Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 20, 2024 - The David Knight Show

03:02:36

The David Knight Show - 02/20/2024

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	you
	using free speech to free minds
	you're listening to the David night show as the clock strikes 13 it's Tuesday the 20th of February, year of our Lord 2024.
	Today we're going to talk about artificial intelligence is where we're going to begin today.
	How is it going to transform our society?
	How is it going to transform our minds, our relationships to each other, to God, to society?
	You have people talking about the usual stuff about a Terminator society and a self-aware artificial intelligence is going to reach out and strike everybody and kill us.
	But I think the death of the mind, the death of the soul is something we should be very much more concerned with.
	So we're going to begin with that.
	We're not going to stop there, though. We're going to talk about the continuing efforts.
	Biden is not backing off of his EV dictates.
	He's slowing it down a little bit, but he's still, like we said before, the difference between these two parties and sometimes the difference between Biden this week and last week, it's just the speed at which they want to drive us over the cliff.
	We'll be right back.
	Well, one of the other things that happened over the weekend that I wanted to talk about, but there's so much to talk about yesterday with the massive judgments coming in against
	Trump, the golden slippers, no money, Tucker Carlson's new reveal.
	Guess what? The intelligence agencies are spying on us and censoring us.
	And they set up Google and all these other companies to do that from the very beginning.
	Who knew? Who knew that?
	It's such a revelation. It's a good thing we got Tucker Carlson, isn't it?
	It's amazing to me how everybody hangs on every word the guy puts out there.
	The big con.
	Big conservative media.
	But the other thing that was going over the weekend that I didn't talk about, as a matter of fact, I had to talk about it on Friday.
	What was the change that we've seen, the radical change that we've seen in artificial intelligence generated video and how this is going to radically change our society.
	Now, there's the usual articles that are being put out there all the time about AI and how it's going to destroy us all, right?
	The Terminator. This article here that is from Breitbart, but actually it's a re-encapsulation of a Guardian article.
	Taking out some of the highlights that they thought were interesting about that.
	AI expert claims rebellious and self-aware machines could end humanity in two years.
	This debate is, again, one of these things that's been going on.
	And I've been a part of it since before I even went to Infowars and started getting in front of the camera.
	Because what we're talking about here, and I interviewed multiple times Hugo DeGarris, who wrote his book, The Artilect War.
	Artificial Intelligence War.
	And in that, there's two threads.
	You've heard me talk about this before.
	He is not a believer.
	He doesn't believe in God.
	He's not a Christian. At least he wasn't when I was talking to him.
	But... In it, he said, well, I think that we're creating a godlike intelligence.
	And he said, I think that Ray Kurzweil, who's the chief scientist at Google, he's a guy who has pushed this thing they call the singularity, the transhumanists, the people like Elon Musk, the people like Peter Thiel, the people at Google all love this.
	So does our government, the CIA. And so they've been pushing this transhumanism, this we'll become cyborgs type of stuff.
	We'll live forever for quite some time.
	As a matter of fact, Peter Thiel funded the Singularity Institute for Ray Kurzweil.
	They would have programs every few years.
	And so...
	These people have been selling the idea that we are going to become like gods.
	Ray Kurzweil always looks at it as a benevolent intelligence.
	Well, if it's more intelligent than us, it will be benevolent.
	Why would you expect that?
	Seriously. Hugo de Garra said, well, that could be a possible outcome, but it's equally possible that these things could be malevolent.
	Or they could have as much disregard for us as we do for a bug on the sidewalk that we step on.
	It's in our way, or I just don't like the way that thing looks.
	Smack it, you know, squish it.
	And so he says it could be like that.
	Now, Ray Kurzweil, as you've seen his scenario put out, I forget what the film was.
	I should have looked it up before I started talking about this.
	But he came up with a scenario about artificial intelligence that became increasingly intelligent, and the human just got fascinated with it.
	It became his entire world.
	And then the AI just decided the human was boring and it just went off and abandoned him, that type of thing.
	Unrequited intellectual love.
	That was a movie a few years ago.
	So we have all these different variations of it, but that's basically where Ray Kurzweil is.
	He doesn't really include any malevolent ideas in any of this.
	But of course, Hugo de Garris, when he would talk about the fact, he said, look, we may be creating all these phrases that I see from this other AI expert.
	We're creating God-level superintelligence and all this other kind of stuff.
	That's something that the AI people have been saying for the longest time.
	And I thought it was kind of funny when they did it.
	They're such materialists, such materials, just like Zoltan Isfar, the transhumanist who ran for president to draw attention to transhumanism, and I got to interview him as part of that.
	But they don't have any, they deny the spiritual.
	They cannot look at anything that is not material.
	And so a lot of these people working on artificial intelligence believed that if they could recreate an exact replica of the human brain, it would somehow come to life and become intelligent.
	It's like how naive that is.
	I mean, have they really advanced that far from Mary Shelley's Frankenstein in the early 1800s?
	We just need to.
	We've got a body. We can reanimate it.
	What is it? Well, it must be the spark of life.
	It must be electricity.
	Because we know that if we take a dead frog's limbs and we hit it with electricity, it'll cause that limb to move.
	Oh, so it must be alive.
	Well, no. Electrical signals are something that God uses within the body to control muscles and other things like that.
	And so it's just responding, but it wasn't alive.
	What was the difference between a dead frog, even a frog that you can make jump around if you applied the electricity appropriately?
	What's the difference between that and a real frog?
	The nefesh, as they would say in Hebrew.
	The spirit of the animal is left.
	Where does that spirit come from? Where does it go?
	And see, these are questions that science has no answer to.
	They're not even asking the question.
	They don't even know the right questions to ask.
	So they certainly don't have the answer to this stuff.
	And in the same way, this kind of crude materialistic view of the world that denies anything that is above nature, anything that is supernatural, above nature.
	In that same way, they believe that if they create an exact replica of the human brain, somehow it would spring to life and consciousness and so forth.
	And I had that same discussion with Zoltan Isvan.
	So, okay, so when you die, what happens to you?
	If you're going to transfer yourself into a cyborg, what are you?
	What are you transferring? Is this a collection of electrical signals that are somehow stored in your brain that you're going to transfer over?
	Is that what it is? What are you?
	Can you even tell me what you are?
	No answers for that.
	And so you see this all the time, a godlike intelligence.
	And then Hugo de Garis would say, since most of these people are out there with a Pollyanna view of technology like Ray Kurzweil, everything's just going to be much, much better, right?
	Well, no, actually, all technology has a potential for good and for evil.
	And unfortunately, most technology development now has been taken over by one of the most evil institutions the humanities ever known, the U.S. government and the military-industrial complex.
	Evil upon evil.
	Unlimited amounts of money and power.
	Absolutely no moral restraints.
	And they are the ones who are funding all the research, just as Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial and academic complex, is what he originally called it.
	So, Hugo de Garis would speak to these people who are involved in artificial intelligence and other scientific disciplines, and he would pose that question to them.
	If you knew that you were going to create a godlike intelligence, would you?
	If you also knew that it was going to destroy humanity, or if there's at least the possibility that it would destroy humanity, would you do it?
	And the scientific community would always say yes, always say yes.
	And the only time he got a no answer was when he spoke at a conference where I was speaking, where they had a lot of Christian speakers looking at technology.
	And they said no.
	And he was really surprised by that.
	And I think it started to open his eyes to things in a certain way.
	I've lost contact with Hugo de Garris in recent years, so I haven't talked to him for a while.
	But that's the key thing.
	These people would do it even if they believed that it was going to kill them.
	This has always been a problem with engineering.
	It's one of the reasons why I was not interested in working for anybody that was doing anything with the military-industrial complex.
	So why don't you guys think about what it is that you're building and how it's going to be used.
	And of course, with the stuff that I was working on, with any technology can always be used for evil purposes, but I wasn't interested in getting involved in cruise missile technology or anything like that.
	But the real issue in his book as well, so that was one part of it.
	Would you create this God-like intelligence if you believed that it was going to turn against humanity and kill us all?
	Yes, they said. And then he said, well, I don't think that's the, even though he had, that was the scientific community's consensus, one of the places where he had talked to people.
	But he said, when he talked about the Art-Elect War, he wasn't talking about a Terminator scenario, where the artificial intelligence comes directly at us.
	He was talking about the fact that once people realized where this is all headed, they would say, we don't like this.
	That's kind of the stage where we are right now.
	We're the awakening of people saying, I don't like this.
	And we've got to stop these people.
	And he said at that point, the elites are going to retreat to themselves and use their technology to defend themselves, use it against us.
	He believed that they would have the power to get to near-Earth orbit stations, kind of like you saw depicted in Elysium, as was depicted in Gerard K. O'Neill's High Frontier Books of the 1970s.
	But, of course, that technology is not available to them yet.
	Perhaps that's why they're building these underground bunkers and these fortresses that have moats and walls of fire and all the rest of this stuff.
	They're going to have to try to defend themselves from us here on this Earth.
	It's not going to really work too well for them.
	If people really understand where this stuff is headed.
	But of course, we don't have to get violent with them.
	We have to reject it.
	It is, in a sense, what we need to apply to this technology is individual nullification.
	We need to interpose to protect innocent people, naive people, and children.
	We need to interpose to protect them.
	We need to get a hold of our local and state governments to try to do some...
	Forget about the federal government.
	Come on. Again, the reason I talk about politics at the national level, the reason I talk about presidential politics, is to explain to people just how futile it is.
	And to try to get them to focus on something that they can really accomplish.
	That's why, you know, these people say, well, who would you vote for?
	It's like, well, I'm not...
	I'm criticizing any of these candidates because I'm carrying water for any of the others.
	Not even when it was a bigger field.
	Did I see anybody on the horizon that was going to help us ultimately?
	And so, just to get your mind out of this box that they put it in, to think that your problems are going to be solved by a strong centralized government in Washington and a strong man in the White House.
	Get over that idea. That's the path to tyranny.
	Because even if, by some fluke of nature, you've got somebody of great moral character who's going to be a benevolent dictator, and I don't see anybody like that on the horizon, and was going to single-handedly take down the deep state, do you think that what would happen to the person who replaces him?
	How long is that going to last?
	So, anyway, the purpose of politics is to talk about this.
	And when we look at artificial intelligence, And the direction that this is going, these people are, we need to be able to nullify them in our own life, and we need to be able to interpose, sometimes that'll be government at state and local level,
	to shut some of this stuff down, some of its influence on the gullible, you know, like the QAnon people or the people or the liberals, you know, we need to protect them as well, and especially on children.
	We need to interpose. As parents, but as a society, we need to interpose as well for that.
	So, the problem is, as he pointed out with the art-like war, the giga death was coming from, not from the artificial intelligence itself, but it was coming from the elite global governance that was going to use its technological advantage as a leverage, and that's the real issue.
	The real issue is not when technology, when AI becomes self-aware and turns against us.
	It's when the government directs it.
	And the government, of course, will pretend.
	That technology, it just became self-aware.
	It's one of the reasons why they're pushing this so much.
	It gives them plausible deniability.
	Well, there's a bug in the system.
	We've got to figure out what's going on with that.
	You know, it's kind of like this argument we had for years.
	Well, when a self-driving car kills somebody, who's responsible?
	Is it the person who was sitting behind the wheel who thought that the self-driving car was going to work that way?
	Is it the self-driving software?
	Is it the company that made that?
	The car company? Are they the ones who are responsible for it?
	Who's responsible for this accident?
	Who's responsible when artificial intelligence and killer robots go out and massacre a bunch of people?
	Well, it's not going to be the government.
	I can tell you that right now.
	It'll be somebody else.
	They're going to say, well, yes, we created this thing, but, you know, We're not directly responsible for it.
	There'll be a lot of finger pointing in different directions and nobody will accept responsibility for it, just like the censorship stuff that we see.
	What's happening with the censorship?
	Well, I didn't do it, says the government.
	Well, now we've got the receipts.
	Do you think you're going to see the receipts when they have programmed artificial intelligence to kill a bunch of people and they just say, oh, it was an accident.
	I don't know what happened to it.
	It went self-aware.
	Just like these government shills that were created by the government in the 1990s.
	Google, Facebook, Twitter, all these different...
	They're censoring you.
	It's not the government censoring you.
	They are censoring you.
	No, it's the government who's censoring you.
	And it'll be the government who's going to be trying to kill you as well.
	Stephen Patterson, thank you very much.
	I appreciate the tip. Thank you so much.
	That's very kind of you. So it's going to be...
	It's going to be a plausible deniability for the government, just like it is with their censorship.
	And this guy goes on in this Guardian article.
	It's a guy, Eliezer Yudkowsky, 44-year-old academic and researcher at the Machine Intelligence Research Institute in Berkeley, California.
	He says, quote, every single person we know and love will soon be dead.
	Well, that's... That's true.
	With or without artificial intelligence, it's been the state of humanity, all of humanity.
	I was just thinking about that the other day, all the people from my childhood, all of, you know, all dead.
	It was when we brought our daughter back from China and she was starting to speak English and Karen was trying to get her acclimated to American culture and things.
	I was watching some classic movies with her because Karen likes classic movies, so do I. But also, you know, they're cleaner than the other stuff.
	And so she's, you know, getting...
	She got to where she really liked Bing Crosby.
	The people of that era.
	And then she started asking, you know, is he alive?
	Where is he now? Oh, he's dead.
	Well, where is this? Oh, that person's dead too.
	These are movies that were, you know, 60 years old or whatever.
	He's dead too. And after a while, she stopped asking.
	She just looks at Karen and she says...
	All dead. It's like, yeah, that's the state of humanity.
	Soon, every single person you know and love will be dead.
	Uh, and, uh, you will die as well.
	That is the state of man, isn't it?
	Uh, but he says it's due to, will be due to rebellious self-aware machines.
	It was due to a rebellious self-aware Adam.
	That was the reason we all die.
	God-level super intelligence.
	Again, uh, whenever you see this, people saying these machines are going to be like God.
	These are people who don't believe there's a God.
	And I don't believe that AI is going to be our God.
	Okay? So... We have a fundamental disagreement here at this.
	The people who believe there is no God think they're going to create a God.
	God is greater than anything that man is going to create.
	He is sovereign over the universe.
	He has many ways to shut this down.
	He doesn't need Sarah Connors.
	He could use the Sarah Connors to shut it down, but he doesn't need the Sarah Connors to shut this down.
	Yudkowsky chillingly compares this looming scenario to an alien civilization that thinks a thousand times faster than us.
	Well, this alien civilization that they described, the artificial intelligence, must feed on us.
	It must feed on our minds.
	As I've talked about before, they've already done some experiments to show that artificial intelligence, as it has to feed on these large language models, it's all about consuming massive amounts of data that...
	Help it to make these decisions.
	And this is why, fundamentally, why there's a competition with TikTok.
	They don't want the Chinese to have access to all of this information.
	You know, these social media companies were first and foremost designed to push a narrative to us, to be able to push propaganda and then have closed-loop feedback, as I've talked about many, many times.
	But it was also, has now become, whether that was the original intent, I think has now become, and maybe they saw this coming sooner than I saw it coming, but it's now become not just a surveillance and a control tool and a way to measure public opinion precisely and to fine-tune their narrative with the kind of feedback they get, but it's also become a way for them to feed artificial intelligence.
	But it must feed on human intelligence as it begins to feed on artificial intelligence. If it becomes dominant, it looks like very quickly, just like cannibals get the Kreuzfeld disease, or cows, when you feed cows other cows, they start getting the mad cow disease.
	The same thing happens to artificial intelligence.
	Isn't that interesting?
	They don't talk too much about it, but there's been several articles that talked about it.
	A couple of months ago, we talked about this.
	So it must feed on us.
	It's parasitic. And what happens if it's not able to feed on us?
	What happens if we get really stupid?
	It gets even dumber.
	But it's going to get stupid and dumb if it just feeds on itself.
	And so, he points to a recent survey in which 16% of AI experts predicted that their work could end humankind.
	Again, going back to Hugo de Garris' thing, and they're just fine with that, most of them.
	But, you know, these are AI experts.
	Again, these are people who believe that they're going to create God.
	So what do they know?
	They're fools. Okay.
	But they're going to continue to do this anyway.
	And, you know, just as Musk had said, we are summoning the demon, right?
	This is the guy who wears the Baphomet suit.
	With an upside-down cross on the face of Baphomet for Halloween, but makes it his profile picture on Twitter.
	And this guy wearing the Baphomet suit says, we're going to summon the demons.
	You might want to listen to him.
	There might be more to it than just cartoonish symbolic references there.
	And quite frankly, that's what this truly is.
	We don't wrestle with flesh and blood.
	We wrestle with principalities and powers.
	We wrestle with attacks on our mind.
	And that's what this is going to be.
	This is going to be an attack on the very essence of humanity.
	Our mind. It's going to be an attack on what separates us from the animals.
	Our mind. That's what this truly is.
	And so one person says, well, our current, goes on to say, our current remaining timeline looks more like five years than 50 years.
	Well, again, that's really true for some of us.
	My timeline is, I don't know, about five years, even, certainly not 50 years.
	One of the limiting factors of this is not just the population population.
	Of information on the internet that could corrupt artificial intelligence, but it's also the power.
	Massive, massive amounts of power.
	Electricity, not political power.
	It'll be used to create political power.
	But, you know, when they want to get everybody concerned about cryptocurrency and its energy usage and all this other kind of stuff, remember, I've always said, well, what about these massive farms where they have these GPUs that are using so much power?
	And, of course, the NSA and the intelligence agencies are using this to store and to do real-time data mining and analysis of things.
	It's infinitely beyond that.
	What the crypto companies are doing.
	But they don't ever talk about that.
	But now they're talking a little bit about it.
	Cointelegraph.com says nuclear fusion breakthrough could revolutionize artificial intelligence because there is a power requirement here.
	Electrical power. A recent physics breakthrough that could serve as a proof of concept for the development of nuclear fusion reactors capable of producing near unlimited energy has finally passed its official peer review successfully.
	The quest for Mr.
	Fusion. Back to the future.
	And again, perhaps it's a dilemma for them.
	Do we allow people to have unlimited amounts of energy?
	Because, you know, they're trying to control us through that.
	Or do we let this technology out?
	Or do we sabotage it some way?
	Well, quite frankly, if they get everything onto a centrally controlled grid, it doesn't really matter.
	They could have still exercised complete control over us, even if they had unlimited amounts of energy.
	Because these fusion things are going to centralize power generation far more than just a distribution grid.
	Highly expensive, complex, technological thing to generate power.
	The people who control that will have unlimited power.
	Will they let you have it? Well, that depends.
	Do they like what you have to say about big pharmaceutical companies and the military-industrial complex?
	It all comes back down to that.
	There is something called the U.S. National Ignition Facility, the NIF. I've never seen this before.
	The National Ignition Facility.
	They said they created more energy than it took to produce back in December of 2022.
	I remember when we talked about this, but I don't remember the National Ignition Facility.
	And so their idea is, in physics, they believe that fusion is a free lunch.
	That once they get this thing started, they're going to get more energy than they put into it.
	And it's going to just keep going.
	Does this sound kind of like things that we've seen?
	The search for perpetual motion.
	The search for perpetual energy is what they're talking about.
	And I kind of still believe that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
	I still believe that they're not going to repeal the second law of thermodynamics.
	That says, you know, there's no free lunch.
	If you're lucky, you break even.
	If you're really lucky.
	I don't know about this.
	And I've always heard, when I was a kid, growing up, you know, the big thing was fission.
	Nuclear power. And when I was in elementary school, there was no internet around.
	There was only so much information you could get out of the World Book Encyclopedia.
	So I was writing off to Oak Ridge Lab and stuff like that to get information about nuclear power and everything.
	And it was all this big pie-in-the-sky stuff.
	It was great. It was going to be too cheap to meter.
	We've all heard that nonsense.
	So I don't know if this is going to do it or not.
	But the interesting thing about this is that they have just had other scientists repeat this successfully.
	Now, that's different.
	And as I point out, Carl Sagan had the quote, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
	That's right. That's a very good quote.
	We should remember that, by the way, when it comes to the pandemic.
	When it comes to climate MacGuffins, you've got a MacGuffin with an extraordinary claim?
	Well, you better have some extraordinary evidence.
	And when you hide your evidence like they did with the pandemic and like they did with the climate change stuff like Michael Mann did, you've got extraordinary claims and you don't have extraordinary evidence.
	You don't even want me to see your evidence.
	Well, we're not talking about science then.
	We're talking about authoritarianism.
	Arguments from authority. You do what I say and shut up or I'm going to destroy your life.
	And that's what we have seen over and over again now.
	And so he says the roadblocks to artificial intelligence and to things like quantum computing, which both of these things are going to be transformative to our world.
	He says the requirement for them is to have a great deal of energy.
	And so this is coming from Coindesk.
	Because again, if you've got quantum computing and artificial intelligence, that is a real game changer when it comes even to things like cryptology and things like that, to be able to undo that.
	And so, multiple teams have now confirmed and replicated the results of this fusion stuff.
	As he said, the free availability of so-called next-generation energy sources could supercharge the engineering and development of adjacent technologies such as AI and quantum computing fields such as those could see generational leaps in progress once those roadblocks are removed.
	So it is necessary for them, in order to advance artificial intelligence and quantum computing, it is necessary for them to have more energy.
	But they'll still retain centralized control, not just from the distribution of the energy, but from the generation of the energy.
	And so, in a sense, all of this is going to work to increase their control.
	And at the very center of this is a name that just keeps popping up lately, Sam Altman.
	Sam Altman is there with OpenAI.
	Sam Altman is there with Fusion.
	Sam Altman is there with WorldCoin.
	Let me scan your eye, and I'll give you a couple of trinkets.
	When we go back and look at it, people joke about the Indians who sold Manhattan for some beads and bracelets or whatever that they got from the Europeans.
	This is selling your inheritance, selling your soul.
	For a bowl of porridge like Esau.
	Let them scan your eye so they can give you some WorldCoin.
	What is that even worth?
	What can you buy with that WorldCoin?
	So Sam Altman is there with WorldCoin, with OpenAI.
	He's there with Fusion as well.
	He's there with all of these key technologies.
	And OpenAI has just extended, you know, the people behind ChatGPT, they've now just extended this into a text-based...
	Movie generating application.
	But, you know, have you ever heard Liz Warren or Joe Biden complain about the power usage of AI or of the NSA? No, they don't complain about that.
	They don't complain, just like they don't complain about private jokes.
	Jets, they complain about your stove.
	Your stove. Or your SUV, or your car.
	That's what they complain about.
	And so, when we look at this artificial intelligence, yes, it has Orwellian intelligence.
	Capabilities that we see very clearly, the surveillance, the data mining, the correlation of all this biometric information that they can do for all of that, the mark of the beast type of control, an ID of permission to do everything is going to be permission from the centralized control.
	That is there. That 1984 aspect of it is there.
	But when we come back, I'm going to talk about something that I think is even greater threat to us than the 1984 control.
	And that is the Brave New World control.
	The Brave New World of sex and drugs, that type of thing, right?
	Don't give a damn.
	Take a gram of Soma.
	You know, it was the drug in Brave New World.
	You know, we talk about the great reset.
	We talk about the great replacement.
	We talk about the great taking.
	I would call this the great distraction.
	The great distraction, the virtual reality, the augmented reality, these things that are going to be used to ensnare, to entrap, and to isolate each and every one of us from other human beings.
	To draw us to this beast system that becomes everything in our life.
	Where we can live our life in an imaginary world.
	And you even have people like Yuval Harari who for the longest time has been saying, that's how we're going to control people.
	We'll do it through games.
	We'll do it through entertainment.
	They won't be a threat to us.
	We'll just keep them isolated and happy.
	And we're going to talk about how that's going to roll out.
	And so the new tools...
	Showing just how quickly this is coming.
	You know, years ago I talked to, I went to auto shows, big auto show in Austin.
	And they had, it was all cars that were, I think the cutoff date was 1964 or something.
	So it had to be 63 or earlier.
	I don't think they had any Mustangs.
	But it was all early cars and people were customizing these things and they had everything from rat rods to meticulously restored things to things that were very meticulously restored but also enhanced and stuff like that.
	So it's this massive car show.
	And I went around interviewing people and I asked them, I said, how long is it going to be before they ban cars and stop you from driving?
	Or do you think that's going to happen?
	Oh yes, everybody agreed.
	Oh yes. But to a person, none of them believed it was going to happen in their lifetime.
	And that included some very young people, not just old people.
	Not just old people who said, oh, I've got five years left or ten years left or something like that.
	But young people.
	People who were in their late teens.
	They didn't think it would happen in their lifetime.
	In the same way that...
	We look at what happens, we see other people die, and it's like, well, I don't think that's going to happen.
	I can't imagine that happening to me.
	We all say, yes, it is going to happen, but then do you really think that it's going to happen in many cases?
	No. So we're going to talk about The Great Distraction when we come back.
	Hear news now at APSRadioNews.com or get the APS Radio app and never miss another story.
	Just a small town boy thinking.
	Genetically... This ensures he doesn't co-create.
	Please stop the reading.
	Stop the reading.
	We are almost 9 billion people.
	Please stop the reading right now.
	Yeah, that's kind of a brush.
	I just pulled those in the other day to show some of the Davos when I was talking about that.
	I didn't really finish them off.
	On Rockfin, a question from Hope and Despair Steve says, David, can you receive tips from Zelle?
	Yes. Actually, I wouldn't see them in real time.
	It's difficult to monitor all the different places that the show goes out, and so it does go out live to DLive.
	You can't leave any tips on DLive.
	They have taken away all monetization on DLive.
	But, and I think it might go out.
	Does it go out live, Travis, on Odyssey?
	Do you know? Yeah, okay. But we're, you know, we're not monitoring the chat line there.
	Travis, we try to get Travis, whoever is doing the board, to monitor Rumble and Rockfin.
	And you can leave tips at those two places.
	We're not monitoring Zelle in real time, but you can always leave it there.
	And the nice thing about Zelle is it's like cash.
	There's no fees involved.
	So I appreciate any tips that are there.
	And PapaCT2G, thank you for the tip.
	Thank you very much. He says, good morning, David.
	I'd like to thank you for a couple of things.
	First, thanks for providing us With an honest news source, second, thank you for spreading the good news about Christ.
	It certainly is necessary to share the good news of our redemption and everlasting life when we're faced with an endless bombardment of these earthly evils.
	He says you're great at keeping everything in balance.
	Well, I try. I try to do it in my personal life because, you know, when you look into the abyss, after a while the abyss begins to look into you.
	And you better do some introspection, and you better look to see what is important.
	And, you know, it is important for people to understand that politics is not your salvation.
	People like Hillary Clinton talk about the politics of meaning.
	And she's hopelessly lost.
	Well, not hopelessly. I mean, God can reach anybody.
	If you pray for anyone, should pray for these people.
	But, you know, she is without hope at this point in time.
	Because she's looking for hope in politics.
	There is no hope in politics.
	She was so close to the golden ring.
	Fortunately, she didn't get it.
	Or perhaps, unfortunately, because she would have never been able to pull off for the globalists what Trump did.
	So, again, how are they going to use this artificial intelligence?
	Well, here's a good example of it from the Associated Press.
	You'll see yesterday several different sources picked up this article from the AP. Soaring over hills or playing with puppies.
	Study finds that seniors enjoy virtual reality.
	And so what they're talking about is a study that they went down to Pompano Beach, Florida, a development there that the Associated Press published.
	Reporter interviewed people who participated in this study.
	It was one of 17 senior communities.
	So she goes to this one community and interviews the people there.
	They participated in a recently published Stanford University study that found large majorities of 245 participants between the ages of 65 and 103 enjoyed virtual reality.
	They said it improved both their emotions and their interactions with staff.
	So one guy is he's landing on an aircraft carrier.
	This is way beyond video games, way beyond it.
	I remember years ago, I talked to my friend who was in the military, and he was talking about the tank simulators that they had in the 1980s.
	And he was saying, you know, even though you look at these graphics in the 1980s, they were better than you would see with a video game at the time.
	But, you know, they weren't hyper-realistic like you see with the computer-generated stuff today.
	So it wasn't, you wouldn't look at it and say, well, I can't tell the difference between that and a photograph.
	You could easily tell the difference between that and a photograph.
	But as these people play these war games, and they're in a tank simulator that is very much like a tank, and every one of their windows or portals or viewfinders or whatever that they're going to look at the outside world with, every one of those is being controlled by the computer, and it's going to change the perspective in that virtual world.
	And so as they played this thing, the simulator thing, for quite some time, they got so immersed in it, even with the crude graphics that were available in the 1980s.
	They got so immersed in it that they got hit, and the tank is on fire.
	They jump out screaming, he said.
	He's laughing about it.
	He said, yeah, it really does happen.
	You really get drawn into this thing.
	Think about how much more effective it is with the kinds of graphics that they have now, and that is rapidly increasing.
	Seniors picked from seven-minute virtual experiences, such as parachuting, riding in a tank, there you go, watching stage performances, playing with puppies and kittens, or visiting places like Paris or Egypt.
	They wore headsets that gave them 360 degree views and sounds.
	A 179 year old retired counselor and artist said, this stimulated virtually every area of my brain.
	All of the senses.
	Quite frankly, I look at this and I think this is going to be far more of a temptation than drugs.
	Really. And again, people will think, well, I don't have a potential even for dying from this, and I don't have a potential from some kind of physical damage or actual addiction, and yet it will be very addicting in a very, very subtle way. I particularly enjoy the ones dealing with pets because I have a cat and I've had pets most of my life, she said.
	Almost 80% of the seniors reported having a more positive attitude after their VR session.
	60% said they felt less isolated socially.
	These people are actually isolated, of course, living in a retirement home.
	But it made them feel that they were not isolated.
	And this is why they want to use this, as they isolate us into our micro-cubes, our little micro-apartments.
	And as they isolate us from each other.
	So, these people really can't do much in reality.
	But what about young people?
	Right? You think the young people are going to prefer this?
	Of course they will. It's not going to be like, well, you know, I could actually do the real stuff, or I could do this virtual.
	No, they're going to prefer to do the virtual stuff.
	Well, I know that's the case.
	Look at how even television and movies and the current state of games have drawn younger people to stay indoors.
	You never see anybody outside and playing, like I've said before.
	We're driving around, and it wasn't even during the pandemic.
	It was just recently. We saw some kids outside playing in front of a house.
	That struck me as strange for a moment.
	I thought, why would that be strange?
	That used to be what we did all the time.
	Karen grew up in a neighborhood in Long Island where there was an army of kids their age.
	And they were always in the streets and the front yards playing their entire time.
	And it was what I had as well.
	But I said it's far different than a two-dimensional monitor or an iPad, this experience.
	The complaints they had was that it was too heavy or got hot on their head, and so they've reduced it from a pound, 16 ounces, down to 6 ounces.
	They built in a fan for cooling, and some people got nauseous, so they increased the frame rate so that it's not jumpy.
	One person...
	She identifies Karen, played with puppies, was so entranced by her virtual walk around Paris that she didn't hear questions that were being asked of her.
	When she took it off, she says, I was there, but I'm here.
	She's 82 years old, retired elementary school teacher.
	A retired Army computer expert who is 91 years old said that he hopes to live to 100 because he believes the next five years will see a momentous change in VR. Is that what we live for?
	Well, I hope I make it to the next release of technology.
	That's sad, because no eye has seen or ear heard what God has prepared for those who love Him, called according to His purpose.
	That should be our goal. Something that is far beyond the imagination of any human being that is prepared for us.
	So, as I said, it's not going to be as elementary as it is now.
	It's going to be very realistic and very responsive.
	The person running this test, he says, it will probably be connected to your brain.
	Yeah. Yeah.
	That's the really sad part of this, isn't it?
	It will probably be connected to your brain.
	Well, when we look at what is happening with film, Let's first, before we look at this AI stuff, let's first look at the current state of Hollywood, which is kind of a...
	It has already crashed and burned in so many different ways.
	They have lost the ability to tell a story that anybody wants to hear because all they care about is propagandizing people.
	And the latest evidence of this is this feminist superhero movie that debuted last week, Madam Web.
	Pull up the picture of it.
	You got four teenage girls running there.
	That's your superhero cohort there.
	Nobody wanted to go see that.
	They spent between $120 and $150 million on production as well as advertising costs and that type of thing.
	So that's their production cost.
	$150 million. They made $6 million the first day.
	Second day, it dropped to $2 million.
	It's getting a...
	It's got such bad reviews.
	A C-plus on CinemaScore, which is Death for Word of Mouth, writes John Nolte at Breitbart.
	He does the movie reviews that are there.
	I like his take on Hollywood and entertainment.
	He was completely lost.
	He'd completely lost the plot when it came to the vaccines, to the lockdowns, and all the rest of the stuff.
	I mean, he was getting attacked all the time by the people who read Breitbart.
	He'd completely lost it.
	But he's spot on with this stuff.
	This is his wheelhouse.
	And so, you know, when we look at Hollywood, it's become increasingly odious.
	It literally stinks, these movies.
	And in it, he said, you know, the other day I went back and he said, I watched Rush Hour.
	With Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker back in 1998.
	You know, it was like these Jackie Chan movies that were being done.
	You'd have a sidekick, you know, and it's like a comedy action film.
	And he said, I remember when I saw it at the beginning, he said, I thought, well, it was well-paced, but it's kind of mediocre stuff.
	And he said nothing special, but he goes after years, he says seven years of woke tartary.
	I think it's been a lot longer than seven years that woke tartary has been going on.
	I guess that was the point at which it became woke tartary to him.
	It was woke tartary to me a long time ago.
	As a matter of fact, I didn't like what they were selling.
	That's why we got out of the video business.
	30 years ago. But anyway, Rush Hour plays like a crowd-pleasing masterpiece compared to what we're seeing from these people today.
	And so this is a joint production between Sony and Disney.
	Of course, Disney had to have a hand in it with the Marvel stuff.
	And Disney has all this money.
	They're able to go out there and buy up every single franchise.
	And are they doing this for profit?
	No, they're not doing it for profit.
	They're just like the ESG companies.
	You know, they're just like BlackRock and JP Morgan.
	They're doing stuff to please their master.
	The government, typically.
	Directly. Most directly.
	And so the environmental societal governance stuff rules.
	It's like, well, we're going to push environmentalism and we're going to push socialism and we're going to do it for government.
	That's what ESG is truly about.
	We're not going to be worried about profits.
	We don't really care if we offend our audience.
	We don't care if our products are garbage.
	And that is especially true of Disney.
	And Disney had the money to go out and buy up every successful franchise.
	It's bought by Disney now.
	It's like every successful technology company is pretty much bought by Google for the most part.
	And so it becomes this gigantic holding company that is pulling all this stuff in and then destroying it.
	And if you look at it from the standpoint that, yes, there is an agenda for these corporations, and there is a global governance that we talk about all the time, you know, economic dominance to govern the world.
	That's why you have the World Economic Forum.
	The Fourth Reich is going to be done through economics.
	Again, going back to Bilderberg, going back to the EU and the Euro, which was designed...
	You know, they put that out in their second Bilderberg meeting and all the rest of the stuff.
	They wanted to conquer via economics, and they want to have global governance using corporations as much as governments.
	And the governments will just become...
	You know, something that is there to represent what used to be a real power base in the past, but no longer really has any power.
	In the same way that you typically see states, and states don't have to remain that way.
	And, of course, just like the nation states won't have to remain that way.
	But they may very well do that, just as the states have accepted their diminished role and don't want to nullify or challenge the federal government in most areas.
	And so that's how you get this world governance.
	You get it through corporations, through money, and it's this, you know, there is no there there.
	Just like Gertrude Stein said about L.A. It's all distributed.
	You can't, is that where the world government is?
	Well, no, because you can make a case that it's these people over here.
	No, it's the whole thing, this web, and it's kind of hidden.
	It's not, you know, there's not some throne that somebody's setting on, at least not yet.
	World governance is here.
	It's just that they haven't localized it to anything in particular.
	And when you look at what is necessary for them to establish the new order, it's always necessary for them to destroy what is currently there.
	I think that whether or not it is Disney's design to destroy entertainment and film as we know it, I don't believe that we're wrestling with Disney.
	We're not struggling with flesh and blood.
	We're struggling with principalities and powers.
	And there is a reason why this all looks like a conspiracy.
	Because it is.
	And because it is a conspiracy that is much longer and broader than the humans involved in it.
	It's a long-term, satanic conspiracy.
	Drawing all this stuff through.
	Orchestrating all this. Getting these puppets to do things.
	Thinking that, well, I don't have to worry about death.
	You know, I'm going to probably live forever.
	I'm going to transfer me somehow into a machine, I guess.
	All of these types of lies.
	You know, you will not die, and you'll become like God.
	Right? The fundamental lie in the Garden of Eden.
	And so... As this one person is looking at it, he says, well, what I'm concerned about more than this, he's looking at it from a financial standpoint.
	He says, I'm concerned about the likelihood that markets are going to see an AI bubble and bust, as we did with the dot-com boom.
	Of course, that's another part of this as well.
	You've had the thing that's been keeping the market alive, besides massive infusions of financial hopium from the Federal Reserve, manipulation of interest rates and other things like that, what's been keeping the stock market alive, is this hope about artificial intelligence.
	And it's not to say that this isn't going to make people a lot of money.
	It's not going to change a lot of things.
	Just like the internet, though, it can get ahead of itself, just like what happened in the dot-com bust.
	As he writes here, he says, it's important to remember much of this value appreciation has occurred because the Federal Reserve policy and the Biden administration deficit spending has caused a lot of money to be sloshing around in financial markets.
	And a lot of that money, that excess liquidity, is looking for a place to nest.
	And if it takes too much of it, nest in the aspirational AI. And if those dreams come to be dashed, or even if they are a little bit too slow to develop, they'll have an enormous effect on the market.
	And so AI is a financial risk, or if you want to look at it, a financial opportunity for a master's who desire to reset the financial system.
	But there is rapid development that is happening when it comes to AI film.
	And let me play for you a couple of things that I put together here.
	We all remember this funny video of Will Smith eating a pizza, eating spaghetti, right?
	Oh, that's hot! That's hot!
	His face is morphing around, and of course it's grossly distorted.
	Everything is out of whack, for those of you who are listening.
	So that was about a year ago, but it wasn't that long ago.
	And then this is what it's become.
	Look at this. Hyper-realistic.
	Close-up of this guy.
	You see bokeh blurred out in the background, blurred out focus.
	The camera is even slightly moving, like the Oliver Stone style.
	And so these people tweeted out.
	They said, here was our program a year ago, you know, the Will Smith thing.
	And they said, here it is today.
	First comment. My son, Ed Whistler, said, he doesn't look anything like Will Smith.
	And then the comments underneath it, that was the number one comment, by the way.
	He didn't see that, but that was the number one comment that somebody had.
	Everybody liked that. And then another comment under that said, that wasn't Will Smith?
	No, that wasn't Will Smith.
	But when we look at it, this is the homepage now of this.
	This is OpenAI, the people behind ChatGPT.
	And what they have is a way that you can describe.
	This is their homepage. This is what you see when you go there.
	Creating video from text.
	Sora is an AI model that can create realistic and imaginative scenes from text instruction.
	And they have a bunch of sample videos that are about a minute long.
	What you're looking at right here, at first it looks like, at first glance, is that a bunch of little manta rays, all different bright colors?
	No, those are paper airplanes.
	And they're moving together in a swarm, flying through trees and everything from an aerial view.
	And it created that. So it can create very interesting things.
	But take a look at what it can do with movie scenes, for example.
	This, all they did was to tell...
	Can you move that clock out of the way so I can read the prompt down there, Travis?
	What it said was historical footage of California during the gold rush.
	And if you're listening, this is an old west town.
	It's got some roads. People are moving on horseback.
	There's a few people. Very, very realistic.
	And all they did was say, give me some historical footage of California during the gold rush.
	This is one. It says, I want a stylish woman walking down a Tokyo street filled with warm, glowing neon animated by city signage.
	She wears black leather jacket.
	Long red dress and black boots.
	And you can see there's water on the ground.
	It's reflecting all of this neon.
	Now they've got a close-up of her face.
	Very realistic face.
	Even flaws on the skin. And you see things reflected in her sunglasses.
	Very, very impressive. Now, here's another one.
	This is a beautiful homemade video showing the people of Lagos, Nigeria in the year 2056 shot with a mobile phone camera.
	Well, this is more than just a mobile phone camera.
	That went above and beyond the description.
	This thing is moving around like a boom shot would.
	You know, flying in and then pivoting around the people that are seated there, showing the massive marketplace and pivoting around to show the skyline and a sunset, all the rest of that, just from those descriptions there.
	Now, think about this.
	When you have a movie script, you've got the script writer, and maybe they're adapting it from a book or whatever.
	They're just trying to describe the scene, right?
	A great deal of it is left to the imagination of the people who are going to be doing the costumes, the clothing, the set designer, how they're going to move through this with the camera.
	All of these professions get moved out of the way, and the scriptwriter's description is now going to be imagined and implemented by the artificial intelligence, or perhaps if it's a book.
	The description that the writer puts there goes directly to a visualization.
	Now, that's a lot of labor saving.
	And we can think about that.
	It's going to have a lot of effect in terms of our ability to have customized entertainment.
	But it is also going to be something that is going to take us out of the written word, and it's going to remove us from creative activities of implementing this and using our own imagination, or even from reading a book and imagining it in your mind.
	Now, you don't have to do that anymore.
	What you do is you feed the book in, and the artificial intelligence will imagine it for you.
	Do you see problems with that?
	Subtle problems with that? Here's another one of those.
	This is, I thought, maybe an even better one.
	They wanted an historic church that was on, you know, European setting, you know, and watch this as it pans around.
	The prompt is very long.
	It says, a drone camera circles around a beautiful historic church built on a rocky outcropping along the Malfi Coast, The video shows historic and magnificent architectural details and tiered pathways and patios.
	Waves are seen crashing against the rocks below as the view overlooks the horizon of the coastal waters and hills.
	Landscapes of the coast in Italy.
	I'm not familiar with this place.
	The Amalfi Coast. Several distant people are seen walking and enjoying vistas on patios of the dramatic ocean views.
	The warm glow of the afternoon sun creates a magical and romantic feeling to the scene.
	The view is stunning, captured with beautiful photography.
	And it did a great job of that.
	It truly is amazing what it did with that.
	So, look at that.
	That is, I don't know, it won't refire again, but I was going to play it from the beginning.
	But just think about it. That's a very long description in that prompt.
	And it had a lot of detail.
	And that truly was amazing when you look at it.
	It's like a description that you might read in a novel of the scene.
	And then when you look at other aspects of just different aspects of reality that are put in, take a look at this.
	This is described, I won't read the whole description, but it describes an octopus that's first unaware of a crab, but the crab begins to attack the octopus.
	Look at how realistic that is.
	Truly is amazing.
	And describes rocky terrain.
	Now, in this one, it wants a close-up of a woman's eye, a young woman's eye, and describes where it is, and you can actually see where that is.
	It describes a city of where she is.
	I want a close-up of a young woman's eye in such and such a city, and you can see reflected in her eye, in her pupil, the skyline of what she's looking at.
	Very detailed. This one, a fantasy.
	We've got a couple of different ones here.
	Fantasy. A gnome digging inside of a glass dome here.
	And then this is the one that opened it up there.
	And the prompt for this was simply, a flock of paper airplanes flutters through a dense jungle, weaving around trees as if they were migrating birds.
	And it produced that.
	That's all it needed in order to produce that.
	Now, they do have one, I would call it failure.
	Which is fairly minor, but it is there.
	This is a picture of a woman who's sleeping.
	She's got a cat in the bed with her, and the cat kind of wakes her up and everything.
	And when she first wakes up, notice that there is going to be a flaw on her cheek right there.
	See how her cheek is indented?
	All the rest of it, very realistic.
	The cat's got his paw on her face and pawing her nose there.
	There's that flaw at the very end.
	I didn't hold it very long, but you could see that it was like at one point where she starts to move, there's a big indentation.
	It's kind of a Will Smith artifact, I guess, we could have there with that.
	Denis Rossiev, who is involved in the film industry, he says, I want to talk about the consequences of this.
	He says, clearly, even what we see here is not the end of the road.
	You're going to have generation quality and consistency will get better and the costs will go down.
	Videos today are already hard to distinguish from reality.
	Soon, it'll be outright impossible, even with algorithms from other neural networks.
	And that's the key thing.
	This is what most of them are concerned about.
	Oh, we're going to have fake videos of politicians.
	Is that really the worst thing that can happen?
	When the politicians themselves are already fake?
	We're going to have fake videos.
	This is like people say, well, they're going to create fake videos of Super Mario.
	And it's like, Super Mario's already fake.
	You know, Trump is already fake.
	Biden is already fake. Nuki Haley is already fake.
	So you're going to create fake videos of them doing fake stuff?
	Don't believe what people say.
	Right? That's going to be the takeaway from this.
	I think that's a positive thing, quite frankly, in the political world.
	Because what it'll do is it'll undermine people's trust in what politicians say.
	Because you can make any politician say anything.
	You can already do that today.
	You don't need AI. You need money.
	And you need their desire to have power.
	And they will say anything.
	Anything. It's what they do.
	And so, you know, if we got artificial intelligence that's putting out fake videos of politicians and famous people, you just look at what they do.
	What they do. That might actually be an improvement.
	He goes on to say, people trust videos.
	If you whip up videos from various angles, and if you post them, and you put bots on something like ChatGPT, where people comment, they discuss, they retweet.
	We live in a world where not just the news is written based on tweets, but political decisions are made based on the same tweets, which of course don't represent reality for a second.
	So, for example, one of the reasons I don't like to cover what's going on between Israel and Gaza is because there's disinformation on both sides, isn't there?
	You know, we have videos that are going, can we really tell?
	You know, when we see pictures of an atrocity, is that real or is that rigged?
	And soon you'll say, well, is that real or was that artificial intelligence that generated that?
	Again, that might be a good thing.
	Because these images and these pictures that are shown to us are shown to us to whip us up into a war fury.
	And so maybe you look at this and say, well, I'm not sure if that's really happening or not.
	And so maybe I'm not going to get involved in a war around on the other side of the world.
	When it comes to my area, I'll know it, right?
	When war comes to East Tennessee, I'll know it.
	And then I'll do something about it.
	I hear you out there.
	I hear the people say, well, you need to stop it before it gets to that point.
	Well, all the things that we've done to stop war before it gets to this point have really made it all the more likely that it will happen.
	We've created monstrous regimes like the one in Iran.
	I'm not saying that Iran is good, but I am saying that we created that monster.
	We created that monster with our CIA coups and other things that have happened with it, the long history that the U.S. has had.
	And so when we look at that, maybe it would be better if we didn't get involved in these foreign, if we were skeptical about all this stuff.
	Well, I don't know if that's really true or not, and that's really the way I feel about these conflicts when I look at them.
	I'm already skeptical of what's really, truly happening in these places.
	And I'm not going to put blood and treasure on the line for anything that I see on social media now.
	Because it's too easily manipulated.
	You don't have to have it CGI done.
	You can have it done with actors.
	And with all the lies that we've been sold, I'm not willing to go to war based on a newspaper report or video that I see or pictures that I see.
	He also says, don't think that open AI will be a force for good.
	This is an amazing one.
	Because he says, don't think there's going to be a force for good imposing censorship and preventing the generation of deepfakes.
	He thinks that's good. That'd be it as a force for good to censor people that he doesn't like and information that he doesn't think is true.
	So he says, as for flesh videographers, directors, and other filmmakers, those who say AI won't replace you, a person with AI will, are only half right.
	This is a transitional period that won't last very long.
	It's hard to predict, but I give this industry 10, maybe 15 years at most.
	I don't think it'll even be that long, quite frankly.
	Because, look at the rapid development from the spaghetti-eating Will Smith to that man.
	You know, that is pretty impressive.
	And the simple fact of the matter is, is that Hollywood is collectively dead.
	They don't want to tell stories, and they don't have the ability to tell stories.
	I think it's already atrophied because they've been trying to push propaganda for so long.
	Shuff stuff down our throats.
	So the torch is going to pass one way or the other to people who have a narrative.
	This is one of the reasons why you're seeing things like The Chosen, which I've been critical of The Chosen.
	I don't trust Dallas Jenkins to be the keeper of the faith.
	I think we've got a book for that.
	But that's indicative of where everything is going.
	People would rather watch Dallas Jenkins' reimagining of the story of Jesus than to read what God told us about Jesus.
	And that's going to be the case with a lot of stuff like this.
	But the other part of their success is that people are hungry for something that isn't shoving some perverted new culture down their throats.
	They are hungry for something that is transcendent and uplifting and hopefully true.
	The question is, are you going to get that from the films that you watch?
	So, people who interpret the writer are going to be replaced by AI. And just go with whatever the script writer or the book novelist said about these scenes and other things like that.
	The question is, will they...
	Well, they keep character interactions and all the rest of the stuff, just like you see the James Bond stuff.
	They would always keep the inflaming titles, you know, whatever the title for the book was, From Russia With Love.
	But then the rest of the movie was, they would take the title, And they would take the venue.
	Okay. For Mush with Love.
	So it's a Cold War thing and it's in Berlin and all the rest of the stuff.
	But then they would create their own movie that had absolutely nothing to do with the short novel that Ian Fleming had written.
	Because, first of all, it wasn't all that interesting.
	It would not have been interesting as a movie because he's there as a sniper to take out the sniper that's going to be trying to take out the person who is trying to cross over the Berlin Wall.
	So it's like spy versus spy.
	You know, he's the sniper to take out the other sniper.
	So they made it into something completely different, and they probably will still mess around with the books when they do book-to-film.
	It could be direct, but probably just the settings will be direct, just as I said with the James Bond novel.
	They take the title, and they take the setting, and then they change everything else about it.
	Excuse me. The thing that I think is going to be dumbing down and negative is to remove our imagination.
	The reading. To remove the reading and to see our imaginations atrophy.
	As well as our abilities to do certain things to atrophy.
	And then, as he points out, and of course he says, personalized porn, naturally, will be a thing too.
	He says, I know you already thought of it.
	And that is something that we see whenever video rolls out, porn takes it over at the beginning.
	When the internet rolls out, porn takes it over, all this.
	And so, yeah, it will.
	And already you've got the AI stills, the AI girlfriends and boyfriends that, you know, they have generated perfect fantasized bodies and everything.
	It's going to draw people away from the real thing.
	It's going to make it difficult for people to relate to other people who have flaws.
	Because, yeah, they're used to their imagined perfection.
	And so, when we look at Hollywood, he says, I think the good part about this, he says, tell everybody, trusting your own eyes and ears is no longer an option.
	It hasn't been for a long time.
	And you need to investigate things yourself.
	Don't trust anybody.
	Don't trust anybody with the news.
	Always look it up yourself.
	And think for yourself.
	You're capable of critical thinking.
	Think critically about what you're hearing.
	Does it make any sense? Does this really hang together?
	If they're telling me there's a pandemic, why don't I see anybody dying around here?
	Why are they hiding their numbers for the climate change?
	And all the rest of this. Think critically about this.
	Don't trust them. And so I think that part of it is good.
	But when we come to the Hollywood Babylon part...
	You know, these people, here's the problem.
	We have been passively accepting the culture that they have fed us.
	My entire life I've seen this.
	You know, we have left the culture that used to be passed down family to family, from parents to children.
	We have thrown that away.
	We turned to Hollywood to define our culture.
	To the people who are some of the most perverted, money-grabbing, and hyper-sexualized individuals in our society, have from the very beginning, even before when it was still silent movies, it was still a hotbed of debauchery in Hollywood.
	And these were the people who were feeding us narratives.
	Now, at the beginning of it, you know, they were feeding us stories about Our culture, stories about our parents and grandparents.
	And they came up with some good stuff.
	Some of it was wholesome, and that drew us even further into it.
	It's like a long-term con game, right?
	You have to get people's confidence before you can turn on them and stab them in the back.
	And that's where we are right now with Hollywood.
	And so they've been for a long time.
	They have killed people.
	The culture that America used to have.
	The values and the morals that America used to have.
	These things are dead. I mean, it used to be so rare to see divorce when I was growing up.
	Unheard of. And it wasn't just in my family's circles.
	If you go back and look at what a big deal it was that Elizabeth Taylor had stolen Debbie Reynolds' husband and how she was married and divorced four or five times or something like that, everybody was like, what?
	It's gone. And it was just like, whoa, should we even go see her movies?
	But that was such a rare thing.
	Now it's become nobody thinks anything about it.
	You've got evangelicals who just want to gloss over Trump's long history of this kind of stuff.
	And they say, well, it doesn't matter.
	It doesn't matter. And the thing about Trump, again, he's not just divorcing his wives, but he is just shoving, just ridiculing them, making a mockery of them in the same way that he does as staff when he gets rid of them.
	And so when you look at what has happened, they have erased our culture.
	They have replaced it with a very perverted satanic culture.
	And not just our culture in the United States.
	They've done this worldwide.
	And so as I said before, you know, we are not really wrestling against flesh and blood.
	We're wrestling against satanic powers.
	And they have been able to use this influence through Hollywood.
	So what are they going to do with this newfound capability?
	Or will we do something about it?
	In a sense, what Hollywood has become is kind of the stealth bomber of a spiritual war.
	All of the entertainment studios have.
	Tom Bellinger, founder and art director of Cutback Productions, has been carefully watching the evolution of generative AI image generation.
	He said, there were those who felt that it was an unstoppable groundswell that was progressing at an astonishing rate, and then there were those who just didn't want to even see it, he said.
	But what is certain is that no one expected such a technological leap forward in just a few weeks.
	It's unheard of, he says.
	And then when you look at the issues of video games, for example, video game creators equally likely to be impacted by the new invention with reaction among the sector divided between those who are open to embracing a new tool and those who fear that it might replace them.
	Ubisoft, which the people who created that...
	That game that made the Christians and the nationalists the villains, you know, I played that, keep your rifle by your side, that was Ubisoft.
	They said, let us express our imaginations.
	Well, there you go. And of course, it will open up a new, it'll be a new way to draw people in, just like the virtual reality is a new way to draw people in over the 2D screens, for example.
	I remember years ago, the book that Charles Darwin was writing when he died was called Edwin Drood.
	And it was kind of a murder mystery type of thing.
	And when we had the video stores, we had a lot of people who were film majors working for us or they were actors.
	They were in the theatrical community, that type of thing.
	And we could be very selective because even though it was kind of a retail, kind of an entry-level job, everybody wanted to have access to the big libraries of films because that was the only place you know YouTube or anything like that at the time.
	And so we could be kind of selective with who we hired, and we hired people like that.
	And because they could talk about movies intelligently to customers and help them define things, you know, what director did you like, for example, instead of what actors do you like?
	But there was a play that came out that was kind of personalized, and it was called The Mystery of Edwin Drood.
	Since Charles Dickens died, before he finished the novel, in this play, they had...
	They stop at the point where he died and stopped writing.
	And then they had, I think, three different endings.
	And they would ask the audience to vote as to which one of these endings they would like to have.
	And then after the audience had made its selection, they would do the selected ending and they would play that version of it.
	It's going to be far more customizable for us and it's going to draw us in and suck up much more of our time and energy and And imagination and intellect.
	And it's going to dumb us down culturally, spiritually, in all of these different aspects.
	I see it as a very negative aspect from entertainment.
	I actually think it'll be positive from politics to break people's trust in terms of what they see, but we'll have to see what happens to it.
	He says, it's a visually impressive tool, could be used by small game studios to produce more professionally rendered images, video cut scenes that play out occasionally when you're playing the video games.
	He says that's really just kind of move the storyline along.
	But other than that, you're creating a world in which they're moving.
	So he says, I don't really see that yet.
	But I think it would be something they would use to create the world that people move in.
	A former journalist and current Stanford University researcher, Basil Simon, said this is a terrifying leap forward in just the last year.
	And he dreads the idea of how such tools will be abused during elections, fears the public will no longer know what to believe.
	Believe nothing from these politicians.
	That's the answer.
	Trust no one.
	Believe no one.
	Look at their actions.
	Maybe their speeches will become less important than their actions.
	Wouldn't that be interesting if that were to happen?
	So, when we...
	Well, I'm going to continue with this before I take a break.
	No, we'll take a break.
	And when we come back, we're going to talk about a reaction to all this.
	How should we react to this?
	We'll be right back.
	If you like the Eagles, on a dark desert highway, the cars, and Huey Lewis and the News, they say the horror rock You'll love the Classic Hits channel at APS Radio.
	Download our app or listen now at APSradio.com.
	We are going to play a song for you.
	I'm going to play a song for you.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Well, as I watch that, of course, we know the people who sell stock footage, their days are really numbered.
	Really numbered. Travis says, it's funny watching some of the game and movie reviewers on YouTube who hate all the woke stuff but are actually culturally liberal and are all, hey, man, don't they realize they'll make more money the other way?
	They can't figure out why losing money doesn't change anything for these companies because they don't understand it's a spiritual war, right?
	And they also, even when you look at NASCAR or you look at the NFL, mocking its male fan base or whatever, or a southern male fan base in the case of NASCAR, mocking and despising them. They are serving the agenda of the government and quite frankly these other people consciously or unconsciously and some of them consciously do it are serving a satanic master that's
	what they're doing with this stuff. But you know they sold their soul with a Faustian bargain some of them to some earthly master some of them quite literally to the devil himself. So what do we do about this? Well as people talk about the coming AI and how it's going to affect people's professions this is from the article from the Guardian talking about how you know we're all
	doomed type of thing.
	But he says, we're talking about Luddites.
	Luddites. It has a very, it's got a variety of meanings now.
	Two, maybe three definitions.
	Older people sometimes say, oh, can you help me with my phone?
	I'm such a Luddite.
	And what they mean is that they haven't been able to keep pace with technological change.
	Then there are people who actively reject modern devices and appliances.
	They may call themselves Luddites or be called that, but he says in its pure historical sense, the term refers to people who are anxious about the interplay of technology with labor markets.
	He says in that sense, I would definitely describe myself as one.
	At the Industrial Revolution, the Luddites were very concerned that people were losing their jobs.
	jobs, they would go in and bust up the machines and push back against that.
	But when I look at it, I'm not so much looking at the impact on labor markets as I'm looking at the impact on us, on our lives, on our relationships, our relationships with each other, our relationships with God.
	How is that affecting it?
	And have we reached a point of stopping?
	How do we put limits on this?
	And so I was talking about this the other day to Karen, and I said, you know, why is it that the Amish stopped at a certain point?
	Now, where did they say, get to the point and say, okay, plows are okay, plows pulled by a horse are okay, but, you know, not by a tractor or something else like that.
	And, you know, what was the defining thing for them?
	And so I really was curious, and I didn't know the answer, so I looked it up.
	And what the Amish would say is that, and they're not anti-technology, and, for example, they don't even askew electricity.
	They're not going to connect to the grid.
	But if they can generate electricity, and many of them do, they can generate electricity locally.
	If they've got solar panels, as you could get a solar panel and get off of the grid, they're all for that.
	They don't have a problem with electricity.
	What they have a problem with is being controlled from the outside.
	How wise they are to see that.
	Now, I don't want to make that an article of faith.
	I don't want to break fellowship of people over something like that, and I don't see that as justifying myself before God.
	I don't know if they do or not.
	Maybe they do. Maybe they don't.
	But they were hyper-focused on the strength of the local community.
	We better adapt that mindset to survive.
	We really better adapt that mindset.
	Again, they're not anti-technology, but whenever there's a new technology that presents itself, they would look at it.
	It's one of the reasons why they would pass on cars and things like that.
	It's like, is this going to make us dependent on people from outside of the community?
	They can make the wagons themselves.
	And they can breed horses and things like that.
	But they can't make the complicated things that are part of a car.
	And occasionally they will take bus rides together as a group.
	But it's not something that is going to create a dependency for them.
	You understand the difference? That doesn't get woven into their lives as a means of control.
	And that's the key thing we should be looking at.
	Are these things that we bring in as conveniences to make our life more comfortable?
	Do they become a means of controlling us?
	And that's what they have done.
	Anything that's new that comes in, they evaluate it.
	They discuss it.
	They exercise discernment.
	And their proponents and their ultimate value is, is this going to destroy us as a local community?
	Or is it something that we could use?
	Is it something that is going to make us stronger as a local community?
	Technology is not something that is introduced by some God in heaven who has our best interests at heart.
	Technological development is shaped by money, says this Guardian article.
	And they're right. It's shaped by money.
	It's shaped by power.
	Well, the machines were concocted by their bosses.
	And of course, the Guardian has got a Marxist bent to it as well.
	That's not really where the dividing line is.
	And again, you've got to use discernment about that.
	The dividing line is, how do we keep ourselves independent of the outside world?
	How do we grow and maintain our community there?
	And so Samuel D. James...
	Wrote an op-ed piece. He said, Christians are not ready for the age of adult AI. Adult AI. Let me just say, you know, even though pornography was restricted to people who were older than 21, let's say, or something like that, adult entertainment doesn't mean that it's entertainment for adults.
	It means it's adulterated.
	It means it's adulterated.
	That means that it is contaminated.
	That means that it is damaged.
	That means that it is inferior to the real thing.
	Pornography is inferior to the real thing.
	Right? Sex by itself is inferior to the real relationship.
	And I think that's the key.
	And Christians really are not ready for what is about to come.
	And it's a very interesting perspective that he had because he said what Christians have done is they've tried to point out the victimhood status of Of people who produced pornography.
	And he said that's not going to work anymore because there's not going to be any person there.
	It's going to be a representation.
	It's going to be a perfected imagination of a person.
	He says all variables being equal.
	It's likely that within 20 years, most online pornography will not feature real human beings at all.
	AI systems are already sophisticated enough to fabricate entire bodies convincingly.
	There's certainly no reason to think the technology will recede or fail to progress.
	The demand for AI-generated porn already exists.
	There are apps, there's codes to generate it.
	Greater education on automated systems means more people will know how to create it.
	Software will give consumers what they want.
	It'll be custom. Customized porn.
	And so he said, the future of porn is post-human.
	I thought, yeah, that really cuts in two different ways, doesn't it?
	Not only are the bodies that you're going to be looking at not human, they're synthetic, but it's going to take you away from your human relationships.
	In the same way that the Amish looked at their community, Are we going to accept something that is going to weaken our community, or are we going to focus on things that are going to strengthen our community?
	You know, if we go with wagons, then okay, there will be a whole bunch of people who will be making wagons, and there will be people who will be breeding horses, and we can, you know, everybody's got some positive contribution there.
	Because, you know, our ultimate thing in life is not the next technology.
	And that's one of the things that's been sold to us.
	Just like that 91-year-old guy.
	Well, I hope I live to 100 so I can see the next rev of this virtual reality.
	How pathetic. How pathetic.
	The Amish were focused on family.
	They're focused on generations.
	They're focused on their relationship to each other and to God.
	Those are real things.
	Not this phony technology.
	And so in the same way that the Amish are looking at this and saying, well, is the automobile, if we bring that in, is that going to make us dependent on the outside?
	If we pull in power from the electric grid, is that going to make us dependent on the outside?
	Oh, yes, it will. And they'll start pulling those strings and they'll start telling you that you've got to do this and you've got to do that.
	We need to also look at this and say, is this technology, this AI porn, is that going to destroy the community we call our family?
	Is it going to strengthen it?
	Of course not. Is it going to destroy it?
	You better believe it will.
	And so it is post-human.
	It's synthetic humans.
	And it gets you to move away from other humans.
	For many years, one of the key arguments anti-porn crusaders have used is that pornography objectifies and degrades women.
	And this is absolutely true.
	Yet, it has not been an effective argument.
	It's not been effective in either convincing lawmakers to put in more legal restrictions on porn or persuading individuals to resist it.
	Prohibition, folks, doesn't work.
	Right? Just look at drugs.
	The drug war. So you can put all these prohibitions on porn, but it's not going to work.
	The battle is going to be won or lost at the individual level, just like it is with drugs.
	So how do you persuade individuals to resist it?
	He said, Christians and cultural conservatives have believed that a strong coalition of moralists and feminists was capable of pressing back on the adult entertainment industry.
	And so he talks about OnlyFans.
	And he says, well, look at this. He said, are these people who are being trafficked?
	No. They are willingly participating in this.
	There's no middleman. They go direct to the consumer.
	OnlyFans has earned over $5 billion in 2022.
	And he said three things about it are undeniable.
	Number one, it exists.
	Number two, it hosts at least some odd thousands of women who are creating explicit content.
	And number three...
	A solid percentage of those women would not be doing pornography if they weren't on OnlyFans.
	So, that raises an important question.
	Do most modern women agree that pornography is degrading?
	And if they don't, why are many conservatives still making this idea central in their critiques of the porn industry?
	Culturally, we inhabit a moment in which elite societies almost uniformly agreed that sex is an industry that women can legitimately enter.
	They increasingly refer to it as sex work.
	Sex work captures the idea that the woman's relationship to her sexuality need not be any different than her relationship with a profession.
	Prostitution is for victims.
	Sex work is for girl bosses.
	That's pretty much it.
	Pretty much it. It's increasingly harder to make a credible case that pornography is wrong because it harms women.
	Make no mistake about it, porn does harm women.
	It subjects them to terribly destructive experiences.
	It humiliates them publicly.
	It greatly contributes to a world in which their humanity and their well-being and the well-being and humanity of other people is erased.
	But here's the thing, and I find it interesting that he doesn't really, even though he's talking about Christians and how this affects them, you notice how he shies away from just the simple fact that It's sin.
	That God has defined what is right and what is wrong for us.
	And as I use the analogy with my family so many times, when you're a toddler, you look at that hot pot and it's bright red glowing and it looks so pretty and you want to touch it, but your parents say, don't touch that.
	Are they being mean?
	You know, if the kid's about to do it, I'm going to scream at them.
	And they might cry because they really want to touch that pretty red thing.
	But I'm doing it out of love.
	And that's one of the reasons why God tells us the things that he does.
	Out of love. Father knows best.
	To say the least, right?
	So, when we look at this, he says, basing an argument against pornography on its harm to women is just unconvincing to most people.
	There's a non-profit that's dedicated to helping people understand the dangers of porn.
	Interestingly enough, it is called Fight the New Drug.
	And so they talk about that, and it really is like that.
	You know, there's so many different things that can addict us, right?
	We can get addicted to sex.
	We can get addicted to pornography.
	We can get addicted to drugs.
	We can get addicted to gambling or to alcohol.
	We can get addicted to making money.
	We can get addicted to our work.
	There's so many things.
	Our heart is an idol factory.
	And we get addicted to those things.
	We idolize them. We make them the center of our life.
	We get pleasure from doing them or fulfillment from doing them in some way.
	And we want to do more and more of it.
	And it takes over our life.
	That's why the commercial the other day that I talked about last Friday, where the pastor said, you know that Super Bowl commercial he gets us, it just misses the point completely.
	And I said, yeah, it does.
	Because... Does it really confront the sin directly in our life?
	God saves us.
	Christ saves us from the penalty of sin, but he also has the power to deliver us from this sin, to deliver us from the slavery of this addiction, whatever it is.
	And so he says, we're going to be hard up for answers as to how AI-generated porn harms anyone.
	I've had somebody come on my show, and I won't mention the guy's name.
	But he just, as he was talking about, and I forget how this even came up.
	It's kind of out of left field. It surprised me.
	He says, well, you know, sex dolls of children, that doesn't harm anybody.
	Are we going to arrest people for being pedophiles because they've got sex dolls of children?
	No. It's like, well, yes, because what they're doing is, you know, out of the heart precedes all kinds of wickedness.
	And if you fantasize about this type of thing, it's going to eventually manifest itself in some action.
	So, yes. And that is a case of the AI porn as well.
	Oh, it's synthetic. It's not real people.
	Nobody's being harmed by this.
	Nobody's being embarrassed by this, humiliated publicly by this.
	But no, you're feeding something, right?
	You've got multiple things in your nature, and which one of them is going to win out?
	Well, it's the one that you're going to feed.
	It's going to survive and grow and prosper.
	So, how am I hurt by consuming this?
	He said it's going to be the question.
	Why is this objectively wrong for me to enjoy?
	And of course, you know, other people who aren't Christians won't really be able to answer that.
	They don't have an objective standard that's there.
	And that's one of the key things about this.
	As I said before, we're going to, maybe people won't bother to read novels.
	Maybe just feed the novels in and tell the AI to make a movie out of it.
	You know, could do that.
	It's got dialogue. It's got descriptions of characters.
	It's got descriptions of places.
	So we just, we forget reading books.
	And we just feed it into the artificial intelligence.
	Now, would you even know if it rewrites that?
	To sell you a government idea, a government narrative, or a satanic idea, or whatever.
	And if you don't read, and you don't think critically, well, there's really no point in going back to the Bible.
	I mean, we just have Dallas Jenkins tell us what Jesus said, right?
	Sure, he'll get it right, won't he?
	You trust him? Don't trust him.
	Trust no one.
	Go to bind them down with the chains of the Constitution, or the Bible in that case.
	It'll force Christians to make moral arguments that appear irredeemably at odds with the secular society.
	The arguments against consuming or licensing pornography that will matter in the age of AI will be moralistic arguments, arguments rooted in the goodness of embodied sexuality in the context of marriage and the destruction that occurs to hearts and to emotions by feasting on a fake version of sex that, like this, collapses us inwardly.
	Oh, that distills the issue of all of this virtual reality stuff.
	It all collapses us inwardly.
	It cuts us off from other people.
	It's post-human.
	So first it cuts us off from other people.
	And then it collapses us inwardly.
	It is satanic.
	By design, by expression.
	This is somebody's child, which is the argument that people have made about pornography.
	That will become, you are somebody's child.
	And get us back to, you know, God defines the good of marriage.
	And he said from the very beginning.
	He created Adam and then he created Eve.
	Essentially cloned her, if you will.
	He says it's not good for man to be alone.
	Do you believe that? Do you believe that when God says that?
	If you think that it's not good for man to be alone, then you reject this world that they are creating for us.
	To keep each and every one of us alone, connected only to this synthetic world that they have created to keep us busy.
	And we become, we collapse inward, we become like these toddlers that you give a busy box.
	You know when you've got a toddler and you're trying to keep them busy so you can get something done, you put them in this thing that they can roll around but they can't tip over, and then it's got all little, you know, things on it that they can, you know, bells that they can ring and stuff that they, that's what this all is.
	Sold to you by people like Yuval Harari and Klaus Schwab.
	Are you going to let them put you in that little stroller with all the busy things on it to keep you occupied so that you never do anything?
	Or are you going to trust that Father knows best?
	Are you going to trust that He has our interests at heart?
	And are you going to obey Him?
	We'll take a quick break. We'll be right back.
	Whether you're feeling like the blues...
	Or bluegrass.
	APS Radio has you covered.
	Check out a wide variety of channels on our app at APSradio.com.
	Welcome to the APSradio.com.
	sense. Common again.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Alright, we're gonna get into the news.
	Before we do, I've got a quote here that Travis put up for me.
	You know, when I have Travis doing the board, he likes G.K. Chesterton.
	My other son, Whistler, likes C.S. Lewis.
	That's okay. They're both good to listen to.
	The quote from G.K. Chesterton out of Orthodoxy.
	I could never mix in the common murmur that rising generation against monogamy because no restriction on sex seemed so odd and unexpected as sex itself.
	To be allowed, like...
	Endymion? To make love to the moon and then to complain that Jupiter kept his own moons in a harem seemed to me, bred on fairy tales like Endymions, a vulgar anticlimax.
	Keeping to one woman is a small price for so much as seeing one woman.
	To complain that I can only be married once was like complaining that I only had been born once.
	It was incommensurate with the terrible excitement of which one was talking.
	It showed not an exaggerated sensibility to sex, but a curious insensibility to it.
	A man is a fool who complains that he cannot enter Eden by five gates at once.
	G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy.
	Thank you, Travis. Yeah, it is interesting how...
	We need to discern what is really being sold to us in many different ways.
	Let's get to the news. This is a letter from a listener.
	I said, well, you said the other day, this is from Madra, you said that the average rate was 21% on credit cards?
	She says, I don't agree with that.
	I received notice from my credit card they're raising rates for a new purchase to 31.99%.
	Call it 32%.
	They even do that with interest rates.
	Yeah. It's $31.99.
	We just say $32. No, $31.99.
	A default rate.
	And if you miss payment, all your balance goes to a 36.99%.
	The effective date is the 7th of February that just passed.
	I was allowed to cancel my credit card and still pay off my balance at what I had for a rate of 17.99%.
	Tell me again that it's 21 where?
	My Lowe's credit card that had a zero balance jumped to the exact same rate.
	I canceled it as well.
	They did me a favor. Actually, I'll never use credit again.
	My credit card is Slate or Chase.
	I'm not sure where you got your info for that 21.
	That actually came from a Zero Hedge article.
	Look, all this stuff is suspect, right?
	Most of this stuff is actually referenced back to government statistics.
	They lie to us about the unemployment rate.
	That was a big discussion.
	Now, the Labor Department had rigged the unemployment rates.
	They lied to us about inflation, about unemployment rates.
	They lied to us about COVID numbers.
	They lied to us about case fatalities.
	Everything, every government statistic is a lie.
	And, of course, that's nothing new.
	It was Mark Twain that said, well, there's lies, damn lies, and then there's statistics.
	And there's, I think, another category, government statistics.
	You know, that's the final one.
	So, 21% average?
	No. It would be bad enough, wouldn't it?
	I mean, that would still be usury.
	It'd still be criminal. But no, 31, or 32%, 37%.
	So, she said, talk about loan shark or mafia rates.
	Yeah, they just jumped it up this month.
	And again, isn't it interesting?
	And I talked about this briefly the other day, and I played that clip from Charlie Kirk, who said, no, no, I think interest rates, that's fine.
	We've got to just leave that there.
	You know, he wants to be a traditional Republican looking for the interest of the banks and big business, I guess.
	And as I said, I don't have a problem with reasonable interest rates.
	This is usury. That's a different thing.
	Usurious rates are different from interest rates.
	And I know that that sounds subjective, but I think it's not subjective when you start talking about 37% interest rate annual.
	We not all agree that that is a trap, that that is exploitative, that those are excessive prices.
	You know, we look at interest rates as the price of money.
	Well, this is price gouging.
	And this is able to be done because it's a cartel.
	At the same time they've done that, they've taken what they pay out to essentially zero on savings accounts.
	As I mentioned, back in the 1950s, or actually the 1960s, I think, 5.5% mortgage rates.
	The savings rate that you put your money in a savings account at the bank was 4.5%.
	And that's understandable.
	That was when things were in balance.
	Now they're not anywhere close to being in balance.
	We also had last, I don't know if it was Monday or Friday, we had a letter that I read.
	And it was about a person who...
	Was one of the human graders for the GRE test that you take to get into graduate school.
	And they would typically grade the essays that have several humans grading it.
	But now they've decided that they're going to use artificial intelligence to do it, as he pointed out.
	They said, you know, about 20% of the time it gives up and says, I can't grade this.
	Well, if you get an 80 on a score, that means that you're a C-minus student, he said.
	So they're having all of these things.
	Instead of having a group of people who are experienced and proficient at this doing it, a group of people looking at your essay, your essay is going to be graded by one C-minor student.
	So anyway, but the elite colleges are reconsidering their SAT score requirements altogether.
	Why? Well, because merit no longer matters.
	They have been working on the diversity, equity, inclusivity stuff for a very long time, and it's been D-I-E, gradually dying.
	Merit has. So they've been admitting people, not on the basis of merit, but they've been admitting people on the basis of identity politics and other things like that.
	Walter Williams used to speak out against that.
	He really hated that.
	He said, I earned my degree.
	Got my degree before any of this stuff happened.
	Because now, because I'm a black man, people think that I got in on the color of my skin instead of on the merit.
	And he really hated that.
	He opposed that as much as anybody had ever seen.
	But now we're embracing idiocracy.
	We don't care. They don't even try to pretend that it's about merit.
	For the longest time, there was this odd mixture of, we don't care about merit, it's all about identity politics.
	And then there was still this...
	This meritocracy aspect of it.
	Let's have a competition and you've got to be able to perform.
	They've just stopped pretending about that.
	And so they're not even going to bother with the tests anymore.
	There's still over 2,000 schools in the country, which remain either optional or completely free of standardized test requirements ahead of the 2024-2025 academic year.
	Meanwhile, the National Education Association has demanded that all colleges eliminate testing requirements.
	The NEA president, Becky Pringle, declaring in a statement that all students deserve and have the ability to demonstrate knowledge in many ways that are measurable by those who know them best, their educators.
	Subjective. They'll just all be subjective.
	I thought this was very interesting.
	Thank you, Sam, for sending this to me.
	A religious exemption for California motorcycle helmet law.
	I got a religious exemption against that.
	It's against my religion to wear a motorcycle.
	This is being done for Sikhs who are wearing turbans.
	So... You know, they can't wear a turban and a motorcycle helmet at the same time.
	So the Fresno Assembly member has now proposed to let them ride helmet-free.
	And quite frankly, I agree with this.
	I absolutely, I would vote for this.
	I would give them that exemption, because if you don't give them that religious exemption, it's very parallel to the requirements to take vaccines, right?
	If you say that you don't get a religious exemption against the MMR vaccine, or even a medical exemption against it, no, we're going to take away your informed consent.
	We don't care what you think.
	They have to get the shot.
	Yeah, they've got to get the shot. This is so important.
	As Trump said in May of 2019.
	They have to get their shot.
	Yeah, they've got to get the shots. You've got to wear the helmet.
	You don't have any choice.
	It's like... Well, if I have a religious disagreement with it, that certainly ought to trump it, right?
	Should have trumped it for the MMRs.
	They were telling these Orthodox Jewish schools, private schools, you're not going to be allowed to go to your private religious school if you don't take the vaccine that's against your religion.
	That's what Trump was pushing right there.
	And so I agree with this.
	And quite frankly, I kind of think that when you start talking about safety regulations for motorcycles, you're talking about how many angels fit on the head of a pen.
	Once you get on a motorcycle, you can forget about the safety stuff.
	I told this story to Travis when he briefly rode motorcycles.
	I said, you know, I was in a band with a guy who lost half of his foot from a motorcycle accident.
	It was the first time he'd ever been on a motorcycle and he was on there as a passenger and they got into an accident, a car, and he lost half of his foot.
	I said, you know, you're just, when you get on a motorcycle, anything that goes wrong, you're going to get hurt.
	But, you know, if somebody wants to wear a turban, I don't know how they keep a turban on when they're dried.
	Maybe they're not getting, maybe they're not riding a rice rocket.
	Maybe they're riding a cruising Harley or something like that.
	They could keep that turban on when they're doing a Harley, I think.
	But not on a rice rocket. I think they'd get flying off of there.
	In advocating the measure, she said, many Sikhs are motorcycle enthusiasts and they deserve to continue their privilege to ride while at the same time respecting their freedom of religion in a way that supports safety.
	Well, I think that ought to be true of all of us.
	Right? We all ought to have informed consent about what we do.
	By the way, I don't know what happens if this thing unravels.
	You know the story of Isidore Duncan, the famous dancer?
	She was writing and, you know, it was a very common thing in the early days for cars to be convertible, to have the tops down and everything.
	So she was writing in a...
	An open car, and she had this scarf, and the scarf was fairly long, you know, fashionable and everything, but the wind blew it back and blew it back and got caught in the tires and strangled her to death right away.
	Broke her neck. I guess she'll listen to Edna Moe.
	No capes. No capes.
	So, anyway, the right of Sikhs to wear turbans is gaining a growing recognition in the United States with the Marine Corps recently granting members of the religion the ability to do so in boot camp.
	They should be able to carry a sword, too.
	I think they carry swords.
	That's going to be even trickier on a motorcycle.
	Yeah. Carry a sword while you're driving a motorcycle.
	Currently only Iowa, Illinois, and New Hampshire have no form of helmet law in the United States.
	I thought Texas was no helmet.
	I guess not. Anyway, California's measure became law in 1992 after a battle that pitted libertarians and motorcyclists, including outlaw bikers, against public safety advocates and medical professionals.
	Well, there you go. You can be an outlaw biker just by not wearing your helmet.
	But again, if you are going to ride a motorcycle, why quibble over the safety details?
	Just go all the way.
	EU considers banning repairing cars over 15 years old.
	I mentioned this at the close of the program the other day, but this truly is where it is headed.
	This is an article from Wine Press.
	The proposal is an amendment to the European Commission's pre-existing, listen to what they call it, circularity requirements.
	Circularity requirements. I guess recycle is kind of passed out of use now that you've got the wind turbines that are not recyclable for the windmills.
	And the solar panels and all these other issues, you know, there used to be all this reduce, reuse, recycle.
	Oh, that doesn't work anymore.
	That's kind of become a mockery.
	So now that we've got circularity requirements for vehicle design and on the management of end-of-life vehicles, this aims to renew the car fleet.
	See? They're not banning anything.
	They're renewing it.
	They're renewing it. To encourage Europeans to buy new, environmentally friendly vehicles.
	This is beyond the despicable practice of planned obsolescence where the manufacturers would design something to break after a short period of time.
	This is planned immobilization.
	Planned immobilization by the government.
	They don't want people to have cars of any type.
	By the way, you notice that this doesn't say anything about electric cars.
	Of course, they don't really have to do that.
	By the time your batteries are 15 years old, they're already going to long dead.
	And if you try to replace those batteries, it's going to cost more than your car's worth.
	So they don't have to do it for electric cars.
	It's already implied. Your planned obsolescence.
	Based on the concept of a residual vehicle...
	A category for vehicles that are over 15 years old.
	Well, all my vehicles are approaching a residual vehicle status.
	And so it would affect any repairs to the engine, to the gearbox, to the brakes, to the brakes, to steering, to chassis, to body work.
	Include tires, too.
	I mean, you know, your brakes are consumable just like your tires are.
	If this regulation is approved, the repair or the replacement of any of these components, engine, gearbox, brakes, steering, chassis, bodywork, anything in the car, bodywork even, any of these components in a vehicle older than 15 years would be prohibited.
	Well, they haven't been able to stop drugs by prohibiting them, have they?
	Any vehicle designed for waste without polluting the environment and using part of its components is considered to be residual.
	A way to promote the so-called circular economy.
	Well, like I said, reduce, reuse, recycle doesn't matter to these people anymore.
	And when they talk about circular economy, what they're talking about is a circular logic.
	Of this environmentalism.
	The reality is that many Europeans choose to extend the useful life of their vehicle mostly due to a lack of money to buy a new car.
	And I've mentioned this in the past.
	I remember the 1970s when it was typical for the cars not to last that long, right?
	People would change cars.
	They could afford to change cars every three years or whatever.
	So they were constantly doing interesting things with the styling.
	Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't.
	You know, the fins grew, the fins shrunk, the chrome appeared, disappeared, things like that, you know, get people to trade, but it also was falling apart on you.
	And so, Volvo ran ads, I remember it in the 1970s, because I was definitely in the car market then, and they were running ads, our Volvos, the average life of a car in Sweden where we make the Volvos is 11 years, and I But I believed at the time that was due to socialism, not to manufacturing.
	Anyway, it's mostly due to the lack of money to buy a new car.
	That's true. I think that was the case in Sweden back in the 1970s for Volvo as well.
	In Portugal, one in four vehicles is over 20 years old.
	And the average age of registered cars is over 13.
	It's a trend that extends to the EU's economic powers.
	For example, in Germany, the average age is already 10 years old.
	And so, needless to say, this will hit her third-party auto mechanics very hard.
	Prohibit you being able to do repair.
	Every day, every week, right, we get something else that takes us closer to Terry Gilliam's dystopian future of 1984.
	Where you had Robert De Niro, the terrorist.
	Terrorist, why? Because he would go around and fix people's air conditioning units without government approval.
	And so we're going to have people who are going to become auto terrorists.
	Not an auto mechanic, not an auto repair person, but an auto terrorist who goes around and fixes people's cars.
	In violation of government prohibitions.
	I'm sorry, that's too old.
	Oh no, that's an original part.
	We could make them look like they're old parts.
	They could have new parts that look like old parts.
	I mean, they did that with Star Wars, right?
	They had... You know, the things were dented and scratched and all that other kind of stuff to make them look realistic like they've been around for a while.
	So you just make a new part, but then, you know, just like they do with the jeans.
	They rip up the jeans and make them look like they're rags.
	Well, that's the way your car parts are going to look, but they'll be functional and they'll be brand new and they'll be very expensive like those jeans that have holes ripped in them all the time.
	So, anyway, they're going to try to put auto mechanics out of business, of course.
	They don't want anybody with self-reliance.
	Again, we go back to the Amish, right?
	We want to have a community where people can repair and replace this stuff.
	You know, quite frankly, if we get to this point where we start having people be able to repair their cars, and we've seen bits of this with John Deere, for example, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
	I've been talking about this for a decade with Eric Peters, and now it's just come back in with a new court case.
	But they said, no, you're not going to be able to make it highly computerized and you can't replace any of these parts because we own these parts.
	Even though you bought it and you own it outright, you're not going to be able to replace any of these electronic modules that are in here.
	And even if you buy it from us, we're not going to let you install it.
	It's got to be installed by a John Deere person.
	You cannot fix this thing.
	And so they've been going down this path for quite some time.
	Point of the law, the magazine says, is to become the first territory and block in the world, that is the European Union, to cut transportation emissions down to 55% by 2030.
	Only six years away.
	So let's just get rid of all the cars.
	What the real goal is, is to send Europe back into the dark ages.
	That's the real goal of all of this stuff.
	Maryland has proposed raising registration fees for pickup trucks.
	Now, this does have implications for the EVs as well, which they don't mention in this article.
	Maryland is now considering raising vehicle registration fees for trucks.
	By the way, all politics is local, right?
	Is this happening here?
	No, it's happening in Maryland. Why is it happening in Maryland?
	Because maybe they got too focused on the presidential election.
	They didn't pay attention to who's going to be running the local state government, right?
	You better focus on your state government.
	They can make things better or they can make things even worse.
	This is even worse than Biden.
	And it's coming to them because they didn't focus on their state elections in Maryland.
	This one is called the Pedestrian Fatality Prevention Act of 2024.
	So in other words, if you don't support these higher fees, you want pedestrians to die.
	They get to set the terms of all this stuff.
	So they're going to go up on the registration fees for pickups.
	But it's not just pickups.
	It's going to be the different fees are going to be set up based on weight, based on weight.
	So $50 for vehicles up to 3,500 pounds.
	$101 for those between 3,500 and 3,700 pounds.
	$153 for vehicles between 3,700 and 5,000 pounds.
	And $229.50 for vehicles over 5,000 pounds.
	EVs hit the hardest.
	Because they're the heaviest of all these things.
	They're way heavier than all the other cars.
	So, you know, they think they're going to be going after pickup trucks, but by putting this in by weight, this is going to be saying, well, if you're a heavier vehicle, you're more likely to kill somebody.
	Well, it's also the height of the vehicle and all the rest of the stuff.
	I remember when they started mandating these five mile an hour bumpers, and it was ridiculous because a little Spitfire that I was driving had a couple of rubber baby buggy bumpers stuck on aftermarket to the chrome bumper that was there.
	It looked really weird. But it was way lower than any of the other vehicles around there.
	There's no way that it's going to make contact with anything.
	Any other car, their bumper was going to hit the top of the hood or hit my windshield if I had a collision with them.
	It doesn't make any sense. I said, why mandate a five-mile-an-hour bumper if you don't mandate the height that the bumper is going to be?
	I didn't say that too loudly.
	I didn't want to give anybody any ideas.
	But again, if you don't mandate the height of the bumper, that doesn't make any difference for anything.
	So, a crashing second-hand market has slammed on the brakes on EVs, says the Telegraph.
	The moment for electric cars is now, said the startup On2.
	Once you get behind the steering wheel and you feel what they're capable of, we know that there's no going back.
	And yeah, they do drive great.
	However, instead of selling or leasing the vehicle, this company that was based out of Warwick in the UK amassed one of Britain's biggest EV-only fleets.
	They had 7,000 cars.
	They offered a subscription basis for people.
	So you didn't lease it. It's just a subscription basis.
	So you could subscribe to these cars.
	They would provide, you know, you pay a fee for the car.
	That subscription thing was the car, the insurance, maintenance, and even the charging for your electric car at a fixed rate.
	And it wasn't all that high.
	It was £359 a month, so maybe about $500 a month or something like that.
	The new car payments now are with the interest rates up or even higher than that.
	Yet today's customers are greeted with another message explaining that On2 has been placed into administration as of September.
	They've gone bankrupt.
	And it's not the only one that that's happened to because the second-hand EV prices have plummeted as there's competition.
	Now Tesla's dropped its prices.
	They were really gouging people, evidently.
	And so now as competition comes in, they drop the prices dramatically.
	And still, in China, it is much lower than that.
	So there's still a possibility of a lot of downward pressure on the price of EVs.
	That's really depressed, the second-hand market.
	Just ask Hertz Rental.
	They're really hurting now.
	They've changed the way they spell their name.
	It's H-U-R-T-S. Yeah.
	Anyway, there are fears that Chinese brands will seek to undercut their European rivals by slashing prices further.
	The big question is, will the Chinese come in more cheaply?
	We think they could because they sell their cars more cheaply in China than they do in Europe.
	So they've got the ability to start more aggressive pricing.
	They got the advantage.
	They got the home field advantage because they got the home field in terms of energy, cheaper energy, cheaper labor.
	They have pretty much a lock on the minerals.
	This is suicide to mandate EVs.
	It's industrial suicide.
	Based on figures for December, auto trader found that an EV costing £50,000 in the UK is currently expected to lose £24,000 of its value after just three years on the road.
	Significantly more than the typical £17,000 reduction seen with internal combustion engine cars.
	That's bad enough, but it's going to be much, much bigger depreciation with those cars.
	Meanwhile, the Biden administration...
	It's thinking about slowing down the electric vehicle shift.
	And they don't even have shifters.
	But they're going to slow down, as I said before, this centrally planned, centrally controlled economy where you've got somebody like Biden or whoever it is that's making the decisions in the White House, designing our cars, and we're all going to wind up with Lattas.
	No, actually, we're not going to get Lattas like the Soviet Union.
	We're not going to have any cars at all.
	Because that's the real purpose of all of this stuff.
	Just like it is the things that they want to do to our food.
	But the Biden administration supposedly slowing down.
	No, they're not. They're doubling down.
	They're doubling down on banning gas cars, internal combustion engines.
	They don't want there to be any cars.
	So they're doubling down.
	They say, well, we're going to slow down on pushing the EV mandates out there, but they're doubling down on banning the gas cars.
	Again, they don't want there to be any privately owned transportation because they want to control it all.
	This has always been where the Democrats have been coming from when they talk about public transportation.
	They want rail. They want light rail.
	They want monorails.
	They want buses. They want subways.
	Because they want to control your transportation and they want to make you dependent on them for everything.
	Tinkering with the near-term speed of implementation does not change the endgame, which is banning new gas-powered cars.
	No, they want to ban all cars, quite frankly.
	The Biden administration is poised to soon finalize the gas-powered car tailpipe emission standards.
	How do we get to this point? You know how this is being rolled out?
	Through executive orders from the president and through a...
	A bureaucratic deep state agency that's under the executive branch, as they all are.
	Again, Trump was king of the deep state, and he didn't remove any of it.
	He didn't even slow it down.
	And so, in the same way that Trump used the ATF to do gun control by executive order, Biden is using the EPA to do car control by executive order.
	When are we going to say enough is enough?
	Nixon created this monster back in 1970, I think it was.
	And the same guy that put out the 55-mile-an-hour speed limit, well, now he's got a way to completely stop cars through the EPA. The EPA has gone from protecting us from pollution spills and other things like that to determining how many CO2 modules can fit on the head of a pen, right? How many molecules.
	The EPA is proposing tailpipe emissions.
	And so they are designed to ensure a staggering 67% of new car sales are electric by 2032.
	So just move it out a couple of years.
	And everybody says, oh, okay.
	Well, they must be failing.
	No, they're not failing.
	They're getting what they want. They're relentless and persistent.
	Over the weekend, the New York Times and Washington Post reported the White House is set to double down on that lofty goal while loosening earlier targets.
	The president has been clear since 2020 that he intends to use his agencies to eliminate sales of new gas cars.
	Tinkering with the near-term speed of implementation does not change the end goal or the end game.
	EPA spokesperson said they are committed to finalizing a tailpipe standard that is readily achievable, secures reductions in dangerous air and climate pollution, and ensures economic benefits for families.
	Who are you?
	Who are you to make those determinations for us?
	There is no authority for the EPA to exist.
	None whatsoever under the Constitution.
	You know, it's 1971, wasn't it, that we had...
	Roe v. Wade, 1970.
	We got the EPA. Both of them equally unconstitutional.
	Unconstitutional. Who are they?
	Who are the EPA to decide what we can drive?
	Who are they even to decide what air we can breathe?
	They said the more aggressive federal tailpipe regulations and targets for EV sales would be delayed until 2030 under the plan that EPA is preparing to finalize soon.
	Automakers would then be forced, forced, To rapidly ramp up compliance standards in just a couple of years.
	When it's all said and done, the outcome is the same, says the president for the Institute of Energy Research.
	He said the Biden administration is attempting to force automakers to produce only electric vehicles and the market is clearly not interested in that.
	And not just only electric vehicles.
	There's only going to be one kind of electric vehicles.
	Again, this is the same thing we saw with the pandemic MacGuffin.
	No, no, no. We got something.
	We got a problem. We got some disease that's going around.
	I know you can't see it, and I know you don't see any climate change going on here, but trust me, there's climate change that's going to kill everybody.
	And we got a panic.
	You know, we got a pandemic with a capital P, and that rhymes with P, and that stands for pool.
	So we got to get rid of this.
	Got to do it now. Yeah.
	Henry Hill. Professor Harry Hill.
	Professor Harry Hill out there.
	So, yeah, we can't have that.
	And so we've got only one solution also allowed with all these things.
	You're not going to be free.
	They've got this big problem.
	It's going to kill everybody. But nobody is allowed to offer any solution other than the one that they've already determined.
	Doesn't that make all your...
	Doesn't that just resonate with you, that this is a gross lie?
	The biggest lie.
	Trying to force them to produce only electric vehicles, only one kind of electric vehicle.
	They can try to soft pedal it all they want, but the fact is it's still a ban on conventional cars.
	Under the proposal which the EPA unveiled in April of last year, the White House projected that 67% of new sedan crossovers, SUVs, light trucks would be electric by 2032.
	The EPA has faced considerable pressure from the industry.
	Republican lawmakers want to reverse the proposal, but they don't want to get rid of the EPA, you see.
	They will rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.
	But they're not going to do anything about this iceberg.
	They've argued the market isn't ready for such a massive increase in EV purchases.
	Well, again, they want to make this about everybody's going to die.
	Right? So we've got a replay of what Obama did to Volkswagen.
	It's now coming for Cummins.
	People who manufacture diesel engines, mainly for Chrysler stuff.
	Engine manufacturer Cummins is facing $1.6 billion in fines after allegations that it outfitted hundreds of thousands of trucks with software to defeat pollution controls.
	This is the same thing they did to destroy VW's diesel engines.
	And to get them to go completely electric.
	Well, this is all that Cummins makes.
	So they're going to fine these people out of existence.
	Got to get rid of diesel engines.
	$1.6 billion.
	This began, by the way, under Obama.
	I think it's 2015 that it began.
	But it continued through the Trump administration.
	They started, they initiated the action in 2015.
	Then it built, they had milestones in 2017, 2018, came to a head with even more.
	Then the SEC got involved into it in 2019.
	So, that was happening under the Trump administration.
	Because this is coming from the bureaucratic state, where we have taxation without representation, where we have regulation without representation.
	Our congressmen have taken a pass, and our president, Doesn't care about the deep state.
	Most of what happened to Volkswagen was under President Trump.
	First year was under Obama, and the next four years were under Trump.
	And it wasn't just the EPA. It was also the SEC that got involved under Trump.
	He didn't do anything to pull back these regulations.
	The agency says that about 1 million RAM pickups were rigged to cheat emission tests so that they could look cleaner than they actually are.
	Again, was anybody hurt with this?
	Do they apply this same standard to the vaccines?
	Do they apply this same standard to anything else?
	No. In many cases, people dying from faulty products, faulty drugs are ignored.
	Nobody died from this at all.
	Nobody. They said 630,000 model year 2013-2019 RAM engines and 330,000 model year 2019-2023 RAM engines have been, quote, secretly releasing nitrogen oxide as a result.
	Secretly emitting this.
	They said this leads to asthma attacks to other respiratory issues that may require hospitalization.
	All of this, not only the move against Volkswagen that was begun by Obama and finished by Trump, but also this whole narrative that everybody's going to die from fine particulate matter.
	This is something that in 2012, I was involved in that before I went to work for Infowars and I continued reporting on it.
	At the EPA, there in Research Triangle Park, close to where I lived, they had brought in people, they had looked for volunteers who had respiratory illness or heart issues or things like that, and they hooked them up to the tailpipes of diesel engines.
	Now, they filtered out the carbon monoxide so it didn't kill them outright.
	But they brought people in who had respiratory issues and other things like that, hooked them up to these things, and gave them...
	Fine particulate matter, that's 2.5 microns or greater, fed them directly fine particulate matter until they had an issue.
	And they were exposing them to 72 times the level that the EPA said was legitimate.
	And it was caught by, it was caught by, it's got junk science, Steve Malloy caught it because he saw that they were looking for people who had issues.
	And then he noticed that they had to take a couple of them to the hospital, but not most of them.
	So think about that.
	They were doing this in order to up their requirements and to come after diesel stuff.
	And in the same way, they want to come after fireplaces and barbecue grills and all the rest of this stuff.
	But they wanted to rig this, and so they exposed people to 72 times what they said was the maximum limit anybody should be exposed to.
	So they were actually trying to harm people, and they were looking for people who would be more susceptible to harm.
	But even at 72 times the level that they had, they only had a couple of individuals that had to have medical care.
	At 72 times the level.
	While that was happening, you had Obama's head of the EPA, Lisa Jackson, had prearranged a little dialogue with Ed Markey, who's now a senator, but he was a congressman at the time from Massachusetts.
	And they were talking about how many people are dying now.
	From fine particulate matter.
	Oh, I'm not talking about people getting sick, Congressman.
	I'm talking about people actually dying.
	We got more people out there dying from diesel exhaust than from cancer and heart attacks.
	An amazing lie.
	At the same time, they're exposing people to 72 times the level that they said was legitimate.
	One last aspect of this.
	At the time, and that was 12 years ago, if you went to their website, the EPA's website on fine particulate matter, they had a picture of the Smoky Mountains here.
	And you know we get some really nice low land clouds through here.
	And you get, you know, it does get smoky looking, but it's because of rain clouds.
	It's not because of this stuff.
	It was called the Smoky Mountains before the Industrial Age, but they used the Smoky Mountains as an example of fine particulate matter.
	The whole thing is a joke.
	The whole thing is a scamp.
	We should not be playing these games with these people and saying, okay, well, what is it that we have to do in order to get these levels down?
	All of it, all of this climate stuff, is an outright lie.
	And so Cummins has already paid $1.6 billion fine to California to settle these claims.
	Merrick Garland said, violations of our environmental laws have a tangible impact.
	They inflict real harm on people and communities across the country.
	Well, that could be said of violation of your immigration laws at the border.
	But not about diesel emissions here.
	Zero Hedge laughs at this and says, Amazonian tribesmen supposedly experiencing more tropical downpours as a result of Cummins rigging some software were sadly unavailable for comment.
	But we're sure the PhD volumes at the Harvard Library will soon be replete with academic studies, quote-unquote, about how Cummins is single-handedly the biggest cause of climate change on the planet.
	And again, if we go back to this, the stuff began in 2015 under the Obama administration, but then it matured 2017, 2018, 2019.
	You had even the SEC get involved under the Trump administration.
	Trump continued and expanded the fraud in the same way that Biden continued and expanded the fraud of Trump's vaccine programs and his fake pandemic and lockdown and masks and all the rest of this stuff.
	So, when you look at all of this, all they want to talk about is how Trump is a victim of these garbage cases.
	Well, how about the other people who have, and at the time they were locking up Volkswagen executives, they hit them with $4 billion, and they may not be finished with Cummins yet.
	They imprisoned one executive from Volkswagen for seven years.
	Trump didn't do anything to stop that fraud.
	He deserves to go to jail.
	He deserves to go to jail because he lied.
	He said he's going to support the Constitution.
	He did nothing to support the Constitution.
	He did nothing to rein in these deep state creeps that are out there destroying other people's lives.
	These are people who actually built functional things, unlike Trump.
	Sneakers. Yeah, these are people building diesel engines that you need to have to do real things.
	Meanwhile, a warehouse in France storing lithium batteries.
	I wonder what could happen with that.
	Goes up in flames.
	Lithium batteries are, of course, absolutely fundamental to plans to decarbonize the economy.
	Yes, as the Daily Mail points out, maybe we need to de-lithiumize the economy.
	Maybe that'd be safer.
	A warehouse storing 900 tons of lithium batteries waiting to be recycled.
	Good luck recycling these things.
	We went up in flames this afternoon amid growing fears over their dangers.
	The fire in France occurred at a storehouse and residents were told to stay indoors by authorities.
	I wonder how the emissions were with this.
	I remember years ago... We used to get a kick out of watching this thing called Will It Blend?
	And the guy was selling this really strong blender.
	And he would dump all kinds of stuff into it.
	You know, he says, oh, well, you know, tonight is movie night.
	So let's take a box of popcorn that's been popped and we'll throw it all in there with the box.
	And then we'll put in, you know, some other movie tickets or whatever.
	And we'll put in a can of Coke and we'll leave it in the can.
	We'll put it in there and see if it blends.
	And it does, it blends. One time he did an iPhone.
	To see if it would blend.
	And it ripped up that iPhone, but it created a lot of smoke in there.
	It's got a lithium battery in it.
	It created a lot of smoke and stuff like that.
	And he opens it up and he goes, oh, that's got a lot of iPhone smoke in it.
	Don't breathe that. Well, it's lithium smoke.
	It's who knows whatever else is in there.
	When they have these lithium fires that are so dangerous, there are 70 firefighters it took to get these flames under control at this lithium warehouse.
	I'm surprised that they could get it under control.
	It took 70 firefighters.
	What kind of emissions do you think it had?
	You think it's something more harmful than CO2? Yeah, yeah, I think so, probably.
	Probably, you know, CO2, plants thrive on that.
	I wonder if you take this lithium smoke and you feed that to the plants.
	Watch them fall over and die on the spot.
	Lithium batteries found in e-scooters are the fastest growing fire risk in London.
	With a London Fire Brigade called to an e-bike or a scooter fire once every two days on average last year.
	That's one of the things we were laughing about.
	When Whistler was here, we had a picture, aerial view of that Arizona smart city that they're building for these people.
	And, you know, everything is within walking distance, and everybody gets a, well, the first 200 residents get a free e-bike.
	So you've got 200 of these things within that area.
	And as my son pointed out, he said, there's no way you can get a fire truck through those narrow streets.
	They're all designed for pedestrians.
	They don't want cars in there anywhere, which means they also don't want any fire trucks.
	Ha, ha, ha. Better have renter's insurance.
	So the mayor of the town called the fire shocking.
	He says there is indeed reason to ask questions about the function of these electric vehicles and their lithium batteries.
	And the reason this was picked up by the British paper, and they talk so much about this, is because they want to build one of Europe's largest battery storage sites in Buckinghamshire.
	And there's a lot of resistance against it.
	This is one of those BESS, battery energy storage site, and they want to put them here in Tennessee, and there's a battle with that.
	The TVA wants to start putting these things around here, and they're a horrible fire hazard, horrible fire hazard.
	When they put these things in place in Australia, Elon Musk put one immediately.
	They had a fire there.
	But it was out in the middle of the desert.
	They want to put these things in residential areas where there's lots of trees and other things like that.
	More than 200 residents have lodged objections to this battery energy storage site in Buckinghamshire.
	They plan to construct a 500-megawatt facility at a farm.
	And, of course, these things are necessitated by their obsession with wind and solar because you've got to have some way to store that energy when the wind's not blowing and the sun's not shining.
	So it's just more complication, more expense, more of a grift, and replacing functional technology, which is far more efficient, far safer, And far cleaner than this stuff.
	And when these battery storage sites catch fire, what's it going to be?
	So what are they doing in England?
	Well, they know there's a big fire risk for putting this many batteries together, so they have planned to strip the topsoil, scrape it all down, and then they're going to build 888 full-sized shipping containers to accommodate the batteries.
	And then in addition to that, They're going to put a two and a half meter high steel mesh fence.
	I think they understand that this thing is very dangerous and a big fire hazard.
	But it's not going to stop them.
	Because this is about the money.
	One only has to consider how much chaos a single e-bike lithium battery can cause.
	They had a blaze at the Royal Courts of Justice in the UK caused by an e-bike battery failure earlier this month.
	The fire destroyed part of the ground floor storage room, caused chaos outside as it disrupted traffic in the Strand, London.
	They said, whilst e-bikes and e-scooters offer a great way around the city, if the batteries become damaged or they begin to fail, they can start incredibly ferocious fires.
	A lot of people have died, but again, you look at what is happening in the UK, they're having one of these every two days on average for the last year, a fire of these things.
	Lithium batteries have a long way to go before they can function as a serious and safe path to the future, they say.
	Well, The problem is that Biden wants to burn down our economy.
	He wants to burn down our society.
	You know, Nero fiddled while Rome burned.
	Biden is mumbling while he burns down the U.S. That's the analogy.
	He's not fiddling around, but he's mumbling around.
	And then this.
	And I think this is perhaps a meme that we're going to see for a very long time.
	Pull this up, Travis. New York City Transportation Department is using an enraged Travis Kelsey picture to promote an anti-car campaign.
	And this is the face of an angry bureaucracy.
	Lysander Spooner said the difference between government and a highway robber is that a highway robber will steal your purse.
	A government will steal your purse and follow you down the road, nagging you about what you're doing.
	Or it'll get in your face and scream at you like Travis Kelsey did.
	It's kind of funny, Travis, that both you and Karen are now going to become, their names are going to become memes for anger.
	The internet once again ruins something great.
	It's like we've got both a Travis and a Karen in our family.
	Well, anyway, yeah, so what they did, they got him screaming, and they're using it as the public face of their campaigns to scream at the public.
	They put his screaming face there.
	This is the New York City Department of Transportation.
	They put that picture, pulled that picture up up there.
	They got that picture, and then in all uppercase, screaming in uppercase, They say outdoor dining takes up less than a half a percent of street parking in New York City.
	Public spaces for everyone, not just for cars.
	Not just for cars.
	Then they also say, same thing, using that screaming face.
	Stop excavating, all uppercase, stop excavating out the floors of your basement without engineered drawings and permits.
	That's coming from the city's Department of Building.
	So you've got these New York City bureaucrats, Drunk on power, screaming at people in uppercase, and using the screaming Travis thing.
	It's going to become a metaphor for these abusive bureaucrats.
	All right, I just got to say, that last one would have been funny if they put a yarmulke on the coach.
	Yeah, they're not going to do that.
	Now, before I take a break here, one last thing here, Biden.
	He's actually got the Department of Agriculture...
	Spending a lot of tax dollars to try to get Americans to eat bugs, but not just eating ze bugs, but eating ze bugs that have been feeding on trash.
	Yeah, that's right.
	These are bugs that are part of landfills.
	Now, as we all know, Why does grass-fed beef go at a premium?
	Why does free-range chickens go at a premium?
	We know that there's a difference in the quality of the food based on what the animals that are producing this stuff or the animals themselves are eating.
	This is even something, and of course, it's well-established with the free-range eggs, the grass-fed beef, and all the rest of this stuff.
	But it was also even a case, at one point in time, we looked at getting some Madagascar chameleons.
	I always thought they were funny-looking.
	They've got the eyes that rotate independently of each other, you know, and they've got the tongues that zap out.
	Well, you feed them crickets.
	And when we looked at it, we saw that because these things only survive, really, in Madagascar's climate, you've got to be very careful about trying to keep that kind of climate for them where they die.
	Furthermore, you feed them crickets, which might be entertaining, except that you wind up becoming a cricket wrangler.
	You've got to grow your own crickets or buy them and feed them live crickets and stuff like that.
	And it's like, well, even though I like these chameleons, I don't really like the crickets that much.
	And I don't want to have a gazillion crickets getting out all over the house.
	And so, but what they would say is that, and by the way, you want to make sure that you feed good food to your crickets because your chameleons are going to be eating these crickets.
	So you want to preload them with healthy things.
	So you want to feed certain types of things to your crickets, not other types of things.
	Because, again, that's, you know, going to be consumed by the chameleons.
	But, you know, when we look at that, you look at grass-fed beef, free-range chickens.
	We all understand when it comes to food, garbage in, garbage out.
	It's just like a computer printout, right?
	But they don't care.
	You see, the Department of Agriculture and the Biden administration are looking at us as their slaves.
	They have absolute contempt for our health.
	How can we possibly make the food cheaper for our slaves?
	What can we do with Soylent Green or maybe even Soylent Brown?
	We can go to the $130,000 grant to support research and to using municipal landfill waste to feed crickets that will then be fed to humans.
	This is how much they hate us.
	How much they loathe and despise us.
	You know, they said we're a basket of deplorables.
	Trump said we're non-essential.
	The agency believes that using landfill waste to feed crickets could help the firm procure cricket feed at lower cost than what's available on the market, leading to savings.
	Leading to savings.
	They've put all of our drinks into plastic bottles.
	They don't give us sugar, which is not really healthy for us, but they give us an even more unhealthy version of it with fructose.
	So, conventional protein production poses a substantial strain on the ecosystem, they say.
	Requiring unsustainable quantities of water, land, and feed as input.
	So this is the argument that they've used to say you can't have meat, you can't have dairy, because the cows are too much of a burden on the environment.
	And so now they're saying that even after we eat crickets, they're going to have to feed them garbage from landfills, because even crickets can't even have free-range crickets.
	Can't even have grass-fed crickets.
	You're going to have garbage-fed crickets.
	Cricket chips are already being sold in the Czech Republic.
	You got Bug Burgers in Germany.
	You got Beetle Beer from Belgium.
	Why did they just call it Beetle Juice?
	I don't know. Beetle beer.
	And Tucker loved all this stuff.
	He's had the Bug Chefs on several times when he was on Faux News.
	So he really does like all this stuff, and he wants you to jump into it as well.
	We're going to take a quick break, and we'll come right back.
	Super Faye, good to see you there.
	Thank you very much for that tip.
	That is very kind. She says, that law would literally destroy my business.
	I make a living by keeping old Toyotas, 80s and 90s mostly, on the road.
	Yeah, well, that's the purpose. We don't want the old cars on the road, and we don't want auto mechanics either, because everybody needs to take whatever the new thing is and go into debt because you're not supposed to own anything.
	That's the key thing, right?
	Don't laugh at it.
	This car is paid for.
	That's the License plate.
	Well, I guess we should get another license plate.
	Don't ban it. This car is paid for.
	It's been around for a while, but that's precisely why they are going to ban it.
	Andromeda1, thank you for the tip.
	David, thank you for bringing sanity to an insane world.
	Well, I don't know.
	I mean, all we can do is really kind of laugh at it, isn't it?
	We'll be right back. Looking for better information?
	APSradionews.com features articles and commentary, along with audio from all the top news from around the world.
	APSradionews.com.
	I'm going to be talking about the latest news from the world.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Well, as we look at their coming after the food supply and other things, It isn't really going to make any difference.
	This war on farmers, a federal report coming out of Canada's national government in Ottawa.
	This is Rebel News reporting this.
	For years, Ottawa has prophetically worshipped cuts to fertilizer emissions by 30% below 2020 levels.
	They ascertained keeping agriculture emissions at 48 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.
	But a federal report says reducing fertilizer use will not change net emissions by 2030.
	And again, we've got to make sure that we don't get caught up in playing their game.
	The Greenhouse Gas Report states that reducing fertilizer use will not change net emissions by the year 2030.
	And these things are all so obvious, made-up goals.
	We've got to reduce it by 30% by 2030.
	Oh, 30, 30?
	And of course, we've seen other things.
	Well, we want to have under our control 30% of the land by 2030.
	And we want to have 50% of the land under our control by 2050 and so forth.
	They make up these goals.
	They're arbitrary. And don't think that you're winning when you get them to extend the deadline by a little bit.
	Forget about these emissions.
	Forget about these deadlines.
	We've got to resist this stuff, and we've got to refute it.
	We've got to not say, and it is important to point out the hypocrisy of these people, but we can't say, well, you know, this is a more effective way to reduce carbon dioxide.
	Don't play that game.
	It's nonsense. They're gaslighting you.
	They're gaslighting you over CO2. They're gaslighting you over nitrogen gas.
	They're gaslighting you over the fine particulate matter and all the rest of this stuff.
	And then just to show you how political this all is, the Czech Prime Minister, who is a bona fide globalist, has now called these farmers who are protesting these bogus climate games to shut down the farms.
	So the protesting farmers, he calls them supporters of Moscow.
	You're either with us or you're with the opposition or with the terrorists.
	A Czech prime minister has claimed farmers protesting against the EU agricultural policies.
	They're not policies.
	These are bans. Our supporters of Russia.
	That's what he said. On Monday, hundreds of tractors blocked off sections of Prague and disrupted traffic outside the city's agricultural ministry.
	As demonstrators demanded, the EU Green Deal, which calls for regulating the use of certain chemicals and eliminating greenhouse gas things.
	Look, he's lucky so far that he hasn't got these farmers who show up and just...
	Start spraying fertilizer all over the place.
	I think the time has come for that, because it's time for it to hit the fan.
	This guy is full of it, and he needs to literally, his residence needs to be full of this stuff.
	So he said on Prague, he said, this has little to do with the fight for better conditions for farmers.
	This demonstration is organized by people who, for example, do not hide their support for the Kremlin and pursue goals other than the interests of the farmers.
	They're enemies of the state. And so you must be with Putin.
	They really represent farmers who...
	They do not really represent farmers who talk about what our agricultural needs are.
	And he's not the only one.
	You've had Ursula Fond of lying, who is the EU president.
	And so now what she's lying about is the fact that these people are allied with Putin.
	She's saying the same thing.
	This is an article from Rachel Marsden.
	The Ursula, fond of lying, EU president, said Putin's attempt to blackmail our union has utterly failed.
	On the contrary, he really pushed the green transition.
	As Rachel says, the word pushed is telling and projecting because that's exactly what she has been doing.
	Evoking Putin to manipulate EU citizens into accepting a profitable system of greenwashed authoritarianism.
	Greenwashed authority. In other words, it's authoritarianism that has a veneer of green.
	I call these people watermelon environmentalists because they're all red, they're all Marxists with a thin veneer of green environmentalism.
	Putin's been a busy guy here in Europe lately.
	Just the other week, he was apparently pushing European farmers and their tractors onto highways as well, right?
	That's the tack that these EU hacks have been pushing.
	That's how dangerous they are.
	Oh yeah, this is a literal war being directed by Putin.
	No, you're the one who is trying to starve people of food, trying to steal the land from farmers.
	Last year in 2023, she said, for the first time ever, we produced more electricity from wind than from gas.
	Rachel Marsden asks, how many ways did her battle-hardened brigade of bureaucratic paper-cut purple hearts have to parse the data to come up with that statistical lie?
	Because the truth is that at 37% of the EU's electrical power, renewables are still only just a half a percent more prevalent than fossil fuels at 36.5%.
	And I would say this. Because renewables are not steady state.
	They're not ever going to really exceed what the real functional fuels are producing.
	They're never going to exceed what is done with fuel.
	Because the sun doesn't always shine.
	The wind doesn't always blow.
	And so you're going to have to have these other power sources to take its place.
	And as we explained to people back in 2009, with Colorado's renewable mandates, the first of those to hit in the United States, part of a lawsuit, produced a video saying that – produced a video to get people to support the lawsuit and that type of thing.
	But we pointed out that it's – because these renewables don't always work, they've got to cycle the power plants that are running on fuel, they've got to cycle them up and down, up and down to fill in for that.
	And just like when you've got a car that is operating at steady state on the interstate, it's going to get better fuel economy and have less emissions.
	Then if it is stopped at stoplights and having to take off and all the kind of stop and go traffic in the city, and that's what they're doing to these power plants to get them to fill in for the gaps for these renewable energy sources.
	Rachel Morrison said it's not like the wind at 13% of the block's electric production is doing the heavy lifting when 60% of its energy is still imported.
	Imported. Where do they get it?
	From places where they're allowed to actually use fuel to generate electricity.
	So while this is happening, the German economy is taking a big hit.
	They're closing factories in Germany.
	They're closing factories in the UK. Why?
	Because they can't get cheap electricity.
	Manufacturers going to China, going to India.
	Why? Because they have been given an advantage through the Paris Climate Accord, which has never been ratified.
	And no congressman, not Mitch McConnell, but not even Rand Paul or anybody of that ilk, nobody has said, wait a minute, that's a treaty.
	It needs to be ratified or removed.
	Instead, they've all obeyed it.
	And Trump obeyed it.
	Trump left it in place as well.
	And you can expect him to do the same thing as well.
	And the latest one, Ursula Fond of Lying, laments Putin's attempt to blackmail Europe with fossil fuels.
	While at the same time saying that whatever is left of them can't disappear fast enough.
	So it's both a lifeline as well as something that they want to destroy.
	So, again, this is the fraud.
	That is all there. As she concludes, she says, first of all, one last thing here from Ursula Fond of Lyne.
	A quote. She says, the old fossil fuel economy is all about dependencies.
	And again, that label, fossil fuel, this is a CIA thing.
	Just like peak oil was a CIA thing.
	All this fossil fuel created by the industry, created by the CIA to create A false scarcity to charge you more and to remove it.
	Okay? But she says, the new clean energy economy is all about interdependencies.
	And Rachel Marsden says, you know, she didn't say independence, but interdependencies.
	She said all smacks of an increased supranational consolidation and a control over a system that's being reoriented to profit members of a certain political caste and their cronies.
	And they're apparently willing to use whatever fear-mongering they figure works best to subdue the masses into compliance.
	Putin should really start charging appearance fees for being constantly used in their advertising.
	Well, I'm going to jump here real quickly.
	I'm going to take a quick break, and we're going to jump to something I wanted to cover in terms of education.
	We'll be right back. Using free speech to free minds.
	It's the David Knight Show.
	Looking for better information?
	APSRadioNews.com features articles and commentary along with audio from all the top news from around the world.
	APSRadioNews.com All right.
	Study finds that handwriting increases brain connectivity.
	You know, we began this program by talking about how AI is going to do the thinking for us.
	And it is kind of interesting that Steve Jobs did not let his kids mess with iPads and, you know, things like that because he wanted them to, he understood that it rewires the brain in certain ways.
	And so, you know, we always just talk about the three R's, reading, writing, and arithmetic, because spelling wasn't included in that, right?
	A recent study from Norway found that old-school art of handwriting engages part of the brain that tapping on a keyboard does not.
	The intricate movements required in handwriting activate more regions of the brain.
	And, you know, I've got to say, personally, I thought this was interesting.
	You know, they looked at encephalograms and all this other kind of stuff.
	I have found that when I write something down, I can remember it.
	But if I don't write it down, I don't remember it.
	If I just read it, or if somebody tells me their name in a crowd, I forget it pretty quickly.
	But if I write the name down, I do remember it.
	But I don't walk around in a crowd writing people's names down.
	That would be kind of creepy in this day and age, even though there are more effective ways to spy on people, aren't there?
	And in Florida, as we look at our failing institutions, Florida is one of only 18 states to allow corporal punishment in schools.
	And what is happening in our schools?
	Well, absolute chaos.
	In Massachusetts, you have a town that wants the National Guard to come in and take control of this high school because it is so out of control.
	The National Guard?
	I mean, you're not even calling for the police.
	You're going straight to the National Guard because there's so much lack of discipline there?
	And it's not even really about corporal punishment.
	I joked when I saw this.
	I said, yeah, we used to have corporal punishment.
	That guy used to introduce himself to us every year at the beginning of school when I was in that school.
	The dean of boys, we referred to him as corporal punishment.
	He outranked us.
	But, you know, I'm not fond of the idea of some stranger who Giving my kid a spanking.
	First of all, I always thought that spanking was something that's primarily for young kids when you can't really reason with them that well or you can't punish them in other more creative ways to do the right thing.
	But certainly, you know, when a parent does it, a parent is hopefully going to be restrained.
	And that's not always the case.
	I understand that. But hopefully restrained.
	Uh, by love and not doing it in anger.
	That's the key thing that you got to check if you're really angry, but there's better ways to do it.
	But I was never, I certainly would not want a stranger to do that to my child.
	Uh, they don't know my child.
	And, uh, that's one of the reasons why one of the many reasons why we didn't put our kids in school.
	Uh, I'm not going to turn the kids over.
	Even when we took a, I've mentioned this before we, We had a Disney cruise because Karen's parents were celebrating their 50th anniversary.
	So they took all the kids and their kids on this Disney cruise.
	And when we went, the whole idea was supposed to be a family cruise, but the whole idea was that they've got activities for the adults and they've got activities for the kids.
	And you get the wristbands on your kids so that you can relocate them later and just go do your own thing.
	Well, we weren't going to do that.
	So we followed them around to the different activities.
	And the people on the Disney cruise really...
	They didn't know what to make of that.
	They didn't appreciate that. It's like, well, we got the kids.
	They're okay. And I was like, no, we'll watch.
	We'll stay here. I didn't want to say to them, but what I was saying was, I don't know who you are.
	You look fine, but I don't know anything about you.
	I'm not turning my kid over to a total stranger because you work for Disney.
	Yeah, right. And that was before Disney even got to the point where it is today.
	I certainly wouldn't do it today. But this was in a church-run school in Orlando.
	And the state attorney, Andrew Bain, investigated them because they spanked a fourth-grade kid, or some fourth-grade kids.
	But they didn't file any charges because it's not anything necessarily wrong in terms of doing that, intrinsically wrong about doing that.
	And so you have all these people saying, well, we've got to put this on the books to outlaw this, even in, this is like a private Christian school where they did it.
	So the parents agreed that corporal punishment was going to be part of establishing discipline over the kids.
	But again, it's just another one of these reasons that I didn't want to put kids into an institution run by people that I don't know.
	But this Massachusetts high school, there's something more to this.
	When you look at the fact that things have gotten so out of hand that they want to call in the military to keep discipline in the schools.
	I mean, we didn't have police when I was in school.
	We didn't have checkpoints, metal detectors, and all this other kind of stuff.
	Matter of fact, we could bring rifles to school to practice to shoot.
	Why didn't we have all this stuff?
	Because now you've got kids that are on a cocktail of psychotic drugs.
	But when you look at what is happening in Massachusetts, as you read this article, I kept looking, why the National Guard?
	And they point out that they had so many migrants in the community that they had to call in the National Guard to help keep order there.
	So now they want the National Guard in the high schools.
	This is the chaos that is happening because Biden doesn't want to protect them.
	Put the National Guard at the border.
	And even Hispanic people are not happy about this.
	And Biden is losing support over this.
	Because they don't want to see these foreign gangs coming in either.
	You know, Alvin Bragg, we talked about it, they had a gang of teenagers who beat up a couple of cops, New York cops, and they caught them and they brought them in, and Alvin Bragg, the guy who's coming after Trump, let him go.
	And all but two, I think it was seven of them, and all but two of them he released.
	And then they, because everybody complained about it, some other jurisdiction captured them, and then he brought them back.
	And as they looked at it, they're part of a Venezuelan gang.
	MS-13 is a gang that comes out of El Salvador.
	And I've talked about it many times.
	The father who lost his daughter was murdered at school by MS-13 gang members, and he himself was from El Salvador.
	And so he came here illegally with his family, but then so did the MS-13 people.
	And this was during the Obama administration.
	They had the DACA program, so they said, well, we know these kids are all here illegally, and his daughter was here illegally as well.
	But these gang members even had MS-13 tattoos all over their face.
	They still wouldn't do anything about that.
	Just like Alvin Bragg won't do anything about it.
	So, again, the teachers are afraid to go to the school.
	It's taken over by, perhaps, gangs.
	They're calling in the National Guard to try to...
	Last August, they had 250 National Guard members come to hotels to provide emergency shelter because they had so many migrants.
	They didn't have a contracted service provider.
	So, again, how many people did they have?
	Well, more than 250, that's for sure.
	That's just how many National Guard they had brought in to help to house the people who came in with this issue.
	And before we leave, I didn't get to this, but I wanted to talk about what was happening, the war between the trannies and reality.
	We started with artificial intelligence, and I planned to finish with the trainees in reality, but I didn't get to that yet.
	But just to give you an idea of what we'll talk about tomorrow, this is Rachel Levine, or Richard Levine, Dick Devine, I call him, talking about how climate change is racist.
	Hello, I'm Admiral Rachel Levine.
	This Black History Month, I'm pleased to partner with OMH in advancing better health through better understanding for black communities.
	Well, they actually fixed this.
	Somebody did it this way.
	I'm Admiral Rachel Levine.
	A little laugh track.
	An appropriate laugh track.
	Yeah, we'll talk about that tomorrow.
	We'll have a good laugh at Dick Devine.
	By the way, I'd like to do an Ask Me Anything program.
	So we've only got a couple of those.
	If you've got any questions that you would like to ask, go ahead and send those in.
	And if we get enough of them, we will do an Ask Me Anything program.
	So have a good day.
	Thank you for listening.
	I'm going to play a little bit of the song.
	The David Night 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.

▲