All Episodes
Previous Next
April 27, 2025 - Info Warrior - Jason Bermas
50:43
The Global Control Grid An IMA Panel Part 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody, Jason Bermas here, and we're going to go into part two of the Independent Media Alliance discussion on the control grid that is currently still being put into place under the Trump administration.
You're not going to want to miss it.
Buckle up and get ready to make sense of the madness.
So in basically a paragraph's time, they go from it doesn't exist to if it's good for me and I think it's good for me, we're going to do it anyway.
So, to me, yes, we can change things as a state, but we're still in the baby steps of something that everybody in the world can look up and see.
And, you know, I was on with Gareth Icke a couple days ago, and right before the show, what does he bring up to me?
The United Kingdom and European legislation that they're going to...
Begin to block the sun, openly.
And I'm like, hey, join the party, pal!
They're just doing it here for 30 years, and nobody's seen it.
I've said this to other people, and I wonder, if I were to run for governor of Iowa and win, could I stop this?
Or is it just so far up the military-industrial complex where I'm just going to get a big FU?
I don't really know the answer, but I do know, again, the answer that Derek and Catherine talked about are at least the first steps in trying to change this overwhelming system.
And I'll leave it there.
You have to stop it where it starts.
And we have a little bit of proof of this out here in California.
There was a pilot program out of Harvard in 2022 where they were like, let's just spray silver iodide into the atmosphere.
What could possibly go wrong?
And a bunch of people went, no, you can't do that.
So they said, okay, we'll relocate the program to the deck of the USS Nimitz in the Alameda Bay.
And then we'll spray silver iodide Into the atmosphere And all of the people In the immediate Alameda County area were like
what are you doing?
Well, you know what, Steve, let me jump on that for a second.
Why would you do that?
I should keep in really quickly.
Let's do, just since the beginning of the conversation, let's bring it back to the focal on digital currency.
And we can, but the good point to bring to the broad point of
You know, in a general sense, how we can effectively create change in anything like this.
And I think it is important to highlight the fact that I think, as you're highlighting, Jason, almost all of these, in my opinion, supersede the idea of even a federal government.
That's my personal opinion, but from a global sense, it really is important to look at it that way.
But I'd like to get some solutions focused specifically on the digital currency dynamic.
So the Americans or anybody else in the world who is feeling forced into the idea of digital currency, what are our proposed solutions for finding a way around that?
And as Catherine pointed out, from a state perspective, states' rights, that's one way to look at it.
Anybody else want to jump in for that?
I think I would support something that Catherine has spoken about a lot.
And that is just carry on using cash.
Just refuse.
Just use cash.
Not even carry on using cash.
Make a point of using more cash.
Let me just jump in for a second, though.
If I want to go to the UFC tomorrow in Kansas City, Missouri, zero cash.
I don't even get a ticket.
So there's no cash.
Listen, there's no cash in the venue.
And I agree.
This is not zero or one.
Jason, it's not zero or one.
Yeah.
If you look at how cash works, if you use and insist on cash every time you can, wherever you can, you push it back.
It's not zero one.
So I'm not saying don't go to the UFC.
Sure.
Although it's a good idea to say to the UFC guys, what are you trying to do?
Bring in digital slavery and push back on them?
No, really.
You're right.
So I got to tell you, I have watched so many people in our network.
Get off the couch.
They knew nothing about state legislators.
They knew nothing about the local school board.
They knew nothing about...
They have gotten legislation passed.
They have gotten bills passed protecting cash.
They have gotten debanking stopped in their states.
They have gotten so much done.
If everybody would just get off their couch and pick the one thing or two things they could do and use cash whenever they could and stop financing and supporting the people doing this, stop going to work and building the control grid, there would be an absolute revolution.
Catherine, the problem is nobody wants to get off of their couch.
That's not true.
There are a tremendous number of people getting off their couch.
I work with them every day.
All over the world, they get off the couch, and you know something?
They're having fun.
They are having a good time.
That's how we find each other.
These are all really important things to digest with all this, and I completely agree with everything you said, Catherine, but you know in our conversation in the past, I'm much more...
I tend not to lean into the legislative direction because I feel like it's harder.
It doesn't have to be the legislative direction.
Everybody has to do what gives them energy.
You could be starting a farmer's market.
You could be gardening.
You could be whatever you need to do to build local resilience and to network with other people that create local resilience and shift the money.
And the time and support out of the other, the pro-centralization team, into decentralizing.
Everybody should do what gives them energy.
No, that's what I said.
I agree with you.
It's my point.
But I mean, just explaining, prefacing what I'm about to say by the fact that's why I tend not to lean that direction.
So that being a good thing to do, and I agree that everyone should be doing it.
However, I think, in my opinion, the primary direction...
From like a Larkin Rose, Derrick Rose kind of perspective is to act and like spend, you know, vote with your dollar in that sense.
So I would say don't go to the UFC, not because you don't like it or you don't want to support the UFC, but that's how you vote in this world right now, right?
You don't go or whatever else.
And that's what Catherine's saying.
You prove to them that that's more about important to you, you know, but also.
You heard Ryan Christian just pirate that like a regular American.
I like going to the visit.
Honestly, my first experience with this was about a year and a half ago.
Like I said, this is in Kansas City, Missouri.
Red state, by the way, everybody.
Where I went to Illinois.
And it was just before they were going to have the DNC there.
I went to the venue with cash in my hand, thinking I could get a physical ticket.
When I went to the booth, they said, no, no, no.
And they made me do it through a text message and a QR code would not accept my money.
Then inside, I can't get a pretzel for money.
Every major league baseball event now, every major sporting event is like that.
No cash, have to have a QR code, have to download the app.
Whether or not you're being conscious of it, you're being herded into this digital control grid.
And it's going to take a whole lot of people to go, hey, wait a minute, that's dumb.
No, I'd rather not.
I'd rather not do that.
This seems completely ridiculous before anybody's going to balk.
But we got to make them balk.
We really do.
I think what's ironic about that, of course, is that what's going to remain still a cash business, It's going to be black market weapons and drugs.
Those were only created to launder money for the federal government in the first place.
So they can't completely kill cash because they need it.
Catherine had a point.
Go ahead, Catherine.
Okay, so I'm just moving over to put this in the chat.
We have a section up on our Financial Transaction Freedom website called Turtling for Cash.
A wonderful subscriber in South Dakota got legislation passed to the state legislature this session saying that school sports events had to take cash.
And because I agree, the sports is a big place where the...
All right, let me stop you, Catherine.
Let me stop you.
Because I do.
A Platform Elite costs me about $3,000 to $5,000 for a private...
This is private.
And it's at the TBK Sports Center.
Now, when they really want to get you, and they do, and you say that there's an ATM right there.
Now, most of them are cash.
Twice this year, if I wanted to go to the volleyball tournament that I already pay for, they have a QR code.
It is a two-day pass.
No, no, Jason, I understand that.
You know they break the rules.
That's all I'm saying.
I know about how difficult it is.
What I'm telling you is, I know you can raise the percentage of cash you use in your daily transactions if you want to.
And it matters.
You don't have to do it.
It's not zero or one.
I get it.
Okay?
You do thousands of transactions a year.
Okay, the other thing I want to bring up, just because you're in Iowa and I told Brian I wanted to bring this up, I just did a wonderful interview that we'll publish in two or three weeks with Pat Militech.
Oh, Militech.
Good buddy of mine.
Yeah, so who was a UFC champion and he has a business called Soil Savers, which I think could rock the world because he's figured out basically how to spread probiotics on your land.
That can heal a lot of chemical damage and a lot of toxicity.
And it's quite remarkable.
Pat is a very good friend and a very smart guy.
And we actually went and saw a film together last week, Soil Saviors.
Again, that goes back to even the geoengineering and what we're putting in our bodies and what we're breathing and eating.
Right.
But that could really help.
So Pat likes to just do it.
He doesn't want to go deal with a state legislator.
So, you know, so his his thing is to just do it.
And it's great.
But, you know, imagine we we got a bill passed in Tennessee, the first state that stopped geoengineering.
When Daniel Goodrich brought that legislation to the state, I said, you got a one percent chance of getting this passed.
And she got it passed and signed into law.
And I'll tell you why.
I was there three weeks ago and they're still spraying.
Of course, because you can't enforce unless, you know, I'm going to slap you guys around the head here.
So she took it.
I said, you got no chance, but, you know, sometimes it takes seven years of breaking down the walls to get a good enforcement going in Tennessee.
So some guy from California came to lobby against the bill, and he starts lobbying about how it'll cut into his profits.
And suddenly all these legislators said, oh, my God, I thought this was a conspiracy theory.
And he completely freaked them out.
And they ended up passing the bill.
Now, it's a first step, and it needs many more steps, but they can only enforce unless you take off and land in Tennessee.
Or layers of the elevation, too.
But if you look at how we get things done in Tennessee, you know, you pass the first bill, that's like 5%.
You pass the second bill, that's 5%.
And it takes years.
And you've seen...
You know, Frank Nicely, who was the master legislator in Tennessee, he would take seven to ten years to get something really done, and it would take multiple layers of legislation.
But that's part of how you educate people and get them to really change.
But you've got to start.
Which is my point, is that obviously is important, and I agree.
We have to keep doing that, but I'd rather try to get more immediate action going while we're doing that, too.
You know what I mean?
Right, so absolutely.
Absolutely.
I just put in a link to our article, I Want to Stop CBDCs, What Can I Do?
And it's the same.
We've done a whole bunch of shows with Twyla Braz on Financial Rebellion on CHDTV about how you stop the real ID.
And I think the most important thing to stop right now is the real ID.
Well, why don't we use that as a transition since we really have only, you know, gotten to the currency part of this.
And I doubt we'll get to every single data point.
So I say what we focus on is next to that real ID focus because that's connected and then the Stargate kind of infrastructure of it all.
So on the idea of the digital ID, real ID, say back kind of like ecosystem that's being built, I mean, from a U.S. perspective, but it's happening everywhere as well.
Anybody want to start on that?
Any thoughts jump to people's minds?
I'd just like to ask the question out there.
How do you describe it to somebody that wants to have voter ID and explain to them that you don't necessarily need a federalized, quote-unquote, real ID?
What you need are state IDs at the base that are not involved in that system.
Because I think that we all want people to be citizens of the United States that vote and have a system for that.
And I don't think that we're anti-identification.
But when it gets to the federal level and whether or not you can travel and the embedding of these different RFID and eventually biometric systems, obviously that's what we want to push back.
So, Jason, why is the registration process not...
You have a registration process wherever you are.
You register to vote.
That's it.
That's your...
That's your system.
But you know they usually do it through the DMV, and you know they also lie to you all the time and tell you that if you don't get this specific identification...
No, but I mean, why does anybody think you need another ID?
The law's already there.
To protect election fraud.
No, I agree with you, but how do you...
Election fraud is a problem, but it's got nothing to do with the absence of ID.
But how do you convey that to people?
And then when you go into states like New York or California, etc., that are inherently corrupt, even Illinois, which is right away, I mean, like, it's a mile away from me.
All of them.
Yeah, well, yeah, you're right.
But, I mean, obviously those ones...
I don't believe that New York is necessarily a blue state.
As much as I don't like Lee Zeldin, I have a hard time believing that Kathy Hochul won in a free and fair election, right?
So how do we get a system of quote-unquote voter ID that is essentially federalized?
And I'm not saying you can't do this, but Convey it through state IDs.
You know as well as I do in New York.
I mean, they push you right through.
I was showing my buddy my, you know, it was the enhanced license that got me into Canada or Mexico.
And, you know, my Iowa ID is a little bit different, but I did get the federal one that has the star in it.
Most people don't even know that you have an option to opt out of that and just get a regular state ID.
So is this just...
Is this just, we have to get the information out and then we have to just actually enforce the laws that are already on the books and explain that to people that we don't need a say back?
I would say, if the question is, how do I show someone that wants digital ID to stop voter fraud, what would be a good thing to show them, to explain to them why that's not necessary?
Maybe show them that video of Elon Musk speaking about six months ago saying how important it was that all voting was done with a Paper bureaucracy because that would cut out the potential for voter fraud.
So while he wants the voting process itself to be done using manual counts, as in human beings checking bits of paper that someone's put across in, because he considers that to be far safer than using any kind of digital system,
why not then?
If that's his idea, why does he not also advocate having, you know, traditional types of registration done through a human-run bureaucracy?
So, you know, for years and years, we have paper driving licences.
So why don't we...
If the issue is security, then what's wrong with paper driving licences?
They seem to be far more secure than digital driving licences.
Well, I'm with you.
Hold on, Jason.
Hold on.
Let me jump in.
I want to get in for that first point.
So the idea here is that, and I agree with you, it's important to highlight that, you know, people I'm sure disagree, so we shouldn't say everybody, but anybody who wants to uphold the law in this regard would say that you have to have an ID to vote, and that has to be verified.
That's obvious, right?
So I think we agree with that.
The point, though, is that this is a manufactured problem to justify the solution they want.
And we all know that's how it works, right?
So we're dealing with something in regard to...
The point is, as Catherine was alluding to, there's laws in the books already, and I'm not a statist, so the ideas were forced to live in this regard, and so that's...
What we're discussing.
But the point is, those laws are on the books that already apply to this problem.
So the idea is that the issue of immigration has been applied to rationalize why we need something new.
All we need is the current enforcement.
And I'll point out Democrats who are actively avoiding that or arguing that we shouldn't be.
And so that's the problem.
Not that we need a new layer of things for them to ignore, right?
To justify the new digital ID.
So that's the bigger thing for me.
So I just want to lay that out there because I think the solution being presented is a bait and switch.
But let me just say this also, because again, I voted this year, and I'm in Iowa, and yes, again, I had an ID, but then we talk about paper verification, right?
And the polling was not paper.
So now they've brought in this new system where I sign on a pad with my finger that looks almost nothing like my actual signature, but that verifies me, and then I get my paper ballot.
So again, We have so many things to do to push back.
I want the paper system all the way through, right?
So in other words, the ballot I get, I don't even think I sign that, right?
So that doesn't have my signature on it.
So it would be very, very easy to go in there as somebody else with something, you know, they barely looked at my, I don't even know they looked at my ID, I'll be honest.
I think I said my name, they asked me my address, and maybe I handed somebody my ID for a second, and then I digitally signed.
I'm with you.
I want all paper all the time.
I want physical identification, etc.
But again, I think the issue is, even with that, are we going to have the same type of corruption in these states where this absolutely happens?
Because we still have, you talked about the machines, we still have the damn machines counting these things with fractional voting, right?
That's a whole other, I don't know that the SAVE Act does anything to stop that, but I would ask, what is the solution to get to?
I mean, we're so close to the midterms right now.
Forget about, you know, 2028.
2026 is right around the corner.
And at least in this country, I think that that does make a significant difference.
So I'll open the floor to anybody that wants to retort to that.
Well, I'll just add before anyone else jumps in that I think the point again is that, you know, not that I necessarily agree with the laws in the books, but the laws that are there to be enforced would already address the problem.
And that's kind of what we always keep seeing is that they're just –
I don't want to lurch into some larger conversation, but the idea that they're putting things forward and trying to solve the problem when the problem is just simply already acknowledging the law that's existing.
And I think that's a constant game that's being played.
So I think we all agree with that problem, but the solution should not be a digital ID or really the real ID compliance or really the bigger point for those that don't think it's digital ID, a national identification.
We've all talked about that as a conspiracy topic and how It parallels gun laws,
doesn't it?
People say we need stricter gun laws because of criminals using guns, but there are already laws to stop criminals using guns and they ignore them.
So you bring in stricter voting rules and the people that break the voting rules will just break the voting rules.
I mean, they ignore the rules already.
New laws aren't going to make any difference.
Right.
And I think that's the crux of it, is that if you're, like you're addressing it, Jason, is that, you know, what's going to stop them?
Nothing.
And corruption does not stop because of a new law class, like you're talking about.
They're already corrupt.
So they're going to find their ways around it as best they can.
That's why just the point is to acknowledge that they're violating that instead of trying to go around it, you know, and, you know, that's how government works, it seems.
But, you know, so I think that's, before I go to the next part, anybody else have any comments on that discussion point?
Okay, so let's jump in then to the next, the point that, you know, the connection to that, which is the, I guess, the larger database.
You know, as you wrote in, and I'll bring it up for it to kind of set the point, as you wrote in the article, financial data and payment systems and artificial intelligence.
So again, there's so many points involved.
And you just wrote in the summary, to build a digital control grid, digital IDs must link with programmable money and interoperable systems across multiple platforms, integrated with social credit and surveillance systems, and that is Stargate, essentially.
So, kind of what we already went over in a lot of ways, but any other points to start that off?
You know, the only thing that I would say technology-wise that wasn't covered in this article, I would say is the artificial skin that is constantly being put up by the Defense Department and SpaceX, right?
So, you know, we talk about in this the doorbell cams and that type of surveillance.
But when you look at what Starlink really is, it is that global digital information skin.
The ride-along program on SpaceX used to put up the Blackjack satellites.
I know that Derek actually did a couple of extensive pieces talking about the new spy satellite network that has been directly created by Musk.
So if I were to just interject anything into this, it's that we have the militarization and the surveillance of space going to an extremely new level.
And what they're selling the public on...
Is Katy Perry going 60 miles up to the Carmen line and the idea that we're going to Mars?
Like, Trump literally said it, I think, two days ago again, that we better get to Mars before the end of our administration.
None of that's real.
Like, these rocket systems are Defense Department programs, and they fully want to integrate this information system, this information skin, into not just the Internet of Things, But the Internet of Bodies.
And let me just say this about the Internet of Things.
We are starting to see that mini-revolution in the United States of self-driving cars.
Phoenix is a big hub for this, and I did not know it.
My buddy went out there a couple weeks ago and took one of the robot cabs.
They're everywhere there.
So we're now starting to see the automation steps of this control grid come into fruition, at least on a smaller scale.
And I think a lot of that is going to be driven by the technology that is in the sky and really not talked about that much.
I mean, even when you think about the people that were sitting there at the inauguration, Bezos is sitting there, right?
Well, Bezos also is another one of these guys, Amazon.
Are building these artificial intelligence information centers and trying to opt for this nuclear technology as well.
So this is a big part of the fourth industrial revolution that people aren't talking about.
The surveillance in the sky, the integration with AI on the ground, and then utilizing what I think will eventually be these mini-nuke plants in order to do so.
Yeah, the World Economic Forum have already spoken about what they're calling the trillion dollar opportunity of Earth observation satellite industry.
So a kind of leading technologically on that is, you know, companies like Satellogic that Lutnik is invested in.
So the idea is that we think about satellites kind of observation in terms of its physical observation, like some sort of camera looking at the ground so that you can see an image of something.
But they're talking about using it for harvesting data, particularly from the Internet of Things, Internet of Bodies, bringing this together into one kind of cohesive system.
That will take data globally from all these devices that we're using, monitoring our energy usage.
I mean, there's already, you know, the idea of the cryptocurrency-powered smart home has already been developed.
You know, so we are moving towards a point where things like the Earth observation industry...
It's going to be a key player in kind of the management and collation and the AI analysis of that data.
So the AI analysis of the data that they're going to gather on a global scale, you know, will be worth, in itself, will be worth...
Well, the World Economic Forum call it a trillion dollar opportunity because obviously, I mean, if you're developing any kind of industry or any kind of technology, then that data will be extremely valuable.
Now, we're already seeing companies like X moving into selling their user data.
So they openly trade their user data.
Now, supposedly it's anonymous, but nonetheless, you know, the data that has been harvested by things like the LLMs that are...
They're harvesting up all of our kind of interactions online and it is everything.
It's every comment we make.
It's this video.
It's all being gathered and harvested to train these LLMs.
And once those LLMs are trained, then they're going to be used for, and similar AI systems are going to be used to analyze.
The data that is gathered by things like the Earth Observation Satellite Systems.
And I think that one of the things that they're doing at the moment is that there are a number of competing technologies that they're playing off against one another to see which one comes out on top.
Now, a lot of that will be down to investment, but a lot of that will also be down to technological efficiency as well.
So when they've got a cohesive system and a winner emerges...
Then that will be, you know, a kind of monopoly on the data that they are gathering.
And then they're already talking about the concept, both financial and digital ID, of this notion of the universal ledger, which will be, you know, a centralised ledger of all data.
So, you know, I mean, that is the ultimate kind of centralisation of authority if you've got access to that data.
Funnily enough, it's being sold to us as decentralization.
So all these new systems that are coming out are being these competitive systems that are decentralized, and there's all these vendor-agnostic companies that are competing because it's just a kind of free-for-all that's going to enable a brave new world.
Unfortunately, the...
The nature of that decentralization is, if you like, creating nodes on a blockchain network that is going to enable the centralization of particularly the analysis of all that data.
That's what they're constructing.
So I just wanted to mention one thing because I don't see how this vision works in terms of energy consumption.
Unless you bring out breakthrough energy or you depopulate, or both.
Or both, yeah.
I think they are going to do both.
They're already talking about, in order to meet the projected, and it's the International IEEE, I can't remember what that stands for, but their last kind of assessment report of where we would be by 2050, I think currently the...
The total global use is something like 26, I'm going to get this horribly wrong, 26 million gigawatt hours per year, and that's going to double to more than 50 by 2050, which they've calculated is the equivalent of adding a nation like Japan to energy consumption every year between now and 2050.
So that's the scale of the...
Energy increase, the energy generation increase that we would need if this was actually going to happen.
Which means, as you quite rightly say, there's only two parts of that equation, Catherine, isn't there?
There's either got to be a hell of a lot more nuclear power stations or some sort of fundamental energy breakthrough.
They've had the breakthroughs, they just haven't applied them.
Well, it's not just less of us, but we see multiple people talking about how they're going to be lived to 145.
We saw the president's son-in-law say his generation was going to be the last to die or we're going to live forever.
So that's even more environmental stress.
Let me just mention one thing.
I was looking at a group.
So I have an investment screen company.
I was looking at a list of the stocks that had performed the best over the last year just out of curiosity.
I just said,
you know, these guys have...
Every ruse you can think of to create and suck up data.
It's unbelievable.
That's insane.
I've never heard that.
Do a search for the Internet of Forests.
You'll pick it up.
Well, I was going to make that point, actually, before I go to something else, is that what's interesting is the Internet of Bodies...
Is actually the old conversation, right?
So this is from 2019, right?
And so they're talking about, you know, the bodies, you know, the things with the interconnection, like we're beyond even this, right?
You're not a bio nano things.
And like, so we're getting to the point to where we're still being pointed to something.
It's always like the deflection, right?
They give you what was happening 20 years ago while they're moving on to something else.
And I think that's what this really is.
Right.
Well beyond that.
And you can't do what you're talking about with the trees without something like smart dust.
Right.
Yeah.
That's wild.
And so that really shows you.
So let's bring that to the larger kind of what I see as the Palantir or whatever you want.
I think Palantir is the obvious point.
Oracle is obviously involved, but the total information awareness, CIA overlap, Palantir, where we're seeing this sort of all-encompassing, as we've been highlighting in every aspect, this consolidation of information, of surveillance.
I mean, I've got many things pulled up of like the IRS overlap, the immigration OS they rolled out, you know, all these different massive consolidations of control, surveillance, and information.
So let's kind of end on that general point.
I don't know how much time you have, Catherine, if you want to start.
So I've got one minute.
So, you know, I think it's a little bit like the, you know, the old stories of the gold rush where everybody sees an opportunity to make money by centralizing and creating more data and centralizing.
We do know, you know, I've been told many times that the guy who has the best AI is the one who can...
You can provide it with the highest quality, the most highest quality data, because it really develops on the data.
And so, you know, this is part of a gold rush.
And of course, it's allowed because carrots and sticks.
It takes you where the centralizers want to go.
But I do want to point out that, you know, whether it's the energy question or many other questions, you know, I just see that the centralizers have enormous problems.
This is going to turn into one of the greatest cluster you-know-whats.
I mean, it already is.
And I think that's why what Derek said about, you know, focus on the actions you can take and building local resilience and just doing it every time you can just do it.
If enough people do that, it has tremendous opportunity because I think their vision as an economic matter and as a matter in alignment, it just doesn't make sense.
You know, this is way too psychopathic to work.
So, I just...
I mean, I can see why everybody's rushing for the gold rush, but at some point...
Just remember, the guys who made money in the gold rush were the guys who made the blue jeans.
Right.
Anyway, gentlemen, it's always a pleasure.
Thank you very much, Ryan, for doing this.
I can't tell you how much I appreciate it, because the more we can help people see the overall picture...
I think the more people who will start to, you know, look for real solutions and back out.
Anyway.
Absolutely.
And great work on this and looking forward to the next one, Catherine.
So thanks for joining.
Have a great day.
Thanks, Catherine.
I would just like to add on top of that, you know, in the interesting – what Catherine said, doesn't that make you worry that maybe this is the worst version that hides the one that comes – it's usually how that feels, right?
Where it's like they're showing you this crazy idea so people go no to that and then quietly roll out the one that's a little less bad behind it.
You know, I don't know.
Just any thoughts on her last point there?
You know, obviously with the Internet of Bodies stuff, you know, that's something – you mentioned SmartDust.
Well, we're in year 20-plus of that being used by the military-industrial complex openly.
Barely talked about it.
Yeah, barely talked about.
And I think that that's a big problem.
I would encourage people to go read a book now.
I think that's about a decade old.
I think it might even be 2013.
And that is First Platoon by Annie Jacobson.
And that story actually...
Revolves around smart dust and its utilization by a unit in Iraq to target a quote-unquote terrorist threat that they end up at the last minute not killing based on this technology that would have been the wrong one.
I do want to talk about AI-based killing because we've been mentioning Palantir and we've been mentioning Peter Thiel.
Probably my clip of the year so far is when Peter Thiel gets asked about Lavender.
And the Israelis using that to target, what is it, 34,000 quote-unquote terrorists.
And Thiel is extremely, the most uncomfortable I think I've ever seen him in my life on video.
His face gets beet red.
He stutters.
He stammers.
You can see the inflection in his voice and the way his jaw is moving that he's very uncomfortable with that question because when you do peel back any of the basic layers of who they targeted, it was basically people that were in group chats, right?
People that knew people that were supposedly quote-unquote Hamas terrorists.
And then you look at the overall Military targeting.
We have to remember, you know, the IDF utilized the technology that blew people up in broad daylight in public in non-military situations.
Is this what we want to promote with Palantir and Lavender?
And even more crass, and I would say openly militaristic, is his right-hand man in this The Palantir Project, a.k.a.
Alex Karp, he's the one going to the consumer electronics shows.
He's the one talking about these things, very, very blasé, and I think also about six months.
He just bragged openly, this thing was going to be utilized globally, and they're the ones that have oversight, period.
And you know as well as I do, that doesn't mean the quote-unquote United States has oversight.
This is a company that is heavily embedded in Five Eyes.
Which means what?
Israel, the United States, the United Kingdom, really are allies as well on top of Australia and Canada, right?
Because when we talk about what's going on in Yemen, do you think Palantir is not involved there?
I mean, come on!
So we can come together basically in every field of war that we can see right now.
And that is extremely problematic, not just because it's being utilized overseas.
But because it's also being utilized domestically.
And the question is, how much more implementation of that are we going to see now that we've legitimized this idea that even gang members in the United States are part of terrorist groups?
People accused of being gang members in many cases without any due process or verification.
So that adds to that point where you can just go, this is what I think it is.
And people are literally going, that's enough.
The president can decree that you're something with no due process and get rid of you or...
Like you're saying, maybe a drone strike?
Again, this is why I've always said we don't just...
Criminals are criminals, right?
This terrorist word has utterly been overused, not just through the Trump administration, but even before that.
We've kind of placated to this idea of domestic terrorists, right?
There's a whole subsection of conservatives that want to call Antifa a terroristic organization.
It's like, whoa, buddy.
You know, again...
If an individual or a group commits crimes, that does not necessarily make them terrorists.
And when you take the word terrorist, you are taking out, like you said, all of due process.
Let's even just go back to the word criminal, though, right?
Because it's the same principle.
Whether you're accused of being a criminal or a terrorist, the point is, whether it's an illegal alien or anything else under the Constitution, therefore a due process to prove those things.
And so I think this is a really good overlap to what we're talking about with this Palantir or whatever else, Oracle aspect, where we're discussing surveillance, identification.
You know, cataloging of information that then is used against you in ways where potentially, as we're seeing, as Trump has floated five times now, the idea of sending Americans to a foreign prison, you know?
And so this obviously comes, and we don't have to get into that larger conversation unless you want to, but it clearly overlaps seeing as how Palantir is using justification.
Of highlighting people and immigration and surveillance, and it's all building in the same direction, even if people agree with the outcome of this or how they're doing it, which I think is flatly unconstitutional.
I think an interesting thing about the conversation about what the Doge has been doing is that I can't remember who wrote the article, but they described it as post-human because they were using AI essentially to decide whether spam was efficient or not,
and then potentially firing them.
Based on an AI-made decision.
Which is, if you apply that kind of same thing to, you know, the notion of whether or not somebody is, which they are doing, the notion of whether or not somebody is quote-unquote a terrorist or whether they should be deported for alleged criminal activity based upon an AI.
my assessment of available data, then we are moving into
It's not unreasonable to say that we are moving into a post-human world.
Because, you know, those are the kind of decisions that surely must be taken, as you were saying, Ryan, following a due process.
Not based on AI's assessment of a due process.
And one thing I think that we are in very much danger with all this conversation about AI is overestimating its actual capability.
Yes, or are lying about it.
Yeah, because we have been told that it's capable of so much, but it's also incapable of a tremendous amount.
Things that human beings can do in a split fraction of a second, AI is nowhere near.
So, you know, we are being kind of led into this idea that ultimately there will be a singularity.
There will be this point where AI becomes sentient.
There's no reason to think that that isn't something that is on the horizon at all.
What we've got is massive data harvesting and analytical programming of, you know...
Programs that assess that data.
It might be highly complex and it might be able to mimic things like human speech, but it's not some sort of amazing, you know, kind of aid to the kind of forward march of humankind.
It's quite the opposite.
So, you know, we, you know, where there's no reason why we would
want to even contemplate the idea of a post-human future.
Why, why would we as human beings ever contemplate that?
Yeah.
It's the Great Reset.
The MAGA Great Reset or whatever's happening now.
Ryan, there was a couple points that I did want to jump in on what you said because I think that when you're talking about, you know, exiling criminals or rounding them up, you know, first of all, under the guise of immigration, I'm much less sympathetic to people that aren't United States citizens and I'll just put that outright.
However, if you're going to deport them, You don't send them to Guantanamo Bay, okay?
And for me, that is a big issue that you have a black site involved in any of this process, right?
And I do not like the legitimization of something that should have been shut down, which should never been reactivated in the manner it was post-war of terror, you know, a facility that still holds Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
And the other accused 9-11 member 20 plus years later and the public had some kind of a problem and outrage that they might have cut a deal with them when we didn't see any of the evidence presented, when we didn't see what was going on in these military tribunals,
when you can outwardly say obviously they did not get due process in the case of a fast trial as were 20 plus years later.
And now bringing that into the immigration process, one like you just said, is heavily automated.
You know that it's heavily automated.
You're 100% right with Doge.
And I think that people need to understand that process has been going on for a very long time.
And actually, there have been specific units in NASA.
I used to play videos of the guy.
Talking about this, how like every 8 to 16 months, they would bring people in with the next level of artificial intelligence and essentially these people would train half the amount of the staff by those people that would then be let go in favor of this automation and AI promise,
right?
And when we look at AI, the next realm of AI is going to be essentially driven by quantum computing.
Microsoft just announced their first commercial quantum chip, if you haven't seen it.
There are new breakthroughs with Google and NASA in AI.
They've been working on this in two-plus decades.
And as far as he talks post-human, I think one of the next pushes in the quote-unquote transhumanist movement is to integrate...
Human biological tissue into a lot of these operations to dehumanize us further via organoids.
Are you guys familiar with the organoid movement right now?
No, but I'd like to jump in back to the first point you made and we can come back to that because I think we can end with this general idea of this overlapping transhumanist kind of direction that seems to go in.
But I think it's important that these two things are together because Ian's point with the artificial intelligence, the idea of how it's being automated, where it's going.
To a point to where we can then, like even as Eric Schmidt said in a podcast like years ago, paraphrasing that one point we'll get to a future where AI is making decisions that may seem immoral, but it'll know better.
That is what he said on a podcast a while back, which is horrifying, is that we need to establish now that these basic fundamental realities, right?
Sending someone to El Salvador or anywhere else, let's be clear, illegal immigrant or American, there's no basis in law precedent of any kind.
That's illegal.
Now, we can have that discussion going forward.
It seems you agree with that, whether that could change, but right now that's the reality.
Sympathy is not required to have somebody to have their constitutional rights acknowledged, right?
So an illegal immigrant, let's make this clear for those watching, has constitutional rights, most importantly, due process.
That's been ruled on by the Supreme Court in countless times, Reno v.
Flores.
Scalia himself said it was paramount that in regard to deportation in particular, due process was paramount.
Judge Knapp's been talking about this a lot.
The reality is, you can just ask Rock and generalize, you know, it'll tell you that.
The point is that...
It's weird we have a conversation today, people out there online, not saying anybody here, is arguing that immigrants don't have constitutional rights.
I find that insane because it's simply not true.
So bringing back to the point about how it's being used, this is what I think is important, is that they know people have been conditioned to be less sympathetic about certain circumstances, so they use that to get people to accept the...
undermining of their rights, rather their lack of acknowledgement.
And so all that together is super important because we're being edged into a position where AI is going to start making those decisions based on the precedents that they're making now.
And I think that's wildly dangerous, right?
So I think that that larger conversation needs to be had about the manipulation of these things that are fundamental now for the technocratic society that they're building around us as we go forward.
So take that wherever you'd like.
And that's just considering that the AI system works as it's supposed to work.
Use technology all the time, and it doesn't.
In this automated system, you're a comma or a type of a way from being convicted of a crime that you didn't commit, but somebody with a name very like yours did, or something like that.
And this is something nobody is willing to really think about, is that there are limits to competence, and there are limits to capabilities, and that itself is a threat.
There isn't just a malignant, deliberate, proactive threat.
There is the threat of a system that doesn't recognize the importance of the human element.
Yeah.
Well, and I'll add one more thing to it in general is that, you know, again, where it's going is that if we're at a point where a power structure can simply go, you are this thing, right?
You are an illegal alien, let's say, and be able to remove you without process.
How can that, why couldn't that just happen to an American?
And go, oopsie, you know, now he's away because there was no process in which they had to prove that was the case.
Now, these are very basic fundamental things that we're losing sight of in the world today.
And I think it's designed to get us okay with that.
Before we have this massive shift into something where, you know, we're now dealing with machines or algorithms or whatever we're talking about, as James discussed algocracy, right?
Which is where this is going, you know?
But to bring it back to your larger point, Jason, is that the overlap to all of this, this transhumanist technocratic future that they're definitely pushing us into, all the points on our article showing how this is happening under this administration.
But to be clear, it's not unique to partisanship.
It's been going on for a very long time.
So let's end on that.
You brought up and different points around that.
Yeah, so, you know, I just kind of want to end on, you know, I talked about, I often talk about the other end of transhumanism, right?
Like human beings merging with technology, whether that's brain-computer interfaces or other types of tech.
They've now kind of reverse-engineered that.
So what organoids are?
Is that you take mitochondrial stem cells and then you grow artificial brain tissue that is then integrated into traditional electronics.
And I know this sounds totally wild, but they've already...
Again, been creating these things for over half a decade.
In fact, you can get a kit.
And I played the stem cell lab kit.
Here's how they do it.
And it's a lot of CRISPR tech and things like that.
Your boy's life magazine.
Listen, if you go watch the video, the music, I am bobbing and weaving.
It's very much like that.
So I had a conversation with Greg Autry of NASA about this because they're also utilizing this technology on the ISS.
Here's how commercialized it's become.
And I had no idea about this guy.
I'd never heard of him before.
Alvin Lucier.
This guy was a very experimental composer where even in 1965 in a public forum, he had electrodes put onto his brain and from his brain waves, he was able to conduct a full kind of like orchestra.
You know, is it super impressive?
I mean, the drums are going.
It's something to behold.
He's been dead for four years.
They did this process where they took his stem cells, created the organoids, and two weeks ago they had a live concert of supposedly, and I don't know how much hokum this is.
It's a private video if you want to actually watch it, but you can see the post and there's news articles on it, where this dead person His, you know, mitochondrial stem cell brain tissue had its own concert four years post-Humus.
So I think they're going to try to legitimize this technology with the quantum technology and the other things moving forward as they try to integrate us into the machines.
And I think what this does is this dehumanizes us further and it puts less and less emphasis on our biological realities.
That's all I'll say about it.
Yeah.
I mean, I definitely think we all see different parts of that.
How soon, you know, it tends to be that they...
Make it look like something that's 20, 40 years away, but it's going to happen in a week.
You know, but we have to just pay attention to these things, right?
Because these are definitely...
I would argue, I guess, at least in the narrative or the presentation, is that that's a little bit more on the fringe of the conversation.
But that usually, in my mind, means there's more that will be happening than anything else.
You know, just pay attention to how alarming these things are and how much is tied in with these central players in the background, in the different studies.
Like, even going back to people like...
You know, Charles Lieber, Bob Langer, and the COVID timeframe.
You know, the stuff they've been working on, like Jason's talking about, goes back a long way.
And it does dovetail with things like nanotechnology and optogenetics.
And I actually think we're well beyond that today.
That's what we're seeing like 10, 15 years ago.
So yeah, definitely worth conversation.
Folks, I hope you enjoyed part two of the Independent Media Alliance discussion that we just had.
And as always, it's not about left or right.
▲
Export Selection