Tue Episode #2155: Tariffs Backfired — China Got Richer

he knows something about where this stuff is headed. We're going to have to see what he has to say here about this. But we're going to begin with what is going on in Ukraine? Is this the beginning of the end? Are these people going to be able to sustain this? Russia is rapidly advancing, even though Vilensky's not even taking a look at the plant. And so we're going to start with news. We're going to also we have some interesting updates in pharmaceutical areas as well as

an update in terms of Trump's tariffs. Are they working? And he finally got around to giving some breadcrumbs to the soybean farmers. But we're going to take a look at the big picture of the sy stuff. So we're back already. It ended, that's okay, all right, Well let's start with the news here, and Trump said out loud, he said, I'm disappointed that Zlynsky hasn't even read my peace proposal. And I understand how you feel is I'm disappointed that Trump hasn't even read the Constitution that he

swored uphold. Maybe he doesn't like it, just like Zelinski doesn't like peace. His frustration continues to show, especially after high hopes for his twenty eight point peace plan. You know, we had this ten point piece plan between us and the government. It's called the Bill of Rights. Tell you what this is where we draw the line with what the government does and with our natural rights, our God

given rights. But they didn't respect that either. So he said, I'm a little bit disappointed that Zelinsky hasn't even read the proposal yet. Well, he doesn't want peace, and neither do the European leaders as well. As he's saying that you've got the leaders of Britain, France, Germany all meeting with Zelensky to him, keep fighting, keep fighting, We're going to win this thing. Except that's not really what's happening,

he said, as people love it, but he hasn't. Russia's fine with it, he said, and the assessment of what's going on with Ukraine. Of course, his follows after his son in law Jared Kushner and his former business partner. I guess you could say Steve Witkoff, who now his emissaries for geopolitics. I mean, hey, if you can negotiate a big real estate deal in New York, that's most of the stuff is about real estate, right, whether you're talking about Gaza or you're talking about Ukraine, you're still

talking about people killing each other over land. And so he said, they were not. They didn't think that Zelenski was really serious about this. Moscow, as I point out yesterday, really likes the document that was released, the first NSS, which is the National Defense Security Agreement that's there basically laying out the Trump administration's perspective on foreign policy and national security. And I liked what it had to say. I just don't believe that Trump is going to stick

to any of it. But Russia reported on it. You didn't have any reporting really from mainstream media here in America. So the Russians liked it because, as they pointed out in the Zero Hedge article, the document characterizes europe as weak well, warning of an unpredictable, disunified atmosphere on the European continent, where, in desperation, European leadership could overreact and escalate a war with Russia. You think, I mean, they've

been doing that upfront in so many different ways. You got fred Mertz in Germany, and you've got Kere Starmer in Britain, as well as Macron and France. They're all saying, you know, get ready for massive casualties, and we've got to we've got to draft more people in the army. I mean, they're doing everything is essentially amounts to a

declaration of war already. So Donald Trump's first in assistance, returning to office, blames European officials for thwarting US efforts to in the war in Ukraine and accuses governments of ignoring a large European majority quote unquote who want peace. Well, I agree with Trump on that. The Trump administration, I just don't trust him on any of this stuff. Meanwhile, there might be another way to have peace, and that is for Russia to when and it looks like that

may be happening. One way to have it lasting piece is that we're going to have a lasting peace. Well, you could end the NATO provocation that is called Ukraine is a geopolitical construct that, as I pointed out before, the Ukraine was an area of Russia, an area of Russia for four hundred years, and breaking that off as a separate entity and then creating a coup to change the government that then began a civil war that happened

in twenty fourteen, eleven years ago. So that is a construct of NATO who decided after the Soviet dish Union that they would eliminate Russia as a power. And so this has been a gradual policy of encroachment they're pushing for war. Putin's army seizing land at one of its fastest rates since the initial invasionment almost four years ago, says research. The Kremlins army sees two hundred square miles of territory of November, up from one hundred square miles

the previous month. According to Deep State, a trusted Ukraine based battlefield map about that. They can call it deep state. Let's use that for our marketing purposes. Here, the speed of advance was approaching the fastest. It's the initial invasion almost four years ago. But then you have the desperation of the war cult Zelenski meeting with Kiir starmer Manuel Macron Fred Mertz. Ukraine is holding its own they said, and doing even better. Ukraine is not on the brink

of collapse. Again, reality has no meaning to these people. If we cannot immediately reach a peace agreement with Russia, it is essential that we give Ukraine all the support it needs so it does not lose ground due to lack of support. Well, it is losing ground even though they are supporting it. And this was something that many people said from the beginning, that there was no way that Russia was going to be able to outlast that

Ukraine is going to be able to outlast Russia. The comparative size of the two countries militaries, as well as you know the close proximity. It was in the cars that this is going to happen. They planned in the war drawn up by the Trump administration involved Ukraine handing over vast tracts of land and Ukraine and Europe have

rejected the proposals. Well, that's one way it's going to end, and maybe end when they take the land the gains and territory risks helping to persuade Trump that peace should be set on Russia's terms. The sending weapons an aid to Kiev was a waste, yes, early, Well, why does kir Starmer want the war so much? And why does Fred Mertz want the war? Why does Francis Emanuel Macron. It's because their people understand that their governments are at

war with them. They're locking people up for mere comments as they create this police surveillance state and shut down all free speech. And in the UK, for example, same things happening in all these countries being overrun with immigrants from abroad. There's fury and the UK is nearly three hundred and fifty thousand migrant families could get extra welfare after the new budget from Kure Starmer. So why does

he want war? Well, because his own people are waking up to the fact that Starmer is at war with British people. That's why they'd fifty thousand form born families and they found that two hundred thousand of them were from just ten countries. Families from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria set to benefit the most from the three billion pound decision to scrap the two child benefit cap. Endless found. A Tory MP who carried out the research said, you have

to ask whose side the government is on. I don't think you have to ask that anymore. I think they've made that pretty clear. They like any third world migrants and they hate all the native Britons. And if you look at the chart that's there, the ten countries are Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Somalia, India, Ghana, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sri Lanka. That's nine of them. There's only one country that is European and that's Poland. And so that's two

hundred thousand of the three hundred and fifty thousand. The rest of the world is one hundred and fifty thousand. Immigrants from the rest of the world, and of course coming in for the welfare benefits, the welfare magnet that's there. So Milo Inopolis and I don't normally get into these. It's amazing to me what a soap opera the conservative alternative media has become. But they've kind of been angling

for this for a long time. One of the things that I criticized Charlie Kirk for was the fact that he was going around doing culture war events and he was putting out front a black guy who was homosexual, checking two DEI boxes. And as he's going around talking about christ and Christianity, he's sending this conflicting message of supporting homosexual marriage. And he was called out on it by some people at some of the events, and he

got really furious, how dare you call this out? And I said at the time, I said, this I think is very revealing because it shows what he's interested in is big tent GOP. He's interested in getting money from backers and that type of thing. And to me, it was a real betrayal of all the conservative things that he pays lip service to. But their entire Republican Party is like that, but especially the alternative media, and so Milo Ianopolis has apologized for helping to sell and normalize

homosexuality and homosexual marriage. And where did he do that with the altiterative media? Milo says he's become a Christian and rejected that, and now he is outing a lot of other people that are living this closeted, as they say, lifestyle. We've seen this for a long time in the Republican Party. And Milo's point is that homosexuality is rampant but hidden

in the GOP. I mean, there's been reports when they have their large conventions that Grinder you can see the spike in Grinder Activity, which is a homosexual dating app. You can see it where they're meeting geolocation. And we've seen it in the past. I mean, the longest serving Speaker of the House, Dennis Hasterard, was put into Congress from being a wrestling coach. That was his qualification beginning in Congress. Actually it wasn't his qualification wasn't being a

wrestling coach. It's qualification is being a pedophile wrestler coach. And then that lawsuit called up to him eventually. But while he was in there was a paging scandal, a pager, I guess the pages. The young boys that go to Congress because they want to get experienced 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 Russienbaum and they just poo pooed it. Oh, this is just nothing but partisan politics, the 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 part of some 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 GP 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 was 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, Candice Owen and even Charlie Kirk and Alex Jones saying that they were

involved in homosexual activity. So I don't know. And so already you've had Minnie Johnson, who he said that about, said he's going to sue mylow for what he what he said about that, He made some very specific statements about it. All I can say is that you know, when you look at how they're using this, the people who say that therefore 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 Temple put all that stuff onto his into his podcast. All I've got to say about that is the reason I mentioned this is not to get caught up in all of this gossip and all the rest of this stuff. But just take these people and look at what they do, look at what they do, and look at what they say.

Ask yourself, then why would you trust them? You know, very interesting there was in terms of January the sixth, Trump has, according to some sources, was trashing the people who were the conspiracy theories around January the sixth, and then you got people like Nick Flint's. It was put up by Shannon Joy yesterday and I don't have it on the deck here, but it was footage of Nick Quinte's you know, yelling people go over there, go over there.

You know they're you know, directing people on January the sixth. And I've said from the very beginning, why did they not focus? Are they focused on Ray Apps right? And not focus on Fuentes, on Alex Jones and all these people who had been running stop to steal all the people who enticed them to come. And you know it's like Ray Epps is there saying yeah, we got to go over there as well. Fints 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 or 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 and 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 who is kind of like swallowing the cockroaches, and if you get too much of it, it could be a very

bad thing for you. So we're gonna take a quick break, folks, and we will be right back.

of how dosage is so important. The woman who was part of a 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 stomach lining that stomach lining that's the method.

died from assixiation, and I'm stuck in his throat. His girlfriend said that he had eaten bugs before, and she was his girlfriend.

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, yeah, instead of got milky because they 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 sixtieth anniversary December ninth, nineteen sixty five of the area of 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 sixty five, 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 Charlley Brown Christmas So documentary. Bill Melndez is still around and he was the animator and so he's one of the key people that they talked about it, and they said, we didn't know how we're going to get this thing done. So they brought in Charles Schultz, who was they had already picked, said we're 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.

He did these things that came out of the word work. Sometimes I would just step 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.

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.

it in our video stores. It was really interesting because they talked about how they made the movies and you know why movie stars wear sunglasses because they were spending all day in these really bright lights, these carbon arc lights that they were using everything, and it was doing a number on their eyes and they really need to get their eyes shaded when they went outside. They needed to rest, you know, a lot of different things like that.

But how the camera, you know, how they would do stunts. Everything was real. I mean there was no special effects. They did it for real. I mean Lilian 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 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 it was. The whole thing was like Jeffrey Epstein party, continuously of 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'd be a scene from the Bible, and at the time, hardly any TV shows reference scripture of the move 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 sixtieth anniversary the TV special December the ninth, nineteen sixty five and seven point thirty, and this was a seventy fifth anniversary of the Peanuts comic strip. So he'd had that comic strip for about fifteen 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 so driving cars that are going to take over

the world. AI is going to run the world and going to run us, but it can't even navigate the Chick fil A drive through. They're working on an app for that, and so we're going to take a quick break. And last, did you put in the Charlie Brown thing? Yeah?

as this woman. And so the trader starts playing this thing and calls her out by name, and she lets just having a psychotic episode here. But I guess when they're really watching you, maybe it's not psychotic.

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 defence 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 seven thousand 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 to I don't I should have looked up the population of Edmonton. But when you got in a town, I

don't care if it's New York City. If you've got seven thousand 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 is why are seven thousand people being 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 this person. You know, 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 when they did that after the was it two thousand and eight or something, we had Chuck Baldwin and Ron Paul ran for president, and they were telling police officers

with these fusion data centers. They're telling them that if they pulled a car over and had a bumper sticker supporting Chuck Baldwin or Ron Paul, these people might be sovereign citizens, they better be on the lookout for them, and they might try to kill you. So you know, you got the police safeties off their gun. They're on a 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 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.

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 twenty nineteen. He and seven other people resigned from Axon. Let's 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.

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 perform 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 US, 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 US, 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. You know, yeah, look at the here's our study here that we did ourselves to show how safe and effective this says. So the person who is now the rector of Responsible AI, they don't call it ethics anymore. So 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 seven thousand people serious offenses at large? And 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 this is going to be a disaster. It's a disaster in the making right here.

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 you, 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.

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 and 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 glifasset model, the round up model. The European Union has banned real time public face scanning police technology across the twenty seven 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 thirteen hundred rest 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 nineteen eighty four as a manual. Axon doesn't make its own AI model for recognizing faces, and they decline 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 Cure Sarmer. Remember the orwell it was ing Sock, right, like English socialism, and of course Cure Starmer is a socialist, so just call it Inksock.

so they can call for assistance. And you know, it's 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 these heavy guns. Like it comes, put down the gun. I said, this is this is kind of like the

Venezuela and boats right, but down the gun. They put down the gun. Now I got five seconds to put in and everybody scrambling because they know this thing's gonna unleash fire and it 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 two O nine. It's probably got facial recognition technology as well.

what they're training you for, facial recognition right now. And so again they resigned because the taser equipped drone. So now they don't have an ethics board. They're free to do this kind of stuff. Well you had. Nvidia CEO. Hawaang 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, ninety percent 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 high and high? It seems like it would 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. Wang 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 resynthesizing things. To me, I don't think there's a whole lot of difference. Yes, as a man, right, you can be propagandized by textbook companies and the school board or the government or whatever. 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 would just trust it because it's coming from the machine.

for these other forms of manipulation of propaganda. AI is going to come in from a different way and a rare show of spine. And this is 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, Wang declared President Trump to be our president and cheered him on. How is that a show of spine? Watson, I don't get it.

He is our president. Just because it's President Trump. Many want him to be wrong. I think the US 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.

somebody said something good about Trump. Look, it's a powerful person says something good about Trump, and we want Trump to succeed because Trump is our success as well. You know. 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 Waning's Worldwin 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 hend 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 US 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 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 Tenth 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 Tenth 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 we 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 it planned

for that. It's called AI data centers. Wayne's line of there being no difference between what is coming from the from the AI and coming from somebody writing a textbook, says Watson, ignores how these ghosts erode the soul, 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 Hawaang'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 of 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. They'll 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 and 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. We've gone from London taxi drivers who could keep the destinations in London in their head and had this massive hypo part of their brain whatever it was. I don't remember hip a campus. Yeah, it might have been hippo campus. 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 too pedestrians. And you can tell that this is coming from the perspective of an urban planner. They love cities, they love people walking, They hate cars because cars are used by people to get out of the cities as fast as they can.

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 discussion that we had Eric Peters and I years ago were war gaming out this where the SAI 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 gonna have to eliminate the 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, and humans have to go, which means human drivers have to go. He said, you

stop and think about it. You have air traffic control to at the airports to make sure these planes don't collide, and they keep big distances between themselves and you know, big distances vertically as well as in their same plane. And so he said, how's that going to work with artificial with the self driving cars. You're going to have to get most of the cars off the road and or they're all going to have to be self driving

cars so they can communicate with each other. You know, if they can communicate with each other, you can get them doing the I forgot 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. We'll just guess what. You know, when they set this thing up and they've got all the self driving cars going through the through, it's not going to be very friendly for you, and so they're gradually going to squeeze you out of it.

the sovereign citizen's pushing back against this. I just know, however, that the you're not going to win in court because the courts are rigged, So don't go down that road. But anyway, you principle.

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.

She was jaywalking. Probably would have hit her anyway, But everybody was saying, why didn't the AI put on the brakes and they 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 and at the last minute and throws it back to the woman and she's you know, playing with a phone or whatever, and she

can't handle it either. Well, Google's AI has deleted a user's entire hard drive.

Drugs are not violence. Drugs are a black market, and when you create a black market monopoly, you will get violent gains 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 would be could be used and will be used. I think to do violence on the street to people about due process in the same way that his hero do Ke and the Philippines did that on the streets of the Philippines. He wants to do that here, go ahead, read this.

with all sorts of bacteria and diseases. Under the levitical laws levitical eating laws, only locusts and grasshoppers are cleaned to eat. All they're flying creeping are unclean and you shall not eat.

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.

we see it every where. Don't we it's amazing real.

It's almost like somebody is sabotaging and they have a propensity to hit fire trucks, police trucks and threaten school buses. But it's okay. They're safer than we are, right, and we should have more of them.

with this motorcycle. You know, we're you're going to get a big bills, like you know, they don't have to pay for the people that I hit. For the most part, it just got to scrape me off of it. Yeah.

products anymore. They get the sowy directly from Argentina. And that was a massive double cross of the farmers. Trumpet 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 give twenty billion dollars to Argentina, and we got another twenty billion that we're going to put together with

people on wall streets, we're all together. We're going to give them forty Don't worry, we'll give you twelve billion dollars some day. Well that was back in September. Here we are in December, three months later, and now he's talking about it being imminent.

this is not America. First, Trump says the twelve billion dollars bailout plan for farmers will come from the tariff revenue. You know, this is one of the most amazing things. Is this is better actually terriffs. Why don'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 you know, 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 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 is 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 eleven billion dollars in a one time payment to crop farmers. And oh, by the way, there's this interesting little thing there from the Department of Agriculture Secretary of Briockrawlings saying yeah, we're going to get these things out in February of twenty twenty six. So still not coming. He's waited three months.

You know, they hinted at it. He had Scott Bessant hinting at it. Trump announces it, but is actually going to be going out From what I could see based on what Brook Crawlins 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 US China trade war has hit soybean farmers especially hard. I would just say this the Trump trade war, China

had blocked all purchases of soybeans from the US. China was the biggest buyer of US soybeans in twenty twenty four, accounting for twelve and a half billion in sales. China agreed to purchase twelve million metric tons the soybeans now in the final two months of this year and twenty five million metric tons and twenty twenty six twenty seven eight, 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 that 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 two and a half million metric tons of soybeans, not the twelve, so they got a

lot of catching up to do here. The administration's new actions also come on the heels of the administration's twenty billion dollar bailout of Argentina, which Scott Bessett said he was going to make it forty in terms of helping put together some private funds they moved that Many American farmers and lawmakers on both sides the political aisle criticized

this fall. As China stopped buying all soybeans US farmers, it purchased soybeans from Argentina instead, So the US 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 and Iowa said farmers are very upset about Argentina selling soybeans to China right after the US bailed out. And there's still zero US soybeans sold to China. And that was back

in September. And it's taking them this long to firm up their promises. But still not to help the farmers. Trumpet his first term, also took action to bail out American farmers, except that he'd already bailed them in to his ter regime. He'd already hurt them. This is like somebody breaking your legs and then handing you, giving you

a wheelchair and boasting about the wheelchair they gave you. His administration approved two packages in twenty eighteen nineteen, totally twenty eight billion dollars 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,

the 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 twenty twenty 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 got. 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. That's all men. 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 ten dollars. And 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 a degree to it? Did he say, well, now you can buy the same quantity of stuff, but we'll sell you these We'll sell you these soybeans at five dollars 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 announced 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.

back to make sure all specialty crops are covered. She created Trump for opening the markets through trade deals without directly acknowledging how terrifts 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 opened 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 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 in 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 Reid, 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 sore 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 teriffmen who 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 gone permanent, and so that you might want to think about what he's actually saying here.

what would success look like? Greer gave two clear metrics. So, 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, needs to go up. So if it's going to be a success, as they pinned him down, they said, okay, well, Trump, let's talk about revenue. What is your view as the 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 a 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 and so, 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 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 eight hundred and forty billion dollars. It was twenty

three percent larger than the same months in twenty twenty four. Okay, so her state of goal is we want to see the trade deficit go down to find as we want to sell more to other people than they're selling to us. Except it increased by twenty three percent, 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 four hundred and eighty one billion in twenty sixteen to six hundred and seventy nine billion in twenty twenty. So over four years it goes up, let's say, maybe about fifty percent, right, But under this new regime of Trump tariff policy, it has gone up twenty three percent. The trade deficit has increased twenty three percent.

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 twenty three percent. 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. In October, study from the Harvard Business School shows that retail prices had declined throughout twenty twenty four in early twenty twenty five, and then began rising in April after Trump's tariffs were announced. The Trump administration's tariff policies misunderstand the role of trade and productive, flourishing economies.

The administration has set the wrong goal and then has made poorly, has made 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 terrorists, china exports have rebounded in November after an unexpected contraction the previous month, pushing its trade surplus passed a trillion dollars for the first time ever, an all time high. Exports listen to this climbed from six percent a year earlier, while imports rose just under two percent. Meanwhile, shipments to the United States dropped nearly twenty nine percent year of 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 eleven 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

dollar instead of five dollars. YEA, too bad. I wonder how many dolls Ivanka had, whichever one it is to get the two of them mixed up. Evana was the mother, right, and Ivanka is the daughter.

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 terraffs or income income tax. It's about chaos versus stability. Chaos is hampering everyone in the US economy. It is the elephant in the room. And I'm not talking about Republicans. We're gonna take a quick break. You want to get those comments there.

don't have. I think that's what it was. Well, we're gonna take a quick break and we will be right back.

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 subscribe star dot com, forward slash, the David Knights are Davidknight dot news and find all the other ways you can support us directly.

they can get it without commercials. Yes, and you can also get that on substack now if you just want to get the podcast commercials.

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 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 trainy. 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's nothing hateful about it.

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 for 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 easer kannegdo, and that directly translates to helper equal to Additionally, God describes himself in the Bible using that same term either cannegdo 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 pressure to be more masculine or feminine. I strongly disagree with the idea from the article that encouraging

acceptance of diverse gender expressions can improve student's 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 and 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. She got a zero for that from 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, but they said.

to believe what we wish. State senators said, it's about a state funded, taxpayer funded institution that's 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 than

I wanted to get into. But we are at a 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 twenty five books and he's been on the bestseller's 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

twenty first 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 would like to ask him about that as well. So I think it's going to be an interesting interview. Stay with us, folks, We will be right back.

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 York Times.

On page a seven, 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 six am until late in the evening of a certain day recently, and they measured the particulate matter in the air and it was anywhere from ten times to thirty times as great as would be considered minimally normal.

So we've got a capitalist society here in the United States which has invested interest in pushing forward certain scientific points of view. So science is being put in the back seat. And as politicians and other people, all of whom share one thing, capitalistic enterprises in which they're part of, for which they are advancing.

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.

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 them to give me a reference for that, and he got set 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.

and secondly, there's nobody else behind me. So there's three examples just drawing it random that we're becoming an increasingly surveilled society, which is creating a sense of paranoia and a sense of fear. So the braining has to adjust to these type of things, Dave, and it's very hard to do.

But they not only grab your license plate, but they also do a complete profile of your car and all of its idiosyncrasies. Is it have a dent here, does 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 of 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.

about at that point with Sorau the AI. Well, it could take you and had you, you know, to say, let's get to David Knight and have him leading some.

own stunts as well. I'm actually met people in SAG, the screen actors Gil and Andy, furious about this, and I said, any agents this AI character, it's not going to do any business with us. But we're already at that point. It truly is interesting.

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 holding 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 you know, 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 it, 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 I think is the state of the art with that.

it was a red light instead. 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 caught another words, providing information that's either not through at all or half true. So we've got that ca This is not this didn't start in the twenty first century. That that started, you know as long as we've had court rooms.

This is a more emphasis now on altering memory. So the people will not will get up there an undercross examination. They'll do pretty well because their whole memories but altered. They've changed by various mechanisms, suggestion, repeating information which is false, of course, which is the misinformation. There was a cartoon about a week ago by Ramirez, in which he's spilled the prize winner. He has three doctors in an operating room.

It's 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 ubonic plague? Is it smallpox? And then the one that he says, no, it's misinformation and disinformation.

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 that want to, you know, 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 you know, 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 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.

to the suicide. One of them is most Grizzly. I have in my book about a person who has 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 backgrounds cheer.

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. He got a murderer to confess, He got Robert McNamara to confess

about the false Flago, the Vietnam War. He got people 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 interotron, which he 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.

out there doings. That's right, that'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 from I'm thinking of the story about the London taxi drivers who would do the knowledge and they would find that as they memorized all these factual details and drew on that all the time in order to take people to you know, this very complicated city with its complicated streets, that they

had a particular part of the 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.

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, it's up to ten things and get ten 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 a batteries, I have a regular way.

that'll be built ball. So that's how I love to get two it so I have those ten, so I can get ten items.

remember it. So that is a kind of visualization there, I guess as well. It is. It truly is interesting 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 your memory, you know, how do you reconstruct that? I mean that that that as opens up

a whole new area of questions as well. In other words, if 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.

of parts of the brain. But you don't we're just learning about I have the I use the metaphor of a bull 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 is spaghetti this is connected to? So that 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.

you know, shooting sulfur up into the atmosphere. Of course, the reason for that was the volcano in nineteen eighty 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's 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.

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 you know, erase memories and people and insert new memories into them. And we were going back to total recall, right, so it sounds like something from Philip K. Dick novel, But

they're really working on that. And I guess one of the most striking things that 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 and I'm a shorter time the other people, and they can 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.

get serious about it. And this business of people getting up saying the global warming is fiction and all that is really very very disturbing.

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 you know about doctors James Giordano and Charles Morgan their work with military. I'm not familiar with those names. I don't know if you know anything about that or not.

really afraid of that. When I was in elementary school. You know, it's like there's not gonna be enough time for you to get home. You know, a nuclear bomb started falling in 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, you know, and usually the things that you're really the most concerned about won't happen, and it may be sometimes because you have taken a precaution about it. What would you say about that, about anxiety?

have things under control. But I don't think things are under control.

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, you know, so he might go from you know, the quill to the to the jet engine or something like that. And it was a fascinating, fascinating thread of things, very much like what you're talking about.

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 that blinding them to the problems that are here, Like, for instance, we talked about global warming, Well, the rich people of very rich people are buying multi million dollar departments and condominiums which have special.

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 and all this. What do you think about that? Would you agree with that?

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 to in your final chapter a new way of thinking? You have what you call it sensible solution. What does that really involve?

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 coming from on the political spectrum. There is a declining interest and debate

and thinking. You know, 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 that 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 animization that we have of people feeding that tribalism in the way that we've never seen it before using technology.

there is the is the 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 a that's the thing that's really driving this. You know, many people when they talk about AI, they said, well, you know, 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. Well there's a third alternative, and that is that the government keeps popping it up with public funds because it feeds their surveillance and manipulation needs and 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 Oboma administration. But things like the Brain Computer Interface that Elon Musk and many

other tech companies are doing out there. There's 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 stuff. So how do we break that.

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 twenty first century. And that is the title of the book. The twenty first Century Brain by Richard rest Tack. Thank you very much, doctor rest Thank you, appreciate you coming on. Enjoyed a thank you, a very interesting conversation. Thank you. Have a good day. Folks are gonna take a quick break and we will be right back.

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 McCloud said, I'm asking each and every one of you to send prayers in my direction for specific reason that I cannot disclose the moment by the pricking of my thumbs. Something wicked this way comes, so they sent that. 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 surgery is done afternoon yesterday. It went well and they eliminated all seven blockages. Wow, had to take veins from of the 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 O comes Razors. 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. One one that's fine, yes, and he says, oh for let's see this is I'm Marty. He says come on, most wildfire are urson, not global warming. I agree with that. I agree with that, and you

all know that I'm not. 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 a climate change crowd, the global warming crowd, that gave India the license to have as cheap and dirty A

power plants as possible. So you might want to start with what the government policy has been towards their mcguffin 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, we 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 super fun clean up 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 creeper. I guess we could say emission creep.

That's right. Money problem and a gigantic government. Yeah, we can 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 take away 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 owing today, that is so vital for us our survival. Thank you for joining us.

Have a good day. The common man, they created common Core. They've dumbed down our children. They created common past, track and control us their Commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing and the communist future. They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated ordinary. But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God. That is what we have in common. That is what they want to take away. Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.

They desire to know everything about us, while they hide everything from us. It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide. Please share the information and links you'll find at The Davidnightshow dot com. Thank you for listening, thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. Ddavidnightshow dot com