← Bannon`s War Room
Bannon`s War Room
WarRoom Battleground EP 910: The Rise Of Christian Nationalism And AI’s Potential To Destabilise Democracy
WarRoom Battleground EP 910: The Rise Of Christian Nationalism And AI’s Potential To Destabilise Democracy ...
Loading summary
Transcript61 lines
- [00:03]
Steve Bannon
This is the primal scream of a dying regime. Pray for our enemies because we're going.
- [00:10]
Host (possibly Steve Bannon or a co-host)
Medieval on these people.
- [00:13]
Steve Bannon
Reasons I got a free shot. All these networks lying about the people. The people have had a belly full of it. I know you don't like hearing that. I know you try to do everything.
- [00:21]
Professor Bruce Schneier
In the world to stop that, but.
- [00:22]
Steve Bannon
You'Re not going to stop it. It's going to happen.
- [00:24]
Professor Bruce Schneier
And where do people like that go to share the big lie? MAGA MEDIA I wish in my soul, I wish that any of these people had a conscience.
- [00:35]
Steve Bannon
Ask yourself, what is my task and what is my purpose? If that answer is to save my country, this country will be saved.
- [00:45]
Professor Bruce Schneier
War Room here's your host, Stephen K. Band.
- [00:55]
Host (possibly Steve Bannon or a co-host)
Friday, 12th of December. Harnwell here at the helm, Steve Bannon's War Room. We've made it, folks, to the end of the week. I saw, as you know, I read about 750, 800, 850 articles every day as part of my job. And I saw a very, very interesting article this week by Professor Alejandro Reyes, who is the adjunct professor and senior fellow at the center on Contemporary China and the World at the University of Hong Kong. And this article was in a magazine which I do peruse constantly, Foreign Policy, I think Steve Bannon says it's one of the most important foreign affairs magazines, news magazines in the business. Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs. They are two very well respected and established news portals. It really sort of lets you know how the globalist elites are thinking. You're listening into that interior conversation. And the article that we're discussing today is will Pope Leo Stand up to Christian Nationalism? Professor Reyes, thank you very much indeed for coming on the show today. Somewhat very brave and courageous of you to step into the lion's den. Your article, your article opened, in fact, with a reference to Steve Bannon and an early interview he'd given to the Economist where he said that Donald Trump was a vehicle of divine providence and an instrument of divine will. And that's really the starting point for your excursion here. Now, you put together some interesting arguments and I wanted to talk to you because often, you know, perhaps we're two sides and talking amongst ourselves. And I really wanted the opportunity to dive in a little bit about what you're saying because your thesis in this article is that Leo, Pope Leo, Leo xiv, might well indeed be a point of opposition to the Christian nationalist agenda. Let's start off with something that you say in your article and go from there because you say that Steve was articulating a political theology and a claim that a leader, if chosen by God, says stands above human law and temporal limits and that that idea wants and still is the claim of monarchs and that it's re entered modern politics. That's a very interesting way of looking. I don't know if Steve has ever quite put it in those words, but you go on to say that the movements that we. That we follow very much on this show differ in creed and converge in disposition, which is an interesting way of putting it because a lot of these populist nationalist iterations do have conflicts between them, but sort of can unite around a border position. What I want start off with asking you, is this because you say that they sacralize exclusion, distrust pen pluralism and cast political opposition as moral decay? What do you mean? Because you're obviously not really, you know, there's no problem with that, but you're not clearly not part of the Christian nationalist movement.
- [04:54]
Steve Bannon
What.
- [04:55]
Host (possibly Steve Bannon or a co-host)
What does it mean for someone who opposes the Christian nationalist movement to suggest that what we're doing is sacralizing exclusion?
- [05:08]
Professor Alejandro Reyes
Right. Thank you for having me here. I'm sorry. First of all, it's two in the morning in Hong Kong where I am and my voice is somewhat hoarse from having a cold and from it being the time. It is dear question. I think Christians have always believed God works through history, but nevertheless leaders are above judgment. I think when I talk about sacralizing exclusion, the idea that Christianity, the political theology of exception, that there is some kind of exemption. And that's exactly what the church has resisted, this idea of exempting certain people from responsibility, from judgment, but also excluding people. The stranger. The stranger is an important figure in Catholic theology in particular, and how one must look after and care even for the foreigner and consider the foreigner as indeed your neighbor.
- [06:32]
Host (possibly Steve Bannon or a co-host)
So this is the. So you think from your perspective that what we're doing here is othering, to use the contemporary verb, where we're othering people who aren't part of the movement for political motivation.
- [06:53]
Professor Alejandro Reyes
Well, within the politics of Christian nationalism, there clearly is, especially with regard to the issue of immigration, there is a sense that a key part of that politics, the Christian nationalism politics, has to do with excluding immigrants, excluding particularly people possibly of different faiths, people who are outside that kind of Christian community that Christian nationalists seek to promote and preserve and maintain as kind of the core of culture, particularly the Western civilizational culture.
- [07:43]
Host (possibly Steve Bannon or a co-host)
When I hear you talking, Professor Reyes, I get a thought, an idea which I never, it's never occurred to me before, and I need to think about this some more. But the, oh, you know, the old, in Catholic theology there was this old principle of right, there's no salvation outside the church. What you're suggesting is that sort of that theological idea has been transposed, if you will, within the Christian nationalist movement as part of its core philosophy. Is that really what you're suggesting?
- [08:22]
Professor Alejandro Reyes
You know, I'm suggesting, you know, I'm not a theologian, I'm not a theology major. I'm just the observer, political observer. And indeed, part of the reason I wrote this piece is because it's not within, actually my general expertise, which is on Asia Pacific, Indo Pacific politics, geopolitics. But because I have observed and written about the Catholic Church before, I felt inspired to write this piece of analysis. I think I'm merely saying that within the agenda, it would seem, at least from what have observed, is that in the Christian nationalist agenda there is immigration plays a significant role, is a significant issue. And the idea is that Christian nationalism or the Christian communities are somehow under threat by the advent of immigration of migrants of different, particularly of different faiths and in certain communities of different races. Now, you know, I wrote a piece, you know, this all started because I am in reacting to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the very tragic and horrific assassination of Charlie Kirk. I wrote a piece also in Foreign Policy reflecting on the global aspect of Charlie Kirk, because folks might not actually know that just before he was assassinated he had been to Korea and to Japan and had spoken at events organized by right wing political parties in those countries. And his message had really resonated and was interesting to me, the phenomenon of a kind of white Christian nationalist figure of such prominence that particularly after he was assassinated, that his there was a significant amount of mourning in this part of the world and where he had been in Korea and Japan and indeed even in India. Why did that message, I think, resonate with non whites and majoritarians in this part of the world? I think part of it goes down just to the basics of immigration. The idea that even in a sort of majoritarian society, your culture, your identity can be at risk if given immigration or given cultural threats from wherever. And that message of, you know, there needs to be reflection on whether to preserve or strengthen your culture, your community, there has to be some kind of exclusion or at least vetting or security concerns. That this message has resonated around the world and that's in different communities, not necessarily even just Christian communities. And so I was fascinated by that and I wrote about that. And that's kind of the stepping stone from where I approached this article about.
- [12:11]
Host (possibly Steve Bannon or a co-host)
Pope Leo, did you see, just, I'll take this point now. Did you see in Hong Kong any particular response to Charlie Kirk's killing?
- [12:29]
Professor Alejandro Reyes
Yes, indeed. I do know that there were certain communities here. I mean, we have a significant Christian community here that certainly expressed their grief on his killing. But it was not as much as in some places, like in Korea, for example, there was, you know, particularly among the communities that hosted him, there was significant expression of grief. Japan and as I mentioned, in India, too. I didn't really. I know in the Philippines as well, because I do have, I'm originally from the Philippines. I did have a lot, a number of. I do have a number of relatives that I'm connected to. And I know that there were expressions of grief and shock and grief at the assassination on their social media. So, yes, I think Charlie Kirk's message did resonate around the world and in this part of the world, including in communities that, you know, that are local communities rather than necessarily communities of American.
- [13:51]
Host (possibly Steve Bannon or a co-host)
That was an interesting digression. I wasn't expecting to hear that today. We'll be back with Professor Reyes in just two minutes. When inflation jumps. When you hear that the national debt is over $38.3 trillion, do you ever think maybe now would be a good time to buy some gold where there's a hedge against inflation, peace of mind during global instability, or just for sensible diversification? Birchgold Group believes every American should own physical gold. Birch Gold can help you roll an existing IRA or 401k into an IRA in gold. Birch Gold is the only precious metals company we at the War Room Trust, as do tens of thousands of their customers. So make right now your first time to buy gold. Text Bannon. That's B A N N O N to 989898. Again, that's Bannon to 989898. And if you spend over $5,000 on a purchase now before December 23rd, Birchgold will give you one ounce of silver absolutely free. And silver's presently rocketing at record high prices. So that's Bannon to 989-898. Now let's get back to Professor Reyes. Well, I wasn't expecting to ask you about your personal experience in Hong Kong on of what you witnessed on the global outpouring of grief about Charlie Kirk. You did mention, however, in your article something interesting which I picked up on. And then I do want to dig down on the Pope Leo thesis. But staying on the subject of Charlie, you said that martyrdom has given Christian nationalism what it had lacked, a canonized story of sacrifice usable by movements in the United States and beyond. Well, I read that, and that struck me as being true in and of itself. But I also think that you could equally make the same suggestion. I'm not taking that as a criticism or even as an accusation of cynicism on behalf of the Christian nationalist movement. Just it's a simple empirical observation. But isn't there a parallel, do you think, between what you say there about the martyrdom of Charlie Kirk and the public assassination of Martin Luther king in the 60s?
- [16:29]
Professor Alejandro Reyes
I don't feel qualified to really talk much about Martin Luther King. I'm not that old yet. I wasn't really thinking and analyzing the situation at that time. I would say yes. I mean, I think that in any kind of movement, and I think the Christian nationalist movement is certainly a global one, one need only think about what we see in Hungary, what we see in other parts of Europe, in Italy, and then, of course, you can go to Latin America and Argentina and other places to accept that this Christian nationalist movement, well, it does seem to be coalescing into a global movement, that it has that kind of scale. Now, should we compare the martyrdom of Charlie Kirk to the martyrdom of Martin Luther King? I think maybe time will tell in terms of how much the assassination of Charlie Kirk will indeed resonate and the impact kind of multiply or mount, if you will. I mean, clearly, Martin Luther King's. The impact of that is still being felt today. Now I think we need time to see, well, what is the real full impact of the significance of Charlie Kirk's assassination?
- [18:24]
Host (possibly Steve Bannon or a co-host)
Okay, the part of your article, we have like a seven or so minutes left of this interview. The part of the article I do want to push back on now is the idea that Leo, Pope Leo XIV can be a unifying point in opposition to Christian nationalism. And the reason why I want to push back on that argument and you talk about the fact that he has moral authority and his appeals to conscience. The reason why I want to push back on that, Professor Reyes, is that I don't think he has the credibility that would take with people who are in the Christian nationalist movement in order to talk them out of their positions. Because if you. The Christian nationalist movement is largely numerically evangelical rather than Catholic. So they're going to start off with. Evangelicals are going to start off with a negative view of the Pope and of itself. They'll think, you know, basically he's just a communist agitator and arguably not even Christian. And when he's pushing the position here that you mentioned in your article about the inhuman treatment of, of immigrants and what have you and the, the, the, the juxtaposition between pro life that, that Leo made but. And the death penalty and what have you, all that's going to do is cement people who aren't disposed to him to being even less disposed to him. And I would suggest that the consequence of that is going to be he will, in fact, he will act as a unifying figure. He will act as a unifying figure for people who are against him and it will solidify them in the Christian nationalist movement. I wanted to get your reading on that.
- [20:21]
Professor Alejandro Reyes
Right. I think where I'm coming from, and maybe I'm mainly influenced because I'm approaching it as a practicing Catholic and coming with the Catholic perspective. And frankly, the Genesis article goes even further back than Charlie Kirk's assassination, but it goes back to just the selection of Pope Leo as the Holy Father as the pontiff. Because, of course, we were all surprised that an American was chosen. And the words of Bishop Barron, when he was asked the question before the conclave about could an American become pope? I remembered that Bishop Barron, and I don't want to say I'm quoting him exactly, but he dismissed the idea that there could be an American pope. Because of course, he said that, well, typically the cardinals didn't want to have the most powerful temporal leader in the world to be an American and then a very powerful religious leader to also be American. And then Bishop Barron said, well, but perhaps when America's position in the world is diminished, right? Or something to that effect, then they might decide to choose an American. Then lo and behold, a day or two later, we have an American pope. And that set me going. I said, well, what was the thinking of the cardinals behind the choice of Robert Prevost? And, you know, one can say, well, it's the Holy Spirit at work, right? But surely there must have been some kind of geopolitical. And we've talked about the Trump effect in elections. Well, I think this was in some ways no different that when the cardinals came together, I think they, you know, we were all expecting another cardinal, a cardinal from the global south would come, because that's where the church is growing. That's where they need to get a pontiff to become a big role model and a leader from the global South. But instead we got an American. And I think that the choice was very much geopolitical. This idea that you could have a pope who was steeped in the vocabulary of the global south, but also coming right from the Midwest of the United States, right from the heart to some extent of that Christian nationalism movement, a cradle of it. And I think that at least the thinking was, well, can we counter the growing Christian nationalist movement within the Catholic Church and not necessarily the whole of it. But I think there was an important sense in the cardinal's choosing, if they were really strategizing, that it would be important to you understand that converts or the communities of Catholics in the United States are actually increasing. But these tend to be very young people who are indeed within the Christian nationalist strain. Sorry if I can use that word. But I think that the cardinals were concerned that they wanted to be sure that Catholics were joining in the United States not just because of the attractions of Catholicism for Christian nationalists, but for attractions to Catholicism because of the moral qualities, the moral theology, what the Pope stands for and what the Pope has kind of been trying to express little by little over the last few months.
- [24:45]
Host (possibly Steve Bannon or a co-host)
Okay, Professor Reyes, thanks for encapsulating where you're coming from there. We'll get your the link. And I suggest people to read the article. It's very interesting article, very well written article. You know, I am a Christian nationalist. I am Catholic as well. And I would point, my point of starting is the beginning paragraph when you quote Steve, Steve Bannon, articulating the point that that a political leader may be a vehicle of divine providence and even an instrument of divine will. The reason, what I really wanted to chew over with you is this idea as whether Pope Leo might be unifying point against Christian nationalism. And I sort of think basically what you were just saying is that most people inside of the MAGA movement, most people inside of the Christian nationalist movement will look at Pope Leo. They won't see him, they don't see him as an American. And I think that's why the conclave might have made a misstep on that if they thought he was going to be able to neuter Donald Trump. They see him as a Latin American. And I mean, he has Peruvian citizenship. And his thought is more typically, I would suggest, Latin American than North American. Professor Reyes, grateful for you coming on the show to explain your thesis to us. Come back. In the meantime, where do people go on social media to keep up with your research and your writings?
- [26:30]
Professor Alejandro Reyes
They can go to LinkedIn and look for me, Alejandro Reyes, and I'm the only one in, I think in Hong Kong on LinkedIn.
- [26:39]
Host (possibly Steve Bannon or a co-host)
Well, okay. Alejandro Reyes, professor at Hong Kong University, very grateful for you coming on the show and for staying up in the early hours of 2am in the morning. Get some sleep, relax this weekend and thank you very much for joining us on the show. God bless for now, folks. We'll be back in two short minutes after this break.
- [27:01]
Steve Bannon
The All Family Pharmacy Black Friday Buy one, GET one Free is here and this is your moment to take control of your health and step outside the grip of big pharma and the corporate medical machine. From November 24th through December 2nd, when you buy one ivermectin hydroxychloroquine, you get another one free. This is about preparedness. This is about independence. This is about refusing to let anyone else dictate how you protect yourself and your family. That is freedom. Here is the process. Go to allfamilypharmacy.com Bannon place your order and a licensed physician reviews it. Once approved, your medication ships directly to you at your home. Fast. Private, secure. Let me repeat that. Here's the process. You go to allfamilypharmacy.com Ben and place your order and the licensed physician reviews it. Once approved, your medication ships directly to your home. It's fast, it's private, it's secure. This Black Friday event lasts only one week and supplies are limited. When it's gone, it's gone. There are no extensions and no second chances on this inventory. Do not wait for permission and do not rely on a system that has failed so many times. Visit allfamilypharmacy.com Bannon that's one word. Allfamilypharmacy.com Bannon before December 2nd and lock in your Black Friday buy one get one free deal. Take control of your health. Stay independent, stay free. Imagine having the world's most connected financial insider feeding you vital information, the kind of information only a handful of people have access to and that could create a fortune for those who know what to do with it. That's exactly what you get when you join our frequent guest and contributor Jim Rickards in his elite research service, Strategic Intelligence. Inside Strategic Intelligence. You'll hear directly from Jim and receive critical updates on major financial and political events before they hit the mainstream news. He'll put you in front of the story and tell you exactly what moves to make for your best chance to profit as a proud American. You do not want to be caught off guard. Sign up for Strategic Intelligence right now at your our exclusive website. That's Rickards War Room.com Rickards War Room.com you go there, you get strategic intelligence based upon predictive analytics do it today, right now. Rickards war room.com if you can make one holiday wish, would you wish to be free from your credit card and other debt? Let's see if we can help you with that. If we could give yourself one gift this holiday season, would it be finally to get some relief from your credit card and other debt? I might have a solution. Here's why. Now's the time to make a move. This time of year, credit card and loan companies close out their books. They clean up past due accounts. They sell or write off the debt to clear their books. That means if you have credit card debt and unpaid bills, lenders may be more open to negotiating and settling your account before you're in. That means right now, and I mean right now, you may actually have leverage and done with that debt knows how to use this to your advantage. They monitor lender trends and understand the year end pressure on creditors. They use that timing to negotiate hard on your behalf. Now's the time to get out from under crushing debt and interest payments without bankruptcy or taking on new loans. Done with debt goes to work for you Month one with one clear goal, to reduce your total debt and leave you with more money every month. Get started now because your leverage may disappear at the end of the year. Chat with a Done with debt specialist@donewithdebt.com that's donewithdebt.com donewithdeb.com do it today Phil.
- [31:16]
Professor Bruce Schneier
America's Voice Family Are you on Getter yet?
- [31:19]
Professor Alejandro Reyes
No. What are you waiting for? It's free, it's uncensored and it's where.
- [31:23]
Professor Bruce Schneier
All all the biggest voices in conservative media are speaking out.
- [31:27]
Steve Bannon
Download the Getter app right now. It's totally free. It's where I put up exclusively all of my content 24 hours a day. Want to know what Steve Bannon's thinking? Go to Getter.
- [31:36]
Host (possibly Steve Bannon or a co-host)
That's right.
- [31:36]
Professor Alejandro Reyes
You can follow all of your favorites.
- [31:38]
Professor Bruce Schneier
Steve Bannon, Charlie Kirk, Jack Posovic and so many more. Download the Getter app now. Sign up for free and be part.
- [31:45]
Professor Alejandro Reyes
Of the newfound.
- [31:48]
Host (possibly Steve Bannon or a co-host)
Welcome back. Well, my next guest, Professor Bruce Schneier has co written a fascinating book called Rewiring Democracy How AI Will Transform Our Politics, Government and Citizenship. Professor Schneier, thanks for coming on the show. Let's kick off straight away, you make the claim that AI will change democracy. The only question is how? Just give me two minutes as an introduction off the back of that as your motive for writing the book, please.
- [32:21]
Professor Bruce Schneier
You know we wrote it because things are Happening. I think people don't realize it. The debate is all about deep fakes and propaganda. But that, I think that is like the smallest part of AI changing democracy. We write about AI in politics, campaign strategies, doing polling, even things like get out the vote campaigns. We write about AI in legislating, writing legislation, passing legislation, getting involved in the debate of what legislation does AI in government administration, doing the work of government, AI in the judiciary system, how it's going to change the courts and what they're doing. And finally AI and citizenship and how citizens are organizing and getting information and getting political views. I think changes are happening everywhere, not just the US across the world. A lot of really interesting stories and the question is, is it going to concentrate power or distribute power? Is it going to help democracy or hurt democracy? That's what we wanted to write about.
- [33:24]
Host (possibly Steve Bannon or a co-host)
I'm going to talk about your insights when it comes to justice later on in this interview, but let's start off with the beginning. Okay, I'm not really on the Twitter platform. I'm on getter. But I can't help but notice whenever I'm just perusing Twitter, I would make the claim that the single phrase that is being asked most in 2025 is Grok, is this real? Because if you're, if you're scanning through to do your Twitter feed again and again and again, you see something and you have literally no idea now whether it's real, whether it's a genuine something that someone caught with their phone or whether it's manufactured. And there's always go. You go to the comments to find out, and someone's top comment is always grok at grok, is this real? And I would suggest that really does. It's created, it's created an epistemological doubt really now fundamental. You have no idea anymore whether what you're seeing is real or not. And there is a question that, you know, you, you starting off from that reflection, there is a question as to how viable democracy is after that, because democracy is all about looking at the world around you and making a judgment. If you no longer, and I know you said this isn't that, you know, this is only like the starting point of your thesis because you actually go into this sort of in a lot more detail. But I think the point is important to make the point that if you no longer have any solid confidence that most 99 of your source of information is actually true beyond an AI video generator, how on earth can you make the calculations necessary in order to form political judgments?
- [35:30]
Professor Bruce Schneier
Yeah, I mean, this is a real interesting question. It's not new, right? You know, doctor for doctored photographs as old as photography. Photoshop's been around since 1980s. What's different is it's now easier to fabricate images and voices and videos. I think about it, if, like, if we are ever going to argue about what to do, I mean, the actual business of politics, we have to agree on what the world is. If we can't agree on that, then the arguments about what the tax rate should be or the immigration policy or anything make no sense because we're not starting from the same reality. This is the problem of propaganda. This is as old as the 1960s. So I think we're going through a new phase of it, but I think we're going to default on to trusted sources now. How do you know? How did you know an Image was true 20 years ago if you were in a courtroom? The court demanded that you produce evidence of how it was created. It didn't just take photographs as prima facie evidence because it could be doctored back then. And my guess is we will eventually all be more savvy. This transition period is really difficult. And you're right. I think the answer is people are going to believe nothing unless they come from a trusted source like a newspaper they trust, a publication they trust, a website they trust kind of just as they've always done. But I mean, you're right in this larger point that if we can't agree on the state of the world, we can't have a serious discussion about what to do next. And I, and I do worry about democracy under those circumstances, that I don't think that's an AI problem. I actually think that's a social media problem, which is, and hence, you know, a surveillance capitalism problem. But that is definitely a problem.
- [37:20]
Host (possibly Steve Bannon or a co-host)
Well, we've had social media, I guess, and social media in and of itself has fundamentally changed the landscape of politics. It's difficult to think that we would have had the phenomenon of Donald Trump, the Donald Trump insurgency, if social media hadn't existed. So we had, let's say we had a run. In fact, 20 years, 15, 20 years of social media without AI. And now we have the AI component to it. You meant, you mentioned the images point and the Stalin point. That's, you know, in your book, you point out that Stalin in the 50s airbrushed people out of photographs once it become enemies to the regime, or they're just fallen out of favor with the regime. But even so, we all have the empirical, our own empirical life experience of life before AI. If you saw a photo, unless it was perhaps a UFO themed photo, if you saw a photo, you basically had the confidence that that was real and could act with a reasonable degree of security on the assumption that it was real. And it's not just images, of course, it's videos. And I think one of the reasons.
- [38:26]
Professor Alejandro Reyes
Why.
- [38:29]
Host (possibly Steve Bannon or a co-host)
Democracy, you know, it's going to be interesting to see how democracy plays out. I sort of think we're in end stage democracy anyway, as it is, even without the existence of AI. But if, you know, if you're looking on social media where most people get their news now and you're seeing a video, let's say Donald Trump, or let's say, I don't know, Hillary Clinton, anybody, you have, literally it could, you know anybody, right? But you have to, you know, just about, you can just about tell a bit whether it's a, or not. But that technology within a couple of years will go and you won't be able to tell. You'll see a video, you'll hear a political discourse and you won't know whether it's real.
- [39:13]
Professor Bruce Schneier
But you don't see those in isolation. So I mean, I know some of the companies are working on tools that people can use to check if a video or an image is real. Now they're going to have to want to do that. And most people are watching these platforms not to get new opinions, but to have their worldview validated. I think of it as politics, as sports. My team good, your team bad. Anything happens for my team is positive. This is very much the polarization of the algorithm. Now these are AI algorithms. The algorithm that determines your feed on Facebook or TikTok or, or Twitter, slash X. Those are all done by AI and they're done not to inform you, right? They're done to keep you on the platform. Because that's how these platforms make money, based on engagement. They show you ads that are personalized to manipulate you. And then is this business model much more than the images? When you think about, you know, all the talk about Russian propaganda, I mean, a lot of the, a lot of the images are not, they're not, they're not fake pictures. They're just memes. They're my team good, your team bad. The problem is in the images. The problem is that the algorithm magnifies them and shows them to people. So whatever our teams are, we're seeing different images, right, that are microly targeted. So the thing that outrages us or makes us passionate, that keeps us on these algorithms. I worry about that much more than the ability to create a realistic video of you saying something you would never say in real life.
- [40:53]
Host (possibly Steve Bannon or a co-host)
Back with Professor Schneier in just a quick moment. What if you had the brightest mind in the War Room delivering critical financial research every month? War Room listeners know Jim Rickards as our wise man. A former CIA, Pentagon and White House advisor with an unmatched grasp of geopolitics and capital markets, Jim predicted Trump's Electoral college victory exactly 312 to 226. Now he's issuing a dire warning about a moment that could define Trump's presidency and your financial future. His latest book, Money GPT, exposes how AI is setting the stage for financial chaos, bank runs at lightning speed, algorithm driven crashes, and even threats to national security. Right now, War Room members get a free copy of MoneyGPT when they sign up for Strategic Intelligence, Jim's flagship financial newsletter. Time is running out. Go to ricardswarroom.com now and claim your free book. That's Ricards war room dot com. Okay, Professor Schneier, I sort of think that point about the algorithms is, you know, they're on a port, they're on a par in, in terms of the danger with AI because into this, what you already have is like a feedback loop, a negative feedback loop. You now have AI coming in as the amplificator. It, what, what was already something that was destabilized because of the, the feedback. I don't, I don't see how AI can help us out of that particular, that particular problem that we have.
- [42:36]
Professor Bruce Schneier
So the issue isn't the tech, it's how we choose to use the tech. AI can help us out of that if we choose that. I mean, right now there are a handful of tech monopolies controlling that tech and how it's being made. It doesn't have to be made the way it is. So we actually do have choices. Problem is we've abdicated the choice and given them, I think, to a bunch of unelected companies. And I worry a lot about that. I mean, we can use this technology to allow for more collaboration, more consensus building. And there are examples from countries around the world that are trying these tools from municipalities in the United States. We see nothing at the national level. Of course it can be hard. We're a big country, very divided country. But I worry a lot more about the tech monopolies who are controlling this than the tech itself. There are other ways to do it.
- [43:35]
Host (possibly Steve Bannon or a co-host)
Can you. Well, yeah, it's. Can you. Can you tell me. Just because I know we have, like, sort of six minutes left of this interview. Could you tell me a bit about your thoughts on justice? Because you mentioned something in your book about how AI might be employed to help judges form their sentences or even effectively substitute that. That role, which I hadn't. Which is an application I hadn't actually considered because of its notionality, impartiality. Could you just explain a little bit how that might work in practice?
- [44:10]
Professor Bruce Schneier
All right, so this is very controversial. I'm not saying I agree with this, but it's things we have to think about. We're already seeing judges use AI, you know, to write decisions. I think that's bad. But being used to query, like, what is the plain meaning of a term? The judge needs to know what a term means because it's in a contract. He has to interpret it. So he asks an AI what the term means. It's an interesting use, probably a good use of the technology, because the AI synthesizes what we all write and think and produces an answer. But AI has the potential to interpret what a statute means, and that could be used by a judge to take the text of a law. And depending on our politics, it could take the text and then the debate by the legislators, information about the world, or it could just take the text. We would decide politically what should be in the purview of what the AI considers. You can imagine a legislature encoding a law in AI. One of the problems we have with legislation is that is not specific enough. And then the courts start interpreting the legislation. And, you know, if they interpret the way we like, we're happy, and the way we don't like, we're not happy. But, you know, whose job is it? It should be the legislature's job. So maybe the legislator encodes its thinking in a model. And the idea is that the courts query that model to ask. So there's was a case in. In Massachusetts a few years ago which hinged on the question whether a burrito is a sandwich. The law was written, like, in the 1950s when they were like, people didn't know about burritos in Massachusetts. And here we are, the 2000s. A judge has to figure out whether a 1950s legislator would think a burrito is a sandwich. Kind of a, you know, a very bizarre situation. But that kind of thing happens all the time. And AI could help with that. We. We might not like that. Yeah. Because we have different opinions on what. How much leeway judges should have. But, you know, Someone's got to figure out if a burrito's a sandwich because there's a case and there are two restaurants and the zoning laws. How do we do that? AI could conceivably help.
- [46:24]
Host (possibly Steve Bannon or a co-host)
I agree with you on this point. Anyone who's been through legal cases as I have, has been a defendant in criminal cases, as I have, or anyone who's actually been a victim of a miscarriage of justice, as I have, will be intrigued by the possibility that AI might actually be a potentially a dispenser of justice because of its impartiality.
- [46:53]
Professor Bruce Schneier
Sorry. We might say that the AO make mistakes, but, you know, human judges make mistakes all the time. And all these situations. Very important. Ask, compared to what? I mean, we think about AI's driving cars. Compared to what? Compared to humans who get drunk driving cars. I mean, it's, AIs, you know, making judicial decisions. I mean, sure, they, they might be racist or biased, but, you know, so or so are humans.
- [47:21]
Host (possibly Steve Bannon or a co-host)
So humans. Well, yeah, as I say, I've lived through that myself. Back to the, to the democracy thing. You mention in the book that one of the most important information flows in democracy is legitimacy. As I said before, I think democracy is in late stage, terminal stage. And I, I was, I thought that anyway, before the advent of AI, AI, I think will act as an accelerant towards that, that process that, that's already taking place. But could you just say a bit more what you mean about the legitimacy aspect with regards to the role AI might have in democracy?
- [48:08]
Professor Bruce Schneier
Some people are imagining that AI take over the decision making process. Like instead of arguing about interest rates, we'll program an AI and let it figure it out, you know, and whatever it says we do, democracy is more than getting the right answer. Democracy is the process of getting the answer. And we can't just have a system that produces the answer. It won't be legitimate, it won't be recognized. We have to go through the messy democratic process. I actually agree with you that democracy is in trouble largely because it was invented in the mid-1700s for mid-1700s technology and mid-1700s world. And it's just not suited for the information age. I mean, I want what comes after to be more democracy, more democratic. But I think it's going to look very different than mid-1700s technology.
- [49:01]
Host (possibly Steve Bannon or a co-host)
So I mean, I mean, the optimistic view which I, which I don't subscribe to because when it comes to AI, I am a pessimist. But the optimistic view which you outline in your book is that AI has a Role to play, might have a role to play in sort of the technocratic process of merging all of the, all of, all of the voters intentions together in a way that democracy just fails to do substantially in practice.
- [49:29]
Steve Bannon
Right.
- [49:30]
Professor Bruce Schneier
Well, I mean that's, I'm not sure that's a utopia or a dystopia, but the notion of an AI, I mean, I can tell you I'm not proud of it. But the way I vote in local elections is the day before I go online, I find a voting guide, I read about the local candidates and I decide who to vote for. You can imagine an AI advising me. And Germany is experimenting with a conversational AI that helps people figure out which of the many German political parties they should support. And then it's one step more where the AI just votes for me. Now, I'm not sure that's a good idea, but I think we are headed in that direction and it's worth thinking about what the ramifications of that is. You know, I'm neither and I guess I'm more an optimist about democracy. I think there's gonna be a lot of challenges. I agree that, that, you know, a lot of things are not working today. But I think we as humans, you know, get it right eventually, even though we get it wrong along the way. So I think we will figure out how to incorporate these technologies into a democratic system. But right now with the old system, new technologies, I think you're seeing this, this bad mismatch as lots of powerful people are really good at what I think of as hacking democracy, you know. But before we leave, I'm going to want to know from you, is a burrito a sandwich? I'll tell you what the court said, but yeah, I want to know what.
- [50:58]
Host (possibly Steve Bannon or a co-host)
You think I need to ask.
- [51:00]
Professor Bruce Schneier
Chat GPT all right, so the Massachusetts court said no, but an Indiana court a few years later said yes. So I'm hoping the Supreme Court eventually has to rule on whether Burrito is a sanctuary much.
- [51:16]
Host (possibly Steve Bannon or a co-host)
Yeah, I, I think that's about the level that I would trust them to, to decide on and, and not higher Professor. Professor Schneier, Bruce Schneider, thanks very much for coming on the show. Very quickly, where do people go on social media or on Amazon, for example, to get your book or to keep up with your writings?
- [51:33]
Professor Bruce Schneier
All right, so everything I do is on schneier.com. that's my last name, dot com. Super hard to spell, but you can find it. You spell wrong and Google will correct it.
- [51:41]
Host (possibly Steve Bannon or a co-host)
And that's where I am and on social media.
- [51:46]
Professor Bruce Schneier
I don't do social media. You kidding? Makes me a freak, but I'm highly productive.
- [51:52]
Host (possibly Steve Bannon or a co-host)
Professor Schneider, thanks very much indeed. Come on the show again and expound these thoughts in more detail at a future event. Many thanks indeed for joining us. Thank you. God bless for now the end of the show folks. Thanks to Cameron Wallace, our producer Will, and his crack team in Denver, and Vittorio Franco who put this show together. God bless you now. See you next week.
- [52:16]
Steve Bannon
Do you owe back taxes or haven't filled in years? Now is the time to resolve your tax matters when the national conversation around abolishing the income tax system, the IRS is fighting back and proving it's here to stay by becoming more aggressive than ever before. They're sending out more collection notices, filing more tax liens, and collecting billions more than in recent years. If you owe, the IRS can garnish your wages, levy your bank accounts, seize your retirement, even your home if you owe or haven't filed. It's not a question of the IRS will act, it's when the IRS will act now. Right now, Tax Network USA is offering a completely free IRS Research and discovery call to show you exactly where you stand and what they can stop before it's too late. Their powerful programs and strategies can save you thousands or even eliminate your debt entirely if you qualify. Don't make a costly mistake. Representing yourself or calling the IRS on your own waives your rights and costs you more money. They are not on your side. The IRS is there to get as much money as possible, not to help you out. Get protected the right way with Tax Network USA and start the process on settling your tax matters once and for all beginning today. Call 800-958-1000, that's 1-800-958-1000 or visit taxnetworkusa.com that's tnusa.com Bannon for your free discovery call with Tax Network tnsusa.com Bannon for your free Discovery call or call 1-800-958- 1000. That's 1-800-958/1000. Don't let the IRS make the first move. Act today.