All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 6, 2023 - Bannon's War Room
47:49
WarRoom Battleground EP 228: Google Is About To Release 'Sentient' LaMDA Into The Wild
Participants
Main voices
s
steve bannon
13:21
Appearances
j
joe allen
04:38
| Copy link to current segment

Speaker Time Text
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
This is what you're fighting for.
I mean, every day you're out there.
What they're doing is blowing people off.
If you continue to look the other way and shut up, then the oppressors, the authoritarians get total control and total power.
Because this is just like in Arizona.
This is just like in Georgia. It's another element that backs them into a quarter and shows their lies and misrepresentations.
This is why this audience is going to have to get engaged.
As we've told you, this is the fight.
unidentified
All this nonsense, all this spin, they can't handle the truth.
War Room Battlegrounds. Here's your host, Stephen K. Bannon.
I'm gonna try to have it both ways.
I'm going to try to have it both ways.
The anti-vaxxers clearly are the winners at this point, and I think it'll probably stay that way.
And I don't want to put any shade on that whatsoever.
They came out the best.
They have the winning position.
But if you think they got there by good analytics, that didn't happen.
No, that didn't happen.
Because you could analyze it correctly and make the wrong decision.
Would you agree? Would you agree that you could analyze it with the best analytical capabilities, but all the data was bullshit?
The data was just bullshit.
So there wasn't really anything that we knew or could guess.
So my take was always this.
It's going to be a guess because I don't know what long COVID would do to me.
And I still don't.
But I also didn't know what the vaccination would do to me.
And I still don't.
So to me it was two unknowns that were both enormous and both of them could have ended your life or your life quality.
So I waited as long as possible to reduce the risk that something quick would happen.
I looked at people in my category and that I did what people in my category were typically doing.
Am I glad?
No. No.
I'm not glad. No, because as things turn down, the unvaccinated have a current advantage.
Because they feel better.
The thing they're not worrying about is what I have to worry about, which is, I wonder if that vaccination five years from now...
No, not regret.
All right, let me stop you right there.
Did you hear me say I regretted anything?
Did anything sound like regret?
Also, if the data had gone the other way, I would not ask the anti-vaxxers to regret it either.
If it had gone the other way, if the data had, let's say, amazingly said this was just a miracle drug, and everybody who didn't get it was a big old dope, would I be telling you you should regret not getting it?
No, I wouldn't. Because you didn't know.
And I didn't know. We were just doing the best we could.
But it does turn out that the heuristic or the rule of thumb that everything the government does is bad for you.
It turns out it worked this time.
It worked this time.
Because really, the anti-vaxxers, I think, were really just distrustful of big companies and big government.
That's never wrong.
It's never wrong to distrust government.
It's never wrong to distrust big companies.
But it wasn't necessarily right.
Right? Every now and then, a big company will produce a good product at a good price, and nobody dies.
Hey, it happens. Every now and then, our government does something right.
Sometimes. Sometimes.
It happens. So if you just took the position, let's just distrust everything the government did, well, you won.
You won. You won completely.
Now, as far as I know, I feel like I'm on a shrinking piece of ice floating in the ocean.
Somehow I got trapped on a little iceberg in the ocean.
It's just like shrinking as I'm floating into the sun.
I am currently in The only remaining category of people who might have made the statistically right choice.
By accident.
Totally by accident.
Because people in my age group, it looks like maybe there was still some benefit.
Not necessarily to me personally, which is why I made the wrong choice.
Or the suboptimal choice.
Wrong implies that I analyzed it wrong.
Suboptimal means you may have analyzed it right, but you didn't end up in the right place.
I did not end up in the right place.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
Okay, welcome. Monday, 6 February, Year of Our Lord 2023, the second hour of our late afternoon, early evening show here in the War Room.
And right there, as most of you know, that's Scott Adams, one of the smartest guys around and the creator of Dilbert, obviously the iconic comic strip, I guess.
And a guy that's a brilliant analyst, observer, commentator on things societal, cultural, political.
I want to bring in Robin Corner, who over the Brownstone Institute has an incredible piece up about the unvaccinated.
If Memphis can put that up when we bring Robin up, how the unvaccinated got it right.
So I'm kind of confused.
And Robin, you're a dean of an academic institution, what, in Oxford.
So you're, as our mother country folks say, you're quite proper.
unidentified
But I am. I'm one of you now, Steve.
I'm an American citizen. I want to throw that out there.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
Proud American citizen. Okay, well, that's good.
That's good. You followed the revolutionary generation.
I guess we're all Englishmen, too, at one time.
That's right. So they saw the error of their ways.
Walk me through this. Scott Adams, I'm still kind of confused about Scott Adams.
I love your piece.
I want to go through it as you have the time in detail because you break this thing down, I think.
In the most sophisticated way I've seen so far.
But I'm confused by my brother, Adams, who I really admire.
Tell me, what did he just tell me?
And is that jive with your piece over at Brownstone, sir?
unidentified
So it's tricky, right?
Because there's so many ways into this.
First of all, there's the question of whether Scott Adams is sincere.
That doesn't really matter for my argument.
Let's say he is. He says a couple of interesting things that I'm not sure are mutually consistent.
One is that, let's say, the unvaccinated, our heuristics, which means rules of thumb, beat his analytics, indicating that he was dealing in greater precision with data.
Whereas we were crudely doing this, but we got it right.
And the rule of thumb that he credits us with is just distrust everything the government does.
I will reiterate that that is a very good starting point.
I would say here's the problem.
The evidential bar for getting the vaccine is a lot higher than the evidential bar for not.
One of the reasons is you're putting something in your body that has never been tested over the long run.
Now, if this was the first drug in medical history to be a theoretical certainty of not hurting you in the long run without having to be tested, then, I mean, that would be the only thing anybody would have been talking about in science.
That wasn't the case. So obviously it was a risk.
And now, so Scott does make the fair point, ah, but long COVID risk.
Maybe, but the data were coming in very, very fast that even the immediate danger of getting hit with this new infectious disease was minimal for people without comorbidities.
That was clear from the data pretty much weeks one, two, and three.
But even if you don't allow that, certainly there was a point when Walensky, the head of the CDC, just came out and said, on TV, 75 % of all the deaths of COVID had at least four comorbidities.
Well, that right there should have thrown the whole argument for coerced, uninformed vaccination So what should have happened then?
What should have happened then is we should have seen if the people pushing the policy had any integrity and actually cared about the data basis of their policy prescriptions, we should have seen them respond accordingly.
We should have seen the policies be tweaked accordingly.
We should have seen some retractions of claims.
We should have seen Integrity, moral integrity, scientific integrity would have demanded that.
We didn't see any of that. That was very telling.
That told us that, okay, there's something else going on here.
Though powers that be have, let's put it kindly, motivated reasoning.
Don't they always, right?
So there were so many things that I would say were lacking in That would be needed to sustain an analysis to get to the result that Scott got.
So whilst I like his idea that our heuristics beat his analytics, I actually think that I would almost say my analytics beat his analytics because there just wasn't enough data to support an analysis to actually go and take this This vaccine under coercion.
And if I may, Steve, and I'll take a breath after this, but I think it's super important to say this.
Scott made a really good, simple point, but a good point.
That we are unvaccinated now, we're not worried about what's happening to us.
As the data come out, you know, as one massive global clinical trial, we are seeing the horrific vaccine injuries.
Now, a lot of people could rightly worry about that.
I'm not worried about it, as Scott said.
I wouldn't be. He's right.
But there's something else I'm not worried about.
I'm not worried about dying one day on my deathbed, looking back at having participated against my instinct, against my integrity in one of the biggest takedowns of natural rights, constitutional rights in my lifetime.
Well, that goes a long way, too.
That's a thing also I don't have to worry about.
I think there's a lot of vaccinated people who are angry now because they feel a bit dirty, a bit morally dirty, because they kind of knew better, but they compromised themselves.
They had the choice between compromise and courage.
And this isn't a judgment.
I'm just making an observation.
And different people are in different positions, they have to make different choices.
But I think a lot of people feel that they compromise themselves, that some part of them instinctively knows better, and they've got to live with that.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
Fortunately, I don't. And I want to go through these points that you make because I want everybody to read this article.
And most importantly, I want everybody to share this article.
Because, and I think you definitely want to share it with those family members, friends, colleagues that you're closest to that get so angry that you can't even get together anymore because one's not vaccinated and the other's vaxxed, right? Because there is this massive gulf In American society and culture, and I know it's probably even worse in the United Kingdom and in certain elements of Europe, because you actually go through kind of logically step by step.
But when Scott, correct me if I'm wrong here, Walensky, but once you came out with that, I'm not sure people—look, there's an anti-vax crowd that comes at this, the Children's Health Defense folks, that come at this with a certain set of beliefs, analytics on what they think of vaccines overall.
And I'm not holding against that. I've actually gotten to admire those people, you know, a lot.
You know, I came up in the, you know, born in the 50s, came up in the 60s, where it was Jonas Salk.
You can see Trump's a little bit like this, right?
The great vaccines. You know, I took every vaccine I had to take going into school.
Back then, I think there was a handful.
Today, I hear there's 38 or 40 or more.
I took every vaccine I was told to take as a naval officer before going to the Western Pacific and the Indian Ocean, the Persian Gulf, and places like Asia.
You had to. It was unquestioned.
You just had to do it at the time.
But correct me if I'm wrong, when he says it just needs, so you got those people, and then you got another crowd that, hey, if the government's going to tell me to do it, I'm not going to do it.
But in the analytics, most people, and I start out as vaccine hesitant, which means I wasn't going to sign up for this vaccine anytime at the beginning until I saw it.
Then, you know, I got COVID, and it was about herd immunity, and I thought that eventually, and I kind of thought about how they shifted away from herd immunity immediately and had to go to vaccines.
My problem with warp speed from the beginning, Given my understanding of pandemics, when we started War Room Pandemic and delved in here and had all the experts and consultants, you know, all the great experts that came because we were the first person really on this story for a month or two back in January 2020, that the dumping of the therapies, this whole warp speed, it was quite evident given SARS-1 and everything else that happened, that this was going to be a clinical trial.
It was going to be some sort of slapped-together clinical trial.
And most people that I think are rational human beings have got to make a decision.
I either want to opt into the clinical trial or maybe I'll just step back.
And by the way, if I'm one of the people in the country getting COVID, I'm told I've got herd immunity and antibodies.
Why not step back? So I don't understand what Scott's talking about.
We didn't think about the analytics.
The biggest analytics I think maybe I'm wrong here, but most people looked at this on the Warped Speed and said they've slapped together some type of clinical trial and they're kind of trying to call it six months where we still don't have a vaccine for SARS-1 and ten years later.
I mean, isn't that an important part of the equation?
unidentified
No, you're right. I mean, you're getting to a very important, is it a kind of a dichotomy here?
On the one hand, everything you say is right, Steve.
We must have been in a clinical trial.
Because there had been no time to put this thing through at least a medium or long-term clinical trial, which makes us the clinical trial.
Absolutely right. So that means that nobody could honestly say and seriously believe that the thing is completely safe.
And yet, to be fair to most people, most Americans, most people around the world, they should be able to trust their leader.
They should be able to, right, in an ideal world.
Trust their leaders who say this vaccine is safe.
I mean, it is almost beyond comprehension that a president and the head of health and CDC and FDA and all this could actually get on and knowingly say something is safe if it were not.
If we cannot trust that, we're in a whole world of pain, right?
So people, even though if they thought about it, they must have known it couldn't have been safe in the long run, definitely.
They weren't stupid to trust Everybody in power who had the data.
Because otherwise, what do you have to believe?
You have to believe that our leaders are pretty much kind of evil.
I mean, maybe. So I don't blame people for actually saying, okay, well, I don't get it.
I'm not looking at the data. I haven't thought about it, but that's not my job.
That's why we have President and the CDC and FDA. They say it's safe.
It's safe. I'm going to act accordingly.
And I'm not going to do the analytics.
I'm going to take them at their word.
So yeah, I would say on the one hand, You're right, Steve.
But even what you're talking about, the fact that we were in a clinical trial, you know, that is another way of saying the analytics kind of don't matter, right?
Because do you want to be in a clinical trial or not?
But yes, I think if you had thought about it the way you've just described, you wouldn't take the vaccine.
But people reasonably didn't think about that.
You know, they got jobs to do.
They got families to put food on the table for.
Their leaders all told them it was safe.
Well, that wasn't true, was it?
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
Well, as importantly as telling them safe, the other lie, the more bald-faced lie at the beginning, that it was effective, safe and effective, safe and effective.
I think the issue now we know from the European Commission or European Parliament, where they had to testify, they said they didn't even have time or even tested For spread.
So the whole initial part of this, that you had to care about others, you had to do this, you had to do that, you were an uncaring human being.
This is why the NFL players had to get it, the pilots had to get it, everybody in the school had to get it.
I just talked to somebody the other day about New York City public schools think you still have to get it, that it was effective.
We now know it's not effective.
Maybe for comorbidities, or if you've got comorbidities, it may have some slight Effective for the severity.
I still really haven't seen the data on that.
They just talk about it on MSNBC. You really haven't seen any backup to any of that.
Whether it's safe or principally, they're giving you something that they don't know is safe or not, but they definitely know it's not effective.
Every piece of data we have, or at least been put forward, talks about the efficacy or effective.
unidentified
So there's two parts to that.
Is it effective for the folks that actually take the vaccination?
And is it effective in reducing transmission if you get it to others?
Now, the thing that you rightly say definitely was not tested and they've admitted it wasn't tested is the latter.
It wasn't actually determined that it does reduce transmission.
So when that claim was made, and it was made, that was indeed, I think, a lie.
I think so. It was certainly not, you know, it was not supportable.
I still don't know What about the effectiveness with respect to, you know, if you have comorbidities, if you're a high risk, you know, does the vaccine help you?
I am completely prepared to believe that it does, that statistically across the population of high risk for COVID, that if you take it, it reduces your chance of dying in the short run.
But that's kind of entirely beside my argument, because my argument about the Getting it right is an argument for people who don't have to make that consideration because they don't have a ton of comorbidities.
They're not at high risk. And I do carve that out in my article.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
Hold on.
What you just said. Hang on.
What evidence do you pull that even supports that?
I'd be willing to agree with that if I saw any evidence that actually backed even that case up.
unidentified
No, you're right to be cautious.
I want to make myself absolutely clear.
I'm not saying I have seen conclusive evidence to that effect.
I am saying at the time I was making the decision about whether to take the vaccine, it was plausible that it was true.
And I too was prepared to believe that I wasn't being lied to.
about the effectiveness of the vaccine in those cases, right, the high-risk cases.
I haven't looked at the data since then closely enough to make my own determination.
So I'm not saying you're wrong.
I don't know. All I'm saying is on that particular point, I don't know.
But I'm also saying I don't need to know because the case, per my article, against taking the vaccine, certainly if you don't have a bunch of comorbidities, is pretty damn clear, as I show.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
Just a second and walk through that, because I want everybody to appreciate how powerful this logical argument is, and particularly to share this with other people they know, and particularly people close to them that won't talk to them because they're not vaccinated.
But walk us through your theory of the case.
unidentified
Oh, where do we go?
Okay, I'm going to pull it up here.
I mean, this article has a lot of points to it, right?
It's a long piece, so I can't do justice to all of it.
The first one, maybe the most important one, is the one we've already hit.
The fact that the thing had not undergone long-term testing.
In such a situation, there can be no moral or scientific case for pushing it on, and I'm really concerned with the coercion, for pushing it on people who are not at super high risk, If they don't take the vaccine, right?
So if we already know that, let's say, children are not at high risk, then given that the risk of taking the thing is unknown, there's no moral or scientific case for pushing it on them.
So given what wasn't known about long-term safety, we should only ever have been talking about those at high risk.
And that was a group that was identifiable very early on in the pandemic.
So that's the first thing, right?
The second thing is, we've talked a lot about data, Steve, you and I, We've talked about analytics and heuristics.
If you're going to do any analytics, you need data.
And we're talking about not having all the data.
Well, I'm actually a physicist by training.
My first degree is in physics, right?
So I know a little bit about science.
I can read science papers.
And one thing I do know, you know, this is Science 101.
You can't do analytics if you've got nothing to do with the analytics on.
So point two, there was massive suppression of data that didn't support the narrative.
So what does that mean? That means you've got to work harder to look for all the data.
It means what you're seeing, the justificatory data for the Covidians is going to be hugely biased, right?
People, not just their data, but people who were bringing attention to data that didn't kind of fit the narrative were being suppressed.
I know you've encountered this, Steve.
I was encountering this, you know, having my tweets deleted, Facebook posts, you know, censored, the whole thing.
And there was a climate of that.
So there was massive data control.
And now we have discovered that absolutely that was coordinated, deliberate, concerted.
The government was in bed directly going back and forth, communicating with social media platforms, orchestrating, orchestrating and pushing the suppression of data that didn't fit the narrative.
You can't say follow the science.
You can't say you're doing something wrong when What you're doing is suppressing half of the information that enables people to make informed decisions.
And obviously, informed consent is a basic principle that's violated here.
So if you're suppressing data, then you don't have informed consent.
So that's another piece to this.
Now, here was another interesting one.
It was also very clear from the data that we did have, even taking the data of the government, right?
So I'm taking the data of the pro-vaccine side.
That the amount of spending of resources and the amount of civil rights violations that the government was prepared to do to, let's say, save, you know, stop, prevent a COVID death massively exceeded what they were prepared to do to stop any other kind of death.
So there was some really weird, huge orders of magnitude disproportionality here.
Why? Why?
Why is it worse to die of COVID than anything else?
Why did one of these deaths make it okay to break families up when they should have been at weddings or funerals, to damage the development of children in schools and so on and so forth?
Now, on that, all of those things, I certainly was shouted at by a neighbor when she discovered that I hadn't taken the vaccine.
Don't you want this thing to end?
Blah, blah, blah, blah. Perfectly decent human.
All over the place, perfectly decent humans were becoming less decent.
It became okay to react to the unclean, of which I was one for a while, the unvaccinated, in ways that...
Broke down the typical bonds of kith and kin, right?
Families, as you said earlier, Steve, families have kind of broken over this.
And it's really sad for me to read some of the stories that people who've read my article have sent to me, said, you know, thanks for writing this.
Here's what happened in my family.
You know, I'm trying to repair this.
I'm going to print this out and send it to my daughter or my mother or whatever it is, right?
So what we saw, where I'm going with this, is what we saw is all of these things were evidences of massive cognitive bias, right?
Massive cognitive bias.
And I actually, at the very beginning of the pandemic, I wrote an article called something like, COVID-19 is a trolley problem.
You're on the tracks and the government has the switch.
Meaning that the government was going to make itself the arbiter of your life.
The trolley problem is a little thought experiment in moral philosophy, and that's what I was referring to.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
Robin, we've got to take a short break.
Just hang on for one second. I've got Abe Hamaday calling in.
Big breaking news out of Arizona.
Robin Corner's gonna come back after a short break about this incredible analysis of unvaccinated.
unidentified
A short commercial break, we'll be back with The Worm in just a moment.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
Okay, here's what I want to do.
I want to make sure, and I want Grace Chung and Captain Bannon and the others to make sure this article gets out.
I want the posse, I want the War Room audience to read this.
They don't want to bring Robin back.
It's that important. By the way, the team of Dr.
Jeffrey Tucker and the team over at Brownstone have just done incredible, incredible reporting on this from the beginning in analytics, analysis, observations, all of it.
So Robin, how do people find you, where they get you on social media or other pieces that you've got up to get a better understanding of your full thinking?
We're going to bring you back in a couple days and maybe get some reaction from the audience on this because it's a very important piece.
unidentified
Thanks, Steve. I appreciate that.
So my Twitter handle is at rkerner.
That's r-k-o-e-r-n-e-r.
I am, as you said, an author at the amazing Brownstone Institute.
So just go to brownstone.org and you can stick my name, Kerner, in there, k-o-e-r-n-e-r, and you can see all my work.
My personal website is robinkoener.com.
My main platform now for authoring articles is Groundstone.
Thanks for giving them a plug there because they've just been a beachhead of sanity and freedom since this thing has started.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
It's been incredible.
Jeffrey Tucker and the guys have done such a great job.
When did they let you back on Twitter?
I imagine with the way you were early on that you had to get banned from Twitter, right?
Was this after Elon took you back over?
unidentified
It's not a story we were telling, just the same as everybody else.
It doesn't even matter.
It's not important. I'm there now.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
Okay. Robin, thank you so much.
And tell the guys at Men and Women of Brownstone, fantastic job.
Great piece. Thank you, Steve.
I look forward to coming on in. Yeah, thanks.
By the way, Scott Adams has a great video, too.
We just played four minutes over the start of the show, but everybody's sure, you know, he's a smart guy, and he got vaxxed, right?
He said, I guessed wrong, or I thought my analytics were wrong.
I want to go, we got breaking news here, and I asked Abe Hameday.
Abe, I saw a tweet today.
From what is it, Garrett, the fantastic talk radio host out in Phoenix.
What's going on? Is there some breaking news here about the provisional ballots and the count of provisional ballots that may put you over the top in this AG race, sir?
unidentified
Hey, Steve, good to be with you.
So, yes, you know, the RNC and my legal team, we've been going through the list of provisional ballots.
They're the uncounted ballots right now that are outstanding.
You know, there's about 5,000 of them, Steve, and obviously some of them deserve not to be counted, but what our team has gone through in looking at the data is that many of them, about five, six, seven hundred of them actually, they're the ones that we believe should be counted because they voted in either the primary back in August,
they voted in 2020 or even 2018, and yet for some reason, The government is listing them as unregistered to vote now and saying that they canceled the registration.
That's very unusual because here they are.
They voted many times in the past.
They showed up to go vote once again in the November election.
Yet they are now disenfranchised.
So, Steve, this is a historic opportunity because typically the Democrats are the ones screaming to count every vote.
And here we are as Republicans are saying that we don't want any voters to be disenfranchised.
So we're calling them to count on these votes, but we have the list of the provisionals and the party breakdown of these, and they are overwhelmingly Republican by a two-to-one margin, Steve.
So, you know, this is where, you know, I don't know if your listeners or your viewers knew this, but we were down 511 votes before the recount.
After the recount, it showed us down 280.
It was a huge discrepancy.
If you can imagine that type of It was because Pinal County had some issues that they discovered.
So this is what we're talking about.
We filed a new motion for a new trial, and we just put on a reply.
So it's in the judge's hands at this point.
But our legal team and the RNC believes we have the votes, and we just need them to be counted.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
Hey, this is what I think.
Something that was 500 to begin with and now is 280 and you've got these provisionals.
She's the Attorney General of Arizona right now, correct?
unidentified
Yes. How did that happen?
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
How does she actually become the Attorney General when this thing is still in play?
Or am I wrong in that assumption?
unidentified
No, you're absolutely right.
I mean, if you look at what happened, Katie Hobbs, she was the Secretary of State at the time, she withheld this evidence from us, Steve, during our first trial.
She withheld it, and we didn't know the results of the recount, but Katie Hobbs did.
She knew that there was a huge discrepancy in the recount, which would have been very determinative in our first election trial.
But she withheld that information from not only me, but from the judge as well.
If you look at what happened, they basically snuck her into that office.
But if we get a new trial, which I believe we will, I'm not sure, Steve, that there's any possibility that we can't get a new trial because look at all the wrongs that have happened.
We were down 511, which was already the closest race in Arizona history, now down to 280, so even a closer race in Arizona history.
And then you have all the shenanigans that Katie Hobbs was involved with by not disclosing this key evidence to us or to the judge.
And then two days later, the recounts came out and then Chris Mays was sworn into office.
But I tell people in Arizona, we actually have precedent that has removed a sitting governor, a sitting statewide office holder, when in fact after the election litigation determined that they did not receive the most votes.
This could be a historic opportunity on our end, and that's why I'm fighting this, because I understand this goes beyond me, Steve.
This goes for decades from now.
What happened during this election contest has the potential to set precedent, and I want to make sure that no voter was disenfranchised, and I want to make sure that what Katie Hobbs did doesn't become a norm in our political atmosphere.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
The 211 votes, total votes in the Attorney General race, sir, total votes were what?
unidentified
It was 2.5 million, Steve.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
So hold it. In 2.5 million, we're talking about a spread right now of 211 votes, and we have provisional ballots.
You said, look, five or six hundred are going to break two to one.
Of how many?
You said there were 5,000 provisional ballots.
Why are there only five or six hundred?
Because the original votes were worked out.
Is that why you go from 5,000 to 500?
unidentified
So 5,000 was, you know, there's some legitimate issues or people, they registered to vote after the deadline.
Maybe they already voted by mail and that shouldn't count.
So there are ones that, you know, legitimately should not count, but the ones that our team has looked at, and this is just Maricopa County, by the way.
We also have 14 other counties, but Maricopa County is the biggest.
We have learned and looked at to see these 500 to 600 ballots that we believe have every reason to count.
So that's what we're focusing on mainly right now.
But, you know, we don't know what else we're going to open up and what else we're going to expose because as time goes on, Steve, it just keeps coming better in our favor.
I mean, I'm shocked all the time.
You know, every single week that goes by, it keeps getting better.
Usually, recounts don't change results, Steve.
You know, historically, recounts maybe shift a vote total by maybe five or ten.
Here in Arizona, the biggest one was 14.
Yet in my race, it was a 600-vote discrepancy where we gained 450 votes and she gained 200 votes.
So it was a huge spread.
And, you know, why the provisionals are breaking so heavy in our favor, Steve, is because these are Election Day voters.
And remember, I was winning them 75%.
That's why right now the Democrats here in Arizona, they're very scared to see what we're going to expose right now.
And I tell folks, I mean, the government, they're not infallible.
These are the same people who run our post office.
These are the same people who run the MBD. They make mistakes.
And if you look at what Katie Hobbs did back in October, right before the election, I don't know if you remember this, Steve, but she actually sent out 6,000 erroneous ballots.
That were federal-only ballots are wrong people.
She admitted that prior to the election.
But, you know, this is what we have to say is the government makes mistakes that we got to make sure that we're going to make sure all the votes are actually counted legitimately to declare the actual winner of this race.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
Look, Abe, you've got your fan base is the show.
I mean, these people love you.
What do you need this show to do?
What do you need this audience to do?
unidentified
Right now, you know, we might come to their help.
You know, eventually we have to contact these voters.
We have to mobilize every single volunteer here in Arizona to go door-knocking and to find some of these voters, because we might need to haul these voters into court.
That's what's going to be key to actually get this election corrected.
So right now, honestly, with our legal fees are being taken care of, Steve, which has been very generous.
from some of our donors, but right now it's a matter of just keeping us in their prayers, because I swear these prayers are working somehow, because I thought we were out of this months ago, and here we are in February, and we're still fighting, and I'm not going to go down until we expose all of what happened in November 8th, 2020. You're the winner here.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
We just got to push this story out, so we'll become force multipliers for now.
Abe Hamide, what's your social media?
Where do people get to you to follow this story, sir?
unidentified
They can go on my Twitter at Abraham Hamadeh.
A-B-R-A-H-A-M-H-A-M-A-D-E-H. Thank you, Steve.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
Abe, thank you for joining us.
Do we have a cold open for Joe Allen?
Joe Allen's always got a cold open.
Joe Allen's the hardest working guy in showbiz.
Okay, let's play the cold open and bring Joe in.
unidentified
Back in the 1960s, there had been optimistic dreams that it would be possible to develop computers that could think like human beings.
One computer scientist at MIT became so disillusioned that he decided to build a computer program that would parody these hopeless attempts.
He was called Joseph Weisenbaum, and he built what he claimed was a computer psychotherapist.
He modeled it on a real psychotherapist called Carl Rogers, who was famous for simply repeating back to the patient what they had just said.
Men are all alike.
In what way? They're always bugging us about something or other.
Can you think of a specific example?
Well, my boyfriend made me come here.
Your boyfriend made you come here?
Then I asked her to my office and sat her down at the keyboard and then she began to type and of course I looked over her shoulder to make sure that everything was operating properly.
After two or three interchanges with the machine, she turned to me and she said, Would you mind leaving the room, please?
And yet she knew, as Weisenbaum did, that Eliza didn't understand a single word that was being typed into it.
Weisenbaum was astonished.
He discovered that everyone who tried Eliza became engrossed.
They would sit for hours telling the machine about their inner feelings and incredibly intimate details of their lives.
They also liked it because it was free of any kind of patronising elitism.
One person said, After all, the computer doesn't burn out, look down on you, or try to have sex with you.
We've always had these ethical considerations as fundamental at DeepMind.
My current thinking on the language models and large models is we don't understand them well enough yet in terms of analysis tools and guardrails for what they can and can't do and so on to deploy them at scale because I think there are big still ethical questions like should an AI system always announce that it is an AI system to begin with?
Probably yes. What do you do about answering those philosophical questions about the feelings people may have about AI systems, perhaps incorrectly attributed?
So I think there's a whole bunch of research that needs to be done first before you can responsibly deploy these systems at scale.
That will at least be my current position.
And then, of course, there's an additional thing that has to be able to come with AI that eventually it may have its own agency.
So it could be good or bad in and of itself.
So I think these questions have to be approached very carefully, not live A-B testing out in the world, because with powerful technologies like AI, if something goes wrong, it may cause a lot of harm before you can fix it.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
Okay, Joe Allen, what did we just see?
Whenever I hear the phrase, it has its own agency or will have its own agency around robots, computers, or AI, I start to get very nervous.
joe allen ▲ ● ▼
Joe Allen. You know, Steve, before we go back into the video, I should go ahead and announce that Google just announced that they'll be releasing Lambda into the wild.
Lambda was the computer system that their AI ethicist claimed was conscious.
They'll be calling it BARD and they'll be doing small-scale testing for the next couple of weeks and then, assuming everything goes well, a few weeks later they will release it to the general public in limited forms.
But going back to who we just heard, that was Demis Kasabis.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
Ho, ho, ho, ho, ho.
unidentified
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
Slow down.
unidentified
Slow down.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
You don't bury the lead.
I didn't realize when you sent me the thing at BARD that that was Lambda.
The one that the computer scientists, the artificial intelligence experts came up, what, about six months ago and said it had actual consciousness and it was so controversial.
Lambda is actually renamed BARD. That's the Google BARD is Lambda.
joe allen ▲ ● ▼
That's right. It'll be based off of Lambda.
I don't know if they'll put limitations on it that were not in place when the AI ethicist Blake LeMoyne was testing it out and decided that it was conscious.
Something that we should maybe reiterate here, that guy Blake LeMoyne, you know, he is He's a Gnostic priest and an occultist, and so aside from being an AI ethicist trying to root out racism, sexism, and homophobia, he also has a very kind of spiritual perspective or an occultic perspective on this computer system.
Yes, despite all of the worries that the ethicists at Google had, despite the worries just voiced that we just heard from DeepMind's CEO, Demis Hassabis, they will be rolling it out, I think, largely in response to ChatGPT coming out.
And so, you know, if Microsoft and OpenAI are going to join forces to push this out there, I think Google doesn't want to get left behind on a system that they ultimately But hang on.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
This is exactly what we argued about, the competition, the arms race, is that when people see commercial advantage, just like they're seeing national security advantage behind the scenes in this stuff, That this was what was going to trigger the opening of the floodgates.
Right now, I mean, Lambda was the most controversial thing, and it looked like it had to go back into the lab.
And, you know, we've had this guy, DeepMind, we know that he has certain, he's the head of it for Google, and he has some big problems with his own creations.
Now you're saying that actual Lambda renamed BARD in some form that was so controversial just six months ago because all of a sudden chat GPT goes to Davos and wows Davos man, right?
The next thing you know we're unleashing, now we're going to see a torrent of really unregulated artificial intelligence flooding the commercial space, sir?
joe allen ▲ ● ▼
That appears to be the case.
And I don't want to overcomplicate it, Steve, but there are two really big AI programs at Google.
You've got Google AI and you've got DeepMind.
I believe Lambda is under Google AI. So, you know, Demis Asabas is kind of speaking from outside of that system, if I'm not mistaken.
So, yeah, you know, that competition angle that you're talking about really is what is driving this forward and also kind of driving forward the irresponsible deployment of all of this.
The argument from within the US and within the West is if we don't do it, China will do it.
And then from within Silicon Valley itself, you know, if Microsoft, if we don't do it, then Google will do it.
Now Google's saying now that Microsoft is doing it, we had better do it to stay competitive.
So, yeah, this is I cannot overstate How big of a deal it is that you have all of these large language models being released all at once and they're so heavy and interactive.
The problem that we've identified since I first came on the show, this sort of deep human-machine relationship is at the core of the transhumanist ideology.
That is going to be unleashed on society as a whole across the world.
And some number of people, hopefully a small and controllable minority, will undoubtedly develop these sorts of deep relationships with these machines.
And as we've seen with ChatGPT, As that gets skewed towards a certain ideological goal, it just makes it that much easier for technocrats to control the social psychology as a whole.
So people better buckle up if it's happening.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
It's not going to be a small piece.
We only got about 90 seconds left.
Go back to the early part of your cold open where they're talking about people actually getting personal relationships with the early stages.
What was it called, Eliza?
joe allen ▲ ● ▼
That's right. That's Eliza, and that was in the 60s.
It was developed by Joseph Weizenbaum at MIT. And the interesting thing about Weizenbaum having done this, right, he actually became very, very critical of artificial intelligence as a project, a computerized society as a whole, a very interesting character.
But that deep relationship that you saw there This is occurring in the 60s, right?
They already knew, people working in this technological field already knew that human beings would have a propensity to kind of divulge their secrets to the machine.
That's what we've seen with Google, that's what we see on social media, and that is undoubtedly what we're going to see with ChatGPT and now with BARD or Lambda, depending on what you want to call it from Google.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
Joe, how do people get to your writings?
We'll have you back on tomorrow. How do people get to you?
joe allen ▲ ● ▼
That's jobot.xyz, warroom.org under the transhumanism tab, and of course, my social media at J-O-E-B-O-T-X-Y-Z. Joe Allen, thank you very much.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
Appreciate it. We'll see you back on the show tomorrow.
Thank you very much, Steve. As now everything transhumanist explodes.
We could do all four hours a day just on transhumanism and have new developing, insanely meaningful, all signal stories every day.
That's how much is happening in that space.
Okay. Six o'clock.
Oh, excuse me. 10 a.m.
tomorrow morning. 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.
We'll see you back here in the war room.
It's going to be on fire. Tomorrow is obviously the State of the Union for the illegitimate Biden regime.
We're going to have wall-to-wall coverage all day.
Also, all the updates on China, the CCP, Ukraine, the capital markets, all of it, every piece of analytics.
We're also going to livestream tomorrow night the State of the Union.
We're going to have commentary as it's going on.
▲
Export Selection