All Episodes
Previous Next
March 28, 2023 - Info Warrior - Jason Bermas
46:48
Peter Thiel The Manhattan Project NASA And The Antichrist
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody! What you're about to watch is largely the second hour premium portion of our Red Voice Media Reality Rants broadcast that we do Monday through Thursday, 8 a.m.
Eastern. Now, the first 10 minutes is going to be a replay for some, but then it goes on for 35 more minutes.
And is a video where Peter Thiel really gives some big reveals.
So, I think it's an important video.
I hope you like it.
If you do want to support the broadcast, come on over.
That way, every day, you get to see that up-to-date, premium video.
Share the links with others.
Check out the documentary films.
But redvoicemedia.com slash Jason or redvoicemedia.com slash uncensored.
And consider joining.
I promised we would watch some of it.
Really, that's going to be, again, the meat and potatoes of this second hour.
But I really felt like this was extremely important.
So here we go. Well, Charlie, thank you so much for that terrific introduction and a lot of different things to cover.
I'm always reminded of a question a colleague of mine liked to ask.
What is the antonym of diversity?
What word is the single antonym of diversity?
University. And did you get it?
Did you get it? University is one.
Diversity is many.
The guy in the scarf back here got it.
He got a little chuckle out of teal.
There you go. Just want to put that out there.
And I think it's such a great honor and privilege here to speak here at the Oxford Union, where for 200 years people have been thinking about the crisis of the university, the crisis of the West, the crisis of classical liberalism.
There are elements of this that are of course timeless and eternal.
And then, of course, there are parts of it that are always, you know, there's always sort of a kaleidoscopic newness and effervescence to it as well.
You know, I frame my talk as anti-anti-anti-anti-classical liberalism.
And he's kind of a joke there.
Anti-anti-anti-anti-anti.
Classic liberalism.
When I heard him say that, all I could think to myself is this guy is talking about the post-truth world.
And he gives a lot of hints to that throughout.
Kind of questioning what is truth?
What are taboos?
Who should we trust?
Can we trust the science if we can't understand it?
So you have a double negative, that's kind of a positive.
A quadruple negative is also kind of a positive.
And I'm going to try to sort of outline, as I see, the argument as well as the best arguments against the university, classical liberalism, You know, sort of the free Western world.
And at the end of the four negatives I will still come down on something that I think is quite close to the values that would have animated the Oxford Union already 200 years ago.
I'll start with a little bit of a historical anecdote.
I was a student at Stanford University in the late 80s, early 90s.
We had a lot of these crazy culture wars, wars about the nature of the university.
One of the ones where I first came in some ways to political awareness was an intense debate at Stanford about the Western canon.
A course called Western Culture.
It was a required freshman course.
In some ways, it was a debate about the course, but of course, it was also a debate about the whole Western civilization it represented.
There was a famous protest that Jesse Jackson led at Stanford.
Hey, hey, ho, ho, Western culture's got to go.
It was a sort of referendum on the course and on our entire civilization.
And I started one of these sort of independent, conservative, libertarian, alternative newspapers.
We decided we should like investigate it. We needed to sort of describe the new curriculum.
We needed to figure out ways to denounce the new curriculum.
Now let me just stop this.
So he's talking about the culture wars all the way back in the 80s and early 90s.
All right. And what he's about to describe is really the Streisand effect regarding him.
Essentially, he's talking about starting this small paper at Stanford with what he's saying are conservative viewpoints.
Then he's going to say he finds basically this obscure story.
From this obscure story and him shining the light on this story, it gets picked up via, I believe, the Wall Street Journal.
Eventually, this person gets the Nobel Prize.
Alright, so it seems like it had the opposite effect of the intended one.
But again, let him tell it.
And by the way, he starts off, again, he's looking really sweaty, he's stuttering, he's stammering.
I don't know, was he out on a bender the night before?
Yeah. In the 88-89 term, one of the new classes was called, the sort of innovative new class was Europe and the Americas, which was not really a non-Western, but more an anti-Western sort of polemic.
And you had sort of all these different authors, and I thought, you know, I should go to the bookstore and just read through the books and find people to illustrate the sort of parochiality and tendentiousness of this new curriculum.
I came on one book that somehow was almost too good to be true.
It was sort of summarized Like, in an Onion episode, everything that was, you know, a stereotype of everything that was ridiculous about the new curriculum.
It was a story of Ayte Rigoberta Menchu.
She was this Guatemalan native, and she's sort of been victimized by every vector of oppression imaginable.
She was, you know, she was a poor, she was a peasant, she was an Indian, she was an orphan, and then you have sort of all, and so she sort of achieved some sort of revolutionary communist consciousness in the course of this period.
Polemic book, you know, she renounces marriage and motherhood, she makes plans for the May Day Parade, these are sort of the chapter titles of the book.
So, basically he's saying that, you know, he tried to find something that was parody level, parody level, and he even references The Onion, and then names them off.
All right, now watch.
I wrote it up.
And as so many of these debates encamp, it somehow was a very narrow issue that somehow kicked off a broader discussion as a 19-year-old junior at Stanford managed to get this reprinted in the Wall Street Journal.
When some of the conservatives wrote books about the insanities of the universities in the late 80s, early 90s, one of the conservative people, the Stanford chapter was entitled Travels with Rigoberta.
This was sort of I sort of succeeded in turning her into an icon for this thing, and then sort of four years later, Fall of 1992, I'm now clerking for a judge and driving to work in Atlanta, Georgia.
And on the radio, we just have an announcement.
We have someone who's just been selected for the Nobel Peace Prize, someone nobody's ever heard of.
It's Rigoberta Menchu.
And I sort of realized at that moment that, yeah, I thought I was engaged in some kind of cosmic battle between the forces of good and evil.
And actually, I had just been a two-bit actor in some left-wing drama.
So let's just stop that.
I thought that was super interesting.
The idea that even as a young man, Thiel is talking about being in a cosmic battle with good and evil, and then he ends the speech on the Antichrist safety, right?
I mean, public safety and peace, and a one-world government warning.
I think it's worth noting, right?
And then saying, well, I'm not really that person, unfortunately.
And instead, I was just kind of a side player in somebody else's story.
And again, I'm not so sure that's the case.
I think that it's cosmically more interwoven than that.
But to me, this was, again, just a big representation of that Streisand effect.
We're going to play a little bit more of this.
All right. And then in four minutes, we're going over to redvoicemedia.com slash Jason, redvoicemedia.com slash uncensored.
All right. $1 for the first week, $10 a month, $100 for the year.
Help support the broadcast.
You can listen to it for free over on Podbean, the Info Warrior.
Check out the Podbean.
You can listen to it all for free.
We do that every day.
And today we will be releasing yet another premium broadcast in video format from two weeks ago like we do every day we do the broadcast, which is Monday through Thursday.
So let's go back to Teal here.
Where I had completed her victimization.
And then, you know, I was the proximate cause of her getting her Nobel Peace Prize, but I think I was the but-for cause.
But for me, she would not have gotten it.
And this is sort of the odd feature of so many of these super intense debates where you sort of wonder, you know, what is it that is really going on?
What is it that is perhaps really at stake that we should be...
Talking about instead.
And so if I look back, you know, on the debates at Stanford at the time, and to some extent these debates, I think they've been fought for, you know, for decades or centuries.
If we took not the tendentious left wing, but let's say the sort of bureaucratic university perspective or the establishment perspective, What they would have said in the 1980s, what I think they still in many cases would say today, what they would have said in the 19th century Yeah, you have all these flaky debates in the humanities about reading Shakespeare and reading these books, but we're doing something much more important.
The university is about progress, progress of knowledge, and it's especially true in the science and technology.
That's where progress is happening, and we can have these side debates about Shakespeare or Rigoberto Menchu, But we're working on string theory and science and the relief of man's estate, Roger Bacon, Sir Francis Bacon, that whole thing.
That's what the university is really all about.
And I think this would have been The technocratic sort of defense Stanford had given of itself in the 80s and 90s that, yes, the progress is continuing.
It's continuing very rapidly, and this is what is sort of what is going on in our society, and that's what's fundamentally good.
It's the Manhattan Project.
It is the Apollo Space Program.
It is the progress of humanity, and as long as we're doing that, you shouldn't You know, you can complain about these sideshows, but it doesn't really matter.
So, so much to unpack there.
I want to try to do it in this last minute before we go over, and then I'll give the cue to my producer.
He talks, what?
NASA and paperclip coming out of this technocratic society.
Nazi-run stuff. We're good to go.
That he's discussing is one we talk about all the time on this program.
In fact, there's so much in here that we talk about all the time on this program.
This was just too juicy not to cover.
And so I think one of the debates that I came to, one of the perspectives I came to start to wonder about, though, in the late 90s, 2000s, Was, you know, yeah, we have so many of these culture wars are about these issues that everybody can understand.
These books or, you know, Shakespeare versus Rigoberto Menchu or something like this.
But perhaps things are just as unhealthy in the sciences, in all these other disciplines that are, after all, I like that.
We should assume That the sciences are more corrupt than basic humanity because of the power of the science.
Power! One of the early people who drew my attention was a professor at Stanford, Bob Laughlin, who got a Nobel Prize in Physics in the late 1990s.
He was a somewhat difficult person.
A friend of mine was getting his PhD work with Laughlin, but he had the supreme delusion That now that he had a Nobel Prize in physics, he had complete academic freedom.
And he would be allowed to investigate and talk about anything he wanted to.
And there are, of course, a lot of controversial topics in the sciences we could imagine.
You could question climate change.
You could talk about, you know, intelligence and genetics.
You could talk about... So he's just talking about eugenics right there.
Intelligence and genetics.
That's a controversial topic.
Climate change is a controversial topic.
You could talk about...
You'd question Darwinism.
There are all sorts of things that are quite taboo in the sciences, but he picked an area that was far worse, far more dangerous than any of those.
He was convinced that most of the scientists, even at a place like Stanford University, were engaged in borderline fraudulent research.
They were stealing money from the taxpayers, and it needed to be investigated, it needed to be stopped.
And I don't even need to tell you too much about how that movie ended.
It sort of ended quite badly.
He got defunded.
His graduate students couldn't get PhDs anymore.
And the kind of hermeneutic suspicion I always have is that, I wouldn't say it's automatically the case that if something is taboo, That it must be perfectly 100% accurate.
But my suspicion is that if something is this taboo, this forbidden, you have to at least ask some sorts of questions.
Again, there's a lot in this I can't help but agree with Thiel on.
Think about what he just said.
When things are taboo like that, when it seems like you can't question it, when you're supposed to be, I don't know, One of these doctors that's actually an expert in this field and you go against the science and all of a sudden you're demonized.
Yeah, that's something we should be asking about.
Give me a break.
And the general thesis that I've been articulating and different for a For close to two decades is that there is something about science and technology that's not progressing as quickly.
The specialization means that it's very hard to evaluate.
You have all these different sub-specialists that propagandize about themselves.
The cancer researchers tell us they're going to cure cancer in five years, and they've been telling us that for 50 years.
That's a big... I mean, everything he says here is really correct.
You know, don't get me wrong. Technology is certainly advanced.
We've got the magic devices.
But not in the ways that we've been promised.
And not in the ways they continue to promise towards this utopian society.
String theorists say they're the smartest people in the world.
They know everything about physics. And we're about to have quantum computers and on and on down the line.
And yet, in many ways, we seem to have been kind of stuck.
You know, the If I go back to when I was an undergraduate at Stanford, almost all the engineering fields that one could have gone into would have been mistakes.
It was a mistake to go into aero-astro engineering.
It was a mistake to go into nuclear engineering.
I think people already understood that by the 80s.
These fields were stuck.
They were outlawed. They weren't going to advance.
You weren't going to make any progress in mechanical engineering, chemical engineering.
All these things were bad ideas.
The one that still held up pretty well in the late 80s, early 90s for another decade was electrical engineering, semiconductors, And then probably, you know, the one very silly field that actually did kind of work was computer science.
And I always think that when you have fields that include science, that's always a tell that you have an inferiority complex because you don't need to call it physical science or chemical sciences, physics or chemistry, but it's computer science like political science or climate science.
It's sort of like a deep sense of inferiority.
And I agree with him there.
That's very insightful.
Obviously, when we talk about computers, you are talking about a scientific field because you're talking about something that not only needs electricity, but maintains information, runs graphic user interfaces, and creates digital media of all sorts.
And yet these people who had relatively bad math genes and went into this sort of very, very degenerate field called computer science.
This was the one thing that kind of worked the last 30, 35 years.
And we had some sort of progress around this world of bits, computers, internet, mobile internet.
Maybe I really dislike that word.
And there are probably ways that even that progress has somewhat stalled out or become less utopian in the last decade.
But for the last 40 or 50 years, outside the world of bits, it has been a story of general stagnation.
And then not just in the fields, not just in terms of no big breakthroughs, But of course, also, you know, if we try to measure it economically, we have this very odd situation in the UK or the US where for the first time in decades and centuries beyond count, the younger generation has lower economic expectations than their parents.
Think about that. That's a big deal.
I mean, he's right when he says centuries.
For the first time in centuries, you have, and that's social engineering.
That's done purposely.
Okay? And that's my big problem with Thiel.
I feel like he's a part of that.
He's privy to that.
He knows this is by design.
So, you know, because they're at Oxford, is he kind of explaining it to the next generation on how they can get ahead?
And he's so correct that there has not been any kind of breakthroughs.
In my lifetime. We were promised all this magic medicine.
What did we get? A bunch of psychotropic drugs and people on.
A bunch of sick people on medications all the time.
Haven't seen any extension in the amount of years that I'm living.
Okay? Haven't even seen any extension on the quality of my life health-wise.
All right? In general.
Now, don't get me wrong. There...
For those that can afford it, you know, around the 90s or so, late 90s, people figured out, oh, wow, HGH, TRT. Now we're looking at different types of anti-agers that aren't steroid-based or growth hormone-based as well.
I talk about NID +, resveratrol, metformin, those things, right?
So those are things that we discuss here.
And that's out there.
Thiel is one of these guys.
I mean, this is a guy that is going to try to cryogenically freeze himself if he can't live forever.
Okay? And he even, I think, invokes Kurzweil in a moment.
How we've been promised all these things, but the big breakthroughs aren't there.
The communications breakthroughs, they've been there.
I mean, if you think about it, what have we really broken through on?
Bigger and thinner televisions?
Better video games?
Think about your car, right?
Oh, an electric car?
Oh, wow! Yeah, they go less miles.
Now, don't get me wrong, the hybrid stuff, but how long did that take?
Right? I mean, how long does a car last?
Have they improved that?
Think about the roadways.
Why are we still using concrete on the roads?
Are you telling me with all of our science and our breakthroughs, we can't figure out a material that's not going to act like that, that's going to be better to pave with, and maybe we can do it once and have minor maintenance on?
We couldn't figure that out, bare minimum?
But where are the breakthroughs?
And this just very oddly doesn't fit with the sort of Kurzweilian, Panglossian accelerationism.
The singularity is near and all you need to do is sit back and eat some popcorn and watch the movie The Future Unfolds.
So there's something about the stagnation problem that runs One's quite deep, seems to be quite multifaceted.
I sort of tend to date it back to something like the early 70s, the oil shocks, the inflation, a time when, you know, money no longer grew on trees because we didn't have this incredible tailwind of scientific and technological progress that was just advancing on its own.
So, yeah, to recap where we are on the argument, the rebuttal to the rebuttal to classical liberalism.
The rebuttal to classical liberalism is just, we don't need to do the humanities.
We don't need to ask questions about the university, about the whole.
We can just focus.
We can just tell people to be organized, disciplined, and work on sciences.
Sort of like the way the New York Times wrote about the Manhattan Project in 1945, sort of paraphrasing it with sort of, you know, there are these sort of free market, Libertarian type people who think that, you know, who didn't believe that science should be run by the military.
But, you know, they've hopefully they're going to be quiet now because the military was able to organize all these science was able to invent this device, a nuclear bomb in three and a half short years, which maybe if you'd left the prima donna scientists or their own devices would have taken 50 years or something like that.
But well, again, you had unlimited resources.
You had compartmentalization at work.
You had tons of people working on the project that had no idea what they were working on.
To me, it's not a lesson in keep your mouth shut.
It's a lesson in that's how the system really works.
Look up Operation Harass.
Look up the Horton Brothers.
Figure out the flying wing has been around for a long time and how that's developed into the stealth program.
Think about where we're at in propulsion systems.
Underground. Anyway, New York Times doesn't write articles, op-eds like that anymore.
But there was sort of a certain non-classically liberal organization regimentation that may have accelerated things for a while, but that now is completely exhausted.
And so instead of getting into this debate about rigor, bare, dementia, Shakespeare, or string theory, the rebuttal to the rebuttal is they're not doing string theory, they're not doing science, it is all stalled out beyond belief.
And this is, as I said, this is sort of the main frame of this debate that I've been giving for argument that I've been making for something like the last two decades.
And one of the questions I always get asked in this context is, well, why?
Why did it stall out?
What happened? What went wrong?
And then my sort of slightly politically correct answer was always, well, you know, questions that start with why are always over-determined.
They're hard to answer. It's probably determined by a whole bunch of different things.
You know, you can say there's too much regulation.
You know, the FDA regulates biotech too much, so it's hard to do things in biotech.
You know, if you had as little regulation as you have for video games, for new drugs,
maybe we'd have more drugs.
There are ways you can sort of blame education or government funding.
But the — I think that's absurd, by the way.
Video games and medications.
Look, the FDA, no doubt, is a cartel, but it's set up that way.
All right? And I don't necessarily think that the technology itself has stalled out.
I think it's gone more underground.
And I don't think that they want it upscaled until they have their command and control systems in place where you have a social and carbon credit score.
And again, DL is a guy who is very much in the backdoor meetings on these things.
Period. He is a steering member at Bilderberg.
The single answer that I've come to believe as to why it has stalled out, and I believe this has now actually become the argument on the part of the universities, on the part of our zombie center-left establishment, is something like science and technology are just too dangerous.
And so what looks like it's a bug That things are no longer progressing, is actually a feature.
And we should be really, really happy that it's not progressing, because science and technology are this giant trap that humanity is building for itself.
And this is sort of what gets articulated in all sorts of different versions.
Existential risks, you know, there's all these ways that this These timelines overlap in different ways.
Probably the original version of this was already involved nuclear power, nuclear weapons, thermonuclear weapons, the fear of nuclear war.
It didn't probably hit people right away in 1945, but by the time you get to By the time you get to the late 60s, early 70s, you get someone like Charles Manson, the crazed person on LSD, goes around killing everybody in Los Angeles.
If you ask, what did he see?
What did he see on his psychedelic drugs?
Well, he figured out the world was coming to an end, and therefore you could be like Raskolnikov and Dostoevsky, and everything was permitted in this crazy world.
You could do anything you could do to stop science, to slow it down, because It was just accelerating in this catastrophic way.
Let me stop it. There's a lot of fallacies in what he just said there.
First of all, I do agree that science has been slowed because they feel it's dangerous.
When I say they, the Predator class feels it's dangerous to give again the populace access to this stuff because it can be used for empowerment and enslavement.
They're using it for enslavement.
They don't want to empower the populace.
Let's start there. All right.
And then he kind of gets into this idea almost of the Unabomber Kaczynski via Charles Manson.
Okay, that while Manson realized the world was going to end through LSD, and if you read chaos about Charles Manson, sure seems like Manson was part of some government programs.
Sure seems like Manson had some connections with that FBI we were talking about before.
Sure appears that Manson might have had some CIA connections as well.
Hmm. Remember, LSD is just one of the drugs, one of the many drugs they were utilizing during their little mind control ops.
Just saying. Just saying, Peter.
So, again, I feel like the technology is already there.
It's highly classified, compartmentalized, militarized, and will be only upscaled when these people feel Like they have enough control over the populace that there's no chance for revolt.
And I think something like this is is true of so many of these different areas that if we really think about to have sort of this this dangerous There is some sort of dangerous dual-use component that the space program had the dual-use thing of just delivering ICBMs more quickly halfway around the planet.
It's what's going on.
At least he's being honest about that.
We talk about the cargo ships that are taking military cargo via SpaceX anywhere in an hour.
We talk about the Starlink system being utilized in Ukraine.
That's what the vast majority of that program is.
It's militarized space, Peter.
Or sort of the rhetorical question I'd like to ask in an American context is, you know, why can't we have ticker tape parades for individuals?
Why can't we celebrate individuals anymore in sort of ticker tape parade in New York?
And let's pick left-wing individuals, individuals who fit the left-wing narrative.
Why can't we have a ticker tape parade for the, you know, one or two key scientists who developed the mRNA vaccine?
We're told this is this fantastic scientific technological breakthrough Why can't we celebrate this?
The reason they can't celebrate it is the mRNA hate and lie shots that were developed were again developed by what?
The Defense Department through compartmentalization in conjunction with private corporations that were indemnified, Peter.
That's why. That's why.
That's why we wanted to watch this whole thing.
I didn't want to let him off the hook and be portrayed as some kind of hero because he warned against world government.
The fact of the matter is that we shouldn't be celebrating those people.
And it wasn't just one person that came up with the hate and lies, bro.
You and I both know it, Pete.
And my sort of cultural thesis is that it is immediately adjacent in people's minds to this great existential fear because the mRNA vaccines somehow remind us of this thing going on in the Wuhan lab that was called, had this Orwellian term, gain-of-function research, which sounds sort of like a bioweapons program in disguise.
That doesn't sound like a bioweapons program in disguise.
It is a bioweapons program in disguise.
That's actually like a bioweapons program in the open.
That's why Husseini used the term bioweapons when questioning the Biden official, Peter.
And so, yes, if you can manipulate DNA, you can come up with these fantastic mRNA vaccines.
Does that also mean that it's immediately adjacent to these sort of terrific, destructive weapons?
Yes. Probably the existential risk area that's the most...
That's the most inside tech.
Again, tech is always a strange word where it used to mean all these areas and it just came to mean IT computers.
But within computers, probably the futuristic narrative is always around AI, artificial intelligence, artificial general intelligence, all these things.
And again, I like that he says he doesn't want to use the term AI because it's not really artificial intelligence.
It's being programmed by somebody.
Garbage in, garbage out.
It's not self-learning in the sense that you think, and it is not what we're being sold on in the media.
20 years ago, when I started getting involved in all these things, the narrative was still generally positive, utopian.
People thought it's kind of a dangerous technology.
If you build this computer that's As smart or smarter than any human being in the world.
It's kind of dangerous, but we're going to have to work really hard to make sure it's friendly, that it's aligned with humans.
And it was still sort of circa 2003, whatever misgivings people might have had about biotech or, you know, or...
Rockets or nuclear power, they did not yet have about AI, and the AI narrative was still a generally positive utopian one.
And there's sort of a strange way where this has completely flipped over the last decade or so.
I was involved with a thing called the Singularity Institute, which Pushed sort of accelerationist utopian technology.
We're progressing.
We need to progress faster.
We need to, of course, be a little bit careful.
I mean, the Singularity Institute is transhumanism, guys.
The Singularity is Kurzweilian, guys.
That's why we're doing this.
Because you're hearing from somebody on the inside At least some of the thoughts and postulations.
And by the way, DL's being more honest than most.
And again, maybe because it's in this university setting.
But I want to reiterate again, he doesn't seem very comfortable.
I've seen him speak before.
I don't think I've ever seen him look this uncomfortable while he's speaking.
Stutter and stammer so much.
It's odd. And I sort of remember thinking to myself, by 2015, I reconnected with some of these people, and it didn't feel like they were really pushing the AI thing as fast as before.
And it sort of devolved into, you know, some kind of escapist Burning Man camp.
And you sort of got the sense that it had shifted from transhumanism to Luddite, something Luddite, where, no, actually, we want to slow this down.
It feels kind of dangerous.
It's kind of a bad thing on net.
So again, I mean, openly.
Talking about how it is transhumanism.
And for those that don't know what a Luddite means, that's somebody that is supposedly anti-technology, but I would say just concerned about certain types of technology.
In the Amazon show, I talk about Upload.
The people that are opposed to the idea of uploading your consciousness, which is ultimately what they plan on doing to the surf class, telling you you can upload your consciousness to this virtual world.
They call those people the LUDs, and that's short for Luddite.
And this suspicion, I think, was finally confirmed.
You can look this up on the internet.
I'm going to read this.
It's from April 2022, less than a year ago.
Eliezer Yudkowsky, who's one of the sort of thought leaders of the sort of futurist AI. And it's a post from the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, And it's announcing a new death with dignity strategy.
And so the short version of this, it's obvious at this point that humanity isn't going to solve the alignment problem of how to get the AI aligned with humans, or even try very hard, or even go out with much of a fight.
Since survival is unattainable, we should shift the focus or efforts to helping humanity die with slightly more dignity.
You see that? You hear that?
You wonder why I talk about not only just a post-truth world or a trans-human future, but really a post-human future?
Because guys like that are writing about it openly.
And saying that the species just needs to die with dignity.
And again, I think this is an inversion of the reality that this is being contrived and pushed forward by a predator class at the top that really do believe that they are going to use biotech to live forever in this human world.
Biological form, not in some kind of virtual universe.
And again, I think Deal, he's hobnobbing with those people all over.
Again, I want to underscore, you don't deserve to die with a lot of dignity because you're not going to try very hard or even go out with much of a fight.
But it is an extraordinary, it's an extraordinary way that the context has shifted.
You know, I'm probably, and of course, you know, we can come up with other ones, probably the sort of the most mass market version of this sort of catastrophic existential risk is the climate change.
The climate change one, where I can just reference Greta and the autistic children's crusade.
See, the thing is that Thiel sits there and exposes the idea that this Greta Thunberg thing and the climate thing is being pushed.
And it's a facade.
And they're pushing this poor autistic child upon people in this autistic viewpoint.
But he works hand-in-hand and arm-in-arm with those people that are behind ESG. I don't think he's the competing viewpoint.
And again, this is how the world is going to end this sort of runaway technology.
And of course, you know, all these things I don't want to minimize, don't want to say they're not real, but it's striking how none of the solutions involve more technology.
So the solution to climate change is not Fusion reactors.
The solution to nuclear weapons is not better anti-ballistic missile systems.
The solution to AI, the solution to biotech is not accelerating the research even faster.
It is just somehow stopping it altogether.
And, you know, one is tempted to say that if anything, most of these people are insufficiently apocalyptic.
You know, you want to get Greta, I actually want to talk to her, but you want to get someone like Greta and tell her, you know, wow, you are a very complacent, non-apocalyptic person because you're only worried about this climate change thing and we also have this nuclear weapons thing that It's made people go crazy for 70 years already.
And we have the AGI that's going to kill everybody at the singularity.
And we have the Wuhan lab, which you don't seem to be worried about at all, and the bioweapons.
And we have this happening on so many different dimensions.
And this is roughly where I think the zeitgeist is in 2022, 2023, the sort of central left zombie zeitgeist as
articulated by the universities.
It is, we're not doing science. We're proud that we're not doing science.
We're proud that we're stopping science.
We're proud that it has been slowed down as much as possible.
I think a lot of that's conflated.
You know, as these people, again, in the predator class and what he would say is the left or the university system, use these authoritative science sources, say that the science is settled, it's always settled, right?
And then obviously he brings up A lot of things we're talking about here, or that are being talked about even in the mainstream, that challenge these ideal sets.
But at the same time, the science has accelerated behind the scenes.
But it is rules for me, and not for thee.
That's how I feel about it, Peter.
Um... And, you know, maybe a little bit unfair to pick on him, but I reference an Oxford professor, Nick Bostrom, who is at least smart enough to know that all these things add up, and that these are all problems, and that it's not just sort of one or the other.
And I think of him as sort of a mouthpiece of the zeitgeist.
And he sort of wrote this paper Back in 2019.
Pre-COVID, before everyone went totally insane with COVID, so it doesn't have that excuse.
It's called the Vulnerable World Hypothesis.
And it outlines all these different existential risks.
Climate change, nuclear weapons, runaway nanotechnology, the robots killing everybody, the AI killing everybody, runaway bioweapons, et cetera, et cetera.
And there are four things that must be done to stabilize the world.
Again, it's written in the most boring language possible.
It's just channeling the zeitgeist.
Every time I hear stabilization of the planet, it sets off alarm bells in my head, kind of like when I hear the term sustainability.
I'm always worried about stabilization.
Number one, restrict technological development.
Number two, Ensure that there does not exist a large population of actors representing a wide and recognizably human distribution of motives.
I believe that's diversity.
But then he goes on to say that one and two sort of don't quite happen on their own.
And therefore, you need number three, establish extremely effective preventive policing.
So, I mean, you're talking about authoritarianism and collectivism, right?
And that's one of the things...
That we highlight here constantly.
That, yeah, you want to talk about Marxism or communism, right?
At the end of the day, it's all about the collective.
And he's really correct when he says, you know, they want the opposite of diversity.
So again, it's an inversion of reality.
Diversity is promoted, but conformity is expected.
And conformity is going to be what?
Enforced. And number four, you need to establish effective global governance.
There it is. And he does not quite use the word totalitarian, but it is basically, you know, the solution to the sort of existential risks in our vulnerable world is to have a one-world totalitarian state.
So now we're circling back to the end of his speech.
And I'll tell you what, we're We're going to play up to the point where he goes to take the question and answers.
We may do some of the question and answers on tomorrow's show.
This was just such an important speech.
I just couldn't break anything out of it.
I felt like we want to give this as much context as possible.
So after we finish this up, we're also going to play the AI... Chat, GPT, commercial with myself and two UFC legends, Pat Miletic and Jens Pulver.
So let's finish it up with the world government and Peter Thiel.
And this gets me to my concluding point, the anti-anti-anti-anti-classical liberal argument is that If we are going to enumerate all these existential risks, and we have to talk about them, we have to discuss them, we have to think about them, we should not hide under the rock and pretend these things are not real, but we have to make the list complete, and I would include as A very, very serious existential risk.
If you end up with a one-world totalitarian state, that also counts as an existential risk.
And it seems to me that we shouldn't be too short-sighted about that one.
We should always fight that.
That's something that always needs to be stopped.
I should not need to remind you that in the In the quasi-mythological New Testament account, the slogan of the Antichrist is peace and safety.
And that there is, you know, we're told that there's nothing worse than Armageddon, but perhaps there is.
Perhaps we should fear the Antichrist.
Perhaps we should fear the one-world totalitarian state more than Armageddon.
And perhaps we should stick with some of the tried and true ideas of classicalism this organization and this institution has been supporting for 200 years and keep going for another 200.
Thank you very much. So there it is.
I take it all with a grain of salt.
Again, guys, that was largely part of our second hour of the broadcast.
If you thought that was important info and you want to support us, come on over to redvoicemedia.com slash uncensored or redvoicemedia.com slash Jason.
Sign up for the year at $100.
▲
Export Selection