Stephen K. Bannon and guests dissect Nigel Farage's "mini revolution" in the UK, where Reform UK secured 1,500 seats, linking Brexit to Trump's victory as a rejection of the two-party system. They analyze internal tensions regarding Tommy Robinson, noting Farage's pragmatic avoidance of Islamophobia to prevent alienating Muslim voters who hold 200 parliamentary seats, while criticizing Labour's visa cancellations for American speakers and Pope Leo XIV's US visit. The episode concludes with Joe Allen and Bannon demanding a federal AI oversight agency akin to the Atomic Energy Commission, rejecting voluntary regulation to prevent rogue cyber attacks, bioweapon creation, and autonomous military decision-making. [Automatically generated summary]
Okay, let me go back and do a little history here so you understand the context.
When I was running Breitbart very early on, It became quite evident that to build the populist nationalist movement in this country, we needed to go to do two things make sure that people understood certain parts of the country, what was happening, and what was happening about their sovereignty.
That's why, with Brandon Darby and the great team there at Breitbart, we launched Breitbart, Texas, particularly about the Rio Grande Valley.
I went down, spent a lot of time in the Rio Grande Valley.
Gosh, that's got to be 2012, 13, 14 to really understand what was going on.
And how the establishment, the business political establishment in Texas was involved in that.
The other part was to launch international sites or international headquarters or bureaus for Breitbart.
And I was going to do Jerusalem, Rome, and London.
London was most important.
We did that first.
And Brahim Gassam, that's where I met James Dellingpole, who was a columnist at the Daily Telegraph.
The Daily Telegraph had gone what the British call wet, it was not really a conservative site.
The classic traditional rhinos here.
That's what was happening to the Tory party.
And this guy was a right winger.
Delling Pole and Raheem, a young guy, a blogger named Raheem Kassam, who I went over and met and was introduced to, just turned out just a brilliant guy.
And we launched it.
And particularly to follow this guy, Nigel Farage, who was at that time in the European Parliament and up on these YouTube videos that were just magnificent as he just bringing the old what for to the European Parliament.
Now he came back and I used to traips around with him.
Essentially, what building kind of a Tea Party movement was called UKIP, the UK Independence Party.
But he had a theory of the case to get the sovereignty back to actually extract themselves from the European Union.
That was considered the biggest joke in the world.
It would never happen.
The odds were so, so long.
And Nigel Farage, through force of personality and force of will, and I saw it day to day, we did it.
He did it in June of 2016.
Because a guy running to be prime minister had committed to, they trapped him in a debate, I guess it was, to commit to a plebiscite, to a referendum.
And Nigel Farage won the referendum.
And Boris Johnson was kind of the official party doing it.
He was the unofficial.
Boris Johnson ran on all the rules in Brussels and everything like that.
Nigel ran good old fashioned migration.
And Brexit came about.
And Brexit was the foreshadowing of Trump's victory in that November.
And I said at the time, what happens there, you can tell these things kind of move a little bit together.
And that's what's so important about what's happening now.
And this is Nigel created an entirely new party.
The Tories have been around for 250 years.
You read the American Revolution, it's the Tory party that's by and large making a lot of decisions and fighting in commons.
They've been around for 250 years.
The Labor Party's been around, I think, since World War I. He's smoking both of them, crushing them.
And it's very important.
And Matthew Goodwin said it.
The British people, you see in the election where they gave the Tories the overwhelming majority and they frittered it away.
This should be a lesson to the MAGA movement and to the Republican Party.
People are prepared to say, Hey, look, I don't want to be a second class citizen in my own country.
I want to empower a group of people to represent me as a UK citizen, as a citizen of Great Britain, or as a citizen of these United States of America.
But I want you to go in there and I want you to fight for me as a citizen.
American citizen, America first, yes, 100%.
But American citizens become first.
American citizens right now are supplicants.
You are not just a second, I think you're kind of a third class, you're in steerage.
You're in steerage in your own country.
You're in steerage in your own country, and you don't have to be.
You've got to be in platinum seating, premier seating.
You're up there.
You should be up in the skyboxes, right?
It's unsat, and you're seeing that.
And that's what was so important about yesterday.
Let's go with Peter McElvin, who's done such a great job in helping us in Texas because he's seen how London has fallen.
Peter, what do we take?
Matthew Goodwin, I think, nailed it.
Your thoughts on what we saw yesterday, or I guess it was on Facebook?
He's been at this for 30 years with UKIP and then the Brexit Party and now Reform UK.
And within three to four years of this new party, they now have 2,000 council seats.
And to put that understanding, that's local council seats.
Two years ago, they had zero.
In the last election, they got around 900.
And in this election, they've got.
At the moment, it is 1440.
They may not get the 1,500.
There are only about 60 seats to count.
But they have made, I mean, the front page of every paper today was a picture of Nigel in normal pose, celebrating in the spotlight, and rightly so.
And they have taken not only nearly 1,500 councillors, to put that in understanding, Labour ended up with 1,000.
The Conservatives ended up with 800, and poor Kemi Bednock, the leader of the Conservative Party, she called that a good night and said the Conservatives are back, despite the fact they lost 600 councillors.
But it's absolutely fantastic for reform.
And they have taken control of 14 councils.
We have about 290 councils in the UK, and not all were up for grabs.
We've got a rolling system.
Sometimes a council has a quarter of the seats every year, sometimes they're all up for grabs every four years.
So there were only A small number, 5,000 councillors up for election out of around 17,000.
So around a third of them were up for election.
And that one third is an interesting number because, as Nigel said there in that cold open, they were winning.
They have won a third of the seats they stood in.
In fact, they stood, although they had slightly fewer numbers of candidates than the Labour Party, they stood in 99.9% of wards of those local areas.
Where you have two or three councillors.
So, literally across the country, divided up into wards, maybe 7,000 wards, there are probably only six of them that actually, if you went as a member of the voting public and you went to vote, you wouldn't have had a reform candidate.
I, in the middle of London, had three reform candidates.
They didn't get in where I am, but they got in in Havering, which is in East London.
And that was also a triumph because that's the first.
Council in London, they have managed to win, and that was a big leave, a big Brexit, a big anti EU area.
But they have won up in the northeast of England, in the Midlands, in the southeast of England, and they've done well in Wales.
They're now the opposition in Wales.
Who would have thought that they would have been the main opposition to Ply Cymru, who are the Nationalist Party in Wales?
It was he left UKIP, and remember, for years, he was kind of a couple of years in media, and then I would spend a lot of time with him, but you got to get back in it.
And he says, I can't go back to UKIP.
I'm going to do it myself.
And I thought, wow, why are we doing this?
And he built it himself.
It's just amazing.
Ben Harnwell, you're the head of our international in Rome, but you're an Englishman.
I'd like to underline for our largely American audience, really, the connection here.
And we say it constantly on the show how Brexit teed up everything that happened with the Trump revolution from the election campaign of 2015 and the eventual victory.
Between 2016 onwards, I want to underline what I think is the straight line between these two things.
And that's basically not only the fact that the Britons exercised their sense of agency, but they really woke up to themselves and felt confident in employing that sense of agency.
It's absolutely fundamental.
And you see the same thing happening now with this mini revolution that we saw at the local government level this Thursday.
And it's something that transcends our.
Two party system of politics.
It's that people on the left, traditionally voting Labour, people on the right, traditionally voting Conservative, both have peeled away and said, We are not going to accept what the regime gives us.
We are going to go outside of the parameters of seeking permission, if you will, from approval, social approval from our elders and betters.
We are going to determine for ourselves our own destiny.
That's the point here.
It's really a rediscovery and an insistence on using the British people's sense of agency.
That's why it's so important.
And it shows that the revolution that took place in the UK, the absolutely sort of cataclysmic revolution with Brexit, which, as you correctly said, would have been sort of considered to be unthinkable just 10 years before it took place.
Why that sense, why that continuing revolution is taking place?
Because it's all a straight line.
What happened at Brexit?
What happened on Thursday?
And Nigel Farage is very much the key protagonist in that.
You kind of wanted the, if not the unsung hero, in this whole rejuvenation of the grassroots movement here in the United States because you went to Texas in November, came back, and spent some time with me and said, hey, you don't realize.
That the United States, I asked you, I said when you went over there, where are we in relation to how it first started in London?
Because London has fallen now.
And you said you're much farther gone.
And that led to the Sharia referendum, the two million votes.
You were there for the opening kickoff for it, et cetera.
The question, and Harnwell just nailed it right there of the through line with the United States.
Our revolution has not even, we're top of the third inning now, okay?
And it's now about American citizenship and American citizens, and people are tired of being supplicants.
And you can see both left and right in England are coming to an alternative.
One of the glaring issues with reform.
Is this issue with Tommy Robinson?
And Tommy, you know, has been in Texas and doing great things on Sharia law, is one at the forefront of that, is drawing good crowds.
And we've been covering live streaming Tommy's.
They're about to have this.
People realize in reform, they really don't touch what Tommy's talking about.
They do talk about immigration, they talk about deportations, but they won't kind of go there where it's a much harder and sharper edge to it.
Talk to me a minute about that.
And particularly this, another big rally for Tommy or March this week.
And there are two individuals, high profile individuals.
I see this as a class issue of Tommy being a working class guy who's got nothing but made it himself.
Nigel Moore looking down.
That's how I see it.
And Nigel certainly wouldn't work with Tommy.
Tommy probably would work with Nigel.
But reformer, brilliant on the immigration issue, on spending.
On getting control of our own affairs.
But yet on Islam, which is a huge issue here in London, is 15% Islamic.
School children are 30% Muslim in London.
And that is across Europe.
In terms of, if you look at Brussels, it's what 42% of the children in schools are Muslim.
And the same number is Vienna, it's 40% in Vienna.
We're seeing a huge change across Europe in terms of.
Islam, and that's just not immigration.
That's also high birth rates in those countries and acquiescing to whether it's Sharia law, whether it's halal food industry, whether it's Sharia finance, all of those.
We are giving away our traditionally held levers of the powers of our society.
Nigel doesn't get that.
And I would say probably he maybe he's wiser.
He's seen what's happened to other people.
He's pragmatic.
He doesn't think this is maybe the main election issue.
So he goes on others.
But he doesn't want to go up against Islam where Tommy kind of has that fighter spirit on the street.
Tommy Robinson's been on a role, Ben Harnwell, in Texas, assisting there for this issue we're doing about the Islamic invasion of the Jewel of the Crown of the American Union, the great state of Texas.
Why is Nigel Farage not fully embracing Tommy Robinson and kind of his little harder edged?
If you look at how Nigel Farage, his image, his popular image in the country, it's like a pint of beer in one hand and a fag in the other.
And that's how people popularly imagine him.
That's like a typically working class type guy.
That's part of his popular appeal.
I don't think it's a class thing.
I think it's because.
Nigel Farage wants to be Prime Minister and has a very realistic possibility of getting there.
But the facts are these, Steve.
I mean, I've seen the various Islamic lobbying groups themselves saying that they control around 200 seats, as in dispersed over the country, they can control the direction of around 200 seats at the general election, given that our Parliament has about, what, 650 seats.
That's a pretty hefty share.
And I'm obviously not going to make the argument that, Muslims will vote as a bloc.
However, if Nigel Farage started channeling Tommy Robinson too aggressively, they certainly will start acting as a bloc, and that will destroy his chance of becoming Prime Minister.
If you look at his.
See, basically, look, we don't have in the UK, different to the rest of continental Europe, but very similar to the United States, we have a first past the post system in the UK.
We don't have proportional representation.
If we had.
Proportional representation in the UK, then Nigel Farage can do exactly what you're saying and get a very large sort of lump of the electorate, and that will be guaranteed for his.
And then he will start coalition building with other groups of similar direction to get the numbers up to an absolute majority.
We don't have that.
We have first past the post, it's sort of a simple majority of one, and that's why we have these huge swings, not only in the states, but also.
In the UK, arguably more in the UK, we have a greater tradition of seat changing sides of the election.
So Nigel Farage realises that you can't get to the point of invasion that we are in the UK since the 50s onwards and then say, let's run Tommy Robinson as a candidate in a first past the post system and let's see how far he gets to becoming towards the end of the day.
It's the consequences that we have had an invasion, an illegal third world invasion since the late 50s onwards, overseen, if I may, by the toy party that was then in power and continued all the way through that.
It's the consequences that we have had an invasion in the UK.
That means that Nigel Farage, if he wants to get to number 10, has to be very calculating about what his.
Principle points are in order to get there, and he can't run.
Once you get to the stage that you are in, this is my lesson to America, right?
Once you get to the stage of invasion and ethnic substitution, call it what you will, once you get to that stage, there's no coming back from that.
So, as I've said repeatedly on the show since I've been here for five years, our message in continental Europe is to show the Americans what happens and say, do not follow this path the way down because you will end up in the same situation, and that's where we are in the UK.
But I also understand Lutz Backmann has been cancelled, and he is probably Germany's equivalent of Tommy.
So it does seem as though the Home Office and they've all received.
A letter or an email to say that their presence would not be conducive to the public good, but they can apply for a lot of money with a lot of forms, paperwork for the privilege of coming.
But they're not coming to work, they're coming just to speak at an event.
But those four have been cancelled with five with Lutz.
I've also heard of a sixth one who contacted me.
So I understand that this is a tactic.
They want to do anything they can to stop it.
And part of that was because Tommy was so successful when he was over in the US.
Connected with so many people, and that will not go unpunished.
And this is obviously how they're trying to punish him by blocking his speakers to arrive.
Well, it's pretty much, if you look at the analysis of the mainstream media following the visit, it's pretty much exactly as the war room had predicted before Little Marco's visit, during Little Marco's visit, and following Little Marco's visit.
It's my worst kind of tragedy, Steve, which is the tragedy of missed opportunities.
It's really where the administration could have underlined the importance of Donald Trump as the key representative in the fight for Christendom.
That's been ditched.
Little Marco's gone over and shown massive moral authority to a person who is the sworn enemy of MAGA, America First, and the Trump agenda.
And it comes back to a point that, again, I say this constantly on the war room you cannot fight a religious figure on the political front whilst at the same time giving that religious figure moral credence, moral authority in the spiritual realm.
It doesn't work.
All you're going to do is undermine yourself.
And that's exactly what's happened.
And you can see, and I know we'll dig into this after the break, but the whole tenor of the media now is that Leo, the first American pope, has massive leeway in the political sphere over the minds and emotional viewpoints of U.S. Catholics.
For all his, you know, faults, and he's the first to say that he is false, has been the leader in the restoration of Christendom as a political force and standing up for Christendom across the globe.
And Prevost is the exact opposite.
I mean, his trip to Sub Saharan Africa to me was an embarrassment.
His embrace of Islam shows you everything you need to know about this guy.
Yet we went there and essentially raised him up.
As some moral authority, he's not a moral authority when it comes to this.
He said, um, when he was asked whether it's being too political, he said, I will continue to speak out loudly, looking to promote peace, promoting dialogue, and multilateral relationships.
It's all there, Steve.
To American Catholics, it's in your face.
This guy is the honorary chaplain of the new world order.
There's nothing in his mandate.
Or the way he's approaching office that even pretends to be promoting the gospel of Jesus Christ.
It's a political agenda.
And President Trump has been magnificent on defending Christianity around the world.
Absolutely magnificent.
Defending peoples that the Pope doesn't want to go near, by the way.
Ask if you step Back a moment and ask yourself who is most aggressively demanding that we, meaning political leaders gathered here today, do the most aggressive regulation?
It is very often the people who already have an incumbent advantage in the market.
And when a massive incumbent comes to us asking us for safety regulations, we ought to ask whether that safety regulation is for the benefit of our people or whether it's for the benefit of the incumbent.
The Trump administration will ensure that AI systems developed in America are free from ideological bias and never restrict our citizens' right to free speech.
We can trust our people to.
Think, to consume information, to develop their own ideas, and to debate with one another in the open marketplace of ideas.
Now, we've also watched as hostile foreign adversaries have weaponized AI software to rewrite history, surveil users, and censor speech.
This is hardly new, of course.
As they do with other tech, some authoritarian regimes have stolen and used AI to strengthen their military, intelligence, and surveillance capabilities.
Foreign data and create propaganda to undermine other nations' national security.
I want to be clear this administration will block such efforts, full stop.
Now, you've had Scott Besant now give multiple interviews, Joe, where he's saying, hey, he's involved in this now and safety is a top concern.
Coming from the meeting he had with the bank guys, where they talked about the mythos was a preview.
That can evaporate, I don't know, it can evaporate a money center bank by a cyber attack in like 60 seconds.
Now you got Susie Wiles putting out, and this is because Hassett on Thursday or Friday, might have been yesterday, said, Oh, we're setting up an FDA type thing to look at AI.
And of course, they all melted down.
And we're not an advocate of an FDA type thing, although we are an advocate of atomic energy.
Susie came out and said, We're not going to pick winners and losers, but safety is a concern.
Why all of a sudden are they all concerned about safety?
Why, after they smack talked war room, the entire crowd over at the White House smack talked you, me, war room.
Oh, these guys, because we knew the day was coming when someone like Anthropoc would come forward and say, Hey, look, we got these programs and we can't even control them.
And it's gotten worse with the recursive, where the machine's actually writing its own code.
It's going to get worse and worse and worse.
This is the gospel we've been preaching for five years that this technology is very powerful.
It can be some great things for humanity, but you must be.
Very careful.
And you have a group of people on the spectrum, i.e., the oligarchs, the leaders of this, that just want money and power.
In the White House, and particularly now, there's two stories, one in the Wall Street Journal, one in the Daily Mail, that when the anthropic thing came out on Mythos, JD gets on the phone and says, Hey guys, we all got to work together, get better.
That's not good enough.
They're just not going to sit there with these guys and say, We got to work together, get better.
You got to bang some heads.
These guys are not good guys, they're actually bad guys.
And they've tried everything in the world to try to get a license from the administration to just go full bore.
And now we realize it is quite a problem, as we told you over and over and over again.
So, no, getting on a conference call and saying, Hey, guys, can't we all just get along and work together?
Can't we give a heads up?
This is a serious danger.
When Scott Besson's sitting there going, Hey, I think a money center bank can be gone in 60 seconds.
When Jamie Dimon's worried about JP Morgan Bank.
There are certain elements of this we have no control over.
There's certain elements of it in that the machines are actually getting more aggressive on their own and writing their own code, what they call recursive, that we have no earthly idea where this is going.
And now, and Hassett says FDA, we've never mentioned that.
That to me is a little heavy handed.
And we don't, the FDA we have doesn't work, but an Atomic Energy Commission or something, there must be a framework for regulation here, not just around children, which just has to happen because that's horrible, but about exactly what these folks are doing.
Yes, Steve, this is the mythos moment, as they say, but I think that even that is narrowing the scope of the problem quite a bit.
You know, Besant, when he came out saying that the United States government would not allow unsafe systems to be deployed, what the main focus was is the danger of financial institutions and other critical infrastructure being undermined by, say, just a random.
Hacker who otherwise wouldn't have the capabilities, but using a system like Mythos or using a system like OpenAI's GPT 5.5 Cyber, which was just announced two days ago, basically OpenAI's version of Mythos.
The real issue here, I think, Steve, the reason that suddenly people are taking this seriously is that the institutions and the assets that The ruling class hold dear, being banks, money, the institutions responsible for maintaining and wielding power, they are now under threat by the AI systems being created and at least the threat that they would be deployed.
Now, I think that governing this, having some agency or another, whether it's the Department of Energy in a kind of atomic commission scenario, or whether you have DHS.
Or whether you have, as is being suggested quite loudly by OpenAI and the Abundance Institute and also the White House, Casey, the Center for AI Standards and Innovation, whatever it is, I think it's a minimum ask, a minimum ask to have someone besides the tech CEOs and their minions watching over these systems, trying to understand what the potential threats are.
Because right now, Steve, this mythos moment is highlighting the potential for AI systems to be used for cyber attacks.
And they could be cyber attacks against banks.
They could be cyber attacks against hospitals, against water plants, as it was talked about on this phone call with JD Vance and the various Frontier execs.
It could be schools.
It could be any government agency.
It could be the military.
It could be all of that.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg.
We also know that these systems are capable of assisting in the creation of bioweapons.
We know that these systems are able to be used in an agentic fashion to have phishing operations.
Spam, nudging public opinion, dissemination of disinformation, misinformation, so on and so forth.
You have deep fake capabilities.
You have the ability to, or the latent capability of suicide coaching, whether it be children or anyone else, mass shooting coaching.
And you also have the problems of hallucination.
And then on the other side of that, Steve, you know, the problem of hallucination highlights how these systems are stupid.
On the other side of that, you have the possibility that these systems will exhibit.
So called superhuman capabilities, again, in cyber attacks, in deepfake creation, in disinformation dissemination, so on and so forth.
So I think, Steve, that what Besant is simply stating, that the United States government needs to ensure that these systems are quote unquote safe, I think that is a minimum ask.
And I think that the threat of cyber attacks or any kind of cybersecurity threat, that is one facet among many in which these systems can be used not only to damage.
Financial institutions or any other kind of critical infrastructure, these systems across the board are already degrading schools.
They're already creating kind of hallucinatory diagnoses and therapeutic recommendations for doctors.
They're already most likely creating situations in which kill decisions are made by the military without adequate review.
So, again, I think Besson is 100% correct.
That the United States government has to be involved in this.
I don't think it should be voluntary as it's being proposed now.
People in the administration, not giving President Trump full information, went out of their way to look the other way and let these oligarchs just run rampant with this thing.
It just highlights that, you know, on the one hand, you can rattle the sabers and say, we don't need you anymore.
And of course, the Department of War is now making deals across the board with OpenAI, with XAI, with Amazon, with Microsoft, so on and so forth, to bring them in to replace Anthropic and Claude in the role of going over classified documents.
But the use, the continued use of Claude for both reviewing and analyzing and summarizing classified documents and also to review surveillance data for.
Faster decision making processes on the battleground.
What it shows is that people see both the power of these systems, they see that these companies are wielding that power, they're leveraging that power to kind of dictate what either the Department of War is doing or what any other United States government agency may be doing.
And it also highlights, Steve, that what we're dealing with here isn't some sort of static technology.
It's not like the models, the mythos is that that's the last one.
And once we get that under wraps, everything's okay.
These guys are going full board trying to develop more and more capable technologies.
They're ignoring the faults of the technologies and they're also, in many cases, whitewashing the dangerous capabilities of these technologies.
Yes, I think, again, it's a minimum ask.
Have someone accountable to the people, that being the United States government, overseeing the development of these technologies and forcing transparency.
Anti regulatory, and we're deconstructing the administrative state.
We're not trying to add another bureau.
This is a massive national security problem for the citizens of this country.
The other is what these oligarchs are doing, the Chinese Communist Party.
Part of the meeting in Beijing to tell them hey, look, no more chips, no more education, no more students coming over here, no more guys working in our labs, none of it.
And it's simply the tendency, it's also called confabulation, but it's the tendency of advanced systems to confidently state some fact or another, or even make whole arguments that are simply fabricated.
They're incorrect.
And the hallucinations have not been stamped out of these systems.
You hear all the time, oh, we're correcting for them.
If you look, for instance, at the Omniscience Index, which we covered in detail, it's an evaluation which shows that, in general, on average, the systems that are more capable when they don't know the answer to a question are more likely to hallucinate or to give a confident answer that is simply false.
Now, in education, that's important.
In medicine, that's really important.
And in the military context, well, obviously, it's potentially deadly.
When you go there today, talk to their representatives.
They'll walk you through the entire process how you get a pharmacist or licensed medical professional to make sure you get the medicines you need at the time, place, and price that you need them.
Now you can get a hardback edition of End of the Dollar Empire with the first seven free installments going all the way back, I think, to 2021.
Got the eighth free installment up online.
They're all free, right?
So if you go online, you get them all free.
You can read them over the weekend.
Immerse yourself, but talk to Philip Patrick and the team, birchgold.com.
Promo code Bannon.
Go check it out.
And if you've got any questions, get to Philip Patrick and his team that are there to assist you in understanding why physical gold, the ownership of physical gold, if the central banks are doing it, why are you not doing it?
Ask them that question.
Joe Allen, what is concerning about the Wall Street Journal and Daily Mail is that it's too late.
Having a call after this has happened is not acceptable.
This has been known.
We've talked about it on the show in detail for years.
This day was coming.
It's obvious this day is coming.
It's just like Harnwell said about the Islamic invasion of the United Kingdom.
You're dealing with the consequences now, not getting ahead of the problem.
Why the hell do you think we're down in Texas on this issue?
You've got to get ahead of these problems.
If you're in these leadership positions, if you're fortunate enough like us to have this platform, you have to lead, not react, lead.
That's why we're down in Texas.
That's why we're in Virginia.
The grassroots in this country are the power in this country, but you have to say, hey, look here, I think it's going to be a problem.
H1B visas, big problem.
This Islamic invasion, big problem.
What's happened overseas, got to stop it, got to get ahead of it, or you're going to deal with the consequences, which are so difficult to reverse.
Again, Steve, I think that some sort of accountability, whether it be state level or federal level, some declared Accountability so that if a company, for instance, under SB 53 in California, if a company has put out a model that is used to create damage that the company could have foreseen, then they can be held liable in court.
They will be fined.
It's a minimum ask, a minimum ask.
And with the mythos moment, right, coupled with OpenAI's GPT 5.5 cyber, this mythos moment, the potential for massive cyber attacks that amateurs can then.
Create.
This shows us that these systems are not simply tools that make people's lives easier.
These are systems that can be extraordinarily dangerous.
And so the suggestion that you would use an agency like CASE, the Center for AI Standards and Innovation, to test the models before they're released, again, that would be a minimum ask.
And the suggestion that this should be voluntary, that basically.
Companies would voluntarily submit their models for rubber stamping of safe and effective.
It's ridiculous.
And we hear simultaneously OpenAI pushing, last month, as we covered, OpenAI pushing Casey to be basically the hinge upon which the U.S. government and these tech companies would revolve.
And you also hear the Abundance Institute suggesting the same.
That they see this as the weakest point in the system.
So I think that, again, even if Chris Fall, the current director of Casey, comes from the Department of Energy, I think the Department of Energy is much better equipped to do this sort of oversight because they've already handled things like nuclear threats.
But in general, Steve, if I can end on this, right now we see both the Treasury Secretary Scott Besant and now Vice President. JD Vance acknowledging the actual danger that has been talked about for years.
Cyber attacks are one facet.
You have to go down the list bioweapons, deepfakes, rogue agentic AI, children being groomed sexually, children being given suicide coaching, psychopaths being given mass shooting coaching, on and on and on.
These systems latent within them have the potential for horrific, malicious, sort of, Activity behavior.
What we have to do, I believe, is at the very least have agencies accountable to the people overseeing this.
If you don't, if the companies are allowed to self regulate, they will do exactly what they've done so far, which is run roughshod over the public and recklessly deploy an extremely dangerous technology.
So, just a heads up we did just launch two new products on our website.
And at least for today, I wanted to talk about one specifically, which is our organic beetroot product.
Which is designed to support healthy heart, healthy circulation, and cardiovascular wellness.
So, what's great about the organic beetroot is that it's rich in naturally occurring nitrates that support nitric oxide production in the body.
And nitric oxide just plays an important role in helping to support healthy blood flow and circulation, which is essential for overall heart health.
And then the formula also includes grapeseed extract, which provides antioxidant support to help support healthy blood vessel function and cardiovascular wellness.
So, what I like most about the product is that it's definitely not loaded with stimulants or anything artificial.
And it's really just focused on supporting your heart and circulation at the foundational level so you can support your overall wellness long term.
So, in short, if you are focused on supporting a healthy heart, healthy blood flow, circulation, and overall cardiovascular health, this is an amazing product for that specifically and a great addition to your wellness routine to help support your energy, performance, and vitality.
So, I definitely encourage people to check it out.