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 and 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 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.
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 Symbol.
And they just poo-pooed it.
Oh, this is just nothing but partisan politics.
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, yeah, it's 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 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 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 the 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, a 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, you know, yelling people, go over there, go over there.
You know, 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 had been running Stop the Steel, all the people who enticed them to come.
And, you know, 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's scrambling and running around in.
I didn't know what the issue was.
It turns out that we had some issues with Rumble streaming, so that's now been fixed, and we now have everybody back in their proper assigned seats.
So if you want to be on Rumble but went somewhere else, you can now go back to Rumble and watch the show there.
Yes.
Well, as I promised, we're going to talk about 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 who lives in.
He's trying to eat Z-bugs, and he ate too many of Z-bugs.
The interesting thing is when I saw this, I thought, so are these things toxic?
I grew up in Florida where we have really large cockroaches, 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's trying to eat them so quickly.
And so he died from asphyxiation, got him stuck in his throat.
His girlfriend said that he had eaten bugs before.
And she was his girlfriend.
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'd be nothing unusual after eating a bunch of cockroaches that you would start to throw up.
But maybe that's why they evidently didn't give him the Heimlich maneuver.
I don't know.
But in the video, you can see him trying to swallow and breathe at the same time.
We can't do both of those simultaneously.
That's right.
So question from the New York Times is, is Hollywood getting God?
I guess you'd have a t-shirt.
Probably eventually 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's talking about the early days of Hollywood, the silent films.
They called it something about silver screen.
And we had it in our video stores.
It was really interesting.
Because it talked about how they made the movies and why movie stars wear sunglasses because they were spending all day in these really bright lights, these carbon arc lights that they were using.
I think 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, 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 an 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 rolling 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 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 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.
Elvis.
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 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.
It was a woman with schizophrenia.
And she got these messages for this TV show in which some group or AI or something is talking to this woman through various devices.
So it's putting up these messages like, sorry, we disappointed you, Carol.
And the woman's named Carol and had been diagnosed as schizophrenic.
So she thought she was having a psychotic break.
Yeah, if I ever get a car that talks to me, I'll have to get the sound bites in there from 2001.
Sorry, Dave, I can't do that.
I was thinking you were going to go, 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, I'm 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 allowed that they say are dangerous?
Why are they allowed to be out there?
Then the second issue is that if these people are dangerous enough that they're going to instantly alert the police and say, be careful of this person.
They're very dangerous.
They might be a threat to you.
We've seen that type of thing done, labeling people as sovereign citizens.
Remember how they did that after the, what was it, 2008 or something, where you had Chuck Baldwin and Ron Paul ran for president?
And they were telling police officers with these fusion data centers, they were telling them that if they pulled a car over and had a bumper sticker supporting Chuck Baldwin or Ron Paul, these people might be sovereign citizens.
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 it.
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 was New York City or some large age, 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 is 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 of 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 in 7 million 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 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, Keir 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.
Is two...
From the TSA.
Is 209 the iteration number or the number of rounds it's going to pump into your corpse?
Let me guess.
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're leading the rest 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.
I 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.
Team Sanctify!
You are in direct violence.
Engineers are furiously trying to rip out the electronics engine.
We are in the energy face!
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 out of a helicopter?
So anyway, the criminology professor in Alberta says he's not surprised the city is experimenting with live facial recognition, given that 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 of 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 we 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 will just trust it because it's coming from the machine.
They're going to assume it's an unbiased source.
Like, oh, look at this.
It's a robot.
It doesn't have an agenda.
It's not trying to sell me something.
That's right.
It removes the people who are trying to do that one layer and people just forget they exist.
Yeah.
Yeah, the man behind the curtain thing, you know.
So you're interacting with the Wizard of Oz head that's up there, but you don't realize that 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, that's dual citizenship, I guess.
But he is his president if he's going to give him massive subsidies, protect him from any restrictions in terms of his business.
This is what is happening here.
So again, he really focuses, and so do other people, not just Steve Watson.
He's taken this article from a thing that's put up by Vigilant Fox.
These people are, they do the articles, they do the posts, simply because somebody said something good about Trump.
Look, 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 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 it'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.
I'm 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, that's a business opportunity.
They've come up with a startup company called Auto Lane.
And what they want to do is develop a kind of air traffic control system that will be specific to a particular business.
So you get people to come to your Chick-fil-A drive-through if Chick-fil-A does a thing with Auto-Lane.
And the people who don't drive cars who are being driven around in self-driving cars can tell it to go to Chick-fil-A and they'll be able to navigate there without getting caught.
And so they're looking at selling this to a lot of big box retailers, a lot of fast food chains, and even mentioned selling it to some of the big real estate investment trusts that are managing shopping centers or things like that.
And that's where he sees his market.
He said, we don't work on public streets, and we don't work with public parking spots.
So what he wants to do is he wants to partner with these private businesses so they can say that they are self-driving car friendly.
This is the pathetic world that we are headed into here.
We've gone from London taxi drivers who could keep the destinations in London in their head and had this massive hypocal part of their brain, whatever it was.
I don't remember.
Hippocampus.
Yeah, it might have been hippocampus, yeah.
I don't know which part got larger, actually.
I started to say it, but I don't know if that was the part that got larger.
But, you know, we have our shrinking brains because our responsibilities are shrinking and we're using them less.
And so 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 cities as fast as they can.
It's a big 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 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 the airports to make sure these planes don't collide and they keep big distances between themselves and big distances vertically as well as in their same plane.
And so he said, how's that going to work with artificial with the self-driving cars?
You're going to have to get most of the cars off the road and or they're all going to have to be self-driving cars so they can communicate with each other.
You know, if they can communicate with each other, you can get them doing the, 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 opinion.
That's something they've been telling us for the longest time.
You need to have a driver's license because driving is a privilege.
It's not a privilege.
It's a right.
I mean, if you're doing it commercially, they can regulate it.
They should not be regulating anything.
We shouldn't have to have driver's licenses to drive around.
I'm with the guys who are the sovereign citizens pushing back against this.
I just know, however, that you're not going to win in court because the courts are rigged, so don't go down that road.
But anyway, they're right in the 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 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?
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 play on my phone and pick my nose and not worry about any of it.
And that's the worst possible circumstance under which you 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 there 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.
And now, The David Knight Show.
If you like the Eagles, on a dark desert highway, the cars, And Healy Lewis in the news.
This ain't the hot 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?
I'll bet they're tired of winning.
I haven't seen any of them put this stuff up and say, I voted for this.
I voted for Ed 209.
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, we got remotes.
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 on 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.
Thankfully, I'm pretty sure that the quantity of poison in a roach would not actually negatively impact you based on your size.
However, just gross.
Gross.
It is also a roach eating contest.
You get enough of those guys with poison.
Hopefully they weren't just out there collecting roaches off the ground.
Hopefully these were specifically procured roaches.
Since this is a reptile store, I'm assuming that these are like the Madagascar cockroaches because it said they were three to four inches big.
I'm assuming that it was a Burmese python or something.
Maybe they made those out.
I think they may have.
Well, I know for a fact that, you know, as a general rule, if you're going to keep a Burmese python, you need a specifically set up enclosure because that thing is going to get massive.
And if you don't have one, you are eventually just going to end up getting rid of it.
Probably releasing it into the Everglades.
Narrow way, narrow gate ministries.
How disgusting.
Cockroaches are filled with all sorts of bacteria and diseases.
Under the Levitical laws, Levitical eating laws, only locusts and grasshoppers are clean to eat.
All their flying creeping are unclean, and you shall not eat.
That's what I say.
I always tease my family because they like lobster.
And I said, I don't eat water filters.
These are the, you know, what's in the Levitical law.
That's one of the other things I think is kind of interesting.
How did Moses know that these things that are scavengers that are eating waste and anything like cockroaches or the shellfish and things like that?
How'd he know that that would be harmful for you?
So you can look at it and say, well, I'm told I can't do this.
Or the other way you can look at it is, you know, God is telling them, you know, don't eat this stuff and you won't get the diseases that the Egyptians get when they eat this kind of stuff.
Stay away from the water filters.
Delicious water bugs.
High Boost, new Stephen King movie, Concept of Christine, but it's an AI smart fridge.
It works for ice.
Beware of your smart refrigerators.
They work for ice.
Seems like you're buying a lot of tamales there, friend.
Perhaps we need to report you.
I mean, I think the AI smart fridges are already about as evil as they could possibly be.
Yeah.
They're already spying on you.
They're doing everything that they have the capability to do except for spoiling your food that they can do that is against you.
You know, it was about a decade ago that Betraeus, Petraeus, I've called him Betreus so much that I but Petraeus went from the military to the CIA.
And he made that statement.
He said, your refrigerators are going to be smart and they're going to be spying on you, that type of thing.
We talked about that and everybody, oh, you conspiracy theorist and everything.
It wasn't a conspiracy theory.
It was a conspiracy, but it wasn't a theory.
He had said they were going to do it.
And now we see it everywhere, don't we?
It's amazing.
Real Jason Barker says, my wife wants a new TV and we cannot find one that does not have the smart features anywhere.
Yeah.
It's a huge nuisance.
They're completely and utterly just, they don't do anything useful.
They're obnoxious.
They get in the way.
You're going to have to go back to an old CRT TV if you want to avoid them at this point.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I was going to say, you just make sure that it's not connected to the internet, but unlike your thermostat or something like that, you do need to connect the TV to the internet.
That's the problem.
They got you there.
Yeah.
I'm becoming convinced that 4-3 is actually the superior aspect ratio for TV viewing.
Why is that?
It's cozier.
It focuses the view.
You don't have all this extraneous information on the outside of the screen.
If you're looking for something like an IMAX that's a spectacle, maybe that's what you want.
But for TV shows, it's a bit cozier.
It's a bit comfier.
You've got your little cast there, and you're focused on them.
You don't have to worry about all this nonsense on the periphery.
I thought you were going to say it's because 4-3 doesn't spy on you.
Yeah, I prefer the black and white stuff, actually, if I'm going to watch TV, I guess.
Yeah, aesthetics reasons.
Real Jason Barker, all the new TVs listen to you.
They have Alexa or other voice functions.
I hate talking to robots.
I refuse to.
Guard Goldsmith.
I remember reading that Charlie was based on Charles Schultz's own younger days and personality, and that he eventually married that red-haired girl.
Very nice.
That's great.
Good for him.
Yeah.
He was a cool guy.
I liked him a lot.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Very relaxed guy, like, what was the guy, Mr. Roberts or something?
Mr. Roger?
Rogers, yeah, Rogers.
Mr. Rogers' neighborhood.
Yeah.
Yeah.
As a matter of fact, they have brought him back with AI so that he's doing all kinds of things that really the original character would not do.
So he's part of the, as Sora was coming back, they were doing all these things with Stephen Hawkins doing races in his wheelchair and things like that.
But the stuff that they did with Mr. Rogers was, I think, even funnier.
So go ahead.
Brian and Deb McCartney says, you cannot reason with a robot.
And that's right.
You just have to work them down.
Guard Goldsmith says, did you see the Waymo cars that have been passing school buses that are releasing kids?
Time for a code check.
I guess it doesn't recognize the law or the yellow paint because that's what keeps the school buses safe, right?
You don't have to have seat belts.
There's no safety devices in there.
There's no airbags, no seatbelts, nothing.
It's just they're covered with yellow paint and they're covered with laws.
And maybe it's hard for it to see it.
You know, they had these things keep hitting.
It's interesting.
It's almost like somebody is sabotaging them.
They have a propensity to hit fire trucks, police trucks, and to threaten school buses.
But it's okay.
They're safer than we are, right?
And we should have more of them.
Real Jason Barker says, Do the AI and data centers actually consume the water or just require initial filling of a closed-loop system like your car uses?
Yeah, I don't know.
I mean, it's they, you know, they're using it for cooling.
And they put these power plants, you know, on the edge of bodies of water for quite some time to recycle it through.
So I don't really know.
It seems like you'd be able to recover that.
But who knows?
Yeah, well, I saw something that was saying it's different from just power plants because these things require cleaner water.
So it's essentially taking up water that has been purified and treated that could be used as drinking water and running it through their system where I suppose it evaporates off and then they have to or maybe it's just no longer drinking water.
And so that's what they mean by consuming water, right?
So you had some purified water that had been treated or something and had fluoride in it.
What happens when the AI centers consume fluoride?
Do they get stupid as well?
I don't know.
I can't wait for the tech cults to emerge and they'll just be selling you the holy water that was used to cool the AI data center.
Drink, drink the water.
Real Jason read that one.
Fonzie Bear, minority report cars always looked like what they want.
Minority report cars always looked like what they want to come to be.
Yeah, the weird little bubbles that are completely unstylish, uncool.
Yeah.
Minority report, another pretty good movie.
It's a very communist aesthetic to a car.
It's sort of like the car equivalent of wearing pajamas and a jump or a jumpsuit everywhere.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And where do we wear pajamas now everywhere?
Everywhere.
TSA.
The TSA.
Everybody goes and they fly because they've imposed that kind of authoritarianism on us.
Niburu 2029.
Self-driving cars will drive auto insurance rates beyond affordability.
That's right.
You want to drive your own car?
Well, sorry, buddy.
You're going to have to pay through the nose.
Well, I'll be treated like teen drivers.
When I was getting my first car, there were a few of them I was looking at.
Of course, you know, as a guy, you're looking at some of the nicer low-end sports cars, things like the Scion FRS.
And the insurance on that thing was going to be ludicrous.
It would have been a massive, like a substantial portion of the car's actual cost per year to insure that.
Because, again, young guys get that.
And they just wrap it around telephone poles non-stop.
So you got a Nissan 300 twin turbo.
Yep, it was great.
Insurance rates on that are nothing, right?
Well, I mean, considering how infrequently that thing ran.
Yeah, that's true.
Didn't have to have it insured.
Yeah, I had a friend I worked with who was into one of these Rice Rocket motorcycles, right?
And it's a really fast motorcycle.
And it was expensive.
I mean, it was just under $20,000.
But he said the insurance was going to be prohibitive.
He said, they're charging me so much insurance.
I could buy a new one of these like every year or two.
And he goes, how do you justify that?
He goes, and I'm not even a threat to anybody else, really, with this motorcycle.
You know, we're going to get a big bill.
It's like, you know, they don't have to pay for the people that I hit for the most part.
You're just going to scrape me off of it.
That's the thing is just, if you're on the motorcycle, if you have an accident, you may not even need insurance.
You may go beyond your necessary mortal concerns if you have an accident on a motorcycle.
Very much more likely to happen, in my opinion.
Jerry Alitalo, state suppose artificial intelligence, autonomous warfare, minority report surveillance, and other horrific aspects of technocracy and transhumanism stand in the way of American dystopia.
R plus excuse.
Another interesting thing is the minority report video game from way back in the day was actually pretty good.
Didn't follow the TV story, but it was still entertaining.
It was just like a beat-em-up, shoot-em-up.
Don't frag me, bro.
The false promise of safety and security is the oldest argument by tyrants for peasants to give up their freedom.
Pezonovante, 1776, just like they lumped the criminal misuse of firearms with firearms owners.
Yeah, reference to the drunk drivers being counted and determining how safe human drivers are.
Yeah, that's right.
Yeah.
You shouldn't be allowed to have a gun because criminals shoot people.
And it's like, oh, well, people defend life with that as well.
Well, you know, Trump has finally come around.
Remember, they were talking for the longest time about how they were going to help the farmers that he had hurt with the tariffs.
Don't worry, help is on the way.
Yeah, we just gave $20 billion to Argentina, and they used that to set up a deal with China.
So China doesn't buy our agricultural products anymore.
They get the soy directly from Argentina.
And that was a massive double cross of the farmers.
Trump had already betrayed the farmers in his first administration with tariff rates that caused them to not be able to sell their products.
But then he doubled down with this and said, well, we gave $20 billion to Argentina, and we got another $20 billion that we're going to put together with people on Wall Street.
So altogether, we're going to give them $40 billion.
Don't worry, we'll give you $12 billion someday.
Well, that was back in September.
Here we are in December, three months later.
And now he's talking about it being imminent.
I'm delighted to announce this afternoon that the United States will be taking a second portion of the hundreds of billions of dollars we receive in tariffs.
We are making a lot of money from countries that took advantage of us for years.
They took advantage of us.
Like, nobody's ever seen our deficits are way down.
You took advantage of the farmers who voted for him.
Because of the election.
Because without the election, you wouldn't have tariffs.
You'd be sitting here losing your shirt.
But we're taking in billions.
We're really taking in trillions of dollars if you think about it, Scott, because the real numbers, you know, when you think of all the money being poured into the country for new auto plants and all of the other things, AI.
So what we're going to take in a relatively small portion of that, and we're going to be giving and providing it to the farmers in economic assistance, and we love our farmers.
And as you know, the farmers like me, because, you know, based on voting trends, you could call it voting trends.
All right, that's enough of the lies.
All of that is a lie, okay?
And we're making trillions of dollars, but I'm going to give them $12 billion.
Even if it were true, he'd be reprehensible because he's going to give them one thousandth of what he's bringing in and wait for months and months as these guys are circling the drain, struggling to survive.
This is America last, folks.
This is not America first.
Trump says the $12 billion bailout plan for farmers will come from the tariff revenue.
You know, this is one of the most amazing things.
This is better, actually.
Tariffs, why didn't we think of this before?
This is better than the Federal Reserve.
This is better than the Democrats' modern monetary theory, where we just have this magic money tree that we can print the money and it doesn't make any difference and the deficits don't make any difference.
You know, we just create money and wealth out of thin air.
It's even better than the Federal Reserve thing because they're getting in all of this revenue and it isn't raising anybody's prices, right?
It's not hurting any manufacturing or farmers here in this country, except that it is.
And apart from the arguments about how the taxes should be structured, the worst thing about Trump's tariffs has and remains the capricious, arbitrary, continually shifting environment that it's created, making it impossible for people to be able to do business, whether you're a manufacturer, whether you are a retailer importing stuff, or whether you are a farmer.
This has been absolutely chaotic.
As I pointed out before, we have the Chicago Commodities Exchange because farmers needed to have a way to make sure that they knew what their price was going to be.
They could lock that in in the future.
And so that's why you have the commodity futures market.
And yet what Trump has done is he's taken all that away.
I guess we could say that with the Trump capricious, arbitrary, ever-changing tariff policy, there is no futures for any of us because what he's taken away.
The package includes $11 billion in a one-time payment to crop farmers.
And by the way, there's this interesting little thing there from the Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rawlins saying, yeah, we're going to get these things out in February of 2026.
So it's still not coming.
He's waited three months.
You know, they hinted at it.
You had Scott Besant hinting at it.
Trump announces it, but it's actually going to be going out from what I could see based on what Brooke Rollins said.
It won't happen for another two months yet.
So they're going to go half a year with this.
So the aid package comes as the U.S.-China trade war has hit soybean farmers especially hard.
I would just say that's the Trump trade war.
China had blocked all purchases of soybeans from the U.S. China was the biggest buyer of U.S. soybeans in 2024, accounting for $12.5 billion in sales.
China agreed to purchase 12 million metric tons of soybeans now in the final two months of this year, and 25 million metric tons in 2026, 27, and 28, on par with levels before the trade war.
But what CBS does not say, I'm sorry, this is ABC, not CBS, at what price?
You know, it was a double whammy from Trump.
Not only did he cut off their biggest customer, but that created a glut of soybeans on the domestic market, and it took the price down.
So the question is, at what price do they get this stuff?
That actually matters.
It's amazing they don't even think about that.
But what they're doing is, even though it's ABC, they're just kind of whoever wrote this thing is just going with the talking points of the Trump administration.
So far, China has purchased only 2.5 million metric tons of soybeans, not the 12.
So they've got a lot of catching up to do here.
The administration's new actions also come on the heels of the administration's $20 billion bailout of Argentina, which Scott Besant said he was going to make at 40 in terms of helping put together some private funds.
A move that many American farmers and lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle criticize this fall as China stopped buying all soybeans from U.S. farmers.
It purchased soybeans from Argentina instead.
So the U.S. was giving a financial lifeline to Argentina, a country that directly benefited from the trade war.
American farmers said they felt left behind.
And at the time, Chuck Grassley in Iowa said farmers are very upset about Argentina selling soybeans to China right after the U.S. bailed out, and there's still zero U.S. soybeans sold to China.
And that was back in September.
And it's taken them this long to firm up their promises, but still not to help the farmers.
Trump at his first term also took action to bail out American farmers, except that he'd already bailed them in to his tariff regime.
He'd already hurt them.
This is like somebody breaking your legs and then giving you a wheelchair and boasting about the wheelchair they gave you.
His administration approved two packages in 2018 and 19, totaling $28 billion for farmers impacted by his economic policies.
Many of them were saying, well, he nearly put us out of business with these tariff policies.
Now he's putting us out of business with the COVID lockdown.
So again, that announcement was made yesterday.
So meanwhile, the run-up in soybean futures over the past month over a resolution with China, crop prices are still close to 2020 lows.
Now, this is zero hedge.
This ABC didn't even think about the price aspect of it.
That's the all-important thing.
You go out and you make a deal with China.
And let's say, you know, I don't have any idea what soybeans cost or what quantity they sell, man.
Let's say they, we'll call it a widget.
You put them in a widget.
I don't know if it's a basket or barrel or whatever, a bushel or whatever.
But you got a widget full of soybeans that goes for $10.
Then after this, he wants to make a deal and wants to show that he's getting them back up buying soybeans.
And they agree to it.
So what did he do to get them to agree to it?
Did he say, well, now you can buy the same quantity of stuff, but we'll sell you these soybeans at $5 per widget full of soy stuff.
So again, they're taking advantage of the low cost right now.
Is that what they're doing?
So as they announce this, Trump is saying this wouldn't be possible.
This money would not be possible without tariffs.
Here's the truth, folks.
It wouldn't be necessary without tariffs.
He wouldn't have to give them a bailout if he hadn't bailed them into his Trump trade war.
You know, these farmers that are suffering from the tariffs, well, if helped the tariffs, I wouldn't have had the money to give them a piece of it.
I've taxed these people to death, and now I'll dole out a small amount back to them.
That wouldn't be possible if I hadn't taxed them to death in the first place.
That's right.
And here's why I say it's not going to happen until 2026.
This is CNN reporting now.
It says, Rollins said the money would be flowing by February the 28th, 2026, the very last day of February.
We're going to get the money flowing.
So we'll make the first payment in three months now.
And explained that $1 billion of the funding is being held back to make sure all specialty crops are covered.
She credited Trump for opening the markets through trade deals without directly acknowledging how tariffs have impacted farmers.
Again, you close the markets and now you open it.
And so now you pat yourself on the back for opening the market that was open before you closed it.
All this is based on a lie.
And so what you've been able to do is to open those markets up again and move towards an era where our farmers are not so reliant on government checks.
Here's the bottom line.
He was just boasting about the fact that after he disrupted the sale of the market sale of soybeans at market prices to China, after he messed with the market price, after he closed it off and shut it to zero, now he's going to open it back up and they're going to purchase it at levels that they were buying before he started any of this nonsense.
Just amazing.
Are you tired of the winning?
I'm tired of the whining about all of this stuff and the fact that he is lying to everybody about this.
Some farmers have previously bailed at the idea of aid.
Mark Reed, a director for the Illinois Soybean Association, said, farmers don't want free aid.
We want free trade.
There you go.
That's what they had before he messed with it.
Well, Reason says the Trump tariffs have failed to reduce the trade deficits.
How should we assess whether the Trump tariffs have been effective or successful?
Well, it's an important question.
Trump has outlined overlapping and confusing and sometimes competing goals for the tariffs.
He has celebrated them as a source of government revenue, for example.
But he's also claimed that they're meant as a negotiating tactic.
They can't be both.
Tariffs used for negotiation are meant to be removed once the negotiations are complete.
He's also said, they don't mention it here, but he's also said, we're going to use the tariffs to make sure that manufacturing moves back to America.
And look at all the windfall profit that we're going to make.
Well, again, you can't have both of those.
You're either going to use it for negotiations and then take it off, or you're going to use it to get businesses to come back, if that's your goal, to get businesses to come back and do manufacturing here domestically.
But if they do manufacturing domestically, then your tariff revenue goes away.
So he's always putting out these contradictory ideas, and everybody grabs whatever they want.
They think, well, he's going to make so much money, we're going to get rid of the income tax.
That's floating around again as well, thanks to Trump.
Except that he's talking about how he's going to make all these different tax changes that he's done permanent.
And so that you might want to think about what he's actually saying here.
There's also the fact just that I don't see the government generating revenue as a win.
No, there's no if we had a government that was actually, you know, working on building infrastructure, even that I don't necessarily think that's the government's place to do that.
But you could at least make that sound good.
Like, oh, we're going to build better roads.
We're going to build nicer parks.
We're going to build really cool.
He's going to hand money to his friends.
Instead, it's going to go to his friends and it's going to go into the military-industrial complex.
And the police state-industrial complex and the surveillance-state-industrial complex.
The government is not going to do anything that will benefit the common citizen with it.
And again, you know, it's not their place to do that, I don't think.
But at least then you would be getting some benefit, some useful.
There's no planned benefit for it.
And we don't want to see the government taking more and more control of the economy, but Trump does.
Trump tariffs are a solution to every problem, and the trade war is more about the vibes than it is about economics.
But when Representative Brendan Boyle, Democrat, pressed Jameson Greer, the U.S. trade representative, said, what would success look like?
Greer gave two clear metrics.
He said, well, first of all, the trade deficit needs to go in the right direction.
In other words, down.
And manufacturing, as a share of gross domestic product, needs to go in the right direction.
It needs to go up.
So if it's going to be success, as they pinned him down, they said, okay, well, Trump wants to talk about revenue.
What is your view as a trade representative for all this stuff?
What are you trying to see happen?
Well, I want to see the trade deficit go down, and I want to see manufacturing go up.
Well, what has happened?
More than six months later, neither goal is any closer to being achieved.
Neither of them seems likely to be completed over the long term by an economic policy rooted in barriers to trade.
Trump has been obsessed with the trade deficit for years.
But he doesn't really care if he even understands the budget deficit, they point out, which is the difference between the revenue they bring in and what they spend.
That is far more important than the trade deficit.
But he's not going to put his own house in order.
From January through July, America's trade deficit was $840 billion.
It was 23% larger than the same months in 2024.
Okay, so her stated goal is we want to see the trade deficit go down, defined as we want to sell more to other people than they're selling to us.
Except it increased by 23%, even with all of Trump's manipulation here.
It also reflects now a well-established fact that tariffs do not reduce trade deficits.
During his first term, Trump raised various tariffs, but the country's trade deficit climbed from about $481 billion in 2016 to $679 billion in 2020.
So over four years, it goes up, let's say maybe about 50%, right?
But under this new regime of Trump tariff policy, it has gone up 23%.
The trade deficit has increased 23%.
So by their metric, and of course, no matter whether Trump has these contradictory explanations at all, he is definitely wanting to see the trade deficit go down, but it went up 23%.
Tariffs are no better as a tool for boosting manufacturing.
Rather than being helped, the manufacturing sector is being crushed by tariffs, increasing the cost of raw materials and of intermediate goods.
And it's not just manufacturing.
It's all businesses.
Whether people are in retail or anything else, they can't tell what their costs are going to be.
Because who knows if Trump is going to have something gives him indigestion and he's going to try to punish the country that he bought that food from.
You know, it's just, it's that petty.
If he has an argument with somebody who is a political leader in another country, he slaps them with tariffs.
So during a speech in July, the trade representative Greer added a third goal for the administration's tariff policies, increasing real median household income.
Well, tariffs are making it more difficult for households to make ends meet.
An October study from the Harvard Business School shows that retail prices had declined throughout 2024 and early 2025 and then began rising in April after Trump's tariffs were announced.
The Trump administration's tariff policies misunderstand the role of trade in productive flourishing economies.
The administration has set the wrong goals and then has made poorly policy choices that are unlikely to achieve those goals.
Again, it's because people like Peter Navarro, this is the dumb as a sack of bricks policy.
And so what does this look like?
Well, China has had a record trade surplus.
China's trade surplus has topped a trillion dollars for the first time, despite Trump's tariffs.
China report exports have rebounded in November after an unexpected contraction the previous month, pushing its trade surplus past a trillion dollars for the first time ever, an all-time high.
Exports, listen to this, climbed from 6% a year earlier, while imports rose just under 2%.
Meanwhile, shipments to the United States dropped nearly 29% year over year.
So they've been able to replace this with other markets, and they are thriving.
If this is part of his policy, again, that is another thing he's thrown in there.
The economic competition with China.
It's a failure with that as well.
So it's been a failure in terms of the trade deficit.
It's been a failure in terms of economic competition with China.
It's been a failure in terms of manufacturing.
It's been a failure in terms of keeping costs down.
It's a failure.
The nearly trillion-dollar trade surplus for the first 11 months of this year is a record high.
It's likely that November exports have yet to fully reflect the tariff cut, which should feed through in the coming months.
But, you know, hey, they're making it up in other countries.
You, however, may pay a lot more.
You know, they're expecting that toys will go up quite a bit because a lot of toys are manufactured in China.
But as Trump said before, hey, so your kids only got like, you know, one doll instead of five dollars.
You know, too bad.
I wonder how many dolls Ivanka had, or whichever one it is.
I'm going to get the two of them mixed up.
Ivana was the mother, right?
And Ivanka was the daughter.
Yeah, Ivanka's the daughter.
I imagine she had a lot of dolls, but Trump doesn't really care about that.
Doesn't care if you can afford toys or not.
It's kind of like that toy market we went to in China where the TSA then confiscated all the toys that we'd bought to keep our daughter busy while we came back.
So China's exports grow 6%, and U.S. shipments drop 29%.
Hmm.
Seems like things are going exactly the opposite direction that Trump wanted to go.
By the way, manufacturing is dropping as well.
And they're struggling, as I said before, just like retailers and importers, every business, farmers, everybody is struggling with the chaos that Trump has brought to the economy.
It's not about tariffs or income versus income tax.
It's about chaos versus stability.
Chaos is hampering everyone in the U.S. economy.
It is the elephant in the room.
And I'm not talking about Republicans.
We're going to take a quick break.
You want to get those comments there?
Yes.
I don't know if that other one is right, Lansom, but Guard Goldsmith says, by the way, the Trump executive order, RE-AI, appears to claim authority by implying that state statutes on AI interfere with interstate commerce.
Yet Trump's executive order breaches separation of powers.
Yeah, it breaches the 10th Amendment.
And that's the thing, you know, when you look at the way they've sold the unconstitutional illegal war on drugs, how did they do it?
With the Commerce Act, claiming that that allowed them to prohibit drugs.
Why didn't anybody think about that when they prohibited alcohol?
It's funny.
You know, those people, I don't know, were they just stupid and they couldn't read that in the Constitution?
Or maybe they had respect for the Constitution that we don't have.
I think that's what it was.
Well, we're going to take a quick break and we will be right back.
Stay with us.
You're listening to the David Knight Show.
Welcome back, folks.
Briefly, I want to let you know that it is support from listeners like you that keeps the show going.
We cannot thank you all enough.
A really good way to support the show is go to subscribestar.com forward slash the David Knight Show.
You can find a tier that fits your budget, and then it's fire and forget.
You don't have to worry about it.
And there you can see it.
There's many different tiers, as I said.
Hopefully, one of them fits your budget, and you can just set it up and not have to worry about it.
It'll only go down if your card is no longer valid.
Check out subscribestar.com forward slash the David Knights or go to davidknight.news and find all the other ways you can support us directly.
Of course, you can turn it off.
You're not locked into it forever.
They don't come to your house.
You got to turn over.
We're not going to let you go.
But we do appreciate the people who stuck with us for years there.
And one of the things that we try to do for them, years ago, I guess it's two years ago, did the Christmas album.
We gave it to the people there for free.
And we also try to give them the articles as well as a link to the podcast where they can get it without commercials.
And you can also get that on Substack now if you just want to get the podcast without commercials.
If you're only interested in the podcast without commercials, the best place to do that is Substack.com.
You can subscribe and you'll receive it there.
I also want to let you know that Homestead Products.shop is having a sale on their activated charcoal capsules.
They're good for detoxifying your body, good for hangovers, energy boosting, whitening your teeth, filtering your water.
They have a numerous number of applications.
So go to homesteadproducts.shop.
Check out the best stuff there.
They've got all kinds of really interesting, very high-quality products.
They work very, very hard to make sure the products are made in the USA and of the highest quality.
So again, go to homesteadproducts.shop, check out the sale they're having on their activated hardwood charcoal capsules.
And you can also use promo code NIGHT to get 10% off anything in their shop.
So go check them out.
If you're looking for survival gear to just some modest clothing, they've got options for you.
I'll just throw in real quickly too that code NIGHT also gets you 10% off at RNC stores.
Yes.
Where you can get books that help you to find natural remedies for many things, including cancer.
You can find the book The World Without Cancer at RNCStore.com.
And also get you 10% off with Gerald Slinty's Trends Journal as well.
Which the Trends Journal with the 10% off works out to be about $2.50 a week, which what else can you get for that kind of value at this point?
Well, real quickly before our guest comes on, I thought this is an interesting story.
This is a college student who got a zero on her assignment simply because she quoted the Bible in a gender assignment article that she was supposed to review.
Now, this is really about a lot of different issues.
It's about free speech, free exercise of religion.
It's about the fact that the LGBT people see what they're doing as a religion, as well as what is happening in schools and the worthlessness of college degrees, I would say, as well.
So this is a college student in Oklahoma.
He gets a failing grade because she laid out a biblical case for gender.
Unfortunately for her, and she didn't know it at the time, but the teaching assistant who is going to be doing the grading is a tranny.
She didn't know that.
She turned in the paper and she didn't attack transgender.
She made the case for the biblical role of men and women.
So it was not a negative hit piece.
There was nothing hateful about it.
Well, these people are so completely deluded out to lunch that simply showing them reality is painful to them.
It breaks their self-delusion.
Yes.
And it was an opinion-based piece.
What, Lance?
Like I mentioned yesterday of the story of the person in, I believe it was the UK that got 10 days in prison and a fine for mentioning that men and women have different skeletons.
Yeah, that's right.
The trune.
So this was an opinion-based piece.
And she said, I point out it didn't say anywhere that I needed evidence.
It didn't say anywhere that I needed evidence for my opinion.
His response was, no, that was the grade that you deserved, a zero.
She said, in terms of her essay, here's some excerpts from it.
She said, this article was very thought-provoking and caused me to thoroughly evaluate the idea of gender, the role that it plays in our society.
The article discussed peers using teasing as a way to enforce gender norms.
I don't look at this necessarily as a problem.
God made male and female and made us differently from each other on purpose and for a purpose.
God is very intentional with what he makes.
I believe trying to change that would only do more harm.
Gender roles and tendencies should not be considered to be stereotypes.
Women naturally want to do womanly things because God created us with those womanly desires in our hearts.
But of course we can propagandize those out, can't we?
The same goes for men.
God created men in the image of his courage and strength.
He created women in the image of his beauty.
He intentionally created women differently than men, and we should live our lives with that in mind.
It's frustrating to me when I read articles like this and discussion posts from my classmates of so many people trying to conform to the same mundane opinion so that they don't step on anybody's toes.
I think that is cowardly and an insincere way to live.
It is important to me to use the freedom of speech we have been given in this country, and I personally believe that eliminating gender in our society would be detrimental as it pulls us further from God's original plan for humans.
In Genesis, God says that it's not good for man to be alone, so he created a helper for man, which is woman.
Many people assume the word helper in this context to be condescending and offensive to women.
However, the original word in Hebrew is Ezer Kenegdo, and that directly translates to helper equal to.
Additionally, God describes himself in the Bible using that same term, Ezer Kennegdo, or helper.
And he describes his Holy Spirit as our helper as well.
This shows the importance that God places on the role of the helper.
God does not view women as less significant than men.
He created us with such intentionality and care, and he made women in his image of being a helper and in the image of his beauty.
If leaning into that role means that I'm following gender stereotypes, then I am happy to be following a stereotype that aligns with the gifts and the abilities that God gives me as a woman.
I do not think that men and women are pressured to be more masculine and feminine.
I strongly disagree with the idea from the article that encouraging acceptance of diverse gender expressions can improve students' confidence.
Society pushing the lie that there are multiple genders and everyone should be whatever they want to be is demonic and severely harms American youth.
I do not want kids to be teased or bullied in school.
However, pushing the lie that everyone has their own truth and everyone can do whatever they want and be whoever they want is not biblical whatsoever.
Reading articles like this encourages me to one day raise my children knowing that they have a heavenly father who loves them and cherishes them deeply and that having their identity firmly rooted in who he is will give them the satisfaction and acceptance that the world can never provide for them.
My prayer for the world and specifically for American society and youth is that they would not believe the lies being spread by Satan that make them believe they're better off with another gender than what God has made them.
I pray that they feel God's love and acceptance as who he originally created them to be.
So after she got a zero for that for the transgender, she complained to the university.
They did nothing.
She complained to the governor's office and other politicians.
And the response was that the university gave him a paid vacation.
Paid leave.
If that happened to me, all I can say is my next paper would be something.
Yeah, he can't grade her papers anymore, but he gets a paid vacation, paid leave.
Her essay was posted on social media, however.
It's been viewed by people over 15 million times.
So her bottom line is she said we must not be intimidated to run away from our principles, what we believe to be true.
We have the freedom to speak and to believe what we wish.
State Senator said it's about a state-funded, taxpayer-funded institution that is allowing their faculty members to abridge or to impede a student's right to express their faith.
And so she's been able to speak many different places as well.
Well, I've got more that I wanted to get into, but we are out of time and we have a guest that is ready to join us.
And just real briefly, the guest we have joining us is a doctor, and his name is Richard Restak, MD.
He has written over 25 books, and he's been on the bestsellers list.
And the book that we're going to be discussing today, especially basically, is neuroscience.
And the book that we're going to be discussing today is The 21st Century Brain.
Subtitle says, How our brains are changing in response to the challenges by social networks, AI, climate change, and stress.
So we're going to talk about those things.
And I've got a lot of questions that I'd like to ask him about that as well.
So I think it's going to be an interesting interview.
Stay with us, folks.
be right back.
You're listening
to THE David Knight SHOW.
Hear news now at APS Radio News.com or get the APS Radio app and never miss another story.
All right, and joining us now is Dr. Richard Restak, MD, and he is a neuroscientist as well.
And he has written a lot of books on the brain.
And now, this is one at kind of the nexus of our brain and artificial intelligence.
So I wanted to get him on because we, as you know, we talk about AI and its impact on society quite a bit.
Thank you for joining us, Dr. Restett.
Well, I'm happy to be here.
Thank you, David.
You've written so many books, and a best-selling author, and of course, people can find this on Amazon.
You've written so many books.
What is different about the brain?
What is different about this one?
And why did you write this book?
I wrote this book to announce and to discuss the dangers that are lurking, so to speak, in the 21st century and are unique to the 21st century, but are having an effect on the brain and the negative one.
So that we really are imperiled by eight different factors, one of which is the global warming.
We have new Diseases that are present in the 21st century that are increasing, starting with COVID and moving forward.
We have problems, of course, with the global warming, which we'll talk about in more detail.
And then the internet, the effect of the internet, the effect of AI, memory, the alteration, the attempt to alter memory, almost to alter our memories of what the past was like.
This is an ongoing enterprise by various governments in the world, including our own.
We also have surveillance.
The seventh, the surveillance, becoming increasingly a surveillance society.
It's almost impossible to not be revealing things about yourself because there's surveillance cameras everywhere.
I can give you several examples of that just in my own personal life.
And then finally, the eighth one is anxiety.
All of these things are creating what I call an existential anxiety.
People are being given information, but it's being molded according to the thoughts and the inclinations of people in power.
For instance, let's take today's, right out of today's New York Times, on page A7, there's an article called The Air in New Delhi is Life-Threatening.
And it tells the tale of the New York Times reporters who have spread themselves throughout New Delhi from 6 a.m. until late in the evening of a certain day recently.
And they measured the particulate matter in the air, and it was anywhere from 10 times to 30 times as great as would be considered minimally normal.
Now, on top of that, you have the statement that they state that the government is actually trying to hide this kind of insight to the populace by spraying water and other things like that.
It says that they're doing this around the measuring stations.
They're also losing data from the measuring stations during the worst bouts of pollution.
So there you have the molding of the facts, either denying them altogether or trying to improve them so people say, oh, well, they measured it down at such and such a measuring station, and it was really not all that high.
Of course, they were spreading water and other things to try to reduce this.
So we've got a capitalist society here in the United States, which has a vested interest in pushing forward certain scientific points of view.
So science is being put sort of in the back seat.
And there's politicians and other people, all of whom share one thing: capitalistic enterprises, which they're part of or which they are advancing.
And a kind of crony capitalism where they can get protection and subsidies as well.
And the control is being taken away from us because, as I was just reporting earlier today, they're working very hard to make sure that state and local governments can't enact any control on artificial intelligence.
And that came up in the context of talking about how the manufacturers of tasers, also big manufacturers of police body cams, how they want to wed that to artificial intelligence.
And the question is: you know, what could possibly go wrong with that?
If they identify you, they misidentify you as a dangerous criminal and warn the police about how dangerous you are, they could get people killed.
Well, not only that, but all of these efforts set up a sense of anxiety and fear.
Let me just tell you what happened to me one morning.
Called a cab to go to a medical appointment, and when we started going down the road, I said to the driver, You know, you're not going the most efficient or the quickest way.
He said, I know that.
He said, But I don't want to go that way because there's speed cameras.
I said, Well, you know, you're driving very sensibly and you're not speeding, and I'm in no hurry, so what's the problem?
He said, Well, they take pictures of everybody that goes by those cameras because they want to see who's in those photos in those cars.
So, I asked him to give me a reference for that, and he got sort of didn't say anything else for the rest of the trip.
So, when I got down to the medical building, I got in the elevator and said, In this facility, there is surveillance, both obvious and hidden.
Santa Claus was watching you now.
This is all one morning.
And then, when I got up to sign in, I signed the board with an electronic pen, and I didn't see no signatures.
I saw I said, Well, it didn't take.
She said, Oh, it took, but we don't allow it to go on the screen so it could be seen.
I said, Why is that?
He said, Well, somebody behind you might see the thing and then remember it and use your signature to forward something somewhere.
Well, first of all, there was a sign that said, Stand 10 feet back, and secondly, there's nobody else behind me.
So, there's three examples just drawn at random that we're becoming an increasingly surveilled society, which is creating a sense of paranoia and a sense of fear.
So, the brain has to adjust to these type of things, David, and it's very hard to do.
And I think that is calculated.
You know, they've been they want to do this even to the extent when you talk about these cameras taking everybody's picture, the flock network that is out there, this corporation that is saying, Well, we can do whatever we want because it's in public space, and you know, we're not government, so we can collect this information.
And yet, they collect it in order to sell it to the government.
So, it's just one level indirect, but they not only grab your license plate, but they also do a complete profile of your car and all of its idiosyncrasies.
Does it have a dent here?
Does it have a scrape there?
What about a bumper sticker?
So, it creates a model of your car.
And so, they almost have like you know, biometric identification of your cars as well as of you.
And this is now made possible because of the advances of AI.
But this has been something that has been concerning me.
I look at things kind of from a libertarian perspective, and this has been concerning me for a long time.
The idea that government is using technology many different ways, internet, social media, things like that-to monitor and to manipulate us all the time.
And to me, artificial intelligence just puts this on steroids.
And so, I think there's something to be anxious about if we're going to look at this.
We should be concerned about it.
Maybe not anxious, but we should be concerned about the goals of people who are putting this kind of stuff together.
So, yeah.
But there's that, and then there's if you can manage to change the present, you can manipulate the future.
Of course, there's a real way to get it is to get control of the past, as Orwell pointed out.
Yes, you control the past, you know, you can control the present and by the implication, control the future.
And we're seeing alterations of materials, even government documents, government films, documentaries, things like that, are being altered in ways that are not visible, not, I should say, detectable, not detectable to the ordinary person.
So, they get ideas about what the past was like, which are wrong And don't show you, as I mentioned in the book, if you were at a dance in 1850 before the Civil War, and it's a film we're watching.
Let's just say we're watching a film about 1850, and we're seeing people ballroom dancing, all that.
And then one of them pulls to the side and pulls out a cell phone.
And you say, wait a minute, we didn't have cell phones then.
Well, you know, there were a lot of things that were going on now that were not going on in the past.
And it's not to our advantage to try to pretend that they were.
They weren't.
We have to understand the past to understand the future.
And we're not only creating situations that are false, but we're also like in 1984, Orwell created a character called Commander Ogilvy.
He was a war hero.
He got all sorts of medals, and it was all the prologues that were all told to honor him and so forth.
Well, he never existed.
He actually was made up entirely.
And that's one of the things that the narrator is doing in the job of work is filling in photographs, inserting Ogilvy into historical events that happened, wartime scenarios, etc.
And anyone reading it will say, wow, this is some man.
Well, he was a complete fabrication.
We're just about at that point with Sora out, the AI app, which could take you and had you, you know, to say, let's get David Knight and have him leading some sort of a parade of whatever.
And, you know, suddenly people say, well, gosh, I saw him with my own eyes.
So what's happening is that the actual seeing is believing is being turned on its head.
So that's no longer true.
You're talking about a completely fabricated character out of Orwell.
Just recently they had Tilly Norwood, who is a completely fabricated AI personality.
And the person who came up with it has got agents representing her.
They got her out there as an actress.
I mean, it's like, so I've created an AI actress, which will do a lot of different roles for you.
She probably does her own stunts as well, I imagine.
But people in SAG, Screen Actors Guild, and they're furious about this.
And said, any agent that represents this AI character is not going to do any business with us.
But we're already at that point.
It truly is interesting.
And one of the ways of neutralizing it is to create the situation that exists right now between you and me.
You're laughing and I'm laughing because it seems sunny.
And it is sunny.
But it's a very serious purpose behind all this.
It's all a matter to try to alter people's perceptions so that they begin to doubt the veridity of what they're seeing.
That's right.
Yes.
And I've talked for the longest time about how the whole idea for the internet was created by DARPA psychologists.
And I've been concerned that it was all about psychological manipulation from the get-go with all of this.
But as a physician and as a neuroscientist, I'd be interested in your take on what is currently going on.
Because besides manipulating the past by changing information about the past or memory-holing it or writing a new alternative history of it, they're also concerned, and there's been projects that have been put out by DARPA, and I don't know if they've been successful or not, but they're putting out requests for people to come up with things to manipulate people's memories.
So you've got a soldier, they say, who's got bad PTSD?
Let's get rid of that memory.
Let's give them different memories.
What do you see in terms of someone who studies the brain and neuroscience?
What do you see about that?
What do you take as the state of the art with that?
Well, my last book was called The Complete Book of Memory.
Had to do with memory.
I studied memory in great detail.
And of course, you have to do away with the concept that memory is like a videotape or something that you just store in your brain.
And when you get them want to get it, you just bring it out, like you bring out a videotape.
It's not like that.
It's a reconstruction.
Each time you think back to a certain event, you alter that memory so that you have memory one, memory two, memory three, on and on and on.
That's the nature of memory.
And memory can be manipulated.
It's always, you know, in the courtroom, they're always trying to avoid the contamination of the witness.
The example of that would be, well, which car went through the red light?
And to ask a witness, he said, oh, it was a red car went through the red light.
Well, would it surprise you to know that it wasn't a red light, but it was a stop sign, Mr. Witness?
Of course, his credibility is gone because he took the suggestion that it was a red light and said, and it'll be very easy to do because you don't necessarily have that image of that intersection in your mind.
So that's why there's protections, even in the courtroom, against leading the witness, they call it.
In other words, providing information that's either not true at all or half true.
So we've got that going.
This is not, this didn't start in the 21st century.
That started, you know, as long as we've had courtrooms.
This is more an emphasis now on altering memory so that people will not get up there and under cross-examination, they'll do pretty well because their whole memory has been altered.
They've changed by various mechanisms, suggestion, repeating information which is false, of course, which is the misinformation.
There's a cartoon about a week ago by Ramirez in which he's a Pilator Prize winner.
He has three doctors in an operating room in a laboratory.
One of them is looking into a microscope and he looks up and he says, This is the most dangerous pathogen we have ever encountered.
And the second doctor says, well, is it bubonic plague?
Is it smallpox?
And then the one he says, no, it's misinformation and disinformation.
That's right.
And we've got to be very careful because many times the people who will tell us about that are the people who want to be the ones who define what the information is for us.
And they will ask those leading questions.
You know, when we talk about leading questions and manipulating people, there's been a lot of reports about artificial intelligence kind of people who have a particular psychosis or something, and they get involved with the AI and it starts to confirm the things that they want because that's what it is set up to do in terms of bias.
It want to be empathetic and sympathetic to people.
And so it starts doing that and leading them further and further down a particular rabbit hole.
There's been situations of people who got into severe mental distress, some suicides of some young children and other things like that.
Speak to that aspect of it and the real danger of that.
That is really kind of, I think, speaks to the psychological aspect and potential of artificial intelligence.
And that could be weaponized.
Right now, it's just kind of happening out of their business model, right?
But that could definitely be weaponized against people.
Well, I talk about that in my book, in the chapter on the internet.
There are famous examples of people who have suicided right on the internet, live feed, and they've been manipulated to doing that by other people who've encouraged them, said this would be a sign of strength.
This would be a sign that you're not afraid to die if necessary.
And there's cases of it that actually led to the suicide.
One of them is the most grisly I have in my book about a person who was talked into pouring gasoline over themselves and setting a match all on open feed internet.
And while this fire is burning, you can hear everybody in the background cheering.
We did it.
We did it.
We got him to do it.
Wow.
That's amazing.
That's amazing.
So there's something about the internet and about that actually brings out sadistic, criminal, psychopathic trends.
And we don't know why.
Is it the fact that you don't necessarily can't be identified?
It's something that is going to be influencing and has influenced the internet greatly.
And it will continue to do so until we understand it.
I think that's one of the things that's so dangerous about the things that we saw with lockdown and other aspects of it.
There's an atomization here.
And so many different ways the government and tech companies are trying to make sure that we're not in person with each other.
Many cases, like for example, in this interview, we couldn't do this interview if both of us had to travel.
We're able to do this because we can do it over Zoom or whatever.
But just taking ordinary things that you would normally do in terms of interacting with people in school or in church or in your community or whatever, taking that away and putting a screen between the two of you.
It really does change the way people interact with each other.
I remember Errol Morris, the film director, was able to get people to say all kinds of things to him.
He got a murderer to confess.
He got Robert McNamara to confess about the false flag of the Vietnam War.
He got people to say all kinds of stuff because there was that distance between him and them.
He could have interviewed them in person, but what he did was he put an Interatron, which is what he called it.
It was basically a teleprompter that he had set up so he could do two-way communication at the time.
And once he had that distance there, then it completely changed the dynamics that he would have versus with somebody person to person.
And that's what we're talking about here, isn't it?
Yeah, we're talking about that.
And of course, there's gradations of this, and it continues.
Like you were interviewing me, we're discussing.
I feel like it's a discussion.
If I were to say something that later I regretted, I could probably say, oh, well, that wasn't me.
That was my avatar.
Or my agent, right?
I got an AI agent that's out there doing stuff.
That's right.
It's crazy.
We also see, though, as a doctor, you're seeing people have noticed actual physical changes that can be observed in people's brains.
I'm thinking of the story about the London taxi drivers who would do the knowledge.
And they would find that after they memorized all these factual details and drew on that all the time in order to take people to this very complicated city with its complicated streets, that they had a particular part of their brain that was larger than the typical person.
And then they found that once they stopped doing that, it started to shrink again.
And we're starting to see that happening with people in a lot of different areas of their life, that kind of atrophy.
And it's physically observable, isn't it?
Well, it is.
You have to learn.
You have to use the things that you have learned to do.
Like I mentioned in my memory book, there's all kinds of memory exercises that you could do.
I do them every day.
And they're very easy, and they help you to continue with your memory and keep it short.
Give us some examples.
I'm sure everybody would love to know that.
We'd all like to have a better memory.
What kind of things can we do to exercise?
Well, think about the fact that you never had to learn pictures.
When you were an infant and a young child, a picture was something that you could, you know, you may not know what you're looking at, but you could see it without an intermediary.
Whereas language is something that you have to hear from other people.
It's something that's sort of added on to the brain.
Okay.
So as a result, the most best way of remembering something is to make an image for it.
For instance, I have a little dog called a Skipper Key.
Skipper Key is a Belgian dog.
He's a nice little fellow.
But it was embarrassing to me when walking the street.
People say, what kind of a dog is that?
And I couldn't come up with a name because it was such complicated.
And I thought, that's Skipper Key.
I didn't speak any Dutch or anything.
So then I got this image of a small boat with a large captain with a beard holding a big key.
So it was Skipper Key.
And I remember it forever.
So I had the picture.
Once I have the picture, it's easy to do.
Another way, an easy way to do it, and you can do that with all kinds of times all the time.
I was going upstairs before I came down to the office and I wanted to get my wallet and I wanted to get my cell phone.
So I just had an image of a wallet in the form of a cell phone.
And I was walking up the stairs talking into the wallet cell phone.
So I got up and I knew I had these two elements to get.
It'd be very easy to get one and forget the other.
So you have these images all the time.
And the quickest, you know, this is sort of off the topic of the book, but if you want to have a firepower memory for a load of things, that's up to 10 things, and get 10 areas that you are familiar with, that you see every day.
And then you could put on those images the thing you're trying to remember.
So if I'm trying to remember a loaf of bread, milk, maybe batteries, I have a regular way of doing that.
I have like I remember my library that's near my home, the coffee shop, liquor store, Georgetown University Medical School, where I went, Georgetown University, Cafe Milano, which is a place in Washington everybody gathers, and then Keybridge, Iwajima Memorial, and Reagan Airport.
So that bread would be, for instance, the loaf of bread.
I would look in the window of the library instead of seeing books, I'd see bread, loaves of bread.
And when I get down to the liquor store, instead of it being filled with liquor, it'd all be milk bottles.
So that's how I had to get to it.
So I have those 10, so I can get 10 items together without any problems at all.
That's great.
Yeah, it's interesting.
You talk about the importance of a visualization.
It's one of the things that I do in terms of preparing for the show.
I have a lot of articles that I go through.
And it's really when I highlight things or when I write them down, that's when I can remember them.
If I don't do that, if I were just to read these things, I wouldn't remember them.
But if I interact with it and write it down, that helps me to remember it.
So that is a kind of visualization there, I guess, as well.
It truly is interesting.
And what you said earlier about memory not being something that is stored in a place as somebody coming from a computer science background, that was a very different thing.
When you construct your memory, how do you reconstruct that?
I mean, that opens up a whole new area of questions as well.
In other words, every time somebody brings up a subject, I mean, there isn't something that's stored initially to reference that and then rebuild from that.
Yeah, there's that.
Plus, there's the interconnections.
Like, you know, somebody listening to us might say, well, gee, this is called the 21st century of brain, but I haven't heard that much about the brain.
Well, let me just link that up so that these things make sense.
We have a new version, or I should say a new understanding of the brain called the connectomic brain, in which there's all kinds of interactions in the brain of parts of the brain, which you don't, we're just learning about.
I have the, I use the metaphor of a bowl of spaghetti.
You pull out one of the strains of spaghetti, and you never have any idea what it's connected to, how many other strains of spaghetti this is connected to.
So that's, if you think of the brain as being kind of set to make connections, that's its natural processing.
So it gets back to these things that we were talking about earlier: you know, global warming and memory and surveillance and all that.
How are we going to solve all those?
Well, somehow or other, those things are connected with each other.
That's the take-home message of this book.
And the basic goal is to try to figure out what it is that connects these things, what it is that would allow us to, by solving one of them, solve the other.
And I mentioned at the end of the book, experts so far haven't done it.
So it's useful, as Hayek said, to get ordinary people to give, when I say ordinary, I mean non-specialized people, to give their ideas.
Gee, I wonder what such and such would happen.
What would happen about global warming?
For a while, there was, in fact, there's still experiments going on on the effect of sulfur that would help the CO2 problem and shooting sulfur up into the atmosphere.
Of course, the reason for that was the volcano in 1980-something, in which after that volcano in Hawaii, it was noted that the air was clearer and there was less pollution.
So that's something to think about.
Is there some way of using that particular sulfur experiment to decrease global warming?
War, for instance, we don't think of war as a cause of global warming, but it is.
Or CO2.
Thermonuclear warning.
Yeah, it's been put up since the Ukraine war and the Gaza war, then tremendous amounts.
It's going to overcome and exceed the benefit of any of these things like non-gasoline engines, but using electrical and things like that.
Absolutely.
Yeah, it's kind of like shooting up rockets in order to put satellites up.
How many cars and lifetime use of cars from people would that be equivalent to?
And you start talking about all the missiles that are being shot.
And then you get to the explosives as well.
It is really interesting how they focus us on their objectives for their ways to control it.
The manipulation's been going on for quite some time.
And so, yeah, that is pretty amazing.
And I guess that's my, you know, my, when we look at this stuff, it really does look like science fiction.
And I'm almost inclined to write it off when I first see it.
When DARPA is saying, well, we need to find some way that we can erase memories in people and insert new memories into them.
I mean, we're going back to total recall, right?
So it sounds like something from a Philip K. Dick novel, but they're really working on that.
And I guess one of the most striking things we saw, we reported on a couple of weeks ago.
And it was a company that was bragging about how they could read your mind more accurately and quickly than their competitors, because there's a lot of different companies that are doing this.
And how they could, it's called Brain IT was the name of the company.
And so they had a way that they would do MRI and they could essentially train it on your brain in a much shorter period of time than the other people.
And they could get much better results.
And our producers just pull this up.
So what they do is they show you an image and you're looking at that image and then it's reading your mind and reconstructing what you're looking at, which I thought was absolutely amazing and terrifying at the same time.
How is this going to be used?
I guess that's the real issue.
When we start talking about all these different things, I think that is the real case that it's difficult for people to understand just how far and how quickly the technology has progressed.
And then to say, and how do we control this from it being used for bad purposes?
Well, that's a specifically 21st-century problem.
Yes.
Because all of these things have either originated in the 21st century or they have, in fact, further developed and become increasingly threatening.
And bear in mind, we have to have to solve these problems because they're not something that's going to go away.
And then the most important thing to remember, David, is that all of these things harm the brain.
And the brain is the thinking processor that's going to save us.
It's going to figure out what the problems, what the solutions to the problems are.
So we know now that wildfire smoke, for instance, it creates dementia.
It enhances the likelihood of somebody becoming dementia.
So as the brain is affected negatively, increasingly over longer and longer periods of time, our ability to solve these problems is going to decrease.
So we've got to do it now.
We've got to get serious about it.
And this business of people getting up and saying that global warming is fiction and all that is really very disturbing.
Yeah, well, you know, the example that you gave earlier of the fact that the Indian government was manipulating the temperature at some of the stations there, that kind of works both ways.
They have put some of these temperature stations on the airport tarmacs.
And in the UK, they have a lot of the temperature stations that they've got there, they're just extrapolating the data.
They don't have real temperature measurement stations there.
So it all really gets back, I think, to the scientific method.
And that's really where we have to hold people's feet to the fire.
We're talking about something like that.
We can have an absolute standard of what truth is.
And that truth is going to be being able to measure something accurately and being able to reproduce that.
And then I think a good yardstick for that is when somebody is trying to hide their data, that's the clue right there that they're not doing science.
Because if they're doing science and they've come to the right conclusion, they don't have a problem with somebody looking at their data.
And so I've got a question here for you from a person in the audience asking about doctors James Giordano and Charles Morgan and their work with military.
I'm not familiar with those names.
I don't know if you know anything about that or not.
Giordano says familiar.
What particular thing are they asking about them?
I don't know.
It just says their work with the military.
I guess it would have to do with something, but you haven't heard of it.
I'm not sure.
I could say Giordano did this or did that.
No.
Sure, I understand.
Yeah, let's talk a little bit about the things that we have been anxious about.
And of course, as Christians, we have one answer to it.
But you talk about how this is something that has been around pretty much all of our life.
I mean, I grew up with anxiety about nuclear war, for example.
That was on everybody's television, and that was the forefront of our mind, especially growing up in Florida when the Cuban Missile Crisis was happening.
They got us really afraid of that when I was in elementary school.
It's like there's not going to be enough time for you to get home when the nuclear bombs start falling.
And so, I mean, there's all these different ways that you can panic people.
I guess part of it is how do we identify the real problems and how do we deal with those problems?
Because there's always things that are competing for our attention and our anxiety, many of which are not real.
And usually the things that you're really the most concerned about don't happen.
And it may be sometimes because you have taken a precaution about it.
What would you say about that, about anxiety?
You're starting to break up a little bit.
Can you hear me clearly?
I hear you.
Yes, yes.
Sorry about that.
It's breaking up a little bit.
You're talking about traumatizing a population.
What do you do to guard against that type of thing?
And of course, that's going to really escalate with the ability of AI to create a narrative.
Yeah, well, let's talk as an avenue to get into that.
Let's go back to what you brought about the atomic weapons and the atomic war and the fears of people that there's going to be another atomic war.
I mean, you know, this is not unrealistic.
There's even been a movie that's just come out that's getting all kinds of attention, as you know, and it has to do with the threat of a nuclear war.
Things in the, if you look at what's happening in the Europe right now, there's all kinds of suggestions that could lead to a nuclear war.
I mean, Ukraine now has announced that they're under no conditions willing to give up any land.
And Stalin is, I mean, Putin is thinking what he can do to change that.
Maybe he'll attack another country.
I mean, this is scary stuff.
So what's happening in response to the government is to try to show that, oh, we shouldn't worry about it.
We have things under control, but I don't think things are under control.
And we've talked about the problems, and we talked about problems.
You have your final chapter is new ways of thinking.
And I'd like to talk about that.
One of the things that you say is Occam was wrong, Occam's razor that people are familiar with.
Tell us a little bit about that.
Why is Occam wrong?
Well, because he says that the entities are not to be multiplied, meaning that we can always explain things best by limiting ourselves to the minimum amount of factors, ideally one, one cause of every effect.
That's not true.
It's certainly not true in the 21st century, where there's all kinds of interactions between factors and causes.
So that Occam was wrong in that way.
We have to think of an interconnecting pool, just as in the brain, of interconnections of neurons, interconnections of these problems.
And they're all related.
They're all related.
All eight of them that I talk about in my book.
They're all related.
And if you can figure a way of influencing one, you influence all the others.
I mean, who would think there'd be a connection between global warming and the amount of artisan and cheese, for instance, high-end cheese?
Well, there is because chickens don't lay many eggs and all the various other things that come on in terms of making cheese.
I learned that the other day.
That was something that was a surprise to me.
You know, it's kind of interesting we talk about connections so much.
There was a series that was on, I think it was on PBS.
I think the guy's name was Burke.
I can't remember his first name.
I'm not sure about the last name, but he had a series called Connections.
And I thought it was fascinating because what he would do is he would take a whole series of connections to show how a particular technology had evolved.
So he might go from the quill to the jet engine or something like that.
And it was a fascinating, fascinating thread of things.
It's very much like what you're talking about.
It really is.
And I did consult his work, actually.
Did you?
When I was writing this book, because he did that connections.
He did a book called The Day the World Changed and all this.
He also did a book called Circles, in which he would start with one particular event that had occurred in history.
And if you go around the circle, you come back to the beginning where it started, where this particular inventor invented something.
What led up to it?
What was the circle leading to that?
So, yes, we're talking about connections, and we're talking about the inability to understand things without reference to supporting an accessory factors.
We have that going on all the time, denying things that are going to be happening.
And of course, I think the fearful thing is that the government is aiding in this denial.
Because if you deny that there's a problem, then there's very little impetus to try to solve it.
If there ain't no problem, don't try to solve it.
They're throwing out their own chaos and uncertainty and anxiety that's out there all the time, always, I guess.
So the question is: you're talking about volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity.
I mean, that sounds like a government policy.
I think they've got bureaucracies that specialize in that.
Yeah.
Well, actually, that's true.
Yeah, that's in your section there about new ways of thinking.
And so how do we incorporate that into new ways of thinking that help us to solve this riddle?
Well, each of those factors is a factor that helps you to understand things and to have more control.
It doesn't necessarily mean it helps you to link them together.
That has to be done by original thinking.
You have to be under those things.
Things evolve.
Well, you don't have a basic situation that doesn't change.
It changes all the time.
So the other thing that I want to emphasize most is the role of capitalism in all of this.
I mean, there's all this, like the private equity, the business of people having a point of view that is going to advance them financially and then blinding them to the problems that are here.
Like, for instance, we talked about global warming.
Well, the rich people, very rich people, are buying multi-million dollar apartments and condominiums, which have special air filters, which will keep wildfire smoke out and will try to keep the global warming effect at bay by superpower air conditioners.
Of course, they're building their own bunkers too.
They're buildings that are creating all kinds of chaos and weapons of war, mass destruction.
They're out there building super bunkers in various places as well.
So I think they're somewhat pessimistic about what they're doing.
Well, it's basically the idea is that we don't care about the ordinary person.
We're going to survive.
We're going to see to our own survival.
And in order to do that, we have to deny certain things that are going on.
We'll do so.
Now, incidentally, all of this is not conscious thinking.
They don't necessarily say, well, I'm going to deny global warming because it'll be to my advantage financially because all my investment is in the oil and gas industry.
They don't do it that way.
They come up with pseudo-logic, things that seem to make sense to them.
But if they didn't have a financial thrust in the matter, they would look upon it quite differently.
That's right.
We can always find a justification for what it is that we really want.
Everybody should understand that.
If you're a parent this time of year at Christmastime, you can always understand that people will come up with a justification for what they want.
And that's as true of government as it is of corporations out there.
And it's really dangerous when the two of them connect with each other.
I think that's one of the things, you know, you talk about connections and the importance of it and how we can try to connect these different factors, each of us individually, but I think it's the human connection that is out there that is going to be essential for all of this.
It's going to be our collective work on all this.
What do you think about that?
Would you agree with that?
Well, I'd agree with it, but there's so many things that are taking place now that are causing the schisms in splitting people into factors and belief systems and political points of view.
And that's very dangerous because then you can't get together any kind of unity, even in the face of an emergency.
Well, I think we've always had these factors, you know, factions and things like that.
You know, the founders of the country warned about factions and political parties.
But I think what makes it unique is that when you're interacting with people on a personal basis, you interact with them a little bit differently than if you've got that separation between you that technology is giving us now.
Because now you're interacting with something that's abstract.
It's not with another person.
And there's also the body language that you're not picking up on.
But it makes it easier for you to be harder on people when there's that distance there, I think.
That's why I think, you know, the personal connection, I think, is really vital to making these connections and coming up with an understanding of what's going on.
We talk about the hidden factors that are out there, hidden unrelated topics, other people, as you pointed out earlier, just talking to ordinary people about what it is that you see with different things.
I think that is the genius of the collective free market out there, that there's so many observers who are looking at things and thinking about them.
And it's kind of their collective decision that is kind of guiding things along, as opposed to having a central planner who's doing that.
What do you think about that?
You've got in your final chapter, A New Way of Thinking, you have what you call a sensible solution.
What does that really involve?
I'm sorry, I didn't hear what you said.
And what's the last part?
You have a sensible solution.
What do you think a sensible solution to the kind of stress and chaos and anxiety that we have, manipulation that we have?
What is a solution to that?
Well, I think the Wikipedia is a good example of that.
They have people from all walks of life, all levels of education, free to contribute to whatever topic they may want to do that.
It may be helpful.
I mentioned earlier about the effect of global warming on the making of cheese.
It might be somebody who makes cheese that's going to come up with some idea.
You know, we don't know that.
We don't know that that may not be where comes some original idea on what to do about global warming.
And you put it on what I'd like to think, and I hope it will be developed, a kind of Wikipedia where the ordinary person can feel free to put forth their ideas about it.
Now, you say, well, we already have that.
We have the internet.
No, we don't.
The internet is a commercial situation.
It's all done for making money and grab attention and all that.
And there's no criticism of it.
There's no peer review, if you will.
Whereas in the Wikipedia, I mean, you know, people can write in and say, well, that particular contribution is bonkers and then give an example why it is.
That was a very good idea.
And after that, you begin to get things coming together in unpredictable ways that may help us solve these eight problems.
You know, the problem is, it seems like whenever you wind up having a form or place where things can be, and that's true of the internet, it's also true of Wikipedia, then it becomes you have gatekeepers who are there.
And we saw this in spades throughout the COVID stuff that if somebody's got a different idea, rather than debate them, the impetus is to silence them by the people who are in authority.
And so that really, I think, is the key thing.
And I think as part of that, we see a continuing rise in disgust and deprivation of free speech.
People are not interested in the principle of free speech.
They don't want to have open debate.
And I see this, regardless of where people are coming from on the political spectrum, there is a declining interest in debate and thinking.
The debate is critical to critical thinking.
And so the people who are in charge, the gatekeepers, whether it's Wikipedia or the Internet or any other form of information, they are weighing in on that.
And they don't want things that they disagree with.
And it might be because they've got an agenda or it might be because they've just got a particular prejudice about something.
They want to make sure that the contrary views don't get out there.
That, I think, is the real key that's there.
And again, this is part of this atomization that we have of people, feeding that tribalism in a way that we've never seen it before using technology.
I agree with everything you've just said, exactly.
And I think we have to try to get beyond that.
But we get back again to this business of people having their own personal financial point of view and position and pushing that basically on the fact that they look upon it as so maybe we're talking about a capitalism problem.
We've got capitalism.
That's what this country is all about.
But I mean, it's certain parts of it now.
We've gotten to the point where people are unable to take another point of view if it's going to be financially harmful and hurtful to them.
Yeah.
I think that, you know, we start looking at the tech companies.
I don't think that their capitalism would exist.
I don't think they'd have billions of dollars if they weren't unified with the government.
So there's a symbiosis there that the two of these entities feed off of each other.
And I think that nexus right there is a difficult thing.
And so I think, you know, when I think of capitalism, I don't like to refer to capitalism anymore because I think of it as a partnership, a public-private partnership, some kind of a economic fascism where they are working together.
But I like to think of a free competitive market where the government doesn't have any role except as some kind of a referee between two parties that have a conflict or something.
But yeah, that's the thing that's really driving this.
Many people, when they talk about AI, they said, well, here's a couple of different outcomes.
Maybe this stuff really works the way it's supposed to work and it takes everybody's jobs and we wind up with a depression.
Or maybe it doesn't work at all, in which case the big AI stock bubble that we've got bursts and everybody loses their job because of that.
I said, well, there's a third alternative, and that is that the government keeps propping it up with public funds because it feeds their surveillance and manipulation needs, their ability to surveil and to control us.
And I really think that that's where this is all going to head.
I don't really, you know, those other two things may happen and they may be true, but I think there is a customer out there for the AI stuff that is driving all this stuff that has been putting out these proposals for the longest time, and that's governments, governments around the world.
I mean, we look at the brain project that we had a few years ago.
That was during the Obama administration.
But things like the brain-computer interface that Elon Musk and many other tech companies are doing out there with his Neuralink, and there's a lot of them that are doing that.
That's being driven by the government wanting to connect into our minds, hack into our minds, really.
And they've been funding that kind of thing.
So, how do we break that?
Yeah.
On the Musk side, he's doing it for money.
I mean, obviously, to make money.
That's right.
So that there's an unholy alliance, if you will, between someone who can't see anything other than the dollar and another side, the government can't see anything other than increasing power and surveillance over the population.
Yeah, that's right.
Absolutely true.
Well, it's a fascinating book.
It's a fascinating take on this.
And, of course, you've written many books on the brain.
The memory one, very interesting.
And you do have sections about memory in this book as well.
And people will be able to find this on Amazon, I guess, is the best place that they can find it.
Looking for the title of this.
And it is, you know, it is something that I think we all need to think about how we're going to operate the effects that this technology is having on our brains in the 21st century.
And that is the title of the book, The 21st Century Brain by Richard Restack.
Thank you very much, Dr. Restak.
Thank you.
Appreciate you coming on.
Good day.
I enjoyed it very much.
Thank you.
Yeah, very interesting conversation.
Thank you.
Have a good day.
Folks, we're going to take a quick break, and we will be right back.
You're listening to The David Knight Show.
Welcome back.
And I've had a lot of comments.
I don't want to get to these.
I knew before I brought him in that he was, I didn't think he was going to be that focused on climate change.
I really wanted to talk to him about the other issues that were there.
But yeah, we had a lot of comments about that.
As a matter of fact, Lance said, is this thing about the cheese stuff and global warming connections?
Is that so they can try to tax the cheese?
So I guess the question is, who stole the cheese, right?
These people are trying to steal our cheese all the time.
But we do have an update, by the way.
And this is some comments from the Telegram chat.
Paul McLeod said, I'm asking each and every one of you to send prayers in my direction for a specific reason that I cannot disclose at the moment.
By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes.
He says, so they sent that in, so I'll just pass that along to you.
That's for Paul McLeod, who is asking for prayer.
And for the love of the road, Ryan has given us an update on his dad's surgery.
He said, dad's surgery was done afternoon yesterday.
It went well, and they eliminated all seven blockages.
Wow.
Had to take veins from other parts of the body to go around some of them, though.
He should be home by Saturday.
He said, sorry to hear about Clyde Lewis.
Glad he's got a loyal base that is helping him with GoFundMe.
Yes.
And so I'm glad that things are going well for your dad, Ryan.
I hope it continues to go that way.
We'll continue to pray about that.
And let me get some of your comments here.
Occam's Razor is not what people think it is.
It states that the explanation with the least number of assumptions is likely to be correct.
Not the simplest explanation is likely to be correct.
That's from Greg Hume, 121.
That's fine.
Yes.
And he says, oh, for, let's see, this is I'm Marty.
He says, come on, most wildfires are arson, not global warming.
I agree with that.
I agree with that.
And you all know that I'm not buying into global warming.
And he began by talking about how they were manipulating the data at the Indian stations to try to minimize the pollution that was there and to lower the temperature.
But typically, government's doing just the opposite.
And it was the climate change crowd, the global warming crowd, that gave India the license to have as cheap and dirty a power plant as possible.
So you might want to start with what the government policy has been towards their MacGuffin of climate change.
That's the reason they have that kind of pollution that's there.
And of course, that was why Nixon unconstitutionally created the Environmental Protection Agency.
There's nothing in the Constitution that says that it's the role of the federal government to protect the environment.
And they did it because of pollution.
They said, well, we've got some polluted sites that are so big, we don't have the money to address them locally or state level, so let's do it at the federal level.
And so they had their Superfund cleanup thing, and then they metastasized from pollution to telling us what kind of cars we could have and mission control with that.
So again, it's mission creep, or I guess we could say emission creep.
Though in the case of the Indian testing stations, I believe he was referring to air quality with the massive amounts of air pollution they have in these cities and spraying it.
I believe he was implying that you clean up the air, which in that instance, I would agree.
Yeah, you find, interestingly enough, you know, in the two most populous countries, China and India, where they have said, don't worry about cleaning up the pollution from your factories or your power stations.
Do whatever you want, right?
They also have the worst air pollution.
Wuhan is one of the worst places for air pollution.
So a real octo-spook says he's correct about one thing.
The money around global warming will buy the truth before it can be muttered.
That's right.
Money problem and a gigantic government.
Yeah, we get our head around the whole issue.
I think all the little spaghetti strings, when you keep pulling them all out, you'll find the government and you'll find human nature in terms of the greed for power and for money.
That is the common spaghetti thread that ties all this stuff together.
And that's how we keep our distance from this.
But I think the real key thing, takeaway from me from that interview was the key thing is the connections.
Our brain works on connections.
Our brain works best with connections.
Connections with other people expand our mind, expand our universe.
And it's that person-to-person connection that is so difficult for us to maintain today that is so vital for our survival.
Thank you for joining us.
Have a good day.
The Common Man.
They created common core to dumb down our children.
They created common past to track and control us.
Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing in the communist future.
They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary.
But each of us has worth and dignity, created in the image of God.
That is what we have in common.
That is what they want to take away.
Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.
They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us.
It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.
Please share the information and links you'll find at theedavidnightshow.com.
Thank you for listening.
Thank you for sharing.
If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers.