reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The future is not just happening, it is built by us, the powerful community. We have the means to improve our conditions by acting as stakeholders in large communities.

On 03/26/2026, the Pentagon's Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO) quietly announced BIOW, basic information awareness operations, a cognitive warfare program that changes the rules of the battlefield through belief rather than bullets or bombs. The SCO sits inside the Office of the Secretary of Defense, with a mandate to deliver breakthrough capabilities to war fighters typically within three to five years. Sam Gray, SCO's chief technology officer and lead for autonomy and artificial intelligence, leads BIOW. Speaking at the National Defense Industrial Association's Pacific Operational Science and Technology Conference in Honolulu, Gray stated: the goal of cognitive warfare is to disrupt the cognition and the thinking ability of an adversary or person and influence how they perceive, sense make, and act. This is not propaganda in the old sense. This is something fundamentally different. For most of military history, influence operations required a physical observable. In World War Two, the Allies inflated fake tanks to fool German reconnaissance. You needed something the enemy could see. Gray said that era is over. Quote, I don't actually need the physical observable because I can generate both the physical observable and the associated narrative that comes along with it, and I can promulgate it across the digital environment that allows it to go everywhere. BIOW. BIOW is built on three technological pillars. Pillar one, detection: systems designed to identify adversary generated materials to see what the enemy is pushing into the information space before it takes hold. Pillar two, multimodal effects: AI models capable of generating text, video, and audio, synthetic content designed to shape how target populations perceive events in real time. Pillar three, population modeling: a large scale simulation environment that can model entire populations and produce quantitative metrics. Answering the question Sam Gray himself asked, how good am I doing with this narrative? Did it resonate like we thought it was going to? The technology architecture Gray described is deliberately lean and distributed. Quote, give me 100 Mac minis with 100 different agents on them that are out running and operating, that are lightweight, small, do not require gigawatts of power. This is not a massive fragile supercomputer. This is a swarm. But there's a problem Gray openly acknowledged: the off the shelf AI systems we all use, ChatGPT, Gemini, do not think like Russia. They do not think like China. They were trained on American data shaped by American assumptions. Gray said directly, we have to get to a point where we can understand what it is that they think about and what we can create from a model perspective to emulate and behave like our adversary does. BIOW's goal is to build bespoke AI models specifically tuned to adversary cognitive frameworks. Why is this urgent? Gray pointed to two ongoing adversary campaigns as evidence: The United States is already behind. First, Iran's information operations during Operation Epic Fury. Second, China's large scale efforts to, in Gray's words, change the way that certain populations are thinking. And then Gray stated plainly, The United States is not currently positioned to counter these operations at machine speed. Quote, we need to start to get into that space. Congress didn't wait. The 2026 National Defense Authorization Act directed the Secretary of Defense to formally define cognitive warfare for the department, assign organizational responsibility, and assess the value of narrative intelligence with a deadline of 03/31/2026. BIOW does not operate in isolation. In 2025, the US Army created Detachment 201, the Executive Innovation Corps, commissioning four Senior Silicon Valley technology executives directly into the Army Reserve at the rank of Lieutenant Colonel: Andrew Bosworth, Kevin Weil, Shyam Sankar, and Bob McGrew. They wear the uniform and serve within the chain of command. Together, BIOW's technology stack and Detachment 201's Silicon Valley expertise represent a deliberate convergence of artificial intelligence, influence operations, and military command structure. NATO's chief scientist framed the stakes: cognitive warfare targets trust networks, identity narratives, and institutional legitimacy. The battle space is continuous, operates below the threshold of armed conflict, and the measure of success is not a message received, but a durable change in how a population thinks, decides, and acts. The human mind is now a contested domain. As of April 2026, BIOW is active: performers are being on-ramped, models are being built, simulations are running. And Gray made one thing clear about the vendors chosen to build this system: those who don't keep up will be cut. Quote, I will offramp you. The battle for cognition has begun. Whether you believe this program is an essential shield against adversary manipulation or a capability that raises profound questions about who defines the adversary and where those tools can be aimed, one fact is not in dispute. This is real. It is funded. It is operational. And you are now aware.

Speaker 0 notes that AI has progressed rapidly, moving from a smart high school level two years ago to a smart college level and beyond. He believes AI could help cure diseases like cancer and Alzheimer's and provide cheaper energy, but he worries that entry-level white-collar work—such as in finance, consulting, and tech—will be first augmented and then replaced by AI systems, potentially causing a serious employment crisis as the pipeline for early-stage white-collar work contracts. When asked for a timeline, Speaker 0 says it is very hard to predict, but he would not be surprised if big effects emerge somewhere between one and five years, with private discussions among AI CEOs and other company leaders supportively pointing to this possibility. He feels this message hasn’t reached ordinary people or legislators, and he believes action is needed now. He asserts that the AI “bus” cannot be stopped, and that even if his company ceased operations today, six or seven US-based companies would continue, and China would likely beat the US if action is not taken. He emphasizes the need to steer the momentum and to get Congress, legislators, and the public to consider the issue. He mentions Anthropic’s economic index as a way to measure the effects and notes that the next step would be to move beyond measurement to actions that augment rather than replace, while acknowledging that this augmentation approach is not a long-term solution. He also notes that the government could take a wide range of actions and that deciding which is correct is not his place, but stresses the necessity to think seriously about it. Regarding mitigation, Speaker 1 asks for more detail on how to mitigate the worst-case scenario of AI wiping out all entry-level white-collar jobs and spiking unemployment to 10%–20%. Speaker 0 replies that exact numbers are uncertain, but emphasizes that AI is different in breadth, depth, and speed compared to past technological shifts. He suggests mitigations including educating people to use AI so workers can adapt faster, and potentially government measures to level the economic playing field, such as taxing AI companies. He frames these as important moves to mitigate potential disruption. Speaker 1 concludes by acknowledging that Speaker 0 provides messages from someone who runs an AI company but is also offering a public service announcement about future concerns.

We have the opportunity for a great reset to make a significant change by putting nature at the core of the economy. The current system is not sustainable, and with the urgency we feel, we can use the resources and leverage available to us to create a transformative shift. This is a moment where we can truly make a difference for the future.

We need radical elections with a 10% annual goal. If I had the power to create a one world dictatorship, I would be pleased to achieve this level of ambition.

The crisis has shown that rapid shifts are possible when we feel the immediate emergency to our livelihood. The current system is not sustainable. This is a great opportunity for a reset, using the large amounts of money and increased policy levers available to create a significant change. We need to position nature at the core of the economy.

We need to address the need for a fundamental change in our world. This process will take time, but once we have gone through it, the world will be different.

Speaker 0: And what would you say to the average person? Not doesn't work in the industry, somewhat concerned about the future, doesn't know if they're helpless or not. What should they be doing in their own lives? Speaker 1: My feeling is there's not much they can do. This isn't isn't gonna be decided by just as climate change isn't gonna be decided by people separating out the plastic bags from the compostables, that's not gonna have much effect. It's gonna be decided by whether the lobbyists for the big energy companies can be kept under control. I don't think there's much people can do to accept for try and pressure their governments to force the big companies to work on AI safety. That they can do.

Prime Minister Trudeau and young lawmakers in Saudi Arabia have the power to shape change. We must prepare for a more turbulent world and take action to create a fairer society. The idea of going back to the old normal is unrealistic. We need a great reset. The pandemic will only go one way.

Global cooperation and multilateral action are crucial in addressing the matter at hand. It is essential to reach a global agreement on its application. If there is any room for escape, it will undoubtedly be exploited. This highlights the necessity for collective action.

The crisis has revealed that rapid shifts are possible when we are motivated by the immediate threat to our livelihoods. It is clear that the previous system was not sustainable. This presents a great opportunity for a reset, utilizing the substantial influx of money and the increased power of policymakers.

We must support 40 countries to govern themselves to be prepared for future pandemics. Communication and disinformation are critical issues. Media must fulfill their responsibilities and science should guide decision-making. Top scientists should provide expertise to society through scientific institutions.

The crisis has shown that rapid shifts are possible when we feel the immediate threat to our livelihoods. The previous system is not sustainable, so this is a great opportunity for a reset. With the increased power of policymakers and the flow of money, we can make a significant change. We need to position nature at the core of the economy, creating a moment that marks the start of this transformation.

Speaker 0 presents Connecticut memoranda series, volume one, describing a notice sent to Connecticut state officials (Attorney General and others) by certified mail and hand delivery through the governor’s office and Department of Public Health channels. The notice centers on acute renal failure (AKI) and argues it aligns with hospital homicide concerns. The speaker says the cover letter urges officials to seek personal legal counsel because if the state attorney represents the state, a conflict arises when citizens are harmed by state officials. The document allegedly provides detailed factual information drawn from official Connecticut records, intended to undermine any future “ignorance of fact” defense and to show that thousands have died from AKI and related conditions. Key claims and content: - The memorandum warns that described AKI deaths and related pulmonary embolism and thrombocytopenia are occurring in hospitals, and officials have a duty to act; failure to act after being informed could render officials criminally liable. The notice asserts sovereign and qualified immunity do not apply to criminal acts. - It asserts there are no statutes of limitations for most homicide crimes, and that inaction in the face of an imminent danger constitutes a legal duty to act. An inaction with knowledge of harm is framed as a criminal act. - Named recipients copied on the notice include Ned Lamont (Governor), Susan Bysiewicz (Lieutenant Governor), Eric Russell (State Treasurer), Sean Scanlon (Comptroller), William Tong (Attorney General), Manisha Juthani (Commissioner, Department of Public Health), A Orifice (Chief of Staff, DPH), and H Sultan (Special Counsel, DPH). The speaker claims these packages were signed for. - The memorandum is titled: “Memorandum notice of required action to thwart hospital homicides and acute renal failure deaths that are currently occurring and were occurring for the last three years, three and a half. Evidence compels immediate investigation and correction of injurious federal and state health protocols and mandates.” It cites a death-records study and a climate-related health data study obtained with approval to examine regional effects of temperature and humidity on heart disease. - It describes a data-driven investigation process with collaborators, including using discrete cosine transforms and discrete Fourier transforms to analyze signal-to-noise ratios in death data to determine seasonality and age-related patterns. The speaker reports that AKI deaths in CT rose substantially in 2020–2022, and notes a divergence from COVID death trends (AKI rising as COVID declines). - The speaker presents comparative state tallies for excess AKI deaths since 2015: Connecticut 1,721; Massachusetts 3,493; Minnesota 2,412. They claim thousands of AKI deaths across states, with CT showing a large increase in 2022 (and 2023) and assert that AKI was not adequately addressed by public health authorities. - The speaker discusses a pattern showing AKI deaths rising after December 2020, with a December 2020 inflection coinciding with a program (NCTAP). They claim hospital protocols and NIH COVID-19 treatments (remdesivir, baricitinib, ventilators) may have contributed to AKI and multi-organ failure, describing a two-signal theory: one signal linked to hospital protocols and the other to gene-based vaccines. - Graphs are described showing AKI versus COVID trends, with AKI not consistently correlated with COVID, and an observed spike in AKI deaths in CT beginning in 2020, peaking in 2022. The speaker notes a reduction in the proportion of AKI deaths that also test positive for COVID after March 2022, while AKI deaths continue to rise, suggesting a vaccine-related signal. - The speaker cites NIH COVID-19 treatment guidelines (final update dated 02/29/2024) and notes a planned website shutdown (08/16/2024), arguing a lack of updated protocols. They allege data manipulation or suppression by public health authorities. - In the recommended actions, the speaker proposes an investigation plan: verify CT data, investigate younger age groups first (examples: 94 deaths, ages 25–44; 184 deaths, ages 45–54 in CT 2020–2023), obtain entire hospital records (without notice) including vaccination status and treatment timelines, determine whether vaccination influenced treatment pathways, interview families, review DNR decisions, and publish results so the public can decide on consent to vaccines and NIH protocols. - The conclusion asserts an AKI epidemic in Connecticut that allegedly claims more life years than COVID and rivals other major past diseases in impact. It states there is no statute of limitations for murder, and that qualified and sovereign immunities do not shield officials from criminal charges. It calls for immediate investigation and potential prosecution of officials who knowingly refuse to investigate AKI deaths tied to NIH/CDC/FD&C protocols, framing this as a public health and civil liberty issue. The speaker closes by inviting questions and urging action to ensure accountability, expressing a desire to be involved in cleaning up public health governance.

Speaker 0: I had a guy who worked, very, very, very high up at Citibank. And he told me around 2008, he said, Glenn, you know, don't worry about the financial system. And I'm like, uh-huh. And he said, you know, we're never gonna go broke. I mean, do you know how much just the national parks are worth? And I looked at him and said, are you seriously telling me that we should commoditize the national parks? And he said, it's gonna happen. And I wonder now if this is what he was talking about. If it was just a digital not actually selling them, it's just a digital commoditization of our parks. Speaker 1: Yeah. So apply this now to the the phrase that we all heard during the COVID era, you'll own nothing and be happy. Well Yes. There's certain people that want to own everything, and that includes things that have never been able to be owned before that were considered things like the public commons, like rivers, lakes, the ocean itself, natural forests, all sorts of it. These people want to put all of that into the financial system, fractionalize it, tokenize it, and sell pieces of it around, use it to speculate on. Mean, it's It's very insane. Yeah. And so, this is just one aspect of digital currency play. Obviously, there's a lot more than that just going on as well. I would argue that a lot of this push, particularly in The US for dollar stablecoins supposedly being better than a central bank digital currency, also falls into this paradigm we talked about earlier of, you know, moving from the public to the private of the public private partnership because a lot of these stablecoin issuers, you know, if the the big concerns about CBDCs was that they're seasable, they're surveillable and they're programmable, Well, all of those three things also can apply to stablecoins. The only difference is that you would have a private company issue it and control it. But we've seen time and again how a lot of these private entities are willing to do that. When contacted, just look at how Bank of America behaved with January 6, people accused of wrongdoing on that day, for You know, they have no qualms in doing that and engaging in those type of activities. And the biggest dollar stablecoin issuer, Tether, which just hired Bo Hynes from the White House, they have openly said that they are a close partner of the US government for dollar hegemony globally and have uploaded the FBI, the Secret Service and other aspects of the US government onto its platform directly and have seized tethers from people just because government told them to, and this was during the Biden administration. So they obviously are willing to do that under any administration, and it's essentially functioning as a de facto public private partnership, even though we're being told it's a it's much better than a CBDC, but in terms of its impacts on civil liberties, you know, that's not necessarily true. So, again, vigilance is is important here.

We can create a new world order for ourselves and future generations.

We must evolve our institutions and form new partnerships to drive innovation. It is important to note that some principles of our international system need to be clarified.

Smart legislatures and governments should invest in fire mitigation to protect communities.