Aug. 1, 2023 - Bannon's War Room
47:23
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 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 corner 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, Battleground. | ||
| Here's your host, Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| Okay, welcome. | ||
| We committed this morning on the show to take this article that was in Axios. | ||
| The reason we want to take it in Axios, that's kind of the inside baseball for the corporate media. | ||
| It's Mike Allen's kind of inside baseball newsletter for the lobbyists, the political operatives, the Uniparty, Wall Street, all of it. | ||
| It's very good. | ||
| It gives you a great summary of what's going on. | ||
| Today particularly they had this article called the three are the major existential threats to humankind and talked about these great forces that are kind of underpinning the issues in the world today and all are converging kind of in a place and time as a major threat to humanity and of course the buried lead They head down about the 10th paragraph and said, this is exactly why you need really smart people now to run governments. | ||
| This being their, their theory of the case, because they're the college educated elites. | ||
| Remember they're doing all this, they're bending over backwards and trying to rewrite the constitution to allow the deadbeats that got all these worthless college degrees to kind of walk away from it and leave working class America to pay for it. | ||
| But all their implication is that they're the college-educated, they have the advanced degrees, that MAGA and the populist movement are a bunch of morons. | ||
| And not just that, they're dangerous morons. | ||
| And here's why they're dangerous, because the world's getting so complicated and these existential threats to humankind are upon us now more than ever. | ||
| You need the elect of the college-educated and the postgraduate degrees and the Doctoral work and all that to guide us, you know, kind of like Plato's guardians. | ||
| More than ever, we need the guardians, right? | ||
| So, what we've done is assembled our contributors that are the experts in each. | ||
| Axios laid out that it was climate change, artificial intelligence, and nuclear weapons that were the three big current, going to overwhelm humanity. | ||
| So we brought in our contributors to kind of go and deconstruct that and talk about what's reality and what's not. | ||
| And I really appreciate them pulling this together because actually it's just printed the thing early this morning. | ||
| Let's go ahead. | ||
| We got a cold open. | ||
| I'm going to start with artificial intelligence, go to climate change, then finish with our experts on nuclear weapons. | ||
| Let's start. | ||
| We've got a cold open for the one and only Joe Allen. | ||
| Let's go ahead and let it rip. | ||
|
unidentified
|
AI, as we all know, is the study of how to make machines intelligent. | |
| Its stated goal is general purpose artificial intelligence, sometimes called AGI or artificial general intelligence. | ||
| Machines that match or exceed human capabilities in every relevant dimension. | ||
| The last 80 years have seen a lot of progress towards that goal. | ||
| For most of that time, we created systems whose internal operations we understood drawing on centuries of work in mathematics, statistics, philosophy, and operations research. | ||
| Over the last decade, that has changed. | ||
| Beginning with vision and speech recognition, and now with language, the dominant approach has been end-to-end training of circuits with billions or trillions of adjustable parameters. | ||
| The success of these systems is undeniable, but their internal principles of operation remain a mystery. | ||
| This is particularly true for the large language models, or LLMs, such as ChatGPT. | ||
| Many researchers now see AGI on the horizon. | ||
| In my view, LLMs do not constitute AGI, but they are a piece of the puzzle. | ||
| We're not sure what shape the piece is yet, or how it fits into the puzzle, but the field is working hard on those questions and progress is rapid. | ||
| Alan Turing, the founder of computer science, warned in 1951 that once AI outstrips our feeble powers, we should have to expect the machines to take control. | ||
| We have pretty much completely ignored this warning. | ||
| This committee has discussed ideas such as third-party testing, licensing, national agency, and international coordinating body, all of which I support. | ||
| Here are some more ways to, as it said, move fast and fix things. | ||
| First, an absolute right to know if one is interacting with a person or a machine. | ||
| Second, no algorithms that can decide to kill human beings, particularly when attached to nuclear weapons. | ||
| Third, a kill switch that must be activated if systems break into other computers or replicate themselves. | ||
| Fourth, go beyond the voluntary steps announced last Friday. | ||
| Systems that break the rules must be recalled from the market for anything from defaming real individuals to helping terrorists build biological weapons. | ||
| Okay, Joe Allen, very disturbing. | ||
| That's from congressional testimony from what a week or so ago. | ||
| Walk me through who that was, what he said, why is it important? | ||
| Steve, that was Stuart Russell. | ||
| He is involved with the Future of Life Institute, an institute we've covered a lot. | ||
| They were actually the organization that drafted the open letter requesting a halt on artificial intelligence development above the level of GPT-4. | ||
| They also drafted an open letter back in 2014-15 in which they urged a complete ban on artificial intelligence-based lethal autonomous weapons. | ||
| So, drone swarms that can decide to attack and kill on their own. | ||
| Something really important to remember about the Future of Life Institute is that they are, by and large, composed of transhumanists or quasi-transhumanists. | ||
| They, as you heard Stuart Russell talking about, hope to create a superhuman artificial intelligence god. | ||
| And what you hear, this hearing was actually quite a bit more interesting in many ways than the last. | ||
| I think much more substantial information and also much more substantial proposals on how to deal with something like this. | ||
| And especially, I must say, as usual, Josh Hawley really stood out as being very informed. | ||
| And was very open to recognizing the potential dystopian elements of all this. | ||
| That being said, the problems that they're highlighting, there's really three that are of real import to my mind. | ||
| The first being, as you heard there, the notion that you don't know whether you're interacting with a human being on the other end of the screen. | ||
| I think that's going to be a real problem going forward. | ||
| It already is now. | ||
| The artificial intelligence is definitely good enough to fool somebody with, say, an IQ of 110 below. | ||
| Really, oftentimes people don't know if they're talking to a person on social media. | ||
| If it's that good, how would you know without some kind of verification? | ||
| And that's where verification systems like the WorldCoin that we covered yesterday and other verification systems like something that would be in the same vein, biometric identification, tying your body to a digital identity to prove that you're human. | ||
| So it could actually cause as many problems trying to solve this problem, such as having some sort of mandated biometric ID in order to get onto the internet or anything else. | ||
| The second one, though, Steve, you know, that he also mentioned that lethal autonomous weapons, you have people like ex Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who chaired the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence back in 2001. | ||
| 2001 and he is really, really pushing for using lethal autonomous weapons. | ||
| He believes that as other nations develop them, it will be imperative for the US to keep up that we have weapons that can decide to kill because they would be able to react much faster than any human being would. | ||
| And just to generalize, he believes that human beings would not win a war in which artificial intelligence was behind the kill switch, so to speak, or the red button to either launch a missile or a drone attack or anything like that. | ||
| And so that's also very, very disturbing. | ||
| It's a big decision that's going to have to be made. | ||
| Do you allow machines to make the decision to kill or not? | ||
| We heard Mark Andreessen arguing that that should be the only system able to kill because human beings are so faulty and so slow. | ||
| And he is a very respected intellectual in the realm of technology. | ||
| It wouldn't surprise me if he showed up at one of these hearings to testify. | ||
| So to me, I think that's a very, very dangerous move. | ||
| To even have them at all, let alone to have an attitude that human beings should not be responsible for life or death decisions on the battlefield, and that machines should. | ||
| And last but not least, of course, the idea of artificial general intelligence, the sort of AI god that the | ||
| There's literally no way to know whether the technology has capped out basically right here or if the most aggressive predictions like Elon Musk and some of the others who spoke there at the hearing that artificial general intelligence, the superhuman general purpose AGI, could be literally right around the corner in the next five, seven years. | ||
| And you also don't know that if You could easily have a corporation that claims that they have AGI, or something like AGI, and be able to wield enormous amounts of influence and power just on the mythology alone. | ||
| I think that this is probably the most shattering, both on just a philosophical level, political level, economic level, and of course a theological level. | ||
| If you have a company like Google or OpenAI who claims to have brought into existence either a conscious or at least a hyper-intelligent being that is not human, a sort of alien life form, that really does change the game as far as how we talk about what it means to be human and what it means to really have rights in a society. | ||
| You have all these people like Dalton Ispon, Martine Rothblatt pushing for robo-rights already. | ||
| So I think that Steve, it was very, I think listening to Josh Hawley and even Richard Blumenthal, Amy Klobuchar, I think that they have definitely shown that they've done their homework and they're on top of this as much as one could be on top of something so unpredictable. | ||
| At the same time, we have a lot of chaos on the horizon, especially in regards to the election of 2024, if these deepfakes really do proliferate, as they say. | ||
| But honestly, the deep fakes, don't get me wrong, are going to be bad. | ||
| And this is one of the whole things about machines in elections and connectivity to the net about artificial intelligence takes that to the whole, you know, next level. | ||
| But back to this, you know, Mike Allen had this piece, Axios had this piece, and it's kind of ironic in that their corporate clients, the uniparty, the corporatist uniparty that runs our nation. | ||
| Has had no problem, has had no problem in this race to develop AI with a kind of a devil catch the hindmost or no controls whatsoever. | ||
| Kind of this bizarrely libertarian approach. | ||
| Esper the other day, and this is what I think Semaphore had about his interview with the New York Times or this piece he did in the New York Times. | ||
| Esper, the former Secretary of Defense, you know, the one with President Trump that I actually said was a guy that You could tell with Milley kind of try to lead a coup against Trump that he's sitting there going there's an outright arms race that the 21st century is going to be defined by the arms race that is more intense than the arms race you see in the movie Oppenheimer about who's going to get the nuclear weapons first the Nazis ourselves or then the Russians ourselves with the hydrogen bomb. | ||
| That you've got this arms race right now that will define the 21st century and there's nothing that can stop that. | ||
| That is ongoing. | ||
| What struck me about these hearings, even as good as Josh Hawley and these guys were, you're talking about some pretty modest Things, and nobody even came close to talking about a kill switch that actually could knock the whole thing down. | ||
| Or that you would have, how would you actually get some agreement, some treaty or some agreement that you wouldn't, that no one would ever program an algorithm into the machine itself where you could kill humans. | ||
| The granularity on actual solutions was at a very general Although, very scary. | ||
| Here's what we need to do. | ||
| There seemed to be no backup whatsoever. | ||
| Your thoughts on that, sir? | ||
| Yeah, I've long said, and I still stand behind it for now until things get better, I don't see a lot of solid political solutions to the problem of runaway technology. | ||
| Let's say that you put in regulation to halt the development of artificial intelligence up to a certain level in the U.S. | ||
| These companies already have labs overseas, and it's pretty much inevitable that they would go overseas and develop them there. | ||
| And of course, that country would be the one to hold the sort of fabled ring of power, so to speak. | ||
| You could also have an agency that check for safety, and I think that's good, something. | ||
| Josh Hawley really pushed the concept of data privacy. | ||
| That's something that's really need to be put in place for a long time anyway in the US. | ||
| That's also good. | ||
| It means that AI is not raking your personality over every second of every day, nor are just the general algorithms that are used by Google, not without your permission anyway. | ||
| And so that would be an excellent move forward. | ||
| But all of these different technologies, I mean, you know, one thing that I cover in my book and what we've covered here for the last two and a half years is that this is an enormous field of technological systems on top of technological systems on top of systems. | ||
| And all of them really do have the potential for social control, top-down social control or social disruption from a sort of distributed array of actors. | ||
| And so the chaos of the ongoing technological revolution we're living in, the so-called fourth industrial revolution, I don't see any solid political solutions for it. | ||
| In many ways, I think the real solutions are people bracing themselves for it, educating themselves about what the possibilities are, and those sorts of preparations to Basically confront a future in which you will have, without a doubt, what Ardian Fuller calls the cyborg theocracy. | ||
| will have a culture which literally holds technology up as being godlike entities. | ||
| And everything that descends down from that, such as robotics, brain-computer interfaces, especially the non-invasive brain-computer interfaces that don't take, you don't have to chip yourself, you just simply put a cap on and begin to kind of commune with the machine. | ||
| That is already here and the development of that, I think, is also very much inevitable. | ||
| This is all not to mention the various sorts of biological alterations that are already on the market and in the next, say, 10 years are going to probably undoubtedly develop in a direction where you will have the possibility for, say, direct gene-edited designer babies. | ||
| So I think that even if in the U.S. we say no on everything, we just go full Luddite, other countries will race forward. So if we say yes, then obviously we're going to be at the center of that because we have the best technology in the U.S. | ||
| without a doubt, whether it's artificial intelligence or... | ||
| Or the infrastructure that supports crazy, radical biological alterations, including on the military end. | ||
| So yes, Steve, I think it's good that it's being talked about in Washington and I think that there can at least be some mitigation of damage and confusion. | ||
| But I also think that there's the real possibility that something like mandated biometric identification to verify your humanness on the internet really opens the doors to a lot of Much worse problems really than the mass confusion of not knowing if you're speaking to a bot online. | ||
| So it's like I say, I think, especially going into 2024 and beyond. | ||
| The best route is to brace yourself, and you don't have to disappear into a cave, but I think some degree of survivalism and independence on the part of MAGA or anyone else, really any human being, will be in order. | ||
| Don't be so quick on that. | ||
| Dark Aeon, of course you use the Cambridge pronunciations because you're so proper. | ||
| Dark Aeon the book if I can get the cover up the guys in Memphis This book is out on the 29th. | ||
| I think of August it is really an incredible work I think it was four or five hundred pages But you're gonna get a view if you dive into this and grasp it and hang with the argument and work your way through it And I understand it's not easy getting into a 500 page book | ||
| uh the um it's incredible can memphis put up the uh can we get the cover the um give me a minute on the book and why people should i want you to hang around too i'm gonna actually flip the the uh the order we're gonna do it i'm gonna do nuclear weapons next because ai has a direct impact on that walk me through um walk me through the book Well, Steve, fortunately it is long. | ||
| As far as the written text itself, my text, that's almost exactly 400 pages. | ||
| But it's 13 chapters that I've written in a way. | ||
| One builds onto the next. | ||
| Each one leads to the next. | ||
| But it's the sort of book that you can literally flip to any chapter and they stand on their own just given whatever interest you have. | ||
| Maybe your interest is in the dangers of artificial intelligence. | ||
| Maybe your interest is in radical life extension, radical biological alterations. | ||
| Maybe your interest is in the evolutionary underpinning that really sustains the philosophy of transhumanism. | ||
| So whatever topic takes your interest you can easily just flip to that and it doesn't require you to start on page 1 and get to page 400. | ||
| However, obviously I hope that people will And I made every effort to make it as comprehensive and as accessible as possible, maybe even with a joke or two here and there to keep you laughing as you hurtle your way towards the apocalypse. | ||
| And at the end, I give my own modest proposals for solutions. | ||
| I think that most of them will be less. | ||
| I don't want to. I don't want to. I don't want to. | ||
| Yeah, I don't want too much of a spoiler alert, but go get dark. | ||
| Eon and today at Amazon. | ||
| Let's drive this book to be a New York Times bestseller. | ||
| Just hang on for one second. | ||
| I'm going to keep you around, Joe Allen. | ||
| Let's start. | ||
| Ben Hardwell, nuclear weapons. | ||
| Our favorite Senator Lindsey Graham, and I want you to address this since you've been closest to it, he just announced this bizarre thing that if Russia hits, and by the way, the loose talk in Russia about using nuclear weapons to defend Crimea and the Donbas is also totally inappropriate and wrong, and there's been some loose talk about that here over the last couple of days, but Lindsey Graham comes out about that loose talk and says, | ||
| A nuclear strike on Ukraine is a nuclear strike on NATO. | ||
| They talk about nuclear weapons being existential. | ||
| We haven't used them since August of 1945, right? | ||
| Only been used twice. | ||
| Why is Lindsey Graham trying to broaden out this conflict right now, sir, about this threat of nuclear weapons? | ||
| Good afternoon, Steve. | ||
| Well, I think the answer to that question would seem to be because Lindsey Graham is a well-known stooge of the military industrial complex and therefore any potential opportunity to escalate It's going to be something which he will intervene in to escalate, and that's exactly what he's done right to the right of his political career. | ||
| It's just that the argument in itself, as you lay that, is astounding because obviously, famously, famously, Ukraine isn't a member of NATO. | ||
| His argument, I mean, I don't want to say it's more subtle because it's not particularly, but the argument he uses is that the use of tactical nuclear weapons on Ukraine would mean radiation would spread outside of the territory of Ukraine into that of neighbouring countries which are NATO members. | ||
| And therefore, it would be it would be able to consider that an attack directly on those other NATO countries, in which case the United States will be able to respond in kind. | ||
| I think it's I think it's astonishing intervention, Steve, considering where we are in this war. | ||
| But it goes, I think, to underline one point here is that the If you want to de-escalate this war, right, political pressure needs to be put on these people, our representatives in the West, to negotiate rather than to escalate. | ||
| I mean, under a certain optic, escalation is something that might force Vladimir Putin to step down, to back down and retreat. | ||
| It's entirely possible. | ||
| It doesn't seem a very sensible strategy, given what's at stake, the better, the more secure approach is obviously for de-escalation is for negotiation and to encourage both parties, give them every support to thrash their differences out at the negotiating table and give them every support to do so. | ||
| Since Mike Allen and Axios have been one of the drivers of the of the of arm Ukraine and continue to fight in the escalation, not negotiation camp where the war room is in the negotiate not escalate. | ||
| Isn't it ironic that they put in nuclear weapons as this existential threat to humanity? | ||
| Since where we're the closest to having that happen since 1945 is right now in this Ukraine war. | ||
| Did you not find that ironic that they put that in their piece? | ||
| That the proliferation of nuclear warfare is something that they've been driving? | ||
| Steve, ironic is the perfect word. | ||
| That is exactly what it is. | ||
| It's almost poetic, that conjunction. | ||
| You know, it might be worth just stressing one point, and I don't know, I certainly haven't had a chance to do this on the warm. | ||
| I don't know if any other contributor has since this war started, but let's just take a moment, just 10 seconds, to remind ourselves what Article 5 of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty, actually empowers its members to do. | ||
| It sets out the principle, the famous principle, that attack against one NATO member is attack against all. | ||
| And then gives them, each country, each NATO member, at their own discretion, The legal authority, if you will, to then participate in a war according to its own choosing, its modality of its own choosing, in defense of its NATO ally. | ||
| That's important because without that legal instrument, it could potentially be the case that we would end up with future Nuremberg-type trials where the primary charges back in Nuremberg wasn't the Holocaust, it was the conspiracy So the NATO treaty in and of itself, it protects NATO allies in order to come, even though they haven't been directly attacked themselves, they can come to that member's defence. | ||
| Steve, the important thing here is Article 5, you know, that gives to each nation the right to choose how it wants to respond to that aggression of its ally. | ||
| Conceivably, conceivably, that could simply be the US Congress sending a sharply worded press release. | ||
| And then America will say, well, we think we have made the most appropriate response to that. | ||
| And that is it. | ||
| It doesn't oblige military. | ||
| Article 5 does not oblige a military response. | ||
| And of course, in America's case, you have the constitution. | ||
| NATO membership doesn't override that constitution. | ||
| Congress still has to agree to a declaration of war. | ||
| Yes, exactly. | ||
| You would think they don't even force. | ||
| But they have. | ||
| Hang on. | ||
| We're going to go to break. | ||
| We're a short break. | ||
| We're going to come back. | ||
| I got Colonel Mills. | ||
| We got Harnwell. | ||
| We got Joe Allen to talk about the dangers of A.I. | ||
| Plus, this is supposed to be the world's boiling. | ||
| It's no longer it's no longer climate change. | ||
| It's no longer global warming. | ||
| It's global burning. | ||
| We've got our own Dave Walsh on here to walk you through the mathematics of all that. | ||
| Okay, short commercial break. | ||
| We'll return with Axios's Existential Threat to Humanity, The Rebuttal in the War Room. | ||
| Welcome back. | ||
| We've got our great contributors here to go through all this. | ||
| Colonel Mills, talk to me, you know, Uh, Ben has made this incredible case and following it, you know, daily from, uh, from Rome about this situation or they continue to escalate instead of negotiate in, uh, in, uh, in Eastern Ukraine, the Ukraine, this Ukraine battle space. | ||
| Now we have Axios is one of the drivers of that corporate message for the defense contractors. | ||
| You see, you go to actually see the Raytheon, you see all these guys advertising, you know, sponsor content all the time. | ||
| Give us your analysis of this threat of nuclear weapons, particularly, not just the proliferation, but actual now people talking about use of tactical nukes in the Ukraine battle space. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, that's of grave concern, especially when Ukraine reaches out and is beginning to hammer Moscow. | |
| The question in China, this has been, once again, the U.S. | ||
| intelligence community has apparently not been paying attention to what's going on in China with the nuclear force. | ||
| I would call them equivalent to us. | ||
| The problem with that, Russia was equivalent to us. | ||
| Now we got two countries who have a treaty with each other that are now double our size in nuclear weapons. | ||
| Now, Xi just replaced Li, who was his head of strategic rocket forces. | ||
| He was an army general. | ||
| And he's gone now, and Admiral Wang has been As has been now appointed Commander of the Strategic Rocket Forces, which includes both the ground base and the sea base deterrent. | ||
| And that's what I have here is this is Sanyat Naval Base. | ||
| This is where they're hiding their ballistic missile submarines, their six existing nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines. | ||
| The question is, is she tying nuclear command and control to artificial intelligence so it'll work without even any human interaction? | ||
| This is scary. | ||
| But this is their big sub base right there. | ||
| This is underground. | ||
| See, what's happening right now is they actually have an underground submarine base. | ||
| This is where their six Type 92s, I think it is, could go inside. | ||
| And they put out a hard perimeter with a couple of gates because they're very worried about Navy SEALs conducting a raid here. | ||
| There's their demagnetization facility. | ||
| But yeah, they're hiding their boat underground inside here. | ||
| So, once they go to sea though, are they being operated with artificial intelligence? | ||
| Is our AI now replacing the human in the nuclear command and control? | ||
| This is absolutely disturbing, worse than anything we've seen during the Cold War. | ||
| And your point is now that we forced Russia into the arms of the CCP. | ||
| You have an opponent, a combined axis. | ||
| Uh, controlling the Eurasian landmass, trying to consolidate the Eurasian landmass that not only has more and just quantitative, but also qualitative because we really, we have not updated the nuclear arsenal in a long time. | ||
| Before I let you go, because I want to get, we want to have you back for a briefing deeper on the, particularly the ballistic missile submarines. | ||
| What is the intelligence community saying about this firing? | ||
| I mean, he just had appointed, I think, General Lee when he was terminated relatively quickly, and the head of the strategic rocket forces, the strategic nuclear forces in the PLA doctrine is, you know, one of the top guys in the military. | ||
| What scuttlebutt are you hearing about why Xi made such a public move in firing the head of his strategic rocket forces? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, in one release, I heard the often used expression of corruption, which is code word for Xi cleaning house of anybody he doesn't trust. | |
| I mean, Xi is turning into Saddam Hussein really fast. | ||
| When he marched Hu Jintao out of the meeting, that's exactly the tactics that Saddam Hussein used to use. | ||
| So Xi is terrified about an internal threat that's going to overthrow him, assassinate him. | ||
| uh... except for us so i i think that's as much as anything what's going on it's not like there's a command inspection uh... they left the uh... doors open on one of the but nuclear bonkers you're fired at now i'm sure when they use the term corruption that's a catch-all phrase for uh... she doesn't like the person or travel or importantly doesn't trust the person anymore so especially doesn't want to use it and i think that people should know if you follow the show they've done a complete house | ||
| cleaning of the p l a and a lot of people think that's to get more aggressive people the buying the she's thing they were going to have to go to kinetic war against the west as a work members of the p l a said i don't know if that's a smart move uh... | ||
| um... | ||
| Joe Allen, before I let you guys go, talk to me about the threat of artificial intelligence. | ||
| You know, Colonel Mills just said it. | ||
| about where they've got the center of gravity of their fleet ballistic missile program. | ||
| Talk to me about the dangers of artificial intelligence being in a command and control aspect of these weapons. | ||
| A lot of the viewers will probably remember the dead hand system, the so-called perimeter system, first employed by the Soviets in the mid 80s and said to be still in effect now. | ||
| It's just an automatic weapons system that would detect incoming nuclear strike in Russia And would then respond autonomously, so it would be like seismic activity, radiation detection, basically would mean that we blew them away, and so therefore it would just start launching intercontinental ballistic missiles our way. | ||
| And so you already have, let's just take it down from say artificial intelligence, kind of a grandiose term, down just to computer algorithms, kind of fuzzy line between, These algorithmic systems are already there. | ||
| Russia's Avangard hypersonic missile is guided by advanced algorithms, artificial intelligence, and it's so complex and so autonomous that once it's launched, the human really doesn't determine the path after that. | ||
| It just simply goes to its target by whatever path it decides. | ||
| As far as China, China has been really putting a lot of Money and manpower, brainpower, into what they would call intelligentized weapons. | ||
| Both Russia and China are doing this though because the U.S., however faltering the military equipment development has been in the U.S., right now you have Eric Schmidt, front and center, working with the Department of Defense to, as he would maybe put it, bring the U.S. | ||
| military into the 21st century. | ||
| DARPA has been at the core of everything that we talk about when we talk about transhumanist technology, and so they're a mass program to create swarms of swarms, AI-powered drone swarms that would kill and be able to evade any system of detection or deterrence. | ||
| All of this is happening as a race. | ||
| They're all responding to each other, the U.S., the three superpowers, U.S., Russia, and China, and all of them are doing everything they can to develop advanced algorithmic systems and in some quarters in the hopes of taking human beings out of the loop so that the AI, with its fast response times and its very broad swath of data that it can gather in order to make its decisions, so that the AI is the prime decision maker. | ||
| And I am with Colonel Mills on this, absolutely. | ||
| It is a terrifying prospect. | ||
| Joe, once again, the book, your social media, where do people get all your writings? | ||
| You can find the book at Amazon, where all books are sold. | ||
| You can find links at the top of my social media at J-O-E-B-O-T-X-Y-Z, Twitter and Gitter. | ||
| Joe, thank you very much. | ||
| Colonel Mills, what are your coordinates? | ||
| for my website, joebot.xyz. I really do hope you'll pick it up and I do believe that you will you will definitely have a very clear sense of what the field of technology is especially its religious and philosophical underpinnings. Joe, thank you very much. Colonel Mills, what are your coordinates? How do people get to your writings? | ||
|
unidentified
|
TheNationWillFollow.com, TheNationWillFollow.com You can pre-order Book 2, War Against the Deep State. | |
| The preface on Book 1 is by Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| If you want an autographed copy, go to Mike Lindell's MyStore. | ||
| Use code WAROOM. | ||
| And then it's Colonel Rhett John on Substack, Getter, and Truth. | ||
| Colonel Mills, thank you very much for your insights, as always. | ||
| Ben Harnwell from Rome. | ||
| How do people get to you? | ||
| Brother Harnwell. | ||
| Sir, the best social media platform in the world. | ||
| Simply type in my surname, Hanwell. | ||
| There I am, pushing out my thoughts and analysis throughout the day. | ||
| Benny, you've been pretty good on Ukraine for the last year and a half. | ||
| Pretty good. | ||
| Got to give you a Bravo Zulu on that. | ||
| Thank you so much for joining us this evening from Rome. | ||
| Thank you so much, Steve. | ||
| God bless. | ||
| Dave Walsh. | ||
| Drudge had the Mac Daddy yesterday, the month of July, and had the whole calendar every day. | ||
| About the hottest month in human history. | ||
| Axios leads off. | ||
| Of the existential threats, the first among equals is climate change. | ||
| Now they're talking about the boiling of the earth. | ||
| It's irrefutable. | ||
| It's only going to get worse. | ||
| Walk me through your mathematical assessment of this, sir. | ||
| Well, one cannot, the scientists know, but their media spokespersons maybe know less, that you cannot extrapolate long-term climate change conclusions based on 45 to 60 days of data. | ||
| You just can't do that. | ||
| Yeah, we've had hotter than normal temperatures certainly in Texas, the southwest, southeast somewhat, the upper midwest a little bit, the far west actually, the L.A. | ||
| basin, cooler than normal. | ||
| Um, but if you look at, typically, temperatures modulate. | ||
| But hold it, but hold it, but hold it, the middle Atlantic, I mean Washington D.C. | ||
| hasn't been a brutal summer at all, not like normally Washington D.C. | ||
| has, or my beloved Virginia or North Carolina. | ||
| The Atlantic states Southwest, definitely. | ||
| Texas, it's a hot summer. | ||
| What's the mathematical argument they make that the Earth is boiling and now we've crossed into a danger zone? | ||
| This proves they're all right. | ||
| We've crossed into a danger zone. | ||
| There is no mathematical argument that we've crossed into a danger zone. | ||
| If you look at the typical modulations in temperature year to year, according to NOAA data, the Oceanographic Agency, Temperatures on average modulate two to four degrees per year, up and down. | ||
| Average temperatures winter and summer. | ||
| This year we've seen about a one and a half degree uptick on average. | ||
| A lot of the country nothing. | ||
| Yeah, a lot of the country a little worse than that. | ||
| But it's way within the normal standard deviation of annual change from one year to the next. | ||
| Now, average temperatures aren't the same every year. | ||
| Some years higher, some years lower. | ||
| Let's go back just the last 80 years, which is a little more relevant, but not that relevant across what one has to really analyze is 20,000 years. | ||
| We had the 0.8 Fahrenheit drop from 45 to 80, 1980. | ||
| Then a 1.4 Fahrenheit rise from 1980 to 2015, accumulatively. | ||
| And then the last nine years through two months ago, temperatures have been flat. | ||
| So across that whole time period, we're up about half a degree Fahrenheit over 80 years. | ||
| And if you look at where the temperature is trailing upwards, 28 degrees from the end of the last glaciation, 18,000 years ago, this demodulation is background noise against the 0.3 that should be happening in accordance with the long-term uptick post-glaciation that will end and then will be headed back down into an ice age. | ||
| This is way in the normal range for a month and a half period where it's a little warmer in parts of the country. | ||
| The same in most of the country as normal, such as here in Florida. | ||
| Temperatures are about typical. | ||
| They're not really hotter than normal. | ||
| In the midday 90 degree range, at night 74. | ||
| Typical, very typical, very normal. | ||
| No, this is all hair-on-fire conflation to push the agenda for more and more renewables. | ||
| That this is something the issue, the issue before us really is the issue of the de-electrification of the West, of Western Europe, of the UK specifically, Germany specifically. | ||
| Okay, hang on, hang on. | ||
| I want to get to this because this is what I don't understand. | ||
| You got to help me out here. | ||
| The guys that make, and I'm sure there's some logic here that you're going to explain to me, Walsh, because you're my guy. | ||
| The climate change guys and their big push is for sustainability, renewable energy. | ||
| I got that. | ||
| Okay, let's just put a pin in that. | ||
| That's their argument. | ||
| But they always get to the electric vehicle and getting rid of the internal combustion engine and fossil fuel. | ||
| I mean the whole thing is fossil fuels are over. | ||
| You can't have more fossil fuel. | ||
| How at the same time do we have a de-electrification movement in the industrial west that's pretty advanced. | ||
| I just don't understand intellectually how that hangs together. | ||
| Germany is de-industrializing before our eyes. | ||
| This is not War Room saying, not Dave Walsh. | ||
| This is coming from now the Financial Times and mainstream German media. | ||
| They're actually having a debate about it. | ||
| And as Dave Walsh is showing, and these are not left-wing states, whether it's South Carolina, whether it's the state of Florida, You know, you've got Nikki Haley and Tim Scott running for president from South Carolina. | ||
| You've got DeSantis from Florida. | ||
| In Texas, you've got, you know, it's the bastion of MAGA. | ||
| They're in an advanced de-electrification movement. | ||
| Am I wrong in any of that? | ||
| You're completely correct. | ||
| England is devastated with 15 million folks living under the poverty line now due to the de-energization and de-industrialization of that country since about 2002, an entire 20% of the economy has been under attack and basically taken off the table, being oil and gas production, coal production, steel making. | ||
| And now England is a massive importer of energy, poverty levels at record levels. | ||
| Germany's headed the same place. | ||
| And we are making exactly the same moves. | ||
| And this is all because there are, in the West, there are no longer energy policies. | ||
| There are only environmental policies. | ||
| And this assignment of CO2 is something to do with the environment, which it is not. | ||
| It is not a pollutant. | ||
| It's a naturally occurring element. | ||
| It's fundamental to the existence of life. | ||
| We've seen in this country what we're now doing is we need about 20% more electrification by 2030 just to match normal GDP and normal population growth. | ||
| About 20% more electrification is needed before we get to EVs and electrifying home heating. | ||
| The growth rate of electrification across the next nine years is only 4% because what we're adding, 90% of what we're adding, is wind and solar that operate on average about 22% of the time. | ||
| We need electrification that operates 100% of the time. | ||
| While we're adding that, we're taking offline 12, 12 and a half, 13% of our capacity, mainly coal, some nuclear, that runs full time. | ||
| So the net net of the two is we're spending a trillion dollars to add Close to net zero, about four percent of added capacity in nine years, where we need 20. | ||
| Now, when we get the EVs, Musk yesterday talked about three times more electricity needed by 2045. | ||
| Okay, if I'm in the EV business, I'm going to say that, but really, he's on the right path. | ||
| We'll need about two times more electrification by 2045. | ||
| Half were normal population and GDP growth. | ||
| If we want to remain industrialized at all and then have for the EV conversion and for this home heating conversion across the upper Midwest and Northeast, we're not adding electrical capacity to do anywhere near that. | ||
| In fact, as I've said, the next 10 years, We're growing electrical capacity by about four and a half, five percent, where it needs to grow 20 percent without this other transition that Biden's doubling down on. | ||
| This is the horrendous issue facing the West. | ||
| It's the de-energization resulting in the de-electrification of the West due to the adherence to environmental only policies and zero energy strategy in Germany, in France, in England, in Belgium, in the United States, in Canada. | ||
| In Australia and New Zealand, zero energy policy. | ||
| Only environmental, yielding to the Greens, an environmental-only perspective on how energy is created. | ||
| And that means less industry. | ||
| I find it, this is why I wanted to do the Axios piece for today because Axios and pulling out climate change, artificial intelligence and nuclear weapons, they said these are the three existential threats to humankind right now and they're all kind of converging. | ||
| Axios and their corporate partners are the ones that have been driving this. | ||
| That's the thing that's so outrageous. | ||
| Dave, we've got to bounce. | ||
| What's your social media? | ||
| Oh, we just lost Dave Walsh. | ||
| That's okay. | ||
| Okay, Dave, what's your social media? | ||
| How do people get to you, brother? | ||
| I'm Getter, at Dave Walsh Energy, and Truth Social the same. | ||
| Thank you, Steve. | ||
| You've been spectacular. | ||
| We're going to have you back on to drill down even more on this, sir. | ||
| No pun intended. | ||
| We're going to leave you with the Weavers and their song, This Land is Your Land. | ||
| A beautiful and powerful song about the United States of America. | ||
| This land is your land from the Weavers. | ||
|
unidentified
|
That ribbon of highway I saw above me That endless skyway I saw below me That golden valley This land was made for you and me This land is your land This land is my land From California | |
| To the New York Island, from the River Forest, to the Gulf Stream waters, this plan was made for you and me. | ||
| I roamed and I rambled, and I followed my footsteps, to the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts. | ||
| While all around, a voice was sounding, saying this land was made for you and me. | ||
| To the New York Island, from the River Forest, to the Gulf Stream waters, this plan was made for you and me. | ||
| As the sun came shining, and I was strolling, and the wheat fields waving, and the dust clouds rolling, as the fog was lifting, a voice was chanting, this land was made for you and me. | ||
| This land is your land, this land is my land, This land was made for you and me. |
Export Selection