It is late June, and a lot hangs in the balance. Stephen K. Bannon must report to prison on July 1st, pending his appeal, for defying the illegitimate January 6 Committee and its subpoena. President Trump also awaits his sentencing on July 11th, for one of the numerous bogus cases brought against him by rabid deep-state minions. Jail for the leading presidential candidate isn’t off the table. January 6 protesters are still being held as political prisoners and many have had their lives ruined as targets of the regime. The level of lawfare is unprecedented, and on full display for everyone to see and be warned. And this is only one aspect of the crazed political landscape in the U.S. At the forefront is Jack Posobiec, a key figure who has been shaping U.S. politics and reporting on the deranged left, fake news and globalist forces seeking to destroy America for years. I’ve had the pleasure of sitting down with him IRL in Geneva and joining his show, Human Events Daily, to discuss these issues on several occasions. With the 2024 election only months away, we at MAN’S WORLD thought it would be perfect timing to bring this conversation and Jack’s perspective on all the madness to you, our readers. We cover quite some ground, from Jack’s earlier experiences in politics, to his latest book Unhumans (co-written with Joshua Lisec). Buckle up—as Jack says, the time to throw the steering wheel out the window is now.

Noor Bin Ladin: Jack, I’m delighted to turn the tables and interview you for MAN’S WORLD. Let’s get straight into it, starting with the elections. Looking at certain patterns and warning signs, what are the chances an election will even take place this November?

Jack Posobiec: Well, it’s incredible because we’ve already seen one cancelled election this year in the world, though people aren’t even talking about it. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, whose term was up at the end of May 2024, simply declared martial law and that he would not have elections due to the Russian invasion. He is now only in charge of Ukraine not by the vote of the voters, but by the ruling of martial law. As such, the entire country is in a state of crisis, but we are told we must continue to pour money into Ukraine because “we’re fighting for democracy”—even though Zelensky is no longer a democratically elected president! I do think that there is a chance that this could potentially set the stage or be some type of foreshadowing regarding the American election of 2024. Maybe we won’t have an outright cancellation of the election, but it wouldn’t surprise me if there is a vast change of the electoral rules or processes, which is exactly what we saw in 2020, and the only reason Joe Biden was declared the winner because they changed all the rules in the very middle of the election itself. That being said, the election of 1864 took place even when America was in the midst of a civil war. So there is precedent for America holding elections during wartime and both World Wars. We will see.

If we don’t have an election or vastly modified one, how should one prepare for the impending psyops and ensuing chaos that are being telegraphed? If it does go ahead, what should Americans focus on considering the blatant theft that took place in 2020? 

In the military or in the intelligence community, we are tasked with coming up with the most dangerous scenario and the most likely scenario. So the most dangerous scenario is that something happens to kick off World War III with China, Iran, North Korea, Russia. Or there’s a false flag and it’s blamed on one of the aforementioned adversaries. And therefore the election is altered. This would be the most dangerous scenario. The most likely scenario will be some kind of mass incident that requires either the changing of the election rules or the stripping of Donald Trump from the ballot in one or multiple key states. If this is done, if he is delegitimized from the election—perhaps they pass a rule that says convicted felons can’t appear on the ballot for instance, and the Supreme Court doesn’t act in time—this could create a scenario where they can claim an election took place, but not all of the states that were eligible were able to vote in the election. And thus the psyop would be that Joe Biden wins the election, even though not all the states were able to participate. And my evidence suggests that this is exactly what the Democrats have been trying to do all year.

I agree and suspect they’ll pull one of these scenarios. Let’s say for argument’s sake that none of it happens, and they’ll just resort to theft – again. Considering the steal of 2020, what would you say about about 2024?

If there is an election like 2016, a stand-up election, a fair fight, Donald Trump wins—no question. Donald Trump and the conservatives, MAGA, the America First Coalition have already won every single election. They’ve won on every single issue on the entire political spectrum. The question is not political, because this is no longer a political election. We are in an operational election. And so the side with the best political operations is going to win this. Messaging is always important, but I would actually argue that Republicans didn’t lose on messaging in 2020. They lost on operations. And that’s the exact same way that they could lose in 2024, by not playing the same operational game that unfortunately the Democrats play.

And I don’t just mean the DNC and the Biden campaign, I mean all of the dark-money groups, George Soros, Arabella investors, Reid Hoffman, and all of these types that are funding billions of dollars to outside groups to influence the election, the same way we saw Mark Zuckerberg do so in 2020. Not to mention, by the way, the interference by the national-security state in terms of censorship of information, which we now know to be completely true and even confirmed by the same national-security agency that blocked it in the first place. So do I think the national-security state will interfere in the 2024 election? I predict with 100 percent certainty the national-security state will interfere. Why? Because they interfered in 2016. The Steele Dossier, and the FISA warrants on the Trump campaign, the spying on Donald Trump etc. And they interfered in 2020 vis-a-vis the Hunter Biden laptop.

When President Trump says “too big to rig”, do you think that’s even a possibility?

I think it’s the most likely effective response, because what Donald Trump doesn’t have on his side are the institutions. What he does have on his side are the people. And when I say the people, I don’t just mean the diehards like me that have been there since 2015, 2016. I mean even new people, new supporters. What they’ve done with lawfare to Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, and Peter Navarro, who’s currently behind bars as we speak, has completely backfired. It has brought more people who are not normally engaged in the political process to the side of Donald Trump. However, this is a dual-edged sword. Because these people are new to politics, many of them aren’t registered to vote. They don’t have a culture of voting, and so it is incumbent and absolutely critical to the Republican campaigns, to the America First effort, that they find ways to convert these new supporters into new voters and make sure that they are reached out to with ballots. As I said to President Trump personally, I don’t want to complain anymore about the other side using mules and drop boxes, etc. I said, “Mr. President, if they bring 2,000 mules, we need 10,000.”

Let’s rewind to 2015, 2016. During the campaign, you were a special projects director for an organization called Citizens for Trump. Can you tell us how you got involved and about your experience participating in the making of history firsthand? 

I got involved in 2015, 2016 as an influencer even before we even had the word “influencer”, being one of the first to really adapt to the social-media platforms. Even though I’m known more for Twitter now, I was actually doing this more on Facebook with Citizens for Trump, before my Twitter account really began to gain traction. It was the simple idea of what we all now know to be the influencer model of posting content, generating an audience, generating traction around a specific theme and set of themes, and using that to create a platform and then meeting people also offline. I met so many people in 2016 at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio. That’s where I met Mike Cernovich, Milo Yiannopoulos, Roger Stone, Alex Jones. Roger was one of the advisors to Citizens for Trump, and we held a mega rally for Donald Trump on the banks of the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland just prior to the RNC. And that was really the first moment that I became involved directly in the MAGA movement as it is. And from that, we were then able to use social media, but also social media combined with in-person events, in-person flash mobs, in-person sign-waving events, going to the debates and live streaming, using that power of live streaming to directly connect and disassociate the mainstream media—to disintermediate the mainstream media message from what their narrative was versus what was actually happening on the ground.

I’ll give you a great example of this: at the Democrat Convention in 2016, the entire mainstream media only showed you what was happening inside the DNC in Philadelphia (which is the area I’m from in Pennsylvania), inside Hillary Clinton’s coronation. But the mainstream media didn’t show you what was happening outside: the disaffected Bernie supporters/Bernie bros, Jill Stein and the Green Party, the violent protests when Antifa showed up, the thousands of people from the left who were angry at the Democrats because they were becoming globalists and they were not going along with the more populist left movement that, at the time, was championed by Bernie Sanders. And so I, as well as others, we were able to show that side of the event through the power of disintermediating the mainstream media. I actually know people who were inside the DNC that night in Philadelphia who had no idea the protests were even going on, because they were only watching television. So as I say, radio was the first medium, TV was the second, but now we’re in the social-media age.

I read your book, also entitled Citizens for Trump. What an incredible snapshot of that time and a great introduction to who you are and your background. Tell us more about the evolution of your political views.

Well, thank you. I appreciate that. So I got my start politically at Temple University in Philadelphia as I mentioned earlier, all the way back in 2004, 2005, during the George W. Bush era. I joined the College Republicans, becoming their chairman in 2005. At the time, the neoconservatives and social conservatives ruled the Republican Party. People were for the Iraq War, for the global war on terror. Everyone thought that this was the way ahead for America. And to be pro-America meant that you were pro-war. And so all of the candidates were pro-war. The anti-war stanza, the anti-systemic stanza of Ron Paul, was completely isolated and almost kicked out of mainstream Republican politics. And that, for me, going from 2004, 2005 to 2015, 2016, was the biggest change, that 10-year period. After college, I moved to China and lived there for two years before joining the intel community upon my return, thinking that this was the best way to serve my country. I joined the United States Navy, becoming an intelligence officer, serving at Guantanamo Bay for almost a year in the interrogation cell, learning about global terrorism.

But the more time that I spent in the intelligence community, the more I realized that we weren’t there to actually defend the United States. The real question for me, the real moment where I stood up and took pause, was when I learned that we were completely disinterested in what was going on vis-a-vis the Mexican cartels and the United States’ southern border. The fact was that we would spend all of our time trying to take out some petty gang leader in Somalia or in Yemen or in Pakistan, who didn’t ever have the ability of directly affecting the United States, on missions where American citizens, American soldiers were getting killed by putting themselves in harm’s way, when none of this had any direct effect on the American people who we thought we were protecting. And then if you brought up any of those things, suddenly you were told that you were a conspiracy theorist or that you were fringe or that you were espousing extremist views.

So I saw the rise of political correctness in the military and in the intelligence community. This was before we really began to call it wokeness. But through those years—which was, by the way, the era of the Obama administration—I saw how officers and leaders who didn’t fall in line with the political dogma coming out of the White House, were completely sidelined, pushed and driven away, and only those who agreed with everything Barack Obama said were promoted and put in places of leadership. Only they became generals and admirals in the various military branches and, of course, directors of the military. The lone exception to this, of course, is General Flynn, but then we all saw what they did to him because he started speaking out on these very same things. Basically, we realized that the United States’ intelligence community wasn’t protecting America, and in many cases, it was the intelligence community that was creating and exacerbating and escalating more of the problems.

So I was already sort of having this conversation with myself in 2014 and 2015, when all of a sudden, Donald Trump comes onto the political stage and, at the very first debate, denounces George W. Bush, denounces the Iraq War… He’s given a standing ovation, and at that moment I think to myself, just like so many other people in the Republican electorate, “You know what? Finally, someone is telling the truth. Finally, someone else is going on to the main stage with a platform to affect national and, as we would come to see, international change, who actually views the United States as a nation state rather than a global empire”.

Do you recall that one moment or that proper first red pill you had during the Obama era?

There were two I would say. First was that I had friends as an intelligence officer and intelligence analyst who were serving on some of the ships that conducted the initial bombing runs of Libya in 2011. I remember speaking with them afterwards and asking, what was the reason for this? What did your commanders tell you as to why we had to bomb Libya and go after Gaddafi’s regime? And they were told, very interestingly, that “Well, we have evidence that Gaddafi is about to kill his own people, that he’s about to commit a genocide against his own people, and so we’re saving them from Gaddafi by going after his regime, by going after his air force, by going after his entire command and control network and helping the rebels”—rebels who essentially turned out to be some of the most virulent terrorist, and whose side we actually were on for some strange reason. And that’s what led me to start asking questions because I said, “Wait a minute, I thought we were supposed to be fighting a war on terrorism, not helping terrorists?” That was number one.

Number two was the event of the Benghazi raid and the Benghazi killings where I could see—and this later became completely public—from the very start that this was a targeted assassination of a U.S. ambassador in Benghazi. But then, of course, ask yourself the question, why was a U.S. ambassador at a CIA black site in Benghazi? What was he doing in 2012? We later find out that he was funnelling weapons to the Syrian rebels to attempt to do the exact same thing to Assad that had been done to Gaddafi, and then the President of the United States, Obama, goes on TV and says that this was all a protest over some YouTube video. I had always been someone who considered myself a conservative, a Republican, but when I realized how much the government was lying about what was happening on the ground and what was actually going on in the military, what was going on overseas, once I saw it up close and personal, I realized that there was a much deeper problem in the system than just Republicans and Democrats, and that wasn’t something I could be a part of anymore.

I have a couple more questions regarding the new social media age in politics. Reading your book, what I found interesting was your experience before the Trump campaign. In 2010, you worked for a candidate for lieutenant governor in Pennsylvania, Steve Johnson. This is where the internet was first used in an unprecedented way for a campaign. Tell us about that.

Yes, we were already using the internet for asymmetric political warfare six years prior to the 2016 Trump campaign. There was this candidate that I worked for as his deputy campaign manager, Steve Johnson, who was running for lieutenant governor. By the way, he was a businessman who had never been involved in politics, didn’t have any political name to himself. We were just driving from every corner of Pennsylvania to every other corner trying to figure out how to get his voice across. We didn’t quite have social media yet. We had Facebook, but not Twitter. We didn’t have these open sandbox platforms like TikTok and Instagram, so it was much harder to get the message out in those days. But we were using the exact same tactics that we ended up using in 2015, 2016. What do I mean by that? The use of memes, cartoons, nicknames for our opponents, insults, going directly to the people and building that online base. And people, even to this day in Pennsylvania, remember that run as almost a proto-Trump movement because, again, this was the Tea Party era. And people could already see that there was a lane to victory through populism as a movement, rather than conservatism as a top-down philosophy, but instead populism as a bottom-up movement. Obviously being connected very much with conservatism, but at the same time putting people first rather than these nebulous figures like the gross domestic product or the economy. We would actually put the people first. And you saw this predominantly with the Tea Party, with these movements all bubbling up. That experience is what really set the stage later for the Trump movement.

About the digital front line in the Trump movement, can you talk to us a little bit about being in the midst of it in 2015/2016, alongside people like Douglass Mackey and other digital soldiers? How was your experience back then? 

You know, to this day I don’t think of Doug Mackey as Doug. I think of him as Ricky [Vaughn], because that’s how we all knew him. He was Ricky. And I was Poso. You had so many other names and accounts. Some people who are still going. Some who have left. Others that have simply disappeared and who we never heard from again. But the idea was there was so much energy, so much drive, so much motivation. It was this idea that the future was endless and that anything could happen. Any possibility would come to life. And also, by the way, a phrase we had is that we could “meme reality into our own vision.”

Take Hillary’s health for example. We were derided as conspiracy theorists for saying that there was something wrong with Hillary’s health. Then all of a sudden, a random Twitter user named Zdenek Garza, captures the video of her collapsing at a 9-11 memorial in New York City. That was the seminal moment of 2016 digital front lines. Because the entire mainstream media was there at that event. Fox, CNN, MSNBC, you name it. They’re all there. Not a single one of them turned their camera and showed that Hillary Clinton was collapsing. It was a volunteer firefighter on his day off, who happened to have a Twitter account, who captured the footage that completely altered the face of history, and showed that our version of reality was the true one.

There’s been such a shift of the Overton window since those days, with the truth being shared on social media. Topics that would get you blacklisted or canceled back then are now openly discussed. Would you say the mainstream media have lost their stranglehold on the public?

Completely. And there’s no question that it was Donald Trump and his embrace of social media that set the stage for this and created these conditions. But it’s also due to the fact that the mainstream media and the regime continue to lie to us with a straight face again and again and again. And keep in mind, this was four years before the COVID lies even began and we had the complete restructuring of our entire society around those lies. I’ve always said this: FDR utilized radio, JFK utilized television, and Donald Trump utilized social media—a new media that directly embraced a way to communicate with the people. Now you could even add to that, since Donald Trump’s embrace of TikTok as a new way to communicate directly with the people. We’ve got technology that is being created exponentially faster. So while Twitter is a text-based outlet, TikTok is video-based. So it’s an even more direct connection. Now you’re not just reading someone’s words, you’re actually seeing them and actually have them speak directly to you.

The remainder of the interview can be read in the physical edition of MAN’S WORLD Issue 14.