Author name: RVM News

Mike Steger argued that King Charles III’s private meeting with leading artificial intelligence executives represents something larger than a discussion about emerging technology, claiming the gathering fits into a longstanding effort to concentrate political and technological power in the hands of an international elite.

“King Charles planned a secretive meeting with top AI executives for today, Thursday, before the entire AI story blew up on American headlines,” Steger said.

“King Charles is not a king of a nation; he represents an entirely different kind of government. You might say a government of interests, not people.”

King Charles hosted executives from major AI companies at Dumfries House in Scotland, including representatives from Nvidia, OpenAI, Anthropic and Google DeepMind, for discussions about the future and risks of artificial intelligence.

Steger characterized the gathering as evidence of what he called an effort to establish greater centralized control over AI.

“Nowhere are King Charles’s interests in global control more evident than in AI, which is why he happens to be hosting a major private secret summit off the record with AI leaders,” Steger said.

He traced what he described as the intellectual origins of that effort to British writer H.G. Wells and his 1928 book, “The Open Conspiracy: Blueprints for a World Revolution.”

“This conspiracy, though, is not secret. It’s been an open British plot since 1928, when H.G. Wells proposed eradicating the nation-state for one-world governance,” Steger said.

Steger said artificial intelligence could develop in two fundamentally different directions: one that expands individual creativity and economic freedom, or another that places technology under the control of a small group of powerful institutions.

“AI is a bigger factor in who rules the world than many might imagine,” Steger said.

“It can either unleash the creative talents of our people and advance human freedom, or become the dystopian nightmare King Charles has spent most of his life helping to create.”

Steger then laid out a timeline involving the King’s summit, Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and the growing public debate over potential risks from advanced AI.

He said reports about the gathering appeared before Coxon publicly raised concerns about AI, followed by Amodei’s essay calling for slower development and stronger oversight.

“The stage had been set for the King’s private summit,” Steger said.

Steger also pointed to President Donald Trump’s response to the growing debate.

Trump publicly dismissed warnings about AI and data centers as another political “hoax” and argued that opponents of rapid AI development were acting against American interests.

Steger interpreted the sequence of events as political rather than coincidental.

“So if anyone thinks this is just random or happened to evolve naturally, welcome to fifth-generation political warfare,” Steger said.

“This is a coordinated attack on President Trump and his MAGA revolution, and its origins are in Buckingham Palace.”

He contrasted that approach with Silicon Valley figures who oppose slowing AI development, arguing that the central disagreement is not merely about technology but about the structure of society.

“This isn’t two different views of technology,” Steger said.

“It’s really between two different views of how human society should be organized, and the reason why is clear. It’s not about AI; it’s about a religion of doom.”

Steger connected the current AI debate to earlier arguments about global governance, population control, and the decline of nation-states.

He cited Wells as an important figure in that intellectual tradition and claimed the long-term goal was to transfer effective governing power away from voters.

“Don’t abolish the nation-states by decree, absorb them, supersede them, function by function, agency by agency, treaty by treaty, until one day the government that people voted for doesn’t actually govern anything that matters,” Steger said.

“Sound familiar?”

According to Steger, education and technological expertise are central to that model because limiting access to advanced systems could create a permanent divide between ordinary people and a credentialed technical class.

“So then, without access, over time a gap develops, and the credentialed class becomes the only ones capable of actually ruling because they’re the only ones that know how to use the technology, a kind of techno-feudalism,” Steger said.

He argued that artificial intelligence makes that dispute especially important because control over sophisticated technology could determine who holds economic and political power.

“No vote required, no decree needed, just the slow and permanent transfer of real control to whoever holds the technical keys,” Steger said.

Steger contrasted that vision with what he called the traditional American approach to technological development.

He pointed to railroads, automobiles, nuclear power, electricity, aviation, cell phones and the internet as examples of technologies that became broadly useful when ordinary people gained access to them.

“The American system believes in integrating the most advanced aspects of science and technology into everyday life,” Steger said.

He argued that people should be able to experiment freely with AI rather than having access controlled primarily through professional credentials or centralized institutions.

“Let the American people decide how to use AI, how to become more productive, more creative, and more intelligent,” Steger said.

“But you can’t learn to swim if you don’t get wet.”

Steger said the United States should focus on expanding the infrastructure necessary to make AI widely available rather than restricting its use.

“We need to open up the technology so it’s not a system of control, and build the infrastructure so it’s available to everyone,” Steger said.

He characterized the dispute as a clash between centralized technological management and decentralized American innovation, arguing that expanded industrial production would allow AI to become a tool for economic growth rather than political control.

“The British system wants to control the technology, to keep us subservient, and ultimately create a new ruling class, just as H. G. Wells recommended,” Steger said.

He concluded by arguing that the development of artificial intelligence should accompany a broader revival in American manufacturing, production and technological experimentation.

“With the revival of real production, AI will become a greater tool for the good,” Steger said.

“By creating a new era of growth, more people will come to know the fruits of real political freedom, and they’ll have more time to contemplate that even greater glory of God. That’s the hallmark of the true American system.”

WATCH: