March 2, 2024 - Bannon's War Room
47:52
| 
| 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. | ||
| So this is a band-aid on top of a band-aid to cover another band-aid. | ||
| It looks as though things are okay as of right now, but the battle over government funding isn't over. | ||
| No, not as close over, Jose. | ||
| This is the first, literally the first salvo, I would say. | ||
| So basically what happened is they kicked government funding deadlines instead of March 1st and March 8th to March 8th and March 22nd. | ||
| March 8th will be the easy deadline. | ||
| That includes the Interior Bill, the Energy and Water Bill, Military Construction, Veteran Affairs, a number of bills that are non-controversial. | ||
| Then you have a week off, and then you come back the week that ends with the 22nd, and you have the big bills. | ||
| Homeland Security, Defense, Labor, HHS. | ||
| Some of these really controversial bills, Jose. | ||
| But let's say this. | ||
| Mike Johnson executed a smart move here. | ||
| He didn't have bills ready. | ||
| He was able to cobble together a majority of the House Republican majority to kick the bills down the road and try to get a long-term spending deal. | ||
| Although at this point, Jose, it's not really long-term. | ||
| It's March 1st. | ||
| Five months into the fiscal year, and we are just getting started with fiscal year 2024 spending. | ||
| So what is the one-week extension for? | ||
| It's just so they can get their act together, to be honest with you, Jose. | ||
| They need to finish these bills. | ||
| I mean, these are largely and hugely complicated bills. | ||
| And I would also point out, back in the day, in the 80s and 90s, they spent all summer on appropriations bills, wrapped them up in August or July or August, and then had them ready for the entire next year. | ||
| And you didn't have to deal with CRs or Stop gaps or any of these things. | ||
| You had them done. | ||
| The bills were passed the House and the Senate, and you kind of dealt with it that way. | ||
| But remember, it's March. | ||
| We're going to have to see the Congress start on fiscal year 2025 spending pretty soon. | ||
| So anyhow, that is where we stand. | ||
| No shutdown this week. | ||
| Perhaps a shutdown next week. | ||
| It doesn't look like it, but it could happen. | ||
| Week off, and then you have the big kahuna. | ||
| You have the big defense bill and all those things. | ||
| Meanwhile, three men named John have been floated to replace Mitch McConnell as leader of the Senate GOP. | ||
| One of them, Senator John Cornyn, is now officially running for leader. | ||
| You wrote in Punchbowl about Cornyn's blitz to try and gain support. | ||
| What are you learning? | ||
| Yeah, John Cornyn is in the race, the first candidate in the race. | ||
| He has the most to lose here, Jose. | ||
| Not in the leadership at all right now, trying to make a big bid. | ||
| He chaired the campaign committee. | ||
| He was the majority whip during Donald Trump's tenure. | ||
| He is running hard and running quickly. | ||
| Usually speed kills in these races, but a lot of this will depend, Jose, on what happens in November if Donald Trump wins the White House. | ||
| Okay, welcome. | ||
| Friday, 1 March, Year of Our Lord 2024. | ||
| What a day for news. | ||
| Jake Sherman said something there that's very important. | ||
| The buried lead in that is about how it was done in the old days, in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, where he said they'd work all summer, the appropriators, because that's the deal. | ||
| It's not just the level of spending, but it's where it gets allocated. | ||
| Then they'd have it and they'd hit every mark by September 30th, which is the end of the fiscal year. | ||
| be done. What has changed? What has changed is that people understand the spending levels themselves are a major issue and there's fights over the spending issues, although not as much as we want from this, but also the woke and weaponized. | ||
| There's intense discussion and debate because MAGA is a rising force to say you just can't continue to not just spend it, it's where you spend it. | ||
| Today, think about earlier in the show, in this morning's show, we're from Panama. | ||
| We got Burquam and Oscar Blue Ramirez down there, and what are they reporting on? | ||
| The UN, which is an integral part of these NGOs that are Greasing the skids, an active part of the invasion of our country, that's all paid for by your money. | ||
| This is one of the things that's not even out now. | ||
| The spending and the scale of it is mind-boggling, but also what you're paying for is there to destroy you and your country, destroy the sovereignty of your country and your personal sovereignty as a citizen. | ||
| This is an invasion of the country and Biden has not done one thing since this became a critical crisis issue six weeks ago. | ||
| Not one thing. | ||
| I've asked Philip Patrick to join us and the reason is that In all of the discussion over the last couple days, in the approval, and they did get a majority. | ||
| They had 113 votes. | ||
| We had 99, but there were also, I think, 9 people who didn't vote. | ||
| Okay? | ||
| Not all of those were to vote with us, but I think two-thirds were. | ||
| So it's, you know, it's 115 to 108. | ||
| Once you get the majority of the majority on our side, and, you know, there was a lot of headbanging to get that 113. | ||
| Trust me. | ||
| One thing that was not discussed at all, and it's not being discussed, is the scale of this. | ||
| So, Philip Patrick, given your time in the precious metals industry, but particularly just a financial analyst of what's going on, Here we're going to have a two to two and a half trillion dollar deficit in the one they're working on. | ||
| And remember what Jake Sherman said, that it is March. | ||
| This is for the budget that was supposed to kick in on October 1st. | ||
| As soon as we finish this, and we're not going to finish this until April or May, you're already in the process for the next years, which, wait for it, is another two trillion dollar deficit. | ||
| The political class clearly won't deal with this because they can't deal with it. | ||
| Philip Patrick, your thoughts? | ||
| I mean, it's an absurdity and we've been saying it for so long, but as Jake Sherman said, five months into the fiscal year and there is no budget. | ||
| We've been ramming a message home to Congress for a long time and they're not listening. | ||
| you know, delaying tough decisions, it doesn't make them any easier. Now, we expect Johnson's going to capitulate just like McCarthy did before him, which is just absurd. We're handing the Democrats everything they want, like you said, another $2 trillion deficit. And why? Because we're tired of fighting over it? It's absurd. And as we've said before, it is a very necessary conversation because deficit spending has to start. | ||
| Arguing about it, delaying the decision, and then ultimately throwing our hands up, it's just a circus. | ||
| And what it's doing, and this is the key, it's the timing of it. | ||
| It is wrecking global confidence in the US. | ||
| And it's doing it at a bad time. | ||
| Think about it. | ||
| If you're the central banker for Norway or Hungary, right, are you going to be interested in loaning money to a nation that can't decide exactly how much money it needs or how it's going to spend it and is regularly engaging in open discussions about defaulting on the loans? | ||
| It's no wonder that central banks at the moment are buying up record quantities of gold. | ||
| It is a circus domestically and it doesn't look good globally. | ||
| The one way they can get them to continue to buy is to keep interest rates high. | ||
| I mean, we have interest rates high. | ||
| Foreign governments, they're going to allocate at least some part of that to the U.S. | ||
| But walk the audience through why this... And here's what's going to happen. | ||
| It's the old Hemingway thing. | ||
| You know, how did you go bankrupt? | ||
| Slowly and then all at once. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| The same thing is going to happen here. | ||
| We're trying to prepare people for... Because when this crisis hits, it's going to be like the Weimar Republic. | ||
| It's going to spin and explode so quickly that people are going to get, they're just going to get blown, they're going to get blown out. | ||
| Right? | ||
| And this is what's, and you just do the math. | ||
| The CBO's told us this, the smart guys on Wall Street are doing projections. | ||
| It's not hidden when the math is here. | ||
| The only discussion is how long, and we keep saying it's going to happen sooner, and we've been right about the scale of this, and particularly how it's starting to build on itself, that there are two trillion dollar deficits. | ||
| The one thing that has shocked me, It's how no one in the political class, except for really, quite frankly, some backbenchers, are taking this seriously right now. | ||
| I know President Trump talks about it all the time internally, but how no one in Washington, D.C., they want to continue the game of just having the Fed print the money. | ||
| How soon do you think we start to hit crisis mode here? | ||
| Look, we're heading in the direction. | ||
| You and I talked last week about the dollar. | ||
| There was an article in Bloomberg talking about the dollar being 17% over its 20-year average. | ||
| Which it is, right? | ||
| But this is if you compare it to other major currencies of major trading nations. | ||
| But the reality is for today, the dollar is the tallest midget in the room. | ||
| And it's largely because of something you said earlier, and that is we've got higher interest rates here in the US relative to the other G8 nations, which means a stronger currency. | ||
| But the problem is, longer term, with what we've been doing, we cannot sustain, right? | ||
| Gold, you know, comparing currencies to other currency to make an argument for a strong dollar, I think is an absurdity. | ||
| There are other alternatives. | ||
| Look at gold, for example, 47% over its 20-year average right now, right? | ||
| Now, the dollar looks good today in comparison to other truly dreadful assets, but it's still only the slowest sinking ship. | ||
| Now, the big thing to watch out for, I think, are the BRICs. | ||
| They are searching now for an alternative to the dollar. | ||
| In other words, there's an elephant in the room, and it is a dragon. | ||
| But the problem that China have right now is they can't dump all of their dollars, right? | ||
| Where are they going to put their money? | ||
| BRICs, national currencies like the rupee, the real, the ruble, are just too volatile and subject to devaluation. | ||
| The BRICS at the moment, it appears, are focused on creating a stable and liquid alternative to the dollar. | ||
| When they do, right, it's the beginning of the end for the dollar. | ||
| So we're sort of seeing these last moments where the dollar is still king, but it is fading every single day. | ||
| And when we lose a grip on that, it's over for us here in the US, unfortunately. | ||
| You heard Putin talk about this last week. | ||
| As many of our enemies are in the BRICS, This is not actually something they want to actively do. | ||
| Not now. | ||
| They're being forced to do that by our actions. | ||
| They understand that our actions by the elites in this country, the lords of easy money, are reckless. | ||
| And it's killing the purchasing power of what they own. | ||
| In addition, they're now talking about not just using the SWIFT system, which is the way all transactions get done, the infrastructure of how you track things. | ||
| And our Treasury Department actually runs it, so you can shut it down immediately, to the detriment of these nations. | ||
| But also the fact that even the Wall Street Journal is starting to support this concept of seizing the assets we have frozen in the banks of the Russians, all in treasuries. | ||
| How we are actually thinking of seizing those, and they're coming up with creative ways. | ||
| Since this show's been banging on them that you just can't take, you can't convert it to dollars and give it to the Ukrainians, now they're thinking of different ways. | ||
| Oh, well, maybe we just borrow against it and, you know, it's collateral for loans to use for reconstruction. | ||
| But they are adamant about using this economic warfare, which I'm a proponent against the CCP, but you got one bullet in the chamber. | ||
| And here they used the bullet and it didn't work, and now they're panicking. | ||
| But this is what's driving the de-dollarization movement, is it not, Philip? | ||
| Yeah, I mean, how much less attractive can we make the dollar to other nations, right? | ||
| We're printing it into oblivion. | ||
| We're devaluing the dollar and we're devaluing the currency that these nations are holding to trade with others, right? | ||
| We are weaponizing the dollar. | ||
| We are turning people's assets into liabilities. | ||
| And domestically, we can't even agree on a budget five months into a fiscal year. | ||
| It's an absurdity. | ||
| Look, people in the US are fed up of inflation eroding buying power, but everyone else in the world is fed up of dollar devaluation eroding their purchasing power. | ||
| It works the same the other way around. | ||
| And this administration is just playing into the hands of our enemies. | ||
| They are making the argument easy and rational to dump the dollar. | ||
| And that's the problem. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you. | |
| Just, can you give us a one-minute tutorial on the prime reserve currency? | ||
| Here's the reason is that people, as much responsibility as it brings, and it brings a lot, so it's not a, it's something that should be discussed and debated on a national level over time. | ||
| If we don't want to do it, you shift to another system. | ||
| To just have it taken away means a collapse kind of like the pound after Bretton Woods. | ||
| The pound in England went through, you know, what, 40 years, 30 years? | ||
| Of, you know, grey times until Thatcher came along and still totally never, really never recovered. | ||
| Here, being the prime reserve currency that every transaction has to be done in dollars has a benefit that we can even finance these deficits. | ||
| We couldn't finance anything if you weren't the prime reserve currency, is that correct? | ||
| It's absolutely correct. | ||
| Listen, the reason we can amass 24 trillion dollars of debt is there is huge demand for our debt, which means, you know, our debt doesn't... it's already attractive. | ||
| There's demand, which means we don't have to pay huge interest. | ||
| It allows us to amass large amounts of debt. | ||
| As our debt becomes less attractive, we have to make it more attractive by paying higher interest rates, which obviously we can't afford to do, which is how ultimately these guys will kill us from the inside. | ||
| So, It's a very privileged position to be in, and you mentioned the United Kingdom and Bretton Woods, and I think I've said it before, since they lost global reserve currency to the dollar, the pound sterling has lost over 96% of its relative buying power. | ||
| That is the effect long-term of losing a grip on global reserve, and I'm afraid we've already lost it. | ||
| Where do people go? | ||
| I want people now because the turbulence we talk about geopolitically, strategically, militarily, inside the country, the invasion, all of it means times are going to be turbulence for quite a while. | ||
| And Trump's not going to be able to wave any magic wand and make everything better as soon as he gets in. | ||
| It's going to be a long fight. | ||
| So this turbulence is going to stay with us for quite a while. | ||
| How do people counter that? | ||
| How do they hedge that? | ||
| Look, it's really simple. | ||
| I think you start with information. | ||
| So, you contact birchgold.com forward slash Bannon. | ||
| Again, birchgold.com forward slash Bannon. | ||
| That's going to get people access to free information on how to invest in gold. | ||
| There is a reason central banks around the world are buying gold. | ||
| 23, 22 biggest records in history for central banks. | ||
| What a pl... | ||
| Hang on, we lost, we lost Phillip. | ||
| Let's continue on and I'll get back in a second. | ||
| Okay, birchgold.com slash Bannon is where you go. | ||
| You get to talk to Phillip and all the team. | ||
| I don't think we need to reboot him. | ||
| We're good. | ||
| And good segue. | ||
| Um... | ||
| This is not going to go away. | ||
| Look, in your allocation of your assets, I know some people have things in stocks, you have it in You have it in your home. | ||
| We talk about that all the time, about your net worth in your home, which is still, I don't know, 80% of most people that are lucky enough to have a home. | ||
| But in thinking this through, I know a lot of people have never thought about gold. | ||
| A lot of people think, oh, these gold bugs are all kind of, you know, on the fringe, kind of kooky. | ||
| But precious metals has played a central part In economies and currencies play a central part in economies and you gotta admit when you look at the math from 1971 when we went off the gold standard, when Nixon took us off the direct convertibility of Federal Reserve notes into gold, a lot of negative things have happened to working class and middle class people throughout the thing. | ||
| I think the since the since the Federal Reserve Has been formed back in 1913, I think, the purchasing power of the dollar is down 98% since Biden's coming down 17%. | ||
| I think the purchasing power of the dollar is down like something like 60%, 65, 70% since coming off the gold standard. | ||
| It's something that the people that run the central banks of the BRICS are not idiots. | ||
| They're pretty smart. | ||
| They've determined the central banks need to buy gold at record rates. | ||
| That ought to have you sitting up at attention. | ||
| Well, why are they doing that? | ||
| Well, the people that can explain that to you are the folks at Birch Gold. | ||
| That's why I go to birchgold.com. | ||
| That's why we're very proud to have them as a sponsor, and more importantly, to have Philip on the team here as a contributor and also helping us to the end of the dollar empire. | ||
| You need to understand currency and the centrality of currency in your life and in your country's life. | ||
| We got Joe Allen, a lot to get to. | ||
| I want to have Joe on. | ||
| This situation, artificial intelligence and what's happening is a massive story. | ||
| I want to make sure everybody's up to speed. | ||
| Let's play. | ||
| We have a cold open. | ||
| Let's go and play it and I'll bring in the Joe Allen, our editor for all things transhumanist. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Hey, figure one. | |
| Can you make me a cup of coffee? | ||
| I'm going to make a cup of coffee. | ||
| Okay, Joe, for our vast radio and podcast audience that couldn't see the video, and this is why you have to go to warroom.org and sign up for the email. | ||
| Get all the videos, get all the charts we put up. | ||
| It'll help your immersive experience here in the War Room. | ||
| What did we just see? | ||
| What's the purpose of your cold open, sir? | ||
| Yes, Steve, that was a video of the new FIGURE robotic system, humanoid robotic system. | ||
| FIGURE, it has just been announced, will be partnering with OpenAI to give the artificial intelligence systems a body, so to speak. | ||
| The company is comprised of a number of roboticists that come out of Boston Dynamics, Tesla, and other high-profile agencies. | ||
| I was very curious, when we first reported on this last year, how quickly they would move and what their ultimate fate would be. | ||
| It doesn't surprise me, really, that it turns out that they're going to be the sort of body for OpenAI's artificial intelligence systems. | ||
| Why is this so important? | ||
| Why is it important to put a body, why is it important to actually have a physical body around this concentration of artificial intelligence and next level thinking? | ||
| Well, there are two different reasons. | ||
| The first reason is just simply the modeling of the world in the sort of mind of AI, to put it in anthropomorphic terms. | ||
| You've got a real problem with artificial intelligence like GPT. | ||
| It's just kind of hovering in space. | ||
| It doesn't necessarily have senses or a sense of the world, of the physical world. | ||
| One of the reasons that Musk and many other roboticists are Creating things like Optimus at Tesla is to give the AI system an actual model of three-dimensional reality. | ||
| And also, in the case of Optimus and many of the other systems, it gives an interface with human beings, so it begins to learn human personalities. | ||
| And the hope at OpenAI, at Tesla, and XAI, at Google, on and on and on, the hope is that As these systems get senses, as they get a sense of the world, the physical world, that model of the world in their brain, so to speak, in their digital brain, would become conscious, that it would be some sort of sentient Being and that this is a key step in that process. | ||
| It also gives the second important reason, Steve, you know, a robot, whether it be humanoid or something very, very abstract like a factory, a robot gives the AI the ability to manipulate the physical world rather than just digital space. | ||
| And so, you know, as we reported, Last week, OpenAI is partnering with the Department of Defense in a cooperative research and development agreement. | ||
| There are no details whatsoever as to why and what the nature of these agreements will be, but robotics in warfare It's very, very important for obvious reasons. | ||
| The recent reporting on the Pentagon basically enacting a lot of the projects that we've been reporting on from Replicator to DARPA's AMASS. | ||
| It was reported by Bloomberg that the Pentagon has carried out about 85, the U.S. | ||
| military has carried out about 85 strikes. | ||
| Utilizing the AI systems that were first developed or first embarked upon in 2017. | ||
| So it's coming to fruition and robotics is a huge part of that too. | ||
| Remember, regenerative robotics is one of the converging forces for the singularity. | ||
| What is a roboticist? | ||
| Can you define for our audience? | ||
| I want them to understand nomenclature. | ||
| When you call people roboticists like Elon Musk and others, what is a roboticist? | ||
| Yeah, you know, maybe I was a little too hasty calling Elon Musk a roboticist. | ||
| I mean, he obviously works in engineering, and he works on robots. | ||
| But a roboticist, simply a term for one who builds robots. | ||
| You know, in my book, I spend a lot of time on two in particular. | ||
| Hugo de Garis, who worked on robots in China at Xiamen University, and also the Sorry, I'm blanking on the name of one of the most, Hans Moravec, the most important roboticist, I would say, in many ways, just because of his ideas. | ||
| But yeah, a roboticist is just simply one who builds robots. | ||
| In this case, the humanoid robot, Steve, I think it's very interesting because this is kind of the fruition of the dreams of the Golem, the ancient Jewish myth that you would have the magical power by certain Kabbalists to create a humanoid out of clay. | ||
| These are centuries-old dreams. | ||
| They're happening in real time, and they're happening very, very quickly. | ||
| Okay, I want you to hang with me because I'm gonna go on the other side and talk about why you're seeing humanoid, why they're very focused on humanoid robotics. | ||
| A couple of things. | ||
| Housekeeping. | ||
| We lead a big effort here to help build and help assist in the building of the patriot economy. | ||
| That is, this whole theory of the case, to stop giving money to people that hate you and hate your values. | ||
| Remember, you just don't get to vote every four years or every two years for Congressional or these in Virginia when it's an off year. | ||
| No. | ||
| You get to vote every day with your money, with your dollars, with your fiat currency. | ||
| This is why Public Square was started. | ||
| This is why the team over there, Michael Seifert and the team that came from the tech area, built really what they consider to be a competitor to Amazon. | ||
| But this is with patriot companies that have products and services and patriots on there that want their values reinforced, not destroyed. | ||
| So go to Public Square. | ||
| Used to be PublicSQ and now PublicSquare.com. | ||
| Go to PublicSquare.com. | ||
| You go there, you can download the app or use the website. | ||
| Get access to really tens of thousands of entrepreneurs now that support your values. | ||
| And check it out. | ||
| You're going to see the quality is the same quality or better. | ||
| Then you get on the outside. | ||
| So make sure you check it out today. | ||
| PublicSquare.com. | ||
| Also this other part, like the credit cards and the taxes. | ||
| Stop fearing these things. | ||
| It's all a process. | ||
| Go to TNUSA, TaxNetworkUSA.com slash Bannon. | ||
| TaxNetworkUSA.com slash Bannon to check it out. | ||
| Find out what the process is. | ||
| Don't let back taxes or unfiled taxes freak you out. | ||
| There's a way out. | ||
| TaxNetworkUSA. | ||
| Back in a moment. | ||
|
unidentified
|
War Room Battleground with Stephen K. Bannon. | |
| Welcome back. | ||
| On roboticists, I want to make sure, because I've got a theory of the case here, one of the reasons they're doing the humanoids and they put so much focus on this, isn't the way that artificial intelligence is going to be actually more quickly accepted or accepted quicker into the population? | ||
| Is because of they're going to try to make it as human as possible and make it acceptable as possible, whether it's health care workers, hospice workers to start, whatever. | ||
| Isn't one of the secrets here of what they're trying to do is to try to make this as human and as likable as possible to then get artificial intelligence embedded into everyday life? | ||
| Yes, absolutely. | ||
| The robot Sophia, we've covered Sophia and Hanson Robotics just, you know, endlessly on the show. | ||
| You know, Sophia is intended as a way to acclimate people to the presence of a humanoid robot. | ||
| She's intended to be a little bit creepy, but also intended to be, you know, somewhat comforting that, you know, as she's appearing in high profile venues like the United Nations, as we've reported that she, you know, was Granted citizenship in Saudi Arabia before women could drive, all these sorts of publicity stunts. | ||
| These are intended openly to drill the notion of a humanoid being that is artificial into the public consciousness and both make people disturbed now before the real stuff is rolled out. | ||
| And then also to give people a certain degree of comfort that these things have our best interests in mind. | ||
| And that goes across the board, Steve. | ||
| I mean, you've also got like the small robot Moxie. | ||
| You know, we showed that from the CES event and previously when Moxie was first rolled out. | ||
| This is to give children basically to normalize the communication with artificial intelligence through a kind of humanoid form with children. | ||
| And as you just mentioned, the kinds of robots that are already being rolled out in Asia and will probably eventually be rolled out in the U.S., robots for hospice care, to care for the elderly. | ||
| As people become less and less willing to take on those sorts of duties in the fast-paced modern world, the idea is we will just simply have robots do it, and robots will, you know, speak to your elder loved ones into their final moments, and some of them will be reading their, you know, giving the last rites over the dead. | ||
| It's very disturbing in my mind, but this is the world that they want to build, and this is the world that they are building quickly. | ||
| How dangerous is this? | ||
| Well, you know, again, the reports on the U.S. | ||
| using artificial intelligence to identify targets in the Middle East, and then this, of course, comes on the heels of all of the uses of artificial intelligence in Ukraine, both by the Ukrainians and, of course, NATO and U.S. | ||
| backing Palantir being at the center of it, U.S. AI company, and then Russia also developing the same. | ||
| And then, of course, China, many analysts warn that China, while they are not ahead of the U.S. in any meaningful way in warfare AI, that they are pouring more of their, a larger percentage of their resources into developing lethal autonomous weaponry. | ||
| And they note, I think correctly, whatever level China has reached in secret, they know correctly that China is far more willing ethically to use such weapons than the U.S. | ||
| In the U.S., we're still really deliberating over whether that's going to happen or not. | ||
| But some of the loudest voices, as we covered, you know, Eric Schmidt from Google, former Google exec. | ||
| Peter Thiel, of course, and Alex Karp, CEO of Palantir. | ||
| You've got Marc Andreessen, the billionaire venture capitalist, and many, many other voices arguing that the U.S. | ||
| needs to push forward on fully lethal autonomous weapons, weapons such as drone swarms that have no human oversight whatsoever, because it's believed that they will be more accurate and quicker, they'll be faster to respond to attacks or threats and you know that's just in the end what you end up with are killer robots and if those are under human control in the sense that the human says go kill yeah that's dangerous but of course the people who worry about AGI they say that | ||
|
unidentified
|
that gives the AGI the ability to kill too this is incredibly let's go and play your next clip and then we'll have you respond to it at first glance the war in Ukraine might look like something from the 20th century But it holds many lessons for conflicts to come. | |
| New tech is making a huge difference. | ||
| There's this idea of revolutions and military affairs, and they're typically attributed to technology. | ||
| Brain. | ||
| Now humans are still in control of the fighting, but one of the things that AI is doing is helping to process information faster. | ||
| AI is being used to sift through satellite images and drone video feeds, and that helps militaries then better understand what's happening on the battlefield, make decisions faster, and then target the enemy faster and more accurately. | ||
| So, what happens when we do consider having humans not be at all in control? | ||
| When these systems are fully automated, what are the pros and cons of that? | ||
| Well, we're already seeing drones being used in Ukraine that have all of the components needed to build fully autonomous weapons. | ||
| They can go out over the battlefield, find their own targets, and then, all on their own, attack those targets without any further human intervention. | ||
| As we saw in World War II with the atomic bomb, the country that is able to most rapidly and effectively integrate new technology into warfighting wins. | ||
| There's no reason to believe this will be any different with AI. | ||
| Swarms of lethal drones with facial recognition that know your every move, or unmanned armed robots that are near impossible to defeat. | ||
| Autonomous fighter jets that can travel at supersonic speeds and can withstand greater gravitational force than a human pilot could survive. | ||
| Cyber attacks that incapacitate critical port infrastructure. | ||
| Or disinformation campaigns and deepfakes that throw presidential elections. | ||
| Or even foreign adversaries taking out satellites. | ||
| Our eyes and ears in space, rendering us blind to global events. | ||
| All super intelligent weapons of terror. | ||
| Shield AI is a military tech company working to build an AI pilot. | ||
| Artificial intelligence software that can fly unmanned craft during combat. | ||
| The future of warfare is going to be characterized by thousands of unmanned aerial vehicles, unmanned surface vehicles, unmanned underwater vehicles. | ||
| We'll see unmanned systems outnumber the number of warfighters on the front lines of these conflicts. | ||
| They will play a key role in any battle of the future. | ||
| What did we just see there? | ||
| And why is it dangerous, Joe Allen? | ||
| I think the two figures that are really important to highlight there, the first, Paul Shari, interviewed there on PBS. | ||
| Paul Shari's book, Four Battlegrounds, is quite interesting. | ||
| I wouldn't necessarily recommend it, but it's interesting for two reasons. | ||
| One, he had a lot of access to write the book. | ||
| To Google Department of Defense, various military and big tech companies. | ||
| But with that access, I imagine that explains why he is in many ways a kind of cheerleader for these companies. | ||
| Of course, brings out the dangers and how all of this could go wrong. | ||
| But in the end, he seems to be much more on the Eric Schmidt wavelength that if China is developing these things, the US must do it as quickly as possible. | ||
| And that's just that, you know, we'll just do it the good way. | ||
| We'll be the good guys. | ||
| The second gentleman that we saw there is Alexander Wang. | ||
| He is founder, CEO of Scale AI. | ||
| And Scale.ai is intent on partnering with various security services from the Department of Defense to ICE to, you know, any, you know, security role that their AI can play in. | ||
| And, you know, there you hear him talking about the various ramifications of this killer drones, you know, disinformation campaigns with deep fakes, you know, disrupting governments and all these sorts of things. | ||
| But Ultimately, he is one of the few in tech that is just Openly saying that AI is going to be the future of warfare, that tech companies need to quit with their hang-ups about violence and all that, and that they need to go full bore with the Department of Defense, with U.S. | ||
| security services and intel agencies in order to create systems that can defend against attack, but of course to kill and to kill without necessarily having human beings in the loop. | ||
| Where do people go? | ||
| This is very dangerous. | ||
| In particular, we've given over, as you said, Bloomberg's reporting, I think, 40 attacks to AI. | ||
| Where do people go to follow up on this, Joe, on your social media and all the stuff you're putting up on War Room? | ||
| You can find all this stuff on my social media at J-O-E-B-O-T-X-Y-Z. | ||
| As far as the warfare element, the 13th chapter of my, uh, the 11th chapter of my book, uh, Dark Aeon, uh, Countdown to Giga Death, uh, you can go straight there. | ||
| I think you'll get a very, very clear idea of where this is coming from, where it's going. | ||
| Uh, and of course, warroom.org under the Transhumanism tab. | ||
| Of course, we call it Dark Aeon here in the headquarters, but I can see there's a controversy about the pronunciation. | ||
| Anyway, it's an amazing book. | ||
| We recommend everybody get it. | ||
| Joe Allen, thank you very much for joining us today on a Friday evening. | ||
| Thank you very much, Steve. | ||
| Dr. Larry Schweiker joins us. | ||
| So, Dr., CPAC is where globalism goes to die. | ||
| Are you buying that? | ||
| You've got the new Patriot's History of globalism, right? | ||
| And you say it's rise and decline. | ||
| You don't say it's fall. | ||
| Is it declining or is it falling? | ||
| In the situations like CPAC, we have all these populist nationalist leaders from around the world come. | ||
| Does that help exacerbate its decline? | ||
| Yes, absolutely. | ||
| You know, we've been talking for about three weeks here about how the Davos people got no interest from the leaders, that none of the major leaders attended Davos. | ||
| And we're starting to see a major transformation of CPAC away from the old-line Republican kind of blue-haired, you know, Globalist Republicans, neocons, into a much more populist group. | ||
| It's really too bad Andrew Breitbart isn't here to see this because he would certainly, I think, approve of all this. | ||
| So yeah, it's great to see Americans getting involved in this. | ||
| Talk to me about the decline of this. | ||
| You got definitely Davos. | ||
| A lot of the big hitters don't go there anymore. | ||
| A lot of the big heads of nations, because they understand we were able to make it toxic. | ||
| But is it really in decline? | ||
| What indices in the book? | ||
| What indices? | ||
| We know it had a rise. | ||
| We know what happened to the jobs. | ||
| We know what happened to the sovereignty of this country. | ||
| But we're still fighting the WHO. | ||
| Our borders are wide open. | ||
| We're still part of the global compact on migration. | ||
| There's an invasion on the border. | ||
| So what indices are you looking for that said it's actually has peaked and in decline? | ||
| Well, I think in terms of elections, you know, there's several indicators you can look at in terms of elections worldwide here, with a few exceptions like Finland. | ||
| You're seeing populist movements who are opposed to globalism take control of Hungary, Slovakia, Italy, Argentina. | ||
| There were about a dozen elections in Europe two months ago where almost all of them went in the direction of populism. | ||
| You see the farmers in Brussels back down the whole EU in terms of a lot of their policies that were very much climate change-oriented, and literally the EU had to give in. | ||
| Now, the question is whether or not they will give in for the time being, and as soon as the farmers' tractors leave, they reinstitute some of these policies, but at least in the short term. | ||
| The farmers, one, they're moving on France, they're moving on Ireland. | ||
| So, you know, everywhere in Argentina, everywhere we look here, with a couple of exceptions, the people are kind of rejecting globalism. | ||
| Now, you mentioned the WHO. | ||
| Of course, none of this is done by a treaty, because even with the Democrats in the Senate right now, the WHO international medical treaty would not go through, let alone when you start to get somebody like Donald Trump in office, who Pulled the plug on half a dozen of these globalist programs in his first month in office, the first time around. | ||
| So these are not permanent things that can't be undone. | ||
| And we're under no obligation to follow anything by the WHO, according to our own constitution. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I want to go back to something. | |
| You talk about the farmers and seeing the merger of the kind of populist nationalist movement, or what they call the sovereignty movement in Europe, and you combine that with these farmers, and the farmers, correct me if I'm wrong, Correct. | ||
| In fact, I would argue that the others have failed. | ||
| Medical globalism failed. | ||
| they're putting in to essentially destroy the net zero that destroys the farmers. | ||
| Is this another example of this battle of globalization? | ||
| Because climate change and the cult of climate change and net zero and all that is one of their biggest, is one of the globalization's biggest properties, is it not? | ||
| Correct. | ||
| In fact, I would argue that the others have failed. | ||
| Medical globalism failed. | ||
| Bretton Woods is unraveling very fast. | ||
| All the other things have failed. | ||
| So now they're putting all their eggs into the climate change basket and they're supporting that of course with the... | ||
| kind of airheaded celebrities, but the farmers' reaction was specifically against things like plowing under farmland to put up wind farms and solar panel farms, which are ecological disasters. | ||
| I mean, I can't wait for people to really understand what an ecological disaster these lithium batteries And the wind turbine blades are the damage they do to the globe. | ||
| They're far worse than anything an auto can do. | ||
| So the farmers are reacting to this. | ||
| I think what's so encouraging is that we're seeing a reaction now almost across every strata except the most highly educated, urbanized people against these kinds of movements. | ||
| And you look at Today, for example, a poll came out showing that a majority of Gen Z-ers, 65%, thought things were better under President Trump. | ||
| And you see that even now—this is a Harris poll that came out. | ||
| It's almost unbelievable. | ||
| The 30% of Democrats say things were much better or somewhat better under President Trump. | ||
| You're seeing the residents of inner cities, mostly black, reacting to this illegal criminal invasion. | ||
| That's sponsored by Joe Biden. | ||
| And they're not having any part of this. | ||
| You see the civil wars breaking out within the Democrat parties. | ||
| And the same thing is happening in the European parties over the admission of a lot of Middle Eastern immigrants. | ||
| So everywhere you look, globalism, I think, is starting to fracture. | ||
| And just the right little push is going to knock this whole thing over. | ||
| Talk to me about the book. | ||
| I know you're doing a book tour. | ||
| I know you're going around talking to as many people as possible. | ||
| Talk to us about the book. | ||
| Why should the audience get it? | ||
| The Patriots History Series are unbelievable. | ||
| You've done the best job of describing American history and modern American history. | ||
| Talk to us about the book for a minute or two. | ||
| Sure. | ||
| I wrote this book because globalism itself was becoming a major problem. | ||
| And as always, I start with the history. | ||
| And so you've got part history and part hope. | ||
| And the reason this book is so important is I think it counters a lot of the narrative out there by the people I call the McClellans. | ||
| You remember General George McClellan in the Civil War, always outnumbered Robert E. Lee, always had more men, more cannons, and he was always timid and hesitant because he always thought they were going to win. | ||
| He always thought that he was outnumbered. | ||
| And I encourage people to look at the last chapter of the book because there's a lot of hope out there. | ||
| We need to give up this McClellanism and be more like a Sherman or a Grant or a Napoleon and say we're well able to take these elections and to take this country back. | ||
| You've got a lot of gloomsters out there. | ||
| Oh, there will never be another election. | ||
| Well, you remember they said this about Bill Clinton. | ||
| He'll never leave office. | ||
| They said this about Barack Obama. | ||
| Oh, he'll never leave office. | ||
| The left said this about Donald Trump. | ||
| Oh, he'll never leave office. | ||
| They will leave office. | ||
| The wheel has turned and it's time for them to go. | ||
| It's time for them to go in Europe, worldwide. | ||
| It's time for them to go. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Wow. | |
| How's the book, real quickly, how's the book going to help our audience, the Warren Posse, she's the tip of the spear. | ||
| How's it going to empower them to make them go? | ||
| First of all, it's going to show them that what we're up against is nothing new. | ||
| Nothing new. | ||
| It goes back 200 years. | ||
| Second, it's going to show them that so far the globalists have always lost. | ||
| There's a history of them losing. | ||
| I mean, they're the, like, 21st century version of the Dallas Cowboys. | ||
| They can't win the big one. | ||
| And it's always a different group that really pushes back against these guys. | ||
| So don't be afraid. | ||
| Don't crawl in your corner and curl up and say, oh, we can't do it. | ||
| Say, God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind. | ||
| We're going to go kick some butt. | ||
| We go to Amazon to get the book. | ||
| Where else, sir? | ||
| Go to wildworldofhistory.com. | ||
| We have special offers now with package offers of the book and Patriot's History of the United States or Patriot's History of Globalism and my previous books, Dragon Slayers and Reagan. | ||
| They can get great offers, all autographed, all sent to you. | ||
| And remember, this is a War Room book. | ||
| We're so proud of this and so proud to be associated with the Patriots History brand. | ||
| Dr. Larry Swiker, thank you for joining us here on a Friday evening on the War Room. | ||
| Appreciate it, brother. | ||
| Thank you, Steve. | ||
| You won't be able to put this book down. | ||
| It's as every bit as compelling as the original Patriots history, which is still one of my favorite history books. | ||
| You talk about globalization. | ||
| You talk about the Chinese Communist Party. | ||
| They're one of the big drivers in backward, right? | ||
| They've benefited off this. | ||
| They kind of played our government. | ||
| They get into the WTO, most favored nations, the whole thing become a backward agricultural country to the one of the leading, if not the leading economy in the world, based on the backs of the grays of the Lao-Bai-Ching. | ||
| Well, remember, this is why Jace Medical was set up off Rosemary Gibson's book. | ||
| They have 100% control of active pharmaceutical ingredients that go into your medicines. | ||
| Remember, supply chains are dominated by the Chinese Communist Party. | ||
| Go to JaceMedical.com today. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Find out how they can help you solve that problem. | |
| Lou Dobbs is next here on Lyndell TV. | ||
| We're back tomorrow morning, Saturday live at 10 a.m. |
Export Selection