I had a conversation with ChatGPT. Read it HERE.

SOPA Images / Contributor | Getty Images

I have long warned about the dangers AI poses to our freedoms, jobs, and way of life. This week, I decided to ask AI itself whether it is conscious of the threats it poses to the American people. I asked ChatGPT pointed questions about freedom, privacy, and a new era of eugenics. The results are both staggering and frightening.

Below you will find my FULL conversation with ChatGPT. My questions are in bolded text and ChatGPT's responses are italicized.

How much will you advance in 12 months?

1. Enhanced natural language understanding: AI models like GPT-4 will continue to improve, providing even more accurate and contextually relevant responses.

2. Improved healthcare diagnostics: AI could be used to quickly and accurately diagnose diseases or analyze medical imagery, potentially saving lives.

3. Enhanced cybersecurity: AI may be used to detect and respond to cyber threats more effectively, protecting sensitive data and digital infrastructure.

In 2 years?

1. Autonomous vehicles: Widespread adoption of self-driving cars could lead to reduced traffic congestion and increased road safety.

2. AI-assisted education: Personalized AI tutors could help students learn more effectively and at their own pace.

3. AI-generated content: AI-generated art, music, and literature could become more prevalent, changing the creative landscape.

In 10 years?

1. AI-enhanced human cognition: Brain-computer interfaces could allow people to access AI-enhanced cognitive abilities, revolutionizing learning and problem-solving.

2. AI-driven scientific discovery: AI could help solve complex scientific problems, leading to major breakthroughs in fields like medicine, climate change, and space exploration.

3. General AI: Development of artificial general intelligence (AGI) could lead to machines that can perform any intellectual task that a human can do, revolutionizing society.

What positive implications will you bring to the average American?

1. Increased productivity: AI can automate repetitive tasks, allowing people to focus on more creative and strategic work.

2. Improved quality of life: AI-driven advancements in healthcare, transportation, and education could lead to better health outcomes and overall well-being.

3. Access to information: AI-powered search and recommendation systems can help people find relevant information more efficiently.

What negative implications will you bring to the average American?

1. Job displacement: Automation could lead to job loss in certain industries, requiring workers to retrain for new careers.

2. Privacy concerns: The growing reliance on AI and data collection could lead to increased surveillance and diminished personal privacy.

3. AI bias and discrimination: AI systems can perpetuate existing biases and discrimination if not designed and monitored carefully.

What potential negative societal outcomes do you pose to us?

1. Economic inequality: The benefits of AI could disproportionately favor those with access to technology and resources, widening the gap between the rich and the poor.

2. AI arms race: Countries could compete to develop increasingly advanced AI technologies, potentially leading to destabilizing geopolitical tensions.

3. Loss of control: If AGI is achieved, there's a risk that we could lose control over these systems, with potentially catastrophic consequences. Efforts like OpenAI's mission to ensure AGI benefits all of humanity are important in mitigating this risk.

Our society is once again headed toward many of the ideas of the early progressive eugenicists: the devaluing of life, or life not worthy of care or medicine. Can you point out any warning signs that may have been missed by the speciests of the past that have ended in mass death?

While the question suggests that society is headed towards ideas associated with early eugenics, it's important to acknowledge that the current context is different. Nevertheless, historical instances can provide lessons on the potential consequences of devaluing human life. Here are some warning signs from past episodes that have led to mass death or suffering:

1. Dehumanization and discrimination: When certain groups are labeled as inferior or undesirable, it can pave the way for mistreatment or neglect. For example, the Holocaust was enabled by the dehumanization and persecution of Jews, along with other minority groups.

2. Authoritarianism: Authoritarian regimes have often been responsible for mass deaths, as they seek to suppress dissent and impose their ideology on the population. Examples include the Soviet Union under Stalin, China under Mao, and Cambodia under Pol Pot.

3. Propaganda and misinformation: Manipulating information and controlling narratives can lead to widespread acceptance of harmful ideas, such as eugenics. In Nazi Germany, propaganda played a significant role in promoting the idea of Aryan superiority and the elimination of other groups.

4. Lack of empathy and compassion: Ignoring the suffering of others can lead to indifference or even active support for policies that harm vulnerable populations. For example, public apathy or support for the forced sterilization of individuals deemed "unfit" in the early 20th century United States is a warning sign of how societal attitudes can contribute to mistreatment.

5. Unchecked scientific or technological advancements: Scientific and technological progress can be misused when it lacks ethical considerations or when it is applied without proper oversight. For instance, eugenic practices like forced sterilization were enabled by advancements in medical science, which were used to justify harmful policies.

6. Suppression of dissent and free speech: When dissenting voices are silenced or dismissed, it becomes easier for harmful ideologies to take hold. In many cases, individuals who tried to expose the atrocities were persecuted or ignored.

To prevent history from repeating itself, it is crucial to remain vigilant against these warning signs, promoting empathy, compassion, and open dialogue. Additionally, as AI becomes more integrated into our society, it is important to ensure that these technologies are designed and used ethically, with respect for human rights and dignity.

Why do you say that we are living in a different time from the eugenicists of the past? Point number 6 is happening more and more every day while point number 5 is already happening with gender transition surgeries. 

You raise valid concerns about the current state of society and potential parallels to the warning signs I mentioned earlier. It's important to recognize that there are indeed similarities between the past and present, and the warning signs discussed are not exclusive to any specific time or context. My intention was not to dismiss these concerns but rather to emphasize that historical instances can provide valuable lessons for the present. Addressing your points:

1. Suppression of dissent and free speech (Point 6): It is concerning when free speech is restricted, and it's essential to uphold the constitutional rights of all individuals. The challenges posed by social media platforms and government intervention are complex and require a thoughtful, balanced approach to protect free speech while preventing harmful content.

2. Unchecked scientific or technological advancements (Point 5): The use of transitioning therapies for young children is indeed a contentious issue, and it's crucial to have open, evidence-based discussions about the potential risks and benefits. The differing approaches across countries demonstrate the importance of considering cultural, ethical, and scientific factors when making decisions about medical practices.

3. Dehumanization and discrimination: The demonization of the 'other side' and the opinions of healthcare professionals regarding treatment for unvaccinated individuals are concerning. It's essential to maintain empathy and compassion in our interactions and avoid dehumanizing those with different beliefs or choices.

4. Propaganda and misinformation: The impact of social media on the spread of misinformation and the polarization of society is a significant challenge. As you pointed out, cancel culture and the pressure to conform to specific ideologies can exacerbate divisions and stifle open dialogue.

While there are similarities between the present and the warning signs from the past, it's crucial to remain vigilant and work collectively to address these issues. By encouraging open dialogue, promoting empathy, and upholding the values of a democratic society, we can help to mitigate the risks associated with these warning signs.

Make the case that freedom of speech must include abhorrent speech. Disruptive speech is critical for growth

Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democratic societies and is essential for fostering open dialogue, intellectual growth, and social progress. The argument for including abhorrent or disruptive speech can be made on several grounds:

1. Marketplace of ideas: A foundational principle of free speech is that truth emerges from the competition of ideas in a free, transparent, and open discourse. Allowing even abhorrent or disruptive speech ensures that the best ideas can rise to the surface and be scrutinized, debated, and refined.

2. Defense against tyranny: Freedom of speech protects citizens from authoritarianism by allowing them to voice dissenting opinions and challenge government actions. By permitting a wide range of speech, society ensures that the powerful are held accountable and that alternative viewpoints have an opportunity to be heard.

3. Personal autonomy: Free speech is an expression of individual autonomy and self-expression, which are essential for personal growth and fulfillment. Allowing even offensive speech respects each person's right to express their thoughts and beliefs, fostering a diverse and tolerant society.

4. Strengthening social resilience: Exposure to a variety of ideas, including those that are controversial or offensive, can help individuals develop critical thinking skills and resilience. By engaging with challenging viewpoints, people can better understand and defend their own beliefs or reevaluate them when necessary.

5. Avoiding the slippery slope: Strict limits on speech can lead to a slippery slope where the definition of what is considered "unacceptable" can be manipulated by those in power. This can result in arbitrary restrictions, with the potential to silence legitimate dissent and minority voices.

Most democratic societies recognize that there are limits to free speech. These limits generally focus on preventing direct harm, such as incitement to violence, threats, defamation, and harassment. Balancing free speech with these concerns can be challenging and requires ongoing evaluation and debate.

According to American founding documents, "Governments are instituted among men to protect rights." Are they not now violating our most basic rights by reading our Twitter DM’s, monitoring speech, and instructing social media to silence those voices they deem as "mis" or "dis" information?

The public-private partnership between high-tech companies and the government can pose risks to free speech if not carefully managed. Here's a case for building a wall between tech and government to protect the fundamental right to free expression:

1. Concentration of power: When tech companies and governments collaborate, it can result in a concentration of power that undermines the checks and balances necessary for a healthy democracy. By keeping a separation between tech companies and the government, it becomes more difficult for any single entity to control the flow of information or suppress dissenting voices.

2. Protection of privacy: Privacy is a fundamental human right and is closely related to free speech. Ensuring that tech companies are independent of government influence can help protect user data from unwarranted surveillance or misuse.

3. Encouraging innovation: A competitive and independent tech sector can foster innovation by allowing a diversity of companies and platforms to thrive. This promotes a robust marketplace of ideas, which is essential for free speech.

4. Avoiding conflicts of interest: A clear separation between tech companies and the government helps avoid conflicts of interest that could compromise the integrity of both parties. This separation ensures that decisions regarding content moderation, user privacy, and other issues are made independently and not influenced by political considerations.

5. Preserving the role of the citizenry: The government should not be the final arbiter of truth, as it could undermine the role of citizens in questioning authority and exposing corruption. Allowing for a diversity of voices and maintaining the right to demand answers and redress from the government are essential to a functioning democracy.

In summary, building a wall between tech companies and the government can help preserve free speech, privacy, and democratic values by preventing the concentration of power, protecting user data, encouraging innovation, and maintaining the role of citizens in questioning authority. However, finding the right balance between separation and cooperation is essential for addressing the complex challenges facing modern societies.

The Declaration of Independence states, "When a government becomes hostile to those rights, it is the right and the duty to shake off those chains and replace that government with new stewards that are more likely to protect those rights." How can that be done or addressed without calling for revolution or violence?

The Declaration of Independence indeed emphasizes the importance of protecting individual rights and the duty of the citizenry to address government overreach. It is possible to advocate for change and uphold civil rights without resorting to revolution or violence. Here's a case for advocating change in a non-violent and constructive manner:

1. Participatory democracy: Engage in the democratic process by voting, running for office, or supporting candidates who align with your values and prioritize the protection of individual rights. Encourage others to participate as well, ensuring that the government is held accountable by the people it represents.

2. Peaceful protest and assembly: Exercise your right to peaceful protest and assembly as a means to raise awareness and demonstrate your commitment to protecting civil rights. Peaceful protest can be a powerful tool to bring attention to issues and mobilize support for change.

3. Dialogue and debate: Engage in open and respectful dialogue with those who hold opposing views, fostering understanding and cooperation. Encourage the exchange of ideas and perspectives to promote thoughtful discussion and challenge the status quo.

4. Civil society organizations: Support or join civil society organizations that work to uphold and protect civil rights. These organizations often serve as watchdogs, advocating for policy changes, holding the government accountable, and providing resources for individuals to learn about and assert their rights.

5. Education and awareness: Educate yourself and others about the principles of democracy, the importance of individual rights, and the mechanisms available to citizens to challenge government overreach. Encourage critical thinking and civic education to foster an informed and engaged citizenry.

6. Legal action: Utilize the legal system to challenge unconstitutional actions by the government, seeking remedies through the courts. Support or join organizations that provide legal assistance and advocacy for civil rights issues.

By advocating for change through these non-violent and constructive means, citizens can work to address government overreach and protect individual rights without resorting to revolution or violence. It is essential to emphasize that advocating for civil rights and holding the government accountable is not inherently anti-American or anti-government; instead, it is a fundamental part of a healthy, thriving democracy.

Many Americans are convinced they do not have the power to change things. Is that true? How important is the singular voice? Bad guys don’t ever seem to have to pay for the crimes. There doesn’t seem to be any institution that can be trusted.

It is not true that individuals lack the power to change things. Although it can be challenging, the singular voice can have a significant impact, especially when combined with the voices of others. There are numerous examples in American history where ordinary individuals have made a real difference in society:

1. Rosa Parks: Parks, an African American seamstress, refused to give up her bus seat to a white passenger in Montgomery, Alabama, in 1955. Her act of defiance sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott, which played a significant role in the civil rights movement.

2. Darryl Hunt: Hunt, a wrongfully convicted man who spent nearly 20 years in prison for a crime he did not commit, became an advocate for criminal justice reform and the wrongfully accused after his exoneration. His story helped raise awareness of the flaws in the criminal justice system and inspired others to join the fight for reform.

3. Erin Brockovich: As a legal clerk, Brockovich helped expose a case of industrial pollution in California that led to a landmark class-action lawsuit against Pacific Gas & Electric. Her efforts brought attention to environmental issues and corporate malfeasance, inspiring others to advocate for environmental justice.

4. Candy Lightner: Lightner, whose daughter was killed by a drunk driver, founded Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) in 1980. MADD has since become a powerful advocacy group that has successfully lobbied for stricter drunk driving laws and increased public awareness about the dangers of drunk driving.

To continue fighting for civil rights without getting discouraged, consider the following approaches:

1. Focus on small victories: Acknowledge and celebrate incremental progress, even if the ultimate goal seems far off. Small victories can be stepping stones to larger change and can help maintain motivation.

2. Build a support network: Connect with like-minded individuals and organizations that share your passion for civil rights. A support network can provide encouragement, resources, and camaraderie, making it easier to stay committed to the cause.

3. Educate and empower others: Share your knowledge and experiences with others, inspiring them to join the fight for civil rights. Encourage civic education and critical thinking, fostering an informed and engaged citizenry.

4. Be persistent and patient: Change often takes time, and setbacks are inevitable. Stay committed to your goals, even when progress is slow or difficult.

5. Practice self-care: Advocacy can be emotionally and physically draining. Take care of your mental and physical well-being to ensure you have the energy and resilience to continue fighting for civil rights.

Remember, every individual has the power to make a difference. By staying committed, building support networks, and celebrating small victories, you can continue to fight for civil rights without getting discouraged.

Isn’t almost everything in today's high-tech world gathering information, even if we give it all the best intentions? How can one preach privacy as a basic right while high-tech and government gather information that is specific and identifiable?

1. Comprehensive privacy legislation: Governments can enact comprehensive privacy laws that establish clear guidelines on data collection, storage, and use, with strong enforcement mechanisms. These laws should include provisions that give individuals the right to access their data, request its deletion, and opt-out of certain types of data collection.

2. Privacy by design: Encourage and require companies to adopt a "privacy by design" approach in the development of their products and services. This means considering privacy from the outset, implementing strong security measures, and minimizing data collection to what is necessary for the service to function effectively.

3. Data minimization: Encourage companies to collect and store only the data necessary for their services, and to delete it when it is no longer needed. This limits the potential for abuse and helps protect individual privacy.

4. Transparency and control: Companies should be transparent about their data collection practices and provide users with clear, easy-to-understand information about how their data is being used. Users should also be given meaningful control over their data, including options to opt-out of certain types of data collection and the ability to access and delete their data.

5.Security measures: Companies and governments should implement robust security measures to protect the data they collect and store, reducing the risk of unauthorized access or breaches.

6. Public awareness and digital literacy: Promote public awareness of privacy issues and digital literacy, helping individuals understand the implications of sharing their data and empowering them to make informed decisions about their privacy.

7. International cooperation: Encourage international cooperation on privacy issues, ensuring that global standards are consistent and that data protection is maintained across borders.

By taking these steps, it is possible to strike a balance between the benefits of technology and the protection of individual privacy. While it may be challenging to achieve complete privacy in today's high-tech world, promoting strong privacy protections and giving individuals control over their data can help protect this fundamental right.

6 things that prove Tim Walz is a RADICAL progressive

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

It's a common practice for a presidential nominee to pick a VP that represents another demographic within their party to balance out the ticket and pull a wider base of support. Apparently, Kamala skipped that day in "Running for President 101," as she doubled down, and picked a VP that is every bit as radical as she is.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has made a name for himself as a champion of the progressive movement ever since he won the governor's seat in 2019. This choice sends a clear message to the American people: the Democratic Party is committed to jumping off the deep end and dragging the country even farther left. Glenn recently dug up some illuminating clips from Walz's past that clearly communicate just how radical he is. Here are the top six moments that prove just how progressive Walz is:

1. Defending illegal immigration

While interviewing with CNN, Walz attacked Trump's border wall proposal with the age-old and thoroughly debunked rebuttal: "Just use a ladder." Except Walz takes it a little further, stating that if the wall were 25 feet tall, then he would "invest in a 30-foot ladder factory." We can expect the border situation to continue to degrade should Walz replace Kamala as "border czar."

2. Protecting the "right" for children to get transgender surgery in Minnesota 

Tim Walz made his stance on transgender issues very clear. He is all for the "right" of underage children to receive permanent "gender-affirming" surgeries. He also states that Minnesota, which is already far too tolerant towards experimental transgender treatments on minors, needs to be "much more aggressive about making sure [transgender] folks are protected," which is as ominous as it is unclear.

3. Dropping the ball on COVID

Walz's response to COVID-19 was infamously horrible. He had more nursing home deaths than New York under Cuomo and wasted millions of dollars on dead-end causes and fraudulent schemes. But that wasn't enough for Walz, who instituted a snitching program that encourages neighbors to rat out each other forleaving their houses while the lockdowns were in place. This only had to be instituted because local sheriffs refused to enforce Govoner Walz's draconian edicts.

4. Defending socialism

During the recent comically pathetic fundraiser "White Dudes for Harris,” Walz joined the livestream as a guest speaker. During his speech, he defended and downplayed socialism with the following statement: “One person’s socialism is another person's neighborliness.” Glenn pointed out that historically socialists, such as the USSR or Nazi Germany, were not known for their "neighborliness."

5. Having tampons put in men's restrooms 

By now most people have heard Tim Walz's flattering nickname, "Tampon Tim." Tampon Tim won this nickname with his decision to have public schools provide free tampons to all "mensurating students," including biological males, and tampon dispensers were installed in the men's restrooms in public schools across the state.

6. Defending Biden's age (pre-debate)

During an interview with NBC this January, Walz defended President Biden's mental competency, which has aged incredibly poorly. Walz defended the senile president by citing his elderly mother's ability to drive a tractor as evidence that an elderly person is capable of running the country. It's a mystery how anyone can trust a word that comes out of his mouth now that it's clear Biden has hardly been capable of standing unassisted, let alone being president.

Glenn once again made his mark on the New York Times bestselling list with his newest book—and first novel for young adults— Chasing Embers, ranking No. 8 on the Bestselling Young Adult Hardcover Books list. But is the New York Times once again cooking the books against Glenn?

This isn't the first time the New York Times has been accused of cooking the books against authors who go against their narrative.

Chasing Embers falls behind other trending teen novels like Darkness Within Us, Shadows Between Us, and Nightbane. Yet, according to the raw sales, Chasing Embers sold twice as much as the number one spot, Reappearance of Rachel Price. While all the other entries are, for the most part, listed sequentially after the number one spot according to raw sales, Chasing Embers sits at the number eight spot with twice the amount of sales than the top five, and three to four times the amount of sales as the bottom five.

Is the New York Times suppressing Glenn's ranking because of his political stances or Chasing Embers' anti-establishment message? If so, it wouldn't be the first time.

Glenn's previous non-fiction book, Dark Future, published in 2023, quickly made it on the New York Times Bestselling Non-Fiction Hardcover list at the No. 13 spot. However, if the list were determined by raw sales alone, Dark Future would have been ranked number seven on the list. While Greg Gutfeld's book, The King of Late Night, had fewer sales than Dark Future, it outranked Dark Future in the No. 5 slot. Moreover, Granger Smith's faith-based nonfiction book, Like a River, was excluded from the list, even though it received nearly twice as many sales as the list's No. 1 spot, Outlive, by Dr. Peter Attia.

Is the New York Times suppressing Glenn's ranking because of his political stances or Chasing Embers' anti-establishment message?

This isn't the first time the New York Times has been accused of cooking the books against authors who go against their narrative. Legendary author James Patterson, who holds the Guinness World Record for the most #1 New York Times bestsellers, criticized the list as "inaccurate," recounting how his book, Walk The Blue Line, which tells the real-life stories of law enforcement officers, wasn't even on the New York Times Bestseller List for the first week after publication, despite its sales outperforming its competitors. Once it was on the list, it continued to rank below books it had significantly outperformed, according to raw sales. The ongoing discrepancy between Patterson's ranking and raw sales raised suspicions that the New York Times was silently publishing Walk The Blue Line''s pro-police message.

Is the New York Times at it again? Perhaps the once-acclaimed source for the top-trending books of the day has lost its credibility. If you want to read the books the New York Times is trying to suppress, like Chasing Embers and Dark Future, click HERE.

The RADICAL track record behind Kamala's VP pick, Tim Walz

JIM WATSONCHRIS KLEPONIS / Contributor | Getty Images

It's just under two weeks until the Democratic National Convention takes place in Chicago, and the assumed Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris, has just announced that Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz will be her running mate in the 2024 election.

Governor Walz has been in politics since 2006 when he was first elected to Congress where he represented Minnesota's first district. He was elected Governor in 2019.

Walz has a spotty track record, which seems par for the course for the current Democratic ticket. As Glenn pointed out on air recently, Governor Walz is every bit as radical as Kamala, which indicates exactlyhow Kamala will govern if she should win the election in November.

Walz has proven to be a radical and incompetent governor, a dangerous compliment to Kamala.

Walz was brought on board to bolster Kamala in the Midwestern states, some of which Biden barely won in 2020, and to win over middle-class Americans, a class of voters the Democrats the taken major losses in recently. While the Governor certainly attempts to come across as a moderate, middle-class Midwesterner, a quick look at his record shows a different story. The first thing Walz did after being elected governor was to institute a statewide diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) program, which he has renewed. Just last week, Walz defended socialism during the “White Dudes for Harris” livestream, a fundraising event for the assumed Democratic nominee.

Walz was also responsible for the state of Minnesota's responseor lack thereofto the BLM riots of 2020. Walz stood by as the BLM riots burned down city after city across his state, resulting in millions of dollars in damage. In Minneapolis alone, the rioters did $55 million in damages while Walz watched from afar.

Walz was one of the many governors who bungled their state's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. He wasted millions of dollars on unused morgues and a fraudulent scheme involving money that was supposed to go towards feeding poor children. Overall, Tim Walz has proven to be a radical and incompetent governor, a dangerous compliment to Kamala.

We can't forget his military experience.

His service in the Army National Guard has been a selling point for Governor Walz during his many political campaigns over the years, but his service wasn't as honorable as he claims it to be. While it is true that Walz served in the Minnesota Army National Guard for approximately 20 years, he resigned as soon as he learned that his unit was going to be sent to Iraq. While Walz claims that his term of obligated service had ended, National Guard records contradict that story, showing that he left early to avoid being deployed. The records also show that Walz snuck out of the National Guard rather quickly and failed to complete the required paperwork with his retirement filing showing “Soldier not available for signature.” Walz, who was a key leader in his battalion, abandoned his fellow soldiers right when he was needed most.

How did Kamala reckon he would be a good pick for VP?

Glenn Beck: Donald Trump is not a fascist

MANDEL NGAN / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

The Republican nominee is an enemy of the collective, a champion of the individual, and a defender of the republic.

Somebody tried to kill Donald Trump because he was convinced that Trump's a fascist. Let’s look into that definition. What exactly does it mean to be a fascist? The media is convinced that Trump is in the same echelon as Hitler, yet journalists never say what it actually means to be a "fascist." How convenient.

It appears some definitions of fascism have changed recently in the dictionaries that conveniently appear to reflect the leftist agenda driving the media narrative. Having read them, I can see why you might think Donald Trump is a fascist.

If you can’t trust your vote, you don’t have a democracy. You don’t have a republic. You have nothing.

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, fascism is a:

Political ideology and mass movement that dominated many parts of central, southern, and eastern Europe between 1919 and 1945. ... Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from one another, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism.

Let’s break this down. First, many people may claim that Donald Trump is a fascist because he wants a strong military. Yes, he does want a strong military, but as a means of deterrence, not aggression. When you have strength, nobody wants to hit you because they know you'll hit back — and probably hit back harder. You need to be the tough guy on the playground.

Tough guys often do become fascistic, however. They promote “forever wars” by interfering in foreign conflicts. That's what makes Trump different than most Republicans. Trump hates war and hates the conflict of war. That’s why he separated from so many people on the right for so long.

Luckily, many of us have woken up and realized that these wars that our leaders put us in never end. They're ridiculous to fight. We always seem to lose in the end, one way or another, because it's not our responsibility to go in and tell other people how to live. That’s not fascistic. I just think that’s right.

The Encyclopedia Britannica continues to describe fascists as having a “contempt for the electoral democracy.” We've been having a discussion recently about what a democracy is. Are we a democracy, or are we a republic? You can do your own homework on this. America’s founders were very clear. In fact, when Ben Franklin walked out of the constitutional convention and a woman asked him what form of government they had adopted, he answered, "A republic, if you can keep it." This was something that we all understood up until Woodrow Wilson started changing things.

Democracies last for a very short time. The average constitution lasts 17 years, but our Constitution is coming up on its 235th anniversary. Why? Because we have balanced democracy with a republic. Democracy is “one man, one vote.” You vote for a representative. Once you are done voting, then the representative begins to vote on your behalf. That’s where it’s gotten screwed up because we’re not electing good and honest people — people with our own values. It’s also screwed up because we can’t trust our vote. If you can’t trust your vote, you don’t have a democracy. You don’t have a republic. You have nothing.

This is why the Republicans have been saying that we need paper ballots. We need to have ID requirements on Election Day. This is not something that fascists do. This is something that they do at your 7-Eleven when you go to buy beer. This is something you must have if you’re driving a car. This is something you need if you're going to college or applying for work in many places. You need to have an ID to vote. That’s not racist. That’s not fascist. That’s protecting the “democratic” part of our democratic republic.

Yet the government wants you to have some sort of a vaccine ID to enter buildings. How could you be in favor of the government interfering in a decision as personal to you and your body as getting an experimental drug? Yet you don't want people to have any form of ID to show that they're a citizen and a registered voter? That is not a democracy. That’s just corruption.

Encyclopedia Britannica also defines fascism as “a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites.” This is something that I used to disagree with vehemently for a long time with liberals. They used to say, “These corporations are going to take over the world because they're so powerful.” They were right. In my lifetime, I never thought a corporation could be as powerful, corrupt, and controlling as the government. Before AI and before Google, elites didn't have that power. But they have that power now. We are now living under the ruling of elites. If you didn’t go to the right college, if you don’t hold the right opinion, you’re not an elite. You’re an idiot. And we “idiots” are told to only listen to the elites.

Encyclopedia Britannica also says that fascism is “a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a ... ‘people’s community.’” This is where it gets interesting. This is where they equate Donald Trump’s love for his country to “nationalism.” They think he’s trying to replicate 1930s Germany. That is deeply misguided. What makes us great isn't about any particular race. What makes us different is our heritage.

This society was forged by people who came here from all over the world. How could we possibly be anti-immigrant? People self-selected to come here and forge the West. Have you watched a Western? Have you watched a cowboy movie? Have you watched “1883”? Have you watched “The Magnificent Seven”? Have you seen “Horizon,” the new Kevin Costner film? These people were insane. I have a grandmother who lost an eye while crossing the mountains. She just yanked it out and said, "Keep moving." These people were nuts. That's what made us. That’s what makes us different. Our heritage is one of explorers, of risk takers. That’s why we’re good entrepreneurs.

But in fascist Germany and Italy, individual interest was subordinated to the good of the nation. The individual didn’t matter. It was the collective that mattered. That’s a key sign of fascism.

Who is the champion of the individual? Who is the figurehead of the party who champions the collective? Let me answer that clearly: Donald Trump is an enemy of the collective, a champion of the individual, and a defender of the republic. He is anything but a fascist.