A Look at End-time Technology of AI with Technocracy - Prophecy Round Table - Amos 3:7 A Love of The Truth

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
you okay, can you?
If you guys can hear me, justsomebody give me a thumbs up in
the chat.
It'll take a few seconds, uh ohI see it says live now okay, it
was.
Uh, twitter was giving me ahassle on uh, streaming to
twitter.
So, okay, we're live.

(00:23):
Sorry folks, uh, we're tryingto stream live to Twitter.
So this is John Haller.
I have with me Patrick Wood,scott Townsend and Britcha Webb.
We're going to talk to youtonight a little bit about end
times and technology,technocracy, transhumanism,
artificial intelligence andrelated subjects, democracy,

(00:47):
transhumanism, artificialintelligence and related
subjects, and if you want to askquestions, we'll try to
moderate those or try to pickthose up Type QUESTION in all
caps in the chat and we'll tryto pick up some of those
questions as we go through.
We're going to try to keep thisto two hours because of other
obligations that some of us have, and we're going to try to end

(01:08):
on a positive note.
But I will be up front with youtoday You're going to hear some
things that you probably don'tlike, but I think that we need
to discuss in pretty starkdetail about the things that are
going on.
So, patrick, I want to startwith you.

(01:29):
You've written sort of, I think, the definitive book on
technocracy and transhumanism,and you've been studying
technocracy for a lot of years.
Just sort of give us just sortof a thumbnail sketch of your
thesis on technocracy and how itrelates to end times.

(01:52):
Please do it completely andfully in two minutes.

Speaker 3 (02:00):
First off, it was coined as an economic system.
In the 1930s, at ColumbiaUniversity, they decided to
define themselves, however, asthe system of science, the
science of social engineering.
That was the first thing thatthey let off with, and that's

(02:22):
kind of odd in a way, because wesee this propaganda floating
around all over the place thesocial engineering that's going
on in the world today.
That really fits what's goingon today, but behind that was an
economic system that wanted tomicromanage everything that

(02:44):
happens in the economy.
Everything is produced, ofcourse.
That takes resources,everything that's consumed, end
to end.
They wanted to know where theywere for one thing and where
they got their goods from andwhat they were spending their
money on, and et cetera.

(03:06):
Um, this was basically ascientific dictatorship without
a political system on top of it.
They wanted to do away with apolitical system altogether and
just simply run everything.
Let technocrats, engineers,scientists, whatever, run
everything in society, make allthe decisions for everybody and,

(03:28):
based on that, what do you needpolitics for?
You don't need to discussanything.
This reminds you of anthonyfauci basically stays standing
up and saying well, you know youcan't take a shot at me, I'm
just representing the science.
Here we have the science.
This is very egotistical.
It's very oh, I don't know whatthe word is, but it's

(03:53):
disturbing for sure.
That's it.
That's it in a nutshell.

Speaker 1 (03:59):
And so how long has this been going on and how long
has it been developing, and whatis your view of the current
state of it?
How far has it gone down theroad?

Speaker 3 (04:13):
It was resuscitated by David Rockefeller and
Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1973 whenthe Trilateral Commission was
formed.
They said they were going tocreate a new international
economic order.
I didn't know what that was atthe time.
I do now.
It was technocracy they weretalking about.
That was based on Brzezinski'searlier book called Between Two

(04:39):
Ages America's Role in theTechnotronic Era.
I won't discuss that at thispoint, but that's where the idea
came from.
The early technocrats got nomoney from anybody, including
the Rockefellers, by the way noCarnegie money, no Mellon money,
etc.
They were living on ashoestring in the 30s and 40s.

(05:00):
But when Rockefeller got intothe mix, he saw it as an
opportunity for him inparticular and for the global
elitist to do something that'snever been done before, namely
to get all the resources in theworld into their pocket, and
that kind of became.

(05:20):
The mission of the TrilateralCommission was to rearrange
everything in the system tofavor them so they can get
resources away from the people,away from the nation states,
away from organizations, etcetera.
And this is why now, forinstance, that you see this
audacious statement by KlausSchwab a few years ago that says

(05:44):
by 2030, you'll own nothing andyou'll be happy, you won't
forget the happy part, obviously, but they saw this coming a
long time ago.
This is the end goal of thiswhole thing, including
sustainable development, agenda21, 2030 Agenda, et cetera.
All of this is designed to twistthe resources away from the

(06:07):
people of the world and put theminto their hands.
And if they can do that, ofcourse, the money system on top
of it really doesn't matter.
You could trade in yourfirstborn child, or wampum, or
beads or whatever.
It doesn't matter.
If you got it and people wantit, you can ask what, whatever
you want.
So this is now an advancedstage where we're closing in on

(06:37):
2030.
That doesn't mean they'll getit by then, but nevertheless,
that's that's the target they'resetting right now.
30 2030 is going to be the theday that they close the drop
trap on this whole thing.

Speaker 1 (06:50):
Um, so anyway, it's very advanced and a very
advanced stage right now, and um, that's why we're talking about
it in fact, uh, in september,in september, the um, un, will
be having what are they callingit in New York City, the Summit
of the Future.
Yes, they're going to try topush through the PAC for the

(07:14):
future, which sort ofincorporates all of the what are
there?
17 sustainable developmentgoals, development goals.
So I see somebody askingcomplimenting you, patrick, on
your article on Peter Thiel andJD Vance.
Now I want to talk about thatin just a moment, but before
that I want to address thisSupreme Court decision.

(07:37):
So let me kind of give you mythesis on the recent Supreme
Court decision overturning theChevron doctrine.
And the Chevron doctrine was,uh, came into being in 1984.
Interestingly enough, on thatdate, uh, it was the, uh, the
Warren burger court, and Ibelieve it was a six zero

(07:57):
decision.
And in the six zero decision,the burger court by the way,
this was Reagan had already madea few appointments, like Sandra
Day O'Connor or WilliamWinquist, um, and I think one
other, but they did notparticipate in this decision
because it was going through thecourt before they were

(08:18):
appointed.
So they can't decide the case.
So the six justices voted 6-0,and they essentially said if a
federal agency is given someauthority or they're acting in
their authority, there's apresumption that they're going
to act constitutionally andreasonably and all that sort of

(08:38):
thing.
Now my thesis, patrick and youcan tell me if I'm totally out
of the water on this I thinkthat as technocracy developed
and as you've noted it was goingon for decades before 1984, but
at least in the United Statesthe last bastion was sort of the

(09:03):
legal protection that peoplethought they had with the
protection of limited governmentunder the Constitution.
And the Chevron Doctrine blewthat completely out of the water
and said we have to assume thatthe technocrats in these
government bureaucracies areacting correctly, and it was

(09:24):
almost impossible to prove thatthey were not.
And so I would say my thesis isthat if you looked at like a
map of Washington DC and thedemographics and housing and
that type of thing in 1984 andthen compared it to 40 years
later, you're going to seetremendous growth and property

(09:46):
values and population and thattype of thing.
And I think it was.
My personal opinion is now Ihaven't researched this greatly,
but I have observed what'shappened over my lifetime that
40 years ago that sort of coversthe period of my legal career

(10:09):
that the Chevron Doctrine reallywas important in embedding
technocracy in our government.
Do you agree with that or not?
Or tell me I'm wrong if youthink I'm wrong.

Speaker 3 (10:23):
It's a curious relationship that technocrats
have with the government.
They they obviously had aninfluence, uh, in the south
there.
His, he and his uh running matewere members of this trilateral
commission at the time.
And you see all the otherpeople moving into government

(10:47):
positions high level governmentpositions, for instance, the
cabinet and separate secretaryof state, other positions as
well.
However, the only reason that Ibelieve that those people took
over our government quote,unquote was only to get their
hands on the economic engine ofthe world.

(11:10):
If your goal was to reform theeconomic system of the world,
you had to have control over theengine of that economic system.
It was the United States.
They had to have control overthat.
We see this.
However, we see this antipathyplaying out today, where it's

(11:34):
obvious now, technocrats reallydon't like the government.
They don't like anything thegovernment does.
If they can wave a magic wandand make it all go away, they
would.
So, when you talk about, couldthey have used the Chevron
ruling back then to advance someof their goals?

(11:55):
Absolutely?
However, now the goal is to geta government out of the way
altogether so that they can justdo what they want to do, and
you see this pushback againstgovernment.
Now it's pleasing to us, by theway.
You have to cheer the SupremeCourt for putting these people

(12:19):
in their place.
On one hand, we don't want thegovernment doing things like
colluding with social media tocensor everybody, but on the
other hand, you have to see itfrom the technocrat point of
view.
If they could undo everyregulation in the world, they
would do it.
We've seen this push sinceReagan came in, the whole

(12:43):
movement of deregulation ofeverything.
This is just kind of you know,we see this, but it wasn't for
us that they did it, it was forthem, because they wanted to
eventually have control ofeverything.

Speaker 1 (12:59):
But if they lose the levers of government.
How do they get control ofeverything?

Speaker 3 (13:06):
Right now.
It's interesting, I thinkthey're they're they're.
They've come to a point nowwhere they don't not yet really
close, where they don't needgovernment anymore.
They don't, they're done.
I think you're going to be donewith government at some point
and say you guys think been niceknowing you, but you're going
to be done with government atsome point and say you guys,
it's been nice knowing you, butyou're out of here.

(13:27):
I've said this for years.
Sooner or later, the governmentofficials, congress, everybody
in a political situation isgoing to be thrown under the bus
by these people.

Speaker 1 (13:42):
Interesting by these people.
Interesting, well, whathappened in the last supreme
court term is that the chevrondoctrine was overturned, uh, by
a 6-3 decision.
The six I would call thenominally conservative, uh
constitutionalists on the court,and then the three liberal
lunatic uh judges voted againstit.

(14:03):
I've kind of examined it, butthere are two things and I'll
just say this and then we'llmove on to another topic.
I'm not sure that Chevron'sgoing to roll back the deep
state, like some people think,because it has to be challenged
in court.
Now you see Biden trying tochange the court, expand the
Supreme Court.
But you also see there was alsoa decision of the Supreme Court

(14:29):
in the last term on thecensorship issue and I think
this relates to Tech and Scottand Scott you can relate in and
in that case they said well,yeah, you know, you don't have
standing to challenge thegovernment's censorship, like

(14:50):
the First Amendment doesn'texist or something.
And I'm just concerned, I mean,and so I think that that
standing doctrine, I fear, willbe taken over to the challenges
made to the technocraticbureaucrats.
You know running all thesethings in government and you're

(15:11):
not going to be able tochallenge it anyway.
And even if you're successful,my view is it's a 20, 30, 40
year project to overturn.
I mean, if you look at thecensorship which is really
related to our subject tonight,the censorship bureaus that are
being set up and it was just anannouncement today by Homeland

(15:33):
Security or whoever's runningthat that they're going to
reactivate all those leading upto the election between now and
the election.
You're not going to stop them.
You can't challenge them.
They're going to do what theywant.
They're going to.
I just think we're enteringinto an era of technocratic

(15:54):
speech, control and everythinglike we've never seen, and I'm
concerned that there's just nota way for constitutional
conservatives to challenge it incourt.
So if we look at this in termsof a timeline of end times, I
don't know that we have 20, 30,40 years to change that here in

(16:16):
the United States.
So I think technocracy marcheson is the way that I kind of
look at it.

Speaker 4 (16:25):
I agree with that, john.
I think that you know let's notforget about the Hegelian
dialectic, which deals withsocial engineering and changes
and the fact of the matter isthat you know you've got a lot
of power brokers and deep stateactors that are manipulating.
You know brokers and deep stateactors that are manipulating.

(16:47):
You know things like, as yousaid, the legislative process
and branch.
You've got control over a lotof the politics and things like
that.
But you know the tech companiesalso are perpetrating.
You know their agendas, almostirregardless of what the law is.
And I'll give you a case inpoint.
Who, even two months ago, couldhave thought that the latest

(17:11):
Windows operating system runningon a Surface notebook with a
new neural processing unit chipin it this is brand new, just
happened is capable of runningAI and doing screenshots of
everything that you see on yourscreen every two or three
seconds so that it can ingestand train and be available for a

(17:35):
feature called recall.
So just let that sink in.
I mean, this is the technocratssaying to themselves.
We need more data.
Adobe just got a black eyebecause they all of a sudden

(18:07):
decided in their end userlicensing agreements to force a
default opt-in to every contentcreator, every illustrator,
every artist.
All of a sudden, their artworkwas being adjusted into AI so
that the AI could get better atgenerative graphics and design,
which meant that eventually itwould replace the artists.
It just as Tom says you cannotmake this stuff up and there is
an all out sprint for worlddomination when it comes to
acquiring data.
Has anybody else noticed howmany times we are forced to

(18:32):
acknowledge terms of servicechanges and all these licensing
agreements?
It is just.
Who knows what's going on withall that stuff?
Who knows what's going on withall that stuff?
And it's just, you know, Ithink, those days of us thinking
about, I would say, normalprocesses, normal politics,
normal technology.

(18:53):
It's over, and I just thinkthat it's unstoppable.
No one is going to stop.
They are so far ahead of thelaw in this regard that they are
acting with great impunityright now.
Britt, I'd be interested inyour ideas about this too.

Speaker 2 (19:13):
Sure, well, first I can confirm what John was saying
, which is that DC has grown byleaps and bounds over the last
40 years.
I've lived in Virginia my wholelife and it used to be if you
went to visit DC you'd be prettyclose to DC before you hit any
traffic.
Then it became slowly.
About 25 years ago it camearound Fredericksburg.

(19:33):
Now you go north of Richmond,massive traffic four or five
lanes all the way up there.
It's grown massively.
But I agree there's so manymeans of manipulation now they
really don't need governmentbecause they can lead people to
believe that they're makingdecisions of their own free will

(19:54):
, that they're not.
An example I used today in atext exchange that we had.
I tried to look up an articlefrom a couple of weeks ago on
the Houthi drone attack on TelAviv Happened around mid-July.
So I got on Google and I typedin Houthi strike on Tel Aviv and
page one of those results allthe stories that it gave were

(20:19):
related to the Israelicounter-strike.
So all of the titles wereframed in such a way that it was
Israel strikes Houthis.
Israel bombs Yemen.
Israel strikes Yemeni port.
And then you go to page two ofthe search results and it was
the exact opposite.
It was the story I was lookingfor that said well, houthis

(20:43):
strike Tel Aviv, drone strikesTel Aviv, and so they know that
that's a conscious decision thatGoogle has made to change those
first page results, becausethey know it's maybe 3% of the
people make it to the secondpage, the overwhelming number of
people who look up something ina search engine.

(21:03):
Those first three results, Ibelieve, count for about 80% of
the clicks.
So they know you're not gettingpage two.
Now, there was not necessarilya false news story there on page
one, but it changes the framingin someone's mind when they're
looking at that story, from theHouthis struck Tel Aviv to the

(21:25):
Israelis are the aggressor, andso that's a subtle change.
But if you don't understand thehistory of what happened, then
you're easily manipulated intobelieving that.
Well, israel is aggressivelyattacking its neighbors, and so
they're able to create and nudgepeople toward conclusions that

(21:48):
they want them to have.

Speaker 4 (21:51):
And I'm sure we're already seeing AI-generated news
feeds and I just wonder how dowe ever trust whether what we're
reading anymore is real?
I mean, is it from a humanbeing that has the facts, or is
this an AI, you know, trainedspecifically to spin a narrative

(22:15):
that follows the plans of theelite?
And I don't know that we'llever know that answer.
But it's not surprising thatthe Lord said do not be deceived
.
And that puts a burden on us,right, because we have to figure
this out, and it's not like thedefault trust score for what

(22:37):
we've known in the past isreliable anymore, and it puts a
tremendous burden on peopletrying to get the facts and
connect the dots.

Speaker 1 (22:44):
Actually, so somebody mentioned Hegelian.
I think it was you, scott, whomentioned Hegelian dialectic,
and I don't know what the verbform of that is Hegelian
dialectic or whatever because Ifeel like it's happening all the
time it is.
So let me move on to the nexttopic, because it's kind of

(23:06):
related and we're sort of goingto be bouncing around all over
the place, because I don't thinkthere's any good linear way to
present this and we want to havea broad discussion of this.
That's the whole purpose ofthis.
So, patrick, you wrote anarticle about JD Vance and his
relationship with Peter Thiel,and I saw an interview on a

(23:29):
British program calledTrigonometry.
I love the name some peoplegive to their channels.
I think they're very creativeand it was an okay interview and
I was going to play a clip ofit and I thought, nah, it's
going to waste our time and Idon't think they were very
effective interviewers.
They didn't really do a deepdive on anything that Peter had

(23:54):
to say.
But Peter was sort ofapocalyptic, and not apocalyptic
in the way that he talked aboutall of the technology and AI
and that type of thing that aregoing on.
Facebook just paid a $1.4billion fine this week for

(24:18):
misusing people's private data.
Uh, people's private data, um,and they also took down a post I
put up of a podcast, uh,because it they said was a
podcast I did with jb hickson,but not by works and it's, I
think, jb's on their list orsomething, because it went down
in a minute and we we removedyour post.

(24:41):
It violates our communitystandards and it appears that
you posted this to get likes,which seems kind of.
If you're on Facebook, you knowthat this is a ludicrous
statement, because every postand every comment has a like
button on it.
So it seems like the wholesystem is designed for you to
get likes, but when?

(25:02):
And so now that's the excusethey're using for taking it down
.
So Peter Thiel was sort ofapocalyptic in the way he talked
about it, the existentialthreat posed by AI, and I don't
know that talking about it, bythe way, in AI terms alone is
accurate, because I think it'smore tech intrusion and tech

(25:24):
control of everything as opposedto just artificial intelligence
.
But, patrick, tell us what youhad to say about Peter Thiel and
his relationship with mySenator, jd Vance.

Speaker 3 (25:37):
Yeah, boy, yeah, you got it right Vice presidential
candidate.
You got it, you're the guy.
Yeah, you're the guy.
Yeah, he, you're in ohio.
I realized, um, peter teal isan arch technocrat number one.
This is the guy who founded, uh, or at least was early

(25:58):
involvement with paypal, withElon Musk, back in whatever, it
was 2003.
He went on to do a lot ofventure capital investment and
also he founded the companyPalantir, which now is basically

(26:23):
the privatized version ofintelligence gathering for the
world.
He serves many governmentsaround the world, including in
Europe and, of course, theUnited States as well.
Their first client after theyfirst got started with a grant
from In-Q-Tel, that's the CIA'sventure capital company.

(26:45):
The first and only client theyhad for the first six years was
only the CIA.
That just tells you how deeplythey got their fingers, their
claws, into our government.
Then, as they kind of reachedescape velocity, they started to

(27:08):
privatize all of theintelligence gathering of the
world.
This is an amazing coup.
So when you look at Peter Thiel,what he's done with Palantir
and other investments that he'sbeen part of, you see a guy who
is completely off the rails.

(27:28):
It's sort of like Elon Musk isin that sense.
When I say off the rails, Idon't mean he's crazy, but he's
outside the social norm at thispoint and what he does affects
everybody in the world.
Point, and what he does affectseverybody in the world.

(27:50):
So when he got an idea that hewas going to get into politics,
he didn't do it himself, hegroomed surrogates to do it for
him.
That's where JD Vance came from.
We have another guy in Arizonahere who's the same thing.
He worked for Teal.
He got out of college and hewas groomed for Teal to be

(28:11):
running in Arizona.
This guy moved over.
His name is Blake Masters.
He moved over here fromCalifornia, set up camp and Teal
began to pour millions ofdollars in his campaigns, and
he's still doing it today.
This is exactly what happenedwith JD Vance.

(28:31):
So we look at these people likeVance and Masters.
What's going on here?
Why would Peter Thiel want toget his representatives, if you
will, into government?
Teal want to get hisrepresentatives, if you will,
into government.
We know now and, by the way,I'll just I'll give you a

(28:51):
spoiler the.
The point now is to uh give,get people in the government who
can unshackle the ai, uh, allof them, the around the the
world and in our country as well, to unshackle those people from
government regulations.
They don't want governmentlooking over their shoulders

(29:14):
because they're assuming they'retaking their own privatized
power to control the world.
They don't want governmentsdoing it for them.
So anyway, that's kind of thebottom line of it.
Where this ends, I don't know,honestly.
But when you look at somebodylike Peter Thiel or, excuse me,

(29:35):
jd Fance, he has a beautifulresume.
He's conservative, supposedlyhe's conservative, supposedly
he's a model citizen, he's aMarine.
You know who could criticize aguy like that?
All I can remember I just saythis I'm not saying he's a fake,
okay, but I remember a time inthe 70s when we had a peanut

(30:01):
farmer, got into politics, firstas the governor of Georgia,
then he was groomed by, as itturned out, zbigniew Brzezinski.
He said this later in hismemoirs to be acceptable to the
people of America at that point.

(30:23):
So Jimmy Carter was a Sundayschool teacher.
He carried a Bible, he talkedabout the Lord along the way and
said how honest he was.
And I remember explicitly howmany times he said on public air

(30:43):
I will never lie to you, thatwas a big thing back then.
I will never lie to you.
Well, after he got elected,guess what?
We never heard truth come outof his lips once.
Basically, he just schmoozedeverybody in sight.

(31:04):
That's how he got elected.
He ended up to be the worstpresident we ever had in the
country at that point, butnevertheless he got out.
Reagan came in but you know, wecould be fooled.
That's all I'm saying.
I don't know that Vance is acomplete phony, I don't know

(31:27):
that.
I really don't want to get introuble with that, but you get
the idea we could be fooled bythis and people like Brzezinski
at that time, who was a genius,a political science genius,
literally evil genius I mighthave had, but somebody like
Thiel could do a fantastic jobof modeling somebody for us to

(31:50):
accept.

Speaker 4 (31:52):
That sounds like the same.
It's like a reboot of the WorldEconomic Forum's young leader
global leader system to emplacethe next generation of compliant
, you know, politicians andleaders.
So yeah, it's.
It's really hard to to see this.

(32:13):
I wonder if we should bend overto technology now, john, if
that's okay right, right.

Speaker 1 (32:18):
Well, I think that you know the technocracy and
things are all related to this.
But uh, yeah, I think I thinkwe should move over to the
technology side and folks we aremonitoring the chat.
It's kind of difficult to havea conversation and watch the
chat too, so we will get to somequestions.
I'm sort of making a note ofthem as we go through, um, but

(32:40):
so let's talk about this Scottand Britt and Patrick about.
So let's talk about this Scottand Britt and Patrick about how
will this election, how does thetechnology thing play into?

Speaker 4 (32:56):
what we're going to be going through for the next
few months 100 days.
Hey Britt, if I could negotiatewith you, live here, sure,
would you take the AI autonomouspiece and you're a subject
matter expert in drones and thattype of stuff and I'd like to
talk about SpaceX and Musk alittle bit, okay, okay, all
right.

Speaker 2 (33:15):
Okay.
Well, yeah, I can talk about AI, autonomous weapons.
There's been a lot of talkabout how to regulate that, a
lot of calls to set up UNregulations on autonomous
weapons and making sure thathumans are involved in the

(33:36):
decision, and I don't know howrealistic that is and I don't
know what they define as human,because we're seeing a merger
between human beings andtechnology, but I don't think
that moving forward.
I don't know, necessarily inthe next 100 days, but in the
days ahead we're definitelygoing to see.

(34:00):
There's a need for speed and ina conflict, if you're saying,
well, I'm putting a regulationon myself, that a human being
has to be involved in everybattlefield decision, or in
battlefield decisions to killthe enemy, then you're going to
be outflanked by your enemywho's using that, by your enemy

(34:27):
who's using that.
And so it was mentioned earlierabout AI and controlling the
world.
And back in 2017, vladimir Putinmade the statement in regard to
artificial intelligence and hesaid whoever is the leader in
this field will be ruler of theworld.
That was his exact words and heknows exactly what that means
and where this is all leading.
And back to that Peter Thielinterview he actually said I

(34:48):
wrote the quote down.
He said the biggest risk weface is totalitarian one world
government, and I wouldsemi-agree with that.
I don't think it's a risk, Ithink it's a certainty.
The Bible tells us that it'scoming, so a risk implies that
somehow it could be avoided.
That's exactly where we'reheaded.
That's exactly where technologyis taking us.

(35:10):
Artificial intelligence isgoing to help lead to a more
advanced development of many ofthese other technologies, like
quantum computing and molecularmanufacturing, drone swarms, and
all of this is going to lead tonew weapons systems that could

(35:30):
lead to one country very quicklybecoming the dominant military
force and conquering the entireworld.
So all of this could changevery quickly.
We're on an exponential curvewhen it comes to technological
development And's coming in thefuture, and that's another thing

(36:05):
that stood out in that PeterThiel interview was he mentioned
it's extremely hard to get ahandle on progress in some of
these various areas.
Well, as a venture capitalist,that's one of the primary things
he's trying to do is tounderstand those things.
But I think we're at a pointnow where the technological
change is so rapid it'simpossible for an individual to

(36:29):
keep up with it.
So what do you think, scott?

Speaker 4 (36:35):
Well, I'm in agreement, and one of the most
unrestrained aspects of businessdevelopment today and maturing
process right now is in AI.
I've got a friend that is intech, just like I am, and he

(36:55):
often shares with me just how hehears from corporate leaders
everyone is working on AI.
It doesn't matter what businessunit you're in, everyone is

(37:30):
working on AI.
It doesn't don't know thatwe're going to be around for a
decade.
So it's interesting, you know,to see what this.
I almost think of it as they'rebuilding the Babylonian Babel
process again and they'rebuilding this pyramid to get up

(37:52):
into the heavens to declarethemselves to be God.
You hear Yuval Harari say we'reall just hackable animals.
I mean, just what's shocking?
The end of privacy.
He says there is no privacy.
Get over it.
He admonishes right, and Ithink he's right.
Actually, I don't think there'sany denying that this is where

(38:14):
AI and other technologies likethis are going, and so at the
end of our episode today, we'llhave some best practices to
share and some helps.
We'll speak to this directly,but I think that one of the
things that I'm concerned about,as I think we all are, is just
this intrusiveness in all theapps.

(38:36):
Everything is asking forpermission to use AI features,
and my great concern is, onceyou turn that on and authorize
that, let's say Microsoft Wordor Excel here.
Let me help you with this.
It's you probably don't want toenable features like that, so

(38:56):
that's how untrusted I believethis process is right now.

Speaker 1 (39:01):
Well, Scott, what do you look for in that kind of a
situation?

Speaker 4 (39:08):
Sure, what happens is , if you can visualize Microsoft
Word or Excel or Outlook,you'll see a column bar, almost
a window, over there.
Even Microsoft Edge has a tabon the side now that when you
open it up, it has all of the AIoffers to help you, and that's

(39:31):
where that is, but what they'restill kind of.
I still suspect that they'restill over-harvesting data
without explicit permission andyet they're asking for
permission.
So they're looking for yourfull endorsement of this and I
just there's this.
I'm a tech guy, I have a longhistory in tech.

(39:53):
There's something very smellyabout turning on features like
that and I don't know that youcan get away from or turn those
off completely after the fact.
I don't know that you can getaway from or turn those off
completely after the fact.
So I'm you know I'm actuallycynical at this point in my
Watchmen process here.

(40:14):
I just don't trust anythinganymore, and that's where I
think a lot of our audience isprobably going to relate to that
.
I think a lot of our audienceis probably going to relate to
that.
So it's very hard to navigateall of the complexity and
changing variables of what'shappening.
You're accepting useragreements on, your terms have

(40:35):
changed or you're doing updatesand you come in the next day and
your computer's rebooted.
Why, why did that happen?
And all these things arehappening, and I just feel just
intrinsically impressed by thespirit that they're working.
This is not a thus saith theLord moment, but it's just like

(40:56):
they're moving in degrees offreedom right now to position
the mark of the beast and theupcoming control mechanisms and
narrative.
But they need the systems to doit, and so they're pushing
precursors down into our devicesand computers.
And look, look, I've got alarge foil hat that I wear

(41:20):
occasionally.
So please forgive me if itsounds bombastic.
I'm not being bombastic, I ambeing truthful with what I'm
observing right now, and there'snothing we could really do to
stop the advancement of thesethings that are happening
underneath the covers of all ofthe technology that we use today

(41:40):
.
Brett or Patrick, I mean, jumpin, I'm out of the limb here.

Speaker 2 (41:50):
I think it's very safe to say that everything you
feed into any sort of AI chatbotis being sucked into that
vortex.
Otherwise, how is it learning?
We would have to trust thatthere's some fixed data set that
they used, and certainlyinitially to train those.
That's what they use, but it'sdependent on its growth for

(42:11):
everyone feeding into it, andthat means intellectual property
gets lost.
Again, earlier we mentionedartists downloading and the AI
training on that.
Putting downloading in and theAI training on that, that should
be copyright infringement whenyou're taking, like, the works
of an artist or maybe the waythat a certain writer they may

(42:36):
tend to write, and just copyingthat over and absorbing it into
this again giant being.
Again, the very pretext of thewhole concept of AI and its
growth and its ability to learndepends on all of us feeding it

(42:59):
data, and so we have to assumethat they're taking everything
that you enter into that yeah,let's, let's remember that none
of this is oriented towards thegovernment.

Speaker 3 (43:15):
Government has no role in here at all.
This is all private industry.
People like sam altman actuallyis the guy that's kind of
started, started this wholething when he released, uh, chat
, gpt3, whatever it was twoyears ago.
Um, now we have a bunch ofcompanies that are leaders in ai

(43:42):
and they're all leaping overeach other to get to the new
iteration.
This is not government at all.
These are the forces that aretaking over the world right now
and, independent of what wethink the government is doing,
because the government has noclue what these people are doing

(44:04):
, I guarantee you't, I can'tthink of one person person I
know in washington dc.
I don't know a lot, but I knowsome that has.
They just don't have a cluewhat they're, what we're dealing
with here, this, this businessof technocracy, technocrats,
transhumans, etc.
And they're in theirlaboratories.

(44:25):
You can't get in, it can't,can't get into those places to
even see what they're doing.
But, um, they'll releasesomething and then boom, there
it is and just throw it at theworld and see what six sticks.
This is absolutely uh off thewall as far as we concern.
We should not be looking atgovernment right now to bail us

(44:46):
out of this, if there's any.
If there's any hope, it's halfit has to be to either stop
using the stuff that they areputting out or somehow figure
figuring out a way to put amonkey wrench into it so it
won't perform.

Speaker 4 (45:16):
You know, patrick, I like your take on this, but I
think that let's nuance what yousaid about the government's not
involved at all and I'd like tosuggest that when you see, I
mean think about this, you guys,if the CIA has a venture
capital arm, they're part of thegovernment they're trying to
bypass.
You know governmental checksand balances and the
constitution and you've gotDARPA.

(45:37):
That's also fully in theventure space and you know a lot
of the technology.
You know military and orotherwise, and, brett, your
analysis on drones and otherthings like that are heavily
reliant on DARPA funding and,let's say, nudging ahead these

(45:58):
technologies and connecting.
You know, young startups withfabulous ideas that they are
sponsoring back into themilitary industrial complex and
into government itself.
That is originating, a lot ofit, from a governmental covering
agency, patrick.

Speaker 3 (46:17):
Do you?

Speaker 4 (46:18):
see it that way too.

Speaker 3 (46:19):
I would only say organizations like DARPA, the
NSA, the CIA.
These agencies have been sofull of technocrats over the
years.
I believe they've gone roguefor a long time.
That's just my opinion.
A lot of people don't agreewith me on that, but I think

(46:43):
they've gone rogue.
They're getting money fromtaxpayers to fund their
operation, but they won't tellyou what they're doing.
Black money, it's off the books.
Exactly, it's just.
You know they like the freemoney.
But I think these organizationshave demonstrated at this point
that they're not part of ourgovernment in that sense that

(47:08):
even the government can'tcontrol these organizations.
When they got a hold of whatwas his name, slick Willie the
president, when they told himyou're going to play ball this

(47:33):
way or you're going to get thehide way, and they told him
which way the crow is going tofly and he had to knuckle under
to him.
So who's the dog and who's thetail here?
I don't see all thesethree-letter agencies at this
point.
I don't see them really as partof the government.

(47:56):
They've been taken over by thistechnocratic movement over the
years.

Speaker 1 (48:01):
That's my opinion over the years that's my opinion
you guys have raised like awhole host of issues in rabbit
trails that we could go down.

Speaker 4 (48:12):
I think um as we avoid the potholes, we'll be
okay, John.

Speaker 1 (48:17):
Yeah, I don't know that that's possible at this
point, but I was just going toshare this.
Um, this was a article in theFinancial Times a few weeks ago.
It said deepfakes elections atrisk.
So let me give you the contextof the date of this article.

(48:37):
It's July 7th, that's six daysbefore the Trump assassination
attempt.
That's six days before theTrump assassination attempt.
That's 14 days, 13 days beforeor 14 days before Biden decides

(49:00):
to leave, not run for the office.
I guess he can not run, forhe's not capable of running for
the office, but he can still runthe office, which doesn't make
any sense to me.
But in this article inFinancial Times, they use an
example of a deep fake of apolitician here.
Look at what this guy is saying.
Boy, isn't that sound like him?

(49:22):
It's fake.
And who did they choose as thepolitician for the example?
Joe Biden?
So I mean, were they telegraphy?
And then we couldn't tellwhether Biden was alive or not?

Speaker 4 (49:41):
I see articles like this as priming.
I see articles like this aspriming.
They are priming us with whatwill eventually occur to
discredit any kind of thing thatthey want to challenge,

(50:01):
basically.
So they'll just call it,instead of violating community
standards, or instead of youknow you're doing this to get
likes, which I agree with you,john.
It's pretty ridiculous.
You know it'll be.
You have been flagged as a deepfake, you know.
So just, these are controlpoints, pinch points that the
tech oligarchy get to use attheir whim and pleasure right

(50:25):
now, and it's all ending up ifyou consider the left-right
paradigm and how they keepinjecting chaos into the system
so that everyone will movetowards the middle position,
which is the synthesis of both.
That's all happening.
It is happening exactly as wethink the Bible predicted it.

(50:49):
If you consider Revelation 13or, working backwards, the mark
of the beast and the midpoint ofthe tribulation period, where
the false prophet becomes theenforcer of the mark and that
you cannot buy and sell and youcan't have an alternative
currency.
There's no other asset.
Look at what BlackRock is doingwith real world assets and all

(51:12):
the other things that arehappening here.
So I think this idea and, bythe way, I love what JB Hickson
talks about when he says thingslike these different groups and
entities not spiritual entities,but just corporate entities and

(51:33):
organizations and leaders andpeople and so on and so forth.
They're competing with eachother and they're not efficient,
right, so we don't know who,but they act like they sometimes
contradict each other in theplan and there's this shuffle to
see who will lead in the future, and it's just chaos everywhere

(51:58):
right now as they try toposition their best foot forward
on this.

Speaker 1 (52:05):
So let me jump back to the drone thing for just a
little bit, because we're sortof seeing that play in real
times and we know that Israel'ssort of the central, pivot point
of Bible prophecy and you know,britt, maybe you can address
this and I'm watching this, I'mtalking to intelligence people
in Israel and I think they'restruggling.

(52:31):
So you've got these Houthis,who really are poor now.
Well, they're getting funded byIran and they're getting stuck.
You know equipment and thattype of thing from Iran, but you
know Israel has these vauntedIron Dome.
You know protection systems andthat type of thing, and yet
they launched some drones and acouple of them make it through

(52:53):
and hit buildings in Tel Aviv,1,600 miles away, and nothing
was done to shoot them down.
People were videoed.
You always tell when somethingsignificant is happening now in
the world because everybody'sgot their iPhone out taking a
video of it and they're takingvideos of these things flying

(53:16):
into Tel Aviv.
You can hear the sound of theengines.
They're not exactly whisperquiet, I mean.
So I mean so, britt, sort oftalk about that.
I mean you talk about the real.
What was it?
The replplicator Initiative orwhatever it was, that came out
of the Department of Defense,and how does all this play into
how warfare is conducted?

Speaker 2 (53:38):
going forward, Well, we've already seen the
beginnings of this with the warin Ukraine, with October 7th.
Drones played a pivotal role inboth of those.
We've seen it in the Red Seaand it really has dramatically
altered warfare, becauseconventional weapons systems are

(54:01):
really antiquated in the faceof drones for a number of
reasons.
One, drones are small, evasive.
They're going to get smaller,they're going to get faster,
they're going to get better.
But we've seen how ineffectiveconventional warfare is in the
war in Ukraine.

(54:22):
Both sides are pouring all oftheir resources into drones.
Drones are taking out tanks,they're taking out soldiers on
the battlefield.
We're seeing it in the Red SeaAgain.
Other than protection of theUnited States, the primary
purpose of the US Navy is tomake sure that the world's
waterways are open for freetrade among nations.

(54:45):
It's one of the things thatgives the United States its
power, gives the dollar thereserve currency status it has.
And yet we've seen, sinceDecember, when the United States
launched Operation ProsperityGuardian, multiple nations and

(55:06):
they said we're going to open upthe Red Sea.
And here we are, eight monthslater, over eight months later,
they have not opened the Red Sea.
If anything, it's gotten worse,and so we've seen an epic
failure on that front.
These drones they don't requirea large airfield to launch, so

(55:28):
they can be hidden.
They can be taken out fromunderground, launched from where
they are, and again, that'sgoing to get much more
sophisticated over time.
We're going to see smallerdrones attacking in swarms that
are decentralized, especially asthey integrate AI into these,

(55:50):
and we're seeing a movement awayfrom what the United States has
officially done in the pastdecades, which is these large,
multi-year, billion-dollarprograms to develop hardware for
the battlefield, to develophardware for the battlefield.
Instead, we're seeing a shifttoward these smaller drones and

(56:14):
the funds are being and theresearch and development is
being poured into the softwareto control drones as munitions,
drones as surveillance drones intheir many roles.
And we've seen the United States.
Back in August they announcedthe replicator initiative, which
was within 18 months.
So here we are.
We're not too far away fromthat.

(56:34):
They want to be able to launchhundreds of simultaneous land,
air and sea based drones againstI believe China was the enemy
that they gave in their example,but this is the future of
warfare.
We're going to see those getsmaller and the key to winning
that is who can manufacturethose drones at the lowest cost

(56:58):
possible, and I believe that'swhere some of these new
technologies come into, reallyupsetting the balance of power.
Because once you can achievethat capability to manufacture
vast amounts of hardware at lowcost and fly them in

(57:19):
decentralized drones think of aswarm of bees.
Okay, if you've got a shotgun,you can take down a group of men
attacking you, but a swarm ofbees isn't going to work.
And that's essentially whatconventional warfare is
experiencing on the battlefield,and we're only in the early
innings of drone warfare.

(57:40):
So I don't know what everybodyelse thinks about that.

Speaker 4 (57:44):
Yeah, I think that's true.
Yeah, about that, but yeah, Ithink that's true.
Yeah, uh, brett, I'm curious doyou think that the reason why
these few drones are gettingthrough all the way is, do you?
I mean, iran has a significanthacker community that's state
controlled.

(58:04):
They're actually quitereputable.
And do you wonder if they'vepenetrated the Israeli radar
systems, like Israel is known todo with others and kind of
tampered with this?
Have you heard any news aboutthat?

Speaker 2 (58:22):
I haven't heard any specific news on that, but it
wouldn't surprise me and wecan't exclude that as a
possibility.
But it's also, you know, thesmaller that these things get,
the harder it is to tell thedifference between a flock of
birds and an incoming enemy, andthat's exactly why, you know,

(58:51):
this is going to get harder andharder to deal with, and the
only way that you're going to beable to defend against a swarm
of drones is with another swarmof drones.
Once you get to that, I believethe key technology here is
molecular manufacturing, and wedon't hear a lot of that talked
about in the media.
But that would totally shiftthe balance of power overnight,

(59:17):
because instead of currently webuild things from the bottom
down, breaking matter intosmaller and smaller pieces, with
molecular manufacturing wewould be building up from the
atomic level with atomicprecision.
It would allow very efficientsolar energy and solar energy

(59:38):
storage.
It would allow lighter,stronger materials and it would
enable the rapid manufacture ofdrones on a mass scale in the
form of trillions, and it wouldoverturn mutual assured
destruction because there wouldbe nowhere to hide.
In fact, we had an article wehad all looked at earlier where

(01:00:01):
they were talking aboutsatellite constellations over
the United States or over thewhole world, and one of the
quotes in there was there'snowhere to hide.
And so soon that will be truefor nuclear submarines, and once
that takes place, mutualassured destruction no longer

(01:00:22):
applies.
That's what's kept the majorpowers from going to war with
each other since World War II,what's kept the major powers
from going to war with eachother since World War II.
And I believe that whoeverdevelops this technology first
and is the leader in it will usethat first mover advantage to
conquer the globe and establisha global empire.

Speaker 4 (01:00:44):
Yeah, john, could you put up the satellite thing from
Starlink please right now.
I want to explain this to ouraudience if you haven't seen
this yet.
We know that Elon Musk has, youknow, basically founded SpaceX

(01:01:05):
among his other massivecompanies, and he has been
launching, you know, satellitesystems into space for some time
now I can't remember the number, it's changing every other,
every week, I think.
He's putting up a Falcon 9rocket that's got a big payload
of satellites and they justslough off in a chain and then

(01:01:27):
they go deploy themselves aroundorbit.
But just so our audienceunderstands, you know how
pervasive these communicationsystems are, every one of those
dots that you see around theglobe.
And, john, if you could spin itjust for a bit, this is an
interactive map and you couldsee.

(01:01:50):
Scott can I?

Speaker 1 (01:01:51):
ask you a question real quick.
So in the map, if I didn't showup on the screen very well, but
where you see just the dots,there's like a honeycomb pattern
and there's some areas that arered, some are white.
They're like little red dots,white dots.
Is that a honeycomb pattern?
Does that kind?

Speaker 4 (01:02:14):
of indicate the areas of coverage.
Every one of those dots iscapable of receiving and sending
signal.
It's a mesh network.
A mesh means it's peer-to-peer.
So all of these satellites are,you know, coordinating the, the
signal, just like cell towersdo.

(01:02:34):
They also do the same thing.
They have different signalstrengths, and whoever has the
strongest signal is the one thatservices that cell phone in the
middle of the sahara desertmiddle of the Sahara Desert.

Speaker 1 (01:02:54):
I got my first ad yesterday on my phone for a
Starlink account.
You know, sign up for Starlinkand take the internet anywhere
in the world.
And you know we've hadmissionaries from Africa come
and they'll tell us that inAfrica this was a number of
years ago.
They told me this everybody inAfrica has got a cell phone
because they can't afford to putlandlines in but they can put

(01:03:18):
up cell towers and now they canput up Starlink satellites and
everybody's kind of connected.

Speaker 4 (01:03:27):
Same is true with India everybody is connected
right?
Uh, third world countries andthose that are still developing
are cell dependent, which is whyI believe that uh, cell phone
still plays a precursor role tothe control mechanisms needed to
end up at the mark, no matterwhat that looks like there's a

(01:03:49):
lot of speculation about.
Is that a graphene-basedinjection?
Is that one of those imprints,britt, remind me what that
Microsoft technology was.
It was something that kind oflike penetrated your skin.
It left mark, it left some inkin there.

(01:04:11):
That could be.

Speaker 2 (01:04:11):
I believe it was a tattoo.

Speaker 1 (01:04:15):
It was called a quantum dot tattoo.
There's been a patent for it,but I don't think it's been
rolled.
It's not been rolled out andimplemented yet there were a lot
of theories that it was, but.
I've not seen any evidence thatit has been.

Speaker 4 (01:04:30):
I think Bill Gates owns that patent, along with one
called Luciferase.
You can't make this stuff up.
That's what the chemical is, Ithink, so he's got a patent on
that too.

Speaker 1 (01:04:46):
But let's draw our attention.
There was the thing that theyhad the ID system body-based ID
system and I don't know ifthey're trolling us or not.

Speaker 4 (01:05:00):
Okay, no, they're competing entities trying to get
dominance over what's coming.

Speaker 1 (01:05:05):
But the patent number on that patent application was
606060.

Speaker 4 (01:05:12):
Yeah, that's taunting .

Speaker 1 (01:05:15):
So I think they're kind of trolling us a little bit
, Like we'll show you conspiracytheorists, guys, a few things
here.

Speaker 4 (01:05:22):
Yeah, I actually do agree with that.
That's taunting, very prideful,arrogant thing to do, but they
do it.
This is their modus.
But drawing our attention backto the satellite map, if you
guys realize that they'reputting up, I think there's
8,000 or more satellites up inspace right now and they're

(01:05:46):
building out.
Last number I heard was 14,000of these satellite systems then
you can imagine that.
This is why I think weunderstand at this point, as
we've seen more stage settinghappening, that the system of
the beast has to be almost inplace before it could be handed

(01:06:08):
over to the Antichrist whenwe're gone and when the
seven-year peace covenant issigned with Israel.
So I think even Tom Hughes hasmentioned the Antichrist is not
going to look puzzled by thiswhole deal and say, well, we
need a GoFundMe to fund all ofthis.
No, no, I think my personalview is that some of those 10

(01:06:30):
kings are the tech oligarchsthat are handing over the keys
to their technical kingdom tothe antichrist at the right time
and we're not going to be hereto see that.
And I know we have differencesopinions in the audience on
timing of the rapture.
Let's not go down that rabbithole right now, but this is a

(01:06:51):
way to visualize the oppressivepresence of that technology.
And if this isn't sobering, youknow, I don't know what is you
know?

Speaker 2 (01:07:07):
well, this ties into many of these other technologies
.
So we have not only this.
We've heard about digital IDs,central bank, digital currency.
She mentioned earlier realworld assets and the
tokenization of real worldassets, and that really boxes
everybody into a cage, because,as all of those real world

(01:07:29):
assets get added to theblockchain, which think of it,
as you know, a central ledgersimilar to what would be in the
old courthouse that would giveyou the deed to your property or
the deed to your car, all ofthat going on the public

(01:07:51):
blockchain, but for everything,including my laptop, computer or
a gold bar, stocks, bonds,houses, property, everything you
own it creates a world whereyou can't have a black market in

(01:08:13):
many items.
It really limits what you couldhave a black market in, because
how do you trade something?
How do you say I want to ownthat asset now, but if it's
pledged to that blockchain,legally, you don't own it unless
you make that ownership publicthrough that blockchain that

(01:08:36):
they're using.
So they're creating a systemthat no one will be able to
escape.
Once it comes into existence,there would be virtually no way
to operate outside of it,because everything will be in it
.

Speaker 4 (01:08:54):
Yeah, they're trying.
There's a gold rush coming onhow to fractionalize ownership
of nature.
I mean the ocean land, blm landyou know the Bureau of Land
Management.
They're trying to fractionalizeactually everything, including

(01:09:15):
the earth.
So it is the ambition ofBlackRock to do this is pretty
stunning.
I don't know that they'll beable to fully implement their
fractional ownership systems tobuy and sell pieces of Yosemite,
for example.
I live in California, I'm notthat far from there, but can you

(01:09:37):
imagine owning, you know, amillionth share of Half Dome?
That's what we're talking aboutand you'd pay for the privilege
of owning that.
What would you?

Speaker 1 (01:09:49):
get for owning it.

Speaker 4 (01:09:51):
Well, in the case of non-fungible tokens.
So in non-fungible tokens.
Remember, this is four or fiveyears now that it's been
possible to own a piece oforiginal art, digital art, and
think of it like an icon or abadge, and you can own that.
I mean, some people have paidmillions of dollars for some of

(01:10:16):
these images and they hold it intheir wallet, their crypto
wallet.
They are the undisputed ownerof that asset and that's the
same kind of concept.
These are the real world asset.
Stuff is rolling out.
It's going slow, don't youthink right now, brett, but it's
going to be a noose that comesvery quickly.

Speaker 2 (01:10:39):
I think Sure, and I think the way they'll sell a lot
of this.
And you asked what do you get,john?
Let's say let's take a mortgage, for instance.
They fractionalize that so thatmaybe you can invest $10 in
buying somebody's mortgage andthen you get a fraction of a
fraction of the payment and thecash flow that's used every
month to pay down that mortgage.

(01:11:00):
In the case of a place likeYosemite, if you've got a
landmark, there may very well becopyrights associated with
postcards, that that appears on,or photography images, the
intellectual property thatreceives a cash flow as a result
of that intellectual propertyand the goods that are attached
to it fractionally.

(01:11:23):
And people would take aninterest in buying a piece of
the Statue of Liberty, forexample, and then every time
that image is used they get aroyalty in exchange.
So there's probably no end tothe ways they'll devise to be
able to monetize and cash flowevery thing in the physical

(01:11:46):
world based on that means.
So that's where it would comefrom.

Speaker 4 (01:11:51):
I just wanted to return back for a second to the
comment.
We've alluded to it earlier,but now that we have this
imprint of these satellite meshnetworks around the globe and
how inescapable that alreadyappears to us at this point, you
guys should be aware that Ithink SpaceX was just awarded a

(01:12:12):
multi-year contract to launchspy satellites, literally spy
satellites up into space thatare serving the NSA and other
security entities like that.
I I guess the quote is uh, noone can hide.
So it's that oppressive part ofthe system that's coming is.

(01:12:39):
I think it's going to crushpeople honestly, so it's going
to be very, very difficult toget through that.
So it's going to be very, verydifficult to get through that.
And I want to talk just for amoment since we're on AI and
this one other side topic hereis the XAI.

(01:12:59):
There's some stunning thingsthat are happening with Elon
Musk and the X Twitter AI system.
They just put in a data centerand my mind still can't get
around how they did this, butthey're building a data center.
I believe it's in Phoenixsomewhere.
Yeah, I could be wrong on that,but they got that data center

(01:13:23):
up and running with all thecompute chips the H100s from
NVIDIA in.
I believe it's 19 days and theywere training on those servers
already.
So the advancement of, you know,the pace of investment in data

(01:13:46):
centers.
I think in a prior roundtablewe did talk about data center
investments.
Right now and NVIDIA makes theclaim Jensen Huang of the CEO of
NVIDIA, that you know youreally don't think of a data
center as a building anymore,which is what the classic view
has always been, or a group ofserver racks and rows of them,

(01:14:08):
endless rows of server racks.
He characterizes the datacenter actually as the deployed
system, including all theservers and everything that it's
a part of.
So the data center is beingredefined by AI, basically.
And there you go.

(01:14:30):
Yeah, I don't know if that'sthe same data center.

Speaker 1 (01:14:36):
I guess that's a man, that's an article about one
building being built only, and Icouldn't find the food yeah, I
think that's still coming butyou know they have them here and
they're causing all kinds ofproblems with the power grid.
Microsoft is training, which Ithink Microsoft is the largest
AI company currently, Althoughthey're not the most valuable.

(01:15:00):
I think NVIDIA is like worth $4trillion or $4 or $5 trillion.

Speaker 4 (01:15:07):
now is like worth $4 trillion or $4 or $5 trillion
now.
Well, Elon claims that his newdata center with Grok, which is
their new chip that acceleratesthe processing of natural
language it's a natural languageprocessing specialized chip

(01:15:27):
that they're getting 20 timesfaster response from
interactions with AI, which alsomakes it seem as though you're
talking to a real person.
Because this awkward pause whenyou submit a chat or a prompt,
you know, and I use AIextensively for work OK
programming, and I use AIextensively for work programming

(01:15:48):
.
So when you do this, there'sthis pause and it grinds away
and then it starts talking backto you through the window and
that is largely mitigated.
Now you can almost have anatural language conversation,
AI-based one, using Grok and allthese other advanced

(01:16:13):
technologies.
He'll be on a completelydifferent level.
I think, Patrick, you follow AIand technology quite a bit.

Speaker 3 (01:16:23):
What are your thoughts about that?
Yeah, exactly, yeah, exactly.
That plant that Elon took overwas in Memphis, tennessee,
actually.

Speaker 4 (01:16:34):
Oh, you're right, Memphis.
Thank you.

Speaker 3 (01:16:36):
And it was an abandoned building.
That was a huge.
I can't remember the name ofthe company, but you'd recommend
Electrolux or something likethat maybe, but it was a huge,
huge building and they took itover and they gutted it and
moved the equipment into it andthey did that in 90 days.

(01:16:59):
That's never been done anywherein 90 days, I guarantee you no
way.
There might be other abandonedbuildings like that around the
world, uh, around the country,but there's not, not many for
sure.
So, uh, he pulled off a coup ofsorts and, um, what, what's

(01:17:20):
happening?
We, we have several of these,uh, these facilities in, uh,
mesa, arizona and Phoenix, tempeand so on around Arizona, where
they come in and they establisha foothold and then they expand

(01:17:41):
that foot.
Once they get the approval andthey start one unit, then they
get approval for another one andall of a sudden you have a nest
of these things, huge, hugefacilities that are sucking all
the power in the universe intothe core and our community, for

(01:18:01):
instance.
We cannot sustain this.
There's no way, this, there'sno way these people are going to
suck every power, every erg ofpower out of our grid that
citizens need for, for instance,to cool their their houses in
the summertime Charges their EVs.
Exactly.
Yeah, so you know, this is.

(01:18:21):
This is.
This is pretty, prettydisturbing.
Disturbing.
But this is the wave of thefuture, right now, that these,
these data centers are notsimply there to be a, an ai,
assistant to you or, for yourpleasure, to have something to
chat with, you know, or talk toor do something.

(01:18:44):
That's not what this is allabout, I don't think.
I think what you're going tosee in the end is that these
data centers combined at somepoint to take advantage of that
grid, the mesh grid that youjust saw.
I love that image, by the way.

(01:19:04):
If you can get it in thereagain, it'd be great.
I love that image, by the way.
If you can get it in thereagain, it'd be great, john, that
picture about the mesh network.

Speaker 1 (01:19:14):
Yeah, let me, I'll get that up, just give me a
second.

Speaker 3 (01:19:18):
In any case, let me just say that the idea, I think,
in the end of this is going tobe to build a model of the world
that could be reflective of allof the systems, all of the
geography, all of the thingsthat move, everything, all
systems, travel infrastructure,every pipeline, every ship that

(01:19:42):
moves, etc.
The idea of taking thissatellite, uh, information and
data from space, drilling itdown to capture all of the
information of planet earth.
This eventually will be I thisis the term that we would use

(01:20:06):
here this will become a digitaltwin of planet earth in the end
it'll I think that's alreadyhere, don't you?
I mean well, don't you thinkyou're already?
working on it it's coming,obviously it's.
They're talking about it andit's in literature.
You can, you can see peopletalking about it in videos and

(01:20:27):
stuff.
Uh, you know mucky mucks inthat space, especially the geo,
geospatial space, um, but you,you can see uh microcosm of this
.
For instance, india two yearsago, uh said they they were
going to create a digital twinof 100 cities, large cities in

(01:20:48):
India.
That means they're going to getan image of the city for one,
all the buildings, all thesensors and everything.
All the data collected out ofthose systems will be fed into
an AI program that willliterally model a twin of that
whole city.
So you can zoom into onebuilding on how that building is

(01:21:11):
going to affect other buildings.
You can see where the powerflows are, you can see the sewer
flows, the people movement, allthat stuff where the power has
been used.
This is a new technology that'sexpanding beyond the city.
Now, where we're they'reactually talking at building,

(01:21:31):
for instance, a model about astate.
Now I don't say where, but um,this is going to expand to the
global level.
The united nations is alreadytalking about this now in uh
concept, where they'll haveeventually uh applied model what

(01:21:54):
you can get every conceivablething about the ecosystem, the
way things happen, the way thecurrents of the oceans, you name
it, um, it'll be part of thismaster model of our planet.
When this happens, when you talkabout other things like the

(01:22:16):
central bank, digital currencies, the flows there of those
things, the assets of the world,ownership of those things, when
you look at this concept ofactually have everything under
one umbrella that you cancontrol, it's not just a beast

(01:22:38):
system with a small b, we'retalking about capital letters
here.
That's going to be the beastsystem that we'll see in
Revelation 13,.
In the end, this is whereeverything is controlled,
micromanaged from the top down,where everything can be seen and

(01:23:00):
all the other people who arenot going to play ball with that
to play ball with that,especially the worship of
Antichrist.
Anybody who will not play ballwith that system at that point,
it's going to be a four-conconclusion that they'll be so

(01:23:20):
easy to identify at that pointand be killed.

Speaker 4 (01:23:25):
So, patrick, I'd like to add another component to
that, because you're absolutelyright, the physical world is
being mapped.
I think of it like Metaverse2.0.
Metaverse was supposed to befor gamers and using avatars and
things like that, but this is areal version of that in the
real world.
But I think the other half ofthis is not just the digital,

(01:23:46):
physical representation of theworld, but then what I've heard
is that they are using oursocial media and our behavioral
tracking in the GPS telemetrywhen do we go, when do we go,
what are our patterns?
You know who do we know who arewe interacting with, et cetera,

(01:24:10):
et cetera, et cetera.
And then when you put that intothe physical, you know digital
representation of that.
Now you've got predictiveprogramming where, if they want
to find Scott Townsend, theywill know that I go to this
church on Sunday and they justmeet me at the door and cart me

(01:24:32):
off in handcuffs, I mean theyput their.
VR glasses on.
They understand the layout,they know real time.
They tap into the securitycameras.
They know exactly what's goingon.

Speaker 2 (01:24:44):
And that's going to be a question.
I think it goes even beyondthat, Scott, and two.
They know things about usalready that we don't
necessarily know about ourselves, and I've used.
This example happened to memaybe six months or so ago.
It was right before we weregoing to bed and I turned on the

(01:25:05):
TV and I forget what it wasthat I wanted to watch, but all
I did was think about it.
Right, and this was notsomething that was part of my
routine.
I hadn't looked at this inquite some time and I forget who
it was.
It was a preacher his nameescapes me right now, but I

(01:25:28):
wanted to pull that up and watchit.
It was a preacher His nameescapes me right now, but I
wanted to pull that up and watchit watch a sermon of his and he
had passed away a year earlier.
So it wasn't something that waspart of the routine, but I
thought about it when I turnedon the TV.
It was the first example thatit gave me, and I had not seen
that up for a year.

Speaker 4 (01:25:48):
You know, there are whispers of this, so it read my
mind effectively.
There's already whispers ofthis going on, that some of the
earbuds or headphones or the newMicrosoft Augment Reality
system that they're able to readthe brainwaves and who knows

(01:26:09):
what's fact or fiction rightthere.
But uh, that's just scary?

Speaker 2 (01:26:13):
yeah, they've.
They've done testing in labswhere people think of something,
they in their mind, they have avision, and then it it actually
puts it on a screen, types outwhat they are thinking about.

Speaker 4 (01:26:28):
And no doubt they do images so, they can actually do
generative images now too.
Think of a horse.
It draws the horse.
It's unbelievable, yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:26:40):
And some of them are actually, uh, yeah, pretty good.

Speaker 1 (01:26:45):
I would just advise people don't make the mistake I
made.
I was talking to PM one day andI said are you stuck in traffic
on the freeway, trying to geton the big freeway to come home?
And she goes how did you knowthat?
And I made the mistake ofsaying well, there's an app on
your iPhone called find my phone.
And now I get this calls ortexts from my wife.

(01:27:11):
Why did you stop at burger king?
Did you stop there to getyourself a milkshake or
something?
What are you doing?
So she's like track, so I don'tneed.
I love that elon musk oranything.
I, if anybody has a suggestionon how I can get like a ghost
phone don't go there.

(01:27:32):
It says I'm at a, I'm at the uh.
I'm at the library, I'm in thereligious section, I'm uh.
I'm at the jewelry storeshopping, or something like that
, While you're shouting, yeah, Iwould, I would be.
You know, I would be on, Iwould be uh, on board with that.

Speaker 3 (01:27:50):
You need a pager.
Go back, go back to get yourpager from 20 years ago I know
you'd use one yeah, I want toshow you.

Speaker 1 (01:28:00):
I'll put up this.
Uh, I had the the shot up therefor a minute.
This google earth of newalbanyany, ohio I've talked
about it a lot.
Um, this, these white buildingsthat you see, sort of I don't
know if my cursor shows up, butum, the white, long white
buildings there, those that's ameta server farm.

(01:28:24):
Meta spent over two billiondollars constructing that.
Each of those buildings is aslong as the Empire State
Building is tall and they'rejust racks of server.
And then, directly across thestreet, sort of in the lower
left, is those white buildings.
That's a Google server farm,and Google spent $6.8 billion

(01:28:47):
building that server farm.
And then, if you go to the north, above the freeway I don't have
it on the screen, but it'sAmazon server farm.
And then Amazon has the largesttrucking warehouse I've ever
seen there by the freeway.
They're building an identicalone next door.
It must be 100 days, I meanit's and so the money is just

(01:29:11):
tremendous.
And then intel is spending.
The plan is just south of themeta server farm.
They're building the largestchip plant in the world, similar
in size to one I think they'rebuilding out there near you, and
uh, is Chandler or Mesa.
Yeah, patrick, and theirultimate plan is to spend $100

(01:29:36):
billion constructing the chipplant.
Yeah, and the question is wheredo they get in the water and
where are they getting the powerfrom?
So I know Microsoft is trainingAI to shorten the time that
they can build small nuclearpower plants to power these
server farms, which I don't mind.
I mean, I'm fine with that.

(01:29:57):
That's probably the cleanestenergy out there, but it's crazy
crazy.

Speaker 4 (01:30:15):
You know, Brett I'm interested in your thoughts
regarding this new technologythat I didn't know that this was
out there until Musk brought itup as like.
He basically alluded to thefact that this is a game changer
for battery storage technology,and I think that he has
contracted with a Chinesemanufacturing company to put

(01:30:35):
this into their battery systemsgoing forward.
Do you want to talk about thatin relationship to the quick
charge times and the longevityof those batteries, but also how
this might work into thesedrones and molecular
manufacturing, if you can enabletechnology advancements like

(01:30:57):
graphene and aluminum oxide orwhatever it is that they have
now created?

Speaker 2 (01:31:04):
Sure, I think again, if we take a step back and look
at not necessarily where thesethings are going, because they
are getting much moresophisticated.
They're getting cheaper, havinglonger battery life.
I think this has moved fromwhat 100 miles to 600 miles on a
10-minute charge, I think iswhat they mentioned for that

(01:31:26):
battery.
Miles on a 10 minute charge, Ithink is what they mentioned for
that battery.
So obviously that enables awider range for these drones and
operating times for drones.
But as we go forward it's goingto be leaps and bounds above
that, because when you startbuilding from the bottom up
which is what you would be doingwith molecular manufacturing
you're essentially you canduplicate or copy anything we

(01:31:50):
see in the physical world andhave complete computer control
over it.
So one of the things we werelooking at there was a Swiss
company, I believe it's calledFinal Spark.
It's actually using human brainneurons grown from stem cells.
10,000 neurons will go on thischip and process things at the

(01:32:15):
same speed, at much higherspeeds than we see with silicon,
but using 500,000 times lesspower.
So the human brain uses around20 watts to operate whereas it
would take 10 megawatts, so amegawatt being a million watts

(01:32:38):
to operate the same functioningcomputer power, I guess you
could say in silicon.
So as these data centersproliferate and this technology
proliferates again, the problemthey're facing is sucking up all
the power, and eventuallyyou're going to have torches and

(01:33:00):
pitchforks, as people say.
I want to turn on my airconditioning, as Patrick was
saying.
So the solution is found righthere again in the human brain,
and they're going to be usingbiological organisms melding
them with these technologies.
And that leads us right intotranshumanism.

(01:33:21):
I've often said AI is not theconcern, it's human beings
wielding AI.
Fallen mankind is not theconcern, it's human beings
wielding AI, fallen mankind.
Elon Musk when he was talkingabout this Neuralink brain chip,
he mentioned oh well, the blindwill be able to see, right, the
lame will walk.
Where have we heard all thatfor?
And oh, I'm going to get onetoo.

(01:33:44):
So they claim that the Neuralinkwas for helping people with
paralysis be able to regain useof their limbs.
Last I heard I didn't know thatElon Musk was paralyzed, but
he's going to get one too.
So the transhumanists, theylook forward to merging with
technology and this is sort ofan entry level using human brain

(01:34:10):
neurons to be able to powerelectronics more efficiently
using less electrical power andit sort of sets the stage for
the growth of that Now.
Right now these neurons last 90days, but again, we know the
human brain lasts a lot longerthan 90 days.
So it's just a matter ofovercoming those obstacles, but

(01:34:33):
they will, as we see atechnology like molecular
manufacturing come to fruition,so it's only a matter of time in
mind.

Speaker 4 (01:34:43):
Yeah, For our audience, the other term used
for that is called organoidintelligence, OI.
So if you want to do researchon that, that's a good entry
point.
They basically put cell clumpsinside of a Petri dish, hook it
to a computer and they train it.
It's unbelievable what they cando with it now, what they can

(01:35:08):
do with it now.
So when you see the batteryefficiency and you see molecular
manufacturing, this is whereyou get into the Sam Altman
economic worldview where he saysyou'll get less money with your
universal basic income, butthings will be so much cheaper
that you'll live like a king.
Do you recall him saying that?

(01:35:29):
so much cheaper that you'll livelike a king, do you?

Speaker 2 (01:35:30):
recall him saying that yeah, yeah, I mean in a
free market world.
That theoretically could betrue, but you're going to be a
slave to the system again.
Nothing will be outside of thecontrol of the system, and so we
may very well see a world wherethe standard of living is

(01:35:51):
higher, but if you don't havefreedom and liberty, what good
does it do?

Speaker 3 (01:35:55):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:36:01):
Yeah, I mean Brett.
I think I remember you sent mea copy of your book Raging
Toward Armageddon that youpublished about seven years ago,
because I had made a commentsitting in Jerusalem in a
Christian media summit that wasput on by the Israeli government

(01:36:21):
about a year and a half ago,and one of the rich guys was
presenting and he said he'stalking about AI and we're going
to do everything, it's going tobe great.
And so we're sitting there inJerusalem and he says we will
make the lame walk.
That's exactly what he said andI kind of, because he was

(01:36:45):
talking about the chat GPT,which had just been rolled out a
week before.
And then I I had noticed thatthen I kind of remembered I'd
seen the rollout of the neurallink and they, the order that
they went in was we will makethe lame walk, the blind, see
the death here.
That was the order that muskused when neural link had its

(01:37:08):
big see the death here.
That was the order that Muskused when Neuralink had its big
you know the big sort of productrollout.
And that's exactly the orderthat Jesus said to the disciples
of John when they came to him.
John said you know, go and askhim.
And they said are you the oneor should we look for another?
And he said you go tell themthat we make you've seen the

(01:37:29):
lame, walk the blind, see thedeath here?
And so it's.
There's this imitation ofchrist, sort of a pseudo christ
methodology that you're doing.

Speaker 2 (01:37:43):
They're sort of reenacting the messianic
miracles yeah, you, you look at,think of all the technologies
we've talked about today comingto their ultimate fruition.
And Patrick described thisworld where basically everything
is known, everything happeningis known.
Think of the world's view ofthe Antichrist when he arrives

(01:38:08):
on the scene and the blind cansee, the lame can walk, the deaf
can hear, he knows everything,or at least seems to in their
eyes, and well, he dominates theentire globe.
So there's peace, right.
So we've got world peace.
All these counterfeit miraclestaking place.

(01:38:28):
It's going to seem to the worldas if he will be this messianic
figure to the world.
And the Bible tells useverybody whose name is not
written in the book of life willworship the beast.
Not look up to him or idolizehim, but worship him.
Not look up to him or idolizehim, but worship him.

(01:38:51):
So these types of technologieswill enable this and will enable
this consolidation of power.

Speaker 3 (01:39:01):
I don't know if anybody has anything to add to
that.

Speaker 1 (01:39:07):
We're entering this time of of uh I mean, I talk
about it every week accelerationand convergence of all of these
things related to the end time.
And, patrick, I'll justreiterate what you had said many
months ago, that when thisfalse prophet and the Antichrist

(01:39:30):
come on the scene, theAntichrist is not going to
commit the abomination ofdesolation.
And then they're going to sitdown and say, hey, how do we
develop the mark of the beast?

Speaker 4 (01:39:42):
Exactly.

Speaker 1 (01:39:43):
They're going to say, hey, let's, they're not going
to try to crowdfund it, thenit's going to be ready to go.
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:39:50):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:39:52):
Yeah, this is just me , but I think that it could roll
out prior to the midpoint ofthe tribulation, but it won't be
enforced as unto death untilthe midpoint, so we don't
exactly know.
You know, yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:40:11):
So, john, you reminded be, it'll be rolled out
and, yeah, we're getting tothat point, scott.
So, scott, you had some goodthoughts about, um, uh, how we
sort of an action plan or how wedeal with this and that type of
thing.
And let me just first say,folks, folks, we really
appreciate you listening.
If we have time at the end weneed to do a couple of questions

(01:40:34):
.
I've saved a couple, but sowe're not ignoring you.
It's just very difficult tomanage the chat and listen and
participate in the discussion.
But if you would, there's linksto everybody's social media and
websites and that type of thing.
So if you would, you know,click, like and subscribe at

(01:40:56):
these websites and channels andthat type of thing to help
everybody out.
So there are resources downthere in the show notes, at
least on my YouTube channel, theFellowship Bible Chapel YouTube
channel, has that description.
I think also in Real FBC onRumble.

(01:41:17):
I put those in.
So, scott, now that thecommercial is over, let's go to
some practical steps.

Speaker 4 (01:41:25):
I don't remember if this is our fourth or fifth tech
roundtable, john, but it's been.
We've been on a journey as ateam, as a group, here, cohort,
and one of the things that youknow, I know is on our heart and
is that how do we reduce all ofthis stuff down into a list of

(01:41:50):
encouragements and bestpractices and what do we
recommend?
And I think you know I'm tiredof hearing myself say, well,
somebody should do this, publisha book, do something like that.
And I think it's time for us toreally bear down on this,
because we know we're gettingcloser.
And I think it's time for us toreally bear down on this
because we know we're gettingcloser, and I think that it's

(01:42:13):
important for us to talk openlyand honestly, almost as though
we're around the kitchen tableright now, just talking as the
body of Christ.
Okay, and I know, britt, youalso have some ideas, but I
wanted to just give I'm going toread through my top 10 things
and pieces of advice andreminders for us, and then I've

(01:42:34):
got a bonus section here in asecond.
So number one the Bible predictsthat things will get worse, not
better.
Guard your heart to.
Spiritual warfare is risingEvil is in the open and the
assault comes from every angle.
Now, 3.

(01:42:55):
Watch for blind spots in yourarmor and watch out for flaming
darts.
Not just darts, but flamingdarts.
They will come from unexpectedsources and directions.
Four be sure to be in community.
Isolation will hurt you.

(01:43:16):
Do not isolate yourself.
Do whatever is necessary foryou to forge relationships.
Patch up broken relationships,patch up things, things.
Get to know your neighbors.
Make sure that you're in asmall group at church.
Gather people at the coffeeshop.
Whatever you need to do, youmust have peer-to-peer support

(01:43:40):
system.
Okay, don't trust that.
There's going to be anoverwatch taking care of you.
You have to figure this out.
Okay, that's a strong word ofencouragement there.
Five avoid advanced AI features,if you can.

(01:44:01):
By the way, sometimes there's awork requirement and you may
have to comply to that.
That's a different matter.
I'm talking about elective useof AI.
So what I mean is remember wetalked about the new Windows
laptops, the Surface laptops,with AI built into the operating
system.
I wouldn't do it if you canavoid it.

(01:44:23):
Be careful of things like that.
The encroaching permissions andpressure that applications are
annoying.
They're very annoying, butdon't yield to those prompts
saying can AI help you?
We can help you with this.
Don't do that, okay.

(01:44:43):
Number six, listen to this.
Number six, listen to this.
If you are in a sensitiveconversation and you wear smart
devices, it is not enough to putyour stuff into airplane mode.
Start thinking about puttingyour devices in a blackout bag.

(01:45:09):
I've got several in differentform factors.
If you need to have aconfidential conversation, you
don't want anyone, including AI,to spy on you.
The only way to do it is toturn your stuff off and stick it
in a bag like that that'sshielded.
Sometimes that's called aFaraday bag right.
It's also known as a fair dayback.

(01:45:29):
Thank you, john.
It's very inexpensive they're20, 30 bucks.
Whatever it is, it's worthevery penny.
Now that we can't essentiallytrust uh, who is listening to us
and what they may be up to?
Uh, number seven, seven, readthe word.
I'm not kidding, you know.

(01:45:50):
Sometimes I don't know how tosay this strongly enough, and I
think we as a team are sayingthat You've got to be in the
word.
If you've read it a hundredtimes, begin your 101th journey
through the word of God.
You've got to stay attached tothe truth of the word of God.
Be a Berean.

(01:46:11):
Your source of truth isn't uson this panel, it is the Bible
period.
Eight be about the Father'sbusiness.
Every day counts as we see theday approaching, and one of the
things that I am coaching myselfand trying to manage is my fear
and emotions as I see thetechnology chokehold that's

(01:46:35):
coming and in the oppressivespirit that is coming, and one
of the things that I haveresolved to do with these
feelings.
These are very deep feelingsbecause we have loved ones that
are going to be affected withall of this.
We have to basically take everyopportunity that we can to take

(01:47:00):
the fear that we may be feelingand reinterpret that sense of
fear as an emotion, asadrenaline.
Think of it as adrenaline.
It's like we know that the endis one day closer than when we
first believed.
And even though we don't knowthe day or the hour, we know the

(01:47:23):
season that we're in, and so weneed to reimagine what that
feeling of fear is and use thatas a pivotal rallying point in
our spirit about pressing on asa warrior.
Okay, I hope that made sense.
Eight, I think I did eight.

(01:47:47):
Nine Work on sanctification.
You are the bride of Christ.
Act like your wedding day couldbe tomorrow.
Okay, that's a mic drop moment.
Yield to Christ and the HolySpirit.
There's refining that is goingon.
There are more temptations thanever right now in this age, and

(01:48:11):
so we have to take mentaldiscipline, spiritual authority
over the distractions and thingsof this world, and we really
have to cooperate with thisprocess of detaching
sufficiently so that we'relooking up and not looking
towards a political savior orany other savior for the matter.
We have to focus on Christalone.

(01:48:32):
Number 10, share the gospel,follow the prompting of the Holy
Spirit as you interact withother people, help people,
connect the dots.
And one special bonus that Iwanted to share with our team
here in our community.
You are the Watchman community.

(01:48:54):
I know you are.
All of us here are Watchman onthis panel.
The Watchman community has beenprepared for this moment in time
.
My journey as a Watchman beganseven or eight years ago.
My eyes were open, the Lordbrought that to my attention and
I started to voraciously learn.

(01:49:15):
We have spent years preparingfor the next set of
conversations that are going tohappen when things begin to
seriously break in the world andpeople's worlds are being
turned upside down.
They don't have context of theBible, they don't have context
of the evil plans and schemes ofthe elite.

(01:49:37):
They just they don't understandat all, and so we have to be
there for them.
Look for pastors to beoverwhelmed as these dominoes
begin to be pushed out.
You, as the Watchman community,you have been planted in your
church for such a time as this.

(01:49:57):
You're the one that hasincreased in discernment and
awareness of these days.
You are the one that turns toyour pastor and say how may I
serve you now?
Do not take an opportunity tounleash your frustration and
anger at all the wastedrejection and time that's gone

(01:50:20):
by that could have been moreproductive, to wake up and
educate the body of Christ inyour local congregations.
Cooperate with your pastor.
Do not do a dump truck and dumpeverything that you know.
It's just too much.
Listen carefully and meet yourpastor where the pastor is.
Do not exceed the bandwidth ofyour pastor.

(01:50:44):
His eyes are going to glazeanyway, are we agreed?
So have an open hand.
You've been prepared for thisseason, your role as a watchman,
although it looks marginalizedright at this moment, and all of
us could testify to this.
No one listens, no one returnsyour emails, no one really cares

(01:51:05):
.
But that moment is going topivot and the Lord is going to
raise up awareness that theirplan to, let's say, do sermons,
sermon series like normal, likenothing else, is happening in
the world.
Those days, I believe, arecoming to an end.

(01:51:26):
There will be a lot of turmoiland pastors will not be able to
duck or hide or say they don'tunderstand.
They will have to grasp withthese things and we have to be
there for our pastors.
Don't make me cry right now.
This is very, very personal forus.
We have spent years on this andthe emotions that we deal with,

(01:51:49):
with rejection and people thatjust don't care, scoffing and
mocking all that stuff.
We have to take authority overthose negative sentiments and we
have to turn that around toserve others.
Okay, all right, that's the endof my soapbox.
Thank you for giving me someattention.

Speaker 3 (01:52:08):
You know, Britt, I think you had some things to say
too.
That's the end of my soapbox.
Thank you for giving me someattention.

Speaker 4 (01:52:09):
Patrick, do you have anything?
Britt, I think you had somethings to say too.

Speaker 2 (01:52:13):
Sure.
I want to expound upon point 10that Scott just mentioned,
which is we should be ready atall times to give an account for
the hope that we have in JesusChrist.
And we mentioned earlier thePeter Thiel interview and how he
said the biggest risk we faceis totalitarian one world

(01:52:34):
government.
Again, I don't think that's arisk, it's a certainty.
The Bible tells us it is.
So it made me think well, whatis the biggest risk we face?
And I don't want to assume thateverybody who stumbles upon this
right now or at a later dateknows Jesus, but the biggest
risk humanity faces, every humanbeing on earth, is that you

(01:52:58):
might die in your sins.
What does that mean?
Well, the Bible says that weare all born sinners.
That just means that we'vefallen short of God's mark of
perfection.
And the Bible also says thewages of sin is death, which
means that the consequence ofthat imperfection is eternal

(01:53:20):
separation from a holy God oncewe pass from this earth, meaning
we would be in hell, separatefrom God.
That's a terrible place to be,but the good news is that while
we were still sinners, jesusChrist, he came to earth, he
lived a perfect, sinless life.
He went to the cross.
He died on the cross and shedhis blood and paid the penalty

(01:53:45):
for our sin.
He stood in our place so thatwe could be reconciled with God.
When God looks upon us, he seeshis perfect son, and after he
died on the cross, jesus roseagain in victory and he's seated
at the right hand of God rightnow preparing a place for us in
heaven.
Everybody who believes in himand trusts in him has life, and

(01:54:11):
has life abundantly.
So, guys, the biggest risk weface isn't anything this world
throws at us.
As Jesus said, don't fear man,who can only kill body, but God,
who can kill body and soul.
Kill body, but God, who cankill body and soul.

(01:54:31):
As the biggest risk we face asindividuals, as humanity on the
globe, is that you might die inyour sins.
Make sure you have a savinggrace relationship with Jesus
Christ, that you know him, thatyou're putting your full trust
in him, not your own works, anygood deeds or how you think

(01:54:54):
you're good enough to be inGod's presence.
You're not.
We're not.
None of us are.
It's only through Christ thatwe are redeemed, and that's the
most important thing that we canknow.
In any day or time, butespecially in this age.
I don't know if Patrick or Johnhave anything to add.

Speaker 3 (01:55:21):
You covered it all.
Very good, very good.

Speaker 1 (01:55:30):
John.
I think you're on good, john.
I think you're on mute, john.
I would just encourage peopleto pray for all of us, to pray
for each other.
We're entering into a timethat's going to seem very

(01:55:51):
disconnected.
I just think it's difficult.
So you know everybody always.
You know what are we going tosee before we're out of here,
and my answer to that now is atleast everything we've seen so
far and a lot more.
And so I don't know when we'regetting out of here.

(01:56:13):
You know, I don't know that I'mgoing to my.
I don't know the method of myexit, the timing or method of my
exit, and I think we all needto live like that, live with
that expectation that any momentwe could meet the Lord.
So we need to live.
I think Scott nailed it when hetalked about sanctification,

(01:56:35):
working on your sanctification.
I think we need to live liveslike that.
We're in a difficult time.
I think we need to be aroundother believers and that can be
in many ways.
It can be physical, it can alsobe online and that type of

(01:56:56):
thing.
But I think you need to make aneffort to do that and I would
also encourage people that, whenyou do that, to kind of set
aside your personal agenda.
To kind of set aside yourpersonal agenda.
I am constantly inundated andI'm not saying I don't

(01:57:18):
appreciate people sending methings, but I am just hammered
every day with all of thesedifferent ideas on views, on the
end times and, to be honestwith you, some days it wears me
out.
Um, and it wears me out becauseI'm concerned that people have

(01:57:39):
turned their views into a hammerto pound on with, to pound on
everybody else.
Everybody else becomes a nailto pound on with your hammer and
I think we need to avoid that.
In the body of Christ.

Speaker 4 (01:57:54):
Yeah, I call that conduct unbecoming the body of
Christ.
Yeah, we should avoid that.

Speaker 1 (01:58:03):
So we will do another one of these.
I don't know when.
They're just sort of randomlyscheduled.
When one or two of us get anidea, hey, we need to do another
one of those.
I know we didn't get thequestions tonight.
I kept those.
Next time we do those, I'll tryto address them.

(01:58:23):
I'll give the guys, like one ofthem, from Scott, our friend
Melissa AI quantum merger howsoon can we expect that?
What are the potentialramifications?
And that's probably a wholediscussion in and of itself,
because I will just tell you,I'm in regular contact with
people who are insiders withinthe tech industry and I'm

(01:58:49):
regularly told, whether it'sdefense or tech or whatever.
Uh, you need to understand thatwe're much further down the
road on this than you know about.
And and, by the way, there arebelievers that work in this
industry.
You need to pray for them.
The way there are believersthat work in this industry, you

(01:59:10):
need to pray for them Becausethey need a lot of prayer
coverage, because I thinksometimes there's ethical issues
to wrestle with, but it's nodifferent than ethical issues I
wrestled with from time to timein the practice of law.
So keep everybody in prayerkeeping community.
I'll just throw it out thereone more time to all the guys.
Anything to add before we signoff?

Speaker 4 (01:59:33):
It's a great privilege to address this
audience and I'm looking forwardto our next time, if we're
still here, god willing.

Speaker 1 (01:59:44):
By the way, scott, I'm going to try to take your 10
items and I'm going to try toput that into a short video.
You know one of those shortsthat they put on YouTube and put
that up oh great, yeah, withBrits he's got a very good list
too right well, anything else,guys?
I don't think so.

(02:00:06):
Scott could I just ask you toclose us in prayer?
I'd be happy to.

Speaker 4 (02:00:11):
So, father, thank you so much for this time.
Thank you for protecting theglitch problems with streaming
services and things andprotecting our conversations
right now.
I pray for all of this to sinkin in the right way, the way
that you intend it to be Forthose that are challenged by
these things.
I pray that they are encouraged.

(02:00:33):
We turn that fear intoadrenaline at the proximity of
your appearing Lord.
So help us to finish strongthat is our number one goal
right now and to stay rooted inthe word and in community with
each other.
In Jesus name, we pray.
Amen, amen.

Speaker 1 (02:00:50):
Thank you everybody.
Guys, I'm going to say goodbyeto you on the other side as we
end the stream.
God bless everyone, good night.
Good night, peace.

All Episodes

A Look at End-time Technology of AI with Technocracy - Prophecy Round Table

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

24/7 News: The Latest

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}A Look at End-time Technology of AI with Technocracy - Prophecy Round Table