Eric Peters Auto Expert Freedom Fighter On The Government Destroying Older Cars Our Future
Summary
➡ The article discusses how the auto industry has been pressured to produce more electric vehicles as a way to combat climate change. However, the author argues that this is a tactic by those in power to control the industry and limit personal freedom. They believe that the push for electric vehicles is not about environmental concerns, but about increasing control over people’s lives. The author also criticizes the lack of questioning and debate around these issues, suggesting that accepting the narrative without challenge leads to a loss of freedom.
➡ This text discusses how people often blindly follow popular beliefs without questioning them, like wearing masks despite evidence against their effectiveness. It criticizes the spread of misinformation and fear by the media and corporations to control people. The text also talks about the wastefulness of modern society, using the example of expensive, fragile electronic car keys replacing durable physical ones. Lastly, it suggests that we may need to relearn the value of frugality and skepticism.
➡ This article talks about how cars have become more complex and high-tech, which can make them harder to fix if something goes wrong. It also mentions that these advancements don’t always make the car better, but can make it more expensive and prone to breaking. The article also discusses how some of these new features, like touchscreens, can be dangerous because they can be distracting and hard to use while driving. Lastly, it talks about how the government might start requiring these features in all cars, which could make older, simpler cars illegal to drive.
➡ Young people can’t afford cars anymore, partly because many affordable used cars have been destroyed. This is due to a government program that aimed to boost demand for new cars by paying people to get rid of their old ones. The program involved destroying the old cars completely, so no one could use them for parts. This is seen as a way the government limits our choices and controls us.
➡ This text discusses the challenges and uncertainties of political decision-making, using examples of politicians like Thomas Massey and Ron Paul. It also talks about the impact of state decisions on people’s lives, such as the legalization of medical marijuana in New Hampshire. The text further explores the idea of survival under duress, comparing it to being a slave who must choose between working in the house or the field. Lastly, it mentions the shift of a YouTube channel to Rumble due to de-platforming and the impact of politics on various aspects of life, including maritime navigation.
➡ The speaker is thanking Eric for his work and wants him back on the show ‘Liberty Conspiracy’ soon. They plan to watch and discuss more car chase scenes, including some lesser-known ones. The speaker praises Eric’s work and encourages listeners to visit his website. The David Knight show is described as spreading critical thinking and logic, and the speaker humorously warns listeners not to spread this ‘dangerous information’.
Transcript
Wrong. Think. Are you talking about leaving other people alone? Bad, bad man. Bad, bad. You’re a bad cornfield time for me, huh? It’s incredible, isn’t it? Yeah. Billy, mommy is going to turn me into a jack in the box. Right? Do you remember there’s a great meme, I have it somewhere on my desktop, and it shows a guy, you know, and he’s, he’s kind of kind got his of hands above the globe.
And it says, libertarians plotting to take over the world and leave you alone. How evil. Right. And it really goes towards the concept. Good ideas don’t require force. Right. And you’ve been writing about this. I was reporting on Liberty conspiracy on the evening program about, again, the collapse of the EV markets and so on. And still the pop media people still try to use these rose colored terms like, well, they’re taking strategic withdrawals from the market.
Doing this or doing that. Like, no, the market is collapsing and the central planners are forcing people, they’re pushing their ideas on people. Then we have Al Gore recently appearing on CNN with, of course, Jake Tapper talking about, we’ve got an opportunity. We, we can stop. We can go to net zero. We’ll stop the climate change, and, and my marriage will no longer be burning to the ground.
You know, I mean, it’s utterly ridiculous. Why don’t you tell us about some of your observations on some of the, any of the big news stories that are out there right now. How about we start with the royal we? Isn’t it great how, you know, you and I always get subsumed and encompassed by we, you know, we’re aggregated into this great collective somehow that a few individuals presume to represent and speak for us.
And as far as, yeah, the strategic withdrawal that sounds like Hitler in 1944. We have, we are winning the war. You must believe in the end league. The final victory is coming. So. Right. The market, it’s like you have to systematically disrupt every sentence that these people speak. There is no market. That’s the whole point. This whole EB thing is the result of suppressing the market, of perverting the market, of imposing all of these artificial contrived incentives via things like the mandates that require zero emissions vehicles, the subsidies, the tax bribes that are given to people to induce them to buy these vehicles.
If you took all of these things away, there would be no EV’s. Perhaps there would be a handful of them, maybe as a boutique product somewhere. But all of this is 100% artificial government induced craziness. It’s the bottom line. And they keep trying to push it harder and harder. And isn’t that the stereotypical definition of insanity? Except it’s also tyranny here too. Yeah, yeah. You know, in a way, it’s almost like a witch doctor convincing people in a particular tribe that they must get or have in their hands some totem that will protect them from evil.
You know, that sort of thing. Like, remember the Gilligan’s island episode where Gilligan’s head looked like the top of the totem pole from some native witch Doctor tribe or something and it was, you know, he tried to replace it with a coconut or something and then the coconut came down and his head went in there. They thought he was a God or something like that. It’s the same sort of thing.
It’s like their God is whatever they decide to choose through the machinations of the politically connected government favored fascist, cronyist, mercantilist state where they’re going to work with certain corporations or they’re going to work with certain NgO’s, or their philosophy is to constrict our freedoms and have more power over themselves. And it’s all a totem. It’s like, you must have this thing to shake off the evil of the climate change boogeyman.
You must buy this thing. I don’t want it. It doesn’t help me. Yeah, and it’s all really cynical and really disingenuous. You know, they, they have. Just to make the case for this, they very oilily and slyly changed the definition of emissions, which in a regulatory context used to mean things that caused pollution, specifically air pollution. Those things have been eliminated essentially from new vehicles. And so that created a problem because, hey, we don’t have a purpose anymore.
Why do we have these regulations since the cars are now clean? So what they did was to include carbon dioxide, which is a gas that has nothing to do with air pollution. You can talk about, put aside the climate change thing for just a minute and let’s focus on the fact that CO2, there’s absolutely no, zero, no role whatsoever in air pollution smog and things like that. So why would they characterize that as an emission? It’s dishonest, technically, of course, it’s emitted.
But what they’re trying to do psychologically is manipulate people into believing that carbon dioxide is essentially the same thing as unburned hydrocarbons, as particulates, as the things that cause smog, respiratory problems and so on. Because who wants that right? Most people get it, especially people who are old enough to remember what the cities used to look like 50 years ago is they looked outside and, yeah, the sky’s pretty dirty and smoggy.
It’s kind of, you know, that’s not good. We don’t want that. But now they look outside and the sky’s blue and things are looking pretty good. And so they had to create this new boogeyman. You know, David calls it a MacGuffin. I like that term, too. It’s just a contrived thing to gaslight people, to guilt trip them, to make them think that, well, if you question this and somehow you’re a terrible person because clearly what you want is babies to choke and old people to die in the streets.
Yeah, exactly. Exactly. You’re the demon. You’re going to be gaslighted. You’re the one who wants to be left alone but in the leaving alone thing. Or you’re the one who wants to leave other people alone, but in doing that, in not buying into their canard, that other people have to be managed and pushed around and made to do certain things, you’re the one who’s actually engaging in an aggressive act.
It’s absolutely crazy. I was, when you mentioned in the govern shirt, you probably saw me look up here. I got my Macguffin shirt. I have two Macguffin shirts and. Yeah. As well as your, your key shirt. Yeah, absolutely. Awesome. You can’t go wrong, folks. Check out ericpetersautos. com. And, and it’s very interesting, too, Eric, because I think in many of these cases, you know, they do convince these people, like you talk about the air pollution thing, they do convince these people that they’re much larger problems than they actually are, whether it’s because of a pinnacle of danger or systemically, geographically, because, of course, the United States government controls such a large geographical area and it keeps adding to the things that it will control in that area.
That, of course, everybody’s got to look to the central planners. Everybody’s got to try to game the system. If they just allowed the California people to handle their smog first, rather than having the EPA get involved, then I think the only constitutional side from their constitutional framework for even any rationale for the EPA to exist would be if there were state on state conflict from pollution coming from one state going to another state.
But that’s not really what we saw. We didn’t see people in, say, New Mexico or in Nevada complaining about smog in the La Basin. We saw politicians in LA and other politicians saying, look how terrible this is. We got to do something about this. We didn’t see people in one state saying, our waters are being so polluted by this other state that we need an entire national framework to control waters.
If there was a conflict from, say, New Jersey and New York with waters being polluted, then if they couldn’t resolve it themselves, then based on what James Madison said, then there would have been some sort of attempt by the Congress to resolve it after the fact is a remedial way to do it, not a priori, you know. Well, I agree with you, but let’s go deeper down the rabbit hole.
You know, the superficial explanation or justification that’s trotted out about emissions is actually another MacGuffin. What this really is at the end of the day is a half century old war on cars, which is a war on mobility, specifically on individual autonomous being able to go where you want to go on your own schedule without being regimented and controlled. And they’ve used the regulatory state and the excuse, well, we’ve got to control emissions.
We’ve got to make cars get better gas mileage. We’ve got to make cars safer. All of this was intentionally designed to throttle and winnow down what cars could be produced. And they had hoped that they were going to essentially extinguish car ownership that way. But they miscalculated being incompetence, because most bureaucrats are incompetence. These are power lusting people. That’s their expertise. That’s what they know how to do.
And the auto industry, remarkably, managed to eliminate in any meaningful way in all of the actually harmful stuff that was coming out of the tailpipe. They made cars immensely safe. They made them incredibly efficient. So what now? Well, now, in order to continue this agenda, they have to frame them as being a threat to the planet. And that’s what the, the core issue is behind this push to get electric vehicles out there, because electric vehicles are just another step.
Electric vehicle is the vehicle to get most people out of cars, period. That’s what it’s ultimately all about. Yeah. Yeah. And, and the Biden administration was portrayed by the pop media people just a few days ago, at the start of the week, as having drawn back from some of its climate goals for cafe standards, when in fact all they did was allow, possibly for a few more hybrids that they were going to get rid of.
I don’t know if you want to comment on that, Eric. I do, actually. It’s very important because it’s of a piece with what these authoritarians do. It’s two steps forward, one step back. But you’re always going forward, aren’t you? You know, that’s kind of the true meaning of their term progressive. That’s really what that means. You’re constantly progressing towards more control and less freedom. So the pop media framed this as some kind of a defeat for these authoritarians.
Oh, instead of having two thirds of the cars be entirely electric by 2032, as originally proposed, now half of that two thirds will be partially electric. That is, hybrids. But you see, the premise remains, if you have to have partially electric vehicles, well, then naturally you have to have electric vehicles, right? You have to, you have to, you have to being the operative words. I mean, to be clear, I’ve got nothing against hybrids per se, and I have nothing against electric vehicles per se.
If there’s a market for that, and if manufacturers want to cater to that market, by all means. I’m all for alternatives, free alternatives. What I’m opposed to is this ramming of stuff down all of our throats, this one size fits all ism with the one size fits all being determined by these incredibly arrogant busy body people who think they’ve been put on this earth to tell us all how we are going to live and what we’re going to be allowed to have.
Well stated. And you know, Eric, you make me think a little bit about the, the moves by these politicians to do this sort of thing, you know, with Ev’s and all these other types of things, these assumptions that they make in our lives. It’s akin to I mentioned earlier in the program, cultural Marxism on this good Friday, and how in one particular county, the politicians were putting transgender day ahead of Easter, as I read from MrCTV.
And yeah, tr, she’s one of the writers there, and she makes a great point about that. But to me, that’s another manifestation in the long march. You make me think about the progressivism, two steps forward, one step back. That is, you know, the Fabian socialist motif. It’s the turtle. Very slow generationally. They know they’re going to get where they want to go, slowly but surely. And in a way, what we’re seeing here with the automobile industry is, is its own version of cultural Marxism, where cultural Marxism constantly has to come up with a new small protopon person or group that can be promoted that the government can help, splitting people away, saying, yes, you now have another.
You have an enemy in the regular society. Government will help you. And, okay, now we’ve taken care of this one and included new government plans for this one. We’ve got a new one. And they do the same thing with the Macguffins of the climate. With the Macguffins of, this is an emergency. We’ve got to take care of this. So in a way, it’s the same movie just with products rather than people, rather than classes, as they term them, or different types of people that they split off.
They’ve come up with a new thing. That is, if you’re against it, you’re bad in this sort of Fabian socialist. Two steps forward, one step back. Two steps forward, one step back. Always finding something new, whether it’s cultural Marxism with a new subgroup that needs to be promoted, and government’s got to help them and play favorites with them, or it’s a new particular industry that they want to establish, that they can control.
And they have their friends in there and they’re, you know, or an established industry that they’re going to, they’re going to manipulate. It seems to me that it’s the same sort of Mo. Do you see the same way? I don’t know. And there’s a common thread running through all of it, which is that the presumptions and the premises are almost never questioned. And that’s a sure recipe for losing the argument.
You know, I mean, if you accept that there’s a climate crisis, for example, if you even use the terminology without questioning it, well, you’ve already lost the debate, haven’t you? Yeah. You know, you’re just arguing about particulars. You really have to question things. I saw a great exchange the other day. It was between Senator Kennedy and some kid, I don’t remember who’s an Olympic skier. Did you see it? Yes, I got to see that.
I think the Forbes, Forbes news people do a great job. And I watched it on YouTube over there, I think. Yeah. And he methodically took this kid apart. This kid who’s a skier. He’s an athlete. That’s his expertise. He knows how to ski. He looks like he’s probably 22. Anyway, the point is, that’s his expertise. He’s a skier. And they brought this kid forth to testify about something he knows absolutely nothing about, which is the science behind climatology and so on.
And Kennedy just picked it apart bit by bit. He asked him, essentially, well, do you know how much carbon dioxide there is in the earth’s atmosphere? And the kid goes, a lot or something. Yeah. Basic knowledge, you know, of that simple fact. How can you even talk about a subject like that when you aren’t even aware of how much carbon dioxide there is in the earth’s atmosphere? Right, right, exactly.
Talking about. About car design, when you are an engine, when you have no idea what a carburetor does or even what it is. Yeah. And in a way, it translates to talking about someone else’s preferences when you’re not that person. Yeah, it’s astounding to me. And there’s also. There’s like a lack of shame or just embarrassment there. You know, if it had been me, I would have said, okay, I really ought not to be here.
I’m sorry for wasting your time and have excused myself and left the room. Yeah. No, I mean, most people don’t like feeling like or looking like an idiot in front of other people, but apparently these people are so obtuse, they don’t even realize how they look to other people. Obtuse. That’s perfect. That’s absolutely perfect. That’s so true. And it’s funny, every once in a while I’ll hear somebody use a term like, oh, I haven’t used that for a while.
That is spot on. Yes. And I think. I think it’s because they’re that ideological. You know, that’s when you are in the grip of an ideology which is kind of like a rabidized form of religion. It’s a secular version of a religion in which you have a dogma. And that dogma must be projected and defended at all costs. It’s always outward. You can’t receive anything. Your mental processes now are kind of jammed.
All you can do is enunciate to others what you have faith in and what you believe in. And when you are faced with somebody who says, well, wait a minute, what about this? This fact? This doesn’t make sense to me because x, y and z, instead of being met with, well, gosh, I never thought of that before, you have a valid point. It’s met with this vociferous moral outrage.
You notice these people, it’s not just that they get angry, they get morally indignant, and they basically try to characterize you as some kind of a cretan, a reprobate, for daring to question their ideology. Absolutely. And I think a lesson that I might suggest hearing this, if I were in front of the students, I would say that is the nature of the state. It offers benefits to those who engage in projection of a narrative because it doesn’t have to be tested in the market.
And you always are assuming that other people will pay for it, whether it’s sending weapons to Israel or it’s sending weapons to Ukraine, or it’s doing this or that for a particular economy or older people or whatever. And it is amazing to see how oftentimes people, I think, who have their, maybe they think their hearts are in the right places, they think they’re doing right, are very willing to demonize people who just want to be left alone, because it translates into that, as you say, that obtuse, holier than thou approach, and people don’t even realize they’re being holier than thou.
They think they’re doing the right thing. It’s really, it’s very twisted when the political machinations get in and people forget that the polis is force. Well, it’s cultish behavior. And, you know, it used to be the cults were sort of backwater aberrations, you know, like the mooney’s and the her krishnas and people you’d see on the fringes of society. But that, that mindset has become quite common indeed.
It might even be pervasively common. You know, we still see it to this day. I rant a lot about the mask wearing, you know, this. You still see that it’s like in defiance of all objective reality and all of the facts about it. You still see people who are so weaponized by that cult that they can’t let it go, even now, and they may never let it go.
And I think, absolutely. And that’s, you know, that’s, that’s one that’s so manifest, it’s so obvious to people. They just think of the size of a viral particle. They just look at the side of the box or they listen to some friends, but they still buy into this, maybe out of fear, you know, number of other things that might be involved. I don’t know. Uh, but it’s the same sort of thing with the climate canard.
Uh, you know, I was mentioning Al Gore was on with, uh, Jake Tapper just the other day, and they’re going to be pushing more because it’s April coming up and everybody knows Earth Day is coming. Exactly. You know, and, uh, you know, just like the guy who played the indian in those old commercials from the government, where he would look at the pollution and the tear would be going down.
His eye was actually like an italian guy or something like that. It’s all, it’s all fake. It’s all an artifice. You know, as much as I admired the photography and the drama of those things, it was, it was an artifice. But, you know, Al Gore, again, look at the religious manifestation of it. This guy has been blathering on and on and on with his predictions about imminent doom, you know, eschatologically, you know, like some kind of Old Testament prophet for what, the last 30 years, right? He’s been wrong.
Oh, I think we just lost you for a second. You know what? I’ve been wrong a lot of times. Maybe I should rethink this and worse. People like you bring this guy out who’s constantly in error, proven wrong objectively, it’s not an opinion. He’s wrong. He’s been wrong. And they still listen to this guy. Yeah, exactly. Again, some of this comes from, as Hayek would have said as we were discussing before, the information problem, which is that for maybe something like a mask, it might be a little easier for people to get that information.
You can look at the side of the box, right? Oh, I see. It says, not protected against COVID-19 you can think it through. But when you’re constantly given a series of these MacGuffins and a series of lies, in that conversation with Tapper, Tapper listed off right at the start, four or five things. Utterly false. Completely false about, oh, we’ve had more and more dangerous, more destructive storms than ever.
False, false, false. The hottest, hottest year on record, 2023, again, patently proven false. You know, and he says these things and then gore, of course, just uses that as a diving board to jump in like a whale into the, into the sea. You know, he’s jumping in, he’s like, well, yeah, well, you know, if, if we do that and we also stop swearing on records from 40 years ago, the world will be perfect.
And I’m the guy, you know, it’s just utterly absurd. It’s so ridiculous. But I think it goes to that information problem. You know, the information problem, it has something to do with the 24/7 news cycle. Now, you know, back in the day when you had three networks, and I’m not, you know, advocating for this, I’m just pointing out something. You had three networks and they broadcast during the daytime.
Remember when the tv would be off in the morning? When you get up, if you got up early at 05:00 in the morning or whatever, and you turn it on, and it would just be the, you know, the bars, and then it would turn on. Well, now they’ve got to fill up all this air time, don’t they? And it’s all these networks and so catastrophe. If it bleeds, it leads.
And so they constantly are trying to push the fear button, the panic button, because that gets people agitated and agitated people are going to watch, listen, and read, you know, and that dovetails with the wants and desires of the government and the corporations, who want us to be terrified of everything. Ask your doctor about Namemba. Do you have restless lip? It’s one thing or the next. It’s some awfulness is going on over here.
You’re going to die because you’re going to, you know, if you don’t take this drug. And so they keep everybody in a state of perpetual anxiety and panic. And people, as HL Mencken put out, who are in a state of panic, are desirous to be led to safety. Right? Air fingers close. Safety. And that’s what this is all about. Yes, perfectly stated. And of course, that, you know, honestly, that goes.
I mentioned yesterday the fallacies inherent in John Locke’s so called natural rights theory, which was really social contract theory, claiming that you signed a contract to form a government for your protection. It’s inherent in the argument about, where did I sign that contract? Yeah, where is that? I didn’t see that. And how much is my protection? I might have a differing opinion from the other person who’s being forced to pay for it.
So it’s unworkable, of course. And one of the things, and I’d love to mention this from your site today, you published a piece about disposability. And I think there are a lot of ties that go into the idea of things have to be put aside, new developments have to come around. Can you tell us about this piece over at Eric Peters Autos? Eric, your new piece, embracing disposability.
Yeah, it’s just about the gratuitous wastefulness that has come to characterize a great deal of our culture and our society. And I focus on the replacing of the physical key that people used to have that would unlock the door to your car and start the engine with these hyper elaborate electronic key fobs that have perhaps given you a slight convenience, but at tremendous cost and waste. You know, if you have a physical key and you lose it, well, you can get another one cut for $10 at any hardware store, even today, you lose the key.
Fob and in some cases, you’re looking at several hundred dollars to get a new electronic fob because it’s electronic and it’s inherently more fragile. And these things are all now no longer discreet systems. And what I mean by that is in the olden days, when you had a key that you put into the door lock, the lock placing or fixing that lock. Now, it’s integrated with electronics that are connected to a computer.
So, for example, when you push that start button on the dashboard of your car that’s not starting the engine, a signal is being sent to the computer. And then the computer says, okay, turn the starter motor. And that’s all fine when it works, but then when it doesn’t, now you’ve got this expensive problem with these electronic parts that, by and large are not repairable. You throw them away.
And this is just characteristic, in my opinion, this wastefulness. You’re not really getting anything meaningful, you know, in exchange for all of this, what you’re doing is increasing the cost of the vehicle. You’re decreasing its durability. I’ve got a 50 year old car out in the garage. I still have the original ignition key for it. It still works as well as it did about 50 years ago. Right.
Right. I object to this. And I think it’s a corruption that has occurred, ironically enough, as a result of our affluence, because we’ve taken things for granted and we’ve got all we have to indulge ourselves in gimmicky things and gadgets. Oh, look at that. Look, it’s got a touchscreen. It blinks and it beeps and it does this and it does that. Earlier generations in particular, people who lived through really hard times, like the depression in this country, they learned a really valuable lesson about not being bedazzled by gimmicky things and not wasting things.
They were very frugal people, that generation, because they learned a hard lesson. And I have a feeling we’re going to learn that lesson again. And I know that you and I spoke. We’re speaking with Eric Peters, folks. It’s eric petersautos. com dot. You can follow him on x as at libertariancar g. At libertarian car g, check out ericpetersautos. com. If you’re a gearhead, if you’re interested in your individual liberty, the freedom of movement, and also these observations about these trends.
We mentioned this, we discussed this once before, Eric, about this, this idea of the greater the complexity, the less incentive there is for the person who’s using it to actually find out how it works. And as you say, that oftentimes complexity comes with efficiency and productivity, productivity gains being great, being able to refine a system down to something that, with computers, can be done very easily, and so on and so forth.
But when there is a screw up, you also, people should try to remember that they’re now working with a complex system that will be very difficult for them or even just a couple of their friends to be able to handle, whereas with less complex systems, they’re a lot easier to manage and understand the gears. Well, a really interesting thing to me is that we reached, I believe, a kind of apotheosis in the late nineties, even mid nineties, in terms of electronic controls, improving the durability, the efficiency and the reliability of vehicles.
Throttle, body, and port. Fuel injection came along around those times. You had electronically controlled transmissions with overdrives, phenomenal, phenomenal things that resulted in vehicles that will run reliably for 200, 250,000 miles with minimal upkeep. But instead of saying, you know, now we should focus on making vehicles lighter, and we should focus on making them even more efficient to the extent that we can by various means. Instead of doing that, what they did was, well, let’s add a touchscreen.
Let’s add, you know, let’s figure out a way to dazzle them with, with some gimmick or gadget that doesn’t meaningfully improve the vehicle. And as far as I can tell, in any functional sense, it just makes it more expensive, more failure prone, and more of a throwaway. You know, people buy these new cars with these big, gigantic touchscreens in them. They control everything. Now, in a lot of cases, you know, like that, the woman, I forgot her name, Chow.
The rich relation of Mitch McConnell, who backed her Tesla. Elaine Chao, the entire. The car is controlled by a gigantic touchscreen, this Tesla. So, like, if you want to put the thing into reverse, you tap a button, reverse on the screen, and then tap drive. Well, if anybody uses a cell phone knows there’s no tactile feedback, and you often make a mistake. Right? Yes. You meant to tap b or instead you got t or something like that.
Well, that can have bad consequences when you’re driving a vehicle. Yeah. And I drive and feel it engage, you know, the moon, the motion of it is kind of intuitive, you know, forward and back and back and forward and all of that. Well, you don’t have that with that, with these with the touch type kinds of things. And so, you know, sometimes disasters happen, but down the road, what happens is that eventually that thing is going to go dark, it’s going to Fritz out, and you’ve got all the controls for everything, not just what gear you’re in, but the climate control.
The stereo is embedded in this touchscreen. How long does your smartphone last? How many people are walking around with a ten year old smartphone these days? Not many. As it fritzes out, you throw it away, you get another one. So what happens when your ten year old car smartphone, Fritz, is out on you after ten years and you can’t get replacement parts for it anymore because nobody makes them? You throw the car away.
And perhaps to introduce this, too, there may be two or more levels of the concept of autonomy, Eric, you know, not telling you anything new where you got the autonomy of the individual. I go all the way back to, you know, driving a stick shift. You know, you could pop the clutch on that thing if you couldn’t get it started, get somebody pushing you down a Hill, and you get it going, you know, you get the things rolling.
And we did it many times. Got a nice little hill out in front of the house here. It’s like, okay, we’re going to do it. And. But then there’s the autonomy of the individual when it comes to these electronics and the possibility of government or regulatory or corporate interference. And that gets us to the whole arguments that you’ve offered in great, great succinct pieces about this idea of the speed controllers on the federal level.
And Thomas Massey tried to stop that. When are those going to come? In 2026. They’re going to impose those. They’re already here. They haven’t been formally imposed yet, but they’re already here. They’ve been here for a number of years. Most new cars that have been made since, I don’t know, roughly about five years ago have what they call advanced driver assistance technology. ADAS. That’s an acronym. I’ve never met anybody who actually wanted this stuff and checked off an options box and said, yeah, I’d like to have speed limit control.
I’d like to have lane keep assist, automated emergency braking, and all of these technologies. And you got to wonder, well, why, why are all the manufacturers, and I mean all of them, why are they embedding this technology into their vehicles? And it’s because they are anticipating the regulatory apparatus, making it mandatory. So we just heard recently, this predates Biden, by the way, but the thing is, the Biden regime, with the 2026 model years, they’re going to have this electronic capacity to shut down a car remotely or if you drive in a manner that is outside of the acceptable parameters, as determined by whoever programs the vehicle, then the car will disable itself and pull off to the side of the road.
Well, this stuff is being incrementally already put into vehicles. It’s already in most vehicles. Unbelievable. You know, you make me think of the streets of India, and perhaps I’d prefer the chaos of those little three wheeled scooter things. Yeah, it’s incredible. I’m going to be going around on a motorcycle. I remember many years ago I dreamt that I had a motorcycle and it wasn’t legal anymore, and I was hiding it in my garage and, you know, I was going around in an old dirt bike, like a kawasaki or something like that.
And hopefully we won’t get to those, those days for that. If this is not arrested, it is, to me, logically inevitable, if you accept the premise. Getting back to what I was talking about earlier, that cars, in order for them to be safe, have got to have the advanced assistance technology. Well, then how is it that we can allow vehicles that aren’t safe, that don’t have that technology on public roads? You know, they’ve tried this in the past.
They’ve tried to outlaw older vehicles by saying, well, they don’t have airbags. They don’t have even seatbelts. If you go back to vehicles that were made before about 1965, I think they didn’t have factory seatbelts. Well, we can’t have those on the road. They’re not safe. Well, the old car hobby fought back and squelched that, but now we’re going to do it again, you know, and because a lot of people are already saying, you know what? I don’t want any part of this.
I don’t want a big brother, creepy, connected car that’s knocking me out to my insurance company and that is going to cut the throttle or apply the brakes when it thinks that I’m not driving in a manner that’s acceptable. So I’m going to cling to my older vehicle. Well, how’s the government going to deal with that? You think they’re going to let people cling to their older vehicles that aren’t big brothery and connected? Probably not.
Eric, I’m curious about your thoughts on this because at the time, I thought this was part of the agenda. The government mandates conserve multiple agendas, of course, and some of those don’t get revealed for quite a while. But when they did the cash for clunkers thing under Obama, I was telling my girlfriend at the time I said, this is clearly, they want to knock out some of those older cars that don’t have the driver’s assist, the satellite connections, the boxes in them that you can just fix up.
There’s, you know, it was, it was, I think, as bad or worse than the idea of paying farmers to kill their pigs during the depression. You know, did you, did you see it the same way? Do you think that was part of their agenda? It wasn’t seeing. It was. And, you know, it’s actually even worse than the business with the killing of the pigs that FDR did back during the New Deal era, because notice that the psychological tactics, they framed these perfectly operable cars that just happened to be older cars as clunkers.
You don’t want to be driving a clunker, do you? Right. So that was the first step, you know, implying that the cars are not fit to be driven, that they’re somehow unsafe, that that’s a problem, and we have to fix the problem. Well, what they wanted to do was specifically to get rid of affordable used cars, and particularly because that would drive the young first time buyer out of the market for cars.
And they understand that the car industry depends on young people coming up, getting their driver’s license, getting into cars, not just literally getting into, but liking them. Hey, this is my first car. Remember how excited we were when we got our first car? Absolutely. Got our driver’s license. Kids start tinkering with them. It’s great. They can’t afford them. And one of the reasons they can’t afford them is because they’ve been destroyed, most of them.
You can’t pick up a decent car anymore for $500 like you and I did back in the day. That’s what this clunkers thing was all about. And then they use this awful language they talked about stimulating, you know, they love that word, stimulating demand for new cars. That was the, you know, that was the surface reason given. So, yeah, okay, we’re going to just, just gratuitously destroy things.
I mean, it was upsetting to me to watch. You may have seen some of those videos at the time. They would take, here’s this car, it runs just fine. And they would pour silica into the engine of this running car to lock the engine up, to destroy the engine. It wasn’t enough that they took the car to a junkyard. They had to actually destroy every bit of it so that nobody could come into the junkyard who needed an engine, let’s say, or spare parts to fix their other car.
They had to gratuitously destroy these vehicles. It’s amazing. It’s amazing. The destruction of it. Visual and physical manifestation of government destroying our options and our choices and our lives in so many ways. And that is a perfect. That epitomizes it. And it’s just, it’s. It’s. It’s amazing that people could sign up to that and they would go along with it across all of the United States that they would do this.
And the governor’s got involved. Money in front of people. Yeah. That’s how the government corrupts people, by. By offering them a bribe. Hey, we’ll pay you. What was it? I think they paid, what, $4,500 or $5,000. We’ll give you $5,000, you know, to throw away this vehicle. Okay, sign me up. Five grand. Yeah, I’ll take it. You know. Yeah, that’s how it works. Yeah. And, you know, obviously, with firearms buybacks, it’s a little bit easier to construct a gun than it is an automobile and, and to keep it hidden.
And so with these automobiles, now, if people want to do something, they’ll have to get them from Mexico or some other place where they might have been constructed that might have been older, you know, an entire generation of cars now just destroyed. It’s insane. Eric, I’d like to see if you’re. It’s not insane if your goal is winnow down transportation, you know, and that’s important. You know, it’s important to understand the why, because otherwise it’s inexplicable.
You shake your head and go, why would they do this? It’s perverse. Well, it’s not perverse when you understand the maliciousness of the motives. But that’s absolutely right. Absolutely right. And, you know, people might think that, oh, Eric’s being too, too harsh, or gardener’s being too harsh, or David Knight, if he speaks about this, if he is critical of these policies. No, this is malicious, as you say.
It is malicious, and it’s couched in, you know, it’s, as I mentioned for an MRCTV video, it’s the iron fist wrapped in a velvet glove, is what it is. You know, they put all these trappings of words and phraseology around it. But really what it is is it’s fascism. And it’s for a particularly, even worse goal to have even more control over us. And Eric, read their own documents.
Read their own statements. They’ve come out of the closet now, and they’re very plain and forthright about how they want to limit if not eliminated personal car ownership and driving by, you know, 2040 or whatever their end goal is. It’s insane. It’s, well, at least they’ll have government run vehicles like EV police cars and EV ambulances to chase after the bad guys, you know, except they won’t. That’s the, that’s the other aspect of this.
Just like John Kerry is not going to be flying coach commercially anytime soon. Yes. You’re not going to see the leadership cadre of the American Soviet Union going around in EV’s. You’re going to see them being ferried around in their 6000 pound armored plate glass windowed v eight suv’s just like Stalin was back in the day. The Politburo members had the best cars and everybody else had the you goes.
Yep. Yes. So true. It’s absolutely true, Eric. I wanted to show the audience of the David Knight show here. I’m Gardner Goldsmith, filling in for David Knight. Our guest is Eric Peters of ericpetersautos. com dot Eric petersautos. com. Check them out. See the great articles on politics on the nexus, unfortunate nexus between politics and your choices in the market, your ability to travel and look in his store.
It’s a very cool store. You’ll see his great and very witty products there. Eric, if I could get your comments on this piece from yesterday, elections matter. Tell people about that one, if you would, kind sir. Well, let’s preface this because, you know, this is something you and I often talk about, and it’s the dilemma that libertarians, principled people face about participating in elections. It’s such a nasty business to be involved in this thing and to be pigeonholed into this, this choice in air fingers quotes between evil and somewhat less evil.
You know, and there’s an argument which it resonates with me, I get it, that by voting, you’re helping to legitimize the system, and that’s certainly true. But I do think there’s an element of duress involved in elections. And in that case, you’re entitled to act defensively. And so voting to counteract your neighbor who’s voting to take away your liberty, I don’t see that as a morally bad thing.
And I don’t think that by doing that you’re somehow endorsing whatever evil this politician is going to do. Now, the piece focuses on what’s been happening in Virginia, which is where I live. Glenn Youngkin being elected over there. Yes, the Republican Glenn Youngkin was elected rather than Terry McAuliffe, the Clinton apparatchik really important. And it shows that elections do matter because there were 30 something bills that were put forward by the General assembly, which is controlled completely by the Democrats, that is, the leftists that would have all but completely criminalized most gun ownership, most gun buying in the state of Virginia.
Northam vetoed 30 of those bills. So ipso facto, it seems to me elections do matter. That’s not a small thing. It’s an important thing. And it doesn’t mean that at the same time you can’t hope for something better. You know, I understand that Glenn Youngkin is not Thomas Jefferson, but he’s also not Joseph Stalin. You know, I’d like to, I’d like to have somebody who’s at least somewhat closer to Thomas Jefferson than Joseph Stalin.
And I think that, that scales, and that’s essentially what the piece is all about. Yeah. You mentioned here, subjecting anyone’s rights to a vote every so often is like having them live at the foot of a leaky dam, leaving them in perpetual dread that tomorrow will be the day the dam bursts and washes away their life along with everything they’ve spent their life, their life working for. No one should ever be put in this position more.
Finally, no one should ever be in the position of having the legal power to vote, to have the state take away anything from anyone nor control him a priori, in any way, meaning leave him be unless he’s actually done something that resulted in a tangible harm to another person. And then you go into a little more explanation there because I think it’s important. It’s good that you provide that context as you explain what you’re seeing practically on the ground there.
Yeah, yeah. I mean, voting as such in the context that we live in, really, it’s, you think about it, it’s a macabre kind of a thing. And it’s, it’s something that enables people who, on their own probably would be ashamed if, if not afraid to go over to their next door neighbor, let’s say, fingering a pistol and saying, give me money or, you know, you’re going to take that, that bush out of your front yard because I don’t like it.
Most people wouldn’t do that because most people are, aren’t psychopaths, you know, but somehow it is. It enables psychopathy writ large. You go to the go to vote for somebody who’s going to do this awful, dirty business for you, you know, that you’re going to somehow benefit from. And then on the alternative side, there’s people who hate all of this stuff and who vote defensively, who go there in the hopes that, well, maybe at least I can minimize the damage.
And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. You know, you’re trying to minimize the damage that’s being done to you, and again, you’re under duress. It’s not like you don’t you have the choice, really realistically to opt out and say, well, no, I’m not going to participate in this. That’s fine, but it’s going to be done to you regardless. That’s the bottom line. Yeah. And it’s such a difficult thing to consider when entering into that sphere to say, okay, I think I’m going to make that decision.
Or if one does this hypothetically, because you never know what the politicians going to encounter in the future. So can you reliably, you know, you’re really taking a leap of faith in a way for this person’s integrity and that he or she will act on what he promised to say. I’m going to try to reduce the burden of the state. You look at people like Thomas Massey or Ron Paul or, you know, my friend Glenn down, Glenn Jacobs down in Tennessee, in Knox county, and you say, okay, you know, a lot of people in the free state project, you know, there are differing opinions between the pure volunteerist anarchists and the people who say, no, we’re going to try to participate in the state of New Hampshire.
And they’ve done some good things. They’ve been able to open up the ability for people to use medical marijuana and then to get marijuana decriminalized. They’ve opened up things about the respect the guard act and things like that. So it is interesting, and everybody’s subjective viewpoints are obviously going to be played upon, and they might permutate and they have differing opinions from everybody. But that core nugget of it, of the state is that great entity of force and coercion can’t be avoided.
And I think it’s very interesting when you look at that young and McAuliffe battle, because the people in Virginia are the ones that I know are so pleased that young and that they had, they don’t have Terry McAuliffe. That’s what I’ll say. Yeah, I think a good way to look at this, you know, to kind of deal with the, the creepy feeling that a lot of us have about participating, you know, about voting.
Imagine that you’re a slave. You’re a slave, okay? Your property, you’re owned. You’re on a slave plantation. And the master says, well, you can work in the house or you can work in the field. Okay, so as a slave, I think it’d be better to work in the house if I’m going to have to be a slave. But does it mean that you can’t, in your own head, be thinking about, okay, when I have the opportunity, I’m going to get out of this place, I’m going to take off.
So is there an incongruity there in the moment, you’re under duress and you have this option to better yourself within that system somewhat. It doesn’t mean you’re precluding the possibility of escaping, and it doesn’t mean that you sanction your own slave. It means you’re doing what you have to do to survive in a situation in which you’ve been put under duress. Well, I hope people will check out the piece, Eric, because you put a lot of thought into this and, you know, you take it from the ground in Virginia.
You look at the ramifications of what would have happened if Terry McAuliffe was just amazingly unscrupulous person, if he were to have gotten in there. And the people in Virginia have suffered so much under their prior governor that hopefully some things are going to change. I know a lot of people live in Virginia, obviously, as probably you do, and it’s really stunning to see that so many important factors of their lives are influenced by the state.
I often challenge people. I say when you’re driving along, look out the window of the car sometime and just see if you can see anything that’s not touched by the hands of the political system. And, you know, it’s, it’s not good, that’s for sure. Hey, why don’t we talk also, just real quick, about if people want to head over to Eric Petersautos. com about your Rumble channel and the videos that you put up there.
Yeah, sure. I think it’s under ep autos. I’m embarrassed to say that I don’t really know what my own title is over at Rumble, but I went over to Rumble because I had been on YouTube for a number of years, but then I got deep monetized and de platformed because I posted wrong, thinkful things. This happened to so many people. So I made the shift over to rumble, and I, and I just do these little monologues.
I’ve got this cheesy, really cheesy little camera thing that I use, and I take it with me when I go for a drive, whether it’s in my truck, my trans am, or one of the new cars that I test drive. And I just like to ramble and monologue about things that I think maybe might be of interest to people and might get a conversation going. So there’s a lot of that stuff up on this, on the rumble channel, if you’d like to take a, take a look at it.
And also over at your website, want to show the store where I’ve got the black and white cap. And I wear that often when I’m driving, and I’m very happy about that. You can see the safety t shirt and the kiev t shirt. You know, I think we’re going to have to make a Haiti t shirt now. Yes. Well, they’re going to. They’re making their plans about Haiti, aren’t they? Absolutely.
Absolutely. And it’s interesting because on redacted, probably maybe six or five months ago, they were like, yeah, watch Haiti. They’re going to do something in Haiti. And sure enough, they did, and they’re going to do more, unfortunately. Eric, so great to have you here. I really appreciate you being here. I want to, before you go, I neglected to go into Rockfin and rumble Chad, to just check up and see if anybody had any questions for Jacob.
And I’d love to do that with you. Absolutely. So over at Rumble and Rockfin chat, first I want to thank. Let’s see, we had someone who contributed. Michelle Obama said, dig the cardinal look, but let’s not go pope, okay? Because I’ve got the red. Absolutely. Absolutely. It’s my Star Trek red shirt look, I guess. Thank you very much. Thank you. That’s really nice. And of course, anybody wants to contribute, everything goes towards David show today and drop your comments and questions inside chat if you want to.
And then we’ve got, and I didn’t even get to talk to you about the Epstein Bridge, where now, you know, that’s from Tony Arden mentioned Epstein. Jeffrey Epstein dying. The lack of information. Yeah. Suddenly the black box isn’t functioning the way the black box is supposed to function. I don’t know what it means. I have a thought on that, actually. It’s worth anything, because I really know next to nothing about maritime stuff.
But I wonder, the thought that immediately occurred to me is whether these big ships are kind of like cars are now meaning that they’re not directly mechanically controlled anymore, so that when the power shut off, the guy who was in the pilot house, or whatever they call it, who was trying to steer the ship, you know, he would put inputs into his toggle or whatever. But that wouldn’t be translated into the appropriate motion to the rudder because it’s not mechanical anymore.
It’s drive by wire. So that might explain it, but I don’t know. Oh, that’s very interesting. That is very. That’s. That’s key. Oh, wow. And, you know, Eric, it’s. It’s fascinating to me to see this sort of thing, because, again, you know, it reveals incredible lessons. You know, it’s difficult because the first blush, people lost their lives, people were killed, and people tried to really act to stop this.
But then there are the ramifications of the supply chain and all that, things and all that. But there are lessons we can get out of this, and I’m curious to be interested to find out. I’m sure it will take someone with much more greater investigatory powers to be able to investigate the way those ships work than I have. But maybe things, you know, maybe some people will be interested in this.
I was amazed when David had the other. The other day. David was able to. He had found that YouTube channel where a man actually devotes most of his channel to maritime interests and navigation. He had the satellite stuff up there, and he was right on it. I didn’t see any network news people doing that. That’s. That guy’s particular interest, the particular area. Yeah, it’s nice. There’s a broader point, too, here, which I think everybody’s noticed, which is it’s like everything’s falling apart.
Airplanes are falling apart. Brand new airplanes. The door falls off the thing while it’s up in the air. The ship crashes into the bridge. Nothing works. You know, it’s like Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged is literally coming true right before our very eyes. Everything is falling apart because competence no longer matters. You’re right. Absolutely right. And the more we get a fascist system, and it’ll be more politics that matters more and more.
Well, Eric, thanks so much. It’s a pleasure. You know, my. My last couple minutes here filling in for David, and I’m glad I get to spend it with you in the audience and particularly for you. I want to thank you for all your great, great work, and I really appreciate. Eric, I’d love to get you back on Liberty conspiracy as soon as possible. We got to do the mind meld again soon.
Yes, yes. We’ll do the mind meld, the Vulcan mind meld, and we’ll watch more car chase stuff. That was so much fun, watching the seven ups car chase. That was great. And I’ve got some other ones for you obscure ones you may not be aware of. I’m not going to talk about it now. I’ll send it to you privately and we can talk about it on the next show.
All right? All right. That sounds great, Eric. Thank you. You do yeoman’s work. If I had my bar cap on, I would tell, I would take off my cap to you right now. Thanks. Guard. All right, Eric. Eric Peters, Eric petersautos. com, everybody. Remember the website. He is a phenomenal guy. The David Knight show is a critical thinking super spreader. If youve been exposed to logic by listening to the David Knight show, please do your part and try not to spread it.
Financial support or simply telling others about the show causes this dangerous information to spread. Father, people have to trust me. I mean, trust the science. Wear your mask, take your vaccine. Don’t ask questions. Using free speech to free minds. It’s the David Knight show. .
See more of The David Knight Show on their Public Channel and the MPN The David Knight Show channel.
