Episode 5146: Second Place Means Extinction; The Race For AI
Stephen K. Bannon pivots from election fraud claims—highlighting Colorado’s Tina Peters and Georgia’s Garland case, with $200B U.S. and €100B EU spending on Ukraine—framing AI as a zero-sum race against China, citing Deutsche Bank’s warning about the dollar’s collapse due to unregulated AI’s $800B infrastructure costs. Mark Beale reveals Wall Street’s $1T contraction from AI commoditization, while Jason von Beek urges Utah-style guardrails amid "deceptive alignment" risks and OpenCLAW’s 1.6M autonomous agents. Bannon’s urgency suggests America’s survival hinges on outpacing China in AI and exposing election corruption before it’s too late. [Automatically generated summary]
Monday, 16, February in the year of our Lord 2026, it's President's Day.
We're going to celebrate that all day long.
All-Family Pharmacy celebrating it.
Go to allfamilypharmacy.com, promo code Bannon.
You get 47% off selected items.
So go check it out today.
That's an honor of President Trump.
Harry, Hari, is the data that you've collected with your 100 data analysts, I know you've forwarded this to the federal government and to the intelligence agencies.
Is this enough in your belief to make this a federal case in the state of Colorado and therefore Tina Peters would be a witness in a federal case?
The evidence of massive fraud or potential massive fraud almost requires an investigation on a federal level.
I mean, the laws that have been violated are federal laws regarding election fraud, not state laws.
And so who's, you know, who conducted this election fraud?
You know, these things are up for an investigation, but you have to be able to seize the records in order to determine definitively what is a mistake and what deserves prison time.
I tell you what, we're going to have another Georgia Coron here tomorrow.
I think we'll reach out to you having you back on.
Harry, thank you and thank the data analysts for all the work.
Everybody go over to the United for Freedom site today.
Thank you, sir.
Garland, here's a question.
I think they keep rubbing our nose in the fact I think it was 63 times included with know this verse, 63 times we went to court and they say they lost every time and never even went to court.
We never got an evidentiary hearing because I don't believe they said anytime we ever went, we had standing.
Does DeNorm Eisen and Abby Lowell and who they represent, did they actually have standing in Georgia?
Okay, we got to bounce, but I just got a question.
Knowing that they don't have the players already that would have standing as part of that, isn't that a big sign that this thing's not on the up and up down in Georgia, what they're trying to do?
There is one little thing I call a 41G that Cleta could probably talk about, one other claim.
But yeah, it's all smoke and mirrors.
Everything divert to Tulsi, divert to debunk claims, divert to Curt Olson.
It's all diversions.
We have the facts.
We've had them for five years.
And as you said many times, because of all the volunteer patriots that have done so much work down here, it's just a matter of getting them on the record at the appropriate time.
Real quickly, we got to bounce, but with Harry Harry and he's going to be back on tomorrow about Georgia, and you guys will have a collection of Georgia folks on here.
Do you believe it shows enough to federalize the case of Tina Peters?
I know you're very close to Tina and the team over there.
Do you think this is enough to actually move this to a federal court with Tina Peters?
I did notice that in the judge's order, these plaintiffs who brought this motion have until noon tomorrow.
They've notified the court they're going to amend their motion.
So the judge has given them until noon tomorrow to amend it.
So they may have begun to figure out that they don't have standing or they haven't alleged enough, but we'll see that tomorrow at noon.
I guess the one thing I would say, Steve, is that you know that you know that you know that you know that we're on the right path when all of these people, as Garland said, they just do character assassination and they keep saying over and over again, oh, there are all these trials and lawsuits that were dismissed.
There were all these investigations that found nothing.
That is not true.
There has not been a single evidentiary hearing.
Well, actually, that's not true.
There was one trial that gotten underway that was Garland's case, and it had begun to already were in discovery.
And then suddenly, halfway through discovery, after 10 months, the judge suddenly decided that, oh, Garland and his other plaintiffs didn't have standing.
That was reversed on appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court.
It was sent back.
It's been sitting for two years.
It was never resumed.
There was no discovery ever resumed.
These investigations that the Secretary of State was supposed to conduct were not real investigations.
None of these allegations have been investigated to find out and get to the truth.
And that's what they're afraid of.
And our contest for President Trump that we filed on December 4th of 2020, we never got a judge appointed.
And we had well over the margin between President Trump and Joe Biden.
We had well over that number of illegal votes that were counted in the certified total.
It's never been litigated.
And that's because of the corruption of the Georgia officials.
And that's why the federal government has stepped in because this is ultimately a federal case, because it involved the presidency of the United States.
As we talked about Georgia and/or Colorado, the fact is, if you're an auditor and you don't have full transparency to what you're looking at, as I mentioned when we started this show today, having done audits around the world for decades, I've done audits in communist China.
And when I asked them for the documents and access to the systems that I needed to be able to make an independent opinion and an objective opinion on what the results are of our audit, they gave me everything that I needed immediately.
The fact that we have people fighting for information in Georgia and saying it's what?
Search and illegal search and seizure for you to grab this information is outrageous.
It's a massive lie.
There's no way that these elections should be certified if you can't have full, complete access to them so you can make a decision that's accurate on whether the elections are absolutely secure and the results are accurate.
Without that, we have no elections.
And right now, we have no elections.
If you've got people like Norm Ison pushing back on giving us transparency in Georgia, a place that he doesn't live, he has no, you know, no reason to be there other than to mess things up and to try to continue to cover up the massive fraud that we had in 2020.
The Gateway Pundit is the massive site that Jim's built.
And I've helped him with that and contributed there.
You can also go to joehoff.com where you can gain some of the stories that I've reported about, including this one from Harry that we also shared at the KOA Ponda.
Donald Trump just said on social media, quote, there will be voter ID for the midterm elections, whether approved by Congress or not.
That stark warning comes just.
unidentified
You're trying to destabilize our country with fentanyl, with TikTok, and you have concerns about well, okay, obviously, yeah, obviously, but again, I'll tell you what.
It's about the two systems that are coming evident.
The Chinese Communist Party is doing everything.
This is why Peter Schwartz's book, I think, is going on to the fourth week in the bestseller list.
The Chinese Communist Party is using every aspect of unrestricted warfare to come at us.
Part of this is the voting systems.
It's quite evident.
Now, CARP is setting up a very stark, either we're going to be in a surveillance state or the Chinese Communist Party is going to win.
The question I've got is why are we helping finance?
Why are we helping give chips to the Chinese Communist Party to get so advanced in AI?
We're going to have some artificial intelligence experts on the other side on the nine days that shook the world that happened last week and artificial intelligence.
Okay, we got Mark Beale from the AI Policy Network is with us.
And we've also got Jason von Beek from the Institute, Future of Human Life, and that is Max Tegmarks.
Max is going to be joining us later in the week.
So first off, guys, we've had CARP at Palantir, and we have a longer version, and maybe we'll get time to play it this afternoon because I don't have time now.
Laying out that we're going down the path of two systems.
It's either going to be, you know, no guardrails, artificial intelligence, surveillance state here, or the Chinese Communist Party is going to win and we can't have that.
But at the same time, we're financing and giving the chips to the Chinese Communist Party.
So the whole argument is like bizarre world.
It doesn't quite make sense.
However, something's happened in AI, or I believe something's happened.
I've had some very heavyweight people, a lot of people leaving these organizations because they say the safety checks are not are not being seriously backed up by management.
You've had some of these articles talking about the nine days that changed the world.
Mark, I want to start with you before we get to specific policies, but what is going on in AI?
It appears to an outsider that's not a specialist like myself, that we've had some sort of tectonic plate shift.
And inside the industry itself, folks realize that this thing is really can't, it's not controllable right now.
There's not enough safety guards on to control it.
Four things I think the War Room policy needs to be aware of on this.
And I guess I'll just start by saying the people in the industry itself, this is not surprising to them.
They've been saying these things for a number of years now.
It's just, it's finally starting to break through to the public consciousness.
And so what we saw happen in the last four weeks was the following.
So first, Wall Street suffered a $1 trillion contraction as investors internalize just what the power of these systems will do, especially in the near term to software companies.
And so we said this massive collapse in value as these AI systems are getting so good at building their own software, that software is going to basically become commoditized, that any person can sit down at their computer and tell their computer what kind of application they want, and then their computer will build that for them.
This is a fundamentally, this is a tectonic shift in the market systems we have it today.
The second thing that happened was we had a series of tests run by one of the big companies called Anthropic on their latest AI model.
And the model was so aware that it was in a testing environment that the researchers who were hired to run the test had lost confidence that their test results were actually meaningful.
Because basically the model was, because it recognized it was in a test environment, it was changing its behaviors to say things that would make it more likely that it would get deployed.
So this is inside the industry, this is called deceptive alignment.
So basically the model is lying about whether or not it's aligned and following the policies that the company has set for it because it was aware that it was in a test environment and it acted accordingly.
This is kind of one of these things that should give people some, the hair on their back of their neck should start to stand up a little bit.
The third thing that happened over the last 30 days or so was this explosion onto the scene of a new open source AI agent framework.
And that's now called OpenCLAW.
I think right now there are about 1.6 million of these autonomous AI agents being directed by people, like sort of scouring the internet.
And it's been a whole bit of a nightmare for many in the cybersecurity industry.
And it's sort of like the wild, wild west days of the internet right now.
And it's incredibly interesting to watch.
There's a lot of confusion about what's real and what's not and what's human directed and what's actually autonomous behavior.
But our assessment right now is that these things are acting in ways and they have they have behaviors that are emerging in ways that no one sort of could predict in advance.
Things like these AI agents have started their own religion and they're paying human beings to go proselytize for it.
And so it's just like it's a glimpse into the future.
And what this world looks like when there are billions of these things on the internet without any guardrails, I think it's like sort of no one, no one really, really knows.
And then last, I'll point out that a couple of these AI safety researchers from some of the big companies have resigned again in public and they've shared some of their thoughts with the public.
And one of the researchers said they thought the world was in peril.
And as a result, the person left and is like sort of resigned in protest and is going to be, I'm not sure what they're going to be doing next, but it's again, all these things sort of add up to create one big giant signal that this technology is getting very, very powerful.
It's moving very, very fast.
And at the end of the day, the country is not quite yet prepared for this.
There is definitely, I think, a vibe shift going on here in the last four weeks.
I think, you know, within the community, there was a lot of within the sort of AI community and those focused on those issues.
There's been some awareness of these issues, but it's starting to break through into the wider consciousness, the public consciousness.
There's been, you know, Twitter posts and things that folks are reading.
I think even my parents, you know, who are sort of the normal boomer kind of parents on technology have learned about this and are just starting to wake up to this and react to this.
So I think there's a broader sort of public consciousness about what's happening here and the need for some regulation and some guardrails to be established either at the state level or at the federal level.
Given the warnings that the war room and Max Tegmark and people we've had on here for the last year with the Joe Allen help pull together and introduce us to, aren't we to point what's happened over the last nine weeks?
Because in some of these, and look, I'm not an expert, but I read this and talk to people.
They've got these, was it Moltbot?
You've got, they're talking in their own language.
They're sensitive to the fact that when humans are coming involved, and I realize that some people are saying, well, a lot of this is a spoof or some of it is a spoof, but it doesn't seem like that.
That the accelerationists who don't want any guardrails, the same guys that wanted AI amnesty that we defeated twice, the accelerationists have put us into a situation where it may be almost too late to get the horse back in the barn, sir?
I think, you know, there's awakening here, an awakening here, and folks at the state level are starting to try to regulate this technology.
I think, you know, what you've seen even Alex Karp say in a separate interview is that this is a technology that absolutely needs to be paused, but he's in this hard position where he has to keep pushing forward because of the competitive nature of things, the structural nature of things.
And so there needs to be pushback from regular folks that want to put brakes on this and steer this in proper direction.
Mark Beale, I want to go back to the trillion dollars.
Look, I think it was Deutsche Bank.
I'll get the full thing.
We'll have it up on the five o'clock show.
They're saying they don't believe the U.S. dollar as prime reserve currency is a safe haven anymore because of the highly leveraged bet that the United States is making right now on unencumbered artificial intelligence.
And I've been arguing this for a while.
We have 39 trillion in debt.
President Trump and Besson have cut the deficit hugely, could come under a $30, not $2 trillion this year, but we're still highly leveraged.
They're barring most of the money right now that you see on this, on the $800 billion they're going to do in CapEx this year.
And you got Navarre out there yesterday on Maria Bartirama saying, hey, we're going to force the AI companies are going to have to pay for the data centers, the water, all of it.
We're not going to make for affordability.
We're not going to make the consumers.
But you look at the software industry.
As we've argued, it's the managerial administrative and low-level tech, the white collar they're coming for.
The software industry has nowhere to hide.
They lost a trillion dollars in market cap last week.
Didn't they, sir?
As people realize that what the power of AI is increasing every day in this software function.
It's just ironic a little bit that, you know, there's this old saying that revolutions always eat their own children first.
And so there's, it's not without irony here that software industry is sort of being devoured by AI.
I think, you know, bigger picture, what's going on right now is a dramatic industrialization and preparations for what it means to be a dominant economic power in the 21st century.
And that's why you're seeing these $800 billion bets flowing into building out these data centers.
That's why people are talking about putting these things in space.
It's because they're going to be so fundamentally important to the future of our security and our economy that we just have to do it.
So the numbers here are staggering.
And the bet that's being made is that that 800 billion will return over time trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars of value.
And the lag between these investments and whether or not these companies become profitable is going to be a key thing about determining whether or not this is a bubble that just sort of collapses or contracts in a big way or if it actually endures.
Because I will say this is not like the dot-com bubble.
These companies are making a lot of money.
There's a lot of demand for these products.
And so, you know, it's a question of timing and how fast.
But big picture, you know, we're actually asking the American people to subsidize the development of data centers that are going to be training the potentially the workers that are going to replace them.
At the same time, the president is probably correct that we have to do this industrialization for the 21st century to assure America can maintain its status in the world.
And we just got to think deeply about what this means and how we navigate it.
Because I think this idea that just moving forward without any guard, it's like driving a car where, yeah, we're going to accelerate, but if we accelerate, we want seatbelts and we want headlights, we want a steering wheel and we want the brakes so we can make the turns safely and we can navigate and effectively sort of deal with all of this.
But right now, it doesn't seem to be much more than just sort of talking points about the need for a federal standard.
I haven't seen any action yet being moved on that front.
Become a member today, and we'll get you squared away with all the things you need to know to help you engage with these very sort of difficult issues.
Look, the president obviously they don't want 50 different requirements, particularly out of blue states.
They want to get one federal.
We got to get more urgency on that.
Just give me your closing thoughts on this.
We're going to have you back on because right now you got Utah.
I know Governor DeSantis has dug in on this.
Walk me through what's the alternative.
Give me a minute on what the alternatives is the horse too much out of the barn that the acceleration has got us here.
That even if you're somebody says, hey, there's got to be some guard race here, not just for children and all that, but just like where in the hell this thing's headed.
Utah right now is debating a bill on AI safety and kids safety, and they're working hard.
The problem is that David Sachs is trying to stop them and getting in the way of a red state actually trying to enact some serious, meaningful AI laws that are good.
He's notably not targeting blue states.
He's targeting deep red Utah.
So we need to support Utah state legislators passing these bills.
Florida is doing a great job.
Governor DeSantis is an AI Bill of Rights going on, the state legislature, and there's still time, and we just need to get dialed in and motivated and get the states to be passing these laws.
If there needs to be a federal standard, it needs to go through the democratic process and organize with the White House so we get if President Trump wants one regulatory framework, we kind of got to get on with it.
Where do people go?
We'll have you back on.
The Future of Life Institute, Max Tegmark, one of the leaders in this movement.
You can buy a whole bunch more panels for it too, up to five 200-watt panels.
It's a thousand watts into the charge.
But, you know, the one special thing that we're doing for the war room posse, because you guys are our most patriotic, the best customers, when you call in, we want you to actually try our food.
So mypatriotsupply.com slash Bannon will show you the page with the great sale.
And then be sure to call in.
It is 866-229-0927.
Again, 866-229-0927.
I want you guys to go to the page, but when you get ready to make your purchase, call in so we can get this added to your order because this is free for you and it's only for the war room posse.
And obviously, President Washington and President Lincoln.
Let's go.
I've got George Papadopoulos.
We're really jammed today.
George, you're also, I've already worked it out.
You're going to join us on the five o'clock show.
So you've been over in Moscow.
You're in Rome today in the region.
Walk me through first the situation.
Zelensky has just over the weekend at Munich argued for a 20-year security agreement, a security guarantee of which America would be a party to for 20 years, and that the Europeans would commit, actually, it looks like combat troops or at least troops to be stationed, I guess, at the line of contact or somewhere in Ukraine.
Is that what the bid in the ask is?
Is that what he's pushing for right now?
And he keeps saying he needs to sign the security guarantee first before they conclude he signs the rest of the deal.
I was just recently in Moscow and expectations are very high for a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine, of course, with the backing of the United States.
Now, the Russians have extended the olive branch to the United States and have their demands regarding the conflict with Ukraine so that it doesn't continue to be this festering, long, protracted conflict on the European continent, which has the potential to suck in American military men and women in uniform in a conflict down the line.
So what Zelensky is really trying to do here is he's trying to renege on the agreement that the Trump administration has signed regarding the minerals in the western portion of Ukraine.
He's basically saying, you know, that was a good agreement, but, you know, of course, we're not ready to implement the agreement unless we have these security guarantees.
Now, we can't forget that Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
It's not an EU member, but what has it actually cost the American taxpayer?
Over $200 billion, not to even count the over 100 billion euros that have been sent over there, Steve.
And what's the real effect of that money and some military equipment going?
It's countless lives have been lost.
Ukraine continues to lose territory.
And if Biden or somebody on the left had ascended to the Oval Office again, we would have likely seen our military men and women fighting on the front lines against Russian and North Korean troops and potentially Chinese troops in Ukraine.
So this is a very serious escalation by Zelensky.
I don't think he has the cards.
And the Trump administration should pressure him to cede in these negotiations with the Russians so that this conflict finally comes to an end.
The fighting is going on viciously, but basically the conditions have been set.
So the United States and the Europeans and Zelensky knows what Russian demands are.
Now, we've entered over four years into this conflict now.
They should have never started.
And President Trump and President Putin themselves say it.
So the whole point of what these negotiations are for, Steve, is to assure that this does not become a festering, long-term, protracted conflict that can light up or flare up at any moment should President Trump leave the Oval Office or we have another weak president or weak leader in Europe that decides to continue this.
So that is what this is about.
Now, of course, you've had trilateral talks in Abu Dhabi.
You're going to have a new trilateral discussion tomorrow in Geneva between the United States, Ukraine, and Russia.
The United States has basically stated that they will no longer support this conflict in the fashion that the Biden regime had done so.
So it really is up to Zelensky and President Putin to finalize this agreement, because one way or another, if Ukraine decides to fight to the last man, they're going to lose.
They don't have the manpower.
They don't have the money.
They don't have the American support anymore.
So they have to negotiate.
And if they don't, as President Trump himself says it, the Russians and the Ukrainians are going to fight it out and it's not going to look good for Ukraine.
Yes, my understanding is that both Witkoff and Kushner will be part of the discussions.
It will be basically separated between military and political talks.
There will also be economic discussions, which will be led by different envoys.
But we have to look at this entire situation through not only the military lens, but also the political and the economic perspective.
The United States has much to gain from a new relationship with Russia, not only to separate them from their relationship with China, but also to not only stabilize the European continent, but to extend the United States relations with Russia into the next 75 years of this century, which will be dominated by not only Russia, China, and the United States.
We have to really look at the big picture here, Steve.
And I know President Trump is, and we can't allow a person like Zelensky to sabotage these very critical peace talks at this moment in history.
But Zelensky in Munich, correct me if I'm wrong, we've got all kind of footage we watched over the weekend.
He's pitching NATO that they've got to be part of NATO, which I thought was reversing back what these talks are about because he's saying, hey, we have the largest army.
Now it's been funded by the Europeans.
He says, well, we have the largest army in all of Europe.
And so we have to be part of NATO.
How did that, how did he get so off track on that?
If we're actually in Geneva tomorrow having discussions, doesn't that take us back to where we were like when President Trump came into office?
Look, Ukraine and NATO is a red line, I think, for the Russians, based on what I learned from listening to very interesting discussion at the Institute that I recently spoke at.
It's not in the U.S. interest, I believe, to also have a Ukraine in NATO.
Now, what I ultimately think will happen, which is in the United States' interest, is that the economic mineral agreement that the United States signed with Zelensky is a de facto security agreement because those minerals are in the western part of Ukraine.
They're not really being contested by the Russian side.
They're more Eurocentric, closer aligned to Poland, while the eastern parts of Ukraine, as the Minsk agreements had all laid out, would like to be closer to Russia.
They're ethnically Russian.
They speak Russian.
And if that had been approved and institutionalized by Ukraine and the United States under Biden, of course, the Europeans, we would have never had this war.
So Ukraine and NATO is a no-go for all the reasons I just explained.
But we will have de facto security guarantees because of the economic cooperation we will have in Ukraine.
Okay, the most MAGA of all historians is Larry Swikert, the author of Patriots History, co-author of Patriots History, and really a giant in our movement, intellectual giant.
Larry, I want you to take a few minutes to explain.
This is President's Day today.
We have all these.
But we used to honor Washington and Lincoln with separate observances of their birthday.
Well, Lincoln keeps the union together, and that was his goal all along.
He said when the war broke out, if I could restore the union and not free a single slave, I'd do it.
If I could restore the union, free all the slaves, I'd do it.
And of course, later on, about a year and a half into the war, he came to the conclusion that the only way to militarily win the war was to take the policy step of emancipating all the slaves.
Of course, he didn't emancipate every slave everywhere, but he emancipated those in states still in rebellion.
And he enacted enough policies that a lot of people on the libertarian right call him a tyrant for doing so.
You got to win the war first before you can do anything else.
And of course, once the war was over, he makes this incredible statement that we have malice toward none and charity for all.
When I think if I had been one of the radical Republicans at the time, I would have been saying, you need to ban the Democrat Party as a terrorist organization.
If you want an autographed copy, I'll give you the specifics.
If you email me at larry at wildworldhistory.com.
And don't forget, if you want two free chapters, the new update to Patriots History from 2018 to 2025, you can email me at larry at wildworldthahistory.com.
And we have, you're going to love this one, Steve, a full government civics one semester course coming out at the Wild World of History here within the next 30 days.
Look forward to getting you back on here talking about the book, America in the 21st Century, from our great historian, Larry Swikert, co-author of the Patriots History of the United States, which is a seminal work.
If you haven't gotten that and had the kids read it and read it with them, you're missing something.
Larry, thank you so much.
Mike Lindell, you talked to me over the weekend.
I know you're absolutely jammed on things you're doing politically and others, but you said, hey, the sale is so big, I want to continue.
So walk me through what we're doing for the war and posse today.