TCR Live #183: Is the AI-Data Center Backlash a Psyop?

This is Derek Bros. Derek Bros. Derek Bros. This is Derek Bros of the Conscious Resistance. I'm here in Standing Rock. That man is wanted in 5 different countries: Chile, Argentina, Brazil. We've been fighting a long time. We've all lost so very much. So many loved ones gone. Don't you fucking tease that horse! You are not alone. There are pockets of resistance all around the planet. We are at the brink. Ah, fucking hell! Above all, stay alive. You have no idea how important you are. If you're listening to this, you are the resistance. Hey everyone, this is Derek Bros with the Conscious Resistance Network, and welcome to episode 183 of the Conscious Resistance Live. This is my biweekly, bimonthly podcast where I bring you the latest hard-hitting news, investigative journalism that you're not going to hear on the left, on the right, even in the mainstream alternative media. And most importantly, we try to bring it back with a focus on solutions and empowerment and what you can actually do for yourselves in this crazy time. So thank you all for being here tonight. Um, I am, uh, yeah, recording another podcast. As I've said in recent episodes, this has kind of become a monthly podcast because of just being busy and traveling, but I had a little bit of time on my schedule. I've got some new articles to cover. I figured we'd go ahead and do another episode. And, uh, yeah, let's jump right into it. I want to thank everybody who has been sharing the content. It seems like I'm experiencing a little bit of a spike and some growth over on YouTube and on my website. Unfortunately, it's not translating to new subscribers because I'm perpetually shadow banned on YouTube and and Twitter elsewhere. And if you don't believe me, you can just watch the 74,000 subscribers I have on YouTube and how it never moves. Watch my 72.2 on Twitter and how it never moves. My 30,000 on Facebook, how it hasn't moved in years. And it is par for the course. So this is why I do in-person events, and this is also why I count on you guys to share my work. So thank you to everybody who. does. Let's go ahead though, remind you guys, my website, theconsciousresistance.com. This is always going to be the best place to find my content, guys. I want to invite you, when you go to theconsciousresistance.com and you see the popup, don't just exit out of it. Sign up for my email list if you haven't yet. I send out weekly emails about my latest talks, events, things I have going on, just some of my personal thoughts and experiences, and of course everything that I'm producing. So you can find all of my latest articles and things I've been up to, interviews, et cetera, at theconsciousresistance.com. Now, first thing I want to mention to you guys is the 25th anniversary of 9/11 is approaching next week. We're on Wednesday, September 2nd right now, so next week, uh, is going to be the anniversary next weekend. But this weekend on September— I believe it's going to be the 5th— there is another 9/11 event that I am participating in, that I am involved in, called Exposing 9/11. And it's being organized by Craig McKee, who is formerly of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 the truth. Uh, maybe he still is. Sorry if I said formerly. It's called Exposing 9/11 Checkpoint 25, Saturday, September 5th, 2026 at 1 PM Eastern, 10 AM Pacific time. And the link is right there. It— this will be in the show notes if you want to watch it. I'm going to be speaking along with Jimmy Dore, James Corbett, Massimi Mazzucco, Danielle Ganser, Raul Angelo, Barry Zwicker, Nicola Broderick, Adam Ruff, Ryan Christian, and some others. I don't know half these names, but I'm sure they do good work and they're talking about important things. So there's going to be talks about 9/11, there's going to be talk about the Pentagon, there's going to be talk about geopolitics and so much more. Ryan and I did an interview the other day about this, sharing our kind of history with 9/11 Truth and, and sort of where we think the movement is at and, uh, why we think it still matters. So that'll be this Saturday, September 5th. That's the first thing you can watch, and that's completely online. You can watch that for free. And then after that, next weekend, as you guys know, I am going to the Turning the 9/11 25 Years Later events in New York City being organized by Richard Gage and Ted Walter, as well as some other activists. And this is happening Thursday, September 10th through Sunday, September 13th. There's going to be, of course, focus on 9/11, the big focus, but there's also going to be a commemoration of Charlie Kirk's assassination on September 10th. That evening on the Thursday the 10th, there's going to be New York premiere of the Responders documentary, testimonials from family members, first responders, and survivors. Saturday there's gonna be panel discussions, presentations, keynote addresses. I think Jimmy Dore is doing some comedy. Then on Sunday, which is the day I'm speaking on, they're going to be talking about other deep events and crimes against democracy. Uh, so we'll be talking about Oklahoma City bombing, we'll talk about a bunch of different things. And you got Bret Weinstein, James Corbett, James Lee, Dr. Niels Harreit, Dennis Kucinich, Roger Waters of Pink Floyd, Richard Grove, Mark Crispin Miller, John Kirby, Jimmy Dore, Mary Holland, Richard Gage, Jason Burmis, Piers Robinson, Barbara Honiger, and Les Jamieson. And of course Nick Bryant, uh, Madhava Sethi, myself, and some other people. So we'll be talking about a lot of different topics. If you can go, there's still time to get tickets. TurningTheTide911.com. If you can't afford to go but you would like to contribute towards my fundraising 'Cause I'm gonna be going there not only to speak, but I'm also going to be interviewing lots of the people I mentioned there. My crowdfunding campaign's still running. We've raised $2,700. Thank you guys so much to everybody who's donated. We're trying to kick it up to $3,000 to make sure I have enough money not only to pay for my flight, which was $750, pay for Airbnbs, food, other travel costs, but also pay me for my time. So if you want to do that, you can see that at the link in the comments. And yeah, so looking forward to that 'cause it's gonna be, I think, important for the 25th anniversary for all these different people to come together, And it's going to be interesting to me because of course you want a movement to grow, you know, you want ideas to be questioned. This isn't about egos of like, oh, I was awake first to 9/11 or anything like that. But it is interesting to me to see all these different people— Tucker Carlson, Jimmy Dore, and other people, uh, who are now awake to this and who have woken up to this those last couple years— and they have big platforms. So of course getting them to speak about this at these events You know, it's, it's a, it's a positive thing. Um, I'm always curious about how deep people go with their questioning. You know, if they're willing to question Building 7, but do they know about all these other pieces of 9/11 and how many other lies were there were to it? And so nevertheless, it's going to be interesting. It's going to be exciting. I can't wait for it. I'm flying to New York City one week from today on Wednesday, September 9th, and then I'll be there in New York City the whole weekend, not only at the event but capturing the actions. I'm sure there's going to be activists out at Ground Zero passing out flyers and talking to people about 9/11 truth. And if you're going to be there, come say hi. Look forward to seeing you all there. So let's go to our next story. So some of you remember that a few years ago, actually 2 years ago, almost exactly 2 years ago, September 2024, myself, Ryan Christian of Last American Vagabond, and Whitney Webb of Unlimited Hangout came together to form the Independent Media Alliance. And in that time, uh, after announcing the Independent Media Alliance as an effort to bring together activists, journalists, content creators, podcasters who we thought right on 3 main issues: COVID, uh, the two-party lie, and of course the Gaza genocide. People who were good on those issues and we felt like could see through certain narratives and psyops, that we should come together and start collaborating in different ways. And this includes having panel discussions, maybe collaborative investigations and different things like that. But just about a month ago, a couple weeks ago, myself, Ryan, and Whitney— you may have seen this video— we announced the Independent Media Alliance AI Transparency Pledge. And this is just another way that we feel that the Independent Media Alliance can kind of step up and, and take a leadership role, if you will, and just encouraging other activists and other independent media outlets to be honest and open about their use of AI if they do use AI. And so that video is there, you guys can find that. Um, and then we have, you know, this, this is basically a press release if you want to read this. I talked about some past videos, but as I said, we updated our criteria. Now we think it's not just about COVID the two-party paradigm, and the genocide. We think that's also important, but we also we're pushing back against the idea that governments or any political party or a bloc of nations like, you know, the multipolar order, the BRICS nations or whatever, are going to save us. And so as we write here, members of the IMA believe that no government, political party, or bloc of nations represents a savior from the villains of the old world order or their efforts to create a new one. This is because we recognize that the issues we face are largely driven by a transnational network of oligarchs and allied organizations that have committed numerous state crimes against democracy and manipulated our world for generations. So We also believe that they're using mass surveillance and technocracy, including AI, as part of their control grid. And so this led us to announcing this AI Transparency Pledge, which is not to say, hey, if you use AI, we're against you, you're the enemy. It's not like that. We're just saying if you are using AI and you're a content creator, especially a journalist, you should probably be transparent about it. And so we commit to, you know, being honest about this. And we have myself, Ryan Whitney, Charlie Robinson, Jorge, Steve Poikonen, Ian Davis all sign this. And as we say here, We offer to any and all independent journalists, content creators, and independent media outlets to take this pledge or make your own pledge to your audiences regardless of any affiliation with us. Well, that was our effort, like I said, to put it out there that we need to be transparent about our use of AI. Some people got triggered by it. Some people, mostly you in the audience, seem to understand it and find it useful and helpful. So I'm proud to report that since then we've now got OffGuardian, who are part of the Independent Media Alliance. They have posted their AI transparency pledge here, and you can find that, that they would never use AI to create or edit our content. Um, they try to, you know, not use AI when it comes from content contributors. And it says, in the unlikely event that we start using AI to generate content, we guarantee we'll be transparent about that to our readers. And they go on to explain some of the other thoughts here. So that's pretty cool, that's there. And then we got, uh, Catherine Austin Fitz, Solari Report. They just published theirs on the 30th as well. Solari, how we use AI AI. And theirs is— they, they do use AI quite a bit, I will say, but they're being transparent about it. And they so say, our goal is in our AI is to understand AI, how it is used, and impact on all aspects of our subscribers, their families, and our businesses in the world. Our approach: AI is useful but not reliable. It's equivalent to a junior employee who requires adult supervision and can occasionally go off the rails and even do serious damage. So they say that none of their subscriber clients are ever touched or accessed by AI, and that no team members required to use AI if they don't want to support— if they don't want to do it. And then they name the different types of AI they use: ChatGPT, Claude, Whisper, Descript, which is a transcription program, Midjourney, Gemini, DART's built-in AI. I haven't even heard of some of those. And they go on to describe all of it. And again, this is not about attacking anybody if they choose to AI in this way. It's about being transparent. So big shout out to Catherine Austin Fitz and Solari for putting this out and being transparent. I also want to take a note that if you go back to theconsciousresistance.com, if you look at our top navigation right here, you see artificial intelligence policy. The Conscious Resistance, we now have an AI policy that is listed. If you go to theconsciousresistance.com/ai, it's easy to find and simple to locate there. And all it says is that as of this date forward, we commit to never using AI or LLMs for the writing of our articles, emails, or social media posts. We will never use AI to produce videos or music for our website, and we guarantee transparency if and when we use AI at any point in the production of our journalism. And I put our current use: while we will never use AI for the actual production of our journalism, we— and I— do on occasion use AI as a search engine to find references, similar to the way we use standard search engines to find materials. Of course, that doesn't mean I just rely on whatever the AI says. If it has a reference, I look at it. Sometimes it's bullshit, sometimes it's correct. Additionally, when necessary due to background noise or low quality, we will use AI tools to enhance audio in our interviews and podcasts. Sometimes the audio sucks, whether it's my audio or guest audio, and we might use a tool like Adobe Enhance or some other tool to try to improve on it. And that is actually— you may notice right now I have blue lights behind me. I am improving my home studio, my home office. I've also got sound dampening equipment now on the walls, not the whole thing, it's not all covered, it's, uh, it's around me. And so we're working to improve the sound so that I don't have to use AI to enhance the audio after the fact. Now if a guest— if I talk to a guest and they've got horrible audio, we'll try to avoid even doing that. But if there may be times when I do have to use AI to enhance audio, and that doesn't mean I can't enhance the audio without AI, it's just become much simpler to do so with those tools. So with all that said, it's awesome to see that there is transparency when it comes to the use of AI. And so you've got Unlimited Hangout, you've got The Last American Vagabond, you've got Off Guardian, you got Solari, The Conscious Resistance. And if you're a content creator out there, big, small, journalist, writer, whatever, podcaster, We want to invite you guys. You don't have to come sign our pledge, but let's start having some transparency. Because as we're going to talk about at the end, when we get to data centers and AI, how there is an effort, there is absolutely an effort to try to push people towards human verification. We need digital IDs, we need age assurance technology, and that is, you know, that's how we're going to be able to tell who's a real human and who's not AI. Well, that's not something I want to support. So if I don't want government action and I don't want UN action and I don't want any of that, To me, the answer is to be voluntarily transparent and say if and when you are using AI, and then let the market speak. Let the readers, the viewers decide. Do you want to watch AI slop? Do you want to read articles and emails and social media posts written by an AI bot? Or do you want to watch videos and read content from human beings? You decide. All right, let's get into our first article for the night. This is one of my recent ones for The Last American Vagabond. And actually, these next two are kind of like sister articles. You could say they're they're they're kind of part one and part two, and they have a connection here. So I'll outline that first one. If you've seen my recent interviews on Redacted, you've probably heard me talking about this. But Peter Thiel funded company Andril to triple the number of autonomous surveillance towers along the U.S.-Mexico border. That's the title. And basically, this came about because in June, the Government Accountability Office, which you may or may not have heard of, it's a Established in 1921 as the independent and nonpartisan agency that audits the federal government, and they issue annual reports to Congress, and Congress is supposed to pay attention. They don't always pay attention. So the GAO released a report in June that showed how the Department of Homeland Security has contracted with Anduril Industries, which is a Peter Thiel-funded company— we'll talk about that in a moment— to nearly triple the number of surveillance towers along U.S. borders. The report outlines the plan to increase the number of surveillance towers from 830 to 2,300 by 2025. That's quite a tripling there. The new GAO report describes the Integrated Surveillance Towers program, IST, that currently consists of 803 fielded towers located along U.S. borders that detect items of interest such as people or vehicles. The IST program includes towers from 4 legacy systems, including autonomous surveillance towers, also known as ASTs. An AST is a solar-powered surveillance tower that the DHS says can, quote, provide surveillance operations 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The towers are equipped with radar, optical, and thermal cameras. And according to this GAO report, in 2024, August 2024, the DHS approved the purchase of up to 42 additional automatic surveillance towers. DHS had previously approved Customs and Border Protection's request to purchase up to 100 and What is that number? 133. Oh, imagine that. 133 towers between 2022 and 2023. The report states that the program should be completed by March 2034 with 2,300 deployed by that date. There's a lot of numbers here. So we're basically going from about 800 towers to, you know, over 2,000, 2,300 in the next 8 years. So kind of crazy. The Electronic Frontier Foundation says that this expansion of border surveillance is a, quote, digital dumpster fire for human rights and civil liberties. They go on to say it's not just surveillance towers. Drones, aerostats, surveillance vehicles, ground sensors, game cameras, and license plate readers are also part of the vast taxpayer-funded infrastructure that threatens all those who live, work, or seek refuge in the borderlands. The technology isn't exclusive to the federal agencies. It's also deployed by state and local law enforcement and even by governments on the Mexican side. And so they say that these rapidly expanding surveillance technologies place residential neighborhoods in Arizona and Texas as well within the sight of these towers, making them, quote, capable of spying on homes on both sides of the border. So it's— this is kind of what I've been telling you guys about for a long time, that the whole fight against the immigration thing. Yeah, even if they believe it, The point, the goal is to expand surveillance. It's not just about trying to keep those dirty illegals out of your country or keep them taking your jobs. It's about trying to build an expanded surveillance state. They've already got quite a bit of an expanded expansion of a surveillance state. Well, now they're going to get even more by convincing the American public that it's all for trying to keep out illegals, keeping the illegals out. And so That's the best thing that we can do, and so we have to install surveillance towers everywhere. Let's continue on here. Andriel, which is the company behind this, Andriel Industries, was founded by Trump donor Palmer Luckey with funding from Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel. This is one of the Peter Thiel-associated companies that have seen their star rise under Trump 2.0, and as I previously reported, there are numerous acolytes of Peter Thiel serving in the second Trump administration, including numerous employees of Andriel. You got Trey Stevens, the co-founder and chair of Anduril Industries. He has consulted with Trump and his team. Stevens is also a partner at the venture capital firm Founders Fund, which was organized by Peter Thiel, Ken Howery, and Luke Nosek in early 2005. Trey Stevens also worked for Peter Thiel's Palantir. And it's interesting that you start to see their name popping up as terms of getting contracts with the government, because in December 2024, Anduril and Palantir, SpaceX, and OpenAI announced a partnership on US military contracts. And as I reported at the time, this is basically the technocrats, the young group of technocrats trying to assert themselves as the new group of military industrial complex contractors. So you've got OpenAI, SpaceX, Palantir, and Anduril uniting together, forming kind of like an alliance and saying that they're going to basically compete directly with Raytheon, um, with Northrop Grumman, with all the old-school Boeing, all the old-school military-industrial complex contractors. They're trying to be the next wave of it, and I think that's, uh, something we should be paying more attention to. So let's go ahead and look a little further into this here. What do we got? So there, this partnership, they got a contract with Border Patrol in July 2020 to set up 200 mobile surveillance towers in border communities The surveillance towers— this is where it kind of gets a little more interesting— the surveillance towers are using an Anduril AI software known as Lattice that automatically detects, classifies, and tracks people and vehicles from miles away during the day and at night. Anduril describes Lattice as a software platform that takes data from disparate and distributed systems, feeds sensors, feeds and systems, and moves this into a single integration layer. So they're using AI, using this surveillance lattice to just scoop up massive amounts of data about all kinds of people. And they promise it's going to catch bad guys on the border. Towards the end of the Biden administration, Anduril announced a $249 million contract for more than 500 of their Roadrunner Ms and, quote, additional Pulsar electronic warfare capabilities. Okay. In 2023, they unveiled this Roadrunner system and their Pulsar system of AI-enabled electronic warfare warfare systems that they say are focused on attacking or going after unmanned aerial vehicles or drones. In 2026 alone, Anduril has received at least 3 contracts with the government, U.S. government. In January, the U.S. Marine Corps awarded Anduril a $23.9 million contract, uh, 10-year contract for up to $20 billion. Anduril signed a contract with the U.S. Air Force in June, and they're now celebrating in July the production of their first American-made, Ohio-made autonomous drone known as the Fury. So they went all the way to Ohio, maybe they had a little visit with Les Wexner, and that's the Fury right there, the YFQ-44A as it's known, or the Fury Arsenal One. And this is made by Anduril. So this is, you know, just an example of how powerful this company is becoming in the Trump years. But where did all this money come from, you might ask? Where are these millions, $200 billion, whatever— where's all this money coming from to buy this surveillance equipment? Guess what? It's coming from your pockets. But more specifically, it's coming from the Big Brother Bill, or as Trump liked to call it and hoped you would all think of it as, the Big Beautiful Bill. But over here, we call it accurately by the name of the Big Brother Bill. This 2025 controversial bill took money from your pockets, American taxpayers, and is now distributing them through contracts to companies like Anduril. The big beautiful bill, Big Brother Bill, set aside $30 billion for, quote, digital modernization efforts, which involved artificial intelligence and biometric surveillance. The bill gave ICE $2.5 billion for AI systems, biometric data collection platforms, and digital case tracking. And they also gave $637 million for the deployment of technology relating to the biometric and entry-exit system system as part of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which, by the way, if you've been paying attention, Trump's been talking about. We're going to have it by air, by land, by sea. Biometric entry-exit system is something he's been talking about for a long, long time. And as I say here, I've been arguing since Trump's election in 2016 that the issue of immigration would be used to divide the masses and help usher in the final stages of the American police state. This includes using technological encroachments like facial recognition, retina scanning, which are sometimes known as the virtual or border wall. And this is what we're seeing under Biden, under Trump, that all this technology— it's not about building a physical wall, it's about building a digital wall or biometric wall, a virtual wall that can trap the people in. And all of this is part of this idea that there is a Constitution-free zone within the US government, within the US borders because of the so-called border search exemption that allows searches and seizures by agents of the government within 100 miles of the border. As you can see here, that includes Houston, New Orleans, Tampa, Philly, Baltimore, New York, Boston, Buffalo, Detroit. Lots of major cities are within that 100-mile zone, probably the majority of them. Honestly, if you're looking at that, that's all the major cities and along the borders, and we're considered a Constitution-free zone. And courts even as recently as this year are saying that government don't have to use a warrant to go through your phones along the border because of the border exception. And so, you know, it's going to— this is going to increase. And as I end here, every year since the attacks of September 11, 2001, Americans have been forced to endure more and more surveillance measures from the federal government, as well as countless state and local law enforcement agencies. As we approach the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 false flag, it's more than ever— it's more important than ever for the American public to ask Are we really free if we no longer have privacy? And by the way, I'll take note, you see how in the bottom of this article you see this symbol? For those watching, that is a no AI symbol. That means no AI was used in the production of this article. This is human-made, human-written here. So that's part one, talking about Andril and the surveillance towers. My second report here is related, namely because it has to do with surveillance and also because it relates to the government accountability the office, the GAO, which as I said in that last article, the GAO had put out a report in June 2024 about these surveillance towers. So they're kind of, you know, helping get this information out. It's just that the public isn't paying attention and it takes journalists like myself to find this and try to bring it to a larger audience. So have you ever heard of HART, the Homeland Advanced Recognition Technology program? I'd never heard of it until recently when I was researching the surveillance towers. That led me to reading about HART, which has been around for a decade us, but it's a very, very little-known topic except for if you're nerds who are kind of into government policy and programs like this. HEART is probably the largest U.S. biometric database that you've never heard of, and it's supposed to become the, the main centralized database of the U.S. government starting this month, September 2026. After being delayed, troubled by delays and budget concerns for nearly a decade, the Homeland Advanced Recognition Technology Program, HART, will become the US government's largest biometric database later this month. It has been plagued by privacy concerns raised by the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, which has warned that HART has, quote, gaps in its privacy policies. HART will be managed by the DHS and will store and process biometric data such as fingerprints, iris scans, face prints that have been gathered by the DHS and its subagencies. According to DHS, government agencies may seek to access this data for national security reasons, law enforcement, immigration and border management, intelligence gathering, background investigations on people who are applying for government positions and the like. Well, HEART is set to become complete its, quote, initial operating capability, which means it's ready to go and it'll be the, you know, the system on record. It is not scheduled to be fully completed till 2027. This was first announced back in 2015 to replace the legacy system known as IDENT, which stands for Automated Biometric Identification System, which was originally developed in 1994 as a way for law enforcement to collect and process biometric data from people who are apprehended along the border. And then in 2013, the DHS Office of Biometric Identity Management began plans to replace IDENT with the HEART system. And HEART was supposed to become operational in December 2018. But as I said, it's been delayed because of budget concerns and privacy concerns. But now it appears nearly ready to go live. And so let's talk about some of these privacy concerns. In February 2020, DHS published their first privacy impact assessment, which they said was to assess and mitigate any potential privacy risks. Now, what's interesting about this is this report said that while the system was not yet active, that they were trying to anticipate potential privacy risks associated with the privacy-sensitive system. And so they put out their own privacy impact assessment, But by all accounts, it was insufficient and they were, you know, they weren't really actually looking at privacy concerns. So then a couple of years later, September 2023, the GAO puts out their own report. And this is where they start talking about gaps in the privacy policies which are required by the Government Office of Management and Budget. And so the GAO said that the DHS hadn't implemented 5 of 12 privacy requirements that are required by the government. And the GAO noted that the 2020 privacy assessment by the government themselves was, quote, missing key information, including on whose data is going to be stored in the system and who's it going to be shared with. And the GAO report said that the HART program did not, quote, have assurances that partners that provide information to the system will appropriately retain and dispose of personally identifiable information. The GAO said that until the Department of Homeland Security addresses this, these privacy weaknesses that there will be no assurance that the personal data gathered by— on hundreds of millions of people will be, quote, appropriately protected. So they're kind of falling, you know, falling short. Then August 2024, the DHS introduces their own updated privacy assessment where they attempt to respond to some of these criticisms. And they do tell us at least who's— what information is going to be stored in there. And they say that HEART is going to contain, as I said a moment ago, biometric data, associated biographic information on U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and foreign nationals. And they say that this data can be shared with pretty much everybody, every agency of the DHS, Customs and Border Protection, ICE, Secret Service, TSA, as well as federal agencies such as the State Department, Department of Justice, Department of Defense, and that the biometric data may be shared with, quote, elements of the intelligence community. Now, maybe that should be expected. This is a government database, government program, but it sure does show you that the information they collect and store in this HEART database is basically gonna be shared with everybody and anybody in the government. No privacy, no expectation of that. Now, there have been some groups criticizing this HEART database, even though it hasn't received a lot of attention. As far back as 2018, the Electronic Frontier Foundation warned about this database. They said in June 2018, quote, the records DHS plans to include in HEART will chill and deter people from exercising their First Amendment protected rights to speak, assemble, and associate. And they have been calling on the government to, quote, do more to minimize threats to privacy and civil liberties. Now, even more recently in 2025, I found a paper from a law student at the Catholic University of America's Columbus School of Law, which argued that, quote, The current U.S. regulatory scheme is inadequate to prevent violations of privacy rights. So let's just pause on that for a moment. Now, this is just a law student. Maybe you don't consider them an expert. They seem to have some pretty good research based on the paper that I read here, but they're saying the current U.S. regulatory scheme, which means the current laws that exist in the U.S. government to regulate facial recognition and databases like this. Are inadequate to prevent violations of privacy rights, which pretty much means there's going to be violations of privacy rights. There's no other way to really think about that. And, uh, yeah, that alone is just astounding. Now, of course, that's not coming from a government agent, that's coming from a researcher. But if Americans knew that, that there's a database that's about to go live and be the largest centralized biometric database in the United States, and that there are researchers warning that the current laws don't have enough ability to protect our rights and our privacy, you would think somebody would put a pause on that. But that's maybe for a different timeline where we live in a sane world. So this researcher, this law student continues, DHS's expansive collection of a mosaic of data will lead to increased surveillance in all spheres of human life. HEART will allow DHS to pair intrusive biometric technologies Thus allowing the government to observe and record an individual's identity at a distance in public spaces and in an ongoing manner. With its potential to reveal a person's constant movements, HEART creates a risky mosaic of an individual's life. Pretty scary, you know. And then there's people, of course, concerned about the way this is going to be used for immigration. We know that, for example, ICE has been using an app called Mobile Fortify to literally scan people's faces on the streets and not even, you know, illegal immigrants or anything like that. I mean, yeah, sure, that too. But also they've been scanning the faces of Americans who they suspect may be illegal immigrants, and they say, hey, come over here, let us scan your face. And guess what happens if you don't? You probably get beat up, thrown to the ground, something like that. So I think that's important that we recognize that. For those of you who are gonna say, well, who cares, Derek, those, those illegals don't got any rights, I don't care what they do to them— well, it's happening to Americans too. And guess what? Where do you think those facial recognition scans are going to? More than likely this HART database that we're talking about here. And so we also have the Brennan Center for Justice talking about how spending on biometrics has outstripped other categories in recent years with more than $1 billion spent or promised. And that includes through contracts with General Dynamics, Peraton Science Applications International, As well as contracts for collecting biometric data for immigrants. Biometric tools from NEC Corporation included Mobile Fortify and B12 Technologies, which provides iris recognition. And so it's, it's just massive, guys, growing. And every day it's becoming more and more clear that during Trump 2.0, they're rolling out autonomous surveillance towers along the border. They're expanding facial recognition cameras and automatic license plate readers from Flock and Axon, and there's facial recognition more and more everywhere. And meanwhile, they're trying to build a biometric wall, and they're going to store it all in this HEART database, which you never heard of, more than likely. So those are our first couple stories, guys. Let's go ahead and just take a quick break, take a breather. I want to invite you guys to go to theconsciousresistance.com and to pick up a brand new shirt. If you have not got any of our shirts, guys, this is one of the best ways to support my content. If you, you know, of course the best way is to be a monthly subscriber on, on Buy Me a Coffee or Substack. But if you can't do that, which is totally cool, then go over here and buy yourself a shirt at theconsciousresistance.com. Check it out. We got like 12 designs, I think 10 designs. Uh, Liberate All Life, Revolution Without Healing Is a Recipe for Disaster, You Are a Creator, the Exit and Build shirt, Holistic Anarchism, No Masters, No Slaves, which is always a popular one. You are beautiful, you are powerful, you are free, the Conscious Resistance logo. I also have a new shirt I haven't added on here, which is for my music, which has the lyrics to one of my songs, and it says, guard your heart and protect your mind. Some people like that. We're also working on a brand new shirt, limited edition shirt, for the 25th anniversary of 9/11, which we'll be announcing very, very soon. You can find this at theconsciousresistance.com. Click on the shop tab, and that'll open up to my books and my shirts. Supporting us that way, guys, not only do you get a brand new shirt— and some of these are 100% American cotton, some of them are mixed a little bit of polyester and mostly cotton, so check that out— but you can rock these shirts. They come in all different colors and styles, and, uh, you can feel good wearing the message, supporting my work. They're conversation starters, guys. I guarantee you wear one of these shirts out in public or to one of your local groups or to work or something like that, or to meet up with friends, it's going to start a conversation. you can tell people to check out theconsciousresistance.com. The website is on the back of all the shirts, and that'll lead more people to supporting my work and to checking out The Conscious Resistance. So please do check it out, guys, and go get yourself a new shirt. Get your friends some new shirts. The holidays are coming up in a few months. You never want to— you know, you don't want to be too late. Get your gifts now while you can. So, all right, let's go ahead and continue on. My latest article for The Last American Vagabond is this article here. New study, children exposed to fluoride in the womb score lower on problem-solving tests. We don't need to get too deep into this because if you followed my work over the years, guys, you know, you followed my work probably on the fluoride trial, the fluoride lawsuit. You've seen my interviews with Michael Conant. You've seen my interviews with Dr. Howard Hu, so many other people. In fact, let me just go ahead in case you haven't, you go to theconsciousresistance.com, check out our categories and look up fluoride, and you're gonna find all the work I've done. So we'll pull that up in a second, but let's check out this new study. New Columbia University-led study found that pregnant women who lived in areas with fluoride levels near or above the current levels recommended by the CDC were more likely to have children who scored lower on problem-solving tests. Columbia University researchers have published a study detailing how the children of mothers exposed to fluoridated tap water during pregnancy were more likely to score lower on problem-solving tests. Those tap water levels were within the range currently allowed by the U.S. government. And the researchers write, quote, these findings suggest that at concentrations below both the current World Health Organization guideline and the current U.S. EPA maximum contaminant level, prenatal public water fluoride exposure is inversely associated with child fluid cognition in the U.S. And what that means in plain English, expose kids to fluoride, and there is an association of an inverse— like, basically, the more fluoride exposed at a young age, the lower kids score on problem solving and what's called fluid cognition. And that doesn't guarantee that that's going to happen, but it is— there is an association. And this is building up on top of previous evidence and previous studies we've talked about showing lower IQ, lower, uh, neurodevelopment and things like that. And the researchers note that when you compare their findings to the data and the conclusions of the U.S. National Toxicology Program from 2024, there is a, quote, a downward revision of EPA's legal limit may be warranted. They're basically saying, yo, EPA, it's time to lower this amount of allowable fluoride, or how about you just ban it, huh? How about Trump follows the whole Maha thing and bans it? These results highlight the need to reevaluate the EPA's currently maximum— current maximum contaminant level for fluoride in public water systems, which is at 4.0 milligrams per liter. water, which may not adequately protect neurodevelopment. Now look, we all know scientists love to be conservative, they're not gonna come out and say, hey, fluoride is killing your kid's brain cells, or fluoride's dumbing you down, like all those conspiracy theorists been saying for years, but I think you guys can see what they're pointing at. One of the researchers, Ann Negra, of Columbia Mailman School, says, quote, because our study used fluoride measurements from public water systems that are collected as part of routine drinking water monitoring the findings may help inform future evaluations of public drinking water guidelines. And this was published in the American Journal of Epidemiology. And let's go a little deeper into this, how they, how they measured and found these lower cognition scores. A study examined 2,514 children between 2006 and 2019 who completed cognitive testing between ages 3 and 17. The researchers compared publicly available drinking water fluoride measurements to residences' addresses collected during pregnancy from participants in this NIH program called ECHO, Environmental Influences on Child's Health Outcomes. So they, they got data of how much water was in people's areas based on their addresses, and that were collected during pregnancy from participants in this program. And then the study focused on fluoride levels in the public drinking water, and then they were able to draw some conclusions and make some associations. Based on these 2,000— 2,500 children born between 2006 and 2019. But one flaw or limitation in the study is that it did not account for total exposure from all sources, because you guys know fluoride is in certain toothpaste, it's in tea, it's in supplements, it's in canned foods, bottled water, private wells, because it does occur naturally in some places. So they aren't able to account for the different exposures mothers and children may have had which I think is— yes, it's a limitation of the study, but if anything, it should make people think that this could be much worse because they're only studying how the impact from fluoride based on what is in the water in their region. But if you're thinking, well, the mom's not only gonna be exposed to fluoride from what she drinks in the public water system, she might also be exposed to fluoride from the food she's eating and things like that. So that means her exposure level could be even higher. which means these— the consequences for the children could be even more dire. The researchers then compared the estimated fluoride intake with the children's performance on NIH Toolbox cognition tests. This study did account for parental education, age, prenatal tobacco exposure, child sex, season of conception. So they took in and considered a whole bunch of variables in order to try to get this as accurate as possible. And plain and simple, The children whose mothers experienced higher fluoride exposure from public water during pregnancy tended to score lower on tests involving problem-solving, memory, attention, and the ability to adapt to new information. The study found that lower fluid cognition scores were linked to water fluoride levels near or above 675 micrograms per liter. That is important, guys, because the government for a long time has claimed that okay, maybe there's some studies out there showing some harms from. Water fluoridation, but it's not at the levels that are currently allowed by the government because we all know that those levels are perfectly safe and the CDC would never have us, or the EPA, or any of the government, they would never have us drinking, you know, dangerous amounts of fluoride. Of course, they would never do that, but this study along with other studies are starting to show like, look, the reality is even at the levels that they say are allowed in the water, and the EPA's recommendation is currently, you can see, 0.7 milligrams The US Public Health Services currently recommends a level of 700 micrograms, or 0.7 milligrams per liter, and they're saying they're finding impacts on fluid cognition scores near and above that level. So the research shows that above 675 micrograms per liter— now this is interesting— they were able to determine that every 500 microgram per liter increase of fluoride was associated with an average 3.36 point lower score on the cognition test. Now, that doesn't mean because somebody got exposed to 500 more micrograms of fluoride, they're never gonna succeed in life or anything like that. But it is important to note that this is showing that there, you know, there's a measurable effect with every 500 microgram increase of fluoride in the water per liter. And so that's real. I mean, I don't know how you can deny that. They're literally showing, look, you increase it by 500 micrograms you're gonna show some lower scores on, you know, when it comes to cognition. That's important. And then one of the other researchers writes, the co-author Amy Margolis of The Ohio State University says, quote, this study adds to a large body of work that looks at how early exposure to environmental contaminants may be associated with the development of thinking and learning processes that are important for children's developmental outcomes. Continuing to study fluoride and other exposures, exposures will be integral and best supporting children's environmental health and well-being. Now, you guys know I've been talking about this for years, so I'm not gonna reiterate too much, but I do just wanna point out, as I do in this article, that in May 2024, we— I reported on another study published in JAMA Network Open Medical Journal, which showed that, uh, they looked at maternal urinary fluid of 229 Hispanic pregnant women living in LA, And they found associations between third trimester maternal urinary fluid and the children's neurobehavior at three years of age. And what that study said that prenatal fluoride exposure may increase neurobehavioral problems among children. Quote: These findings suggest that there may be a need to establish recommendations for limiting exposure to fluoride from all sources during the prenatal period, a time when the developing brain is known to be especially vulnerable to injury. From environmental insults. And this adds to other data from 2023, uh, from that found potential human health effects of fluoride. This one said that, quote, the evidence supports a conclusion that fluoride exposure reduces IQ levels in children at concentrations close to those seen in North American drinking water. And then of course we could go on with the, the National Toxicology Program study and so on and so forth. And so this brings to the question Why then, why, why, why is Donald Trump's administration continuing the appeal of the historic fluoride ruling where a federal judge said that fluoride is a neurotoxin and is causing harm to children's brains? Why would the Trump administration continue to fight against that ruling rather than just following the court and regulating or banning fluoride, lowering it down to a minuscule, you know, irrelevant level, or just completely banning it. Why, why would the Trump administration rather fight against it? Hmm. Well, I'll leave you to ponder that one, my friends, but that's my latest one right there in terms of, in terms of fluoride. And so, as I mentioned earlier, if you go to theconsciousresistance.com right here, you can scroll down to our categories, you can click on water fluoridation. I'm gonna be updating these categories soon because I got some new ones to add. Water fluoridation, this will take you to a page here. You can see my interview with Dr. Howard Hu. You can see my interviews with Michael Conant, the attorney fighting, you know, against the, the Trump administration's appeal. You can see all the different interviews I've done exposing the NTP report, talking about all this stuff impacting mother. You can see my reporting on this fluoride lawsuit in San Francisco from a couple years. Meet one of the moms suing the EPA over water fluoridation. Dr. Philippe Grandjean, Dr. Bruce Lanphear. I mean, I've documented and covered this this so extensively over the last 6 years, and it's one of my proudest pieces of works because I think I've been probably reporting deeper on it than most people at all. And, um, yeah, find that at theconsciousresistance.com. So this brings me to the final report of the night. For the next 15 to 20 minutes, we are going to talk about data centers again. We're going to talk about AI, and we're going to talk about Is there a psyop going on right now? Are we being prepared for some kind of psyop? You guys let me know what you think in the comments, but let me go ahead and break down a couple pieces of news for you as we get into this. So first off, let's go back to this article here. All right. Energy Department DOE announces partnership to expand reliable, affordable energy access and power America's AI future in West. Western Kentucky. This is on June— July 29th, so just a month ago. The U.S. Department of Energy today announced a landmark partnership expected to create 8,000 construction jobs and 600 permanent jobs, they claim. The DOE announced the landmark partnership with Brookfield, NextEra Energy, Big Rivers Electric Power Corporation, Jackson Purchase Energy Cooperative, Paducah Power System to redevelop portions of the DOE's Paducah site into a data center campus Accompanied by new affordable energy infrastructure. The more than $100 billion privately funded investment is expected to create 8,000 jobs and 600 permanent jobs. So they're trying to build a new data center in Western Kentucky. They're working with a bunch of private companies. The private companies are allegedly going to fit the bill at no cost to the taxpayer. We'll see how that works. They're also promising, promising there will not be any energy cost increases because the companies are going to work on on renewable energies and they're gonna build a new grid here to power that. And so it says they're gonna have a grid-connected natural gas-fired generation, upgrade existing transmission infrastructure, and deploy 2.6 GW of battery energy storage to support a new 1.8 GW artificial intelligence and high-performance computing innovation campus. What the heck does that mean? It means they're building a new data center. And as I said, they're promising you it's not gonna cost you anything. Don't worry about it. And so the U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright is praising Trump and saying how he's doing everything great to keep lowering electricity costs for America's families and businesses. You got U.S. Congressman Andy Barr of Kentucky saying that this is a historic private sector investment. And so everybody's celebrating, lots of good times to go around. But then you start to see this— there's actually a little bit of resistance. This article here From Newsweek, Trump admin approval of data center on public land faces legal challenge. A federal decision to allow a data center project on public land in southern Nevada is facing a growing legal challenge, setting up what opponents say could become a national test case for Trump administration's push to accelerate data center development. Now, this has to do with Nevada, not Kentucky, but I'm just giving you examples of how the Trump administration is opening up more and more land to data center development. And, uh, you know, they're basically pushing back on anybody who is opposing it, as I'll show you in just a second. So the Bureau of Land Management approved an amendment right-of-way that allows the Townsite data center project to move forward on 81 acres of federal land near Boulder City, Colorado— um, Boulder City, Nevada, excuse me. But the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club chapter have filed an administrative of Appeal. And new polling suggests many Americans would oppose a data center proposed in their community, with concerns about energy costs, water use, and environmental impacts outweighing perceived economic, um, benefits. So yeah, it's, uh, it's getting real out there. More and more people are resisting. And this is in Nevada. Like I said, the Kentucky one— there's other places where people are starting to push back against Trump's, um, Trump's data center build. But you know what Trump thinks about that? Let me go ahead and pull this one up right here. Here's what Donald Trump thinks about, uh, opponents of data centers. This was posted just this week, guys. So this is not— while those articles I'm showing you from Nevada and Kentucky, they're opening up public lands, federal lands, which is basically taxpayer-funded lands, to data center development, Trump is just kind of talking shit directly to his audience. He says the only reason that communities throughout the USA Should now want data centers is if they want to end up being backwards and poor. If they want to be successful and rich with far lower taxes and jobs all over the place, let data reign. The good news is that there are plenty of other places that want them. If we kill the golden goose, you will only have yourselves to blame. China could not be happier with this anti-data center movement. Actually, they can't believe it's happening. Oh my God. So Trump is saying you're all crazy if you oppose data centers. People are increasingly pushing back against the data centers. And what I've been warning for a while now, as this article here, which I think is worth your read and will be in the show notes— data centers are surveillance facilities, aren't they? Forget the energy bills. What if the true cost of data centers is the mass surveillance infrastructure that they power? This is a pretty good article here from Cybernews that I think you should read because it really makes it clear how that's the big picture. And that's what I've been telling people. The more data they're scraping out there, biometric data, financial activity, internet traffic, flock cameras, facial recognition, et cetera, et cetera. They need a place to store it, and that is going to be in these hyperscale AI data centers. And so that's— then once it's stored in them, what do you think they're gonna do but take some AI chatbot and then scan and collect and process that data and try to know all kinds of things about us and see how it could be used against us potentially? Like, this is a very real concern. So Trump is opening up federal lands to data centers. He's talking crap to people who oppose data centers. More people are starting to oppose them, and I think more people are also realizing the surveillance concerns. And then at the same time, we've got— we've actually got people starting to push back. And, and some people out there, not just lefties, but people who are conservative and others, and even the, the, the big tech companies themselves are now starting to warn, including Bill Gates. Did you guys see this one? Humanity needs an AI proliferation treaty. Tech companies will never unilaterally disarm. Neither, for that matter, will the countries where they're based. And it says here, America's biggest AI companies have spent the last few years churning out advanced models as fast as they possibly can. Now the industry is screaming out with a nearly unified voice, please, for the love of God, make us slow down. In July, more than 1,300 employees from leading AI firms, including several top executives at OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and Meta signed an open letter warning that AI capabilities could soon accelerate beyond our ability to understand or control the resulting systems. The letter calls on the U.S. government to develop, quote, technological and governance tools to deliberately pace AI progress. And you had people like Meta's chief scientist at Superintelligence Labs, you had an engineer from Google, you had an OpenAI researcher, people you know, speaking out against it. And it's really weird. And I posted this article saying, hmm, I wonder if this call for an international proliferation treaty is just another gateway towards the New World Order, so to speak, or towards global governance, right? Like, oh, AI is so bad and none of us can stop it on our own, we need a world treaty, we need a world government in order to tackle this. Now we'll see, right, if that ever actually comes, because right now China and the US to be kind of opposed on the way they're approaching, uh, data centers and AI and their policies and everything around it. But nevertheless, this is— it's something to be concerned about. And so this is why I posted this on, on my, um, my Facebook. And this article, you can find all the articles in the show notes. I posted this: in the last few weeks, we've had numerous warnings from CEOs and employees of the big tech companies warning about the dangers posed by their AI In late July, more than 1,300 employees from leading AI firms, including several top executives at OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Meta, signed an open letter warning that AI capabilities could soon be out of their control. That's what we just covered. But then just last week, you had OpenAI itself publish an industry letter titled A Call for Collective Action on Cyber Defense. More than 100 organizations signed it, including Anthropic, Google, Microsoft, Amazon Web Services, Hugging Face, CrowdStrike, Cisco, Cloudflare, Visa, and MasterCard. And then Bill Gates himself has now done several interviews with The Atlantic, with The New York Times, and others saying that even though he was, you know, he was, you know, all for AI before, now he's really concerned about it and thinks that, you know, there's dangers. And so I said, is something more going on, or is this simply a warning from hubristic people who finally realized they can't control their creation? What other plays might be happening? I've got my thoughts What about you? So let me hear you in the comments. And as you can see here on Facebook, I got nearly 200 comments of people sharing their thoughts, and a lot of people are very skeptical that these folks are now warning. And I also— we got our friends over here on Off Guardian. I'll just mention this because this is a series I think worth reading, and I haven't had a chance to fully read it yet, but it's on my list. From Kit Knightley over at Off Guardian, he's got a 4-part piece, Are You Ready for the Rogue AI? From designed viruses to digital telepathy, AI panic kicks into overdrive. The rogue AI psyop part 3. Do you see where this is going yet? And then finally, is AI porn prepping us for a major psyop? And so he's been asking some interesting questions the whole month of August that I think it's worth reading. Now, my personal view is that there are legitimate concerns related to AI. And I don't think it's completely fabricated that these warnings that are coming, not just from Bill Gates and others like that, I don't think they're completely fake because there are people who are not financially invested in these companies. Like, you know, the godfather of CEO, like, I mean, the godfather of AI, I can't remember his name right now. That guy, he's given numerous interviews and just saying like, look, I was warning years ago, we're at a dangerous place. You've got the Hugging Face incident where, you know, the OpenAI Frontier AI model was in a sandbox. It's supposed to be a protected environment, and it broke out. Now, I've seen some people say maybe the language is a little bit exaggerated, but nevertheless, this is an AI chatbot attacking another company. That's kind of concerning, right? And, um, I'm not saying they're at art— they're at, you know, general intelligence yet, or advanced superintelligence, or anything like that, artificial superintelligence, anything yet. But I don't think it's completely fake to say that there are legitimate concerns about AI. For example, we were just talking about the data centers and how the more data they collect on us and they need to insert those into data centers, well then if you have an AI chatbot that can consume millions and bits of information, terabytes of information at once, it can easily understand so much more about our habits, our shopping habits, our thinking habits, our posting habits, all that stuff, and create a profile. And then that can very easily lead to social credit score type systems. They might not be public scores, but there might be private scores that government has on us. This is just like the, um, terrorist watch list and stuff like that. That is absolutely a real danger. Now, that doesn't mean that there aren't concerns that are being amplified that may or may not be real. Um, like I said, Kit Knightley, he's got this whole rogue AI thing. He thinks it's a psyop. I encourage you to read it. I'm excited to read it. Um, but I don't know that I think it's all completely fabricated. I'll say that. I think that there are some legitimate concerns and that AI will superpower, superpower and supercharge surveillance to a degree we've never seen before. And that's something that we should think about. Um, but is it possible that these Bill Gates and OpenAI and Meta and all of them are coming together like, oh no, everybody's united now, AI might be out of our control? There could be a couple situations. They could be pushing for government action and government regulation as a way to, you know, smother out the small guys, the small companies, because that's how they tend to operate. The big companies, they can afford regulation and to pay some taxes and some fees, where the smaller companies will get pushed out and basically overwhelmed by the regulation. It could be that that is a gateway to saying only the approved regulated AI is allowed. And so that means those out there who do believe, as I friends who use AI, but they use self-hosted, open-source, decentralized AI bots that they've created themselves or that they've trained themselves. And it's not, you know, some Microsoft Bill Gates thing. It's their own self-hosted AI, and they use it to schedule things and to do all kinds of useful stuff. It could be, well, those become illegal because now the only AIs that are allowed are these mainstream AI chatbots that have been regulated and, you know, stamp of approval from the US government. So that could be another way. This could be a calling for regulation of to try to stamp out the competition and to try to prevent the regular person from using AI. As I talked about earlier, I'm not really somebody who's embracing AI for everything. I use it as a search engine periodically. I used it to make transcriptions and to analyze documents that are hard for me to read from 200, 300 years ago, but I'm not using it to write my emails, to make schedules, to build websites, or any of those sort of things. No, nothing against those of you who do. I see that lots of you see it as an effective tool. And some of you are like, well, Derek, if we don't use it, then they're going to use it against us. So some of you are like, I have to pick it up and use it to, you know, the best of my ability to fight the deep state and technocracy. Great, you do that. And at least if you're doing that and you're not using big tech platforms, I commend you. So I could see a potential for the call for regulation to be about going after those who don't have the approved AIs. That's one potential. And then I've seen like what Kit is talking about is let's say that as there's different companies— like, I know Whitney, Whitney Webb's working on a new article at Unlimited Hangout about this new, uh, system that, that Substack and others are using, which is using AI to detect AI. And it says, you know, scan this if you want to detect if this writer has used AI. And those things aren't accurate. So some people are worried that those of us— like, let's say me, I never use AI, my articles are written by my hand, by my mind— that some AI bot could come along and say, oh, sorry, we detect AI in Article, and then all of a sudden someone like me gets falsely labeled as using AI, and then that that could lead to other forms of censorship. This is what I've heard from Cat and Kit over at OffGuardian. I don't know if that's as big a concern as of mine as some of these other things, but I could see that, right? So there's a lot of things at play here, and I don't claim to know 100% for certain, but I do think it's weird that like everybody's in unison, like AI AI is a bad thing. And I do think it is a bad thing. And I do think it is— you know, I want to say bad thing, it's a tool, right? But ultimately, I do think that it can be used for bad and that we are seeing more and more examples of that. So I don't think it's completely overblown and all fake to say that there is, uh, you know, that there are concerns about AI. Like, we, we might very well be going to the Terminator future. We might very well be moving into that scary world, or some form of The Matrix, or whatever. I don't know. None of us know for sure right now, but I don't completely write that off. So I'm not ready to just dismiss these concerns and fears of AI as just part of a psyop and as not having any legitimacy and any validity, and that we shouldn't even, you know, pay any attention. I don't believe that, guys. I think we should definitely pay attention. I mean, I mean, there's not a whole lot we can do other than you can choose to use it or you can choose not to use it. But I do think that, um, yeah, there's something going on here and you probably will not— this is probably not the last time you're going to hear me talk about it or hear about it in the mainstream. So yeah, let me know what you think in the comments, guys. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Like I said, over on Facebook we had a good healthy discussion, people from all different viewpoints, people who use AI, people who don't use AI. And, uh, yeah, check that out. And then of course The link will be in the show notes if you want to check out Kit's 4-part series on this rogue AI, as he calls it, a rogue AI psyop from offguardian.org. And that's where we're going to leave it, guys. I appreciate you so much. If you want to support me, guys, the best place to do that is theconsciousresistance.com/invest. You can sign up for monthly support on Buy Me a Coffee, Substack. You can support me via some privacy cryptos here. My PO box is no longer active. I need to take this down, so please don't send me any money there. And I appreciate everybody who, who comes out here. I want to let you guys know one more thing. I just dropped a brand new song. If you listened to the last show, I played you a preview of this song. It's called Raise the Tribe Up with my brother Dub FX. It just released this morning. Super excited to have it out. And if you heard the preview a couple of weeks ago, the song is different now because, uh, well, long story short, I had to change the song a little bit. So there's now some Peruvian flute being played by my brother Presence, who's featured in this video as well. And the song is out. I'll put it in the show notes. You can go to The Conscious Resistance. It's on all of my channels. It's also at 33ishere.com and on YouTube at 33 Is Here, which is my official YouTube channel for, uh, for my artist stuff at 33 Is Here right there. You can see on screen. So check that out if you guys want to get plugged in more to that. I greatly appreciate you. And, uh, yeah, that's it, guys. Thanks so much for being here for another episode. I look forward to reading your comments. I truly do. I love reading the comments from all of you guys. I love staying connected with you however we can in this digital format. Things are getting crazier, guys. They're fluoridating the waters still. Data centers are popping up, flat cameras, oh, automatic surveillance towers, heart databases. It's rough out there, but at the end of the day, we have to put our energy and our time into what we can control. And what you can control is your future, where things go. This is why I've been talking about Liberation 2030 for so much. Of my time recently and on my activation tour. Don't just focus on what they, them, those are doing. Yes, I'm, I'm reporting it to you here today because I want you to be informed. And as a journalist, this is my job, my duty. But what's most important is for you to put your time, energy, and money and your being into what you want for the future for yourself, your family, and your loved ones. What is your Liberation 2030? Focus on that tonight when you get ready to go to bed tonight. Pull out a pen pad. If you must, do it on your phone and write down some ideas. What is it that you see in 2030? See it in your mind. If you're a creative person, write it, draw it, make a vision board, whatever. See it in your mind and then take it out of your mind and put it down on paper. Write it down. What does it mean? What does it look like? For me, it means land, like-minded people, organic clean food, clean air, free-range kids, community networking, building freedom. That's my Liberation 2030. Your homework for tonight is to figure out what your Liberation 2030 is, guys. So thank you so much for being here. I encourage you guys to go check out my new music video. And until next time, remember, you are powerful, you are beautiful, and you are free. Peace, friends. Since 2012, the Conscious Resistance Network has been an independent media organization focused on empowering individuals through education, philosophy, health, and community organizing. We work to create a world where corporate and state power do not rule over the lives of free human beings. Our motto is leading by example and helping others in their pursuit of freedom. Visit theconsciousresistance.com to find our articles, documentaries, interviews, podcasts, books, and more. Remember, you are powerful, you are beautiful, and you are free.