EPISODE 304 - DHS Leaks: Feds Ran ‘Cognitive Infrastructure’ Operations
On today’s episode of Human Events Daily, Jack Posobiec is joined by Libby Emmons, the Editor-in-Chief of the Post Millennial, in a riveting discussion of the Department of Homeland Security’s operation to control cognitive infrastructure - aka, you. Meanwhile, SCOTUS is meeting to review the constitutionality of affirmative action, a government program that demands racism be implemented to solve racism. Finally, Poso and Emmons provide insight on the U.S. Government’s plan to house fleeing H...
Who controls the cognitive infrastructure of our nation?
Is it we, the people, or is it the federal government through the national security agencies?
That is the question posed to us by the DHS leaks.
Now, joining me to get into that all today is Libby Emmons, the editor-in-chief of the Postmillennial, and she is also going to break down the Supreme Court arguments over whether or not affirmative action should stand.
I don't think it will.
I wanna remind you guys, AmFest, December 17th to 20th, Phoenix, Arizona, promo code POSO, AmFest.com.
I'm gonna be there, you're gonna be there, Charlie's gonna be there, we got Tucker, we got Bannon, we got Holly, McEnany, Owens, Tim Pool, Lauren Chen, we got Lindell, we got Bober, we got Stucky.
Make sure you yourself are in that room.
It all takes place Phoenix, Arizona, December 17th to 20th.
Promo code POSO gets you 25% off.
Ampest.com. - There's a lot of attention on Twitter during the election because of the Hunter Biden laptop story, the New York Yeah, we had that too.
Yeah, so you guys censored that as well?
So we took a different path than Twitter.
I mean, basically the background here is the FBI, I think, basically came to us, some folks on our team, and was like, hey, just so you know, you should be on high alert.
We thought that there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election.
We have it on notice that basically there's about to be some kind of dump of...
That's similar to that, so just be vigilant.
So our protocol is different from Twitter's.
What Twitter did is they said, you can't share this at all.
We didn't do that.
What we do is we have, if something's reported to us as potentially misinformation, important misinformation, we also have this third-party fact-checking program because we don't want to be deciding what's true and false.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, welcome aboard today's edition of Human Events Daily powered by Turning Point USA.
Today is November 1st, 2022.
Anno Domini.
It is the feast of all saints.
It's All Hallows Day.
Mark Zuckerberg, he spilled the beans there on Rogan.
That was weeks ago.
That clip came out where he stated unequivocally that it was the FBI that came to Facebook and presumably to her as well and asked them to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story in 2020.
And so we knew that there was some connection, some relationship between these tech companies and these tech platforms and the feds.
Now we're finding out specifically what that was.
And that's what the DHS leak story is all about.
We're breaking it down today because what they're telling us now is that the feds ran an operation quote, to control cognitive infrastructure.
What do they believe as cognitive infrastructure is?
That's you.
That's your mind.
That's the thoughts that you have in your head.
That they said, it's not just critical infrastructure in terms of your electricity, your nuclear power plants, the grid, communications platforms.
No, no, no, no, no.
The cognitive infrastructure of our country.
That's what the Department of Homeland Security was trying to secure.
Well, To help me make sense of that, we are joined today by the esteemed Libby Emmons, the editor-in-chief of the Post Millennial.
Libby, thanks so much for coming back with us here on Human Events.
Thanks, Jack.
So basically, I think what we're seeing here is we've always asked this question, right?
Who's in control of the algorithm?
How is it that certain things trend and certain things are suppressed and certain people always seem to trend and certain people are always suppressed?
And it's simple, right?
It was the feds.
We found out that it was the feds that were actually behind the thing, not just starting.
By the way, 2020, that was just a test run.
That was the dry run, because this continued all the way through 2021.
We're hearing that it included Uh, the Afghan withdrawal, which I don't think that was misinformation.
I'm pretty sure that was a big public overt event.
And then also, uh, information about Ukraine, which obviously is a hotly debated topic with a lot of different, I mean, it's, it's war, right?
So in misinformation, disinformation, that's part and parcel of, you know, the first casualty in war is the truth.
Why is it that the feds have decided to target specifically and that are well in language the cognitive infrastructure of the world, or really of the West.
That's our minds.
Why does the federal government and these tech companies believe that it's in our best interests for them to do that for us?
I think the government feels fully that it's in their best interest to determine what the American people should think.
The Biden administration, we have seen repeatedly, is very heavy on messaging.
Messaging is a huge part of what they do.
It's why they bring influencers into the White House in order for those influencers to then spread their White House's preferred narrative across TikTok and Instagram and Twitter and Facebook and other platforms.
We see this over and over again, and the government thinks that it's their responsibility.
They also seem to think that they are telling us what is going to be in the best interest of the country.
But really, it's in the best interest of their own narrative and their own ability to retain power.
Well, and what's amazing is there, The response from some of these people from CISA has always been, well, we did this in good faith.
These were meetings that were held and people could see the meeting minutes and they're starting it.
This was all done well.
And it goes back to that that C.S.
Lewis quote.
And I wanted to bring it up for everybody.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely expressed for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.
It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent, moral, busybodies.
The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Yeah, and I think that's what the government was doing.
I think as far as tech companies go, They were trusting the government.
They were trusting elected leaders to know better than they did.
Tech companies don't, do not employ people who studied philosophy and political science and learn to think for themselves.
That's not what these people are employed to do.
These people are employed to write code, to come up with ideas, to, you know, push advertising onto people, to manipulate algorithms.
And they don't have a lot of ethics.
They're not trained in ethics.
They're not trained to think for themselves.
They're trained to do what they're told.
and follow whatever this coding and stuff.
I did not learn to code, so I apologize for my language on that one. - Ah, busted.
No, but so what gets me though, and this obviously ties in with Elon.
So Elon is digging through now, he's looking at the algorithm, he's Neo in the matrix, we've said.
And he even put a tweet out where he said, there's something like 10 managers for every actual coder at Twitter.
So these managers, I mean, part of that, you know, it could be fulfilling these diversity ESG quotas.
And we're going to get into that in the next segment here when we talk about affirmative action.
But also there's this idea of why do we need fact checkers on the Internet?
Why do we need all of these things?
I'm fine with Snopes existing, right?
For as stupid as they are and ridiculous they are as PolitiFact and these other ones, I'm fine with them existing.
But at the same time, why are the tech companies listening to them when it comes to suppressing speech and then takes a step further?
This includes a whole constellation of censorship organizations like the Internet Observatory Project out of Stanford, some of these other orgs out there, third-party organizations.
It seems like they've done the work, specifically, of censoring our internet.
And what, you know, is said in these documents, they're trying to take over the cognitive infrastructure of our country.
40 seconds left.
Libby Evans.
Yeah, I think you're exactly right.
They are trying to take over the cognitive infrastructure of our country, and that's us.
And so we need to work even harder to think for ourselves, to look at all of the available information, and to make our own analysis.
We can't just trust the people who claim to be our betters to tell us what to do and what's important and what to think.
There's no reason we should go along with that.
And as for the fact checkers, they're so biased.
It's unbelievable how biased they are.
They're not even aware of their own bias.
They just tell us about it.
You know, if there's anyone we truly can always trust, of course, it's the federal government.
All right, we're coming back right after the break.
We are going to break down these Supreme Court arguments in affirmative action.
Stay with us as Human Events Daily continues.
If you want to know what the left's real plan is for your kids, just look at the reaction to the work that Patriot Mobile did in multiple schools in Texas.
The left is losing their minds.
Patriot Mobile is America's only Christian conservative mobile phone provider and a force for conservative values.
This is because they take a portion of your bill and fund conservative causes and candidates who believe in the sanctity of life, freedom of speech, the Second Amendment, and they are winning.
Patriot Mobile has affordable plans for you and your family, even your business.
They offer the same great nationwide coverage as the major carriers because they believe in... They offer the same nationwide coverage as the major carriers because they use multiple major networks.
Plus, you are supporting conservative values with every call.
Go to patriotmobile.com slash poso and get free activation when you use promo code poso.
Special discounts are available for veterans and first responders.
Join the movement.
Make the switch today and start making a difference.
Seriously, give money to people that support your values.
Stop giving money to people who hate you.
Patriotmobile.com slash poso link in the description.
Let me ask you another question because I take it that your position is that UNC is allowed to consider Other non-race-based personal characteristics of individual applicants, like someone's status as a parent or a military veteran or a disabled person.
And give pluses in the current holistic environment for those characteristics without running afoul of the 14th Amendment.
Is that right?
I think that is generally correct, as long as it's a criteria that is not walled off by the 14th Amendment and it's appropriate.
They can give pluses.
And so what I'm worried about is that the rule that you're advocating, that in the context of a holistic review process, a university can take into account and value all of the other background and personal characteristics of other applicants, but they can't value race.
What I'm worried about is that that seems to me to have the potential of causing more of an equal protection problem than it's actually solving.
The Supreme Court taking up arguments, oral arguments yesterday in a case for the constitutionality of affirmative action.
You know, I've always said, and Libby, you know, you come in here because I know you listen to these in great detail.
I've always said that, look, if you want to talk about systemic racism, if you want to talk about institutional racism in the United States, that's great.
Let's start right off the bat with affirmative action, which is a government program that demands racism.
On these institutions, you can also look, by the way, that obviously this started with college admissions, but we've seen these diversity quotas through ESG and so many other things throughout our society.
And when I think that when you focus on this idea of diversity, which is interesting, because at one other point, just throw it out there for everybody.
Clarence Thomas even asks, can you define what diversity is?
Can you actually define that?
How do we know when we've attained diversity and Second question, can you prove that diversity contributes to the educational benefit of the students?
Can you prove this?
And they say, well, it's, you know, it, it, it, it fosters a richer learning experience and it's, It's a it's a less biased environment.
And then, you know, Judge Justice Thomas cuts them off and goes, OK, but again, what are the educational benefits?
Because you're not actually telling any of us.
And look, you know, just to say it, the root word of the word diversity is divide.
It's divisive.
That's the entire point.
Yeah, I did listen to the oral arguments yesterday in this case, and I thought that they were really fascinating.
And there was a substantial difference between Thomas, as there so often is, and his more left-leaning counterparts on the bench.
Thomas argued that the arguments that were being made on behalf of UNC and Harvard's ability to maintain race as a useful thing for the application process, he said that he had heard the same arguments they were making as in favor he said that he had heard the same arguments they were making as in favor of segregation, which we know that Thomas has been on the And he's seen an awful lot of arguments going on here.
And he's not someone who will suffer fools particularly.
And has not taken advantage of affirmative action and things like that in his education.
It's not something that he experienced.
And I also thought it was fascinating that so many of the arguments in favor of allowing universities to essentially use race as a thumb on the scale to determine that one applicant should be admitted over another is that the use of affirmative action and diversifying a student body then leads to diversity in society.
and in professional industries outside of society.
So their arguments is very much that the outcomes that they desire justify the means that are used to get there.
But that's a circular argument, isn't it?
Yeah.
Because they keep saying, well, we want to increase diversity.
We want to increase diversity.
And he's saying, okay, what are the empiric benefits of increasing diversity for the sake of diversity?
And all they keep responding with is it increases diversity.
Right, so we want to increase diversity so that there is more diversity, is essentially the argument that was being made by the attorneys for UNC and Harvard.
And it was just fascinating to listen to this and to listen repeatedly to Thomas ask over and over again, can you define diversity?
Can you tell me what the educational benefits are to diversity?
And we've seen work by Thomas Sowell, among others, that Discusses how diversity is not necessarily beneficial, particularly for black students who have tended to achieve in greater numbers in environments where diversity is not the focus and instead education is the focus.
Individual pursuits of knowledge are the focus.
So I think that that is.
I think it's really interesting and I do wonder what's going to happen.
We're of course not going to know until sometime in the spring what it is that the court has decided.
Right.
And obviously, look, you know, I see when it comes to what we may know sooner if we get another Dobbs leak.
But obviously, you know, that's not something that normally happens, which, of course, here we are.
Another term has started at the Supreme Court.
And we still have yet to find out who supposedly the leaker is still there, as far as we know, unless there's been staff turnover or somebody was already, you know, planning to leave that kind of thing.
What I thought was really interesting, you know, going back to that that clip we just played, you know, Katonji Brown-Jackson, she's she's basically making the affirmative action argument in by saying that, OK, we think there was racism and that there was systemic racism in the past.
And the way that we're going to solve that is with more racism.
Mm hmm.
Yeah.
And there's also this idea, of course, that the word racist is not applicable to any group other than the minority, the majority group.
Uh, being racist towards a minority group.
So that's something too, is the definition of racism has continuously changed over the years.
And of course the students for fair admissions is arguing primarily on behalf of Asian American students who they say get the short end of the stick in not gaining admission when people are given admission who have, uh, less lower test scores and whatnot, uh, on the basis of race.
Jackson also said that because she believes that the notation of what your race is when you submit a college application is voluntary.
That that sort of creates a situation where because the universities aren't specifically demanding that you tell them what your race is, that means that it's not bad for them to consider it.
Didn't Mindy Kaling's brother, wasn't this a whole thing where Mindy Kaling's brother applied to medical school, was rejected as an Indian American, and then later reapplied and wrote African American, was accepted, and then conducted all four years, or however many years, of medical school by essentially just posing as an African American?
Mm-hmm.
Yeah, I remember something about that as well.
And yeah.
And he came clean about it afterwards and said, this is crazy that this system exists.
Meanwhile, by the way, um, you know, I'm, I'm all for it, by the way, if you want to go, if that's the system, then game the system, just break this thing.
Everybody, you know, pull the Elizabeth Warren, everybody declare yourself Native American.
What are they going to do?
What are they going to check?
They're not going to check.
That's racist.
That's racist to check.
So they're not going to check.
They're not running DNA tests, which was the greatest troll of that was ever done of Elizabeth Warren to actually get her to do the DNA test.
But no, Libby, I'm with you.
I think that I think it's possible that affirmative action could be on its last legs.
And I think that's good, because I think we need to go back to a society that's based on merit and actual achievement and not just based on the, you know, the color of the skin you're born with.
I think I think that's what we should be.
Totally agree.
All right, coming back, Human Events Daily, we're going to get into Guantanamo Bay.
What's going on down there?
Stay tuned.
Let's talk about what DHS was telling you in Kendalini and essentially that they're not sending and will not send, and I quote, Haitian migrants from the border to Gitmo.
How do you reconcile that now with your reporting of this new contract, this new ask?
It's exactly what we've reported all along, Gassman.
This request for information or request for proposal that went out from the Biden administration last Friday was to continue an existing program at Guantanamo Bay Cube at the Naval Station Guantanamo Bay.
It's a little-known ICE detention center there.
They call it the MOC, the Migrant Operations Center, and they say that it's going to staff up to 20, sometimes maybe 400 in a surge, migrants from Haiti, Cuba, other countries that are interdicted at sea.
There's no indication, there was no indication that migrants would be moved from the southwest border to this facility at Guantanamo Bay, but it is an indication by the Biden administration they're going to continue to use this facility at Guantanamo Bay So, Guantanamo Bay, back in the news.
For folks who don't know the history with me, I did serve at Guantanamo for about a year.
in Haiti to other third countries where they say the U.S. government says they can do so safely.
So Guantanamo Bay, back in the news for folks who don't know this history with me.
I did serve at Guantanamo for about a year.
I did an individual augmentee operation there serving in the interrogation detention unit.
But also there's this history of Gitmo that people don't realize about the migrant operations center is that those camps at Guantanamo, it wasn't originally set up for terrorists that were brought off the battlefields of the Middle East, that actually Clinton was the one that set these up and had to do with that actually Clinton was the one that set these up and had to It had to do with Haitian migrants, the boat lift people that were caught trying to get, trying to cross the Gulf into Florida.
You had to come up with some place to put these people.
And so it actually started as tent cities across the island.
And then because of there are people who are committing crimes or who seem to be violent, those were the ones that were initially held in these detention camps.
That's the history of how Guantanamo Bay was founded.
And so, at least in terms of the detention center, right?
The base itself goes all the way back to the Spanish-American War.
It's actually our oldest overseas base.
And the United States should never, never give it back up.
That being said, lots of great memories for me from being there.
Not that it was my favorite duty or anything, but playing with these giant banana rat rodents that ran around.
Rock iguanas that are like three times the size of anything.
And watch the, you know, watching crazy movies on these really bad drive-in theaters.
But no, Libby, when it comes to this idea, right, of holding these migrants at Guantanamo Bay, you can hear on MSNBC they're losing it there because they seem to feel as though that these people have some kind of right to come to the United States, whereas when you're looking at it from a perspective of Guantanamo Bay, it just makes sense because it's right next door.
That's the point.
Yeah, I see what you're saying.
And it does seem to make sense if they're, I mean, Guantanamo Bay is right there.
If these are people who are coming from, you know, the islands in the Caribbean and whatnot.
But I think that you're correct.
MSNBC and a lot of Democrats do believe that illegal aliens, illegal migrants Illegal immigrants, whatever phraseology we're allowed to use per fact checkers this week, do have a right to the resources and hospitality of the United States, so much so that they're not doing anything to keep the border closed or to even really mitigate the flood of migrants into the U.S.
Here in New York City, we've seen the mayor extending such a welcoming hand That actually existing homeless people in New York are feeling shortchanged because they're not getting the same kind of outlay of resources and support.
But yeah, I think you're I think you're exactly right.
And for folks, by the way, who don't understand.
Yeah.
Folks, by the way, who don't know the the the geography down there off the top of their heads from where Guantanamo Bay is situated on the eastern tip, the southeastern tip of Cuba.
It is the very next piece of land that you would hit if you're coming across west from Haiti.
It's literally right next to, obviously, the Haitian side of the island.
But, you know, we're talking maybe about 100 miles or so off the coast of Port-au-Prince, off the coast of some of these areas that have been hit.
So it's right in the corridor where these migrants are coming from.
Now, they're being interdicted by the Coast Guard.
We know that they're coming across.
They're being interdicted by the Navy.
Of course, you have narco traffickers and everything else wrapped up in this.
And I think, look, I think that it personally, personally, when it comes down to it, it makes sense for the United States to have some kind of handle on what's going on in the Caribbean in terms of these flows that affect our country directly.
We are a great power here and it's perfectly acceptable for us to act like this in our own backyard.
Yeah, we are a great power and we should stop apologizing for that and stop acting like we aren't and stop acting like there's some problem with the power that we have.
Uh, we're, you know, we're big and mighty and we should take advantage of that.
Uh, we've earned it.
I wouldn't, I wouldn't say that that means we should go around, you know, like searching for, for issues and say like, I don't know, Eurasia and East Asia and Vietnam, et cetera.
But you know, when it comes to something like this, I mean, this is obviously something that has a direct effect on the, on the American people, direct effect on commerce, on trafficking throughout, um, throughout our Southern borders, throughout our Southern waterways.
So why shouldn't we?
Well, securing our border gives freedom to our citizens to live and work as they choose.
I think it's important that we do that and that we respect the rights of Americans to the resources of this nation as well, instead of just constantly giving everything away.
We've seen this all over the place.
The amount of money that we're spending internationally is so amazingly large when you look at also the people who are needing stuff here in the U.S.
and they're just not getting it.
The homeless people in New York are annoyed that refugees and migrants and whatnot are getting more than they are.
Why aren't we taking care of our own homeless population before introducing a whole new homeless population here?
No, precisely.
No, imagine how history would have been different if we had actually annexed Cuba after the Spanish-American War rather than, you know, allowed independence and actually maintained direct control over Cuba, but by bringing them into the United States.
I don't know.
Could have been an entirely different scenario.
But Libby, we're out of time here on the show.
Where are your coordinates?
Where can people follow you?
I'm at Libby Emmons on Twitter, and you can find our work at thepostmillennial.com every day.
We love when Libby Emmons is on.
I think we're going to get her back.
Producer Angelo, put Libby back for a couple more days this week.
I want to get her on because her takes on this stuff are excellent, especially when it comes to the Supreme Court.
This idea of divisive diversity.
Should that be how we run our country?
Should that really be how we run our admissions?
I don't think so.
But as always, our promise, our oath, our solemn vow to you.
Be good, be brief, be gone.
Your homework for us.
Share this out with one, just one of your normal friends, then leave us your five star review.
Apple, Spotify, wherever you get fine podcasts.
We've got a lot going on this week.
Remember, we are coming into it is now November.
All right.
We're coming into the final days of this year.
We are in a fight for our republic.
Will our republic succeed?
Will these ideals that we fight for, The ideals of freedom and liberty, the ideals of safety and security for our people, for the people that live on our land.
Will they prevail or will we turn and enter into that door of totalitarianism?
I don't know.
By the way, little shout out to my buddy Lex Friedman.
Lex, if you're gonna have the CEO of Pfizer on again, buddy, you gotta ask him if those vaccines actually stop the spread.
