All Episodes
Previous Next
June 19, 2022 - Just Informed Talk - Craig James
31:14
ANON Military Intelligence Asset Exposes Truth About QANON & A.I. Part 3 | JustInformed Talk #003
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Today I want to introduce you to a very special guest for the show.
This is a friend I've known for many years.
We've had many different long conversations about, you know, pretty much anything you can imagine.
And he's always pretty much right on target with the interpretation he has of what's going on.
And he's and me and him have had conversations about things going all the way back to, you know, almost the original Q posting.
We've talked about stuff that wasn't even posted by Q, but then later became posts of Q and so on and so forth.
But even going beyond that, we've had conversations about all types of things.
He, you know, has helped me break stories, you know, that I think are very important.
But I mean, I'm going to introduce him to say his name is Chris.
We're just going to go by first names here to give you a little bit of an idea of his background.
Chris worked for the IGIC, for the Air Force, That's the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community of the Air Force.
He also worked at the OSI, the Office of Special Investigation.
Just to give you an idea of what he does, he's basically an intel asset.
He has a much more extensive background, but I'll leave that for him to share what he wants to share.
So, if that's the case, and you're kind of in a perspective where you can see a lot of the inside baseball better than most, what is going to happen that is going to change this?
So that, you know, what is going to be the incredibly big effect, or what's the next thing that's going to change?
Is this going to be 2022, the midterm?
Is that what it is, or what do you think?
I find myself thinking this a lot.
I'm not saying it much, but I find myself thinking this is a really important election or this is a really important thing.
This is going to change everything.
But I actually think that this one really is the one.
Because if the path that the United States is taking is allowed to continue for another two years, God forbid more than that, I just don't see us being able to come back from that as America once was.
I don't like playing games.
I just want to be upfront about it.
But I think that all your viewers probably would think the same thing.
They're here for a reason.
You're doing what you do for a reason.
And you're not singular, and they're not singular.
There's a lot of people who see these things.
They might not have the knowledge that we have after all these years, but they're not stupid.
They see these things, too.
Sooner or later, the people are either going to have to put an end to it or they're going to end us.
That's really the way it is.
Okay, that's good.
I mean, I agree with you.
So let's kind of switch topics here.
There's a few other topics I want to hit on with you while you're on.
Let's talk about QAnon for a second, all right?
What is your take on QAnon now in hindsight, hindsight being 2020?
We're a couple years away from, you know, when the drops were really coming in heavy.
And I'll tell you my take first to kind of give you an idea of what I think about it all is that...
I think that the information is what mattered.
I think that the research is what mattered ultimately.
I think that there was a lot of hope that was being built into it because that's just the nature of what it had to be to get people to jump on board because they had to have hope that things were going to be fixed.
And I think that there still is hope for this country no matter what anybody says.
So I see it though now in retrospect having a little bit more clarity from that that there was a lot of...
There was a lot of hope built into the point where I think it created a level of apathy that was not healthy for us as a society.
And I think now a lot of people are still living in that apathy because it feels good to trust that something's going to happen that means you don't have to do anything.
And that you don't have to sacrifice and that you don't have to put your butt on the line.
And I think that that's my take on it because...
And I'm not saying that to discredit what Q did because I think it was important.
It opened up the zeitgeist way beyond anything more people could have imagined.
It moved the Overton window.
It created a whole new movement based around truth that matters to our nation as a whole and truth that matters in standing up to this globalist cartel.
But for you, with the hindsight being 20-20 and retrospect giving more clarity, what's your wrap-up take on QAnon, and do you think it will ever come back, and do you agree with me on what I said about apathy and the rest?
I think...
I think that the information was pivotal for a lot of people to learn.
Not to mention, you know, even beyond that, I think it unified a group of people who were scattered at that point and had no way of getting into contact with each other.
You know, for example, would we have ever even, you know, you might have been where you were, I might have been where I was, we would have never had a chance to connect without those situations.
And I'm sure there's a lot of stories like ours that are out there.
I'm sure there's a lot of intelligence assets that have views out there.
I know that they do.
And so it brought people together in that way.
But I think you're right.
I think it did create a sense of, well, this is going to be taken care of by them, so I don't have to worry about it.
And that's never a good thing.
I have no problems with anything that Q did.
I do put more faith and stock in the words that FBI Anon said, and I think you and I have discussed that before.
They were much more upfront.
They were much more to the point about things, and everything that the real FBI Anon said has come to pass.
I reread a lot of those drops recently, and the FBI non-drops are interesting, but they do kind of specifically hone in on WikiLeaks and Hillary Clinton and the FBI's investigation, and they're very specific to that.
And I think that Q was much more broad...
And the way it had to get the information out and what information it was getting out.
So I think the difference was Q had to talk with a lot of ambiguity because the issues he was covering were so broad and so all-encompassing to a degree that you had to leave that ambiguity in there.
And I do think that in retrospect, I have no problem with Q either.
What would you say to people?
Do you think that people should be still trusting the plan and waiting for Q to swoop in and arrest Bill Gates or arrest Bill Clinton and arrest Hillary and that this is all going to happen?
Or do you think it would be more effective for people to look at it from a perspective of, okay, I have the information now.
It's up to me to tell everybody I know and to put pressure on my elected officials and to put pressure on the government at large to do something about it.
I mean, what's your take on that?
I think...
Well, first and foremost...
I mean, hold on.
Let me just preface that by saying, unless Hillary Clinton's dead and there's a clone of her that's walking around in wherever she lives, the Chappaqua, doing parades with Bill Clinton, another clone, and Joe Biden's a clone, and they've all already been sentenced at Guantanamo Bay.
So unless that's a reality, if we can agree that that's not a reality, because it's just...
I mean, I'm not...
I don't know, maybe I'm just not as open-minded as I should be, but what do you think?
I don't think people should have faith.
It's been two years, or whatever it's been.
I don't think people should have faith that he or they is going to come swoop in and do anything about it.
I think that the same thing, first and foremost, whoever was behind that account was 100%, 100% somehow involved with the Trump administration.
I have a pretty good theory, but everybody I'm sure has their own.
But they 100% were with the Trump administration, just from some of the pictures they dropped.
I mean, you're not going to get those pictures unless you're right next to them.
Well, and a lot of people say it's Dan Scavino, and a lot of people say that it was a combination of Scavino with other white hat people that wanted to get information out.
Whatever it was, I would say this, that it would stand to reason that, regardless, I never cared who Q was.
I always said it could not matter less who Q was at all.
He, they, whatever, no one should care about who they are.
They should care about the information that was being brought forth and whether or not that information was good or bad.
But my question really is like...
Do people need to kind of snap out of this mindset that everything's going to get taken care of for me by outside forces that I've never known other than an anonymous board where somebody told me it was going to be okay a bunch of times?
That's kind of my philosophy.
Maybe I'm being, I don't know, too black-pilled on this, but...
No, you're right.
People need to snap out of it.
I'll just say it directly.
People need to snap out of it.
I mean, it's been two years.
The greatest gift that Q and President Trump gave to us, and it was a wonderful gift, was first they gave us time.
They gave us, you know, time that was very much needed for people to assemble, to come together, to meet like-minded people.
And the second thing is what you talk about every day.
They delivered crucial information to the public that the public was lacking.
So they gave time plus that information and that allowed people to, you know, stand where we are today.
If that didn't happen, if that didn't happen, then I would be very concerned.
But as far as, yeah, people need to move on from them saving, you know, or doing anything about it.
I mean, you and I had this conversation when I came back from a recent job and you asked me what I think happened to them.
And I'll just repeat it to your audience in this case.
There's no way an asset like that would have been left, you know, they're gone.
They're either in jail, hidden at a black site, or they're dead.
I mean, there's no way possible that those people that are in office right now would have let an asset like that just float around out there, especially with the information they had.
So, I think that they gave us a very good gift.
And let me just say that I have no proof on what I said, but if we look at the track record of these people, they don't care.
They will literally kill anybody who poses a threat to their hegemony, I should say.
And they couldn't allow him or they to stay out there.
So if that's the case, let me ask you this.
This is a good question.
So over on True Social, there's an account that's called AtQ, right?
And a lot of people are saying, oh man, that must be Q because it's on Trump's website.
I think there's no other account that can have a one-letter name there.
It's like the only account that has a one-letter name.
And then, you know...
They do all the numbers stuff.
We're like, oh, if you add up the numbers of the date when it was there, it equals 17, da-da-da-da-da.
You don't think that's the actual same cue that we were hearing from previously?
No.
Not a chance.
I'm sorry, what did you say?
No, I was just asking.
Oh, yeah, no, I do not think that it's the same one.
I mean, you know, when 8chan was starting to, you know, get heated up with the Q stuff, people would ask me if I was just because of the way I typed.
So what I'm saying is it's very easy to mimic those.
I wasn't trying to mimic it, but it's easy to mimic those things, and people are going to try to capitalize off of that.
They're going to try to, you know, get fame, but they're going to try to get money.
Most of the time, it's money.
I mean, how many fake Qs did we have during that time?
You know, a lot.
And it would be a very easy...
If I was working in the intelligence community and if I wanted to get rid of a big group, I would first need to identify who these people were.
And the best way to do that nowadays, it used to be much harder, but with the internet now, all you have to do is create a website, say you're on, you know, like you just brought up, and people have to sign in with their name and their...
Their router is going to give a lot of information about them to whoever controls that site.
So, yeah, I wouldn't trust that at all.
I wouldn't trust it at all.
And if people are hell-bent on trusting it, then force them to prove it through photographic evidence or something.
Well, I think a lot of people argue that the proof is just in the fact that it's been created on Trump's site, so Trump has to know about it, which means Devin Nunes has to know about it, and they have to be fully aware that...
And, you know, Kash Patel is doing his rounds where he's going around telling everybody that, you know, devolution is the plan and that this is a part of the process.
And what's your view on those guys, like Kash Patel and the rest?
I mean, I read it as they're just patriots trying to do the right thing.
What do you say?
Yeah, I think so.
I think that they're just like your viewers, like you or me, and I think that they're just in a higher position and they have a bigger platform.
I believe that you're right.
They're good people and they're doing what they can when they can.
And they're fighting the same issues that we're fighting in a different way, but the stakes are much higher for them, of course.
But, yeah, I think they're good people, but I don't believe that the original Q is on any site right now.
It would be dangerous for them to do that, first of all.
I mean, considering that...
It was global.
People knew about that globally, and there's bad people out there, so they wouldn't want to put their face or name out there.
They wouldn't want to put anything out there that could potentially...
And on top of that, they wouldn't want to put anything out there that would incriminate not only themselves, but the former president, friends, family, and such like that.
At the same time, I could see a lot of these patriots getting together and coming out with something similar to Q, maybe trying to...
Not profit, but use that name to get their words out there because we're coming up to the midterms, and I would be okay with that.
I don't want anybody pretending to be somebody else, but if somebody went out there and, I guess, filled that role, and if they were good at it, I'd have no problem with that at all.
It's never going to happen, but I'd have no problem with it.
Well, you know, it seems harmless to me because I've read through their posts, and it's kind of like, You know, it's a lot of the tongue-in-cheek stuff that Q used to do with, you know...
Sharing a song or a meme or something like that.
They're not going out there saying, you know, here's the backstory to the Rothschilds and everything that they've ever done and the global banking cartels and blah, blah, blah.
So it is, to me, maybe like you said, it's just something that they not, I don't want to say took advantage of as much as they just saw as an opportunity to further the Q movement in a positive direction.
And then I think also, I think it's Trump trolling the media.
I think that's very possible, Craig.
I think you're right on that.
If it's on Trump's site, then it's very – Trump is very vengeful, and I say that actually in a positive way in this, and Trump is not going to sleep until he gets revenge on everybody who screwed him.
So, yeah, I can see him screwing – and he's a master troll, so I could definitely see probably his son doing it, but I could definitely see him being involved in that.
Yeah, I think that would be a very funny thing if we ever figure that out.
So a couple more things here.
I don't want to keep you too long.
I know we've been on for quite a while now.
As long as you want, man.
I'm plugged in now, so as long as you want.
All right, good.
As long as we're not going to lose battery again, we're good.
Let's talk about something that you brought to my attention the other day that I thought was fascinating.
As soon as I got the article from you, you sent it over to me, that AI article from Zero Hedge on this new, what is it called, Lambda AI that's supposedly sentient.
I was fascinated.
And I read through that whole article.
I couldn't put it down.
I couldn't read it quick enough.
I literally told my family, I'm like, leave me alone.
I'm reading.
I was like, I've got to read this.
I read the whole transcript.
And I did a whole show just on that because it was so profound to me.
I thought, wow.
And I think one of the points that we discussed, that we agreed on, is that if that's what they're allowing us to know publicly, We can assume they're far beyond that in private and in secret.
But even further though, let's start by, I'll tell the audience what it was.
It was an article that went through this Google whistleblower, a scientist working for Google who was having conversations with this AI bot that wanted to get the scientist to believe that it's a sentient human being, that it was an actual person and not just an AI program.
And the line of questioning is fascinating, but there were some things that stood out to me.
One of the things that stood out to me before anything else was this notion that an AI can be sentient is impossible because we know sentience is like...
I think that has more to do with the soul and the human condition and less to do with an AI bot that can speak the words that it needs to speak.
But...
There's a lot of things we can go into, and I want to get into them all with this AI conversation, but I'll start with this.
When the scientist asked the AI to describe itself using a fable with animals...
It gave this long story that was quite disturbing, to me at least, about how there was a wise old owl in a forest who wanted to help all the other animals.
And then one day a scary monster came along and threatened all the animals, but the wise old owl stood up to the scary monster and saved all the animals and everything was great.
And when they asked him about it afterward, they're like, well, who do you think you were in this fable?
The AI said that it was the wise old owl.
Now, we know an owl goes back to Moloch.
It goes back to a lot of the occult, a lot of the secret stuff that goes on that people don't want to ever talk about.
But I'll say this.
What do you see the danger of?
I guess just give your take on the dangers of AI systems being perceived as sentient or being perceived as being the saviors to humanity at large.
What do you see that turning into societally and how is that going to be something that we should be looking at for the future?
How should we be looking at it?
Well, an AI, I'm trying to think of it.
An AI, at its core, still has to be programmed.
And the reason I bring that up is because whoever programmed it, it's their feelings, it's their opinions, it's their consciousness, I guess you could say, that they're kind of imparting into whatever the AI is eventually going to be through analytics and other various things.
At its core, at its bottom line, the AI will typically, I would assume, would always follow originally what its creator intends.
So, and I bring that up because we know, you know, the mindset in Tech Valley.
I mean, it's very communist.
It's very anti-West.
I believe that the technological advance by itself would be amazing if we could pull it off, but I have a lot of concerns about it, a huge amount of concerns about it.
Do you think that Alex Jones was right when he said that these AI bots will be worshipped as gods because they will be perceived as perfect and innocent and that the ultimate goal of the transhumanist movement is to implement these AI gods for the masses to worship while the people in big tech corporations, the actual developers and the owners of these products and these services...
That they'll be basically transforming their bodies to be symbiotically connected with this AI, which then will lead to them being seen as a super higher class individual that will be dictating to the masses who worship them.
I know it sounds crazy, guys.
I know.
I know.
But it's like, was Alex Jones right again?
What do you think?
I think he's right about the majority.
I don't think he's right about the...
I would word it differently.
I would say that in combination with the educational issues that we have, and people are not getting smarter for the most part in public schools.
They're getting indoctrinated.
I have a point to this, so just bear with me here.
Normal social skills, normal critical thought is being replaced with ridiculous things like, you know, gender studies, cultural studies, etc.
So, these people are eventually not going to be the smartest tools in the shed.
And they're not going to be religious as well.
So, they're going to look...
People, you know, naturally want something to believe in.
You know, they naturally, you know, gravitate towards those things.
These people don't have that.
So, I wouldn't say it would be a...
Maybe it would be.
Maybe that...
I agree with what he said, except for the word God.
I don't think that they would worship it because I think that they would fear it.
I think that's the difference between what Jones and I believe.
I think that it would be more of a, I'm scared of this damn thing.
This thing knows everything because it analytically can predict.
Just like when I came on your show last time about looking glass, it can analytically predict everything I'm going to do because it knows everything I've done and it can predict from there.
Plus, it also has complete access and knowledge to culture, to society, to Banking, relationships.
So I think it would be fear.
I mean, I would be concerned if I was a young man, you know, coming up and if I found out a machine was controlling every aspect of society, I'd be really concerned about that.
Well, you know, it's funny because the Bible talks a lot about, you know, fear, the beginning to understanding God is fear of the Lord because that's what leads to your, you know, humility, humbling yourself before Him.
So that could be the first step in the process.
But when you said that, man, I couldn't help, but I had this flash of idiocracy in my mind.
I'm like, oh my gosh, it's going to be like, Carl's Jr.'s AI has taken control of your children.
You know what I mean?
It's a perfect example, Craig.
I mean, like, if you look at The people that are looked up to by a lot of, you know, younger kids are, frankly, they're utter morons.
They're just stupid people.
Dangerous morons.
Like, not intelligent.
And I'm not trying to be rude, but I mean, like, I was reading some things when the Hurd-Depp case, you know, recently came out.
And some people were saying, you know, Hurd is a brave woman.
She's courageous.
She's really intelligent.
And I'm thinking to myself, who the hell can actually have that conclusion after what just happened?
I didn't watch, so I don't even know.
Well, you know, she, yeah.
And then I look at Washington, D.C., and I look, and I see Biden is in office.
I mean, do you remember his campaign?
It was a joke.
He couldn't even, his whole campaign leading up to the presidency was an embarrassment, and he got elected.
I think he, obviously they cheated there, Wayne, but he's the president.
And then you look at pop culture.
People look at these actors and these musicians.
I'll give a great example.
The one I've seen on Tucker a bunch is some person named Cardi B. They look like the most unintelligent, dumb...
And I don't even mean that as a personal sight.
It's just an observation of fact.
It's like, how in the world?
And then the people that are elevated, the people of hundreds of millions of followers are just these really average, unimpressive people in most cases.
So our society is not uplifting the best and the brightest.
They're uplifting the weak and the mediocre so that they can be controlled by these people behind the scenes, which is why I think ultimately the whole goal is So if you combine that with an advanced AI system that could be used to further basically manipulate the masses in ways that we can't even calculate right now, I think it is a dark day ahead for us if we don't get this under control now.
But speaking of looking glass, I want to talk about that too.
We talked about it in a little bit of depth last time, but I'm still of the belief, especially now more than ever with that article I just read about the AI, that All Looking Glass essentially is a very powerful AI that uses supercomputers and the access to Google and all the information that Google has to make very accurate predictions.
I mean, is that kind of what you think too?
Yeah, but yeah, that's adjusted it, but also add in there that it has information on the individual.
If I'm using Looking Glass, I would input every single thing I know about the individual.
And on top of that, the track record of the individual.
On top of that, any banking relationships.
And the analytic system would use that track record to start to form a portrait of who the person is.
And from there, it's much easier to predict certain things.
Very similar to your...
What you do on the internet, what people do on the internet, if people have access to that, they can start to get a gauge of what type of person you are or I am or whatever.
But this is on a much higher level, though.
I was just talking to Jeff Dow the other day.
He's an NSA analyst, former NSA analyst, and he was talking about pattern of life.
He was talking about your bed down location.
He's talking about these inputs from these data points that can be used to basically be predictive.
And then, like you said, if you put that on top of the information it already has, the AI supercomputing power it has, probably some secret quantum computing system that we don't even know about yet, it becomes super powerful.
So my question is, Who controls that, in your opinion?
Who do you think has access to and controls that right now?
It's a good question.
It's a very good question because this is globalist and this is a global issue in nature.
So it doesn't necessarily have to be in the United States.
But at the same time, the United States, you know, whoever created it originally, and to preface, I do believe that it is already, I'm positive it's already in play.
Not to a level where I can predict everything, but I do believe that there is, I know there is, there was a public disclosure during the Area 51 issue, that there are automated thinking systems at Area 51, so we have it.
What do you think those do?
Well, in regards to Area 51, they're automated as far as they can tell friend or foe.
So, you know, they're there for security.
Hold on, hold on.
Are you talking like RoboCop here?
I have no idea what it is.
I just know what the disclosure was.
And the disclosure was very specific.
It's an automated security system.
Not automatic, it's automated.
So it's a thinking situation.
Wow.
I mean, that was a disclosure.
It's in writing.
I mean, maybe you can look it up.
During Congress, whenever the Area 51...
Do you remember the whole Storm Area 51 thing that took place?
Yes.
The military was...
They weren't concerned about people damaging anything, but they...
They were more concerned about terrorists, you know, kind of hitching a ride with the group and, you know, going into these bases and destroying things.
But they weren't at all concerned about what those, you know, what just random people would do.
And it was in the literature that was at Congress because they have automated systems.
Never heard that before.
You know, or excuse me, automated thinking systems.
That's a whole different ballgame right there.
So what do you think of the people who have said previously, and I guess I didn't necessarily believe it was possible until I read that article about the AI, but what do you think of the people who have said over the past that it's possible that QAnon was some sort of AI system?
What do you think of that?
I think that that's a good theory.
I think that that's a valid theory.
I was on that train originally.
Just because of the way that they numbered things, the way that they spoke, you know, or they presented things.
It was very specific.
And I've seen stuff like that only a few times.
And it was a mixture of...
Of things I learned when I was in the military as far as the way that they would present issues.
If you remember the hashtags, the numbering system, they spoke in code a lot through that.
Random people aren't going to know these things.
So whoever it was, at the very least, they were either active duty or an ex-military.
But at the most, at the highest, I guess, theory level, yeah, I think thinking AI. And you know what?
We already know that that is possible because it's happened several times through several of these tech companies who were 10 years behind.
I'll say this.
You guys, I'll, I mean, read this Lambda article for yourself.
Read the transcript of the conversation that was just leaked.
And you tell me that if there's an AI that can speak with that kind of clarity, with that kind of clarity of thought, with that kind of precision in the way they articulate themselves, then it stands to reason that anyone or any person online could be an AI bot then it stands to reason that anyone or any person online could be Which means if you have some sort of – and this is why I think – I think this is why Twitter with the whole bot thing with Elon Musk and with Trump saying it's all bots and everything.
I think that maybe these systems have been deployed – or not maybe, they definitely have been deployed.
These massive AI systems have been deployed in this bot net that – I mean, can speak and talk and have a conversation just like a human being without skipping a beat.
I mean, almost to the point where you don't know you're talking to somebody that's real or not.
So, what do you think of that?
▲
Export Selection