The David Knight Show - Eric Peters, Auto Expert Freedom Fighter, On The Government Destroying Older Cars & Our Future To Drive Independently

Episode Date: March 29, 2024

Eric Peters of EPAutos.com joins Gard Goldsmith to break down the electric Vehicle grift as well as the continual gaslighting of the American Public when it comes to “emissions” and more. Go to www.theDavidKnightShow.com for more, and watch Gardner each M-F with Liberty Conspiracy, at 6 PM, on Rumble, Rokfin, and Gard's X @gardgoldsmith For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHT Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @[e-mail] App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money is only what YOU hold: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

Every dollar counts to keep up with the bills or to help with the cost of raising a family. A little bit extra can make a difference. You might be eligible for benefits and credits, like the Canada Workers' Benefit, the Canada Child Benefit, the Disability Tax Credit, and the GST-HST Credit. You may also be able to get your taxes done for free. Find out if you qualify. Visit Canada.ca slash EveryDollarCounts for more information. A message from the Government of Canada.

At BetMGM, Ontario's best casino action is just a click away. Play thrilling games like Premium Blackjack Pro, the dazzling MGM Grand Emerald Knights, or try to score in Gretzky Goal Lucky Tap. It's all here at BetMGM. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only please play responsibly if you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you please contact connex ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of

charge but mgm operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario Let's get right to it, everybody. Let's bring in our guest. He is none other than Eric Peters of Eric Peters Autos. And Eric, welcome to the show. And I know you've been listening to the conversation with Jacob Hornberger, and you've got a lot to offer at ericpetersautos.com. People can follow you on X as at Libertarian Car G. And welcome to the show, my friend. How are you? I'm good, Garg. You heretical wrong thinker. 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 Mumy's 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 kind of got his 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 and do 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 that we, we can stop. We can go to net zero We'll stop the climate change 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 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 and I Always get subsumed and encompassed By we 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 yeah 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 of war. You must believe in the NZ because the final victory is coming. So the market, it's like you have to systematically destruct every sentence that these people speak. There is no market. That's the whole point. 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 EVs. Perhaps there'd be a handful of them, maybe as a boutique product somewhere. But all of this is 100% artificial government-induced craziness. That'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. 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 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 you know 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 uh connected uh government favored fascist crony, mercantilist state where they're going to work with certain corporations or they're going to work with certain NGOs 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 have, just to make the case for this, they very oily and slyly changed the definition of emission, 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 bears absolutely nil, 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. They look, you know, especially people who are old enough to remember what the cities used to look like 50 years ago.

You know, they looked outside. Yeah, the sky's pretty dirty and smoggy. It's kind of, you know, that's not good. We don't want that. Want to own part of the airline you flew with on your last vacation? Or part of the company that makes your favorite triple shot latte with extra foam? What about owning part of a company that one day could send you on a tour of outer space? Now you can. With partial shares from TD Direct Investing, you can own part of your favorite companies.

Just pick a stock and decide how much to spend on the share. It's a piece of cake. Learn more at TD.com slash partial shares. TD, ready for you. 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 and 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 the Guffin shirt, you probably saw me look up here. I got my McGuffin shirt. I have two McGuffin shirts and yeah, as, as well as your, your key. Yeah, absolutely. Awesome. You can't go wrong. Folks, check out ericpetersautos.com. And it's very interesting too, Eric, because I think in many of these cases, 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 L.A. basin. We saw politicians in L.A. and other

politicians saying, look how terrible this is. We've 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 as 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 and 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 in confidence because most bureaucrats are in confidence. 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 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 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? 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, i.e. hybrids. But you see the premise remains, you know, 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 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, busybody 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 moves by these politicians to do this sort of thing, you know, with EVs 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 that 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, you know, that's that's another manifestation in the long march. You make me think about the progressivism, you know, 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 M.O. 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 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? 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 news people do a great job on it. I watched it on YouTube over there, I think. Yeah. And he 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. You know, 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 so. Yeah. Yeah. Patient 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. It's like talking about car design or 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 this 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 hear somebody use a term like, oh, I haven't used that for a while. That

is spot on. Yes. And I think it's because they're that ideological. 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 cretin, 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 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 Moonies and the Hare Krishnas and people you'd see on the fringes of society. But 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, 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. But it's the same sort of thing with the climate, Kennard. You know, I was mentioning Al Gore was on with 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, 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. And he's been wrong. Oh, I think we just lost you for a second. You just glitched. Well, you know what? I've been wrong a lot of times. Maybe I should rethink this. And worse, people start hearing. 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. And again, some of this comes from as, as Hayek would have said, as you know, 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, you know, 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 More destructive storms than ever False, false, false The hottest year on record, 2023. Again, patently proven faults, 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 sea, you know? He's jumping in. He's like, well, yeah, well, you know, 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. The information problem 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 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'd get up, if you got up early at five o'clock in the morning or whatever, and you turn it on and it would just be the bars and then it would turn on? Well, now they've got to fill up all this airtime, 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. 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 legs? It's one thing after 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 H.L. Lincoln put out, who are in a state of panic are desirous to be led to safety. Right. Air fingers 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 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 the state itself. Where did I sign the 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 Auto's, 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. 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 a 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 bucks in 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 discrete 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. The signal's 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 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 50 years ago 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

To indulge ourselves in gimmicky things In gadgets Look at that It's got a touch screen It blinks and it things and gadgets. Ooh, 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 the 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 ericpetersautos.com. You can follow him on X as at libertariancarg, at libertariancarg. 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 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, 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 90s, even mid mid 90s in terms of electronic controls Improving the durability the efficiency and the reliability of vehicles you had throttle body and port fuel injection came along around those times

You had electronically control transmissions with overdrives Phenomenal phenomenal things that resulted in vehicles that will run reliably for 200 250 thousand miles with no 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 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 that control everything now in a lot of cases. You know, like that woman, I forgot her name, Chow, the rich relation of Mitch McConnell who backed her Tesla into the pond. Oh, yes, yes, Elaine Chao. The entire car is controlled by a gigantic touchscreen, this Tesla. So 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, notice 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 often make a mistake, right? 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, I, I, oh, sorry. Drive and feel it engage, you know, the motion, 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 touch screen. How long does your smartphone last? How many people are walking around with a 10 year old smartphone these days? Not many. As it fritzes out, you throw it away, you get another one. So what happens when your 10-year-old car smartphone fritzes out on you

after 10 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 are maybe two or more levels of the concept of autonomy, Eric, I probably, you know, not telling you anything new where you get 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. Um, and we did

it many times, got a nice little hill out in front of the house here. I was like, OK, we're going to do it. And but then there's the autonomy of the individual when it comes great, great succinct pieces about this idea of the speed controllers on the federal level. And Thomas Massey tried to stop that. When one of those going to come in 2026, they're going to impose those. Oh, 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've got to wonder, well, 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're anticipating the regulatory apparat, making it mandatory. So we just heard recently, you know, this predates Biden, by the way. But the thing is, you know, the Biden regime with the 2026 model years, they're going to have this this electronic capacity to shut down a car remotely.

Or if you 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 on an old dirt bike like, you know, a Kawasaki or something like that. And hopefully we won't get to those days.

There's not a push for that. You know, 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. Oh, 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, 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 can serve 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, you know, this is clearly 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 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 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, 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, you know, literally getting into, but liking them. Hey, this is my first car. Remember how excited we were when we got our first car? Absolutely.

We got our driver's license. Yeah, 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 know, you can't pick up a decent car anymore for 500 bucks like you and I did back in the day right that's what this clunkers thing was all about and then they used 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 gonna just just gratuitously destroy things i I mean, it was upsetting to me to watch. You may have seen some of those videos at the time. They would say, 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. I mean, it's such a visual and physical manifestation of government destroying our options and our choices in 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. The dangled 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 to throw away this vehicle. Okay, sign me up. Five grand. Yeah, I'll take it. That's how it works. Yeah, and obviously with firearms buybacks,

it's a little bit easier to construct a gun than it is an automobile 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've been constructed that might've been older. And an entire generation of cars now just destroyed. It's insane. Eric, I'd like to- It's not insane if your goal is to winnow down transportation. That's important. 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. That's absolutely right. Absolutely right. And, you know, people might think that, Oh, Eric's being too, too harsh or Gardner'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 MRC TV 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 and it's for a particularly even worse goal to have even more control over us. And don't take my word for it. 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 eliminate, personal car ownership and driving by 2040 or whatever their end goal is. It's insane. Well, at least they'll have government-run vehicles like EV police cars and EV ambulances to chase after the bad guys. Except they won't. That's the other aspect of this. Just like John Kerry is not going to be flying coach commercially anytime soon, you're not going to see the leadership cadre of the American Soviet Union going around in EVs.

You're going to see them being ferried around in their 6,000-pound armored plate glass windowed V8 SUVs, just like Stalin was back in the day. The Politburo members had the best cars, and everybody else had the Yugos. 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, ericpetersautos.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 choice, and 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 is 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 is voting to take away your liberty. I don't see that as 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. Right, with 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 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 day the dam bursts and washes away their life along with everything they've spent their life uh 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, it really is. When 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. Yeah. You know, you're going to take that bush out of your front yard because I don't like it. Most people wouldn't do that because most people aren't psychopaths, you know. But somehow it is, it enables psychopathy writ large. You go to the, you 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 you can it's going to be done to you regardless. That's the bottom line. Yeah, it's and it's such a difficult thing to consider when entering into that sphere to say, OK, I think I'm going to make that decision or if one does this uh hypothetically uh because you never know what

the politician is going to encounter in the future so can you reliably you know you're you're really taking a leap of faith in a way uh for this person's integrity and that he or she will act on what he promised uh to say i'm going to try to reduce the burden of the state you look at people like thomas massey or ron or, you know, my friend Glenn down, Glenn Jacobs down in Tennessee in Knox County. And you say, OK, you know, a lot of people in the Free State Project, you know, there are differing opinions between the pure voluntarist 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 McCullough battle, because the people in Virginia are, the ones

that I know, are so pleased know are so pleased that they don't have Jerry McCullough. That's what I'll say. Yeah. I think a good way to look at this, you know, to kind of deal with 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 slavery. 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, who's just an 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 who 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 not good. That's for sure. Hey, why don't we talk also just real quick about if people want to head over to ericpetersautos.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 deep platform because I posted wrong, thankful things. This happened to so many people. So I made the shift over to Rumble. 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 the Rumble channel if you'd like to take a look at it. And also over at your website,

I want to show the store where I've got the black and white Baa 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 key 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 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 chat 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 and 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 to towards david's show today and uh 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 they're now, you know, that's from Tony Arterburn 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. Not that 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 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 and but there are lessons we can get out of this and i'm curious to i'd be interested to find out i i'm sure uh it will take someone with much more uh greater investigatory

powers to be able to investigate the way those ships work than i have uh but maybe things you know maybe some people will be interested in this i 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 its channel to maritime interests and navigation. And he had the satellite stuff up there and he was right on it. I didn't see it in the 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, it'll be more politics that matters more and more.

Well, Eric, thanks so much. It's a pleasure. It's my last couple minutes here filling in for David, and I'm glad I get to spend it with you and the audience. And particularly for you, I want to thank you for all your great, great work. And, uh, I really appreciate it, Eric. I'd love to get you back on Liberty conspiracy as soon as possible. We've got to do the mind meld again soon. Yes. Yes. So 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 BAA cap on, I would take off my cap to you right now. Thanks, Garth. All right, Eric. Eric Peters, ericpetersautos.com, everybody. Remember the website. He is a phenomenal guy The David Knight show is a critical thinking

super spreader if you've 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 farther. 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.