The Last American Vagabond - The New “AI Detector” Push Masks Much Darker Surveillance/Pre-Crime Agenda

Episode Date: September 17, 2026

Welcome to The Daily Wrap Up, an in-depth investigatory show dedicated to bringing you the most relevant independent news, as we see it, from the last 24 hours (9/10/26).As always, take the information discussed in the video below and research it for yourself, and come to your own conclusions. Anyone telling you what the truth is, or claiming they have the answer, is likely leading you astray, for one reason or another. Stay Vigilant.Bitcoin Donations Are Appreciated:www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/bitcoin-donation(3FSozj9gQ1UniHvEiRmkPnXzHSVMc68U9f) Get full access to The Last American Vagabond Substack at tlavagabond.substack.com/subscribe

It starts with a simple question and ends in objective reality. Through our journey from there to hear, we find one another and ourselves. And as the next 24 hours breaks free from our last, we gaze onward in reflection of the day. Welcome to the Daily Wrapup. Thursday, September 10th, 2026. Thank you for joining me today. Have a great show today. Some really important continuation of the technocracy growth in this country.

A great article from Whitney Webb about the Pancran AI detector, which is something that really needs to be discussed. A lot of people are seeing it grow. And it's interesting the way it's in a lot of ways, it's opening people's minds of certain things, but it's causing some division as well. and not even in nefarious ways, that people rightly concerned about what this may be and in many cases being concerned about things, you know, basically opening conversations about certain things that we can't really fully define just yet.

It really, it comes to play in the conversation around our artificial intelligence, transparency pledge, and the different concerns about whether just simply trying to demonstrate that we're, that anybody out there is or is not using it from your own accord being overlap with the conversation of whether or not this AI detector is in a similar conversation. And what I mean is there's very clear reason to be concerned about that. And I want to highlight the difference between the two and really clearly where this is going and, you know, dubbed hill that with what we've been discussing. The alarming surveillance and artificial intelligence, the pre-crime direction,

how this really masks this larger surveillance agenda. Before we get into all this today, really quickly, just wanted to update everybody since I last brought it up in the last show of regarding my father. he is back out of the hospital, got the pacemaker put in and is now stable and is doing better than before. We still have the other surgery coming up. I don't really like that. I'm continuing to update about this personal thing, but I know because so many people in the audience really do care. And it's just, it's very touching, by the way, the different people reaching out, the prayer circles. It means a lot to me and my father. But let you know just because I wanted you guys to

know so you didn't worry. But as it going forward, we're not out of the weeds yet. But he's doing good today. Another one I wanted to update on tomorrow, or today for tomorrow, is the, we're doing a 9-11 panel for the IMA tomorrow. It's going to be hosted by Off Guardian. Unfortunately, I don't think it's going to be live. I don't want to speak for Kit and Kat and the rest of the team. But either way, I believe it's recorded or live at, I believe, about midnight, so technically the 12th. And the only reason that's the case is because it's so often we do the Guy May shows where it's all of us here and then kit, you know, the middle of the night because he's in a different part of the world or Corbett in the same way. So he and Corbett now will be in

the middle of the day for them and the rest of us will be late and it's just, you know, because they're hosting. But so that being said, it'll be a good show, a lot of different things to discuss, obviously. And that'll be coming out tomorrow. I'll be putting up an article tonight by Derek about, you know, around the 9-11 topic that'll be on the front page tomorrow will be out tonight, but you'll see it on TLAB today and tomorrow, and indefinitely, I guess. And I just want to, you know, comment quickly on this in general. You know, I may do something tomorrow in particular.

I was thinking about possibly streaming our Q&A around Corbett's Al-Qaeda documentary, which I think is really what's myself Brock and Corbett. But it's just so interesting to me how I feel about this every year. There's really great people out there, like Richard Gage and others that I think are doing good work. You know, whatever your opinions about their opinions, I think they care very clearly about getting the information. information out and people questioning these things. And every year, the anniversary comes around and people like that, rightly so, are trying to go look, you know, let's not stop talking about this

very important conversation, as Ken O'Keefe would call, at least he has in the past, the 9-11 discussion, the kind of litmus test for people in the independent media. And all that to say, that when it comes around the 9-11, I often don't want to go out and do the, basically I feel like these dates, as important as they are, period. It's just so much. noise on those days from people that don't really care. And I'm not trying to poop anybody or doubt, you know, it's not trying to say don't look at content. But there's a lot of people out there that just try to jump in and add to it and try to get in tension and, you know, recycling conversations that they didn't research. It's just, and it's a lot of people

out there trying to benefit, I guess, from the sort of machinery, the industry built around that idea. And as I said, in many ways that it's important that we do. But just on that comment, just be aware, we, you know, be aware of that. As always, people, out there who try to use important things and things you care about to drive you in the wrong direction. But, you know, especially today with what I think is the obvious continuation of what this was, there's going to be people that try to deviate that and try to, you know, make you think this is one thing while what's happening today is something else. You know, I'll leave it there.

Just be on guard. It's a lot of it out there. But today's conversation, whether I put a pin in it and call it that or not is exactly, it's the same, it's the 9-11 surveillance state built on the back of exactly what they manufactured and created and we're a part of, and this is the extension of that, whether this was the plan to begin with or not. And you can go back to people like Zabigne-Brasinski in this technotronic, was it technotronic state, I believe? I think that's correct. It wasn't technocrine because I think it's technotronic, but written the book about exactly what we're discussing. And he and many others,

but, you know, discussed the open, the balkanization of the Middle East, which is what we're seeing. You know, so there's clear threads. Whether or not it was the plan or not is, you know, debatable. But I think it's obvious this is the extension of that. And I think this is just more surveillance control. You know, in pre-crime element takes us into a whole new level. And I think that's important to see the connection of that today. So actually wanted to start, though, with a couple of quick updates you might have seen going around that I think are just relevant to note on. One, because of, well, I think two main things are both, really, demonstrating that in particular this administration is, you know, rapidly losing support, which I,

believe was obvious in the beginning of the administration, which we were saying, getting a lot of flack for now. It's pretty commonly understood. Worth noting, just to see that we were seeing through all of that when others were not. That's demonstrating our value for you. And the idea on top of that being that, you know, that they see it, but then also I think it speaks to the larger awareness of the two-party illusion, the illegitimacy of the people that are in this government, you know, like the reality of questioning deeper problems. And I think that's important to continue to highlight. And so on that, we'll talk. about his meat conversation as well as the one going around today, which is the money being promised.

And briefly, just to make a couple of points before we get into the meat of the point today, but this I just thought was interesting. As you, I'm sure we, I mean, the reason I want to point this out as well is we discussed this from the day it was announced and some interesting thoughts and how it's been carrying forward sense, Argentina being one of the possibilities. Frankly, I think he would, he would go anywhere to get something that didn't make him look bad right now. So whether it was Argentina or Brazil or whatever else ultimately was the direction from the beginning, I think it was whatever he could get to work for him or benefit him at the same time, not make him look like he's failing.

The shoemaker points out that turns out Trump's mystery meat is coming from a Brazilian agro- oligarch who's friend of Melania. And it includes scraps and chunks of meat that have been frozen for years before being ground up and mixed with American beef. One appetit. Now, it's deeper than that. You can watch this. you can read further into it. I don't want to go deep on this today. I think we're already well aware that this is not something that you should be endorsing or something you should be eagerly going to find. But there's more to this in general. But in regard to the actual, you know, basically my point

would be done to get into the deep part of it, which we probably will in the next show, is the idea that it's something that is not in your, it's not about you. It's about benefiting the system, benefiting themselves personally while exploiting you, while selling you the opposite of what you think you're getting. I mean, this is everything they're doing across the board right now. Here is a Brazilian investigation. Recent, this was last year, during a 3,000 kilometer, and here's just the actual front page. You can see it. Report into Brazil investigation. I just want to show you a couple things about Brazilian beef case you didn't already know. I'd imagine most of you know this stuff already because it's not a secret.

During a 3,000 kilometer fact-finding mission across four states in Brazil, representatives from the Irish Farmers Association and the Irish Farmers' Association and the Irish Farmers' journal were able to walk in off the street to agrestores and buy prescription only injectable antibiotics, including highest priority critical important antimicrobials without any prescription, questions, or recording of buyer details. Why is that relevant? Well, you already know if you've been paying attention to the overuse of antibiotics in the way that they manipulate me, but let's go further and you'll see more about what it says. On the same trip, visits to farms, marts, and slaughter plants revealed cattle with no official tags. Removable tags freely on sale with applicator,

with applicators and removers and no functioning national database or animals of animals or holdings. Now, keeps you understand what that means. The reality is that these are the, the kind of, okay, for those that understand the like organic movement and not going to get into all the manipulations of that, but the reality of what people wanted from it and restaurants that kind of leaned into it. You've heard farm to fork, right? The idea, and I mean, it's not the best example, but it's to get the mind in the right place. The idea of what they're selling you, is that we know literally exactly where these things went from the farm directly to your fork, right? So it came in some cases from their own farm. We pulled it out of the farm. We pulled it out

of the ground, rather. We cleaned it ourselves. We, you know, fabricated it in the kitchen and then we cooked it and put it on your plate. So there's no confusion about whether somebody sprayed something or whether somebody, you know, whether it was stored, weird. That's the point of that. So in the case of the business agriculture industry side of it, it's more so arguably not about, you know, they don't care. I don't think about that's more about safety, at least ostensibly. The idea meaning that, you know, if there's an issue, if something goes wrong, if there's a virus, whatever, that it can be tracked back and dealt with.

Right. So either side of that, you see why that's important to the consumer and to the business, right? And so what we're talking about is it, is not a new story, guys. This is built. Brazil's like, I think, if not still, at least was recently and is one of. the largest meat producer, you know, I guess, shipping in the world. Distribution is the word I'm looking for. And yet the point is that if very well aware that these things are, you know, it's wishy-washy,

as the point is making here first is if I even keep going, is revealed cattle with no official tax. So that's one thing, right? So that means there's no real way to guarantee you know where it came from, how it was treated, what it was done, you know, what happened to it on the way while it was being you know, what kind of things they injected it with. and then removable tags freely on sale with applicators and removers, meaning they're literally selling the ability to lie about it.

They're literally selling the ability to go, oh, I'm going to pretend this came from the United States. I'm going to pull this off and clip this on, or within reason. I imagine it's not easy just to grab whatever you want and be able to fake those things. Maybe probably easier than we think, but it's about realizing that it gives you the ability to hide or to manipulate,

selling those things to people buying it. And it says, and no functioning national database or holding, so you can't confirm one way or the other. These observators, right there alone, guys, don't you think that's something that people in the, you know, I don't know, Maha movement that Trump pretended to support would care about? Or any Americans or all the ranchers that he pretends to fight for? I mean, look, he lost all of them.

Outside of the sycophans that yelled about how somehow this was benefiting them, and they existed, go laugh at them. that they want you to believe that him doing this benefits their farm. That's crazy. The reality being is that they're pissed and they spoke up about it. Anyway, it says the observations fundamentally contradict both the commission's public claims about the EU-Mercoursore agreement and the EU's own one health strategy on antimicrobial resistance and traceability. What we found, we found no evidence in practice of effective controls on medicine usage and farm animals.

Guess what that could mean, guys? you know, you fill in the blank. It literally could mean anything, but it could mean MRNA, right? Or any number of things that you might not want in your food that they're not keeping track of, things that might be done to keep them from getting sick, even though they're in really dangerous and disgusting circumstances. That's what we're talking about. No national traceability system for the 3, 238 million cattle in the country.

No credible means to certify beef from this country as meeting EU import requirements. But, you know, we're going to get a couple of points today. And this is not supposed to be a, I guess, nod to the benefits of the EU, excuse me. But the idea that in the EU even, like, for example, we're using chemicals in the U.S. that everywhere else is banned, including the EU. It's like we're just really bad in this country. We're in a bad position, rather, because our government doesn't care about us. And rather, not only doesn't care, pretends to care and, you know, lies to you and then

gives you the worst thing it can find, it seems, for their benefit. My point is that in this case, you're going to find that being, you know, not meeting their requirements. Well, guess what? It's being shipped right into the United States, no problem. And there's multiple examples of that kind of thing happening in other conversations we'll have today. We're in the EU, it's illegal, but the U.S., no problem. How does that even possibly make sense when the data is clear?

The EU is going to look at these dangerous things. Like, for example, one of them is going to be the idea of allowing devices to just absorb data while walking around like a watch. Well, in the EU, they say, well, that's not supposed to, that can't be allowed. In the U.S., no problem. There's no privacy. What do you mean, constitutional rights? It's crazy. You know, that's not even the best way to frame that, but to make the point.

Now what needs to happen as decision time approaches for ratification In fact, I'm going to leave it there just for time. Please read through this. It's quite, it's alarming, guys. You know, it's insane. The problem, the simple point, though, to read what you just wrote right there, what it just wrote in the beginning is that there's no way to verify

that what you're eating is safe or healthy or not pumped full of garbage that you didn't want in there. That's what Trump's giving you. EU audit leads Brazil to suspend female cattle beef exports over hormone concerns. This one is a recent article. That's right. It was the paywall. The point is that there's a lot of these kind of conversations.

Why? You just saw why? Because they don't, they're, these are, what these articles are showing you, in my opinion, are people that simply check and go, oh, whoops, there's a mistake. Oh, these things are pump overflowing with hormones that weren't supposed to be in there because they're not, like you just read. And this is a continual problem. Now, I'm not suggesting it's all encompassing.

But I want to be clear, this is not even a quiet conversation. This is been going on for, this is from last year, September 2025. The safety of Brazilian beef imports remains, remains at issue. Now, what's crazy is even in 2025, there was push back from Trump about these kind of issues. Not anymore. Why? I mean, I could get into the different reasons I think logically make sense for why he would do this in your face. But it's not even, it's, it's my opinion.

The bottom line is that it's happening. Brazilian beef's long, iffy role, it writes, in the United States, is caught between concerns over food safety and animal health. Longstanding concerns regarding the Brazilian government's track record on food safety and animal health. Brazil's failure to report severe animal health cases promptly has raised questions about its food safety and animal health standards. It shouldn't even be raising questions.

It's very clear to me, based on everything we can see, that they run a very fast and lusced operation because there's nothing there to make them do anything else. And what you get is the trumps of the world that take advantage of that for their own benefit, while selling you the best beef in the world narrative. That's what happens. I mean, guys, you can't miss the fact that if there's not tags and they're selling you the ability to take them off and add them, that's a way to circumvent this illusion of a process. That's criminal activity as far as I'm concerned.

And so when you say that they've raised concerns, it is an operation that's not concerned about the safety. So there's going to be issues with safety and health. Brazil has repeatedly waited weeks, months, or even years to report instances of atypical bovine, what's that spongiform BSE, is what it's called, while using the delay to sell more product. Which means knowingly selling tainted meat, knowingly selling infected meat using the window to get it out as fast as possible then saying, okay, but you knew what you were doing. You were selling beef that you knew was not safe. Same thing here. Brazil hasn't always practiced transparency and it's dealing with the United States in particular. Brazil had an outbreak in 2010 and notification about it was not made to the United States until 2012.

Two years of them selling, you know, painted meat or potentially meat that was infected and didn't say a word until 2012. Well, that's, I mean, places in the country, like inside the United States, restaurants, for example, that don't notify, like if somebody got sick, they can get shut down for that. But not a problem here. Trump's already working with them again. Brazilian beef has been plagued by other serious beef safety infractions, including the widely reported beef export scandal in 2017, Trump's administration, in which Brazil was found to be exporting rotten and tainted beef. Now, that's even different. Potentially infected is different. We're talking about rotten, tainted, like gone bad and still selling it out. I mean, you don't need, if this was 5% of the operation, 1% of the operation, more than enough to not

even look twice at this. Do you think he doesn't know about this stuff? The whole world knows about this stuff. And now he's going to be shoving this stuff down your throat. It should make you sick. I don't mean that as a joke. Oh yeah, the other part of this, which will probably make even more frustrated. Maine, who's a, was it again? I'm trying to remember the brain. I believe he was a military. What was that again? Anyway, it's not important. I forgot. I believe I've talked, pointed to him before. He says Trump meets privately with what is it, Jose Lee Battista, who controls Brazil's JBS world's largest beat producer. The next day, announces US to import 660 million pounds of beef, mostly from Brazil.

JBS donates $5 million to Donald Trump. Nothing to see here, right? Just the most corrupt administration in history, the most blatantly pay-for-play dynamic. You know all the stuff they used to yell about with the Clintons? Yeah, they did that too. And this is worse, though. This is like blatant in your face.

And not only, like, it was just one thing if you did it for something that would even benefit you, let alone something that's going to potentially make you sick. End of the day. Corruption. It's right in your face. Now, that's probably one of the reasons why this is happening. as you've seen going around.

Trump is now, you know, I mean, it's not even like there's a disconnect here. He's basically point blank saying that if we win, we'll give you money. And I think that's pretty insane for a lot of reasons, not least of which is that more than once in the past, they've leveled, excuse me, that accusation at Kamala, that Joe Biden. And in ways that were basically, I would argue the same thing, but at least with a little bit more tact,

or political maneuvering where it's like, we'll pass a policy that gives this to people that do that. And it's like, well, this is just blatant. And this is kind of what I've been highlighting about everything that is the Trump administration. Part of me asks whether it's part like design. But it's ultimately that you see them doing the thing the government's always done that people like us have always seen, meaning that not everybody can see it because they don't tell themselves the truth that it won't let himself see it.

You know, the corruption like the Obama's and before, like the, you know, the way that they will steal, but do it with a, you know, smile and do it very well and covered, but they're still thieving, right? They're still stealing. You get the Trump administration that comes in and it's like literally shoving money in their pocket. They're like, what? I'm the president. Article 2. It's like, well, they didn't do it like that. They stole from us and they did it with a way. I mean, that's why people in many ways argue the Trump side of this is better for us because it's not hard to see that they're stealing from you. But it just, this is the idea is that's just they're not, they're either very,

bad at seeing that they're clumsy or that they are just like they're the sophomore team that doesn't realize that they're not supposed to be there or they want you to see it. I don't know what else. Rapid response says Trump announces the Trump dividend. Republicans, if Republicans win both House and Senate because of your tremendous economic success or our, which is not the truth, I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen for $5,000. Now, not even to get into the fact that's like a trillion dollars it's not going to happen and even this now says well guess what he doesn't have that ability only congress can do that i mean these aren't even these are basic things that you could have talked about in everything he does whether it's ice whether it's more i mean this has been

the conversation about half the stuff he's been doing that well he doesn't have the authority well i'm the president it's just and then he go to court then you know some of them happens some of them don't these people are either genuinely trying to break down the last tendrils of what we think is the constitutional, you know, what we see as constitutional authority. Or they're just so shockingly bad at this. They don't realize that they're being seen doing it. I don't even see how that last part's possible. Here's what he said, very quick.

Doing is because we've done so well and because our country is making so much money that. By that he means him and his cronies. Only I can make this promise to you. Literally anybody could make the promise. And here is my promise. If the Republicans win the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, both of them. And look at this little crop shot behind them, like so clearly being careful with putting the right people just around him.

They're going to smile and nod whether he, you know, burps into the microphone. Like it doesn't even matter. They're like, yep, Trump's the best. That's what you're going to get. Sorry. Because of our economic, tremendous economic success. Like in history, we've never had anything like what's happening. I mean, does anybody even remotely? I mean, anybody, ask even one of these blind followers.

What is he pointing to? Where, what, how? In what way are even you benefiting outside of your personal financial benefit that's not, not has anything to do with the country or American people? You are profiting, which was supposed to be a crime, right? Show me where this country in any way is benefiting. You're spending more. Everything about what you're doing is detrimental to anything. I mean, it's just, it's such a crazy thing that he can just, you know, Yeah, I mean, he might as well just announce that he's Chinese. It's like, oh, yay. And it doesn't, we know he's lying. Nobody believes it except people who would otherwise go, oh, I didn't know he's Chinese. Trump's the greatest.

I don't get it. It's wild to me. But again, I guess you could argue that there are people that just go along with whatever's being stated and don't look for themselves, right? They just allow the narrative to wash over them. I don't believe that's the majority. But because of our tremendous strength and success economically. It was like a fourth time he said that same sentence, by the way, case you missed. I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for $5,000.

He announces it with this weird cadence. It's like this, you know, it's not even up because none of them have because none of them have like everybody else is pointing out. But it's just it's just a we personally, I think this is just a desperate effort. to try to get people to like, look, I believe that this doesn't matter. That ultimately, the end of the day that your vote doesn't translate. Do we really believe that they would put billions, if not trillions of dollars on the direction of something that they needed to hope you went for? It just, it seems like such, it's like the most naive thing in the world.

Now, I'm not saying that at one point that was not, that it wasn't ever, but we're at a point now where these are, I mean, are we all not acknowledging corrupt, like shocking levels of corruption and sinister actions in the world? but they're going to go, oh, I hope they vote for my illegal plan. Come on, guys. I mean, at the very least realize that we already know that they're all cheating behind the scenes, and that's assuming it even translates to the outcome. Just think about that for a second.

Don't take my word for it, but just go into it in both sides, constantly telling each other that they're cheating and they're stealing, and Russia did it, and they're making machines, all of which to some degree has value, you know, truth to it. But at the end of the day, it shows you, even if those things are true, that that means it's not actually translating. even if it does have some effect, there's thousands of levers they use to manipulate that. I digress.

The point here is that he's stressing this either because he believes that and is out of the loop, in my opinion, or because he wants people to think that these things matter. That's one way I looked at it. Now, if they have to pay for them, clearly we need to get out there and vote because it matters. Or that he just, the narrative is whether he's doing it or not is the idea of wanting us to believe to see the momentum. Because realize where this goes, whether or not the vote, voting translates, I think it's important the system is seen to have support, whether that's

artificial or not. That matters with what's happening and where this is going, in my opinion. But the president and the United States has no constitutional authority or statutory authority to issue a dividend check. Yeah, obviously. So as Daniel says, well, inflation is not like it's already, because inflation is not already high enough, right? Like, it's just, it's ridiculous. Here's a fortune article. Trump says he'll give everybody $5,000 of a vote Republican. Like, that's exactly what he said. How is that? that not, well, we don't even finish the sentence. It is. It is literally going, I'll pay you money if you vote Republican, guys. I don't know why that's even debatable. And there's a couple just

points that it says, I promise that again, $1 trillion, more than that's just insane, immediately raised questions. The initial reaction suggests bond investors themselves, like in the market, didn't even take it seriously. Why? Because he's already done this like six times and not followed through. Also, it's illegal to give people money exchange for their votes. You know, shocking. But as, Catherine Rampel says, well, since the beginning, he promised 5,000 Doge dividend, didn't happen, 2,000 stimulus, tariff dividend, didn't happen, that went to companies out of your pocket, 1,000 check via savings from ASCA, didn't happen, 5,000 dividend. If ours went, I mean, it's pretty embarrassing, right?

It should be. Here's Janice Girl just showing you the actual, the true socials, tweets, whatever that he put out, promising things that never happened. I mean, why, you know, right there isn't anybody going, you know, which they are, I should even say that, going, well, you lied to us there. never gave us that. This is the reality, guys, people don't buy this anymore. Chicago, Chicago Land Groper makes an excellent point. What if Democrats came out and gave us $10,000? Now, I don't know what he meant here or not. My thought was, okay, interesting, interesting

thought, right? What if they did? Like, first and foremost, what if right now, immediately following that, you had whoever the frontrunner Democrat can't, you know, come out and go, well, if we win, we'll give you 10, 10,000 dividend. Think about this for a second, earnestly, what do you think that would look like? Right? Okay, well, clearly that would be illegal. It would be the same thing Trump is doing. It would also be bribing for votes.

Now they're both doing it. Does Trump offer more? Is that now we'll bribe you more? Okay, but I'm willing to bet you anything. What you'll get is the Trump side going, they're trying to bribe, like calling out the crime. As much as that would be in ridiculous contradiction, I'm willing to bet you that's what would happen.

But it simply is the thought, the thought. If you would go, that's not okay, obviously why would you be okay with Trump doing it? And it just makes a good, you know, it's a thought, it's a point that makes you realize the partisan blindness, I would guess, if you're able to see it. But here are some good examples. I love this is you, this account, this you. This is MAGA voice, which by the way was one of the ones that got really exposed for

basically being some kind of a, I don't know, like a bot thing where they've got like six different versions of this MAGA voice, MAGA thing, MAGA time, whatever. And it's like, and it's just a bot reverberation of the. of the community. It's very weird. But they say just now, President Trump just stunned the entire room saying if they gave them $5,000,

they're all happy about it's the point. They're going, yay, it's a huge win. Okay, well, here's Maca Voice. Joe Biden is buying votes through eliminating student debt. He's clearly stealing the election. This needs to stop now. Okay, so he's over here going,

I'll wipe your debt, which is effectively, I mean, effectively the same kind of idea, right? But it's through policy. Because here's the point, guys. People have talked about wiping student debt before this, not in the context of getting a win from it, but in the middle of an administration about the idea of what it would do for it, right? So you could still argue it's bribing and I wouldn't disagree.

But at least they have some level of like of tact or like, you know, maneuvering where it's even if you went to court, you could still argue what was a policy we discussed for years before. So what do you mean? Whereas Trump just comes out and goes, I'll give you $10 million. You know, it's like it's just obvious what the difference is. Now is he just that stupid and clumsy? See, sometimes I ask myself whether that's the case these days. Or is it just because he wanted to see it or is there something else?

You can ask, and you should. Here's Johnny Maga. Same thing. Trump may just sealed the deal. So good. I've never seen the deal. Same thing. They're always like so happy about the thing.

Here he is saying Kamala is now attempting to literally buy votes be an unconstitutional measure that gives 20K and taxpayer money to black entrepreneurs. Again, same thing, literally, just bribing probably the specifically the black vote. If you think that's what they even needed or if the vote translate. But at the end of the day, it was something that they had already discussed in a different context about some kind of, you know, social policy, which I disagree with. But it's about the way it's done. And if you're, and that's too much, but you're straight out, you're screaming positive things

about Trump just giving you $5,000. These people have no principle, guys. They're ridiculous people that you should laugh at. Evan Kilgore says Thomas Massey. And I just put out a tweet about this. Just suggested introducing a discharge petition in Congress, essentially force Trump to give the promise $5,000 before the midterm election, which I'm not sure exactly that'd make sense.

But the idea simply says the intent would be to see simply how many Republicans even sign on to the idea. But I argue they would just go, well, it's not the same thing. But I think the main point is nobody believes that's even real, guys. He just, I don't even think his supporters believe it's real. It's just about, yay, we're the best. And, you know, just promoting Trump's thing. And, well, there's five times August doing exactly what he's doing, what Trump is doing,

making fun of him. people have spoken. AI generated political slop and empty promises is what they want. That was yesterday. So with that, I'd like to formally announce my run for presidential governor. I will fix all things. Right?

I mean, that's about as dumb as this gets. He's absolutely right. And guess what? The next day this comes out. And he goes, my campaign promises $500,000 checks to every U.S. adult and free Pokemon cards to the youngsters if we win.

That's how stupid this is. He's right. Perfectly calling him out. Now, as you heard just two seconds ago, this has been the most successful two years financially and every other way in the history of the presidency.

It has been the most successful two years financially and every other way in the history of the presidency. Clearly, clear, that was a different part of the speech. He said it more than once. I just think that's pretty embarrassing, guys. Now, you could argue what he means is for him as the president

and the inner circle of the presidency, and maybe they're right, Maybe they are shockingly, you know, benefiting from all the things they're stealing for everybody. Certainly could be. I think they are, in fact. But do you believe that this country is doing better than its impact? Nobody thinks that. Nobody believes that because it's not happening.

The people in that very crowd know their gas prices are higher. They know that their rent is going up. They're not stupid. Well, they could be, but they're not oblivious to the obvious reality that they're spending more on things. Now, they think, well, take it on the chin for the agenda. it, but that's not the same thing. You're not wildly benefiting if you're spending more. You may in the future, if you believe that's the direction. This is my point. There's supporters for varying reasons, blind, and then there's everybody else. And that's the majority, everybody

else. Now, you get people like this, like Luke Radowski saying stuff like this that I think is, make sure actually there was some, okay, good, 500 points were the last show. I'm actually kind of blown away by this. I'm going to at least something. I mean, he, commented beneath this and others that makes it pretty clear he means this. But let's just go and say for sake of conversation, benefit of the doubt, that he might be joking to a degree. Luke Radowski, after this clip went out about giving people $5,000, says, raising the debt $1.5 trillion is one reason why I'm, why now I'm thinking about voting Democrats. That's what he said. Who the hell ever thought I would say that? I wasn't going to vote.

but now we might have to so the country does not go broke. Wait a minute. I mean, I could seriously do an entire show on this, the insight into this that shows you that he doesn't believe in any of those things or the fact that it really shows you how the new media dynamic, there's so much to this briefly. The simple reality here is that if you're, and I made this point about the whole, you know, blue wave, redway,

thing. Well, let's just start with that. The idea, guys, that you could just jump teams. I mean, you realize that even, let's just take their narrative, first of all. We're being told they're Democrat, monster pedophiles and they're so different than us in every possible way, right? The left goes the right, the fascist, monster, Nazis that care, that, you know, hate everybody about white people. Well, there's weird, it's not the majority of everybody conservative and liberal. You realize, though, that they're framing for people to play the game, just like them, is that there couldn't be further than us. But now, because Republicans are obviously lying to everybody, how can the answer be to just go to the other side? Like simply what I said,

voting Democrats, like some sports team to support? Exactly. Did you ever actually believe the tennis of the right? Or are you now suggesting that the left today is more in line with the Republican values that you so dearly support while the GOP currently is not? I mean, how else do you look at this, right? Because if you've been advocating for the right this entire time and so constantly push the idea that you believe in these things, there's only one of two options. Either the left now embodies those things, which nobody says that because they don't, or you've completely changed your identity to be the opposite of what you ever been pushing because Trump lied, because the current administration manipulated, or the entire of the GOP lied to you. There's no nothing about this makes sense other than seeing it like a game, like a team that you jump sides to and you get to play it however you like. There's no other way to look at this, guys.

But the deeper part of this, I wasn't going to vote. Okay. Why? Why were you not going to vote? Is it because you didn't believe that the voting made sense? It didn't translate that it doesn't actually matter? If that's the case, then what would, why suddenly would you go do now because they're so bad? If the logic, if whatever, if there was any logic about not voting, jumping to do it because

they did something doesn't make any sense. That would either be that you didn't care or you now suddenly think that voting will make a difference. I mean, the bottom line is you can't piece all these together. In my opinion, this person is literally just phoning this in, leaning into what might get re-and-and-this is sad to me because I used to respect the work he did back in the day with his on-the-ground journalism and recording and breaking it. I mean, there's some good pieces that I still point to.

I don't understand this. And if you want just a real moment, the reason that I'm even pointing these things out over the last month is because it's disappointing to me. Because the reality of what these people are doing shows you that they've either suddenly don't care anymore or they never really did. And it makes me sad.

But I just think it's really worth noting that you're seeing this game. Now, what, they're suddenly jumping to the Democrat side. And my main point, these people, whether they mean it or know it or not are keeping you trapped in the broken system that even he was not going to take part in for some reason before he suddenly said maybe I'm going to vote Democrats now. So the country doesn't go broke?

Well, wait a minute. Are you suggesting now that Trump's going to be able to do this and that you voting will somehow stop that or that the Democrats won't do the exact same thing? The debt has the debt gone down once? You see what I mean, guys? Like, he just can't take these things seriously. Seriously. Okay, I'm done. They just, but it's worth diving into, not about him or some kind of personal thing.

It's about the idea of what's happening and these major influencers that are showing you something. You decide what that is, but it's something, guys, and it matters. Now, Tim Poole, of course, even responded to this. Now, Tim Poole is a worse version of this. If you want, obviously, as usual, my honest opinion. He is a joke in my opinion about what, the way he's demonstrated these things is pretty embarrassing the way that he's like, you know, give me the boot. I'll take the boot every whatever that weird thing he did. And everyone named me the boot meme about him. He's a,

basically these people are demonstrating that they're authoritarian's and they've been grifting as libertarians their entire life. Luke says the same thing. I'm thinking about voting Democrats. And it even gives this clown the ability to then stand on there and make it look like he's above it. He says, I do not think open borders and child sex changes are an appropriate alternative to overspending, unfortunately. You know, and again, this binary way because every Democrat, everywhere wants open borders and every Democrat wants sex changes. You realize not even in Congress, that's the reality.

But end of the day, guys, and I'm not supporting anybody in Congress. I mean, who knows if they even mean what they say, but it's just that they are leaning into the game, the fascist and the pedophiles, right? It might as well be a sports game you're watching. It's embarrassing. And I really honestly think that they know better and don't care. It's about gaining from this, but I could certainly be wrong. But see, now because Luke says something shockingly ridiculous about just jumping to the Democrats, it gives Tim the ability to say, oh, look, Tim's a, Tim thinking he thinks those Democrats are better and it makes him look like he's above it all or somehow superior.

Luke says, Tim, Trump losing the midterms is not magically going to open up the borders. Like, these are people that used to talk about how voting didn't make it, you know, who used to challenge the same things, two-party illusion. Now we're debating whether you, the midterms and whether the vote, guys, none of them care. Why can't we recognize the abuse of, I mean, Kevin, you seen the obvious examples of those weird floodgate videos where the gates are wide open? Yeah, the floodgates, but it's obviously open. There's no flock cameras. There's no investigation.

No one's trying to keep this done. It's about using it so we can, I mean, look at what happened with the border in Trendy, Ragua and MS-13. Are they even talking about that anymore? It's aimed at us. Right now, they're in the streets going after Americans and shooting America. But yeah, let's make sure Trump doesn't lose the midterms. Or in his case, let's make sure he does so we don't spend. the 5,000 that won't happen anyway.

If you have two brain cells to rub together, we have been closer to a dollar collapse more than ever. Good. Didn't you used to talk about how the whole thing? I mean, these guys are mainstream at this point. It's mind-blowing to me. Collapse it, good. There's no reason.

First of all, every, I mean, I don't want to go into every point, but every Fiat currency is failed in history. It will inevitably collapse. That's a given. They are already manufacturing that change into the CBDC direction. Right? So the idea, anyway, the Iran war is costing trillions. This adding 1.5, which by the way,

won't happen overnight will be disastrous. And it, okay. Okay. Agreed. So with spending a billion, you know, spending, you know, I'm trying to think of something ridiculous. So would, you know, spending 30s, anyway. My point is obviously, guys, that this is not something that is even likely to happen because it's not something he's legally able to do. And it's not something he's ever done. And he's promised it many times already. After economic collapse, there will be worse things to worry about. yeah, you know, the fear type of the collapse, you know, one second after kind of stuff where they're pushing the idea that, you know, it's, it's about keeping a World War III civil war. Now, there's real concerns here. But the push from these people is similar. You know, in, you know, Tim Pool is the guy pushing Civil War every 30 seconds. And Alex Jones is the World War III guy. Again, I'm thinking about it out loud, but the Republicans are not making a good case for me to vote for them. You know, again, I think it speaks for itself. It's just kind of crazy that that's what we're dealing with. Now, this person, bow tied meat head. Trump promises 5,000 dividends for every U.S. adult if Republicans retain control. He says, still have no regrets.

I voted for him and would do it again because everything about the left is horrendous. But this is the wrong approach and quite frankly embarrassing. Okay. And as Brandon rightly points out, what a horrible takeaway. That's the entire point of the two-party illusion. Just take the lesser of the two evils even though they work for the same people. what a scam the system is and it's clearly working. And we think about the stance.

I have no regrets. He's lied to you about everything. Like literally everything he promised, including the border. And you have no regrets because the left's just so bad. Well, based on that logic then, nothing ever matters. He can do nothing and you still support him. That's what he just said. So we see where the lie is or the trap is.

That's what they do. so people get lost in this cycle. And I'm hopefully starting, people can see by now that this, that's why it's falling apart. Because only so many people can literally undermine their own interests for something other than, you know, for anything. Self-interest is what drive people in the reality is that these kind of people are either profiting in some other way, aren't real or are so blindly adhere to Trump support that they don't realize or don't care that they're losing their money, they're, you know,

their livelihood, their family. family, everything. Now, five times August refers this ablaze. The blaze says, well, excuse me, the blaze posted Trump saying, America is not for sale. We don't negotiate with communist, socialist, or radical left terrorists, radical left lunates, excuse me, that's funny because doesn't that statement seem similar? We don't negotiate with terrorists. You can't mean, it's not even very crafty. He's literally, we already know they're calling him terrorists. But there's your new focal point, guys. We're in the red scare dynamic right over again. The radical left. We don't negotiate with people who have a different political opinion.

Like this is insane level of rhetoric, guys. You talk about like actual civil war discussion. Like that's what this stuff leads to. And like I said before, World War III is something that's certainly possible. Civil war is a possible thing. Jumping in every shadow and every time Russia says they have options saying that Civil War and War III is the stupid thing they do. But understanding that by literally creating the other within the country,

what they've done before is devastating for the country, rather for the American people. They don't care and then will root the benefits. Now, my point in this, before we go to the next part of it, is this is what manufactures the justification. This is the problem. People out there will react to it. Like these people, get those communists out of here. They hate our country, radical. And then they come in with the solution they had prepared before we ever got here.

Now, what's funny is, they're lying about it all. They don't have anything sacred. They don't believe in anything. And as five times August rightly says about negotiating with communist or socialist, whatever, he goes, well, I mean, kind of though, right? Yeah, what's Mom Dani? He calls himself a socialist commies, whatever term he uses. And Trump literally called him MAGA.

He did. I played it myself. People seem to act like that's not true. He literally invited him in. He shook his hand. And then the right went on calling him the monster that was going to destroy the country. How do you just pretend that didn't happen, guys? It doesn't mean anything.

They will use whatever term, whatever boogeyman they can to get their agenda done. As Jason Bassler rightly points out, different crisis, new experts. Same appeal to authority, same logical fallacy. 2021, trust the experts, the blue cap said, vaccine is for our safety. Trust the experts, the red hat said, 2026, walk cameras are for our safety. I know people see this. That's why people are waking up. That's the important part.

are seeing it. Now, briefly to point this out, to carry it into Whitney's article, Adam posts this, which we were already discussing, the Parody Jeff account being censored, still down, as far as I can tell. Last I checked, actually should have checked before. There it is. Let's see if it's up. Nope, I doubt it's coming back, guys. After this long, everyone's talking about it. It would only make them look wrong. Parity Jeff forces Grock to admit that Israel's committing genocide. Now, this is before. Grock got deleted even before that, or censored, which is insane. That's even possible that they censored their own AI bot because it said Israel's committing the genocide. Everybody knows that it is.

Now, Parody Jeff asked Grock again about is it. And they say, yes, it obviously is. And he gets suspended. And then this is the part for today. On top of that, and this is what they've done numerous times. Trump's done something similar. Our government many times in the past, they rapidly adjust the system behind the scenes. to make this all make sense.

Twitter updates terms of service to say that suddenly you are responsible for GROC. That's the truth. You will be punished for GROC outputs, an interesting sequence of events. So basically, instead of it owning the fact that they're hiding this information, which I'm sure doubt they ever would, they make the reality this. Today, per X terms of service, users are responsible for content they provide, create, post or utilized through the services, including things created by GROC. How do you dictate?

So if you go do this and make it look like that and GROC gives you something completely, like it's just insane. They're trying to hide their own lot. I mean, what it comes down to is this main point. GROC says genocide and they say, no, that's because this person. So are you suggesting you can make GROC say what you want? This place is AI interactions under the same rules as other content. so the platform can enforce policies consistently.

Wow. I mean, it's just so blatantly disgusting what they're doing. And it's obvious. It's truly obvious. As Dam Smotes point out, you are now responsible for what Elon Musk's beloved creation Grock decides to do. You will be punished for his robot saying naughty things. How is that for some free speech?

It's absolutely insane, guys. Orwellian doesn't do it justice. So keeping that in mind, it'll come up again in a part in the late, later down this point in the show. Whitney put out of a great article on the 9th. The Pangram Paradox. The problem with AI detecting other AIs. It's a great article.

Now, what's important about it. By the way, like I showed last time, I used the this here, the simplified article read for the podcast. It doesn't matter for you because you guys can't see it. But for those watching, I use this different view for unlimited hangout articles, only because when I highlight on the platform for some reason, it makes the text get small.

Just you guys know. So that's, we're looking at this article here, Whitney Webb, September 9th. The Pangram Paradox. Now, it's, it's well done. And the point is simply, like I said before, it's, it's causing, you know, people are rightly, because rightly concerned about what this is. We put out a transparency pledge. We'll point about, point out again in the second, wherever it was, here.

And the simple point on this, you'll find this at the end of everything we do. Oh, I know I did put it on this one today. I'm still getting into my routine. I forget. But ultimately, that it links to this page. And what it's simply demonstrating to you because of our own volition, not because we feel obligated, but we're choosing to be transparent about the use of AI on this platform. For us, it's none.

I'm not even using it for the images anymore just to make this point. It's none. And all we're suggesting or even just putting out in the world, you can use this policy if you want, whether or not IMA, you know, outline it your way, make it similar. It's just that we're suggesting that people should, of their own volition, be voluntarily transparent about the use of AI. So anybody anywhere could frame that as a bad thing. It's not saying, you know, even necessarily bad to do so.

I have my opinions, obviously, but it's about choosing to be transparent about anything, in this case, use of AI in the content. And it's in the creation of content, which is the important part. Now, this, even within our IMA community, it's drawn some concerns about whether that is too similar to the idea of these checkers, which we've discussed it pretty clearly. And the idea of transparency is nowhere near the idea of something an AI bot created by the system being able to dictate whether or not about you. This is about you as an individual choosing to make it clear to others of your own volition. you know, very different things. Now, but this is important because what these bots are being used for,

it's the same we've already discussed. As she mentions in the article, something like NewsGuard, right? These fake fact checkers that were used to sideline and to suppress and to delete unpopular or rather inconvenient information that was put out by independent media or on foreign policy or on COVID-19, right? And so this is the next evolution of this. As you can see, the idea of saying that this is or isn't doesn't necessarily at the moment mean delete or sensor. I do believe that's where it's going, as she argues in this article.

But it's also about the idea of the, you know, kind of putting it through a different lens where suddenly people don't see it the same way. Did they just lie? Now, the big kicker is about whether or not they're lying about that, right? People that aren't using AI that this system then either accidentally labels AI or it maliciously labels AI in order to manipulate the content. and then eventually what we're going to see. And I guarantee this, in my opinion, but I feel this is obvious. You're going to get platforms like AI or like Twitter

that then suppress that content, that delete that content because of some terms of service or whatever else. And then you find out that in some cases, it wasn't even actually AI. And all they did was use it in order to suppress the new type of content about tech, about data centers, about flock cameras.

At least that's one of the possibilities. Even if it's just a mistake, which I think we know that even what they do and will and can happen, but we know history has shown us that will be abused at least in some way. Flock is an example of that right now. Now, Substack's new partner,

and apparently the AI detection tool of choice for most major media outlets right now is called PANGram, founded in 2023, originally under the name Check for AI by Max Spiro and Bradley Emmy. Both Spiro and Emmy are Stanford graduates who prior to Panagram worked for companies like Neuro Tesla, and they both worked for AI self-driving car software or worked on it.

And again, both have been, she mentioned this multiple times, or I shouldn't say again, for me, but long been excited about the potential for AI to transform society. So it's important to think about that in them sort of shifting gears to then be able to, like, I guess arguably say that we see the problem with it and being able to decipher between the two. She argues in the article that may be some sort of, you know, in some way a, a slight of hand, when in reality, it's about wanting to alter humanity and transform society. And this is more of the way to make it seem like the opposite. My reading of that, but you'll see what she says.

She says, I find it interesting that two Stanford graduates passionate about AI's potential to transform society who then worked to facilitate AI-powered human-free driving software decided to quickly pivot to mitigate issues caused by generative AI. I guess you could argue that they've realized there were these problems, but I agree with her feeling in this, the sense that there's more to the story. Schmidt, Eric Schmidt from a previous CEO of Google, in a book in 2021,

authored by Henry Kissinger, essentially predicted that AI's transformative potential would cause what he called cognitive diminishment in the masses and make it almost impossible for people to distinguish between what is real and what is not. on their own. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Schmidt and Kissinger preferred solution to this problem, their preferred solution to this problem was that we become reliant on AI. To distinguish for us what is real and what's not. I find it hard to believe that would actually be their logic. I think that

was the problem reaction solution of it. In other words, to let another AI become the arbiter of our reality. Now, it says there has certainly been a successful marketing campaign to convince us that Pangram is the most accurate AI writing detection tool in the market. And as she points out, at least if their metrics are accurate, Flock has shown us that we should question those for sure. We always should have. Even if it is the most accurate and that does appear to be the case based on their stated metrics that there's still a false positive.

In the fine print, Pangram will mark something as AI generated, even if, by the way, AI was only used to edit a human generated piece of writing. Now that becomes a huge opening. Are you talking about just like grammar type things, like grammarly, which does utilize AI? Are you talking about a grok type of thing where you pump it in and it pumps it out? You know, what are we talking about? Because that's a very big deviation between content created by AI and people who, which, you know, it becomes the same thing, though. Are you allowing it to insert content for you through the edits?

You shouldn't be doing that. Right. If you want a grammar check, you don't need AI, right? But this is the problem, though. People don't feel that there's an issue there and aren't thinking about these things. And you'll see where this goes. So that's the main, one main points is people that don't do this maliciously. But let's say use some sort of AI thing to help, you know, like grammar or to, you know,

check for these and look for mistakes. But don't, but write it out themselves, who will then be marked as such and manipulated through this whole thing. And then what she writes in the article is that many of them are now because they're worried about being seen that way because we obviously see the writing on the wall are starting to try to write differently. because the thing is saying their AI when they're not because of associations or similarities,

even if they didn't use the edits and now being labeled as such. So they're now backward like trying to like self-edit or self-censor in a way or alter the way they frame words or frame sentences or different concepts because they don't. So this is, it's weird. And she does a good job to explain this.

So you'll see that in the fine print, they will generate, will market AI, even if they sense that it's been influenced or edited. The fact that, Pangam can't meaningfully distinguish between a text fully generated by AI or one simply edited by it. And again, within that, whether we're talking about grammar or the different many variations within that, or one simply edited by it, reveals that it is not an AI detector at all, as they say down here, but essentially as this article writes, essentially just an AI best guesser.

It's true. Based on the numbers and information, that's the truth. Indeed, the way PANGram works is by making inferences, excuse me, about whether a given piece of writing features enough of the words, phrases, sentence construction, etc., that are currently common in AI generated text. However, many human writers long before generative AI used a lot of those words, phrases, et cetera, too. Why? Because they language, and that's what AI is emulating. And it says, as a consequence, we now have writers who are altering their entirely human writing style in order to please the pangram gods. Because Substack is pushing this and hope they won't be falsely labeled as AI slot purveyors. Now, again, as I said, at the moment, it's more of just a tag, right?

Oh, that's one of those guys using AI. But there's going to be blind drawn, whether platforms say you can't or say that we will censored if you do or we'll shadow ban it. like that's where this goes and again opens the door for them to do it against people that they know aren't doing that or maybe just make a mistake about. She writes, this outcome is definitely dystopian. It becomes more so when one considers that the supposedly telltale patterns of AI generated text change as new improved models are released, particularly as they are literally ripping through mountains of obscure human written books

to train them to write more and more like humans, which we've discussed already. And don't forget, and this, it's such a horrifying thing. And it looks like nobody's going to care to try to stop it. These companies, Anthropic and all of them, buying up, like, and what I read about it, which is so horrifying, all just books, books by the pound, as many as they could find, and they chop off the binding, and they literally scan these books. And as far as I can understand it, not even for, like, the continual content,

not to, like, absorb the book and save it, as Glenn Beck lied to people about, because they're not. And then as last I checked, they're literally using it for the AI written content to train the model and then throwing it away. Like they're not even absorbing the book itself. It's about just using the information to help train it and chopping off the binding and throwing it away. And they're doing this with the point was the older, the better, I guess, for the way it trains them. So they're buying these extremely expensive super old books, one of a kind and breaking them down, not even trying to save it as digital copy. It's horrifying.

But so her point is that that's going to make it more and more accurate and then more and more hard. At what point does it become anybody's writing because AI writes just like us? And it says, meanwhile, the actual humans to keep a job in a world where the pool of writing jobs is already shrinking rapidly are scrambling to not sound like something that is rapidly being trained to sound like them as much as possible. The issue of false positives, as she writes about, is very important. Pagram's claim that only one in 10,000, Pangram generated labels regarding AI or human authorship or false positives. Well, okay, let's just say that's the best in town. That does appear to be the case if that's accurate.

We already know these people will lie. And it's probably done in a vacuum. I doubt this was done in a mass scale way, just like with Flock, that now based on every example in real world does not give you the stats they were promising, because it seems they lied about that quite, right? frankly, or they did it in a circumstance that couldn't be replicated outside of the lab or whatever, right? So I don't buy that, frankly. But even if this is the case, her point stands here.

She says, let us say, for the purpose of this example, that those two million publications do publish, she basically breaks down how many publications a week, you know, two million active publications. So let's just say that those two million publications published weekly. So just to give, because her point was on sub-stack, there's no definitive metrics on how much, right? She's just trying to get to a general number to make a point. And so breaking down how many active subscribers they have in publications, so she says, assuming that every weekly published for $2 million, then that 200 of them, 200, out of those $2 million per their rate

will be marked as false positives every single week. So there's millions of publications, right? But by their math, that's $200 a week. over a year, we get over 10,000 substack articles that are falsely being labeled AI, even though they are not. That's according to their numbers. Now, see how much that actually matters, right? Those are people's lives. Those are people's reputations.

And the people are taking this as gospel, even though it's not. And that's the best case scenario. She says, I see it as a push to outsource trust about writer's authenticity from being between a writer and their audience to being between Pangram and a writer's audience. audience. And we know what that leads to. As this effect stacks over years, it could theoretically make the pool of human writers whose work has not been labeled by AI by Pangram, smaller, smaller as time goes on. It is entirely plausible that the actual false positive rate is higher. I agree. There is also the added issue that if you run the same text through Pangram more

than once, like most of these AI checkers today, you'll likely get highly variable as opposed to consistent results, making Pangram's verdict look more based on luck of the draw than any meaningful detection of AI use. Another important angle to explore with respect to Pangram is the potential for this tool to be deliberately wielded as a weapon for the purpose of censorship and or discrediting a given journalist or outlet. Does anybody believe that they wouldn't lie about this? Biden, Trump, anybody in between?

Cash Patel, Bongino, Blinkin, and, you know, obviously they would, guys, and they've demonstrated that. They'll lie about anything. Now, it says Spiro, one of the creators, in particular, has used the verdict of his company's AI detector, despite not being completely definitive, if the numbers are even accurate, to make weaponized claims about specific journalists and outlets. He's out there doing that online about this says they're using AI, even though he knows it's not definitive. Now, it says, as an example of what types of new issues have had emerged as a result of AI's growing use, Sparrow offered, quote, large language model powered Russian disinformation campaigns

and UAE influence campaigns on Twitter, of course. As she writes, perhaps you remember the time, perhaps you remember independent media that was deemed inconvenient to the powers that be, particularly about U.S. proxy wars abroad, were falsely labeled as Russian disinformation, us included. You may remember pro-Israel influence,

and media outlets, similarly claiming that criticism of Israel in recent years is allegedly driven from funding from Qatar. Or what about the newer claim that large language models powered bot accounts from China that had no reach whatsoever had really secretly, were really secretly behind America's growing distrust of big tech and discontent over data centers? I mean, it's so obvious who's driving this from the inner circle of the technocrats and Trump's administration to make us believe that there's a race when there's not. as a way to discredit not only the critics themselves,

but also to discredit the broader concern, right? That's what they're doing. And that applies to any of this, whether it's this very thing, whether it's data centers, flock cameras, it's about trying or even before this, about talking about foreign wars, right?

You're an Assad apologist or whatever. That's the same thing. That's a way to discredit people. And the concern itself, right? So the idea of data centers being a thing, as Trump has been pushing, you're stupid if you don't, don't believe in them, right? That's what he's been telling people. You don't want to make money?

Well, you're not going to if this happens anyway. She says, I do not know if Sparrow's intent with PANGram is to similarly weaponize his company's product, right? But it's certainly possible. The fact that Sparrow's Pangram, of course, is partnered with NewsGuard, certainly increases that possibility. NewsGuard. NewsGard is a dubious fact checker that was initially created to discredit independent media outlets critical of U.S. foreign policy while giving admitted U.S. propaganda outlets, like Voice of America, a pass, about many stories that they were verifiably wrong about in the moment. Now, with Pan Graham, NewsGuard, is determining what is AI slop and what is not and has used PanGram to launch a, quote, real-time AI content

farm detection service. So, you know, this, even right here, you're starting to feel why this may overlap with the pre-crime surveillance dynamic. But we're not even there yet. Well, What's crazy is that this is, you know, NewsGuard. And as much as they try to make this about, you know, Biden or a left-right thing, both sides leaned into this. It started under Trump. Biden used it the same way. It's obvious.

And this even overlaps with Garm and where this ultimately went that Elon leaned into it. And about 93% of the things they, he took down for them. I mean, we went over all this, even though it got lied about at the time. What better way to digitally nuke a group of reporters and any accompanying wave of public sentiment then by using a now trusted AI detector to label both the writers and the sentiment as inauthentic and machine generated. Content labeled AI generated eventually becomes algorithmically demoted. That's what I believe.

At some point, whether it's just, you know, and they don't even make this clear. They may just lie about it, but it will be downgraded. They'll be pushed to the side, even, you know, just because you get labeled as such and will be used that way. The public will be told that the AI slop is being buried when in reality, it's simply dissent. The way it looks to me, she writes, is that Pangram is currently in the phase

of normalizing the ubiquity of its product and building trust, with those who use Substack or any other platform or browser plugin that integrates PANgram. During this period, readers will be trained to see a Pangram label and trust its results with no further information needed. We know how this plays.

As has been said before about online products, if the product is free, then you are the product. In this case, it is free. She says, I think that training you to outsource your trust to Pangram from the person or outlet you are reading is the product. Once you trust an AI detector tool, you will trust its verdicts, perhaps even over the writer you had grown to trust. Pangram's co-founders did not make Pankram to protect human generated writing and speech.

Pangram's co-founders have long been excited that AI will, quote, transform society. and immediately prior to PanGram were developing algorithms to replace human drivers with AI. As noted above, they created a pangram to stop what they referred to as state-sponsored influence operations, among other issues that emerged upon the public release of generative AI tools. With their former big tech employers, employers having public sentiment move against them, whether on data centers or smart glasses or something else, and this is clear, guys. I mean, they're writing articles about it. even they're expressing it. All of this country is against this move, even though Trump is pushing it,

even though he says that if you don't want it, you're not American or whatever his statement was, that you're not on the team, right? So his team is the oligarchs, the elitists, it's pretty obvious. But she goes on to say that with their former big tech employers having public sentiment move against them, Pan Graham's co-founders may offer a new way of doing a way with accounts deemed too critical of AI's transformation of society. Maybe not, but for, forgive me for being skeptical, she writes. She says, if you're a reader, ask the writers, in general sense, platforms you engage with, ask the writers you're reading to disclose their use of AI. Trust should be built between writers and the reader directly without an AI middleman,

an arbiter of authenticity or humanness. This is made clear in our AI use policy, what she links to, and this is, I should add it open, actually. There's just their pop-up here. As you You can just read it for yourself. It's just simply saying that they're not using AI, right? And this is the AI policy discussion that we put out as a group. You can watch it if you want. This is the Whitney, myself and Derek, discussing the release of our AMI, basically our individual transparency pledges

for our individual platforms and then our joint project with the IMA and the discussion of that being something that, even within the IMA, though, it was just something that we put out as an idea, as a tool. They can decide to use if they want to. It's really not for even anybody. Whoever wants to is the point. Otherwise, it becomes something like,

that's what I discussed earlier. It's about of your own volition if you choose to. So you can watch the video here and you can read the transparency pledge and the page itself as well as the actual page on right here, TLAB itself, which is just the same thing with the video,

but a smaller breakdown. So she says, we created this policy after helping create the IMA transparency pledge, which encourages independent journalist and outlets to voluntarily disclose if you choose AI and how. She says, I'm not going to run my articles obsessively through Pangram, I don't know why anybody would, hoping for a 100% human generated result. That's a really important to think about because so this is separate than people who are using AI and maybe trying to hide that or AI who are, you know, trying to hope they don't get

caught. What this is, this is about the very, the weird Orwellian kind of social engineering side of this, which is that there are people who are now. trying to get, you know, alter themselves to meet what they say as human. Think about a wild that is. And then on top of that, going through repeatedly until they get 100% and altering stuff. So you're basically being trained against being natural. That's just, it's, I mean, Orwellian doesn't do justice, guys. That's insane. And it says, I am not going to let fear of an unfavorable pangram result change how I write and make me afraid of using words like delve or profound because Pan Graham might punish me. I know I write without AI and I have enough trust with

my readers that they know I don't use it in my writing either. It's never a good idea to outsource your critical thinking and your opinions to others, especially not human AI, well written. I mean, I don't say, I can't say I've used delve often, but I've written it before, profound more than once. You know, it's like these kind of things are, it's just, it's interesting. So it's almost like it's dumbing you down to be more human. It's very interesting. But as, and I'm not, I'm I'm not saying that you should trust any of us. Don't blindly trust me. You shouldn't.

But I am telling you the truth. And the reality is that we don't use it in anything we create. Like I said, I'm not even using it for making images anymore. So when you see this, you can know that. And not only just if you see this, I may actually, you know, forget to put it.

The point is that because of the pledge on the website, unless I update that, you can feel, you can trust that we are doing that. Now, like I said, question me. But that's the point. Like he says, is that you develop that with, people who you engage with. And it's your prerogative and your decision to develop that or not.

Asking the government to decide for you, I mean, historically is the stupidest thing you could possibly imagine, since they've lied to you every time before that in using these very things. But on top of that, it's just, it's outsourcing your own intelligence. It absolutely should matter. So we wrote about pan or rather did a show about NewsGuard in 2019. I just want to point out that this was being used on Trump's under and in Trump's administration. Newsguards war on alternative media. That's an important one.

We talked Derek wrote an article in 2020. This is why you can't trust fact checkers about newsguard. Newsguards one of the number one was one of a number of fact checker services, which has proliferated since the election of Donald Trump, F2 U.S. president. In previous investigations, TLAB writer Whitney Webb exposed the neoconservative roots of the news Guard team. Webb wrote, NewsGuard's advisory board makes it clear the newsguard was created to serve the interest of the American oligarchy and then goes on to list people, you know, basically direct ties to the Republican side of it, to Trump's team. And overall, the idea that it's not

partisan guys. Because what ultimately happened is you have efforts to try to make it about the news guard was a Biden thing. It connected to Biden. It's timing, guys. It's obvious. It's not one or the other. It's all of them. Whitney wrote this in 2019. How I Neocon backed facts. checker plans to wage war on independent media. Those for mid-press news. I'll include the transparency pledge. Now, in 2024, we talked about the Garm Twitter manipulation, where there were people trying to act like somehow, I think the cats hopefully out of the bag, ladies and gentlemen,

that Twitter is not what Elon Musk or not what they pretend to be as this recent show on the seventh. The two major examples, we went over the parody Jeff already. the other was the CEO of a flock, where Twitter was censoring anybody that simply acknowledged that he asked Google to blur his house in a special personal way

because he wants privacy while he's spying on you. And everyone from James Lee, anybody else I found, they got censored on Twitter for simply stating that. These guys are so, and they know what they're doing. They literally couldn't care less.

And they also know that you're going to see that and they do it anyway. It shows you how important that is. So this part of it goes back, back to 2024, where Garm was this group that was framed as somehow the other side. Well, Elon Musk was complying with it 93% of the time to censor your content. Funny how much you can see this when you look back. Now, this is an article that came out of the night talking about specifically anthropic and the idea of pre-crime.

Now, keeping all that in mind and where that goes, you'll see the many different ways that that system interlocks with what we're discussing. Now, not only being able to censor your content to, you know, to degrading, you know, to degradation, to sort of suppress it, to push it into a corner where nobody can see. It's also surveillance, right? It's about something that is being used to monitor and absorb and grade everything. Right. So think about that as one piece of a much larger predictive surveillance tool.

So this is the American prospect. Anthropic is building a predictive surveillance system to monitor activists. As James Lee posted on Twitter, remember when they were trying to convince us, Anthropic was the good version of AI? As always, problem. reaction solution. Now, who knows if that's the design or just the way it ended up, but that's what you can see in it, right? This effort to make you think. So it's not about whether we should, right, but which one? That's always how this works. So Anthropic was the

one, oh, they're the better one. So you end up going, oh, good, we're using, you know, they're all being used is the point, as Whitney makes it. I'll read in a second. But this, guys, whether it's Palantir, Anthropic, or all of them combined, which is really what I think is where it's going. This is about exactly what we've been warning about. using your data that they've taken without your authority, biometrics included, and using this to tell you whether you will be a criminal tomorrow. And enforcing. Bill Barr, as Whitney's pointed out many times,

really initiated this under Trump's first administration. We saw the spearhead of that, you know, rather the proliferation of that under Biden during COVID-19. And here we go with Trump carrying the baton. One second. Pars me. You had to drink something real quick for some reason. I'm also getting dry. So job postings and interviews with senior security officials at Anthropic, the article reads,

show that the frontier AI lab is building out an extensive monitoring system to keep tabs on activists who oppose the rapid development of artificial intelligence. Well, look at that. So now if you're protesting something that you have a right to protest in this country because it's your right and something that most of this country is concerned about and that the world sees the potential danger, well, they're going to be. going to track you, right? They're going to keep tabs on your opinions because that's what happens in a free country in America, right? Guys, in addition to monitoring activists, oh, by the way,

let's be very clear, this is not an individual company doing this of their record. It's for the government. It's for police stations, as it says in here, but right out of the gate, we need to know that. With what, I mean, Trump, the U.S. government was very clearly, I mean, at least on the surface, and I would think they wanted us to see this based on where this goes, but who knows, were like strong arming Anthropic to do what they wanted. And Anthropic was like, no, we care about privacy and people's, and then ultimately bowed. Now, did they care?

Was that all a show? Either way, it's dangerous. If it was all a show, then that's alarming. If it wasn't a show, then effectively they got forced to base, you know, what, bow to not caring about privacy. Yeah, it's alarming about how do you spin this? So in addition to monitoring activists in the vicinity of anthropic executives, which is one part of it,

and keeping tabs on protests near physical anthropic assets. So of their own personal stuff, you know, the firm is also implementing a pre-crime approach, attempting to predict incidents before they happen. In some cases, that also means reporting suspects to police before a crime occurs. I mean, do you really think Anthropic is just out there doing this of their own accord?

To what end? To what return? They have shareholders. these are companies. So to pretend for one second that Anthropic just of a, you know, as a good citizen,

reports what they found, the guy, I don't believe that. And I think it's obvious that there's government contract. There are connections that you can't hide from in this point.

And look, this, even according to Trump, all of this, AI data centers, it is national security. It is the government. In addition to honoring activists in the vicinity,

I read that, uh, yeah, basically Anthropic did not respond to the article for comment on that. Anthropics plans to surveil dissent are at odds with the firm's efforts to cast itself as the responsible alternative to open AI. At the beginning of the year, the Department of Defense and Anthropic engaged in a high-profile dust-up over Anthropics refusal to allow the military to use

its tools for mass domestic surveillance, autonomous weapons. So pretty clearly, you can argue that now they either don't care or were, they were forced to ignore that concern. I mean, because now they're working together, and they're clearly doing both. That tension seems to have eased as anthropic hires for national security sales positions seeking to restart military contracts with the U.S. government. The increase in threat monitoring of domestic opponents fits with a renewed focus on national security. Quote, last year, we had an executive travel into a major city when we received some intelligence through Sam Desk about a plan protest.

So this is the framing of it as their, their own personal, you know, we were doing this and we used this to make to be catch wind of a protest, which the idea of, you know, why, why we suddenly today frame any protest is some like violent mob is important to think about guys. And it says, Ellison said that Anthropic used this data to devise an alternate route for the executive and funneled them into a service entrance at the hotel. Quote, what, what could have been a high stress situation was really mitigated through early detection through Samdask. So people are protesting because you guys, doing things nobody wants and that you frame them some kind of like violent thing and that you

were able to work around it like at some kind of, you know, insurrection force or something or some kind of, you know, it's the framing of the radical left terrorist. It's obvious and is a means to an end. We track concerning behavior over time through a person of interest process, allowing us to catch escalation patterns early. According to the journal, several individuals involved in incidents reported to police were already being. track by Anthropic security. Think about that. Last month, the San Francisco Standard reported that Anthropic had reported a man to San Francisco police for telling Claude in his own engagement with this device that he had bought an AR-15 semi-autonic rifle and had CEO Dario Amadi

in his sights. Of course, he told the newspaper he was just effing around. Didn't we just discussed this where a kid was typing on his computer in his mother's kitchen and said something, it was something, we didn't even get into it. The point was, you know, it was the kid's stuff was all private because he's a kid as a child. But the bottom line was it wasn't something, it was like, you know, I hope they don't wake up tomorrow or something like that about a teacher, LOL, and then deleted it, didn't even hit send. He was suspended that day because they were tracking his keystrokes as a school. Kids are being forced. to give their biometrics to sign on to public computers in a school.

That's not, why would you need their biometric? It's not a personal thing. There's no security there. It's clear what's happening, guys. So the idea of this is just one more example. So they're tracking you. Everything. Real time.

But while Anthropic was fast to call the cops on a frustrated clog user, the standard was also reported a key detail. Anthropic refused to show the police the actual messages. Citing Anthropic. internal policy. Right? So we care about your private, I mean, so we'll tell them you did it.

We'll give them all the information, but we won't show them the physical thing. I mean, how does that even meet the policy? You already gave them the information. But so at the end of the day, it also means they could just lie about these things. In short, Anthropic reported a user for in-platform speech, reported a user for in-platform speech,

and then refused to provide police with evidence of actual wrongdoing. Didn't stop them from doing something about it, though, did it? The kind of pre-crime policing, encouraged without due process, is referenced as an explicit goal by Anthropic Security Program Manager in a podcast reviewed by this platform. This kind of pre-crime policing without due process is publicly and explicitly argued by a security program manager by Anthropic. Quote, the goal would be transforming operations.

from reactive information to gathering proactive and predictive and preventative threat engagement and management. Wow. Identify, assess, track, and investigate global threats, including geopolitical instability, terrorism, crime, activism. That's their word. Nation state targeting of the AI sector and emerging security trends, including deep dive research and open source intelligence collection on specific threats, actors, events.

So open and sort, that means everything today. To them, that means everything. Everything you're typing, everything you're saying, everything. Everything they've unsilode and train their models on. Everything. Your personal medical information, that's what we're talking about today, guys. I don't know how many times we can emphasize how important that is. And look at what they frame.

So again, this is Anthropic. Part of the role they're discussing here of Anthropics is to build. Oh, really, this was specifically about the, person they're hiring for this job when you read the article being paid upwards of $230,000 to identify, assess, track, and investigate global threats. So global threats is the precursor. Geopolitical instability, terrorism, crime, activism, anthropic lists global threats as activism.

How do you even make sense of that? How is activism in any sense, anywhere at goal, maybe because they worry from a global precision that people in the world will stand against them. Pretty damn alarming, if you ask me. I mean, you tell me how that can even be misunderstood. And so this is what the, everybody, governments, I mean, obviously we see what's going on with them.

But this is an individual side of this and it's supposed to be the good version. The expansion of Anthropics intelligence gathering to a national and even global scale tracks with recent efforts to height, the labeling of AI, as we just discussed, and the infrastructure powering it, including data centers and power supply, critical infrastructure designation. That's what we just talked about. That's where this is already going. And the labeling of AI. So it's part of the dynamic,

all of it. Enshrining Frontier Labs in the hardened cloak of national security would not only give Anthropic Open AI, Google, note the obvious choice to omit GROC, even though it's an important, large one in the conversation. That seems to be ubiquitous, by the way. Excuse me. And Google, even more access to intelligence products generated by federal law enforcement. On top of what they're doing. And intelligence agencies.

It would also emboldened these companies to shape how federal agencies view threats to their bottom line, now transformed as critical infrastructure. It's not hard to imagine how. civic engagement by the same bipartisan coalition opposing data centers could turn its focus on AI, only to be branded in the same instant as extremists or even worse. Terrorists. You are a terrorist if you resist. They've already told you this.

That was two months ago. That was something they already told you. Trump, his executive orders, they've made this undeniably clear. As Anthropic ramps up its efforts to monitor dissent within how. house intelligence teams. In-house. An AI company has in-house intelligence teams and real-time protest tracking, powered by artificial intelligence.

It will have to contend with the increasing economic depression desperation that plagues human beings outside of its Bay Area towers, including, as they mentioned, their own security guards who almost, they threaten to go on strike because, you know, who can survive on $22 an hour. It's crazy where we are. bottom line though is the points of people are out there struggling and they're you know i don't just try to i mean you can look at it both ways trying to use that to drive us into some new promise of utopia or the fact that what they're building is like at the expense of all of us and they couldn't care less and they don't even want to look back either way guys this is exactly what we've been fighting

i mean to a team and it's obvious how this game is being played like i said whether it's one or the other all of them. Just like with the flock camera thing, it doesn't ultimately make a difference. It's the same suppressive control grid. I mean, it does. It affects make a difference, but when it really matters, right, the thing is still there. So as Whitney writes, this is the same report about the surveillance system and pre-crime about activists. And Whitney simply says, sorry, but it's not just anthropic. Palantir has been working on predictive policing and surveillance of dissidents, excuse me, for the U.S. government for well over a decade. The goal of the Bush administration immediately after 9-11 was pre-crime via total information awareness.

And they've been building it ever since. Left, right, left, right. Through the privatization of that program as Palantir, and there are other companies working towards this end, too, all with ties to U.S. intelligence or top U.S. officials. Satil logic, SpaceX, Axon, Carbine, et cetera. Carbine being an important one we've discussed. Anthropic may be an axon carbine. I remember that's the same they merged, pretending it's an American company.

Axon may be connected to the license plate reader point. Anthropic may be building their own private equivalent, but this is something the government and its other private contractors have already built. That's the important part we make about any of these, like the flock and the database point. Like to me, this is all piecemeal, right? Every one of these are different individual parts of what they're trying to build. And if we overfocus on one, they'll go with the other.

And so in this case, well, actually going back to the flock point, you have the database where they say, well, the issue is that, or rather the point is that Flock has the database part of it, which is what they argue is sort of what makes it more important. But it's not, guys. They already have many databases. Now, this is simply the way that Flock built the system. The cameras, ax on anything else, could be fitted with the certain database they already utilized. So at the end of the day, same thing here. Palantir and others have already built the same kind of thing. Anthropic seems to be building one that's a little bit specific to them and used from the inside. But whether that's the case or not, it's about the tools and how they utilize them as the system, as the powers that shouldn't be.

She says under the first Trump administration, Bill Barr as AG created the legal framework for pre-crime. They're just waiting on the right excuse to justify its scale. We have to realize how far along this is if we really want to stop it. it is now many companies ushering in pre-crime paradigm all with state backing that's the way to read this just like with flock right whether they've got 65 companies or one it's all still doing the same thing and that's sort of like the breaking up of standard oil it didn't actually diminish its power in fact it grew in power under the illusion of breaking up their control now grace points out something important this you might have seen going around as of the eighth

interesting timing, right? Something strange about this, she says. It's giving problem, reaction, solution type feelings. Now, I'm not sure which way to look at this. I definitely agree with the point. That could be the accurate way to look at it. But he says, Jacob Coxon says, I resigned from Anthropic today.

I spent the last three years doing pre-training research at both OpenAI and Anthropic. Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving, super intelligence and gambling with our lives, more thoughts below. Pretty damn interesting, isn't it? Right? I mean, to me, he's simply telling you, I mean, look, like you said, two ways to look at it. He is either, like as Grace was highlighting, selling this as a way to be sort of the, like,

you know, like, who knows, I don't know what you guys think about Joe Kent to the rest of them today, but, you know, the question is, was that a false thing? And was he really a whistleblower? You know, we should question these things. Is that this case here? Is this about building the problem to get us to react, to have the solution they already have in the wings? Right. Or is this Jacob pointing out what we're seeing to a degree? Either one makes sense to me, and I guess we'll only know when it comes to pass. Because what we're discussing here is somebody possibly seeing the issues of Anthropic playing the good guy

and then simply doing the same thing for their benefit. And maybe that's why you quit. either one makes sense. Again, as she said, this would line up perfectly with what they've done. So we'll see. But pretty interesting

to the big picture that it seems to be going that way regardless of what we want and think, right? Well, in this case, we've covered this as pre-crime more than once. Trump's alarming speech paves way for pre-crime, censorship, loss of rights.

2019. Now, this is about the idea of Trump basically, I mean, like Whitney, simply put, Whitney already highlighted that Bill Barr, per Trump, or at least using Trump's administration, rolled out the framework for what will be in his pre-crime. And Trump's speech laid that out. Now, what did we recently get? Melania, doing the same thing, which I'll all she point to in a minute. Gideon, remember that? After the trans shooting point, well, it's, guys, they're pushing this in left and right. This one we discuss. in 2025.

This is the U.S. is new Israeli-made pre-crime system. Now that is Gideon. One of the many. Again, we will come back to that in a second. What we want to, I want to highlight right now is one of the things we discussed in the show as well

that connects back to this part before we finish with the larger pre-crime system, which this one, the next one relates very much back to the other point we were just making. Oh, and I'll include, some other ones as well. This one's from Whitney Webb, 2018, Palantir. The PayPal offshoot

becomes a weapon in the war against whistleblowers and wiki leaks. Yep, that's Peter Thiel, 2018. Here's another one. She wrote this for TLAB in 2021, who is a terrorist in Biden's America, both of which mentioned pre-crime. It's important to think about. They get into the idea of how this builds, right? Now, this is something we mentioned more than once. It's in the PayPal Palantir article. Elizabeth Newman. We discussed this in interview with Whitney Webb as well, but let me play this little clip for you. This is, this is 2020. Left, right, left, right. What are they trying to justify that constitutional rights are simply barriers for us to keep you safe? At the end of the day, we see things building. We don't know how to stop it. So it's either that we have to remove the

rights because they're in the way or that we have to stop them before they act. It's all in the same thing, guys. And I've played this for you more than once. Here's what she said. The world is changing, and every counterterrorism professional I speak to in the federal government and overseas feels like we are at the doorstep of another 9-11, maybe not something that catastrophic in terms of the visual or the numbers, but that we can see it building and we don't quite know how to stop it. visual or the numbers, but that we can see it building and we don't quite know how to, how to stop it. So the main thing we discussed is the idea that this is, it's just very, it's clear what they were trying to set up, right? And this is used by Biden. It's used by Trump. It's this idea that we need to rationalize, you know, preemptive action about American citizens. It's not hard to see. I'll include the actual entire, this is the actual entire video.

You can watch the whole thing if you want. You know, and everywhere I look, and I'm not sure you know one of these, by the way, with the company I'm going to reference. And it's usually lately, lately I've been discussing these Israeli companies, you know, the com frame point, the, you know, the new, new phones. And the moment they get kind of poo-poot on and people see what they are, within months you look back and they're gone. Like no website, just vanished.

Does that sound like a company? You think a company would just drop and move on? No, they would try to save and they would try to sell products. These aren't real things, guys. Now, separate point on the Israel company side, but it's amazing, the kind of internet book-burning dynamic that we're living through. So this was a really important that was called Confronting the Rise of Antisemitic

Domestic Terrorism, Part 2, Homeland Security Committee events. And it's been referenced so often because of this and many other wild statements that were made, it's now gone. That's the link. And you can see right there, confronting the rise. Why is it gone? What's with this? What's happening?

Where they're just deleting all this stuff. It's, they're censoring. They're hiding. They're covering up. Important points that connect the bigger picture. That's what I think. I don't know how that's not hard. I don't know why that's hard to see.

Now, we also did a show on February, 20, 26, discussing a great article, talking about the empire above Epstein. Now, that end of itself is very worth. I love this picture, by the way. I just randomly made that on the picture thing, you know, just kind of superimposed his face. I just think it's funny. But it basically about the bigger, you know, the real idea of a shadow government, the deep state discussion, the unelected power structure that's always there. That's the point of it. Not the Democrats. It's so embarrassingly stupid to argue something like

that. It's obvious that it's much bigger than that. what's important is that there's, what the Epstein discussion showed us that in a lot of ways. But in this article, in this show, we go over some really important points, one of which, oh, actually, this was one of them. There's three of them, actually.

I forgot, I included this as well. One of them was a company that I wanted to discuss that we've got over before, which has to do with everything we're talking about today and then just kind of disappeared. First, Kim.com wrote this. Now, again, Kim is, you know, he shared things that I can show you are not true, by the way.

Now, whether that's because he was lied to or, you know, whatever the content, it is, you could decide for yourself. But take it with a grain of salt because also there's no source material. But the timing was interesting when I did the show. He posted this on February 15, 26, breaking. Palantir was allegedly hacked. An AI agent was then, was used to gain super user access, and here's what the hackers allegedly found.

Peter Thiel and Alex Carp commit mass surveillance of, world leaders and Titans of Industry on a massive scale, you know, like Israel's Blackmail Network. They have thousands of hours of transcribed and searchable conversations of Donald Trump, shady fans, Elon Musk, which would certainly explain a lot, wouldn't it, guys? They have backdoored the devices, cars and jets of world leaders, you know, like everything else we've seen of these apps and the telemessage discussion. This is infiltration. And accumulated the biggest archive of Blackmail material.

Palantir is creating nuclear and bio-weapon capabilities for Ukraine and is working closely with the CIA to defeat Russia. So, you know, take that for what you will. I don't even agree with the way that those lines are drawn around the narratives, but, you know, whatever. They believe they are one year away. They plan to achieve this by keeping Russia busy with meaningless peace negotiations. And this is 2026. Palantir is responsible of the majority of Palestinian deaths in Gaza. that's easy to prove with their AI they're allowing them to use they have developed an AI targeting for

Israel. Palantir is an arm of the CIA and all data from international clients is copied into a CIA spy cloud. Palantir has become the most dangerous company in the world. If you work there, you have the right to know that this is what Palantir is AI is used for without your knowledge. The Palantir data, the hackers allegedly gathered, he claims will be given to Russia and or China. I was chosen as a trusted partner for this publication. I'm not involved in the Palantir hack, and I don't know the hackers, but I know that, you know,

take it for what you will. Interesting thought, though, at the very least, that it's being put to him. And I'll actually include, as usual, Derek's great breakdown of this, just called Welcome to the Palantir World Order, which is in 2025, April,

that goes over a lot of this stuff. Now, another point in our episode, or, yeah, our show here, huh, I guess they forgot to put the, anyway, that's weird, the number on there. Use the wrong image, I guess. But continuing,

I thought this was just not that this is even relevant today, but maybe it is. Look at this. Jonathan Geyer, Alex Karp, in Akifa. Now, I guess it's possible.

This could be some kind of AI manipulation, but this does seem to check out. Quite the archive will find in this is Sharon Weinberger's Valley of Death. Here's the picture. Alex Carp wearing Kifa in his senior yearbook photo at Heverford College.

He was an active participant there in student activities to protest racism. So how do you explain that? Is it that he was always, you know, even at this very time, was he some kind of operative playing that role to then later, you know, or that he wake up and discover the truth and now realizes Israel's the good guy or whatever you want to pretend the narrative is? That just, it's very strange, isn't it? To me, I don't know if I can put a pin on a. exactly what it is, but it just makes me recognize that he's disingenuous, that what he is.

And that's not just because of this one picture. You could argue he just changes mind. But with what he's done and who he is and the things he said, that's what I read from this. Very weird what's going on in the world. Now, we discussed in that previous show about the above Epstein Network, Apple buys Israeli pre-speech, pre-speech, pre-speech, tech firm, implicated in the Gaza genocide. So if we're talking about pre-crime, right, talking about AI, you know, text and speech, grading. Like this is really interesting. This is what we, this was back in February of this year. And it was a called QAI. And it was pre-crime, but for speech. Here are the patents. Synthesizing speech from facial skin movements. What you'll notice is QQ limited and Israeli names. But what I find interesting is that it says US, US, US, US. So why I ask,

is this very provably Israeli company making a patent and patenting in only in the United States. Who knows? Maybe there's an answer. You can decide. I find that strange. Here's the other patent. QQ Limited detection of silent speech. So both of those involved with the use of this company's AI detection technology. Apple acquires Israeli audio AI startup, QAI. Apple did not disclose the terms of the deal, which is very unusual. The deal valued the startup at about $1.6 billion. Apple also did not say how it will use the QAI technology, which is also very strange.

And then it said Apple has been putting new AI features into its AirPods, earbuds. Totally different story, though. That's strange. Weird the way they would frame that. And also, let's not forget that the earbuds are also very real, as much as people keep pretending like it's not true. August 28, 2026, brain reading earbuds are already here, promoting, prompting urgent questions about children, neurodata. Yeah, that's when you get those kind of like, we should care.

And then we all forget, move on for 20 years, right? That's not that that should be the case. But if you get these, you know, these moments of like, oh, my God, that's the thing. And oh, my God. It's almost like, oh, then we look around and go, yeah, well, somebody's probably doing something. Yeah, you should do something. I should do something. We, individually, don't pretend, like, don't outsource your authority.

You should, I mean, the idea that they will never do anything, guys, you have to do something. Here's the patent for it, case you want to look further. Biosignal sensing device using dynamic selection of electrodes. It's your earbuds. Now, the site, as you can see here, is gone. QAI, which I have archived. I just think, okay, wait a minute, so this big push, now I guess you could argue that it just removed all of its physical information and its brand and everything

it put together that put all the money into and just quietly like Homer Simpson and of the bushes absorbed into Apple. Is that what you would expect? Not usually, guys. And so what I find weird about that is, I mean, you already know where I'm playing it up. It's obvious to me what we're talking about here. Either this company got seen for what it is and just vanished because that's what keeps happening or it just, its objective was to work its way. into Apple, like many other Israeli tech connected startups, or rather Israeli military tech, intelligence tech, startup companies, which is what this one is. As we've discussed more than once, here it is. Sound Your Mind, Q company, co-founded by, you know,

it's just the information you can reap yourself. And here's the other one. In a world full of noise, we craft a new kind of quiet. These sites are gone. They don't exist. So you can decide, is that is real intelligence working its way into apple is that by the way which has already happened more than once the simple point is about the direction the tech that is there that they're all floating around now here is another example now think about this all together oh look it happens to be apple what what an interesting surprise new apple watch transcribes conversations and reads heart rate every five seconds seems weird didn't we just talk about something that was reading your information every few seconds. Oh, that's right. It was Trump's weird White House app that very quickly got

vanished from the conversation. It doesn't exist anymore. Again, why does that, did they not put money into it? What kind of company just vanishes the moment people criticize it? One that's not about the product, guys, you are the product. It's insane to me. And we went through this in depth on a previous follow-up show, as well as this one from back in March. And this was about the invasive, like reading your IP address, your current location like every five seconds. It's weird. So this, Apple is proposing a trade. Let the Apple watch Series 12, keep its microphone open throughout the day.

And it will hand back the last 15 seconds of any conversation is text. Oh, what a convenience. Plus a summary once the conversation ends. The company insists the feature is opt-in, ignore sensitive material and stores no audio, which will settle the question for some buyers when open. Oh, you mean, aside from the fact that they've almost always promised that and almost always not been the case. How I don't the, the willful ignorance of some people is astounding to me.

You take your pick, whether it's your data during COVID-19, whether it's, I mean, it's never the case. They always sell your data. And on top of that, which is something I think it's worth noticing about Microsoft or Apple or some of these companies that have very publicly been, having Israeli intelligence as real connections to what they do, including having main locations in Israel, doesn't prove, right? But it very clearly suggests

that you have potential infiltration from a group that proudly announces that that that's what they do with companies they work with. And so whether or not the company does, and maybe they only allow it to be there for a moment, they delete it, well, backdoors and such. And the reality of this information

might be absorbed and outsourced somewhere else. Just a consideration. Frankly, honestly, I think it's Apple. And all the rest of it, My point is I don't, I don't think there's some kind of a, you know, we'll get right of it right away. It's going to be that we state that and then we hold it for customer service valuations or whatever. And so if it ever comes out, it's like, oh, well, we just secondarily did it to make sure.

And that gets, and then we sell it somebody else. It's every time, amazing what people can ignore. Now, sound recognition alerts and always running Shazam. Oh, so by the way, that's just, that's a separate thing. And it's always so you have a system that is. literally always listening just in case you want to hear music that might be able to identify. And that's not weird to people. A redesigned health sensing system that read your heart rate every five seconds and a heart rate

variability every five minutes feeding a new readiness score marked out of 10. Now, which is not very new. Garmin and others do this. And it's, you know, it's been around. But it's the idea of the desire to be like extra carefully monitoring your health, not to mention of which the negative health effects of having the watch in the first place, but, you know, it goes on to point out that the idea of people that think they're being extra healthy and monitoring themselves. And don't worry that somebody else might use their

biometric data. I don't know why today. It's everywhere. But all of this together, it's an always listening, always monitoring system. That seems, that seems alarming to me. The watch listens for a crying child, a doorbell, a siren or alarm, and alerts the wearer. Okay, you just told me that this was a chrower. Like, so now it's just in case it was a crying child or, you know, alarm, there's something bad happening over there. That's, guys, that's this feigned altruism is so transparent. Shazam runs continuously in the background,

identifying whatever's playing nearby. Nothing is retained, they promise. And the system is designed to skip private or sensitive content. Yeah, you want to explain to me how it would be able to decipher what is private or sensitive? well, it would be listening and it would go, oh, this sounds private. So it hears it and chooses to do what, not absorb it? I mean, guys, it's just such a blatantly stupid thing to think this is not going to be abused.

We'll not launch in the European Union. Why? Well, because they don't allow things. They claim ostensibly anyway to absorb passive data because that's the privacy. I guess this country doesn't care. A larger electrode improves skin contact during the readings, basically have another large electrode that sits on your wrist, constantly sending, you know, the, you know, whatever, the radio, the Wi-Fi, the radiation, these things are been proven over

the years to have negative effects. Your phone, the studies are everywhere. And it's just, we just accept it. Now, what's crazy is people accept it because, well, we all want phones. Well, that's a, I don't know why that's the way it should be. But then when you get into it, people deny that it's even there. Oh, that's conspiracy theory. But, well, wait a minute. The whole point was, you know, we can prove that this has, effect. We can prove the studies show like an over, uh, uh, people that get more tumors on the right

side by and large because most people are right handed. Like, it's pretty clear or like on your head and your phone on your ear, you know? Anyway, these things have negative effects. And it's just the way they're growing in the direction is as if it doesn't even matter. The readiness score combines activity, sleep, resting heart rate, single day number scored out to 10,

updating throughout the day. So Apple, we just discussed. Connected to the bigger point. you can see you can decide if that's worrisome i find it to be now i mentioned with the app with trump monitoring you continue to me it seems to me that the common thread is consistently monitoring you all the time call me a conspiracy theorist plenty do now on that very note here this was the this was off the the cusp of the what was it that i forget the name but it was a shooting that took place. Melania rushed out and said we need AI predictive pre-crime, like literally laid it out.

This guy has been pushing this for a while. In fact, this is a year-old video. He's in his Israeli intelligence operative, and he's literally telling you on Fox News about why we need pre-crime. You remember this? We talked about it in an entire show. It was the one I pointed to the Israeli pre-crime example. This is what we're discussing. Here's what they said on Fox News. Colin, Gideon, A.I.T. And A.I.T.A.T.I.T.T. Let's play it very quickly. And of course, this is Jesse, Jesse Waters, you know, proudly promoting this. Gideon AI trailer. Let's play it very quickly. Gideon is the first real-time AI system built to detect threats online before they become attacks.

Anonymous networks flagging behavior predicting danger. We don't get a second chance. Let's not miss the next one. 15 seconds, Aaron, you're talking about... Wait, wait, wait, wait. We don't get a second chance. Let's not miss the next one. I'll let you work that out. Go ahead.

Stopping mass shootings, attacks in Boulder before they start. Trace, I'm building the first AI-driven threat prediction platform for law enforcement. They're flying blind right now. I've got an elite team of engineers from Palantir. I've got law enforcement aid. Poundeer, which we said last time, which is not surprising, but case you didn't see that coming. It's obvious how this all works together. You see's lined up.

76% of these mass attackers posted some type of grievance online. This is America's early warning detection system. If you're a chief out there, reach out to me and get on my pilot. And if you're a VC, I'm about to open my seat round partner with me. And let's make America safe again and get cops, the tools. They need. Make America safe again. Aaron Cole.

I mean, you don't read how clearly this is the same exact thing. You know, like make America safe again. Bring him on Fox News to make his sales pitch for VC funding. It's crazy. I mean, I would argue even that in itself creates some kind of a financial legality issue. Anyway, it's weird. It was obvious. It's so clumsy the system today.

Who knows why? That's what they want, guys. And it's been clear as Whitney's been telling you forever. AI power threat detection for law enforcement. This was literally what Melania was referencing, what she was pointing to. Here's the other one. The AI system that flags threats before the next attack. So to wrap up, guys, this is all what's coming on.

I mean, look, at this point, like I keep talking about, this is not even debatable. This is not a conversation about whether or not. They're openly telling you what they want. Trump, Biden, Bush, Obama, it doesn't matter. They're all pushing the same thing. They're driving the same agenda. they may give you a different reason, rationale for why it needs to happen. It's all going in the same direction.

So we need to first and foremost just acknowledge that's where we are. This technological drive, the AI direction, the algorithmic control, the surveillance, right? All of it, the pre-crime discussion, nanotechnology, this is all happening. It's not false. It's not distant future. It's not conspiracy theory. And if you haven't caught in wind of that, like, you can go back and watch our episode 10 years or, you know, five years ago about nanosal and what they were using. I mean, these things were any, that was old then, but people still

just haven't caught up. And that's why this is so important, guys. So just thinking about that, right? And then where it's going and what they're all doing. What this next section is about is basically just ending is something you've heard already. It's another clip from a guy I'm not familiar with, but basically just lays out that this is designed to fail. We play the clip from the guy that was, you know, basically a threat assessment guy in front of a local Congress, basically just saying like they're over their skis right now. Like this is going to fail. Everyone's rushing to make their money.

Like there's no they are there is what he argued. Who knows? I can see that opening. I can see that as possible, but I also kind of feel like there's more to it. But I hope not. I'd like to believe this is a bunch of hype and that it's not really there,

only because that would mean no technocratic kind of control grid, at least the way we envision it or, you know, in the negative sense. But the surveillance is still there. That's always been there, you know. But this last part of it is simply about where and how this comes to pass financially and how it is going to come from you. So if we've already clearly demonstrated as I think the metric show and even our government acknowledges that nobody wants this, Americans don't want this.

So not only are they doing it regardless, which shows you that they don't care what you think, which shows you that this is not some kind of a voter dynamic or that the living embodiment of our constituents will, they just do what they want. But then secondarily, they're going to charge you for it. your money will be what builds out these data centers. Your money, your pensions and this is where it's coming from. And don't forget, Larry Fink already told you this. But first we'll play the guy's clip to break this down for you.

Government is allowing the ultra-rich to crash the economy just like 2008, and nobody realizes it. The Bank of International Settlements just gave a public warning of what's happening. This is the central bank of central banks that even the Federal Reserve has to report to. Now, they used a term called shadow borrowing to describe this collapse. I've been trading for 10 years and I have never seen anything like this, so I decided to spend hours digging through government filings and reports, and what I found was pretty crazy. We all know Big Tech is spending a ton of money on AI, but here's the thing. They're not actually spending it because they're not using cash.

They're using debt. But if they put this amount of debt on their own books, their credit rating would get cut and their stock would crash overnight. So they partner with something called private credit funds. The fund puts up the money, but Big Tech signs a promise to pay them back if the deal blows up, So the debt comes off their books, but the risk doesn't. So let's take meta for an example. They filed a deal with the SEC for a $27 billion data center in Louisiana.

Now, in the first SEC filing that mentioned this, they named their partner as Blue Owl Capital. Blue Owl is a private credit firm. So where do all these private credit funds get this money? Simple. They get it from the average American person's pension, their insurance, and even banks that hold their savings. Now, this is the exact same scenario from 2008. City Group had $80 billion of shadow debt hidden the exact same way, and they needed a $45 billion government bailout to survive.

And guess who paid for it? Well, they use something called TARP, but what that translates to is taxpayer money, and this results in increasing taxes for years to come. So the elite used debt from mortgages last time, but this time it's AI. Same trick, different decade, different asset. The government's going to bail them out, and you're going to pay.

I think he's right. I mean, it's hard to know because, you know, part of this definitely feels like they believe something in this is coming to pass. But it's hard. You could be both, really, right? You could see a world in which this ultimately is used that way, but still ultimately gives them what they want.

You know, I just think it's worth considering that, especially with what Larry Fink literally said himself. We can get more and more Americans to think about growing with the United States. We will have far than enough money to, invest in this infrastructure. Says the guy from the largest shadow bank in the world that's international and has no real allegiance to the country. But as the governor was talking about, the need for electrons is growing every day.

Some of these, you know, if we're going to be the leader in technology, which we are, if we are going to be the leader in AI, which we presently are, it's just going to require trillions of dollars of investments. and if we don't invest in it, China will be the global leader of this. And don't forget, they know that's not true in the sense of what's currently happening. Like the dark money campaign, the article was what wired, I think, I can bring it up again. It's Open AI, Andreessen Harowitz, literally funding a campaign to lie to you, saying on you China's winning the race.

Last I checked 12, 13 times the amount of data centers the U.S. has compared to China. Not in close. So why are they pushing that? I mean, bearing reasons you could argue, money, they want you to think that. So we don't have a, you know, we can't think it through. Russian, quick, get it done before they do. And we wake up and it's too late. I mean, who knows?

But he knows these lines. I argue, I mean, maybe not, but I think it's pretty clear. Global leader of this. And so to me, it's not whether this is a must. And if you think about how that translates, it translates into a more dynamic economy. We need the United States economy to grow it over 2%. We need the U.S. economy to grow at 3%, especially with the growing deficits the federal government has. And so much of this money, not just the project, is going to be coming from the private sector,

from savings accounts, from pension accounts, from insurance companies on and on and on. The whole world is in need of improving the infrastructure. So just take it on the chin for Larry Fing's dream, you know, if that's even what he really thinks. I just don't know. You know, what's the craziest thing is that the people currently, like supporting Trump and I can, don't think it's even close to the majority right now are of the mind that it's for some, you know, like, what do you think is happening right now? Like, what do you think is the outcome here?

You know, it's so obvious that you're being exploited. I don't know why you're okay with that, you know? And this is the article from Wired. The dark money campaign is paying influencers to frame China, is a threat, and it's not even close. Now, I'll include a episode from Brock that he broke down a while back when he was doing clips for TLAV,

and this was the Shadow Bank Black Rock pushes for total digital control via CBDCs. Now, I'll play the opening clip from this when I wrap today. I'll include this article from 2025, Black Rock's Larry Fink, abruptly becomes part of Trump's inner circle. Funny how, that's totally not a big deal,

but Black Rock, you know, people having like 1% in BlackRock suddenly makes them a villain, except we don't care that Rumble is the, that's the leading investor. You know, it's like it's selective outrage from the team. This one was going back to 2020. Don't forget, Trump already sold them out back then. The COVID coup, the Black Rock takeover of American interest, the financial side of it back in the first time with Donald Trump.

We also, to end, we already showed you this, New York Times, EPA is moving to curb public input on data center. So whether or not we care and start to get wind to recognize we should push back to trying to stop it from being able to anyway. That's where we are. Top to bottom, guys. It just can't miss how clear this is. But we'll leave it there for today. I appreciate you tuning in. I love you all. As always, question everything. Come to your own conclusions. Stay vigilant. And what we're seeing in the world today, I think, is we are on the brink of a dramatic change where we are about to, and I'll say this boldly, we're about to abandon the traditional

system of money and accounting and introduce a new one. And the new one, the new accounting is what we call blockchain. It means digital. It means having a almost perfect record of every single transaction that happens in the economy, which will give us far greater clarity over what's going on. It also raises huge dangers in terms of the balance of power between states and citizens. In my opinion, we're going to need a digital constitution of human rights if we're going to have digital money.