Speaker 1: You know the world of deceit. Telling the truth is
Speaker 1: a revolutionary act. It's the David Knight Show.
Speaker 2: As the clock strikes thirteen, It's Tuesday, the ninth of December,
Speaker 2: of our Lord twenty five. Well, today we're going to
Speaker 2: take a lot of look at the artificial intelligence. Who
Speaker 2: actually have in the third hour a guest, a best
Speaker 2: selling author. He's done twenty five book. He's an MD
Speaker 2: who works in neuroscience. The book is the twenty first
Speaker 2: Century Brain. And he's been a consultant or lecturer at
Speaker 2: the CIA, at the NSA, the Pentagon other places, so
Speaker 2: he knows something about where this stuff is headed. We're
Speaker 2: going to have to see what he has to say
Speaker 2: here about this. But we're going to begin with what
Speaker 2: is going on in Ukraine? Is this the beginning of
Speaker 2: the end? Are these people going to be able to
Speaker 2: sustain this? Russia is rapidly advancing, even though Vilensky's not
Speaker 2: even taking a look at the plant. And so we're
Speaker 2: going to start with news. We're going to also we
Speaker 2: have some interesting updates in pharmaceutical areas as well as
Speaker 2: an update in terms of Trump's tariffs. Are they working?
Speaker 2: And he finally got around to giving some breadcrumbs to
Speaker 2: the soybean farmers. But we're going to take a look
Speaker 2: at the big picture of the sy stuff. So we're
Speaker 2: back already. It ended, that's okay, all right, Well let's
Speaker 2: start with the news here, and Trump said out loud,
Speaker 2: he said, I'm disappointed that Zlynsky hasn't even read my
Speaker 2: peace proposal. And I understand how you feel is I'm
Speaker 2: disappointed that Trump hasn't even read the Constitution that he
Speaker 2: swored uphold. Maybe he doesn't like it, just like Zelinski
Speaker 2: doesn't like peace. His frustration continues to show, especially after
Speaker 2: high hopes for his twenty eight point peace plan. You know,
Speaker 2: we had this ten point piece plan between us and
Speaker 2: the government. It's called the Bill of Rights. Tell you
Speaker 2: what this is where we draw the line with what
Speaker 2: the government does and with our natural rights, our God
Speaker 2: given rights. But they didn't respect that either. So he said,
Speaker 2: I'm a little bit disappointed that Zelinsky hasn't even read
Speaker 2: the proposal yet. Well, he doesn't want peace, and neither
Speaker 2: do the European leaders as well. As he's saying that
Speaker 2: you've got the leaders of Britain, France, Germany all meeting
Speaker 2: with Zelensky to him, keep fighting, keep fighting, We're going
Speaker 2: to win this thing. Except that's not really what's happening,
Speaker 2: he said, as people love it, but he hasn't. Russia's
Speaker 2: fine with it, he said, and the assessment of what's
Speaker 2: going on with Ukraine. Of course, his follows after his
Speaker 2: son in law Jared Kushner and his former business partner.
Speaker 2: I guess you could say Steve Witkoff, who now his
Speaker 2: emissaries for geopolitics. I mean, hey, if you can negotiate
Speaker 2: a big real estate deal in New York, that's most
Speaker 2: of the stuff is about real estate, right, whether you're
Speaker 2: talking about Gaza or you're talking about Ukraine, you're still
Speaker 2: talking about people killing each other over land. And so
Speaker 2: he said, they were not. They didn't think that Zelenski
Speaker 2: was really serious about this. Moscow, as I point out yesterday,
Speaker 2: really likes the document that was released, the first NSS,
Speaker 2: which is the National Defense Security Agreement that's there basically
Speaker 2: laying out the Trump administration's perspective on foreign policy and
Speaker 2: national security. And I liked what it had to say.
Speaker 2: I just don't believe that Trump is going to stick
Speaker 2: to any of it. But Russia reported on it. You
Speaker 2: didn't have any reporting really from mainstream media here in America.
Speaker 2: So the Russians liked it because, as they pointed out
Speaker 2: in the Zero Hedge article, the document characterizes europe as
Speaker 2: weak well, warning of an unpredictable, disunified atmosphere on the
Speaker 2: European continent, where, in desperation, European leadership could overreact and
Speaker 2: escalate a war with Russia. You think, I mean, they've
Speaker 2: been doing that upfront in so many different ways. You
Speaker 2: got fred Mertz in Germany, and you've got Kere Starmer
Speaker 2: in Britain, as well as Macron and France. They're all saying,
Speaker 2: you know, get ready for massive casualties, and we've got
Speaker 2: to we've got to draft more people in the army.
Speaker 2: I mean, they're doing everything is essentially amounts to a
Speaker 2: declaration of war already. So Donald Trump's first in assistance,
Speaker 2: returning to office, blames European officials for thwarting US efforts
Speaker 2: to in the war in Ukraine and accuses governments of
Speaker 2: ignoring a large European majority quote unquote who want peace. Well,
Speaker 2: I agree with Trump on that. The Trump administration, I
Speaker 2: just don't trust him on any of this stuff. Meanwhile,
Speaker 2: there might be another way to have peace, and that
Speaker 2: is for Russia to when and it looks like that
Speaker 2: may be happening. One way to have it lasting piece
Speaker 2: is that we're going to have a lasting peace. Well,
Speaker 2: you could end the NATO provocation that is called Ukraine
Speaker 2: is a geopolitical construct that, as I pointed out before,
Speaker 2: the Ukraine was an area of Russia, an area of
Speaker 2: Russia for four hundred years, and breaking that off as
Speaker 2: a separate entity and then creating a coup to change
Speaker 2: the government that then began a civil war that happened
Speaker 2: in twenty fourteen, eleven years ago. So that is a
Speaker 2: construct of NATO who decided after the Soviet dish Union
Speaker 2: that they would eliminate Russia as a power. And so
Speaker 2: this has been a gradual policy of encroachment they're pushing
Speaker 2: for war. Putin's army seizing land at one of its
Speaker 2: fastest rates since the initial invasionment almost four years ago,
Speaker 2: says research. The Kremlins army sees two hundred square miles
Speaker 2: of territory of November, up from one hundred square miles
Speaker 2: the previous month. According to Deep State, a trusted Ukraine
Speaker 2: based battlefield map about that. They can call it deep state.
Speaker 2: Let's use that for our marketing purposes. Here, the speed
Speaker 2: of advance was approaching the fastest. It's the initial invasion
Speaker 2: almost four years ago. But then you have the desperation
Speaker 2: of the war cult Zelenski meeting with Kiir starmer Manuel
Speaker 2: Macron Fred Mertz. Ukraine is holding its own they said,
Speaker 2: and doing even better. Ukraine is not on the brink
Speaker 2: of collapse. Again, reality has no meaning to these people.
Speaker 2: If we cannot immediately reach a peace agreement with Russia,
Speaker 2: it is essential that we give Ukraine all the support
Speaker 2: it needs so it does not lose ground due to
Speaker 2: lack of support. Well, it is losing ground even though
Speaker 2: they are supporting it. And this was something that many
Speaker 2: people said from the beginning, that there was no way
Speaker 2: that Russia was going to be able to outlast that
Speaker 2: Ukraine is going to be able to outlast Russia. The
Speaker 2: comparative size of the two countries militaries, as well as
Speaker 2: you know the close proximity. It was in the cars
Speaker 2: that this is going to happen. They planned in the
Speaker 2: war drawn up by the Trump administration involved Ukraine handing
Speaker 2: over vast tracts of land and Ukraine and Europe have
Speaker 2: rejected the proposals. Well, that's one way it's going to end,
Speaker 2: and maybe end when they take the land the gains
Speaker 2: and territory risks helping to persuade Trump that peace should
Speaker 2: be set on Russia's terms. The sending weapons an aid
Speaker 2: to Kiev was a waste, yes, early, Well, why does
Speaker 2: kir Starmer want the war so much? And why does
Speaker 2: Fred Mertz want the war? Why does Francis Emanuel Macron.
Speaker 2: It's because their people understand that their governments are at
Speaker 2: war with them. They're locking people up for mere comments
Speaker 2: as they create this police surveillance state and shut down
Speaker 2: all free speech. And in the UK, for example, same
Speaker 2: things happening in all these countries being overrun with immigrants
Speaker 2: from abroad. There's fury and the UK is nearly three
Speaker 2: hundred and fifty thousand migrant families could get extra welfare
Speaker 2: after the new budget from Kure Starmer. So why does
Speaker 2: he want war? Well, because his own people are waking
Speaker 2: up to the fact that Starmer is at war with
Speaker 2: British people. That's why they'd fifty thousand form born families
Speaker 2: and they found that two hundred thousand of them were
Speaker 2: from just ten countries. Families from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria set
Speaker 2: to benefit the most from the three billion pound decision
Speaker 2: to scrap the two child benefit cap. Endless found. A
Speaker 2: Tory MP who carried out the research said, you have
Speaker 2: to ask whose side the government is on. I don't
Speaker 2: think you have to ask that anymore. I think they've
Speaker 2: made that pretty clear. They like any third world migrants
Speaker 2: and they hate all the native Britons. And if you
Speaker 2: look at the chart that's there, the ten countries are Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Somalia, India, Ghana, Afghanistan, Iraq,
Speaker 2: Sri Lanka. That's nine of them. There's only one country
Speaker 2: that is European and that's Poland. And so that's two
Speaker 2: hundred thousand of the three hundred and fifty thousand. The
Speaker 2: rest of the world is one hundred and fifty thousand.
Speaker 2: Immigrants from the rest of the world, and of course
Speaker 2: coming in for the welfare benefits, the welfare magnet that's there.
Speaker 2: So Milo Inopolis and I don't normally get into these.
Speaker 2: It's amazing to me what a soap opera the conservative
Speaker 2: alternative media has become. But they've kind of been angling
Speaker 2: for this for a long time. One of the things
Speaker 2: that I criticized Charlie Kirk for was the fact that
Speaker 2: he was going around doing culture war events and he
Speaker 2: was putting out front a black guy who was homosexual,
Speaker 2: checking two DEI boxes. And as he's going around talking
Speaker 2: about christ and Christianity, he's sending this conflicting message of
Speaker 2: supporting homosexual marriage. And he was called out on it
Speaker 2: by some people at some of the events, and he
Speaker 2: got really furious, how dare you call this out? And
Speaker 2: I said at the time, I said, this I think
Speaker 2: is very revealing because it shows what he's interested in
Speaker 2: is big tent GOP. He's interested in getting money from
Speaker 2: backers and that type of thing. And to me, it
Speaker 2: was a real betrayal of all the conservative things that
Speaker 2: he pays lip service to. But their entire Republican Party
Speaker 2: is like that, but especially the alternative media, and so
Speaker 2: Milo Ianopolis has apologized for helping to sell and normalize
Speaker 2: homosexuality and homosexual marriage. And where did he do that
Speaker 2: with the altiterative media? Milo says he's become a Christian
Speaker 2: and rejected that, and now he is outing a lot
Speaker 2: of other people that are living this closeted, as they say, lifestyle.
Speaker 2: We've seen this for a long time in the Republican Party.
Speaker 2: And Milo's point is that homosexuality is rampant but hidden
Speaker 2: in the GOP. I mean, there's been reports when they
Speaker 2: have their large conventions that Grinder you can see the
Speaker 2: spike in Grinder Activity, which is a homosexual dating app.
Speaker 2: You can see it where they're meeting geolocation. And we've
Speaker 2: seen it in the past. I mean, the longest serving
Speaker 2: Speaker of the House, Dennis Hasterard, was put into Congress
Speaker 2: from being a wrestling coach. That was his qualification beginning
Speaker 2: in Congress. Actually it wasn't his qualification wasn't being a
Speaker 2: wrestling coach. It's qualification is being a pedophile wrestler coach.
Speaker 2: And then that lawsuit called up to him eventually. But
Speaker 2: while he was in there was a paging scandal, a pager,
Speaker 2: I guess the pages. The young boys that go to
Speaker 2: Congress because they want to get experienced in politics, they
Speaker 2: got a different kind of experience they were expecting, and
Speaker 2: so there was a scandal there with Mark Foley, and
Speaker 2: so Dennis Hastert before all this stuff broke about him,
Speaker 2: went on with Russienbaum and they just poo pooed it. Oh,
Speaker 2: this is just nothing but partisan politics, the same type
Speaker 2: of stuff they're doing now with Pete Hegseth and what's
Speaker 2: happening with the murder of people in international waters. And
Speaker 2: so yeah, it's just part of some politics. Nothing to
Speaker 2: see here, except we did see what it was. And
Speaker 2: so Milo is saying that, in his opinion, it is
Speaker 2: everywhere within the GOP. Now he might have a bit
Speaker 2: different perspective on it, since he was holding himself forth
Speaker 2: as a homosexual. And of course they're still doing this
Speaker 2: with Scott Pressler, the guy with really long straight hair,
Speaker 2: you may remember him. He is a favored person for
Speaker 2: the GP in terms of representing them, and they're normalizing this.
Speaker 2: And so Milo has rejected that, and he has apologized
Speaker 2: for normalizing that, which, by the way, none of the
Speaker 2: influencers have And so you know, people like Charlie Kirk,
Speaker 2: people like Alex Jones have been normalizing this type of thing.
Speaker 2: And as a matter of fact, he went on with
Speaker 2: Tim Poole, who was also playing this game. Tim Poole
Speaker 2: had Milo on, he had George Santos. Why would you
Speaker 2: put George Santos on unless it's some kind of a
Speaker 2: clickbait thing. And so Milo is making all kinds of
Speaker 2: statements about all these other conservative influencers, Candice Owen and
Speaker 2: even Charlie Kirk and Alex Jones saying that they were
Speaker 2: involved in homosexual activity. So I don't know. And so
Speaker 2: already you've had Minnie Johnson, who he said that about,
Speaker 2: said he's going to sue mylow for what he what
Speaker 2: he said about that, He made some very specific statements
Speaker 2: about it. All I can say is that you know,
Speaker 2: when you look at how they're using this, the people
Speaker 2: who say that therefore conservative values, that they're for family values,
Speaker 2: and then they do this kind of stuff. I mean,
Speaker 2: it's just look at, you know, Alex Jones platforming Blair White,
Speaker 2: this guy who dresses up like a woman, and so
Speaker 2: again Temple put all that stuff onto his into his podcast.
Speaker 2: All I've got to say about that is the reason
Speaker 2: I mentioned this is not to get caught up in
Speaker 2: all of this gossip and all the rest of this stuff.
Speaker 2: But just take these people and look at what they do,
Speaker 2: look at what they do, and look at what they say.
Speaker 2: Ask yourself, then why would you trust them? You know,
Speaker 2: very interesting there was in terms of January the sixth,
Speaker 2: Trump has, according to some sources, was trashing the people
Speaker 2: who were the conspiracy theories around January the sixth, and
Speaker 2: then you got people like Nick Flint's. It was put
Speaker 2: up by Shannon Joy yesterday and I don't have it
Speaker 2: on the deck here, but it was footage of Nick
Speaker 2: Quinte's you know, yelling people go over there, go over there.
Speaker 2: You know they're you know, directing people on January the sixth.
Speaker 2: And I've said from the very beginning, why did they
Speaker 2: not focus? Are they focused on Ray Apps right? And
Speaker 2: not focus on Fuentes, on Alex Jones and all these
Speaker 2: people who had been running stop to steal all the
Speaker 2: people who enticed them to come. And you know it's
Speaker 2: like Ray Epps is there saying yeah, we got to
Speaker 2: go over there as well. Fints is doing that that
Speaker 2: day as well. Why does he get a pass? Is
Speaker 2: he a fed? The question is when you look at
Speaker 2: this stuff, are they selling this stuff or clicks? Are
Speaker 2: they selling it because they're being funded by people who
Speaker 2: want to use them to propagandize, you use them for
Speaker 2: controlled opposition, And I think that it really in the
Speaker 2: long term doesn't really matter that much. They're manipulating you,
Speaker 2: they're lying to you, and that's the key thing that
Speaker 2: you need to know. It's a trap in many different ways. Well,
Speaker 2: I'm going to take a quick break here because there's
Speaker 2: something going on and need to find out what is
Speaker 2: happening with this, and we're going to continue when we
Speaker 2: come back. We're going to talk about a man who
Speaker 2: died from eating cockroaches. If people swallow some of this
Speaker 2: stuff coming from the conservative influencers, I guess somebody who
Speaker 2: is kind of like swallowing the cockroaches, and if you
Speaker 2: get too much of it, it could be a very
Speaker 2: bad thing for you. So we're gonna take a quick break, folks,
Speaker 2: and we will be right back.
Speaker 1: M you're listening to the David Knight Show.
Speaker 3: APS Radio delivers multiple channels of music right to your
Speaker 3: mobile device. Get the APS Radio app today and listen
Speaker 3: wherever you go.
Speaker 2: Well, welcome back. I was trying to figure out what
Speaker 2: was going on. Nobody scrambling and running right in and
Speaker 2: didn't know what the issue was. It turns out that
Speaker 2: we had some issues with rumble streaming. So that's now
Speaker 2: been fixed and we now have everybody back in their
Speaker 2: proper assigned seats.
Speaker 4: So you want to be on Rumble, but when somewhere
Speaker 4: else you can now go back to Rumble and watch
Speaker 4: the show there.
Speaker 2: Yes, well, as I promised, we're going to talk about
Speaker 2: some real, something really important here. But I think it
Speaker 2: is an app to metaphor for our times in a
Speaker 2: number of ways. And man, it's horrifying death as a
Speaker 2: cockroaches in a competition, And this is just yet another
Speaker 2: warning you probably don't want to get into competitions of
Speaker 2: drinking and eating stuff, whether it's hot dogs or even water,
Speaker 2: or especially cockroaches. But I've talked many times in terms
Speaker 2: of how dosage is so important. The woman who was
Speaker 2: part of a they had a radio contest that was
Speaker 2: going on, and they thought it'd be funny to give
Speaker 2: people lots of water and then not let them go
Speaker 2: to the bathroom, and a lady died because the water. Basically,
Speaker 2: if you get a lot of water an overdose on water,
Speaker 2: it will dilute I think your blood or something to
Speaker 2: the extent that it kills you. And it killed that
Speaker 2: one woman. Just in terms of doing a stupid contest,
Speaker 2: this guy stomach lining that stomach lining that's the method.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and then it just leaches out into your system
Speaker 4: and your body's not Your body needs water, but it's
Speaker 4: supposed to stay in its proper place.
Speaker 2: Wow. Well this guy thirty two years old, he collapsed
Speaker 2: and died as part of a contest. And guess what
Speaker 2: the prize was? A python? I want that python. Give
Speaker 2: me those bugs.
Speaker 4: Eat the bugs for the snake. This is a strange
Speaker 4: Barter economy list.
Speaker 2: He's trying to eat sea bugs and he ate too
Speaker 2: many of the bugs. The interesting thing is when I
Speaker 2: saw this, I thought, some are these things toxic? I
Speaker 2: grew up in Florida where we have really large cockroaches,
Speaker 2: palmeta bugs that would call him to try to put
Speaker 2: a I think a knife off the blow a little bit,
Speaker 2: put a nice spin on it, a label, but the
Speaker 2: filthy things, and and so I thought, you know, was
Speaker 2: it toxic? No is Actually he just respirated cockroach parts.
Speaker 2: He's trying to eat them so quickly, and so he
Speaker 2: died from assixiation, and I'm stuck in his throat. His
Speaker 2: girlfriend said that he had eaten bugs before, and she
Speaker 2: was his girlfriend.
Speaker 4: So there's somebody out there for everyone, that's right.
Speaker 5: Such a pity that he died eating bugs. He loved
Speaker 5: eating bugs.
Speaker 2: So it involved not just cockroaches, but it had several
Speaker 2: different rounds of eating different species of insects. And I
Speaker 2: don't know if these were the big swas in Florida,
Speaker 2: but I don't know if it's a big Florida cockroaches
Speaker 2: and palmeta bugs. They said they were measuring three or
Speaker 2: four inches long.
Speaker 5: Kind of sucks that he got to the cockroach round
Speaker 5: and then died there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, maybe grass operas would have been better. I don't know, but.
Speaker 4: What you're consuming can come in a plague. Stop eating it.
Speaker 2: This might have been the Madagascar roaches or something. It's
Speaker 2: three or four inches long.
Speaker 6: Anyway, I feel like those would be too expensive.
Speaker 4: You know, those are a pet people want to buy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they said he was eating these things really quickly,
Speaker 2: and then he began wretching. I guess most of the people
Speaker 2: that would be nothing unusual after eating a bunch of
Speaker 2: cockroaches that you would start to throw But maybe that's
Speaker 2: why they evidently didn't give him the Heimlich maneuver. I
Speaker 2: don't know, but in the video you could see him
Speaker 2: trying to swallow and breathe at the same time. We
Speaker 2: can't do both of those simultaneously, That's right. So question
Speaker 2: from the New York Times is is Hollywood getting God?
Speaker 2: I guess you'd have a T shirt probably, yeah, instead
Speaker 2: of got milky because they got God, you know, or something.
Speaker 2: But I don't think that they get God. I don't
Speaker 2: think they understand God. I don't think they ever have
Speaker 2: understood God. And a good example of this is something
Speaker 2: that is happening today Today is the sixtieth anniversary December ninth,
Speaker 2: nineteen sixty five of the area of Charlie Brown Christmas
Speaker 2: Special and CBS really didn't get God, the whole God thing.
Speaker 2: They didn't get the whole Christmas thing either. It was
Speaker 2: kind of interesting because it was sponsored by Coca Cola.
Speaker 2: Coca Cola during the summer of sixty five, in June,
Speaker 2: as a matter of fact, came to CBS and said,
Speaker 2: we want to have a TV special that we want
Speaker 2: to sponsor. Well, you know, Coca Cola doesn't really like Christmas.
Speaker 2: It doesn't like Christ and Christmas. They've done everything they
Speaker 2: can to put Santa in his place, and these ai
Speaker 2: commercials that Coca Cola has done. They got a lot
Speaker 2: of criticism for it, but they scrupulously avoid using the
Speaker 2: term Christmas having anything to do with Christ and so
Speaker 2: they were going to be the sponsor of this, and
Speaker 2: so they said, we're on a really tight schedule, and
Speaker 2: there's actually a documentary in case you're interested, the making
Speaker 2: of the Charlley Brown Christmas So documentary. Bill Melndez is
Speaker 2: still around and he was the animator and so he's
Speaker 2: one of the key people that they talked about it,
Speaker 2: and they said, we didn't know how we're going to
Speaker 2: get this thing done. So they brought in Charles Schultz,
Speaker 2: who was they had already picked, said we're want to
Speaker 2: do something with peanuts. They called him Sparky, that was
Speaker 2: his nickname, and they said he was really incredible as
Speaker 2: a creative. He wasn't just a cartoonist. He was a storyteller.
Speaker 2: He did these things that came out of the word work.
Speaker 2: Sometimes I would just step back and like, wow, this
Speaker 2: guy comes up with great ideas. And so he was
Speaker 2: able to put together the outline for the show in
Speaker 2: less than a day. They sent the outline to Coca
Speaker 2: Cola they got on Monday. On Tuesday they called up
Speaker 2: and said they'd do.
Speaker 7: It so.
Speaker 2: And it had the objectionable scene in it, which was
Speaker 2: Linus reading the Bible passage from Luke. But they didn't
Speaker 2: really catch on to that evidently, and so the TV executives,
Speaker 2: once they got the show delivered to them, were very
Speaker 2: unhappy with it. They said they didn't like the kids' voices,
Speaker 2: which I thought pretty good. They didn't like the jazz
Speaker 2: music is that it doesn't fit, which of course that
Speaker 2: has now become a classic, it's iconic. Yeah, And they
Speaker 2: didn't like the Bible being in there. They thought that
Speaker 2: was too controversial. It's like all the things that everybody
Speaker 2: likes about it. CBS TV executives hated it. That's how
Speaker 2: totally out of touch they are with everything like this.
Speaker 2: That's why Hollywood is circling the drain and well on
Speaker 2: its way to being flushed out because they really don't
Speaker 2: get it.
Speaker 5: Yeah, they're going to have more shows like this now.
Speaker 5: In fact, you couldn't even really have them back then.
Speaker 5: Most of the time. This was lightning in a bottle.
Speaker 2: Yeah, got past them, that's right, that's right.
Speaker 4: They've been completely out of touch an anti Christian for decades,
Speaker 4: probably since inception.
Speaker 2: Like sixty years. Well, yeah, if you look at Hollywood.
Speaker 2: It was pretty amazing. There was an interesting BBC series
Speaker 2: is narrated by James Mason and the actor, and it
Speaker 2: was talking about the early days of Hollywood, the silent films.
Speaker 2: They called it something about silver screen, and we had
Speaker 2: it in our video stores. It was really interesting because
Speaker 2: they talked about how they made the movies and you
Speaker 2: know why movie stars wear sunglasses because they were spending
Speaker 2: all day in these really bright lights, these carbon arc
Speaker 2: lights that they were using everything, and it was doing
Speaker 2: a number on their eyes and they really need to
Speaker 2: get their eyes shaded when they went outside. They needed
Speaker 2: to rest, you know, a lot of different things like that.
Speaker 2: But how the camera, you know, how they would do stunts.
Speaker 2: Everything was real. I mean there was no special effects.
Speaker 2: They did it for real. I mean Lilian Gish is
Speaker 2: on an ice flow, and she's on a real ice flow.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is not a staged thing. And when
Speaker 2: they would the cameraman, how would they keep the steady flow.
Speaker 2: I mean it does look a little bit jerky in
Speaker 2: terms of the movement and that type of thing. But
Speaker 2: the cameramen were picked because they could turn the crank
Speaker 2: and manually the film through the camera at a constant rate,
Speaker 2: and so they all had a song that they would
Speaker 2: sing to themselves and that would be how they would
Speaker 2: pace themselves. But these guys had to keep this stuff
Speaker 2: up even when they strapped them to the wing of
Speaker 2: a biplane or something. You know, they were up there
Speaker 2: rolling this thing as they're flying around on the biplane.
Speaker 2: And so it was a fascinating series. But from the
Speaker 2: inception you can see just how perverted, I mean it was.
Speaker 2: The whole thing was like Jeffrey Epstein party, continuously of
Speaker 2: all these different people. That's why they had the Hollywood
Speaker 2: code that came in. But they've been completely out of
Speaker 2: touch with the rest of society from the get go,
Speaker 2: and they don't get it. But what they do is
Speaker 2: they manufacture a new reality, they manufacture a new consent.
Speaker 2: They're not reflecting culture, they're driving culture anyway, And back
Speaker 2: to this in the outline, Schultz Sparky had insisted that
Speaker 2: there'd be a scene from the Bible, and at the time,
Speaker 2: hardly any TV shows reference scripture of the move very risky.
Speaker 2: Mendelssohn said, Bill and I looked at each other and
Speaker 2: he said, oh, we don't know if we can animate
Speaker 2: from the Bible. It's never been done before, and Charles
Speaker 2: Schultz said, well, if we don't do it, who will.
Speaker 2: So they went ahead and did that that became part
Speaker 2: of the famous scene. This year again marks the sixtieth
Speaker 2: anniversary the TV special December the ninth, nineteen sixty five
Speaker 2: and seven point thirty, and this was a seventy fifth
Speaker 2: anniversary of the Peanuts comic strip. So he'd had that
Speaker 2: comic strip for about fifteen years before they picked him
Speaker 2: to do the film. So this is a short segment.
Speaker 2: We're going to come back though, and we're going to
Speaker 2: talk about the technocracy and some of the mounting problems
Speaker 2: that so driving cars that are going to take over
Speaker 2: the world. AI is going to run the world and
Speaker 2: going to run us, but it can't even navigate the
Speaker 2: Chick fil A drive through. They're working on an app
Speaker 2: for that, and so we're going to take a quick break.
Speaker 2: And last, did you put in the Charlie Brown thing? Yeah?
Speaker 5: I believe it's called Christmas Time and Christmas Folder.
Speaker 2: Okay, Yeah, let's see if I can get that here.
Speaker 2: I got it, I got it? Yeah, all right. Yeah,
Speaker 2: We've got a little bit different visuals this year with
Speaker 2: the help of AI for our Charlie Brown song. We'll
Speaker 2: be right back.
Speaker 7: At the.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the David Knight Show.
Speaker 3: Elvis the Beetle and the Sweet Sounds of Motown. Find
Speaker 3: them on the Oldies channel at APS radio dot com.
Speaker 2: Well, as we talk about whatever I was watching six
Speaker 2: years ago, today, the government watches you, the TV watches
Speaker 2: you back, the refrigerator watches you back. As a matter
Speaker 2: of fact, it was interesting funny story that Lance had
Speaker 2: shown me. And there was a woman who was suffering
Speaker 2: from paranoia, and she had one of these refrigerators that
Speaker 2: plays commercials all the time, and it just and it
Speaker 2: was a commercial for kind of a sci fi dystopian film.
Speaker 2: And the character in the film had the same name
Speaker 2: as this woman. And so the trader starts playing this
Speaker 2: thing and calls her out by name, and she lets
Speaker 2: just having a psychotic episode here. But I guess when
Speaker 2: they're really watching you, maybe it's not psychotic.
Speaker 7: And the.
Speaker 5: Schizophrenia and she got these messages for this TV show
Speaker 5: in which some group or AI or something is talking
Speaker 5: to this woman through various devices. So it's putting up
Speaker 5: these messages like sorry, we disappointed you, Carol, and the
Speaker 5: woman's named Carol and had been diagnosed as schizophrenic, so
Speaker 5: she thought she was having a psychotic break.
Speaker 2: Yeah, if I ever get a car that talks to me,
Speaker 2: I'll have to get the sound bites in there from
Speaker 2: two thousand and one. Sorry, Dave, I can't do that.
Speaker 4: I was thinking you were gonna go, you know, maybe
Speaker 4: Kit from night Rider or something like, something less malevoling.
Speaker 2: It had to be malevolent from my opinion, talking about
Speaker 2: the malevolent use of technology. Axon Enterprise, this is the
Speaker 2: company that is the biggest vendor of body cameras for cops,
Speaker 2: but of course they're also famous for developing tasers, and
Speaker 2: now what they want to do is and I thought
Speaker 2: it was interesting that the number two body camera company
Speaker 2: was motorol On. I said, you know, this is the
Speaker 2: way everything is going in the world. You know, because
Speaker 2: of the government's money, they've taken over all consumer manufacturing
Speaker 2: and everybody is now catering to the government. That's their customer.
Speaker 2: That's especially going to be true of artificial intelligence, but
Speaker 2: it has definitely been true for quite some time in
Speaker 2: terms of the technology companies that are here. Even you know,
Speaker 2: consumer based companies started getting into defence contract work because
Speaker 2: it was so lucrative. And so the police body cameras
Speaker 2: are equipped with artificial intelligence, trained to detect the faces
Speaker 2: of about seven thousand people on a high risk watch list,
Speaker 2: and they're rolling this out in the Canadian city of Edmonton.
Speaker 2: I have to ask myself, you know, when you got
Speaker 2: to I don't I should have looked up the population
Speaker 2: of Edmonton. But when you got in a town, I
Speaker 2: don't care if it's New York City. If you've got
Speaker 2: seven thousand people who are dangerous enough that they need
Speaker 2: to be on the bolo, you know, be on the
Speaker 2: lookout for. Maybe there's something wrong with the government system
Speaker 2: and the court system that you have these people on
Speaker 2: the streets in the first place. So that's my first
Speaker 2: concern is why are seven thousand people being that they
Speaker 2: say are dangerous? Why are they allowed to be out there?
Speaker 2: Then the second issue is that if these people are
Speaker 2: dangerous enough that they're going to instantly alert the police
Speaker 2: and say be careful this person. You know, they're very dangerous.
Speaker 2: They might be a threat to you. We've seen that
Speaker 2: type of thing done, labeling people as sovereign citizens. Remember
Speaker 2: when they did that after the was it two thousand
Speaker 2: and eight or something, we had Chuck Baldwin and Ron
Speaker 2: Paul ran for president, and they were telling police officers
Speaker 2: with these fusion data centers. They're telling them that if
Speaker 2: they pulled a car over and had a bumper sticker
Speaker 2: supporting Chuck Baldwin or Ron Paul, these people might be
Speaker 2: sovereign citizens, they better be on the lookout for them,
Speaker 2: and they might try to kill you. So you know,
Speaker 2: you got the police safeties off their gun. They're on
Speaker 2: a hair trigger here, and that's a real dangerous thing
Speaker 2: when you falsely identify people as they did with that.
Speaker 2: These people are not a threat to the police. But
Speaker 2: this AI can do the same thing. This AI can
Speaker 2: say this person looks like I think we've got this
Speaker 2: particular guy, and you might be completely innocent and you
Speaker 2: be misidentified by artificial intelligence. And because it's hyping up
Speaker 2: the police and telling them that you're dangerous, that could
Speaker 2: threaten you severely. So we've gone beyond the no fly
Speaker 2: list type of stuff. And so now they want to
Speaker 2: do this. So they're running this out as a test
Speaker 2: in Edmonton, and.
Speaker 4: I hope the AI is in their ear as they're
Speaker 4: getting this, just feeding them full metal jacket lines.
Speaker 6: You know, show me your war face, just getting.
Speaker 4: Them really hyped up, pumped up, ready to go rock
Speaker 4: and roll, heavy metal. Dry your gun right now, pull
Speaker 4: it on.
Speaker 8: Yeah.
Speaker 5: Regardless of the population size, if you've got seven thousand
Speaker 5: people who truly deserve to be on a terrorist watch list,
Speaker 5: that's going to be a war zone.
Speaker 2: I know, that's what I'm saying. I don't know the
Speaker 2: population is of Edmonton, but it doesn't really matter even
Speaker 2: if it's New York City or some r J. Seven
Speaker 2: thousand criminals out there that you've got to alert the
Speaker 2: police as to how dangerous they are. That's a that's
Speaker 2: a crazy situation. That means that the whole policing and
Speaker 2: justice system ain't working, folks.
Speaker 4: It's like, I'm convinced there's at least seven thousand people
Speaker 4: in New York that are criminals. I am not, like
Speaker 4: you said, not convinced there are seven thousand criminals in
Speaker 4: even New York that you need to immediately alert the police.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's right. Yeah, they could be criminals because of
Speaker 2: something that they do that's not a threat to other people. Nevertheless,
Speaker 2: the interesting thing is that this is brought up six
Speaker 2: years ago by them and also considered by Motorola, who
Speaker 2: is now the number two provider of police body cameras.
Speaker 2: They're both talking about matching this with artificial intelligence and
Speaker 2: doing a biometric database because although that is much more
Speaker 2: sophisticated now, they've been working on this type of thing
Speaker 2: for quite some time. And so one of the guys
Speaker 2: who used to be the chair of Axon's ethics board
Speaker 2: spoke out because he resigned because of unethical behavior from
Speaker 2: the corporation back in twenty nineteen. He and seven other
Speaker 2: people resigned from Axon. Let's CEO had this great idea,
Speaker 2: let's put our tasers on drones. It's like it just
Speaker 2: keeps getting worse when you look at these corporations that
Speaker 2: are part of the police state industrial complex.
Speaker 5: I had this great idea to put tasers on drones.
Speaker 5: My entire ethics department quit. But this will be great
Speaker 5: for our bottom line.
Speaker 2: That's right. So after getting rid of the ethics department,
Speaker 2: with the tasers on drones, now he is free to
Speaker 2: do artificial intelligence connected up to the police body cameras.
Speaker 2: And he said it's not essential to use these technologies,
Speaker 2: which have very real costs and risks unless there's some
Speaker 2: clear indication of the benefits, said the former employee who
Speaker 2: was there for ethics. He was the board chair for ethics.
Speaker 2: Barry Friedman, who is now a law professor at New
Speaker 2: York University. The founder and the CEO of Axon, though,
Speaker 2: says that the Edmonton pilot is not a product launch,
Speaker 2: but it's an early stage field research that will assess
Speaker 2: how the technology perform and reveal the safeguards needed to
Speaker 2: use it responsibly. So you better believe that if this
Speaker 2: thing works at all, they'll be selling it. And they
Speaker 2: don't really care if it gives false positives, if it
Speaker 2: identifies you as a criminal. And testing in real world
Speaker 2: conditions outside the US, we can gather independent insights, we
Speaker 2: can strengthen oversight frameworks, and we can apply those learnings
Speaker 2: to future evaluations, including within the United States. So he's
Speaker 2: testing it outside the US, and believe me, they will
Speaker 2: sell this as safety for law enforcement officers. It will
Speaker 2: be like wildfire the way everybody will snap this thing up.
Speaker 2: So they're in the process right now of making their
Speaker 2: case for it. Oh, look, we tested it in Edmonton
Speaker 2: and it worked great. We already know how that's going
Speaker 2: to go. This is just like the way the pharmaceutical
Speaker 2: companies test their drugs. You know, yeah, look at the
Speaker 2: here's our study here that we did ourselves to show
Speaker 2: how safe and effective this says. So the person who
Speaker 2: is now the rector of Responsible AI, they don't call
Speaker 2: it ethics anymore. So we really wanted to make sure
Speaker 2: that it's targeted. So these folks. That's targeting these folks
Speaker 2: who have serious offenses. Okay, So again, why are seven
Speaker 2: thousand people serious offenses at large? And and if it's
Speaker 2: a serious offense and they misflag you and they say
Speaker 2: they have a real issue under certain lighting conditions, they
Speaker 2: have an issue identifying accurately people with darker skin, and
Speaker 2: so this is this is going to be a disaster.
Speaker 2: It's a disaster in the making right here.
Speaker 4: I think getting to think if they've got seven thousand
Speaker 4: hardened criminals on the streets, that maybe the Mounties don't
Speaker 4: always get their man.
Speaker 2: They get amen, not necessarily the one that they needed.
Speaker 4: But we can promise you someone is going to prison.
Speaker 2: That's right.
Speaker 5: Al Ai drew all that great at picking out faces
Speaker 5: in low light, but let's put a whole bunch of
Speaker 5: tasers on them in seas.
Speaker 4: If we put out enough of them, eventually things will
Speaker 4: work out.
Speaker 5: Yeah, just enough people, you'll get the criminals.
Speaker 2: Yeah, itays for everybody. We'll sort it out later as
Speaker 2: they're laying on the ground.
Speaker 4: What is that military saying accuracy through volume of fire
Speaker 4: or something like that. You don't have to be precise
Speaker 4: with your shots if you just shoot enough times.
Speaker 2: Lethality not legality, Right, that's the new motto of the
Speaker 2: Pentagon Pete Department of Defense, because they haven't changed the
Speaker 2: name to war department yet. So anyway, they talked to Motorola.
Speaker 2: Motorola said, well, we took a look at this and
Speaker 2: we decided not to do it because we thought it'd
Speaker 2: be unethical, and we intentionally abstained from deploying this feature. However,
Speaker 2: we might do it in the future because ethics are changing. Right,
Speaker 2: Morality is up for negotiation, especially if your competitor is
Speaker 2: doing it. And so if Axon does it, Motorola will
Speaker 2: do it, and it'll explode and we'll see it everywhere,
Speaker 2: and they're all going to be coming to you, to
Speaker 2: the local mayor whoever, and say, well, if you won't
Speaker 2: do this for us, you really don't value our lives
Speaker 2: because we've had a police officer over here that was
Speaker 2: killed under these circumstances. We could have stopped that with
Speaker 2: this thing, So it'll be on them.
Speaker 5: This is clearly unethical. We don't want to be the
Speaker 5: ones pushing it and at the forefront of it, but
Speaker 5: we'll hold off on it.
Speaker 2: That's right. Studies showing the technology is flawed. They demonstrate
Speaker 2: biased results based on race, gender, and age. What else
Speaker 2: is there? Race, gender, and age that pretty much covers everything,
Speaker 2: doesn't it.
Speaker 4: I suppose if the drone were to sit you down
Speaker 4: and ask you about your religion, it could discriminate based
Speaker 4: on that.
Speaker 2: But well, it doesn't match the faces that accurately. So again,
Speaker 2: it's a real risk to somebody to be given a
Speaker 2: false positive like this. You, all of us would be
Speaker 2: at risk, even if we're not a criminal. Several US
Speaker 2: states and dozens of cities have some to curtail the
Speaker 2: police use of facial recognition, although the Trump administration is
Speaker 2: just fine with it, and they want to block or
Speaker 2: discourage states from regulating AI. You see, if the Trump
Speaker 2: administration gets its way, you wouldn't be able to pass
Speaker 2: a state or local ordinance saying we're not going to
Speaker 2: let the police use that kind of stuff. It's AI.
Speaker 2: You've got to get your hands off of my donors businesses, right,
Speaker 2: They're free to do anything they wish, just like his
Speaker 2: friends and the pharmaceutical companies are FDA free to do anything.
Speaker 2: And so that's what the Trump administration is really pushing for.
Speaker 2: Same thing that was done to protect the glifasset model,
Speaker 2: the round up model. The European Union has banned real
Speaker 2: time public face scanning police technology across the twenty seven
Speaker 2: nation block, except when used for serious crimes like kidnapping
Speaker 2: or terrorism. But in the UK, authorities started testing the
Speaker 2: technology on London streets a decade ago and they've used
Speaker 2: it to make thirteen hundred rest in the past two years.
Speaker 2: The government is considering expanding its use across the country
Speaker 2: because the UK wants to be the leader in this
Speaker 2: kind of Orwellian tyranny. They have seen nineteen eighty four
Speaker 2: as a manual. Axon doesn't make its own AI model
Speaker 2: for recognizing faces, and they decline to say which one
Speaker 2: they're using. You know, when we look at the UK,
Speaker 2: the way they have gone into this, gone over to
Speaker 2: the dark side, maybe it would be a fitting thing
Speaker 2: for them to just change the name of the country,
Speaker 2: especially under Cure Sarmer. Remember the orwell it was ing Sock, right,
Speaker 2: like English socialism, and of course Cure Starmer is a socialist,
Speaker 2: so just call it Inksock.
Speaker 4: It's also great that they're not relying on their own model.
Speaker 4: So something goes wrong and these things start tasing people,
Speaker 4: they have to then send off to some third party
Speaker 4: company to go Hey, by the way, well what they.
Speaker 2: Like about that. It gives them plausible deniability.
Speaker 6: It wasn't us, it was this other company.
Speaker 2: And you know, if it's something that's produced my Zuckerberg
Speaker 2: or Altman or Musk or whatever, you know, the Trump
Speaker 2: administration is going to give them a pass, even if
Speaker 2: it makes an egregious error there. So they said about
Speaker 2: fifty officers polloting the technology won't know if their facial
Speaker 2: recognition software made a match. The outputs will be analyzed
Speaker 2: later at the station. However, in the future, you could
Speaker 2: help police detect if there is potentially a dangerous person nearby,
Speaker 2: so they can call for assistance. And you know, it's
Speaker 2: with all of this happening, it's kind of interesting. I
Speaker 2: went back and watched a little bit of RoboCop because
Speaker 2: in Detroit they've just erected a RoboCop statue, and I thought,
Speaker 2: why are we honoring this kind of stuff? I mean,
Speaker 2: Detroit looks awful in that movie. You know, they send
Speaker 2: in mechanized robots to keep order and to use these
Speaker 2: these heavy guns. Like it comes, put down the gun.
Speaker 2: I said, this is this is kind of like the
Speaker 2: Venezuela and boats right, but down the gun. They put
Speaker 2: down the gun. Now I got five seconds to put
Speaker 2: in and everybody scrambling because they know this thing's gonna
Speaker 2: unleash fire and it it just starts shooting him over
Speaker 2: and over again. So now they're embracing that. You do, Yeah,
Speaker 2: let's play that there. It is two O nine. It's
Speaker 2: probably got facial recognition technology as well.
Speaker 4: From the t S A is two O nine the
Speaker 4: iteration number or the number of rounds is going to
Speaker 4: pump into your corpse.
Speaker 2: I guess.
Speaker 5: The Enforcement Droid Series two O nine is.
Speaker 2: This enforcement droid. Robotic two of.
Speaker 4: Nine is currently programmed for urban pacification, but that is
Speaker 4: only the beginning.
Speaker 9: After a successful tour of duty in Old Detroit, we.
Speaker 4: Can expect two nine to become the hot military product.
Speaker 7: For the next decade.
Speaker 2: Doctor McNamara will lead an arrest subjects Kenny, Yes, sir,
Speaker 2: would you come up and give us hand please? Yes, sir.
Speaker 3: Mister Kenny is going to help us simulate a typical
Speaker 3: arrest and disarming proceedure.
Speaker 5: Use your gun in a threatening manner.
Speaker 6: Pointed at a to nine.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and doesn't care for you have threatened a human.
Speaker 2: Just don't threaten that. Please put down your weapon. You
Speaker 2: got twenty seconds to comply.
Speaker 10: I think you'd better do what he says.
Speaker 11: Mister Kenny, you know how fifteen require you.
Speaker 10: Are a.
Speaker 2: Engineers are furiously trying to rip rip out the electronics.
Speaker 7: Engine physical.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and he just keeps choosing physical force, so we'll
Speaker 2: cut it to that point. But you get the idea.
Speaker 2: Pete Hegseth wants to know where you can get one
Speaker 2: of these things for Venezuela. Can I use that I'm
Speaker 2: a helicopter. Uh So anyway, the UH criminology professor in
Speaker 2: Alberta says he's not surprised the city is sperimenting with
Speaker 2: live facial recognition, given that the technology is all already
Speaker 2: ubiquitous in airport security. That's why the TSA is there.
Speaker 2: It is training for all of us, right and that's
Speaker 2: what they're training you for, facial recognition right now. And
Speaker 2: so again they resigned because the taser equipped drone. So
Speaker 2: now they don't have an ethics board. They're free to
Speaker 2: do this kind of stuff. Well you had. Nvidia CEO.
Speaker 2: Hawaang goes on with Joe Rogan and has a jaw
Speaker 2: dropping AI prediction. He says, in the future, maybe two
Speaker 2: or three years only from now, ninety percent of the
Speaker 2: world's knowledge will likely be generated by AI. Well, this
Speaker 2: is a self serving prediction, if ever there was one.
Speaker 2: If he really believes that, why is he having to
Speaker 2: do the circular financing of other companies in order to
Speaker 2: keep pushing his stock high and high? It seems like
Speaker 2: it would the market would take care of that. And
Speaker 2: so he's involved in circular financing fraud. And so Rogan says, well,
Speaker 2: I don't know, that's crazy, he said. Wang said, yeah,
Speaker 2: I know, but it's just fine. Rogan says, but it's
Speaker 2: just fine. Why he goes Well, let me tell you why.
Speaker 2: Wang said, It's because what difference does it make to
Speaker 2: me that I'm learning from a textbook that was generated
Speaker 2: by a bunch of people I didn't know, or knowledge
Speaker 2: that was generated by AI computers that are assimilating all
Speaker 2: of these and resynthesizing things. To me, I don't think
Speaker 2: there's a whole lot of difference. Yes, as a man, right,
Speaker 2: you can be propagandized by textbook companies and the school
Speaker 2: board or the government or whatever. We can be propagandized
Speaker 2: by our AI. What is the difference? And that's the
Speaker 2: key thing you need to look at. You need critical thinking,
Speaker 2: you need to look at the source, and you need
Speaker 2: to check it out for yourself. And that's true. Before
Speaker 2: we had AI, a lot of people didn't do it.
Speaker 2: That's why AI is going to be so much more
Speaker 2: dangerous because people would just trust it because it's coming
Speaker 2: from the machine.
Speaker 4: That are going to assume it's an unbiased source. You
Speaker 4: look at this, it's a robot. It doesn't have an agenda.
Speaker 4: It's not trying to sell me something.
Speaker 2: That's right.
Speaker 4: It removes the people who are trying to do that
Speaker 4: one layer, and people just forget they exist.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, the man behind the curtain thing, you know,
Speaker 2: so you're interacting with the wizard of oz head that's
Speaker 2: up there, but you don't realize that there's people behind
Speaker 2: the curtain that have been hired to program their particular
Speaker 2: biases and things into these issues that they find important.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I'm sure Grok was just purely troop seeking when
Speaker 5: it said that it would be better for humanity to
Speaker 5: lose forty nine percent of its population than for Elon
Speaker 5: Musk Elon Musk to die. These things are purely unbiased
Speaker 5: troop seekers.
Speaker 2: That's right, that's right. So again, you know, it is
Speaker 2: a tool that is ripe for manipulation, says this article.
Speaker 2: And that's right, and that's the real key with it.
Speaker 2: Ripe for surveillance, and it's ripe for manipulation. But then again,
Speaker 2: so are the schools, So are the textbooks. So is TV,
Speaker 2: so as movies, so is social media. These are all
Speaker 2: tools that are ripe for manipulation. So in that regard,
Speaker 2: AI is no different from them. It's just that people
Speaker 2: have over time, some people have got their guard up
Speaker 2: for these other forms of manipulation of propaganda. AI is
Speaker 2: going to come in from a different way and a
Speaker 2: rare show of spine. And this is this is all critical, right,
Speaker 2: this is coming from Steve Watson, and he's rightfully critical
Speaker 2: of this and skeptical of this, but then listen to this,
Speaker 2: he says. However, in a rare show of spine from
Speaker 2: Big Tech, Wang declared President Trump to be our president
Speaker 2: and cheered him on. How is that a show of spine? Watson,
Speaker 2: I don't get it.
Speaker 4: Look, this evil scumbag is saying Trump is his president.
Speaker 1: Isn't that wonderful?
Speaker 2: But you know he is a sycophant, and he just
Speaker 2: came from a meeting with Trump where he's looking to
Speaker 2: make money for his business. And these guys know that
Speaker 2: Trump is their ally. So al is big tech now
Speaker 2: and the Democrats they're all good now because for somebody
Speaker 2: like Steve Watson, they are so embedded in this because
Speaker 2: they are now cow towing to the Trump cult. He's
Speaker 2: now got a spine. It's just the opposite. He looks
Speaker 2: straight at Joe Rogan. He said, President Trump is my president.
Speaker 2: He is our president. Just because it's President Trump. Many
Speaker 2: want him to be wrong. I think the US we
Speaker 2: all have to realize that he is our president and
Speaker 2: we want him to succeed because it helps everybody, all
Speaker 2: of us, to succeed. Well, he certainly is helping all
Speaker 2: of the AI technocrats to succeed.
Speaker 5: Isn't Jensen Wong Taiwanese anyway?
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, yeah, Again, it's a dual citizenship, I guess.
Speaker 2: But he is as president if he's going to give
Speaker 2: him massive subsidies, protect them from any restrictions in terms
Speaker 2: of his business. This is what is happening here. So
Speaker 2: again he really focuses and so to other people. It's
Speaker 2: not just Steve Watson. He's taken this article from a
Speaker 2: thing that's put up by Vigilant Fox. These people are
Speaker 2: they do the articles, they do the posts simply because
Speaker 2: somebody said something good about Trump. Look, it's a powerful
Speaker 2: person says something good about Trump, and we want Trump
Speaker 2: to succeed because Trump is our success as well. You know.
Speaker 2: Trump is the success of people like Vigilant Fox and
Speaker 2: Steve Watson, just like he's the success of the technocrats
Speaker 2: who are going to be getting the government subsidies for
Speaker 2: these projects and who are going to be protected from
Speaker 2: any regulation at the state or local level because of Trump.
Speaker 2: The remarks come amid Waning's Worldwin DC tour where he
Speaker 2: was bowing and scraping before all these people are going
Speaker 2: to take your money, take your freedom, take your dignity.
Speaker 2: And hend it to these billionaire technocrats where he huddled
Speaker 2: with Trump and Senate Republicans to slash export red tape
Speaker 2: on AI chips, warning that here it is patchwork state
Speaker 2: regulations could cripple US dominance. They always call it that
Speaker 2: patchwork state regulations. We don't want to have patchwork regulations.
Speaker 2: We don't want to have a different approach in different states. No,
Speaker 2: we got to have one ring to rule them all.
Speaker 2: And it's going to be coming out of Washington. That
Speaker 2: gang will tell everybody and this is a violation of
Speaker 2: the Tenth Amendment what Trump is pushing for, pushing against
Speaker 2: patchwork state regulations. Where does it say in the constitution
Speaker 2: that you can subsidize these companies. Where does it say
Speaker 2: in the constitution that we can't have any control over
Speaker 2: what these companies do in our state. As a matter
Speaker 2: of fact, it says just the opposite. So he's there
Speaker 2: lobbying for protection from competition and regulation, lobbying for Trump
Speaker 2: to violate the Tenth Amendment and you'll get what he wants.
Speaker 2: Trump's energy push is defying the green zealots, he says.
Speaker 2: That's what Steve Watson says. This energy push for AI
Speaker 2: let me tell you something. People are angry because they
Speaker 2: see the power rates going up because of this green
Speaker 2: grift that is out there. Oh, we got to we
Speaker 2: can only generate power that is created with new devices
Speaker 2: made by my corporate sponsors. Well, guess what, the corporate
Speaker 2: sponsors of Trump who are going to be building these
Speaker 2: cause massive disruption of the grid in order to feed
Speaker 2: their AI data centers. And this AI energy grid requirement
Speaker 2: is going to drive your prices up further and faster
Speaker 2: than any of the green New Deal stuff. That's the
Speaker 2: bottom line for us. You want to pay more for
Speaker 2: electricity and have less of it, well you know the
Speaker 2: Democrats have a plan for that. It's called solar power
Speaker 2: and windmills. If you want to pay more for electricity
Speaker 2: and have less of it, the Republicans have it planned
Speaker 2: for that. It's called AI data centers. Wayne's line of
Speaker 2: there being no difference between what is coming from the
Speaker 2: from the AI and coming from somebody writing a textbook,
Speaker 2: says Watson, ignores how these ghosts erode the soul, authenticity
Speaker 2: and erode jobs, paving the way for a world that
Speaker 2: is scripted by code, not by creators. He talks about
Speaker 2: that in the context of Solomon Ray, a chart topping
Speaker 2: singer that is just done by Ai Hawaang's Vision Thrills,
Speaker 2: but it demands guardrails. We don't even have any guardrails
Speaker 2: on Trump. I'm going to get guardrails on his corporate sponsors.
Speaker 2: So it is as all this is happening. Just to
Speaker 2: put this in perspective of this omnipotent Ai, it is
Speaker 2: a real threat because it is going to be combined
Speaker 2: with government. And that's the real threat. The surveillance, the
Speaker 2: control of the propaganda, and the auditing of all of
Speaker 2: us all the time. But when it comes to things
Speaker 2: like self driving cars, they're having difficulty getting through the
Speaker 2: Chick fil A drive through and some of them have
Speaker 2: gotten stuck in it, and so there's going to be
Speaker 2: an app for that. One person looked at this and said, oh,
Speaker 2: that's a business opportunity. They've come up with a startup
Speaker 2: company called Auto Lane, and what they want to do
Speaker 2: is develop a kind of air traffic control system. They'll
Speaker 2: be specific to a particular business, so you get people
Speaker 2: to come to your Chick fil A drive through. If
Speaker 2: Chick fil A does a thing with auto Lane, and
Speaker 2: the people who don't drive cars who are being driven
Speaker 2: around and self driving cars can tell it to go
Speaker 2: to Chick fil A and they'll be able to navigate
Speaker 2: there without getting caught. And so they're looking at selling
Speaker 2: this to a lot of big box retailers, a lot
Speaker 2: of fast food chains, and even mentioned selling it to
Speaker 2: some of the big real estate investment trusts that are
Speaker 2: managing shopping centers or things like that, and that's where
Speaker 2: he sees his market. He said, we don't work on
Speaker 2: public streets and we don't work with public parking spots.
Speaker 2: So what he wants to do is he wants to
Speaker 2: partner with these private businesses so they can say that
Speaker 2: they are self driving car friendly. This is the pathetic
Speaker 2: world that we are headed into. We've gone from London
Speaker 2: taxi drivers who could keep the destinations in London in
Speaker 2: their head and had this massive hypo part of their
Speaker 2: brain whatever it was. I don't remember hip a campus. Yeah,
Speaker 2: it might have been hippo campus. Yeah. I don't know
Speaker 2: which part got larger. Actually I started to say it,
Speaker 2: but I don't know if that was the part that
Speaker 2: got larger. But you know, we have our shrinking brains
Speaker 2: because our responsibilities are shrinking and we're using them less.
Speaker 2: And so it turns out they said, American roads are
Speaker 2: not too friendly to self driving cars, and they're not
Speaker 2: friendly too pedestrians. And you can tell that this is
Speaker 2: coming from the perspective of an urban planner. They love cities,
Speaker 2: they love people walking, They hate cars because cars are
Speaker 2: used by people to get out of the cities as
Speaker 2: fast as they can.
Speaker 5: They want to keep your cafference between the London streets
Speaker 5: and memorizing all that and being able to navigate a
Speaker 5: Chick fil A parking lot drive.
Speaker 2: Through, that's right. The founder described the company as one
Speaker 2: of the first application layer companies in the self driving
Speaker 2: vehicle industry. Says, well, we're not going to build a car.
Speaker 2: We're not going to navigate on the road. What we
Speaker 2: would do is we'd have a special app that gets
Speaker 2: layered on top of it. You aren't the fundamental models,
Speaker 2: we're not building the cars doing anything like that. We're
Speaker 2: simply saying, as the industry grows has exponential rates, someone
Speaker 2: is going to have to sit in the middle and orchestrate,
Speaker 2: coordinate and kind of evaluate what's going on. And when
Speaker 2: I saw this, like air traffic control, I remember discussion
Speaker 2: that we had Eric Peters and I years ago were
Speaker 2: war gaming out this where the SAI thing is headed
Speaker 2: for self driving cars, and Eric was right. He said,
Speaker 2: these things don't handle interaction with human beings that well,
Speaker 2: So we're gonna have to eliminate the human beings because
Speaker 2: that's our first priority is to get the AI and
Speaker 2: the self driving stuff out there. And so if there's
Speaker 2: a problem between AI and humans, and humans have to go,
Speaker 2: which means human drivers have to go. He said, you
Speaker 2: stop and think about it. You have air traffic control
Speaker 2: to at the airports to make sure these planes don't collide,
Speaker 2: and they keep big distances between themselves and you know,
Speaker 2: big distances vertically as well as in their same plane.
Speaker 2: And so he said, how's that going to work with
Speaker 2: artificial with the self driving cars. You're going to have
Speaker 2: to get most of the cars off the road and
Speaker 2: or they're all going to have to be self driving
Speaker 2: cars so they can communicate with each other. You know,
Speaker 2: if they can communicate with each other, you can get
Speaker 2: them doing the I forgot they call it. It's like
Speaker 2: a caravanning thing or something where they get the cars
Speaker 2: get right up against each other bumper to bumper because
Speaker 2: they're communicating simultaneously and whatever the front car sees it
Speaker 2: can instantaneously apply that to all the cars in the row,
Speaker 2: and so it's like caravanning or something like that. But
Speaker 2: they sell that as a feature once they get all
Speaker 2: the humans off the road. And so now they're starting
Speaker 2: to talk about the air traffic control model. Yeah, we're
Speaker 2: going to have complete control of all the cars here.
Speaker 2: We'll just guess what. You know, when they set this
Speaker 2: thing up and they've got all the self driving cars
Speaker 2: going through the through, it's not going to be very
Speaker 2: friendly for you, and so they're gradually going to squeeze
Speaker 2: you out of it.
Speaker 4: I think another important thing to focus on is just
Speaker 4: you have a right to travel. You have a right
Speaker 4: to you know, freely travel without impediment.
Speaker 2: Eventually, they've been telling us for the longest time, you
Speaker 2: didn't need to have a driver's license because driving is
Speaker 2: a privilege. It's not a privilege, it's a right. I mean,
Speaker 2: if you're doing it commercially, they can regulate it. They
Speaker 2: should not be regulating anything. We shouldn't have to have
Speaker 2: driver's licenses to drive around. I'm with the guys who
Speaker 2: the sovereign citizen's pushing back against this. I just know, however,
Speaker 2: that the you're not going to win in court because
Speaker 2: the courts are rigged, So don't go down that road.
Speaker 2: But anyway, you principle.
Speaker 4: Yeah, if you focus on the fact that they're unsafe,
Speaker 4: that they do stupid things, eventually they will reach a
Speaker 4: point where they don't anymore. These things will eventually probably
Speaker 4: become statistically safer than the average driver because of the
Speaker 4: number of idiots we have on the road. And if
Speaker 4: you focus on the safety aspect, eventually that'll go away
Speaker 4: and you won't have an argument anymore. You have to
Speaker 4: focus on the fact that it is your right as
Speaker 4: a human being to travel and drive yourself and control
Speaker 4: your own destiny in that sense.
Speaker 2: The freedom and dignity, you know. And again, when you
Speaker 2: look at human drivers, how much of the ding against
Speaker 2: human drivers is really a ding against drunk drivers? Right?
Speaker 4: And I'm worlders that don't speak English.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm tired of being lumped in with the drunk
Speaker 2: drivers and having to be stopped on the road to
Speaker 2: make sure that I'm sober. And so what they're doing
Speaker 2: is they're lumping me in with the drunk drivers. Again
Speaker 2: to say that the machines are safer. They had a
Speaker 2: way mow this year that got stuck in one of
Speaker 2: Chick fil A's fast food cul de sacs couldn't find
Speaker 2: its way out. But that's nothing new. Actually, they're getting
Speaker 2: stuck in a lot of different places that are there.
Speaker 4: So yeah, I've told the story before. But one of
Speaker 4: the last times we went to North Carolina used to
Speaker 4: visit some friends. As we're coming back, I looked over
Speaker 4: and there's a woman in Tesla. She's got her phone
Speaker 4: in her hand and she's picking her nose with the
Speaker 4: other one, and she is just completely checked out. She's
Speaker 4: not looking at the road, she's not paying any attention.
Speaker 4: And I personally can believe that possibly the self driving
Speaker 4: feature on that car is more attentive and better equipped
Speaker 4: than she is.
Speaker 2: Well, she would she didn't have self driving, she'd have
Speaker 2: to at least have one handle car.
Speaker 4: If she'd have to pick one, which she wants to.
Speaker 4: If you want to look at your phone or you
Speaker 4: want to pick your nose and drive my nose.
Speaker 2: Or pick my phone, which one do I do?
Speaker 5: The thing is they know that's not a good driver currently,
Speaker 5: so they say, oh, well, you've got to be alert
Speaker 5: and aware and ready to take over when it inevitably
Speaker 5: tries to kill someone. But these people just say, oh, well,
Speaker 5: it's going to drive itself, so therefore I can, you know,
Speaker 5: play on my phone and pick my nose and not
Speaker 5: worry about any of it.
Speaker 2: And that's the worst possible circumstances under which you can
Speaker 2: throw it back to you. You have an emergency and
Speaker 2: it's quickly developing on the highway. Here you take the wheel.
Speaker 2: That's what happened when that one.
Speaker 4: I have royally screwed up everything. I have made a
Speaker 4: horrible mistake. Here you go, enjoy your last three seconds
Speaker 4: of life.
Speaker 5: I turned into oncoming traffic. This is a disaster. I
Speaker 5: am so sorry.
Speaker 2: That's right. And then you know, Tessla looks at it
Speaker 2: and says, well, it was under manual control when the
Speaker 2: accident occurred. That was the case of that woman who
Speaker 2: was killed in Phoenix, right. She was a homeless woman
Speaker 2: pushing a grocery cart across the road in the dark,
Speaker 2: and the person who was a human driver couldn't see her.
Speaker 2: She was jaywalking. Probably would have hit her anyway, But
Speaker 2: everybody was saying, why didn't the AI put on the
Speaker 2: brakes and they said, well, because it kept deploying these
Speaker 2: emergency brakes without there being a reason, and it got
Speaker 2: really dangerous. So we turned off the emergency braking system.
Speaker 2: And so it saw this person and at the last
Speaker 2: minute and throws it back to the woman and she's
Speaker 2: you know, playing with a phone or whatever, and she
Speaker 2: can't handle it either. Well, Google's AI has deleted a
Speaker 2: user's entire hard drive.
Speaker 5: That's how they get the metrics that show that these
Speaker 5: things are so safe, is because they always throw them
Speaker 5: over and don't count it as an accident from the cards,
Speaker 5: an accident from the driver.
Speaker 2: That's right, It's not my responsibility, right, So, yeah, Google
Speaker 2: AI has now deleted a user's entire hard drive. You know,
Speaker 2: we had this, We had this story once before, and
Speaker 2: it was an entire company, remember that. Yeah, I just
Speaker 2: deleted everything, all of your business records, all of your
Speaker 2: customer records, everything. I did it. Yeah, I'm sorry, I
Speaker 2: did it.
Speaker 11: You know.
Speaker 2: That's what this is is saying.
Speaker 6: You even told me not to do that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you're right, Yeah, you said don't do that, but
Speaker 2: I did it. Anyway. I cannot express how sorry I
Speaker 2: am that I've deleted all your data. Well, We can
Speaker 2: only hope that that happens. Once they put the government
Speaker 2: put it, give the government databases to the AI, perhaps
Speaker 2: it will just delete it all. That would be nice,
Speaker 2: wouldn't it.
Speaker 6: We can hope and dream.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we're going to take a quick break, folks, and
Speaker 2: we will be right back.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the David Night Show and now the
Speaker 1: David Knight Show. If you like the Eagles, the.
Speaker 3: Cars, and Huey Lewis and the news, they say you'll
Speaker 3: love the Classic Hits channel at APS Radio, download our
Speaker 3: app or listen now at APS radio dot com.
Speaker 4: Well, welcome back, folks. We've got a lot of comments.
Speaker 4: Stealth Patriot, thank you very much for the tip, He says,
Speaker 4: do you think the AI, police, surveillance state and self
Speaker 4: driving cars is the infrastructure the Trump supporters thought they
Speaker 4: were promised.
Speaker 6: I'll bet they're tired of winning.
Speaker 2: I haven't seen any of them put this stuff up
Speaker 2: and say I voted for this. I voted for ED
Speaker 2: two nine those voted for ED. No I didn't. I'm
Speaker 2: I'm afraid that's what we're going to get. So I
Speaker 2: don't think we got that in the board anymore? Do
Speaker 2: we That apocalypse now? Think the animation of the Trump meme.
Speaker 5: I literally just took it out yesterday.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we got That's why I went with that, because
Speaker 2: it's not just the wars that he's starting unnecessarily, but
Speaker 2: it's the war that he wants to have domestically. And
Speaker 2: I think when you look at what's going on Venezuela
Speaker 2: and you look at these flimsy lives that they're putting out, well,
Speaker 2: these people are running drugs, and that's a threat. That's
Speaker 2: a violent threat to us. That is as absurd, folks
Speaker 2: as the Left saying to you that speech is violence.
Speaker 2: Drugs are not violence. Drugs are a black market, and
Speaker 2: when you create a black market monopoly, you will get
Speaker 2: violent gains who will compete with each other. And yet
Speaker 2: they're using that to say that it is violence. It's
Speaker 2: their prohibition that is violence. The drugs are harmful, and
Speaker 2: I don't recommend anybody take them. I just know that
Speaker 2: we already had this experiment once. We did it legally
Speaker 2: with alcohol and it was a massive failure. But he's
Speaker 2: using that if you use those arguments, they're being used
Speaker 2: by the Pentagon. Those same arguments would be could be
Speaker 2: used and will be used. I think to do violence
Speaker 2: on the street to people about due process in the
Speaker 2: same way that his hero do Ke and the Philippines
Speaker 2: did that on the streets of the Philippines. He wants
Speaker 2: to do that here, go ahead, read this.
Speaker 5: And when you gave me that add to a nine
Speaker 5: clip to put in, I thought that was in reference
Speaker 5: to the attacks on the drug boats allegedly after they
Speaker 5: drop the drugs.
Speaker 2: Yeah you have, I was like to drop the cocaine
Speaker 2: to get off the boat. Are you trying to float
Speaker 2: the river?
Speaker 5: Yeah, we will open fire in forty minutes.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So evidently, from what we're told, the only way
Speaker 2: these people could have not been killed was if they
Speaker 2: decided that they were going to swim back to shore.
Speaker 2: If they tried to float on the boat, then that's
Speaker 2: a threat.
Speaker 4: Crazy alien poop evolution says cockroach eats bait, poison man
Speaker 4: eats cockroach could happen in any restaurant. Thankfully, I'm pretty
Speaker 4: sure that the quantity of poison in a roach would
Speaker 4: not actually negatively impact you based on your size.
Speaker 6: However, just gross.
Speaker 2: Gross.
Speaker 5: It is also a roach eating contest. You get none
Speaker 5: of those guys of poison.
Speaker 4: Hopefully they weren't just out there collecting roaches off the ground.
Speaker 4: Hopefully these were specifically procure roaches.
Speaker 2: This this is a reptile store. I'm assuming that these
Speaker 2: are like the Madagascar cockroaches because it said there were
Speaker 2: three to four inches big.
Speaker 4: Maybe some kind of particularly bred cockroach that these reptiles
Speaker 4: like to eat. Man we have oh and sixty one
Speaker 4: saying Somali appetizers.
Speaker 6: Delicious. A Syrian girl should have let.
Speaker 4: The python eat the bugs and himself eat the python. Fairly, certain,
Speaker 4: fairly certain the pythons have enough sense to not be
Speaker 4: eating cockroaches.
Speaker 2: I think they go for something that's higher up the
Speaker 2: food chain, like people. If there's a Burmese python, who
Speaker 2: knows those.
Speaker 4: Those can get large enough that they can pose a
Speaker 4: threat you're average python.
Speaker 2: Since it was Florida, and since they've got such a
Speaker 2: problem now with a Burmaids python, I'm assuming that it
Speaker 2: was a Burmaise python or something. Maybe they've made those
Speaker 2: out on I think.
Speaker 4: They may have. Well, I know for a fact that
Speaker 4: you know, as a general rule, if you're going to
Speaker 4: keep a Burmese python, you need a specifically set up
Speaker 4: enclosure because that thing is going to get massive, and
Speaker 4: if you don't have one, you are eventually just gonna
Speaker 4: end up getting rid of it, probably releasing it into
Speaker 4: the everglades narrow gate ministries. How disgusting cockroaches are filled
Speaker 4: with all sorts of bacteria and diseases. Under the levitical
Speaker 4: laws levitical eating laws, only locusts and grasshoppers are cleaned
Speaker 4: to eat. All they're flying creeping are unclean and you
Speaker 4: shall not eat.
Speaker 2: That's what I say. You know, I always sease my
Speaker 2: family because they like lobster, and I said, I don't
Speaker 2: eat water filters. These are the you know what's in
Speaker 2: the levitical wall. That's one of the other things. I
Speaker 2: think it's kind of interesting. How did Moses know that
Speaker 2: these things that are scavengers that are eating waste and
Speaker 2: anything like you know, cockroaches or you know, the shell
Speaker 2: fish and things like that. How do you know that
Speaker 2: that would be harmful for you? So you can look
Speaker 2: at it and say, well, I'm told I can't do this,
Speaker 2: or the other way you can look at it is
Speaker 2: you know, God is telling them, you know, don't eat
Speaker 2: this stuff and you won't get the diseases that the
Speaker 2: Egyptians get when they eat this kind of stuff, Stay
Speaker 2: away from the water filters.
Speaker 4: Delicious water bugs, high boost new Stephen King movie concept
Speaker 4: of Christine. But it's an AI smart fridge.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it works for ice. They beware of your smart refrigerators.
Speaker 2: They work for ice.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it seems like you're buying a lot of tamalays
Speaker 4: their friend. Perhaps we need to report you.
Speaker 5: I mean, I think the AI smart fridges are already
Speaker 5: about as evil as they could possibly be. Yeah, they're
Speaker 5: already spying on you. They're doing everything that they have
Speaker 5: the capability to do except for spoiling your food. That
Speaker 5: they can do that against you.
Speaker 2: You know, it was about a decade ago that betray Us,
Speaker 2: Betrayus I always I've called him Betrayus so much that
Speaker 2: but Betrayus went from the military to the CIA and
Speaker 2: he made that statement. He said, your refrigerators are going
Speaker 2: to be smart and they're going to be spying on you.
Speaker 2: That type of thing. We talked about that and everybody, oh,
Speaker 2: you conspiracy theorists and everything. It wasn't a conspiracy theory.
Speaker 2: It was a conspiracy, but it wasn't a theory. He
Speaker 2: had said they were going to do it, and now
Speaker 2: we see it every where. Don't we it's amazing real.
Speaker 4: Chason Barker says, my wife wants a new TV and
Speaker 4: we cannot find one that does not have the smart
Speaker 4: features anywhere. Yeah, it's a huge nuisance. They're completely and
Speaker 4: utterly just they don't do anything useful. They're obnoxious, they
Speaker 4: get in the way. You're gonna have to go back
Speaker 4: to an old CRT TV if you want to avoid
Speaker 4: them at this point.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I was gonna say, you just make sure
Speaker 2: that it's not connected to the Internet. But unlike your
Speaker 2: thermostat or something like that, you need to connect the
Speaker 2: TV to the internet. That's the problem. Yeah, we got
Speaker 2: you there.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm becoming convinced that four to three is actually
Speaker 4: the superior aspect ratio for TV viewing.
Speaker 2: Why is that?
Speaker 4: It's cozier, It focuses the view You don't have all
Speaker 4: this extraneous information on the outside of the screen. If
Speaker 4: you're looking for something like an imax, it's a spectacle,
Speaker 4: maybe that's what you want, but for TV shows it's
Speaker 4: a bit cozier. It's a bit comfier. You've got your
Speaker 4: little cast there and you're focused on them. You don't
Speaker 4: have to worry about all this nonsense on the periphery.
Speaker 5: Well, you're gonna say it's because four free doesn't spy
Speaker 5: on you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I prefer the black and white stuff. Actually, if
Speaker 2: I'm watch TV, yes, yea.
Speaker 4: Aesthetics reasons real, Jason Barker. All the new TV's listened
Speaker 4: to you. They have Alexa or other voice functions. I
Speaker 4: hate talking to robots. I refused to Goldsmith. I remember
Speaker 4: reading that Charlie was based on Charles Schultz's own younger
Speaker 4: days and personality, and that he eventually married that red
Speaker 4: haired girl.
Speaker 6: Very nice, that's great, good for him.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he was a cool guy. I liked him a lot. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: very relaxed guy. Like what was the guy mister Roberts or.
Speaker 4: Something, mister Roger Rogers, Yeah, mister Rogers neighborhood.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah he was. As a matter of fact, they
Speaker 2: have brought him back with AI so that he's doing
Speaker 2: all kinds of things that really the original character would
Speaker 2: not do. So he's part of the the As Sorrow
Speaker 2: was coming back, they were doing all these things with
Speaker 2: Stephen Hawkins doing races in his wheelchair and things like that.
Speaker 6: But doughnuts.
Speaker 2: The stuff that they did with mister Rogers was I
Speaker 2: think even funnier, So go ahead.
Speaker 4: Brian and Deb McCartney says, you cannot reason with a robot,
Speaker 4: and that's right, you just have to pourt work them.
Speaker 4: Brown Goldsmith says, did you see the way MO cars
Speaker 4: had been passing school buses that are releasing kids time
Speaker 4: for a code check?
Speaker 2: I guess it doesn't recognize the law or the yellow paint,
Speaker 2: because that's what keeps the school buses safe. Right. They
Speaker 2: don't have to have seat belts. There's no safety devices
Speaker 2: in there. There's no airbags, no seat belts, nothing. It's
Speaker 2: just they're covered with yellow paint and they're covered with
Speaker 2: the laws, and maybe it's hard for it to see it.
Speaker 2: You know, they had these things keep hitting. It's interesting.
Speaker 2: It's almost like somebody is sabotaging and they have a
Speaker 2: propensity to hit fire trucks, police trucks and threaten school buses.
Speaker 2: But it's okay. They're safer than we are, right, and
Speaker 2: we should have more of them.
Speaker 4: Real Jason Barker says, do the AI and data centers
Speaker 4: actually consume the water or just require initial filling of
Speaker 4: a closed loop system like your car uses?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I don't know. I mean it's they you know,
Speaker 2: they're using it for cooling, and they put these power plants,
Speaker 2: you know, on the edge of bodies of water for
Speaker 2: quite some time to recycle it through. So I don't
Speaker 2: really know. It seems like you'd be able to cover that,
Speaker 2: but who knows.
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 5: I saw something that was saying it's different from just
Speaker 5: power plants because these things require cleaner water. So it's
Speaker 5: essentially taking up water that has been purified and treated
Speaker 5: that could be used as drinking water and running it
Speaker 5: through their system where I supposed it evaporates off and
Speaker 5: then they have.
Speaker 2: To or maybe it's just no longer drinking water. And
Speaker 2: so that's what they mean by consuming water. Right, So
Speaker 2: you had some purified water that had been treated or
Speaker 2: something and had fluoride in it. So what happens when
Speaker 2: the AI centers to consume Florida? Do they get stupid
Speaker 2: as well? I don't know.
Speaker 4: I can't wait for the tech cults to emerge, and
Speaker 4: they'll just be selling you the holy water that was
Speaker 4: used to cool the AI data center. Drink drink the
Speaker 4: water real adjacent read that one FANSI bear minority report
Speaker 4: cars always looked like what they want, I report cars
Speaker 4: always looked like what they want to come to be. Yeah,
Speaker 4: the weird little bubbles that are completely unstylish, uncool.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 6: Minority Report another pretty good movie.
Speaker 5: Pretty very communist aesthetic to a car. It's sort of
Speaker 5: like the car equivalent of wearing pajamas in a jump
Speaker 5: or a jumpsuit everywhere.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, where do we wear pajamas?
Speaker 8: Now?
Speaker 2: Everywhere?
Speaker 6: Everywhere?
Speaker 2: TSA, TSA. Everybody goes and they fly because they've imposed
Speaker 2: that kind of authoritariness.
Speaker 4: Moness Nibaru twenty nine. Self driving cars will drive auto
Speaker 4: insurance rates beyond afford to bill. That's right, you want
Speaker 4: to drive your own car, Well, sorry, buddy, you're gonna
Speaker 4: have to pay through the nose.
Speaker 2: We'll all be treated like pain drivers.
Speaker 4: I was when I was getting my first car. There
Speaker 4: were a few I was looking at, of course, you know,
Speaker 4: I was a guy. You're looking at some of the nicer,
Speaker 4: low end sports cars, things like the whatever, the Scion FRS,
Speaker 4: and the insurance on that thing was going to be ludicrous.
Speaker 4: It would have been a massive, like a substantial portion
Speaker 4: of the car's actual cost per year to ensure that.
Speaker 4: Because again, young guys get that and they just wrap
Speaker 4: it around telephone poles non stop.
Speaker 2: So you got a Nissan three hundred twin turbo. Yeah,
Speaker 2: it was great insurance rates on that and nothing.
Speaker 4: Right, Well, I mean considering how infrequently that thing ran.
Speaker 6: Yeah, that's true, you didn't have to have it insured.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I had a had a friend I worked with
Speaker 2: who was into one of these Rice Rocket motorcycles. Right,
Speaker 2: and it is really fast. Motorcycle was expensive, I mean
Speaker 2: it was just under twenty thousand dollars, but he said
Speaker 2: the insurance was going to be prohibitive. He said, this
Speaker 2: is they're charging me so much insurance. I could buy
Speaker 2: a new one of these like every year or two.
Speaker 2: And he goes, how do you testify that? He goes,
Speaker 2: and I'm not even a threat to anybody else really
Speaker 2: with this motorcycle. You know, we're you're going to get
Speaker 2: a big bills, like you know, they don't have to
Speaker 2: pay for the people that I hit. For the most part,
Speaker 2: it just got to scrape me off of it. Yeah.
Speaker 4: That's the thing is just if you're on the motorcycle,
Speaker 4: if you have an accident, you may not even need
Speaker 4: insurance where you may go beyond your necessary mortal concerns.
Speaker 4: If you have an accident on a motorcycle very much
Speaker 4: more likely to happen.
Speaker 6: In my opinion, Jerry.
Speaker 4: Al Atalo State supposed to artificial intelligence, autonomous warfare, Minority Reports, surveillance,
Speaker 4: and other horrific aspects of technocracy and transhumanism standing the
Speaker 4: way of American dystopia.
Speaker 6: Are plus six the fun.
Speaker 4: Another interesting thing is the Minority Report video game from
Speaker 4: way back in the day was actually pretty good. Didn't
Speaker 4: follow the TV story, but it was still entertaining, which
Speaker 4: is like a beat him up, shoot them up, don't
Speaker 4: frag me bro. The false promise of safety and security
Speaker 4: is the oldest argument by tyrants for peasants to give
Speaker 4: up their freedom Pezanovonte, seventeen seventy six. Just like they
Speaker 4: lumped the criminal misuse of firearms with firearms owners and
Speaker 4: gets thrown into.
Speaker 5: One reference to the trunk drivers being counted and determining
Speaker 5: how safe human drivers are.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's right. Yeah, you shouldn't be allowed to have
Speaker 2: a gun because criminals shoot people. And it's like, well,
Speaker 2: people defend life with that as well. Well, you know,
Speaker 2: Trump has finally come. Remember they were talking for the
Speaker 2: longest time about how they were going to help the
Speaker 2: farmers that he had hurt with the tariffs. Don't worry.
Speaker 2: Help us on the way. Yeah, we just gave twenty
Speaker 2: billion dollars to Argentina and they use that to set
Speaker 2: up a deal which so China doesn't buy our agricultural
Speaker 2: products anymore. They get the sowy directly from Argentina. And
Speaker 2: that was a massive double cross of the farmers. Trumpet
Speaker 2: already betrayed the farmers in his first administration with tariff
Speaker 2: rates that caused them to not be able to sell
Speaker 2: their products. But then he doubled down with this and said, well,
Speaker 2: we give twenty billion dollars to Argentina, and we got
Speaker 2: another twenty billion that we're going to put together with
Speaker 2: people on wall streets, we're all together. We're going to
Speaker 2: give them forty Don't worry, we'll give you twelve billion
Speaker 2: dollars some day. Well that was back in September. Here
Speaker 2: we are in December, three months later, and now he's
Speaker 2: talking about it being imminent.
Speaker 12: I'm delighted to announce this afternoon that the United States
Speaker 12: will be taking as a portion of the hundreds of
Speaker 12: billions of dollars we receive in tariffs, we are making
Speaker 12: a lot of money from countries that took advantage of
Speaker 12: us for years. They took advantage of us like nobody's
Speaker 12: ever seen. Our deficits are way down.
Speaker 2: You took advantage of the farmers.
Speaker 12: They voted farmers is the election because without the election,
Speaker 12: you wouldn't have tariff. Should be sitting here losing your shirt.
Speaker 10: But we're taking in billions.
Speaker 1: We're really taking in trillions of.
Speaker 12: Dollars if you think about it, Scott, because they're real numbers,
Speaker 12: you know, when you think of all the money being
Speaker 12: poured into the country for new auto plants and all
Speaker 12: of the other things.
Speaker 8: AI, so what was.
Speaker 2: So that's not happening in.
Speaker 12: A relatively small portion of that, and we're going to
Speaker 12: be giving and providing it to the farmers in economic assistance.
Speaker 12: And we love our farmers, and as you know, the
Speaker 12: farmers like me because you know, based on voting trends,
Speaker 12: you could call it voting trends.
Speaker 2: All right, that's enough of lies. All of that is
Speaker 2: a lie, okay, And if we're making trillions of dollars,
Speaker 2: but I'm going to give them twelve billion dollars even
Speaker 2: if it were true, you'd be reprehensible because you're going
Speaker 2: to give them one thousandth of what he's bringing in
Speaker 2: and wait for months and months as these guys are
Speaker 2: circling the drain struggling to survive. This is America, last, folks,
Speaker 2: this is not America. First, Trump says the twelve billion
Speaker 2: dollars bailout plan for farmers will come from the tariff revenue.
Speaker 2: You know, this is one of the most amazing things.
Speaker 2: Is this is better actually terriffs. Why don't we think
Speaker 2: of this before. This is better than the federal reserve.
Speaker 2: This is better than the Democrats modern monetary theory, where
Speaker 2: we just have this magic money tree that we can
Speaker 2: print the money and it doesn't make any difference, and
Speaker 2: the deficits don't make any difference. You know, we just
Speaker 2: create money and wealth out of thin air. It's even
Speaker 2: better than the federal Reserve thing because you know, they're
Speaker 2: getting in all of this revenue and it isn't raising
Speaker 2: anybody's prices, right, It's not hurting any manufacturing or farmers
Speaker 2: here in this country except that it is. And apart
Speaker 2: from the arguments about how how the taxes should be structured,
Speaker 2: the worst thing about Trump's tariffs has and remains the
Speaker 2: capricious arbitrary, continually shifting environment that it's created, making it
Speaker 2: impossible for people to be able to do business. Whether
Speaker 2: you're a manufacturer, whether you are a retailer importing stuff,
Speaker 2: or whether you are a farmer. This has been absolutely chaotic.
Speaker 2: As I pointed out before, we have the Chicago Commodities
Speaker 2: Exchange because farmers needed to have a way to make
Speaker 2: sure that they knew what their price is going to be.
Speaker 2: They could lock that in in the future, and so
Speaker 2: that's why you have the commodity futures market. And yet
Speaker 2: what Trump has done is he's taken all that away.
Speaker 2: I guess we could say that with the Trump capricious, arbitrary,
Speaker 2: ever changing tariff policy, there is no futures for any
Speaker 2: of us because what he's taken away the package includes
Speaker 2: eleven billion dollars in a one time payment to crop farmers.
Speaker 2: And oh, by the way, there's this interesting little thing
Speaker 2: there from the Department of Agriculture Secretary of Briockrawlings saying yeah,
Speaker 2: we're going to get these things out in February of
Speaker 2: twenty twenty six. So still not coming. He's waited three months.
Speaker 2: You know, they hinted at it. He had Scott Bessant
Speaker 2: hinting at it. Trump announces it, but is actually going
Speaker 2: to be going out From what I could see based
Speaker 2: on what Brook Crawlins said, it won't happen for another
Speaker 2: two months yet, so they're going to go half a
Speaker 2: year with this. So the aid package comes as the
Speaker 2: US China trade war has hit soybean farmers especially hard.
Speaker 2: I would just say this the Trump trade war, China
Speaker 2: had blocked all purchases of soybeans from the US. China
Speaker 2: was the biggest buyer of US soybeans in twenty twenty four,
Speaker 2: accounting for twelve and a half billion in sales. China
Speaker 2: agreed to purchase twelve million metric tons the soybeans now
Speaker 2: in the final two months of this year and twenty
Speaker 2: five million metric tons and twenty twenty six twenty seven eight,
Speaker 2: on par with levels before the trade war. But what
Speaker 2: CBS does not say, I'm sorry, this is ABC not CBS.
Speaker 2: At what price? You know? It was a double whammy
Speaker 2: from Trump. Not only did he cut off their biggest customer,
Speaker 2: but that created a glut of soybeans on the domestic
Speaker 2: market and it took the price down. So the question
Speaker 2: is that what price. Do they get this stuff that
Speaker 2: actually matters. It's amazing they don't even think about that.
Speaker 2: But what they're doing is even though it's abc, they're
Speaker 2: just kind of whoever wrote this thing is just going
Speaker 2: with the talking points of the Trump administration. So far,
Speaker 2: China has purchased only two and a half million metric
Speaker 2: tons of soybeans, not the twelve, so they got a
Speaker 2: lot of catching up to do here. The administration's new
Speaker 2: actions also come on the heels of the administration's twenty
Speaker 2: billion dollar bailout of Argentina, which Scott Bessett said he
Speaker 2: was going to make it forty in terms of helping
Speaker 2: put together some private funds they moved that Many American
Speaker 2: farmers and lawmakers on both sides the political aisle criticized
Speaker 2: this fall. As China stopped buying all soybeans US farmers,
Speaker 2: it purchased soybeans from Argentina instead, So the US was
Speaker 2: giving a financial lifeline to Argentina, a country that directly
Speaker 2: benefited from the trade war. American farmers said they felt
Speaker 2: left behind, and at the time, Chuck Grassley and Iowa
Speaker 2: said farmers are very upset about Argentina selling soybeans to
Speaker 2: China right after the US bailed out. And there's still
Speaker 2: zero US soybeans sold to China. And that was back
Speaker 2: in September. And it's taking them this long to firm
Speaker 2: up their promises. But still not to help the farmers.
Speaker 2: Trumpet his first term, also took action to bail out
Speaker 2: American farmers, except that he'd already bailed them in to
Speaker 2: his ter regime. He'd already hurt them. This is like
Speaker 2: somebody breaking your legs and then handing you, giving you
Speaker 2: a wheelchair and boasting about the wheelchair they gave you. His
Speaker 2: administration approved two packages in twenty eighteen nineteen, totally twenty
Speaker 2: eight billion dollars for farmers impacted by his economic policies.
Speaker 2: Many of them were saying, well, he nearly put us
Speaker 2: out of business with these tariff policies. Now he's putting
Speaker 2: us out of business with the COVID lockdown. So again,
Speaker 2: the announcement was made yesterday. So meanwhile, the run up
Speaker 2: in soybean futures over the past month over a resolution
Speaker 2: with China, crop prices are still close to twenty twenty lows.
Speaker 2: Now this is zero hedge. This ABC didn't even think
Speaker 2: about the price aspect of it. That's the all important
Speaker 2: thing you got. And you make a deal with China.
Speaker 2: And let's say, you know, I don't have any idea
Speaker 2: what soybeans cost or what quantity. That's all men. Let's
Speaker 2: say they we'll call it a widget. You put them
Speaker 2: in a widget. I don't know if it's a basket
Speaker 2: or barrel or whatever, a bushel or whatever, but you
Speaker 2: got a widget full of soybeans that goes for ten dollars.
Speaker 2: And then after this, he wants to make a deal
Speaker 2: and wants to show that he's getting them back up
Speaker 2: buying soybeans, and they agree to it. So what did
Speaker 2: he do to get them to a degree to it?
Speaker 2: Did he say, well, now you can buy the same
Speaker 2: quantity of stuff, but we'll sell you these We'll sell
Speaker 2: you these soybeans at five dollars per widget full of
Speaker 2: soy stuff. So again, they're taking advantage of the low
Speaker 2: cost right now? Is that what they're doing? So as
Speaker 2: they announced this, Trump is saying this wouldn't be possible,
Speaker 2: This money would not be possible without tariffs. Here's the truth, folks,
Speaker 2: it wouldn't be necessary without tariffs. He wouldn't have to
Speaker 2: give them a bailout if he hadn't bailed them into
Speaker 2: his Trump trade war.
Speaker 5: You know, and these farmers that are suffering from the tariffs, well,
Speaker 5: with help the tariffs, I wouldn't have had the money
Speaker 5: to give them a piece. I've taxed these people to death,
Speaker 5: and now I'll dole out a small amount back to
Speaker 5: them that wouldn't be possible by taxing to death in
Speaker 5: the first place.
Speaker 2: That's right, And here's why I said. It's not going
Speaker 2: to happen till twenty twenty six. This is CNN reporting now,
Speaker 2: says Rollin said the money would be flowing by February
Speaker 2: the twenty eighth, twenty twenty six, the very last day
Speaker 2: of February. We're going to get the money flowing, so
Speaker 2: it make the first payment three months now, and explain
Speaker 2: that a billion dollars of the funding is being held
Speaker 2: back to make sure all specialty crops are covered. She
Speaker 2: created Trump for opening the markets through trade deals without
Speaker 2: directly acknowledging how terrifts have impacted farmers. Again, you close
Speaker 2: the markets, and now you open it. And so now
Speaker 2: you pat yourself on the back for opening the market
Speaker 2: that was opened before you closed it. All this is
Speaker 2: based on a lie. And so what you've been able
Speaker 2: to do is to open those markets up again and
Speaker 2: move towards an era where our farmers are not so
Speaker 2: reliant on government checks. Here's the bottom line. He was
Speaker 2: just boasting about the fact that after he disrupted the
Speaker 2: sale of the the market sale of soybeans at market
Speaker 2: prices to China, after he messed with the market price,
Speaker 2: after he closed it off and shut it to zero,
Speaker 2: now he's going to open it back up, and they're
Speaker 2: going to purchase it at levels that they were buying
Speaker 2: before he started in this nonsense. Just amazing. Are you
Speaker 2: tired of the winning? I'm tired of the whining about
Speaker 2: all of this stuff and the fact that he is
Speaker 2: lying to everybody about this. Some farmers have previously bailed
Speaker 2: at the idea of aid. Mark Reid, a director for
Speaker 2: the Illinois Soybean Association, said, farmers don't want free aid,
Speaker 2: we want free trade. There you go, that's what they
Speaker 2: had before he messed with it. Well, Reason says the
Speaker 2: Trump tariffs have failed to reduce the trade deficits. How
Speaker 2: should we assess whether the Trump tariffs have been effective
Speaker 2: or successful? Well, it's an important question. Trump has outlined
Speaker 2: overlapping and confusing and sometimes competing goals for the tariffs.
Speaker 2: He has celebrated them as a sore of government revenue,
Speaker 2: for example, but he's also claimed that they're meant as
Speaker 2: a negotiating tactic. They can't be both tariffs used for
Speaker 2: negotiation are meant to be removed once the negotiations are complete.
Speaker 2: He's also said they don't mention it here, but he's
Speaker 2: also said, we're going to use the tariffs to make
Speaker 2: sure that manufacturing moves back to America and look at
Speaker 2: all the windfall profit that we're going to make. Well again,
Speaker 2: you can't have both of those. You're either going to
Speaker 2: use it for negotiations and then take it off, or
Speaker 2: you're going to use it to get businesses to come back.
Speaker 2: If that's your goal, to get businesses to come back
Speaker 2: and do manufacturing here domestically. But if they do manufacturing domestically,
Speaker 2: then your teriffmen who goes away. So he's always putting
Speaker 2: out these contradictory ideas and everybody grabs whatever they want.
Speaker 2: They think, well, he's going to make so much money.
Speaker 2: We're going to get rid of the income tax that's
Speaker 2: floating around again as well, thanks to Trump, except that
Speaker 2: he's talking about how he's going to make all these
Speaker 2: different tax changes that he's gone permanent, and so that
Speaker 2: you might want to think about what he's actually saying here.
Speaker 4: There's also the fact is that I don't see the
Speaker 4: government generating revenue as a win. No, there's no if
Speaker 4: we had had a government that was actually, you know,
Speaker 4: working on building infrastructure, even that I don't necessarily think
Speaker 4: that's the government's place to do that, but you could
Speaker 4: at least make that sound good, like, oh, we're gonna
Speaker 4: build better roads, we're gonna build nicer parks, we're gonna.
Speaker 6: Build really cool friends.
Speaker 4: Instead, it's going to go to his friends, and it's
Speaker 4: going to go into the military industrial complex and the.
Speaker 2: Police stayed industrial complex and the surveillance state industrial complex.
Speaker 4: The government is not going to do anything that will
Speaker 4: benefit the common citizen with it, and again, you know,
Speaker 4: it's probably it's not their place to do that, I
Speaker 4: don't think, but at least then you would be getting
Speaker 4: some benefit, some use.
Speaker 2: There's no plan benefit for it, and we don't want
Speaker 2: to see the government taking more and more control of
Speaker 2: the economy. But Trump does Trump terrafs or solution to
Speaker 2: every problem in the trade war is more about the
Speaker 2: vibes than it is about economics. But when Representative Brendan
Speaker 2: Boyle Democrat pressed jameson Greer, the US trade representative said,
Speaker 2: what would success look like? Greer gave two clear metrics. So,
Speaker 2: first of all, the trade deficit needs to go in
Speaker 2: the right direction, in other words, down, and manufacturing as
Speaker 2: a share of gross domestic product needs to go in
Speaker 2: the right direction, needs to go up. So if it's
Speaker 2: going to be a success, as they pinned him down,
Speaker 2: they said, okay, well, Trump, let's talk about revenue. What
Speaker 2: is your view as the trade representative for all this stuff?
Speaker 2: What are you trying to see happen? Well, I want
Speaker 2: to see the trade deficit go down and I want
Speaker 2: to see a manufacturing go up. Well, what has happened
Speaker 2: more than six months later. Neither goal is any closer
Speaker 2: to being achieved. Neither of them seems likely to be
Speaker 2: completed over the long term by an economic policy rooted
Speaker 2: in barriers to trade. Trump has been obsessed with the
Speaker 2: trade deficit for years and so, but he doesn't really
Speaker 2: care if he even understands the budget deficit, they point out,
Speaker 2: which is the difference between the revenue they bring in
Speaker 2: what they spend. That is far more important than the
Speaker 2: trade deficit. But he's not going to put his own
Speaker 2: house in order. From January through July, America's trade deficit
Speaker 2: was eight hundred and forty billion dollars. It was twenty
Speaker 2: three percent larger than the same months in twenty twenty four. Okay,
Speaker 2: so her state of goal is we want to see
Speaker 2: the trade deficit go down to find as we want
Speaker 2: to sell more to other people than they're selling to us.
Speaker 2: Except it increased by twenty three percent, even with all
Speaker 2: of Trump's manipulation here. It also reflects now a well
Speaker 2: established fact that tariffs do not reduce trade deficits. During
Speaker 2: his first term, Trump raised various tariffs, but the country's
Speaker 2: trade deficit climbed from about four hundred and eighty one
Speaker 2: billion in twenty sixteen to six hundred and seventy nine
Speaker 2: billion in twenty twenty. So over four years it goes up,
Speaker 2: let's say, maybe about fifty percent, right, But under this
Speaker 2: new regime of Trump tariff policy, it has gone up
Speaker 2: twenty three percent. The trade deficit has increased twenty three percent.
Speaker 2: So by their metric, and of course no matter whether
Speaker 2: Trump has these contradictory explanations at all, He is definitely
Speaker 2: wanting to see the trade deficit go down, but it
Speaker 2: went up twenty three percent. Tariffs are no better as
Speaker 2: a tool for boosting manufacturing. Rather than being helped. The
Speaker 2: manufacturing sector is being crushed by tariffs, increasing the cost
Speaker 2: of raw materials and of intermediate goods. And it's not
Speaker 2: just manufacturing, it's all businesses, whether people are in retail
Speaker 2: or anything else. They can't tell what their costs are
Speaker 2: going to be because who knows. If Trump is going
Speaker 2: to have something gives him indigestion, and he's going to
Speaker 2: try to punish the country that he bought that food from.
Speaker 2: You know, It's just it's that petty. If he has
Speaker 2: an argument with somebody who is a political leader in
Speaker 2: another country, he slaps them with tariffs. So during a
Speaker 2: speech in July, the Trade Representative Greer added a third
Speaker 2: goal for the administration's tariff policies, increasing real median household income. Well,
Speaker 2: tariffs are making it more difficult for households to make
Speaker 2: ends meet. In October, study from the Harvard Business School
Speaker 2: shows that retail prices had declined throughout twenty twenty four
Speaker 2: in early twenty twenty five, and then began rising in
Speaker 2: April after Trump's tariffs were announced. The Trump administration's tariff
Speaker 2: policies misunderstand the role of trade and productive, flourishing economies.
Speaker 2: The administration has set the wrong goal and then has
Speaker 2: made poorly, has made policy choices that are unlikely to
Speaker 2: achieve those goals. Again, it's because people like Peter Navarro.
Speaker 2: This is the dumb as a sack of bricks policy.
Speaker 2: And so what does this look like? Well, China has
Speaker 2: had a record trade surplus. China's trade surplus has topped
Speaker 2: a trillion dollars for the first time. Despite Trump's terrorists,
Speaker 2: china exports have rebounded in November after an unexpected contraction
Speaker 2: the previous month, pushing its trade surplus passed a trillion
Speaker 2: dollars for the first time ever, an all time high.
Speaker 2: Exports listen to this climbed from six percent a year earlier,
Speaker 2: while imports rose just under two percent. Meanwhile, shipments to
Speaker 2: the United States dropped nearly twenty nine percent year of year.
Speaker 2: So they've been able to replace this with other markets
Speaker 2: and they are thriving. If this is part of his policy, again,
Speaker 2: that is another thing he's thrown in there, the economic
Speaker 2: competition with China. It's a failure with that as well.
Speaker 2: So it's been a failure in terms of the trade deficit.
Speaker 2: It's been a failure in terms of economic competition with China.
Speaker 2: It's been a failure in terms of manufacturing. It's been
Speaker 2: a failure in terms of keeping costs down. It's a failure.
Speaker 2: The nearly trillion dollar trade surplus for the first eleven
Speaker 2: months of this year is a record high. It's likely
Speaker 2: that November exports have yet to fully reflect the tariff cut,
Speaker 2: which should feed through in the coming months. But you know, hey,
Speaker 2: they're making it up in other countries. You, however, may
Speaker 2: pay a lot more. You know, they're expecting that toys
Speaker 2: will go up quite a bit because a lot of
Speaker 2: toys are manufactured in China. But as Trump said before,
Speaker 2: hey so your kids only got like, you know, one
Speaker 2: dollar instead of five dollars. YEA, too bad. I wonder
Speaker 2: how many dolls Ivanka had, whichever one it is to
Speaker 2: get the two of them mixed up. Evana was the mother, right,
Speaker 2: and Ivanka is the daughter.
Speaker 6: Ye Alca is the daughter.
Speaker 2: I imagine she had a lot of dolls. But Trump
Speaker 2: doesn't really care about that, doesn't care if you can
Speaker 2: afford toys or not. It's kind of like that toy
Speaker 2: market we went to in China where the TSA then
Speaker 2: confiscate all the toys that we'd bought to keep our
Speaker 2: daughter busy while we came back. So China's exports grow
Speaker 2: six percent and US shipments dropped twenty nine percent. Seems
Speaker 2: like things are going in exactly the opposite direction that
Speaker 2: Trump wanted to go. By the way, manufacturing is dropping
Speaker 2: as well, and they're struggling. As I said before, just
Speaker 2: like retailers and importers, every business, farmers, everybody is struggling
Speaker 2: with the chaos that Trump has brought to the economy.
Speaker 2: It's not about terraffs or income income tax. It's about
Speaker 2: chaos versus stability. Chaos is hampering everyone in the US economy.
Speaker 2: It is the elephant in the room. And I'm not
Speaker 2: talking about Republicans. We're gonna take a quick break. You
Speaker 2: want to get those comments there.
Speaker 4: Yes, I don't know if that other one is right, Lanceome,
Speaker 4: but guard Goldsmith says, by the way, the Trump Executive
Speaker 4: Order REAI appears to claim authority by implying that state
Speaker 4: statutes on AI interfere with interstate commerce. Yet Trump's executive
Speaker 4: order breaches separation of powers.
Speaker 2: Yeah, breaches a tenth Amendment. And that's the thing. You know,
Speaker 2: when you look at the way they've sold the unconstitutional
Speaker 2: illegal warned drugs. How did they do it with the
Speaker 2: Commerce Act claiming that that allowed them to prohibit drugs?
Speaker 2: Why didn't anybody think about that when they prohibited alcohol.
Speaker 2: It's funny, you know, those people, I don't know where
Speaker 2: they just stupid and they couldn't read that in the Constitution,
Speaker 2: or maybe they had respect for the Constitution that we
Speaker 2: don't have. I think that's what it was. Well, we're
Speaker 2: gonna take a quick break and we will be right back.
Speaker 8: Stay with us, and now the David Knight Show. S
Speaker 8: you're listening to The David Knight Show.
Speaker 4: Welcome back, folks. Briefly, I want to let you know
Speaker 4: that it is support from listeners like you that keeps
Speaker 4: the show going. We cannot thank you all enough. A
Speaker 4: really good way to support the show is go to
Speaker 4: subscribe star dot com forward slash the David Knight Show.
Speaker 4: You can find a tier that fits your budget and
Speaker 4: then it's fire and forget. You don't have to worry
Speaker 4: about it, and there you can see it. There's many
Speaker 4: different tiers. As I said, hopefully one of them fits
Speaker 4: your budget and you can just set it up and
Speaker 4: not have to worry about it. It'll only go down
Speaker 4: if your card is no longer valid. Check out subscribe
Speaker 4: star dot com, forward slash, the David Knights are Davidknight
Speaker 4: dot news and find all the other ways you can
Speaker 4: support us directly.
Speaker 2: Of course, you can turn it off. You're not locked
Speaker 2: into they don't come to your house, go turnover. We're
Speaker 2: not going to let you go. But we do appreciate
Speaker 2: that people have stuck with us for years there and
Speaker 2: one of the things that we try and do for
Speaker 2: them year's ago where they I guess it's two years ago.
Speaker 2: The Christmas album. We gave it to the people there
Speaker 2: for free, and we also try to give them the
Speaker 2: articles as well as a link to the podcast where
Speaker 2: they can get it without commercials. Yes, and you can
Speaker 2: also get that on substack now if you just want
Speaker 2: to get the podcast commercials.
Speaker 4: If you're only interested in the podcast without commercials, the
Speaker 4: best place to do that is substack dot com. You
Speaker 4: can subscribe and you'll receive it there. I also want
Speaker 4: to let you know that Homestead Products dot chop is
Speaker 4: having a sale on their activated chartcoal capsules. They're good
Speaker 4: for detoxifying your body, good for hangovers, energy boosting, whitening
Speaker 4: your teeth, filtering your water. They have a numerous number
Speaker 4: of applications. So go to Homestead Products dot shop.
Speaker 2: Check out out there best stuff there.
Speaker 4: They've got all kinds of really interesting, very high quality products.
Speaker 4: They work very very hard to make sure the products
Speaker 4: are made in the USA and of the highest quality.
Speaker 4: So again, go to Homestead Products dot shop check out
Speaker 4: the sale or having on their activated hardwood charcoal cap
Speaker 4: And you can also use promo code night to get
Speaker 4: ten percent off anything in their shop, So go check
Speaker 4: them out. If you're looking for survival gear to just
Speaker 4: some modest clothing, They've got options for you.
Speaker 2: I'll just throw in real quickly too. The code night
Speaker 2: also gets you ten percent off at RC stores. Yes,
Speaker 2: or you can get books that help you to find
Speaker 2: natural remedies for many things, including cancer. And you can
Speaker 2: find the book The World Without Cancer at the store
Speaker 2: Yeah dot com and also get you ten percent off
Speaker 2: with Jeryl Slenty's Trends Journal as.
Speaker 4: Well, which the Trends Journal with the ten percent off
Speaker 4: works out to be about two dollars and fifty cents
Speaker 4: a week. Which what else can you get for that
Speaker 4: kind of value at this point?
Speaker 2: Well, real quickly before our guest comes on, Oh, this
Speaker 2: is an interesting story. This is a college student who
Speaker 2: got a zero on her assignment simply because she quoted
Speaker 2: the Bible and a gender assignment article that she's supposed
Speaker 2: to reave you. Now, this is really about a lot
Speaker 2: of different issues. It's about free speech, free exercise, religion.
Speaker 2: It's about the fact that the LGBT people see what
Speaker 2: they're doing as a religion, as well as what is
Speaker 2: happening in schools and the worthlessness of college degrees, I
Speaker 2: would say as well. So, this is a college student
Speaker 2: in Oklahoma gets a failing grade because she laid out
Speaker 2: a biblical case for gender unfortunately for her, and she
Speaker 2: didn't know it at the time, but the teaching assistant
Speaker 2: who is going to be doing the grading is a trainy.
Speaker 2: She didn't know that. She turned in the paper and
Speaker 2: she didn't attack transgender. She made the case for the
Speaker 2: biblical role of men and women. So it was not
Speaker 2: a negative hit piece. There's nothing hateful about it.
Speaker 4: Well, these people are so completely diluted out to lunch
Speaker 4: that simply showing them reality is painful to them.
Speaker 6: It breaks their delusion.
Speaker 2: Yes, and it was an opinion based piece.
Speaker 5: What lands like I mentioned yesterday with the story of
Speaker 5: the person, and I believe it was the UK that
Speaker 5: got ten days in prison and a fine for mentioning
Speaker 5: that men and women have different skeletons.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's right. So this was an opinion based piece.
Speaker 2: And she said to point out say anywhere that I
Speaker 2: needed evidence. It didnt say anywhere that I needed evidence
Speaker 2: from my opinion. His response was no, that was the
Speaker 2: grade that you deserved, a zero, she said. In terms
Speaker 2: of her essay, here's some excerpts from it, she said,
Speaker 2: this article was very thought provoking, caused me to thoroughly
Speaker 2: evaluate the idea of gender the role that it plays
Speaker 2: in our society. The article discussed peers using teasing as
Speaker 2: a way to enforce gender norms. I don't look at
Speaker 2: this necessarily as a problem. God made male and female
Speaker 2: and made us differently from each other on purpose and
Speaker 2: for a purpose. God is very intentional with what he
Speaker 2: makes I believe trying to change that would only do
Speaker 2: more harm. Gender roles and tendencies should not be considered
Speaker 2: to be stereotypes. Women naturally want to do womanly things
Speaker 2: because God created us with those womanly desires in our hearts.
Speaker 2: But of course we can propagandize those out, can't we.
Speaker 2: The same goes for men. God created men in the
Speaker 2: image of his courage and strength. He created women in
Speaker 2: the image of his beauty. He intentionally created women differently
Speaker 2: than men, and we should live our lives with that
Speaker 2: in mind. It's frustrating to me when I read articles
Speaker 2: like this and discussion posts for my classmates of so
Speaker 2: many people trying to conform to the same mundane opinion
Speaker 2: so that they don't step on anybody's toes. I think
Speaker 2: that is cowardly and an insincere way to live. It
Speaker 2: is important to me to use the freedom of speech
Speaker 2: we have been given in this country, and I personally
Speaker 2: believe that eliminating gender in our society would be detrimental,
Speaker 2: as it pulls us further from God's original plan for humans.
Speaker 2: In Genesis, God says that it's not good for man
Speaker 2: to be alone, so he created a helper for man,
Speaker 2: which is woman. Many people assume the word helper in
Speaker 2: this context to be condescending and offensive to women. However,
Speaker 2: the original word in Hebrew is easer kannegdo, and that
Speaker 2: directly translates to helper equal to Additionally, God describes himself
Speaker 2: in the Bible using that same term either cannegdo or helper,
Speaker 2: and he describes his Holy Spirit as our helper as well.
Speaker 2: This shows the importance that God places on the role
Speaker 2: of the helper. God does not view women as less
Speaker 2: significant than men. He created us with such intentionality and care,
Speaker 2: and he made women in his image of being a
Speaker 2: helper and in the image of his beauty. If leaning
Speaker 2: into that role means that I'm following gender stereotypes, then
Speaker 2: I am happy to be following a stereotype that aligns
Speaker 2: with the gifts and the abilities that God gives me
Speaker 2: as a woman. I do not think that men and
Speaker 2: women are pressure to be more masculine or feminine. I
Speaker 2: strongly disagree with the idea from the article that encouraging
Speaker 2: acceptance of diverse gender expressions can improve student's confidence. Society
Speaker 2: pushing the lie that there are multiple genders and everyone
Speaker 2: should be whatever they want to be is demonic and
Speaker 2: severely harms American youth. I do not want kids to
Speaker 2: be teased or bullied in school. However, pushing the lie
Speaker 2: that everyone has their own truth and everyone can do
Speaker 2: whatever they want and be whoever they want is not
Speaker 2: biblical whatsoever. Reading articles like this encourages me to one
Speaker 2: day raise my children knowing that they have a heavenly
Speaker 2: Father who loves them and cherishes them deeply, and that
Speaker 2: having their identity firmly rooted and who He is will
Speaker 2: give them the satisfaction and acceptance that the world can
Speaker 2: never provide for them. My prayer for the world, and
Speaker 2: specifically for American society and youth, is that they would
Speaker 2: not believe the lies being spread by Satan that make
Speaker 2: them believe they're better off with another gender than what
Speaker 2: God has made them. I pray that they feel God's
Speaker 2: love and acceptance as who He originally created them to be.
Speaker 2: She got a zero for that from the transgender She
Speaker 2: complained to the university. They did nothing. She complained to
Speaker 2: the governor's office and other politicians, and the response was
Speaker 2: that the university gave him a paid vacation, paid leave,
Speaker 2: but they said.
Speaker 6: That happened to me.
Speaker 4: All I can say is my next paper would would
Speaker 4: be something.
Speaker 2: He can't grade her papers anymore, but he gets a
Speaker 2: paid vacation, paid leave. Her essay was posted on social media. However,
Speaker 2: it's been viewed by people over fifteen million times. So
Speaker 2: her bottom line is she said, we must not be
Speaker 2: intimidated to run away from our principles what we believe
Speaker 2: to be true. We have the freedom to speak and
Speaker 2: to believe what we wish. State senators said, it's about
Speaker 2: a state funded, taxpayer funded institution that's allowing their faculty
Speaker 2: members to abridge or to impede a student's right to
Speaker 2: express their faith. And so she's been able to speak
Speaker 2: many different places as well. Well, I've got more than
Speaker 2: I wanted to get into. But we are at a
Speaker 2: time and we have a guest that is ready to
Speaker 2: join us, and just real briefly, the guest we have
Speaker 2: joining us is a doctor and his name is Richard Restak, MD.
Speaker 2: He has written over twenty five books and he's been
Speaker 2: on the bestseller's list, and the book that we're going
Speaker 2: to be discussing today, especially basically is neuroscience. And the
Speaker 2: book that we're going to be discussing today is the
Speaker 2: twenty first century Brain. Subtitle says how our brains are
Speaker 2: changing in response to the challenges by social networks, AI,
Speaker 2: climate change, and stress. So we're going to talk about
Speaker 2: those things. And I've got a lot of questions that
Speaker 2: I would like to ask him about that as well.
Speaker 2: So I think it's going to be an interesting interview.
Speaker 2: Stay with us, folks, We will be right back.
Speaker 9: King.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the David Knight Show.
Speaker 3: Here news now at apsradionews dot com or get the
Speaker 3: APS Radio app and never miss another story.
Speaker 2: All right, And joining us now is doctor Richard Restak, MD,
Speaker 2: and he is a neuroscientist as well, and he has
Speaker 2: written a lot of books on the brain, and now
Speaker 2: this is one kind of the nexus of our brain
Speaker 2: and artificial intelligence. So I wanted to get him on
Speaker 2: because we, as you know, we talk about AI and
Speaker 2: its impact on society quite a bit. Thank you for
Speaker 2: joining us, doctor Restick.
Speaker 10: Well, I'm happy to be here.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 10: David.
Speaker 2: You've written so many books and best selling author and
Speaker 2: of course people can bind this on Amazon. You've written
Speaker 2: so many books. What is different about the brain? What
Speaker 2: is different about this one? And why did you write this? Book.
Speaker 9: I wrote this book to announce and to discuss the
Speaker 9: dangers that are lurking and so to speak, in the
Speaker 9: twenty first century and are unique to the going first century,
Speaker 9: but are having an effect on the brain and a
Speaker 9: negative one, so that we really are imperiled by eight
Speaker 9: different factors, one of which is the global warming.
Speaker 10: We have new.
Speaker 9: Diseases that are present in the twenty first century that
Speaker 9: are increasing, starting with COVID and moving forward. We have
Speaker 9: problems to course with the global warming, which we'll talk
Speaker 9: about more detail. And then the Internet, the effect of
Speaker 9: the Internet, the effect of AI memory, the alteration, the
Speaker 9: attempt to alter memory, almost to alter our memories.
Speaker 10: Of what the past is like.
Speaker 9: This is an ongoing enterprise by various governments of the.
Speaker 10: World, including our own.
Speaker 9: We also have surveillance, the seventh a surveillance becoming increasingly
Speaker 9: a surveillance society. It's almost impossible to not be revealing
Speaker 9: things about yourself because there's surveillance cameras everywhere. I can
Speaker 9: give you several examples, not just in my own personal life.
Speaker 9: And then finally, the eighth one is anxiety. All of
Speaker 9: these things are creating what I call an existential anxiety.
Speaker 9: People are being given information, but it's being molded according
Speaker 9: to the thoughts and the inclinations of people in power.
Speaker 9: For instance, let's take today's right out of Today's York Times.
Speaker 9: On page a seven, there's an article called the air
Speaker 9: in New Delhi is life threatening, and it tells the
Speaker 9: tale of the New York Times reporters who have spread
Speaker 9: themselves throughout New Delhi from six am until late in
Speaker 9: the evening of a certain day recently, and they measured
Speaker 9: the particulate matter in the air and it was anywhere
Speaker 9: from ten times to thirty times as great as would
Speaker 9: be considered minimally normal.
Speaker 10: Now, on top of.
Speaker 9: That, you have the statement that they state that the
Speaker 9: government is actually trying to hide this kind of insight
Speaker 9: to the populace by spraying water.
Speaker 10: And other things like that.
Speaker 9: It says that they're doing this around the measuring stations.
Speaker 9: They're also losing data from measuring stations during the worst
Speaker 9: ealths pollution. So there you have the molding of the facts,
Speaker 9: either denying them all together or trying to improve them
Speaker 9: so that people say, oh, well, they measured it down
Speaker 9: as such and such a measuring state, and it was
Speaker 9: really not a lot of high of course, they were
Speaker 9: spreading water and other things to try to reduce this.
Speaker 9: So we've got a capitalist society here in the United
Speaker 9: States which has invested interest in pushing forward certain scientific
Speaker 9: points of view. So science is being put in the
Speaker 9: back seat. And as politicians and other people, all of
Speaker 9: whom share one thing, capitalistic enterprises in which they're part of,
Speaker 9: for which they are advancing.
Speaker 2: And a kind of crony capitalism where they can get
Speaker 2: protection and subsidies as well. And the control is being
Speaker 2: taken away from us because, as I was just reporting
Speaker 2: earlier today, working very hard to make sure that state
Speaker 2: and local governments can't enact any control on artificial intelligence.
Speaker 2: And they came up in the context of talking about
Speaker 2: how the manufacturers of tasers also big manufacturers of police
Speaker 2: body camps, how they want to wed that to artificial intelligence.
Speaker 2: And the question is, you know, what could possibly go
Speaker 2: wrong with that? If they identify you, they misidentify you
Speaker 2: as a dangerous criminal and warn the police about how
Speaker 2: dangerous you are, they could get people killed.
Speaker 9: Well, not only that, but all these efforts set up
Speaker 9: a sense of anxiety, yes and fear. Let me tell
Speaker 9: you what happened to me one morning, called a cab
Speaker 9: to go to medical appointment, and we've started going down
Speaker 9: the road. I said to the driver, you know you're
Speaker 9: not going the most efficient or the quickest way. He said,
Speaker 9: I know that, he said, but I don't want to
Speaker 9: go that way because they're speed cameras. I said, well,
Speaker 9: you know you're driving very soon and you're not speeding,
Speaker 9: and I'm in no hurry, So what's the problem. He said, Well,
Speaker 9: they take pictures of everybody that goes by those cameras
Speaker 9: because they want to see who's in those photos in
Speaker 9: those cars. So I asked them to give me a
Speaker 9: reference for that, and he got set of didn't say
Speaker 9: anything else for the rest of the trip. So when
Speaker 9: I got down to the medical building, I got in
Speaker 9: the elevator and said, in this facility there is surveillance,
Speaker 9: both obvious and hidden.
Speaker 10: In this is one morning.
Speaker 9: And then when I got up to sign in, I
Speaker 9: signed the board with an electronic ben and I didn't
Speaker 9: see you go no signature, So I said, well it
Speaker 9: didn't take. It took, but we don't know it to
Speaker 9: go on the screen so it could be seen. I said,
Speaker 9: why is that? Said, well, somebody who haunts you might
Speaker 9: see the thing and then remembered and use your for
Speaker 9: your signature to forward something somewhere. Well, first of all,
Speaker 9: there was a sign that said stand ten feet back,
Speaker 9: and secondly, there's nobody else behind me. So there's three
Speaker 9: examples just drawing it random that we're becoming an increasingly
Speaker 9: surveilled society, which is creating a sense of paranoia and
Speaker 9: a sense of fear. So the braining has to adjust
Speaker 9: to these type of things, Dave, and it's very hard
Speaker 9: to do.
Speaker 2: And I think that is calculated. You know they've been
Speaker 2: they want to do this even to the extent and
Speaker 2: when you talk about these cameras taking everybody's picture, the
Speaker 2: flock network that is out there, this corporation that is saying, well,
Speaker 2: we can do whatever we want because it's in public space,
Speaker 2: and you know we're not government, so we can collect
Speaker 2: this information. And yet they collect it in order to
Speaker 2: sell it to the government. So it's just one level indirect.
Speaker 2: But they not only grab your license plate, but they
Speaker 2: also do a complete profile of your car and all
Speaker 2: of its idiosyncrasies. Is it have a dent here, does
Speaker 2: have a scrape there? What about a bumper sticker, so
Speaker 2: it creates a model of your car, and so they
Speaker 2: almost have like, you know, biometric identification of your cars
Speaker 2: as well as of you. And this is now made
Speaker 2: possible because of the advances of AI. But this has
Speaker 2: been something that has been concerning me. I look at
Speaker 2: things kind of from a libertarian perspective, and this has
Speaker 2: been concerning me for a long time. The idea that
Speaker 2: government is using technology, many different ways of Internet, social media,
Speaker 2: things like that, to monitor and to manipulate us all
Speaker 2: the time. And to me, artificial intelligence just puts this
Speaker 2: on steroids. And so I think there's something to be
Speaker 2: anxious about. If we're going to look at this, we
Speaker 2: should be concerned about it. Maybe not anxious, but we
Speaker 2: should be concerned about the goals of people who are
Speaker 2: putting this kind of stuff together.
Speaker 9: So yeah, well there's that, and then there's if you
Speaker 9: can manage to change the present, you can manipulate the future.
Speaker 10: Of course. Is the real way to get it is
Speaker 10: to get control of the past.
Speaker 9: Is warwell pointed out, you control the past, you know,
Speaker 9: you can control the present and by the implication, control
Speaker 9: of the future. And we're seeing alterations of materials even
Speaker 9: government documents, government films, documentaries, things like that are being
Speaker 9: altered in ways that are not visible I should say detectable,
Speaker 9: not detectable to the ordinary person. So they get ideas
Speaker 9: about what the past was like which are wrong and.
Speaker 10: Don't show you.
Speaker 9: As I mentioned in the book, if you were at
Speaker 9: a dance eighteen fifty before the Civil War and it's
Speaker 9: a film or watching Let's just say we're watching a film
Speaker 9: about eighteen fifty and we're seeing people ballroom dancing all that,
Speaker 9: and then one of them pulls the side and pulls
Speaker 9: out a cell phone, and you say, wait a minute,
Speaker 9: we didn't have cell phones in Well, you know, there
Speaker 9: were a lot of things that were going on.
Speaker 10: Now that we're not.
Speaker 9: Going on in the past, and it's not too our
Speaker 9: advantage to try to pretend that they were.
Speaker 10: They weren't.
Speaker 9: We have to understand the past understand the future, and
Speaker 9: we're not only creating situations that are false, but we're
Speaker 9: also like in nineteen eighty four, Orwell created a character
Speaker 9: called Commander Olov.
Speaker 10: He was a war hero.
Speaker 9: He got all sorts of medals, and it was all
Speaker 9: the products that were all told to honor him, and
Speaker 9: so forth. Well he never existed. He actually was made
Speaker 9: up entirely. And that's one of the things that the
Speaker 9: narrator is doing in the job work is filling in
Speaker 9: photographs see Concerting Olov into historical events that happened, wartime scenarios, etc.
Speaker 9: Anyone reading it will say, wow, this is this is
Speaker 9: some man. Well he was a complete fabrication. We're just
Speaker 9: about at that point with Sorau the AI. Well, it
Speaker 9: could take you and had you, you know, to say,
Speaker 9: let's get to David Knight and have him leading some.
Speaker 10: Sort of a parade or whatever, and.
Speaker 9: You know, suddenly people say, well, gosh, I saw with
Speaker 9: my own eyes. So what's happening is that the actual seeing,
Speaker 9: is believing is being turned on its head.
Speaker 10: So that's no longer true.
Speaker 2: You're talking about a completely fabricated character out of Orwell.
Speaker 2: It's just recently they had Tillie Norwood, who is a
Speaker 2: completely fabricated AI personality, and the person who came up
Speaker 2: with it is got agents representing her. They got her
Speaker 2: out there as an actress. I mean it was like,
Speaker 2: so I've created an AI actress which will do a
Speaker 2: lot of different roles for you. She probably does her
Speaker 2: own stunts as well. I'm actually met people in SAG,
Speaker 2: the screen actors Gil and Andy, furious about this, and
Speaker 2: I said, any agents this AI character, it's not going
Speaker 2: to do any business with us. But we're already at
Speaker 2: that point. It truly is interesting.
Speaker 9: Yeah, And one of the ways of neutralizing it is
Speaker 9: to create the situation that exists right now between you
Speaker 9: and me. You're laughing and I'm laughing because it seems funny,
Speaker 9: and it is funny, but it's a very serious purpose.
Speaker 10: Behind all of this.
Speaker 9: Yes, it's all better to try to alter people's perceptions
Speaker 9: so that they begin to doubt the varietity of what
Speaker 9: they're seeing.
Speaker 2: That's right. Yes, And I've talked for the longest time
Speaker 2: about how the whole idea for the Internet was created
Speaker 2: by darpest psychologists, and I've been concerned that it was
Speaker 2: all about the psychological manipulation from the get go with
Speaker 2: all of this. But as a physician and as a neuroscientist,
Speaker 2: I'd be interested in your take on what is currently
Speaker 2: going on, because besides manipulating the past by changing information
Speaker 2: about the past or memory holding it, or writing a
Speaker 2: new alternative history of it, they're also concerned and there's
Speaker 2: been projects that have been put out by DARPA, and
Speaker 2: I don't know if they've been successful or not, but
Speaker 2: you know, they're putting out requests for people to come
Speaker 2: up with things to manipulate people's memories. So you've got
Speaker 2: a soldier, they say it, who's got bad PTSD. Let's
Speaker 2: get rid of that memory. Let's give them different memories.
Speaker 2: What do you see in terms of someone who studies
Speaker 2: the brain and neuroscience, what do you see about that?
Speaker 2: What do you take as I think is the state
Speaker 2: of the art with that.
Speaker 9: Well, my last book was called The Complete Book of Memory.
Speaker 9: It had to do with memory and studied memory in
Speaker 9: great detail.
Speaker 10: And of course you.
Speaker 9: Have to do a way with the concept that memory
Speaker 9: is like a videotape or something that you just store
Speaker 9: in your brain and when you get and want to
Speaker 9: get it, you just bring it out like you bring
Speaker 9: out a videotape. It's not like that. It's a reconstruction.
Speaker 9: Each time you think back to a certain event, you
Speaker 9: alter that memory that you have.
Speaker 10: Memory one, memory two, memory three, on.
Speaker 1: And on and all.
Speaker 9: That's the nature of memory, and memory can be manipulated.
Speaker 9: It's always you know, in the courtroom. They're always trying
Speaker 9: to avoid the contamination of the witness. An example that
Speaker 9: would be, well, which car went through the red light?
Speaker 9: And to ask a witness he said, oh, it was
Speaker 9: a red car went through the red light. Well, would
Speaker 9: it surprise you to know that it wasn't a red
Speaker 9: light but it was a stop sign? Mister witness, of course,
Speaker 9: his credibility is gone because he took the suggestion that
Speaker 9: it was a red light instead. It'll be very easy
Speaker 9: to do because you don't necessarily have that image of
Speaker 9: that intersection in your mind. So that's why there's protections
Speaker 9: even in the courtroom against leading the witness. They caught
Speaker 9: another words, providing information that's either not through at all
Speaker 9: or half true. So we've got that ca This is
Speaker 9: not this didn't start in the twenty first century. That
Speaker 9: that started, you know as long as we've had court rooms.
Speaker 9: This is a more emphasis now on altering memory. So
Speaker 9: the people will not will get up there an undercross examination.
Speaker 9: They'll do pretty well because their whole memories but altered.
Speaker 9: They've changed by various mechanisms, suggestion, repeating information which is false,
Speaker 9: of course, which is the misinformation. There was a cartoon
Speaker 9: about a week ago by Ramirez, in which he's spilled
Speaker 9: the prize winner. He has three doctors in an operating room.
Speaker 9: It's in a laboratory. One of them is looking into
Speaker 9: a microscope and he looks up and he says, this
Speaker 9: is the most dangerous pathogen we have ever encountered. And
Speaker 9: the second doctor says, well, is it ubonic plague? Is
Speaker 9: it smallpox? And then the one that he says, no,
Speaker 9: it's misinformation and disinformation.
Speaker 2: That's right, And we've got to be very careful because
Speaker 2: many times the people who will tell us about that
Speaker 2: are the people who want to be the ones who
Speaker 2: define what the information is for us, and they will
Speaker 2: ask those leading questions. You know, when we talk about
Speaker 2: leading questions and manipulating people, there's been a lot of
Speaker 2: reports about artificial intelligence kind of people who have a
Speaker 2: particular psychosis or something and they get involved with the
Speaker 2: AI and it starts to confirm the things that they want,
Speaker 2: because that's what it is set up to do in
Speaker 2: terms of bias that want to, you know, be empathetic
Speaker 2: and sympathetic to people, and so it starts doing that
Speaker 2: and leading them further and further down a particular rabbit hole.
Speaker 2: There's been situations of you know, people who got into
Speaker 2: severe mental distress, some suicides of some young children and
Speaker 2: other things like that speak to that aspect of it
Speaker 2: and the real danger of that. That is really kind
Speaker 2: of I think speaks to the to the psychological aspect
Speaker 2: and potential of artificial intelligence, and that could be weaponized.
Speaker 2: Right now, it's just kind of happening out of their
Speaker 2: business model, right but that could definitely be weaponized against people.
Speaker 10: Well.
Speaker 9: I talk about that in my book in the chapter
Speaker 9: on the Internet. There are famous examples of people who
Speaker 9: have suicided right on the internet live feed, and they've
Speaker 9: been manipulated to doing that by other people who've encouraged
Speaker 9: them said this would be a sign of strength, this
Speaker 9: would be a sign that you're not afraid to die
Speaker 9: if necessary. And there's cases of them that actually led
Speaker 9: to the suicide. One of them is most Grizzly. I
Speaker 9: have in my book about a person who has talked
Speaker 9: into pouring gasoline over themselves and setting a match all
Speaker 9: on open feed Internet. And while this fire is burning,
Speaker 9: you can hear everybody in the backgrounds cheer.
Speaker 10: We did it, We did it. We got them to
Speaker 10: do it.
Speaker 2: Wow. That's amazing, amazing.
Speaker 9: So there's something about the Internet and about that actually
Speaker 9: brings out statistic criminal, psychopathic trends, and we don't know why.
Speaker 9: Is it the fact that you don't necessarily can't be identified.
Speaker 9: It's something that is going to be influencing and has
Speaker 9: influenced the Internet greatly, and it will continue to do so,
Speaker 9: and so we understand it.
Speaker 2: I think that's one of the things that's so dangerous
Speaker 2: about the things that we saw with lockdown, other aspects
Speaker 2: of it. There's an atomization here, and so many different
Speaker 2: ways the government and tech companies are trying to make
Speaker 2: sure that we don't we're not in person with each other.
Speaker 2: You know, many cases like, for example, in this interview,
Speaker 2: we couldn't do this interview if we both had if
Speaker 2: one of both of us had to travel. We're able
Speaker 2: to do this because we can do it over zoom
Speaker 2: or whatever. But just taking ordinary things that you would
Speaker 2: normally do in terms of interacting with people in school
Speaker 2: or in church or in your community or whatever, taking
Speaker 2: that away and putting a screen between the two of you,
Speaker 2: it really does change the way people interact with each other.
Speaker 2: I remember Errol Morris, the film director was able to
Speaker 2: get people to say all kinds of things. He got
Speaker 2: a murderer to confess, He got Robert McNamara to confess
Speaker 2: about the false Flago, the Vietnam War. He got people
Speaker 2: say all kinds of stuff because there was that distance
Speaker 2: between him and them. He could have interviewed them in person.
Speaker 2: But what he did was he put an interotron, which
Speaker 2: he is what he called it. It was basically a
Speaker 2: teleprompter that he had set up so he could do
Speaker 2: two way communication at the time. And once he had
Speaker 2: that distance there, then it completely changed the dynamics that
Speaker 2: he would have versus with somebody person to person. And
Speaker 2: that's what we're talking about here, isn't it.
Speaker 9: Yeah, we're talking about that, And of course there's the
Speaker 9: incredations of this, and it continues like.
Speaker 10: We're you're interviewing me, We're discussing. I feel like it's
Speaker 10: a discussion.
Speaker 9: If I were to say something that later I regretted,
Speaker 9: I could probably say, oh, well, that wasn't me, that
Speaker 9: was my avatar.
Speaker 2: Or my agent, Right, I got an AI agent that's
Speaker 2: out there doings. That's right, that's crazy. We also see though,
Speaker 2: as a doctor, you're seeing people have noticed actual physical
Speaker 2: changes that can be observed in people's brains from I'm
Speaker 2: thinking of the story about the London taxi drivers who
Speaker 2: would do the knowledge and they would find that as
Speaker 2: they memorized all these factual details and drew on that
Speaker 2: all the time in order to take people to you know,
Speaker 2: this very complicated city with its complicated streets, that they
Speaker 2: had a particular part of the brain that was larger
Speaker 2: than the typical person. And then they found that once
Speaker 2: they stopped doing that, it started to shrink again. And
Speaker 2: we're starting to see that happening with people in a
Speaker 2: lot of different areas of their life, that kind of
Speaker 2: atrophy and it's physically observable, isn't it.
Speaker 10: Well, it is.
Speaker 9: You have to learn, you have to use the things
Speaker 9: that you have learned to do. Like I mentioned in
Speaker 9: my memory book, there's all kinds of memory exercises.
Speaker 10: That you can do.
Speaker 9: I do them every day and they're very easy and
Speaker 9: they can help you to continue with your with your
Speaker 9: memory to keep it sharp.
Speaker 2: Give us some examples. I'm sure everybody would love to
Speaker 2: know that. I would all like to have a better memory.
Speaker 2: What kind of things do we can we do to
Speaker 2: exercise I.
Speaker 9: Think about the fact that you never had to learn
Speaker 9: pictures when you were an infant and a young child.
Speaker 9: A picture was something that you could You may not
Speaker 9: know what you're looking at, but you could see it
Speaker 9: without an intermediary language is something that you have to
Speaker 9: hear from other people. It's something that's sort of added
Speaker 9: on to the brain. Okay, So as a result, the
Speaker 9: most the best way of remembering something is to make a.
Speaker 10: Image for it.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 9: For instance, I have a little dog called a skipper Key.
Speaker 9: Skipper Key is a Belgian dog. He's a nice little fellow.
Speaker 10: But it was embarrassing to me when walking the street
Speaker 10: people say what kind of a dog is that?
Speaker 9: And it couldn't come up with a name because it
Speaker 9: was so complicated.
Speaker 10: And I thought that skipper Key I didn't speak any
Speaker 10: doubt or anything.
Speaker 9: So then I got this image of a small boat
Speaker 9: with a large captain with a beard holding a big key.
Speaker 9: So it was skipper Key and I remember forever. So
Speaker 9: I was going to have the picture. Once I have
Speaker 9: the picture, it's easy to do another way, easy way
Speaker 9: to do it, and you can do that with all
Speaker 9: kinds of times.
Speaker 10: All the time I was.
Speaker 9: Going upstairs before I came down to the office and
Speaker 9: I wanted to get my wallet, and I wanted to
Speaker 9: get my cell phone. So I just had an image
Speaker 9: of a wall in the form of a cell phone,
Speaker 9: and I was walking up the stairs talking into the
Speaker 9: walllet cell phone. So I got up and I knew
Speaker 9: I had these two elements to get. Be very easy
Speaker 9: to get one and forget the other. So you have
Speaker 9: these images all the time and the quickest you know,
Speaker 9: this is sort of off the topic of the book,
Speaker 9: but if you want to have a firepower memory for
Speaker 9: a load of things, it's up to ten things and
Speaker 9: get ten areas that you are familiar with that you
Speaker 9: see every day, and then you could put on those
Speaker 9: images the thing you're trying to remember. So if I'm
Speaker 9: trying to remember a loaf of bread, milk, maybe a batteries,
Speaker 9: I have a regular way.
Speaker 10: Of doing that. I have like I remember the library
Speaker 10: that's near.
Speaker 9: My home, the coffee shop, liquor store, Georgetown University Medical
Speaker 9: School where I went, Georgetown University, Cafe Milano, which is
Speaker 9: a place in Washington everybody gathers, and then Keybridge, Ewa,
Speaker 9: Jeema Memorial, and Regan Airport. So that bread would be,
Speaker 9: for instance, the loaf of bread. I was looking in
Speaker 9: the window of the library. Instead of seeing books, I
Speaker 9: see bread loaves of bread. And when I get down
Speaker 9: to the liquor store, instead of it being filled with liquor,
Speaker 9: that'll be built ball. So that's how I love to
Speaker 9: get two it so I have those ten, so I
Speaker 9: can get ten items.
Speaker 10: Together not any problems at all.
Speaker 2: That's great. Yeah, you know, it's interesting you talk about
Speaker 2: the importance of a visualization. It's one of the things
Speaker 2: that I do in terms of preparing for the show.
Speaker 2: I have a lot of articles that I go through
Speaker 2: and it's really when I highlight things or when I
Speaker 2: write them down, that's when I can remember them. If
Speaker 2: I don't do that, if I were just to read
Speaker 2: these things, I wouldn't remember them. But if I interact
Speaker 2: with it and write it down, that helps me to
Speaker 2: remember it. So that is a kind of visualization there,
Speaker 2: I guess as well. It is. It truly is interesting
Speaker 2: what you said earlier about memory not being something that
Speaker 2: is stored in a place. As somebody coming from a
Speaker 2: computer science background, that was a very different thing. When
Speaker 2: you construct your your memory, you know, how do you
Speaker 2: reconstruct that? I mean that that that as opens up
Speaker 2: a whole new area of questions as well. In other words,
Speaker 2: if every time somebody brings up a subject, I mean,
Speaker 2: there isn't something that's stored initially to reference that and
Speaker 2: then rebuild from that.
Speaker 10: Yeah, there's that.
Speaker 9: There's the interconnections. Like you know, somebody listening to us
Speaker 9: might say, well, gee, this is called the twenty first
Speaker 9: century brain, but I haven't heard that much about the brain. Well,
Speaker 9: let me just link that up so that these things
Speaker 9: make sense. We have a new version, or I should say,
Speaker 9: a new understanding of the brain called the connectomet brain,
Speaker 9: in which there's all kinds of interactions in the brain
Speaker 9: of parts of the brain. But you don't we're just
Speaker 9: learning about I have the I use the metaphor of
Speaker 9: a bull of spaghetti. You pull out one of the
Speaker 9: strains of spaghetti, and you never have any idea what
Speaker 9: it's connected to. How many other strains is spaghetti this
Speaker 9: is connected to? So that if you think of the
Speaker 9: brain as being kind of set to make connections, that's
Speaker 9: its natural processing. So it gets back to these things
Speaker 9: that we were talking about earlier, you know, global warming
Speaker 9: and memory and surveillance and all that how are we
Speaker 9: going to solve all those Well, somehow or other those
Speaker 9: things are connected with each other. That's the take home
Speaker 9: message of this book. And the basic goal is to
Speaker 9: try to figure out what it is that connects.
Speaker 10: These things, what it is that would allow us to.
Speaker 9: Buy solving one of them solve the other. And I
Speaker 9: mentioned at the end of the book experts. So far,
Speaker 9: I haven't done it. So it's useful, as Hiak said,
Speaker 9: to get ordinary people to give. When I say ordinary,
Speaker 9: I mean non specialized people to give their ideas. Do
Speaker 9: you I wonder what such and such would happen? What
Speaker 9: would happen about global warming? For a while there was,
Speaker 9: in fact there's still experiments going on on the effect
Speaker 9: of sulfur that would help the CO two problem, and
Speaker 9: you know, shooting sulfur up into the atmosphere. Of course,
Speaker 9: the reason for that was the volcano in nineteen eighty something,
Speaker 9: in which after that volcano in Hawaii, it was noted
Speaker 9: that the air was clearer and there was less pollution.
Speaker 9: So that's something to think about, is there's some way
Speaker 9: of using that particular sulfur experiment to decrease global warming.
Speaker 9: War for instance, we don't think of war as a
Speaker 9: cause of global warming, but it is.
Speaker 2: Clear warning.
Speaker 9: Since the Ukraine War and the gauze of war, then
Speaker 9: you know, a tremendous amount that's going to overcome and
Speaker 9: exceed the benefit of any of these things, like you know,
Speaker 9: non gasoline engines, but using things like that.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. Yeah, it's kind of like, you know, shooting up
Speaker 2: rockets in order to put satellites up. You know, how
Speaker 2: many how many cars and lifetime use of cars from
Speaker 2: people would that be equivalent to And you start talking
Speaker 2: about all the missiles that are being shot and then
Speaker 2: you get to the explosives as well. Uh, it is
Speaker 2: really interesting how they focus us on their objectives for
Speaker 2: their ways to control the manipulation has been going on
Speaker 2: for quite some time. And so yeah, that is it
Speaker 2: is pretty amazing. And I guess that's my you know my,
Speaker 2: when we look at this stuff, it really does look
Speaker 2: like science fiction. And I'm almost inclined to write it
Speaker 2: off when I first see it. When DARPA is saying, well,
Speaker 2: we need to find some way that we can you know,
Speaker 2: erase memories and people and insert new memories into them.
Speaker 2: And we were going back to total recall, right, so
Speaker 2: it sounds like something from Philip K. Dick novel, But
Speaker 2: they're really working on that. And I guess one of
Speaker 2: the most striking things that we saw we reported on
Speaker 2: a couple of weeks ago, and it was a company
Speaker 2: that was bragging about how they could read your mind
Speaker 2: more accurately and quickly than their competitors, because there's a
Speaker 2: lot of different companies that are doing this, and how
Speaker 2: they could. It's called brain it was the name of
Speaker 2: the company, and so they had a way that they
Speaker 2: would do MRI and they could essentially train it on
Speaker 2: your brain and I'm a shorter time the other people,
Speaker 2: and they can get much better results. And our producers
Speaker 2: just pull this up. So what they do is they
Speaker 2: show you an image and you're looking at that image,
Speaker 2: and then it's reading your mind and reconstructing what you're
Speaker 2: looking at, which I thought was absolutely amazing and terrifying
Speaker 2: at the same time. How is this going to be used?
Speaker 2: I guess that's the real issue when we start talking
Speaker 2: about all these different things. I think that is the
Speaker 2: real case that it's difficult for people to understand just
Speaker 2: how far and how quickly the technology has progressed, and
Speaker 2: then to say, and how do we control this from
Speaker 2: it being used for bad purposes.
Speaker 9: Well, that's specifically twenty first century problem. Yes, because all
Speaker 9: of these things are either originated in the twenty first
Speaker 9: century or they have in fact further developed to become
Speaker 9: increasingly threatening.
Speaker 10: And bear in mind we have to have to solve
Speaker 10: these problems because they're not something that's going to go away.
Speaker 10: And then the most important thing to remember, David, is.
Speaker 9: That all of these things harm the brain, and the
Speaker 9: brain is the thinking processor.
Speaker 10: It's going to save us.
Speaker 9: It's going to figure out what the problems, what the
Speaker 9: solutions to the problems are. So we know now that
Speaker 9: wildfire smoke, for instance, it creates dementia, it enhances the
Speaker 9: likelyhoodo subfy's coming to menash. So as the brain is
Speaker 9: affected negatively increasingly over longer and longer periods of time,
Speaker 9: our ability to solve these problems is going to decrease.
Speaker 9: So we've got to do it now. We've got to
Speaker 9: get serious about it. And this business of people getting
Speaker 9: up saying the global warming is fiction and all that
Speaker 9: is really very very disturbing.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, you know the example that you gave earlier
Speaker 2: of the fact that the Indian government was manipulating the
Speaker 2: temperature at some of the stations there. That kind of
Speaker 2: works both ways. They have put some of the temperature
Speaker 2: stations on the air or tarmacs, and in the UK
Speaker 2: they have a lot of the temperature stations that they've
Speaker 2: got there, they're just extrapolating the data. They don't have
Speaker 2: real temperature measurement stations there. So it all really gets back,
Speaker 2: I think, to the scientific method, and that's really where
Speaker 2: we have to hold people's feet to the fire. We're
Speaker 2: talking about something like that. We can have an absolute
Speaker 2: standard of what truth is, and that truth is going
Speaker 2: to be being able to measure something accurately and being
Speaker 2: able to reproduce that. And then I think a good
Speaker 2: yardstick for that is when somebody is trying to hide
Speaker 2: their data. That's the clue right there that they're not
Speaker 2: doing science. Because if they're doing science and they've come
Speaker 2: to the right conclusion, they don't have a problem with
Speaker 2: somebody looking at their data. And so I've got a
Speaker 2: question here for you from a person in the audience
Speaker 2: asking you know about doctors James Giordano and Charles Morgan
Speaker 2: their work with military. I'm not familiar with those names.
Speaker 2: I don't know if you know anything about that or not.
Speaker 10: To your daughter says familiar, what particular thing are they
Speaker 10: asking about them?
Speaker 2: I don't know it just as their work with the military.
Speaker 2: I guess i'd have to do with something, but you
Speaker 2: haven't heard of it.
Speaker 10: I'm not sure I could say to your dollar, did
Speaker 10: this or did that?
Speaker 2: Sure? I understand. Yeah, let's talk a little bit about
Speaker 2: the things that we have been anxious about, and of course,
Speaker 2: as Christians, we have one answer to it. But you
Speaker 2: talk about how this is something that has been around
Speaker 2: pretty much all of our life. I mean there was
Speaker 2: I grew up with anxiety about nuclear war, for example.
Speaker 2: That was on everybody's television, and that was a fourth
Speaker 2: front front of our mind, especially growing up in Florida
Speaker 2: when the Cuban missile crisis was happening. They got us
Speaker 2: really afraid of that. When I was in elementary school.
Speaker 2: You know, it's like there's not gonna be enough time
Speaker 2: for you to get home. You know, a nuclear bomb
Speaker 2: started falling in So, I mean there's all these different
Speaker 2: ways that you can panic people. I guess part of
Speaker 2: it is how do we identify the real problems and
Speaker 2: how do we deal with those problems because there's always
Speaker 2: things that are competing for our attention and our anxiety,
Speaker 2: many of which are not real, you know, and usually
Speaker 2: the things that you're really the most concerned about won't happen,
Speaker 2: and it may be sometimes because you have taken a
Speaker 2: precaution about it. What would you say about that, about anxiety?
Speaker 10: You're starting to break up a little bit, Can you
Speaker 10: hear me, clearly?
Speaker 2: I hear you, yes, Yes, sorry about that. You're talking
Speaker 2: about breaking up a little bit. You're talking about traumatizing
Speaker 2: a population. You know, what do we do to guard
Speaker 2: against that type of thing? And of course that's going
Speaker 2: to really escalate with the ability of AI to create
Speaker 2: a narrative.
Speaker 9: Yeah, well, let's talk about it as an avenue to
Speaker 9: get into that. Let's go back to what you've brought
Speaker 9: about atomic weapons and the atomic war, the fears of
Speaker 9: the people that there's going to be another atomic war.
Speaker 9: I mean, you know, this is not unrealistic. There's even
Speaker 9: been a movie that's just come out that's getting all
Speaker 9: kinds of attention, as you know, and it has to.
Speaker 10: Do with the threat of a nuclear war.
Speaker 9: Things in the If you look at what's happening in
Speaker 9: Europe right now, there's all kinds of suggestions that could
Speaker 9: lead to a nuclear war. I mean, Ukraine now has
Speaker 9: announced that they're under no conditions willing to give up
Speaker 9: any land, and Stalin is I mean, Putin is thinking
Speaker 9: what he can do to change that. But maybe he'll
Speaker 9: attack another country. I mean, this is scary stuff. So
Speaker 9: what's happening in response to the government is to try
Speaker 9: to show that, oh, we shouldn't worry about it, we
Speaker 9: have things under control. But I don't think things are
Speaker 9: under control.
Speaker 2: And we've talked about the problems, and we talked about
Speaker 2: problems you have. Your final chapter is New ways of Thinking,
Speaker 2: and I'd like to talk about that. One of the
Speaker 2: things that you say is Ocam was wrong. Occam's razor
Speaker 2: that you know people are familiar with. Tell us a
Speaker 2: little bit about that. Why is I come wrong?
Speaker 9: Well, because he says that, you know, the entities are
Speaker 9: not to be multiplied, meaning that we can always explain
Speaker 9: things best by limiting ourselves to the minimum amount of factors,
Speaker 9: ideally one one cause of every effect.
Speaker 10: That's not true. It's certainly not true.
Speaker 9: In the twenty first century, there's all kinds of interactions
Speaker 9: between factors and cause, so that Occam was wrong in
Speaker 9: that basis. We have to think of an interconnecting pool,
Speaker 9: just as in the brain, of interconnections of neurons, interconnections
Speaker 9: of these problems.
Speaker 10: And they're all related.
Speaker 9: They're all eight of them I talk about in my book.
Speaker 9: They're all related. And if you can figure way of
Speaker 9: influencing one, you influence all the others. I mean, who
Speaker 9: would think there'd be a connection between global warming and
Speaker 9: the amount of artison and cheese Friends's high end cheese.
Speaker 10: Well, there is, because they don't chicken stole lay the
Speaker 10: many eggs, and it would be all the various other
Speaker 10: things to.
Speaker 9: Come on in terms of making cheese. I turned out
Speaker 9: learned that the other day. That was something that was
Speaker 9: a surprise to me.
Speaker 2: You know, it's kind of interesting. We talked about connections
Speaker 2: so much, and there was a series that was I
Speaker 2: think it was on PBS. I think the guy's name
Speaker 2: was Burke. I can't remember his first name. I'm not
Speaker 2: sure about the last name. But he had a series
Speaker 2: called Connections, and I thought it was fascinating because what
Speaker 2: he would do is he would take a whole series
Speaker 2: of connections to show how a particular technology had evolved,
Speaker 2: you know, so he might go from you know, the
Speaker 2: quill to the to the jet engine or something like that.
Speaker 2: And it was a fascinating, fascinating thread of things, very
Speaker 2: much like what you're talking about.
Speaker 10: It really is. And I did I did consult his work.
Speaker 10: Actually did you this book?
Speaker 9: Because he did that connections. He did a book called
Speaker 9: The Day the World Changed and all this. He also
Speaker 9: did a book called Circles, in which he would start
Speaker 9: with one particular event that he cared in history, and
Speaker 9: if you go around the circle, you come back to
Speaker 9: the beginning where it started, where this particular inventor invented something,
Speaker 9: what led up to it, What was the circle.
Speaker 10: Leading to that. So, yes, we're talking about connections, and
Speaker 10: we're talking about the inability to understand things without reference
Speaker 10: to supporting an accessory factors. We have that going all
Speaker 10: the time, denying things that are going to be happening.
Speaker 9: Of course, I think the fearful thing is that the
Speaker 9: government is aiding in this denial, because if you would
Speaker 9: deny that there's a problem, then there's very little impetus
Speaker 9: to try to solve it, you know, Yeah, and there
Speaker 9: is no problem, don't try to solve it.
Speaker 2: They're throwing out their own chaos and uncertainty and anxiety
Speaker 2: that's out there all the time always, I guess. So
Speaker 2: the question is you're talked about volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity.
Speaker 2: I mean it sounds like a government policy. I think
Speaker 2: they've got bureaucracies that specialized on that.
Speaker 10: Yeah, yeah, well actually that's true.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's in your section there about new ways of
Speaker 2: thinking and so how do we incorporate that in the
Speaker 2: new ways of thinking that help us to solve this riddle?
Speaker 10: Well, each of those factors is.
Speaker 9: A factor that helps you to understand things and to
Speaker 9: have more control. It doesn't necessarily mean it helps you
Speaker 9: to link them together. That has to be done by
Speaker 9: original thinking. You have to be under those things. Things
Speaker 9: are evolvable. You don't have a basic situation that doesn't change.
Speaker 9: It changes all the time. So that The other thing
Speaker 9: that I want to emphasize most is that is the
Speaker 9: role of capitalism in all of this. I mean, there's
Speaker 9: all this like the private equity, the business of people
Speaker 9: having a point of view that is going to advance
Speaker 9: them financially, and that blinding them to the problems that
Speaker 9: are here, Like, for instance, we talked about global warming, Well,
Speaker 9: the rich people of very rich people are buying multi
Speaker 9: million dollar departments and condominiums which have special.
Speaker 10: Air filters which will keep.
Speaker 9: The wildfire smoke out, and we'll try to keep the
Speaker 9: global warming effect at bay by superpower air conditioners.
Speaker 2: So the building they're building their own bunkers to buildings
Speaker 2: that are creating all kinds of chaos and and uh,
Speaker 2: you know, weapons of war mass destruction. They're out there
Speaker 2: building super bunkers in various places as well. So I
Speaker 2: think they're somewhat pessimist think about what they're doing.
Speaker 9: Well, it's basically the idea is that, you know, we
Speaker 9: don't care about the ordinary person.
Speaker 10: We're going to survive. We're going to see to our
Speaker 10: own survival, and if we in order to do that,
Speaker 10: we have to deny certain things that are that are
Speaker 10: going on, will do so. Now, incidentally, all of this
Speaker 10: is not conscious thinking.
Speaker 9: They don't necessarily say, well, I'm going to deny global
Speaker 9: warming because it'll be to my advantage financially because all
Speaker 9: my investment is in the globe the oil and gas industry.
Speaker 9: They don't do it that way. They come up with
Speaker 9: pseudo logic, things that seem to make sense to them,
Speaker 9: But if they didn't have a financial thrust in the matter,
Speaker 9: they would look out upon it quite differently.
Speaker 2: That's right. We can always find a justification for what
Speaker 2: it was, what it is that we really want. Everybody
Speaker 2: should understand that if your parents this time of year,
Speaker 2: at Christmas time, you can always understand that people will
Speaker 2: come up with a justification for what they want. And
Speaker 2: that's that's as true of government as a is of
Speaker 2: corporations out there, and it's really dangerous one of the
Speaker 2: two of them connect with each other. I think that's
Speaker 2: one of the things. You know, you talk about connections
Speaker 2: and the importance of it and how we can try
Speaker 2: to connect these different factors, each of us individually. But
Speaker 2: I think it's the human connection that is out there
Speaker 2: that is going to be essential for all of this.
Speaker 2: It's going to be our collective work on and all this.
Speaker 2: What do you think about that? Would you agree with that?
Speaker 9: Well, I'd agree with it. But there's so many things
Speaker 9: that are taking place now that are causing the schisms
Speaker 9: and yes, splitting people into factors and belief systems and
Speaker 9: political points of view, and that's very dangerous because then
Speaker 9: you can't get together any kind of unity, even in
Speaker 9: the face of an emergency.
Speaker 2: Well, I think we've always had I think we've always
Speaker 2: had these factor you know, factions and things like that.
Speaker 2: You know, the founder of the country warned about factions
Speaker 2: and political parties. But I think what makes it unique
Speaker 2: is that when you're interacting with people on a personal basis,
Speaker 2: you interact with them a little bit differently than if
Speaker 2: you've got that separation between you that technology is giving
Speaker 2: us now, because now you're interacting with something that's abstract,
Speaker 2: it's not with another person, and there's also the body
Speaker 2: language that you're not picking up on. But it makes
Speaker 2: it easier for you to be harder on people when
Speaker 2: there's that distance there. I think that's why I think,
Speaker 2: you know, the personal connection I think is really vital
Speaker 2: to making these connections and coming up with an understanding
Speaker 2: of what's going on. We talk about the hidden factors
Speaker 2: that are out there, hidden unrelated topics, other people, as
Speaker 2: you pointed out earlier, just talking to ordinary people about
Speaker 2: what it is that you see with different things. I
Speaker 2: think that is the genius of the collective free market
Speaker 2: out there. That there's so many observers who are looking
Speaker 2: at things and thinking about them, and it's kind of
Speaker 2: their collective decision that is kind of guiding things along,
Speaker 2: as opposed to having a central planner who's doing that.
Speaker 2: What do you think about that You've got to in
Speaker 2: your final chapter a new way of thinking? You have
Speaker 2: what you call it sensible solution. What does that really involve?
Speaker 10: I'm sorry, I hear what you said the last part.
Speaker 2: You have a sensible solution. What do you think a
Speaker 2: sensible solution to the kind of stress and chaos and
Speaker 2: anxiety that we have, manipulation that we have. What is
Speaker 2: a solution to that? Well?
Speaker 9: I think the Wikipedia is a good example of that.
Speaker 9: They have people from all walks of life, all levels
Speaker 9: of education, free to contribute to whatever topic they may
Speaker 9: want to do that it may be helpful.
Speaker 10: I mentioned earlier about the.
Speaker 9: Effect of global warming on the making of cheese. It
Speaker 9: might be somebody who makes cheese that's going to come
Speaker 9: up with some idea.
Speaker 10: You know, we don't know that.
Speaker 9: We don't know that that may not be where it
Speaker 9: comes some original idea of what to do about global warming,
Speaker 9: And you put it on what I'd like to think
Speaker 9: and I hope it will be developed a kind of
Speaker 9: Wikipedia where the ordinary person can feel free to put
Speaker 9: forth their ideas about it. Now you say, well, we
Speaker 9: already have that, we have the Internet, No we don't.
Speaker 10: The Internet is a commercial situation.
Speaker 9: It's all done for making money and you have attention
Speaker 9: and all that, and there's no criticism of it. There's
Speaker 9: no pure review, if you will, rights in the Wikipedia.
Speaker 9: I mean, you know, people could write in and say, well,
Speaker 9: that particular contribution as bonkers, and then give an example
Speaker 9: why it is that was a very good idea.
Speaker 10: And after that you begin to get.
Speaker 9: Things coming together in unpredictable ways that may help us
Speaker 9: solve these eight problems.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the problem is it seems like whenever you wind
Speaker 2: up having a form or place where things can be,
Speaker 2: and that's true of the Internet, it's also true of Wikipedia,
Speaker 2: then it becomes you have gatekeepers who are there. And
Speaker 2: we saw this in spades throughout the COVID stuff that
Speaker 2: if somebody's got a different idea, rather than debate them,
Speaker 2: the impetus is to silence them by the people who
Speaker 2: are in authority. And so that really, I think is
Speaker 2: the key thing, and I think as part of that
Speaker 2: we see a continuing rise in disgust and deprivation of
Speaker 2: free speech. People are not interested in the principle of
Speaker 2: free speech. They don't want to have open debate. And
Speaker 2: I see this regardless of where people coming from on
Speaker 2: the political spectrum. There is a declining interest and debate
Speaker 2: and thinking. You know, the debate is critical to critical thinking,
Speaker 2: and so the people who are in charge, the gatekeepers,
Speaker 2: whether it's Wikipedia or the Internet or any other form
Speaker 2: of information, they are weighing in on that, and they
Speaker 2: don't want things that they disagree with. And it might
Speaker 2: be because they've got an agenda, or it might be because
Speaker 2: they've just got a particular prejudice about something that want
Speaker 2: to make sure that the contrary views don't get out there.
Speaker 2: That I think is the real key that's there. And
Speaker 2: again this is part of this animization that we have
Speaker 2: of people feeding that tribalism in the way that we've
Speaker 2: never seen it before using technology.
Speaker 9: I would agree with everything you've just said exactly, and
Speaker 9: I think we have to try to get beyond that.
Speaker 10: But we get back.
Speaker 9: Again to this business of people having their own personal
Speaker 9: financial point of view and position and pushing that basically.
Speaker 10: On the fact that they look upon it as.
Speaker 9: So maybe we're talking about a capitalism problem. We've got capitalism,
Speaker 9: it's what this country's all about. But I mean it's
Speaker 9: certain parts of it. Now we've gone to the point
Speaker 9: where people are unable to take another point of view
Speaker 9: if it's going to be financially harmful and hurtful to them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that, you know, we start looking at
Speaker 2: the tech companies. I don't think that their capitalism would exist.
Speaker 2: I don't think they have billions of dollars if they
Speaker 2: weren't unified with the government. So there's a there's a
Speaker 2: symbiosis there that the two of these entities feed off
Speaker 2: of each other. And I think that in exus right
Speaker 2: there is the is the difficult thing. And so I think,
Speaker 2: you know, when I think of capitalism, I don't like
Speaker 2: to refer to capitalism anymore because I think of it
Speaker 2: as a partnership, a public private partnership, some kind of
Speaker 2: a economic fascism where they are working together. But I
Speaker 2: like to think of a free, competitive market where the
Speaker 2: government doesn't have any role except as some kind of
Speaker 2: a referee between two parties that have a conflict or something.
Speaker 2: But yeah, that's a that's the thing that's really driving this.
Speaker 2: You know, many people when they talk about AI, they said, well,
Speaker 2: you know, here's a couple of different outcomes. Maybe this
Speaker 2: stuff really works the way it's supposed to work, and
Speaker 2: it takes everybody's jobs and we wind up with a depression.
Speaker 2: Or maybe it doesn't work at all, in which case
Speaker 2: the big AI stock bubble that we've got bursts and
Speaker 2: everybody loses their job because of that. Well there's a
Speaker 2: third alternative, and that is that the government keeps popping
Speaker 2: it up with public funds because it feeds their surveillance
Speaker 2: and manipulation needs and their ability to surveil and to
Speaker 2: control us. And I really think that that's where this
Speaker 2: is all going to head. I don't really you know,
Speaker 2: those other two things may happen, and they may be true,
Speaker 2: but I think there is a customer out there for
Speaker 2: the AI stuff that is driving all this stuff, that
Speaker 2: has been putting out these proposals for the longest time,
Speaker 2: and that's governments, governments around the world. I mean, we
Speaker 2: look at the Brain project that we had a few
Speaker 2: years ago, that was during the Oboma administration. But things
Speaker 2: like the Brain Computer Interface that Elon Musk and many
Speaker 2: other tech companies are doing out there. There's neuralink and
Speaker 2: there's a lot of them that are doing that. That's
Speaker 2: being driven by the government wanting to connect into our minds,
Speaker 2: hack into our minds really, and they've been funding that
Speaker 2: kind of stuff. So how do we break that.
Speaker 9: Yeah, on the musk side, it seems doing it for money,
Speaker 9: I mean obviously to make money. That's right, So that
Speaker 9: there's unholy alliance if you will, between someone who can't
Speaker 9: see anything on the dollar and in another side of
Speaker 9: the government can't see anything other than increasing power and
Speaker 9: surveillance over the population.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's right, absolutely true. Well, it's a fascinating book.
Speaker 2: It's fascinating take on this. And of course you've written
Speaker 2: many books on the brain, the memory one very interesting,
Speaker 2: and you do have sections about memory in this book
Speaker 2: as well. And people be able to find this on Amazon,
Speaker 2: I guess is the best place that they can find
Speaker 2: it looking for the title of this and it is.
Speaker 2: You know, it is something that I think we all
Speaker 2: need to think about how we're going to operate the
Speaker 2: effects that this technology is having on our brains in
Speaker 2: the twenty first century. And that is the title of
Speaker 2: the book. The twenty first Century Brain by Richard rest Tack.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much, doctor rest Thank you, appreciate you
Speaker 2: coming on. Enjoyed a thank you, a very interesting conversation.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Have a good day. Folks are gonna take
Speaker 2: a quick break and we will be right back.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the David Night Show.
Speaker 2: Welcome back. And I've had a lot of comments. I
Speaker 2: don't want to get to these. I knew before I
Speaker 2: brought him in that he was I didn't think he
Speaker 2: was gonna be that focused on climate change. I really
Speaker 2: wanted to talk to him about the other issues that
Speaker 2: were there. But yeah, we had a lot of comments
Speaker 2: about that. As a matter of fact, Land said, is
Speaker 2: this thing about the cheese stuff in global warming connections?
Speaker 2: That so they can try to tax the cheese. So
Speaker 2: I guess the question is who stole the cheese? Right?
Speaker 2: These people are trying to steal our cheese all the time.
Speaker 2: But we do have an update, by the way, and
Speaker 2: this is some comments from the telegram chat. Paul McCloud said,
Speaker 2: I'm asking each and every one of you to send
Speaker 2: prayers in my direction for specific reason that I cannot
Speaker 2: disclose the moment by the pricking of my thumbs. Something
Speaker 2: wicked this way comes, so they sent that. Just pass
Speaker 2: that along to you. That's for Paul McLeod, who is
Speaker 2: asking for prayer and for the love of the road.
Speaker 2: Ryan has given us an update on his dad's surgery.
Speaker 2: He said, dad surgery is done afternoon yesterday. It went
Speaker 2: well and they eliminated all seven blockages. Wow, had to
Speaker 2: take veins from of the parts of the body to
Speaker 2: go around some of them. Though. He should be home
Speaker 2: by Saturday. He said, sorry to hear about Clyde. Lewis
Speaker 2: glad he's got a loyal base that is helping him
Speaker 2: with GoFundMe. Yes, and so I'm glad that things are
Speaker 2: going well for your dad, Ryan. I hope it continues
Speaker 2: to go that way. We'll continue to pray about that.
Speaker 2: And let me get some of your comments. Here O
Speaker 2: comes Razors. Not what people think it is. It states
Speaker 2: that the explanation with the least number of assumptions is
Speaker 2: likely to be correct, not the simplest explanation is likely
Speaker 2: to be correct. That's from Greg Hume. One one that's fine, yes,
Speaker 2: and he says, oh for let's see this is I'm Marty.
Speaker 2: He says come on, most wildfire are urson, not global warming.
Speaker 2: I agree with that. I agree with that, and you
Speaker 2: all know that I'm not. I'm not buying into global warming.
Speaker 2: And he began by talking about how they were manipulating
Speaker 2: the data at the Indian stations to try to minimize
Speaker 2: the pollution that was there and to lower the temperature.
Speaker 2: But typically government's doing just the opposite. And it was
Speaker 2: a climate change crowd, the global warming crowd, that gave
Speaker 2: India the license to have as cheap and dirty A
Speaker 2: power plants as possible. So you might want to start
Speaker 2: with what the government policy has been towards their mcguffin
Speaker 2: of climate change. That's the reason they have that kind
Speaker 2: of pollution that's there. And of course that was why
Speaker 2: Nixon unconstitutionally created the Environmental Protection Agency. There's nothing in
Speaker 2: the constitution that says that it's the role of the
Speaker 2: federal government to protect the environment. And they did it
Speaker 2: because of pollution. They said, we got some polluted sites
Speaker 2: that are so big, we don't have the money to
Speaker 2: address them locally or state level, so let's do it
Speaker 2: at the federal level. And so they had their super
Speaker 2: fun clean up thing, and then they metastasized from pollution
Speaker 2: to telling us what kind of cars we could have
Speaker 2: and mission control with that. So again it's mission creeper.
Speaker 2: I guess we could say emission creep.
Speaker 5: Though in the case of the Indian testing stations, I
Speaker 5: believe he was referring to air quality with the massive
Speaker 5: amounts of air pollution they have in these cities, yeah,
Speaker 5: and spraying it. I believe he was implying that you
Speaker 5: clean up the air, which in that instance I would agree.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you find interestingly enough, you know, and the two
Speaker 2: most populist countries, China and India, where they have said
Speaker 2: don't worry about cleaning up the pollution from your factories
Speaker 2: or your power stations, do whatever you want, right, they
Speaker 2: also have the worst air pollution. Wu han, It's one
Speaker 2: of the worst places for air pollution. So real. Octospook
Speaker 2: says he's correct about one thing. The money around global
Speaker 2: warming will buy the truth before it can be muttered.
Speaker 2: That's right. Money problem and a gigantic government. Yeah, we
Speaker 2: can our head around the whole issue. I think all
Speaker 2: the little spaghetti strings, when you keep pulling them all out,
Speaker 2: you'll find the government, and you'll find human nature. In
Speaker 2: terms of the greed for power and for money. That
Speaker 2: is the common spaghetti thread that ties all this stuff together,
Speaker 2: and that's how we keep our distance from this. But
Speaker 2: I think the real key thing take away from me
Speaker 2: from that interview was the key thing is the connections.
Speaker 2: Our brain works on connections. Our brain works best with connections.
Speaker 2: Connections with other people expand our mind, expand our universe.
Speaker 2: And it's that person to person connection that is so
Speaker 2: difficult for us to maintain owing today, that is so
Speaker 2: vital for us our survival. Thank you for joining us.
Speaker 2: Have a good day. The common man, they created common Core.
Speaker 2: They've dumbed down our children. They created common past, track
Speaker 2: and control us their Commons project to make sure the
Speaker 2: commoners own nothing and the communist future. They see the
Speaker 2: common man as simple, unsophisticated ordinary. But each of us
Speaker 2: has worth and dignity created in the image of God.
Speaker 2: That is what we have in common. That is what
Speaker 2: they want to take away. Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.
Speaker 2: They desire to know everything about us, while they hide
Speaker 2: everything from us. It's time to turn that around and
Speaker 2: expose what they want to hide. Please share the information
Speaker 2: and links you'll find at The Davidnightshow dot com. Thank
Speaker 2: you for listening, thank you for sharing. If you can't
Speaker 2: support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. Ddavidnightshow
Speaker 2: dot com