All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 20, 2024 - Project Camelot
01:19:33
WINN SCHWARTAU: The Art & Science of Metawar: Winn Schwartau
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, so just to be aware of that.
I am Carrie Cassidy from Project Camelot and very happy to be here today.
So I have Wynne Schwartau with me and I think I got your name right.
And this is going to be actually a fascinating discussion, I believe.
And he's got a book out and I've got it on my website so you can see it there.
And it's basically called The Art and Science of Meta-War.
And we've got all kinds of background on you on my website.
That's really very impressive.
So, I guess we could kind of like, I'll just scoot over there and show people where your information is so that we can share that with the audience.
Okay.
Because I think that is always helpful.
So here's his book and it's not fitting on the screen too well at the moment.
Just see if I can get this to come.
Nope, doesn't want to do that.
All right, fine.
So if you came over here on the link projectcamelotportal.com then you are seeing him at the top of the website and this is Very interesting background, but he has all kinds of, his bio is very long, so he's the author of PearlHarbor.com.
I'm not sure what Die Hard 4, does that mean you're also the, is that a joke or is that?
No, the plots and it all evolved Into what became Die Hard 4.
The movie.
Okay, fine.
And three volumes of Information Warfare, Cyber Shock, Internet and Computer Ethics for Kids, Hackers are People 2, founder of securityawarenesscompany.com, and on it goes.
So there's plenty there for people to take a look at.
Just scroll down and you'll see all his very impressive Now, what I'd like to do, Wynn, is to get you to introduce yourself in your own words.
Wynn Schwartau, born and bred in New York.
Went into the family business, so to speak, at 16.
The recording music business of the day, so I was a recording engineer and producer.
My parents were both engineers, so I had to learn electrical engineering by the age of 11 if I was going to be given dinner that night.
Wow.
So I did that for a long time, and those are separate stories.
And then went into computers in early 182, fell into computer security totally by accident.
In 1983, then designed some Department of Defense security systems for computers and such, for spook spies and goblins, if you will, from 85 to 91, something like that.
Then got involved with the ideas of information warfare, cyber war, wrote a couple books on it.
And then it began.
Then it began.
And that story of how that all occurred is actually in the book.
So I lived in information warfare and cyber war for many years, got involved with security awareness and training for corporations, all through the government and military initially, and did that for a long time and then just kept doing it.
Time-based security, analog network security, just trying to move the industry forward.
All right, now what I was wondering, you said you fell in it by accident, but didn't you have to study all kinds of computer languages to get to some degree to understand what you were talking about?
My programming skills were miserable.
I was absolutely awful.
Okay.
In the world of engineering, there's all sorts of different kinds of ways of thinking about the world.
And while my electrical engineering skills are, oh, well, they were, I'm not saying anymore, but they were okay.
I can work and I can build recording studios and TV studios.
I know how to do all that.
But I was really much more, my natural inclination was for systems.
How all these things kind of glue together.
How do the cameras and the microphones and the speakers and the wires and the power, how does all of this happen and make it a system that actually works?
And so my day-to-day, you know, electrical engineering, yeah I did some, but largely I was the systems guy who kind of designed and organized the big picture, and I took that view to early computers, early computer security, because there's people a lot better than me that knew how to program, but I could design the architectures and guide them into building things.
Okay, now when you wrote your book, Hackers are People Too, you must have... No, that's not a book, that's my daughter's movie!
That's not a book.
No, that was my daughter's movie.
Oh, was the exact I was I don't know if it showed up as a book.
No, that was.
Yeah, just it doesn't specify.
Yeah, that was her.
I was just the producer producer I financed to be on.
Okay, so your daughter has followed in your footsteps in some form or fashion is that he was part of the security awareness community for 20 years.
Wow.
And she is a graphics designer, a writer, editor, just an amazingly creative person who I can work with very well.
And we have done that and now she's off doing other things after we sold the last company.
Okay, so your latest book, let's really talk about that.
And I actually, I was looking for a good definition of meta, and there are not very good definitions, I would say, of meta.
And it looks like, depending on your point of view, how you're using it.
So how are you using meta war?
What's your thoughts on that?
Mero comes as a Greek prefix and it means above, beyond, roughly.
So beyond is probably the easiest one.
There's other connotations.
And so beyond war is really where it Came from, and also I, because I had done info war and I had done cyber war, it also kind of flowed sort of nice over the decades.
So medical beyond war, because when people think of war, they think bombs, bullets, and all the other stuff.
But a lot of this is about the brain.
It's from a cyber security professional standpoint, the brain is the new battlefield.
Fair enough.
Now, but you're also talking about AI, aren't you?
Well, AI is a component of it.
AI is just another tool.
People are freaking out about AI because they typically misunderstand it.
AI is a tool in the quiver of any good business.
You know, sometimes when you're doing a chat, AI is close enough.
If you're talking to your phone, that's AI.
Good is close enough.
But when you start making life and death decisions using AI, that is sort of where I I don't know.
And you have to keep in mind that we, civilization, engineering, whoever, we created AI in our own image.
And we don't like what we see.
Okay, so you probably don't know much about me, but my whistleblowers, and I do specialize in whistleblowers from above Top Secret, talk about incoming AI from alien civilizations.
You aware of that?
I'm aware of those discussions, absolutely.
Okay.
So, when you talk about AI, one of the things that I've been told by very high-level Intel agents, okay, and they say that, because I asked this one question, is AI out of control?
And basically, the answer I get from people who don't know each other, but are experts in various areas, they say yes.
So, how do you deal with that?
Well, the first thing I would ask is, I would need to understand the environment.
What do they mean?
by out of control?
Have they given over AI control to all the nuclear launch codes and missiles without human intervention?
If that is the case, I would say that's out of control.
But those kind of statements sound to me more like opinions without evidence.
I really need to know the context.
OK, well, one of my witnesses gives me a story.
And this is the story he tells me.
He says that recently, now it's not so recent, this is probably five years ago or so, and he says that generals in, I think it was Iraq, gave a direction to an AI to bomb a certain area, and the AI Decided not to obey orders and instead destroyed itself.
That's that's what it there.
That sounds like a story.
I mean, that's all that is.
Yeah, but this is what is there?
They were using this example to illustrate how it was no longer following orders and how it had made a decision and a unilateral decision for itself.
I don't know if that story's true or not.
I mean, military folklore, there's a lot of those stories that go on.
A lot of people want to get attention.
I'm a technical guy.
I've done evidence and science.
Number two, AI by the standards of what we're using today called CHAT-GPT 3.5 or above didn't come out until November 29th, 2022.
Any sort of AI back in those days was either completely proprietary within the military without using the technology we have today, another reason to doubt it.
Number two, it could be what's called a SOAR system, and that means security orchestration and response.
That you have a pre-programmed set of things, if this then that.
You may have heard of that term.
That is entirely possible.
AI on the loose five years ago, making independent decisions that emulate sentience, I'm gonna call show it to me.
Okay, no worries.
Okay, so are you aware of what we call the Secret Space Program?
I am well aware of the sequence-based program's allegations and the stuff that's been said for 60 years, yes.
Okay, and have you ever been to an underground base?
Ever been to an underground secret space base?
Yeah.
No, I made it into the space shuttle once.
That was kind of cool.
Force City?
Yeah, it was out of Southern California.
I did that, and I've been up and seen SR-71s.
Oh, nice.
Yeah.
The Edmonds Air Force Base, but it's not.
Okay.
Okay, so I'm just trying to figure out your parameters here.
Okay, so for the book, let's zero in on the theme of the book and why you wrote it.
The theme of the book is that Technology is advancing exceedingly quickly, and the use of technology to control people is nothing new, but it's now amplifying because of what I call reality distortion and addiction.
We have a fundamental problem called TMI.
A lot of people talk about disinformation.
Great, but you can't have disinformation until you Look at the bigger picture.
The bigger picture is too much information and an overload, and in cybersecurity terms we would call that denial of service.
Confusion, inability to make decisions, there's all of these symptoms.
And when you look at reality distortion, there are various types of motivations for it.
When you sit and read a book as a novelist, the novelist wants to distort the reality so that you're immersed in the experience.
When you're watching TV or a big screen movie, you will be totally immersed in it.
And the only time that you notice that you're not immersed is when you pull back to grab a soda, or then you go, ah, I'm not there.
But then you do go back into it.
So there's various degrees of immersion.
It can be as simple as words.
Multimedia, and there will be more and more of it as we do more VR, XR, and improve the technologies.
Okay, so in the motion picture industry we call it suspension of disbelief, I believe.
Depends upon the storyteller.
In some cases you need that to go into it in some types of stories.
Regardless whether it's sci-fi, suspension of belief, superheroes, or it's a poignant Christmas story perhaps, the storyteller's objective is to create a narrative that is believable and comfortable and hopefully entertaining for you.
It's all about the narrative and stories.
Okay, so where we're at in terms of, again, going back to your book and your theme, you're talking about we're being bombarded by information, that some of our information is obviously true, but some of it, or a lot of it, is probably false, or some of it opinion, et cetera, et cetera.
So what are you trying to tell us about this situation?
What we need to do is realize that the cognitive system, our brains, humans are not trained.
No, I shouldn't use that.
That's a bad word.
I'm going to rephrase that.
Humans are not born with the innate ability to be able to deal with technology.
We are born with our innateness over the last between 50 and 400,000 years, to all tigers and bears and lions, oh my!
We are innately born with our primal systems to survive nature.
That's what our entire function is, is to survive.
Okay, so you don't, you probably don't subscribe to the idea that Atlantis is real.
That has nothing to do with it.
That's independent.
Atlantis, you know, the idea here is that humans didn't descend from apes, but they came from off planet to this world.
So that we saying that we were not born with technology in our In our DNA is actually could be wrong.
I don't know if you've seen my interviews with a guy named John Scott Perez.
He is a geneticist.
I guess you'd call him and you know, he's a doctor and he's also he is manipulating DNA using a computer.
So he says our computer is actually manipulated bull using computer and Silicon.
It's silicon-based.
I mean, some researchers are working with genetic components for future computing capabilities, especially with regards to memory.
There's also people that are working on various new computer technologies that are involving neuron-like biological components.
These are all experimentations, but none of them are ready for primetime.
You're looking a decade away easily.
The DNA storage has been proven, but being able to make it a viable enterprise, big data center, workable solution, you're still looking at least 10 years away from that.
This is speculative research.
Okay, so when you're saying that we are overwhelmed, because I don't know, I can't quite agree with that premise.
But if you look at children that are born right now, they don't have any problem picking up computer languages, understanding the computer world.
I myself don't have much problem with it, never did.
You know, I taught myself everything.
So what, you know, where's your premise coming from?
Is this literally True or not?
Information overload, number one.
Okay.
Number two, it is our dealing with technology that who's in control?
Who's actually in control at one point or another?
Right.
How much of your conscious brain versus your unconscious brain?
For example, we all grew up learning how to handwrite.
We have been unskilling people just to use keyboards.
Yet we know psychologically when you write notes physically, there is a larger degree of retention inside the brain because of the body-brain connection.
It's two sensory inputs to the brain reinforcing the same thing.
Going to keyboards, will that end up the same over time?
Perhaps.
As of today, that's just not the case.
There's less retention using keyboards for note-taking.
When we drive a car, how awake are you?
How conscious are you of all the actions you take?
You are probably conscious of less than two percent of it.
The rest of it, we're on autopilot.
We are on such degree of autopilot because we have to be in an immersive world.
Now, when you go out to the woods in the cabin and you're hanging out with the trees and you got no cell signal at all, A completely different thing happens to the body.
Then you really care about, is that a possum, a skunk, a bear, or a sasquatch?
Whatever.
It's our reliance upon technology, the belief that technology is right, the beliefs, erroneous belief, that AI is giving us answers that we can rely on.
All of those are disconnects between the human biological systems and the silicon-based systems we're creating.
The coexistence between the two of them, we're just starting to understand, and it has blown up in the last decade because of too much information turning into disinformation, which ended up becoming political schisms and divisiveness and used as a weapon which ended up becoming political schisms and divisiveness and used as Right.
And would you agree that AI is starting to mislead us?
on the people who are behind AI.
AI doesn't do anything on its own.
The people that are behind AI, the people that, they who control the technology control the narrative.
So 400 bots Putting out crap into Twitter.
Somebody's got to push some buttons and make that happen.
This is not AI running around on its own doing it.
They're using AI as what we call a force amplifier.
And it allows one person or a small group of people to appear to be much more powerful.
And we go back 5,000 years in warfare for exactly the same thing.
You have two opposing armies out in the middle of nowhere 5,000 years ago.
You're camped out up on the hill there.
Now you see off in the distance huge amounts of plumes of smoke and tons of fires and all of this.
What is your assumption about the size of your adversary?
He is trying to deceive you.
Into believing that his physical forces are going to outweigh you, but maybe they're just pulling logs in the dirt to make dust storms.
They have three guys build a hundred bonfires.
But back in those days, that was deception.
This is the equivalent of it today.
Okay, so given your premise, which does not seem to admit to an AI that doesn't reside in a box, right?
In your view of AI... I don't know what that means.
Well, it comes from... Are you familiar, for example, of the D-Wave machine?
Yes.
Geordie Rose.
I don't know the name, but D-Wave, yeah.
Okay.
And the premise behind D-Wave, according to Geordi Rose, who did a TED Talk on it, was that, and this was over five years ago, saying that as far as he was concerned, when he stood next to the D-Wave machine, it could read his mind, and that it could go into 5D.
Those were some of the statements that he made.
Are you aware of that?
I want to see evidence, because there's no evidence of that.
I've heard some of these... I use the word mythomania.
For things like that.
D-Wave has its own issues about what kind of quantum processing is actually going on inside of it.
And there's a whole series of different types of quantum approaches to computing and D-Waves, there's still a lot of, you know, those guys argue with each other as to how real D-Wave is or not.
Okay, well he's one of the, you know, sort of, he He's not quite an inventor, but he hired the inventor and is, you know, very close to the origination of that machine.
And I'm told that it's used in a lot of the underground bases and used by the Secret Space Program, etc.
So, that's like the most advanced kind of computer AI.
Without evidence, If you're not searching for the evidence, if you're not interviewing people like I do, how would you come across it?
Who are you working with that would be able to educate you there in that area?
I need to see the physics.
I need to see the machine.
And me and Chris and Bob and we all sit down and go, Oh, wow, look at that.
That's cool.
Everything else, no offense to anybody.
Right, I understand.
It's an opinion.
It's a story.
Okay.
I have to go back to also Carl Sagan, Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence.
Okay.
Having a lot of stories.
Okay, they're cool.
And I'm aware, very aware of a lot of these stories.
I've always found it fascinating since I was a kid.
Always loved it.
Read Frank.
What was the name?
Frank Herbert, not Frank.
Those guys, those early sci-fi.
I've read them all.
They're very compelling.
Put one on my desk and let me take it to the lab.
Okay, so you've won all these awards and you're something of an expert.
What would you say your area of expertise is?
Is it cyber security or is it something else?
I've done cyber security since 1983.
I tend to view myself perhaps more as a systems view iconoclast.
I look at things differently than a lot of people.
I've designed programs, I've run companies, but my passion really is thinking about things differently and trying to Come up with potential solutions to problems by using nonlinear thinking.
Okay, so as you put metawar It's a kind of cyber war.
We're actually fast approaching... Sorry?
It's a component.
Cyber is a component.
Yes.
So we can't ignore that part.
So when we're looking at war with Iran, let's say, okay, so how do you view that?
How do you, how is your, you know, do you troubleshoot ideas around that?
No, that's politics and military operations.
I don't do any of that.
Okay, what do you focus on then?
Thinking.
Thinking and talking to people.
I do not run around with the military.
But you sound like a practical guy.
You sound like a hands-on kind of guy.
Even though your system is oriented, you also sound like a hands-on kind of guy.
Not really.
You really don't want me touching your network.
Okay.
You really don't.
You want me talking to you about your network.
All right.
But let somebody else let their let their fingers do the walking on the keyboard.
So are you focused on getting like social, social, how the social milieu interacts with the meta war type thing?
I mean, it's called strengthening the cognitive immune system.
Okay.
We have a physical immune system and we have various components of it that emulate what is in cyber security called defense in depth.
And there's various layers that we have biologically to keep us healthy.
In the cyber world, we have protection mechanisms that are close and can be mapped nicely against our biological ones.
Mentally, we have kind of similar types of models, but in this case, we have not really focused on getting the cognitive immune system to notch itself up, to self-heal.
Our bodies can self-heal.
In some cases, we can do that in networks more and more with advanced technology.
But with the mind, what is the influence on the mind?
How is that all done?
And how can you retain control of your identity and your own decision-making and maintain executive function throughout?
How does a company protect itself against cognitive attack?
How does a country So do you consult, you know, executives at companies on this level?
This is what I do.
I run around the world and I speak to large groups.
I do not do individual consulting.
I see.
I do these kinds of shows all the time.
I've done over 3,000.
I write.
That's it.
Okay, so if you think you're trying to get people to have a sort of a way of having their own sort of mental security in the face of this onslaught.
Okay, I'm a cyber security guy.
In order for me to have learned anything in this, I had to read 2,000 psychological neuroscience papers, experiments, relearn probability, some level of statistics, talk to policymakers, and there's educators, and we need Think of how much, how many different skills and engineering is required just to get a space, a rocket up.
You gotta, you can't just do it with one guy, you need all these things.
Okay, but that's old technology in my book.
Existing technology, and then you've got protection, physical protection, military, traditional, kinetic weapon system.
Thinking how many different kinds of skills does it take?
to be able to protect any nation.
So I will use the U.S.
as an example.
It takes hundreds and hundreds of different skills.
Cognitive defense, strengthening the cognitive immune system, is new and we need to start getting various different disciplines to talk to each other and to enumerate how to move forward and be able to build solutions at all the levels.
The national level, the enterprise level, and the individual level.
Okay, now what about chaos theory?
Timothy Leary, you familiar with that?
Yeah, Leary did not invent chaos theory.
I wasn't saying he did, but he talks about it.
Okay, great.
So did one of my other witnesses, Richard Allen Miller.
Have you heard of him?
He's a physicist.
Okay, so I was always fascinated by chaos theory and they show you these little bot things and eventually they all get in line and follow, one of them at least.
So I think that's fascinating.
Is this factored into your analysis at all?
Well, number one, chaos theory, what you're talking about there, and all ending up in the lines and all of that, that's called automata theory.
It was originated and formalized by John von Neumann.
Okay.
Chaos theory.
Chaos theory is emergent behavior.
So you've got the butterfly over in China and it creates a tornado here.
Is there a model that would make that work?
Yeah.
How likely is it?
It's way down close to zero.
Chaos theory is the water of turbulence going down your bathtub.
Why does it behave that way, and can we predict it?
That's chaos theory.
So, the von Neumann architecture represents another thing that comes out of the Santa Fe Institute, and they've done 40 years of this, and it's called the Game of Life.
How do you create a single, a very simple program, and put various programs, digital life forms, if you will, into an environment, and see how they're gonna Going to survive.
Who wins?
What are the rules that they're using in those supposedly cooperative collective environments?
That is where you get also emergent behavior as well.
So chaos theory does not have to have emergence, but von Neumann's architecture actually does in most cases.
Okay, well Leary did discuss it in these terms of having, you know, these little particles or whatever they are.
Electrons maybe, I don't know.
So where does any of this go for you in terms of application?
No, I do not touch on Chaos Theory.
I don't touch on Divine One.
That is a whole World over there.
If it gets brought in, I'll call my dear friend Dr. Mark Carney in the UK, and I'll say, Mark, you got anything to apply to this?
He's the one who formalized the mathematics for my last book.
There's no math in this book.
It's really very straight ahead.
But conceptually, when you look at people's minds, we don't understand how it works.
So people say, oh, we're going to model the brain.
Yeah.
How are you going to do that?
Well, we're going to copy every neuron.
No, you're not.
It's not going to work that way.
Well, what about the microtubules?
Well, how do they work?
We don't know.
Does the brain have warm, wet quantum capabilities?
We don't know, but there is a possibility.
So we are just, we don't know enough to go down some of, well, you know, what I call mythomanias.
Are they speculatively interesting?
Oh, hell yeah, they are.
Are they hard science now?
No, not yet.
Okay, well, let's go back to the Nazis and MKUltra.
I mean, they certainly were trying to do that there, and they think they had some success, right?
It was mind control and propaganda, absolutely.
Absolutely, the work of Goebbels, I reference very heavily in terms of the amount of mind control Okay.
Sure.
Well, we call it Mockingbird Media at this point.
control done that way.
Don't forget that the Nazis did something, I hate to say it, but it was from this standpoint, very, very smart.
They gave everybody a radio.
Okay.
So they give everybody a radio, then they control the broadcasts.
Sure.
Well, we call it mockingbird media at this point.
I'm not familiar with that term.
Oh, okay.
All right.
Well, whatever.
It's, it's, It's not just radio, obviously.
It's video.
It's everything we're doing right now.
Again, in Goebbels' era, radio was the predominant... I understand.
...technical infrastructure in order to build a national cognition and zeitgeist.
Sure, but the British were heavily into that as well because they had broadcasts that they put into Nazi Germany at the time.
Never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever give up.
Yes, of course, that was, keep a stiff upper lip, Churchill owned the British Airways and that was a defensive propaganda.
The Nazis were doing it from an offensive propaganda in order to make their population compliant with their own agenda and belief systems.
Okay, so let's go back to your premise.
So your premise, again, is creating some kind of mental security system.
I'm not sure, how would you term it?
Enhancing it.
What is the language I'm allowed to use on this?
Anything.
Okay.
How's your bullshit detector?
Right.
All right.
A lot of people, their bullshit detector is crap.
Okay.
Everything that comes their way, no matter where it's coming from.
Some people's bullshit detectors aren't even turned on.
If you have, for example, something going on in the background, whether it's TV or a movie or whatever, whether you're aware of it or not, you're absorbing it and it's becoming part of your experience and baseline for interpreting the senses of the world.
You have enough of that, that's the equivalent of propaganda back from Goebbels era, from Soviet era.
It's the same sort of thing.
Only thing that's happening here Is that there is additional technology so some people may want to listen to a particular news channel and all eight hours a day all I hear is whatever they listening to and it becomes part of their inherent belief system more and more it becomes ingrained in them and it's just that's physics that is the way it works.
Versus designated what the Nazis did and what certainly a lot of what happened in Russia, what's happened with the social scoring system in China is going on.
Those societies tend to be much more authoritarian based.
Obviously.
But let's not forget advertising.
Let's not forget even our own country's propaganda that convinced people that they were actually free, when in reality they weren't.
That's a political thing.
I don't touch on politics.
Okay.
All right.
Well, I think just as a human being growing up in America, you must have known that we were taught at a very young age that we were quote-unquote free.
And then since that time, we've had the Patriot Act, 9-11, etc.
I don't think you have to be a political animal to understand how Much more rigid our system has become if it wasn't just that way to begin with.
Again, stemming back from Nazi Germany, etc., going back to the 40s, the 50s, and so on.
That is, when you look at technology, when you look at all this stuff, and it goes back to the original work I did on information warfare 35 years ago, you're talking about intent.
I am not talking about intent.
I don't care.
I talk about the capabilities and the capabilities of the technology that I talked about with information warfare, cyber warfare, 35 years ago.
It doesn't matter whether it's coming from the left, the right, the right.
Yeah, absolutely.
In these discussions, it is the capabilities of the technology with intent.
That is somebody else's discussion to talk about intent.
What do they want to do with it?
Well, I'm not so sure about that, because if something limits the freedom of humanity, then that has to be some kind of baseline.
No, because that baseline ultimately is a very fuzzy one, because one person's freedom is another person's prison.
And that becomes very, very subjective as to how do you create a baseline.
We'll go back to AI for a second.
Yeah, everybody is AI neutral.
Are you asking me?
I'm asking you is AI neutral?
I think it depends on the creator.
And I think that it's probably not because of the creator.
Okay, how do you make AI neutral?
How would you do it?
Well, I think you would basically give it opposites and ask it to to find some kind of medium.
The technical answer is right now, nobody has the foggiest idea how to make a neutral AI.
We have no idea.
How does the universe make anyone semi-objective about the world?
It's a union of opposites.
What's objectivity?
You can go into Eastern philosophy for these answers.
Sure, absolutely, but what's objectivity?
The idea that you can see both sides.
Okay.
So that's what we're talking about.
I look at objectivity as something different.
I look at it as a consensual hallucination.
Then you're getting into something that's not objective at all.
Because consensus requires agreement.
Okay, and that I think is, that's mob rule?
Yeah, we can agree that's a tree.
That would be a consensual hallucination.
That's mob rule.
That's a tree.
Because the person who doesn't see it as a tree, who sees it as something else, might be more correct than the whole big group that thinks it's whatever they think it is.
Their objectivity is different and becomes more subjective.
When you look at the movie with Russell Crowe, great movie, a beautiful mind.
And the life that he went through, to him it was real.
Just because it's in your head doesn't make it any less real.
Sure.
That's why the distinction between objective consensual, objective hallucinations, and subjective interpretations
or have to be we have to make that delineation because I can we you and I can describe all right here we can describe this and we can say all right and all that now try to describe an emotion such that I understand it absolutely 100 you can't it's subjective and this is part of what the influence is occurring with reality distortion too much information all of the things in the meta war thesis
They impact.
And it makes objective agreement harder, which also makes subjective description absolutely impossible.
Okay.
So where do you go from here?
Where do I go from here?
I'm going to go to Amsterdam from here.
I've spent the last four years actually writing on this and I am working with some groups to try to put together people to think more, to actually make something actionable, to do things.
So I guess it's back to the speaking TV circuits and what have you to get... Okay, well what I was really saying is that given your premise, the idea that you can't, that something is objective, whether it's really objective, whether it's subjective, you can't find a definition for emotion, etc.
So What I'm saying is your book in theory is positing some kind of a direction for society to go or for individuals to go.
I'm offering some potential tools, some potential paths that have already been scientifically demonstrated to have a high degree of efficacy in strengthening your bullshit detector.
Such as?
If you begin with some of the work, take a look at your readers.
Go to a game online, I think it's badnews.com.
Okay.
Go play the game, the one called crankyuncle.com.
Okay, and these games are doing what?
Strengthening your immune system to start questioning things more, instead of accepting every piece of clickbait that comes your way.
If I tell you, hey, look out here right now, my sky is bright green, what's your gut reaction?
I'm not sure, because I am a person who is what you might call a contrarian.
I question everything.
That's why I do the job I do.
Good.
Question everything.
Believe nothing and then verify.
Right.
That is the world with deep fakes and all the stuff going on, whether it's technical or mythomania.
Unless you believe nothing and then verify, you will get lost in the maelstrom of too much information.
Okay, fair enough.
So, is that your all-encompassing theory, or do you have some other?
Well, it's not one item.
Everything in the universe is a process.
Sure, but I'm sort of asking you for, like, give me, you know, four or five of your best, you know, solutions.
I'm going to put my notes here so I don't screw it up.
Okay, it's not a test.
I mean, off the top of your head, even.
Storytelling is a compelling narrative fundamental to human communication and ideally creates a believable experience through text, voice, multimedia.
Right.
The audience inside the story.
It relies upon reality distortion for focused attention to make the narrative convincing by the use of too much information and disinformation, which forms mental images.
Through which the story is being told.
Using manipulation, emotional persuasion, and visual influence, the participants worldview and belief systems are altered for participation in that particular experience.
If you add reward of any sort of perceived value to it, To you as an individual, they target the human mind with dopamine, serotonin, feel-good digital opioids.
Sure.
Leads to an addiction, which means I want more of it.
And when you have a cycle that requires more, you can then manipulate behavior, control behavior, which results in compliance.
The meta-war thesis.
Fundamentally.
Non-compliance.
No, non-compliance is a whole different thing.
Try doing non-compliance in, for example, and I'm not picking on China politically, I'm just looking at their system.
If you're part and parcel of the social credit system going on in China, non-compliance will screw you up.
Right.
Or remember the old TV show, The Prisoner?
Yep.
All right.
I mean, he was non-compliance.
Right.
And the board.
Non-compliance is a story, is a narrative, a storytelling vehicle since the beginning.
Well, have you heard this saying, which is that Einstein said that imagination was actually the best way to measure intelligence?
So did Mr. Rogers.
So?
It's not about who said it, it's about, I'm asking you about the premise, the idea.
Imagination, the open-mindedness, imagination, another friend of mine... The ability to imagine.
Oh, I mean, that requires an open mind.
And a friend of mine has this quote that I steal all the time.
He says, the best thinkers are those that are able to hold two contradictory opposing thoughts in their mind at the same time and be comfortable with it.
I have no problem with that.
However, I do know that our controllers, which I believe exist, that's exactly the premise they use by which to control people.
They throw out two opposites, like I was saying, and that's what puts everyone in this state of confusion that you're actually referring to in your sort of meta-war sort of synopsis, right?
Well, as part of too much information, when you create dissonance, any sort of cognitive dissonance creates... you fall back to an initial bias condition.
But the dissonance is what messes people up, because it requires an awful lot of electrical energy in your brain to sort it out.
And it becomes very tiring.
Well, I understand what they are from a linguistic standpoint, yes.
synthesis.
Well, I understand what they are from a linguistic standpoint, yes.
Okay, but that's actually the way you do it.
That's the method.
Okay.
So, thesis, those are opposites, you know, a premise, the anti-premise, and then some kind of...
And one would say that war is actually just that.
The war is the combustion of the two together that will rely or result in a synthesis, right?
Okay, yeah, that's not my area of expertise.
I understand, but this is just a model for understanding how these union of opposites, having this dissonance, can be solved and understood.
Yeah, the way that we look at it is from what we call feedback loops.
Okay.
You know what an amplifier is, right?
Yes.
An amplifier for your Speakers.
Right.
And you have a knob that goes all the way down to zero, right?
Yes.
Doesn't go to zero.
It goes to almost zero, not quite.
Now inside of that amplifier there is a circuit called a feedback controller that you have no control over because if that did not exist the system would blow itself up!
And you may recall this now from the 1770s.
A thing called a governor on a steam engine when they were learning how to build trains.
You know the phrase, balls to the wall, right?
Yeah.
All right.
Balls to the wall comes from a steam engine, a governor, to keep the engine from going too fast.
So what it is, is from the engine crank thing that goes to the wheels, they had another little thing that came up into a pipe that spun.
And on that spinner were two prongs with big balls on the end of it.
And when those balls, they put a container on top of it, when those balls connected and started talking to the wall and hit the wall, balls to the wall, the engine could go no faster.
That's a feedback loop in order to control the system.
So yes, you're going to always have some balance of thesis and antithesis.
It's always going to be there.
But the likelihood of it sitting in the middle for any extended period of time is nigh on impossible.
Sure, but what you're in essence trying to build is some kind of system like that for the mind, is that right?
The mind has it already built in.
Okay, so what are we worried about?
We haven't strengthened it.
We have not made it strong enough.
Okay.
And the way you do it is by playing some game.
The game, again, this is all in the book.
All in the book.
There have been, to the best of my knowledge, over four million experiments done on this that were done initially.
There was work from Holland, Some European stuff, and the UK, and the experiments that they've been doing of showing how much better resilience to BS and all the other kind of crap, non-evidence-based... Science doesn't care about your opinion.
Doesn't care.
Doesn't care what you think, because it's meaningless.
Only thing that's meaningful is something that is hard and evidentiary with traditional... No, then you're a materialist.
That would be insane.
That's the only science that we have.
That's a form of insanity.
That is the only science that we have right now.
We do not have a science that goes into the world of the subject matter.
Well, metaphysics might be considered a science.
Metaphysics, when you look at that, when you look at noetics, when you look at Hieronymus, when you go into Wilhelm Reich, when you go into any of these types of things, they all have compelling aspects to them, but do not and cannot, with the current technologies, be verified by the current view of scientific method.
Which is extremely limited.
Okay, so... It's not necessarily limited.
It could be limited on either side, if you're going with the thesis and antithesis.
Then, because we live in a probabilistic quantum world, it's entirely possible that those effects are merely quantum outliers, instead of a new undiscovered science.
It could be a new undiscovered science that we haven't figured out yet.
Entirely possible.
When you get into noetics, and some of actually Hieronymus' work is interesting, they postulate That the brain is the transceiver.
If that's in fact the brain is the transceiver, okay.
Is that a vestigial capability?
Is it a new capability?
And if it's vestigial, what is the physiological evolution of it?
I don't know.
They don't know yet.
Okay.
Are you aware of remote viewing?
Yes, absolutely.
And I know the people that founded the programs.
Okay, fine.
And do you know about signal non-locality?
Yep.
Do you admit to that being a real thing?
I can't, because it's subjective.
You think it's only subjective?
No, I didn't.
No, no, no, no.
There are no binary conditions.
I do not know.
I'm agnostic.
Are there indications that it has value?
Yes.
Is there any way to quantify it over time and postulate a degree of certitude or probability to any single experiment?
No.
Okay, what about remote viewers that, let's say, remote view something in Russia, some weapons system, and then you go there and it's exactly as they saw it.
That's right.
That's not good enough verification for you?
A single point of evidence is the ultimate bias.
You can't go by single points of evidence.
Well, if you do... That was really interesting.
That was really, really interesting.
Can I repeat it?
Yeah, can you?
Can you?
It can be done.
I'm sure there are, in fact, remote viewers are doing this.
We've got teams, you know, USSR, sorry, Russia and the United States and China, they all have remote viewers.
They're using them constantly and they are, I'm sure, backing them up with different teams that are trying to attain the same result.
So they are, in essence, in ongoing testing Sure, they've been investigating this since the end of World War II, absolutely.
Absolutely they have.
All right.
So this is your scientific method, verifiable results, right?
That's in operation.
You go back to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and materialism versus spiritualism in the late 19th century.
It's a very, very similar type of question.
Is there something else other than what we view as a consensual, I can touch it, traditional reality?
That is super close-minded.
You can't possibly be that much of a materialist.
I'm not sure what that means.
I'm not saying it's either way.
Meaning that you have to be able to touch everything physically in the material world.
That is the current scientific method.
Is that your method?
That is a method.
I know it's a method.
This interview is all about you.
Of course everything is always about individuals.
No, it's about your book and what your premise is.
But my premise doesn't get into any of this.
Why not?
Why not?
Because that's an entirely different discussion.
Yes, I'm sure.
Right now I have to deal with the available technology that is ongoing, that is provable, that has science behind it.
Anything that is post-traditional science that gets into metaphysics is an entirely different discussion than what I am doing.
How can you stay current?
I mean, you're in cyber, you're in a world that has to do with what numbers ones and zeros and twos and all that, right?
You don't allow for the X factor?
I'm not sure what you mean by the X factor.
The unknown?
Sure.
You have to prepare for the unknown.
That's why it's a probabilistic world.
It's not binary.
You have to be open to the possibility of.
Absolutely.
Just that there's not enough touchy-grabby-feely, or there's not enough transduction between, if in fact there's another dimension that's doing this stuff, and there's this, and whatever it all is.
Right.
Because if that exists, and somehow it manifests itself here, somewhere in the middle there must be a transducer.
Our science does not know if in fact that transducer exists.
And we haven't found it yet.
Okay, so in your book, how do you intend to solve a problem when there's a piece of it that you can't?
Because it's not a piece of reality right now.
It's not a piece of provable, actionable, I can do something.
I just told you that something is based completely on the mind being able to go through space and see something.
Yeah, I mean, again, that's not science yet.
That is on the edge.
It's probabilistic.
It is low-odds probabilistic.
Okay, it's going to be difficult to stay current if you have that point of view.
Now, what do you look at when you see, let's say, our system, okay, which I'm talking about the Earth system and all that, you know, you don't want to go political, but you can go system-wide, right?
So you can say the system You know, that's exhibited in the United States versus the system that, let's say, in China, right?
And you can compare and contrast those systems, right?
I don't do that.
That's somebody else's job.
It's a technology.
This is about technology.
Okay, what technology?
Anything that can influence the senses.
You first have to understand how the senses work.
You don't sound like you believe in all the senses, so I'm not sure we can have this discussion.
Your idea of the senses, you mean the lower senses, the ones that again you can touch and feel in this reality.
Whether they're interoception, exteroception, or any of the other proprioceptions, Yeah, I mean, to absolutely be able to define the efficacy of proprioception is impossible, but it exists.
We know that.
We cannot define the specifics of interoception systems, cannot do it yet, but we know they exist, they matter.
When you're using that word interoception, what are you talking about?
It's all in the book, all of the senses that are inside.
Well, I'm sure it's in the book, but can you tell me in reality right now?
What makes you vomit?
Something inside.
What?
Okay, so something internal to the system.
You mean something, in pterosystem, you mean something internal to the system.
Is that a definition?
Pteroception, yeah.
Okay.
Pteroception is internal to the physiology.
All right, that's all I wanted was a definition.
That's fine.
Okay, so just out of curiosity, so do you feel that you're psychic at all?
I have no idea.
You have no idea?
You've never had a psychic moment in your entire life?
You've never seen something before it happened and then it happened?
Everybody has those kind of moments, and you have to sort of judge, were they anomalous?
Were they statistical?
And so much of this can be statistically explained, and you cannot falsify, you cannot make it falsifiable or provable in either case.
They are really interesting.
Yeah, when stuff like that happens, oh, it's fascinating.
Is it statistically significant, unless you have a large enough sample?
You don't know.
So, Wynne thought, oh, this is going to happen.
Oh, shit, it happened.
Okay, this is the ultimate question.
Do you acknowledge there's a ghost in the machine?
You're gonna have to qualify what that means, because machine, to me, I immediately see a gazillion things.
Alright.
I don't understand what you're talking about.
Well, it's kind of, again, what I would call the X Factor, you know, something that is unknowable, something that is operational, but may be unknowable, at least thoroughly unknowable.
So, it's this idea that every system, probably regardless of what it is, could have an X Factor.
There could be this unknown that suddenly changes everything.
Sure, yeah, that's a classic line we always use in our field, is it's easy to predict the future except for the disruptive element that you can't predict.
Absolutely.
What was, I mean I'll go crazy, was Bob Lazar's element 115, is that real or not real, or was it a statistical anomaly?
Was it?
Does it require atomic level engineering that can bypass the quantum forces?
Okay, maybe.
Then you have to be able to actually engineer stable isotopes.
Can we do that today?
No, we really can't do that, not for a stability period, except Or if we could, then you don't know about it.
If it all exists and all of that's happening, I don't know about it.
Right, okay, fair enough.
But so, just out of curiosity, how much access do you have to, let's say, if I said the Secret Space Program?
Black Projects, you must be aware of unacknowledged special access programs.
I've got a wall full of books over there somewhere on it, yeah.
Yes, I'm aware of it.
Okay, you're aware of it.
So, okay, so that, when you say, you know, you just have to qualify your statement with me, at least, because if you're going to say something, we have it, we don't have it, you actually don't know who we is, and you, therefore, you can't really... We, the majority of the world, are unaware.
Consensus reality.
If it is a deeply buried, three people know about how to do stuff, Well, doesn't that bother you?
What?
That a certain program or three people or more or the military could know something you don't know.
If the allegations of what I'm hearing are going on, that is probably going to be a political shitstorm in this country, I would expect.
All right.
Well, that's kind of a political statement for a non-political person.
No, it's an observation of cause and effect.
I'm teasing you, okay?
Yeah, I don't do politics.
If it's true, then yeah, it's going to cause a shitstorm.
Okay, good.
Yeah, well, that's probably true.
All right, so I've been peppering you with questions.
Would you like to just talk about your book for my audience's sake and sort of explain a little bit more about it?
Because it seems so vague at the moment.
I think they'd want to know more about the way you think about it.
What they can do is obviously go down to the website and get the sneak peek.
That's it.
My website.
I guess you've done it.
Yeah, I've got it.
I've got it.
So the sneak peek will give you the complete overview of the thesis.
Fundamentally, here are the eight steps of the Metalwar thesis on how reality distortion, too much information, all of those things make us effectively operating in many ways at the behest of big tech, whoever's doing the influence, whoever's pulling the strings.
There are significant six fundamental disconnects between us and technology that gives technology an advantage over it.
Then you've got he who controls the technology controls the narrative.
You start gluing these things together and you put them against a cyber security model and at that point it totally echoes what we have been dealing with now for roughly 40-45 years.
And the approaches and solutions and mitigations to make improvements in the mental immune system, not improvements, but allow the mental immune system to strengthen itself, are very, very similar to what we do in cybersecurity.
So, it's really a mapping.
I'm a geek.
I'm a human.
Okay, let's find the commonalities and how can we try to make them coexist better.
Okay, so in terms of cyber security, how good is it, do you think?
Ours in this country?
Anyone's system.
Well, you see, there's no binary answer to that.
Okay, well, how is China's, how is Russia's, and how is ours?
Can we talk about that?
China is cut off largely from the rest of the world, so in many ways the public certainly doesn't know.
Certain groups would have a much better idea of how good their internal security systems are, because they're not really connected to the rest of the world like we are.
Russia's is probably some of the finest attack mechanisms that they have with their security and their security ends up being pretty darn good because they're always on the move.
It was like the Minuteman missiles of the 1950s and 60s in the U.S.
Keep moving them around and they get very difficult to target.
When you're an attacker in cyberspace and you're conducting cyber war of any level, then you want to keep moving around all the time.
And they're excellent at doing that.
All right.
The U.S.
and most of Western Europe, it's pretty static.
Everything kind of sits there because that's how you do commerce.
If I kept moving my website around and I kept all this around, it would be like Nothing would work.
So we are fixed into this avenues and streets sort of system for making the planet run, for lack of anything else.
That makes it harder to defend because the bad guys can always look and poke and ping and find a way around and they can do surveillance very, very easily and poke all the time.
Right.
Defending against that requires high skills of detection and reaction mechanisms that have to operate very, very quickly in order to be able to defend.
I think that we, I think that the defenders are always in a weaker position.
Okay, so in terms of surveillance, isn't that a big part of cyber security?
What kind of surveillance?
Surveillance means I need to, if I want to know who's coming into my network, Maybe in some cases, I don't care.
You're going to come to my website.
I don't care.
But I am probably going to log your IP address.
I'm going to see if I can scarf up your network ID card, depending upon how much anonymity you've put into your home computer or phone.
Sure, I want to know as much as possible.
When you're going into the system to actually use it, they want a high degree of accuracy and identity as to who you are.
And that may require additional levels.
Once you are into my computer, there is part of you signed off somewhere in there.
I can do anything I want to do.
I can watch every single keystroke you do.
And in some ways, that makes systems work better.
Right, so what about... I like flying around, I'm having a tab here, and I got a tab here, and I got another machine here, and I'm moving all these things around.
I want them to know every single keystroke, because it makes my manipulation for my experience better.
Okay, but let's talk about a more closed system like China.
Aren't they also more vulnerable by being more closed because of their surveillance capability?
In other words, if surveillance is seen outside, You know what I'm saying?
There's also seeing inside.
All right, fine.
But regardless, surveillance is a big component to a good security system, right?
If you're not aware of something, then you're insecure in that way.
We call them detection systems.
Oh, all right.
Okay, fine.
Okay, so in a sense, a closed system won't have as many detection systems, will it?
Depends.
Whether it's closed or open has no relation to how much detection reaction you have going on within it.
Let me give you an example of a closed system.
You're on airplanes, and you've got those big-ass GE, NA, NEX engines, made by GE, then Siemens, and Rolls-Royce, and all that.
Those are closed systems.
The entire goal of the engineering of that closed system is to tell the pilot if the engine needs to be turned off because something is going wrong.
The way that is done is inside that engine there are 5,000 Surveillance or detection points, monitoring, all sorts of stuff.
Right, right, right.
And then they get us some, someone figures it out, and if it's important, they're gonna tell the pilot, shut it down, land, whatever.
Otherwise, they'll have a maintenance report that'll say, in two months, it's likely that this is gonna fail, please put it under your maintenance schedule.
And that is an incredible, it's one of the finest examples of any closed system detection mechanism in the world.
Okay, now let me ask you this.
This is kind of more philosophical.
It seems to me that everything is in communication, and by virtue of that, that means that the more closed the system is, the less Chances are, the less opportunities there are for that system to perceive even a threat of any kind, because they are closed, by the nature of closed, even the closed system you just described.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
A system, when you say closed system, a closed system is one that operates within a closed environment.
Yes, but there is, we don't, okay, do we live in a fishbowl?
Hold on, yeah, a good surveillance system, that engine, On the plane is looking inside the engine, and it's also looking outside the engine.
You have to look in both directions in order to have, in human terms, and the book is proprioception, is how do you exist within your environment?
Right.
Whether it's an engine or a human being, no difference.
Okay, so it does have to look outside.
Sure!
You want to know how cold it is, how's the wind doing?
So maybe calling something a closed system isn't quite accurate.
Sure it is.
It's an operational system.
It's the operational.
Again, these are all very specific engineering.
Okay.
Yeah, I understand.
Okay.
So the closest is the engine does its thing.
And the only gaz into gaz out of the engine is a couple of avionic controls from the cockpit and make sure it has enough fuel.
Everything else is a detection reaction system.
And you want to understand the engine wants to understand everything about its environment it possibly can.
All right, so if the system incorporates AI, then it has a better chance of considering all those different things, right?
No, no, no, no.
They are going to use for those systems.
Well-known, proven, and I'm going to say generically, SOAR and IFTTT mechanisms.
Security orchestration and response, and an if-this-then-that mechanism.
AI is really, really good at the other end, saying, we're getting all of this stuff from the engine.
What do you think this means?
That's going to be outside of the processing.
It's a separate processing element.
Really, at this point, I don't know if anybody is willing to put that into anything more than a car right now.
And the cars are having enough trouble.
Okay, that's kind of interesting.
Okay, what about the human mind?
Because there are arguably, for example, pilots are able to fly their airplanes using their mind.
What about that idea?
No, they don't.
Pilots never fly.
Pilots are only trained to crash.
What do you mean by that?
Planes fly themselves.
Pilots.
Okay.
Their primary training, when they're, and I've been in these huge simulators at Boeing plant.
Okay.
They're very convincing that you're actually in a plane.
They are trained for when shit goes wrong.
When shit goes right, you don't need pilots.
Hopefully your pilot is pressing a button and drinking coffee for the next nine hours.
That is really what you want your flight to be like.
Because if the pilot gets involved, that means something's going on.
And I mean this very generically.
I know you pilots out there, there's more to it, and I get all that.
But at the highest level, the less pilot interaction ultimately, you want it when shit goes wrong.
You want that experience.
You want that training.
That's how Sully, Sully landed the miracle on the Hudson.
He broke every single rule there was and saved 151 lives.
Right.
By knowing how to crash the plane.
Okay, but that was also the human brain.
Yeah, it was him.
Absolutely.
Okay.
interacting with a semi-closed system in your words um i if i would have to go back to the movie to actually the book to see how much of the system he turned off but funny there was not a whole lot of system left i mean he was kind of flying a rock it's just it just i
i'm not so sure that you can actually talk about closed systems in a world that if you take into account that there is multiple and that you know dimensions and other entities and you know psychic and influence If you want to go multidimensional and psychic outside of the traditional physics, that's a whole different discussion.
But you don't want to have that discussion, is that right?
That is not my area of expertise.
I'm a cybersecurity geek who learned a lot of stuff.
Do I read this other stuff?
Yeah, absolutely.
Do I have opinions on it?
Yeah, but they're not professional opinions.
All right, well, I'm just interested in the scope, really, of where you go and how far you'll go.
No, I stick with hard science.
Yeah, I get that.
No, if you want to sit around over a glass of wine and go speculative on all sorts of stuff, yeah, those are private conversations to do with my professional career and what I'm trying to achieve to strengthen human cognition systems so that we can defend ourselves better against all of this information overload and all the other effects of it.
Okay.
All right, I'm going to thank you very much for being on my show.
Thank you.
I appreciate it very much.
This has been not what I expected, but you have made me think.
Oh, that's good.
That's a compliment.
And you also made me also... Piss you off?
I hope not.
No, no, the line.
I am sticking to my line.
All right.
Yeah, you are.
I'm staying there with heart.
I get it.
You're sticking to it.
Yeah.
The other bits, I speak.
But that's a separate conversation.
Excellent.
All right.
Thank you so much.
I hope people will want to read your book.
I certainly do.
I look forward to your comments.
Thank you.
All right.
Thank you, everyone, for watching.
▲
Export Selection