Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 7, 2023 - The David Knight Show

02:56:06

7Apr23 Best of Show — Militarized AI, Raw Milk, Push to WW3, Moral Dilemma Coming When Society Collapses

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Thank you.
	Joining us now is Paul Charest.
	He has a previous book, The Army of None, about artificial intelligence.
	He is a former army ranger who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
	His book, Autonomous Weapons in the Army of None, was an award-winning study.
	He is Vice President and Director of Studies at the Center for New American Security.
	And this book, which is a real page-turner for something that is...
	Heavy into technology, but also politics.
	It covers a wide range of areas, and I've got to say, I really did enjoy it.
	It's a massive book, but I did enjoy reading it.
	The book is Four Battlegrounds, Power in the Age of Artificial Intelligence.
	Thank you for joining us, Mr.
	Shari. Thank you so much for having me.
	Really appreciate it. Well, thank you.
	I want to focus at the very beginning of the book, and this is one of the things that hooked me.
	This book is about the darker side of AI, and that's what I want to focus on.
	Too often we get this Pollyanna vision version of the future, you know, and everything is going to be just shiny new toys and technology.
	But the reality is a little bit concerning, isn't it?
	I thought it was interesting that you began the book with a talk about an AI dogfight.
	And again, there's a lot of great anecdotes through this, which makes it such a good book to read.
	Tell people what was happening in DARPA's ACE program, this air combat evolution.
	Yeah, thanks so much. - Well, I'm glad you enjoyed that one.
	I thought it was really exciting to learn about.
	I talk at the opening of the book about DARPA's ACE program, Air Combat Evolution, and the DARPA Alpha Dogfight Challenge.
	So the ACE program is designed to create an AI agent that can go into the cockpit to assist human pilots.
	And the Alpha Dogfight Challenge that DARPA did a few years ago, taking a page from AlphaGo that beat the best humans at Go, was designed to beat a human in dogfighting in a simulator.
	And there's a lot of caveats that apply from a simulator to the real world.
	It's not the same. But nevertheless, a big challenge because that's a very difficult environment for humans.
	You're maneuvering at high speed, requires quick reflexes, situational awareness, anticipating where's the other pilot going to go.
	Yeah, let me interject here and say, you know, one of the things that surprised me about that was that because of technology, typically missile technology, right, you don't have dogfights anymore.
	But that's really a measure of pilot skill is how they were using that.
	So tell us how it went. That's right.
	Pilot skill, and in some ways, pilot trust.
	Pilot trust in the AI, right?
	If the AI can do dogfighting, then it's going to help pilots trust it more.
	So in this competition, a number of different companies brought their AIs.
	They competed against each other.
	Now, the winner was a previously unheard-of company called Heron Systems, beat out Lockheed Martin in the finals.
	And then their AI went head-to-head against a human experienced Air Force pilot, Totally crushed the human.
	15 to 0, human didn't get a single shot off against the AI. And the thing that was most interesting to me was the AI was able to make these superhuman precision shots when the aircraft are racing at each other hundreds of miles an hour, head to head, that are basically impossible for humans to make.
	So the AI actually was not just better than the human, but was fighting differently than the human.
	Mm-hmm. Yeah, and as you point out in the thing, typically we've all seen dogfights in movies over and over again, even in Star Wars.
	The whole thing is to maneuver around and get behind the guy and take the shot from behind, but it operated differently.
	What did the AI do? So for humans, exactly.
	They want to maneuver behind, get into the 6 o'clock position behind the enemy, and then get a shot off.
	But there are these split-second opportunities when aircraft are circling and they're nose-to-nose, and there's just a fraction of a second where you could get a shot off when they're racing at each other head-to-head.
	And the AI system was able to do this.
	It's a shot that's basically impossible for humans to make.
	It's actually banned in training because it's risky for humans to even try because they risk a collision when the aircraft are racing at each other head to head.
	But the AI was able to make that shot, avoid a collision.
	And the really wild thing is AI learned to do that all on its own.
	It wasn't programmed to do that.
	It simply learned to do that by flying in a simulator.
	Wow. So it's basically playing chicken with the other plane, and then taking a kill shot and getting out of the way, and not getting out of the way.
	That is pretty amazing. Pretty amazing.
	Now, of course, you point out in the book that it has complete situational awareness, which is something that helps it.
	But later in the book, you talk about poker, and I thought that was very interesting, because for all the years, I haven't been following...
	the different game stuff that's been happening.
	You know, we had all these competitions where you had computers against chess players and against go players and all the rest of this stuff.
	But I remember at the time, the early days when I was looking at that stuff, they were saying, well, the real thing would be poker because in poker, you don't have, uh, you don't know the world, the entire world situation.
	You don't have complete surveillance of everything that's there.
	And now, as of 2017, you talked about what happened with poker.
	Tell people where AI is with poker and how it got to that situation.
	Exactly. So poker is a really exciting challenge for AI. It's really difficult because it's what's called an imperfect information game.
	There is this hidden information that's critical to the game.
	So in chess, in Go, the AI can see the entire board.
	You can see all of the pieces and where they are.
	But for poker, the most important information, your opponent's cards, is hidden from you.
	And so human players have to make estimations.
	What do I think this other player has based on They're betting, and based on the cards that have come out so far, and it's a really hard problem for AI. It is yet another game that has fallen to AIs, and I talk in the book about Libratus, the first AI that was able to achieve superhuman performance in head-to-head, Texas Hold'em, and then Pluribus, which actually could do this against multiple players, which is way harder from a computational standpoint, because now there's way more factors.
	Yeah. And the really wild thing to me about this was that when you think about what it would take to achieve superhuman performance in poker, you think you would need something like a theory of mind.
	Understanding, okay, this other player, what are they thinking about?
	Are they bluffing?
	Turns out, actually, you don't need any of that.
	You just need to be really, really good at probabilities.
	And the AI is able to do that and to beat the best players in the world.
	Wow. I'd like to see it do a game of Blackjack 21.
	Definitely be banned at the...
	That'd be an easy one for it to do that.
	But yeah, that is interesting. And you tied that into your experience in Iraq, I guess it was.
	Maybe it was Afghanistan, but imagine Iraq with IEDs and how people would try to guess which path would be least likely to hit an IED. Talk a little bit about that and how the application...
	Yeah, so I tell the story in the book about sort of what is, you know, how might these tools that are valuable in poker be used for warfare in a variety of ways?
	And in fact, the company, the researchers rather, that built the Libra is the system that achieves superhuman performance in poker.
	They now have a defense startup, and they're doing work with the Defense Department, trying to take this technology and apply it to military applications.
	So I talk about some of the things that I saw in Iraq during the war there, where you're worried about IEDs, roadside bombs, being on the side of the road.
	And I would have discussions with other soldiers about, okay, what's the strategy here, right?
	Do you swerve from side to side to keep them guessing where you're going to be?
	Do you drive down the middle? If you see a pothole, do you drive around the pothole, right, to avoid it because there might be an ID hidden in the pothole?
	Or is, you know, they know you're going to drive around the pothole and then if you go around it, there might be a bomb on the side of the road and you should drive through it.
	And there's not like a good answer to these.
	That's right. That soldiers talk about when they're in a war and trying to figure out what to do.
	But one of the things that's really compelling about this technology is it might give militaries the ability to be more strategic.
	And instead of apply sort of like, you know, just guesswork, which is basically what we were doing, to then apply a little more of a rigorous strategic approach to keep the enemy constantly guessing.
	It's interesting, you know, in your book, you point out how the AI in some of these war games was super aggressive, always on the attack, never tired, never exhausted.
	My son said in Terminator, the Terminator would block blows from humans, and actual AI wouldn't do this.
	It's not a threat. It would take the blow and immediately kill the person.
	You know, that's a...
	But it is very different in the way that it fights, and people are saying this is...
	It's going to change everything as it gets onto the battlefield, isn't it?
	Well, that's what's amazing is, you know, I talked about how this AI dogfighting agent fights differently than human pilots.
	It uses different tactics. That's true across all of these games.
	So the AI system that plays poker actually uses different betting strategies than human poker players.
	That's also true in chess, in Go, in real-time computer strategy games like Starcraft 2 and Dota 2.
	We have these simulated battlefields with different units.
	And there are some commonalities actually across how the AI systems are different than humans across all of these games.
	And so one of them is that in some of these computer games where these AI agents are fighting against the human units, the human players talk about the AIs exhibiting superhuman levels of aggressiveness.
	That they constantly feel pressured all the time in the game.
	Because there'll be these little skirmishes among these units.
	And then for humans, the battle's over and they have to turn their attention elsewhere.
	And then they look to a different part of the game and they figure out, okay, what am I going to do over here now?
	And the AI can look at the whole game at the same time and it doesn't need to take a break.
	It doesn't need to turn its attention somewhere else.
	So this is really significant effects from Warfare.
	Because when you look at how real wars unfold among people, there are lulls in combat.
	The enemy has to take a rest.
	They have to sleep.
	They have to eat. They have to go reload their ammunition.
	They have to focus their attention and say, okay, what are we going to do next?
	The AI doesn't have those challenges.
	It's not going to get tired.
	It's not going to be emotionally stressed.
	And so we could see not just that AI is changing the tactics of warfare in the future, but even the psychology.
	Wow. Yeah, you go back and you look at World War I, the trench warfare, you know, people waiting long periods of time, and then, you know, I've heard many people say, you know, war is these long periods of boredom where nothing happens and then sheer terror, you know, that type of thing.
	And even going back to the Civil War, I mean, they would even fight seasonably, right?
	You know, would take the winter off or something like that.
	So the pace of all this stuff has been accelerating, but now...
	With AI involved, it really puts the pedal to the metal.
	And I want to talk about the four different battlegrounds here and a little bit about deep learning.
	But before we do, you've also talked about the ethics of some of these things.
	Things like, will it surrender?
	It sounds like it's pretty aggressive, and will it recognize surrender, I should say.
	Will it recognize surrender, or will it just keep coming?
	And that's one of the ethical issues about this.
	I mean, what do we do in terms of trying to keep control of this, even on a battlefield, so that it doesn't get out of control and just keep going even?
	Does it recognize that it wins even?
	Right. And this is a central problem in AI, whether we're talking about, you know, a chatbot like ChatGPT or Bing or a military AI system where the consequences could be much more severe.
	How do we make sure that these systems are going to do what we want them to do?
	How do we maintain control over them?
	Some Chinese scholars have hypothesized about this idea of a singularity on the battlefield.
	At some point in time in the future, where the pace of AI-driven combat exceeds humans' ability to keep up, and militaries have to effectively turn over the keys to machines just to be effective.
	And that is a very troubling prospect, because then how do you control escalation?
	How do you end a war, right, if it's happening at superhuman speed?
	Yeah, yeah. And there's no answers to that right now.
	That's the thing. There are no good answers.
	Yeah, this is hanging over our heads.
	And this technology, again, it's, you know, we can't have an AI gap.
	So everybody's working along these lines.
	It's one of the things that reminded me as I read your book.
	It reminds me of Michael Crichton and the reason that he wrote Jurassic Park was to awaken people to how rapidly genetic technology was changing and the fact that people were not talking about it in terms of how to control this or the ethics involved in it.
	It's just like, can we do this, you know, and just run with it?
	And it seems like we're getting in that situation with this as well.
	Let's talk again before we get into the four battlegrounds.
	The whole idea of swarms of hundreds of thousands of drones, as my son said, nothing good ever comes in a swarm.
	So this aspect of it.
	Have you ever read the book Kill Decision by Daniel Suarez back in 2012?
	It's kind of the theme of that, where they had come up with swarms.
	Are you familiar with that? I am.
	It's been a while, but yes, that's a great book, yeah.
	So where are we in that kind of scenario where you've got this massive swarm of killer drones that are communicating with each other?
	We don't have to get into how they communicate, but it basically is kind of following on an insect model.
	Is there a defense against that?
	Is that something that is in his book?
	Essentially made ships obsolete, made all the conventional weapons obsolete.
	And the military-industrial complex had to reset the board and make all new weapons, and they liked that.
	Yeah. Well, I mean, I think we're not there yet, but I do think it's coming.
	So right now, today, drones are largely remotely controlled.
	There's a human on the other end, if not directly flying the drone by a joystick, at least telling the drone where to go, giving it the GPS coordinates, and then the drone goes there.
	And generally speaking, there's like one person to one drone.
	But that's limited because that means that for every drone you put on the battlefield, you need a person behind it.
	And people are expensive.
	People are limited. And so this idea of swarming is that now you could have one person controlling many drones, tens, hundreds, thousands of drones all at the same time.
	And the human obviously is not telling each drone where to go.
	They're just telling the swarm what to do.
	So telling the swarm, go conduct reconnaissance.
	Or look over this area, find the enemy and attack them.
	Or it could be for logistics, right?
	Resupply our troops, give the troops the ammunition and supplies that they need.
	And the swarm figures all that out on its own by these individual drones, or they could be robotic units on the ground or undersea, autonomously coordinating with one another.
	It is likely to be a major paradigm shift in warfare, a huge shift in what militaries call command and control, the way that militaries organize themselves.
	So we're not there yet. Most of the systems today are pretty remotely controlled, little bits of autonomy, but that's likely the path that this is taking us, and it's going to transform warfare in very significant ways.
	Yeah. Yeah, you talked about earlier, when you talked about the ACE program that DARPA had, Combat Warfare, Of course, DARPA runs these contests all the time.
	I think the first one they had was autonomous cars.
	But they've had some, one of them, Intelligent UAV Swarm Challenge.
	Tell us a little bit about that and how that turned out.
	So we're seeing the U.S. military and the Chinese military invest heavily in these new types of experimentations and demonstrations.
	So the U.S. has done a number of swarm demonstrations where they'll take swarms out to the desert somewhere and drop them off of an airplane and swarming drones and have them coordinating together.
	China's doing the same.
	So they're taking a page from what the U.S. is doing.
	They're often following up with experiments of their own.
	And the really difficult thing for the U.S. military is this technology is so widely available.
	So, for example, we're already seeing drones used in Ukraine, commercially available drones.
	There are some military ones coming from Iran and Turkey, but also commercially available drones like you could buy online for a few hundred dollars.
	And civilians are using them.
	They're using them to assist Ukrainian military.
	And in some cases, we've even seen artificial intelligence integrated into these drones.
	So AI-based image classifiers that can identify tanks, for example, and find them using AI. And so just the widespread nature of AI and autonomy is a real challenge for militaries.
	Think about how do you control this technology?
	Huge problem for the U.S. military because all of the U.S.'s advantages are negated when anyone else has access to this.
	Wow. Yeah, and it's kind of interesting that they're being used for, you know, mainly reconnaissance.
	Like we saw, you know, that was one of the key things that early planes were used for in World War I was mainly reconnaissance.
	Before that, they had, you know, reconnaissance balloons and Civil War and that type of thing.
	Then eventually they start dropping small munitions and then it's on, you know.
	And so it's going to escalate much faster with that.
	One of the things that you've talked about...
	Is, again, in terms of the AI running away from us, you talk about a flash crash of stocks.
	Talk about what that would look like with a flash war.
	You know, we've got circuit breakers for the stock market.
	You know, what do we do for that again?
	You know, what is the problem? Define the problem.
	Right. So, you know, the essence of the problem is how do you control operations going on at machine speed and in a competitive environment?
	So we envision what this might look like in warfare.
	So our machines are operating at machine speed faster than humans can keep up.
	Their machines are doing the same.
	They're interacting. We're not going to share our algorithms with adversaries.
	They're not going to share their algorithms with us.
	There's this potential for these unexpected interactions.
	Things to spiral out of control.
	Well, we've seen this. Actually, we've seen this in stock trading where there are algorithms executing trades in milliseconds far faster than humans can respond.
	And we've had accidents like these flash crashes where the algorithms interact in some unexpected way with market conditions and these rapid movements in the price.
	And the way that regulators have dealt with this in the financial system is they put in these circuit breakers you talked about.
	They take a stock offline if the price moves too quickly in a very short period of time.
	But there's no referee to call timeout and win.
	So who's the regulator?
	There's nobody. And so if you're going to have some kind of human circuit breaker, that's something that militaries have to do on their own, or they have to work with competitors to agree to do that, which is nuthless to say, that's really hard to do.
	Yeah, not too likely to happen.
	That is very concerning.
	Again, as you point out, it's a great analogy in the stock market.
	We've already seen how that works, but there is no referee in a war.
	Talk a little bit about the non-belligerent use of artificial intelligence other than as killing machines.
	So AI is a widespread, multi-use technology.
	We're seeing AI integrated into any aspect of society, in medicine, in finance, in transportation.
	One of the really troubling applications that I talk about in the book is the use of AI for domestic surveillance.
	extreme implementation of this inside China, where half of the world's 1 billion surveillance cameras are in China.
	And the Chinese Communist Party is building up this really dystopian model of this tech-enabled authoritarianism.
	Because if you've got half a billion cameras, how are you going to monitor that?
	We'll use AI. And they're using AI for facial recognition, gate recognition, voice recognition, tracking people's movements, in some cases for really trivial infractions.
	facial recognition being used to go after people for jaywalking, using too much toilet paper in public restrooms, but also, of course, to go after political dissidents and to clamp down on control that the Chinese Communist Party has and to repress its citizens and minorities.
	Hang on right there.
	I want to show people this little clip.
	I know you can't see it there.
	This is actually a China restaurant.
	And in order to get toilet paper, the guy has to go up to a screen and it gets a facial scan of him.
	And then it spits out just a little bit of toilet paper.
	But that's the state of where this is.
	I mean, this is kind of where it hits the fan, isn't it?
	I mean, it's even for that.
	And perhaps they're going to grab his DNA. Who knows?
	This is a toilet paper.
	You talked about going to China, and I don't know what year you went to China.
	It was a very different situation from when my family went, about 2000, what was it, 2005, 2006?
	And now you talk about what it's like coming into the country.
	What do they do when you come into the country now?
	Tell people. Sure.
	So I did several trips to China just before actually COVID hit, was able to get in there before all the restrictions came down, and got to see firsthand how a lot of AI technology is being employed by the Chinese Communist Party to surveil its citizens.
	So one of the first things that happens is you get your face scanned when you come through into the country, and it gets recorded in their database.
	Now I'll point out, that also happens at many border checkpoints here in the U.S., Yeah, it's rolling out the TSA now, yeah.
	That's right. So when I came back through Dulles Airport in Washington, D.C., also got my face scanned.
	Now, what are some of the differences, right?
	So same technology, but it's being used, same application, that is to check that people are who they say they are, but under very different kinds of political structures and governance regimes.
	So here in the U.S., there are laws that govern how the government can do that.
	They're set by the elected representatives, by the people.
	There's also a lot more transparency here in the U.S. So when I walk through a border checkpoint in the U.S., there are signs that say we're going to collect your facial record, your face, and we're storing it in a database that tells you for how long that information is going to be stored, gives you a link you can go online to get more information on the website, and in fact, The first place I learned about this wasn't going through a checkpoint in the U.S. It was reading about in the Washington Post.
	So the fact that we have independent media in the U.S. also, you know, a way to have more checks and balances and government power and authority, none of which exists in China.
	And that to me just really highlights it's not about the technology.
	It's about how we use it.
	And are we going to use it to protect human freedom or the Chinese model to crush human freedom?
	Yeah. Yes, it's hard power versus soft power.
	Soft power is going to be coming from our dedication to the rule of law, to individual liberty, to those types of things.
	And the problem is that it's getting to the point now where if they want to collect your facial information in order to fly, They may tell you all about it, but if you don't want to have your facial skin done, maybe you won't fly, and that'll be your choice. You don't get to fly, but we'll tell you we're going to do this.
	And so it's that kind of level of coercion that kind of has the pretense of choice with it.
	I'm very concerned that we're just a couple of half steps behind the Chinese, and that most people in this country, as well as elected representatives, most people are sleepwalking through it.
	Most elected representatives don't really have it on there.
	What they're looking at.
	But talk a little bit about what is happening in the area that they are so focused on, the Uyghur area, and as they are looking at that particular population and how they weaponized it there.
	So China in particular, the most sort of extreme version of this techno-dystopian model that China's building is in Xinjiang, where China has been very active in repressing the Uyghurs there as part of a mass campaign of repression against them, including imprisonment,
	home confinement, and then throughout the area and the major cities, a series of police checkpoints that dot the cities every few hundred meters that check people via facial recognition, gate recognition, That scan their phones, that use biometric databases, all to track the movements of these citizens and where they're going.
	So, for example, if someone, you know, drives through an area, a camera checking the license plate on the car, and then sticking that to other data like the person's face or their geolocation data for their phone, and saying, okay, you know, is this a person who owns the car?
	And if not, bam, you get flagged.
	And the government's going to come take a look at you and It's all part of this model the Chinese Communist Party is building to control every aspect of its citizens' movements.
	Because if you can control how much toilet paper people are using, then you're not going to have people rising up against the government.
	That's right, yeah. And of course, as I've said, we look at central bank digital currency.
	That gets us there really fast.
	But these other aspects, constant surveillance, geospatial intelligence, even being used to anticipate where people are going to go, anticipatory intelligence.
	Talk a little bit about that, what people typically think of as pre-crime for a minority report.
	talk about how they are pulling all this data together, data mining it, and making decisions about what you're going to do in the future and who their suspects are going to be.
	That's right.
	So one of the things that they built is a platform for looking at people's behavior, tracking it.
	China's put together a social credit system, scoring people based on activities that they're doing, including sometimes trivial infractions, like not sorting the recyclings.
	That might get you docked points to try to shape people's behavior.
	And then also trying to anticipate where they might find something that looks suspicious.
	So if someone books a hotel room on their credit card in the same city that they live in, that gets flagged by the police.
	And the new police cloud database that many police departments in major cities and provinces are building in China, where they'll say, okay, well, that's suspicious.
	What are you doing?
	We're going to look at you looking at geolocation data.
	So if they see a person is going to be in an internet cafe at the same time as another person, multiple times during the week, they're linking these people and saying, okay, what's going on between them?
	Trying to ferret out any kind of behavior that the party might see as a threat to it.
	Yeah, and that's the thing that's very concerning.
	And of course, the reason you're talking about this is because it's artificial intelligence that allows them to be able to make these correlations and to sort through just a staggering amount of information.
	If we go back and we look at the Stasi, they were keeping track of everybody.
	And you point out that they put in some Han Chinese in the Uyghur area to be informants.
	But that's nothing compared to all the biometric surveillance and the artificial intelligence and how they can put that stuff together.
	They had so much information.
	Everybody was spying. More than half the people were spies and informants on the other less than half of the people.
	And yet they didn't have a way to put that stuff together.
	That's the kind of leverage that this technology now gives to dictators, right?
	That's what's chilling about it.
	It allows this surveillance on a scale that's not possible with humans.
	And it's not just that AI can be used for repression.
	Lots of technologies can be used for oppression.
	A police baton can be used for oppression.
	It's the fact that AI can enhance the system of oppression itself and further entrench it so that it's even harder for citizens to rise up against the government.
	So it's not that the Chinese Communist Party is just using this to, you know, Crack down and find the dissidents if there's another Tiananmen Square protest in the future.
	I walked through Tiananmen Square, surveillance cameras everywhere, as you might expect.
	I estimated about 200 cameras across the square at every poll, watching every single movement.
	The goal really for the party is making sure that the dissidents never even make it to the square.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I imagine if you did something there in Tiananmen Square that indicated that you were concerned about that, that would really put you on their list for sure.
	Talk a little bit about Sharp Eyes.
	This is something that came out about 2015.
	I remember when this program came out.
	Talk about the Sharp Eyes initiative in China.
	So China's been steadily building components of this digital infrastructure to control its population.
	So one of the first components of this was the great firewall, firewalling off information inside China.
	There's a propaganda component of this.
	But increasingly, with programs like Skynet and Sharp Eyes, China has been creating the physical infrastructure as well.
	So not just controlling information, but now controlling physical space.
	So Sharp Eyes is a massive government program to build out surveillance cameras in every aspect of China so that every single place is covered.
	Bus stations, train stations, airplanes, hotels, banks, grocery stores, every kind of public area is surveilled so that any place someone goes inside China, there's a camera watching them and tracking their movements.
	And you mentioned Skynet.
	You mentioned in the book that they didn't name it after the Terminator, but it's kind of a transliteration of what they've got.
	But it's essentially going to be the same thing, I guess, once they hook it up with some military equipment.
	Let's talk about the four battlegrounds, because that's what your book lays out.
	And your book is set up primarily for people who are in the military, I think, to look at the You know, where we are relative to China in terms of, you don't really talk that much about Russia.
	You do have a quote at the beginning from both Xi Jinping and from Putin about the importance of artificial intelligence, but the real threat seems to be coming from China in this.
	And so you look at this from a power standpoint, and you talk about four different areas.
	Talk about the first one, data.
	Sure. So how can the U.S. stay ahead of China in this really critical technology?
	Well, data is essential.
	Data is essentially the fuel for machine learning systems.
	Machine learning systems are trained on data.
	Now, it's often said or people might have this impression that China has an advantage in data because they have half a billion surveillance cameras.
	They're collecting data on their citizens.
	When I dove into this, my conclusion ultimately was that that's not true, that China doesn't have an advantage in data for a couple of reasons.
	One is that what matters more than the population size of a country is the user base of these tech companies.
	So China's got bigger population than the US or Europe.
	There's more people. They're going to collect more data on their citizens.
	But US tech companies aren't confined to the United States.
	So platforms like Facebook and YouTube have over 2 billion global users each.
	Whereas, in fact, China's WeChat has only 1.2 billion users.
	And other than TikTok, Chinese companies have really struggled to make it outside of China and break into the global marketplace.
	So that's an area where the population turns out to be not really an advantage for China.
	In fact, the U.S. probably has advantages in global reach of these companies.
	Another reason why people think that China might have an advantage is because the Chinese government's doing all the surveillance.
	Well, it turns out that the Chinese government doesn't let Chinese companies necessarily do that same level of surveillance.
	So the Chinese Communist Party is actually pretty restrictive of who gets its spying powers.
	They don't want Chinese companies to have the same spying powers that they do, and they've been passing consumer data privacy laws.
	So even though there's no regulations inside China on what the government can do, there actually are passing regulations on what Chinese companies can do to Chinese consumers.
	So those same spying powers don't necessarily exist on the corporate side.
	Whereas, of course, in the U.S., U.S. consumers have actually acquiesced a fair amount to this sort of model of corporate surveillance of U.S. tech companies hoovering up lots of their personal data without a lot of pushback, grumbling, but there's no federal data privacy regulations.
	And that's the key thing.
	We said for the longest time, if it's free, you are the data.
	You're the product, right?
	Your data is the product.
	And that really underscores how much better they're able to get that information from people just by providing a free product and we give them all the information about ourselves.
	That's right. So we actually are giving up a ton of information voluntarily, at least to companies, if not to the government.
	And so I'm not sure that China actually has an advantage here.
	I think both countries are going to have access to ample data.
	The more important thing is going to be building pipelines within companies or their militaries to take this data, to harness it, to clean it up, to turn it to useful AI applications.
	Yeah, talk a little bit about how that is used by AI, why data is so important.
	As you mentioned, people said data is the new oil or whatever, because of machine learning.
	Tell people why there's so much concern and emphasis on the quantity of data that they've been able to collect about us.
	How's that used? Yeah. So as I'm sure people are aware, it's why we're having this conversation, part of it is this huge explosion in artificial intelligence in the last decade.
	And we've seen tremendous progress through what's called the deep learning revolution.
	So not all of AI, we talked about poker, it doesn't use machine learning, but a lot of the progress right now is using machine learning and a type of machine learning called deep learning that uses deep neural networks.
	Which are a connectionist paradigm that are loosely modeled on human brains.
	And in machine learning, rather than have a set of rules that are written down by human experts about what the AI should do.
	And that's how, for example, like a commercial airplane autopilot functions.
	There's a set of rules for what the airplane should do in any given circumstance.
	Machine learning doesn't work that way.
	And instead, the algorithm is trained on data.
	And so people can take data of some kind of behavior and then train this AI system, for example, on faces, right?
	If you have enough pictures of people's faces and then they're labeled with those people's names, you can feed that into a neural network and it can learn to identify who people are based on really subtle patterns in the faces, the same way that we do, really subcontractable, not even thinking about it.
	We can identify faces.
	And the thing is, you need massive amounts of data.
	So AI systems that do image classification, for example, that identify objects based on images, use databases with millions of images.
	Text models like ChatGPT or Bing use hundreds of gigabytes of text.
	In fact, a good portion of the text on the internet.
	And so having large amounts of data and having it ready to train these systems is really foundational to using AI effectively.
	One of the examples that you have is being able to distinguish between an apple and a tomato.
	Talk a little bit about that. So if you think about a rule-based system, the old model of AI, how would you build a rule-based system to tell this between an apple and a tomato?
	So they're both round, they're red, sometimes green, they're shiny, maybe they have a green stem on top.
	If you're trying to tell the difference to someone who's never seen one before, that's actually kind of tricky to do.
	But they look different, and in fact, a toddler can tell the difference to them if they've seen both of them.
	And it turns out that building a rule by system for AI to tell the difference is really hard.
	But if you feed enough labeled images of apples and tomatoes to a machine learning system, it can just learn to tell the difference.
	The same way that humans do based on all of these subtle cues about the texture and the shape and how they're different.
	And so that's a great example of these kinds of problems that AI is really powerful for using machine learning.
	Yeah, you know, when we look at generative AI, the AI that people are using so much for artwork and that type of thing, and you compare it to the chat programs that we've seen and the real colorful episodes that people had as they were working with it… It's the same type of thing, essentially. They're able to create this interesting artwork because they've got so many different images that they have seen and just pull these elements together.
	But that's exactly what they're doing with the chat when it goes off the deep end as well.
	They've had all of this massive amount of conversation and scripts or whatever, novels.
	And they're able to pull that kind of stuff together, just like they pull together the interesting elements of artwork, you know, to make something that's different.
	Isn't that a good analogy, or would you say?
	Oh, absolutely. They're doing essentially the exact same thing, just one with images and one with text, where we've seen this explosion in generative AI, like ChatGPT, like these AI art generators.
	They're really, really powerful.
	And they're not actually copying and pasting from the database.
	What they do is they have a model that's trained on these massive databases of images or text.
	And then what happens is they build a statistical model of You know, statistically, associations of text or associations of pixels and what an image looks like.
	And then with a prompt, if you're talking to, say, ChatGPT or to Bing, you start having a conversation, you give it a prompt, and then it's going to spit back a response.
	And almost all of the really weird stuff that these language models are doing, when you think about it, it's modeling something that exists on the Internet.
	So these models, you know, they can get argumentative.
	They're arguing with users.
	They're trying to deceive them.
	You know, in one case, the model is telling this user that it's in love with him and he should leave his wife.
	Well, all of it seems like really loony behavior, but there's all that stuff on the Internet.
	There's all sorts of weird, wacky things on the Internet.
	So it's learned, based on this text on the Internet, those kinds of behaviors.
	And then it's no surprise that it spits them back at us when we prompt it to do so.
	Yeah, even coming up with a kind of HAL scenario like from 2001.
	I was watching these people on the cameras.
	They didn't know I was watching them on the cameras, that type of thing.
	Yeah, it strikes me as we're talking about the importance, and I don't really understand how these machine learning models work.
	I mean, I've just come after this from a procedural standpoint, you know, it was in engineering and programming.
	So I don't really understand how these things can assimilate this and build these models from looking at, you know, pictures, a lot of pictures of tomatoes and apples and everything, but they do it somehow.
	But the key thing with all this appears to be the data.
	And so I was wondering, because I've been wondering why there's so much fear and concern about TikTok And I know part of it is that, you know, it's going to be easier to scrape this data off of...
	If they own the platform, they can get the data more easily than they could if they were just trying to scrape it off publicly because everything on Facebook and all the social media is out there publicly.
	But the key thing about this, I imagine besides...
	Getting information about interesting individuals might be the larger access to having that big platform of data because you're talking about feeding as kind of a strategic resource for nations, the fact that you can get this stuff from Facebook or other things to feed into your artificial intelligence.
	Is that part of it, you think, with TikTok?
	Absolutely. Data is part of it.
	And then the algorithm behind TikTok is another big part of it.
	So TikTok, you know, looks really innocuous.
	I do think it's a major threat to U.S. national security, not because the platform itself is a problem, because the ownership is a problem, because the company is owned by a Chinese company.
	It's ultimately beholden to the Chinese Communist Party.
	And so one of the problems is that the app could be used to take people's personal data.
	So it's on your phone.
	Your phone will sometimes ask for permission.
	Oh, this app can access other information about you, your location, can access other apps.
	And, you know, like myself, maybe a lot of people just, okay, allow, sure, right?
	But then all of a sudden, that app's grabbing all sorts of information.
	Maybe your contact list.
	Maybe it's grabbing your geolocation.
	Maybe it's seeing what you're doing with other apps.
	And it's sending it back.
	And in the case of TikTok, if the Chinese Communist Party says, we need access to that data, the company has no choice.
	If they say no, they go to jail.
	So when the FBI told Apple, you need to unlock this phone, Apple fought the FBI. They fought them in court, and they fought them in the court of public opinion.
	And neither of those things exist inside China.
	A Chinese company can't We're good to go.
	Right, so for all these platforms, they're feeding you information based on this algorithm saying, okay, we think you should look at this information.
	And companies are all very opaque about this.
	They're not very transparent about what's in the algorithm.
	There's been a lot of controversy about many of the US platforms that maybe they're pushing people towards more extremist content.
	The problem with TikTok in particular is that this algorithm could be a vehicle for censoring information.
	And in fact, it has been. And in fact, there's been leaks coming out of TikTok that shows their internal censorship guidelines.
	That's been leaked. We've seen it.
	We've seen extra guidelines.
	And TikTok has said they would censor political content.
	So anything about anything that might be offensive to the Chinese Communist Party, something about the Tiananmen Square massacre, That's censored.
	And so that's a real problem we think about.
	This is an information environment that Americans are using.
	This would be like the Chinese Communist Party owning a major cable news network in the United States.
	That's a real threat to U.S. national security, and we have to find ways to address it.
	Sure. Yeah, it's kind of like what we saw with the Twitter files.
	You know, we saw how at the beck and call of officials and government that they would censor or they would give them information on people.
	And, of course, we see the same thing when we look at 5G. You know, they're concerned about Huawei because the Chinese government is going to use it to surveil us.
	But, again, our government is going to use the other 5G that's made by our companies to surveil us as well.
	Talk a little bit about, you know, while we're on data, The issue of synthetic data, because I thought it was interesting.
	As I mentioned earlier, you know, the first competition that DARPA had was the self-driving cars.
	And in your book, you talk about the fact that Waymo, the number of miles that they've driven, and then how they've synthesized this data.
	Talk a little bit about that. Sure.
	So synthetic data is AI-generated data.
	That could be AI-generated text, like it comes out of ChatGPT.
	It could be AI-generated artwork.
	But it's also a tool that companies can use in building more robust AI systems.
	So self-driving car companies, for example, are collecting data driving on the roads.
	They have the cars that are driving around with all the sensors and all the cameras, and they're scooping up data as they're driving around.
	But they're also using synthetic data in simulations.
	So Waymo's talked about they're collecting data on roads, but they're also running simulations.
	I think they've done 10 million miles on roads collecting of data.
	And I think it's 10 million miles a day they've said that they're doing in simulation.
	So they're able to supplement with many orders of magnitude more because they can run these simulations at accelerated speed.
	And so now if there's a situation where there's a car, there's a new situation on the highway they've never seen before, Car cuts them off, does something weird.
	They capture that data, they put it in a simulation.
	Now they can rerun it different times of day, different lighting conditions, different weather conditions.
	And then all of that can make the car more robust and more safe.
	So it can be a really valuable tool as a supplement to real-world data.
	Or in some cases, just as a complete replacement.
	And this is what the Alpha Dogfight did.
	That AI agent was trained of 30 years of time in a simulation.
	So synthetic data in a simulation teaching it how to perform a task.
	That's interesting. And, you know, when we look at it, you point out 10 million driving miles every single day, 10 billion simulated miles as of 2020.
	And yet, you know, we look at this and some skeptics of AI are talking about the fact that we've gone through a couple of different waves of AI where everybody was excited about it and then things didn't pan out and it dropped off and we're now like the third time of that.
	We've just had Waymo lay off 8% of their labor force, and they're having a problem with it.
	It was in San Francisco, I don't know if it, I think it was Cruz, maybe not Waymo, where their vehicles all went to one intersection and blocked it, you know?
	So, you know, there are certain hang-ups like this that are happening, but even in San Francisco, where Waymo is headquartered, they were all very upset about the fact that the cars are moving slow, they're having difficulty, you know, if you've got a situation at a four-way stop or something, they have difficulty negotiating with the humans as to who's going to go next, and so they just sat there.
	Talk about that. Is that showing a real Achilles' heel for people?
	Artificial intelligence, what we're seeing in a self-driving car.
	Oh, absolutely. I mean, we're talking about all the amazing things that AI can do, but it's worth keeping in mind that a lot of the things we're talking about are really narrow, like playing Go or poker or even generating art images.
	And humans have the ability to perform all of these different tasks.
	Humans can write an essay.
	They can make a painting.
	Maybe not a great one, but they can do it.
	They can use a camera to take a picture.
	They can get in a car and drive.
	They can make a pot of coffee.
	They can have a conversation. We can have some special purpose AI systems that can do some of those things, but the AI systems are really brittle.
	And so, you know, if there's something that comes up that's not in their training data, they might do something super weird.
	And that's a big problem for self-driving cars because you need a self-driving car that's good, not just some of the time, not just 80% of the time or 90%, but the right that's good all the time, that's safer than humans.
	I think we'll get there eventually, but we're seeing the self-driving cars, how hard that is out in the real world in an unconstrained environment.
	And the human brain, for now, remains the most advanced cognitive processing system on the planet.
	And so when we think about using AI, you know, there are going to be some tasks where we might be able to use AI instead of people.
	But people are still going to need to be involved in all sorts of aspects of our society because humans have the ability to take a step back, look at the bigger picture, understand the context, apply judgment in a way that even the best AI systems can't do.
	Yeah, and you know, when you look at it in terms of the self-driving car, you know, you've got the different levels of driving ability.
	Five is fully autonomous.
	Four is, we're doing most of it for you, but if it's an emergency, we're going to kick control back to you.
	Of course, that's a really dangerous one because typically at that point in time, the person is fast asleep or playing a video game or whatever, and it's like, you know, here, take this.
	Take the wheel right now.
	And so, you know, when we see that, I would imagine that's really the big issue.
	You know, we started talking about the dogfight.
	I imagine that's the really big issue with the pilots.
	You know, it's like, oh, okay, now we're in a tight spot.
	It's up to you now. I can't handle it.
	I'm going to kick it back to the pilot.
	I mean, I'm sure that's the issue with them as well, right?
	That's a huge problem. It's a huge problem because right now, if you have this AI, you can do some things, but not everything.
	How do you balance what the AI does and what the human does?
	And what we often do, which is a terrible approach, like you're saying, is we can have the AI do as much as it can, and then we expect the human to fill in the gaps.
	And that leads to situations that are just not realistic for humans.
	So the idea that someone's going to be sitting in this car, going on the highway at 70 miles an hour, not paying attention because the AI's driving, and then in a split second, the human's going to realize, uh-oh, something's wrong.
	I need to take control, see what's happening, grab control of the steering wheel to the car.
	It's not realistic. Humans can't do that.
	And so we need a model for human machines working together that also works for human psychology.
	And in fact, one of the things that this DARPA program is doing with putting an AI in the cockpit is looking at things like pilot trust.
	And in fact, what they're doing is now they're taking these AI systems.
	They're out of simulators.
	They're putting them in real-world F-16 aircraft.
	They're flying them up in the sky.
	The AI is doing maneuvering of a real airplane.
	And that itself is challenging, moving from a simulator to the real world because the real world's a lot more complicated than a simulator.
	But they're also looking at what's the pilot doing?
	So they've instrumented the whole cockpit, and they're looking at things like tracking.
	What's the pilot looking at?
	Why is the pilot looking at the map and thinking about the higher-level mission, which is what we want the pilot doing?
	Or is the pilot looking at the controls, trying to figure out what the AI is doing, looking out the window, because the pilot doesn't trust the AI? And getting to that level of trust, getting to that seamless coordination between humans and AI, is going to be really important to using AI effectively.
	Let's talk about the other three battlegrounds.
	We talked about data. The next one is compute.
	Tell people what that represents.
	So compute means computing hardware or chips that machine learning systems run on.
	So machine learning systems are trained on data.
	They're trained using computing hardware or computing chips, sometimes massive amounts of computing infrastructure.
	And for a large language model like ChatGPT, it's trained on hundreds of gigabytes of text, often trained for thousands of specialized AI chips, like graphics processing units or GPUs, running for weeks at a time, churning through all this data, training them up. If data is a relatively level playing field between the US and China, and hardware and computing power, or it's sometimes called compute, the US has a tremendous advantage.
	Because while the global semiconductor supply chains, they're very globalized, they fall through a number of countries, and in fact, the most advanced ships are not made in the U.S. Zero percent of the most advanced ships in the world are made here in the United States.
	They depend on U.S. technology, and they're made using technology, tooling, and software from U.S. companies, and it gives the U.S. control over key choke points in the semiconductor supply chain.
	And the U.S. has used this to deny China access to semiconductor technology when it was strategically advantaged to the United States.
	The U.S. did this to Huawei when it turned off Huawei's access to the most advanced 5G chips.
	They weren't made in America, they were made in Taiwan, but they were made using U.S. equipment.
	And so the U.S. said, using export control regulations to Taiwan, you're not allowed to export any chips to China of this certain type to Huawei that are made using U.S. equipment.
	And now the U.S. has done this actually across the board.
	Biden administration put this out in October.
	Very sweeping export controls to China on semiconductor technology and the most advanced AI chips.
	And then on the equipment, and this is really critical, for China to make its own chips, holding back China's own domestic production.
	Yeah, that's changed quite a bit since I was a young engineer.
	We had, you know, the state of the art in terms of...
	Geometries, they were unable to, domestically here, the company I worked for, was unable to do it here.
	All of their yield was coming out of Japan.
	They were able to do it.
	But we had, in terms of commodity products, that had already been seeded 40 years ago to offshore sources.
	But we had kind of a lock on CPUs and things like that.
	That now has changed, as you pointed out.
	And I was surprised to see that in the book.
	That pretty much all the sophisticated chips are coming out of Taiwan.
	You said Taiwan has 90% of the most advanced chips in the world made in Taiwan.
	And so that's one of the things that we're looking at here with China and Taiwan.
	That is extremely important and why I think that's going to be a source of conflict, flashpoint, all the rest of the stuff, why we're seeing this tension build up there as the Chinese are moving towards Taiwan.
	It's because of the advanced chips there and how it is really kind of at the center of the state of the art of the semiconductor industry, whereas we've just kind of got a few choke points here and there in the semiconductor industry.
	They've got the big foundries as well as the most advanced foundries there, right?
	Absolutely. So 90% of the world's most advanced chips are made in Taiwan, as you said.
	And that's a real problem when we think about security of supply chains, because Taiwan's an island 100 miles off the coast of China.
	The Chinese Communist Party has pledged to Absorbed by force if necessary.
	So Taiwanese independence protecting Taiwan is critically important and finding ways to ensure that China doesn't engage in that military aggression as important political and economic and military reasons.
	Yeah, yeah. And that's important to understand as people look at this conflict building up, the strategic interest that the U.S. perceives in this.
	And as you point out, I thought it was kind of interesting, you know, looking at Moore's Law, very familiar with that, the computing that the...
	That the chips would increase an exponential rate, doubling every couple of years.
	But you pointed out that there's another law that I had not heard of, Rock's Law, that semiconductor fabrication doubles every four years, and that computer usage, because of all this deep learning stuff, It's doubling every six months, so it's outpacing it, but the cost of the semiconductor manufacturing facilities is causing an amazing concentration because of the capital cost involved in putting up these state-of-the-art facilities and foundries.
	That's right. So the technology that's used in making these most advanced chips is simply unbelievable.
	It's some of the most advanced, difficult technologies on the planet.
	And as the costs continue to go up, so a leading edge foundry might cost anywhere from $20 to $40 billion to build that foundry.
	Using the most state-of-the-art technology, what we've seen, of course, as a result of these market pressures and rising costs, is the number of companies operating at the leading nodes of semiconductor fabrication has continued to shrink.
	And so we've seen at the most leading edge now, it's now just two companies, really, TSMC and Samsung.
	On the equipment side, there are some companies that have a sole monopoly.
	So for the equipment that's used to make the most advanced chips, there's one company in the world, a Dutch company, ASML, that makes the equipment needed to make those chips.
	And these concentrations of the supply chain give the U.S. and allies unique elements of control over who gets access to this critical resource, the computing hardware that's needed for the most advanced AI capabilities.
	And of course, this complicated, complex distribution of the supply chain is very worrying as we move towards the future.
	The lifestyle that we have and the things that are just strung out all over the planet And it is truly amazing to think about how that has happened with globalization.
	You know, you've got one company in this country and another one in another country with a different aspect of it.
	Talk about talent.
	We're just about out of time.
	Talent and institutions, but let's talk a little bit about talent because China had the Thousand Talents Program, and we saw this manifest itself in a Harvard professor during the concerns about bioweapons and other things like that.
	Talk a little bit about the U.S. versus China in terms of talent.
	Yeah, so the last two battlegrounds are human talent and institutions, the organizations needed to import AI technology and to use it effectively.
	And the U.S. has a tremendous advantage over China in human talent because the best AI scientists and researchers from around the world want to come to the United States, including the best scientists in China.
	So over half of the top undergraduates in China studying AI come to the U.S. for their graduate work.
	And for those Chinese undergraduates who come to the U.S. for graduate school, who study computer science, do a Ph.D., 90% of them stay in the U.S. after graduation.
	So the best and brightest in China are actually coming to the U.S. and they're staying here.
	And that draw of top American universities and companies as a magnet for global talent is a huge advantage that China cannot compete with.
	You've got an anecdote about China and their chat program.
	Talk about that, the China dream.
	Oh, yeah. Yeah.
	So, you know, one of the chatbots in China, a Microsoft chatbot called Chowice, said on a Chinese social media platform, someone said, well, what's your Chinese dream?
	It's a phrase used by Xi Jinping to talk about sort of their version of like the American dream.
	And this chatbot says, well, my Chinese dream is to go to America.
	And they're not like that.
	They probably censored that chatbot.
	Yeah. See, I think that's why, you know, when you look at soft power, I think that, you know, having a climate of liberty and freedom and prosperity, if we can maintain those things, that really, I think, is upstream, you know, our overall system.
	And that's really what concerns me when I look at talent, when I look at what is happening in universities and other things like that, because we're starting to lose that kind of freedom.
	But talk real quickly, before we run out of time, a little bit about institutions.
	So institutions are our last key battleground, and it's institutions that are able to take all of these raw inputs of data, computing hardware, and human talent, and turn them into useful applications.
	So if you think about airplane technology, airplanes were invented here in the United States.
	By the time you got to World War II, they gave the U.S. no meaningful advantage in military air power.
	All of the great powers had access to aircraft technology.
	What mattered more was figuring out, what do you do with an airplane?
	How do you use it effectively?
	The US Navy and the Japanese Navy innovated with aircraft carriers, putting aircraft on carriers, using them in naval battles.
	Great Britain, on the other hand, had access to aircraft technology, but they squandered that advantage and they fell behind in carriers, not because they didn't have the technology, but because of bureaucratic and cultural reasons.
	And so finding ways to cut through government red tape, move faster, innovate, be agile, are really essential if the U.S. is going to stay in the lead and maintain an advantage in artificial intelligence.
	It's been fascinating talking to you.
	We could go on a long time about this.
	But again, the book is Four Battlegrounds.
	The author, as you've been hearing, is Paul Charest, also the author of Army of None.
	And I don't know what that was. Thank you so much, Mr.
	Shari. Thank you. Appreciate you coming in.
	Thank you.
	Thanks for having me.
	The David Knight Show is a critical thinking super spreader.
	If you've been exposed to logic by listening to The David Knight Show, please do your part and try not to spread it.
	Financial support or simply telling others about the show causes this dangerous information to spread farther.
	People have to trust me.
	I mean, trust the science.
	Wear your mask.
	Take your vaccine.
	Don't ask questions.
	Using free speech to free minds.
	It's the David Knight Show.
	Joining us now is Joel Skousen.
	You can find him at worldaffairsbrief.com.
	And that is an excellent source of information, and nobody knows what's going on, follows it more closely than Joel Skousen does.
	Thank you for joining us, Joel. It's always good to be with you, David.
	Thank you. Let's talk about, first of all, it's been a lot of developments.
	Things are happening very quickly in Ukraine.
	We now see in the headlines just yesterday, it was 200,000 troops are amassing by the Russians and then the Ukrainians say 500,000.
	Is it 200,000? Is it 500,000?
	Is that happening? The fog of war.
	What is really going on in your opinion?
	Well, it's very hard to say.
	I rely primarily on the Brits at russi.com, which really is a very good non-globalist, honest intelligence outfit that has access to British intelligence and some American intelligence. honest intelligence outfit that has access to British intelligence and But you really can't tell what the Russians say or what the Ukrainians say.
	You can't take it for face value.
	There's a lot of propaganda on both sides.
	There's no way that the Russians could be amassing 500,000.
	They already committed, of the 300,000, they committed 100,000 of the new conscripts untrained into the battle, and most of those have met their fate and have been killed.
	So that leaves about 200,000 that they did give extensive training to, or at least whatever they could do in the battlefield conditions there in Ukraine.
	And, you know, you've got the Wagner Group that still has about 50,000 or 60,000, you know, top-line fighters, but that's it from what the Russians have.
	So, you know, we're looking at a maximum of about 300,000, which is what they started the original invasion with.
	And according to, you know, Russian sources, Putin is demanding the same three-pronged attack like they tried it the first, with Belarus coming out, Russian troops and equipment towards Kiev, and then Crimea coming out of the south to attack the southern flank of Odessa, and then the Russians breaking out of their defensive positions in the Donbass to attack, frontal assault with the Ukrainian troops opposing them, etc.
	And there's apparently a little bit of a rebellion among the Russian generals that they don't feel like this is going to work any more than it did at first, especially if the U.S. gets their new main battle tanks into Ukraine, which could take at least three months.
	And that means it won't be a winter offensive.
	It would have to be a spring offensive after the ground gets solid again.
	Starting in February, when you start to have some thaw...
	Really into March, you know, the ground gets really soft and won't support tank warfare.
	And so it's really a little too late now for the Russians to start a winter warfare across the frozen ground because in the middle of it, you'd get rain starting to come and you get bogged down.
	So I think...
	Both Russian and British intelligence say the Russians will wait until the ground solidifies in April or May, most likely May, which gives a chance for the West to get their main battle tanks into Ukraine.
	And it's looking like most of those are going to be Leopard 2 tanks from Germany and other NATO countries.
	You know, one squadron of Challenger tanks, 14 Challenger 2 tanks are coming in, and then the US is shipping about 31 Abrams M1 tanks, but they have to wait until they get...
	The depleted uranium armor stripped off the US versions of those tanks, so they won't be coming out of the tank crews in Germany.
	The US tank crews in Germany, they have to be shipped from the United States, because this is top secret armor that the US has on the Abrams tanks with depleted uranium, and they don't want those to get in the hands of the Russians.
	Well, if they don't have the armor, they're going to be somewhat a great deal more vulnerable, of course.
	But I covered a couple of days ago a retired lieutenant colonel whose specialty was tank forces.
	And he was saying, you know, first of all, we're looking at months.
	I don't know, three months, six months before they get the tanks.
	And he said...
	Nobody's going to know how to use them.
	You've got to train in these things.
	So what is going to happen with that?
	Is there going to be a further delay in addition to the delivery of the tanks before anybody can really use it?
	That was his point. They're already training Ukrainian crews in Poland on Leopard 2 tanks.
	And that's going to be providing the bulk of...
	They're also training in terms of the verbal learning the systems in the Challenger tanks and the Abrams tanks in NATO countries as well.
	So they're already doing the training.
	It's just a problem.
	You've got to get your supply chains established because there are parts that have to be replaced and maintenance and other things.
	Now, the Challenger 2 is probably the most reliable tank, main battle tank in the West.
	And it could probably survive out there without maintenance problems for a month or two.
	But after that, you know, you've got real problems.
	The U.S. Abrams tank has a turbine, gas turbine engine.
	And so it's not a diesel engine.
	It's going to be very difficult.
	To do any maintenance on those, they'll have to be shipped back out of and replaced with other new gas turbines.
	So the Abrams is a real problem.
	The Leopard 2 and the Challenger are not so much of a problem because the parts pipeline is already in Europe for both of those, whereas there isn't an extensive Abrams 2 pipeline in Europe except for American forces here, and they don't have a lot of extras to ship out to Ukraine.
	So that looks like that's a bit of a problem.
	His main point, what the lieutenant colonel was saying, was not even the equipment and not even having a few months training to understand the equipment, but he said the real issue is knowing how to use them strategically, maneuvers, tactics, that type of thing. He says that takes years to learn that, especially if you're going to go on offense And it appears that that is really the purpose of this, to try to dislodge Russians from where they are.
	He says offensive is completely different from defense, and they have absolutely no training and can't possibly know how to do that.
	He said we do that for years before we put people out there.
	Yeah, he's absolutely correct about that.
	The United States and NATO practices combined arms warfare, and then it's combining tank maneuvers with infantry, and you've got to protect tanks with infantry that have anti-tank shoulder-fired missiles to protect them against other tanks, etc. You've got to have combined air power to shield those tanks and to blast your way through, and He's absolutely right.
	The Ukrainians don't have that, won't have that.
	And so they'll be relegated to Israeli-type tank warfare, which is to maneuver with speed, being able to fire on the move, which our tanks can do much better than the Soviet tanks, and to do it at night where you don't use some of the same combined warfare.
	The U.S. and NATO tanks have really good infrared warfighting systems that they can see in the dark.
	They can see the heat signatures of these other tanks, and the Russian older tanks don't have hardly any of that, so they don't fight at night.
	But the Israelis have been able to develop a doctrine where you use tank warfare alone and still win against the Arabs with their T-72 tanks and T-80 tanks.
	They still can be effective, they just won't be as effective as if the main battle tanks were in western hands.
	And of course, you know, their newer tanks, they have a longer range as well, besides the night vision stuff, right?
	Than the Soviet tanks. That's right.
	They can out-distance in their firing, the other tanks, and that's the strategy the Israelis use with their Merkava tanks, is they could shoot out to three kilometers and kill other tanks, and the Russian tanks had to get within, you know, a kilometer to make a kill.
	Mm-hmm. So they couldn't even get close without being hit.
	So the Israelis won in several of those wars, you know, 100 tanks versus 300 or 400 tanks just because of these tactics.
	Now, the Russians are dug in very deeply in eastern Ukraine, and the Ukrainians intend to mount an attack and punch through those lines with these new tanks, which they can do, and then come around the back and surround troops.
	So that they're fighting both front and rear, which would be very difficult.
	The Russians could try to thwart that with air attacks, but the trouble is the U.S. has supplied such sophisticated anti-aircraft weaponry to the Ukraine that the Russians don't dare fly close air support in a battle.
	Their only effective strategy is to launch far away with long-range missiles.
	And those are only effective against Ukrainian aircraft.
	So if you keep the aircraft on the ground and don't fight this as an aircraft war and threaten the Russian aircraft with short range missiles over the battlefield, then it will be just a tank warfare and not combined air tactics that require this level of training.
	And I always enjoy the level of detail because the devil is in the detail.
	We can talk about the big picture and the strategy, and we will talk about that coming up.
	But it's one of the things I like about you, Joel, is that you've got so much detail about the equipment.
	And it's fascinating, but...
	At the same time, again, going back to the retired lieutenant colonel saying that he thought that it was not going to be, in his opinion, a very effective strategy, that it was going to mainly be a provocation to the Russians.
	Everything that we're doing seems to validate their fears and their anxieties that NATO's purpose is to take Russia apart.
	This is what people like Alexander Dugan has been saying for a long time.
	And it seems to be fulfilling all of their worst concerns.
	So he sees it primarily just as an escalation.
	And Biden said a year ago when this began, it was actually in March, But he said, no, we're not going to send tanks.
	We're not going to send jets. He said, that'd be World War III. So what do you think is going to be the...
	And immediately after Ukraine got the authorization for the tanks, they immediately started saying, well, we want planes now.
	So is this something that is rapidly escalating into World War III? Many of us have been saying it's World War III already.
	Well, I don't believe it is escalating to World War III because World War III cannot be fought without nuclear weapons.
	And Western doesn't dare use their top-of-the-line nuclear weapons against the West as long as they don't have the capacity in the conventional military to occupy.
	That's why I've said for a long time in my analysis they have to wait for China.
	China does have the manpower, the Blue Water Navy, it's the largest navy in the world now, to ship troops around and control other countries once you nuke them.
	If you nuke the military and you can't occupy then you simply wait for them to rebuild and they come back after you.
	And so that's why Putin has not made good on any of his nuclear threats and won't, in my opinion, because it's premature.
	China is not backing Russia and Ukraine.
	China, in fact, thinks Russia made a mistake in antagonizing the West early because China has always said, let's wait till we're ready and then we'll throw a joint nuclear attack on Western military targets and then blackmail them into submission and avoid...
	World War III, a destructive World War III. The West knows that.
	They want that preemptive nuclear strike in order to talk Americans finally into joining a militarized global government, which Americans don't want and wouldn't ever want unless you provoke them with a Pearl Harbor, even worse than Pearl Harbor, a nuclear preemptive strike on U.S. military forces.
	If our forces are decapitated, it's easy for our leaders to come out of the bunkers and say, you know, we didn't know this was going to happen, but Now that it has, we have to join with other non-communist countries in a militarized global government.
	And in fact, in tomorrow's World Affairs Brief, I am covering, I guess it'll be today when we broadcast this interview, today's World Affairs Brief will cover the fact that the Britons have specifically denigrated their own military while secretly giving millions of pounds to the EU to finance a new EU army.
	In other words, this has to be factored into the thing is that this EU army is meant to replace NATO and is meant, I think, to be the seed stock of the new militarized global government that will start when World War II, when World War III starts.
	But it has to wait for China to be ready.
	And China has even admitted we won't be ready till about 2027.
	Which is just in the middle point of when I've always said this war is at greatest risk in the latter half of this decade when Russia and China will both be ready to attack the West.
	Just in time for the 2030, you know, reset everything.
	Let me go to, and one of the reasons that will motivate that war to happen before 2030 is that the U.S. is building It's going to build a new ballistic missile system to replace the antiquated 1950s Minuteman III missiles, which have had their three warheads removed and replaced with a single warhead.
	So Russia has about 10,000 warheads on missiles, and we have 400.
	So this is not a fair fight.
	And that's part of the reason why the U.S., You know, is going to let those missiles be struck, because it will take about three warheads on each of the 400 silos that the US has, and use up about 1200 of the Russian and Soviet missiles, just killing our relatively useless Minuteman III missiles.
	You mentioned the EU army, and I want to go back to that.
	That was something that was denigrated as a conspiracy theory when the Brexiters were talking about that.
	And then right after Brexit and the election passed, they said, we're going to get out of the EU. Then it came immediately.
	They admitted, yeah, we're working on an EU army.
	Let's talk a little bit about that.
	You said the UK is denigrating its forces.
	I thought this is a bizarre, humorous article talking about, and it came out of the sun in the UK. The defense minister there, Ben Wallace, is very upset about the fact that they found that a subcontractor was doing repairs on a nuclear sub with superglue.
	Some of the cooling stuff came off.
	They just superglued it on and it was discovered by accident.
	This thing is running four years over the schedule and $370 million over budget.
	Sounds just like our military.
	But they're downsizing their military drastically, almost making it disappear.
	I think we've got more police officers in New York City than they do.
	and their army.
	I don't know exact numbers, but it's approaching that.
	They just cut another 10,000 troops in Britain as well.
	And they're also killing the British military industrial complex by not giving them any contracts.
	And so what's really happening, I think this is the British version of what the U.S. is planning on absorbing a nuclear first strike.
	The British version is when that nuclear strike hits the Trident missile base in Scotland, for example, which is their main deterrent against the strike.
	When it gets hit, and I think they'll be under the same, you know, absorb a nuclear first strike dictate that we're under PDD-60, which is still in force, That's Presidential Decision Directive 60 in 1997 that instructed our nuclear forces, you will be instructed to absorb a nuclear first strike and retaliate afterwards, not launch on warning.
	And launch on warning, of course, is the most important strategy because when our satellites detect a missile launch from Russia and China, Those missiles are targeting something already.
	And if we launch, their missiles hit empty silos and our missiles then hit live targets.
	So launching on warning is a very powerful strategy.
	And by eliminating that from our U.S. arsenal, you know, we set ourselves up.
	It invites a nuclear first strike.
	I'm sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead.
	That even our anti-nuclear lobby doesn't realize or has long forgotten about PDD-60 because it's been top secret ever since 1997.
	And Bruce Blair, a big anti-nuclear fanatic in the mainstream, came out and said, you know, what Biden needs to do in revamping our nuclear policy is to eliminate launch on warnings.
	It's already gone. It's already gone.
	And I emailed the disarmament people at Federation of American Scientists and other things, and I said, you know, do you have information that PDD-60 has been overruled, you know, that already eliminates?
	What's Bruce Blair talking about?
	And the guy wrote back and said, what's PDD-60?
	What's PDD-60? Nobody talks about that, really, but you.
	Most people don't know it's there.
	It's been so secret for so long that even the disarmament lobby's forgotten about it and thinking they have to do it all over again.
	But this is a very insidious strategy, and I don't believe, as I say, we're going to have nuclear war until they're ready to do this preemptive strike.
	And it won't be just launching one missile and taking out London or something.
	That would be a provocation that would require a response from the public.
	But when you hit all of our nuclear bases in a preemptive strike, it uses up most of their missiles.
	And it does drive Americans into throwing them and saying, what do we do now?
	And our government will have the answer.
	That's what, you know, this Pearl Harbor type strategy is, is provoke the U.S. into something and mandate the solution, etc.
	But now, you might ask, how does the West intend to win a war when you allow a preemptive nuclear strike on your military forces?
	Well, I think the answer, you know, as I may have discussed in one of our earlier interviews, is putting up space-based interceptors in space so that you can hit any further missiles.
	In other words, to...
	To stop the blackmail, you have to be able to say, no, we're not going to let you take over.
	Go ahead and try to nuke us, and then be able to hit their missiles in the boost phase before they release their warheads, and then you can destroy the missiles.
	And you can only do that from space, of course.
	When General Mattis at the Booz Allen annual financial conference told the attendants, you'd be surprised how many trillions we have going into space that aren't on the budget, I think he's referring to top-secret offensive or defensive weapons in space, the brilliant pebbles and other things that were talked about by Dan Graham in the Reagan administration, which they said they never built.
	But I believe that it has been built.
	Because the West would not do this PDD-60 and absorb a nuclear unit unless they had some strategy to stop any further attacks from occurring once they decided to fight back.
	Unless they have gone full suicidal.
	But let's talk about, you talk about early strikes and that type of thing.
	We just had, and you talked about this on worldaffairsbrief.com, Russians sent a, as kind of a provocation or, you know, They sent a ship off the East Coast that had hypersonic missiles on it.
	First of all, how long would it take for a hypersonic missile to reach a target?
	And is that just one warhead on a hypersonic missile?
	Would that just be something that you said would be a provocation taking out a city or something like that?
	But how long would that take, and is it just a single warhead on it?
	Well, you know, if they were, let's say, you know, 50 miles outside of the 12-mile limit, 50 miles off the coast, and they send a hypersomic, it would be up there in Washington, D.C. in about, you know, 15 minutes.
	So it doesn't give you much warning time.
	We're talking about, you know, Mach 5 for it to get up to speed.
	But... You know, it's a limited small warhead that'll fit on a hypersonic missile.
	This is not something that's even going to take out the whole city of Washington, D.C. It's a point target weapon.
	And how many missiles would they have on that?
	Maybe 20. So 20 targets.
	It would just cause a hornet's nest.
	It wouldn't decapitate the U.S. or stop them from retaliating.
	And that's why it's foolish.
	I said when I heard that, you know, this is not the beginning of a nuclear confrontation.
	This is just more saber-rattling, you know, to deter the West from, you know, beefing up Ukraine.
	Ukraine is really a...
	The Ukraine war is really a deciding factor in...
	In the Russian military strategy because it has embarrassed them.
	It's put Putin in a very untenable position where opposition is going to him, especially a lot of military people who don't keep going in Ukraine, where you're embarrassing us.
	But It's hard to tell because we hear that and they haven't been able to finish the job, if you will.
	They're kind of a stalemate there.
	And we hear that Putin, there's internal things that are happening there.
	The knives are out for him. We've got generals that are...
	And other people who are being defenestrated.
	You know, things like that.
	And yet, the US and Europe is desperate to escalate this with tanks and jets.
	So, you know, there's this, again, the fog of war.
	What can you believe? I mean, how does that...
	If he's... Struggling and embarrassing them and having this opposition internally, and I'm sure there's an element of truth to all those things, and yet they're very concerned about putting these weapons there, but that's essentially because they're going on offense.
	Is that correct? That's right.
	The Ukrainians have to go on offense to drive the Russians out.
	Otherwise, if it's just a drawn-out stalemate, the U.S. and the NATO is going to run out of weapons to give Ukraine, and it's not going to end.
	And that would be very embarrassing for the West to let Ukraine fall on this.
	Let me go back to some of the beginning rationale for this war, because conservatives have bought into a lot of disinformation about this.
	And I understand that because I'm an anti-globalist myself.
	And so people wonder, why are you defending the Ukraine war?
	Because the globalists are for this and you shouldn't be for anything the globalists are for.
	Well, it's a little more complicated than that.
	It is true that the globalists did a lot of warmongering based upon 9-11 and starting a phony war on terror in order to excuse invading Iraq and Afghanistan, which turned out to be disasters.
	It was not justified.
	They had nothing to do with 9-11.
	9-11 was a deep state operation from beginning to end in order to justify intervention in other countries.
	Part of this was to build, as globalists, part of this was to build a reputation of the U.S. as the bully of the world, to help hand Russia and China the excuse to attack us someday.
	Remember that the globalists have been building Russia and China and giving them weapons and technology for decades.
	We brought the communists to power.
	We gave them $20 million.
	Jacob Schiff did, you know, to...
	The Russians and the British gave another $20 million to finance the revolution.
	We cut off military aid to the white Russians so that the Bolsheviks could win.
	We brought Mao Zedong to power by cutting off military aid to Chiang Kai-shek.
	We brought Castro to power by cutting off military aid to Batista.
	We brought the Sandinistas to power in Nicaragua by cutting off military aid to Samosa.
	So you see, conservatives don't start from the beginning to see that the globalists, it's been a one-way street.
	You know, the Birch Society has made the mistake of saying, well, the globalists, because Rothschilds meet with Putin and other things, that they're all in this together and it's a single conspiracy.
	It is not. It's a one-way street from the global building two enemies because they need another war to finally get us into a global government.
	That was the purpose of World War I. That was the purpose of World War II. We got the United Nations but it had no military or taxing or regulatory power.
	We need one more war to do that.
	And that's why they've been building these enemies.
	Now, as I predicted years ago, before this war, they have to stop and turn against Russia and China so they don't get blamed for building these enemies.
	And that's what they've done.
	That's why they're turning against Russia because they know it's ready.
	It's got the nuclear missiles to strike.
	Now we need to play the role of turning against it so that we don't get blamed for the war.
	That's why And to a certain extent, this is an important strategy from the globalist position.
	They need to weaken Russia's conventional war strength, because then it guarantees that Russia has to wait for China to strike the war on the West.
	If Russia were able to have the conventional military to occupy Europe and strike at the same time, this war might become earlier than what they wanted to come.
	It is weakening Russia tremendously, and that's why there is a purpose.
	Now, there are no good actors in this.
	The globalists are not our friends, the Russians and Chinese are not our friends, and that's the mistake that Ron Paul makes.
	You know, stating he doesn't believe that Russia and China are our enemies.
	He thinks because the globalists against them, they must be good guys or they must at least be innocent.
	And that's a very gross mistake.
	And part of that comes from having bought into the notion of the fall of the Soviet Union.
	That was a carefully crafted deception.
	The Russians, the communists never did fall.
	They went underground. They ordered the wall to come down.
	They ordered all of this to happen.
	And Putin is the follow-on to Yeltsin in that conspiracy, and he did intend to strike Ukraine to start to reconstitute the Soviet Union prior to World War III. And that's why the West is sticking their sword in that to stop him from reconstituting.
	They went along with a phony fall, by the way.
	Christopher Story and the UK and myself were the only two analysts that told the nation and the world that this was a phony It's a fake fall that it never happened.
	He's now dead and they turned against him and I'm still alive and still telling people that it's a fall.
	But conservatives need to know that so that they know that Putin is not a true Christian.
	He's faking it.
	He talks about going up against the West to preserve Christianity, to stop this transgender and gay stuff, and that rings dear to conservatives' hearts, but he's faking it.
	This is a KGB colonel.
	They never let a Christian become a KGB colonel.
	They never let a Christian be in charge.
	I see him as kind of a Michael Flynn.
	You know, where they're going out there.
	And, you know, Michael Flynn is giving the hand of congratulation to the Navy SEAL, Kristen Beck, back in 2014.
	I mean, he's on the front end of pushing all this stuff.
	And now, you know, he's posturing that way.
	It's very easy for somebody to wrap themselves in a Christian flag.
	But let's talk about...
	Let me just finish.
	You know, Russia has stated his rationale that, you know, We don't want Ukraine joining NATO, and that's why it's a threat to our sovereignty.
	But remember that several years ago, when Georgia had requested NATO membership and Ukraine, the NATO membership said, no, we're not going to allow that because we revere Russians' fears about sovereignty if we let them join NATO. And what was the result?
	Two months later, Russia invaded Georgia.
	To stop it from going over to the West.
	So you see, even though NATO refused membership to Georgia, they still invaded it anyway.
	And that's why I'm saying that was an excuse that Russia gave.
	Remember, they've got the Baltic states on their border.
	It isn't if Ukraine would be the only NATO country right on its border.
	The Baltics are right there with the border with Russia.
	And in fact, as I've long stated, the Russians before the phony fall of the Soviet Union moved in hundreds of thousands of Russians into the Baltic countries.
	And they put the Donbass into the borders of Ukraine and Crimea into Ukraine so that they would have an excuse to take it back by force by claiming, as they did, that the Russians feel threatened by the Western Ukraine.
	That's why the Russians are in the Baltics, so that they can feel threatened someday.
	And they will have ancient provocateurs creating threats against the Russians that they can justify that thing.
	So conservatives don't have enough information about the background of the Cold War to understand what's going on in Russia.
	They're not the good guys. Now, neither are our side.
	Ukraine is corrupt.
	But remember, that corruption is left over from the Soviet Union.
	Because when the Soviet Union did their phony fall, they never did eliminate any of the communist bureaucrats in the government.
	In Ukraine, in Iran, in Poland, all of those still had the communists accepting bribes, etc., And so the corruption in Ukraine is endemic to a holdover from the Soviet days.
	In fact, all of the prime ministers until Zelensky, who is corrupt morally, but at least he's not a Putin puppet, all of the previous prime ministers, including Timoshenko, the great nationalist of Ukraine, was a Putin puppet and made themselves wealthy through corruption once they were in power.
	Let me ask you this in terms of, you know, things that have been pre-positioned, pre-agreed, pre-arranged.
	We just had Alexei Arrestovich.
	I don't know if you're familiar with him.
	But, you know, he was the guy that just got kicked out because he said, yeah, that building that was hit with a Russian missile, that's because we shot the missile, the cruise missile, and it fell on the building.
	And so they kicked him out for that.
	But more interesting is a clip that I played several times on the show of Arrestovich that was back in 2019.
	Zelensky had campaigned on a promise of peace, and after they got elected in 2019, they had Arrestovich as one of his ministers.
	As a matter of fact, he was the guy who was representing them in the peace talks.
	Go on to Ukrainian TV and they said, so we're going to have peace already.
	This war has been going on the Civil War for five years.
	He said, no, it's not going to be any peace.
	It's going to get worse. And he said, in three years, in 2022, we will be at war with Russia.
	And he said, and the country will be completely destroyed.
	And she said, that's horrible.
	And he goes, no, the good thing is we get into NATO. Yeah.
	But he predicted, you know, three years from now we're going to be in a full-on war.
	I mean, from the perspective of these guys and Zelensky, who is, you know, he's got shell corporations and villas all over the world, the kind of corruption that is happening there, and there's a lot of it, a lot of it has just come to light that they had to publicly do something about.
	What is going on, in your opinion, there in Ukraine that they would have an agreement that this is going to all happen in three years, that Russia would attack in three years?
	In the first place, that was a disinformation put out by the Russians about Zelensky's villas all over the world.
	That did not come from a Ukrainian source.
	I talked about that in the World Affairs Brief.
	It's not been confirmed by anything else at all other than that Russian source who had, obviously, a motive to discredit.
	Now, I'm not defending Zelensky as a nice person.
	He obviously was involved in Some weird social media type of things when he was an entertainer that had gay and homosexual overtones, etc.
	I don't vouch for the guy, but...
	Seems to be pretty phony and always wearing military fatigues.
	And of course, while he's wearing military fatigues, his wife is doing a shopping spree, you know, $40,000 in Paris in one hour, according to someone who worked there.
	I don't know.
	Is that disinformation, you think?
	Well, I haven't heard that story.
	I did check out the billion-dollar stories, and that turned out to be from a purely Russian disinformation source.
	But what I'm saying is that...
	You can't vouch for honesty in any of these former Soviet states.
	I mean, Lech Walesa was a communist agent even as he was pretending to be a pro-liberty labor union leader.
	Václav Havel was a Soviet agent pretending to be a Western.
	This is a very sophisticated form of conspiracy.
	All I know is that the Ukrainian people in Western Ukraine do not deserve to live under an extension of the phony fall of the Soviet Union.
	They don't deserve that. Their leaders have always been corrupt.
	And, you know, like in the United States, what power do we have to oust our own corrupt leaders?
	We just don't have the power anymore, and neither do the Ukrainians.
	Now, I know a lot of Ukrainians.
	I've had one that left Ukraine in this war and came over and was living next door to me.
	And they don't know a lot of things, any more than Americans know how deep the conspiracy runs.
	The Ukrainians don't know that.
	They know there's corruption, because they know they have to pay a bribe every time they have to go get something in public.
	But it's a very complex situation, and that's why I say the only thing that matters to me is that we need to be very realistic about the fact that we're headed for World War III. It's not going to be a subliminal issue.
	You know, it's not a single conspiracy.
	We're dealing with multiple conspiracies that are fighting.
	And I think they're satanic-led.
	I think the fact that these conspiracies have been going on for hundreds of years, no single human being could direct that.
	He'd long be dead.
	He'd long be dead. It has to be revelatory from Satan directing these people.
	And it's really, truly insidious.
	And unfortunately, we find our morality in this country is going down.
	I think we're losing the protections of the Lord.
	I think we're going to reap the whirlwind, and that's why I spend as much of my time analyzing foreign affairs as I do helping people prepare, because I think we're going to have to survive a nuclear first strike and an EMP strike on this nation.
	Oh, I absolutely agree. Let's talk a little bit more about China, because there's been some very interesting public statements made, or at least they were made public.
	I don't know if they intended them to be public, but they put them out in orders, and the orders were published.
	We've had high-ranking naval officers.
	We've had high-ranking Air Force officers.
	General's saying things like, you know, get your affairs in order, you know, get your last will and testament in order because of China.
	Another one saying essentially the same thing.
	I think we're going to be at war with China in at least a year or two.
	You know, they had a little bit sooner timeframe than you had.
	So what is that all about?
	Well, that's because the insiders in China know that China's been itching to take Taiwan back, and it's kind of a test to see how far they can get away with.
	It's like Hitler invading Poland, the final test, or Czechoslovakia, to test the will of the West.
	The West failed there, and so he invaded Poland, thinking he could take that without retaliation.
	The West finally did. Taiwan is a linchpin for red China.
	And I think they wanted to take it last year.
	They were showing all the signs. They were doing all of these invasive aerial attacks, or not attacks, but invasions of the militarized zone in Taiwan.
	Massive flyovers. Massive flyovers.
	And, of course, they're testing and using and wearing out Taiwanese jets and equipment, checking their radar signatures, planning so they can tell how to jam those things.
	That's really the purpose of those feints that occur.
	I fully did expect that they were going to plan sometime last fall to attack Taiwan, but they got destabilized by Biden twice, claiming that the U.S. military would intervene, and he had to be overruled.
	He misspoke. He had to be overruled by the White House and the National Security Council because that's not U.S. policy.
	U.S. policy is to let the attack happen and not to intervene.
	But it destabilized the Chinese.
	They weren't sure now, you know, if, in fact, and that's, you know, the U.S. It was a brilliant move by Biden, right?
	He just kind of walked into it.
	But it destabilized, you know, and sometimes...
	You know, as a God-fearing person, I sometimes believe the Lord allows certain things to destabilize to prolong something that Satan wants to do in order to give us more time to prepare.
	And that may be one of those things.
	And gave Taiwan more time.
	And they're busy preparing, and the U.S. is shoveling some weapons their way as well.
	Well, you know, God has spoken through the mouth of an ass, and he's spoken through many asses since then, right?
	It's unlikely what's happening.
	But you know, Taiwan could be a trigger event if, in fact, the U.S. military does intervene because Kim Jong-un of North Korea has said, if the U.S. intervenes to stop Taiwan in a military confrontation, we will attack the U.S. and South Korea in retaliation with nuclear weapons.
	Mm-hmm. And if they attack South Korea with their overwhelming force, the U.S. would have to retaliate or intervene because we have, what, 27,000 troops there.
	We have to intervene.
	We cannot let them die in an overwhelming communist attack.
	That could trigger World War III because North Korea is a puppet state of China.
	China wants it as a trigger because they can blame it on the crazy guy in North Korea.
	He didn't want to start this, but he started it, and the U.S. retaliated, so we're an ally of North Korea.
	We've got to retaliate, and that could be the trigger event for a strike on U.S. military targets.
	So a lot depends on whether or not the U.S. will intervene in Taiwan.
	And there is an expectation now that Biden has mistakenly spoke twice.
	There's an expectation in the American public that we should, especially since we're defending Ukraine now against a Russian aggression.
	And so this could bring on World War III earlier.
	However, China won't If it's going to be tied to World War III, China may delay taking Taiwan until they want to trigger World War III. And they're not ready yet.
	That's my point. They're not ready yet.
	They still need to build more aircraft carriers.
	They still need to build more missile systems.
	To launch into this, they're kind of the backup.
	The Russians are going to do the first strike.
	They've got enough to do the entire first strike.
	But China's missiles will be used for secondary against the West if the U.S. doesn't submit to blackmail after the first nuclear strike.
	Go ahead. I'm just saying, this is a very nip-and-tuck world.
	The Air Force General who came out and said the Chinese are going to attack In 2025, he said, I don't want to make too much of that because this is just a gut feeling I've got.
	He had no intelligence to back that up.
	He just feels like within two years we're going to be at war with China.
	He could very well be right.
	Not because he has any intelligence or But I'm thinking strategically in terms of China, why would they want to take on the West unless they're really fully up to speed militarily to battle a high-tech military like the US? And I don't think they're going to strike too early.
	The Chinese are very, very smart.
	They're very, very ruthless. But I'll tell you this.
	The world is never going to be the same after World War III. It's not going to be like World War II where you go back to normal afterwards.
	That's right. Yeah, let's talk about the preparation because that's a key thing.
	I always want to get you on to talk about that.
	First of all, you've got a couple of books.
	You've got Strategic Relocation, talking about the places that are...
	Safer because they're, you know, for various reasons, maybe not close to a nuclear target or also because you'll be able to get out of cities or get out into the rural areas better than you can in certain other areas.
	And you also have a book about how to prepare yourself and prepare your home to protect from civil unrest but also from nuclear threats.
	Attacks and that type of thing from fallout and that type of stuff.
	Tell us a little bit about strategic relocation.
	I know so many people are relocating to Florida because they saw things opening up there.
	That has been one of your places as the worst place to live, hasn't it?
	Yeah, it's a zero-rated state because it's a peninsula and it's only got two major roads out of that.
	It's going to be locked in, you know.
	As in what happened in Katrina, you know, people get on the freeways and it was good luck running out of gas.
	It's just very difficult to get out of Florida.
	And in a good down situation, you don't want to be in a hot, humid country where it's filled with insects and things.
	Difficult to live without air conditioning.
	I know. I grew up there before air conditioning.
	I was itching to get further up into Tennessee for the longest time because of all that.
	You're absolutely right. That's right.
	But, you know, you never want to make a relocation decision based upon current conditions.
	You know, you have a great governor there, Governor DeSantis, who's done a lot of the right things.
	He didn't initially, by the way.
	Yeah, that's right. He turned out to be kind of like Donald Trump, reading the tea leaves and seeing that this is a political horse that I can ride.
	Yeah. Yeah, he's very clever.
	You know, he doesn't want to get too far into attacking.
	He'll attack the vaccines but only go so far.
	And he doesn't want to really investigate it.
	He'll shove that off to a third party and actually to like a fourth party, asking the Supreme Court if they'll permit a grand jury to be there.
	He doesn't want to take it on directly.
	He's a very shrewd politician.
	You're right. You know, but conservatives want to follow a savior.
	They want to have someone who's going to save us.
	Rather than really rely on their own ingenuity and preparedness.
	And I'm trying to disabuse people that anybody's going to be able to save us because the deep state is so powerful.
	But strategic relocation is not only about avoiding the military threats, and I do talk a lot about the threats, but the major threat in any crisis is the population density.
	If you're in a sea of humanity in New York City or Los Angeles or San Francisco, not only your chances of getting out nil, Your chances of surviving, even if you've got food supplied in your house, is nil because you're going to be ravaged by refugees wave after wave coming to every house begging for food and then taking and pillaging.
	That's right. It's a Mad Max scenario.
	So, strategic relocation is all about getting to safer rural areas With conservative majorities, which will resist a lot of the government edicts that come in.
	Unfortunately, none of the conservative states really resisted well the COVID restrictions.
	That taught us a lot of lessons about how compliant people are with government under emergency powers.
	It was frightening. It's frightening and disillusioning to see that happen.
	There are better strategic locations that have great distances between that and big populations where you have to cross desert and hostile terrain in order to get there.
	Those are safer than Unfortunately, there's no warm weather security place because warm weather attracts soft people and you have to get into the more states that have mountainous terrain and cold weather, you know, to deter people from living there and overpopulating.
	But my other books, I have two books about honest-to-goodness preparedness.
	One is The Secure Home, 700 pages, covers everything in security and fortification of a residence, plus the strategy.
	I cover generators, solar, a huge appendix with sources, you know, of how to find these difficult things.
	And the other book is a smaller book called The High Security Shelter Book, and that's specifically for people who have a basement We're good to go.
	Now, that one I haven't seen yet.
	Give me the title of that again.
	I've seen Secure Home.
	It's excellent, as well as Strategic Relocation.
	It's called High Security Shelter.
	High Security Shelter.
	And it's on my website, joelskousen.com.
	And you can get there from worldaffairsbrief.com as well.
	Well, they're excellent publications.
	They're excellent publications. I haven't seen the third one, but I've seen the other two.
	And you can't find anything more thorough.
	We have architectural plans in the shelter book about how to do one of those shelters and the fallout-resistant ceiling on it.
	And these are all do-it-yourself books.
	We encourage people to learn the skills to do it yourself because if you hire it done, you have a lot of people that know what you have.
	And I'll tell you, in a crisis, they're going to become knocking on the door wanting to be in your shelter.
	That's right. So it really pays to learn the skills.
	Besides, if something goes wrong with your solar system or other things, you're not going to be able to call a repairman in a crisis without electricity.
	You won't have any telephone community.
	You need to know how to repair and fix these things or jury-rig these things to do that.
	That's what I find amusing about these reports that surfaced from time to time about the elite's We're good to go.
	And it's like the wealthy conservatives that buy into the Vivos community or others pre-built condominium-type shelters, underground missile silos and other things, run by a big corporation.
	Do you think any of those corporate guards are going to show up to open up, let you in, when there's no electricity and their whole families are a threat?
	They're not going to show up.
	You can't depend on a corporation to operate a sophisticated underground condominium service for you.
	You need to do it yourself.
	And people resist that.
	They resist it because they have money, they're used to paying for everything to get things done, but you need to resist that.
	You're going to have to depend on God, your own preparations, and your own skills that you develop.
	I'm 76 years old, David, and I have learned a dozen different skills over my lifetime so that I can do these things.
	Well, I think people are seeing that now.
	They saw that with the lockdown and many other things.
	They're seeing it. People are saying, well, maybe we need to raise chickens and that type of thing.
	If you want to have liberty, you've got to have independence.
	And if you want independence, you've got to have skills.
	It's just that simple. We've got to go back.
	And there's a learning curve to all of these things.
	That's right. And one of the wonderful things now is you can learn almost anything on YouTube.
	That's right. There are how-to things on raising chickens, on raising beef, cattle, on fixing cars.
	I go to YouTube all the time for fix-it type of things, from everything, from cars to my airplanes to other things, because almost everybody has posted a YouTube video.
	It's just marvelous, but that will be gone someday.
	It won't be available when a mean tea strike comes.
	Yeah, download them, put them on an air gap machine, and put it in some kind of a Farrington cage if you want to be able to do that.
	And then, of course, you're going to have to have electricity that's going to operate that as well.
	It's always great talking to you, Joel.
	Thank you so much for coming on.
	And again, folks, you can find those books, Strategic Relocation to Secure Home.
	And give us the name of that third one again.
	The High Security Shelter.
	Okay, High Security Shelter.
	You can find all that at joelskousen.com.
	Thank you so much, Joel. My pleasure, David.
	Let me tell you, the David Knight Show you can listen to with your ears.
	You can even watch it by using your eyes.
	In fact, if you can hear me, that means you're listening to the David Knight Show right now.
	Yeah, good job.
	Ha ha ha! And you want to know something else?
	You can find all the links to everywhere to watch or listen to the show at TheDavidKnightShow.com.
	That's a website.
	Joining us now is Liz James.
	I've talked to her before about her blessed by his blood.
	It's a cooperative. I want to get that out there again and get an update as to how she's doing because I've got a lot of people who are concerned about contaminated blood, whether you're talking about transfusions, being able to stockpile your own blood or other things like that, even to the extent...
	You've got the world's first unvaccinated dating service now launching in Hawaii.
	People understand the issue here, and they're looking for some solutions, so I wanted to get an update to that.
	But last time when I talked to Liz, she also talked about how she was very involved in raw milk, and that is also something that's very important.
	So I wanted to talk about that, the adulteration to our food supply.
	So joining us now is Liz James.
	Her organization is Blessed by His Blood.
	Tell us what the website is for that.
	Good morning. It's just www.blessedbyhisblood.com.
	Okay, good. And so tell us how this is going right now.
	Where are you right now? And are you working to try to get some legislation through in various places to have a right to make decisions about blood, your own blood, and what's going to happen in an operation or an emergency?
	Yes, sir. So the legislation that we've started actively working on It's actually kind of interesting because designated donor or directed donor blood or autologous blood, which is meaning giving yourself your own blood if you have enough time to do so, both of those things are currently legal and have been around for decades.
	When I was in my, I think, very early 20s, I had a minor surgery and That, you know, every time you have a surgery, they say, well, there's always a chance you might need blood.
	And so my mom and my brother both donated on my behalf back, you know, this was 30-something years ago.
	But they've been doing this for just years and years and years and years.
	However, it is coming to our attention that a lot of hospitals are starting to deny patients the right to do this.
	Yeah. Which is another stab at taking away medical freedom, right?
	That's right. So our approach is this.
	We're just trying to defend our medical freedom.
	And basing that on the 14th Amendment, Section 1, where we have this is part of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
	There's not anything specifically in the Constitution that addresses medical freedom because that's part of the 14th Amendment.
	The other thing is there was a 1990 Patient Self-Determination Act, and that act protects the patient's right to do and say and request and have the authority of what does and does not occur in their own body.
	So that's something that when somebody is denied directed donor use, Or autologous donation, that's something that is not being respected.
	The third thing is there's an internationally held and, again, religious freedom.
	There's an international law that protects a patient's personal, or not a patient, anybody's religious freedom and personal belief system.
	So that's another personal right that is being trampled on.
	I know that in Europe, I talked to a guy who was in Switzerland, and he was saying it's getting impossible for people to use their own blood or to have donors, people that they know, people in their family, set aside blood if they know that an operation is coming up.
	So we have these things that are on the books, you know, the Constitution, laws in Europe, and yet they're being disregarded in many ways.
	So it's important for us to strengthen that, isn't it?
	You know, and I'll bring this up.
	I mean, and George and I have been working together, his organization Safeblood, which is international, versus the United States.
	The United States actually has the strongest constitution in the world, right?
	I mean, it's a constitution that's been upheld for much longer than any other country's constitution.
	And the more that we allow it to be chiseled away, the closer we get to being like these other countries that are having so many difficulties.
	And the United States has, while he's having more difficulty in these other countries, the United States actually, even though we're having difficulty, there's less difficulty now.
	And there are lots and lots of doctors who are standing beside us and saying, we will write for the order.
	Now, the problem is happening more so in the hospital, in the actual hospital, where they're saying, well, we won't do this.
	Because hospitals are being more and more driven by large corporations, a consolidation, and they're being driven by the accountants and that type of thing.
	And insurance.
	Yes, insurance companies.
	I had a listener who just sent me something, I think it was last week, said that he had to go in, he had a heart issue, and he said, the hospital nurse said, would you like to set aside your blood in case we have to do an operation at some point in the future?
	He was okay, he was taken out, but they offered that to him to store his own blood.
	So he was excited about that, gave us the name of the hospital.
	You know, there are some hospitals out there, because not all the hospitals...
	Have been subsumed into these giant corporate structures where they have a big network and then become all about money only.
	And that's exactly the type of hospital we're looking to work with is the ones that are not corporately owned and are willing to work with the patients on a basis like that.
	And they are definitely out there.
	I mean, we've had...
	Even though we're not officially up and running, our soft launch is March 1st.
	But we have already done, we did one match already, and we were able to do that successfully in the Chicago area.
	And that's just with people who, you're talking to people who have reached out to us expressing an interest.
	We were able to find donors for this young family in need in the Chicago area.
	That's good. That's great.
	Yeah, it is interesting.
	I talked about this earlier. There's a study that just came out talking about how they have verified that they find mRNA in blood 28 days later.
	Dr. Peter McCullough has talked about it being found much later than that.
	And so this is not a theory.
	This is not a conspiracy theory.
	These are studies showing that this stuff persists.
	That's a whole other issue with the vaccines.
	But the reality is that it is there.
	There's a contaminant. We all know what the mRNA does in terms of creating the toxic spike protein that accumulates in your body that damages organs and all the rest of the stuff.
	So it is very important that we do have that kind of clean blood.
	And we know that the blood supply is not being screened for that, right?
	Very much so.
	And you may have seen, too, in the last couple of weeks, they've released some of the restrictions they had on blood donation, Makes it become all that much more interesting.
	One of them, I believe, that mad cow disease has been taken off as a problem.
	Number two, they've taken...
	It used to be gay men could not donate.
	Now, if they're in a quote-unquote monogamous relationship, you know...
	How do you screen for that at the Red Cross, right?
	Right. Well, and that's an interesting thing because, I mean, no matter if there's a homosexual relationship or a heterosexual relationship, you can never speak for the other party, right?
	That's right. So there's that to deal with.
	And then number three, the other interesting thing is, for the Red Cross, if a transgender individual comes in and says that Well, if they're a man and they say that they're a woman, they have to be identified as a woman.
	And therefore, that's an issue because then I guess there's no screening for whatever on that.
	Knowing that four out of ten...
	Transgender men would test positive for HIV. Yeah, because as we see, it's all part of the Drag Queen Storytime Hour, what people are finally starting to come to their awareness about.
	It's a very, you know, as one person said, hey, look, heterosexual moms, I'm a conservative, but I'm a drag queen.
	And let me tell you, this is a highly charged community in terms of drugs and sex and all the rest of the stuff, and that's going to show up in the blood supply.
	Yeah, that's absolutely right.
	I guess maybe some of these people could come in and they could say, I may be a type A according to what your test is, but I identify as type B and you better put me down as that.
	You never know.
	You never know. I mean, it seems like anything is possible apparently in politics and in industry, right?
	That's right. Well, let's talk a little bit.
	That's good. So the organization is Blessed by His Blood, and you're about to go live in March.
	And is it.com? Is that what you said?
	.com?.com, yes, sir.
	Okay. So blessedbyhisblood.com is about to go live in March.
	You've got legislative issues.
	We're trying to uphold our freedom to have informed consent to use our own blood or blood of people that we know, and it's not something we should take for granted.
	Because when you look at what is being done in the medical profession now, it's all being politicized.
	And it's a very dangerous situation.
	So we have to start to fight for our rights of medical freedom and choice.
	But let's talk a little bit about food.
	Because last time you were on, you talked about your involvement with raw milk.
	And, of course, this is something that's been going on for quite some time, as there's all these different regulations that some places will allow it to some degree, but they have restrictions even in the most liberal places.
	I know back in Texas when we were living there that you could buy raw milk, but they had to be very careful about how they sold it.
	You had to go to their place.
	They couldn't. You couldn't buy it in a supermarket, so you had to go to the farm or you had to be part of a cooperative.
	That's the way it operates in some states and things like that.
	So what has your experience been with the raw milk battles?
	You know, I think I should first give a little bit of my backstory on how I found raw milk because it really is pertinent to the conversation.
	You know, being trained classically as a pharmacist, One of the things that they talk about is food safety, right?
	So when I graduated from pharmacy school, and in addition to that, I have a degree in animal science as well.
	So again, we were trained the same in animal sciences as well, because that involves food science.
	And about 10 years after I graduated from pharmacy school and I was in practice, I had a little accident on our farm here, and I ended up breaking my wrist.
	And I had a cast on my wrist.
	I went back to work, just had the cast on my wrist, and I had two women come up to me, independent of one another, over the course of a couple weeks and say, oh, you have a broken bone, you really should look into drinking raw milk.
	And the first woman that said that, the back, you know, my little voice in my head was like, oh, she doesn't know what she's talking about.
	Raw milk is dangerous. You know, the second woman, you know, I believe that's the Holy Spirit.
	When you get affirmation, confirmation from a second independent source, That's something you really need to look into.
	And so I was like, okay, that's, you know, two messages that I need to look into this.
	And so I did a little digging and I found a book called The Untold Story of Milk by Ron Schmid.
	I don't know, it was probably written in the 80s.
	And started, I read it and it reads like a textbook.
	And that led me to read a couple other books.
	But by the time I was done with The Untold Story of Milk, I had no doubt in my mind that we the consumers had been buffaloed by the American Dairy Association and the food industry in terms of milk.
	And it's quite an interesting story when you get into it.
	And I think You can never take a policy without first understanding the history behind the policy and how it got there.
	And so how did we end up with homogenized, pasteurized milk?
	How did that actually come to pass?
	So a little history on that.
	When people started migrating to the United States and they started settling in Large cities, you know, Chicago, Detroit, New York, all these big cities, they were living in tenement housing, the majority of them, you know, because these are poor people fleeing their country or looking for a new, better life and ending up in these, like, basically slums.
	And the first thing that happens when you're in a slum situation is there ends up being a lot of despair and depression, right?
	And If you read any sort of history in that time period, in that environment, you'll find there's a lot of alcohol.
	Right? I mean, because alcohol is used to escape and erase what's going on.
	You know? And so, there were distilleries all over these large cities making You know, making a killing on alcohol.
	But they were bringing in grains to make the alcohol, right?
	Well, somebody got the bright idea of, why don't we bring the cows into the city?
	So, they bring cows into the city and have these indoor cow dairies Slash feedlots that are inside buildings right next door to the distilleries with holes in the wall.
	And so after the grain is used, the mash is left over from making the whiskey, the bourbon, whatever.
	Then the mash is shoveled through the wall so they don't have to go on trains to go to cows or wherever.
	And these cows that have no sunlight, no grass, you know, that are living in filth, Mm-hmm.
	Mm-hmm. For the people who were on the receiving end, the people who were living in the slums and the tenements, not so much so.
	I mean, they were drinking milk that was very unhealthy, you know, because the cows were not healthy themselves.
	They weren't in an environment that was healthy.
	And so Louis Pasteur, of course, and people were getting sick from the milk, you know, rightfully so, because the milk was not healthy.
	And Louis Pasteur...
	Came out with the pasteurization.
	And, of course, that's a whole other topic about, you know, Pasteur versus Beauchamp, right?
	You're probably aware of that.
	We won't go down that rabbit hole.
	But pasteurization, they started pasteurizing the milk so that people wouldn't get sick.
	Well, when you pasteurize milk, it does get rid of the bad bacteria.
	And in situations like I just described, that's not a bad thing because there is bad bacteria in unhealthy cows.
	However, if you have a healthy cow that lives outdoors in the sunshine, is drinking fresh water, eating good, clean grass, etc., you have milk that has the ability to If you were to introduce a bacteria into a quart of milk,
	if you were to introduce bad bacteria into a quart of milk and then go back and look for that bacteria later, you would not find it because the enzymes and the antibodies in that milk digest it and protect and keep the milk clean and healthy.
	We have the ability to do that, right?
	The disadvantage of pasteurization, too, is that when you heat up milk like that, you destroy the enzymes.
	You destroy the good enzymes that we all need.
	We should all be eating enzyme-rich food.
	You're causing a tremendous drop in the vitamin C content of milk.
	Of vitamin B6 and vitamin B12, that drops dramatically when you start heating up milk like that.
	You also change, and this is very important, you change the physical and chemical state of calcium and other minerals that are in that milk, which makes milk less valuable as a food.
	You know? Yeah. Oh, yeah.
	And, you know, you're talking about this, and I'm thinking of the giant pig skyscraper that they're building in China.
	It's called a pork scraper, you know?
	But, you know, just think about that.
	As we were talking about the implications of that, you know, putting pigs in a giant skyscraper, you know, what could possibly go wrong, you know?
	They were never meant to live like that.
	I know. And that kind of reminds me, you know, when you're talking about what happened in Chicago, that's kind of the early stages of big corporate food production today, where they don't really care what goes into it.
	I was early in the program.
	I talked about the fact that the FDA has approved all these...
	Heavy-duty chemicals that have been identified in other countries as carcinogenic, and they said, we don't care.
	So it's allowed in our bread, it's allowed in our food, and maybe they put it in because they want to try to strengthen or to stabilize dough so they can work with it better with their machines in terms of processing it.
	They don't care what the health effects are, and the FDA gives them a pass on all of this stuff.
	And that's really, you know, when we look at how the FDA has handled drugs, they're just as bad with the food stuff as well.
	I totally agree.
	And, you know, we were in Europe several years ago, and we went into a store that carried Americanized products.
	And it was very interesting because even things like, you know, Froot Loops, You looked at the Froot Loops in Holland, the dyes were natural dyes, like on the box.
	But if you look at the Froot Loops in the United States, you know, it's red dye, number four, you know, Yeah.
	We look at Mexican Coke, right?
	They use, instead of high fructose corn syrup, they use regular sugar, and then they've got it in a glass bottle instead of an aluminum can, and on and on.
	You know, it's like we get the worst of everything.
	But it's also the cities, like you're talking about there in Chicago.
	It made me think of what Thomas Jefferson said about cities.
	He said, they're a threat to the health, the wealth, and the liberty of man.
	Yeah. That's right.
	I think one of the most impactful books I read in high school was The Jungle by Upton Sinclair.
	And that book really emphasized the plight of these immigrants and the terrible situation that they lived in in this tenement housing.
	It was just awful. So, but back to the milk, when you have, you know, so you have pasteurized milk and so then they, the benefit of that is then they could sell rotten milk, really.
	I mean, they could sell milk that was full of, you know, pus and just really awful things that raw milk, you know, you can't do that with raw milk.
	But with pasteurized, you can.
	So you've increased your...
	You don't have to throw anything out, right?
	That's right. So there's that.
	Well, here's the problem.
	And it also has a longer shelf life.
	Well, as these milkmen were taking milk around to all the housewives and women, the cream, as it settled on the top, that's one of the ways housewives judged...
	The quality of the milk, the color, the texture, how old the milk was, because you know anything about milk and you let the cream rise to the top, if it sits there for a couple of days, even if it's good, it will turn into like a cheese product almost, like a thicker product.
	So you can really tell the age of the milk by the cream that's on top.
	Well, the housewives will say, I don't want this milk.
	It's old milk, you know?
	And so they invented the homogenization process.
	And the homogenization process is an interesting thing because people say, well, if my milk is flash pasteurized but not homogenized, is that okay to drink?
	And my answer is no to that because there's something that happens to the milk molecule as well in the homogenization process.
	And in the homogenization process, they shoot whole milk through these little stainless steel tubules at a very high rate of speed, and it flips a leg on the milk molecule.
	And so in that process, then the cream no longer rises to the top, right?
	So now those housewives cannot tell how old the milk is because it's scattered throughout the milk.
	So... They've got nothing to go by other than the date on the carton, which is where we live.
	Right. And that's the expiration date, not the date that it was retrieved from the cow, right?
	Right. But in the homogenization process, when you have that flip with the leg on the molecule, it literally changes the structure of the milk molecule Which makes, it turns it, the original milk molecule is actually cardioprotective and actually prevents the plaque buildup in your arteries and veins.
	And when you have homogenization of milk, it does the opposite and it causes inflammation in the arteries, which then causes plaque to start forming.
	And so it actually, with the homogenization, it actually creates, Not just a neutral product, it actually creates a dangerous product.
	Yeah, wow.
	That is amazing. Yeah, it was fascinating to me and I was like, oh my gosh, this is incredible.
	You know, and mind you, I'm learning, I was learning all of this before I ever even jumped into the truth about Big Pharma as I started to do, this was my, literally my gateway to into learning the truth about the relationship between food and big pharma and then later insurance and other things as well and how it all ties in together and these big industries just feed each other with no regard to the
	consumer. Yeah, you know, it's interesting.
	If we look at it, a lot of people, of course, raw milk is very expensive.
	But if you think raw milk is expensive, take a look at what your doctor charges or what the pharmaceutical companies charge when you get a problem with something.
	So instead of having something healthy, you can have something that is cheap and is going to endanger your health.
	That's really where we are. And there's a political aspect to this as well.
	There was an article that I just saw, and it was from actually PirateWires.com.
	I don't know how I found this. But it was talking about milk wars and how this has become a real fight, a real contention.
	You can see this in the Netherlands.
	First, they're coming for the cows, right?
	They want to shut down the cows, and then they're going to come for the rest of the—that's their point of attack— We're good to go.
	And so, in a way, there is a very important political dimension to this in terms of milk wars.
	If we can push back against big pharma, big food, and the FDA on this raw milk thing, that's going to be a big win to protect our food supply, isn't it?
	Yeah. And these wars, the fight for food freedom has been going on For a long, long time.
	I mean, I've been involved with Weston A. Price.
	I'm sure you're familiar with that organization.
	And the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance.
	Yes. That's another one for lots and lots of years.
	And it's so very important.
	And, you know, like you, I started out, I found a raw milk source.
	And we bought, we stood in line and bought raw milk at drop-off locations for years.
	Probably five or six years.
	And then we ended up getting our own cows.
	Because, you know, I was concerned about, you know, what if they ever take this away from us, then what?
	And in other states, they have.
	I mean, for goodness sakes, it's legal to have marijuana in Colorado, but illegal to have raw marijuana.
	I mean... They've got our best interests at heart, don't they?
	I mean, they just... It's just amazing how insanely stupid it is.
	What is the situation over the various states?
	I mean, you... Do you have a general idea of what percentage or number of states allow raw milk and, you know, is there any place where they are really kind of laissez-faire about it or is it always under some sort of restriction and control?
	Well, it's interesting.
	I haven't looked at the states recently and the laws are constantly changing.
	So there's been victories and there's been losses.
	I would say probably 20% of the states it's legal.
	And then I could be wrong on that.
	That's just an off-the-head guess based on my memory.
	But then there's other states where it's legal, but very, very, very, very restricted.
	Interestingly, California is one of those states.
	I was listening at a conference in December, and They said, well, you know, you can buy raw milk at a grocery store, but it's only one very, very, very, very large farm.
	It's been authorized. Yeah, kind of what you're seeing in a lot of these places where they quote-unquote legalize marijuana, they'll have incredibly high taxes and it'll be restricted to their friends who are in the business.
	Correct. For the small person, it's still not feasible to do.
	And then there's other states that You can sell raw milk for pet consumption only, quote unquote.
	And, you know, what you do in your own house is your own business kind of thing.
	Yeah, we've got lots of dogs.
	I mean, I don't know.
	I haven't looked at the laws here in Tennessee.
	We have a friend who has a farm, and he's got a friend who's got raw goat milk, and that's really good stuff.
	But, you know, haven't looked to see if we can find, you know, raw cow's milk here yet.
	I don't know what the laws are here.
	So in case that's against the law, that's just a hypothetical.
	I was just talking about that. Well, you know, the other interesting thing about cow milk is there's, maybe you've heard the discussion on it, it's, you know, A1 milk versus A2 milk, the genetics of milk.
	No, I haven't heard that. What is that?
	Okay, so in genetics, of course, there's A1, A1, A2, A2, and then there's A1, A2. And A1 milk is...
	In people who understand milk, in terms of raw milk, is considered inferior milk.
	And I shouldn't say in terms of raw milk.
	This is in terms of milk in general.
	And the reason it's considered inferior is because there are some components of A1 milk.
	And this is milk that comes from the, let's see, comes from cows.
	Predominantly in Canada, the United States, New Zealand, Australia, and Northern Europe.
	Those are predominantly A1, but to take it a little step further, it tends to be the Holstein cows that are A1, which is the predominant milk, the black and white cows.
	That's the predominant milk found in commercial milk.
	Because they're big producers and they can get a lot out of these cows for their money, right?
	So we should have a take on the Chick-fil-A sign.
	We should have the black and white cows eat more, drink more, A2. Leave me alone.
	Well, kind of so.
	The jerseys and guernseys, which are like the brown cows that you see, those tend to, they're not always, but they tend to be The A2, A2 genetics, which is the good genetics for the milk.
	Now, here's the interesting part.
	These, if you are drinking A1, A1 milk, aside from the pasteurization and the homogenization, which they can do to A1 or A2 milk, it doesn't really matter.
	You get the same effects on those.
	But with A1 milk, you...
	You are aggravating conditions such as heart disease, type 1 diabetes, autism, schizophrenia, allergies, intolerance, autoimmunity, or autoimmune situations, etc.
	So, you know, once you start diving down the rabbit hole of milk, you're like, oh, okay, so I want to drink raw milk, but then I want to find an A2A2 producer for the healthiest milk.
	And, interestingly, I just pulled this up a few days ago.
	There are a couple of companies that are now selling, it's just called A2 Milk.
	In, like, even Walmart and Costco, you can find, it'll be labeled as A2 Milk.
	Really? So, yes.
	Now, you know, if you're going to buy, you know, commercial milk, that's Better than, I mean, it's still pasteurized and homogenized in that form, but at least it's a healthier for your genes milk.
	I've never ever seen that. I guess that's something like an extra thing that they put on there saying, you know, if it's organic or something like that.
	I've not seen that.
	Now that your mind is aware to it, your eyes might see it when you're in the grocery store.
	That's interesting. Yeah, you know, I've talked to, in the past, I remember one case, I interviewed the guy at length.
	He was someone who did not start out in a family farm.
	He came to it later in his career because he wanted better food and things like that.
	And he started raising, he was in Michigan, and he started raising...
	A European brand of pig that could stay outside.
	It had hair.
	It wasn't hairless. But it was not a feral pig.
	But by the laws of Michigan, he wanted it to be outside because he wanted to have it, you know, free ranging and things like that.
	But the industry had set things up and said, you know, if your pig has got isn't hairless and, you know, it's going to be labeled as a feral pig and we're going to destroy them.
	And so he was in this big fight with the state of Michigan and trying to shut him down.
	His pork was not white meat.
	You know, the other white meat.
	Well, it wasn't it wasn't white meat.
	It was red meat.
	And he said it tasted very different.
	It's very good.
	But again, that's another example of how big food will operate with big government to shut people down.
	Yeah, it is.
	But now I think the dairy thing, as we look at, you've always had this collusion between big food producers and industrial producers working with government regulatory agencies to get rid of their competition.
	That happens in every industry.
	They regulatory capture and they use the government to get rid of their competition.
	But now we've got this other aspect of it, like we see now in the Netherlands, And at the forefront of all of that is the cows and dairy.
	And they want you to have zero dairy and zero meat and zero other things.
	And so they're using dairy and cows.
	They're using that now.
	The environmentalists are using that to shut down farms in general.
	That's the tip of the spear.
	You know what's interesting?
	Of course, now they're wanting people to eat this synthetic meat, this fast-growing lab meat.
	Yeah, biopsy burgers, I call them.
	Well, that's exactly right.
	That's exactly right, David.
	I was just going to say, it's like, imagine eating a tumor.
	I mean, that's essentially what you're eating in this type of situation.
	Yeah, tumor kebab.
	Exactly, exactly.
	Well, it's very interesting, and again, it just shows how much corruption there is.
	But it's at the forefront of all this stuff, and it is very foundational.
	And, you know, as you pointed out, it goes from something that is harmful to your health to something that is beneficial to your health.
	I imagine vitamin D, when they keep the animals and the cows and these factory dairies, They probably don't get too much sunlight, so they probably don't have as much vitamin D in their milk either, do they?
	Correct, correct. And, you know, for the rest of my story, and this is where it gets really interesting too, is at the time of my accident when I broke my wrist, I was 33 years old and I was diagnosed with osteopenia.
	I think I mentioned that in the first time we chatted.
	And tell people what that is.
	How is that different from osteoporosis or thin bones or fragile bones?
	Yeah, osteopenia is the precursor to osteoporosis.
	So it's basically I'm set up to be osteoporotic.
	And at that time, you know, 33 is pretty young to be told that.
	And I was told, well, you're probably just a few years away from needing to be on medication.
	And, you know, my pharmacist brain was like, oh, no, I am not taking that medication, which was one of the reasons I was interested in finding an alternative solution and the beginning of the looking into drinking raw milk.
	Well, fast forward to...
	15 years, when I was 48, I had an accident, and it was a pretty significant accident, and I nearly lost my left foot.
	Wow. And I got charged by a bull, and he hit me from the side on below the knee, threw me in the air, and when I landed, my tibia, which is the bigger lower leg bone, It came out of my leg.
	Oh, compound fracture.
	Well, here's the thing, David.
	The bone didn't break.
	It just came out of my leg.
	Wow. So you took care of that osteopenia issue, right?
	Correct. So it wasn't a compound fracture.
	It just came out. Wow, that's amazing.
	Yeah, and now the fibula, the little tiny bone on the outside of the leg, That did break.
	And I did sever four tendons.
	So, I mean, it was a significant injury.
	But the fact that that tibia didn't break, the doctor was like, for a hit like that, for the bone not to break, we need to do another bone density scan.
	So we went back 15 years later.
	I did another bone density scan.
	And at that time, you know, the lady who was doing the scan, She's like, I'm not a doctor, so I can't tell you what your scan looks like.
	She said, but your bones are amazing.
	And she said, now, what are you taking?
	And I said, I just drink raw milk.
	Because she's looking at my history, right?
	My history of osteopenia.
	And I said, I just drink raw milk, and I do take magnesium, too.
	And I'll touch on that in just a second.
	And she said, well, she said...
	My eyes say that you've got the bones of a healthy 18-year-old female.
	Wow. It doesn't have the side effects, other than maybe a stray bull to drink raw milk, than the medication does.
	What were some of the side effects of the medication, if you had been taking that for 15 years?
	Jaw necrosis.
	You know, you hear about that all the time when you, like, if you go to the dentist and they ask you if you're on Fosamax or bisphosphonate, you know, you've probably been asked that before.
	That's when your jaw, your jawbone actually disintegrates.
	The same thing, it puts you at a higher, it's kind of interesting.
	It puts you at a higher risk for hip fractures.
	But what you're trying to prevent is hip fractures.
	Yeah, exactly.
	You see that all the time with pharmaceutical drugs, right?
	You take it for condition A, and one of the adverse effects is that it increases condition A. And you look at an aging population and how important it would be for people to have something that's going to help them with osteoporosis or osteopenia, something like that. Well, and not just that.
	Like, if you're drinking raw milk, Raw milk will actually help lower your total overall cholesterol.
	You don't want your cholesterol to be too low.
	But what happens is it will increase your HDL, your good cholesterol, and start decreasing your LDL, conversely.
	And you don't want your cholesterol to be too low.
	I mean, people who have cholesterol under like 180, their total cholesterol, those are the ones who ends up in dementia units.
	So that's another topic for another day.
	Yeah, people have been able to help people with the beginning stages of dementia by giving things like coconut oil and things like that.
	That's exactly right.
	I mean, our brains are 50% cholesterol.
	So imagine trying to deprive the brain of cholesterol and you can guess what will happen.
	Let's talk about, you said you also supplement with magnesium as well.
	So as raw milk and magnesium gave you, you know, you went from osteopenia precursor to osteoporosis to having, as one lady said, the bones of an 18-year-old.
	Tell us about magnesium.
	How does that do? So, you know, I'll preface this by saying not all magnesium is created equal.
	And there are different, like, there's...
	Magnesium citrate, glycinate, malate, orotate, chelated magnesium.
	There's magnesium gluconate, magnesium oxide.
	Those two are my least favorite, and those, unfortunately, are two of the most commonly found ones in, like, your mainstream nutritional centers, you know.
	They're just not well bioavailable.
	The malate and glycinate are much more highly bioavailable.
	The citrate is also highly bioavailable, but it's more likely to give you diarrhea.
	That's what you take for a prep.
	Some people need that because they're prone to constipation.
	And if that's the case, that's not a bad magnesium to take.
	But here's the issue.
	We should have a calcium to magnesium ratio that is close to one to one in the body.
	And because our diets are so low in magnesium, our current farming practices have stripped the soil.
	There's not enough magnesium in the soil.
	Therefore, there's not going to be enough magnesium in our vegetables, which is where it predominantly comes from, fruits and vegetables.
	And then, of course, there's the standard American diet where people are just eating junk, which certainly doesn't have magnesium in it.
	It doesn't have any food in it.
	Yeah, exactly. But there's a lot of fortification of calcium in the diet, even in junk food, where they put calcium in.
	And then if you remember, once a woman gets older, they're like, make sure you take your calcium chews or make sure you're taking your calcium.
	So you end up with a calcium to magnesium ratio that's closer to 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 instead of 1 to 1.
	And when that happens, then you actually have an increased brittleness of bones.
	And you also have an increased hardening of the vascular system, calcification of the vascular system.
	So the goal is to get your magnesium in and get your ratio closer to 1 to 1 instead of this 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 that is...
	I'm not a doctor.
	I'm a pharmacist. But it is a travesty that people are being told to take more calcium with no regard to taking magnesium.
	They should be taking magnesium first.
	They're creating a problem or aggravating a problem that's already there by telling them to do more of something They should be balancing it.
	It's about ratios. It's not about...
	And that's why it's important if you get vitamin D to make sure that you're also taking vitamin K. Some vitamin Ds come with K as well.
	It can do the same type of thing.
	It can lead to calcification if you don't have the K with it.
	So the magnesium is very important.
	As you pointed out, tell us again the sources, the forms of it that you think.
	You said citrate is good, but it can cause you, if you are...
	Unless you are predisposed to constipation, it might cause some diarrhea.
	What are the other forms that you would recommend of magnesium?
	My preference is like malate or glycinate.
	There's another one that if somebody needs to work on their vasculature, the orotate is a good one.
	Occasionally, you can find magnesium products that contain Boratate, glycinate, and malate all in the same capsule or tablet.
	That's great because you're hitting the body in a little bit different way all the way around.
	So that's my preference.
	I personally would stay away from magnesium oxide, magnesium gluconate.
	I mean, I don't find them very helpful.
	It's interesting. I got a factoid here from this article talking about the milk wars.
	They said in 1945, Americans drank about 45 gallons of milk a year.
	Now they drink only about 11, most of it in their coffee.
	And they said that analysts are predicting that cattle farming will be obsolete by 2035.
	The reason they're predicting that, of course, is because That's what the globalists want.
	Yeah, they're pushing for that to happen.
	But again, I think it's interesting, and probably we could go back and see the rise of osteoporosis in our society as well as we push these things out, as we go into chemicals and adulterated food.
	Talk about what they're replacing it with in so many different ways is vegan milk.
	Soy milk, almond milk, cashew, all these different things.
	What is your take on those types of milk?
	Well, all of those milks are different, and so I can't really put them all in the same category.
	I mean, soy obviously is probably my least favorite, number one, because it's genetically modified.
	Number two is because it is highly estrogenic.
	Right. And it's called a phytoestrogen.
	And there is a reason, I mean, this is one of the reasons we're losing so much testosterone in our world.
	Because a lot of men, their estrogen has gotten so high, their testosterone can't compete.
	Right. And soy is just so pervasive now in our diet.
	I remember years ago when I would watch the news shows and Archer Daniel Midland was always talking about soybean this and soybean that.
	I mean, they put it in everything.
	They put it in everything and it's just not a healthy product, especially in the quantity that we're exposed to now.
	There's, you know, nut milk.
	I mean, some people...
	Some people cannot drink regular milk.
	I mean, that is true.
	I will say, though... Lactose intolerant, yeah.
	Well, yeah. But I will say this.
	I've had a number of quote-unquote lactose intolerant people in my house, and I've served them a glass of milk, and I have yet to have a lactose intolerant person be intolerant to raw milk.
	Yeah. I've heard that before as well.
	Yeah. So there is that.
	You know, we need the healthy fats that are in this kind of product.
	Healthy milk, raw milk product, goat milk is another one.
	I haven't done a lot of research, but I am very interested in a rarer milk called this camel's milk.
	That I understand is very, very good for kids with autism.
	So, yep, yep.
	And there's a couple of farms and you can order Camel's milk for kids with autism.
	That's very important. That's a real epidemic.
	As a matter of fact, we had a listener who, and I'll just mention his name again, Daniel Jeremiah.
	They're really struggling with their child, have been for years, damaged by vaccines, has autism.
	So he asked that we keep him in his prayers, but I'd not heard that about camel's milk.
	I hope he hears this. Yeah.
	Yeah, yeah.
	But back to the nut milk, I mean, I think it's always important to think about where the initial product came from.
	If things are not treated organically, any milk that you make is going to be concentrated.
	So if there were pesticides, herbicides, fungicides involved, You just got a hefty dose of all of the above, right?
	Yeah, that's true. That's true.
	So that's something to think about.
	And almonds, from what I understand, unfortunately, even the organic ones are sprayed with some sort of chemical because they have a problem with almonds across the board.
	So... For that reason, I'm a little leery of almond milk in general.
	I guess my favorite or go-to would be oat milk or coconut milk.
	Well, that's interesting.
	And it really is. The food wars in general and the milk war in particular is at the forefront of this.
	Did you see the study that came out a few weeks ago?
	I say study.
	I should say The fake news, but it literally is a study by Tufts University that put Cheerios ahead of all beef patties in terms of nutrition.
	Yeah. Yeah, or maybe I think the best thing you could get would be a spoonful of Eerios from Mike Tyson.
	We're talking about that now. There was a joke about the Cheerios back when he bit the Evander Holyfield's ear, and now he's putting out pot candies and calling them Mike Tyson Bites.
	So I guess that'll be the next thing they advertise as being good for you, right?
	It combines everything. You've got the pot as well as kind of a Cheerio aspect to it.
	Yeah, that is amazing. It was probably paid for by General Mills, don't you think?
	Well, it actually was.
	It was paid for by several food companies.
	And that's the thing. That's the way they do it.
	Whenever I read a study, the first thing I do is scroll to the end, and I look and see who paid for it.
	We've seen that over and over again.
	All the pharmaceutical companies, they've got three different pharmaceutical companies with competing products.
	They all do a study, and guess what?
	They're always the best and better than brand X and brand Y, each one of them.
	They can rig it for sure.
	Thank you so much, Liz James.
	Again, blessedbyhisblood.com.
	Look for it.
	That's going to be very important.
	Has your news been censored, banned, censored, banned over and over again?
	Has vital information been held prisoner by mainstream and anti-social media?
	It's the duty of every thinking person to make the great escape to TheDavidKnightShow.com.
	There you'll find links to live streams, videos, audio podcasts, and support links.
	Live stream the show at DLive and every Monday through Friday, 9 a.m.
	Eastern. Videos at Bitchute and Ugetube.
	New audio podcast, The Real David Knight Show, at Podbean, iTunes, Stitcher, iHeart, Spotify, and more.
	But even though there's a light at the end of the tunnel, without your support, the show will run out of gas.
	The links to support the show are at TheDavidKnightShow.com to donate via Subscribestar, donate via ****, or donate via ****, Cash App, Bitcoin, or P.O. Box.
	Our sincere thanks to all of you who have stood with us to get this call.
	Please don't forget to share the links and pray for the country as well as our family.
	I'll tell you one thing that people must do, even though you get together with your neighbors, Be careful of what you disclose as far as what you've got.
	You're just going to have to take for granted that your neighbor's got enough food and leave it at that.
	This is a cooperative effort.
	This is not a communal where you dump everything in a pile and everybody's got to provide for themselves.
	And you have to keep some type of a...
	A confidentiality on this.
	I'll give you an example of what happened.
	My wife went back to Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, after the Communists had totally destroyed everything by stripping the country of every asset they could take so they could, the leader, Communist leadership, We could have Bentleys gold-plated in London and shipped down there just for the kids.
	Well, the communist leadership had their own Neiman market stores to go to that were in their own area where the roads were actually taken care of.
	But all the facilities, utilities, everything worked.
	But the point being, there were a lot of people who were starving.
	So my wife and her mother, my wife was getting my mother out of there and eventually got her to the United States.
	But the point being this, one day, and the communists were feeding the army and the police, so their security forces were fed, but the average go in the street was starving to death.
	And so my wife, they live in a Walden area, and one day the Gate guard comes up.
	Madame, there's a little girl that wants to talk to you.
	So my wife goes to the gate.
	And the gate guard opens the gate.
	And there's this girl that has skin and bones in a filthy dress.
	And my wife, she asked my wife if she could spare anything to eat.
	My wife immediately had tears in her eyes.
	She runs into the house. She makes her big sandwich.
	She takes it to the gate, gives it to the little girl, gives her a bottle of water.
	And her mother comes home, and her mother, even though it's her daughter, raises, holy hell, what did you do that for?
	And my wife was crying, and she said, well, I'll give up one of my meals for her.
	And her mother said, that's not the point.
	And the point was very well made about two hours later.
	There were 200 people standing at that gate.
	All of them, skin and bones, not enough energy to tear the gates off the hinges, which if they were not in this condition, they would have gone in and taken the guards and my mother and my wife's food.
	And that was the point.
	You cannot feed everybody.
	You have to remind yourself of that.
	As heartbreaking as that might be, the people that do not prepare are going to be asking for food.
	And unfortunately, this gets into some hard psychology that I get into in the book.
	And I specifically go into the area of psychopaths or what's sugar-coated, known in the psychiatric and psychological world as sociopaths.
	They're the most dangerous of the human beings.
	So, there's issues that are in this book that people can only read to understand what you have to do A to Z to survive.
	I like this book so much.
	They all circled the wagons and took care of themselves.
	You know, you had Daryl Gates, who was the first one to have any SWAT teams, the first one to have any militarized police, and what did they do?
	They circled the wagons and they protected the police stations and City Hall and everybody else was on their own.
	And we've seen this over and over again as we've seen cities that break down into riots.
	And so part of that is that they're not going to be out there to protect you.
	They realize that they're Perhaps don't have enough to do that, but that's not even going to be their focus.
	Their focus is going to be on protecting themselves.
	And so, yeah, it is important to understand that.
	We've seen that time and again.
	And we also know these socialists and these Marxists, I guess we could call them Neiman Marxists, because...
	Over and over again, they go get the luxury goods, and they let everybody else starve.
	And we've seen that in one country after the other.
	You know, Zimbabwe is just one of them.
	It was great talking to you, Jack.
	And it is an excellent book.
	I would highly recommend this to anybody.
	I always do. It's always great talking to you.
	We'll get you back on without taking so long in between calls again.
	I'd just like to say this.
	People can go to www.civildefensemanual.com.
	There's a lot of free...
	I didn't just write this to make money.
	I write this because I'm concerned that people don't do something.
	This country is going to be in terrible, terrible straits.
	And again, you can see that with the most important thing, which is, as you point out, you can't do without water.
	That's the number one thing. You've got that chapter there for free, and people can get a taste of how detailed The information is and how wise it is, really.
	We've talked about this in the past, and we'll talk about it in the future, about how the cowboys had eggs when they would go on the trail and the way that you can observe eggs and many other things like that.
	A lot of us have gotten so distant from an agricultural society that we don't know anything about food other than the supermarket in which aisle will find it there.
	And it's not going to be there when things hit the fan.
	So it's very important that you start to think about these things.
	We've already seen a lot of these things given a trial run.
	We've experienced a taste of them, and I think they're going to be coming back in a big way for all of us.
	So again, CivilDefenseManual.com is where you can get some of the samples there and where you can order it.
	And you've actually got a thing there where people can say where they heard about it.
	We don't have a formal arrangement or anything like that.
	I just recommend this book.
	But, you know, let Jack know that you heard it here at this broadcast if you go there.
	So thank you, Jack. It's great having you on.
	Thank you, David. It's always a pleasure.
	Thank you. The Common Man.
	They created common core to dumb down our children.
	They created common past to track and control us.
	Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing.
	And the communist future.
	They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary.
	But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God.
	That is what we have in common.
	That is what they want to take away.
	Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.
	They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us.
	It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.
	Please share the information and links you'll find at TheDavidKnightShow.com.
	Thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing.

▲