RADIODecember 01, 2022

How EVIL Marxists are using CHILDREN to DESTROY our society

The recent Balanciaga scandal is shocking and disgusting, but it’s not new. In fact, in this clip, Glenn explains how Marxists have been targeting our children in order to destroy the family structure, and eventually capitalism, for years now. Their tactics — especially ones that use children — are EVIL, Glenn says, but thankfully we have an advantage: We are resilient thanks to our faith, our history, and our traditions. But if we start to lose those, Glenn warns, ‘we become vulnerable.’

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Balenciaga. Is still in the news. Thank goodness, quite honestly. Thank goodness. The View could not bring themselves to say that what happened in those ads with the S&M teddy bears and the children was a bad thing. In fact, the -- I guess the conservative one, Alyssa Griffin, who I've never heard of. Anyway, she said, I found this ad campaign particularly distasteful in this moment.

Wait. Wait. So it would be okay, if it's not in this moment? Another moment, you would be fine?

There's this growing anti-LGBTQ sentiment right now. And how it's being framed as portraying trans people as groomers.

I -- I -- I don't think people are putting trans people as groomers. I think it's anyone who is pushing pedophilia.

Don't you think that's what it is? Anybody who is trying to sexualize our children.

Those are groomers. I think there are people that you know are claiming to be totally straight, that are sexually attracted to children. I don't think that that's straight. Because I think straight, gay people, and everybody else.

I think there's a vast majority that think, sex with kids, not a good idea.

STU: Wow. Great stance. Mr. Hot take over there. Jeez.

GLENN: I know. I know.

So this is just -- this is sick.

So, anyway, a lot of trans people are being framed as groomers. This is a term you'll hear on the far right. They're groomers.

STU: So the Balenciaga campaign is disturbing, because it supports what the far right says. That's why it's disturbing?

GLENN: Yeah, yeah. And they played right into their hands, by having kids in a sexualized manner carrying something that represents, you know, sex acts. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

So it's distasteful, at this moment, because it's being -- it's being portrayed by the right as something sick.

Can we just all agree, that sexualizing our children, is bad?

Can we agree? Apparently, not. Apparently not.

The New York Times weighed in, lumping the ad campaign with Fox news and QAnon.

So the only people -- and, you know what, if that's true, then color me there. If those are the only people standing up and saying, I think the sexualization of children, then I guess that's who my peeps are.

STU: Shockingly, that's not the only --

GLENN: Oh, it's not. No, it's not.

STU: No.

GLENN: This is brought on by Marxism. Marxism is evil. It is evil.

How do I know? I don't know. Let's look at the fruit of the tree. 120 million dead in 100 years? I don't know. Seems pretty evil to me.

A poet once said, if you will not have God, and he's a jealous God, you should pay your respects to Hitler or Stalin. The intellectuals and the activists that dominate our culture today are doing this.

They're sworn to accomplish it in a fashionable new way, with the destruction of God and the family. This is the left's biggest mission. I'm not talking about your neighbor. I wish your neighbor would wake up, and start standing with people, when they see our children are under attack.

They hate capitalism. And for some reason, they see the family as capitalistic. No. That's -- that's actually not true. What is true, is that they hate family.

And capitalism comes after that. But to sell it to people, you have to start with capitalism. But this is an evil, evil idea. And so they know, in the end, they have to destroy the family.

Klaus Schwab, encourages redefining family identity. Quote, increasingly the traditional family unit is being replaced by the trans national family network.

What the hell is that, Klaus? Why is this guy in everybody's cabinet? It's no coincidence that the left has become Marxist, at the same time, it's worshiping men in dresses. Encouraging children to climb on to stripper poles. Marxism and pedophilia are a match made in hell. Wherever Marxism appears, it will sprout pedophiles. But pedophiles exist even in capitalist -- you know pedophiles can be anything. But you have to understand that Marxism is evil.

For -- for starters, Marx didn't consider the long-term effects of destroying the family. He just wanted to destroy the family. Any time it has been tried in the Soviet Union, it resulted in a massive spike of orphans, which leads to massive spikes in pedophilia.

Look at our border policy. What's happening to all those kids? You're starting to see reports, I know, only from the right.

Because the left can't admit it. Pedophilia is going through the roof because it supplies orphans.

In the wake of World War II, orphans became easy prey. And there was a German psychologist who turned post-World War II Germany into his experiment in pedophilia. His goal was to spread Marxist values to fight fascism.

Did you know that Stalin in the mid-1930s had an affair with a 13-year-old girl?

Stalin did. Thirteen years old. Sources called her, his child bride.

Even though, after she got pregnant, he dumped her.

Marxism has a long lineage of this. Why?

Not because it's Marxism. Because it's -- it was birthed in evil.

In the Communist Manifesto, on what foundation is the present family? The bourgeoisie family? What's it based on? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie.

Best of all, abolishing the family would be relatively easy once the bourgeois family. The bourgeois family will vanish. As a matter of course, when the complement vanishes. Both will vanish with the vanishing of capital. He said the bourgeois claptrap about family and education, about the hollowed co-relation of parents and child, become all the more disgusting, the more by the action of modern industry. All the family ties, among the pro let Arizona are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor.

Now, when you think of Karl Marx and Marxism, think of a specific image. And that image is, an animal devouring its offspring.

And that is exactly what's happening. And it's happening more often, because the left has run out of enemies.

They're cannibals. And they have to eat something.

They always end eating themselves.

Marx envisioned a complete purge. I'm quoting, of society.

So that communists could have their revolutionary dictatorship. He advocated for an overthrow of the entire legal system. Gee. Let's reimagine it.

The proletariat cannot conquer power within the legal framework established by the bourgeoisie, that this revolution had to be violent. The forceable overthrow of all existing social conditions. These are his words. He wanted to change everything.

He wanted to reverse all traditions. All values. All beliefs, that weren't his.

What was that Michelle Obama quote?

I think she stated it very, very well.

VOICE: And Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices. We're going to have to change our condition.

We're going to have to change our traditions, our history. We're going to have to move into a different place. He wanted to get rid of everything that was sacred, even if it had been sacred since before recorded history. Even if it was an invaluable part of being human.

Truth.

He hated religion. He spited God. He said that labor and not God, created man. Christ preached love, so Marx incited violence and encouraged death. He got kicked out of Belgium for buying guns for terrorists.

Society valued marriage. So he degraded the family unit. He replaced faith with doubt. Compassion with prejudice. Truth with feeling. Art with propaganda. And work with laziness.

The left has internalized all his attitudes about life. Without God. Without family. Without marriage. Without faith. Without art. Without truth, without compassion, all you are left with is an urge to destroy. And when nothing is sacred, human life is expendable.

Marx believed that the individual human life was much more important than the well-being of the community. He believed that human beings should sacrifice themselves for the sake of the community or for future generations. If you just scroll through Twitter, you will see the left has perfected this attitude.

They've improved on it. They've industrialized it.

Their utopia resembles a Brave New World. Where monogamy is taboo. Sex is fused with violence and degradation. Orgies are routine.

Children are sexualized many times forcefully. The family structure, destroyed.

Any mention of family, mother, father, is described as smut.

Yet, anything degrading is encouraged. Especially among young children.

Even the origin of life holds no beauty.
There's literally something called the embryo store, where meaningless babies are cultivated by the dozen-like grapes on a vine.

Have you seen the little lamb that is grown in a plastic bag? We're not far from this, gang.

Here's the -- here's the advantage we have. We are very resilient. Because of our faith. We are very resilient, because of our history and our traditions. If we start getting rid of those, we become vulnerable.

There is truth. Now, you can call yourself whatever you want to call yourself. And I'm fine. Whatever. Whatever.

But do not me to go down the road with your truth. Because there is universal truth. And there are hard wired biological difference between family and non-family.

That's why our teachers, they might like our kids. They might say they love our kids. But they will never fight for our kids like a traditional mother will.

I don't even know. I mean...

Parents guard their children from vipers. And as long as there's at least one family and one believer left alive, then God and family are full of light, stronger and brighter than anything or anyone who claims victory over their supposed demise.

Just remember what is true.

DeepSeek’s New AI: Glenn’s Warning of a Tech Abyss

Has China’s DeepSeek developed a “completely different species” of artificial intelligence that’s smarter than anything we’ve ever seen? Or are the rumors all lies generated by an AI bot? Glenn reviews some of the latest terrifying and SOCIETY-CHANGING advancements in AI, including how scientists have developed a new AI tool that can tell your biological age and potential health issues using just a picture.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I want to talk to you a little bit about AI.

Apparently, there is a new AI that the scientists at Mass General in Boston have developed a new AI tool called Face Age.

And it can tell your biological age by a picture of you. And apparently, not just -- not just your biological age. But how healthy you are.

In fact, they are -- they believe now, with the eyeball test.

Research in the Lancet digital health. Indicates -- you ready for this?

That artificial intelligence will be able to not only spot that you have cancer.

But also, if you are being treated for cancer.

That's not working.

They have this much time to live.

How terrifying is that?

I mean, how great is that?

How terrifying is that know. Would you have -- if you could have it, and it would tell you, wow. You're looking pretty old and beat up! You don't have much longer to live.

Would you go into the face tool? And say, how long do I live?

How much longer -- I do not think I would do that. I don't want that.

STU: I would want to know if I could do something about it, I suppose.

I mean, I guess, being able to -- if you knew -- and, again, this is somewhat speculative here.

But if you knew, you were going to die in two months, I guess, I -- the idea of wanting to know, would be intimidating.

But I also think, I would like to probably have moments with my family and my kids, and say the things I want to say.

And like, get my affairs aligned, and such.

Start some new affairs.

GLENN: New affairs. Wait. What?

STU: Just kidding, honey.

No, but I would like to get -- if you want to get your affairs arranged, you want to make sure that you're not leaving your family with a burden. You want to make sure you say to your kids, the things you want to say. Maybe you want to write something.

GLENN: Okay. What if you put your face in? Okay. And you take the picture. What do I have left? And it just comes back. What time is it now?
(laughter)

STU: I don't know. If this stupid device can't tell time. It's like a VCR.

GLENN: I don't know. Twenty minutes. Twenty minutes, maybe. Maybe. I don't know. You're not doing well. You're looking a little peaked.

Some of the things that are coming with AI are remarkable. Go ahead.

STU: Life-changing too.

I would say, society changing, probably.

GLENN: So can I just read something to you, that is part of it is beyond my understanding.

And will be beyond something -- and I just want you to hear this.

This is I rule the world MO. This is @IruletheworldMO.

Nobody knows who this really is. They think that this may be an insider, and one of the big AI research firms.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: But they also think it might be a bot by one of these AI research terms to throw the other research terms off. Okay?

They have no idea who this is. Okay.

So, but just listen to what -- I'm hoping it's a bot that is trying to throw people off.

Listen to this. Just got off a four-hour phone call with sources inside Chinese DeepSeek labs.

And holy cow, they're using other language. We are so F-ing behind, it's not even funny anymore.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: DeepSeek R2, it's not an incremental improvement.

It is a completely different species of intelligence, operating on principles nobody in the West has even theorized yet.

They have abandoned transformer architectures entirely for something they're calling recursive cognition lattices.

The scale in dimension of our math doesn't even have a good notation for this.

The compute efficiency gangs that violate what we thought were fundamental limits like 400 times improvement in reasoning per teraflop.

Not four. Not 40. Four hundred times. Our benchmarks now are literally meaningless.

The scariest part isn't the raw capability.
But how it's developing novel mathematical frameworks on the fly to solve problems. Research gives it questions, and it invents entirely new branches of mathematics to answer them. One physicist showed it a problem they've been stuck on for 15 years. They solved it in seconds with notations nobody recognized. It took three days for them to translate its solution back into standard mathematics.

We saw demo videos that can't possibly be real, except multiple independent sources confirmed.

R2 designed and simulated room temperature, super conductor, from first principles in under an hour, complete with fabrication methods, using existing technology.

They've already produced the samples in the Beijing labs. Blah, blah, blah.

Their -- their in -- I can't say it.

STU: Interrogation?

GLENN: No. No. No. No. Merging with man and machine.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: With biological systems.

STU: Integration?

GLENN: Integration. Thank you. With biological systems is the real nightmare fuel. Two-way neural interfaces that make Neuralink look like a child's toy. Direct cognitive enhancement already in human trials.

This isn't even the most advanced system. They're the ones showing it publicly. America is still treating this like normal technology race, while China understands. It's the an extinction-level transformation of civilization.

It's like watching a nuclear power race, where one side is debating the ethics of gunpowder.

STU: Wow. Because my -- my recollection of the DeepSeek story, when that came out a few months ago.

GLENN: It was nothing --

STU: Experts landed on the idea that there is absolutely -- like they basically were using our technology.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: It wasn't as impressive as we initially thought. So this person or bot is saying, that it is.

Now, I will say, if you are a person trying to hide your identity. Just saying, you just had a four-hour conversation with a specific company, I mean, how many four-hour conversations happened that day? It would be a weird way to hide your identity unless you're -- so who knows, maybe it's just all blown out.

GLENN: Hopefully it's all blown out.

I mean, you read the -- Sam Altman follows -- others follow. It's not just. It's seen inside the circles. And they don't know who it is, or what it is.

STU: That's true.

GLENN: A post like that makes me think it's a Chinese bot.

STU: Because it seems like it's promoting DeepSeek. Right? That's just amazing.

GLENN: Yes, but he's not always promoting DeepSeek. Or it isn't promoting it. And this is the craziest part. You don't know! Now it doesn't have to be a person!

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: It could be an algorithm.

STU: Now, of course, there is this thing -- you know, there's no -- what is it? There's no -- there's no limit to the levels humans can achieve when you don't care about pain and suffering.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: I think paraphrasing Louis C.K. for that one. Chinese can just throw bows at this. They're doing a lot of human trials on this stuff. As we've seen, maybe with Wuhan in the past. They're kind of willing to do anything. Right? And if they're doing this. And actually seeing these advances, we wouldn't do.

GLENN: No.

STU: You wouldn't be in human trials yet for any of this stuff. Although, a very long ramp up for Elon Musk's company, as we've seen some of that I guess. But they're just -- they'll just throw people at it.

GLENN: You know what's crazy is, we are dealing with technology that we have absolutely no idea, what it's going to be like, what it can do. Nothing, nothing, and I've read several articles, and they're talking about how just everything that you -- everything, the way you work, the way you think, is just about to be completely disrupted.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And we're just -- the world is just kind of going along with it. And we're like, I don't know. I don't know.

Maybe we should pass something about it. We're just going along with it.

And, you know, science. There's a -- there's a watch, I think it was Omega. I can't remember. There was a watch that was made in the 1950s and '60s, and its sweep hand, its second hand, it had like a lollipop on it. So it was the stick of the hand. And then it had like this little circle on it.

And it was sweeping around. And the reason why they put the lollipop around it, it was the citizenship signal to the buyer and the wearer. That that watch didn't have radiation in it. And it's not like, oh, you were working in a lab. It was that they were -- you know, we had put, to make things glow at night, that was radiation okay. To get the luminosity on watches. At first, we were like, why don't we just use some of this?

Okay. And that went on for like a couple of decades, you know.

And we were like, hey.

How come his arm keeps losing all of his hair in the first week of wearing that watch.

So they put this little lollipop on it. Yep. No radiation in this one, dude. That's crazy. That we could make.

We could do that kind of stuff. For that long.

And we kind of forget about it. And now, what are we working with? This will make nuclear stuff look like nothing. Like nothing.

STU: We're so close to it, as well, it seems.

GLENN: I read another post, where they were saying that -- that it is getting so fast in -- in for defense, that -- and I said this. I know I said this five years ago.

That you won't even know that you've lost the war. Because for you, the war hasn't even started yet.

But you will start and lose the war, in a flash.

And the time it takes you to go. Wait a minute.

There's a war going on. What?

You've already lost. It happened. And you've lost.

Because AI is going to get so good.

It will predict absolutely every move. That everybody is going to make.

And it will just go, oh, here's the countermove. And put it in.

And go, okay. Well, that's over.

STU: It's like when you -- you're not a big video game guy.

But when you start praying a game. And you just decide to go on the toughest level of the opposing AI.

And like, you just can't do anything.

You just automatically. Your base is destroyed in seconds.

That's a very -- very low level version of this.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Let me -- can I give you one other thing on AI.

I think this is fascinating. This is in the Wall Street Journal two weeks ago. I haven't heard anybody talk about it.

We've talked about it for a long time.

The surveillance state. I remember with you, taking calls from people. Going, I will not get an EZ Pass because that means they can track me when I go through the tolls. Right?

GLENN: Remember when we were in Tampa. This is the year 2000. They put cameras up in the streets of Ybor City. And everybody was like, I will -- not in America. Not doing that right now.

Nobody was willing to give their fingerprints. Nobody wanted to give their face. None of that.

STU: Yep. We all carried our phone. Of course, GPS everywhere we go. We click yes, agree. Agree. Agree to everything.

GLENN: We open the phone with our face.

STU: Yeah. Listen to this. This is amazing. This is from an author Joanna Stern.

GLENN: Wall Street Journal.

STU: Wall Street Journal. I've been wearing a wire everywhere since February.

That's how the article starts. I've got all the transcripts, important meetings, arguments with my kids, chats with disgruntled employees, late-night bathroom routines. There's plenty more I can't share, if I want to. And my bosses and my family as well, to keep liking me.

No, not an FBI informant. I willingly wear a 50-dollar bracelet that records everything I say. And uses AI to summarize my life. And send me helpful reminders.

GLENN: Why would you do that?

That's called a panopticon.

STU: Uh-huh. I think we're basically there. How do you have a private conversation in this world?

She tested two other devices as well, that are on the market now for 159, $199. They recall every single thing.

They transcribe every single thing. They have recordings of every single thing that was said by her or around her.

GLENN: Let's try it --

STU: That's crazy. Crazy.

GLENN: Crazy? No, it's crazy not to try it, to show everybody how bad it is, but it would be crazy to do it and be like, I think that's going to be a great addition to my life.

STU: Hmm. She says, within hours of wearing this bracelet, I was blown away at how quickly it turned ramblings and random chatter into useful, actionable information, yet allowed me to quote myself from February 24th at 5:15 p.m. This bracelet is really F-ing creepy.

Apparently said that out loud.

But, I mean, you can see. Again, I can see a world where that probably would be beneficial. You have a conversation with someone about something. What did they say? You would have it. When you were saying, hey. We should get together next Thursday.

It puts something in your calendar. That says, hey, call this person about that Thursday meeting you discussed. Of course, that would be beneficial in some way. It's like having an assistant. If you are an executive, you have an assistant.

GLENN: Those bots are already -- by the end of the year, those will be strong everywhere. You will have that assistant doing that in your phone and everything else. It will already do that.

STU: This is the death of private conversations though. They're over.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Every single time you have a conversation, you should act like you're on television, having it.

GLENN: Yes.

Well, we've lived that way for a long time.

STU: That's what made me so interested.

Video of the day

Rand Paul: Trump Just Had His “Tear Down This Wall” Moment

President Trump’s trip to Saudi Arabia and the Middle East was historic for many reasons. But Glenn and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) agree that perhaps the biggest moment was when he denounced “western intervention” and “so-called nation builders.” Gone are the days of a system that led to endless wars and destroyed nations. Instead, Trump is aiming to let nations develop themselves through good trade relations. Sen. Paul also comments on Boeing’s Air Force One delays, Qatar’s plane offer, why he can’t support Congress’ current version of Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill,” and what might be in store for Dr. Fauci regarding COVID investigations.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: We welcome to the program Rand Paul, senator from the great state of Kentucky.

Rand, I want to play something for you. And in yesterday's speech, which I think should have been like a Libertarian's dream. It was mine.

Listen to this.

DONALD: And it's crucial for the wider world to know, this great transformation is not coming from Western interventionalists, or flying people in beautiful planes. Giving you lectures on how to live. And how to govern your own affairs. No. The gleaming marbles of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, was not created by the so-called nation builders, neocons, or liberal nonprofits like those who spend trillions and trillions of dollars failing to develop cabal, Baghdad, so many other cities.

Instead, the birth of a modern Middle East has been brought by the people of the region themselves. The people that are right here. The people who have lived here all their lives, developing your own sovereign countries, pursuing your own unique visions, and charting your own destinies and your own way.

It's really incredible what you've done. In the end, the so-called nation builders wrecked far more nations than they built. And the interventionalists were intervening in complex societies.

That they did not even understand themselves. They told you, you had to do it. But they had no idea how to do it themselves.

Peace, prosperity, and progress ultimately came not from a radical rejection of your heritage, but rather, from embracing your national traditions and embracing that same heritage, that you love.

So dearly.

GLENN: Rand Paul, what did you think of that?

RAND: Pretty amazing. You know, there have been so many times, when I've heard President Trump speak, or seen his actions on foreign policy, that have been -- oh, my goodness. This is the best president we've had in my lifetime.

GLENN: I know. I thought he sounded almost like Washington at that point.

Just like, do it yourself. We're not here to tell you what to do. I haven't heard that ever, from any president.

RAND: And this is why the Bush wing hates Donald Trump so much as an establishment. Because these are the people who wanted to spend freedom at the point of a gun everywhere, they thought they were going to shape the world for democracy, which is a sort of leftover Woodrow Wilson idea. But, no. This is the part of Donald Trump I completely embrace, encourage, and will defend, and defend on a daily basis.

GLENN: So I said earlier today. That part of that speech was as significant as the Gorbachev tear down this wall speech. Agree or disagree?

RAND: I agree. It's incredibly significant to say, you know, we've helped these relationships, not by bossing around the world. Not by intervening. But by basically, you know, trading, and he didn't use the word trade. He could have.

But basically, having trade and good relations with these countries that had to develop themselves.

GLENN: So while we're there, why don't we talk about -- why don't we talk about, I don't know, trading nothing for 400 million-dollar airplane.

Where do you stand on this gift from Qatar?

RAND: You know, you can't take gifts, unless they're approved by Congress. I think Jefferson was offered something. And Congress actually voted against Thomas Jefferson being allowed to keep it. But you can't do it. I mean, it just -- and it's going to set up the appearance of impropriety whether Congress will protect him or not.

Possibly. But the other thing is, we're the world's largest arms merchant. We sell arms by the billions, everywhere throughout the Middle East. We populate the heads of every war on the planet.

And so Qatar is a big recipient of arms from us, and so we make these decisions. And the president pretty much makes them on his own.

Congress has the chance to object, and I've objected in the past with arms, when I felt like -- particularly when the Journalist Khashoggi was killed by the Saudis. I thought we should have laid off arms for a while, and somebody should have had to pay some penance over that.

GLENN: Great.

RAND: And so I've tried to block different arms sales before, but there's a potential that the administration's protectiveness will be codified over a million dollar plane. There are also practical concerns as well.

One of them is, is where are we on the one that they have ordered? And it's already made. And they're just upgrading it, you know, putting the electronics, defensive weapons on Air Force One, and they're within six months of being completed.

Qatar's plane would have to be completely outfitted. It will probably have to be stripped down on the inside, completely reconfigured. And has to have the special stuff, the way it's classified.

GLENN: Yeah, it's two to five years just to finish it.

RAND: It may be that the other plane is actually closer to being finished.

Boeing is disappointing on so many fronts. But they haven't had this plane, since I think it was commissioned by the first President Trump. And four years later, still not there. It's really a disappointment. But we have to know more about it. The thing is, if he really wants this plane, and it's a great plane.

The Qataris can sell it, or give it back to Boeing. And Boeing can work with us, and we could pay a price. And then we would mediate all of this.

If he takes every family transaction that they have had in the Middle East for the last ten years or the next ten years, it will be heavily scrutinized. And I think it doesn't come to any good.

GLENN: Yes. So what do you think about the possibility -- and this may be giving him too much benefit of the tout.

But the guy is playing 15-dimensional chess it seems, in so many ways.

He -- I spoke to him about the Boeing plane a few weeks ago, and he was smoked.

And, you know, we -- we began our participation in and ended World War II in a quicker time than we have ordered that plane in 2018, to today.

So it's -- I mean, it -- what is Boeing doing?

And he's saying, and others are saying, that it may be five years from now. May be even ten!

What about the idea that he is just trying to push the pressure on Boeing, and like, get it done!

VOICE: Boeing has become an extension of the government. They're a government bureaucracy. And they behave like it.

Now, look, I think the Empire State Building was build in a year. China right now is, what's that?

GLENN: Ten months.

RAND: Yeah. Ten months. China can erect a 30-story building in a matter of 2 or 3 months. I mean, it's amazing how fast things can be done. And Boeing can't make a plane in four years, and some other planes don't fly. And so that is a problem. If you're a plane manufacturer and they don't fly. It's because Boeing is such a slow ponderous corporation. It's been, you know, had a monopoly on sort of government planes for so long. That near being outcompeted internationally.

And just slow. And so I see them more as an extension of government bureaucracy, than I do as a real capitalism. But no company could get away with being this poor, this slow moving, if there was a real marketplace.

GLENN: So what do you do to solve it? Because I think that is the real solution.

I feel like the former Soviet Union, when Gorbachev or anybody else would get into a ZiL. You're like, oh, that's nice.

That will break down halfway to the airport.

You know, what do we do?

Boeing, you can't sue Boeing. The president can't sue Boeing. The country can. How do you fix this?

RAND: Here's the interesting thing. This intersects with the discussion over trade. Some would say, that's what we do.

We protect Boeing. Protect them from international trade.

What if we did this? What if we got rid of the trade barriers, and we let all the international companies compete with Boeing? Boeing would have to get better or go bankrupt.

So they're inefficient because they are protected. Some would say that that's what happened to US steel over many generations. What if we do protect US steel. We've had steel import quotas for generations. We've tried to do whatever we can to block international steel from coming here. And yet, all it did was it led to a large behemoth of US steel that was about like Boeing was. And it would react to the marketplace.

GLENN: Let me talk to you about government aircraft. Military aircraft.

We have to have an aircraft company.

RAND: I agree.

GLENN: What can we do?

Because honestly, the right thing for the president to do is sue Boeing. Look, you violated our entire contract.

It means nothing. I'm going elsewhere.

He can't sue Boeing. Because that would be very bad. The second thing, he has no choice, but to buy American.

So how do we solve this know.

RAND: The other thing, I guess you could do, you could reduce what they're paid.

For example, if the government said, we're giving them a billion. 500 million. Whatever it is.

That should be in every contract too.

And, you know, I think Elon Musk was a big promoter of this. When he started building rockets to take satellites into space.

He said, you know, the problem you guys have is its cost, plus. So everybody just keeps inflating their costs, and they always get the same profit or bigger profit, if they have cost overrun. Make competitive bidding, and put penalties in your contracts. So Boeing should have penalties in the contract.

If you want another airline or another company to make planes in the US, I'm perfectly happy to vote for no corporate taxes on some of the planes in competition with Boeing.

Just no corporate taxes, period. Ten years, 20 years. It would take a lot. It takes a lot of money to get started in that field.

Look, Elon Musk started from scratch. Maybe ten years ago. Building rockets. So you think somebody couldn't. Like Elon Musk, start building planes. I guarantee you, if Elon weren't so tied up with other things, if you said, Elon, why don't you start a plane company to compete with Boeing, I bet he would have it started within a year.

GLENN: Yeah, he would. Quickly, do you have time? Because I want to talk to you about the big, beautiful bill, and also Fauci. Do you have a second to hold on for one minute?

RAND: Absolutely.
GLENN: All right. Let me tell you about Relief Factor. They call it Quick Start. It's a three-week pack from Relief Factor. And if you've been living with pain, might be the most important 21 days of your year.

Day one, you're skeptical. You know, you've tried other things.

Day three, you start to notice maybe something. Pain is not gone, but it's not maybe as loud.

But you're moving a little freer. Sleeping a little better. By week two, you're starting to get a little hopeful.

You're waking up without that brace for impact feeling. And by day 21, a lot of people who try it. Are just feeling better. They are back to doing things that they stopped doing entirely.

Mine took about six weeks. I mean, I felt the difference in about three.

But in six weeks, it was like, oh, what happened?

It's not magic. It's not even a drug. It's natural. Anti-inflammatory pack that goes to the root of the pain.

Change your life right now. Call American -- call Relief Factor now. At 1-800-4-Relief. 1-800-4-Relief. Why didn't I -- good commercial copy, just changed to something else. Relief Factor.

1-800-4-Relief. ReliefFactor.com.

All right. Ten-second station ID. Back to Rand Paul.

I know you're giving us extra time. And I really appreciate that, Rand. But let's talk about the one big, beautiful bill. How do you feel about it?

RAND: Well, you know, the tax cuts from 2017, I supported. I support making them permanent. And really, I'm very supportive of the president's program on the tax plan.

That's a big part of the bill. The second part of the bill is there's supposed to be spending cuts. So far, I think they're pretty wimpy and not going to amount to much.

That's bothersome. But I would still vote for it.

Even if I got some spending cuts and that's confirmed. The reason I can't vote for it is because they will raise the debt ceiling $5 trillion.

And the reason I can't vote for that, is that it belies. It really contradicts everything about what would be in the hearing. We hear about Elon Musk and DOGE and all these cuts.

And we're all jumping up and down from our seats for Donald Trump. And then the deficit is going to be 2.2 trillion at the end of September. And then it's another 2.8 billion -- 2.8 trillion the next year. They're planning on adding $5 trillion in eight years. Which means there's going to be no reform. And conservatives are going to wake up at some point in this administration, going wow. Where did all these cuts go? What happened? We haven't seen them in a while.

And how come the deficit is going up at just an alarming rate? In the past, conservatives have never voted to raise the debt ceiling. It's always been all Democrats and the big government Republicans, and we know who they are. And we've always derided them. And it was a day of shame. The day of shame, you walked down to the well of the Senate or the House, and you vote for all the spending that you put forward. But most of the conservatives. Particularly myself and others. We haven't voted for the spending. And we don't want to vote for the debt.

Now, I have said I will vote for some increase in the debt.

I will give you three months' worth.

So I introduced an amendment about two weeks ago, increase the debt ceiling, three months' worth.

You know how much that is? $500 billion.

GLENN: Jeez.

RAND: That's an enormous increase. And it hurt me to even put it forward, but I did say this: We will give you three months. You're all promising me, we will cut some spending. We have a balanced budget.

We will do all these great things. I tell you what, proof is in the pudding. I'll give you three months for the borrowing power, then you come back and ask me again for four months.

So I would do the opposite. I would have a debt ceiling vote every three months, and it would be a lever. And we would only give you an increase in the debt ceiling if you were actually cutting spending. And people say, what about default? Default should never be on the table.

GLENN: That's -- that's fake. We're never going to default.

RAND: Yeah, well, we bring in 400 billion a month in revenue. And the interest payment is 80 billion. Why would you ever default? We should announce to the markets that we have plenty of money. And if we have to cut spending elsewhere, we will. But we won't default on our interest payment. There's no reason ever to. And this is a game they play, just to get everybody to vote for them. To scare the market to death. And scare everybody to death. And they will say, we will default and there will be chaos. There's no reason to default. We will just cut spending elsewhere. And we will take the first dollars we get, and towards the interest payment.

GLENN: This is the thing. I'm so mad at Congress right now.

I mean, they won't even go through with the DOGE cuts. They are -- they're arguing about those. And honestly, the DOGE cuts in the end, seem a little disappointing.

You know, they're not taking the steps that I thought we all voted for.

RAND: Well, the DOGE cuts are some of the lowest hanging fruit. I'm all for them.

They went to the foreign aid budget. And they found crazy stuff.

You know, 2 million for sex change operations in Guatemala.

GLENN: Right.

RAND: Hundreds of thousands for a trans comic book, a trans opera in Colombia.

And, you know what, they have it in the rescission package.

The White House has had this rescission package about four weeks now. It's only 9 billion.

So it's not enough to amount to anything, but it's still worth cutting. They're afraid to send it to the Capitol.

Because the feedback they're getting from Senate and House leadership is we don't have the votes to cut 9 billion.

And if that's true, these people need to -- the reason we sent the vote, so everybody knows who these people are.

Who are the people that can't cut out 2 million for sex changes in Guatemala?

You can't do that. They need to be ridden out of town on a rail.

GLENN: Can you give us some indication of how long we have?

I mean, people have been saying, it's going to get bad. It's going to get bad.

We are really, truly at the end. If we don't cut our spending.

How much time do we have to cut our spending before we're just overwhelmed by interest payments?

RAND: I think it depends on what the interest rate is. For many, many years, we have gotten away with this. The George W. Bush, we went 5 -- 5 trillion in debt to 10 trillion. Our interest payment went from four to two, and then everybody was gleeful, even the Dick Cheney conservatives. Like, oh, that doesn't matter.

Well, if you keep cutting your interest rate now, and doubling your debt, you can get away with it.

But now we're stuck at the opposite end. We're 36 trillion in debt. And the interest rate is going up.

Now, it stabilized a little bit. But interest rates went where they were in 1990. When I bought my first house, it was 11 percent.

Probably pay a little less than that. Maybe nine. Maybe eight. We couldn't pay it. We couldn't pay it today. So it depends on the interest rate. The interest rates now, we're struggling. Interest payments is the largest item in the budget, and it's crowding out other spending. So we are struggling. We bring in 5 trillion in revenue, and we spend 7 trillion.

The entire budget that Congress votes on, which is almost 2 trillion, is all borrowed. So the discretionary spending, what government votes on, military and non-military discretionary, it's all borrowed.

The entitlements soak up every dollar of revenue. We are in a bad way. I can't tell you when it ends, but I can tell you, if interest rates spike, we will be in a serious problem.

GLENN: Yeah. I now only have about 40 seconds.

I would love to have you back. Can you just tell me, is anyone going to pay for the COVID thing? Is that ever going to happen?

RAND: We're not done, and I will bring Anthony Fauci back in. We finally discovered the records, as to who determined that the money went to Wuhan. They have resisted me for three years. Robert Kennedy has helped me get the records. So was Jay Bhattacharya. This week or next week, we will begin interviewing the people who are on that committee. We are going to find out what was the debate?

What was the discussion. What were the arguments for sending it to Wuhan? What were the arguments against it?

Who made the arguments?

And then who ultimately had to sign off on this.

It was our belief that Anthony Fauci had to sign the document. We haven't found the document yet.

GLENN: Yeah. Thank you. Rand. Rand Paul.

Boeing Delays Trump’s Air Force One by HOW LONG?!

Qatar has offered President Trump a free jet to use as Air Force One while Boeing continues to delay the completion of the two it was contracted to build (maybe by another TEN YEARS). Glenn doesn’t believe Trump should accept the gift, but he also believes that much of this is Boeing’s fault. This once-great American company has lost its way, and Glenn has had enough!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Why is Boeing -- why did we order two 747s in 2018, and now Boeing is saying, they could come at 2028, which is a ten-year period.

Two planes.

But it may not be out until 2035, or '36.

How is that possible?

How is that possible?

I'll tell you how. They have forgotten who they are.

That's all that is required.

You know, and I don't think the workers have. Because look, my family -- much of my family worked at Boeing.

Still does.

They're working every day, at Boeing.

And they love Boeing. They don't like what it's become.

Because they know what it used to be like.

Because of their parents, or our grandparents.

And they know what Boeing is capable of. The reason why it takes this from Boeing, and we're accepting it, is because all of us have become like this.

We have become a society where no one says, yes, we can!

We can do that. Yes, we can.

Nobody says that, except if it's used by a politician to use as a slogan, to promote dependency, on a government, because what they're really selling I, is, no.

You really can't.

But with the government, you can.

That was -- that was -- that is not America!

It's not America!

We have to remember who we are.

And what the secret is.

And the secret is: Remembering the principles that got us here in the first place.
And then saying, yeah, I can do that.

I can do that. I can do anything.

You have been convinced that you can't, or you're not allowed to. What are you talking about?

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Boeing, shame on you.

Shame on you.

Every employee should be going in and saying, to the management, shame on you, for shaming us.

Shame on you!

You become so much about, I don't even know what.

The numbers?

Corruption.

DEI.

I don't even know what your problem is Boeing.

But it didn't start with the workers.

It started in the home office.

It starts on the floor, where all the elites are gathering.

You've made it about something else, other than building airplanes.

And, you know, people will think, that they have no way to change things.

Imagine what it was like, in World War II.

In World War II, you are -- you're just a head of a company. You can't turn things around.

Okay.

Yesterday, I -- I bought something. I traded. I collect watches.

And I traded almost all of them in, for one watch.

Because this watch, is so important. Historically.

And I'm wearing it today.

And it's called the POW watch.

Because it comes from POWs.

Back in World War II, the -- the president of Rolex. Didn't know what to do. Didn't know how he could help.

And he's reading about all the prisoners that are at POW camps in Germany.

And he wants to do something.

So he sends -- he sends the head guy, the head POW of the camp. Like a box of watches.

And is like, you give them out to whoever you think deserves them. Or needs them.

And, you know, and don't worry about paying. Don't worry about paying us back.

Well, he's doing it as a gift. But what happens? These are some of the first, like, Daytonas. This is before the Daytona was ever made.

The coronagraph on the front.

So the guy gets it, and he's like, wait a minute.

Now we have a precision way to time things.

We can time the changing of the guards. We can time how long it takes for them to come around.
And we can find the averages. We now know time, because we have a precision timepiece.

The guy at Rolex, he had no idea, what he was doing. If you've ever watched the movie, the Great Escape, that's a true story. We have many of the pieces over at the museum.

We have a piece of the pedestal, that the old Franklin stove as a sat on. That they had to move, as they were digging.

We have a ton of the stuff that they used.

But one of the most important things they used was a watch.

Just like this one! A POW watch. There's only a handful of them left.

Why are they important? Because it was the watch that helped them escape!

Helped them escape. It didn't do the work for them.

The first thing they had to remember is: They're not POWs.

They're not -- they are British and American and French soldiers.

And they are meant to be free. And they're meant to get out of there.

Now, there were people that were like, no. Let's not do that. It will just cause so much trouble.

Thank God. Most of them said, yes, we can.

We are going to do it.

Now, Boeing, let me just give you this stat, as you -- as you're sitting there, thinking.

We can't complete this airplane, Glenn.

It's really complex.

Let me just give you a couple of stats.

There were three escapes. What were they?

Tom, Dick, and Harry.

I think that's what they were called. Three different escapes. Okay?

Let me just give you the stats on one of them. They dug a two-by-two-foot hole.

I mean, this just gives me claustrophobia thinking about it. They dug a two-by-two-foot hole, underneath the floorboards of one of the --

STU: Barracks.

GLENN: Barracks. Uh-huh.

They had to hide all of that, and they dig a two-by-two-foot hole. They first have to dig that 30 feet down.

Two-by-two-foot hole, 30 feet down.

Then, by the way, they don't have shovels. They don't have any of that stuff.

They are making whatever it is they use. Then in that two by 2-foot hole. Then they have to dig 336 feet horizontally.

So they can get out from under the wire. And arrive at the other side.

Okay?

3362 by two.

Just think about removing the dirt.

How do they remove that much different, without getting caught?

And it might be easier, when you're pushing dirt up from the -- from the hole. For the first 30 feet!

But what happens when you're going 300 -- what was it?

336 feet horizontally.

How do you get that dirt out?

They had to design almost a train track, that was bringing that dirt out, for every inch, they did.

Every inch of dirt, had to be removed.

And they couldn't just take it out, in, you know, wheel barrows and dump it someplace.

How could they move that much dirt without anyone knowing that they were moving that much dirt?

They devised a system in their -- in their pants, to where, each of them could put a little bit of dirt in their pants.

And then when they got out to the yard. And they would walk around, they would slowly let that dirt fall on to their shoes, and on to their ground, as they walked.

And then they just kind of kicked it into place. Do you know how much dirt that was?

And they never got caught? Shame on you, Boeing. Oh, you can't finish a couple of planes. Huh.

You know how long it took them to do that know.

With no pools. No electricity.

No lights. Can't get caught.

Covering it all up.

Ten months!

Ten months. It's called the Great Escape.

SARA: That's a really cute, uplifting story. But did you know AI is going to be able to tell us what our pets are saying?
(laughter)

GLENN: Okay. All right.

I -- I want you to -- I want you to know, that what Sara says is right. Nobody has ever come back from this.

But no one had ever escaped from Stalin 13.

No one had ever done it.

No one had ever crossed the Rocky Mountains.

Nobody had ever gone to space.

No one had ever gone to the moon.

We are a nation of, that's never been done before.

That's what we do!

That's who we are.

Europe, that's not you.

But that is us!

Because every single one of us, someplace in our family history, somebody if you've been here, you know, prior to what? Maybe 1920, if your family was here prior to 1920, you came over on a boat.

Do you know what that was like?

I don't want to go on a boat back then. Especially if I was in a chattel class. My family came over in the 1800s. And I can guarantee you, none of them were up at the top deck of the boat. They were all, you know, shoveling poop out the window. I don't know they were doing.

But it wasn't pretty.

And now I'm going to piss this away?

When they worked so hard to get us here?

To have these -- see.

That, again, is the problem.

Once you forget why people came here in the first place, once you forget and are told, no. You can't.

You can't.

Yes, you can. If the government will help you.

But you can't do it on your own. Once you're taught that.

And you forget who you actually are.

This is why family heritage is so important.

Read about your family. Figure out who your family. Do your family tree.

There's somebody in there. In my family. When I got my family tree back.

This is what the person said to me. I would like to tell you, that there's somebody famous or great in your family. But we went back generations. There's -- it's littered with nobodies.

However, I found two heroes in my family.

Two. And they're not heroes by anybody else's standard. But they are mine!

I have two -- I had a great, great grandfather. Great, great uncle that fought in the Civil War. And they were on the right side.

Now, because they were my relation, they were caught like the first week. And they were put into Andersonville.

The worst, most notorious.

I mean, you want to talk about Auschwitz?

That was the Auschwitz of the South. They were put there, where thousands of people died. It was horrific.

One of them died. The other one survived. And according to his wife, was never the same from it. I can imagine. But they fought on the right side.

And one of them survived. And nobody survived Andersonville.

But he did!

You have to find your strength someplace. You have to find who you really are, you have to find -- and you'll find it usually when you find God.

Who you really are. And the strength that you actually have inside of you. And then, if you happen to be part of a group. Boeing. You need to look at each other. And go, come on, man.

Is this us?

For the love of Pete. Maybe it's because I grew up in Seattle.

You're Boeing.

You're Boeing.

That's what you want the world to think of you?

Boeing used to lead the way.

You're either going to lead the way. Or get the hell out of the way.

Give us our money back for those planes.

And we will find some company that will build them here in America.

What are you doing?

Either do it right, or get out of the way.

That's the message that should be heard from Boeing employees.

To their bosses. Like, now.

2024 AI act FORCES U.S. companies to obey EU’s woke rules!

The European Union is preparing to force American AI companies to comply with a new law governing “hate speech.” Glenn speaks with Justin Haskins, the co-author of his “Great Reset” book series, about how this will “force AI developers, no matter where they are in the world, to adopt all of these EU ESG rules and to embed them into their AI systems.” Will this turn AI algorithms even more woke? Apparently, ChatGPT has already begun making the changes. But the law isn’t entirely bad …

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Anyway, so we were talking about AI, what we have just learned in -- from polling, which is both good and bad. People are at least really starting to understand this, which is good.

If they don't understand this, or they only understand it, like we understood social media when we got on. Have you seen the Twitters? I'm on Facebook.

If we approach AI like that, we're doomed. Because, by the time you figure it out, everything will be different. And so it looks like people are starting to pay attention to it, before we get there.

JUSTIN: And they want rights and protections embedded in it. That's what they want.

GLENN: That's great.

Now, talk to me about the EU. Because the EU has decided, we're not playing this game. We don't have to be the first. First of all, you wouldn't be. But we don't have to be the first.
We're just going to be the ones that set all of the rules.

JUSTIN: Yeah.

The expanse that -- expansion of power in the European Union, during the Biden administration, into today.

Has been slightly unbelievable. This is just another example. We talked about the EU/ESG law before. Where they're trying to impose ESG on all of America and the whole world.

Well, this is similar to that. They passed a law called the AI Act in 2024.

So last year, they passed it. A lot of the law. Some of the law has already gone into effect earlier this year. More of it goes into effect in August. Penalties and things like that for non-compliance go into effect over the next couple of years.

GLENN: This is part of the stuff where you can't say anything.

You know, the -- the -- or the governments disagree with you. Go to jail.

Or is this basically, all these lays, for the high-tech companies.

JUSTIN: These are for big tech companies. That's what the purpose is. The idea behind these is to force AI developers. No matter where they are in the world, they could be in America or Canada or the EU or someplace else.

GLENN: Just not Canada because they don't care.

JUSTIN: Yeah. Well, they let them slide. To adopt all of these EU sort of like ESG rules.

And to embed them into their AI systems. And if you -- and their way of determining whether this might apply to you, is not whether you have an EU. Or not whether you have an AI system offered in the EU.

It's not even whether someone in the EU uses your AI system from the EU.

It's based on the use of an output from an AI system.

So, in other words, if I have ChatGPT produce a -- an offensive transphobic meme. And that is used by somebody in the EU.

Because you sent it to somebody in the EU.

Then some influencer in the EU spreads it all over the place. That's enough to bring your AI system under their law. Okay?

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

Now, it's a super complicated, absurdly ridiculous law.

GLENN: I have to tell you, you know what, because what I would do. If that were the case.

And we had a president here that was going to allow those punishments to stand.

I would just -- I would find a way to embed some sort of code, that would not allow it to be spread in the EU.

I don't even know if that's possible.

You would just say, cut them off.

I don't want anything in the EU.

JUSTIN: What's crazy about this, even if you didn't offer your service in the EU, just the output alone. It's like, you have to force big tech companies not to operate in the EU. And why would they do that? Because they can make money in the EU.

That's the genius of the EU.

So what's amazing about this is.

Before we get into that, the requirements. What are the things that you have to do if you're a covered company under this. There's all these obligations that you have to do. You have to conduct detailed risk assessments. You have to build in human oversight, maintain logs, testing protocols, submit extensive documentation for EU regulators.

The worst of it all, you have to build a risk mitigation system, to avoid actions considered harmful by the EU into your EU systems -- into your AI systems.

Okay? Now, what is a risk mitigation system exactly? How do they define risk under this law? Well, risk is so broadly defined. That almost anything could be considered.

It's essentially whatever the EU regulators want to ask you to stop doing.

They can ask you to stop doing it.

Or else you pay these massive fines.

How big are the fines, you might wonder?

Well, depends on the violation.

But for most of the violations that I think we would be concerned about. It would be 3 percent of total worldwide revenue for that company.

GLENN: Nonprofit!

Revenue.

STU: Revenue.

GLENN: If you run a regular company.

I mean, it's usually a good return is six to 8 percent on your dollar?

He texted take.

JUSTIN: We're talking about billions of dollars.

GLENN: We're talking about gigantic proportions of -- if you're taking straight revenue, your profit could be gone.

JUSTIN: Yes. Exactly. So it forces compliance. Forces it. Very similar to the ESG law that we had talked about before. Except, it's focused on AI.

So they're requiring these companies to adhere to these absurd rules. They're going to do, because they're requiring these companies to adhere to these absurd rules.

They're going to do it. Because they will make money off of it. So I want to give you specific. Give you some specific laws from the law.

So in the law, there's this section where they basically lay out their intent. And in their intent, which is pages and pages and pages long, they
about risks.

Now, some of the risks that they're concerned about, and they're trying to stop with this law. So this is what is in their mind, this is how courts will interpret it in the EU, this is why it's important. It says, when they're talking about general purpose AI models. They're talking about a systemic risk that a big one might cause so they're talking about ChatGPT or something like that. It says that -- it could pose systemic risks which include, but not limited to any action or foreseeable negative effects, in relation to major accidents. Disruptions of critical sectors and serious consequences to public health and safety.

Any actual or reasonably foreseeable negative effects on Democratic processes.

Public and economic security, the dissemination of illegal, false, or discriminatory content. Then there's a whole bunch of other things I'll skip down. Risks from models making copies of themselves, or self-replicating. In which models can give rise to harmful bias, and discrimination. With risks to individuals, communities, or societies.

The facilitation of disinformation or harming privacy, with threats to Democratic values and human rights. A risk that a particular event could lead to -- could lead to a chain reaction, with considerable negative effects. That could affect, up to an entire city, an entire domain activity. Or an entire community.

STU: What!

JUSTIN: Now, this is a law. This is what they put into the law. So -- so --

GLENN: I don't even know what that last one means.

JUSTIN: It's anything, Glenn.

It summarizes, whatever we want.

So we -- I asked ChatGPT.

Are you -- are you concerned.

You know, is this something that you're concerned with.

It's already supposed to go into effect. Are you doing anything?

ChatGPT says, yes. We've already been changing. OpenAI has already been changing its algorithms to conform to this and other laws like it.

It's already happening.

So we've been sitting here, talking about, why is AI doing all this crazy, woke stuff. And why is it only promoting certain views of various issues or things like that.

Well, because it's being forced to do that.
In part, at least, because of the European Union.

So while China and America are in a race to -- you know, the AI race, to see who will develop it first.

Europe is just like, we don't really care who develops it first.

GLENN: Okay. So that's a really cute idea.

May I take it to the last big possible destructive force. And that's the Manhattan Project.

Europe could be sitting there, going, well, you know. Russia might develop their own nuclear weapons.

And America. But we will make the rules. Hmm.

Well, maybe.

If Russia and America were like, okay.

You can make the rules.

I mean, if China and the United States were like, I don't really care.

I mean, we're not -- we're not doing it.

JUSTIN: Agreed. And so one of the things that is in here that is good. We're talking about some of the good stuff that is in it. There are direct problems on the use of AI.

So it's banned. Not a penalty.

Like, you can't do it.

That deals with AI that exploits human vulnerabilities like age or disability. Certain social scoring.

GLENN: What does that even mean, though?

JUSTIN: Of course. That's always the problem with these things.

The use of AI for subliminal mind altering apps and things like that.

They don't want that happening.

GLENN: Sure, yeah.

Right.

JUSTIN: I mean, there's stuff New Testament.

Well, yeah. I don't want -- I don't want to be subliminally.

GLENN: It's all ephemeral.

How are you going to prove that? It's happening now!

JUSTIN: It's whatever they want. That's the power!

GLENN: It is show me the person, I will show you the crime.

JUSTIN: Yes.

And so what you need. By the way, there's a minority report type thing in here. That says, you can't use it to commit crime and arrest people for it.

GLENN: Why not?

Just use the cameras.

JUSTIN: It's realtime. You don't need to predict it.

GLENN: Yeah.

JUSTIN: I think the main part of all of this is why would America allow the EU to dictate how it's designing its AI program?

GLENN: Easy.

If you have the progressive counterpart to the EU.

Then you can't get things through your house and Senate.

Okay? We couldn't pass any of that crap.

So let them do it. And then we'll just go, okay.

Well, we are one with the EU. And we will just follow their rules.

And we will just do that.

So it allows you to destroy all of American rights.

Just by blaming it on them.

I think that's why.

JUSTIN: That's 100 percent why.

I think at some point, this became the actual strategy for whoever was running the Biden administration.

That was the strategy. Like, we're not getting anything done.

It's over for us.

We will just let Europe do whatever it wants. And we will have to comply with it. And we will allow them to impose ESG on us, and all these other things.
GLENN: Because we can't get it through.
JUSTIN: Because we can't get it through.
GLENN: And I know, because the guy who is running the administration was Mike.

JUSTIN: Is it really? Wow.

Was he an okay guy?

GLENN: I don't know. His name was Mike. You know, at least he ran it on Mondays.

I don't know who ran it the rest of the week.