➡ Milo Yiannopoulos, a former promoter of homosexuality and homosexual marriage, has apologized for his past actions and now criticizes the Republican Party for its hidden homosexuality. He claims that despite the party’s conservative and family values, many of its members and influencers are involved in homosexual activities. This has led to controversy and potential lawsuits. The article also discusses the manipulation and deceit within the party, suggesting that members are being used for propaganda and controlled opposition.

➡ The article discusses the impact of Trump’s tariff policies on the US economy. Despite the goal to reduce the trade deficit, it has increased by 23% from January to July, even with the implementation of various tariffs. The tariffs have also negatively affected the manufacturing sector and overall business costs, making it harder for households to make ends meet. Meanwhile, China’s trade surplus has reached a record high, indicating that Trump’s economic competition with China has been unsuccessful.

In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. It’s the David Knight Show. As the clock strikes 13, it’s Tuesday, the 9th of December, year of our Lord 2025. Well, today we’re going to take a lot of look at artificial intelligence. We actually have in the third hour, a guest, a best selling author. He’s done 25 books. He’s a, an MD who works in neuroscience. The book is the 21st Century Brain. And he’s been a consultant or lecturer at the CIA, at the nsa, the Pentagon, other places. So he knows something about where this stuff is headed.

We’re going to have to see what he has to say here about this. But we’re going to begin with what is going on in Ukraine. Is this the beginning of the end? Are these people going to be able to sustain this? Russia is rapidly advancing even though Zelensky is not even taking a look at the plan. And so we’re going to start with news. We’re going to also we have some interesting updates in pharmaceutical areas as well as an update in terms of Trump’s tariffs. Are they working? They finally got around to giving some bread crumbs to the soybean farmers, but we’re going to take a look at the bigger picture of the soy stuff.

So we’re back already. It ended soon. Sorry, I accidentally hit the button. That’s okay. All right, well, let’s start with the news here. And Trump said out loud, he said, I’m disappointed that Zelensky hasn’t even read my peace proposal. And I understand how he feels. I’m disappointed that Trump hasn’t even read the Constitution that he swore to uphold. Maybe he doesn’t like it. Just like Zelenskyy doesn’t like peace. His frustration continues to show, especially after high hopes for his 28 point peace plan. Yeah, we had this 10 point peace plan between us and the government. It’s called the Bill of Rights.

Tell you what, this is where we draw the line with what the government does and with our natural rights, our God given rights. But they didn’t respect that either. So he said, I’m a little bit disappointed that Zelensky hasn’t even read the proposal yet. Well, he doesn’t want peace and neither do the European leaders as well. So as he’s saying that you’ve got the leaders of Britain, France, Germany, all meeting with Zelensky, telling them, keep fighting, keep fighting, we’re going to win this thing. Except that’s not really what’s happening. He said his people love it, but he hasn’t.

Russia is fine with it, he said. And the assessment of what’s going on with Ukraine, of course, this follows after his son in law, Jared Kushner, and his former business partner, I guess you could say, Steve Witkoff, who now has emissaries for geopolitics. I mean, hey, if you can negotiate a big real estate deal in New York, that’s. Most of the stuff is about real estate, right? Whether you’re talking about Gaza or you’re talking about Ukraine, you’re still talking about people killing each other over land. And so he said they were not. They didn’t think that Zelenskyy was really serious about this.

Moscow, as I pointed out yesterday, really likes the document that was released, the first nss, which is the National Defense Security Agreement that’s there basically laying out the Trump administration’s perspective on foreign policy and national security. And I liked what it had to say. I just don’t believe that Trump is going to stick to any of it. But Russia reported on it. You didn’t have any reporting really from mainstream media here in America. So the Russians liked it because as they pointed out in the Zero Hedge article, the document characterizes Europe as weak while warning of an unpredictable, disunified atmosphere on the European continent, where in desperation, European leadership could overreact and escalate A war with Russia.

You think? I mean, they’ve been doing that up front in so many different ways. You got Fred Mertz in Germany and you got Keir Starmer in Britain as well as Macron in France. They’re all saying, you know, get ready for massive casualties and we’ve got to, we’ve got to draft more people in the army. I mean, they’re doing everything essentially to a declaration of war already. So Donald Trump’s first NSS since returning to office blames European officials for thwarting US Efforts to end the war in Ukraine and accuses governments of ignoring a large European majority, quote, unquote, who want peace.

Well, I agree with Trump on that. The Trump administration, I just don’t trust him on any of this stuff. Meanwhile, there might be another way to have peace, and that is for Russia to win. And it looks like that may be happening. One way to have it, lasting peace, is that we can have a lasting peace. Well, you could end the NATO provocation that is called Ukraine. It is a geopolitical construct that, as I pointed out before, the Ukraine was an area of Russia, an area of Russia for 400 years. And breaking that off as a separate entity and then creating a coup to change the government that then began a civil war that happened in 2014, 11 years ago.

So that is a construct of NATO, who decided after the Soviet disunion that they would eliminate Russia as a power. And so this has been a gradual policy of encroachment. They’re pushing for war. Putin’s army seizing land at one of its fastest rates since the initial invasion almost four years ago, says research. The Kremlin’s army seized 200 square miles of territory in November, up from 100 square miles the previous month, according to Deep State, a trusted Ukraine based battlefield map. How about that? They even call it Deep State. You know, let’s use that for our marketing purposes here.

The speed of advance was approaching the fastest since the initial invasion almost four years ago. But then you have the desperation of the war cult. Zelensky meeting with Keir Starmer, Manuel Macron, Fred Mertz. Ukraine is holding its own, they said, and doing even better. Ukraine is not on the brink of collapse again, reality has no meaning to these people. If we cannot immediately reach a peace agreement with Russia, it is essential that we give Ukraine all the support it needs so that it does not lose ground due to lack of support. Well, it is losing ground even though they are supporting it.

And this was something that many people said from the beginning, that there was no way that Russia was going to be able to outlast, that Ukraine was going to be able to outlast Russia. The comparative size of the two countries, militaries as well as, you know, the close proximity, it was in the cards that this was going to happen. A plan to end the war drawn up by the Trump administration involved Ukraine handing over vast tracts of land. And Ukraine and Europe have rejected the proposals. Well, that’s one way it’s going to end, and maybe it’ll end when they take the land.

The gains in territory risk helping to persuade Trump that peace should be set on Russia’s terms, that sending weapons and aid to Kyiv was a waste. Yes, really. Well, Brett, why does Keir Starmer want the war so much? And why does Fred Mertz want the war? Why does France’s Emmanuel Macron? It’s because their people understand that their governments are at war with them. They’re locking people up for mere comments as they create this police surveillance state and shut down all free speech. And in the uk, for example, same thing is happening in all these countries, being overrun with immigrants from abroad.

There is Fury in the UK as nearly 350,000 migrant families could get extra welfare after the new budget from Keir Starmer. So why does he want war? Well, because his own people are waking up to the fact that Starmer is at war with the British people. That’s why. 350,000 foreign born families and they found that 200,000 of them were from just 10 countries. Families from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria set to benefit the most from the 3 billion pound decision to scrap the 2 child benefit cap, analysts found. A Tory MP who carried out the research said, you have to ask whose side the government is on.

I don’t think you have to ask that anymore. I think they made that pretty clear. They like any third world migrants and they hate all the native Britons. And if you look at the chart that’s there, the 10 countries are Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Somalia, India, Ghana, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sri Lanka, that’s nine of them. There’s only one country that is European and that’s Poland. And so that’s 200,000 of the 350,000. The rest of the world is 150,000 immigrants from the rest of the world. And of course coming in for the welfare benefits. The welfare magnet that’s there.

So Milo Yiannopoulos and I don’t normally get into these. It’s amazing to me what a soap opera the conservative alternative media has become. But they’ve kind of been angling for this for a long time. One of the things that I criticized Charlie Kirk for was the fact that he was going around doing culture war events and he was putting out front a, a black guy who was a homosexual checking two DEI boxes. And as he’s going around talking about Christ and Christianity, he’s sending this conflicting message of supporting homosexual marriage. And he was called out on it by some, some people at some of the events.

And he got really furious. How dare you call this out? And I said at the time, I said this I think is very revealing because it shows what he’s interested in is big tent gop. He’s interested in getting money from backers and that type of thing. And to me it was a real betrayal of all the conservative things that he pays lip service to. But the entire Republican Party is like that, but especially the alternative media. And so Milo Yiannopoulos has apologized for helping to sell and normalize homosexuality and homosexual marriage. And where did he do that with the alternative media? Milo says he’s become a Christian and rejected that.

And now he is outing a lot of other people that are living this closeted, as they say, lifestyle. We’ve seen this for a long time in the Republican Party. And Milo’s point is that homosexuality is rampant but hidden in the gop. I mean, there’s been reports when they have their large conventions that Grindr, you can see the spike in Grindr activity, which is a homosexual dating app. You can see it where they’re meeting Geolocation. And we’ve seen it in the past. I mean, the longest serving speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, was put into Congress from being a wrestling coach.

That was his qualification for getting Congress. Actually, it wasn’t. His qualification wasn’t being a wrestling coach. His qualification was being a pedophile wrestler coach. And then that lawsuit caught up to him eventually. But while he was in, there was a paging scandal. Not pager, I guess the pages. The young boys that go to Congress because they want to get experience in politics, they got a different kind of experience than they were expecting. And so there was a scandal there with Mark Foley. And so Dennis Astert, before all this stuff broke about him, went on with Rush Limbaugh and they just pooh, poohed it.

Oh, this is just nothing but partisan politics. Just same type of stuff they’re doing now with Pete Hegseth and what’s happening with the murder of people in international waters. So, yeah, it’s just partisan politics. Nothing to see here, except we did see what it was. So Milo is saying that in his opinion, it is everywhere within the gop. Now, he might have a bit different perspective on it since he was holding himself forth as a homosexual. And again, of course, they’re still doing this with Scott Pressler, the guy with really long straight hair, you may remember him.

He is a favored person for the, for the GOP in terms of representing them. And they’re normalizing this. And so Milo has rejected that and he has apologized for normalizing that, which, by the way, none of the influencers have. And so, you know, people like Charlie Kirk, people like Alex Jones have been normalizing this type of thing. As a matter of fact, he went on with Tim Pool, who was also playing this game. Tim Pool had Milo on. He had George Santos. Why would you put George Santos on unless it’s some kind of a clickbait thing? And so Milo is making all kinds of statements about all these other conservative influencers, Candace, Owen, and even Charlie Kirk and Alex Jones saying that they were involved in homosexual activity.

So I don’t know. And so already you had Benny Johnson, who he said that about, said he’s going to sue Milo for what he, what he said about that. He made some very specific statements about it. All I can say is that, you know, when you look at how they’re using this, the people who say that they’re for conservative values, that they’re for family values, and then they do this kind of stuff, I mean, it’s just look at, you know, Alex Jones platforming Blair White, this guy who dresses up like a woman. And so again, Tim Pool put all that stuff onto his.

Into his podcast. All I’ve got to say about that is the reason I mention this is not to get caught up in all of this gossip and all the rest of this stuff, but just take these people and look at what they do. Look at what they do and look at what they say. Ask yourself, then, why would you trust them? You know, very interesting there was, in terms of January 6, Trump has, according to some sources, was trashing the people who were the conspiracy theories around January 6th. And then you got people like Nick Fuentes.

It was put up by Shannon Joy yesterday, and I don’t have it in the deck here, but it was footage of Nick Fuentes yelling, people, go over there. Go over there. Directing people on January 6th. And I’ve said from the very beginning, why did they not focus. Why did they focus on Ray Epps, right, and not focus on Fuentes, on Alex Jones and all these people who have been running Stop the Steal, all the people who enticed them to come. And, you know, it’s like Ray Epps is there saying, yeah, we got to go over there as well.

Fuentes is doing that that day as well. Why does he get a pass? Is he a fed? The question is, when you look at this stuff, are they selling this stuff for clicks? Are they selling it because they’re being funded by people who want to use them to propagandize. You use them for controlled opposition. And I think that it really, in the long term, doesn’t really matter that much. They’re manipulating you, they’re lying to you. And that’s the key thing that you need to know. It’s a trap in many different ways. Well, I’m going to take a quick break here because there’s something going on.

I need to find out what is happening with this. And we’re going to continue. When we come back, we’re going to talk about a man who died from eating cockroaches. If people swallow some of this stuff coming from the conservative influencers, I guess, somebody who is kind of like swallowing cockroaches. And if you get too Much of it. It can be a very bad thing for you. So we’re going to take a quick break, folks, and we will be right back. Satan. Sam, You’re listening to the David Knight Show. APS Radio delivers multiple channels of music right to your mobile device.

Get the APS radio app today and listen wherever you go. Well, welcome back. I was trying to figure out what was going on. Everybody’s scrambling and running around here, and I didn’t know what the issue was. It turns out that we had some issues with Rumble streaming, so that’s now been fixed, and we now have everybody back in their proper assigned seats. So if you want to be on Rumble but went somewhere else, you can now go back to Rumble and watch the show there. Yes, well, as I promised, we’re going to talk about some real.

Something really important here. But I think it is an apt metaphor for our times in a number of ways. A man’s horrifying death as he ate cockroaches in a competition. And this is just yet another warning. You probably don’t want to get into competitions of drinking and eating stuff, whether it’s hot dogs or even water, especially cockroaches. But I’ve talked many times in terms of how dosage is so important. The woman who was part of a ra, they had a radio contest that was going on, and they thought it’d be funny to give people lots of water and then not let them go to the bathroom.

And a lady died because the water, basically, if you get a lot of water and overdose on water, it will dilute, I think, your blood or something to the extent that it kills you. And it killed that one woman just in terms of doing a stupid contest. This guy, stomach lining. That dilutes stomach lining. That’s the method. And then it just leaches out into your system. And your body’s not. Your body needs water, but it’s supposed to stay in its proper place. Wow. Well, this guy, 32 years old, collapsed and died as part of a contest.

And guess what the prize was. A python. I want that python. Give me those bugs. I’ll eat the bugs for the snake. This is a strange barter economy he was in. He’s trying to eat Z bugs, and he ate too many of Z bugs. The interesting thing is when I saw this, I thought, so are these things toxic? I grew up in Florida, where we have really large cockroaches, palmetto bugs that we call them, to try to put a. I think a nice. Soften the blow a little bit. Put a Nice spin on it. A label.

But they’re filthy things. And so I thought, you know, was it toxic? No, it was actually. He just respirated cockroach parts. He’s trying to eat them so quickly. And so he died from asphyxiation. Got him stuck in his throat. His girlfriend said that he had eaten bugs before, and she was his girlfriend. So there’s somebody out there for everyone, guys. That’s right. Such a pity that he died eating bugs. He loved eating bugs. So it involved not just cockroaches, but it had several different rounds of eating different species of insects. And I don’t know if these were the big.

This was in Florida, but I don’t know if it’s a big Florida. Cockroaches and palmetto bugs. They said they were measuring 3 or 4 inches long. Kind of sucks that they got to the cockroach round and then died there. Yeah, Maybe grasshoppers would have been better. I don’t know. But the. What you’re consuming can come in a plague. Stop eating it. This might have been the Madagascar roaches or something. It’s three or four inches long anyway. I feel like those would be too expensive. You know, those are pet people want to buy. Yeah. They said he was eating these things really quickly, and then he began retching.

I guess most of people thought it’d be nothing unusual after eating a bunch of cockroaches that you would start to throw up. But maybe that’s why they evidently didn’t give him the Heimlich maneuver. I don’t know. But in the video, you can see him trying to swallow and breathe at the same time. We can’t do both of those simultaneously. That’s right. So question from the New York Times. Is, is Hollywood getting God? I guess you’d have a T shirt probably eventually. Got grass? Yeah. Instead of got milk, you can say got God, you know, or something.

But I don’t think that they get God. I don’t think they understand God. I don’t think they ever have understood God. And a good example of this is something that is happening today. Today is the 60th anniversary, December 9, 1965, of the airing of Charlie Brown Christmas Special. And CBS really didn’t get God. The whole God thing. They didn’t get the whole Christmas thing either. It was kind of interesting because it was sponsored by Coca Cola. Coca Cola during the summer of 65 in June, as a matter of fact, came to CBS and said, we want to have a TV special that we want to sponsor.

Well, you know, Coca Cola doesn’t really like Christmas. It doesn’t like Christ and Christmas. They’ve done everything they can to put Santa in his place. And these AI commercials that Coca Cola has done, they got a lot of criticism for it. But they scrupulously avoid using the term Christmas having anything to do with Christ. And so they were going to be the sponsor of this. And so they said we’re on a really tight schedule. And there’s actually a documentary, in case you’re interested. The making of the Trolley Brown Christmas. It’s a documentary. Bill Melendez is still around and he was the animator.

And so he’s one of the key people that they talked to about it. And they said, we didn’t know how we’re going to get this thing done. So they brought in Charles Schultz, who was. They had already picked, said, we wanted to do something with peanuts. They called him Sparky. That was his nickname. And they said he was really incredible as a creative. He wasn’t just a cartoonist, he was a storyteller. And he did these things that came out of the woodwork. Sometimes I would just sit back and like, wow, this guy comes up with great ideas.

And so he was able to put together the outline for the show in less than a day. They sent the outline to Coca Cola. They got on Monday. On Tuesday they called up and said they’d do it. So they. And it had the objectionable scene in it, which was Linus reading the Bible passage from Luke. But they didn’t really catch on to that, evidently. And so the TV executives, once they got the show delivered to them, were very unhappy with it. They said they didn’t like the kids voices, which I thought pretty good. They didn’t like the jazz music.

They said that doesn’t fit. Which of course that has now become a classic. It’s iconic. Yeah. And they didn’t like the Bible being in there. They thought that was too controversial. It’s like all the things that everybody likes about it. CBS TV executives hated it. That’s how totally out of touch they are with everything like this. That’s why Hollywood is circling the drain and well on its way to being flushed out, because they really don’t get it. Yeah, you have more shows like this now. In fact, you couldn’t even really have them back then. Most of the time.

This was lightning in a bottle. Got past them. That’s right. That’s right. They’ve been completely out of touch and anti Christian for decades. Probably since inception. Like 60 years. Well, yeah, if you look at Hollywood. It was pretty amazing. There was an interesting BBC series, is narrated by James Mason and the actor. And it’s talking about the early days of Hollywood, the silent films. They called it something about silver screen. And we had it in our video stores. It was really interesting because it talked about how they made the movies and, you know, why movie stars wear sunglasses.

Because they were spending all day in these really bright lights, these carbon arc lights that they were using, I think. And it was doing a number on their eyes. And they really needed to get their eyes shaded when they went outside. They needed to rest. You know, a lot of different things like that. But how the camera, you know, how they would do stunts. Everything was real. I mean, there was no special effects. They did it for real. I mean, Lillian Gish is on a ice floe and she’s on a real ice floe. I mean, this is not a staged thing.

And when they would the cameraman, how would they keep the steady flow? I mean, it does look a little bit jerky in terms of the movement and that type of thing. But the cameramen were picked because they could turn the crank and manually crank the film through the camera at a constant rate. So they all had a song that they would sing to themselves and that would be how they would pace themselves. But these guys had to keep this stuff up. Even when they strapped them to the wing of a biplane or something, they were up there rolling this thing as they were flying around on the biplane.

And so it was a fascinating series, but from the inception, you can see just how perverted. I mean, the whole thing was like Jeffrey Epstein party continuously, all these different people. That’s why they had the Hollywood code that came in. But they’ve been completely out of touch with the rest of society from the get go and they don’t get it. But what they do is they manufacture a new reality, they manufacture a new consent. They’re not reflecting culture, they’re driving culture. Anyway, back to this. In the outline, Schultz Sparky had insisted that there be a scene from the Bible.

And at the time, hardly any TV shows referenced scripture. The move was very risky. Mendelssohn said, bill and I looked at each other and he said, oh, we don’t know if we can animate from the Bible. It’s never been done before. And Charles Schulz said, well, if we don’t do it, who will? So they went ahead and did that. That became part of the famous scene. This year again marks the 60th anniversary. The TV special. 12-9-1965 and 7:30. And it’s the 75th anniversary of the Peanuts comic strip. So he had that comic strip for about 15 years before they picked him to do the film.

So this is a short segment. We’re going to come back though, and we’re going to talk about the technocracy and some of the mounting problems that driving cars that are going to take over the world. AI is going to run the world and going to run us. But it can’t even navigate the Chick Fil a drive thru. They’re working on an app for that. And so we’re going to take a quick break. And Lance, did you put in the Charlie Brown thing? Yeah, I believe it’s called Christmas Time and Christmas Folder. Okay, yeah, let’s see if I can get that here.

I got it, I got it. Yeah. All right. Yeah, we’ve got a little bit different visuals this year with the help of AI for our Charlie Brown song. We’ll be right back. You’re listening to the David Knight Show. Elvis, ladies and gentlemen, the Beatles and the sweet sounds of Motown. Find them on the oldies channel@apsradio.com. well, as we talk about what everybody was watching 60 years ago today, the government watches you, the TV watches you back, the refrigerator watches you back. As a matter of fact, there was an interesting kind of funny story that Lance had shown me.

And there was a woman who was suffering from paranoia and she had one of these refrigerators that plays commercials all the time. And it just. And it was a commercial for kind of a sci fi dystopian film. And the character in the film had the same name as this woman. And so the perpetrator starts playing this thing and calls her out by name. And she thought she was having a psychotic episode here. But I guess when they’re really watching you, maybe it’s not psychotic. It was a woman with schizophrenia. And she got these messages for this TV show in which some group or AI or something is talking to this woman through various devices.

So it’s putting up these messages like, sorry we disappointed you, Carol. And the woman’s named Carol and had been diagnosed as schizophrenic. So she thought she was having a psychotic break. Yeah, if I ever get a car that talks to me, I’ll have to get the sound bites in there from 2001. Sorry, Dave, I can’t do that. I was thinking you were going to go maybe Kit from Knight Rider or something like something less malevolent. No, no, it had to be malevolent from My opinion, talking about the malevolent use of technology. Axon Enterprise, this is the company that is the biggest vendor of body cameras for cops.

But of course they’re also famous for developing tasers. And now what they want to do is. And I thought it was interesting that the number two body camera company was Motorola. And I said, you know, this is the way everything is going in the world. You know, because of the government’s money, they’ve taken over all consumer manufacturing and everybody is now catering to the government. That’s their customer. That’s especially going to be true of artificial intelligence. But it has definitely been true for quite some time in terms of the technology companies that are here. Even consumer based companies started getting into defense contract work because it was so lucrative.

The police body cameras are equipped with artificial intelligence trained to detect the faces of about 7,000 people on a high risk watch list. And they’re rolling this out in the Canadian city of Edmonton. I have to ask myself, you know, when you got a. I don’t, I should have looked up the population of Edmonton, but when you got in a town, I don’t care. I mean, if it’s New York City, if you got 7,000 people who are dangerous enough that they need to be on the bolo, you know, be on the lookout for, maybe there’s something wrong with the government system and the court system that you have these people on the streets in the first place.

So that’s my first concern is why are 7,000 people being allowed that they say are dangerous? Why are they allowed to be out there then? The second issue is that if these people are dangerous enough that they’re going to instantly alert the police and say, be careful of this person, you know, they’re very dangerous, they might be a threat to you. We’ve seen that type of thing done, labeling people as sovereign citizens. Remember how they did that after the, what was it, 2008 or something where you had Chuck Baldwin and Ron Paul ran for president and they were telling police officers with these fusion data centers, they were telling them that if they pulled a car over and had a bumper sticker supporting Chuck Baldwin or Ron Paul, these people might be sovereign citizens.

So you better be on the lookout for them and they might try to kill you. So you know, you got the police take the safety’s off their gun, they’re on a hair trigger here. And that’s a real dangerous thing when you falsely identify people as they did with that. These people are not a threat to the police. But this AI can Do the same thing. This AI can say, this person looks like, I think we’ve got this particular guy. And you might be completely innocent. And you’d be misidentified by artificial intelligence. And because it’s hyping up the police and telling them that you’re dangerous, that that could threaten you severely.

So we’ve gone beyond the no Fly list type of stuff, and so now they want to do this. So they’re running this out as a test in Edmonton. And I hope the AI is in their ear as they’re getting this. Just feeding them full metal jacket lines, you know, show me your war face. Just getting them really hyped up, pumped up, ready to go. Rock and roll, Heavy metal. That’s right. Draw your gun right now. Pull it on. Yeah. Regardless of the population size, if you’ve got 7,000 people who truly deserve to be on a terrorist watch list, that’s going to be a war zone.

I know. That’s what I’m saying. I don’t know. The population is of Edmonton, but it doesn’t really matter. Even if it was New York City or some large area, 7,000 criminals out there that you’ve got to alert the police as to how dangerous they are. That’s a. That’s a crazy situation. That means that the whole policing and justice system ain’t working, folks. Yeah, it’s like, I’m convinced There’s at least 7,000 people in New York that are criminals. I am not, like you said, not convinced there are 7,000 criminals in even New York that you need to immediately alert the police on.

That’s right. Yeah. They could be criminals because of something that they do that’s not a threat to other people. Nevertheless, the interesting thing is that this is brought up six years ago by them and also considered by Motorola, who is now the number two provider of police body cameras. They’re both talking about matching this with artificial intelligence and doing a biometric database, because although that is much more sophisticated now, they’ve been working on this type of thing for quite some time. And so one of the guys who used to be the chair of Axon’s ethics board spoke out because he resigned because of unethical behavior from the Corporation.

Back in 2019, he and seven other people resigned from Exxon when the CEO had this great idea. Let’s put our tasers on drones. It’s like it just keeps getting worse when you look at these corporations that are part of the police state industrial complex. I had this great idea to put Tasers on drones, my entire ethics department quit. But this will be great for our bottom line. That’s right. So after getting rid of the ethics department with the tasers on drones, now he is free to do artificial intelligence connected up to the police body cameras and he said it’s not essential to use these technologies which have very real costs and risks unless there is some clear indication of the benefits.

Said the former employee who was there for ethics. He was the board chair for ethics. Barry Friedman, who is now a law professor at New York University. The founder and the CEO of Axon though says that the Edmonton pilot is not a product launch, but it’s an early stage field research that will assess how the technology performs and reveal the safeguards needed to use it responsibly. So you better believe that if this thing works at all, they’ll be selling it and they don’t really care if it gives false positives, if it identifies you as a criminal.

In testing, in real world conditions outside the US we can gather independent insights, we can strengthen oversight frameworks and we can apply those learnings to future evaluations, including within the United States. So he’s testing it outside the US and believe me, they will sell this as safety for law enforcement officers. It will be like wildfire the way everybody will snap this thing up. So they’re in the process right now of making their case for it. Oh look, we tested it in Edmonton and it worked great. We already know how that’s going to be to go. This is just like the way the pharmaceutical companies test their drugs, you know.

Yeah. Look at, here’s our study here that we did ourselves to show how safe and effective this is. So the person who is now the director of Responsible AI, they don’t call it ethics anymore. So we really wanted to make sure that it’s targeted. So these folks, that’s targeting these folks who have serious offenses. Okay, so again, why are 7,000 people serious offenses at large in Edmonton? And if it’s a serious offense and they misflag you and they say they have a real issue under certain lighting conditions, they have an issue identifying accurately people with darker skin.

And so this is, this is going to be a disaster. It’s a disaster in the making right here. I think I’m getting to think if they’ve got 7,000 hardened criminals on the streets, that maybe the Mounties don’t always get their man. That’s right, they get a man. Not necessarily the one that they needed. But we can promise you someone is going to prison that’s right. Our AI drones aren’t all that great at picking out faces in low light, but let’s put a whole bunch of Tasers on them and send them out in swarms. If we put out enough of them, eventually things will work out.

Just Tase. There are enough people. You’ll get the criminals. Yeah, it pays for everybody. We’ll sort it out later as they’re laying on the ground. What is that military saying? Accuracy through volume of fire or something like that. You don’t have to be precise with your shots. If you just shoot enough times. Lethality, not legality. Right? That’s the new motto of the Pentagon, Pete. Department of Defense. Because they haven’t changed the name to War Department yet. So anyway, they talked to Motorola, and Motorola said, well, we took a look at this and we decided not to do it because we thought it’d be unethical.

We intentionally abstained from deploying this feature. However, we might do it in the future because ethics are changing. Right. Morality is up for negotiation, especially if your competitor is doing it. And so if Axon does it, Motorola will do it and it’ll explode and we’ll see it everywhere. And they’re all going to be coming to the local mayor, whoever, and say, well, if you won’t do this for us, you really don’t value our lives because we’ve had a police officer over here that was killed under these circumstances, we could have stopped that with this thing. So it’ll be on them.

This is clearly unethical. We don’t want to be the ones pushing it and at the forefront of it, but we’ll hold off on it. That’s right. Studies showing the technology is flawed. They demonstrate biased results based on race, gender and age. What else is there? Race, gender and age. That pretty much covers everything, doesn’t it? I suppose if the drone were to sit you down and ask you about your religion, it could discriminate based on that. Well, it doesn’t match the faces that accurately. So, again, it’s a real risk to somebody to be given a false positive like this.

All of us would be at risk, even if we’re not a criminal. Several US States and dozens of cities have sought to curtail the police use of facial recognition, although the Trump administration is just fine with it, and they want to block or discourage states from regulating AI. You see, if the Trump administration gets its way, you wouldn’t be able to pass a state or local ordinance saying, we’re not going to let the police use that kind of stuff. It’s AI. You got to get your hands off of my donors, businesses, right? They’re free to do anything they wish, just like his friends in the pharmaceutical companies are fda free to do anything.

And so that’s what the Trump administration is really pushing for. Same thing that was done to protect the glyphosate model, the Roundup model. The European Union has banned real time public face scanning police technology across the 27 nation bloc, except when used for serious crimes like kidnapping or terrorism. But in the UK authorities started testing the technology on London streets a decade ago and they’ve used it to make 1300 arrests in the past two years. The government is considering expanding its use across the country because the UK wants to be the leader in this kind of Orwellian tyranny.

They have seen 1984 as a manual. Axon doesn’t make its own AI model for recognizing faces and they decline to say which one they’re using. You know, when we look at the uk, the way they have gone into this, gone over to the dark side, maybe it would be a fitting thing for them to just change the name of the country, especially under Keir Sarmer. Remember the, under Orwell it was Ingsoc, right? Like English socialism. And of course Keir Starmer is a socialist, so just call it Ingsoc. It’s also great that they’re not relying on their own model.

So if something goes wrong and these things start tasing people, they have to then send off to some third party company to go, hey, by the way. Well, what they like about that, it gives them plausible deniability. It wasn’t us, it was this other company. And you know, if it’s something that’s produced by Zuckerberg or Altman or Musk or whatever, you know, the Trump administration is going to give them a pass even if it makes an egregious error there. So they said about 50 officers piloting the technology won’t know if their facial recognition software made a match.

The outputs will be analyzed later at the station. However, in the future it could help police detect if there is potentially a dangerous person nearby, so they can call for assistance. And you know, it’s, with all of this happening, it’s kind of interesting. I went back and watched a little bit of Robocop because in Detroit they’ve just erected a Robocop statue. And I thought, why are we, why are we honoring this kind of stuff? I mean, Detroit looks awful in that movie. You know, they, they send in mechanized robots to keep order and to use these, these heavy guns like 209.

It comes. Put down the gun. I said this is. This is kind of like the Venezuelan boats, right? Put down the gun. They put down the gun, dude. Now I got five seconds to put in. And everybody’s scrambling because they know this thing’s going to unleash fire and just starts shooting him over and over again. So now they’re embracing that. You do? Yeah, let’s play that. There it is. Ed 209. He’s probably got facial recognition technology as well from the TSA. Is 209 the iteration number or the number of rounds it’s going to pump into your corpse? I guess.

The Enforcement Droid Series 209 is a enforcement droid robot. 209 is currently programmed for urban pacification. But that is only the beginning. After a successful tour of duty in Old Detroit, we can expect 209 to become the hot military product for the next decade. Dr. Magnar, we’ll need an arrest subject. Mr. Kenny. Yes, sir. Would you come up and give us hand, please? Yes, sir. Mr. Kenny is going to help us simulate a typical arrest and disarming procedure. Mr. Kenny, use your gun in a threatening manner, pointed at Ed 209. Yeah, Ed doesn’t care if you threaten a human, just don’t threaten it.

Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply. I think you’d better do what he says, Mr. Kenny. Existence. You now have 15 seconds to comply. You are in direct violation section 9. The engineers are furiously trying to rip. Rip out the electronics. Yeah, and he just keeps using physical force, so we’ll cut it to that point, but you get the idea. Pete Heth wants to know where he can get one of these things for Venezuela. Can I use that out of a helicopter? So anyway, the criminology professor in Alberta says he’s not surprised the city is experimenting with live facial recognition, given that technology is already ubiquitous in airport security.

That’s why the TSA is there. It is training for all of us. Right, and that’s what they’re training you for, facial recognition right now. And so again, they resigned because the Taser equipped drones. So now they don’t have a ethics board. They’re free to do this kind of stuff. Well, you had Nvidia CEO Huang goes on with Joe Rogan and has a jaw dropping AI prediction. He says in the future, maybe two or three years only for from now, 90% of the world’s knowledge will likely be generated by AI. Well, this is a self Serving prediction if ever there was one.

If he really believes that, why is he having to do the circular financing of other companies in order to keep pushing his stock higher and higher? It seems like the market would take care of that. And so he’s involved in circular financing fraud. And so Rogan says, well, I don’t know. That’s crazy. He said. Wang said, yeah, I know, but it’s just fine. Rogan says, but it’s just fine. Why? He goes, well, let me tell you why. Wang said, it’s because what difference does it make to me that I’m learning from a textbook that was generated by a bunch of people I didn’t know, or knowledge that was generated by AI computers that are assimilating all of these and resynthesizing things to.

To me, I don’t think there’s a whole lot of difference. Yeah, as a matter of fact, you can be propagandized by textbook companies and the school board or the government or whatever, or you can be propagandized by our AI. What is the difference? And that’s the key thing you need to look at. You need critical thinking. You need to look at the source and you need to check it out for yourself. And that’s true. Before we had AI, a lot of people didn’t do it. That’s why AI is going to be so much more dangerous, because people would just trust it because it’s coming from the machine.

They’re going to assume it’s an unbiased source. Like, oh, look at this, it’s a robot. It doesn’t have an agenda. It’s not trying to sell me something. That’s right. It removes the people who are trying to do that one layer and people just forget they exist. Yeah, yeah. The man behind the curtain thing, you know, so you’re interacting with the wizard of Oz head that’s up there. But you don’t realize that they’re. There’s people behind the curtain that have been hired to program their particular biases and things into these issues that they find important. I’m sure Grok was just purely truth seeking when it said that it would be better for humanity to lose 49% of its population than for Elon Musk to die.

These things are purely unbiased truth seekers. That’s right. That’s right. So again, you know, it is a tool that is ripe for manipulation, says this article. That’s right. And that’s the real key with it. It’s ripe for surveillance and it’s ripe for manipulation. But Then again, so are the schools, so are the textbooks, so is tv, so is movies, so is social media. These are all tools that are ripe for manipulation. So in that regard, AI is no different from them. It’s just that people have, over time, some people have got their guard up for these other forms of manipulation and propaganda.

AI is going to come in from a different way in a rare show of spine. And this is, this is all critical, right? This is coming from Steve Watson, and he’s rightfully critical of this and skeptical of this. But then listen to this. He says, however, in a rare show of spine from Big Tech, Hwang declared President Trump to be our president and cheered him on. How is that a show of spine, Watson? I don’t get it. Look, this evil scumbag is saying, Trump is his president. Isn’t that wonderful? But, you know, he is a sycophant and he just came from a meeting with Trump where he’s looking to make money for his business.

And these guys know that Trump is their ally. So how is Big Tech now? And the Democrats, they’re all good now because for somebody like Steve Watson, they are so embedded in this because they are now kowtowing to the Trump cult. He’s now got a spine. It’s just the opposite. He looks straight at Joe Rogan. He said, president Trump is my president. He is our president. Just because it’s President Trump, many want him to be wrong. I think the US we all have to realize that he is our president and we want him to succeed because it helps everybody, all of us, to succeed.

Well, he certainly is helping all of the AI technocrats to succeed. Isn’t Jensen Huang Taiwanese anyway? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Again, it’s dual citizenship, I guess. But he is his president. If he’s going to give him massive subsidies, protect him from any restrictions in terms of his business, this is what is happening here. So, again, he really focuses and so do other people, not just Steve Watson. He’s taken this article from a thing that’s put up by Vigilant Fox. These people are. They do the articles, they do the posts simply because somebody said something good about Trump.

Look, this is a powerful person who says something good about Trump. And we want Trump to succeed because Trump is our success as well. You know, Trump is the success of people like Vigilant Fox and Steve Watson, just like he’s the success of the technocrats who are going to be getting the government subsidies for these projects and who are going to be protected from any regulation at the state or local level because of Trump. The remarks come amid Hwang’s whirlwind DC tour where he was bowing and scraping before all these people going to take your money, take your freedom, take your dignity and hand it to these billionaire technocrats, where he huddled with Trump and Senate Republicans to slash export red tape on AI chips, warning that here it is.

Patchwork state regulations could cripple U.S. dominance. They always call it that. Patchwork state regulations. We don’t want to have patchwork regulations. We don’t want to have a different approach in different states. No, we got to have one ring to rule them all. And that’s going to be coming out of Washington. That gang will tell everybody. And this is a violation of the 10th Amendment. What Trump is pushing for, pushing against patchwork state regulations. Where does it say in the Constitution that you can subsidize these companies? Where does it say in the Constitution that we can’t have any control over what these companies do in our state? As a matter of fact, it says just the opposite.

So he’s there lobbying for protection from competition and regulation, lobbying for Trump to violate the 10th Amendment and he’ll get what he wants. Trump’s energy push is defying the green zealots. He says that’s what Steve Watson says. This energy push for AI. Let me tell you something. People are angry because they see the power rates going up because of this green grift that is out there. Oh, we gotta can only generate power that is created with new devices made by my corporate sponsors. Well, guess what? The corporate sponsors of Trump who are going to be building these cause massive disruption of the grid in order to feed their AI data centers.

And this AI energy grid requirement is going to drive your prices up further and faster than any of the Green New Deal stuff. That’s the bottom line for us. You want to pay more for electricity and have less of it. Well, you know the Democrats have a plan for that. It’s called solar power and windmills. If you want to pay more for electricity and have less of it, the Republicans have a plan for that. It’s called AI data centers. Wang’s line of there being no difference between what is coming from the AI and coming from somebody writing a textbook, says Watson ignores how these ghosts erode the soul, the authenticity and erode jobs.

Paving the way for a world that is scripted by code, not by creators. He talks about that in the context of Solomon Ray, a chart topping singer. That is just done by AI Huang’s vision thrills, but it demands guardrails we don’t even have any guardrails on. Trump gonna get guardrails on his corporate sponsors. So it is as all this is happening, just to put this in perspective of this omnipotent AI, it is a real threat because it is going to be combined with government and that’s the real threat. The surveillance, the control, the propaganda and the auditing of all of us all the time.

But when it comes to things like self driving cars, they’re having difficulty getting through the Chick Fil a drive thru and some of them have gotten stuck in it. And so there’s going to be an app for that. One person looked at this and said, oh, it’s a business opportunity. They’ve come up with a startup company called Auto Lane and what they want to do is develop a kind of air traffic control system that will be specific to a particular business. So you get people to come to your Chick Fil a drive thru. If Chick Fil a does a thing with Auto Lane and the people who don’t drive cars who are being driven around in self driving cars can tell it to go to Chick Fil A and they’ll be able to navigate there without getting caught.

And so they’re looking at selling this to a lot of big box retailers, a lot of fast food chains, and even mentioned selling it to some of the big real estate investment trusts that are managing shopping centers or things like that. And that’s where he sees his market. He said we don’t work on public streets and we don’t work with public parking spots. So what he wants to do is he wants to partner with these private businesses so they can say that they are self driving car friendly. This is the pathetic world that we are headed into here.

We’ve gone from London taxi drivers who could keep the destinations in London in their head and had this massive hypocal part of their brain, whatever it was. I don’t remember Hippocampus. Yeah, it might have been hippocampus. Yeah. I don’t know which part got larger. Actually I started to say it, but I don’t know if that was the part that got larger. But you know, we have our shrinking brains because our responsibilities are shrinking and we’re using them less. And so turns out they said American roads are not too friendly to self driving cars and they’re not friendly to pedestrians.

You can tell this is coming from the perspective of an urban planner. They love cities, they love people walking, they hate cars because cars are used by people to get out of the cities. As fast as they can, they want to keep you capped between the London streets and memorizing all that and being able to navigate a Chick Fil a parking lot, drive through. That’s right. The founder described the company as one of the first application layer companies in the self driving vehicle industry. Says we’re not going to build the car, we’re not going to navigate on the road.

What we would do is we’d have a special app that gets layered on top of it. We aren’t the fundamental models, we’re not building the cars, doing anything like that. We’re simply saying as the industry grows, has exponential rates, someone is going to have to sit in the middle and orchestrate, coordinate and kind of evaluate what’s going on. And when I saw this like air traffic, I remember a discussion that we had, Eric Peters and I years ago were war gaming out this where this AI thing is headed for self driving cars. And Eric was right.

He said these things don’t handle interaction with human beings that well. So we’re going to have to eliminate human beings because that’s our first priority is to get the AI and the self driving stuff out there. And so if there’s a problem between AI and humans, humans have to go, which means human drivers have to go. He said, you stop and think about it. You have air traffic control at the airports to make sure these planes don’t collide and they keep big distances between themselves and big distances vertically as well as in their same plane. And so he said how’s that going to work with artificial.

With the self driving cars you’re going to have to get most of the cars off the road and or they’re all going to have to be self driving cars so they can communicate with each other. You know, if they can communicate with each other you can get them doing the. Forgot what they call it. It’s like a caravaning thing or something where they get the cars get right up against each other bumper to bumper because they’re communicating simultaneously and whatever the front car sees it can instantaneously apply that to all the cars in a row. And so it’s like caravanning or something like that.

But they sell that as a feature once they get all the humans off the road. And so now they’re starting to talk about the air traffic control model. Yeah, we’re going to have complete control of all the cars here. Well just guess what, you know, when they set this thing up and they’ve got all the self driving cars going through the drive through it’s not going to be very friendly for you and so they’re gradually going to squeeze you out of it. I think another important thing to focus on is just you have a right to travel.

You have a right to, you know, freely travel without impediment eventually, in my opinion. That’s what they’ve been telling us for the longest time. You need to have a driver’s license because driving is a privilege. It’s not a privilege, it’s a right. I mean, if you’re doing it commercially, they can regulate it. They should not be regulating anything. We shouldn’t have to have driver’s licenses to drive around. I’m with the guys who are the sovereign citizens pushing back against this. I just know, however, that you’re not going to win in court because the courts are rigged, so don’t go down that road.

But anyway, they’re right in principle. Yeah, if you focus on the fact that they’re unsafe, that they do stupid things, eventually they will reach a point where they don’t anymore. These things will eventually probably become statistically safer than the average driver because of the number of idiots we have on the road. And if you focus on the safety aspect, eventually that’ll go away and you won’t have an argument anymore. Yeah, you have to focus on the fact that it is your right as a human being to travel and drive yourself and control your own destiny in that sense.

The freedom and dignity, you know. And again, when you look at human drivers, how much of the ding against human drivers is really a ding against drunk drivers? Right. Or worlders that don’t speak English. Yeah, I’m tired of being lumped in with the drunk drivers and having to be stopped on the road to make sure that I’m sober. And so what they’re doing is they’re lumping me in with the drunk drivers again to say that the machines are safer. They had a waymo this year that got stuck in one of Chick fil a’s fast food cul de sacs.

Couldn’t find its way out. But that’s nothing new, actually. They’re getting stuck in a lot of different places that are there. So, yeah, I’ve told this story before, but one of the last times we went to North Carolina just to visit some friends. As we’re coming back, I looked over and there’s a woman in a Tesla. She’s got her phone in her hand and she’s picking her nose with the other one. And she is just completely checked out. She’s not looking at the road, she’s not paying any attention. And I personally can believe that possibly the self driving feature on that car is more attentive and better equipped than she is.

Well, she would. If she didn’t have self driving, she’d have to at least have one handle. She’d have to pick one which she wants to. You want to look at your phone or you want to pick your nose and drive? My nose or pick my phone? Which one do I do? The thing is, they know that’s not a good driver currently, so they say, oh, well, you’ve got to be alert and aware and ready to take over when it inevitably tries to kill someone. But these people just say, oh, well, it’s gonna drive itself. So therefore I can, you know, play on my phone and pick my nose and not worry about any of it.

And that’s the worst possible circumstance under which it can throw it back to you. Right. You have an emergency that’s quickly developing on the highway. Here, you take the wheel. That’s what happened when that. I have royally screwed up everything. I have made a horrible mistake. Here you go. Enjoy your last three seconds of life. Turned into oncoming traffic. This is a disaster. I am so sorry. That’s right. And then, you know, Tesla looks at it and says, well, it was under manual control when the accident occurred. That was the case of that woman who was killed in Phoenix.

Right. She was a homeless woman pushing a grocery cart across the road in the dark. And the person who was a human driver, couldn’t see her. She was jaywalking, probably would have hit her anyway. But everybody was saying, why didn’t the AI put on the brakes? And I said, well, because it kept deploying these emergency brakes without there being a reason. And it got really dangerous. So we turned off the emergency braking system. And so it saw this person at the last minute and throws it back to the woman and she’s, you know, playing with her phone or whatever and she can’t handle it either.

Well, Google’s AI has deleted a user’s entire hard drive. That’s how they get the metrics that show that these things are so safe is because they always throw them over. And don’t count it as a accident from the car. It’s an accident from the driver. That’s right. Not my responsibility. Right. So, yeah, Google AI has now deleted a user’s entire hard drive. You know, we had this. We had this story once before, and it was an entire company. Remember that? I just deleted everything. All of your business records. All of your customer records, everything. I did it.

Yeah, I’m sorry. I did it. You know, that’s what this one is saying. You even told me not to do that. Yeah, you’re right. Yeah, you said don’t do that. But I did it anyway. I cannot express how sorry I am that I’ve deleted all your data. Well, we can only hope that that happens once they put the government. Put it, give the government databases to the AI, Perhaps it’ll just delete it all. That would be nice, wouldn’t it? We can hope and dream. Yeah. We’re gonna take a quick break, folks, and we will be. Sam.

Sa. You’re listening to the David Knight Show. Sa. And now the David Knight Show. If you like the Eagles, the Cars and Huey Lewis. In the news, they say the hotter rock and roll is competing. You’ll love the classic hits channel at APS Radio. Download our app or listen now@apsradio.com. well, welcome back, folks. We’ve got a lot of comments. Stealth Patriot, thank you very much for the tip. He says, do you think the AI police surveillance state and self driving cars is the infrastructure the Trump supporters thought they were promised? I’ll bet they’re tired of winning.

I haven’t seen any of them put this stuff up and say, I voted for this. I voted for ed. 209. Ed. 200 and nine voted for Ed. No, I didn’t. I’m afraid that’s what we’re gonna get. That’s why I don’t think we got that in the, in the board anymore, do we? That Apocalypse now thing, the animation of the Trump meme, I literally just took it out yesterday. Yeah, that’s why I went with that. Because it’s not just the wars that he’s starting unnecessarily, but it’s the war that he wants to have domestically. And I think when you look at what’s going on in Venezuela and you look at these flimsy lies that they’re putting out, well, these people are running drugs and that’s a threat.

That’s a violent threat to us. That is as absurd, folks, as the left saying to you that speech is violence. Drugs are not violence. Drugs are a black market. And when you create a black market monopoly, you will get violent gangs who will compete with each other. And yet they’re using that to say that it is violence. It’s their prohibition that is violence. The drugs are harmful and I don’t recommend anybody take them. I just know that we already had this experiment Once we did it legally with alcohol and it was a massive failure. But he’s using that.

If you use those arguments that are being used by the Pentagon, those same arguments could be used and will be used, I think, to do violence on the street to people without due process. In the same way that his hero Duterte in the Philippines did that on the streets of the Philippines. He wants to do that here. Go ahead, read this. When you gave me that ED209 clip to put in, I thought that was in reference to the attacks on the drug boats. Allegedly after they. That’s right. Drop the drugs. Yeah. You have five seconds to drop the cocaine to get off the boat.

You trying to float down the river? Yeah. We will open fire in 40 minutes. Yeah. So evidently, from what we’re told, the only way these people could have not been killed was if they decided that they were going to swim back to shore. If they tried to float on the boat, then that’s a threat. Crazy alien poop. Evolution says cockroach eats bait. Poison, man eats cockroach. Could happen in any restaurant. Thankfully. I’m pretty sure that the quantity of poison in a roach would not actually negatively impact you based on your size, however. Just gross. Gross. It is also a roach eating contest.

You get enough of those guys with poison. Hopefully they weren’t just out there collecting roaches off the ground. Hopefully these were specifically procured roaches. Since this is a reptile store, I’m assuming that these are like the Madagascar cockroaches because it said they were 3 to 4 inches big. Maybe some kind of particularly bred cockroach that these reptiles like to eat. We have Owen61 saying Somali appetizers delicious. Assyrian girl should have let the python eat the bugs and himself eat the python. Fairly certain, Fairly certain. The pythons have enough sense to not be eating cockroaches. I think they go for something that’s higher up the food chain, like people.

If it’s a Burmese python, who knows? Those, those can get large enough that they can pose a threat. However, your average python, since it was Florida and since they’ve got such a problem now with the Burmese python, I’m assuming that it was a Burmese python or something. Maybe, maybe they made those outlawed. I think they may have. Well, I know for a fact that you know, as a general rule, if you’re going to keep a Burmese python, you need a specifically set up enclosure because that thing is going to get massive and if you don’t have one, you are eventually just going to end up getting Rid of it.

Probably releasing it into the Everglades. Narrow way, Narrow gate Ministries. How disgusting. Cockroaches are filled with all sorts of bacteria and diseases under the Levitical laws. Levitical eating laws. Only locusts and grasshoppers are clean to eat. All their flying, creeping are unclean and you shall not eat. That’s what I say. Yeah. I always tease my family because they like lobster. And I said, I don’t eat water filters. These are the. You know what’s in the Levitical law. That’s one of the other things I think is kind of interesting. How did Moses know that these things that are scavengers, that are eating waste and anything, like cockroaches or the shellfish and things like that.

How do you know that that would be harmful for you? So you can look at it and say, well, I’m told I can’t do this. Or the other way you can look at it is God is telling them, don’t eat this stuff. And you won’t get the diseases that the Egyptians get when they eat this kind of stuff. Stay away from the water filters. Delicious water bugs. High boost. New Stephen King movie concept of Christine. But it’s an AI Smart fridge. Yeah, it works for ice. Beware of your smart refrigerators. They work for ice. Yeah. Seems like you’re buying a lot of tamales there, friend.

Perhaps we need to report you. I mean, I think the AI Smart fridges are already about as evil as they could possibly be. Yeah, they’re already spying on you. They’re doing everything that they have the capability to do except respond. Spoiling your food. That they can do that is against you. You know, it was about a decade ago that Petraeus. Petraeus, I always. I’ve called him betrayed so much that I. But Petraeus went from the military to the CIA and he made that statement. He said, your refrigerator isn’t going to be smart and they’re going to be spying on you.

That type of thing. We talked about that and everybody. Oh, you conspiracy theorists and everything. It wasn’t a conspiracy theorist. Conspiracy theory. It was a conspiracy, but it wasn’t a theory. He had said they were going to do it. And now we see it everywhere, don’t we? It’s amazing. Real Jason Barker says, my wife wants a new TV and we cannot find one that does not have the smart features anywhere. Yeah, it’s a huge nuisance. They’re completely and utterly just. They don’t do anything useful. They’re obnoxious. They get in the way. Well, you’re gonna have to go back to an old CRT TV if you want to avoid them at this point.

Yeah, yeah. I was gonna say you just make sure that it’s not connected to the Internet. But unlike your thermostat or something like that, you need to connect the TV to the Internet. That’s the problem. They got you there. Yeah. I’m becoming convinced that 4, 3 is actually the superior aspect ratio for TV viewing. Why is that? That’s cozier. It focuses the view. You don’t have all this extraneous information on the outside of the screen. If you’re looking for something like an imax, that’s a spectacle, maybe that’s what you want. But for TV shows it’s a bit cozier, it’s a bit comfier.

You’ve got your little cast there and you’re focused on them. You don’t have to worry about all this nonsense on the periphery. Thought you’re gonna say it’s because for free doesn’t spy on you. Yeah, I prefer the black and white stuff actually, if I’m gonna watch tv. I guess aesthetics reasons. Real Jason Barker. All the new TVs listen to you. They have Alexa or other voice functions. I hate talking to robots. I refuse to. Goldsmith. I remember reading that Charlie was based on Charles Schulz’s own younger days and personality and that he eventually married that red haired girl.

Very nice. Oh, that’s great. Good for him. Yeah, he was a cool guy. I liked him a lot. Yeah, yeah, very relaxed guy. Like what was the guy, Mr. Roberts or something? Mr. Roger Rogers. Yeah, Mr. Rogers neighborhood. Yeah, yeah, he was. As a matter of fact, they have brought him back with AI so that he’s doing all kinds of things that really the original character would not do. So he’s part of the. The. As Sora was coming back, they were doing all these things with Stephen Hawkins, doing races in his wheelchair and things like that.

But donuts, the stuff that they did with Mr. Rogers was I think even funnier. So go ahead, Brian. And Deb McCartney says you cannot reason with a robot. And that’s right. You just have to put the weapon down. Guard. Goldsmith says, did you see the way mo cars had been passing school buses that are releasing kids. Time for a code check. That’s right. I guess it doesn’t recognize the. The law or the yellow paint because that’s what keeps the school buses safe. Right. You don’t have to have seatbelts. There’s no safety devices in there. There’s no Airbags, no seat belts, nothing.

It’s just they’re covered with yellow paint and they’re covered with walls, and maybe it’s hard for it to see it. You know, they had these things keep hitting. It’s interesting. It’s almost like somebody is sabotaging them. They have a propensity to hit fire trucks, police trucks, and to threaten school buses. But it’s okay. They’re safer than we are. Right. And we should have more of them. Real Jason Barker says, do the AI in data centers actually consume the water or just require initial filling of a closed loop system like your car uses? Yeah, I don’t know.

I mean, it’s. They, you know, they’re using it for cooling and they put these power plants, you know, on the edge of bodies of water for quite some time to recycle it through. So I don’t really know. It seems like you’d be able to recover that, but who knows? Well, I saw something that was saying it’s different from just power plants because these things require cleaner water. So it’s essentially taking up water that has been purified and treated, that could be used as drinking water and running it through their system where I suppose it evaporates off and then they have to.

Or maybe it’s just no longer drinking water. And so. So that’s what they mean by consuming water. Right. So you had some purified water that had been treated, or something had fluoride in it. So what happens when the AI centers consume fluoride? Do they get stupid as well? I don’t know. I can’t wait for the tech cults to emerge and they’ll just be selling you the holy water that was used to cool the AI data center. Drink. Drink the water. Real Jason. Read that one. Fonzie Bear. Minority Report. Cars always looked like what they want. Minority Report.

Cars always looked like what they want to come to be. Yeah, the weird little bubbles that are completely unstylish. Uncool. Yeah. Minority Report. Another pretty good movie. Pretty communist aesthetic to a car. It’s sort of like the car equivalent of wearing pajamas and a jump or a jumpsuit everywhere. Yeah. Yeah. Where do we wear pajamas now? Everywhere. Everywhere. Tsa. Tsa. Everybody goes and they fly because they’ve imposed that kind of authoritarianism on us. Nibiru 2029. Self driving cars will drive auto insurance rates beyond affordability. That’s right. You want to drive your own car? Well, sorry, buddy, you’re gonna have to pay through the nose.

Well, I’ll be treated like teen drivers I was, when I was getting my first car, there were a few I was looking at. Of course, you know, as a guy you’re looking at some of the nicer low end sports cars, things like the, whatever, the Scion frs. And the insurance on that thing was going to be ludicrous. It would have been a massive, like a substantial portion of the car’s actual cost per year to ensure that. Because again, young guys get that and they just wrap it around telephone poles non stop. So you got a Nissan 300, twin turbo.

Yep. It was great. Insurance rates on that of nothing. Right. Well, I mean, considering how infrequently that thing ran. Yeah, that’s true. Didn’t have to have it insured. Yeah, I had a, had a friend I worked with who was into one of these rice rocket motorcycles, right. And it was really fast motorcycle and it was expensive. I mean it was just under $20,000. But he said the insurance was going to be prohibitive. He said, this is. They’re charging me so much insurance I could buy a new one of these like every year or two. And he goes, how do you justify that? He goes, and I’m not even a threat to anybody else really.

With this motorcycle, you know where you’re going to get a big bill. It’s like, you know, they don’t have to pay for the people that I hit for the most part just going to scrape me off of it. That’s the thing is just if you’re on the motorcycle, if you have an accident, you may not even need insurance where you may go beyond your necessary mortal concerns. If you have an accident on a motorcycle, very much more likely to happen in my opinion. Jerry Alitalo State supposed artificial intelligence, autonomous warfare, Minority Report surveillance and other horrific aspects of technocracy and transhumanism stand in the way way of American dystopia.

R+ excuse. Mm. The another interesting thing is the Minority Report video game from way back in the day was actually pretty good. Didn’t follow the TV story, but it was still entertaining. Which is like a beat em up, shoot em up. Don’t frag me, bro. The false promise of safety and security is the oldest argument by tyrants for peasants to give up their freedom. Pezono Vante 1776 Just like they lumped the criminal misuse of firearms with. With firearms owners. Yeah. All gets thrown into one reference to the drunk drivers being counted and determining how safe human drivers are.

Yeah, that’s right. Yeah. You shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun because Criminals shoot people. And it’s like, well, people defend life with that as well. Well, you know, Trump has finally come. Remember, they were talking for the longest time about how they were going to help the farmers that he had hurt with the tariffs. Don’t worry, help is on the way. Yeah, we just gave $20 billion to Argentina, and they use that to set up a deal with China. So China doesn’t buy our agricultural products anymore. They get the soy directly from Argentina. And that was a massive double cross of the farmers.

Trump had already betrayed the farmers in his first administration with tariff rates that caused the them to not be able to sell their products. But then he doubled down with this and said, well, we gave $20 billion to Argentina and we got another 20 billion that we’re going to put together with people on Wall Street. So all together, we’re going to give them 40. Don’t worry, we’ll give you $12 billion someday. Well, that was back in September. Here we are in December, three months later, and now he’s talking about it being imminent. I’m delighted to announce this afternoon that the United States will be taking a small portion of the hundreds of billions of dollars we receive in tariffs.

We are making a lot of money from countries that took advantage of us for years. They took advantage of us like nobody’s ever seen. Our deficits are way down. He took advantage of the farmers who voted for him because of the election, because without the election, you wouldn’t have tariffs. You’d be sitting here losing your share. But we’re taking in billions. We’re really taking in trillions of dollars if you think about it, Scott, because the real number is, you know, when you think of all the money being poured into the country for new auto plants and all of the other things.

AI so what we’re. Some of that’s not happening. A relatively small portion of that, and we’re going to be giving and providing, providing it to the farmers in economic assistance. And we love our farmers. And as you know, the farmers like me, because, you know, based on. Based on voting trends, you could call it voting trends. All right, that’s enough of lies. All of that is a lie. Okay? And if we. We’re making trillions of dollars, but I’m going to give them $12 billion, even if it were true, he’d be reprehensible because he’s going to give them more, one thousandth of what he’s bringing in and wait for months and months as these guys are circling the drain, struggling to survive this Is America last, folks.

This is not America first. Trump says the $12 billion bailout plan for farmers will come from the tariff revenue. You know, this is one of the most amazing things. This is better, actually. Tariffs. Why didn’t we think of this before? This is better than the Federal Reserve. This is better than the Democrats modern monetary theory where we just have this magic money tree that we can print the money and it doesn’t make any difference and the deficits don’t make any difference. You know, just create money and wealth out of thin air. It’s even better than the Federal Reserve thing because, you know, they’re getting in all of this revenue and it isn’t raising anybody’s prices.

Right. It’s not hurting any manufacturing or farmers here in this country, except that it is. And apart from the arguments about how the taxes should be structured, the worst thing about Trump’s tariffs has and remains the capricious, arbitrary, continually shifting environment that it’s created, making it impossible for people to be able to do business. Whether you’re a manufacturer or whether you are a retailer importing stuff or whether you are a farmer, this has been absolutely chaotic. As I pointed out before, we have the Chicago Commodities Exchange because farmers needed to have a way to make sure that they knew what their price was going to be.

They could lock that in in the future. And so that’s why you have the commodity futures market. And yet what Trump has done is he’s taken all that away. I guess we could say that with the Trump capricious, arbitrary, ever changing tariff policy, there is no futures for any of us because what he’s taking away, the package includes $11 billion in A1 time payment to crop farmers. And oh, by the way, there’s this interesting little thing there from the Department of Agriculture Secretary Brook Rawlins saying, yeah, we’re going to get these things out in February of 2026.

So it’s still not coming. He’s waited three months. You know, they hinted at it, he had Scott Besant hinting at it. Trump announces it. But this isn’t actually going to be going out. From what I can see, based on what Brooke Rollins said, it won’t happen for another two months yet. So they’re going to go half a year with this. So the aid package comes as the U. S. China trade war has hit soybean farmers especially hard. I would just say that it’s the Trump trade war. China had blocked all purchases of Soybeans from the US China was the biggest buyer of US soybeans in 2024, accounting for 12 and a half billion in sales, China agreed to purchase 12 million metric tons of soybeans now in the final two months of this year, and 25 million metric tons in 2026, 27, and 28, on par with levels before the trade war.

But what CBS does not say. I’m sorry, this is abc, not cbs. At what price? You know, it was a double whammy from Trump. Not only did he cut off their biggest customer, but that created a glut of soybeans on the domestic market, and it took the price down. So the question is, at what price do they get this stuff that actually matters? It’s amazing they don’t even think about that. But what they’re doing is, even though it’s abc, they’re just kind of whoever wrote this thing is just going with the talking points of the Trump administration.

So far, China has purchased only two and a half million metric tons of soybeans, not the 12. So they got a lot of catching up to do here. The administration’s new actions also come on the heels of the administration’s $20 billion bailout of Argentina, which Scott Besant said he was going to make it 40 in terms of helping put together some private funds, a move that many American farmers and lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle criticize this fall. As China stopped buying all soybeans from U.S. farmers, it purchased soybeans from Argentina instead. So the U.S.

was giving a financial lifeline to Argentina, a country that directly benefited from the trade war. American farmers said they felt left behind. They and at the time, Chuck Grassley in Iowa said farmers are very upset about Argentina selling soybeans to China right after the US Bailed out. And there’s still zero US Soybeans sold to China. And that was back in September. And it’s taken them this long to firm up their promises, but still not to help the farmers. Trump, in his first term, also took action to bail out American farmers, except that he’d already bailed them in to his tariff regime.

He’d already hurt them. This is like somebody breaking your legs and then handing you, giving you a wheelchair and boasting about the wheelchair they gave you. His administration approved two packages in 2018 and 19 totaling $28 billion for farmers impacted by his economic policies. Many of them were saying, well, he nearly put us out of business with these tariff policies. Now he’s putting us out of business with the COVID lockdown. So again, the announcement was made yesterday. So meanwhile, the run up in soybean futures over the past month over a resolution with China. Crop prices are still close to 2020 lows.

Now, this is zero hedge. This ABC didn’t even think about the price aspect of it. That’s the all important thing. You go out and you make a deal with China. And let’s say, you know, I don’t have any idea what soybeans cost or what quantity they sell them in. Say they we’ll call it a widget. You put them in a widget. I don’t know if it’s a basket or barrel or whatever it is a bushel or whatever, but you got a widget full of soybeans that goes for $10. Then after this, he wants to make a deal and he wants to show that he’s getting them back up buying soybeans and they agree to it.

So what did he do to get them to agree to it? Did he say, well, now you can buy the same quantity of stuff, but we’ll sell you these, will sell you these soybeans at $5 per widgetful of soy stuff. So again, they’re taking advantage of the low cost right now. Is that what they’re doing? So as they announce this, Trump is saying this wouldn’t be possible. This money would not be possible without tariffs. Here’s the truth, folks. It wouldn’t be necessary without tariffs. He wouldn’t have to give them a bailout if he hadn’t bailed them into his Trump trade war.

You know, these farmers that are suffering from the tariffs, well, without the tariffs, I wouldn’t have had the money to give them a piece of it. I’ve taxed these people to death and now I’ll dole out a small amount back to them. That wouldn’t be possible if I hadn’t taxed them to death in the first place. That’s right. And here’s why I say it’s not going to happen until 2026. This is CNN reporting now says Rollins said the money would be flowing by February 28, 2026, the very last day of February. We’re going to get the money flowing.

So we’ll make the first payment in three months now and explain that a billion dollars of the funding is being held back to make sure all specialty crops are covered. She credited Trump for opening the markets through trade deals without directly acknowledging how tariffs have impacted farmers. Again, you close the markets and now you open it and so now you pat yourself on the back for opening the market that was open before you Closed it. All this is based on a lie. And so what you’ve been able to do is to open those markets up again and move towards an era where our farmers are not so reliant on government checks.

Here’s the bottom line. He was just boasting about the fact that after he disrupted the sale of the market, sale of soybeans at market prices to China, after he messed with the market price, after he closed it off and shut it to zero, now he’s going to open it back up and they’re going to purchase it at levels that they were buying before he started any of this nonsense. Just amazing. Are you tired of the winning? I’m tired of the whining about all of this stuff and the fact that he is lying to everybody about this.

Some farmers have previously bailed at the idea of aid. Mark Reid, a director for the Illinois Soybean association, said, farmers don’t want free aid. We want free trade. There you go. That’s what they had before he messed with it. Well, reason says the Trump tariffs have failed to reduce the trade deficits. How should we assess whether the Trump tariffs have been effective or successful? Well, it’s an important question. Trump has outlined overlapping and confusing and sometimes comparison competing goals for the tariffs. He has celebrated them as a source of government revenue, for example. But he’s also claimed that they’re meant as a negotiating tactic.

They can’t be. Both tariffs used for negotiation are meant to be removed once the negotiations are complete. He’s also said they don’t mention it here, but he’s also said we’re going to use the tariffs to make sure that manufacturing moves back to America and look at all the windfall profit that we’re going to make. Well, again, you can’t have both of those. You’re either going to use it for negotiations and then take it off, or you’re going to use it to get businesses to come back. If that’s your goal, to get businesses to come back, do manufacturing here domestically.

But if they do manufacturing domestically, then your tariff revenue goes away. So he’s always putting out these contradictory ideas and everybody grabs whatever they want. They think, well, he’s going to make so much money, we’re going to get rid of the income tax that’s floating around again as well, thanks to Trump, except that he’s talking about how he’s going to make all these different tax changes that he’s done permanent. And so that you might want to think about what he’s actually saying here. There’s also the fact just that I don’t see the government generating revenue as a win.

No, there’s no. If we had a government that was actually, you know, working on building infrastructure, even that, I don’t necessarily think that’s the government’s place to do that, but you could at least make that sound good, like, oh, we’re going to build better roads, we’re going to build nicer parks, we’re going to build really cool. He’s going to hand it to monuments instead, it’s going to go to his friends and it’s going to go into the military industrial complex and the police state industrial complex and the surveillance state industrial complex. The government is not going to do anything that will benefit the, the common citizen with it.

And again, it’s not their place to do that, I don’t think. But at least then you would be getting some benefit, some use for it. There’s no planned benefit for it. And we don’t want to see the government taking more and more control of the economy. But Trump does. Trump tariffs are solution to every problem. And the trade war is more about the vibes than it is about economics. But when Representative Brendan Boyle, Democrat, pressed, Jameson Greer, the US Trade representative, said, what would success look like? Greer gave two clear metrics. So, first of all, the trade deficit needs to go in the right direction.

In other words, down. And manufacturing as a share of gross domestic product needs to go in the right direction, needs to go up. So if it’s going to be a success, as they pinned them down, they said, okay, well, Trump wants to talk about revenue. What is your view as a trade representative for all this stuff? What are you trying to see happen? Well, I want to see the trade deficit go down and I want to see manufacturing go up. Well, what has happened more than six months later, neither goal is any closer to being achieved.

Neither of them seems likely to be completed over the long term by an economic policy rooted in barriers to trade. Trump has been obsessed with the trade deficit for years, but he doesn’t really care if he even understands the budget deficit they point out, which is the difference between the revenue they bring in and what they spend. That is far more important than the trade deficit. But he’s not going to put his own house in order. From January through July, America’s trade deficit was $840 billion. It was 23% larger than the same months in 2024. Okay, so her stated goal is we want to see the trade deficit go down, defined as we want to sell more to other people than they’re selling to us.

Except it increased by 23%. Even with all of Trump’s manipulation here, it also reflects now a well established fact that tariffs do not reduce trade deficits. During his first term, Trump raised various tariffs, but the country’s trade deficit climbed from about 481 billion in 2016 to 679 billion in 2020. So over four years it goes up, let’s say maybe about 50%. Right. But under this new regime of Trump tariff policy, it has gone up 23%. The trade deficit has increased 23%. So by their metric, and of course, no matter whether Trump has these contradictory explanations at all, he is definitely wanting to see the trade deficit go down.

But it went up 23%. Tariffs are no better as a tool for boosting manufacturing rather than being helped. The manufacturing sector is being crushed by tariffs, increasing the cost of raw materials and of intermediate goods. And it’s not just manufacturing. It’s all businesses. Whether people are in retail or anything else, they can’t tell what their costs are going to be because who knows if Trump is going to have something gives him indigestion and he’s going to try to punish the country that he bought that food from. You know, it’s just, it’s that petty. If he has an argument with somebody who is a political leader in another country, he slaps them with tariffs.

So during a speech in July, the trade representative, Greer, added a third goal for the administration’s tariff policies. Increasing real median household income. Well, tariffs are making it more difficult for households to make ends meet. An October study from the Harvard Business School shows that retail prices had declined throughout 2024 and early 2025 and then began rising in April after Trump’s tariffs were announced. The Trump administration’s tariff policies misunderstand the role of trade in productive flourishing economies. The administration has set the wrong goals and then has made policy choices. They’re unlikely to achieve those goals again.

It’s because people like Peter Navarro, this is the dumb as a sack of bricks policy. And so what does this look like? Well, China has had a record trade surplus. China’s trade surplus has topped a trillion dollars for the first time despite Trumps tariffs. China report exports have rebounded in November after an unexpected contraction the previous month, pushing its trade surplus past a trillion dollars for the first time ever, an all time high. Exports, listen to this, climbed from 6% a year earlier, while imports rose just under 2%. Meanwhile, shipments to the United States dropped nearly 29%.

Year over year. So they’ve been able to replace this with other markets and they are thriving. If this is part of his policy, again, that is another thing he’s thrown in there. The economic competition with China, it’s a failure with that as well. So it’s been a failure in terms of the trade deficit, it’s been a failure in terms of economic competition with China. It’s been a failure in terms of manufacturing, it’s been a failure in terms of keeping costs down. It’s a failure. The nearly trillion dollar trade surplus for the first 11 months of this year is a record high.

It’s likely that November exports have yet to fully reflect the tariff cut, which should feed through in the coming months. But, you know, hey, they’re making it up in other countries. You, however, may pay a lot more. You know, they’re expecting that toys will go up quite a bit because lot of toys are manufactured in China. But as Trump said before, hey, so your kids only got like, you know, one doll instead of five dolls. You know, too bad. I wonder how many dolls Ivanka had or whichever one it is. I get the two of them mixed up.

Ivana was the mother, right. And Ivanka was, is the daughter. Anyway, Ivanka is the daughter. I imagine she had a lot of dolls. But Trump doesn’t really care about that, doesn’t care if you’re going to afford toys or not. It’s kind of like that toy market we went to in China where the TSA then confiscated all the toys that we bought to keep our daughter busy while we came back. So China’s exports grow 6% and US shipments drop 29%. Seems like things are going exactly the opposite direction than Trump wanted to go. By the way, manufacturing is dropping as well and they’re struggling, as I said before, just like retailers and importers, every business, farmers, everybody is struggling with the chaos that Trump has brought to the economy.

It’s not about tariffs or income versus income tax. It’s about chaos versus stability. Chaos is hampering everyone in the US Economy. It is the elephant in the room. And I’m not talking about Republicans. We’re going to take a quick break. You want to get those comments there? Yes. I don’t know if that other one is right, Lansome, but Guard Goldsmith says, by the way, the Trump executive order re AI appears to claim authority by implying that state statutes on AI interfere with interstate commerce. Yet Trump’s executive order breaches separation of powers. Yeah. Breaches the 10th Amendment.

And this is the, you know, when you look at the way they sold the unconstitutional illegal war on drugs. How did they do it with the Commerce act claiming that that allowed them to prohibit drugs. Why didn’t anybody think about that when they prohibited alcohol? It’s funny, you know, those people, I don’t know, were they just stupid and they couldn’t read that in the Constitution? Or maybe they had respect for the Constitution that we don’t have. I think that’s what it was. Well, we’re going to take a quick break and we will be right back. Stay with us.

Sa. And now, the David Knight Show. Sam, You’re listening to the David Knight Show. Welcome back, folks. Briefly, I want to let you know that it is support from listeners like you that keeps the show going. We cannot thank you all enough. A really good way to support the show is go to subscribestar.com thedavidnightshow you can find a tier that fits your budget and then it’s fire and forget. You don’t have to worry about it. And there you can see it. There’s many different tiers, as I said. Hopefully one of them fits your budget and you can just set it up and not have to worry about it.

It’ll only go down if your card is no longer valid. Check out subscribestar.com thedavanites or you’re gonna DavidKnight news and find all the other ways you can support us directly. Of course you can turn it off. You know, you’re not locked into it forever. They don’t come to your house. We got your number. We’re not gonna let you go. But we do appreciate the people who stuck with us for years there. And one of the things that we try to do for them years ago, I guess it’s two years ago, did the Christmas album. We gave it to the people there for free.

And we also try to give them the articles as well as a link to the podcast where they can get it without commercials. And you can also get that on Substack now if you just want to get the podcast without commercials. Yeah, if you’re only interested in the podcast without commercials, the best place to do that is substack.com youm can subscribe and you’ll receive it there. I also want to let you know that Homestead Products Shop is having a sale on their activated charcoal capsules. They are good for detoxifying your body, good for hangovers, energy boosting, whitening your teeth, filtering your water.

They have a numerous number of applications. So go to Homestead Products Shop, check out their best stuff there. They’ve got all kinds of really interesting, very high quality products. They work very, very hard to make sure the products are made in the USA and of the highest quality. So again, go to homesteadproducts shop, check out the sale they’re having on their activated hardwood charcoal capsules. And you can also use promo Code Knight to get 10% off and anything in their shop. So go check them out. If you’re looking for survival gear to just some modest clothing, they’ve got options for you.

I’ll just throw in real quickly too. The Code Knight also gets you 10% off at RNC stores. Yes. Where you can get books that help you to find natural remedies for many things including cancer. And you can find the book the world without cancer. Yeah.com and also get you 10% off with Gerald Slenty’s Trends Journal as well, which the Trends journal with the 10% off works out to be about $2.50 a week, which what else can you get for that kind of value at this point? Well, real quickly before our guest comes on. Oh, this is an interesting story.

This is a college student who got a zero on her assignment simply because she quoted the Bible in a gender assignment article that she was supposed to review. Now this is really about a lot of different issues. It’s about free speech, free exercise, religion. It’s about the fact that the LGBT people see what they’re doing as a religion as well as what is happening in schools and the worthlessness of college degrees, I would say as well. So this is a college student in Oklahoma gets a failing grade because she laid out biblical case for gender. Unfortunately for her, she didn’t know it at the time, but the teaching assistant who is going to be doing the grading is a tranny.

She didn’t know that. She turned in the paper and she didn’t attack transgender. She made the case for the biblical role of men and women. So it was not a negative hit piece. There was nothing hateful about it. Well, these people are so completely deluded out to lunch that simply showing them reality is painful to them. It breaks their self delusion. Yes. Yeah. And it was an opinion based piece. What Lance, like I mentioned yesterday of the story of the person and I believe it was the UK that got 10 days in prison and a fine for mentioning that men and women have different skeletons.

Yeah, that’s right. The trune. So this was an opinion based piece and she said, I pointed out, it didn’t say anywhere that I needed evidence. It didn’t say anywhere that I needed evidence for my opinion. His response was no. That was the grade that you deserved, a zero, she said. In terms of her essay, here’s some excerpts from it. She said this article was very thought provoking, caused me to thoroughly evaluate the idea of gender, the role that it plays in our society. The article discussed peers using teasing as a way to enforce gender norms. I don’t look at this necessarily as a problem.

God made male and female and made us differently from each other on purpose and for a purpose. God is very intentional with what he makes. I believe trying to change that would only do more harm. Gender roles and tendencies should not be considered to be stereotypes. Women naturally want to do womanly things because God created us with those womanly desires in our hearts. But of course we can propagandize those out, can’t we? The same goes for men. God created men in the image of his courage and strength. He created women in the image of his beauty.

He intentionally created women differently than men and we should live our lives with that in mind. It’s frustrating to me when I read articles like this and discussion posts from my classmates of so many people trying to conform to the same mundane opinion so that they don’t step on anybody’s toes. I think that is cowardly and an insincere way to live. It is important to me to use the freedom of speech we have been given in this country, and I personally believe that eliminating gender in our society would be detrimental as it pulls us further from God’s original plan for humans.

In Genesis, God says that it’s not good for man to be alone, so he created a helper for man which is woman. Many people assume the word helper in this context to be condescending and offensive to women. However, the original word in Hebrew is ezer knedo and that directly translates to helper equal to. Additionally, God describes Himself in the Bible using that same term, ezer konegdo, or helper, and he describes His Holy Spirit as our helper as well. This shows the importance that God places on the role of the helper. God does not view women as less significant than men.

He created us with such intentionality and care, and he made women in his image of being a helper and in the image of his beauty. If leaning into that role means that I am following gender stereotypes, then I am happy to be following a stereotype that aligns with the gifts and the abilities that God gives me as a woman. I do not think that men and women are pressured to be more masculine or feminine. I strongly disagree with the idea from the article that encouraging acceptance of diverse gender expressions can improve students confidence society Pushing the lie that there are multiple genders and everyone should be whatever they want to be is demonic and severely harms American youth.

I do not want kids to be teased or bullied in school. However, pushing the lie that everyone has their own truth and everyone can do whatever they want and be whoever they want is not biblical whatsoever. Reading articles like this encourages me to one day raise my children knowing that they have a heavenly Father who loves them and cherishes them deeply and that having their identity firmly rooted in who he is will give them the satisfaction and acceptance that the world can never provide for them. My prayer for the world and specifically for American society and youth is that they would not believe the lies being spread by Satan that make them believe they’re better off with another gender than what God has made them.

I pray that they feel God’s love and acceptance as who he originally created them to be. So after she got a zero for that from the transgender, she complained to the university. They did nothing. She complained to the governor’s office and other politicians and the response was that the university gave him a paid vacation paid leave. But they said if that happened to me, all I can say is my next paper would be would be something he can’t grade her papers anymore but he gets a paid vacation paid leave. Her essay was posted on social media, however it’s been viewed by people over 15 million times.

So her bottom line is she said we must not be intimidated to run away from our principles what we believe to be true. We have the freedom to speak and to believe what we wish. State Senator said it’s about a state funded, taxpayer funded institution that is allowing their faculty members to abridge or to impede a student’s right to express their faith. And so she’s been able to speak many different places as well. Well, I’ve got more than I wanted to get into, but we are out of time and we have a guest that is ready to join us.

And just real briefly, the guest we have joining us is a doctor and his name is Richard Restack, MD. He has written over 25 books and he’s been on the best sellers list. And the book that we’re going to be discussing today especially basically is neuroscience. And the book that we’re going to be discussing today is the 21st century century brain Subtitle says How Our Brains are Changing in response to the challenges by Social networks, AI, climate change and stress. So we’re going to talk about those things and I’ve got a lot of questions that I’d like to ask him about that as well.

So I think it’s going to be an interesting interview. Stay with us, folks. We will be right back. Sa. You’re listening to the David Knight Show. Hear news now@apsradionews.com or get the APS radio app and never miss another story. All right. And joining us now is Dr. Richard Restack, MD. And he is a neuroscientist as well. And he has written a lot of books on the brain. And now this is one kind of the nexus of our brain and artificial intelligence. So I wanted to get him on because we, as you know, we talk about AI and its impact on society quite a bit.

Thank you for joining us, Dr. Rustic. I’m happy to be here. Thank you. David, you’ve written so many books and best selling author and of course people can find this on Amazon. You’ve written so many books. What is different about the brain? What is different about this one? And why did you write this book? I wrote this book to announce and to discuss the dangers that are lurking, so to speak, in the 21st century and are unique to the 21st century that are having an effect on the brain and a negative one. So that we really are imperiled by eight different factors, one of which is the global warming.

We have new diseases that are present in the 21st century that are increasing, starting with COVID and moving forward. We have problems, of course, with the global warming, which we’ll talk about in more detail. And then the Internet, the effect of the Internet, the effect of AI memory, the alteration, the attempt to alter memory almost to alter our memories of what the past was like. This is an ongoing enterprise by various governments in the world, including our own. We also have surveillance. The seventh, the surveillance, becoming increasingly a surveillance society. It’s almost impossible to not be revealing things about yourself because there’s surveillance cameras everywhere.

I can give you several examples of that just in my own personal life. And then finally, the eighth one is anxiety. All of these things are creating what I call an existential anxiety. People are being given information, but it’s being molded according to the thoughts and the inclinations of people in power. For instance, let’s take today’s right out of today’s New York times. On page A7 there’s an article called the air in New Delhi is life threatening and it tells the tale of the New York Times reporters who have spread themselves throughout New Delhi from 6am until late in the evening of a certain day recently, and they measured the particulate matter in the air, and it was anywhere from 10 times to 30 times as great as would be considered minimally normal.

Now, on top of that, you have the statement that they state that the government is actually trying to hide this kind of insight to the populace by spraying water and other things like that. It says that they’re doing this around the measuring stations. They’re also losing data from measuring stations during the worst bouts of pollution. So there you have the molding of the facts, either denying them altogether or trying to improve them. So people say, oh, well, they measured it down at such and such a measuring stage, and it was really not all that high. Of course, they were spreading water and other things to try to reduce this.

So we’ve got a capitalist society here in the United States which has a vested interest in pushing forward certain scientific points of view, since science is being put sort of in the back seat. And there’s politicians and other people, all of whom share one thing, capitalistic enterprises which they’re part of or which they are advancing, and a kind of crony capitalism where they can get protection and subsidies as well. And the control is being taken away from us because, as I was just reporting earlier today, they’re working very hard to make sure that state and local governments can’t enact any control on artificial intelligence.

And that came up in the context of talking about how the manufacturers of Tasers, also big manufacturers of police body cams, how they want to wed that to artificial intelligence. And the question is, you know, what could possibly go wrong with that? If they identify you, they misidentify you as a dangerous criminal and warn the police about how dangerous you are, they could get people killed. Old well, not only that, but all of these efforts set up a sense of anxiety, yes, and fear. Let me just tell you what happened to me in one morning, called a cab to go to a medical appointment, and we started going down the road.

The I said to the driver, you know, you’re not going the most efficient or the quickest way. He said, I know that. He said, but I don’t want to go that way because there’s speed cameras. I said, well, you know, you’re driving very sensibly and you’re not speeding, and I’m in no hurry, so what’s the problem? He said, well, they take pictures of everybody that goes by those cameras because they want to see who’s in those photos in those cars? Yes. So I asked him to give me a reference for that, and he got sort of didn’t say anything else for the rest of the trip.

So when I got down to the medical building, I got in the elevator. It said, in this facility, there is surveillance, both obvious and hidden. That’s interesting. Santa Claus was watching you. Now, this is one morning, and then when I got up to sign in, I signed the board with electronic pen, and I didn’t see no signature. I saw. I said, well, it didn’t take. She said, oh, we took, but we don’t allow it to go on the screen so it could be seen. I said, why is that? Said, well, somebody behind you might see the thing and then remember it and use your fur.

Your signature to forward something somewhere. Well, first of all, there was a sign that said, stand 10ft back. And secondly, there was nobody else behind me. So there’s three examples just drawn at random, that we’re becoming an increasingly surveilled society, which is creating a sense of paranoia and a sense of fear. So the brain has to adjust to these type of things, Dave, and it’s very hard to do. And I think that is calculated. You know, they’ve been. They want to do this. Even to the extent when you talk about these cameras taking everybody’s picture, the Flock network that is out there, this corporation that is saying, well, we can do whatever we want because it’s in public space and, you know, we’re not government, so so we can collect this information.

And yet they collect it in order to sell it to the government. So it’s just one level, indirect. But they not only grab your license plate, but they also do a complete profile of your car and all of its idiosyncrasies. Does it have a dent here? Does it have a scrape there? What about a bumper sticker? So it creates a model of your car. And so they almost have, like, you know, biometric identification of your cars as well as of you. And this is now made possible because of the advances of AI. But this has been something that has been concerning me.

I look at things kind of from a libertarian perspective, and this has been concerning me for a long time. The idea that government is using technology many different ways, Internet, social media, things like that, to monitor and to manipulate us all the time. And to me, artificial intelligence just puts this on steroids. And so I think there is something to be anxious about. If we’re going to look at this, we should be concerned about it. Maybe not anxious but we should be concerned about the goals of people who are putting this kind of stuff together. So, yeah, well, there’s that, and then there’s.

If you can manage to change the present, you can manipulate the past. Future, of course, is the real way to get it, is get control of past, as Orwell pointed out. Yes, you control the past. You. You know, you can control the present and by the implication, control the future. And we’re seeing alterations of materials, even government documents, government films, documentaries, things like that are being altered in ways that are not visible, not, I should say, detectable. Not detectable to the ordinary person. So they get ideas about what the past was like, which are wrong and are.

Don’t show you, as I mentioned in the book, if you were at a. At a dance in 1850, before the Civil War, and it’s a film we’re watching, let’s just say we’re watching a film about 1850, and we’re seeing people ballroom dancing, all that. Then one of them pulls to the side and pulls out a cell phone, and you say, wait a minute, we didn’t have cell phones then. Well, you know, there were a lot of things that were going on now that were not going on in the past. And it’s not to our advantage to try to pretend that they were.

They weren’t. We have to understand the past to understand the future. And we’re not only creating situations that are false, but we’re also like. In 1984, Orwell created a character called Commander Ogilvy. He was a war hero. He got all sorts of medals, and it was all the prologues that were all told to honor him and so forth. Well, he never existed. He actually was made up entirely. And that’s one of the things that the narrator is doing in the job at work, is filling in photographs, inserting OV into historical events that happen, wartime scenarios, et cetera.

And anyone reading it will say, wow, this was some man. Well, he was a complete fabrication. We’re just about at that point with Sora out, the AI out could take you and had you, you know, to say, let’s get David Knight and have him leading some sort of a parade of whatever. And, you know, suddenly people say, well, gosh, I saw him with my own eyes. So what’s happening is that the actual seeing is believing, is being turned on its head. So that’s no longer true. You’re talking about a completely fabricated character out of Orwell. Just recently, they had Tilly Norwood, who was a completely fabricated AI personality.

And the Person who came up with it has got agents representing her. They got her out there as an actress. I mean, it’s like. So I’ve created an AI actress which will do a lot of different roles for you. She probably does her own stunts as well, I imagine. But people in sag, Screen Actors Guild, are they furious about this and said any agent that represents this AI character is not going to do any business with us. But we’re already at that point. It truly is interesting. Yeah. And one of the ways of neutralizing it is to create the situation that exists right now between you and me.

You’re laughing and I’m laughing because it seems funny and it is funny. But it’s a very serious purpose behind all this. Yes. It’s all matter to try to alter people’s perceptions so they begin to doubt the of what they’re seeing. That’s right, yes. And I’ve talked for the longest time about how the whole idea for the Internet was created by DARPA psychologists. And I’ve been concerned that it was all about psychological manipulation from the get go with all of this. But as a physician and as a neuroscientist, I’d be interested in your take on what is currently going on.

Because besides manipulating the past by changing information, information about the past or memory, holing it, or writing a new alternative history of it, they’re also concerned. And there’s been projects that have been put out by darpa, and I don’t know if they’ve been successful or not, but they’re putting out requests for people to come up with things to manipulate people’s memories. So you’ve got a soldier, they say, who’s got bad ptsd. Let’s get rid of that memory. Let’s give them different memories. Memories. What do you see in terms of someone who studies the brain and neuroscience? What do you see about that? What do you think is the state of the art with that? Well, my last book was called the Complete Book of Memory.

It had to do with memory. I studied memory in great detail. And of course, you have to do away with the concept that memory is like a videotape or something that you just store in your brain. And when you get them, want to get it, you just bring it out like you bring out a videotape. It’s not like that. It’s. It’s a reconstruction. Each time you think back to a certain event, you alter that memory so that you have memory one, memory two, memory three, on and on and on. That’s the nature of memory. And memory can be manipulated.

It’s always, you know, in the courtroom, they’re always trying to avoid the contamination of the witness. The example of that would be, well, which car went through the red light? And to ask a witness, and he said, oh, it was, it was a red car, went through the red light. Well, would it surprise you to know that it wasn’t a red light, but it was a stop sign? Mr. Witness, of course, his credibility is gone. Yeah, because he took the suggestion that it was a red light instead. It’ll be very easy to do because you don’t necessarily have that image of that intersection in your mind.

So that’s why there’s protections even in the courtroom against leading the witness. They call it, in other words, providing information that’s either not true at all or half true. So we’ve got that going. This is not. This didn’t start in the 21st century. That started, you know, as long as we’ve had courtrooms, this is more an emphasis now on altering memory. So the people will not. Will get up there and under cross examination, they’ll do pretty well because their whole memory has been altered. They’ve changed by various mechanisms, suggestion, repeating information which is false, of course, which is the misinformation.

There’s a cartoon about a week ago by Ramirez in which he’s pulled a prize winner. He has three doctors in an operating room, in a laboratory. One of them is looking into a microscope, and he looks up and he says, this is the most dangerous pathogen we have ever encountered. And the second doctor says, well, is it bubonic plague? Is it smallpox? And then the one he says, no, it’s misinformation and this information. That’s right. And we got to be very careful because many times the people who will tell us about that are the people who want to be the ones who define what the information is for us.

And they will ask those leading questions. You know, when we talk about leading questions and manipulating people, there’s been a lot of reports about artificial intelligence, kind of people who have a particular psychosis or something, and they get involved with the AI and it starts to confirm the things that they want, because that’s what it is set up to do in terms of bias. They want to be empathetic and sympathetic to people. And so it starts doing that and leading them further and further down a particular rabbit hole. There’s been situations of people got into severe mental distress, some suicides of some young children and other things like that speak to that aspect of it and the real danger of that that is really kind of, I think speaks to the psychological aspect and potential of artificial intelligence.

And that could be weaponized. Right now it’s just kind of happening out of their business model. Right. But that could definitely be weaponized against people. Well, I talk about that in my book, in the chapter on the Internet, there are famous examples of people who have suicided right on the Internet, live feed. And they’ve been manipulated to doing that by other people who’ve encouraged them, said this would be a sign of strength, this would be a sign of that you’re not afraid to die if necessary. And there was cases of it that actually led to the suicide.

One of them is most grizzly I have in my book about a person who was talked into pouring gasoline over themselves and setting a match, all on open feed Internet. And while this fire is burning, you can hear everybody in the background cheering, we did it. We did it. We got him to do it. Wow, that’s amazing. That’s amazing. So there’s something about the Internet and about that actually brings out sadistic, criminal psychopathic trends and we don’t know why. Is it the fact that you don’t necessarily can’t be identified. It’s something that is going to be influencing and has influenced the Internet greatly.

And it will continue to do so until we understand it. I think that’s one of the things that’s so dangerous about the things that we saw with law, lockdown and other aspects of it. There’s an atomization here and so many different ways the government and tech companies are trying to make sure that we don’t. We’re not in person with each other. You know, many cases, like for example, this interview, we couldn’t do this interview if we both had. If one of both of us had to travel, we’re able to do this because we can do it over zoom or whatever.

But just taking ordinary things that you would normally do in terms of interacting with people in school or in church or in your community or whatever, taking that away and putting a screen between the two of you, it really does change the way people interact with each other. I remember Errol Morris, the film director, was able to get people to say all kinds of things to him. He got a murderer to confess. He got Robert, Robert McNamara to confess about the false flag of the Vietnam War. He got people say all kinds of stuff because there was that distance between him and them.

He could have interviewed them in person, but what he did was he put an interrotron which is what he called it. It was basically a teleprompter that he had set up so he could do two way communication at the time. And once he had that distance there, then it completely changed the dynamics that he would have versus with somebody person to person. And that’s what we’re talking about here, isn’t it? Yeah, we’re talking about that. And of course there’s gradations of this. And it continues like we’re, we’re. You’re interviewing me, we’re discussing. I feel like it’s a discussion.

If I were to say something that later I regretted, I could probably say, oh well, that wasn’t me, that was my avatar or my agent. Right. I got an AI agent that’s out there doing stuff. That’s right. It’s crazy. We also see though, as a doctor, you’re seeing people have noticed actual physical changes that can be observed in people’s brains. I’m thinking of the story about the London taxi drivers who would do the knowledge and they would find that as they memorized all these factual details and drew on that all, all the time in order to take people to this very complicated city with its complicated streets, that they had a particular part of their brain that was larger than the typical person.

And then they found that once they stopped doing that, it started to shrink again. And we’re starting to see that happening with people in a lot of different areas of their life. That kind of atrophy. And it’s physically observable, isn’t it? Well, it is. You have to learn, you have to use the things that you have learned to do. Like I mentioned in my memory book, there’s all kinds of memory exercises that you can do. I do them every day and they’re very easy and they help you to continue with your, with your memory, to keep it sharp.

Give us some examples. I’m sure everybody would love to know that we’d all like to have a better memory. What kind of things do we, can we do to exercise? Well, think about the fact that you never had to learn pictures when you were an infant, a young child, a picture was something that you could, you know, may not know what you’re looking at, but you could see it without an intermediary. Whereas language is something that you have to hear from other people. It’s something that’s sort of added on to the brain. Okay. So as a result, the most best way of remembering something is to make a image for it.

Okay. For instance, I have a little dog called A Skipper Key. Skipper Key is a Belgian dog. He’s a nice little fellow. But it was embarrassing to me. When walking the street, people say, what kind of a dog is that? Anyway? Couldn’t come up with a name because it was such too complicated. And I thought that Skipper Key. I didn’t speak any doctor, anything. So then I got this image of a small boat with a large captain with a beard, holding a big key. So it was Skipper Key. And I remember forever. So I had the picture.

Once I have the picture, it’s easy to do another way. Easy way to do it. And you can do that with all kinds of times, all the time. I was going upstairs before I came down to the office and I wanted to get my wallet and I wanted to get my cell phone. So I just had an image of a wallet in the form of a cell phone. And I was walking up the stairs talking into the wallet, cell phone. So I got up and I knew I had these two elements to get. Be very easy to get one and forget the other.

So that you have these images all the time. And the quickest. You know, this is sort of off the topic of the book, but if you want to have a firepower memory for a load of things, that’s up to 10 things and get 10 areas that you are familiar with that you see every day. And then you can put on those images the thing you’re trying to remember. So if I’m trying to remember a loaf of bread, milk, maybe a batteries, I have a regular way of doing that. I have, like, I remember my. The library that’s near my home, the coffee shop, liquor store, Georgetown University Medical School, where I went.

Georgetown University Cafe Milano, which is a place in Washington, everybody gathers and then Key Bridge, Iwo Jima Memorial and Reagan Airport. So that bread would be, for instance, the loaf of bread. I was looking in the window of the library. Instead of seeing books, I’d see bread, loaves of bread. And when I get down to the liquor store, instead of it being filled with liquor, there’d all be milk bottles. So that’s how I had to get to it. So I have those 10. So I can get 10 items together without any problems at all. That’s great.

Yeah, it’s interesting you talk about the importance of a visualization. It’s one of the things that I do in terms of preparing for the show. I have a lot of articles that I go through. And it’s really when I highlight things or when I write them down, that’s when I can Remember them. If I don’t do that, if I were just to read these things, I wouldn’t remember them. But if I interact with it and write it down, that helps me to remember it. So that is a kind of visualization there, I guess as well. It truly is interesting.

And what you said earlier about memory not being something that is stored in a place, as somebody coming from a computer science background, that was a very different thing. When you construct your memory, how do you reconstruct that? I mean, that opens up a whole new area of questions as well. In other words, I think if every time somebody brings up a subject, I mean, there isn’t something that’s stored initially to reference that and then rebuild from that. Plus there’s the interconnections. Like, you know, somebody listening to us might say, well, gee, this is called the 21st century brain, but I haven’t heard that much about the brain.

Well, let me just link that up so that these things make sense. We have a new version, or I should say a new understanding of the brain called the connectomic brain in which there’s all kinds of interactions in the brain of parts of the brain which you don’t. We’re just learning about. I have the, I use the metaphor of a bowl of spaghetti. You pull out one of the strains of spaghetti and you never have any idea what it’s connected to, how many other strains of spaghetti this is connected to. So that you think of the brain as being kind of set to make connections.

That’s his natural processing. So it gets back to these things that we were talking about earlier. You know, global warming and memory and surveillance and all that. How are we going to solve all those? Well, somehow or other those things are connected with each other. That’s the take home message of this book. And the basic goal is to try to figure out what it is that connects these things, what it is that would allow us to, by solving one of them, solve the other. And I mentioned at the end of the book, experts so far haven’t done it.

So it’s useful, as Hayek said, to get ordinary people to give, when I say ordinary, I mean non specialized people to give their ideas. Gee, I wonder what such and such would happen. What would happen about global warming? For a while there was, in fact, there’s still experiments going on on the effect of sulfur that would help the CO2 problem and you know, shooting sulfur up into the, into the atmosphere. And of course the reason for that was the volcano in 1980. Something in which after that volcano In Hawaii, it was noted that the air was clearer and there was less pollution.

So that’s something to think about. Is there some way of using that particular sulfur experiment to decrease global warming? War, for instance? We don’t think of war as a cause of global warming, but it is thermonuclear warning. Yeah, yeah, it’s been one up since the, the Ukraine war and the Gaza war. Then, you know, a tremendous amount that’s going to overcome and exceed the benefit of any of these things, like, you know, non gasoline engines, but, you know, using electrical and things like that. Absolutely, yeah. It’s kind of like, you know, shooting up rockets in order to put satellites up.

You know, how many, how many cars and lifetime use of cars from people would that be equivalent to? And you start talking about all the missiles that are being shot and then you get to the explosives as well. It is really interesting how they focus us on their objectives, for their ways to control us. The manipulation has been going on for quite some time. And so, yeah, that is, it is pretty amazing. And I guess that’s my. You know, when we look at this stuff, it really does look like science fiction. And I’m almost inclined to write it off when I first see it.

When DARPA is saying, well, we need to find some way that we can, you know, erase memories in people and insert new memories into them. I mean, we’re going back to Total Recall, right. So it sounds like something from a Philip K. Dick novel, but they’re really working on that. And I guess one of the most striking things we saw we reported on a couple of weeks ago, and it was a company that was bragging about how they could read your mind more accurately and quickly than their competitors. Because there’s a lot of different companies that are doing this and how they could.

It’s called Brain, it was the name of the company. And so they had a way that they would do MRI and they could essentially train it on your brain in a much shorter period of time than the other people and they could get much better results. Our producers just pull this up. So what they do is they show you an image and you’re looking at that image and then it’s reading your mind and reconstructing what you’re looking at, which I thought was absolutely amazing and terrifying at the same time. How is this going to be used? I guess that’s the real issue when we start talking about all these different things.

I think that is the real case that it’s difficult for people to understand just how Far and how quickly the technology has progressed. And then to say, and how do we control this from it being used for bad purposes? Well, that’s specifically 21st century problem. Yes, because all of these things are either originated in the 21st century or they have in fact, further developed and become increasingly threatening. And bear in mind, we have to have to solve these problems because they’re not something that’s going to go away. And then the most important thing to remember, David, is that all of these things harm the brain.

And the brain is the thinking processor that’s going to save us. It’s going to figure out what the problem is, what the solutions to the problems are. So we know now that wildfire smoke, for instance, it creates dementia. It enhances the likelihood of somebody becoming demented. So as the brain is affected negatively, increasingly over longer and longer periods of time, our ability to solve these problems is going to decrease. So we’ve got to do it now, we’ve got to get serious about it. And this business of people getting up and saying that global warming is fiction and all that is really very disturbing.

Yeah, well, you know the example that you gave earlier of the fact that the Indian government was manipulating the temperature at some of the stations there, that kind of works both ways. They have put some of these temperature stations on airport tarmacs, and in the uk, they. They have a lot of the temperature stations that they’ve got there. They’re just extrapolating the data. They don’t have real temperature measurement stations there. So it all really gets back, I think, to the scientific method. And that’s really where we have to hold people’s feet to the fire. We’re talking about something like that.

We can have an absolute standard of what truth is. And that truth is going to be being able to measure something accurately and being able to reproduce that. And then I think a good yardstick for that is when somebody is trying to hide their data. That’s the clue right there that they’re not doing science. Because if they’re doing science and they’ve come to the right conclusion, they don’t have a problem with somebody looking at their data. So I’ve got a question here for you from a person in the audience asking about doctors James Giordano and Charles Morgan, their work with military.

I’m not familiar with those names. I don’t know if you know anything about that or not. Your Donovan sounds familiar. What particular thing are they asking about them? I don’t know. It just says their work with military, I guess, it would have to do with something. But you haven’t heard of it. I’m not sure I could say Giordano did this or did that. No, sure, I understand. Yeah. Let’s talk a little bit about the things that we have been anxious about. And of course, as Christians, we have one answer to it. But you talk about how this is something that has been around pretty much all of our life.

I mean, I grew up with anxiety about nuclear war, for example. That was on everybody’s television, and that was forefront of our mind, especially growing up in Florida when the Cuban Missile crisis was happening. They got us really afraid of that. When I was in elder elementary school, you know, it’s like, there’s not going to be enough time for you to get home when the nuclear bombs start falling. I mean, there’s all these different ways that you can panic people. I guess part of it is how do we identify the real problems and how do we deal with those problems? Because there’s always things that are competing for our attention and our anxiety, many of which are not real.

And usually the things that you’re really the most concerned about don’t happen. And it may be sometimes because you have taken a precaution about it. What would you say about that, about anxiety? You’re starting to break up a little bit. Can you hear me clearly? I hear you. Yes. Yes. Sorry about that. It’s breaking up a little bit. You’re talking about traumatizing a population. You know, what do we do to guard against that type of thing? And of course, that’s going to really escalate with the ability of AI to create a narrative. Yeah, well, let’s talk as an avenue to get into that.

Let’s go back to what you brought about, the atomic weapons and the atomic war and the fears of people that there’s going to be another atomic war. I mean, you know, this is not unrealistic. There’s even been a movie that’s just come out that’s getting all kinds of attention, as you know, and it has to do with the threat of a nuclear war. Things in the. If you look at what’s happening in the Europe right now, there’s all kinds of suggestions that it could lead to a nuclear war. I mean, Ukraine now has announced that they’re under no conditions willing to give up any land.

And Stalin is. I mean, Putin is thinking what he could do to change that. Maybe he’ll attack another country. I mean, this is scary stuff. So what’s happening in response for the government is to try to show that, oh, we shouldn’t worry about it, we have things under control. But I don’t think things are under control. And we’ve talked about the problems, and we talked about problems all. Well, you have. Your final chapter is New ways of Thinking, and I’d like to talk about that. One of the things that you say is Occam was wrong. Occam’s razor that people are familiar with.

Tell us a little bit about that. Why is Occam wrong? Well, because he says that entities are not to be multiplied, meaning that we can always explain things best by limiting ourselves to the minimum amount of factors, ideally one. One cause of every effect. That’s not true. Certainly not true in the 21st century where there’s all kinds of interactions between factors and causes. So that Occam was wrong. In that basis. We have to think of an interconnecting pool, just as in the brain of interconnections of neurons, interconnections of these problems. And they’re all related. They’re all related.

All eight of them that I talk about in my book. They’re all related. And if you can figure a way of influencing one, you influence all the others. I mean, who would think there’d be a connection between global warming and the amount of artisan and cheese, for instance, high end cheese. Well, there is, because chickens don’t lay many eggs. And there’d be all the various other things to come on in terms of making cheese. I learned that the other day. That was something that was a surprise to me. You know, it’s kind of interesting. We talk about connections so much.

There was a series that was on. I think it was on pbs. I think the guy’s name was Burke. I can’t remember his first name. I’m not sure about the last name. But he had a series called Connections. And I thought it was fascinating because what he would do is he would take a whole series of. Of connections to show how a particular technology had evolved. You know, so he might go from, you know, the quill to the. To the jet engine or something like that. And it was a fascinating, fascinating thread of things very much like what you’re talking about.

It really is. And I did, I did consult his work, actually. Did you? When I was writing this book, because he did that. Connections. He did a book called the Day the World Changed and all this. He also did a book called Circles in which he would start with one particular event that carried in history. And if you go around the circle, you come back to the beginning where it started, where this particular inventor invented something. What led up to it, what was the circle leading to that? So yes, we’re talking about connections and we’re talking about the inability to understand, understand things without reference to supporting an accessory.

Factors. We have that going all the time denying things that are going to be happening. Of course, I think the fearful thing is that the government is aiding in this denial because if you deny that there’s a problem, then there’s very little impetus to try to solve it. Yeah, no problem, don’t try to solve it. They’re throwing out their own chaos and uncertainty and anxiety that’s out there all the time, always I guess. So the question is, you’re talking about volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity. I mean it sounds like a government policy. I think they got bureaucracies that specialize in that.

Yeah, well actually that’s true. Yeah, that’s in your section there about new ways of thinking. And so how do we incorporate that into new ways of thinking that help us to solve this riddle? Well, each of those factors is a factor that helps you to understand things and to have more control over. It doesn’t necessarily mean it helps you to link them together. That has to be done by original thinking, by you have to be, you know, under those things, things are volatile. You don’t have a basic situation that doesn’t change. It changes all the time.

So that the other, the other thing that I want to emphasize the most is that is the role of capitalism in all of this. I mean there’s all this like the private equity, the business of people having a point of view that is going to advance them financially and that blinding them to the problems that are here. Like for instance, we talked about global warming. Well, the rich people, very rich people are buying multimillion dollar apartments and condominiums which have special air filters which will keep wildfire smoke out and will try to keep the global warming effect by superpower air conditioners.

Of course they’re building their own bunkers too, creating all kinds of chaos and you know, weapons of war, mass destruction. They’re out there building super bunkers in various places as well. So I think they’re somewhat pessimistic about what they’re doing. Well, it’s basically the idea is that, you know, we don’t care about the ordinary person. We’re going to survive, we’re going to see to our own survival. And if we end, in order to do that, we have to deny certain things that are, that are going on we’ll do so now. Incidentally, all of this is not conscious thinking.

They don’t necessarily say, well, I’m going to deny global warming because it’ll be to my advantage financially because all my investment is in the, the oil and gas industry. They don’t do it that way. They come up with pseudo logic, things that seem to make sense to them, but if they didn’t have a financial thrust in the matter, they would look upon it quite differently. That’s right. We can always find a justification for what it was, what it is that we really want. Everybody should understand that. If you’re a parent this time of year, at Christmas time, you can always understand that people will come up with a justification for what they want.

And that’s as true of government as it is of corporations out there. And it’s really dangerous when the two of them connect with each other. I think that’s one of the things you talk about connections and the importance of it and how we can try to connect these different factors, each of us individually. But I think it’s the human connection that is out there that is going to be essential for all of this. It’s going to be our collective work on all this. What do you think about that? Would you agree with that? Well, I’d agree with it, but there’s so many things that are taking place now that are causing the schisms and yes, splitting people into factors and belief systems and political points of view, and that’s very dangerous because then you can’t get together any kind of unity, even in the face of a emergency.

Well, I think we’ve always had these factors, you know, factions and things like that. You know, the founders of the country warned about factions and political parties. But I think what makes it unique is that when you’re interacting with people on a personal basis, you interact with them a little bit differently than if you’ve got that separation between you that technology is giving us now. Because now you’re interacting with something that’s abstract, it’s not with another person. And there’s also the body language that you’re not picking up on, but it makes it easier for you to be harder on people when there’s that distance there.

I think that’s why I think, you know, the personal connection, I think, is really vital to making these connections and coming up with an understanding of what’s going on. We talk about the hidden factors that are out there, hidden unrelated topics. Other people, as you pointed out earlier, just talking to ordinary people about what it is that you see with different things. I think that is the genius of the collective free market out there, that there’s so many observers who are looking at things and thinking about them, and it’s kind of their collective decision that is kind of guiding things along as opposed to having a central planner who’s doing that.

What do you think about that? You’ve got in your final chapter a new way of thinking. You have what you call a sensible solution. What does that really involve? I’m sorry, I didn’t hear what you said. What’s the last part? You have a sensible solution. What do you think a sensible solution to the kind of stress and chaos and anxiety that we have, Manipulation that we have. What is the solution to that? Well, I think the Wikipedia is a good example of that. They have people from all over walks of life, all levels of education, free to contribute to whatever topic.

They may want to do that. It may be helpful. I mentioned earlier about the effect of global warming on the making of cheese. There might be somebody who makes cheese that’s going to come up with some idea. You know, we don’t know that. We don’t know that that may not be where comes some original idea what to do about global warming. And you put it on what I’d like to think, and I hope it will be developed, a kind of Wikipedia where the ordinary person can feel free to put forth their ideas about it. Now you say, well, we already have that.

We have the Internet. No, we don’t. The Internet is a commercial situation. It’s all done for making money and grab attention and all that. And there’s no criticism of it. There’s no peer review, if you will, in the Wikipedia. I mean, you know, people could write in and say, well, that particular contribution is bonkers, and then give an example why it is, or that was a very good idea. And after that you begin to get things coming together in unpredictable ways that may help us solve these eight problems. Yeah. The problem is it seems like whenever you wind up having a form or place where things can be.

And that’s. That’s true of the Internet, it’s also true of Wikipedia. Then it becomes you have gatekeepers who are there, and we saw this in spades throughout the COVID stuff, that if somebody’s got a different idea, rather than debate them, the impetus is to silence them by the people who are in authority. And so that really, I think, is the key thing. And I think as part of that we see a conflict, continuing rise in disgust and deprivation of free Speech. People are not interested in the principle of free speech. They don’t want to have open debate.

And I see this. Regardless of where people are coming from on the political spectrum, there is a declining interest in debate and thinking. The debate is critical to. To critical thinking. And so the people who are in charge, the gatekeepers, whether it’s Wikipedia or the Internet or any other form of information, they are weighing in on that. And they don’t want things that they disagree with. And it might be because they’ve got an agenda, or it might be because they’ve just got a particular prejudice about something. They want to make sure that the contrary views don’t get out there.

That, I think, is a real key that’s there. And again, this is part of this atomization that we have of people feeding that tribalism in a way that we’ve never seen it before, using technology. I would agree with everything you’ve just said. Exactly. And I think we have to try to get beyond that. But we get back again to this business of people having their own personal financial point of view and position and pushing that basically on the fact that they look upon it as. So maybe we’re talking about a capitalism problem. We’ve got capitalism. That’s what this country is all about.

But I mean, it’s in certain parts of it now. We’ve gotten to the point where people are unable to take another point of view if it’s going to be financially harmful and hurtful to them. Yeah, I think that, you know, we start looking at the tech companies. I don’t think that their capitalism would exist. I don’t think they’d have billions of dollars if they weren’t unified with the government. So there’s a. There’s a symbiosis there that the two of these entities feed off of each other. And I think that’s that nexus right there is the. Is the difficult thing.

And so I think, you know, when I think of capitalism, I don’t like to refer to capitalism anymore because I think of it as a partnership, a public private partnership, some kind of a economic fascism where they are working together. But I like to think of a free, competitive market where the government doesn’t have any role except as some kind of a referee between two parties that have a conflict or something. But yeah, that’s the thing that’s really driving this many people when they talk about AI, they said, well, here’s a couple of different outcomes. Maybe this stuff really works the way it’s supposed to work and takes everybody’s jobs and we wind up with a depression or maybe it doesn’t work at all, in which case the big AI stock bubble that we’ve got bursts and everybody loses their job because of that.

I said, well, there’s a third alternative and that is that the government keeps propping it up with public funds because it feeds their surveillance and manipulation needs their ability to surveil and to control us. And I really think that that’s where this is all going to head. I don’t really, you know, those other two things may happen and they may be true, but I think there is a customer out there for the AI stuff that is driving all this stuff that has been putting out these proposals for the longest time. And that’s governments, governments around the world.

I mean, we look at the brain project that we had a few years ago, that was during the Obama administration. But things like the brain computer interface that Elon Musk and many other tech companies are doing out there, this neuralink and there’s a lot of them that are doing that that’s being driven by the government wanting to connect into our minds, hack into our minds really. And they’ve been funding that kind of stuff. So how do we break that? Yeah, on the Musk side, it’s he’s doing it for money and I mean obviously to make money.

That’s right. So that there’s unholy alliance, if you will, between someone who can’t see anything other than the dollar and another side, the government can’t see anything other than increasing power and surveillance over the population. Yeah, that’s right. Absolutely true. Well, it’s a fascinating book. It’s a fascinating take on this. And of course you’ve written many books on the brain, the memory one. Very interesting. And you do have sections about memory in this book as well. And people be able to find this on Amazon, I guess is the best place that they can find it. Looking for the title of this and it is, you know, it is something that I think we all need to think about how we’re going to operate the effects that this technology is having on our brains in the 21st century.

And that is the title of the the book the 21st Century Brain by Richard Restack. Thank you very much. Dr. Restack. Thank you. Appreciate you coming on. Good. David, I enjoyed it very much. Thank you. Yeah, very interesting conversation. Thank you. Have a good day folks. We’re going to take a quick break and we will be right back. Sam, You’re listening to the David Knight Show. Welcome back. And I’ve had a lot of comments. I don’t want to get to these. I knew before I brought him in that he was. I didn’t think he was going to be that focused on climate change.

I really wanted to talk to him about the other issues that were there. But yeah, it’s. We had a lot of comments about that, as a matter of fact. Is this thing about the cheese stuff and global warming connection, is that so they can try to tax the cheese? So I guess the question is who stole the cheese? Right. These people are trying to steal our cheese all the time. But we do have an update, by the way, and this is some comments from the Telegram chat. Paul McLeod said, I’m asking each and every one of you to send prayers in my direction for a specific reason that I cannot disclose at the moment.

By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes. So they sent that in. So I just pass that along to you. That’s for Paul McLeod who is asking for prayer and for the love of the road. Ryan has given us an update on his dad’s surgery. He said dad’s surgery was done afternoon yesterday. It went well and they eliminated all seven blockages. Wow. Had to take veins from other parts of the body to go around some of them though. He should be home by Saturday. He said. Sorry to hear about Clyde Lewis. Glad he’s got a loyal base that is helping him with.

With GoFundMe. Yes. And so I’m glad that things are going well for your dad, Ryan. I hope it continues to go that way. We’ll continue to pray about that. And let me get some of your comments here. Occam’s Razor is not what people think it is. It states that the explanation with the least number of assumptions is likely to be correct. Not the simplest explanation is likely to be correct. That’s from Greg Hume 121. That’s fine. Yes. And he says, oh for. Let’s see, this is imarti. He says, come on. Most wildfires are arson, not global warming.

I agree with that. I agree with that. And you all know that I’m not buying into global warming. And he began by talking about how they were manipulating the data at the Indian stations to try to minimize the pollution that was there and to lower the temperature. But typically governments are doing just the opposite. And it was the climate change crowd, the global warming crowd, that gave India the license to have as cheap and dirty a power plant as possible. So you might want to start with what the government policy has been towards their macguffin of climate change.

That’s the reason they have that kind of pollution that’s there. And of course, that was why Nixon unconstitutionally created the Environmental Protection Agency. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that it’s the role of the federal government to protect the environment. And they did it because of pollution. They said, we got some polluted sites that are so big we don’t have the money to address them locally or state level, so let’s do it at the federal level. And so they had their Superfund cleanup thing and then they metastasized from pollution to telling us what kind of cars we could have and mission control with that.

So again, it’s mission creep. Or I guess we could say emission creep, Though in the case of the Indian testing stations, I believe he was referring to air quality with the massive amounts of air pollution they have in these cities. Yeah. And spraying it. I believe he was implying that you clean up the air, which in that instance, I would agree is. Yeah, you find interestingly enough, you know, and the two most populous countries, China and India, where they’ve said, don’t worry about cleaning up the pollution from your factories or your power stations. Do whatever you want.

Right. They also have the worst air pollution. Wuhan is one of the worst places for air pollution. So real Octo spook says he’s correct about one thing. The money around global warming will buy the truth before it can be muttered. That’s right. Money problem and a gigantic government. Yeah, we get our head around the whole issue, I think all the, all the little spaghetti strings, when you keep pulling them all out, you’ll find the government and you’ll find human nature in terms of the greed for power and for money. That is the common spaghetti thread that ties all this stuff together.

And that’s how we keep our distance from this. But I think the real key thing, takeaway for me from that interview was the key thing is the connections. Our brain works on connections. Our brain works best with connections. Connections with other people expand our mind, expand our universe. And it’s that person to person connection that is so difficult for us to maintain today that is so vital for our survival. Thank you for joining us. Have a good day. The common man. They created common core to dumb down our children. They created common past to track and control us.

Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing. And the communist future. They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary. But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God. That is. That’s what we have in common. That is what they want to take away. Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us. It’s time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide. Please share the information and links you’ll find@thedavidknightshow.com thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing.

If you can’t support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. Thedavidknightshow.com.
[tr:tra].

See more of The David Knight Show on their Public Channel and the MPN The David Knight Show channel.