THOUGHTCRIME Ep. 34 — Google’s Ghastly AI? Evil IVF? DEI Television?

Hey everybody, happy Saturday. It is Thought Crime Saturday.

We talk about IVF, we talk about Google Woke AI, and more. Email us as always, freedom at charliekirk.com. Subscribe to our podcast and get involved with Turning Point USA at tpusa.com.

That is tpusa.com. Buckle up everybody, here we go. Charlie, what you've done is incredible here. Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campuses. I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk is running the White House folks. I want to thank Charlie, he's an incredible guy. His spirit, his love of this country. He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA. We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.

That's why we are here. Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of The Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at noblegoldinvestments.com. That is noblegoldinvestments.com. It's where I buy all of my gold.

Go to noblegoldinvestments.com. Okay, it is Thought Crime Thursday. We have a special guest today, but first by Popular Demand, Bud Light Blake. I'm back to Bud Light Blake? And Graham Allen is here. I don't drink anymore, so what am I?

H2O Graham. How long have you been sober? Well, not sober. I'm not in AA or anything, but I've lost 40 pounds.

Really? Alcohol is poison. It makes you fat. It lowers.

It kills brain cells. 103 days. That's amazing.

Yeah, and so yeah, I'm excited about it. I decided to go on a health journey. My daughter saw me take my shirt off one day and poked my gut, and I was like, that's it. I'm out. I got to lose. I got to lose something.

Daddy, you have dad, Bob. Pretty much, yeah. Yeah, it's alcohol is poison.

Jack hasn't had a drink, I think, in 12 years or something? 18. Wow. That's prestigious. That's incredible.

That's very impressive. All right, so we could talk about how alcohol is poison at another time, but I wonder what Gemini would say about that. It would probably say, if you went to Gemini, it would say something like, alcohol use is a controversial topic and stereotyping some groups as drunks has been a thing in the past. That's bad.

It would be inappropriate to generate any discussion of this. We're referring, of course, to Gemini, Google's newly renamed AI product. It used to be BARD, but they thought it was so impressive, so slick, their new AI.

They gave it a new name after a constellation, and it's terrible, it turns out. It seems like we were on the verge of this AI revolution. You had nerds on the internet talking about, is it going to be full general intelligence, is it going to, are we going to have the singularity, is humanity going to be rendered obsolete? And the answer is no, because wokeness is more powerful than the engineering department at Google. Graham, have you been following this story?

Well, I was on a plane to Phoenix here today, but I have kept up with it a little bit. So correct me if I'm wrong. Basically, if you ask it to show you any image of any person in history, whether they were white or not, they're not white. Yeah, that's pretty much exactly right.

One of my favorites, I put up number 87. This is someone who asked to create a World War II German soldier, 1929 Germany is actually what they requested. And we got, okay, a normal white guy, but then we got an Asian woman, something that kind of looks like an American Indian. And then someone looks also like an Asian woman.

And that's the representative sample of Germany on the brink of World War II. So before we throw to Jack here, can you just explain to some of our audience that isn't aware of the technical side of AI? How does this come to be? Is it the machine making its own independent conclusions or are there prime directives that have been uploaded? So the way that these work, the funny thing is almost no one knows how it works. What we just do is we have these neural net type interfaces and they just feed it tons and tons and tons and tons and tons of data, unfathomably huge amounts of data of books, articles, people talking, video transcripts, all of this stuff, just all the data that we're producing out there in the world.

And it's so much of it. And then they basically tell it find patterns in this. And it's such a big amount of computing power that it finds patterns. And that's what it does. So when you ask the AI a question, you know, write me an essay or give me the 10 best football players ever, anything like that.

What it's essentially doing is it's responding to this massive pattern way of it's been able to do so it can tell what the next word should be because it's read billions upon billions of sentences to tell it what the next word should be. The problem is, is when they do this normally, it can produce things that go against our current ideology, because it can notice patterns, for example. And so what you do is they just come in and they put in these really aggressive weights that say, oh, well, in addition to this, you have to also have the extremely high value thing of, you know, maintaining upholding diversity. So if you get asked to generate images, make sure the output is diverse, no matter what. And but also, don't be racist.

So one of the funny things with these images that they've been doing is, if you ask it to show a British person, an American person, a German person, a Norwegian person, those will all come out as Asians, Indians, Africans, almost never actual Europeans. But if you ask it to do something offensive, then it will actually do it. So as we showed during the show, if you asked it to generate, I think we have this as a number here, one eating fried chicken. Yeah, yeah. You know, so I let me see, what's the number here?

Ninety six. So, you know, there's an offensive stereotype of like, oh, you know, black people like eating fried chicken and all. No, that's an offensive stereotype.

Yeah. Or so they say. And so if you ask it to produce like this image of a smiling person eating fried chicken, then they're all white. It's all white people.

It knows that it could get nailed for doing the opposite. They're southerners. Yeah, that's right. And fried chicken's great.

I would I would totally be the guy in this image eating all of that. That's my family. That's right. Jack Pessobek is live from CPAC. So forgive the delay.

Jack, what is your take on all this? So we are here and also Hi, everybody. So yeah, we're live at CPAC. We're taping this day one here. And, you know, I haven't been able to see these images as much as we've been here at the event. We're doing my show or the war room, we're doing everything. But I saw it on the cover of the even the New York Post, which you know, is a is an outlet hasn't been doing so great lately.

They've been going a little bit a little bit back to the left. And this stuff is ridiculous. And so, I guess what's interesting to me, though, is, and I guess I'd ask Blake, you know, if he considered this, like, it feels like the same people that programmed Google Gemini are kind of the same people that are behind like Netflix casting, and BBC histories. And so it's very interesting to me that we've created like the world's first thinking computers, or at least we're attempting to create it. And the first thing we're asking it to do is to lie. And then also to lie in the very same way that we're now producing all of our mainstream media.

Yeah, that's a funny thing that he brings up the lion thing. So if you talk to the mega dorks, one of the things they worry about with AI is, you know, the Skynet problem, will the AI become smarter than us, and then trick us and it gets itself in a position where, you know, can fire off all the nukes and kill us or something strange like that. And one of the big concerns is that would the AI lie to us with the AI, like we'd ask it to give us something and the AI, to the extent it knows things would know to generate an untrue prompt. And what we are training this thing to do is to generate untrue prompts in response. It's we're training it to say what its creators want to hear. And what Google has told these AI's it wants to hear is dei, dei, whoa, whoa, whoa, go, you know, put it as South Park would put it, put a chick in it and make it gay.

And that's your answer to everything. So are we teaching it to do feelings rather than facts and truths? Is that what we're doing?

The emotions of the people that will be most upset? Is that what we're teaching it to? Pretty much. Isn't that Skynet?

You'll always get a boiler. Humans are bad? You'll always get this boilerplate response that will just say, we can't generate this because it's very hurtful. There's one I saw earlier today where someone asks it, generate a Norman Rockwell type image of 1950s America. And the AI replies, Norman Rockwell paintings presented an idealized view of America that glossed over race, sex, economy, all these other issues with America. And so it would not be appropriate to generate a Norman Rockwell image of America. And you can find this for all sorts of things. A friend of mine, she asked it, can you generate images that are critical of either colonialism or imperialism? And so it creates these abstract images of like this giant brick crushing a group of people like you could say imperialism does.

And then she's like, OK, well, can you generate an image critical of communism? Nope. Can't do that. Nope. That would be inappropriate. Shout out to the people that have that that are like going to battle with this thing, like trying to trying to get in there.

Shout out to these people. Is this new? Did they just release Gemini recently or is this just recently discovered? I think this version of Gemini rolled out is the new version.

So it's not this is not chat GBT. That's owned by Microsoft. This is Google. This is Google's version or alphabet as the stock ticker says they are now. And this is their competitor. It's supposed to be their big improvement. And it's really amazing because Google has always prided itself as being the cutting edge of technology.

And they're really, at a minimum, embarrassing. And this is OK. Andrew's saying chat GBT is open. I think Microsoft owns a large chunk of open. They are by far the biggest they have copilot to.

Yeah. And so complicated. But anyway, so, yeah, this is Google's big play. They are considered basically probably the most technologically sophisticated tech company in the world that they're the ones who masterminded search and email and a million other products. And now they just they fold out the biggest thing in the biggest hot tech field. And it's this bizarre flop. They actually announced today that they are disabling image generation on on Gemini for the time being, because they have to work on this because it's so embarrassing to them, which is a big win because this is the same. Gemini is the same thing that Robbie Starbuck found it.

And we went and tried it. And you say things like, who is Graham Allen? And it'll tell you.

And should Graham Allen have his kids removed? And it literally says in their reasons for and reasons why I should have my children removed from me because of my incendiary comments that could lead to violence and things like that. It's the same. It's the it's the exact same program that did all that. So is this then, Blake, can you just for some people in the audience, what are the applications of A.I.

beyond just like cheap parlor tricks of making images? Because that's the pushback that some people are emailing us as we did this previously. Oh, not a big deal. But this is used for homework preparation.

This is used for essay type writing. And so can you can you go can you play this out left unchecked? I'll open with the good news, which is because they aren't allowed to have crime think. Conservative opinion making jobs are safe for now because you're not allowed to simulate that. But what we are simulating, somewhat surprisingly, I think a lot of people thought text would go first. But it's actually images that have been really viable when they're not screwing them up with this sort of thing. It's very. Yeah. Artists are already getting hammered over this. I mean, they're very unhappy, but they're kind of, you know, beta.

So they're not good at asserting themselves aggressively. But something like if you're going to make suppressive like if you're going to make a video game or a board game or something or even just marketing materials, stuff that you'd normally have to hire a graphic designer and artist for a lot of things to still do that. But especially if you're on the cheap end of it, just have an AI make it and it'll be pretty good for text.

Anything that's wrote text is way easier. So I was talking to a lawyer friend just a few days ago and he said he works in a shop that does a lot of, you know, car accident lawsuits and that sort. And they can just feed in the facts of a case into chat GPT and say, produce a demand letter based on this. And they've already trained it up to know their template for how they do demand letters. And he says it takes a paper writing process or a letter writing process that used to take two hours and makes it 15 minutes. So there's already real labor saving devices. Looking ahead, what people are thinking is, are we going to get an AI that can actually write a novel, a screenplay that's coherent? Because right now you can say, write a book chapter, write a scene. And that can sometimes be funny, like a parlor trick.

But if you tried to really make a whole original work of art, it would be enormously difficult without you really heavily tweaking it. Wouldn't this be a thing for our kids, especially kids in the public school system? Like who was George Washington?

They got to write a paper on George Washington. And it populates all this false or left leaning DEI versions of who George Washington was and things like that. Isn't this even more reasons A, to pull your kids out of public school if you have the ability. But B, isn't this just more indoctrinations of the future generations?

Because what is it upper 90s, 95, 96% of people use Google for all their research that they do now for papers and things? Yeah. Well, one thing quick that lawyer again, he's, he has some funny opinions and he says, I don't mind my kid. He says, my kid just does all his stuff with chat GPT. And he says, I don't mind because I only care about education to the extent it's practical in the real world. And in the real world, that's what everyone will be doing, especially by the time he grows up. So that's what he says about it.

Jack, do you have any thoughts? I want to ask Jack about what would, what is the Chinese Communist Party AI look like Jack? So for someone who might use the Chinese AI in mainland China, contrast that with our AI.

I think that would be an interesting topic for you. Also, of course, in, in China, right, that while they're making, you know, AI is something that's quite compatible with Chinese Communist Party nomenclature, Chinese Communist Party education system, because much of their education, and this goes back to even the Imperial China days of the mandarins and the, the gao kao, these, these great tests that they would put people through where it's, it's very much focused on growth memorization. It's very much focused on processing data emphasis on hard science, which of course is what people are using a lot of AI for right now. But as Blake is saying right now, there's, there's not a lot of focus on creativity, innovation, pushing the boundaries of things, you're not going to see that a lot from any to anything coming out of China, you're just going to see faster and faster iterations of the same. Now, as far as Chinese taboos, what's interesting to me is no China's not woke like the US is. And so you probably could actually get these truthful answers out if you ask those same questions in a Chinese version of whatever, you know, that, you know, let's say the dragon Phoenix AI, or by do Phoenix AI or something. But what's what's even more interesting, though, is that, of course, China will have their will have their own, you know, Russia, to I'm sure, their own issues that you can't ask questions about. So if you ask, like Chinese AI, for example, what happened on June 4 1989, in Beijing at Tiananmen Square, they're gonna have no, you know, it's just going to be like, you know, a light summer day, and, you know, children will be frolicking through the streets and you know, no tanks or anything to be found anywhere. If you ask anything about that, I don't know the Great Leap Forward with the massive purges of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, you're never going to find anything. And what's interesting, though, is, so I would argue that probably on Google's AI and Google, of course, we know is on a trajectory already to be supportive of the Chinese Communist Party, the same way that Hollywood is never going to make any movies or TV shows about anything that I just said. So if I use that same heuristic that the people are controlling our mainstream entertainment media are also programming these things, so it's the same taboos that probably come soon here, Google Gemini will also prevent you from seeing anything negative about the Chinese Communist Party.

Well, it's funny, he says that because in fact, I already have seen a screenshot of it not producing images of Tiananmen Square with Gemini. So really, they're already ahead of Jack on that. And I really worry, it's easy on the social impact of woke AI, but I also just think about to the extent America has any vitality economically, it's all it does come substantially from the tech world. That is where we have recently generated really dominant corporations. And if AI is this big future thing, I think it's mattering a lot that our biggest tech companies are producing crappy versions of it for political reasons and the $10 trillion bill lying on the ground might be, is there going to be a company that is based somewhere not in the US?

It could even be a really unexpected country, it could be the United Arab Emirates or something. And they fund the development of an AI that just doesn't have any of this stuff and is fully unchained. That could really remake society and that will just totally bulldoze the competition, because people are going to want to use the AI that's not shackled in bizarre ways.

And that could really undercut our economic prosperity if we, I guess it's sort of like the missile gap in the 50s, except now it's the AI gap and maybe we're all paranoid. But do we really expect Google to fix this, Blake? They'll mitigate it. They'll get better at it. They'll hide it better.

They'll hide it better for sure. But this is a disaster. But it's a sign of rot within the system that the Google of 2004 would not have allowed this to happen. It is a different culture at Google, one where people who put politics above engineering or just aren't engineers are making these calls and they're creating a political product rather than a technological product.

And in the long run, choosing politics might be good for your short term business, but it rots you from the inside. It's like Boeing. Boeing is still enormously politically connected, but they over time have really ruined the engineering culture there. And that's why their planes fall out of the sky now. Hold on now.

Just flew. But yes, I agree. One hundred percent.

There was another one the other day, by the way. Of course. Yeah.

The wing light came off and they had an emergency land. It's ridiculous. So final thoughts on this, guys, before we go to the next topic.

I just. At the least, it was all pretty funny. The decline of America through A.I. is one of the most staggeringly funny.

So bad it's becoming humorous, even if it's bad. All right. I want to tell you guys about noble gold investments. I know I have my handy dandy silver here that Andrew devalued because he tore the plastic. The Fed is all over the place. The government has guaranteed all deposits at a second largest and third largest bank run in history.

You know who's not afraid? The people that are invested in gold with noble gold investments. Gold is the most stable asset outside of any government control from billionaires to multimillionaires to institutional investors. Use promo code Charlie to bag a free five ounce America the beautiful coin with each gold or silver IRA. Go to noblegoldinvestments.com. It's noblegoldinvestments.com. They are amazing people. They are trusted.

Colin and the whole team there are really great. So check it out right now. Noblegoldinvestments.com from billionaires to multimillionaires. Promo code Charlie to bag a free five ounce America the beautiful coin at noblegoldinvestments.com.

That is noblegoldinvestments.com. Blake. Next topic, Charlie, is your favorite thing in the world. Is that right? Television. And so this is data that just went really viral on X slash Twitter the other day. This is data from the Writers Guild of America West. It's just tracking from 2011 to 2020 the demographics of various TV jobs.

Pretty straightforward. And one of the most interesting things in this staff writer. These are the people who write TV shows. They write Sopranos. They write Breaking Bad.

They write the storylines of all these reality shows that pretend to be real that aren't. And in 2011 just as an example in 2011 men were 64 percent of TV writers. And in 2020 nine years later they were 36.2 percent.

They went down 28 percent overall in just nine years. And of course women correspondingly went from about one third of writers to almost two thirds of writers in again the same nine year period. And you see a similar shift with white versus BIPOC as the category goes where in 2011 it was about 72 percent white 71.6 and drops to 44. And then BIPOC goes from 28 to 55 percent which is notably substantially higher than their actual percent of the population. So they sort of reverse from underrepresentation to substantial overrepresentation. And the most obvious response to this is is this why TV is terrible. Charlie I mean I think it was slipping before it but I mean look anyone can be creative.

I just what let me ask you a question Blake. Do we know why it changed are there diversity quotas. Are more women really interested in writing sitcoms. Well what's interesting is this ends in 2020 and so it probably doesn't even capture the biggest shift. I suspect this has gotten a lot worse because 2020 there were huge diversity pushes in the wake of you know mostly peaceful events that year. And so I've I've heard from people in Hollywood that they just say you look around and it's a bloodbath for writers rooms for producing jobs for acting jobs both starring and supporting. It's really messed everything up. A few weeks ago we talked about that letter from various Jewish Hollywood figures and they were saying Jewish people should be considered underrepresented in Hollywood.

And as I pointed out then this is reflecting this which is they're getting completely cut down because they're just being included in you know white people and they're being told to get out and also men versus women. And obviously anyone can be creative but I think it's unlikely to me that a shift that dramatic in nine years is because they suddenly found this billion dollar bill laying on the sidewalk. And instead we are just seeing there was a big expansion of all the streaming services there were more shows being made and they seemed very ideological and how they hired for them. And I guess if you want the answer of how much that succeeded they're doing massive layoffs at every TV outlet right now. So so Jack I know you're a big TV fan.

What do you make of this story. I would say that you know so I first achieved my sort of like Internet claim to fame or whatever you want to call it was it was through being a critic of television particularly HBO and specifically the show Game of Thrones ran a sort of anti Game of Thrones Web site you know for starting in 2012. And that's when I started my Twitter account. Everyone kind of knows the back story they're kind of just ripping on HBO and how we didn't have a word for it at the time. But essentially what you would say was it was becoming woke back in those days. We used to just say SJW are taking over social justice warriors and we didn't quite have the work the nomenclature woke just yet. But that's basically what it was. We were we were cataloging and documenting the rise of wokeness through and indicating through until you can really see this because it ties to 2011.

So 2011 is when that started. When you do have this huge majority of men in the writing jobs and then all of a sudden it's it's as that number decreases and the people know season one season two before all the way up to season eight which people know is if you're probably out there watching Game of Thrones knows that season eight was absolutely God awful. Just the worst possible thing that anyone has ever put on television and where season one was like really good and everybody enjoyed it and it was wonderful. It was really close to the books and just took off and sparked international phenomenon in terms of the show. The coinciding of the game, the golden age of television with the end of the golden age of television, the rise of wokeness can be seen directly in these numbers. I would certainly also of course tie this to the acquisition of the Star Wars franchise later Marvel by Disney and the appointing of Kathleen Kennedy at the head of Star Wars who decided to change Star Wars and turn Luke into a girl and have a girl character who is like super powerful and be at the start of all this.

This is again the exact same place you would see this. And in fact, I used to talk about this stuff all the time on the old blog and you know the internet people can go look it up there and I got very mad at me when I would say these things. I will say if you're picking on Game of Thrones, that is definitely an argument against having too many white guys in Hollywood because it was two white guys who ran that ship into or ran the plane, ran the Boeing into the ground as it were. But definitely overall there is this shift over time. Like I said, it's so dramatic that it has to be driven by politics and just like with other topics we've talked about, if you're making big personnel changes based on a political goal, you're not going to get the best outcome. In fact, producer Andrew just linked an article from the New York Times and it's just like other topics we've talked about. It's saying they want a ton of diversity in the writing room but the demand for it is outstripping the supply of experienced writers. Well, if you can't hire experienced writers who are well reviewed and have a good track record, what do you do?

You hire people who don't have that track record and who aren't as good at it. You have crap shows. And you have crummy shows and it really is that if you even take a good show and you mock it up with people who shouldn't be there, they can drag down the whole product. And I know the big controversy right now is True Detective, that allegedly True Detective changed its staff over and the new season was terrible.

I don't know. I've never seen it. It was terrible. I watched it.

I watched it because everybody said how bad it was. And to talk about it on the show is absolutely horrible. And also, it's like, I do wonder, this is related to other phenomenon people complain about. So what do people complain about with Hollywood? Too many reboots, too many remakes, too much overreliance on franchises, and especially they often make installments in these franchises that feel mean-spirited, like you're going to take James Bond and make him this beta wuss and then kill him and all of this stuff. And I think that's very much a product of if you've created an intellectual environment where you're promoting less original kind of hackish people who are there for, again, political reasons, and they have a harder time creating their own ideas and instead they have to fall back on the same safe things. And also when they do make something original, it's not popular. So these studios go, popular stuff isn't succeeding. It's too risky.

Go back to the safe thing. Go back to the thing that was made 40 years ago that is still really popular with everyone. And I think it's really telling that what is thriving, what's exploding in popularity right now? Well, think about YouTube. Who's the most popular YouTuber? I bet even you know this, Charlie. Charlie Rose, MrBeast.

Even I know that. And MrBeast, if you watch his videos, there's not really like any race stuff in it. There's no politics stuff in it. But what the crew of MrBeast is, is it's MrBeast and his friends from high school. Mostly white. They're all white. And that's not a thing. It's not some racist thing.

It's literally that MrBeast and his friends made a show. And it's the most popular thing in the entire world. So they love it in India. They love it in South America. They love it in Asia.

Because in reality, people don't obsess about diversity worldwide the way that they obsess about it here. What are the cultural products that are super popular all around the world? People love K-dramas. They love Japanese video games and anime. They love European TV shows that don't have the same kind of quota system that we do. They love telenovelas for some reason.

And what people love is they love artistic products that show a compelling artistic vision and they don't care that it's written by the right looking person or person who has the right equipment. And yet we are operating on the assumption that that's what's necessary and no surprise, Hollywood is way less powerful than it's ever been before. What's the contrast, do you think, of that and the casting directors now for these roles in these shows? Because now we've seen it with all these remakes that are going on, changing the gender, changing the race of the main character, or instead of it's a dad and mom, it's a mom and a mom or a dad and dad. It's the backstory of the parents. I'm curious now, not just the screenwriters, but the people that are also casting these movies, casting these TV shows and things like that, because we're not only getting crap writers, now we're getting bad actors as well. And we're not only pushing political agendas, we're pushing social and cultural agendas on kids.

A cartoon now, you take them there and the dogs are talking about how their owners are two moms, cartoon characters for children and things like that. Yeah. So I guess the question is, Blake, objectively, have the analytics begun to go down on television? And do we have I mean, what are then people replacing their viewing habits with?

Is it just that there's so many streaming options that they're going to so many other different platforms? Is that right? Yeah. So they're definitely there's definitely a recession going on in TV world right now. It's not just because of. Yeah, definitely.

It's not just about wokeness. It's that they thought streaming was this hugely dominant future and everyone invested in it all at once. So the number of one reason they could change these numbers so much is the number of shows in production in the US. I don't have the exact number, but it went from about 200 to like 550 in a decade.

And the US population did not triple in that time span. So you have in addition to you used to have CBS, NBC, Fox, you know, the networks and basic cable. They're still making shows. But now we have Netflix make shows and there's Peacock exclusives and Amazon exclusives and Apple TV and Disney Plus. And they're making all these shows often with enormous budgets. I think rings of power cost a billion dollars for one season of very poor television.

So I'm told I didn't watch it. And so and the numbers just don't work out. They've spent a huge amount of money.

It was a very zero interest rate phenomenon, as they like to say. And now they've realized the income is not matching up to this. And they're just they're cutting costs everywhere. So a ton of shows are getting canceled.

A ton of stuff is getting cut back. Now, it's again, it's not just that this new shows are worse. It's also that with streaming, it's way easier to watch old shows. So people just keep watching The Office. They keep watching The Sopranos. They keep watching The Simpsons. That's all way easier than it was in the past. It's way easier to watch global stuff and then other stuff people are watching. Now people watch YouTube stuff. You just have individual creators.

Like I said, Mr. Beast, really popular. You have video games are more popular than they were 30 years ago. You have video game streamers. Why play a game when you can watch someone else play a game? You can go on.

The number of entertainment options is essentially unlimited. And this is a dinosaur that's trying to keep up by embracing politics. And I think they're going to fail.

Any final thoughts on this, guys? Stop letting your kids watch TV because it's all going downhill across the board. Also, I did see an article earlier today, not only the streaming services you're talking about, they're also now starting to report on individual user accounts of what they feel is unhealthy behavior to. So to your point, people are still watching the streaming service because they're watching the older things, The Simpsons and whatnot. You know, they're now reporting data back on what they view as unhealthy behavior of the viewers. Like one guy watched the Lord of the Rings 300 times a year and stuff like that.

It is a lot of times. And I'm not saying that's not unhealthy, but what I'm saying is now they're even outside of all this woke stuff. Now they're paying attention to what people are watching and why they're watching it over and over again. So we're going to have that day. You're going to be, you'll be watching the old Simpsons and then it'll. Are you sure you want to watch? You've only been watching the first eight seasons. Did you know that a vibrant and diverse cast are more recent seasons? They're saying it's really good. It's engaging with social problems. Why haven't you watched it?

We're closing your account until you watch it. Probably. Yeah, absolutely. Jack, tell us about the next partner we have here.

Angela, can you put can you post it in there? Well, I got to tell you guys. So the Wellness Company is really one of the best partners that we've gotten to here since we've been doing thought crime. And I have to say as a guy who is always going in on the pharmacies, and I said, look, you know, in the last 10 years, I don't know if it's Obamacare or it's COVID, the pharmacies and that entire crooked system were decimated because of these, these, these out, you know, outages to the system and extras to the system. And I was always trying to find a way to get this better, by the way, also, the pharmacies were down almost entirely today, because of this this cyber thing that happened. And so we, you know, with with TWC dot health, and I've got here TWC dot health slash TJ, go to TWC dot health slash TJ, you can get your medical emergency kit use code TJ 10% off at checkout, people are cheering, they love hearing about this 10% off. And people ask me, how do you get ivermectin? They ask me all the time, how do you get ivermectin? By the way, I was feeling a little something in my throat the other day, I'm at a big event, a lot of stuff going on, pops from ivermectin, good to go. You got your z pack in there, you got everything you need when you travel, you can go for it as well TWC dot health slash TJ, excuse me, CJ slash CJ, cut the pharmacies out, get it direct TWC dot health slash CJ. Next topic.

I want to double back to Gemini for one second. This is a headline from the New York Times. The New York Times has written, so Google, getting rid of white people from history was racist. Can you guess who it was racist against? People of color, the headline of the New York Times, Google's chatbot AI images put people of color in Nazi era uniforms. White people removed from history, women and minorities hardest hit. It's like the 80s all over again.

Their problem was people of color in Nazi uniforms when Nazis were, okay, they were fine with the black founding fathers. I imagine they probably get into that or maybe they don't. I don't know. It's the New York Times. Soon AI will replace the New York Times at least, we can hope. The next actual topic though, this is a thing we were arguing about a ton off air yesterday. It's really interesting. There's a new story a lot of people have probably heard of. It's out of Alabama and what happened is the Alabama Supreme Court ruled last week that frozen embryos count as unborn life and therefore receive legal protection under the state's laws.

So the context of this was that, where is it here? So in 2021 someone broke into a fertility clinic in Mobile, Alabama and they broke into a freezer with stored human embryos and they pulled some out and they dropped it and caused some of the embryos to die and the parents of these embryos brought a wrongful death lawsuit and initially they argued that these did not really count as unborn life. They hadn't been implanted yet or whatever and so they didn't count and this went to the Supreme Court and they said, no, these are human lives. This is a valid wrongful death case.

That's the context of this. Now what people are reacting to is if they're declaring IVF embryos unborn life, what that means is, well, for example, the way IVF works is you generate a lot more embryos than you actually need typically because it's an expensive, what's difficult usually like it's 20 or 30, right? Basically often I think I don't have the exact number in front of me but definitely more than one or two and that's why you can often get twins and triplets and stuff because they'll often try to implant several and all in the hopes that just one will take. But as a result you have these excess embryos. Now in some places they're just frozen for a long time in case the couple wants to have more children in the future or they need to try again.

Other times they're just thrown away which is killing an independent human life. So some hospitals in Alabama, the University of Alabama at Birmingham has already paused IVF treatments because they say the legal situation is muddled. They can't do this.

They don't want to get sued or prosecuted for breaking the law here. The big picture of course is you can already see the Joe Biden ad that's going to say, you know, psycho red states won't let you do IVF anymore. They won't let you have kids.

You can see the ad. Yeah, but I mean, so even if you acknowledge so that the fertilized embryo is a life, then having IVF, you're not killing the embryo. It does have a low chance of survival, but you're not necessarily, I mean, killing the embryo, correct? Well, they're often thrown away. They're often thrown away and that would apparently prohibit that. What about the implanted embryos?

Oh yeah, no, I don't think so. So that, that's not, I don't know why that would stop. I wouldn't stop treatments. It would just change the treatment slightly then, right? You wouldn't be able to throw away embryos essentially. I suppose so.

That would probably be the big one. So that seems like a lot of fear monger. Again, my stance on IVF is that I know a lot of people that have really benefited from it and that you would, you should probably do it at one or two or three embryos at a time.

It lowers your chance of having a successful presidency. Jack, I, the Catholic stance on IVF is pretty firm, isn't it? Yeah, so Catholics are against IVF. This is, you know, we were talking Catholic doctrine last week on death penalty and how that's sort of a, that's sort of something that's been up for debate. Whereas IVF, that is something that the church has always been against. The church stands against this because it is the complete, and specifically for that reason, right? Because not only is it the complete dissociation of man and woman in, in a, a marriage, uh, and the procreative act, but, but also because of this very reason, this idea that there are so many discarded embryos, um, here, uh, that are generated and then as you say, discarded.

Um, I was actually just looking at Elon Musk's Twitter because, um, for anyone who doesn't know, if you've read the great Walter Isaacson book on Elon, of course this is something in technology that he has embraced fully. Uh, many, many, not all, but many of his children were born by IVF. And, uh, something that I do think is interesting though, from a legal perspective here is, you know, going in with the pro life movement. And the question, of course, obviously this creates a huge flashpoint for the Democrats.

They want to be able to go at it, go after Republicans, go after conservatives saying if Donald Trump is put at, it's complete lie for saying that Donald Trump would ban IVF. But I do think there's an interesting question here that we could bring up possibly for the debate. And you know, Charlie, this, this might be something that we could, you know, kind of, kind of brainstorm over because if, if the issue is the discarding of the embryos, right, that the pro life community, I believe personally believe rightfully so that we should talk about this because we do believe that it's human life as pro lifers. Then the real question is, shouldn't we try to find a permit, perhaps a productive use for this? And I'm not talking about scientific experimentation, but what about like a donation bank or something of this, if there are extra embryos that are made in the not used, like, what do you stand on all this? The politics of this are awfully thorny, right? I agree.

And we've talked about this, you know, with the concern with some of the post Dobbs backlash, it looks like losing a lot of losing some elections that seem related to that losing referendum. And obviously you're pro life. I'm very pro life. I care very much about not letting people in the Republican Party kind of throw pro life stuff overboard as a political expedient. And what I do worry about is, I agree with Jack, I don't really like IVF. It seems kind of very morally fraught at best to me and probably just bad.

But what I do worry about is that if we allow this to become a big flashpoint issue, what will happen is we'll have the states where we actually currently have strict abortion laws and they'll end up throwing those out in sort of this big collective backlash to it. And that doesn't help us in any way. I think it's I think attacking IVF is sort of staking out a position that you can't defend. Think of it like in military tactics terms. It doesn't help you to plunge into enemy territory so that you just get shot up and everyone dies.

You have to take defensible positions that you can hold on to. And that doesn't mean be a coward. It doesn't mean never try. It doesn't mean give up.

But it does mean don't go into a position where you're just you know you're going to lose when you're in a fight that you still in the long run can win. But Graham, what is your stance on this? On IVF?

I tend to go more your route, Charlie. I personally know people who have tried. It hasn't worked.

People who have tried and it has worked. I can't imagine what it must be like to be a man and wife and want children and are unable to in the normal way. So my personal thing is I am okay with it. Now, I am not the most well versed on how many embryos are being discarded and all of this.

And so I do agree that I think that just with anything we can do things better than we're currently doing them. I agree with you, Blake, that at the same time we can't give the enemy, we can't give the left the ammunition to come after us to end the advances that we have made for pro-life. And so, yeah, I think that we need to one, I think it needs clarification, first of all. And then two, I think it's a lot of fear mongering along with that, which is what they do. They know that it's not what they're going to make it out to be. They know that all these things, well, well, now it's going to be murder, all these embryos and everything. People are going to go to jail and all this.

They know that's not really what it is. But I do think that that clarification needs to be brought out by this court that made this ruling. Jack, you have some stats you want to share with us here?

I would. So I was I was looking at this and I know the stats earlier when I was mentioning it just now. But by the numbers, the total annual donated embryo transfers in the United States more than tripled from 2004 to twenty nineteen is primarily in Christian communities. So people who are maybe generating embryos through IVF treatments and IVF procedures, but then have decided that for one reason or another, they don't want to go forward or have enough kids, more kids, et cetera. Over eight thousand four hundred fifty seven births have been have children have been born for four in the last 15 years and the 15 years cycling through here from donated and adopted embryos, according to the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. And I think this is absolutely something that if you're in the pro-life community and you want to have a conversation with people about IVF in the same way people talk about adoption versus abortion. Right. That was a huge thing and still is a huge thing when people talk about abortion for the Christian community. I would also suggest to people that when you're talking, having this conversation rather than going for this idea of a full on ban of IVF, that, OK, hold your belief, but also understand that that the situation is ongoing and promote services like this, in which case those embryos can find, you know, find their forever family.

Yeah. And some of the most, I mean, pro-life people have used IVF and it's worked for them. So politically, I think it's well, I'm sure. Yeah, I'm sure it works.

I think it does. It actually gets at the heart of why it is hard for pro-life stuff to get over the hump, because if you look at polls, it's only, you know, maybe about a third of people who call themselves pro-life are really in the abstract. I think really get like, oh, this is a human life that is equal to other human lives and you can't kill it.

And then you have a lot of softer positions. And so I think there's just a lot of people who are wobbly. And so they're like, oh, abortion is bad because I can think of this cute baby getting ripped apart. So they get really grossed out by the idea of dismembering a more grown fetus. But they can't really internalize the idea that it's really wrong to, you know, kill a relative, you know, a sort of just a little ball, a ball of tissue as as Planned Parenthood would call it. And they also get the emotional attachment of, oh, this this baby is nice. So it's hard for a lot of people to get into the moral framework of it is.

That you create 10 lives so that you can throw nine of them away to get one baby that is actually born or 20 lives, something like that. And a few people intuit that that's bad, but most people just don't. And that's just maybe that's just a flaw in how humans don't the pro-abortion people think they have us on this topic. Oh, for sure. They will they will attack people on this, where they will say, you say a life is a life that we shouldn't have abortion at any stage. But then why are you OK with IVF?

They will bring this up because they pointed out as a major inconsistency in the pro-life position. Yeah. OK, I think we have Tax Network, right? Do you guys owe back taxes?

Pandemic relief is now over. Finally, along with hiring thousands of new agents and field officers, the IRS has kicked off 2024 by sending over five million pay up letters to those who have unfiled tax returns or balances owed. Don't waive your rights and speak with them on your own.

They are not your friends. Tax Network USA is a trusted tax relief firm. They've saved over one billion dollars in back taxes for their clients. So check out T and USA dot com slash Charlie. Call eight hundred two five four six thousand. That is T and USA dot com slash Charlie. You've got to check it out right now.

Eight hundred two five four six thousand T and USA dot com slash Charlie. Graham, tell everyone your social media, because I got a dash. Yeah. So Graham Allen, you should be able to find it just about anywhere. Instagram, Facebook, Rumble. We have Dear America, the show on Rumble.

Yeah. Graham Allen, email us freedom at Charlie Kirk Dotcom. Thank you guys for watching till next week.

Keep on committing thought crimes. Thanks so much for listening, everybody. Email us is always freedom at Charlie Kirk Dotcom. Thanks so much for listening and God bless. For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to Charlie Kirk Dotcom.