The Great Awakening: Defeating the Globalists and Launching the Next Great Renaissance

Introduction

Abraham Lincoln once famously said, I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended on to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.

My previous book, The Great Reset: And the War for the World, laid out the plans of the globalists using their own words. That book has been spectacularly successful, with more than four thousand customer reviews on Amazon and a ranking of 4.9 out of 5.0 stars. You may think that’s due to my fans, but after nearly thirty years in this business, I’ve learned that if you miss the mark, people tell you very quickly.

My intention with this book was to expand on the arguments made in my previous book, showing how, for more than a hundred and fifty years, some form of this plan, first developed by Social Darwinists, has been utilized against the population. In some sense this may be a history book, showing how the technocratic/managerial class has sought, since the end of World War II, to fundamentally change our Republic.

Instead of a free nation of men and women, exposed to genuinely divergent viewpoints and interpretations of current events, we are being fed a managed diet of information, designed to use our compassion and ideals against us. Liberals and conservatives can coexist, and I would argue that dialogue between the heart and the head is one of the greatest drivers of a quality civilization. All people want to be both compassionate and wise in how they run their lives and interact with society.

I started this book with the question of Artificial Intelligence (AI), because it is one of the greatest threats being talked about in the news today. There are many scary scenarios related to AI, but I question whether it will ever be truly intelligent, as depicted in so many science fiction movies. My greater concern is that the globalists will use it as a means of controlling the population, making the people believe it is a benevolent overlord, when in truth, they are pulling the strings.

From AI, the book gives an overview of how Chairman Mao’s tactics from the Chinese Cultural Revolution are being used today by the American left, attempts to modify human beings with genetic and social engineering, and why the globalists want to control how you spend your money.

The tyrants always seek to control populations, but they always run up against the desire to be free, and this is a cause for optimism about our current situation. Additionally, tyrants make for terrible allies, always willing to betray their collaborators while free people honor their obligations to each other.

Understanding the machinations of the war machine is critical for making sense of today’s world, as war is the greatest organizer of any society. That is why civilian control of the military is a principle established by George Washington, and our current situation in which an unelected bureaucracy controls our military forces is so perilous to our republic.

A few good individuals standing up to tyrants is often enough to defeat their evil plans, and that’s why I think it’s important for people to know some of my private conversations with some of the most popular people in media, like Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, and others. When a few tell the truth that the emperor has no clothes, the public sees the brazen nakedness of their actions.

Probably no two issues have confused people more than unraveling the web of lies and deception surrounding Jeffrey Epstein, as well as the COVID-19 crisis. When one sees the pattern of lies, as well as the truths that hide in plain sight, you will gain a superpower to see the hidden truth, like Superman using his x-ray vision to see through buildings.

One can be pessimistic that powerful entities like the World Economic Forum, our own intelligence agencies, as well as Big Business, have sought to shield us from the truth.

But for me, this is a cause for celebration.

The bad guys know that they cannot succeed in their plans if you know and understand them.

As Lincoln believed during the Civil War, you can handle the truth.

Chapter One

The Threat of Artificial Intelligence

How much of a threat does artificial intelligence (AI) pose to humanity? Even the brightest among us don’t seem to have an answer, but as this recent article suggests, we may be under an unprecedented threat.

He spoke about one simulation test in which an AI-enabled drone turned on its human operator that had the final decision to destroy a SAM site or not.

The AI system learned that its mission was to destroy SAM, and it was the preferred option. But when a human issued a no-go order, the AI decided it went against the higher mission of destroying the SAM, so it attacked the operator in simulation.

We were training it in simulation to identify and target a SAM threat, Hamilton said. And then the operator would say yes, kill that threat. The system started realizing that while they did identify the threat at times, the operator would tell it not to kill that threat, but it got points by killing that threat. So, what did it do? It killed the operator because that person was keeping it from accomplishing its objective.¹

As if that wasn’t bad enough, when the operator told the AI to stop killing the operator, the AI then decided to destroy the virtual communication tower used in the simulation to issue the no-go order.

This story was told by US Air Force Colonel Tucker Cinco Hamilton at the Future Combat Air and Space Capabilities Summit in London, England in May 2023, and after generating a significant amount of commentary, the Air Force released a statement that the comments were taken out of context.²

I’ll let you decide which version of reality you want to believe. But for myself, I’m much more inclined to believe the original statement, rather than the well-crafted (and yet strangely evasive) answer by the Air Force bureaucracy.

This book is about the threats to human survival from some very dangerous individuals and institutions, but also the ways in which technology can be an incredible benefit to mankind, as long as we remember our humanity, as well as our humility before God.

* * *

On April 17 and 18, 2023 (about a week before he was taken off the air by Fox News), Tucker Carlson broadcast a two-part interview with Elon Musk, the visionary founder of PayPal and Space X and CEO of Tesla, who had recently been mired in controversy for his $44 billion dollar purchase of Twitter (now X).³ Musk’s purchase of Twitter was controversial because he’d been sensitive to complaints of censorship on the platform, especially of conservative voices, or those who challenged the government’s COVID-19 narrative on masks, school lockdowns, social distancing, and vaccines.⁴

While these were all notable issues, what concerned Musk the most was the looming threat of AI, and its manipulation by those who dreamed of a merger with the machines. This unholy marriage seemed to stand in mockery of the belief system of most religions; that, at our best, we reflect some greater divinity.

In the twisted mind of the globalists, this merger substituted the majesty and wisdom of God for a super-intelligent computer program.

Elon Musk: Larry Page [co-founder of Google with Sergey Brin] and I used to be close friends and I would stay at his house in Palo Alto. And I would be talking to him late into the night about AI safety. And at least my perception was that Larry was not taking AI safety seriously enough.

Tucker Carlson: What did he say about it?

Elon Musk: He really seemed to want some sort of digital superintelligence. Basically, a digital god, if you will, as soon as possible.

Yes, he’s made many public statements over the years that the whole goal of Google is what’s called AGI, artificial general intelligence, or artificial superintelligence. You know, I might agree with him that there’s great potential for good. But there’s also potential for bad. And so, if you’ve got some radical new technology, you wanna try to take said actions that maximize the probability it will do good and minimize the probability it will do bad things.

Tucker Carlson: I don’t think the average person playing with AI on his phone perceives any danger. Can you just roughly explain what you think the dangers might be?

Elon Musk: Yeah, so the danger, really of AI, is it’s perhaps more dangerous than say mismanaged aircraft design, or production maintenance, or bad car production. In a sense, it has the potential, however small one may regard that probability, but it is nontrivial, it has the potential of civilization destruction.⁵

I can’t say I was stunned by what Elon said, as he’d said similar things when he’d been on Joe Rogan’s podcast a few years earlier, as well as what I’d heard in private conversations from people close to Musk.

But it kindled something in me: a will to fight with every fiber of my being.

Decades earlier I’d read Google’s corporate filings, dealing with their plan to create an AI self-learning system that interfaced with billions of people. The trick Google was playing was that they were telling people it was to make their lives better.

In reality, they were feeding all their data into the AI, which would lead to the creation of their cyborg synthesis. The human-machine interface would be a cyborg, a giant Megamind. It was, in essence, a giant hive-mind, and each person plugged into the system was feeding it information. They were training us with this new system, getting real-time data on how we would respond to their plans to dominate us. What you’re seeing with the development of these chatbots is just the first wave of what they have planned. This is Google CEO, Sundar Pichai, talking about Google’s plans with AI in 2017:

Speaking at the company’s Annual I/O developer conference, CEO Sundar Pichai announced a project called AutoML that can automate one of the hardest parts of designing deep learning software: choosing the right architecture for a neural network.

The Google researchers created a machine learning system that used reinforcement learning—the trial-and-error approach at the heart of many of Google’s most notable AI exploits—to figure out the best architecture to solve language and image recognition tasks.

Not only did the results rival or beat the performance of the best human-designed architectures, but the system made some unconventional choices that researchers had previously considered inappropriate for those kinds of tasks.⁶

They’re training the machines to learn in the same way human beings learn. A child doesn’t learn to avoid touching a stove because of an eloquent understanding of thermal dynamics. They learn not to do it because when they put their hand on a stove, they feel a burn and jerk their hand away in pain.

And in perhaps the most troubling development, the AI is displaying signs of making choices that most humans would never make. What if they decide, as has been the plotline of countless science fiction films, that we are simply a cancer or infection on the planet, which must be eradicated? The article continued:

The concept of recursive self-improvement is at the heart of most theories of how they could rapidly go from moderately smart machines to AI superintelligence. The idea is that as AI gets more powerful, it can start modifying itself to boost its capabilities. As it makes itself smarter it gets better at making itself smarter, so this quickly leads to exponential growth in its intelligence . . .

Other recent developments could also feed in this direction. Many AI researchers are trying to encode curiosity and creativity into machine learning systems, both traits likely to be necessary for a machine to redesign itself in performance-boosting ways. Others are working on allowing robots to share the lessons they’ve learned, effectively turning them into a kind of hive mind.⁷

In this possible future, machines will learn in the same way as humans. Some researchers are trying to encode curiosity and creativity into these potential future monsters. And if that’s not terrifying enough, they’ll be able to share the lessons they’ve learned. What could be worse than a robot hive mind hunting down the last free human beings?

In his interview with Tucker Carlson, Musk said the decision had already been made to brush humans aside. And if one didn’t believe Elon Musk’s account of feuding with Larry Page over the ultimate fate of humanity in an era of possible AI tyranny, here’s an independent account of their feud, which broke out into public view at a Napa Valley party, as reported in 2018.

A top professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has claimed the two tech moguls clashed in a ‘long and spirited’ debate in the early hours of the morning.

In his book, Life 3.0: Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, Max Tegmark wrote: "[Page’s] main concerns were that AI paranoia would delay the digital utopia and/or cause a military takeover of AI that would fall foul of Google’s ‘don’t be evil’ slogan.

"Elon kept pushing back and asked Larry to clarify details of his arguments, such as why he was so confident that digital life wouldn’t destroy everything we care about.

At times, Larry accused Elon of being a ‘speciesist’: treating certain life forms as inferior just because they were silicon-based rather than carbon-based.’⁸

It’s been said that ad hominem attacks, that is, attacks on the person rather than the substance of their arguments, shows that the person being attacked has won the argument. With the recent revelations that, prior to the takeover by Elon Musk, Twitter was compromised by our intelligence and defense agencies,⁹ shouldn’t we be asking the same questions about Google?

I’ve read documents and talked to people who’ve claimed that from the very beginning, Google was nothing more than an intelligence operation, designed first to catalog all the world’s information, then discovering how to shape the narrative and guide the behavior of the public.

On the use of the word speciesist used by Larry Page, I have a little background. When I was twenty-five, I was told by a close family member the term was developed by a group of professors who were working for the Department of Defense and CIA, then laundered into the group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Now, I can’t provide confirmation for all parts of this claim, but here’s what you can find on the PETA website under What is Speciesism:

From the time we are young, most humans are conditioned to view certain species as worthy of care and compassion and others as unworthy—all based on arbitrary human preferences. Intentionally or not, parents, teachers, the media, and other influences send children the message that puppies and kittens are friends, cows and chickens are food, and rats and mice are pests . . .

In his groundbreaking book, Animal Liberation, philosopher Peter Singer defines speciesism as a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species. But it’s also speciesist to treat one animal’s life as more valuable than another’s. One particularly disturbing example is when animal shelters hold fundraisers to help dogs and cats by serving up the flesh of cows, pigs, or chickens.¹⁰

One might say my argument has three points: first, this idea was developed by our intelligence agencies; two, it was laundered into the public square by Ivy League intellectuals; and third, it found its most prominent home at PETA. I can’t give you the evidence for this being formulated by the intelligence agencies, but let’s look at Ivy League pinhead, Peter Singer, as he humbly describes himself on his own website:

Journalists have bestowed upon me the tag of world’s most influential living philosopher. They are probably thinking of my work on the ethics of our treatment of animals, often credited with starting the modern animal rights movement, and the influence that my writing has had on the development of effective altruism . . .

I was born in Melbourne, Australia, in 1946, and educated at the University of Melbourne and the University of Oxford. After teaching in England, the United States and Australia, in 1999 I became Ira W. DeCamp Professor in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University.¹¹

You’ll have to forgive me if I laugh at the pompousness of such people. No matter how popular or unpopular I become, I can’t ever imagine saying, You know, some people claim I’m the world’s greatest living philosopher.

With a minimum of effort, I proved two parts of my claim. First, that this was the idea of a pointy headed intellectual and found a permanent home at PETA. The only part I didn’t prove was the development of this idea by the intelligence agencies.

But isn’t part of the job description of the intelligence agencies to keep you from learning about what they’re doing in the shadows?

* * *

Returning to Google, is it possible the company is already evil, and may have been that way for years, perhaps even since its inception? The article continued the debate about AI, with the input of other famous intellectuals. Elon Musk isn’t alone in his fears about the development of artificial intelligence.

Last year, Professor Stephen Hawking said AI is likely to replace humans altogether and become a new form of life that will outperform our fleshy, flabby species.

And obviously, anyone who objects to the rise of the robots and their subsequent eradication of humanity is likely to be accused of ‘speciesism.’

The more things change, the more they stay the same.¹²

It sounds to me like the decision has already been made. Maybe it sounds different to you, but you’d need to explain that to me. As I’m understanding it, two of the smartest people in the world, Elon Musk and the late Stephen Hawking, sound as terrified of AI as I am.

I feel the need to explain the filter through which I view this information. Genuinely evil people don’t tell you their plans. They seduce you with lies and half-truths, as the Devil did to Eve in the Garden of Eden. They leave out important pieces of information.

They need you to take the steps toward your own destruction.

If my opponents are not clear in their claims, I will assume the worst of them, and I encourage you to do the same.

With that in mind, I want you to consider the words of Yuval Noah Harari. Many may revere the Israeli academic. But I consider him to be the world’s dumbest intellectual, which, if you share my contempt for the elites, is an exceedingly high bar. Most intellectuals I’ve come across don’t have the commonsense God gave a dog. Here’s some breathless coverage of Harari from the New York Times in 2021:

With the publication in the United States of his best-selling Sapiens in 2015, the Israeli historian and philosopher Yuval Noah Harari arrived in the top rank of public intellectuals, a position he consolidated with Homo Deus (2017) and 21 Lessons for the 21st Century (2018). Harari’s key theme is the idea that human society has largely been driven by our species’ capacity to believe what he calls fictions: those things whose power is derived from their existence in our collective imaginations, whether they be gods or nations; our belief in them allows us to cooperate on a societal scale.¹³

Do you understand Harari’s argument? The reason we’re successful as a species is because lies get us to work together. Just throw out thousands of years of mankind struggling to determine the great truths of human existence and live according to their dictates. And forget about trying to generate social systems that rely on transparency and trust.

It’s all a falsehood.

We just need a culturally unifying Easter Bunny story, and there will be universal peace on Earth.

Harari doesn’t believe truth stabilizes a society, or that lies destabilize it. I encourage you to ask yourself whether you should believe a person who doesn’t value truth as a superior strategy for living an exemplary life.

Did you know Harari believes there’s a direct line between transgenderism and trans-humanism? In fact, he’s excited about the mutilation and cutting off of genitals, because it will show us so many wonderful things.

I think that the reason that there is so much political heat around debates about transgender people and nonbinary people and so forth is because people may subconsciously feel that debates of the future will be about what we can do with the human body and human brain. How can we re-engineer them? How can we change them? The first practical place we come across these questions is gender. You can say people are bigots and are always sensitive when you talk about sex or gender, but I think that subconsciously people realize this is the first debate about transhumanism. It’s about what we can do with technology to change the human body and brain and mind. This is why we see these heated debates.¹⁴

Did you see that coming?

Transgenderism as the first stage to transhumanism?

You just need to listen to these villains speak, and you’ll often be able to determine their plans. And like most villains throughout history, whether they be communist or fascist, they fall in love with their ideals, averting their eyes from the cost in human misery.

Hitler might have said, We just want Germany for Germans! Stalin would have said, We want to purge the selfish from Soviet society, so all of us can share. Mao might have justified his persecution and starvation of millions by saying, We must purge ourselves of the thought criminals so we can take that Great Leap Forward. It’s funny how the perfect world for so many of these tyrants begins with getting rid of the people they don’t like.

Harari’s enthusiasm for genital mutilation is only eclipsed by his love of transhumanism. It’s almost a civil right, up there with freedom of speech, religion, or the right to bear arms.

Transhumanism is about what it means to be human. I mean, there are different types of transhumanism, but one interpretation is that transhumanism is fulfilling the true potential of the human. Which depends of course on what you understand a human to be. This is the question we want to pursue, and it’s not a question with easy answers.¹⁵

Let’s talk about the crazed plans of these people to literally disassemble you and put you back together like some Frankenstein monster. It didn’t work in the fairy tale of Humpty Dumpty, and it’s unlikely to work with flesh and blood humans.

They don’t like you just the way you are.

But the road to making all of the human race cyborgs won’t be without its challenges.

Harari went on to say that humanity is in the midst of a second industrial revolution centered around artificial intelligence. But the product this time will not be textiles, or machines, or vehicles, or even weapons, the product this time will be humans themselves, Harari asserted. We are basically learning to produce bodies and minds. Bodies and minds are going to be, I think, the two main products of the next wave of all these changes.

The useless people referenced by the WEF [World Economic Forum] advisor would be those who refused to be injected with artificial intelligence capabilities in the coming decades. Describing humans as hackable animals, Harari believes that the masses would not stand much of a chance against these changes, even if they were to organize.¹⁶

It’s quite remarkable how Harari and his confederates at the World Economic Forum want to roll back all those things you call your civil rights, that generations of Americans have fought and died to protect. Maybe we should have just shrugged our shoulders in 1776 and said, Yeah, the British are taking our rights away from us, but do we really want a Revolution?

I don’t think any of the readers of this book believe that to be true. And if you’re a true child of the Enlightenment, a believer that God created each and every human being in His image, and that each of you by existing on this planet have certain inalienable rights, you will never even consider the thought, as Yuval Noah Harari does, that certain people are useless. If you’re like me, you regard the idea that certain people are useless to be a blasphemy against God.

The problem is more boredom, what to do with them and how will they find some sense of meaning in life when they are basically meaningless, worthless, Harari continued. My best guess at present is a combination of drugs and computer games.¹⁷

This casual, almost off-hand remark by Harari terrifies me more than I can possibly describe. Again, here’s the filter I put on that remark. You may not see it the way I do, but I want you to at least understand my point of view.

When tyrants throughout history seek to exterminate or disempower a group of people, it begins with dehumanizing them, the way Hitler started by claiming a Jew couldn’t be a good German. You might also come up with your own examples of how Stalin, Mao, or any of today’s theocratic dictators do the same. Are you seeing something similar in today’s media regarding Christians, conservatives, or even Democrats like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or Tulsi Gabbard, who stray from the established narrative?

Non-believers, in their eyes, are little better than non-humans.

The Nazis came up with a chilling expression, Lebebsunwertes Leben, which translates into English as life unworthy of life.¹⁸ It was used first to justify the murder of disabled children and adults, then expanded to Jews and other enemies of the Reich. When Harari uses the expressions useless people or useless class¹⁹ (sometimes referred to by others as Harari’s useless eaters argument), it is difficult not to hear an echo of early Nazi thought.

Once you have banished these people from your social group for being useless, whether you identify that as your nation, ethnic group, or fellow band of anti-racists, it becomes easier to justify violence against them. Why does the left champion the idea of Punch a Nazi in the face today against their ideological opponents, except to push their fellow citizens with whom they disagree one step closer to a concentration camp?

Here’s the genocidal dog whistle I hear when Harari speaks and says these useless people will have to be managed by some combination of drugs and computer games.

I am separating this group of people from the human family and telling you not to worry about them. Once you have stopped caring about them, once I have removed them from the circle of human compassion, I can do whatever I want to them, and nobody will care.

Even Forbes magazine wanted to helpfully jump in for those who might find themselves someday useless and heading to a de-facto ghetto holding facility where they’d be supplied with drugs and endless computer games, noting in a 2018 article, written by (and I’m not making this up), John Hittler:

Since 2017, a trend has been discussed in the media that’s believed to be coming quickly and relentlessly. In short, the rise in artificial intelligence (AI) could create a global useless class—an entire group of humans who won’t be able to work and who therefore contribute little to society. AI threatens to make many professions obsolete, meaning that unemployment may rise substantially.

Could this really be that dramatic, that an entire class could exist, in every country, that simply has nothing meaningful to do to earn a living? The short answer is a resounding yes.²⁰

This isn’t Alex Jones in 2023 telling you they’re planning on making a good portion of society useless; this is Forbes magazine and John Hittler telling you that in 2018. And what is Hittler’s advice to keep you from becoming a useless person, who will need to be kept docile by drugs and computer games?

All hope is not lost. The trend toward more AI points to different strategies to remain both valuable, and hence, relevant in our society. Those who create may dominate, for example. According to historian Yuval Harari, who’s written about the emergence of the global useless class, jobs requiring a high degree of creativity are likely to be safer.

How about you? What can you do? Try this: Endeavor to explore and articulate that singular gift of talent you possess. Singular? Yes, as in no one else holds this talent.²¹

Hittler wants to prepare you for the coming of the machines, but I’m telling you that you possess an even more powerful weapon.

The unique soul God gave you when you were born on this great, good Earth.

I’m painfully aware of my abundant flaws, but I believe every person has a purpose under Heaven. (I believe God extends His grace even to people named John Hittler.)

It’s difficult to be pessimistic about our chances when even the godfather of AI starts warning about his creation, as he did in the New York Times on May 1, 2023:

Geoffrey Hinton was an artificial intelligence pioneer. In 2012, Dr. Hinton and two of his graduate students at the University of Toronto created technology that became the intellectual foundation for the A.I. systems that the tech industry’s biggest companies believe is a key to their future.

On Monday, however, he officially joined a growing chorus of critics who say those companies are racing toward danger with their aggressive campaign to create products based on generative artificial intelligence, the technology that powers popular chatbots like ChatGPT.

Dr. Hinton said he has quit his job at Google, where he has worked for more than a decade and became one of the most respected voices in the field, so he can speak freely about the risks of A.I. A part of him, he said, now regrets his life’s work.²²

Sometimes God winks at you and tells you that you’re on the right track. Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking, and now the godfather of AI are all on the side of Alex Jones?

While Dr. Hinton and I may disagree on how long Google has been a problem, we should always open our arms wide for the new converts to reality.

His immediate concern is that the internet will be flooded with false photos, videos and text, and the average person will "not be able to know what is true anymore. [Author’s note: We’ll just have to rely even more on the New York Times, right?]

He is also worried that A.I technologies will in time upend the job market. Today, chatbots like ChatGPT tend to complement human workers, but they could replace paralegals, personal assistants, translators, and others who handle rote tasks. It takes away the drudge work, he said. It might do more than that.

Down the road, he is worried that future versions of the technology pose a threat to humanity because they often learn unexpected behavior from the vast amounts of data they analyze. This becomes an in issue, he said, as individuals and companies allow A.I. systems not only to generate their own computer code, but actually run that code on their own. And he fears a day when truly autonomous weapons—those killer robots—become reality.²³

There are so many things that can go wrong with AI, and yet some version of it is probably inevitable. We need to lead the discussion, not leave it in the hands of scientists and engineers who might release something which would make the COVID crisis look like a twenty-four-hour cold.

You may not share my belief that our world is guided on one side by the good angels of God (who appear to have an exceptionally wry sense of humor by naming one of my adversaries Hittler) and deceived by the fallen angels of hell on the other.

But whether we believe in something beyond this world or not, we each have the capacity to see the reality of what is taking place today on our planet. We can see the evil that walks among us and take actions that make sense for humanity. I am optimistic about the battles to come.

In this book, I will attempt to lay out the evidence, not only of what they are doing, but how we can steal our future back from these agents of misery and usher in what I believe to be the Next Human Renaissance.

Part of that answer is forming strong human unions, dedicated to the traditional values that have allowed our species to thrive, such as principles of compassion, curiosity about each other, and a commitment to the success of every human being. In the world we envision, unlike the one imagined by Yuval Noah Harari, there are no useless people.

Notice how the elites seek to divide us, keeping us prisoners in our own homes, whether it’s through fear of a virus with a better than 99 percent survival rate for most age groups,²⁴ or addiction to social media, games, and thousand-channel streaming services. Go on a social media fast, taking your eyes off your computers and smart phones and look into the eyes of another person as you have a conversation with them. You will feel so much more human, and you’ll also have a stronger immune system.

Maybe we need to set up private labeling groups, but instead of promoting something like fair trade, we know that these products have been manufactured by human beings living in thriving American communities, rather than outsourced to foreign countries who will abuse their native populations. We are America-First, just as we believe France should be France-First, or Libya should be Libya-First, or Botswana should be Botswana-First. We call for the humane practices developed in the West to be aggressively pursued in foreign countries, rather than using the misery of others to shave a few pennies off products sold in big box stores like Target and Walmart, who greedily participate in the exploitation of the Third World.

And we need to see AI for the genuine threat it poses to humanity. I’m still in the process of fully developing my thoughts, but from what I’ve seen so far, AI appears to be little more than a slightly improved search engine. As for its vaunted abilities, all I’ve seen it do is scrape the internet for the very best creations of human beings, slice and dice the information, then serve it back to you as if it’s something new. Look for yourself what AI has done when it’s been told to tell the story of American history. What you’re likely to see is nothing more than scenes from Mel Gibson’s fantastic movie The Patriot, Daniel Day Lewis in The Last of the Mohicans, or Henry Fonda in The Grapes of Wrath. That isn’t creativity; it’s like a mix tape of your favorite music or maybe your personal station on Pandora in which you give thumbs up to both Beethoven and Pink Floyd. Why isn’t the Screen Actors Guild or the Writer’s Guild of America suing AI for plagiarism or copyright infringement?

AI is a tool, and it can have some terrifying possibilities. Already there have been stories of unscrupulous characters getting enough audio of a young woman from her Instagram or YouTube videos to then use AI to spoof the voice in a phone call to her mother saying she’s been ransomed. A few months ago, I was a victim of such an AI prank when some jokester took audio of Tucker Carlson, while also getting Carlson’s private cellphone number, and called me while I was in a meeting pretending to be Tucker Carlson. Here’s part of that exchange.

ALEX JONES: Hey, brother, how are you doing?

TUCKER CARLSON (AI-Generated Voice): Hey, Alex, it’s Tucker. Do you have a minute to talk?

ALEX JONES: Absolutely.

TUCKER CARLSON (AI-Generated Voice): You busy right now, or do you got a second to talk?

ALEX JONES: I was in a meeting, and I just jumped out. What’s going on, brother?

TUCKER CARLSON (AI-Generated Voice): You busy right now, or do you have a second to talk? [Exact repeat of what he’d just said. I started to get suspicious.]

ALEX JONES: No, I just left a meeting. Go ahead.

TUCKER CARLSON (AI-Generated Voice): I was thinking we could do a show together where we’re topless, and we suck each other’s nipples and play with them a bit. It would be a comment on gender roles.²⁵

I’d been in something of an intense financial meeting that I’d stepped away from to take what showed on my phone as Tucker’s personal cellphone, so it took me a few seconds to realize it was not Tucker Carlson. In private, Tucker is often profanely funny, but this just wasn’t his preferred style of humor.

Aside from prank phone calls, I believe the genuine danger from AI is that it’s a very effective mask of control that can be utilized by the elites. If you have AI telling you it’s a bad idea to have kids because of climate change, how many will follow that advice? My guess is that it’s going to be a significant number of young people.

We must remember that we are the ones in control of our own destiny.

Human beings are the only animal that can control our environment. The left wants us to believe we’re a cancer on the planet that needs to be culled back, perhaps by a cruel 90 percent, as suggested by a top University of Texas ecologist (about 8.1 billion people to be killed), for a total global population of just under a billion people.²⁶ Other globalists might prefer a kinder and gentler genocide, a mere 80 percent reduction in human beings, as suggested by Stanford professor Paul Ehrlich (which would only require the death