot into the system of programmability just as easily, if not more so than a central bank digital currency. So you can attach smart contracts to any kind of digital transaction using digital currency" "Programmable digital currency and stablecoins do exactly the same thing, serve the same purpose, as central bank digital currency" This clip of Iain Davis (InThisTogether), author of The Technocratic Dark State, is taken from a Flashlights podcast (Flashlights Podcast) episode posted to Rumble on May 17, 2026. ---------------Partial transcription of clip---------------- "It's a constitutional right in the United States that the people, and only the people, oversee what they call the power, quote–unquote, it says this in the Constitution, to coin money. So the power to coin money is overseen by the people. "Now the idea of a central bank digital currency is that it will give these private institutions total control of a new digital international monetary and financial system. That's CBDC is programmable money that slots into that system. That's why they want it. "That's not going to work in the US because even though Congress, you know, Congress is the, is the dog which is wagged by the tail in this of the Fed, the Fed, you know, the Fed tells Congress what to do, not the other way round. But theoretically it could be the other way round. And theoretically the people could assert their control over the Fed if they only knew about it, which, not many people do, but they could do it, right? It's in the US Constitution. "Now that's a problem if you're going to embark on a global transformation of the entire international monetary and financial system when your leading reserve currency is the US dollar. So that's, you know, that could all go wrong very badly. "So what are you going to do about it? You need some sort of work round. How are you, how are you going to do which for the, you know, I, for many years, well, since central bank digital currency has been something that I've been looking at, I couldn't figure out why the US wasn't more enthusiastic about central bank digital currency. "Because it's the type of thing that the US administrations are usually right up— You know, they're really gung ho about that kind of centralized control of everything. That's right up their alley. So why, why don't they like it? And then it was the work of John Titus who pointed out this problem that they've got in the US with the Constitution that made me look at that and think, right. And then I started investigating that further. And he's right about that. That is a problem. "But then they obviously need some sort of workaround. How are they going to have. Because the main point of central bank digital currency from the surveillance and control aspect is that we will all need digital identity in order to access our digital wallets, which will contain the currency and the currency and the wallets and our, digital identities will all be programmable so conditions can be set on everything that we do. "Every transaction we make will be subject to condition through some sort of smart contract probably, which will control it. Right. So you know, if you say the wrong thing or you know, you, you just write the wrong thing online, you could be punished by algorithm by controlling your access to money... "And so the key to that is central bank— the programmability of central bank digital currency. But obviously that's not going to, may not work. There's a good chance that won't work in the United States which has got the US dollar reserve is an important currency. "So what are you going to do? So stablecoins and things like deposit tokens or tokenized deposits are variations of programmable digital currency. But rather than being issued by a central bank, they're issued by a commercial bank. So or in the case of stablecoins, a non-bank, a non-bank institution like Tether. So it's not a bank. "But you can use stablecoins for exactly the same. They slot into the system of programmability just as easily, if not more so than a central bank digital currency. So you can attach smart contracts to any kind of digital transaction using digital currency. Programmable digital currency and stablecoins do exactly the same thing, serve the same purpose as central bank digital currency or the other version, the commercial bank version is deposit tokens. Any of those will do. "Now in the US they've gone down the stablecoin route so they can issue the stablecoins which will be backed by US Treasuries, just like the dollar or just like any kind of dollar instrument will be one to one convertible for the US dollar. So the stablecoins are effectively the US dollar in, in digital form. "But instead of calling it a central bank digital currency, they call it issued by, it wouldn't have to be issued by the Fed. They call it a stablecoin, which is issued by a company like Tether or you know, someone like that. So it's the same system but using a workaround. And that workaround came with the Genius Act which, which came from an executive order that Trump made when he first came to office. "Because the Americans, quite rightly when they were electing their president, were concerned about central bank digital currency. I mean anyone that understands what it is should be terrified of it. So they didn't want it, and Trump promised that they wouldn't have it. Probably. I don't know whether he knew, but certainly the gaggle of technocrats that were around him knew that they weren't going down that path. Anyway, no chance of the US introducing it because of these problems we've just outlined."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2060155537791303822/amplify_video_thumb/2060149164164669440/img/gbwudVOTDKQpFTbG.jpg)
![Catherine Austin Fitts connects Iran and the control grid: "Iran... is the largest leakage... if you're [doing] programmable money globally." "This [isn't about] American national interests. [It's] a syndicate asserting... control [for] the next phase of the financial system." "Our debt is... unsustainable... [so] how do you deal with that? One way... is to implement a digital control grid." "There is likely to be an effort to put boots on the ground and... to get bogged down... for a long, long time." This clip of Fitts, a former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, investment banker, and founder of the Solari Report (The Solari Report | Catherine Austin Fitts), is taken from an interview with Steve Kirsch (Steve Kirsch) posted to the VSRF (Vaccine Safety Research Foundation) Rumble channel on April 2, 2026. ---------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- Fitts: "There are two sides of the balance sheet here that are driving this. One of course is oil and energy, but the other is the financial control grid. Because Iran right now is the largest leakage in the system. If you're going to do a global, programmable money globally, you know, Iran and, and what Iran is doing with China and some of the other countries, puts too much leakage in the system. "So I think that what is unfortunate here is there is, there is likely to be an effort to put boots on the ground and we are likely to get bogged down in there for a long, long time. Kirsch: "So do you think that is the right thing to do for America to have boots on the ground or even be involved in attacking Iran? I mean we were the first aggressor here. We, we fired the first shots in Iran. Is that the right thing to do for our country? Fitts: "That is the right thing to do if you want to implement the digital control grid. It's not the right thing to do if you want to represent America. But this has nothing to do with American national interests. This has to do with essentially a syndicate asserting sufficient control to implement the next phase of the financial system." Kirsch: "So you think they got to Trump and convinced Trump or wasn't it really Israel saying hey, we're going to invade Iran and we'd like some— Why don't you do it with us? Because there's an opportunity and Trump saw that as opportunistic rather than this being something that is strategic." Fitts: "So the way I think of this is the White House operates within a lane that is set for them by the nature of the machinery they're running. So think of it this way. The US government spends $6 to $7 trillion a year and it gets $4 trillion of revenues and the other $2 to $3 trillion comes in from borrowing in the bond market essentially through the central bankers. "And so it, it has to, you know, and if you say to the Americans, you know, we're going to tell the bankers to go jump in the lake, the Americans say no, no, no, no, we want our check. And so you're between an Iraq and a hard place because everybody in America wants their check. "And you've got to do what the bank, you've got to operate within those lanes to make the bankers happy. And if you look at the whole US dollar reserve currency system, you've got to do whatever you've got to do to make the system go. "And right now, and the chairman of the Federal Reserve just said this... [that] the debt is growing at a faster rate than our fundamental growth rate. And, you know, if you look at one of the, you know, the big push by Kennedy and HHS to change the food and health issues in America, part of that is to get that growth rate back up. You can't get a growth rate from poisoning your people. Ultimately that doesn't work for economic growth. "So all of these issues are integrated... but our debt is growing in an unsustainable pattern. And the question is, how do you deal with that? One way you deal with that is to implement a digital control grid in a way that uses digital tokens and stablecoins to dramatically suck in more money globally into the machinery. And that's what they're trying to execute. So if you want the digital control grid, you know, what is happening makes sense."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2039863685666288061/amplify_video_thumb/2039859553215664128/img/hRYWS5-QwoLgcgZ5.jpg)
![🚨REMINDER: THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HAS SPENT **$20 TRILLION** OF U.S. TAXPAYER MONEY THAT IS UNDOCUMENTED AND UNACCOUNTED FOR (1/5) In this clip from a recent episode of the Children's Health Defense series, Financial Rebellion, Investment banker and former HUD official Catherine Austin Fitts describes how the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) has spent $20 trillion of taxpayer money (between 1998 and 2015) that has gone undocumented and unaccounted for. Fitts also highlights the fact that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has done the same with $1 trillion of taxpayer money. Fitts starts out her overview of "the missing money" by noting that in 1994 the New York Federal Reserve Bank and the Federal Reserve (the Fed) bought shares in the Bank of International Settlements (BIS). The investment banker notes that the Bank of International Settlements "is the central bank of central banks in Switzerland and operates above the law...[as] they have sovereign immunity and enjoy it in many respects and they can receive and hold money secretly [and] can keep money on their balance sheets secretly." Effectively, Fitts says, the U.S. government buying those shares "made their relationship with the BIS much closer..." The investment banker goes on to note that in October 1995 a budget deal in U.S. Congress "basically crashed and burned" and "it was then that...the president of one of the largest pension funds said to [her], 'They'—whoever 'They' is—have given up on the country and are moving all the money out starting in the Fall." Fitts says it was that Fall, October 1997, "when money started to go missing from HUD, as well as the Department of Defense." As of today, Fitts says, "there's...$20 trillion between 1998 and 2015 missing from DOD and $1 trillion missing from HUD." "The other thing that started to happen when that money started to go missing...was what I call the Great Poisoning..." Fitts adds. "Literally, it was the next month after the budget deal crashed that OxyContin was approved and the HUD predatory lending started and the pill mill started and really, the targeting of the low-income neighborhoods started, including the roundups coming from the private prison movement." "Undocumentable adjustments then skyrocket[ed]," Fitts adds. Cut to 2001, and "the day before 9/11 Donald Rumsfeld gave a press conference at the Department of Defense...[announcing] that the Department of Defense was missing $2.3 trillion..." Fitts was told that one of the offices at the Pentagon that was blown up was the location for the office of Naval Intelligence Research Group, which was investigating the missing money. "The rest is history," Fitts says. "The Patriot Act had passed, and then the DOD got huge appropriations and nobody really cared about the missing money." Then, in 2015, the DOD financials came out and "it was the greatest missing money in one year [ever]. The DOD was missing $6.5 trillion in a year..." At that point, Fitts says, Dr. Mark Skidmore, who was a professor and expert in budgeting at Michigan State University, thought she "must be wrong" because "the Department of Defense can't be missing 10-plus times its total budget in a year." Lo and behold, when he investigated the DOD's financials, he found that "actually, [she] was right." Fitts subsequently asked that Skidmore have his students do a complete survey "of all the financial statements in all the years from fiscal 1997 to 2015." He and his students got the total missing money to $21 trillion. They subsequently published a report in 2017, at which point Skidmore and Fitts discovered that "the amount of money missing from the U.S. Treasury was the same amount as the total debt of the United States." Cut to 2018, and Fitts notes that during the theatrical hearings held during the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, Congress—including both the Senate and the House, Republicans and Democrats—along with the Trump White House "got together and issued a policy called Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board Statement 56." (Fitts refers to it as FASAB 56 or, phonetically speaking, 'Faz-B 56.') "[W]hat FASAB 56 says, very short and simple, is basically the government can keep secret books as a matter of administrative policy, thus refusing to obey all the financial management rules and regulations and laws, including the constitutional provisions for disclosure of financial operations," Fitts says. She adds that "they extended it, along with the classification laws, to private companies and banks doing business with the federal government, which means when you look at the U.S. securities market, the large cap section of the U.S. market...most of the disclosure is meaningless. You have no idea how the money works at many of these companies and the government because they're so intertwined." Interestingly, the investment banker adds that "the COVID-19 operation could never have happened without that [FASAB 56], because it put the Department of Defense, and [other federal government] agencies in a position to, essentially, access an unlimited amount of secret money." Fitts says somebody once told her that FASAB 56 is "a wet dream" as it allows for "secret money for secret operations." "I think it was one month after FASAB 56 passed that suddenly Moderna magically raised $500 million. Quite a coincidence," Fitts adds.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1800218408270626929/ext_tw_video_thumb/1800195964465999872/pu/img/XyqjJjOZJ24h_wCc.jpg)
![Catherine Austin Fitts: "Is... Epstein the father of programmable money? Of course, the answer [is] yes. Although he was an agent for what is described... as the Rothschild Network... [and re:] Bitcoin, [I] have been saying this is a prototype to create CBDC and digital money." This clip of Fitts, a former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, investment banker, and founder of the Solari Report (The Solari Report | Catherine Austin Fitts), is taken from the Children's Health Defense series Financial Rebellion (Children’s Health Defense) posted to Rumble on March 5, 2026. ---------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "There's a new commentary at Solari called Is Jeffrey Epstein the Father of Programmable Money? Of course, the answer being yes, although he was an agent for what is described, I think very correctly as the— As the Rothschild Network. "So in America, many people say Rothschild. I was brought up, using the European Rothschild, but same network. And, the commentary at Solari points you to a series done by a writer, writing anonymously, anonymously under the name of ESC, ESC, as in Escape, and what our commentary does is it points you to all the posts from January 30th on, and in my opinion, this is the single best, after Whitney Webb, this is the single best description of the Epstein Network and the governance of the Epstein Network. "And the goal of the Epstein Network. If you study what Epstein was doing, he was, in my opinion, laundering money, including money coming out of the United States government. That's not what ESC focuses on. What he's focusing on is how Epstein reinvested that money as the equivalent of venture capitalist and philanthropist, seeding the development of programmable money. And seeding people, both in academia and business, in all aspects of life, building and operating the different pieces you need to prototype and create digital money, including Bitcoin. "So Carolyn and I, since the beginning of Bitcoin, have been saying, this is a prototype to create CBDC and digital money. And, you know, there's a wonderful group of freedom fighters in that community who've been very, I would say very negative towards us is the only way I can describe it. And I just had one of the top luminaries of that whole world write me and say, oh, my God, you were right. Will you be in our documentary? Like, thank you, Houston. We have contact. "Anyway, so ESC has done a marvelous job. I can't recommend it. Just read everything from January 30th on, and he describes how Epstein developed and ran this and sort of built a prototyping. And then, as Whitney Webb has told us, you know, once that all got institutionalized, you don't need Epstein anymore, particularly when you got FASAB 56, which we've talked about many times. "And so, you know, out Epstein goes because now we've institutionalized. And that's why, you know, Whitney will talk about Palantir as part of the now institutional capacity of what, you know, Epstein is a venture capitalist or philanthropist, helped seed and get started. But now it's being institutionalized. "And the important thing to think of is this is like a booster rocket. After the booster rocket gets you to a certain point and you can institutionalize, then you just eject the booster rocket and keep on going. And if you look at the, the, you know, if you look at the investment network, which are basically the equity pool around the central banks. "So I'll just talk about it as the people who control the central banks. Once you've got the central banks ready to implement digital assets and stablecoins as programmable money, you don't need Epstein. You can let it go. "And if you look at the lot of scandal of getting rid of the booster rocket, they're talking about the very lurid parts of Epstein, but they're not talking about the control grid and how to stop it with this exception. And I think this is why this substack series is so exceptional. And if you really want to understand what Epstein was up to, but more importantly what the structure that managed and controlled Epstein, whether it was the intelligence agencies or the investment money in and around the central banks that wants total digital control. "So Epstein was building the control grid, you know, prototyping, distributed ledgers was all part of that. He put a lot of money into mind control because the neuro warfare is a very, very important part of it."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2029751236510278106/amplify_video_thumb/2029748943412940801/img/wEv4kp2KnHTQy9yx.jpg)
!["If you get central digital control in an all-digital monetary system...I don't care...what vehicle you use to do it, whether it's a Federal Reserve CBDC or...Bitcoin...if you do that, you are walking into a digital concentration camp." Investment banker, former HUD official, and founder of the Solari Report (The Solari Report | Catherine Austin Fitts) Catherine Austin Fitts describes for Greg Hunter (Greg Hunter) how the central bankers are attempting to usurp power over fiscal policy in sovereign countries like the U.S. She notes that "[this is] what the revolutionary war was about...taxation with or without representation." For reference, fiscal policy refers to decisions pertaining to how taxpayer money is spent, what tax rates are set to, how to grow the economy, and budget goals. Monetary policy, on the other hand, pertains to things like interest rates and money supply. (See tweet 2 for a visual guide.) "If you're gonna consolidate and collapse the system into the bankers on a very central basis being able to control and operate both monetary and fiscal system, you're moving out of a world where we've known personal freedom and liberty into a world where it's what Augustine Carstens, the head of the BIS, said, 'We can make the rules centrally, and we have the technology to enforce those rules,'" Fitts tells Hunter. "In other words, we decide when and how and where you can spend your money.... And that means...if they don't want you going more than a mile from your house, your money won't work more than a mile from your house. Your electric car won't work more than a mile from your house. If they don't want you buying pizza, your money won't buy pizza, and you can't pay cash for pizza because you're in an all digital monetary system." Fitts goes on to say: "If you get central digital control in an all-digital monetary system...I don't care what vehicle you use to do it, whether it's a Federal Reserve CBDC or Ripple or Bitcoin or something else we create, you know, Worldcoin...if you do that, you are walking into a digital concentration camp. "We [The Solari Report] have 14 items in this blueprint of what states need to do [to combat this kind of tyranny]. Number one is preserving cash and checks...you cannot go to an all-digital monetary system. You need to have an analog system."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1864079781102239761/ext_tw_video_thumb/1864076191499522048/pu/img/x6R-SuRxb9mvLI4s.jpg)
![Catherine Austin Fitts on why she thinks Iran can't "say uncle" "If I were leading Iran, there's no way I would ever say uncle... you're talking about a thousand-plus-year-old society and culture agreeing to total extinction and slavery." "The Iranians are very smart... they and the Chinese have the highest [average] IQ at 107. So... when the Iranian foreign minister said we've been planning to deal with this war for 40 years... they are playing an asymmetrical war." This clip of Fitts, a former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, investment banker, and founder of the Solari Report (The Solari Report | Catherine Austin Fitts), is taken from an interview with Michael Farris (Michael Farris) posted to Rumble on March 27, 2026. ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "So you've got a draining game in the West and certainly in Israel. Israel's feeling the pain. But you've also got a drain game going on in Iran. And the question is, who's going to call uncle first? Now if Iran can hold out with enough energy flow and enough liquidity flow probably through the Chinese, maybe through the Russians, then it's a real game-changer because the effort to, to implement the digital control grid is going to have a real stall in it because there, you know, there is a leakage in the system and Iran is that leakage in the system." Farris: "So then the question is, who would— Like, what you said who would say uncle first? I wonder who's closer to that point of raising the white flag, so to speak." Fitts: "I have no idea. I don't think we know. You know, if, if I was leading Iran, there's no way I would ever say uncle. Whatever loss I had to take, you know, this is, this is a win–lose situation. And what you're talking is about is, is a thousand- plus-year-old, you know, society and culture agreeing to total extinction and slavery. "So you know, the Iranians are very smart. They have, if you look at the World Review, they have, they and the Chinese have the highest IQ, at 107. So I think the Iranians, you know, when the Iranian foreign minister said we've been planning to deal with this war for 40 years now and they are playing an asymmetrical war. "So I think the question is can they keep enough trade and financial liquidity going to keep, you know, to stay above, to stay in survival mode." Farris: "And hence the Iranian toll booth that they set up." Fitts: "Yeah, yeah. So they're basically, they're getting currency as a result of allowing some boats to go through. Now here's the question. If you look at just the mathematics of what it takes to saturate bomb Israel versus saturate bomb Iran. Iran is a huge country and it's very mountainous in many sections. I mean look at, look at the topography of Iran. Look at a map that has the topography. "So you know, it depends on what their stockpile of missiles are. But, you know, I think they are capable of huge damage to Iran, I mean to Israel. And so I doubt the Israelis have ever had to, you know, take that kind of, that level of— in the, you know, certainly in recent history. So I don't know who's going to say uncle first. I really don't."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2041642115550343200/amplify_video_thumb/2041639150382936065/img/xLtwCbg5-_yPmL4t.jpg)
