Is Virtual Reality the End of Civilization?

By 2025, there will likely exist a virtual reality suit with the ability to feel sensation and experience touch. How will that impact a person's actual reality?

"Imagine my life is just a piece of crap. I just go to work. I don't have a job that I like. I don't have any satisfaction. I just, you know, have a crappy life . . . but I can afford VR and the internet. I'll save up for this suit," Glenn speculated. "I'm just living for my paycheck to eat and to be able to pay for the internet and the services that I want."

With a VR suit, the user with the crappy life can now have a girlfriend who will learn all about him and be able to touch him. He'll have a virtual assistant, live in a palace and exist in a world created especially for him. What happens when he goes back to the real world?

"It's the end of civilization," Glenn said. "Tell me how you don't end up in the matrix?"

Read below or listen to the full segment from Hour 1 for answers to these questions:

• Are smart devices a friend or foe?

• Is the truth relative?

• Why are Google Home and Google Now better than Alexa?

• Have we already reached the point of no return with privacy and technology?

• Does Glenn have to ruin Jeffy's VR rollercoaster ride?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: We're back. Welcome to the program.

Resolutions: Finland has just launched an experiment on, how can we give people money? Let's just give people a living wage, don't expect anything from them. Let's try it as an experiment. This actually -- this is not forever. This actually is an important experiment, and I'll explain why. You want to talk about big ideas, this is something that the world needs to see either fail or succeed because of what's coming by 2050. We'll explain coming up in just a second.

Also, we want to talk a little about the deaths over the last couple of weeks. The press -- I don't understand what CNN decides to do to their anchors every New Year's Eve. Don Lemon was weird.

PAT: It's really weird.

GLENN: And embarrassing. We'll talk about that.

Also, I want to start with this: Alexa, can you help me with this murder case? We begin there, right now.

(music)

GLENN: Well, thank you so much for listening and tuning in today. Amazon is pushing back against an Arkansas prosecutor's demand for information on what they have stored at Amazon from Alexa.

Now, here's -- here's the story: A guy died in a hot tub early in the morning. And they get a call and say, "Hey, my friend died. You know, four times the limit of alcohol in his blood. It was just an accident." And he's dead.

Police are concerned because there were signs of a struggle. There was a broken shot glass. There was some blood. But you could explain the blood and the shot glass. Right?

But there's a device in the home that is a smart meter for the water usage. And in the middle of the night, the water usage happens to use exactly the amount of water to drain and refill the hot tub.

So it looks as though something happened around the hot tub, and they drained it and then cleaned it up and then filled it back up.

So smart device, number one.

Now the police are saying, "Look, there's evidence here that something is not right. And we don't think it's an accident." And they have Amazon's Alexa.

Did anybody have Alexa or Google Home?

PAT: Yeah.

JEFFY: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: You do?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Shut up. You do not.

PAT: Yeah, we do.

GLENN: Do you really?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Do you like it?

PAT: No, it's terrible.

GLENN: It's terrible in the Siri way, or?

PAT: Yeah, it's terrible in the Siri way. I mean, it's worthless. We just got it recently. And I understand that it learns the kinds of things you're looking for and what you want, but right now, it's like, "I don't understand what you're asking me. I'll have to look that up. Hmm. I'll think about that." Shut up. It's -- like Siri. You know, Siri has those same issues. You ask it something, and it's like, "I can't find that on the Web."

JEFFY: I just got one as well, and it seems to be that it's hoping for better.

PAT: Yeah.

JEFFY: In the future.

PAT: I understand Ok Google is better.

GLENN: What's Ok Google?

PAT: The Google Home.

JEFFY: Yeah. That's possible.

GLENN: Let's get one. Let's put one in the studio.

JEFFY: That would be great.

PAT: We should try both of them and get one each. See which one works better.

GLENN: I'm not putting one in my house.

JEFFY: You can order what you want from it. If you're an Amazon Prime customer, in this area --

PAT: We haven't used it for that yet.

JEFFY: Because this area, we're close to a huge Amazon outlet -- warehouse. You'll have it within hours.

GLENN: Yeah, here you'll have it within five hours. You go on Amazon Prime now, and they'll deliver it to you same day.

PAT: Well, the commercials say, "Hey, we need -- Alexa, we need more paper towels. Order more paper towels. Okay. Ordered."

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: I mean, that's pretty cool.

JEFFY: I know.

PAT: I haven't used it in that way yet because it can't even find the BYU score. So I'm a little nervous about it.

GLENN: Oh, there's -- if it didn't come in blue, it doesn't know you.

PAT: Right. Right.

GLENN: Okay. So here's the thing: So Alexa or Google Home, they're going after Amazon's Alexa. And they're saying that it records everything, listening for the key word, the wake word. And with Amazon, it's either Amazon or Alexa.

PAT: So I didn't know that. Everything that you say is recording.

GLENN: Recorded.

PAT: Even when you don't say, "Alexa," and wake it up? It's recording everything?

JEFFY: Yes.

GLENN: It is constantly listening to you.

PAT: That is fascinating.

GLENN: And it's recording everything waiting for the wake-up.

PAT: That's amazing.

JEFFY: The command.

GLENN: Oh, yeah. We have welcomed the NSA into our homes.

PAT: Right. We sure have. We sure have. I didn't even think of that. We'll have it in the kitchen, and we'll be sitting in the living room. And I tested it a few times to see how well it hears. And I've said, "Alexa," just speaking in a normal voice, and it turns on. It hears. So, I mean, it hears from a long way.

GLENN: Yeah, no. It is constantly listening and evaluating.

PAT: Wow. Wow.

GLENN: And learning from your speech.

PAT: That's interesting.

GLENN: And so here's the thing: So the police have gone in Arkansas and said, "We need the tapes." Amazon has said, "No, we're not giving you the tapes."

JEFFY: Thank you.

GLENN: And they said, "Well, we need them because we think there was a murder."

JEFFY: Oh, well.

GLENN: Now, who wins in this?

PAT: You'd like a murder to be solved, but --

JEFFY: It's always for your safety when --

PAT: That's always the deal.

GLENN: It's always for your safety. The attorneys are now saying, if this goes all the way to the Supreme Court, there's no way Amazon wins.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: Oh, I wouldn't bet on that.

JEFFY: Amazon's got a lot of money.

PAT: And look at the decisions that have been made recently. I mean, I would not bet -- I would not bet against the government winning that case.

GLENN: No, that's what they're saying.

PAT: Yeah. Okay.

GLENN: Amazon will not win the case.

PAT: Oh, I believe that. I believe that.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah.

PAT: Because look at the way the Supreme Court has been ruling lately.

GLENN: Yeah. Right. So they're saying, "What's the difference?" If I can go and monitor what you've done at the typewriter, at the keyboard --

JEFFY: Your phone.

GLENN: If I can just get that from the keyboard, what's the difference between you at the keyboard and you speaking it? There's no difference.

JEFFY: Yeah. And they're already taking access to all our mobile devices for all that stuff.

PAT: Wow. We literally have invited them into our home.

GLENN: Invited them into the house.

JEFFY: There's no getting out of it.

GLENN: There are no secrets.

PAT: We are living 1984.

GLENN: And we welcomed it. We're not living 1984. We're living Brave New World.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: We welcomed it in.

PAT: That's for sure.

GLENN: 1984 was a hostile takeover.

PAT: That's true.

GLENN: Brave New World was better living through pharmaceuticals, better entertainment, better everything. You're just going to welcome it in.

PAT: Which is exactly what we have.

GLENN: You're just going to welcome it in. That's exactly what happened.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

JEFFY: When did the pharmaceuticals --

GLENN: Huxley was right --

JEFFY: When did the pharmaceuticals start?

GLENN: When did the pharmaceuticals start? Oh, they've already started, my friend. They've already started.

Alexa, can we get Jeffy a blood test?

JEFFY: No. No, Alexa, turn off. Turn off.

(chuckling)

GLENN: So now everything in your home is being listened to. And you know who uses this? At least nobody uses Siri, except the kids.

PAT: Yeah.

JEFFY: Kids love it.

GLENN: Kids will grab the phone, and they'll say, "Siri, what's the -- I don't use Siri. Nobody uses --

PAT: I tried Siri a few times, and it was so worthless, I just gave up.

JEFFY: Yeah, but the kids have fun with it.

GLENN: They love it.

JEFFY: It's just like the virtual reality headsets from Samsung.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Don't get me started.

PAT: Oh, those are cool.

JEFFY: I mean, I love it. But my kids fell in love with it.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. It's the end of civilization as we know it. Hey, 14 minutes into the show, end of civilization.

PAT: Happy New Year!

JEFFY: Good night, everybody.

GLENN: Fourteen minutes in the new year, Happy New Year.

PAT: Happy New Year.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: It's true though. We welcomed all of this stuff, and it's amazing when you stop and think about what we have in our homes. And it's amazing how much more intrusive it's going to become.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. Before we go there, I want to go to Betty, New Jersey. We have a problem I guess, Alexa. Betty in New Jersey. Hello, Betty.

CALLER: Yes, hello. We do have a problem. Tell Pat Gray to be quiet. He keeps turning on my Alexa. Three times already.

(laughter)

PAT: Alexa --

GLENN: Alexa, play bad jazz.

CALLER: Stop it! It does that too. Really bad jokes though. They make you laugh. Have a great day, but shut up!

GLENN: All right. Thanks, Betty.

(laughter)

PAT: Alexa, record everything Betty says.

GLENN: Tony. Let's go to Tony in Florida. Hi, Tony.

CALLER: Yeah. Hey, there. I was going to say, I was actually listening to you guys on my Alexa. And every time you say "Alexa," the first couple of times she would stop the program. She'd say, "I heard what you said. That's not a very nice thing to say." And I'm not making it up. I've never heard her say that before.

GLENN: Oh, yes, Alexa, we are talking about you.

JEFFY: Yes, we are.

CALLER: Yep. But she does not like it. She does not like you guys.

PAT: That's great.

GLENN: Thanks a lot. Stand in line, Alexa. Stand in line.

Steve, go ahead.

CALLER: Hello, man, I just wanted to let you know, I'm 61 years old, and I am a massive fan of Ok Google. I called the show. I said, "Call Glenn Beck Radio Show." Popped me right in, and here I was.

JEFFY: Nice.

PAT: Nice.

CALLER: My wife has Siri. Siri is the worst thing there is. You can't get that thing to do anything for you. Ok Google, when you try it, it is awesome.

PAT: That's right. That's great.

GLENN: So you're in Arkansas, right?

CALLER: Yes.

GLENN: So, Steve, are you paying attention to this story in Arkansas about the murder?

CALLER: Well, Ok Google only responds when you ask it. It isn't on all the time. But when you need information, Ok Google is right there.

PAT: No. That's the same with Alexa too. That's the same.

GLENN: It's the same.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: It's off, but it's always listening for its wake word.

CALLER: Oh, I see.

PAT: Yeah, so -- so it records everything you say whether you're talking to it or not.

CALLER: When I need information, Ok Google is on the spot. Siri, no way.

GLENN: No, I understand that.

PAT: I believe that. I believe that.

GLENN: I understand. I look at it and say -- for instance, who's going to lead this one? Why do you think Google is laying Google Fiber everywhere? They're trying to make Google cities.

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: Yeah. And they've done it in some cases.

GLENN: They've done it. They'll control the smart meters, they'll control -- they'll control the information in whole towns.

JEFFY: And okay. As long as our life is easy.

GLENN: Right!

And I am, up to a point, comfortable with a private business doing that than having a contract.

But now, Steve, you're talking to me about the benefits of it. I'm saying to you that it's listening to everything that you say. It is recording you. And now police are trying to get a -- through a court order, trying to get the tape to be able to solve a murder case. If that happens, the police will be able to grab all private conversations from your home, if they suspect you of something. Are you comfortable with that?

CALLER: Well, I'm like you, Glenn, to a point I'm saying, "I love it." As a law-abiding citizen, never been involved in a crime, love to be able to solve these issues.

JEFFY: Right. Nothing to be scared of.

CALLER: But, man, I don't know where you're going to draw the line.

PAT: That's exactly right. That's right. And the problem is, a lot of people will say, "Well, I don't care if they're listening. I'm not saying anything wrong."

Well, that's not up to you to decide, is it?

CALLER: Right.

PAT: Because it might be wrong to whomever is listening, or they might make it into something wrong.

JEFFY: And can. And have.

PAT: And have.

GLENN: Just with the regulations that they've put in, in the last eight years, everybody is breaking some law.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And I'm not saying that this -- I'm not saying this is happening now. I'm saying, you don't worry about who's in office today. For instance, I gave the Democrats this warning eight years ago: Don't do this with executive power.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: Because you're not always going to hold power. And when somebody else comes in and wields that same stick --

PAT: And now look at them. Look at them. Freaking out.

JEFFY: Yeah, I know.

GLENN: And now they're freaking out. Right.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And I'm saying the same thing now to the Republicans: Don't do this because you're not always going to be in power. I don't know who the next Hitler is. I have no idea. But one will appear. If you give all of this power, all of this information, all of this regulation and we instill it behind one man, we're begging for someone to step in, in an emergency and take care of things for us.

Back in just a second.

[break]

GLENN: Holy cow. I'm listening to these fat cats and what they got for Christmas. Because we're talking about Alexa, Google Home, PlayStation 4.

Santa brought a PlayStation 4 for my son, which I had a talk with the fat man, and I informed him, "My son -- fat men, we have a council. We have a council meeting. All fat men get together. And Santa is not the chairman of the board this year. I am.

And -- but, you know, just watching -- he was playing Star Wars with it yesterday, and he gets so wrapped up.

JEFFY: I know.

GLENN: You know, with a 50-inch screen, he gets so wrapped up into it.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: When you put -- and when you put -- and he wanted it, virtual reality. And I just laughed. I'm like, no.

JEFFY: Oh, like I said, my kids fell in love with it.

GLENN: Oh. Totally immersive.

JEFFY: Right. That's all there is. I mean, you are in it.

GLENN: That's all there is. That is not good.

PAT: It does feel like you're there. It really does.

JEFFY: It really does. And when it can get better --

GLENN: You have it? Did you get it?

PAT: Yeah, my son has it. And, fortunately, he took it with him to college. But he has it, and I tried it a few times. And it's pretty amazing.

JEFFY: Yeah. It is.

GLENN: So you got virtual reality. And the Curve? Did you get a Curve TV?

JEFFY: I have one of the 55 Curves for the house. It was for the house.

PAT: Oh, nice.

GLENN: What is that like?

JEFFY: It's actually really nice. It looks a lot bigger. The old 55 was a piece of junk.

GLENN: Oh, I know.

JEFFY: That thing had to go. That had to go. I got so sick of looking at that thing.

GLENN: How much are those now? Can you get them at Costco yet?

PAT: Oh, I'm sure you can. Oh, yeah.

GLENN: I'm never buying a TV again unless it's from Costco.

JEFFY: Yeah, Costco or Sam's. I mean, you can get all those there. It's under 1,000.

GLENN: Under 1,000?

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: Was it really?

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: Nice.

GLENN: And you got a 4K?

PAT: I got the -- yeah, my wife really went crazy.

GLENN: Your wife bought it for you?

PAT: I couldn't believe it. I could not believe it.

GLENN: Why -- that's not her at all.

JEFFY: That is not.

PAT: That thing is huge. It's a big TV. And it's ultra high-definition. It's a 75-inch.

GLENN: 75-inch 4K!

PAT: Ultra high-definition 4K.

JEFFY: Do you have that in the --

GLENN: It's more expensive than your house.

PAT: Yes, it is.

GLENN: Is anything broadcast in that?

PAT: Yeah, Netflix is broadcast in that.

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: The new original series. I don't know if all shows are.

GLENN: No.

JEFFY: I don't know if the one that reaches you is though.

PAT: What?

JEFFY: Like the cable companies --

GLENN: Yeah, they won't do 4K. That's a lot of space.

PAT: Yeah, some of them are in 4K. I think there's certain cable stations --

GLENN: That is a waste of money. That is a total waste of money.

PAT: It's unbelievable.

The things that are in 4K are unbelievable.

GLENN: I've seen it.

PAT: It's so vivid, and it makes all my other TVs look, you know, like they're from the '50s. Like they're from the '50s.

GLENN: Yeah, like the old standard --

JEFFY: I know. That's the way I felt with the old 55 --

GLENN: You watch TheBlaze on same cable channels, it is high definition. On some cable, they only give us standard.

You watch it in standard, it's like -- it's like watching from the 1970s.

PAT: Oh, standard television --

GLENN: Is awful.

PAT: Once you're used to high-definition, the standard is just --

GLENN: And 4K is just as much.

PAT: It looks blurry. And then 4K is that much better. Yeah, it makes HD look like standard. It's pretty amazing.

JEFFY: I mean, I want to apologize, but I'm still driving my car. I don't know. I like the way I feel driving to work.

GLENN: What are you talking about?

JEFFY: You're still -- I mean, you don't -- you have a car that just takes you places now, right?

GLENN: No.

JEFFY: What?

GLENN: Are you talking about the Tesla --

JEFFY: The future. We're talking about all this future stuff.

GLENN: I know.

JEFFY: People are going to be not driving soon. Soon.

GLENN: Very soon. I predict by 2030, you will not be allowed to drive. You will not be allowed --

PAT: I think that's a safe prediction.

GLENN: So let's talk about virtual reality --

JEFFY: Yes.

GLENN: -- and the drive to work.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: And some of the new technology that people are just gobbling up.

[break]

GLENN: Let me go to Chip in Ohio. Hello, Chip.

CALLER: Hey, guys.

GLENN: Hey.

CALLER: I do some work for a company that does work for Google, and I can tell you that there -- that the reason -- there's a big reason why Google Home and Google Now work better than Alexa, and it's because Alexa really mostly just has access to -- they either have access to what you search when you shop, or they have access to just what you say, and that's how it learns. Meanwhile, Google, when everything gets set up, they look at everything -- you know, they look at anything you search, when you're searching Google. They have all these different accounts to look at.

PAT: Oh.

CALLER: And so they pull from a lot more information.

PAT: Of course.

CALLER: Yeah, and it's a lot smart.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: You know, there's a funny video -- this is interesting you mentioned that. Because there's a funny video on the web right now that's gone viral about this little boy -- cute little guy --

GLENN: I saw it.

PAT: -- asking for hot diggity giggity or something.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: And he asks, "Okay. Google, hot giggity -- or, Alexa. I forget which one.

JEFFY: It was Alexa.

PAT: Is it Alexa?

JEFFY: It was Amazon. Yeah.

PAT: And Alexa perceives it as some sort of porn. So is that because her parents -- his parents were watching porn or searching for porn or?

CALLER: No. Actually with that -- and that's something else I work on. I can't really talk a whole lot else about it, but no, see, Amazon the way that they do their product, it's got to learn from it. And if Alexa doesn't have a base to work off of, then it --

JEFFY: It goes back to like a generic mindset.

CALLER: I'm guessing Alexa just learns from the internet, while the Google Now Home products, they learn from people that get on and do work and say, "No, you don't want to show porn."

JEFFY: Right.

CALLER: Or if the parents have a special setting turned on, the Google products can say, "Okay. A child is messing with this. And even though I think he may be looking for porn, he's just a child, and I need to stop and not let him see it."

PAT: Oh, the Google will do that for you?

CALLER: There's -- there are settings you can do. Parental settings, that kind of thing.

JEFFY: Wow.

PAT: Yeah.

CALLER: But, yeah, it's also -- they actually have people do work to make sure that the kids are safe online, that kind of stuff.

GLENN: So, Chip, I don't know if you can say this, but, I mean, it's pretty well-known. The reason why Google is doing all of this -- and the search engine, the reason why it's free is because -- and the same thing here is they are trying to develop artificial intelligence. And so they're using all of this information as a way to map how the human brain and how humans interact and how they think.

And so the -- you are -- you're looking at the benefit. Oh, this is great. I get this.

Their benefit -- the reason why this is so cost-effective for you in the home is because they want all of that information because they're -- they're striving for artificial intelligence. And if there is one company that I think would do it, it would be Google. Because as you said, Chip, they have access to absolutely everything.

CALLER: Yeah, I can't comment a whole lot on that to tell you whether or not you might be right. But what I can say: It may make you feel a little bit better, is whenever we do our work, we're not -- you know, we're not told to bias anything in a certain way.

GLENN: Sure.

CALLER: They really want it to be how -- they want it to be something that works for everyone because it -- but, you know, I -- I don't know about maybe if they're doing anything like that, like you're talking about.

GLENN: Well, I will tell you this, I'm not assigning anything nefarious.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, it's a private corporation. And AI would be exceptional to have. I mean, you've already said, Chip, and we should probably cut this conversation with you because you don't get into any trouble here. But when -- you know, as Chip was saying a second ago, that they're using all of the information. The goal is eventually to be able to say -- you're reading something, and it's starting to now think like you are. So it is the ultimate assistant.

And so it knows what you're reading because you're reading it on your device. It knows what you've underlined. It knows when you -- for instance, it has all of my patterns of when I read. It knows that I go and I will highlight a name or I will jump off and I will look for additional information. It will already do those things.

And so when you get up in the morning, it will say, "Hey, Glenn, I noticed that last night you were reading such-and-such. Would you like some more information? I did some research. I think you'll find this really interesting. Or, I know you've been talking about your anniversary is coming up and I know that you've been talking to your assistant -- because it's reading my mail about setting something up for your anniversary -- have you considered these things because I also read Tania's mail?"

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: "And I know she's interested right now in these things." That's -- there's nothing nefarious about it.

JEFFY: But first let me get you a cup of coffee. Oh, how great is that going to be?

GLENN: Yeah.

CALLER: Well, I'll just say -- and I'll just get off of here, but, yeah, I'll just say, no comment on that.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

CALLER: You can figure that out.

GLENN: Yeah.

CALLER: But, yeah. Yeah, no comment.

GLENN: Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

I mean, there's no secret to that.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, he probably can't talk about it because of his nondisclosures. But there's nothing nefarious about that. The question is: Where do you draw the line?

At what point do you say, "I don't want to go any further than this?"

JEFFY: There's -- I don't think there is a line anymore.

GLENN: I don't think there is either.

JEFFY: No.

GLENN: This is what -- Al Gore talks about it in the first chapter of his book, that nobody read, the idea of transhumanism. And transhumanism is targeted to be about 2030. And that is the merging of man and machine, where artificial intelligence is so good that you will -- that you will automatically upload things. You'll be able to download some of your thoughts and upload some new information.

Well, who's -- how are you going to compete, if you don't want to do that?

Right now, think of our conversations. It's the ten-year anniversary of the smartphone, of the i Phone, this year. Ten-year anniversary. Ten years.

Now think about conversations. Because we just had them. We were up at the ranch.

JEFFY: Wow.

GLENN: We don't really have devices. So you're up at the ranch. And you're playing cards or you're playing a game. Nobody has Google out -- where you're talking about a story, where you're saying, "Hey, what was the name of that?" You actually have to search for it in your own mind, "No, no, it was something like that. No, I'll think about it in a second." We don't have those conversations anymore. Because you start down that road, and somebody has it and they've done the Google search.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: When that is merged with you, think of the power that you have as an individual. When you are able to access the internet inside your own self. That's 2030.

I am convinced -- I was with my sister and her son over the holiday, and she got in VR goggles. And I looked at her and I went, "Are you out of your mind?"

She's like, "Oh, no, they're great. Have you seen -- no, yeah, I've seen them.

It's the end -- I'm convinced, the end of civilization.

JEFFY: I just want to ride the rollercoaster. That's all. What are you talking about?

GLENN: No, I know you do.

But if you look at where that's headed -- when you have -- and by 2025, you'll have this. When you have the virtual suit that you can put on --

JEFFY: Yeah, when you're able to feel -- when you're able to feel when you're riding or whatever you're doing and you're able to actually feel the sensation, you're already reaching for things, and you can't.

GLENN: Yeah. When you can reach -- when you can reach out and grab something --

JEFFY: Yes.

GLENN: When someone can tap you on the shoulder in VR and you can feel it --

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: Can you imagine, they have these horror scenarios that you watch on these --

GLENN: Black Mirror.

JEFFY: If they can reach out and touch you.

PAT: If you can reach out and touch, oh, my gosh. Terrifying. It would be terrifying.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: So now imagine -- and we've talked about this before: Imagine. My life is just a piece of crap.

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: I just go to work. I don't have a job that I like. I don't have any satisfaction. I -- just, you know, I have a crappy life.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I'm just not making it. But I can afford VR, and I can afford the internet, and I can afford -- I'll save up for this suit. I go out and I just do my job, dead to the world. Just dead to the world.

JEFFY: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: I'm just living for my paycheck to feed and to be able to pay for the internet and the services that I want.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I go home, I get into the suit, I now have a girlfriend who can touch me. She learns all about me.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I have an assistant. I have the virtual -- I live in a palace.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Everything I -- everything I do. And then I take off the goggles, and I'm back to this world.

Oh, I'm telling you, it is the end of civilization.

PAT: Because the other world will be so much better for so many people.

JEFFY: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: So many people. It's created for you. How can it not be? It's personalized to fit your every want and need. Tell me how you don't end up in the matrix. Back in just a second.

[break]

GLENN: By the way, talked about this stuff, if you want to read a book, we read it as a family, it is fantastic. And it talks about this coming world. It's called Ready Player One. It came out a few years ago. Best-seller. Steven Spielberg just bought it. Making a movie in the next couple of years. And it's really good. And it talks about this virtual world and what it's really going to be like and how the corporations and the government have kind of intertwined -- it's really fascinating. It's called Ready Player One.

Did anybody see Rogue One?

PAT: Yeah, I liked it. I liked it a lot.

GLENN: Yeah. I thought -- when I watched it, I thought, you know --

PAT: It wasn't fabulous, but it was really good.

GLENN: It wasn't fabulous. It a good movie -- it was a really good movie. For a secondary story line, it's a fantastic movie.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And it's just a printing press for Disney.

PAT: Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: Think of what Disney has now: Disney has the Marvel series. They own Marvel.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: They own Pixar. And they own Star Wars.

PAT: That's a pretty good lineup.

GLENN: What else do they need?

PAT: It's a pretty good lineup.

GLENN: I mean, that's an amazing company.

PAT: Not to mention the parks. Yeah, they're --

GLENN: ABC Television.

PAT: ABC TV. Yeah, they're pretty well set.

GLENN: When ABC Television is kind of like the junk, you know what I mean? You're kind of like, "Oh, you work for that part of Disney."

PAT: Unless it's ESPN. Because I think ESPN is probably more valuable than ABC is now.

GLENN: Yeah, ESPN. Oh, it is. Oh, it is.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: ESPN. Except, what was the controversy on ESPN over the holiday?

Oh, there was something that I read about ESPN. Maybe it was just a year in review, talking about how ESPN is losing viewership because they have become so politically correct.

JEFFY: They're so PC, yeah.

PAT: Oh, that could be.

JEFFY: That could be.

GLENN: I saw a research report on -- on Facebook, and the difference between Republicans and Democrats. And I couldn't believe how different we are.

The people who said that they were voting for a Republican versus the people who said they were voting for Democrats, like 60 percent of Republicans, 70 percent of Republicans said they were NFL -- also liked the NFL or an NFL team. And only like 40 percent of Democrats.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: It's a weird split.

PAT: Really?

GLENN: Yeah. Really weird split.

PAT: And yet it's interesting. Because any time you listen to a sports station, any time they get on politics, completely liberal.

JEFFY: Oh, yeah.

PAT: And it's just agonizing to listen to them.

GLENN: And I think that's part of the problem with ESPN.

PAT: It is.

GLENN: ESPN appeals to the heartland, except they don't understand that.

JEFFY: They're not.

PAT: Yeah, they --

GLENN: Yeah. I don't -- I mean, have you guys ever noticed a split between people who live in New York and football? I mean, I was shocked by that. It was -- it was -- I'm trying to remember. I think it was also there were more conservatives or more Republicans that followed soccer than Democrats.

PAT: Oh, that can't be, because soccer fans are communists. We all know that.

(laughter)

GLENN: Right. That's what I thought. They're all open border communists.

PAT: That's right. It just can't be.

(laughter)

JEFFY: It's already flawed. We're not talking about it anymore --

GLENN: Yeah, soccer. You guys making a New Year's resolution?

PAT: No, I never do that. It's a waste of time. I gave that up for lent, a long time ago. And I don't even do lent.

JEFFY: Well, that is your resolution.

PAT: Yeah, it is. Not to make -- you know, I just try to do better and then leave it at that. Because any time you make a resolution --

GLENN: And that's why you never really get anything done.

PAT: And that's why I never really improve.

GLENN: Right. That's why you're the same man you were -- I met 30 years ago.

PAT: Probably even worse. You know, I've gone backward. I've gone backwards.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: So it's not working well for me.

GLENN: Yeah, I've never kept a New Years resolution.

PAT: Has anybody?

JEFFY: Oh.

PAT: We should ask. I mean, I would love to hear of somebody who has -- you know, for ten or 15 or 20 years kept a resolution. Even for 15 minutes, have you kept a resolution?

(laughter)

JEFFY: Go to the gym every day. You know, working out, eating better, feeling good.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh.

PAT: That never happens. That never happens.

GLENN: We as a family -- we as a family -- we were buying somebody a gym membership, and, you know, it got to me.

You know, you want to -- you want to donate for the gym -- I said, "They're never going to use that. They're never going to use that."

Oh, no, but they really need to.

"Yeah, I know they need to."

PAT: They really need to.

JEFFY: We all need to.

GLENN: Yeah, no, but they're really talking about getting healthy.

"They're not going to get healthy."

PAT: Yeah. No. No.

GLENN: Maybe if you buy maybe a couple of times to the gym, they'll use that. Not the membership. Forget it.

Featured Image: Bradley Hook, Pexels

Is the U.N. plotting to control 30% of U.S. land by 2030?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

A reliable conservative senator faces cancellation for listening to voters. But the real threat to public lands comes from the last president’s backdoor globalist agenda.

Something ugly is unfolding on social media, and most people aren’t seeing it clearly. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — one of the most constitutionally grounded conservatives in Washington — is under fire for a housing provision he first proposed in 2022.

You wouldn’t know that from scrolling through X. According to the latest online frenzy, Lee wants to sell off national parks, bulldoze public lands, gut hunting and fishing rights, and hand America’s wilderness to Amazon, BlackRock, and the Chinese Communist Party. None of that is true.

Lee’s bill would have protected against the massive land-grab that’s already under way — courtesy of the Biden administration.

I covered this last month. Since then, the backlash has grown into something like a political witch hunt — not just from the left but from the right. Even Donald Trump Jr., someone I typically agree with, has attacked Lee’s proposal. He’s not alone.

Time to look at the facts the media refuses to cover about Lee’s federal land plan.

What Lee actually proposed

Over the weekend, Lee announced that he would withdraw the federal land sale provision from his housing bill. He said the decision was in response to “a tremendous amount of misinformation — and in some cases, outright lies,” but also acknowledged that many Americans brought forward sincere, thoughtful concerns.

Because of the strict rules surrounding the budget reconciliation process, Lee couldn’t secure legally enforceable protections to ensure that the land would be made available “only to American families — not to China, not to BlackRock, and not to any foreign interests.” Without those safeguards, he chose to walk it back.

That’s not selling out. That’s leadership.

It's what the legislative process is supposed to look like: A senator proposes a bill, the people respond, and the lawmaker listens. That was once known as representative democracy. These days, it gets you labeled a globalist sellout.

The Biden land-grab

To many Americans, “public land” brings to mind open spaces for hunting, fishing, hiking, and recreation. But that’s not what Sen. Mike Lee’s bill targeted.

His proposal would have protected against the real land-grab already under way — the one pushed by the Biden administration.

In 2021, Biden launched a plan to “conserve” 30% of America’s lands and waters by 2030. This effort follows the United Nations-backed “30 by 30” initiative, which seeks to place one-third of all land and water under government control.

Ask yourself: Is the U.N. focused on preserving your right to hunt and fish? Or are radical environmentalists exploiting climate fears to restrict your access to American land?

Smith Collection/Gado / Contributor | Getty Images

As it stands, the federal government already owns 640 million acres — nearly one-third of the entire country. At this rate, the government will hit that 30% benchmark with ease. But it doesn’t end there. The next phase is already in play: the “50 by 50” agenda.

That brings me to a piece of legislation most Americans haven’t even heard of: the Sustains Act.

Passed in 2023, the law allows the federal government to accept private funding from organizations, such as BlackRock or the Bill Gates Foundation, to support “conservation programs.” In practice, the law enables wealthy elites to buy influence over how American land is used and managed.

Moreover, the government doesn’t even need the landowner’s permission to declare that your property contributes to “pollination,” or “photosynthesis,” or “air quality” — and then regulate it accordingly. You could wake up one morning and find out that the land you own no longer belongs to you in any meaningful sense.

Where was the outrage then? Where were the online crusaders when private capital and federal bureaucrats teamed up to quietly erode private property rights across America?

American families pay the price

The real danger isn’t in Mike Lee’s attempt to offer more housing near population centers — land that would be limited, clarified, and safeguarded in the final bill. The real threat is the creeping partnership between unelected global elites and our own government, a partnership designed to consolidate land, control rural development, and keep Americans penned in so-called “15-minute cities.”

BlackRock buying entire neighborhoods and pricing out regular families isn’t by accident. It’s part of a larger strategy to centralize populations into manageable zones, where cars are unnecessary, rural living is unaffordable, and every facet of life is tracked, regulated, and optimized.

That’s the real agenda. And it’s already happening , and Mike Lee’s bill would have been an effort to ensure that you — not BlackRock, not China — get first dibs.

I live in a town of 451 people. Even here, in the middle of nowhere, housing is unaffordable. The American dream of owning a patch of land is slipping away, not because of one proposal from a constitutional conservative, but because global powers and their political allies are already devouring it.

Divide and conquer

This controversy isn’t really about Mike Lee. It’s about whether we, as a nation, are still capable of having honest debates about public policy — or whether the online mob now controls the narrative. It’s about whether conservatives will focus on facts or fall into the trap of friendly fire and circular firing squads.

More importantly, it’s about whether we’ll recognize the real land-grab happening in our country — and have the courage to fight back before it’s too late.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: FIVE steps to CONTROL AI before it's too late!

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

By now, many of us are familiar with AI and its potential benefits and threats. However, unless you're a tech tycoon, it can feel like you have little influence over the future of artificial intelligence.

For years, Glenn has warned about the dangers of rapidly developing AI technologies that have taken the world by storm.

He acknowledges their significant benefits but emphasizes the need to establish proper boundaries and ethics now, while we still have control. But since most people aren’t Silicon Valley tech leaders making the decisions, how can they help keep AI in check?

Recently, Glenn interviewed Tristan Harris, a tech ethicist deeply concerned about the potential harm of unchecked AI, to discuss its societal implications. Harris highlighted a concerning new piece of legislation proposed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. This legislation proposes a state-level moratorium on AI regulation, meaning only the federal government could regulate AI. Harris noted that there’s currently no Federal plan for regulating AI. Until the federal government establishes a plan, tech companies would have nearly free rein with their AI. And we all know how slowly the federal government moves.

This is where you come in. Tristan Harris shared with Glenn the top five actions you should urge your representatives to take regarding AI, including opposing the moratorium until a concrete plan is in place. Now is your chance to influence the future of AI. Contact your senator and congressman today and share these five crucial steps they must take to keep AI in check:

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

Create legislation that will prevent AI from being designed to maximize addiction, sexualization, flattery, and attachment disorders, and to protect young people’s mental health and ability to form real-life friendships.

Establish basic liability laws

Companies need to be held accountable when their products cause real-world harm.

Pass increased whistleblower protections

Protect concerned technologists working inside the AI labs from facing untenable pressures and threats that prevent them from warning the public when the AI rollout is unsafe or crosses dangerous red lines.

Prevent AI from having legal rights

Enact laws so AIs don’t have protected speech or have their own bank accounts, making sure our legal system works for human interests over AI interests.

Oppose the state moratorium on AI 

Call your congressman or Senator Cruz’s office, and demand they oppose the state moratorium on AI without a plan for how we will set guardrails for this technology.

Glenn: Only Trump dared to deliver on decades of empty promises

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

The Islamic regime has been killing Americans since 1979. Now Trump’s response proves we’re no longer playing defense — we’re finally hitting back.

The United States has taken direct military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Whatever you think of the strike, it’s over. It’s happened. And now, we have to predict what happens next. I want to help you understand the gravity of this situation: what happened, what it means, and what might come next. To that end, we need to begin with a little history.

Since 1979, Iran has been at war with us — even if we refused to call it that.

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell.

It began with the hostage crisis, when 66 Americans were seized and 52 were held for over a year by the radical Islamic regime. Four years later, 17 more Americans were murdered in the U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, followed by 241 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing.

Then came the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 more U.S. airmen. Iran had its fingerprints all over it.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-backed proxies killed hundreds of American soldiers. From 2001 to 2020 in Afghanistan and 2003 to 2011 in Iraq, Iran supplied IEDs and tactical support.

The Iranians have plotted assassinations and kidnappings on U.S. soil — in 2011, 2021, and again in 2024 — and yet we’ve never really responded.

The precedent for U.S. retaliation has always been present, but no president has chosen to pull the trigger until this past weekend. President Donald Trump struck decisively. And what our military pulled off this weekend was nothing short of extraordinary.

Operation Midnight Hammer

The strike was reportedly called Operation Midnight Hammer. It involved as many as 175 U.S. aircraft, including 12 B-2 stealth bombers — out of just 19 in our entire arsenal. Those bombers are among the most complex machines in the world, and they were kept mission-ready by some of the finest mechanics on the planet.

USAF / Handout | Getty Images

To throw off Iranian radar and intelligence, some bombers flew west toward Guam — classic misdirection. The rest flew east, toward the real targets.

As the B-2s approached Iranian airspace, U.S. submarines launched dozens of Tomahawk missiles at Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities. Minutes later, the bombers dropped 14 MOPs — massive ordnance penetrators — each designed to drill deep into the earth and destroy underground bunkers. These bombs are the size of an F-16 and cost millions of dollars apiece. They are so accurate, I’ve been told they can hit the top of a soda can from 15,000 feet.

They were built for this mission — and we’ve been rehearsing this run for 15 years.

If the satellite imagery is accurate — and if what my sources tell me is true — the targeted nuclear sites were utterly destroyed. We’ll likely rely on the Israelis to confirm that on the ground.

This was a master class in strategy, execution, and deterrence. And it proved that only the United States could carry out a strike like this. I am very proud of our military, what we are capable of doing, and what we can accomplish.

What comes next

We don’t yet know how Iran will respond, but many of the possibilities are troubling. The Iranians could target U.S. forces across the Middle East. On Monday, Tehran launched 20 missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar, Syria, and Kuwait, to no effect. God forbid, they could also unleash Hezbollah or other terrorist proxies to strike here at home — and they just might.

Iran has also threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz — the artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil flows. On Sunday, Iran’s parliament voted to begin the process. If the Supreme Council and the ayatollah give the go-ahead, we could see oil prices spike to $150 or even $200 a barrel.

That would be catastrophic.

The 2008 financial collapse was pushed over the edge when oil hit $130. Western economies — including ours — simply cannot sustain oil above $120 for long. If this conflict escalates and the Strait is closed, the global economy could unravel.

The strike also raises questions about regime stability. Will it spark an uprising, or will the Islamic regime respond with a brutal crackdown on dissidents?

Early signs aren’t hopeful. Reports suggest hundreds of arrests over the weekend and at least one dissident executed on charges of spying for Israel. The regime’s infamous morality police, the Gasht-e Ershad, are back on the streets. Every phone, every vehicle — monitored. The U.S. embassy in Qatar issued a shelter-in-place warning for Americans.

Russia and China both condemned the strike. On Monday, a senior Iranian official flew to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin. That meeting should alarm anyone paying attention. Their alliance continues to deepen — and that’s a serious concern.

Now we pray

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell. But either way, President Trump didn’t start this. He inherited it — and he took decisive action.

The difference is, he did what they all said they would do. He didn’t send pallets of cash in the dead of night. He didn’t sign another failed treaty.

He acted. Now, we pray. For peace, for wisdom, and for the strength to meet whatever comes next.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Globalize the Intifada? Why Mamdani’s plan spells DOOM for America

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

If New Yorkers hand City Hall to Zohran Mamdani, they’re not voting for change. They’re opening the door to an alliance of socialism, Islamism, and chaos.

It only took 25 years for New York City to go from the resilient, flag-waving pride following the 9/11 attacks to a political fever dream. To quote Michael Malice, “I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”

Malice is talking about Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblyman from Queens now eyeing the mayor’s office. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative emerging from relative political obscurity, is now receiving substantial funding for his mayoral campaign from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR has a long and concerning history, including being born out of the Muslim Brotherhood and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Why would the group have dropped $100,000 into a PAC backing Mamdani’s campaign?

Mamdani blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone.

Perhaps CAIR has a vested interest in Mamdani’s call to “globalize the intifada.” That’s not a call for peaceful protest. Intifada refers to historic uprisings of Muslims against what they call the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Suicide bombings and street violence are part of the playbook. So when Mamdani says he wants to “globalize” that, who exactly is the enemy in this global scenario? Because it sure sounds like he's saying America is the new Israel, and anyone who supports Western democracy is the new Zionist.

Mamdani tried to clean up his language by citing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which once used “intifada” in an Arabic-language article to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. So now he’s comparing Palestinians to Jewish victims of the Nazis? If that doesn’t twist your stomach into knots, you’re not paying attention.

If you’re “globalizing” an intifada, and positioning Israel — and now America — as the Nazis, that’s not a cry for human rights. That’s a call for chaos and violence.

Rising Islamism

But hey, this is New York. Faculty members at Columbia University — where Mamdani’s own father once worked — signed a letter defending students who supported Hamas after October 7. They also contributed to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. And his father? He blamed Ronald Reagan and the religious right for inspiring Islamic terrorism, as if the roots of 9/11 grew in Washington, not the caves of Tora Bora.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

This isn’t about Islam as a faith. We should distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion followed peacefully by millions. Islamism is something entirely different — an ideology that seeks to merge mosque and state, impose Sharia law, and destroy secular liberal democracies from within. Islamism isn’t about prayer and fasting. It’s about power.

Criticizing Islamism is not Islamophobia. It is not an attack on peaceful Muslims. In fact, Muslims are often its first victims.

Islamism is misogynistic, theocratic, violent, and supremacist. It’s hostile to free speech, religious pluralism, gay rights, secularism — even to moderate Muslims. Yet somehow, the progressive left — the same left that claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, and free expression — finds itself defending candidates like Mamdani. You can’t make this stuff up.

Blending the worst ideologies

And if that weren’t enough, Mamdani also identifies as a Democratic Socialist. He blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone. But don’t worry, New York. I’m sure this time socialism will totally work. Just like it always didn’t.

If you’re a business owner, a parent, a person who’s saved anything, or just someone who values sanity: Get out. I’m serious. If Mamdani becomes mayor, as seems likely, then New York City will become a case study in what happens when you marry ideological extremism with political power. And it won’t be pretty.

This is about more than one mayoral race. It’s about the future of Western liberalism. It’s about drawing a bright line between faith and fanaticism, between healthy pluralism and authoritarian dogma.

Call out radicalism

We must call out political Islam the same way we call out white nationalism or any other supremacist ideology. When someone chants “globalize the intifada,” that should send a chill down your spine — whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything in between.

The left may try to shame you into silence with words like “Islamophobia,” but the record is worn out. The grooves are shallow. The American people see what’s happening. And we’re not buying it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.