All Episodes
Previous Next
July 27, 2024 - Bannon's War Room
37:09
WarRoom Battleground EP 579: Deception and Punishment: Face the Future with Steel
Participants
Main voices
j
joe allen
13:34
Appearances
Clips
l
larry fink
00:06
s
steve bannon
00:30
| 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 corner and shows their lies and misrepresentations.
unidentified
This is why this audience is going to have to get engaged.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
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.
And some of the things that we're going to do, but AI.
And that's AI.
A little thing, simple, two little simple letters, but it's big.
If ultimately hundreds of millions of billions of people get a high bandwidth interface to their digital tertiary self, their AI self effectively, And you know, Elon, I love Elon Musk.
The goal is to give people superpowers.
Well, it is a superpower.
You want to be right at the beginning of it.
For a little tech, we think Donald Trump is actually the right choice.
larry fink ▲ ● ▼
The social problems that one will have in substituting humans for machines.
unidentified
The cynical view would be this is just a classic arms race.
Who masters those technologies will be the master of the world.
I'm going to have a lot of friends who are probably pissed off at me for saying anything nice about President Trump.
We're going to bring this into a golden age like never seen before.
Remember this, China wants to do it, Japan wants to do it, all of these countries want to do it.
If you look at some of the things that have been done and some of the things that we're going to do, but AI needs tremendous, literally twice the electricity that's available now in our country.
Can you imagine?
At technology transformation, it usually takes place in the terms of an S-curve.
And we are just now, where we move into the exponential phase.
Artificial intelligence, but not only artificial intelligence, but also the metaverse.
New space technologies.
And I could go on and on.
Synthetic biology.
Our life in 10 years from now will be completely different, very much affected.
And who masters those technologies in some way will be the master of the world.
joe allen ▲ ● ▼
Good evening.
It is Friday, July 26th in the year of our Lord 2024.
I am Joe Allen sitting in for Stephen K. Bannon, who is unjustly imprisoned as I speak.
If there's one thing that Stephen Bannon tried to cultivate in this audience, it is both a very firm political stance coupled with an open mind.
The ability to hold two ideas in your head at the same time.
So on the one hand, we know that the reelection of Donald Trump will be essential to closing our poorest borders, to ending the sorts of economic and justice department-based warfare against conservatives, to hopefully ending foreign wars, and if all things come together, to bring certain biomedical tyrants to justice.
On the other hand, you've got the issue of technologists, transhumanists, who, with their economic and techno-wizardry, have hypnotized Trump, for the moment, with the grey gods of AI.
Now, in the short term, it's clear the political objectives take precedence.
But it's going to be important to keep these long-term trends in mind.
Many people have this bizarre misconception that transhumanism is essentially globalist or essentially left-wing, but transhumanism absolutely has its nationalist and right-wing components, such as Peter Thiel or Marc Andreessen, and increasingly Elon Musk.
Most transhumanists are libertarian, and for the most part, libertarians are ridiculous dreamers.
Libertarians also believe in ending the Fed, and if there's one thing that we want to see in the War Room, it's the end of the Fed.
If the Fed goes, if fiat currency is brought under control, you're going to want gold.
That's why the War Room partners with Birch Gold.
As we all know, the petrodollar is crumbling before our eyes.
Saudi Arabia just declined to renew the 50-year-long petrodollar agreement.
With Gold IRAs from Birch Gold Group, you can move your IRA or 401k into physical gold without paying any taxes or penalties.
To learn more, get a free info kit on Gold IRAs by going to birchgold.com.
That's Birchgold.com slash Bannon.
Birchgold Group is the only gold company that our company trusts to help patriots defend their savings.
So take a stand right now.
Go to Birchgold.com slash Bannon and get your free info kit on gold IRAs.
Speaking of holding two ideas in your head at the same time, in America, I think it's very important that we prize liberty and civility in our politics.
But on the other hand, there has to be justice.
And we are at a period in which many in the current prevailing regime are facing serious consequences for their action.
To discuss this in a realistic manner, I'd like to bring in the former federal prosecutor T.J.
Harker.
Harker's work has been showing up lately at the American Mind, at Blaze Media, and Man's World, among many others.
He has a fantastic sub-stack.
In a recent article on the post-constitutional order in the American mind, Harker has raised the hackles over at the Libertarian Cato Institute.
TJ, welcome to the show.
I appreciate you coming.
Tell us a little bit about your article and tell us about this completely unhinged response from the Cato Institute.
unidentified
Yeah, well, thanks, Joe.
Thanks for having me on.
So I think it's important for your listeners and your viewers to keep in mind, there's really sort of one overarching question here, which is, is there still a constitutional order?
When I say constitutional order, I mean, you know, the thing that most Americans have in mind, this rules based system that's deeply tied to our history.
And I, on the right side of the political spectrum, there's really sort of two, there's one debate going on right now.
And that is, there are two different positions on that debate.
The first is the constitutional order does not exist any longer.
It's dead.
And the other position is the constitutional order is on life support.
It is almost dead, but not quite.
And we ought to try to save it.
And there's really nobody who's arguing that everything is well and good.
And so if you're going to adapt the latter position, which is the position of, well, I shouldn't speak for them, but my sense of the Claremont Institute and the American mind and so forth, Then you might as well try to fight to restore it, because you know that the people on the other side of the spectrum are not going to do anything to try to save the constitutional order.
In fact, what they primarily try to do is undermine it, subvert it, for the purposes of advancing their power.
And one of the ways that they do that is this thing called lawfare, which has many different forms.
You could sort of lay out a taxonomy of lawfare, but the one that your listeners and viewers are most familiar with is the use of the criminal justice system to prosecute the regime's political enemies.
I'm happy to talk about that in detail or to go a little bit further into the Cato Institute
issue.
joe allen ▲ ● ▼
You tell me.
Well, you know, TJ, I'm actually really interested.
The lines that the Cato Institute took umbrage with, basically talking about how certain
uncomfortable arrangements are going to have to be made to bring these people to heal.
I'm curious what their rationale was.
Why are they so afraid of prosecuting or even disempowering certain elements in the leftist regime?
And what was your argument?
What was the central thrust of the argument that they either misinterpreted or simply don't have the stomach to accept?
unidentified
Yeah, so the point that I was making that Cato sort of freaked out about was this idea that people like Jack Smith, who's the federal prosecutor in charge of the two prosecutions of Donald Trump in Florida and Washington, D.C.
And District Attorney Fonny Willis, who's the DA out of Fulton County, who's also prosecuting Donald Trump and others, and then District Attorney Alvin Bragg out of Manhattan.
The idea was that once we've accepted the idea that the law can be used to get our political opponents, then Americans need to understand that the language of the statutes that are used itself is broad enough that almost any form of legitimate and lawful conduct can be criminalized.
So in other words, there's more than enough statutes on the federal books and in the state books to prosecute almost any American for almost any act.
And Jack Smith and Fannie Willis and D.A.
Alvin Bragg and others could easily be on the receiving end of this sort of political prosecution.
There are more than enough federal statutes, one of which is a Title 18 United States
Code Section 242. And that's basically deprivation of civil rights under the color of
law. In other words, if you use the law for the purposes of depriving somebody of a civil right,
like the right to free speech, or the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances,
or the right to assemble, then you yourself have committed a federal felony.
And Jack Smith and Fannie Willis and Alvin Bragg have arguably done this.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that however strong or weak you think the arguments are against Donald Trump, I happen to think that they're incredibly weak criminal prosecutions.
They never should have been brought in the first place.
And even five years ago, they would not have been brought But however strong you think they are, the argument that Jack Smith has violated Title 18, Section 242 is absolutely stronger.
And it doesn't matter whether or not you as a leftist think that that argument is strong.
The question is whether or not a jury in Texas or Tennessee Would think that the argument is strong.
And because that's what we've done now.
We've set up forum selection and forum shopping precedents that can be used against these prosecutors.
So when I wrote this article, what I was saying is uncomfortable things need to be done.
And people like Jack Smith and Fannie.
Willis, Alvin Bragg, and others.
They need to see their licenses stripped in the same way that they've attempted to strip the law license and have successfully stripped the law license of former Trump advisor John Eastman.
They need to face potential prosecution, just as Donald Trump has, just as Steve Bannon has, just as Peter Navarro has, and many others.
And there's an easy way to do this within the four corners of the letter of the law.
Now, Cato freaked out about that because they don't like the taste of their own medicine.
They don't like the idea that they violated all the institutional norms and all the rules of law that otherwise had not been violated until they violated them.
And now they're concerned that the opposing side, the political opposition, will take power again next January.
And if that happens, then we should see these types of prosecutions.
We should see, in the case of lawyers, these types of disbarment from the practice of law.
I suspect that some of these prosecutors have thought about that fact.
Especially as these federal cases, as I predicted in an American Mind article a few months ago, have started to implode.
One of them was recently dismissed.
So if I was Jack Smith, I would be wondering about what happens to me personally come January 22nd.
joe allen ▲ ● ▼
Well, you know, TJ, after enough space cakes, I suppose that any sound policy would seem dubious, including the policy of actually addressing the issues at hand rather than beating around the bush with a lot of happy talk.
You know, speaking of prosecutors, speaking of dubious policies, I'd like to get your take on Kamala Harris.
I mean, right now she seems to be the front runner for the Democratic ticket.
She herself is a former prosecutor.
Given her history in the courts, and given your deep knowledge of the political situation as we have now, what do you foresee as far as Kamala Harris as both a candidate and, God forbid, president?
unidentified
Yeah.
Yeah, they will, God forbid, indeed.
So that's a very good question.
So Kamala Harris has an extensive background in prosecution.
I was a prosecutor for 11 years.
I tried some of the nation's biggest criminal cases in 2021.
Kamala Harris doesn't have that experience, but she has enough.
She was a district attorney and then an elected district attorney for San Francisco.
Ironically, she ran on a tough on crime campaign against her opponent.
This is about 15 years ago and she won in San Francisco.
She later became the attorney general of the state of California, then a senator, and then, of course, the vice president.
And so we're in this unusual circumstance where Kamala Harris can plausibly argue that she's to the right on crime relative to Donald Trump.
Now, I don't personally think that's particularly relevant.
The states that are concerned about the overwhelming increasing And crime vote for Kamala Harris anyway, New York and so forth.
So setting aside her so-called strong-on-crime stance, Kamala Harris also knows absolutely unequivocally That what Jack Smith has done, what Alvin Bragg and Fannie Willis have done, is clearly a violation of all established precedents and norms.
And let me give you an example of what I mean.
So, you know, we've all heard for the last several years that our, quote, democracy is under attack.
And the people who say that our democracy is under attack are always on the left.
And by now your viewers know that when they say our democracy, what they mean is their power structure.
Not their democracy, because they don't care about earning your vote or persuading you.
They care simply about maintaining their power.
And so they've made these allegations about Donald Trump for two years since these criminal prosecutions began, including the Biden administration itself, that Donald Trump represents an existential threat to our democracy.
We have seen that claim hundreds, if not thousands of times on all the mainstream regime propaganda outlets for years now.
Now, in the course of these criminal prosecutions, your viewers may have almost noticed something, something that's so obvious that it's easy to overlook.
And that is that Donald Trump sat by while these federal agents working at the behest of Merrick Garland and Joe Biden raided the home of Donald Trump in Mar-a-Lago.
They sat by.
Donald Trump allowed himself to be booked and then mugshoted in Fulton County.
He sat through a trial, a sham trial in New York City.
He did all these things because he didn't have the power to simply not do them.
And yet the left is claiming that he's the one who's an existential threat to our democracy.
You might wonder, how is it the case that a man who's supposedly capable of overthrowing the United States of America and its government can't disobey a municipal court judge's order, and yet Donald Trump has followed these orders almost to the letter of the law?
The point is that Kamala Harris knows this.
They know that Donald Trump has exercised an incredible amount of restraint Right?
That this entire time he has been out there on the campaign trail trying to persuade people while simultaneously filing motions, making opening arguments, making closing arguments, cross-examining and direct examining witnesses, filing motions, appealing and so forth, all because he's trying to persuade.
Simultaneously, the left is simply using the institution of the rule of law, and in particular the criminal justice system, to hammer their political opponents with this lawfare.
Kamala Harris knows that.
She knows that this is a tool at her disposal.
She knows that by using the criminal justice system, she can continue to keep down Donald Trump.
However, I would point out that if you're going to play 5D chess at this point, if you were to put yourself in Kamala Harris's shoes, you might actually play what I call a 5D chess move and consider dismissing the federal cases against Donald Trump.
Consider what would happen if she actually did that.
I hesitate even to mention this because I think it would be to her benefit, and I certainly don't want to benefit my enemies, but But by doing so, she could plausibly claim that she's unifying the country, which we all know the left has no interest in doing.
She could also plausibly claim that she's trying to restore the rule of law, which we know she would not be doing, because they would definitely continue to use lawfare to undermine their political opponents after the January or the November election.
However, she could distance herself from Joe Biden, put pressure on Merrick Garland to dismiss these cases that Jack Smith has brought, and then advance herself in the polls.
Now, you might wonder, why would she do this?
Well, the reason is obvious.
As I predicted a few months ago, the district court in Florida dismissed the case against Donald Trump already.
Now that's being appealed.
The cases are falling apart because, as it turns out, Jack Smith was not lawfully appointed.
He was not confirmed by the United States Senate.
And so his prosecutions are illegitimate.
These cases are going down in flames as we speak.
Not only that, even if they were to result in a trial and then a conviction of Donald Trump, what's the purpose from the regime's perspective?
They've already tried to hammer him enough.
It doesn't matter whether he's convicted any longer, as evidenced by the conviction in the criminal case out of the state of New York.
So Kamala Harris could actually be smart enough, if you give her more credit than maybe she's due, to advance her interests by coming out and saying, we ought to dismiss these cases against Donald Trump.
Now, that would be a turn of events that I don't expect to happen.
I don't think they're that intelligent politically, although I do think that they're dangerous.
And we can bet that no matter what happens, whether she does that or not, they're going to continue to use the criminal justice system TJ Harker, I really appreciate your insights on this.
Where can people find your work?
the ones that they know they can't win in the political arena, but can win in the criminal
or civil justice system.
joe allen ▲ ● ▼
TJ Harker, I really appreciate your insights on this.
Where can people find your work?
What is your latest right now?
unidentified
Yeah, my most recent is an article about sort of narrative control and normie mental reality
models.
I write for American pretty frequently.
I write for Blaze Media occasionally, and I write for Man's World and other places.
You can find me on Amicus Republici.
You should also be able to find me on TJHarker.com, which will simply redirect to Amicus Republici.
That's Latin for Friend of the Republic.
So do your best to find it.
Beckoning Normies back to reality from two steps outside the Overton window.
joe allen ▲ ● ▼
TJ Harker, a dreamer to the end.
I really appreciate it, sir.
Thank you.
unidentified
Thank you, Joe.
joe allen ▲ ● ▼
All right, so switching gears from, as Steve Bannon would say, from the less sublime to the sublime, or the perverse, if Denver could just throw in that cold open on brain interfaces, please.
unidentified
We're not talking about implanted devices of the future.
I'm talking about wearable devices that are like Fitbits for your brain.
It used to be that there was very little we could tell from EEG activity.
But already, using consumer wearable devices, these are headbands, hats that have sensors that can pick up your brainwave activity, earbuds, headphones, tiny tattoos that you can wear behind your ear, we can pick up emotional states, like are you happy or sad or angry?
We can pick up and decode faces.
Just imagine North Korea in 20 years when everybody has to wear a biometric bracelet which constantly monitors your blood pressure, your heart rate, your brain activity, 24 hours a day.
You listen to a speech on the radio by the great leader, and they know what you actually feel.
You can clap your hands and smile, but if you're angry, they know you'll be in the gulag tomorrow morning.
joe allen ▲ ● ▼
All right, on the concept of holding two ideas in your mind at the same time and thinking about some of the misconceptions that we've tried our best to dispel in the war room, although it is an uphill battle, I'd like to bring in Tim Henschliff from The Sociable to talk about brain-computer interfaces, their importance, and the importance of cognitive liberty and neuro rights.
Tim Henschliff, how are you, sir?
unidentified
Doing great, Joe.
It's great to be back.
Thanks.
joe allen ▲ ● ▼
So, you know, something that I've fought against as best I can to the point that I think that Mr. Harari owes me a sack of gold is what I would call Yuval Derangement Syndrome, sort of like Trump Derangement Syndrome.
You know, Harari is a very unlikable little guy.
He kind of resembles maybe a golem or something like that, and he's extremely cynical.
His atheism is through the charts.
Richard Dawkins would have a hard time being as unlikable to Christians as Yuval Harari.
And yet, at the same time, despite his high profile at places like the World Economic Forum, who have a reputation for a kind of globalized version of transhumanism, Harari's message consistently has been that the risks of brain-computer interfaces, whether they be non-invasive brain-computer interfaces or neuro-devices such as wearables or actual implanted devices, that these may or probably have more risks, more detriments
Then benefits.
And the same could go for Nita Farhani, who we heard there.
Her book, The Battle for Your Brain, is really a rallying cry around cognitive liberty and neuro rights.
And yes, she is also Featured prominently at the World Economic Forum, and yet, basically, people like Farhani, people like Harari are talking.
People like Elon Musk, people like Peter Thiel are doing.
I'd like to get your take first, like, where are we at on brain-computer interfaces, and how do you personally see this in relationship to concepts like globalism, nationalism, left-wing, right-wing politics, all of that?
unidentified
Yeah, well, we're at with brain-computer interfaces, just like Dr. Neena Farahani said there, that was at the 2023 World Economic Forum Annual Meeting, is that we've already got the technology in the non-invasive BCIs, brain-computer interfaces.
So these are just like a Fitbit, ear pods that can pick up brainwaves, and even smart tattoos.
And there's other companies that are looking into, and in the intelligence agencies as well, wearable like on your clothes, like smart clothes interweaved with mesh that can pick up signals all around.
So there's that non-invasive one.
The invasive one, where we're looking at like Elon Musk's Neuralink, or how Peter Thiel has invested in BlackRock Neurotech, which they're going after directly into the brain, touching it, neural mesh, and trying to restore limb and other mobility issues in handicapped patients, disabled patients.
But so yeah, the technology is there.
And what you say about You know, you all know Harari and Dr. Nita Farahani.
I'm grateful that they are putting the information out.
And they do warn about, well I believe it's warning, they talk about all the detriments to it.
But why a group like the World Economic Forum gives them platform, it seems more like, I can look at it two ways, like how they want to show the world that, hey, look, we care.
We care about ethics.
Or at the same time, it's like, oh, my goodness, look at all the possibilities we can do, you know?
And so I see that kind of dichotomy there.
But like Harari hasn't been seen, I don't think, at the World Economic Forum for Since 2020.
There was lots of things going around saying that he's a top advisor to Klaus Schwab and things.
I don't really go for that.
So I'm just grateful that they're putting the information out there and instead of just hoarding it in some kind of secretive document or basement somewhere.
joe allen ▲ ● ▼
Yeah, and we all know there's plenty of those, just unfortunately, they're very difficult to get a hold of.
And if you put them out there, you get Snowdened, you get Assanged.
It's a very tough landscape out there.
You know, Tim, we only have just a few moments on this side.
I'd like to hold you over to the next side.
But real quickly, you've been working on a lot of stuff on Rand Corporation.
Just to tee up the next segment, what are you seeing in their recent statements, in the recent documents?
unidentified
Well, they're moving from, in the transhumanism phase, they're moving from the Internet of Things to the Internet of Bodies to the Internet of Brains.
So this is, just think of IoT devices that are all communicating with each other, and then that goes onto the body, in your clothes, on your skin.
But then the next phase is brain-to-brain communication, and then that's brain-to-brain uploads, downloads.
joe allen ▲ ● ▼
You know, as long as people are going to carry smartphones, and if people are going to be so foolish as to get implants in their heads, they need Faraday bags.
Go to silent.com slash Bannon.
You can get your Faraday bag to block all geo-tracking on your phone, and if Silent is If you're willing, maybe they'll make Faraday bags for your head to conceal your thoughts.
We'll be right back.
unidentified
All this nonsense, all this spin, they can't handle the truth.
War Room Battleground with Stephen K. Bannon.
The future is already here. The future has begun. The future of our physical, our ritual, and our spiritual
identities.
That will be Singularity.
Bye.
joe allen ▲ ● ▼
Bye.
All right, Posse, welcome back.
I am Joe Allen, sitting in for Stephen K. Bannon.
If you are curious about the broad picture, the wide scope of transhumanism, posthumanism, technocracy, visit my site, joebot.xyz.
I have a column up every Monday and a podcast, the Omega Point podcast, every Thursday.
If you are wearing a silent Faraday bag on your head, or don't have one already, or perhaps you want a silent Faraday bag just for your phone because you have the good sense not to get a chip implanted in your head, be sure to go to silent.com.
That's s-l-n-t dot com slash Bannon.
for 15% off and free shipping on qualified orders.
One last self-serving promotion here.
I will be speaking August 1st in Manhattan.
The event's location is undisclosed.
You have to sign up.
It's just 20 bucks.
Unless you are a young Republican, then it's just 12 bucks.
But August 1st, Manhattan.
Come join us.
Talk about cyborg theocracy and the future of race, robots, and religion.
Now, Tim Hinchliffe, you have done so much to broaden my own scope.
Your work at The Sociable and your various interviews, your interview with Russell Brand, your interviews on TNT Radio, have really widened my perspective on all of these technologies, and I think your open-minded approach is invaluable to this discussion.
You've been spending a lot of time on RAND Corporation's recent public documents, basically declarations of policy proposals.
What are you seeing right now, especially in regard to memetic warfare, psychological warfare, or any other items of interest?
unidentified
Well, on the memetic warfare front, yeah, they see RAND—this was a Pentagon-sponsored RAND report that came out just, I believe it was last week.
And what they're worried about is cyberattacks, well, anything that threatens the U.S.
financial system.
And so they looked at cyber attacks, they looked at foreign companies or foreign nations, all the $7 trillion of debt that foreign nations have, dumping that, and so that causes a collapse.
But the one that I focused on was memes, because I couldn't, I mean, I know the power of memes, but it's just funny that it was a, that the, you know, the U.S.
Department of Defense is worried about that for the financial system.
And so what they actually talk about are coordinated memetic engineering attacks, is what they call them, that can bring down trust in institutions.
And so they say that they tap into tribalism, these memes, they tap into cognitive biases, and they can influence and manipulate behaviors.
But That's exactly the modus operandi of a lot of these institutions in and of themselves.
They do the same thing.
Governments do this.
Corporations do this.
Even in the same report, they likened this memetic warfare, these memetic engineering attacks, to climate change and 9-11.
So they say that an attack, these memes, it might not have a 9-11 boom kind of effect on financial systems of the economy, but more like a slow burn, like climate change.
So they use these already politically and emotionally charged narratives that are tribalistic in their own report about how bad it is to be that way.
So they're kind of contradicting themselves, in my own opinion.
joe allen ▲ ● ▼
You know, self-interest and objectivity are very uncomfortable bedfellows.
It doesn't really even matter what your perspective is on 9-11, climate change, COVID.
It would be really disingenuous not to argue that 9-11 and the War on Terror began with and was basically predicated on memetic warfare.
That the meme of the terrorist and the meme of the necessity of U.S.
empire drove it and drove support for it.
Same for COVID and also same for climate change.
Even if you believe these things are existential risks, you have to at least agree that the side that wants to address these and take power in order to address these is engaging in memetic warfare.
unidentified
Yeah, because what are these memes?
It's basically narratives.
They're shaping narratives.
The World Economic Forum came out a few years ago as their sequel to The Great Reset, The Great Narrative.
And this was in order to change people's behaviors and thoughts and to steer them and nudge them in a certain direction.
This is how policies get nudged.
So I mean, this is, and they even say that these, so with memes and narratives is that you don't have
to actually look at real data because what they're going after is emotion.
So, you know, they've been, the WEF has been putting out reports for years.
I've reported on these ones of how, yeah, narratives shape our decision-making
and the best narratives, they don't have to have any data.
If you look into the postmodernism, the whole thing, what they call the grand narrative,
it was a Francois Lyotard who came up with that one, that grand narratives are just used by authoritarians
to further their own power and so they have no real meaning, but they do.
They definitely influence behaviors and it can be a small micro level
or a huge macro level affecting the whole planet.
joe allen ▲ ● ▼
You know, I try not to go totally crazy on the futurist projections, but we already see
this massive shift from the smartphone really taking hold of people's psyche.
And to imagine a world in which that's paired with non-invasive brain-computer interfaces
that are able to detect emotion and detect receptivity, and then, of course, the concept
that Elon Musk's Neuralink would, in fact, be deployed at 100 million or a billion different
heads as the goal.
You know, the possibilities for memetic warfare at that point have entered into something
like Kurt Vonnegut's novel, Sirens of Titan, with all of the Martians having their heads
implanted with antennas.
You know, real quick as we're going out, just let me, give us an idea of where you see this
going, not necessarily politically, but culturally, as more and more right-wing transhumanists
or tech accelerationists come forward in support of Trump?
unidentified
I would say to be cautious, be aware, because no matter what, government bureaucrats and most all Silicon Valley, they're left-leaning and they're all in on transhumanism.
The government agencies, defense departments, intelligence agencies, are all in on it.
The Trump, Vance, Teal connections, especially in Musk with their backgrounds
in working with defense departments, intelligence agencies, being backed by the CIA
in Palantir's case through In-Q-Tel, is just to, the whole transhumanist movement
is gonna keep moving on.
It's going to keep accelerating.
And to me, whoever is in power, you've got to look out for that.
And then also with Trump, if he surrounds himself with people and is influenced by them, I just look at Fauci, Birx, Barr, Pompeo, and getting rid of Comey and getting Wray in there for the FBI.
Tim, thank you very much for your insights today, sir.
going to make some policies or who's going to like plant the seed for this to go even
further? Because it's a lot the Silicon Valley connection with the defense departments and
intelligence agencies, and they all want to get out on that brain computer interface stuff.
So I'd say watch out for that.
joe allen ▲ ● ▼
Tim, thank you very much for your insights today, sir.
Where can people find you?
unidentified
Thanks.
They can find me at the website sociable.co and on Twitter that's at Tim Henschliff and at TheSociable.
joe allen ▲ ● ▼
Always ahead of the curve, sir.
So far ahead of the curve that your stuff gets ripped off like cheap cigars in a 7-Eleven.
That's all for my segment.
We are going to transition to TPUSA's Believers Summit.
But before we go, you should know about Patriot Mobile.
Our company is a proud, proud partner of Patriot Mobile.
Take a stand for conservative causes and put America first by switching to Patriot Mobile today.
Their 100% U.S.-based customer service team will find the best plan for your needs.
Go to patriotmobile.com slash Bannon or call 972-PATRIOT.
That's patriotmobile.com slash Bannon.
Thank you very much, War Room Posse.
▲
Export Selection