Transcription
Well, we told you about the extinction level event that is coming, and now we have our clearest sign yet that it's being accelerated, but some brave individuals are trying to stop it.
A new groundbreaking lawsuit, arguably one of the most important lawsuits in history, has just been filed against one of the most powerful and secretive technology companies in America, Palunteer Technologies, along with its billionaire founder Peter Teal, CEO Alex Karp, and the COO Chey Sankar.
Now, the plaintiffs are listed anonymously in this complaint as John Doe and Jane Doe, but it's way bigger than just these names. They allege that Palunteer has crossed a constitutional Rubicon, if you will, using its artificial intelligence systems to surveil, profile, and manipulate the American public without our consent.
According to this 43-page verified complaint that I've read in federal court, Palunteer software, the same tools that are used by the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security, and intelligence agencies, are allegedly being deployed domestically to monitor US citizens, harvest our biometric data, censor online speech, and even interfere with elections.
And it goes much deeper than all of that. The plaintiffs are accusing Palunteer of developing what they call synthetic intelligence technology that merges machine reasoning with human behavior prediction, pre-crime, Minority Report-style stuff, effectively trespassing into the human mind. They claim it violates basic rights in privacy, free speech, cognitive liberty.
Cognitive liberty. It's a new phrase, a term gaining traction among digital privacy advocates, and I'm glad we're going to have this discussion. James Martinez, it's an MK Ultra whistleblower. He received information about this lawsuit a long time ago. Um, and we had him on to discuss this extinction level event that is coming. And I was just speaking to James a few minutes ago who said this is an accelerant. This is speeding up this extinction level event. And James joins us once again here on the show. James, great to have you back on the show. Thank you so much. And I have to say, your first appearance on our show was mind-blowing. People around the world, millions of people have seen that interview and are just stunned by what you revealed. But this takes it to the next level.
No. With this lawsuit. >> Yeah, it does. Um, because of certain technological advancements in the brain-computer interface community, um, what we're seeing now is multiple states are starting to begin legislation to protect brain data. Now, Palunteer is a a a collection uh company. It basically uh surveils and interjects and takes all your data and synthesizes it to create a picture about a person, a place, or a thing.
Now, um, since this is um now very public um in terms of what the company intends to do, it's been slowly preparing the public, and that was quite apparent when uh they, the presence was known at a very well-watched event that happened recently, uh, during the Charlie Kirk um funeral, where Palunteer was on the wall right next to the stage as if they were sponsoring the event, which I found uh uh I saw that as, yeah, it's a funeral. It's a funeral for everybody, uh, based upon the media ecological effects of what technology does when you insert it and begin to use it. And when I'm um talking about um media ecological effects, that's a word that came from um, was kind of coined by Marshall McLuhan, which basically says what happens when you introduce technology and how it affects the sensory balance in the brain between the senses and how you create your reality. Uh, like, for instance, the media logical effect of um, a fork would be to accelerate the amount of food you could get into your mouth. That, that would be an effect. With this technology, its effects, uh, will basically they'll have access to all your data and then be a model of who you are. You won't have uh authority over it unless you've done some very serious things in the courtroom. And uh, it's going to eventually create complete paranoia because you'll have absolute zero privacy. We haven't had privacy, uh, um, for a while because of Google. But this at this time is an accelerant on top of all of it that is going to uh violate most of um, if not all our uh cognitive liberties because now we're into uh predictive models of behavior, human behavior. And what is that going to mean in court? What's it going to mean when uh, you have, you create the data off of somebody that's profiling that is a criminal, and the data, which is digital, can be broken into and changed? You have all these ethical problems and legal potential problems that are going to exist as an effect of this technology.
Uh, there's just been recently um, uh, a bill I was made aware of that the Democrats have drawn up to protect the first, uh, it's a brain uh data protection act, essentially. Um, and the point of this is this, when I came on and spoke about the extinction level event because of the fusion of brain and computer and quantum and what that does, what that ultimately is going to do. Uh, this, the acceleration of this company, as it was, as I was contacted from people that are out there that are already suffering enough from um, weapons, neurocognitive weapons being used against the public in the US right now. I get more email about that than you, you would ever imagine. And we have this is one of the effects is from this company. As it accelerates, you're going to see the biggest uh mental health breakdown in the history of history because people won't know what's real and what is not and what can be faked because when you're screwing around and creating future predictive models on human behavior, um, now you can be charged by intention of the algorithm that says you hate your neighbor because they're some color and you can be profiled.
Not to mention that you, that all this data they claim with all these gigantic uh bills that they're having on multiple states that they're going to protect your brain data. Really? They're going to protect our brain data? No. No. No. No. No. No bill law has ever been made that's stopped anybody from doing anything. So this, this lawsuit here is an invitation for the entire human civilization to have a very serious talk about its future and the cutting off of our human spiritual uh component that makes us human. And we're not, we're not turning into machines until we have the big talk with everybody because that's what really all of this is about. This lawsuit uh brings up all sorts of uh legal issues having to do with just privacy, not to mention uh theft of data. And they're presuming with all the data that they're stealing, are going to be stealing and spying on everybody, that that data is theirs when they're going to argue that they've, we've voluntarily complied to go for all this. This is the problem with these big technology companies that are just way out of hand and who these guys are working for because it, they, it's already become highly politicized because of what's happened um in Israel where they were using Palunteer technology there um with the genocide and everything.
So what does this mean? We've got people testifying about extraterrestrials in Congress. You've got genocide going across the other side of the world. You've got complete riots all over the United States right now. You've got, I mean, a whole ton of major activities are going on, whilst the real end of the show has to do with free speech because they're already starting to legislate that, and this is going to be part of a tool that that makes that legislation enforceable. See, it's, it's over. It is over unless people uh get involved with this because it, the plaintiffs may be John Doe, a Jane Doe, but it's you, you, the person that's watching this, you, the host, everybody. Because this is, this is the one battle that you can't walk away from and just like, "Oh, he'll take care of it. He's doing it over there." No, no, no. You, you've got to uh be prepared for this because in Europe right now, uh, now they're requiring biometrics to go anywhere. So the digital prison coming out, and this, and this is part of it. >> Because it, this is, this is going to be uh used as a behavioral tool to control populations because they don't really want you here anyway because the World Economic Forum is, many of your people in your audience know this, is just a tool to take down uh humans and put them into um the fusion bases with machinery and essentially that kills you. You're not, you're no longer human. So that's, that's the, that's the issue with this.
>> Well, and people, I think, are becoming far more aware of this now when they're seeing, they're seeing the chaos. They're seeing the discontent. They're seeing people fighting each other online. They're seeing people fighting each other on the streets in Portland or wherever it happens to be, sewing this discontent. And we've been trying to point out here on the show, we had uh Colonel Towner Watkins um on the other day, and she's making the point that people are missing the 30,000-foot story here is that this is all in an effort to sow discontent and of course to bring us, as you point out, under this biometric surveillance state that controls everything we do. So while we're down here fighting over little things, they're up here with a sort of master plan to move us into this. And I think this is what some of the lawsuit says. And there's some big allegations in here. I want to go through the allegations in this lawsuit against Palunteer.
>> The Palunteer enabled systems are being used to enforce health mandates, control access to services, influence beliefs through algorithmic nudges, basically. So control our beliefs, influence our beliefs so that the government, I guess presumably, has control. Hey, flip this switch on, flip this switch off. Control our belief systems.
>> Yeah. Because you can do it through the electric environment, through the internet. Has already been demonstrated very well in the last three weeks. We saw one thing, but it actually wasn't. And then we were lied about it. I don't even need to explain what that is because everybody knows what that is. It's one of the biggest, it was the one of the biggest psychic events in US history and most examined. But now that, that there's cameras everywhere, it's going to be more and more difficult for people, uh, to um, have a sense of um, uh, cognitive privacy, of paranoia. Th, this is going to, if you have a problem with somebody, you can go think about it in your house and, yeah, I'd love to shoot that guy, but that doesn't mean I'm going to shoot that guy, or commit a crime. You'd like to commit a crime, but something takes over and you don't. This was the, the, the basis of um, Minority Report, the film, the, the, the legal argument about that. And, uh, basically building a data stream on a person that may be a criminal or not, and then by predictive algorithm, uh, and their behavior, tying them or accusing them of a crime. So all these effects are going to happen. It won't run smoothly.
Maybe we can even step back a little bit. So if someone's new to this, they're like, "I thought Palunteer was just a technology company. It seems fine." You know, they, they co-opt with President Trump. Peter Teal's friends with President Trump, and they've, they've donated to JD Vance's campaign and all of that. Like they, it's all fine. So what specifically is this lawsuit really alleging that Palunteer has done here? They've kind of stepped over the line into an area where they're going to be using the tools and the effects of this, uh, to induce cultural control and behavior modification. Same thing. Uh, it's kind of, it's, it'll be used in conjunction with, uh, Larry Ellison's statements about making people behave because all this is a tool for the real agenda behind the scenes is depopulation and get everybody out of here. But it makes it a lot easier if you can control the behavior, uh, of mass amounts of people and psychology as well. And they've told us that the lockdowns and COVID was a trial run. Basically, they've told us that this was the test. How can we control everyone, keep them locked inside?
>> Yeah. >> You're not driving cars, you're not using any kind of carbon-based, you know, automobiles, anything like that. You're at home. You're ordering all of your food. You're compliant. We can do it all. And it was really a test for that. Do you see it that way?
>> Uh, yes. But things are so far advanced, uh, now. Um, >> that that was like the prehistoric, that was like the stone age. >> Yeah. Yeah. Actually. Yeah. I mean, that, that, the, we're, we're at such a uh crossroads for the human race as a species because of the advanced, these all these advanced technologies coming in on us, as well as new realizations and other things that have never even uh understood is going on or being revealed now. So most people know that we're, we're way past the technological advancement that we've been told and all of that veil is going to be lifted. It's because it's starting now because of uh what's happened kind of behind the national security line that was put in place in 1947. So all of these technologies are going to collide while they're creating agitation, warfare, and violence, and everybody's been misdirected. All that, that keeps everybody really occupied. Meanwhile, they're, they're doing this and and encroaching in um our right to exist, essentially. They don't see that when they, when they talk in public, they talk about their technology as a commercial service and what they're doing, but they don't talk about the effects of the technology. That's the key because nobody called you or me when they decided to put these cell phones out about what the effects were going to be. They were just saying this is a phone, you can now, you can be mobile and call your wife whenever. It's, they provided as a service and sold it as a service, but they didn't never talked about the technological and media ecological effects on the brain and uh culture. They didn't say it would destroy social space. They didn't say it would change your central nervous system. It didn't say it would ruin your sleep at night. It didn't say all these things. They don't, they don't technology companies and inventions and things like they never talk about the effects of the technology um before it comes out. They just put it out, right? They don't talk about what the effects do. And these are some of the effects they're going that are going to happen. Nobody's going to trust anybody with anything. It'll c, it'll create hyper paranoia and distrust of all institutions, period.
>> And you know, I, I just saw this. I want to get more back into all the details of Palunteer here and what, what, what this lawsuit says, but I don't know if you've seen this over the past couple of weeks. It's becoming more and more apparent all these NFL players that you would normally see them running on the sidelines wearing Bluetooth headphones. They'd wear the wireless Bluetooth headphones and they'd be warming up before the games, or they, they'd be showing up off the buses wearing all these Bluetooth headphones and earbuds. Now they're not. They're all wearing wired headphones now. And this is very strange. Like it's, they're not wearing those Beats wireless ones.
>> What they've done is the micro escalation. Micro escalation is the key to to self suicide. Uh, the, the cell phone with the, the step prior to the cell phone being put in your hand was getting the public to put something on their body. And long ago, the first step to the uh mobile phone was actually the pager. People had pagers. Call me on my pager, and you'd have that thing attached to your device. So that was training wheels for having a mobile hand unit. So when these companies do this things like this, they've already pre-trained their um, uh, culture, all their buyers to interface with machinery on the body already. And now it went from headphones to buds, and now it's turned into the next thing, and eventually they'll go right to the brain. I mean, they now that X has put out, uh, uh, tools to do that. Um, they've already advertised it. Uh, something that is, uh, calculating between the mid here. Um, they're going to be, they'll start to legislate consciousness. That's what they're doing at the same time. That's why the big issue is about freedom of speech and whether or not you can talk about somebody or not. They're going to legislate all that stuff, but they can do it technologically onto you without your permission, and they are if you participate. Everybody's going to have to rebut, and they're going to have to completely redeclare who they are related to the courtroom, and there's going to be, if they think this is the only lawsuit they're going to get, it's, there'll be loads more when people figure out, uh, what the situation is because this, this is over. This has gone way over the line, way over the line because just the way the, uh, founders are speaking about it as a, a political tool with Israel, which they've done frequently.
>> The founders of Palunteer? >> Yes, Mr. Karp did. He was quite vocal about it. And now you've got, uh, Peter Teal, um, who is in crisis, in my opinion. If you're going to advertise yourself talking about the Antichrist to a Christian nation, and you're not sure your role in that, but, uh, uh, people are saying, "Well, aren't you and your relationship between Palunteer now going to become something of like the Antichrist?" And him, uh, having a deep moral issue with the concept, and now he's put on, I think, four or five speaking engagements about this. It's about him and the effects of this company.
>> Right? The >> Before he even got into it. >> Yes. Yes. Yes. I people >> They should, they changed their name from Palunteer to Mark of the Beast. I mean, that it's really at the center of this. >> Yes. It's a lot of it, and they are, uh, discreetly um, discussing that. The problem is, is, uh, the public is not um, fully engaged with the situation yet because they're totally misdirected, and their attention has been put elsewhere because, you know, one of the things they've done when the internet came through and everybody started to have a screen in front of their face for eight hours a day, is the, uh, completion, the total attention economy. It's more important to get attention. You have to, your digital node is your money now. And all these algorithms that are controlling your digital node as you spend eight hours a day in front of a screen, that's all part of this too because people are already, they're already, uh, almost merged with computers already. It's, it's there already, but the public hasn't totally moved into it. When you mention the NFL thing with the, with players, uh, that's the first time I've heard that, but it doesn't surprise me. They, they, they'll be the first to suicide out.
>> Meaning that? >> They're moving away, they're moving away from this Bluetooth technology on their heads, like Aaron Rogers has openly talked about it and having this, you know, electromagnetic technology right in your head. So they've moved back to like wired earbuds now. You're seeing all of them getting off the buses now using wired earbuds again, which is a technology we basically gave up. But, um, you know, that might just seem like a band-aid on a gaping wound at this point, given the fact that they still have a phone in their pocket. And I mean, who knows? But I just thought it was interesting. Um, let's get back to the lawsuit, James, if we can, because the complaint uses this phrase, I mentioned it off the time, the top, this synthetic intelligence. Um, can you explain what this means? How it differs from what we know of as >> Is AI synthetic intelligence?
>> It's an extension of human creation. But we're using AI, which is a creation, and it's digital, and their live human intelligence is quite different. I think synthetic intelligence, uh, refers to, uh, AI and its effects.
>> They also say that these systems in the, in the complaint specifically, are being used without public consent. So, what evidence points to that? I mean, is an example like the Charlie Kirk Memorial, where people showed up at this event and they were being digitally tracked? We know the company TPUSA has admitted that they were being digitally tracked. 277,000 people digitally tracked and monitored and all of that with this massive like geo-fencing operation. So, what is it? How often are we publicly consenting to this? And does that get them off the hook? I mean, these long terms of service agreements that people sign up for, but they don't even read them because they're hundreds of pages long.
>> Well, that's the problem. Nobody rebuts anything. I mean, I, I, I confess I've done all of the mistakes. And when people, when you, when everything goes to a court of law, well, let's, everything goes ba into basic contract law. And if you're agreeing to all of these things, tacit agreement, uh, whatever, uh, written or any of that, in a court of law, you've agreed to it. You have the choice of reading all the updates on all your apps, but nobody does. And it's the same thing with credit card agreements. Nobody reads those. So we're not even versed in basic contract law in this country at all as consumers because we've voluntarily complied to agree to all these shitty contracts that we get all the time that are not, uh, um, for us, really. They're, they're, they're to, uh, distort our perception. So people need to rebut all of this stuff. Now, there's going to be a huge wave of people in the future. They're going to just start dumping all their phones. They're not going to have any mobile devices. It, it will be fashionable not to have them soon. It's already started in anyway.
>> I, I know. I get your feeling on this. I really do. And it's, I think it's going to, I think you're right about this. I just got chills on to be honest with you. That's like spirit, that's like God telling me you're right. Like this is coming and this is perhaps, and I, I'm feeling like overwhelmed, like I, I hate to be like kind of cheesy about it, but I just got like, I don't know, I just something hit me just now when you said that. Um, and I, you know, again, I'm not trying to be cheesy or dramatic here. I just, when you said that, I just got like an overwhelming like spiritual hit in my body when you just said that. I almost, I almost wanted to cry. Like I just got tears in my eyes about it because I feel like we're heading there. People are going to >> Yeah, this is, this is >> Like they were burning records back in the day. They were burning. People are going to take these phones and they're going to throw them away and they're going to be done with it and they're going to say, "You know what? You're going to, you can reach me on my landline." >> Going forward, if you want to call me. >> I've, I've already had people call me about getting rotary phones, getting ham radios, CBS. They've just, they've had it. They've had it. And these are people that are fairly informed, uh, that have families and businesses and everybody, uh, is is planning on decentralization in some form because this technological, uh, crossroads that we're at. It's a crossroads, and the conversation about the people that at the crossroads that are creating the crossroads, like Palunteer and other companies like them. Uh, we haven't, uh, really, uh, had the proper discussion in public yet, really. We see little promotional pieces on the internet all the time and news stories about Palunteer, etc. Um, but the, uh, bottom line is that the constitution is how we structure our freedom in this country. It's gone now already, but this will permanently alter it entirely, and there needs to be, uh, extensions to the constitution, in my opinion, and that should be a, a primary directive of the White House to introduce this because they're going to hear about this lawsuit. I can assure you that they'll know about it, and other people are going to know about it as well because it's going to, um, it's, it's basically, uh, an invitation for this company to have, uh, a more, uh, grounded talk about the effects of what they're doing since most of their clients are, it's defense industry related and CIA related. That's where their basis, they have that, that the government version, and they have a public version. So, but it's all contract law, and nobody's rebutting anything.
>> So, >> Yes, >> I want to maybe drill in a little bit more deeply here on this co, the violations of cognitive liberty. I know we've kind of touched on it a little bit, but maybe we can be just concise here. Essentially, your freedom of thought. How can this Palunteer technology and what they're doing basically trespass into the human mind so that we, we don't have any liberty?
>> People are going to be, people are already hooking hooking themselves up to the internet through the brain, anyway. That's already started. All the health, health companies, uh, when they bring out their BCI technology, uh, now we're in a completely different territory of law. And Palunteer will have access to all that information if they want it. They can get it if they want it. They're going to try and protect all these brain data rights, but they have intrusion rights onto you. And what does that mean legally? What does it mean spiritually? What does it mean liability-wise? Because none of it's going to run perfect. And there's going to be, this lawsuit is nothing. There's going to be loads. It's going to be loads. It's going to be non-stop because this is really going to affect people's lives now at this point.
>> So, it interfaces with somebody's data that's already online in a server being saved or being utilized for something. Not to mention what it's going to do with, uh, um, in warfare. It, it, it all, it renders, uh, warfare kind of obsolete at this point because you, you can't, you can't really do anything except, uh, fry the servers of, of everything to deal with this type of thing. It's really, it's really, um, nothing.
>> Think about the future of modern warfare. I mean, what is it going to look like? We talk about drones.
>> Well, it's non-human.
>> It's all going to be robots and drones and that type of thing. It's already interfacing with all of that anyway and using enhanced forms of warfare with the brain already. Um, now all your DNA, your, uh, body parts, all of that stuff, depending upon where you stand legally, um, that may be the government's property. Most people that have had, uh, injections into the body with patented material, um, unknowingly, um, that patented material is inside their biology, and that ultimately, um, doesn't make them human to begin with, and now that they're actually in the transhuman stage, even if it's a form of, um, uh, for R&D, it'll be used for research and development until it's perfected. That's what they'll do. So, they, they, if they have access to data and information, and we're already wired into the internet anyway through our senses or through, uh, the BCI interface, they can have that information. So, people can no longer trust these tech companies at all anymore. What they, what they've done. They've reached way past, way past, which is why Palunteer is flexing in front of China in the White House with Trump.
>> Why? Why do you mean?
>> Because, uh, China, we set them up to be our big enemy because when they were going to initiate and create world government, it was going to be headed out financially through China. And now since the whole thing's falling apart, uh, China's double-crossed most of the world and is responsible for theft of intellectual property and trying to kill us with all their drugs that they put in the country and God knows how many other violations. Uh, so, um, it changes warfare entirely, and it's going to be used, um, and is being used probably while we're talking, um, in other countries.
>> We look at the plaintiffs here. Um, and I don't know how much you can reveal about Jane Doe and John Doe and how much you can talk about it. I know you know the individuals involved in this or the individual involved in this. Um, is this one of those, first of all, I guess when a judge looks at this, is a judge going to like laugh this out of the courtroom and just dismiss it because that's a big, that's a big, that's always a concern, right? The judge is going to look at this and just not even understand it and say like, this sounds like science fiction, dismissed.
>> And then what kind of plaintiffs are we talking about here? Do they have some real weight behind them?
>> Uh, they do as of about 24 hours ago. Uh, yeah, they do because help, um, and somebody that knows the courts very well and knows the commercial courts very well and knows jurisdiction very well. Uh, this is going to be something different than these guys have had to deal with because, you know, they'll send it to their billionaire law firm that represents them. It'll be a paper war. They're going to put a try motion to vacate the whole thing and throw it out. Um, and, um, should there'll be enormous, um, arrogance associated with it because they're just going to try and get the whole thing thrown out in a couple rounds. But lawsuits aren't, aren't fought the same way anymore because AI is involved, which is why it's going to obsolesce the entire legal trade. They know it, too, because I've talked to attorneys about it. They know if the decisions are being made with AI and how people, uh, send their paperwork back and forth. So, all of this tech is affecting all the industries around it tremendously. And we've not really seen the real, um, uh, effect of it as of yet, but people are talking about it very quietly, very quietly. And I've talked to several, many lawyers, both, uh, in the US and in Europe, and some of them, uh, doing work for the world court. It's not good for the future for lawyers. It's not a.
>> Well, I mean, because a judge will, a judge, I guess, at the heart of this, a judge will still have to decide whether to dismiss this or actually allow this to advance to discovery phase and then move forward with a potential trial. Um, is are judges going to be pushed out of this process and AI will make those decisions for these judges? Because how, at the end of the day, do we know if a judge has read this 43-page complaint and made a decision? Like, can they put it in AI and say, "Hey, I'm a judge. Um, let me know. Should I dismiss this or just move forward with this?" We don't know.
>> Yeah. I mean, I can take the suit as a judge, plug it in to AI, give me all the critical data on this, this, this, this, cite these laws and these authorities and whatnot, and let me take a look at it. Yeah, they can do that. Anybody can do that. You can do any, any suit and then have them have the AI system synthesize and look at the strengths and weaknesses of the case just in a legal sense. So, uh, yeah, I think there's going to be, uh, how, how the business of law is conducting itself is forever changed now.
So, bottom line for us, James, um, how big a deal is this, do you believe? Um, and to someone watching right now who's like, hearing about this for the first time and they're like, "Oh, this, this sounds like science fiction right now." I mean, you're an MK Ultra whistleblower. You've seen it in action. And people like to really compartmentalize stuff. They're like, "Ah, I got to take my kids to dance this afternoon. I really, the government is targeting weapons against me to control my mind and having me angry about Charlie Kirk's murder, and they want me to be upset about black people, or they want me to be upset." Really, I just got to take my kids to dance class right now. But it's, it's affecting all of us in a big, big way, and I, I don't, I think people need to wake up. So, I know I'll give you the final thoughts here on this and how big a deal this really is.
Well, when I was with Walter Bowart while he was alive, the guy that wrote Operation Mind Control, and when we were working together before his death, he knew the endgame. We both knew was a complete total takeover of the brain, which is the high ground for warfare. That's what it is. But you don't hear much about it at all. It's all going on secretly. And the technology companies are aiding and embedding the acceleration of that, uh, through the brain-computer interface, which is going to change the structure of law, money, information, memory, uh, crime, uh, data store, everything. It'll affect everything. Um, and it'll affect all, um, uh, future, future communication permanently. Permanently. So, this lawsuit, uh, with Palunteer, is, um, a step into having the public examine, uh, what it means to be human. That's really what this has to be because I think, uh, if the, the defendants, uh, really understood what was going on, which I don't think that they do, uh, in terms of how this, uh, is an extinction level event for humans, uh, they, they might, they might, um, be apt to do something or, or reel back what they're doing. Um, but we'll see. I think that, um, some big changes are going to occur very, very shortly that are going to even up the Annie on this situation because the, the, um, Europe is, uh, not going to allow the, I just heard today, and I've got to verify, they're not going to allow Americans to come into Europe if they don't have biometric identification and everything. So all the technological gridlock prison is, it's coming in like this, and meanwhile, everybody's distracted with everything. But this is what's really going on because you're not going to have any rights at all. Cognitive rights means your right to your thinking, your opinion, how you formulate your day, how you formulate your emotion, even, and how you formulate and make interpretations of what is going on in reality as it pertains to news.
The other piece of this, I guess, uh, before I let you go, I just have so many questions, James. I'm just trying to wrap my head around all of this, but the idea that we would all get rid of our cell phones, that we would all say enough is enough. You, you'd in many ways be, you'd be marginalized in society. I mean, there was a video going around last week or two, a couple of weeks ago about the Brit card, you know, the new digital ID that's, uh, right, of course, being rolled out in in the UK, and it was kind of a meme meme video, but it showed an old woman, she couldn't get on the bus, and they said, "Sorry, you need your digital ID Brit card." And she said, "But I don't have a smartphone." And the bus just drives away. Like, it'd be great. We, we get rid of all the smartphones, >> but we're not >> You're going to be said, "No, you need to get the app. You need to download the app. You need the digital ID which is on your phone. Sorry. Like you're going to, what's going to happen to these people who say, "We don't want this personal liberty. I don't want to have a cell phone. You can't make me buy a cell phone."
>> Right. Right. That's where it's there. That's that's the new messaging is you will be left out, left behind, and punished for not modifying your behavior to the technological overlords. It's, it's, it's the digital feudal system, uh, putting its stake in the ground, and it has to be, uh, discussed on a way, way, way, way, way bigger level than just these little random talks that these guys do at these conferences and so forth. The public's got to engage these people.
>> Well, it's like Obama, remember the Obama phone? Obama was giving out cell phones, and you could go to these like little kiosks around in like poverty-stricken areas like you can't even get food.
>> You know, your kids don't even know how to read, but you can get a cell phone thanks to Obama. Oh, he's just being so generous, right? It's just being so generous. It's about being able to track and control all of us, make sure that we're all into this digital ecosystem right now. It's terrifying. It really is terrifying.
>> Yeah. But that's, it's, it's ultimately about whether we're going to ascend as a species or not. And this is part of it. This is part of it. You have a right to exist in your normal organic, uh, self, uh, separate from any, um, infrastructure, digitally, hardware, anything at all. I, we weren't created to be machines. That's it. And they want us that way for total control.
James, thank you for this. Thank you for bringing attention to this lawsuit, which has just been filed against Palunteer. Massive lawsuit. We will see what comes of it. What kind of chicainery and tricks Palunteer tries to to, you know, to employ to try to avoid this. Um, but, uh, we're going to, we're going to continue to stay on this story and thank you for all that you've done, James, to bring awareness to this and hopefully help people wake up. Thank you so much.
>> All right. Thanks so much.
>> Thank you so much for watching Redacted. We'd love for you to subscribe to the channel. It's totally free if you want to follow us or subscribe. And if we brought you any value at all, please consider sharing this video with a friend or a loved one on social media. Thanks so much, and we'll see you next time.