Loading summary
Transcript15 lines
- [00:00]
A
We're saved, Mom. Donnie is starting grocery stores. Yeah, no, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I want something in exchange. I want actual metrics that we can all measure. And I, I, because I believe it's going to fail. Now if it doesn't, I'll be the first to admit it. Wow, that worked out. And they're actually saving money. But are they, will they, will it succeed? I gave you all of the examples of all these grocery stores that have been tried all over the country. They don't, they don't ever succeed. And what is it costing? What are the metrics? And will anyone ever held accountable? Also, Natalie Winters joins to discuss the Chinese influence over American journalists and meta glasses and the singularity, all on today's podcast. Our sponsor is American Financing. Sometimes there's, you know, there really are people out there who will make it, make it their business to help you. Not because they have to, but because they're, because they care. That's part of their job. They, that that's what they're hired to do. They're not trying to sell you something. Their entire job is to help you make a decision. And if you've had your mortgage for a while, there's a good chance things have changed since those first papers have been signed. Maybe the interest rates have moved. Maybe you've built up equity and you still have a great interest rate. Maybe your financial goals are different today than they were a few years ago. Maybe you have high interest credit card debt that is just sinking your ship every day. Does your mortgage still make sense for the life you're living now? It may. And if you want to keep your low interest mortgage because you got a great one at some point in the past, great. The last thing you want to do is refinance that. But there are other options. And these people are going to walk you through your options and they'll help you determine whether or not there's an opportunity for a better position for your finances for the future. There's no upfront fees to find out if you qualify. These are salary based, so they're not getting bonused if they sell you something they are paid to help you save, not to sell you something that you don't need. So call 8009-0624-4080-0906-2440american financing.net nmls182334 nmlsconsumeraccess.org apr for reaching the five starts at 6.327% for well qualified borrowers, call 800-906-2440. For details about credit costs and terms, visit american financing.net Average savings based on borrowers who save over $200. Hello, America. You know, we've been fighting every single day. We push back against the lies, the censorship, the nonsense of the mainstream media that they're trying to feed you. We work tirelessly to bring you the unfiltered truth because you deserve it. But to keep this fight going, we need you right now. Would you take a moment and rate and review the Glenn Beck podcast? Give us five stars and leave a comment. Because every single review helps us break through Big Tech's algorithm and to reach more Americans who need to hear the truth. This isn't a podcast. This is a movement. And you're part of it, a big part of it. So if you believe in what we're doing, you want more people to wake up, help us push this podcast to the top rate, review, share. Together, we'll make a difference. And thanks for standing with us. Now, let's get to work.
- [03:15]
B
You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck Program.
- [03:19]
A
So remember a couple of weeks ago, the President gave a really, really stunning address to the nation. Said things that I've never heard before, that there were people that, you know, that the, that foreign governments were infiltrating not just our, our voting system, but they were also using social media for propaganda. Okay, we knew that. But also that they were buying off journalists, mainstream journalists, and looking for those journalists that would continue to report even more negative stories on Donald Trump. And nobody was talking about it. Listen to him say this. The Chinese government sought to identify US Journalists who had reported negatively on the US President and pay them large sums of money to write more negative articles about him, as many as they could. And they didn't care what they said. The Chinese government wanted US President to lose the next election. And the reason they wanted me to lose is because they knew I was wise to them. Charged them billions and billions of dollars worth of tariffs and built the strongest military anywhere in the world. I don't think I've ever seen a president go through what he has gone through or exposed what he was willing to exp. The media did nothing. One reason might be because some of them are on China's payroll. Natalie Winners, she is the co host of Bannon's War Room. She's the White House correspondent there, and she says she has dug up evidence and she can name names of people who are on China's payroll. Natalie welcome to the program.
- [05:06]
B
Thank you so much for having me on.
- [05:09]
A
How confident are you that you, you have real solid evidence of people being on the payroll? And when I say being on the payroll, what does that mean?
- [05:23]
B
Sure. Well, I am as confident in my heart that I know that the PRC is America's existential threat. Now, I think there's no, you know, secret discussion that we talk about, you know, when could things turn kinetic with the Chinese Communist Party. But unfortunately, as we're learning today, today, something I think many of us have known for years, the information warfare has already started. And the Chinese Communist Party runs a multi billion dollar apparatus not just to take over newsrooms by them, but to cultivate people from within to push stories that are beneficial or advantageous towards the Chinese Communist Party, but also kind of forward, deploying these intellectual, I would call them pseudo intellectual assets who all of a sudden start saying things like, well, President Trump's claims about, you know, Chinese election interference, well, they're fake, or President Trump is a candidate actually that we shouldn't like. So I want to walk people through the story because I think the receipts matter here and are really important and actually enrich the story. And we actually can name names. So there is an organization called the China United States Exchange Foundation. Now, this is a group that is at the tip of the spear of China's United Front work department. Now, the United Front work department is explicitly part of the Chinese Communist Party. It's how seek and really work to co opt. Co opt and neutralize is the exact term. American elites, Western elites, those in politics, those in media, those in academia, kind of influencers of thought, at least maybe in the old guard. And QCEF is run by a bunch of PRC CCP apparatchiks who have ties, direct ties to the regime. And they retained. Now, this has been going on for over nearly two decades, but back in the early 2000s, they retained a bunch of Western lobbyists, various firms, to connect them with American journalists that they were seeking and really working to find those that they could get, quote, preferential treatment from. And the point of this program was to get, quote, favorable coverage and, quote, disseminate positive messages. What am I quoting the Farah documents? Now? The stories had a lot of legs because within these foreign agent registration acts, you can see the way that these lobbyists were working with journalists on behalf of an intermediary with QSF to take them either on free trips to China or have these private dinners either with CCP officials or people who are part of that United Front work Department, which is just an espionage and propaganda front for the Chinese Communist Party. Why this story is so explosive is because I actually have the names of people and I'll rattle them off for you.
- [07:59]
A
But okay, hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on. Before you do that, before you do that, answer this question. Yes, I would expect that, you know, people would say a trip paid for didn't. Doesn't mean it influenced me, doesn't mean I gave anything in exchange. I went to learn their point of view or whatever. And lots of people who are pro Israel, pro Qatar, pro Saudi Arabia countries do this all the time. And they'll pay for people's trips over there. And that doesn't necessarily mean that you're bought and paid for before you announce the names. What leads you to believe that these trips actually did buy them positive coverage?
- [08:42]
B
Sure. First of all, the Chinese Communist Party is, I think, uniquely distinct from some of those countries that you rattled off. Right. First of all, their influence and espionage apparatus is something that you can't just go over there and expect to not frankly end up in some form of compromise or blackmail. They're running basically intel ops on these journalists. So there's that component too, but the explicit pay for play, I mean, it's just evidenced in the reporting. For example, there's a sister group to QCEF, it's called the Committee of 100. It's a little more US based, but I actually obtained, I just published the story. But a leaked document from them. They unintentionally put it up on their website and it was an internal trip report. So this was a report where they were talking about five journalists that had gone to China. They were saying it was $60,000 a person, that they were covering their expenses and they were literally itemizing the articles that they got in return from these people after they came back, even having some of these journalists give them direct commentary and quotes about how these trips, quote, changed their perspective of China. Now, Glenn, you get it better than anyone, right? These laws about Farah disclosures in the financing. It's kind of like the COVID Origins game. They say, well, because I didn't publish the check that I got or the wire trans transfer, therefore you can't prove that I was paid by China. First of all, anybody, let alone people who lecture us on how we're destroying democracy, who is so in bed with the Chinese Communist Party, not some euphemistic friendship group, a communist influence group literally designed to overtake the United States from within. There's nothing altruistic there, you know what you're getting into. And when you can see some of the stories that these people publish, which, by the way, it's not just that they're getting free airfare in a hotel. These are, like I was saying, trips that are costing extensive amounts of money. They're going, they're touring Huawei facilities, they're touring military bases. I mean, they're touring sanctioned companies in the United States. But one trip participant, upon return, she literally published an article, quote, china bashing is for losers. You have another one praising everything that China has done on climate change. One warned that, quote, decoupling from China would backfire. A Washington Post editor literally published a story titled Team Trump should be careful what it wishes for on China. They said that China doesn't currency manipulate. TPP is great. That scrutiny of Huawei is, and this is a direct quote, Americans should accept that large scale manufacturing will never return to the United States.
- [11:09]
A
Wow. Wow. Okay. All right, you made that point, so give me the names.
- [11:15]
B
Sure. So there's a lot, so bear with me. But you have Ezra Klein, the Vox co founder and New York Times columnist Matthew Iglesias, the Vox co founder Ronald Brownstein, a CNN senior political analyst and Atlantic senior editor Bradford Plummer, a New York Times reporter Marjorie Miller, former AP vice president and editor Steve Clemens, former editor at large of the Hill, David Rowe, now an ms, now correspondent Jonathan Alter, an MSNBC commentator David Sweeney, a former NPR managing editor. How's that for npr? Being communist? Daniel Gross, former Yahoo Finance columnist Marilyn Gewacks, a former NPR senior editor Kathleen Devaney, former Newsweek and Wall Street Journal Marketplace editor Tom Olmsted, former U.S. news World Report correspondent Steve Chapman, former Chicago Tribune columnist and editorial writer Bruce Stokes, former National Journal correspondent Craig Gilbert, former Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Washington bureau chief Tony Semrad, Salt Lake Tribune reporter Sheikha Dalmia, columnist for the week Jonathan Broder, Newsweek senior writer Christy Kemp, Chicago Tribune associate managing Editorial John Healy, L.A. times Deputy Editorial page editor and Julian Packet, former foreign supporter.
- [12:23]
A
I don't mean to interrupt here. Would it be simpler just to say who's not on this list?
- [12:30]
B
And remember, these people have lectured us for like, over a decade that we're the ones destroying democracy. Meanwhile, they're literally collaborating with the foremost existential threat to democracy writ large. But Glenn, here's the most important thing, too. These names were never disclosed in the Farah filings. I only got these names by sleuthing together. Old, might I add, deleted, frankly, Chinese language pamphlets from the Chinese organizations themselves. So These people never really disclosed these trips. And what's so interesting I find about the Chinese information warfare space is back in 2010, they were more focused on shaping how Americans viewed China. Right. Joint partnerships are good. We should outsource our manufacturing. Now it's more about attacking Trump, attacking people who are tough on China, shaping how Americans actually engage with our foremost adversary.
- [13:22]
A
I think also what's going on with the data centers is extraordinarily dangerous as well. I mean, I don't mind if people in America make up their mind that they're against data centers, as long as it's their mind that has been made up and it is not due to influence from Chinese money or Chinese propaganda. And that's really, really hard. It's also amazing to me, there is so much talk about apac, which is Farah, and what they. How they've influenced, and people who don't know, you know, you don't know how they're. And, you know, you're pretty much disclosed on everything. And nobody talks about the influence of China. Nobody is saying, hey, China, what about the journalist? And I watched this speech a couple of weeks ago, or was it last week? And maybe it was just me, but when I was watching it, I thought, I don't think I've ever heard a president say anything this important like this in my lifetime. And then the next morning was business as usual. Everybody said there was nothing that he announced, there was no big deal. Was that the impression you had when you saw that?
- [14:31]
B
Yeah. I mean, if people maybe just heard one speech from Xi Jinping, they would see that the PRC is at a people's war with us. And I think President Trump matched that intensity with what he was talking about. But you really can see, I mean, China's unrestricted warfare on full display. And frankly, with that speech, you see why China hates President Trump so much, right? Unrestricted warfare. This idea of weaponizing information warfare, political warfare, legal warfare warfare in lieu of kinetic conflict. Not because they don't want to go kinetic. They would just prefer. They've seen, you know, I think, our mishaps when it comes to extending maybe too far across the globe with actual troops. They would much prefer to just take over the information space. And QSEF is one of dozens of united front groups that are actively working to undermine the United States. And QCEF itself also runs these same trips, not just for journalists, but for congressmen, former congressman, think tank types. The center for American Progress, the one that basically staffed the entire Obama administration, congressional staffers. You want to talk about the degrees to which they control and really run American politics. And even, believe it or not, partnering with the Congressional Black Caucus foundation to host a special delegation where they sent young black Americans over to China to basically get exposed to Chinese propaganda. And they had testimony testimonials from the students. When they came back, one of them literally was praising China as a, quote, amazing communist country that was superior to the United States. Wow.
- [15:56]
A
Natalie, thank you for the good work. I appreciate it. Stay in touch with us. You have any more breaking news, Lisa, let us know. Thank you, Natalie. Winners Costa Bannon's war room. And she has just written on her substack an article. Here are the mainstream journalists on China's payroll. Natalie G. Winters.com substack.com this is the best of the Glenn Beck program. I'm going to start with this. We all want a safety net. All of us want a safety net. We do not want poor going. We don't want anybody starving on our streets. That's. That's unreasonable in America. Okay, so we're all there. Now. How do we do that? The most effective way. I'm going to give Mandani the benefit of the doubt, even though this has never ever worked, ever. But I want to give him the benefit of doubt. But I want something in return. I want, and I'm going to give it. Give it to you. I want a list of metrics that we all check. And if it doesn't work, I want all the people that are for this to say what I will say. If it works, congratulations, it worked. That's amazing. That's amazing. We, maybe we should consider doing this elsewhere. I want the same thing in response. In response. If it doesn't work. And I think we demand this from everybody we know, if it doesn't work, based on these metrics, I want you to say, wow, it doesn't work. And it hasn't worked in city after city after city. So let me give you the whole story here. The city of New York has not opened a government grocery store. Not one. What happened this week in East New York was a press conference about a price. Mamdani stood inside of food pantry distribution hub and announced that when the city's five municipal grocery stores eventually open, a core basket of goods is gonna sell for $0.30 below typical retail. That's quite a number. But let me show you how sketchy this whole thing was. He said, we've announced that we got a new price code. And he held up a bunch of bananas and he's like, and look you can go to the website. All you have to do is scan it. And he was amazed. He didn't read what it said on his phone. He just, you can scan it and you can find out all about the price. He didn't even show it. He just scanned it and then looked at it, went, and it works. He was amazed that the website worked. Okay. Quite an accomplishment. Okay, so here's what he said. We're gonna sell everything. Well, we're gonna sell these things 30% under market. All fresh produce, all meat, all seafood, all milk, eggs, bread, pasta, rice, beans, butter, yogurt and nuts. About 20 categories. Prices set once a month and locked in for the month. Same discount for everybody. No income test, no application. That brings up other questions. We're gonna get into here in a minute. But the city's Economic Development Corporation projects the average shopper is gon $90 a month, $1,000 a year, cutting the total grocery bill roughly by 15%. The first store is supposed to open at Hunt's Point in the Bronx at the end of 2027. And the second at La Marquetta in east Harlem in 2029. All five won per borough by the end of his term, $70 million in the capital budget. Now, they are projecting that the first store is gonna cost them around $30 million. The first store is gonna cost them $30 million. The average for a nice supermarket, not like the Kroger superstores, are anywhere between 30, 35 and $40 million. Okay, now this New York store, it's not gonna be a Kroger superstore, I can guarantee you. So it's already almost the price of a Kroger superstore. Okay, but it's not. The average price of a medium sized grocery store is between, is around 10 to 15 million dollars. So if you take the low end, it's three times the price already. All right, but why, why quibble over $15 million? The city builds them. The city owns the land. The city charges no rent and collects no property tax. Now here's the part that you're gonna get a private public partnership, a private operator hired through a request for proposals that the city issued on Monday, runs the store under the city's pricing rules. Now, there's not gonna be a butcher counter, there's not gonna be a hot food bar, there's no beer and there's no cigarettes. Now that's really important because I wanna get to the math of this thing. An American supermarket. How much do you think they make? How much do you think they take out of every dollar, every dollar they make, how much is profit? I'll bet you the Average person says 30, 40 cents. 30 or 40 cents, that's what they take. That's what they keep. No, it's 2 cents. 1.4 to 2.4 for every dollar. So let's just split the difference. It's 2 cents on every dollar. Net profit is 1.7. I'm hearing you. Between 1.7 and 2.1% in 2025. Wow. Wow. So 70 to 75 cents of that dollar is the food itself bought from the same wholesalers everybody else buys from. Okay, well, there's your 30% he's going to save because. No, no, no, no, no, no. You just don't. You'd have to go to the wholesaler, and then you'd have to go through the boxes and pick out your food. Okay, you can't do that. 10 to 18 cents is payroll. What's left of that covers refrigeration, electricity, insurance, spoilage, theft, and rent. Okay, so when they're promising a 30% cheaper box of food. I hear what he's not promising. He's not promising to take it out of profit. He can't. There is not 30% of profit in the building. You could seize every dollar a grocer earns and sell the food at cost and you wouldn't move the price more than 2%. So where's the other 28% coming from? Wow. Rent. Okay, well, that's 2 or 3 cents on the dollar. Property tax, maybe one free construction spread over the life of the building is worth a couple of cents more. Add every municipal advantage together generously and you found six to seven cents for every dollar. Okay, well, that's still not 30 cents, is it? Now, let's run it backwards. The mayor has promised the operator's workers, the families, a sustaining wage and benefits, which means the labor is going to be way above market, not below. So what are we taking out of those 7 cents we just found? Are we taking 3 more cents? 4. Plus the store, as I told you, it's not going to have a butcher. It's not going to have hot food, it's not going to have beer, not going to have cigarettes. Those are the four highest margin things a grocery store sells. Prepared food carries 40 to 60% gross margin. They want you. That's why it's always up in the front. That's why it smells so good. They want you to buy that stuff because that's where they can make money. Produce and Meat carry the thinnest. So he's discounting the thin things by 30% and removing the fat things entirely. If you wanted to make up for it, you would sell more hot food, but you would sell it at normal prices because that's where you're going to make your money. So where's the gap being filled with? Where was that money coming from? It's not an accusation. That's subtraction. New York is buying groceries for people and calling it a store. Okay? Now, you have no border. You have no boundaries. Anyone can go into that store and buy it for 30 cent. 30 cents cheaper. That's what he's saying. 30% cheaper. You can go in and buy these 20 or 30 items. Okay? I'm a bodega, and I'm operating right down the street. Heck, I'm. I'm operating anywhere in. In New York. What would stop me from going in and buying those pieces of groceries at $0.30 cheaper and then going and selling them in my bodega for full price? Heck, sell it for 50, 15 cents off every dollar. Sell it for 15% less. You're undercutting all your competition everywhere else, and you're making 15%. There's no law against this. And by the way, anyone, anyone. There is no wage cap. There's no. You can walk in. I don't care if you're Bill Gates. You can walk in and buy your meat there. Okay, all right. So now we're subsidizing apparently rich people, too. Okay, second claim, worth checking here. The campaign promised that these stores would buy and sell at wholesale prices by centralizing warehousing and distribution. Five stores. They have five stores. And they're going to centralize their warehouse and distribution. Well, that is the way you save money. But let's just put this into perspective. You know, the grocery store. I told you that. Let's give them benefit of the doubt and say they make 2.4 cents of profit on every dollar. That would be KRoger. They have 2,700 grocery stores. They have a massive distribution and warehouse. They can buy in bulk. Costco buys by the shipping container. You got five stores. How are you going to be Costco? And then there is a Costco and an Aldi within a mile of this East Harlem site. Already beating the city's projected price on a good part of that basket. Today, they're doing it without any subsidy at all. Okay, now here's the best part. And I didn't find out until I started doing some research on this. This is the best part of the grocery store. So I'm going to. I'm going to tell you about that East Harlem store that he announced in April. You're listening to the Best of Glenn Beck. Need a little more? Check out the full show podcasts anywhere you download podcasts. So ready stories a couple of days ago about a reporter that was at a board game this last spring and she mentioned to her friends that she'd be moving into a new apartment in the fall. This is such a fascinating story. Now I want you to imagine for yourself. You are playing a board game with friends. God help you if it's Monopoly, because it'll never end. And somebody like she was is wearing a bracelet, but it's a bracelet that listens. Okay, so she was playing this board game and she said, I am moving into a new apartment, blah, blah, blah. The next time she opens her app, it reminds her to book movers for October. Okay, useful. Then it told her something else. It had concluded that the move was triggering anxiety about her stability and her sense of home. And it suggested that she photograph one beloved corner of her current place to take with her and to watch her anxiety levels. Well, she wasn't anxious about the move. She hadn't said that to her friends. She hadn't said that to her husband because it wasn't true. The device didn't record a fact. It manufactured one and then kept it as record. Now, that reporter was from CNN who spent several months living inside the future of the industry that is building all of these devices for us. Three devices. Meta's Ray Ban glasses with the camera and the microphones built in. Amazon's B Pioneer wristband and plods note pin s. It's a recorder that you, you know, you clip to your shirt. You can keep it for your office, work trips, vacation, dinner with friends. And it records everything that you say and then transcribes it and keeps it for record. So you're in Lisbon. She was standing in front of the monastery. She didn't reach for her phone. She just looked up at the monastery and she took a picture. She read the building and it answered. That's wonderful. I guess, you know, every real bargain starts with something genuinely wonderful. And it's great. You can look at something and you can blink your eyes and it will take a picture or however it works. Okay? But the question is, what are you trading for that? Here's what you're trading. You're trading consent. And not just yours. A woman who runs the Internet ethics program at Santa Clara University, she Said in this article that I was reading that these devices are harder to spot than a phone. So the whole notion of consent is disintegrating. Okay? Your phone announces. It announces itself. You hold it up and everybody in the room knows, oh, that person is taking a picture. I can't tell you how many people will say, my family will be out dinner or something. And they're like, dad, turn the other way for a second. Why? Somebody's holding up their phone, and you just know. You know somebody's taking a picture. When that happens, glasses and a shirt clip announce nothing. Nothing. Meta says that it has a capture light and it blinks and it has no off switch. Fine. But a light on your wrist or your collar does no good because nobody's looking at your wrist or your collar when they're talking to you. They're looking at your face, which in the case of the glasses, is where the camera is. Now, let me give you a quick history because this is inevitable, that it's going to happen, but you can slow it down because this has happened kind of before. 1888. When your picture was taken in 1888, what did you have to do? Hold still. Don't move. 30 seconds, okay? Sometimes it was a minute, which meant to get a picture of you, it required your cooperation, which means nobody had to ever write this down. It took your permission because they couldn't take a quick snap if you walking by or something. Then George Eastman invents this little box, okay? It's a little box camera. You press the button. Eastman Kodak said, we'll do the rest. When that happened, it was not publicly accepted. I didn't know this. I thought everybody would go, oh, the camera, it's great. Not accepted. One of the reasons is two years before you could buy the Kodak camera, you could buy one that was built to wear under your vest. This is crazy. The lens came out through a buttonhole, and they shaped the lens to look like a button. 15,000. Of course, it was the Germans who came up with this. 15,000 of these sold not to a government, but to anybody with the money. And they had a name for the category, and it was more honest than anything printed on any box today. They were detective cameras, the world's first hidden cameras, before the box camera from Kodak. That's where we went with these. Yeah. The camera that invented privacy because the country came apart was the box camera, okay? When the Kodak came out, it didn't stop. They banned it on the box camera. It was banned at all beaches. They Banned it at the Washington Monument. The papers had a name for people carrying cameras. They were called Kodak fiends. Imagine that. In Britain, young men formed an association for the sole purpose of thrashing the cads with cameras. That's a quote. They hung around the photography stores or they went to the beaches where there were people that were at the shore photographing women coming out of the water. Two years, two years this went on. That's all it took. In 1890, two Boston lawyers, one of them was Louis Brandeis, who would end up on the Supreme Court of the United States, published an article called the Right to Privacy. If you've ever heard anybody say, I've got a right to privacy. No, you don't. No, you don't. There is no right of privacy. There's nowhere in the Constitution do you have a right for privacy. It came from this article because of cameras. Okay, go look it up. I mean, it's crazy. The word privacy is not in the Constitution. They had to build it and they built it because of the camera. So they borrowed it. The the best phrase in it from an old judge. 136 years later, nobody's improved on it. It's the right to be left alone. But this isn't you coming out of the camera in your bathing suit. This is much worse. This is tech. You are trading the right to be misunderstood in private. Now, that bracelet decided a woman was anxious, but she wasn't. And now that conclusion exists in a file somewhere in a company system. And it will inform the next inference and the one after that, and it will store it. So now she's anxiety written ridden. She's done all these things and she didn't even recognize her anxiety. Wait a minute. I didn't say that. I didn't feel that. But it's part of your record you're now trading. You're off the record self. And every marriage, every friendship, every business that works, works partly on things said, badly said in anger, said, it half formed and then withdrawn. You take that away and people don't become more honest, what do they become? They're not more honest. You stop doing that, you take away that right to be wrong, what happens? They become more careful. In a room where everything is recorded and then held by a private company, that's a room where nobody's saying anything out loud, nobody's thinking out loud, nobody's risking anything. You're trading a defense. A recording is evidence. And the evidence can get subpoenaed and it may be false evidence. I didn't say that I never felt anxious. Every conversation you will ever have will be indexed and searchable. Every conversation. And it will be sitting on a server owned by a company with lawyers who work for the company. You're trading your kids and your neighbors who signed nothing. We're there now. Did you see what Sam Altman said yesterday? He believes we are now. Now at the singularity. That's when everything changes. That's when everything. You're pulled into this vortex. You cannot reverse. And it's going to compound faster and faster and faster and faster. And Sam Altman just said, we're there. Elon Musk said, we were there about six months ago. If we're there today or tomorrow or in six months or last six months, it's here, gang. And it's going to get harder from here. Zuckerberg told investors that a person without AI glasses may be at a significant cognitive disadvantage against the people they work with and compete against. Why? Why? You're at a disadvantage. This is what Ray Kurzweil said about taking a chip. I said, I don't want a chip, Ray. He said, glenn, everybody will have a chip. I don't want the chip. But, Glenn, you can take the chip and you'll be able to speak any language. You'll be able to access who you're talking to, who's on the street. You'll know because you will be one with the Internet. And I said, I want to be just me. I don't want that. For me to be one with the Internet, it also requires that I not only can get uploads, but it will take downloads as well. No, he said, glenn, everyone will want it. You will be, excuse the language. It will be as if you're retarded. You won't be able to function because everyone will have it. This is the product pitch from Zuckerberg. That's the threat delivered as a forecast. Wear it or fall behind. Right now, declining is a preference. A little awkward, easily accommodate, accommodated, but a preference. Two years from now, when your team's meetings, you know, meeting has notes, action items, performance reviews, and they're all running off transcripts. Declining won't be a preference anymore. It's a problem. It's you being difficult. Nobody will forbid you. They'll just build the office around the assumption and let the cost fall on the holdout. You also OpenAI's president, Sam Altman said also this week, the keyboard and the mouse are out. Clicking and typing was a phase. It was never what we wanted it to be. Read that as an engineer would. Clicking and typing is where you interface, where you decide what the machine gets. Clicking and typing. If that's gone, if you type it, then it's there. If you don't type it, the machine doesn't have it. But that's not where we're going, is it? What replaces it is a machine that takes everything and sorts it out afterwards. That's not an upgrade in convenience. That is a removal of the gate. That's not good. Not good. You know, in 1890, that law that showed up late and won only partly, the tort that Warren and Brandeis proposed took decades to spread state by state. And by the time it arrived, the camera had already chained us. Okay, they said we had a right to privacy. We don't have a right to privacy. The camera had already changed. This etiquette bent around the device, as it always does. But something else happened first. And then it happened faster than any court. Beach owners posted signs. Resorts said no. Newspapers named the behavior and shamed it. Ordinary people decided out loud in public. You know, there are places you don't bring a camera into. And they decided it years before a judge agreed with them. They that's the piece we keep forgetting that is available to us. You don't have to wait for Congress. You are allowed to say, at your own table, not my house. You're allowed to say to a man, take the glasses off, put the phone down, stop recording. You're allowed to say. You're allowed to be the person who says, take that away. You're going to say that, and it's going to be awkward. But the awkwardness is the whole mechanism. That's the only thing that has ever set a norm before the law caught up. The device is not the danger. The device is a button. The danger is a country full of people who will trade the right to be let alone for the ability to look at a monastery without reaching into their pocket. That's the trade. Make sure you know you're making a trade.