In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
It's the David Knight Show.
As the clock strikes 13, it's Tuesday, the 9th of December, year of our Lord, 2025.
Well, today we're going to take a lot of look at artificial intelligence.
We actually have in the third hour a guest, a best-selling author.
He's done 25 books.
He's an MD who works in neuroscience.
The book is The 21st Century Brain.
And he's been a consultant or lecturer at the CIA, at the NSA, the Pentagon, other places.
So he knows something about where this stuff is headed.
We're going to see what he has to say here about this.
But we're going to begin with what is going on in Ukraine.
Is this the beginning of the end?
Are these people going to be able to sustain this?
Russia is rapidly advancing, even though Zelensky's not even taking a look at the plan.
And so we're going to start with news.
We're going to also, we have some interesting updates in pharmaceutical areas as well as an update in terms of Trump's tariffs.
Are they working?
And we finally got around to giving some breadcrumbs to the soybean farmers.
But we're going to take a look at the bigger picture of the soy stuff.
So we're back already.
It ended up accidentally hit the button.
That's okay.
All right.
Well, let's start with the news here.
And Trump said out loud, he said, I'm disappointed that Zelensky hasn't even read my peace proposal.
And I understand how he feels.
I'm disappointed that Trump hasn't even read the Constitution that he swore to uphold.
Maybe he doesn't like it, just like Zelensky doesn't like peace.
His frustration continues to show, especially after high hopes, for his 28-point peace plan.
Yeah, we had this 10-point peace plan between us and the government.
It's called the Bill of Rights.
Tell you what, this is where we draw the line with what the government does and with our natural rights, our God-given rights.
But they didn't respect that either.
So he said, I'm a little bit disappointed that Zelensky hasn't even read the proposal yet.
Well, he doesn't want peace, and neither do the European leaders as well.
So as he's saying that, you've got the leaders of Britain, France, Germany, all meeting with Zelensky, telling them, keep fighting, keep fighting.
We're going to win this thing.
He said, that's not really what's happening.
He said, his people love it, but he hasn't.
Russia is fine with it.
He said, and the assessment of what's going on with Ukraine, of course, this follows after his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and his former business partner, I guess you could say, Steve Witkoff, who are now his emissaries for geopolitics.
I mean, hey, if you can negotiate a big real estate deal in New York, most of this stuff is about real estate, right?
Whether you're talking about Gaza or you're talking about Ukraine, you're still talking about people killing each other over land.
And so he said, they didn't think that Zelensky was really serious about this.
Moscow, as I pointed out yesterday, really likes the document that was released, the first NSS, which is the national defense security agreement that's there.
It's basically laying out the Trump administration's perspective on foreign policy and national security.
And I liked what it had to say.
I just don't believe that Trump is going to stick to any of it.
But Russia reported on it.
You didn't have any reporting really from mainstream media here in America.
So the Russians liked it because, as they pointed out in the Zero Hedge article, the document characterizes Europe as weak, while warning of an unpredictable, disunified atmosphere on the European continent, where in desperation, European leadership could overreact and escalate a war with Russia.
You think?
I mean, they've been doing that upfront in so many different ways.
You've got Fred Mertz in Germany and you got Keir Starmer and Britain as well as Macron in France.
They're all saying, you know, get ready for massive casualties and we've got to draft more people in the army.
I mean, they're doing everything.
It essentially amounts to a declaration of war already.
So Donald Trump's first NSS since returning to office blames European officials for thwarting U.S. efforts to end the war in Ukraine and accuses governments of ignoring a large European majority, quote-unquote, who want peace.
Well, I agree with Trump on that, the Trump administration.
I just don't trust him on any of this stuff.
Meanwhile, there might be another way to have peace, and that is for Russia to win.
And it looks like that may be happening.
One way to have it, a lasting peace, is that we're going to have a lasting peace.
Well, you could end the NATO provocation that is called Ukraine.
It's a geopolitical construct that, as I pointed out before, the Ukraine was an area of Russia, an area of Russia for 400 years.
And breaking that off as a separate entity and then creating a coup to change the government that then began a civil war.
That happened in 2014, 11 years ago.
So that is a construct of NATO, who decided after the Soviet disunion that they would eliminate Russia as a power.
And so this has been a gradual policy of encroachment.
They're pushing for war.
Putin's army seizing land at one of its fastest rates since the initial invasion almost four years ago, says research.
The Kremlin's army seized 200 square miles of territory in November, up from 100 square miles the previous month, according to Deep State, a trusted Ukraine-based battlefield map.
How about that?
They even call it Deep State.
Let's use that for our marketing purposes here.
The speed of advance was approaching the fastest since the initial invasion almost four years ago.
But then you have the desperation of the war cult.
Zelensky meeting with Kier Starmer, Manuel Macron, Fred Mertz.
Ukraine is holding its own, they said, and doing even better.
Ukraine is not on the brink of collapse.
Again, reality has no meaning to these people.
If we cannot immediately reach a peace agreement with Russia, it is essential that we give Ukraine all the support it needs so that it does not lose ground due to lack of support.
Well, it is losing ground, even though they are supporting it.
And this was something that many people said from the beginning, that there was no way that Russia was going to be able to outlast, that Ukraine is going to be able to outlast Russia.
The comparative size of the two countries' militaries, as well as the close proximity, it was in the cars that this was going to happen.
A plan to end the war drawn up by the Trump administration involved Ukraine handing over vast tracts of land.
And Ukraine and Europe have rejected the proposals.
Well, that's one way it's going to end, and maybe it'll end when they take the land.
The gains in territory risk helping to persuade Trump that peace should be set on Russia's terms.
The sending weapons and aid to Kiev was a waste.
Yes, really.
Well, why does Keir Starmer want the war so much?
And why does Fred Mertz want the war?
And why does France's Emmanuel Macron?
It's because their people understand that their governments are at war with them.
They're locking people up for mere comments as they create this police surveillance state and shut down all free speech.
And in the UK, for example, same thing is happening in all these countries, being overrun with immigrants from abroad.
There's fury in the UK as nearly 350,000 migrant families could get extra welfare after the new budget from Keir Starmer.
So why does he want war?
Well, because his own people are waking up to the fact that Starmer is at war with the British people.
That's why.
350,000 foreign-born families, and they found that 200,000 of them were from just 10 countries.
Families from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria said to benefit the most from the £3 billion decision to scrap the two-child benefit cap.
And Las Found.
A Tory MP who carried out the research said, you have to ask whose side the government is on.
I don't think you have to ask that anymore.
I think they made that pretty clear.
They like any third world migrants and they hate all the native Britons.
And if you look at the chart that's there, the 10 countries are Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Somalia, India, Ghana, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sri Lanka.
That's nine of them.
There's only one country that is European, and that's Poland.
And so that's 200,000 of the 350,000.
The rest of the world is 150,000 immigrants from the rest of the world.
And of course, coming in for the welfare benefits, the welfare magnet that's there.
So Milo Iannopoulos, and I don't normally get into these.
It's amazing to me what a soap opera the conservative alternative media has become.
But they've kind of been angling for this for a long time.
One of the things that I criticized Charlie Kirk for was the fact that he was going around doing a culture war events and he was putting out front a black guy who was a homosexual checking two DEI boxes.
And as he's going around talking about Christ and Christianity, he's sending this conflicting message of supporting homosexual marriage.
And he was called out on it by some people at some of the events.
And he got really furious.
How dare you call this out?
And I said at the time, I said, this, I think, is very revealing because it shows what he's interested in is big tent GOP.
He's interested in getting money from backers and that type of thing.
And to me, it was a real betrayal of all the conservative things that he pays lip service to.
But the entire Republican Party is like that, but especially the alternative media.
And so Milo Ionopoulos has apologized for helping to sell and normalize homosexuality and homosexual marriage.
And where did he do that?
With the alternative media.
Milo says he's become a Christian and rejected that.
And now he is outing a lot of other people that are living this closeted, as they say, lifestyle.
We've seen this for a long time in the Republican Party.
And Milo's point is that homosexuality is rampant but hidden in the GOP.
I mean, there's been reports when they have their large conventions at Grinder.
You can see the spike in Grinder activity, which is a homosexual dating app.
You can see it where they're meeting, geolocation.
And we've seen it in the past.
I mean, the longest serving Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, was put into Congress from being a wrestling coach.
That was his qualification for getting in Congress.
Actually, his qualification wasn't being a wrestling coach.
His qualification was being a pedophile wrestler coach.
And then that lawsuit caught up to him eventually.
But while he was in, there was a paging scandal, not pager, I guess, the pages, the young boys that go to Congress because they want to get experience in politics.
They got a different kind of experience than they were expecting.
And so there was a scandal there with Mark Foley.
And so Dennis Hastert, before all this stuff broke about him, went on with Rush Simba and they just poo-pooed it.
Oh, this is just nothing but partisan politics, just same type of stuff they're doing now with Pete Hegseth and what's happening with the murder of people in international waters.
And so, yes, just partisan politics, nothing to see here.
Except we did see what it was.
And so Milo is saying that, in his opinion, it is everywhere within the GOP.
Now, he might have a bit different perspective on it since he was holding himself forth as a homosexual.
And of course, they're still doing this with Scott Pressler, the guy with really long straight hair.
You may remember him.
He is a favored person for the GOP in terms of representing them.
And they're normalizing this.
And so Milo has rejected that.
And he has apologized for normalizing that, which, by the way, none of the influencers have.
And so, you know, people like Charlie Kirk, people like Alex Jones, have been normalizing this type of thing.
And as a matter of fact, he went on with Tim Poole, who is also playing this game.
Tim Poole had Milo on.
He had George Santos.
Why would you put George Santos on?
Unless it's some kind of a clickbait thing.
And so Milo is making all kinds of statements about all these other conservative influencers, Candace Owen, and even Charlie Kirk and Alex Jones, saying that they were involved in homosexual activity.
So I don't know.
And so already you've had Benny Johnson, who he said that about, said he's going to sue Milo for what he said about that.
He made some very specific statements about it.
All I can say is that, you know, when you look at how they're using this, the people who say that they're for conservative values, that they're for family values, and then they do this kind of stuff.
I mean, it's just, look at, you know, Alex Jones platforming Blair White, this guy who dresses up like a woman.
And so, again, Tim Poole put all that stuff onto his podcast.
All I've got to say about that is the reason I mention this is not to get caught up in all of this gossip and all the rest of this stuff.
But just take these people and look at what they do.
Look at what they do and look at what they say.
Ask yourself, then, why would you trust them?
You know, very interesting.
There was in terms of January the 6th, Trump has, according to some sources, was trashing the people who were, the conspiracy theories around January the 6th.
And then you got people like Nick Fuentes.
It was put up by Shannon Joy yesterday, and I don't have it in the deck here.
But it was footage of Nick Fuentes yelling people, go over there, go over there.
Directing people on January the 6th.
And I've said from the very beginning, why did they not focus, why did they focus on Ray Epps, right?
And not focus on Fuentes, on Alex Jones, and all these people who have been running Stop the Steel, all the people who enticed them to come.
And it's like Ray Epps is there saying, yeah, we've got to go over there.
Well, Fuentes is doing that that day as well.
Why does he get a pass?
Is he a Fed?
The question is, when you look at this stuff, are they selling this stuff for clicks?
Are they selling it because they're being funded by people who want to use them to propagandize you, use them for controlled opposition?
And I think that it really, in the long term, doesn't really matter that much.
They're manipulating you.
They're lying to you.
And that's the key thing that you need to know.
It's a trap in many different ways.
Well, I'm going to take a quick break here because there's something going on.
I need to find out what is happening with this.
And we're going to continue.
When we come back, we're going to talk about a man who died from eating cockroaches.
If people swallow some of this stuff coming from the conservative influencers, I guess somebody is kind of like swallowing cockroaches.
And if you get too much of it, it can be a very bad thing for you.
So we're going to take a quick break, folks, and we will be right back.
You're listening to The David Knight Show.
APS Radio delivers multiple channels of music right to your mobile device.
Get the APS Radio app today and listen wherever you go.
Well, welcome back.
I was trying to figure out what was going on.
Everybody scrambling and running right in and didn't know what the issue was.
It turns out that we had some issues with Rumble streaming.
So that's now been fixed, and we now have everybody back in their proper assigned seats.
So if you want to be on Rumble but went somewhere else, you can now go back to Rumble and watch the show there.
Yes.
Well, as I promised, we're going to talk about something really important here, but I think it is an apt metaphor for our times in a number of ways.
A man's horrifying death as he ate cockroaches in a competition.
And this is just yet another warning.
You probably don't want to get into competitions of drinking and eating stuff, whether it's hot dogs or even water, or especially cockroaches.
But I've talked many times in terms of how dosage is so important.
The woman who was part of a rate, they had a radio contest that was going on, and they thought it'd be funny to give people lots of water and then not let them go to the bathroom.
And a lady died because the water basically, if you get a lot of water, an overdose on water, it will dilute, I think, your blood or something to the extent that it kills you.
And it killed that one woman just in terms of doing a stupid contest.
This guy.
It's stomach lining that dilutes.
Stomach lining, that's the method.
Yeah, and then it just leeches out into your system.
And your body needs water, but it's supposed to stay in its proper place.
Wow.
Well, this guy, 32 years old, collapsed and died as part of a contest.
And guess what the prize was?
A python.
I want that python.
Give me those bugs.
I'll eat the bugs for the snake.
This is a strange barter economy.
He's trying to eat Z-bugs, and he ate too many of Z-bugs.
The interesting thing is when I saw this, I thought, so are these things toxic?
I grew up in Florida where we have really large cockroaches, palmetta bugs that we call them, to try to put a, I think, a nice spin.
Soften the blow a little bit.
Put a nice spin on it, a label.
But they're filthy things.
And so I thought, you know, was it toxic?
No.
It's actually he just respirated cockroach parts.
He was trying to eat them so quickly.
And so he died from asphyxiation, got him stuck in his throat.
His girlfriend said that he had eaten bugs before.
And she was his girlfriend.
There's somebody out there for everyone, guys.
That's right.
Such a pity that he died eating bugs.
He loved eating bugs.
So it involved not just cockroaches, but it had several different rounds of eating different species of insects.
And I don't know if these were the big swans in Florida, but I don't know if it's the big Florida cockroaches and palmetto bugs.
They said they were measuring three or four inches long.
Kind of sucks that he got to the cockroach round and then died there.
Yeah, maybe grasshoppers would have been better.
I don't know.
If what you're consuming can come in a plague, stop eating it.
This might have been the Madagascar roaches or something.
It was three or four inches long.
Anyway.
I feel like those would be too expensive.
Those are pet people want to buy.
Yeah, they said he was eating these things really quickly, and then he began retching.
I guess most of the people thought it would be nothing unusual after eating a bunch of cockroaches that you would start to throw up.
But maybe that's why they evidently didn't give him the Heimlich maneuver.
I don't know.
But in the video, you could see him trying to swallow and breathe at the same time.
We can't do both of those simultaneously.
That's right.
So question from the New York Times is, is Hollywood getting God?
I guess you'd have a t-shirt.
Probably eventually God's wrath.
Yeah.
Instead of got milk, he could say, got God, you know, or something.
But I don't think that they get God.
I don't think they understand God.
I don't think they ever have understood God.
And a good example of this is something that is happening today.
Today is the 60th anniversary, December 9th, 1965, of the airing of the Charlie Brown Christmas special.
And CBS really didn't get God, the whole God thing.
They didn't get the whole Christmas thing either.
It was kind of interesting because it was sponsored by Coca-Cola.
Coca-Cola during the summer of 65, in June, as a matter of fact, came to CBS and said, we want to have a TV special that we want to sponsor.
Well, you know, Coca-Cola doesn't really like Christmas.
It doesn't like Christ and Christmas.
They've done everything they can to put Santa in his place.
And these AI commercials that Coca-Cola has done, they got a lot of criticism for it.
But they scrupulously avoid using the term Christmas having anything to do with Christ.
And so they were going to be the sponsor of this.
And so they said, we're on a really tight schedule.
And there's actually a documentary, in case you're interested, The Making of the Charlie Brown Christmas.
It's a documentary.
Bill Melendez is still around.
And he was the animator.
And so he's one of the key people that they talked to about it.
And they said, we didn't know how we were going to get this thing done.
So they brought in Charles Schultz, who was, they had already picked, said we want to do something with peanuts.
They called him Sparky.
That was his nickname.
And they said he was really incredible as a creative.
He wasn't just a cartoonist.
He was a storyteller.
And he did these things that came out of the woodwork.
Sometimes I would just sit back and like, wow, this guy comes up with great ideas.
And so he was able to put together the outline for the show in less than a day.
They sent the outline to Coca-Cola.
They got on Monday, on Tuesday.
They called up and said they'd do it.
So it had the objectionable scene in it, which was Linus reading the Bible passage from Luke.
But they didn't really catch on to that, evidently.
And so the TV executives, once they got the show delivered to them, were very unhappy with it.
They said they didn't like the kids' voices, which I thought pretty good.
They didn't like the jazz music.
They said, that doesn't fit, which, of course, that has now become a classic.
It's iconic.
Yeah, and they didn't like the Bible being in there.
They thought that was too controversial.
It's like all the things that everybody likes about it.
CBS TV executives hated it.
That's how totally out of touch they are with everything like this.
That's why Hollywood is circling the drain and well on its way to being flushed out because they really don't get it.
Yeah, you're going to have more shows like this now.
In fact, you couldn't even really have them back then most of the time.
This was lightning in a bottle.
Yeah.
Got past them.
That's right.
That's right.
They've been completely out of touch and anti-Christian for decades, probably since inception.
Like 60 years.
Well, yeah, if you look at Hollywood, it was pretty amazing.
There was an interesting BBC series as narrated by James Mason and the actor.
And it was talking about the early days of Hollywood, the silent films.
They called it something about silver screen.
And we had it in our video stores.
It was really interesting.
Because it talked about how they made the movies and why movie stars wear sunglasses.
It's because they were spending all day in these really bright lights, these carbon arc lights that they were using.
I think it was doing a number on their eyes.
And they really needed to get their eyes shaded.
When they went outside, they needed to rest.
A lot of different things like that.
But how the camera, you know, how they would do stunts, everything was real.
I mean, there was no special effects.
They did it for real.
I mean, Lillian Gish is on a ice flow, and she's on a real ice flow.
I mean, this is not a staged thing.
And when they would, the cameraman, how would they keep the steady flow?
I mean, it does look a little bit jerky in terms of the movement and that type of thing.
But the cameramen were picked because they could turn the crank and manually crank the film through the camera at a constant rate.
And so they all had a song that they would sing to themselves, and that would be how they would pace themselves.
But these guys had to keep this stuff up, even when they strapped them to the wing of a biplane or something.
You know, they were up there trolling this thing as they're flying around on the biplane.
And so it was a fascinating series.
But from the inception, you can see just how perverted.
I mean, the whole thing was like Jeffrey Epstein party continuously with all these different people.
That's why they had the Hollywood code that came in.
But they've been completely out of touch with the rest of society from the get-go.
And they don't get it.
But what they do is they manufacture a new reality.
They manufacture a new consent.
They're not reflecting culture.
They're driving culture.
Anyway, and back to this.
In the outline, Schultz Sparky had insisted that there be a scene from the Bible.
And at the time, hardly any TV shows referenced scripture.
The move was very risky.
Mendelssohn said, Bill and I looked at each other and he said, Oh, we don't know if we can animate from the Bible.
It's never been done before.
And Charles Schultz said, Well, if we don't do it, who will?
So they went ahead and did that.
That became part of the famous scene.
This year, again, marks the 60th anniversary of the TV special, December the 9th, 1965, and 7:30.
And it's the 75th anniversary of the Peanuts comic strip.
So he had had that comic strip for about 15 years before they picked him to do the film.
So this is a short segment.
We're going to come back, though, and we're going to talk about the technocracy and some of the mounting problems that driving cars that are going to take over the world.
AI is going to run the world and going to run us, but it can't even navigate the Chick-fil-A drive-through.
They're working on an app for that.
And so we're going to take a quick break.
And Lance, did you put in the Charlie Brown thing?
Yeah, I believe it's called Christmas Time in Christmas Folder.
Okay, yeah.
Let's see if I can get that here.
I got it.
I got it.
Yeah.
All right.
Yeah, we've got a little bit different visuals this year with the help of AI for our Charlie Brown song.
We'll be right back.
You're listening
to THE David Knight SHOW.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Beatles.
And the sweet sounds of Motown.
Find them on the Oldies channel at APSradio.com.
Well, as we talk about what everybody was watching 60 years ago, today the government watches you.
The TV watches you back.
The refrigerator watches you back.
As a matter of fact, there was an interesting kind of funny story that Lance had shown me.
And there was a woman who was suffering from paranoia.
And she had one of these refrigerators that plays commercials all the time.
And it just, and it was a commercial for kind of a sci-fi dystopian film.
And the character in the film had the same name as this woman.
And so the refrigerator starts playing this thing and calls her out by name.
And she thought she was having a psychotic episode here.
But I guess when they're really watching you, maybe it's not psychotic.
And the woman with schizophrenia.
And she got these messages for this TV show in which some group or AI or something is talking to this woman through various devices.
So it's putting up these messages like, sorry, we disappointed you, Carol.
And the woman's named Carol and had been diagnosed as schizophrenic.
So she thought she was having a psychotic break.
Yeah, if I ever get a car that talks to me, I'll have to get the sound bites in there from 2001.
Sorry, Dave, I can't do that.
I was thinking you were going to go, you know, maybe Kit from Knight Rider or something like something less malevolent.
No, no, it had to be malevolent, from my opinion.
Talking about the malevolent use of technology, Axon Enterprise.
This is the company that is the biggest vendor of body cameras for cops.
But of course, they're also famous for developing tasers.
And now what they want to do is, and I thought it was interesting that the number two body camera company was Motorola.
And I said, you know, this is the way everything is going in the world.
You know, because of the government's money, they've taken over all consumer manufacturing and everybody is now catering to the government.
That's their customer.
That's especially going to be true of artificial intelligence.
But it has definitely been true for quite some time in terms of the technology companies that are here.
Even, you know, consumer-based companies started getting into defense contract work because it was so lucrative.
And so the police body cameras are equipped with artificial intelligence, trained to detect the faces of about 7,000 people on a high-risk watch list.
And they're rolling this out in the Canadian city of Edmonton.
I have to ask myself, you know, when you got a, I don't, I should have looked up the population of Edmonton, but when you got in a town, I don't care if it's New York City, if you've got 7,000 people who are dangerous enough that they need to be on the bolo, you know, be on the lookout for, maybe there's something wrong with the government system and the court system that you have these people on the streets in the first place.
So that's my first concern.
Why are 7,000 people being that are that they say are dangerous?
Why are they allowed to be out there?
Then the second issue is that if these people are dangerous enough that they're going to instantly alert the police and say, be careful of this person.
They're very dangerous.
They might be a threat to you.
We've seen that type of thing done, labeling people as sovereign citizens.
Remember how they did that after the, what was it, 2008 or something?
We had Chuck Baldwin and Ron Paul ran for president.
And they were telling police officers with these fusion data centers.
They're telling them that if they pulled a car over and had a bumper sticker supporting Chuck Baldwin or Ron Paul, these people might be sovereign citizens.
They better be on the lookout for them.
And they might try to kill you.
So, you know, you got the police take the safeties off their gun.
They're on the hair trigger here.
And that's a real dangerous thing when you falsely identify people, as they did with that.
These people are not a threat to the police.
But this AI can do the same thing.
This AI can say, this person looks like, I think we've got this particular guy.
And you might be completely innocent.
And you'd be misidentified by artificial intelligence.
And because it's hyping up the police and telling them that you're dangerous, that could threaten you severely.
So we've gone beyond the no-fly list type of stuff.
And so now they want to do this.
So they're running this out as a test in Edmonton.
And I hope the AI is in their ear as they're getting this, just feeding them full metal jacket lines.
You know, show me your war face, just getting them really hyped up, pumped up, ready to go, rock and roll, heavy metal.
Just draw your gun right now.
Pull it on.
Yeah, regardless of the population size, if you've got 7,000 people who truly deserve to be on a terrorist watch list, that's going to be a war zone.
I know.
That's what I'm saying.
I don't know what the population is of Edmonton, but it doesn't really matter.
Even if it's New York City or some large area, 7,000 criminals out there that you've got to alert the police as to how dangerous they are.
That's a crazy situation.
That means that the whole policing and justice system ain't working, folks.
Yeah.
It's like, I'm convinced there's at least 7,000 people in New York that are criminals.
I'm not, like you said, not convinced there are 7,000 criminals in even New York that you need to immediately alert the police on.
That's right.
Yeah, they could be criminals because of something that they do that's not a threat to other people.
Nevertheless, the interesting thing is that this was brought up six years ago by them and also considered by Motorola, who is now the number two provider of police body cameras.
They're both talking about matching this with artificial intelligence and doing a biometric database because although that is much more sophisticated now, they've been working on this type of thing for quite some time.
And so one of the guys who used to be the chair of Axon's ethics board spoke out because he resigned because of unethical behavior from the corporation back in 2019.
He and seven other people resigned from Axon when the CEO had this great idea.
Let's put our tasers on drones.
It's like, it just keeps getting worse when you look at these corporations that are part of the police state industrial complex.
I had this great idea to put tasers on drones.
My entire ethics department quit, but this will be great for our bottom line.
That's right.
So after getting rid of the ethics department with the tasers on drones, now he is free to do artificial intelligence connected up to the police body cameras.
And he said it's not essential to use these technologies, which have very real costs and risks, unless there's some clear indication of the benefits, said the former employee who was there for ethics.
He was the board chair for ethics, Barry Friedman, who is now a law professor at New York University.
The founder and the CEO of Axon, though, says that the Edmonton pilot is not a product launch, but it's an early stage field research that will assess how the technology performs and reveal the safeguards needed to use it responsibly.
So you better believe that if this thing works at all, they'll be selling it.
And they don't really care if it gives false positives, if it identifies you as a criminal.
And testing in real world conditions outside the U.S., we can gather independent insights.
We can strengthen oversight frameworks.
And we can apply those learnings to future evaluations, including within the United States.
So he's testing it outside the U.S.
And believe me, they will sell this as safety for law enforcement officers.
It will be like wildfire, the way everybody will snap this thing up.
So they're in the process right now of making their case for it.
Oh, look, we tested it in Edmonton and it worked great.
We already know how that's going to go.
This is just like the way the pharmaceutical companies test their drugs.
Yeah, look at, here's our study here that we did ourselves to show how safe and effective this is.
So the person who is now the director of responsible AI, they don't call it ethics anymore, said we really wanted to make sure that it's targeted so these folks that's targeting these folks who have serious offenses.
Okay, so again, why are 7,000 people serious offenses at large in Edmonton?
And if it's a serious offense and they misflag you, and they say they have a real issue under certain lighting conditions, they have an issue identifying accurately people with darker skin.
And so this is going to be a disaster.
It's a disaster in the making right here, I think.
I'm beginning to think if they've got 7,000 hardened criminals on the streets, that maybe the Mounties don't always get their man.
They get a man.
Not necessarily the one that they needed.
We can promise you someone is going to prison.
That's right.
Our AI drones aren't all that great at picking out faces in low light, but let's put a whole bunch of tasers on them and send them out in swarms.
If we put out enough of them, eventually things will work out.
Just taser enough people, you'll get the criminals.
Yeah, taser everybody.
We'll sort it out later as they're laying on the ground.
What is that military saying?
Accuracy through volume of fire or something like that.
You don't have to be precise with your shots if you just shoot enough times.
Lethality, not legality, right?
That's the new motto of the Pentagon Pete Department of Defense because they haven't changed the name to War Department yet.
So anyway, they talked to Motorola and Motorola said, well, we took a look at this and we decided not to do it because we thought it'd be unethical.
And we intentionally abstained from deploying this feature.
However, we might do it in the future.
It's because ethics are changing, right?
Morality is up for negotiation, especially if your competitor is doing it.
And so if Axon does it, Motorola will do it and it'll explode and we'll see it everywhere.
And they're all going to be coming to the local mayor, whoever, and say, well, if you won't do this for us, you really don't value our lives because we've had a police officer over here that was killed under these circumstances.
We could have stopped that with this thing.
So it'll be on them.
This is clearly unethical.
We don't want to be the ones pushing it and at the forefront of it, but we'll hold off on it.
That's right.
Studies showing the technology is flawed.
They demonstrate biased results based on race, gender, and age.
What else is there?
Race, gender, and age, that pretty much covers everything, doesn't it?
I suppose if the drone were to sit you down and ask you about your religion, it could discriminate based on that.
Well, it doesn't match the faces that accurately.
So again, it's a real risk to somebody to be given a false positive like this.
All of us would be at risk, even if we're not a criminal.
Several U.S. states and dozens of cities have sought to curtail the police use of facial recognition, although the Trump administration is just fine with it.
And they want to block or discourage states from regulating AI.
You see, if the Trump administration gets its way, you wouldn't be able to pass a state or local ordinance saying we're not going to let the police use that kind of stuff.
It's AI.
You've got to get your hands off of my donors' businesses, right?
They're free to do anything they wish, just like his friends in the pharmaceutical companies are FDA, free to do anything.
And so that's what the Trump administration is really pushing for.
Same thing that was done to protect the glyphosate model, the Roundup model.
The European Union has banned real-time public face scanning police technology across the 27-nation block, except when used for serious crimes like kidnapping or terrorism.
But in the UK, authorities started testing the technology on London streets a decade ago, and they've used it to make 1,300 arrests in the past two years.
The government is considering expanding its use across the country because the UK wants to be the leader in this kind of Orwellian tyranny.
They have seen 1984 as a manual.
Axon doesn't make its own AI model for recognizing faces, and they declined to say which one they're using.
You know, when we look at the UK, the way they have gone into this, gone over to the dark side, maybe it would be a fitting thing for them to just change the name of the country, especially under Kier Sarma.
Remember, under Orwell, it was Ingsock, right?
Like English socialism.
And of course, Kier Starmer is a socialist, so just call it Ingsock.
It's also great that they're not relying on their own model.
So if something goes wrong and these things start tasing people, they have to then send off to some third-party company to go, hey, by the way.
Well, what they like about that, it gives them plausible deniability.
It wasn't us, it was this other company.
And you know, if it's something that's produced by Zuckerberg or Altman or Musk or whatever, you know, the Trump administration is going to give them a pass, even if it makes an egregious error there.
So they said about 50 officers piloting the technology won't know if their facial recognition software made a match.
The outputs will be analyzed later at the station.
However, in the future, it could help police detect if there is potentially a dangerous person nearby so they can call for assistance.
And, you know, with all of this happening, it's kind of interesting.
I went back and watched a little bit of RoboCop because in Detroit, they've just erected a RoboCop statue.
And I thought, why are we honoring this kind of stuff?
I mean, Detroit looks awful in that movie.
You know, they send in mechanized robots to keep order and to use these heavy guns like 209.
Put down the gun.
I said, this is kind of like the Venezuelan boats, right?
Put down the gun.
They put down the gun.
Now I've got five seconds to put down.
And everybody's scrambling because they know this thing's going to unleash fire.
And it just starts shooting him over and over again.
So now they're embracing that.
You do?
Yeah, let's play that.
There it is.
Ed 209.
He's probably got facial recognition technology as well.
He's too...
From the TSA.
Is 209 the iteration number or the number of rounds it's going to pump into your corpse?
I guess.
Enforcement droid. Enforcement droid.
Ed.
209 is currently programmed for urban pacification, but that is only the beginning.
After a successful tour of duty in old Detroit, we can expect 209 to become the hot military product for the next decade.
Dr. McNamara.
We'll lead an arrest subject.
Mr. Kenny.
Yes, sir.
Would you come up and give us a hand, please?
Yes, sir.
Mr. Kinney is going to help us simulate a typical arrest and disarming procedure.
Mr. Kinney, use your gun in a threatening manner.
Pointed at Ed 209.
Yes, sir.
Yeah, Ed doesn't care if you threaten a human.
Just don't threaten that.
Please put down your weapon.
You have 20 seconds to comply.
I think you'd better do what he says, Mr. Kenny.
15 seconds to comply.
You are in direct violence.
Engineers are furiously trying to rip out the electronics.
Yeah, and he just keeps using physical force, so we'll cut it to that point.
But you get the idea.
Pete Hakeseth wants to know where he can get one of these things for Venezuela.
Can I use that?
I have a helicopter.
So anyway, the criminology professor in Alberta says he's not surprised the city is experimenting with live facial recognition, given that the technology is already ubiquitous in airport security.
That's why the TSA is there.
It is training for all of us, right?
And that's what they're training you for, facial recognition right now.
And so, again, they resigned because the Taser-equipped drone, so now they don't have an ethics board.
They're free to do this kind of stuff.
Well, he had NVIDIA CEO Huang goes on with Joe Rogan and has a jaw-dropping AI prediction.
He says, in the future, maybe two or three years only from now, 90% of the world's knowledge will likely be generated by AI.
Well, this is a self-serving prediction, if ever there was one.
If he really believes that, why is he having to do the circular financing of other companies in order to keep pushing his stock higher and higher?
It seems like the market would take care of that.
And so he's involved in circular financing fraud.
And so Rogan says, well, I don't know, that's crazy, he said.
And Huang said, yeah, I know, but it's just fine.
Rogan says, but it's just fine?
Why?
He goes, well, let me tell you why, Wang said.
It's because what difference does it make to me that I'm learning from a textbook that was generated by a bunch of people I didn't know, or knowledge that was generated by AI computers that are assimilating all of these and re-synthesizing things?
To me, I don't think there's a whole lot of difference.
Yeah, as a matter of fact, you can be propagandized by textbook companies and the school board or the government or whatever, or you can be propagandized by our AI.
What is the difference?
And that's the key thing.
You need to look at, you need critical thinking.
You need to look at the source and you need to check it out for yourself.
And that's true before we had AI.
A lot of people didn't do it.
That's why AI is going to be so much more dangerous because people would just trust it because it's coming from the machine.
They're going to assume it's an unbiased source.
Look at this.
It's a robot.
It doesn't have an agenda.
It's not trying to sell me something.
That's right.
It removes the people who are trying to do that one layer and people just forget they exist.
Yeah.
Yeah, the man behind the curtain thing, you know.
So you're interacting with the Wizard of Ozhead that's up there, but you don't realize that there's people behind the curtain that have been hired to program their particular biases and things into these issues that they find important.
No.
I'm sure Grok was just purely truth-seeking when it said that it would be better for humanity to lose 49% of its population than for Elon Musk to die.
These things are purely unbiased truth-seekers.
That's right, that's right.
So again, you know, it is a tool that is ripe for manipulation, says this article, and that's right.
And that's the real key with it.
It's ripe for surveillance and it's ripe for manipulation.
But then again, so are the schools.
So are the textbooks.
So is TV.
So is movies.
So is social media.
These are all tools that are ripe for manipulation.
So in that regard, AI is no different from them.
It's just that people have, over time, some people have got their guard up for these other forms of manipulation and propaganda.
AI is going to come in from a different way.
In a rare show of spine, and this is all critical, right?
This is coming from Steve Watson.
And he's rightfully critical of this and skeptical of this.
But then listen to this.
He says, however, in a rare show of spine from big tech, Huang declared President Trump to be our president and cheered him on.
How is that a show of spine, Watson?
I don't get it.
Look, this evil scumbag is saying Trump is his president.
Isn't that wonderful?
But, you know, he is a sycophant, and he just came from a meeting with Trump where he's looking to make money for his business.
And these guys know that Trump is their ally.
So how is big tech now and the Democrats, they're all good now because for somebody like Steve Watson, they are so embedded in this because they are now kowtowing to the Trump cult.
He's now got a spine.
It's just the opposite.
He looked straight at Joe Rogan.
He said, President Trump is my president.
He is our president.
Just because it's President Trump, many want him to be wrong.
I think the U.S., we all have to realize that he is our president.
And we want him to succeed because it helps everybody, all of us, to succeed.
Well, he certainly is helping all of the AI technocrats to succeed.
Isn't Jensen Wong Taiwanese anyway?
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, again, it's dual citizenship, I guess.
But he is his president if he's going to give him massive subsidies, protect him from any restrictions in terms of his business.
This is what is happening here.
So again, he really focuses, and so do other people, not just Steve Watson.
He's taking this article from a thing that's put up by Vigilant Fox.
These people are, they do the articles, they do the posts, simply because somebody said something good about Trump.
Look, there's a powerful person that says something good about Trump.
And we want Trump to succeed because Trump is our success as well.
Trump is the success of people like Vigilant Fox and Steve Watson, just like he's the success of the technocrats who are going to be getting the government subsidies for these projects and who are going to be protected from any regulation at the state or local level because of Trump.
The remarks come amid Huang's Whirlwind DC tour, where he was bowing and scraping before all these people who are going to take your money, take your freedom, take your dignity, and hand it to these billionaire technocrats, where he huddled with Trump and Senate Republicans to slash export red tape on AI chips, warning that, here it is, patchwork state regulations could cripple U.S. dominance.
They always call it that, patchwork state regulations.
We don't want to have patchwork regulations.
We don't want to have a different approach in different states.
No, we've got to have one ring to rule them all, and that's going to be coming out of Washington.
That gang will tell everybody, and this is a violation of the 10th Amendment, what Trump is pushing for, pushing against patchwork state regulations.
Where does it say in the Constitution that you can subsidize these companies?
Where does it say in the Constitution that we can't have any control over what these companies do in our state?
As a matter of fact, it says just the opposite.
So he's there lobbying for protection from competition and regulation, lobbying for Trump to violate the 10th Amendment.
And you'll get what he wants.
Trump's energy push is defying the green zealots, he says.
That's what Steve Watson says.
This energy push for AI.
Let me tell you something.
People are angry because they see the power rates going up because of this green grift that is out there.
Oh, we got to can only generate power that is created with new devices made by my corporate sponsors.
Well, guess what?
The corporate sponsors of Trump, who are going to be building these, cause massive disruption of the grid in order to feed their AI data centers.
And this AI energy grid requirement is going to drive your prices up further and faster than any of the Green New Deal stuff.
That's the bottom line for us.
You want to pay more for electricity and have less of it?
Well, you know, the Democrats have a plan for that.
It's called solar power and windmills.
If you want to pay more for electricity and have less of it, the Republicans have a plan for that.
It's called AI data centers.
Huang's line of there being no difference between what is coming from the AI and coming from somebody writing a textbook, says Watson, ignores how these ghosts erode the soul, the authenticity, and erode jobs, paving the way for a world that is scripted by code, not by creators.
He talks about that in the context of Solomon Ray, a chart-topping singer that is just done by AI.
Huang's vision thrills, but it demands guardrails.
We don't even have any guardrails on Trump.
We're going to get guardrails on his corporate sponsors.
So it is, as all this is happening, just to put this in perspective of this omnipotent AI, it is a real threat because it is going to be combined with government.
And that's the real threat, the surveillance, the control, the propaganda, and the auditing of all of us all the time.
But when it comes to things like self-driving cars, they're having difficulty getting through the Chick-fil-A drive-through.
And some of them have gotten stuck in it.
And so there's going to be an app for that.
One person looked at this and said, oh, it's a business opportunity.
They've come up with a startup company called Autolane.
And what they want to do is develop a kind of air traffic control system that will be specific to a particular business.
So you get people to come to your Chick-fil-A drive-through if Chick-fil-A does a thing with Autolane.
And the people who don't drive cars who are being driven around in self-driving cars can tell it to go to Chick-fil-A and they'll be able to navigate there without getting caught.
And so they're looking at selling this to a lot of big box retailers, a lot of fast food chains, and even mentioned selling it to some of the big real estate investment trusts that are managing shopping centers or things like that.
And that's where he sees his market.
He said, we don't work on public streets, and we don't work with public parking spots.
So what he wants to do is he wants to partner with these private businesses so they can say that they are self-driving car friendly.
This is the pathetic world that we are headed into here.
We've gone from London taxi drivers who could keep the destinations in London in their head and had this massive hypo part of their brain, whatever it was.
I don't remember.
Hippocampus.
Yeah, it might have been hippocampus, yeah.
I don't know which part got larger, actually.
I started to say it, but I don't know if that was the part that got larger.
But, you know, we have our shrinking brains because our responsibilities are shrinking and we're using them less.
And so it turns out, they said American roads are not too friendly to self-driving cars and they're not friendly to pedestrians.
You can tell this is coming from the perspective of an urban planner.
They love cities.
They love people walking.
They hate cars because cars are used by people to get out of the cities as fast as they can.
They want to keep people.
They have a lot of difference between the London streets and memorizing all that and being able to navigate a Chick-fil-A parking lot drive-through.
That's right.
The founder described the company as one of the first application layer companies in the self-driving vehicle industry.
He says, well, we're not going to build the car.
We're not going to navigate it on the road.
What we would do is we'd have a special app that gets layered on top of it.
We aren't the fundamental models.
We're not building the cars, doing anything like that.
We're simply saying as the industry grows, has exponential rates, someone is going to have to sit in the middle and orchestrate, coordinate, and kind of evaluate what's going on.
And when I saw this, like air traffic control, I remember a discussion that we had, Eric Peters and I years ago when we were wargaming out this, where this AI thing is headed for self-driving cars.
And Eric was right.
He said these things don't handle interaction with human beings that well.
So we're going to have to eliminate human beings because that's our first priority is to get the AI and the self-driving stuff out there.
And so if there's a problem between AI and humans, the humans have to go, which means human drivers have to go.
He said, you stop and think about it.
You have air traffic control at the airports to make sure these planes don't collide.
And they keep big distances between themselves.
And, you know, big distances vertically as well as in their same plane.
And so he said, how's that going to work with artificial with the self-driving cars?
You're going to have to get most of the cars off the road and or they're all going to have to be self-driving cars so they can communicate with each other.
You know, if they can communicate with each other, you can get them doing the, forget what they call it, it's like a caravanning thing or something where they get the cars get right up against each other, bumper to bumper, because they're communicating simultaneously.
And whatever the front car sees, it can instantaneously apply that to all the cars in the row.
And so it's like caravanning or something like that.
But they sell that as a feature once they get all the humans off the road.
And so now they're starting to talk about the air traffic control model.
Yeah, we're going to have complete control of all the cars here.
Well, just guess what?
You know, when they set this thing up and they've got all the self-driving cars going through the drive-through, it's not going to be very friendly for you.
And so they're gradually going to squeeze you out of it.
I think another important thing to focus on is just you have a right to travel.
You have a right to, you know, freely travel without impediment.
Eventually, in my life.
That's something they've been telling us for the longest time.
You didn't need to have a driver's license because driving is a privilege.
It's not a privilege.
It's a right.
I mean, if you're doing it commercially, they can regulate it.
They should not be regulating anything.
We shouldn't have to have driver's licenses to drive around.
I'm with the guys who are the sovereign citizens pushing back against this.
I just know, however, that you're not going to win in court because the courts are rigged, so don't go down that road.
But anyway, they're right in principle.
Yeah, if you focus on the fact that they're unsafe, that they do stupid things, eventually they will reach a point where they don't anymore.
These things will eventually probably become statistically safer than the average driver because of the number of idiots we have on the road.
And if you focus on the safety aspect, eventually that'll go away and you won't have an argument anymore.
You have to focus on the fact that it is your right as a human being to travel and drive yourself and control your own destiny in that sense.
The freedom and dignity.
And again, when you look at human drivers, how much of the ding against human drivers is really a ding against drunk drivers, right?
And I'm worlders that don't speak English.
Yeah.
I'm tired of being lumped in with the drunk drivers and having to be stopped on the road to make sure that I'm sober.
And so what they're doing is they're lumping me in with the drunk drivers again to say that the machines are safer.
They had a Waymo this year that got stuck in one of Chick-fil-A's fast food cul-de-sacs.
It couldn't find its way out.
But that's nothing new, actually.
They're getting stuck in a lot of different places that are there.
So yeah.
I've told this story before, but one of the last times we went to North Carolina used to visit some friends.
As we're coming back, I looked over and there's a woman in Tesla.
She's got her phone in her hand and she's picking her nose with the other one.
And she is just completely checked out.
She's not looking at the road.
She's not paying any attention.
And I personally can believe that possibly the self-driving feature on that car is more attentive and better equipped than she is.
Well, if she didn't have self-driving, she'd have to at least have one handling car.
She'd have to pick one when she wants to.
Do you want to look at your phone or you want to pick your nose and drive?
Do you have my nose or pick my phone?
Which one do I do?
The thing is, they know that's not a good driver currently.
So they say, oh, well, you've got to be alert and aware and ready to take over when it inevitably tries to kill someone.
But these people just say, oh, well, it's going to drive itself.
So therefore, I can, you know, play on my phone and pick my nose and not worry about any of it.
And that's the worst possible circumstance under which it can throw it back to you.
You have an emergency that's quickly developing on the highway.
Here, you take the wheel.
That's what happened when that was.
I have royally screwed up everything.
I have made a horrible mistake.
Here you go.
Enjoy your last three seconds of life.
I've turned into oncoming traffic.
This is a disaster.
I am so sorry.
That's right.
And then, you know, Tesla looks at it and says, well, it was under manual control when the accident occurred.
That was the case of that woman who was killed in Phoenix.
She was a homeless woman pushing a grocery cart across the road in the dark.
And the person who was a human driver couldn't see her.
She was jaywalking.
Probably would have hit her anyway.
But everybody was saying, why didn't the AI put on the brakes?
And I said, well, because it kept deploying these emergency brakes without there being a reason, and it got really dangerous.
So we turned off the emergency braking system.
And so it saw this person at the last minute and throws it back to the woman.
And she's playing with her phone or whatever.
And she can't handle it either.
Well, Google's AI has deleted a user's entire hard drive.
That's how they get the metrics that show that these things are so safe is because they always throw them over and don't count it as an accident from the car.
It's an accident from the driver.
That's right.
Not my responsibility, right?
So, yeah, Google AI has now deleted a user's entire hard drive.
You know, we had this, we had this story once before, and it was an entire company.
Remember that?
Yeah.
I just deleted everything, all of your business records, all of your customer records, everything.
I did it.
Yeah, I'm sorry I did it.
You know, that's what this one is saying.
You even told me not to do that.
Yeah, you're right.
Yeah, you said don't do that, but I did it anyway.
I cannot express how sorry I am that I've deleted all your data.
Well, we can only hope that that happens once they put the government, put it, give the government databases to the AI.
Perhaps it'll just delete it all.
That would be nice, wouldn't it?
We can hope and dream.
Yeah, we're going to take a quick break, folks, and we will be right back.
You're listening to The David Knight Show.
the david knight show if you like the eagles the cars And Healy Lewis in the news.
This ain't the hard rocker or something.
You'll love the Classic Hits channel at APS Radio.
Download our app or listen now at APSRadio.com.
Well, welcome back, folks.
We've got a lot of comments.
Stealth Patriot, thank you very much for the tip.
He says, do you think the AI police surveillance state and self-driving cars is the infrastructure the Trump supporters thought they were promised?
They're tired of winning.
I haven't seen any of them put this stuff up and say, I voted for this.
I voted for Ed 209.
Is that it?
Ed 209.
I voted for Ed.
No, I didn't.
But I'm afraid that's what we're going to get.
That's why, I don't think we got that in the board anymore, do we?
That apocalypse now thing, the animation of the Trump meme.
I literally just took it out yesterday.
Yeah, that's why I went with that, because it's not just the wars that he's starting unnecessarily, but it's the war that he wants to have domestically.
And I think when you look at what's going on in Venezuela and you look at these flimsy lies that they're putting out, well, these people are running drugs, and that's a threat.
That's a violent threat to us.
That is as absurd, folks, as the left saying to you that speech is violence.
Drugs are not violence.
Drugs are a black market.
And when you create a black market monopoly, you will get violent gangs who will compete with each other.
And yet they're using that to say that it is violence.
It's their prohibition that is violence.
The drugs are harmful.
And I don't recommend anybody take them.
I just know that we already had this experiment once we did it legally with alcohol.
And it was a massive failure.
But he's using that.
If you use those arguments, they're being used by the Pentagon.
Those same arguments could be used and will be used, I think, to do violence on the street to people without due process.
In the same way that his hero, Duterte in the Philippines, did that on the streets of the Philippines.
He wants to do that here.
Go ahead, read this.
And when you gave me that ED 209 clip to put in, I thought that was in reference to the attacks on the drug boats, allegedly, after they dropped the drugs.
Yeah, you have five seconds to drop the cocaine to get off the boat.
Are you trying to float in the river?
Yeah.
We will open fire in 40 minutes.
Yeah, so evidently, from what we're told, the only way these people could have not been killed was if they decided that they were going to swim back to shore.
If they tried to float on the boat, then that's a threat.