The David Knight Show - 17Aug23 Jab DNA Contamination, Pandemic Wealth Redistribution, Now a Civil War Over Trump

Episode Date: August 17, 2023

OUTLINE of today's show with TIMECODES Have we forgotten the Trump administration gave us the most rapid, massive transfer of wealth in history based on the phony pandemic, and a preview of UBI (universal basic income) for "non-essential" people? (2:07)The GCI (genetic code injection) is indeed modifying DNA. Trojan horse of TrumpShots is worse than previously thought (9:19) Canadian police detective charged with "discreditable conduct" b/c she investigated SIDS from the jabs. But investigation is blowing back on the establishment as people see what caused her to investigate — 33 pregnant women jabbed and EVERY BABY DIED BUT ONE. (21:33)Trump, the master showman, will likely surrender to authorities timed to draw attention away from debates he doesn't want to attend (27:17) Who in the RNC put in the "loyalty oath" that Trump is using to avoid debates? A story about something similar happening in local government when our small business was competing with a Wall Street giant (30:45)Mark Levin floats totally crackpot legal fantasies about the Supremacy Clause and a President pardoning himself in order to suck up to the Trump crowd. (This guy wants a Constitutional Convention to make radical changes). Trump's hope is not in pardons but overturning what is likely to be a kangaroo conviction (33:03)AI Goes MAD: Recycled Synthetic Data Destroys LLMs Desc: When AI begins consuming information put out by other AI, something strange begins to happen, similar to when cows are fed the the brains and spinal cord tissue of other cows — MAD COW disease (54:33) Another problem with AI — massive water consumption (and power) (1:09:38)NY State may cut tax subsidies to filmmakers if they use AI to replace actors (1:12:22) To understand why the current actors and screenwriters strike is so intractable, look at this AI suite of postproduction tools (1:18:02)A question mark in space — James Webb telescope finds a bizarre illusion and psychedelics are coming back — and the spiritual issues that come with them. Reason, Rogan, politicians of both parties want it for medical reasons but everyone talks about its spiritual properties — the PHARMAKEIA (1:22:44) — continued after interviews at (2:27:29)INTERVIEW De-Dollarization, BRICS — and Silver We're days away from BRICS conference. Will they introduce a new gold-backed currency? Whether they do or not, its clear that the world, INCLUDING BIDEN ADVISORS, want to move away from the dollar (for Biden as apart of move to CBDC) Tony Arterburn, DavidKnight.gold, joins (1:32:18) INTERVIEW Strikes in Film Industry About AI as Much as Inflation Radical changes in distribution, as well as AI's replacement of screenwriters and actors are part of the impasse. "Hollywood" is a massive industry that impacts the economy far beyond California, but the impact of AI on labor, especially white collar jobs, is just beginning to be felt. Nicole Brener-Schmitz, Former Political Director of the Teamsters Union, joins (1:57:48) Rise of psychedelics & occult continued (2:27:29)Chinese communists begin rewriting the Bible — with ludicrous result (2:32:45)Both a Republican and Democrat Congressman, both Jewish, demand woman take down a tweet about Jesus being the only way to the father (2:38:20)Small news organization takes on the Intelligence Community's and DARPA censorship by suing Newsguard (2:51:58)Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @[e-mail] App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money is only what YOU hold: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHTBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

Happiness. We all know what it feels like, but sometimes it doesn't come easy. I'm Garvey Bailey, the host of Happy Enough, a new podcast from The Globe and Mail about our pursuit of happiness. We know people want to live more fulfilling and positive lives, but how do we actually do that? Is there a happiness code to crack? From our relationship with technology to whether money can really buy you happiness, we'll hear from both real people and experts to demystify this thing we're all searching for and hopefully find ways to be happy enough. You can find Happy Enough wherever you listen to podcasts. Using free speech to free minds. You're listening to The David Knight Show. As the clock strikes 13, it's Thursday, the 17th of August.

Year of Our Lord 2023. Well, today we're going to pick up where we left off. We're going to talk about artificial intelligence, the Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, as it starts to feed on itself. This is pretty interesting, and I find it very hopeful because I really hate how this is being used, how it's developed. And it may have big financial implications because the stock market is being buoyed

by this artificial intelligence bubble. We're also going to talk to Tony Ardaban, who's going to be joining us today. And we're going to be joined by someone to talk about how AI is playing a part in the strikes in Hollywood for both actors and for writers. It's a big part. It's a big thing taking away. I mean, the labor disputes and strikes that are going on right now are not just over inflation during wages during an inflationary period, but also over completely being replaced.

We'll be right back. Yes, as a matter of fact, so that people don't rape me, I know who I'm going to be interviewing today, just as I talked to Charret, who wrote the book, The Four Battlegrounds. He worked for a military industrial complex think tank pushing war with China. That was the main thrust of the book. But I wanted to talk to him about the artificial intelligence stuff. And, you know, I've been in unions, and I felt like the unions were predatory every

bit as much as the corporations were when I was in a musician's union. And our guest has been very politically active in lobbying for abortion organizations. But we're going to be talking about something else completely differently. And I think just as when I talked to the military guy about artificial intelligence, it's important to get their perspective on things. There may be a lot of places where we disagree with them on very fundamental issues.

However, we need to get a handle on what is happening with AI. And I'm going to get to that, but first we're going to talk about the Trump Civil War. And I want to put it in perspective. Never forget the people who became billionaires from COVID, from the phony pandemic. And look, folks, regardless of what you want to argue, the distractions, the red herrings of, well, that Wuhan lab and all the rest of this stuff, the reality is that people did not, it was a novel strain of the flu, I'll give you that,

and whether or not it was malicious, accidental, organic, frankly, I don't care. It was not a pandemic. The people who died, died from the death protocols in the hospital. The people who were diagnosed with it, cases for the most part, were because they inflated the tests for the PCR cycles of 40. That's 1.1 trillion times magnification. As the guy who developed it and won the Nobel Prize, Gary Mullis, for it, said, you can find anything with it if you magnify it that much. It's absolute garbage. And so that plus the vaccine plus the lockdown,

and this is what we're talking about here, the lockdown, and how it transferred money from all of us to a few people. Never forget that. Never forget who did that. Never forget how the globalist leaders and Trump locked the world down when nobody had died. It wasn't an epidemic anywhere. Nowhere was it an epidemic. It was pure propaganda and lies.

In March of 2021, nearly every country in the world had more billionaires than they did when it began in mid-March 2020, says Exposé News. Amongst these new billionaires were 40 people who became new billionaires practically overnight solely from the pandemic. You see, Trump transferred wealth from those of us who are non-essential, he said, his White House, his administration. We were non-essential. He transferred that wealth to these people from us. And then to double down, at the end of the year, he took another $250 million from his supporters. Because he lost an election where he changed the rules. At the same time, these billionaires were getting richer,

hundreds of millions were getting poorer. Hundreds of millions more were driven into extreme poverty. In February of 2021, 11 months after this insanity began, the World Economic Forum reported that according to the International Labor Organization, 114 million jobs were lost in 2020. Others saw their working hours reduced due to COVID restrictions, disrupted labor markets around the world at an unprecedented scale, and of course they made it all better by giving us those crummy stimulus checks. That was a preview of universal basic income,

and when they talk about universal basic income being basic, that's what they mean. Can you live off $1,000 a month? That's forced austerity. They'll take your job and give you that and then give you some distractions, you know, games to play and virtual reality and some other things like that and hope that, yeah, more pornography coming up.

We'll talk about the psychedelic drugs that they want to push. They'll give you drugs. There's something that Aldous Huxley was also involved in. Of course, remember it was a big part of brave new world. Don't give a damn. Take a gram. He said, right.

That was a slogan. Take some Soma, put you to sleep. And so they'll use drugs. They'll use video games. They'll use pornography, whatever needs a little bit of, here's a little bit of cash to just stay in your apartment, video games. They'll use pornography, whatever it needs. Here's a little bit of cash, too. Or just stay in your apartment. Play games.

That's what this was all about. And what's the legacy of all this? Tens of trillions of dollars in new debt. Inflation. And that is taking down this entire society and will eventually. Some people said hunger may kill us before the coronavirus. Yeah. The greatest rise in inequality ever seen,

says British group Oxfam, part of the British government. The rich continue to get richer. The wealth of the 10 richest people increased by $413 billion. Enough to cover the entire UN humanitarian appeal for 2021, more than 11 times over. In other words, 11 times the charitable budget of the UN. And of course, the UN should not be practicing charity. It's going to mostly go to their pockets. That's so corrupt.

But again, Trump was the blue-collar billionaire. He's one of us, they all say. Yeah, right. On the 6th of April, 2021, Forbes published an article, Meet the 40 New Billionaires Who Got Rich Fighting COVID-19. Pretty amazing, isn't it? A year later, things couldn't be more different after this all started. A record 493 billionaires, they said, joined the list in just that first year. Among the newcomers were at least 40 new entrants who drew their fortunes from companies involved in quote fighting COVID unquote.

Some vaccine companies have been so successful that their rise over the year to March 2021 had minted several new billionaires from the same company including four each from Moderna and from a Chinese-based company called CanSino Biologics. Of course, don't forget Pfizer, BioNTech. We had nine, I talked about it when it happened two years ago, nine new pharmaceutical billionaires in the U.S. And of course, a lot of them in China as well. And then we look at the Trojan horse aspects of the vaccine itself.

Not only was Trump a Trojan horse for the globalists, for the universal basic income and all the rest of this stuff, but the genetic code injection, which I've been calling this from the very beginning, I said, there's absolutely no way that this isn't playing games with our genetics. If you're going to turn our bodies into a vaccine manufacturing facility, as they boasted, when Trump set up that phony meeting, how long is it going to take you? Well, that's too long. You, oh, it's a little bit faster, but still got to go faster. Next one, had them in order, set up.

He knew everything. It was just such a phony display, like everything that he does. Oh, well, we've got ours ready to go. We'll use the people's bodies as vaccine. It'll manufacture the irritant for the immune system. I go, really? When are you going to turn that off? How are you going to turn that off? How are you going to control it? How are you going to control what it modifies with your body? Well, it turns out that there is a lot of DNA contamination in Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, these COVID vaccines. An alarming discovery by scientist Kevin McKiernan of DNA contamination in the vials of Pfizer and Moderna, Called it genetic code injections for three and a half years now.

And now the data's in. It's raised significant concern in the scientific community, and as they point out, this is from the Brownstone Institute, they point out there's been a lot of attack on McKernan. Specifically, they said, well, this is not a peer-reviewed study. And as they point out in Brownstone Institute, let's be clear about one thing. The peer-review system is essentially broken. The same players that have vested interests in the pharmaceutical industry curiously have the same influence on the research and publication industry.

They've taken over all the institutions. They control what you have to say on social media, but you think they don't control what's said in the peer-reviewed? You think they don't control what's said in academia and the colleges and all the rest of the stuff? So you trust the peer-reviewed stuff? And so the way he got around this, he says, well, I don't care about peer-review.

I know how this system has been gamed. He says, let's put this out there. And I challenge other labs to reproduce my results. Remember when we talked about the room temperature, ambient pressure fusion? You know, it was a big study that went out. Everybody got excited about that. And then people started trying to reproduce it. Nobody could reproduce it. Nobody could reproduce it. They could do aspects of it

and they could do fusion at a temperature that was much, much closer to room temperature, but it wasn't anywhere close to room temperature. I mean, it wasn't like at absolute zero, but it was still incredibly

low temperature. And they could reproduce some of the aspects of a superconductor there. I'm sorry, superconductor. It wasn't fusion. Did I say fusion? Anyway, but the bottom line is, is that's how you verify this stuff. Forget about the peer-reviewed stuff. Real science says, can I replicate this?

And so what McKernan did was he said, I don't care about the peer-reviewed stuff. Here's this. See if you can reproduce it. And a lot of people did. They took the challenge and they reproduced it. So forget about the peer-reviewed stuff. Let's do real science. See, peer-reviewed stuff, Francis Bacon talked about the scientific method.

He said, we've got to get rid of authorities and experts. He called it academia. He says, we don't want to have science determined by the people who are authorities and experts. We do it by observation and testing. And so he did real science. Independently verified by a number of internationally recognized labs, confirming both the presence and the levels of DNA contamination across different vials and different batches for both Pfizer and Moderna. So in asking the question, is the result reproducible?

It's a resounding yes. Is the contamination real? Yes. Other questions now hang heavily. How bad is the contamination real? Yes. Other questions now hang heavily. How bad is the contamination? What are the regulatory authorities doing about it? We already know the answer to that. Nothing.

They've done nothing about any of this stuff. And then what does this mean for the billions of people who took the jab? So how bad is the contamination? Brownstone says two things to consider here. Firstly, what are the levels of contamination? Secondly, what are the components of the contamination? Levels of DNA contamination in the Pfizer product came in around 18 to 70 times over the limits

set by regulatory authorities. Oh, nothing to see here, right? And then he refers to this. He says, let's think about this in terms of PCR tests, McKernan says. So he says, you were probably swabbed with these nasal swabs, and they took it in, and they did a PCR test. You would be called positive if they found something at a cycle threshold of 40. In other words, magnifying it 1.1 trillion times. If they found that, then you would be called positive.

He says, but we're getting cycle thresholds under 20 showing contamination of the vaccine. So he says that's more than a million times more contamination than you would be called positive for COVID, for a virus, for what they were testing, whatever. He says, so we're talking about a contaminant that's getting injected, not something that is in your nose where you have mucosal defenses, right? So it's bypassing the nose, which is set there to, you know, to filter stuff to some degree, but we're going direct injection, bypassing your body's normal defenses. This is one of the arguments, by the way, against all vaccines. So you bypass the mucosal defenses, and then you put it in at a million-fold higher concentration than what we were looking at and locking people up and sending them home for COVID.

That's an enormous difference here in terms of the amount of material that gets in. And then there's something else about this. Experiments suggest that most DNA contamination is fragmented, which means that it is not benign. McKernan says much of the DNA is actually linear because they do not go through a step trying to fragment this. And linear DNA has a higher propensity for the integration than circular plasma, plasmid DNA, he says. And then to make matters worse, it appears that much of the DNA is packaged

in the lipid nanoparticles. If the DNA is actually in the LNPs, the liquid nanoparticles, we have a different risk, he says. This will then transfect the mammalian cells and it will become a genetic alteration. Now, whether it integrates with a genome is secondary. The fact that you're getting foreign DNA into the cell is a risk in and of itself because it could partially get expressed or it could muddle around with other transcriptions

and translation machinery that is there. The translation machinery that God put in, by the way. These people who play God. And so Brownstone says, so let's recap this. We've got DNA, mostly packaged in LMP, that is designed to travel all over the body. And we've seen that, the biodistribution is all over the body. It concentrates in reproductive organs of the female rats that they tested. But of course, we don't have time to test this in humans. And then it intercells, delivering its genetic cargo like a Trojan horse. Some of the DNA may contain the SV40 sequence.

Remember that? This goes back to the early days of the DNA may contain the SV40 sequence. Remember that? This goes back to the early days of the polio vaccine. Simeon virus 40. Those responsible for a lot of cancers. Matter of fact, I didn't put it in the deck, but I've got a clip. I think I played it before here on the show. I've seen it several times myself. We had these guys who developed the polio vaccine,

and they're laughing about SV40. And I said, well, don't worry about it. It went to Russia mostly. There'll be a lot more cancers in Russia. Ha, ha, ha, ha. That's exactly what he's saying here. McKernan says the obvious. He said if the SV40 promoter becomes integrated into the genome, it will turn on gene expression wherever it

lands. And if this happens to be an oncogene, a cancer-causing gene, you've got problems. Brownstone says this, their reader, is only one of the many possible adverse effects from injecting synthetic DNA into humans. The genetic code injection. As I've said, the GCI. I think it's one of the best descriptions of this stuff. First one I had. And then there's another aspect of this. Not just the money that was transferred to everybody with lockdown. It's not just the cancer-causing injections, which people didn't

die from it right away. Blood clots, heart attacks, still dying from heart attacks. Young people, athletes, gave them myocarditis. They may not know it. It's the same as having had a silent heart attack. And then they get out and they exercise, which has never been a problem for young people, especially young athletes in the past. Now they're dropping dead left and right. I mean, these are not kids who sit on the couch and drink soda pop and are overweight. These are athletes now dying of heart attacks.

And then there's a third aspect of this, something which has been around for a very, very long time with these vaccines. We're starting to see it now. Remember the clip that I've played several times of the mother when they started talking about sudden adult death syndrome? She said it just dawned on her. She had killed her baby with a vaccine. They said the baby died of sudden infant death syndrome. Remember that? She broke down and cried. And now you have a police detective in Ottawa, Canada,

Helen Gruss. I should have looked to see how she pronounces her name. But she's a police detective there. And she started investigating these vaccines for SIDS. And they came after her. And there is a trial. And as frequently happens with these trials, this happened with the Center for Medical Progress and David Daleiden, Lala Harris, Javier Becerra, and the current replacement for the two of them as they were moved up into the

VP and the head of, uh, HHS for Biden. They've continued this persecution, David Delight and where he was showing that they were, um, killing babies, murder for hire,

getting paid lots of money. And as part of discovery, they found that, Oh, by the way, they were getting paid by the government, by Fauci and Francis Collins organization, to kill babies and get their organs so they could create transhumanized mice. But as we look at this now, as part of this discovery, they found some very interesting things. She's being charged with discreditable conduct under the Police Services

Act for an unauthorized reinvestigation of nine sudden infant deaths, SIDS, where she sought to know if the mother's vaccination status might have been connected with the deaths. There's not even kids who got vaccinated and died, but it's some others who got vaccinated with this as the, because it used to be, you know, decades ago, the FDA would say no, no vaccines for pregnant women. No, no. And you would have, now they encourage, went out of their way to encourage it for an untested novel new approach. Just as they used to always say well if this is an experimental drug then

pilots can't get it until it's been used until it's been approved and used for a couple of years they waived all those rules aside no law no regulatory rule would stand in the way of Trump's warp speed vaccine. Tell me about his election issues, as if I care. Monday, August 14th, 2023, was not the trial, but a pretrial hearing, where the defense and prosecution debated the adequacy of disclosure, and where the defense would be able to call and cross-examine on a lengthy list of witnesses. The prosecution played an almost three-hour recording of the May 12, 2022, professional standards interview of Detective Gruss, let's say,

that caused one retired RCMP, Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer, to observe. This is becoming a trial about Ottawa police officers being in neglect of duty for failing to properly investigate sudden infant deaths and for also obstructing Detective Grew's investigation or Gress's investigation. They said this is turning out the other direction. It looks like these people are not doing their duty, and they are obstructing her investigation. But they came after it and said she was doing,

it was discreditable conduct, because she was doing an unauthorized reinvestigation. She can be heard in the recording explaining revelations contained in the Pfizer documents, including that only one newborn baby survived out of the 33 in the trial. They injected 33 pregnant women, and only one baby survived. So as an honest person, this detective said, let's find out what's going on here. You see, this is the investigation that ought to be done about Trump,

not this stuff about a phone call. Hey, I'm behind in the votes, and it looks like the votes are disappearing. Can you do something about it? Then they blow it into this massive thing. What a sham indictment. Just as it was with Dennis Hastert, the longest-term Speaker of the House for Republicans, who was a pedophile before he became a congressman.

They groomed him for that so they could... They wanted somebody who was in that position who was blackmailable. Stayed there for years. And then when the whole thing became public, they didn't come after him for being a pedophile. They said, well, you know,

we've passed this law says that there's a statute of limitations and we're just going to leave it there. Uh, so we'll come after him for withdrawing money from his bank account in a way that is going to avoid nosy, busy body bank employees working for the government, noticing it. That's not a crime.

Quite frankly, that law about structured withdrawals, there's absolutely no justification for that. You can't even justify that on the basis of taxes. Because they already looked at it when he put it in. And so it was a lousy law, not a crime. They sent him to jail for that. And they let him go for the pedophilia. They're coming after Trump in the same way.

And they're doing it in a way to set up a Trump civil war. I mean, who would have thought that we'd have 48 million people ready to start a civil war of violence, right? You have 30 million people looking at the percentages, taking it out to the population, 30 million people willing to use violence to keep Trump out of the white house and another 18 million to put him in.

So you have 48 million people won a civil war over this mass murderer, Donald Trump, or over the other mass murderer, Joe Biden. So the detective said in this, the cover-up is incompetence or criminality that will go to any length not to be exposed, even at the cost of innocent infant lives. Mm-hmm. Perhaps that's what's going on with this Trump Civil War as well. They'll do anything to keep you from looking at what they did. The people that they have killed.

The people that they will be killing in the future with their genetic code injections. To keep you from seeing how they stole money from you. The biggest transfer of wealth the world has ever seen. As people like Donald Trump in every country, and he was the lead person doing it, transferred all this stuff. And they want you to care about their elections when these politicians turn all this stuff over to public health officials. As I've said in the past, how does somebody like Donald Trump go bankrupt with a casino? You know, the House sets the rules, doesn't it? How do you go bankrupt?

When you set the rules, you make sure you always win in these games. It's not that difficult. It's not rocket science. It's just math. And these casinos know how to do it. But he went bankrupt. Maybe he went bankrupt the same way that he lost the election. Even though he can make the rules, the House made the rules,

the White House made the rules for that election. And then it takes him down as well. So let's take a look at what is happening with Trump here. Everybody wants to know. One thing that he's a master at absolute master is showmanship and manipulating public opinion and here's a good example of this they're saying now that trump will use this indictment in georgia that he will surrender during fox's gop debate well that's, I wouldn't be surprised if that's exactly what he's going to do.

Of course, this is kind of speculation, but it certainly looks like the type of thing that Trump would do. He does not want to show up to a debate, you know, calling people juvenile names, calling Chris Christie fat and mocking DeSantis because he once was seen eating, scooping stuff out of a pudding with his fingers. Yeah, okay. That's what you want to bring to the debate? That's what you've got for the table? No, he doesn't want to have a debate with adults.

He doesn't want to stand on his records. So he would rather not show up. And one way that he can make sure that he will get all the attention and that nobody will watch the debate would be for him to turn himself in in Georgia as the debate is going on. It's almost as if the Democrats and Trump are working together. Right. Uh, and by the way, somebody in the RNC helped him with this stuff. As I said the other day, everybody knew from the very first debate of 2016 that happened in the fall of 2015, right about this time. It was a loyalty oath of a sort

that was put out there by Brett Baer, the first question, and Trump said, I'm not going to sign that. It's a distinct possibility that the Republican nominee for president could simply decide to shun the RNC itself. When a candidate refuses to play by the rules, it obviously weakens the RNC's position. But everybody knew that Trump wasn't going to sign a loyalty oath, that he didn't like that. And so who was it? This is what they ought to find out. Who was it in the RNC that put the stipulation in there that they knew that Trump would not sign on to. The stipulation that has never been there before. Who did that? That's what you need to take a look at. Yeah, on Rumble, RCF2020, thank you for the tip. He says, the first time the human genome was attacked happened in Genesis 6. Totally satanic. I agree. I agree. This is a satanic thing. Yeah. Yeah. Create, uh, these abominations.

And, uh, so who was it that did this? You know, we had a similar instance. As I said before, we had for a number of years, about, uh, uh, 13, 14 years, we had a video store business. And, um, when Blockbuster started competing about three years after we got started they would open up gigantic stores and they would do them right in front of another small business and one of the small business that they did it they went in and they bought land the most that and they had unlimited amounts of money because they're raising money on wall street and so these big they were raising money on Wall Street. And so these big corporations raised money on Wall Street, just like Moderna that never had a product for 10 years.

They tell people happy stories and they just kept getting more and more money poured in and Wall Street as investors and everything. And they should still not have a product if the FDA was doing its job. But instead they have many new billionaires inside that same company. But you can run a company, and Blockbuster did that. They lost money for a couple of decades before the plug was finally pulled. And it was Wall Street that kept that thing going. When it was first bought by Wayne Huizenga, who made his money with waste management industries, the big dumpster stuff and everything, he began rolling the thing out and putting out stores and everything,

and they were making a lot of money under him. And then it was bought by the holding company that owned Paramount and CBS Viacom. Sumner Redstone bought it. And they never made any money, but they used their position to change, to basically destroy the rental market by changing it to a pay-per-view type of model. But that's another story. But they had unlimited amounts of money, so they went in and paid a record amount. Nobody had ever spent that much in that town for land.

And then they built an out parcel. And then lo and behold, when they opened up, they violated every single signage rule. That town had very strict signage rule and so they're writing stories about in the newspaper and other people were complaining who were not their competitors they said this looks like an airport runway strip you know for relative to what everything else that was in the town and so people started saying you know how did they get away with doing this we've got businesses and we can't put up signage like that. And so it eventually came back and they said, oh, well, somebody signed off in this and the code and planning department. It's like, okay, that's it. That's what happened. And so

we can't change anything. It's like, well, it still violates the laws, your rules that you have here, but you're going to let it stand because somebody signed off? You can just leave it at that point? You're not going to say, who was it that signed off on this? Have we looked at their bank account to see if they were bribed to sign off on this by Blockbuster, who has unlimited amounts of money, all the rest of the stuff? And this is what is happening with the RNC. Okay, so the RNC put in a new rule they've never done before, one that is guaranteed that Trump is not going to sign off on. So Trump's not going to be in the debates. That was a given that was in there.

So who did this? I'd like to know who put this in. Wouldn't you? Who put the signage in? Going back to the previous one, they said Trump ended up signing a loyalty pledge after that big debate. But by March of 2016, he said he was no longer going to stick with the pledge. And by then, he was one of only three candidates who were running in the primary. The only reason that there was a need to do a loyalty pledge was because of Donald Trump,

said a Republican strategist and a former member of the RNC. I thought it was unnecessary in 2016. So why did they do it this time? Well, to give him an excuse. Fine, back doors. This kind of stuff has happened. And so they're all very concerned about, you know, well, Donald Trump is going to go to jail and he can't get a pardon and all the rest of the stuff.

And as I said yesterday, let me correct it. The parole board, not the governor, has issues. It has the power to pardon people. But they also have conditions on where they can put pardons in. But I said, oh, look, they can also do other things. They can commute it. They can do reprieve. And so there might be wiggle room and all that kind of stuff.

It looks like, as I looked deeper into that, that there's also some restrictions on those other things. And then enter Mark Levin, the guy who was one of the biggest Trump haters in 2016. People like Mark Levin, people like Glenn Beck, who was, you know, remember when Glenn Beck, to make fun of Trump, he rolled his face in Cheetos, orange face and stuff. Now they've become the biggest sycophants for Trump. And, of course, Ben Shapiro is in that group as well. These big sycophants. Why are they doing it?

For money. For money. You know, you had some hopeful things that Trump was talking about, none of which he did. Some horrific things that he did. Most of them in 2020. Oh, these people don't care. They know that's where their meal ticket is.

And so Mark Levin is out there saying, oh, I'll lie. You know, Trump can pardon himself. He can pardon himself as president. He can pardon even state charges and all the rest of this stuff. What a bunch of nonsense. But the right-wing press is grabbing onto this, and they're grabbing onto this to push the idea that Trump needs to be elected president to save him from jail. You know, vote for Trump, save him from jail.

You just might push me into voting Democrat for the first time in my life. If this is going to be a referendum on sending Trump to jail, I know which side I'm going to go on. Look, I was happy to see Dennis Astrid go to jail or whatever. I don't jaywalking, you know, any kind of crime or non-crime, send the guy to jail. Trump's far worse in terms of what he has done in terms of a magnitude of his crimes. So yeah, send him to jail.

Look, when Trump stands before God, I can imagine Mark Levin over on the side saying, but God, he can pardon himself here. I'll tell you what. By the way, didn't you realize, God, that it's Trump who really is God? That's what Mark Levin is going to be trying to push on Judgment Day, right? So Mark Levin says, first of all, we don't indict a sitting president. And as we talked about that, this whole reason

behind all the impeachment process, right? You don't want to have all these nuisance charges being made by opponents as we've seen during the Trump administration. Instead, you want to have that, you want to filter out that noise by having the Congress essentially do an indictment. You know, let's take a look at the accusations and yeah, if that looks bad, we'll indict him, and then we'll have a trial in the Senate. And then if he's kicked out of office and then there were crimes that were committed, then in those jurisdictions where he committed crimes, they could come after him. That's the whole point.

But then he says, so he said, existing Department of Justice policy against indicting a sitting president is partly explained by the idea that mounting a criminal defense would prevent a president from performing his or her duties. Fine. Secondly, he argues that the same reasoning ought to apply to state indictments of a sitting president because they could likewise distract the president and because, in theory, they could be brought by elected prosecutor in any jurisdiction, on and on and on. So, and then he says that the supremacy clause kicks in.

And, of course, as people are looking at this, they say, well, Breitbart looks at it. And they said, well, it's a very controversial idea that a president can pardon himself, but it's becoming accepted. Not by me. Never by me. Will I accept the idea that some president can pardon himself. That is a prescription for a dictator. That is the very definition of a dictator. Give me a break. I'll pose that idea with every fiber of my body. And then he talks about the Constitution. Levin says, well, we got the supremacy clause here. The so-called supremacy clause is what is being used to justify the drug

war now. And, you know, they never passed, as I've mentioned many times, you know, we had the 18th Amendment to make alcohol illegal. We had the 21st Amendment to legitimize it again. And they say now that that's not necessary. The federal government and the regulatory state can just ban or prohibit anything that they wish at any time, right? It's like, you know, they can ban or prohibit guns, you see. If you're going to let them do that with a drug war, what Trump did, gun control, gun bans by executive order, it's the same thing as a drug war. Same principle is involved here. And it's not legal. It's not constitutional. It's no more legal or constitutional when the bureaucratic state arbitrarily bans some substance

than it is when the bureaucratic state arbitrarily bans some gun or some attachment to a gun. We need to figure this out. You need to understand how that's the same thing. And you need to understand that the supremacy clause, you can look at it as either being clarified or nullified by the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment came after the Supremacy Clause. Why did they have to have a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol?

Everybody agreed on that. I've said that many times. It's a big hassle to do a constitutional amendment. That's a heavy lift, and justifiably so. But there was motivation to do it constitutional amendment. That's a heavy lift and justifiably so. But there was motivation to do it for alcohol. And so they were wrong about how that was going to fix everything, right? Alcohol prohibition didn't stop alcohol use. It actually made it worse. We got organized crime. We got corrupted courts and police and all the rest of the stuff that we all know.

And they ended that experiment after a short period of time, after just a few years. We've now been doing this for over 50 years. But they all agreed that they had to go to the hassle of amending the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause was there. Why didn't they use it? Well, because that is a prevarication. It's an invention of these people. And Mark Levin, who is out there calling for a constitutional amendment, and he's got his pet little things that he wants to change about the Constitution. He wrote a book about it. He's a very dangerous person.

Dangerously wrong about all of this stuff. And he's just, dangerously wrong about all of this stuff. And he's just as dangerously wrong about Trump. So given the Department of Justice's position and the supremacy clause in the Constitution, I would argue strongly that the idea that a president cannot be indicted at the federal level, it would cripple the executive branch. Furthermore, we got the supremacy clause. Because of it, same considerations that apply to a federal conviction would obviously apply to the state convention.

What a novel bunch of BS. This guy is just off the rails. Sycophant. Jonathan Turley disagrees. He says presidential pardoning powers do not extend to state convictions. Jonathan Turley says this novel argument runs against the federalism grain of the Constitution, he told Newsweek about Levin's argument. He said the text and the history of the pardon clause strongly militate against such interpretation,

extending the federal authority to the state crimes. You see, the problem with Levin, and one of the reasons why we should categorically reject any effort that this guy wants to do out there with a constitutional convention, is because the man is a dyed-in-the-wool statist. He wants to consolidate power in Washington over everything. And so, you know, this is, again, when we look at this, the real hope that these people have, I think Dershowitz turns his legal analysis is right.

He said they're going to rush this thing through. They're going to get a sham conviction, but that's what they want. They want a trial. They want a conviction. You know, the charges are sham. The conviction will be sham. And it'll be overturned on appeal, just as Jack Smith's conviction of the former governor of Virginia was overturned on appeal.

Unanimously or nearly unanimously, I can't remember. But again, you don't have to worry about the pardons or reprieves or the commutations. You don't have to play games about presidents pardoning themselves and all the rest of the stuff. It's going to be overturned on appeal. And even if it were not, I think that's absolutely going to happen. But even if that weren't the case, they'll find some way to keep Donald Trump from going to jail.

So save your money. He doesn't need any more of it. We'll be right back. Thank you. Making sense common again. You're listening to The David Knight Show. Well, I want to thank, first of all, on Rockfin, Michael Gregory. Thank you very much for the tip. And also on Rockfin Tornator. Thank you very much. Says, Hi, David.

I'm not sure if you covered this, but the police chief in Maui is John Pelletier, who happened to be the police chief in Vegas when the Vegas shooting happened. Also, have you found an easier way to cash in tips on Rockfin? Well, I mean, that's the way rockfin is set up they have their own cryptocurrency and then you have to change it uh from that token into ethereum and then from ethereum into um into cash and so it it gets you know it does get expensive in terms of that. Uh, if your bank supports that has no fees, uh, of course, uh, checks in the mail have no fees. You can find that stuff at the David night show.com, the PO box that's there. Uh, those

are the most efficient ones. I don't begrudge, um, uh, the different places that have fees on there. It just adds another level of complication with the cryptocurrency. And it's concerning in the sense that Coinbase, which is the only one that handles that particular cryptocurrency, the RAE, R-A-E, that's, you know, you've already had the Security and Exchange Commission come after them and say, we're not going to let you do any cryptocurrencies except for Bitcoin. I mean, that even cuts out Ethereum.

And so there's a court case that's going on right now to push back the SEC on this usurpation of power. They don't have the power to do that, but that doesn't mean that they won't have the, they don't have the authority to do that, but that doesn't mean they won't, don't have the power to push this thing through. So that's an open question there in terms of what happened in Vegas. I'm sorry, not Vegas. Um, yeah, Vegas is a big red flag there, isn't it? Um, the things, the way that was handled there. Um, I don't expect to see much of an investigation of the government's culpability there, but again, I will underscore that, um, directed energy weapons are not what I think happened there.

As I said early on, I believe that this is the random distribution of disaster that is there. Some areas completely devastated, others it's here and there, others were left completely untouched. I think that is something that frequently happens with natural disasters. And if we look at the culpability of the people who are running that area, I think they left, essentially, it's like leaving cans of gasoline or linseed oil around in your garage with rags there. And then, oh, I didn't do anything to light the fire. Even Infowars, after I talked about it, they did an article pushing back and said, yeah, it looks like we've got video footage now showing that this unkept brush that the government doesn't want to do

anything about that in contact with these power lines running right through it at a low level. That was the thing that kicked off these fires in various places. And so that's what I think happened. I still think the government is culpable. I still think that it is absolutely amazing that the governor and I, I had it yesterday to play it and it was taken out of the stream deck and I forgot to put it back in. But the comments that the governor is making about, well, we're going to take this land and we're going to make it a memorial to them and we'll push them into some smaller confined area

or something like that, that should be what people are concerned about, how they're going to use this. They should be concerned about the fact that all this stuff about the underbrush and the warnings about all that, nothing was done about that. But if you want to just look at how messed up Hawaii is, you know, one of the things that I've seen now is a guy who has, um, I forget what his official title was, but they said, well, you want to know why they didn't rush out water to do some of this stuff. Look at this guy. He's talking about how, you know, under their indigenous religions, water was some kind of a sacred godlike substance. And we've got to really carefully hold back how we're going to use it and all the rest of the stuff. I don't know if that was a factor. I certainly do know that the underbrush

has been the deciding factor in the Canadian fires that they can't put out. And perhaps starting this and making it so intense. You know, you got fuel, you got wind. It was turbocharged, right? Like almost like forced induction on an engine, the way this thing went through. It goes back to total mismanagement, as I said when I was talking about it. They don't want to do anything to maintain the it. They don't want to do anything to maintain the roads. They don't want to do anything to maintain the forests, and they virtue signal

about it. So we don't want cars, and we don't want anybody coming in here and getting dead wood out of the forest and using it for positive things. So we're going to shut all that stuff down. But let's talk a little bit about let's see, on Rockfin, Amos Poole. Thank you for the tip. He says, do you think they may have their sights on the Supreme Court with the overturning of the conviction? Oh, absolutely. I think that's what's going to happen. That's what happened. If I'm correct, I think it was the Supreme Court. I'm almost certain it was the Supreme Court that overturned Jack Smith's prosecution of the former Virginia governor. They came after him for allegations of donations, big donations, personal donations, and stuff like that. There was another case that he did, which I think he should have won, the case of the New Jersey Senator Menendez. And a clear case, in my opinion, of corruption and fraud.

There was a very wealthy doctor in Florida that was giving him lots of money and getting all kinds of Medicaid issues and things like that. I thought that was a very clear-cut case. I'm not too impressed, by the way, with the history of Jack Smith. I've talked thought that was a very clear cut case. I'm not too impressed by the way with, uh, the history of Jack Smith. I've talked about that in the past. You know, he also went after the Breck girl in, um, North Carolina. Um, what was his name? I've called him that for so long. I forgot his real name. Edwards. Uh, it was a John Edwards. I think it was the guy that, you know, was calling his error on satellite TV

he went after him for corruption and couldn't even get a conviction on that guy but I thought the Menendez case was very clear cut and in the case of the Virginia governor his name I can't remember right now it was pretty much unanimously overturned so I think that's what

they're going to do Mr. Goldfold thank you very much for the tip. I appreciate that. He said, just a few years. Did you say prohibition was a law for a few years? It was 1920 to 1933 with no beer. Hardly a few years. Now it's a few years in terms of, okay, so we've been going for 52 years with this.

52 years with this. 52 years with this. And the thing is, the reason it ended was because of jury nullification. It was a few years after they got this thing done, people who were tired of no beer said, we're not going to give convictions on this stuff. And the other thing that was different about alcohol prohibition was it didn't go after the end users and they didn't have mandatory minimums and they didn't have a civil asset forfeiture. All those things, by the way, were put in during the Reagan administration, but it was Joe Biden.

It was really pushing hard and made that stuff get through. And he took credit for it. And he deserves the blame, I should say, not the credit for putting all those things. Going after end users, mandatory minimums, civil asset forfeiture, just shows you what a contemptible tyrant Joe Biden has always been. And none of those things were done with alcohol prohibition. And it was stopped with jury nullification, so many different areas. That was part of the turning. And so, yeah, after what was it, 12 or 13 years or something, they turned the thing around.

Let's talk a little bit about artificial intelligence. Yesterday I began to talk about the artificial intelligence feeding on data that was created by artificial intelligence. You know, scraping this stuff, and that's the big competition, trying to find places where these people can get enough data

to train their artificial intelligence. So you just think of it as feeding. And as I said yesterday, it's very much like mad cow disease and the human equivalent of it, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, which you can get if you eat beef where the cow has mad cow disease. How do the cows get mad cow disease? Well, they get it from cannibalism. It's eating the brain and spinal cord material from other cows.

You do that long enough, you wind up with mad cow disease, and that mad cow disease can be passed on to humans. This is a perfect analogy for what's going on with artificial intelligence. As they point out in this article, they say, as AI becomes increasingly ubiquitous so does the synthetic content that it produces but in an ironic twist those same synthetic outputs might also stand to be generative ai's biggest threat generative ai models and these are things like chat gpt and stuff like that and again in the third hour we're going to be talking to someone who is involved in or at least following

it very closely what is happening with Hollywood but also other other situations where you've got the transportation industry where workers have been left behind in this inflation that was created by Trump and the COVID pandemic and you know Biden came along and poured more fuel on the fire, of course. But it is this chat GPT that is threatening the screenwriters. And so the screenwriters are concerned about this and the actors are concerned about it as well. And it's the actors and the writers that are on strike in Hollywood. And as she points out, this has big economic effects outside of just California because, you know, they have, it's a big industry, lots of money,

lots of people work for it in different ways, and they don't all live in California. But getting back to the chat GPT stuff, the models don't just cough up human-like content out of thin air. This is an article from Futurism. There's a lot of material that it feeds on that was made by humans. They scrape it off of the web. Turns out, though, that when you feed the synthetic content back to a generative AI model, strange things begin to happen. Think of it as kind of data inbreeding. Back in February, data researchers at Monash University,

they described it as Habsburg AI. That's a little bit different way of looking at it. If you remember, there was a royal uh, Spain and Hapsburg family, they essentially bred themselves out of existence within breeding. Uh, they started developing these unusual characteristics. Uh, one of the most obvious ones was the jaw, an extended jaw. They even called it Habsburg jaw. And the last guy was part of the Habsburg. They were so inbred, the last guy couldn't breed. And so this guy is saying, this is what's going to happen to AI. A system that is so heavily trained on the outputs of other generative AI, that it becomes an inbred mutant, likely with exaggerated, grotesque features. And of course, AI is already hallucinating over a lot of stuff,

even before it starts getting so prolific in terms of consuming its own material. AI builders are continuously hungry to feed their models more data, which is generally being scraped from an internet that is increasingly laden with synthetic content. If there's too much destructive inbreeding, could everything just fall apart? Well, I certainly hope so. The quote Groucho Marx.

Well, I certainly hope so. What if we just starve it of human input? Get off the internet or whatever. It doesn't have any human input. We just starve it. It goes insane. Feeding on itself. Rice University and Stanford have put together a published paper.

They call it the Self-Consuming Generative Models. Go MAD. M-A-D. And they call MAD, MAD, mad, they call it, as an acronym they use, model autophagy disorder. Now in your body, autophagy is your body essentially eating itself. And that can sometimes be a good thing, you know, if you have, go on a fast or something like that, the autophagy can clear out bad stuff in your body. But it's also, you know, in a more general sense, eating yourself. As they said,

this is like not just a cat chasing its tail and grabbing it, but actually eating the tail, that type of thing. And they said it only takes five cycles of training on synthetic data for an AI model outputs to blow up. They've only got to do it five times. It's a fascinating glimpse at what might just end up being generative AI's Achilles heel. So what does it all mean for regular people, for the burgeoning AI industry and for the internet itself? Well, here's what I think, and they don't say this in the interview, in the article.

In the article, they interview these people who did the Rice University and Stanford paper and ask them some questions. But when I look at it, one of the things that they did not touch on is the fact the stock market is not really doing too well outside of the AI bubble. The AI bubble is really sustaining it. And, of course, it helps whenever they raise the interest rates. It helps the stock market artificially. But it's really the AI bubble that has been producing astounding gains for people in the stock market this year.

And so if they start to realize that this data issue is a bit of a problem, what is that going to do? Well, it could be the pin that bursts this bubble. If they say this stuff is, because as they talk about this, it is very difficult for them to identify and separate out as AI begins to do more and more stuff, as it generates more and more pictures, for example, as it generates more and more text content, chat bots and things like that. As that starts to proliferate, this becomes a real issue.

And it's not really clear what they're going to do. They could watermark it. That would be one thing they could do. But they said even the watermarks eventually cause issues with it. So we've entered an age where either wittingly or unwittingly, generative models are increasingly consuming outputs from other generative models. And some companies are willingly training generative models on synthetic data, especially if it's in an area where they don't have a lot of human data, a lot of real data.

They'll just do that. It turns out that a lot of the big training data sets that are being used today for learning actually contain synthetic images created by other generative models. And so it becomes this self-consuming loop, this mad cow disease type of thing. So it said, well, it varies from model to model, situation to situation. They said, let's take a look at this intuitively. Let's say if you had a billion pieces of natural data and you have only one piece of synthetic data, mad will not happen.

But one year later, if you got a billion pieces of synthetic data, then definitely it will go mad in just five iterations. We found this ratio by doing Gaussian modeling. That's the kind of probability modeling. But figuring it out for, let's say, DALI versus mid-journey, what is the exact balance of real and synthetic data that needs to keep everything safe?

Well, that's what we're looking at now. We're not really sure. They said the best bet might be to watermark some of this stuff to be able to detect the synthetic data, remove it, or skip it. But they said there's companies that for whatever reason, maybe it's just cheaper for them to use synthetic data. Or maybe they don't have enough real data, as I said. They just throw caution to the wind. They say, we're going to use it.

What they don't realize is that if they do this generation after generation, one thing that's going to happen is that the artifacts are going to be amplified. Your synthetic data is going to start to drift away from reality, and it already hallucinates from the very beginning. How much is it going to look like? Well, this is what they asked him. They said, what's it going to look like? And he said, well, in one experiment we ran, instead of the artifacts getting amplified,

the pictures all converged into basically the same person. They're talking about the generative stuff like mid-journey and things like that. They said it was totally freaky. It just stopped working. It just gives you the same answer for everything. So it said increasingly this feedback loop, this cannibalism that is happening there, the images become increasingly monotonous and dull.

And if you do it enough, it just gets the same image each time. If they put them on the web, if users put their stuff out on the web, it's invariably going to leak into training data sets for future systems. Some things are just inevitable. So what about watermarking, they said? Well, here's the downside of watermarking. Watermarking itself intentionally introduces an artifact. And once you compound that artifact over several generations, it can blow up like AI-generated images do. So we don't know how the watermark can or will be amplified,

but the benefits outweigh the downside right now. But still, it's going to be something else. So what do you think is going to happen when the stock market gets wind of this? I mean, if they start a campaign talking about this, again, stock markets are based on whispering campaigns. E.F. Hutton, when he talks, people listen. It's just, I don't know. It's a bubble economy.

And people start to see that the more you use AI, the higher the chances that it's going to consume that stuff and go mad like cows. It's eating its own brain. The hypothesis that more synthetic data that's out there could actually lower the performance of a whole host of tools, including search engines. Well, that's interesting because, you know, the NSA and the CIA design the internet, especially the social media things, as a waste of scraped data about us off, already being used to do things like generate websites entirely.

So you could wind up having generative models that would lead you to results that are also synthetic. You could have hyperlinks to other synthetic websites. There could be a whole synthetic ecosystem that you could find through search engines, which is kind of crazy. It is kind of crazy. And of course, government could deliberately use this to try to create alternative content that is different from real content. Search engines start feeding on themselves, feeding on this synthetic stuff and just bypass everything else. So make sure you write down the date, the David Knight show.com, um, and, uh, David Knight dot gold. Uh, so, uh,

get you to Tony's place. Uh, so they said to learn from data, you got to of course, label it. And they've got people who are working on the labeling aspect of it. That is the goal standard. But one of the things that they found is, and this was something that came out a few years ago. If you remember, Amazon did what they called the Amazon Mechanical Turk System. Basically, what it was is like a clearinghouse where you could go there and say, I need some stuff done cheaply, and people would do stuff cheaply. You know, Fiverr is kind of like a thing like that.

But they would actually put this stuff out. Well, people weren't making too much money, and other things happened, and it didn't take off like they wanted it to. So they decided, well, let's use artificial intelligence to run the Mechanical Turk. And so, well, the problem is, is that that would farm stuff out to certain people who would go into the marketplace and go lower and lower and lower and lower for their services. But guess what those people would do? They said, well, if I get the job, I'm not going to do the job myself.

I'll give it to the ai to do it so they're getting garbage back from this stuff there's loop upon loop they said they're finding out that when you put these labeling tasks out there for example like so the artificial intelligence community and i i uh there was a story where they were talking about people who were getting paid 15 an hour and uh they were talking about people who were getting paid $15 an hour. And, uh, they were the ones who were doing the data labeling. And that was really kind of the gold standard for this, um, artificial intelligence data base.

That's not data that's out there. And, uh, so then they started farming this out. So we'll try to get some people who can do this even cheaper people, uh, through this mechanical Turk thing, they said they're just asking AI systems then to do the labeling for them. So instead of the people that they hired to do the labeling, doing the labeling, they farmed it off yet another level to the AI. I said a quick story. The whole jumping off point for our research happened when one of our group members was at a conference presenting a poster, not on this stuff, but on something that was related to AI.

And there was a researcher from the industry who walked by and just offhandedly remarked, pretty soon there's going to be more synthetic images on the internet than real images. That was about a year and a half ago. And he he said there's going to be more synthetic websites than real websites and there's going to be more fake text than real text boom that's what got them to look at this and then they actually quantized it and said well you only got to go through five cycles

when you got a lot of synthetic stuff there before the whole thing blows up so what happens when that information gets out to the stock market at large? And then there's another practical aspect of this as well. You have Google now using an astonishing amount of water because the increased computational loads of artificial intelligence. Remember, it was, I don't know, eight, ten years ago when the NSA put this massive data

center out in the desert in Utah and everybody was saying, what are you doing putting it there? You need to have so much cooling and electricity and everything. It was in Bluffsdale, Utah. And it uses as much electricity and as much water as a city does. And it's probably gotten worse because, you know, the NSA is using artificial intelligence. Google's water consumption is rising rapidly as it's pushed into the energy-intensive artificial intelligence world. According to their 2023 environmental report, the company used an astronomical 5.6 billion with a B,

billion with a B, gallons of water last year, a 20% increase over what they used in the previous year. Likely attributed in large part to their growing artificial intelligence efforts, where they have to have large amounts of water for cooling. Situation has gotten so bad that Google's planned data center in Arizona switched to air-cooled technology due to water shortages in the area. In the report, Google does claim that 82% of its freshwater use last year came from regions that have, quote, low water stress.

Well, that would mean that about a fifth of it came from areas that had high water stress. Now, one of the things that they're going to use to push CBDC on us is to say, well, you know, cryptocurrency and crypto mining is very unfriendly. It uses too much electricity and too much resources and all the rest of the stuff. And as I've said over and over again,

but what about artificial intelligence? Here's an example of it. What about NSA? They don't care about any of that stuff. They won't talk about that just like they won't talk about their private jets. Or they'll talk about your SUV. It's also not just Google that has a problem. Meta, OpenAI are also consuming vast amounts of water to keep their data centers running.

A hidden cost behind the ongoing AI arms race. Experts estimate that Meta's latest AI model, Lama 2, doubled the company's water intake compared to the predecessor AI. So it is rapidly expanding. And then this is a story that we will talk about when our guest comes on. Disney is furious at a law that would cut tax breaks if it replaced actors with artificial intelligence. Now, what you have is a situation,

this is coming out of New Yorkork and a lot of different states have offered a lot of subsidies to hollywood to film in their state when we lived in north carolina there was massive amounts of subsidies being given to filming companies to film there and a lot of things were made there big Big, big film, big budget films were being made there and New York, same thing is happening there. But New York is saying, well, if you know, we've got all these film subsidies and we want you to make a film here, but if you use AI to replace actors, uh, we're going to cut your tax subsidy.

I don't expect to see this happening in California because there's so much lobbying from the technology industry that's there. But both Disney and NBCUniversal are both watching a proposed New York law that would ban them from very lucrative state tax breaks if they use AI to replace human talent. NBCUniversal has gotten a whopping $96.7 million in tax credits since the start of 2022. We're filming in New York and, um, Disney's gotten, uh, $10.9 million for a couple of things that they've filmed there. The program now offers $700 million in tax breaks to the entertainment companies for filming in New York.

This is like they build the stadiums for the sports teams, that type of thing. I don't like that, but it is interesting to see these fights develop. Hollywood is completely freaked out over artificial intelligence. And as I said, we're talking in the next hour to somebody about the strikes that are going on there. You have both the writers and the actors are striking and AI is at the center of both of these. To enter into labor negotiation with studios, the Writers Guild of America is asking studios

to commit to not using AI to generate scripts, to not use chat GPT for this. Now, here's the interesting thing. They said they would not even talk to us about it, which indicates that they're going to do that one way or the other. So it'd be kind of interesting when the script writers, I would have thought that this was already why we're getting the kind of quality that we're getting. I would have thought that switched over to AI and chat GPT to write

the programs a long time ago. You know, just, just write me something with LGBT in it. You know, none of the rest of this stuff has to make any sense. Uh, just, just, uh, you know, push that out to people. Okay. Could do that. Is that it made us say that, oh, these people are actually planning to use this to undermine us. Well, now they fear that AI will eliminate their jobs entirely. It'll replace the voices and the faces of the actors with computer generated stuff. It'll create marketing materials. It'll eliminate swear words and reduce the cost of visual effects. Oh, we don't want to eliminate those swear words. That's been a big fight, big fight, uh, for Hollywood. They love those swear words put in there. You know, we, at one point in time, when our kids were young, we had access to a lot of films and, you know, a lot of times the only thing that we really were concerned about it was all the swearing and

everything. We don't want to train them on that at an early age. So we got this box, it was called curse free TV, and it would read the subtitling stuff. Um, and because, you know, there was, they would actually subtitle the swear words and stuff like that. So it would, which I thought was funny, you know, you gotta have all that stuff in there. Right. And so when it would see that it would, that it would uh audio uh it would cut the audio at that point they'd blanket and then it would put up uh uh something as an alternative you know so it'd be some uh some uh pejorative term with swear words and be something like you clown which would come up was actually kind of funny. When we watched Blackhawk Down with the kids, that was, I think, one of the funniest ones because it pretty much turned it into a silent film all through the battle,

which we had not even noticed. It was, I guess, just at a subliminal level unless they put it in the subtitles. There's all this cursing going on with all the explosion and gunfire and everything. We didn't even hear it. But you know, it cut down all the explosions and the gunfire as well with all that stuff. And there was a big battle to, um, you know, Hollywood hated it, that there was this company out of Utah, clean films that would edit out gratuitous sex films and gratuitous language. And you could set those things, you buy buy a box from them, and they would go through

and figure out on the DVD where the spots were these things happened. And then you could download that file from them. And as you're playing the movie, it would just branch around those things. You'd wind up getting like an airplane version of an R-rated film or something. But getting back to the AI stuff, the potential to replace actors, that is the most significant aspect of these fights. You know, artificial intelligence replacing actors and screenwriters. And this is the biggest labor dispute they've had for 60 years, both actors and screenwriters

over this stuff. And they were saying that already there is a company in Santa Monica called Flawless, and they have a whole suite of post-production tools that people can use that are AI-based. One of them, for example, Deep Editor, lets filmmakers move an actor's performance from one shot to another. So you got Margot Robbie or whatever talking behind a desk. You can decide to show her from a different angle without actually going back and having more takes of it. Another one. AI Reshoot lets filmmakers replace dialogue as long as they have audio of the actor speaking those words.

True sync will allow them to dub in any language and filmmakers can adjust the movements of the actor's mouth to make it look as if they are speaking the foreign words accurately. So they've already got a whole bunch of apps that are already doing this to a large degree. And again, it was back in 2013 that I covered the film that had Robin Wright in it. And they were talking about how she made a deal in this film. Robin Wright, who plays herself essentially, they decide that they are going to, um, they offer a contract. So she doesn't ever have to work again. They give her like a one time fee, I think. And then they own her persona. She goes into this thing and they scan her in every possible way. And then they start putting her in movies, but now they own her and perpetuity. And, um, the first part of it was very interesting.

And, uh, what was it called? I think it's called the Congress or something like that, and the first part of it was very interesting. And what was it called? I think it's called the Congress or something like that. But I did a report on it about 10 years ago. And that's really what they're looking at doing now. Another issue that AI raises is that of copyrights and infringement, the unauthorized use of an actor's likeness and intellectual property. Yeah, but what happens when some actor who's in their prime decides, well, I'll let you, you know, copyright me.

I'll sell myself to you. They sell their songs, their entire library of songs and that type of thing. So you could sell yourself as an actor. They could put you in every kind of movie. You know, when we look at AI eating itself, I think when we look at WorldCoin, also brought to you by Sam Altman, the guy behind OpenAI,

when we look at that type of thing, it's not just eating itself. AI is also eating us. So let's hope that does go crazy. Certainly don't need it, I don't think. We've managed to survive without this stuff for quite some time. On Rumble, freedom or death 1776. Thank you very much for the tip.

He wasn't the chief in Vegas, but he was in the command staff, he says, about that police guy. Okay. On Rockfin, Audi MRR. Hey, how you doing? Good to see you there. My concern about AI is that it is socially engineering the masses to stop relying on their own logic and reasoning. Exactly. Exactly. Pacifies them. And it is the next level of arguments from authority. As I said before, you know, who wants to have just the computer print out when you could get the computer itself to speak to you directly? You got the direct message

from God. Well, the problem is garbage in, garbage out. And that's the way this always works. We're going to take a quick break. And when we come back, we're going to take a look at a very interesting thing that was found on the latest telescope that they put up. A giant question mark out deep in space. Pretty funny, actually. We'll be right back. oh You're listening to the david knight show well the uh james webb telescope uh looking deep into space saw this take a look at that i actually saw a question mark out in space. And it's a pretty clear question mark. It's really pretty funny. It kind of reminds me of the lyrics from Ventura Highway by America, you know, alligator lizards in the air. Well, here's the question mark out there. And now this is not intelligent design. The DNA is intelligent design. Pay attention to that.

Don't worry about question marks out in space. But as I said, what in the cosmos formed the apparent punctuation mark in space? Again, naturally occurring things from a particular angle can be very striking and can look anthropomorphic or look like it was done by intelligence. But it just underscores to me how people are so willfully blind to the things that were done by intelligence, that could only have been done by intelligence, for example, the DNA.

But people are always looking for meaning in life, aren't they? And now Reason Magazine has a very interesting article praising the psychedelic renaissance. Said, well, we're not going to repeat the mistakes of the 1960s you know or we did all this stuff but it's being pushed very heavily joe rogan reason psychiatrists and psychologists and when we go back and look at it through all of this they keep referring back to the spiritual aspects of this. And so I've talked many times when we were going through this pandemic, called the pharmaceutical companies, the pharmakia. That was the word that was translated as sorcery in the Bible.

Because, as I said, hallucinogenic stuff and drugs were so often linked to religious practices but i think that you know certainly when you look at the pharmaceutical industry they would not repent of their murders and they were the richest people on earth that's kind of an interesting connection there as well but going back to what was the traditional understanding kind of sorcery kind of a cultic religion that is what we're returning to in all of this. Reason thinks that's a really good thing. These drugs are getting serious positive coverage in glossy magazines,

best-selling books, literary memoirs, documentaries, hit podcasts, being pushed by people again like Joe Rogan. And why not? Because in this crazy world where we've got furries attacking people on the beach, you've got two and a half million adults and some kids out there escaping into their cartoon character costumes. Even the artificial intelligence is hallucinating in this world. I mean, it truly is crazy, isn't it? The FDA is expected to approve psilocybin, the psychoactive ingredient in magic mushrooms, and in MDMA. Janet Yellen is now kind of boasting about the fact that she took

several doses of this stuff when she went to China. I guess that explains her bizarre behavior. Anyway, there's also an association for this. They had a convention, and that's the basis of this Reason magazine article. The Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, MAPS is what they call themselves. I think they should have something that resolves to an acronym of MAD, M-A-D. That's what I've been taken by the artificial intelligence people, though. Large pharmaceutical companies are looking to get rich in this as well. But the biggest takeaway they said from the conference is that there's no inherent conflict between the science and the spirituality of psychedelics. Because now in this conference, just look at this, we've got a former Republican governor,

a current Democrat governor, religious seekers, tech people, unapologetic recreational users can be allies in the pursuit of the same goal. Now, I don't know if this is true, but I've been told this by people who were at the Burning Man thing. They said, you got all these Silicon Valley billionaires and executives and stuff, and they're coming in, they're dropping some pretty heavy psychedelic drugs, and they say that they're channeling technology. Well, I'll just leave that there with you. You know, we have other people who are taking, what is it, DMT, I think it is. It's in the article here.

And they say that people who take that have this common experience of meeting what they call mechanical elves and these people who have not you know talked to each other are describing them in the same way it's like they're all encountering the same thing and so now they have this very intentional group of people who are going to do research. They call themselves psychonauts. Not nuts, but nots, like as in astronauts, right? But you could call them nuts.

But they're going to do this, and they're going to try to interact more with these mechanical elves that they get in touch with somewhere else. But this story kind of focuses on the spiritual aspect of it from the perspective of reason. They don't really talk about that. They say Timothy Leary thought these drugs would radically alter every aspect of human society.

He said in 1973, when he's being interviewed from prison, put into prison over a cannabis charge. He said, I believe the revolution is a neurological revolution. It is a revolution of consciousness. And so the people who are pushing it today, psychotherapists said, we're determined to do it right this time. This time we're going to do it right. And we're not as a counterculture.

We're not going to stick a middle finger in the face of conservative American mindset and say, we're going to do it right. And we're not, as a counterculture, we're not going to stick a middle finger in the face of conservative American mindset and say, we're going to make all of you obsolete, and we're going to make all of your values obsolete. Well, guess what? Our values, our culture, are downstream from our religion. And these people are openly talking about it being religion. Now, they can't make God obsolete,

but they can put things out there that you will worship. They can offer false substitutes. And so they talk about the CIA's involvement just briefly. You know, LSD created in 1938 by Swiss chemists. And they said immediately the CIA got involved in it. And, of course, you can go back, and I don't have time to talk about it, the story of Frank Olson, who was killed as part of this MKUltra stuff, and they secretly gave him LSD.

But before the psychedelics, psychiatrists, psychologists were incorporating him into their medical research practices, Aldous Huxley helped to make discussions of mescaline respectable. He described it as sacramental visions. And even the guy who founded Alcoholics Anonymous, Bill Wilson, became a believer in the power of LSD to help alcoholics quit drinking.

Now, he talks about a higher power. He never talks about God or Christ in any of that. But one of the things that I thought, and Tony is ready, so I want to go to Tony. But just to say real quickly, you've got some former military people, Navy SEALs and others who have PTSD, and they say, well, this helps them. You now got Rick Perry who is pushing for this. But at this convention, they got some pushback from Native Americans. Well, they'd call it indigenous people. And they said, this is cultural misappropriation. The indigenous groups were using psychedelics long before LSD was synthesized in lab. And this quote I'll leave you with.

The Indians said, the people who had been doing the sorcery and the occultic stuff with these drugs, said decades from now, you're going to see this medicine harming you because they're living beings. And they don't like to be abused. And they're going to come back to you and harm you. He understands, perhaps better than these psychiatrists and these scientists, what they're really messing with. We'll take a quick break and we're going to be joined by Tony Ardman, and we're going to talk about what is happening.

This is going to be our last program before we have the BRICS convention next week to see what they're going to do. So we're going to talk about that and the implications of that. We'll be right back. ¶¶ in a world of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act you're listening to the david knight show all right joining us now is Tony Arterbund of Wise Wolf Gold. And of course, you can also find Wise Wolf if you go to davidknight.gold, which Tony has set up. That'll take you to his website. Let him know that you came through us. But I want to get Tony on today to talk about what is coming up. He's mentioned it in the past

several times that next week, we're going to uh the big bricks conference and everybody's talking about whether or not they're going to introduce some kind of a currency but either way i think it's going to be very important isn't it whether they do or not right i do i think it's going to be an important milestone on the way to de-dollarization and you i sent you an article yesterday from Robert Kiyosaki talking about how they're going to announce a digital gold-backed currency. And there's some dispute here because you get spokespeople from the BRICS saying, no, no, no, we just want to talk about regional currencies

and we want to get away from the dollar. That's obvious. That's their stated goal. But I don't know that there's going to be some earth-shattering announcement here. But I think the momentum is on the side of the bricks. I mean, again, 40% of the world's population, just Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa alone, and they're adding Saudi Arabia, which is huge. Mexico, Japan is looking to join. So these are, again, these are just the things that are adding up to dethrone King Dollar.

And it's going to have massive implications on the U.S. economy. And, of course, one of the reasons that Robert Kiyosawa is saying that and other people are saying that was because the Russian embassy said that. So we're going to have a gold-backed BRICS currency. But then a few weeks after that, you had South Africa, which is the S in the BRICS. BRICS was Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. So the South African government spokesperson said, no, it's not going to be a gold-backed currency. We're not going to do a BRICS currency. But this is a way for us to settle things on a local level.

And we just had this last week, this happening yet again, an agreement between the UAE, the United Arab Emirates, and India, so they could settle their petroleum transactions not using the petrodollar, but using India's currency. And this is what's going to really multiply with this. And that's why, as you pointed out, so many people are trying to join BRICS now. That's right. 40, was it 40, 70? I don't remember what the number was. All these different countries applying to join BRICS.. That's right. 40, was it 40, 70? I don't remember what the number was. All these different countries applying to join BRICS. It used to be just five of them, and now they've got several dozen.

You didn't hear much about BRICS two or three years ago. I mean, it would show up. I mean, if you're a gold bug like me, you would see it, but not in the mainstream, and now it's everywhere. You look at something Joe Biden did, David, and look at the announcement he made to Saudi Arabia. He said, we're going green and we're supposed to be the petrodollar. Again, this is what was it, the liquid natural gas exchange that China did on the shanghai exchange the first one to use the yuan this is about four or five months ago again the the trading in dollars is slowing down and i'm not an economist i'm not a

scientist or anything but it i i know that there's something called money velocity it's the amount of currency units in circulation you know minus demand and again the demand is shrinking and it's not shrinking catastrophically well i mean if you count uh you know 2021 56 percent of all the world's financial transactions went on in dollars 2022 is 46 it's pretty bad and i think it's it's shrinking still so i what we're looking at david i think is a a long road to de-dollarization it's giving people i think there's a blessing here, giving people time to prepare. But we're not going to remain the world's reserve currency for much longer. And I sent you an article yesterday from Kitco. And it was an interview with Annie Sheckman from Miles Franklin.

And I think he thinks a lot like we do. He's noted that there's an economic advisor. I think the chairman of the Economic Advisory Board for Joe Biden has written op-eds about why we should not be the world's reserve currency, why we should have the dollar should be dethroned from King Dollar. And again, you wonder, why would they do that? Well, Andy points out, and I think that's pretty apt in what we've been talking about for years now is they want to bring in the central bank digital currency it's easier to do if you've got an economic crisis if you're not having to uh facilitate those uh those dollar units and trade

all around the world it makes it a lot easier for them to do so again i think the some of the elite are rooting for this maybe some are maybe there's different factions i know that uh you know we've talked about many times how the federal reserve has raised rates in spite of that hurting the u.s economy and i you know the only thing i could take away from that is they wanted to remain uh strong uh as far as purchasing power in the world that's when it's how you keep a strong dollar is by raising interest rates. The headline on Drudge today is like housing interest rates, mortgage rates to 8%. That's in direct correlation to what the Fed's doing. So I think there's multiple things going on

here, but one thing's for certain, the dollar's not looking good long-term. And of course, they've already illustrated over and over again how they are willing to destroy our lives in order to preserve their power. Uh, that's what the federal reserve is going to do to preserve their dollar as much as they can. That's why they're talking about 8% interest on home mortgage loans. I mean, the first, uh, home loan we had, uh, when we got, we got married in 1980 and moved to Texas interest rates are sky high there. They, they kept going up even after we got our interest rate, but our first interest rate was 13% fixed. That was disastrous.

Yeah. Well, then, you know, if you moved to, well, my dad was building houses back in 1980, and I always hear the stories about how hot it was, because that was the year that they still haven't broken the record yet, David, despite all the global warming and the global boiling or whatever they have now going on. There was a, I talked when I was on with guard about this, they had, what was it? 52 days straight of 100 plus temperatures in 1980.

So that you you're a veteran of that. Oh yeah, I know. That's why I don't believe this stuff. People lying and I've seen temperatures all over the place for the last 50, 60 years. So yeah, it is, it's, it's pretty crazy, but, um, you know, the temperatures are high. So were the interest rates. And so, uh, you know, the, the temperatures didn't get any higher yet, but the interest rates did go up higher. And then you had this massive, uh, crash in, in Houston because at that point in time, uh, the rest of the country was really suffering economically because the massive inflation, uh, but things were point in time, the rest of the country was really suffering economically because of massive inflation.

But things were booming in Houston. You know, your dad's there building stuff because of the oil industry and other things like that. And then when the rest of the country started to recover, Houston went into a big crash. You couldn't get rid of a house. You were stuck with that stuff. And so it was a really horrible situation. And they're willing to do that again to us in order to preserve their power. You were talking about these economic advisors. He's got a couple of economic advisors. This Kitco article talks about

it. His op-ed piece back in 2014, we need to dethrone the king dollar and uh so uh they want to get rid of the dollar and then the other economic advisor wants to push in cbdc and uh they they see that these are two of his uh key economic advisors and it's interesting this article doesn't even talk about the fact that that's when biden put out his order last march he said well we got to redesign the financial systems, first thing he said. Then we've got to find out how we're going to enforce it. Then we've got to write the code. And then the fourth thing is how we're going to sell it to people and tell them it's to protect the world from climate change. But they're looking at redesigning the entire financial system.

That was their number one objective in all of that. Yes. And what's confusing about all of this to anybody who's studied history and looked at geopolitics and foreign policy is that the current ruling regime is not making moves to make the United States stronger. Even if you're misguided on your philosophies, they're not doing that. They're doing everything they can to i think bring about some kind of controlled demolition yeah and if you're in the know you're going to profit but it looks like all of this is is geared towards uh bringing us to the point where people accept a central bank digital currency they're not trying to really save the dollar they're not they're not doing anything economically to prop us back up. They're not bringing jobs back.

They're not stopping. There's no inroads to peace in Ukraine or Taiwan or anything. This would more tension and more economic disastrous news for the dollar. That's right. And the guy who did this article, that's the way he ends it. He says, does anybody want to give up their privacy? Does anybody want to go into this control system of CBDC? No.

He said there's going to be some kind of event. As you pointed out, some kind of a controlled demolition. You'll watch this stuff just go into free fall, just like the inside job of 9-11. And then they're going to have something that they're going to offer you, just as they started putting us into this police state, the surveillance state, this Homeland Security, TSA stuff right after that was already planned. And, you know, we've seen the second shoe of that to drop with all this pandemic stuff. So they've got their plans that are there. And the good news is, is that there's some things that we can do even on an

individual level to isolate ourselves somewhat from this if we understand this is what's coming and that's the gold and silver stuff and of course silver is looking uh uh it's just amazing what the multiples are about that isn't it well you know we just talked about 1980 that's interesting because that's the highest silver's ever been it went to50 an ounce because of the Hunt brothers. They drove the silver market up. They tried to corner the silver market. I think that they were somewhat taken out. I think that the powers that be saw what happened to gold and silver during the 70s. And by the way, that's why your mortgage rates were high when you bought your first

home in 1980, because Paul Volcker, who was the head of the Federal Reserve, had to raise interest rates to the teens to quell inflation. We had runaway inflation in the 1970s. People didn't really know what was happening because we never had that before. We always had a dollar as good as gold. I mean, even when you couldn't own gold, it was theoretically pegged to gold. Franklin Roosevelt took your gold, $20 gold pieces, which is basically an ounce of gold, gave you $20 and then raised the price of gold to $35 an ounce. And that's where it was

from 1944 at Bretton Woods until Nixon took us off the gold standard. So there's been a correlation there between interest rates and inflation. And at the same time, you had silver being riven up by the Hunt brothers up until 1980, $50 an ounce in 1980, David. That's like, I don't know. I mean, I'm just estimating $200 in purchasing power today, maybe more. But we have cheap silver. The gold-silver ratio is skewed. it's like 83 or 84 ounces of silver to make one ounce of gold it's always been 10 to 16 to 20. it's never been like this i think this is just part of the fake market that we have uh that you know these the paper trading the bullion houses and i think the collusion between central banks and those who hold the most silver, like you look at JP Morgan, they're the largest, I think, private holder of silver in the world.

They have a vested interest in keeping silver low, do they not? Because they need to continue to acquire physical silver. Silver is used in, it's the most thermoconductive metal. It's used in solar, used in electric, used in medicine. It's an industrial metal. And again, only 24% of the output for silver is from silver mines. The rest of it is just accidents. Like people, or people, it's entities finding silver in gold mines or zinc mines or copper

mines. So there's not enough supply to meet the demand for silver and that's why you hear things like it's going to take a kilogram or more of silver for each electric car i'm not a fan of electric cars but you have you know new government mandated uh electric vehicle laws and then you've got um i just found out i bought the last of the Dodge Challengers because they weren't going to make any more. I mean, it's such a sign of the times. You know, it's like, oh, we're going to make it electric. I'm like, oh, so it's not going to be good at all.

It's just going to be this. I'm driving a golf cart. I'm not really I'm not really into that. So, no, I think silver's got a huge upside, David. I sent you that article yesterday. And we're not you know, we don't, you and I don't give investment advice. And I don't even think of gold and silver as investments. But I think their true value has not been, it's really not showing right now.

You've got gold dip below 1900. And that's silly. Knowing where, you know, I was hosting your show when it broke its all-time high and breaking into the 2060 range back in August of 2020, how much damage has been done to the dollar since then? I mean, math, massive damage. So we know the purchasing power of the dollar is waning and,

uh, gold and silver are there. They are a function of, of housing energy and work. They're a representation of that. Uh, the dollar is not. Yeah.

And, uh, just remember the rich rarely hoard cash. They almost never do. Uh, there's a reason of that. The dollar is not. Yeah. And just remember the rich rarely hoard cash. They almost never do. There's a reason for that. Yeah. Yeah. If you go back to 1980 and you look at various benchmarks, salaries in the field where I worked, you know, they're like three and a half to four times higher.

Price of houses are about five times higher. The median price of houses is about, you know, four or five times higher. So yeah, it truly, I think your, your figure of a $200 silver is conservative, especially considering the fact that we, uh, we're not in the 1980s looking at the big industrial uses that you talked about with EVs and other things like that. And Kurosawa, as he's talking about it, he says, you know, gold and silver, he's, um, uh you know doom and gloom he thinks this is going to really uh collapse but uh he was especially talking about silver and then of course also uh bitcoin he's got big projections for what's going to happen with uh bitcoin but he's not the only one i saw this article from um uh this is uh from um seeking hundred dollars per ounce of silver as well possible. And, you know, that would, again, if you go back and you look at, uh, what, uh,

silver was in the 1980s and there were other things that were happening to distort stuff at that point in time. But yeah, that is, um, still pretty conservative based on a historical prices, isn't it? Right. You've got $50 in 1980. Then you had, again, it, it reached nearly $50 in 2011. And then Ben Bernanke came out and said that, don't worry, we won't do TARP again.

That was a mistake. We won't bail out the too big to fail and too big to jail. We're going to be very conservative. This isn't going to happen. So people started selling off their metals because people run to gold and silver in times of fear especially there was an article by Simon Black the Sovereign Man and on uh zero hedge today it was like uh I'm rooting for gold to zero he said uh but that's not going to happen and the reason that you root for gold to zero is because gold is where you go in times of uncertainty. So it'd be okay with them if things were just great, but they're not going to be. He was talking about it's not going to be good

because you've got the rise of socialism, the rise of kinetic warfare, psychological warfare, the rise of CBDC, the totalitarian push from the top. And I think I'm with him. Physical metals, and that's where I would go first. Robert Kiyosaki is somebody that I've listened to

for many, many, many years. I've learned a lot from him. He's been talking about Bitcoin. I mean, I read about him talking about Bitcoin in 2014. I bought my first Bitcoin ATM in 2016. I think Bitcoin was like $300 and some odd dollars. I remember buying them to stock my ATMs. I should have just bought Bitcoin.

But I happen to agree with him. First, on the physical metal side, never buy paper. You want it in your hand. You want to be able to physically hold it because you don't want any counterparty risk. And there's a huge disparity, ladies and gentlemen, between the paper price and the physical price. That's got, I'm a dealer. I deal in the real world. If you want an ounce of silver, I have to source it, I have to find it. And there's a premium on that. It's not because I made it. It's because that's what the, it's the economics of it. Same thing for cryptocurrency. People, again, they've been led to believe that cryptocurrency is basically a central bank digital currency. No, no, no. Cryptocurrency is about you holding the keys. It's about you having your own wallet. It's about you being able to control that,

not tied to an exchange. And the waters get pretty muddy here so i'm not advocating across the board crypto uh i do think it's an option i do like bitcoin uh and i'm pretty bullish on bitcoin i think that there's there's still a lot of room for adoption and it's one of the you know he talks about that article i sent you that gold silver bitcoin in that order um i agree with that um and you know again you don't have to hold bitcoin but i think it's something that is going to play a role here in the future. And we're just getting warmed up. This is going to be a strange time when you see the loss of the dollars, the world's reserve currency, David. Yeah.

Yeah. And what you were saying about paper gold and paper silver, I experienced that when I had, uh, put my, um, my IRA in that. And, uh, I saw gold and silver going up and it was just going horizontal. It's like, what's going on? Why aren't these things moving? Uh, and then I started looking at it. It's like, oh, oh, okay. It's just an ETF and they don't have to have anything there to back this up. That's, that's why it's doing its own thing. And it's, it's detached from the actual spot prices of the physical metal uh that was a real tell uh so anyway got out of that stuff but uh it is kind of interesting there was also tony uh an interview with a congressional uh budget offices director on

cnbc's squawk box and the guy said to, said, well, why not use the strength of the dollar? We know we can do as much as we want. We're always going to be able to borrow. So let's just really ramp it up, you know, Keynesian. And let's just engender 5% GDP growth from government spending. Damn the torpedoes. We'll worry about it later. People think you can do that.

It's called MMT. So the Congressional Budget Office Director, who unfortunately doesn't set policy, but they kind of look at what the Congress is doing, he says, yeah, I think we've seen the downsides of that over the last few years. But that's really what has been happening. And that's one of the reasons why we're going to feel the shock of this move away from the dollar as reserve currency. And that is going to happen even regardless of what happens this next week with BRICS, regardless of whether there is ever a BRICS currency next week or after that,

everybody's moving away from it. And that's what we're going to feel in this country is that kind of that loss of being able to detach ourselves from physical reality. I think gravity is going to come roaring back on the U.S. politicians in Washington, don't you think? Well, you talk about psychedelics. You'd have to have some strong psychedelics. I don't know where these people went to school, but they must have had a library devoid of history. You don't have any fiat currency

that's ever lasted through history not not one you started with the chinese it went to the greeks and the romans and all throughout history whoever's adopted a fiat paper currency it goes to zero i mean the philosopher voltaire said that about paper currency it always returns to its natural state and value which is zero um that's where that i don't know that we're headed to zero david i've always said we're headed to digital uh i there's there's too there's too much evidence to point to the fact that they're doing it on purpose i mean you you could see this coming a mile away you think so yeah um i just i just want to caution everyone that uh you would want to look out for the aftermath of the dollar losing its world's reserve currency status. It's going to mean higher consequences for purchasing power.

The economics of the United States is going to be under pressure for that. And so be prepared. We've set up DavidKnight.Gold. You can get physical precious metals. We don't have a minimum. You can go there anytime, send us an email or a text day or night. We'll get back to you. We can roll over 401ks, IRAs very easy into physical precious metals. And we've also set up Wolfpack, which again, DavidKnight.Gold. Click on the link says join Wolfpack. If you think you can't afford precious metals you can we set up the lone wolf package fifty dollars a month it's the lowest

tier we also have a wolf cub which is for kids it's thirty five dollars a month we've been putting you know explanations of coins and different types of fractionals in there this is a learning tool so yeah we've got all the options available out of the dollar. And I'm not, this isn't, it's not an investment advice. It's protection advice. Get out of the dollar, uh, get physical precious metals in your hand. It's a way to set up the parallel economy and, uh, you'll be empowered by it. That's the key thing. We know that CBDC is coming and we know that many of the downside risk, we don't know the financial risk and how they're going to play out with this loss of the petrodollar, the loss of the dollar as a

reserve. But the key thing is, and we were talking about paper before, one of the reasons that people will get into paper silver and paper gold is because they can get into it in small amounts and do it incrementally and things like that. But, you know, they can get physical goal with the program that you set up. They can do it on a regular basis and buy into it in very small amounts. And you will sell people whatever they want, big or small, even outside of the Wolfpack program. And so you've got a way that you can gradually do this without noticing it, a way that you can get into it at any level that you want.

So there's really not any upside to the paper stuff that is really kind of divorced from the reality of it. And it's something that you get to hold yourself. That's the key thing. You know, it's real money and it's real money that you hold yourself. And that's the key thing. Thank you so much for joining us, Tony. And it's always good to talk to you.

And it's always good for people to have something that they can do to prepare. And if you want to prepare for a financial unrest and risk and not just that, but also the surveillance and the control that they're trying to prepare for us, the key thing to pay attention to is gold and silver and perhaps to a Bitcoin as well. I'm just not comfortable with that myself. but that's why I like the physical stuff. It's real simple for somebody that is starting to get disaffected from technology as I am. Thank you so much for being on Tony. Again, a wise wolf dot gold, and people can find that with David Knight dot gold.

We're going to take a quick break and we will be right back with our guest, who is going to talk to us about artificial intelligence and how that is impacting, and also about inflation, how that is impacting wages and causing strikes in many different industries. We'll be right back. Stay with us. 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 thedavidknightshow.com.

Thank you for listening. Thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. TheDavidKnightShow.com. All right, welcome back. And joining us now is the former political director of the Teamsters Union, Nicole Brenner-Schmitz. And I wanted to get her on to talk especially about what's happening in Hollywood with the writers and the actors and the sticking point of how artificial intelligence is there. But there's a much broader issue that is a product of the inflation that

we're just talking to Tony Ardaman about, and that is the impact on wages and how do wages keep up with inflation. So that's why we're seeing this massive number of strikes. Thank you for joining us, Nicole. Appreciate it. Yeah, thanks for having me. Let's talk a little bit about, before we get into Hollywood and AI, let's talk a little bit about what's going on with UPS. What is the current status of that?

I saw they had changed a new, looks like they've headed off the strike, or is that still something that is in the works? It looks like they've reached a tentative agreement. So that's great news. Looks like there won't be a strike. There still has to be a vote amongst the membership, but looks like they've come to a deal and should be moving forward with that. And of course, what I saw put out was something like a total pay package for drivers of something like $170,000, which looks very attractive. But of course, depending on what inflation is in a few years, that could

look like nothing. What other aspects of UPS is it? Because that's just one aspect of people who work for UPS. What about warehouse workers and other employees? Is that part of it as well? Well, this was a contract for the workers who are members of the Teamsters Union. So it's preliminary, the drivers. There are some other workers that could be included in different places. But this is the largest national contract in the country, which I think a lot of people don't realize. So many contracts, like what we're seeing in L.A., are really, you know, it's hotel by hotel, and this is national contract. So there are a lot of things at stake, not just wages. That's what, of course, gets the most attention when people are taking a

look at contract negotiations and observing it. But there's pensions, there's benefits, there's safe working environments. All of those were on the table. And like you said, that's why there are timelines on these contracts, right? It's a contract for the next however many years, because things change and you need to go back to the bargaining table and see if this is still a contract that makes sense for those workers. They're what makes UPS tick and what makes them be able to have such a large profit margin. Yeah, I've talked to Gerald Slinty about this, and he said last year this would be the year of labor unions and all the rest, because of so much inflation that is being cooked into all this and that has already hit us in so many different ways,

and everybody is getting behind in this. U there going to be other, UPS is really big. We now have an economy that is heavily done by internet purchases and deliveries and that type of thing. Are there more industries we're going to see this UPS being the biggest one, but are there some others that are down the line that we're going to see that may result in disruption if they can't find an agreement, like FedEx or something like that? Well, FedEx isn't union. Oh, okay. But here's what it does do.

When the workers at one company get a certain agreed-upon wage and benefits, it should, in fact, elevate the entire industry. So that's something that is really important to remember as to why we have unique contracts in this country, because it does help keep a middle class. It's not just because of inflation. I mean, certainly there's a factor there, but this is something that workers need to come to the table. They're making sure that they have working environments that are safe. We're making sure that we have those standards. And we're making sure that they're being paid a fair wage. You should be able to work a full-time job and not live in poverty. That's not a crazy demand in this country.

It's okay to make sure that we're making sure that what makes this country tick, the people who are cleaning your hotel rooms, people that are driving your packages, can live a nice life with their family and they can put food on the table and get a good education for their kids and go on vacation once a year. I mean, this is what the American dream is about. And if we continue to allow it to be just a huge profit margin at companies at the expense of the workers that are delivering the goods, that's a giant problem for our country overall. And of course, we saw in the pandemic and subsequent parts of that, we've seen a lot of billionaires made. But in general, when you look at CEO pay and the multiples of CEO pay to the average salary of the workers, it really has exploded as well in terms

of multiples. Probably nowhere is that more evident than in Hollywood, where there's this concentration there. Let's talk a little bit about that and about the issues. Earlier in the program, I was talking about the concerns of Screenwriters Guild in terms of being replaced by chat GPT. I mean, we're not just talking, again, about wages. We're talking about them completely being replaced. And so there's issues. The actors are concerned about that as well. But Screenwriters Guild said they won't even talk to us about that, which indicates that they're pretty hardcore in terms of having future scripts being written by ChatG gpt or something like that tell

us a little bit about what's going on in hollywood from from your perspective yeah i mean i think just to touch quickly on what you said about covid i mean it also showed us what are the essential workers in this country right we we were all applauding them the grocery stores the nurses and that's who we need to make sure is able to have good contracts and fair working environments going forward but hollywood specifically they see this ai problem coming their way and i think what happens is a lot of times when people hear hollywood's on strike you think of george clooney and julia roberts or maybe i'm bleeding myself a little bit who the superstars are but you think of you know these very wealthy making

mega millions per movie but that's not the bulk of hollywood and it's not the bulk of the writers for sure these are a lot of people who are working hard on show to show and we've seen you know there used to be a pretty standard you you had a comedy, it was 22 episodes, or a drama that was, you know, 20 something episodes a season. And now with Netflix and Hulu, I mean, you get seasons that are eight episodes long, well, that's not as much writing. So there's a decrease in work per series that you're on in a lot of ways. And then what you said, which is AI is coming. And we haven't even really even seen the beginning of it yet. But there is a fear that they are going to

use that instead of people for a lot of this writing. And that would be a shame on the creativity. The other thing that Hollywood is really looking at is these residual checks right i mean these things are being streamed over and over and over now um on people's hulus and whatnot and they're not getting a real paycheck from that i mean there was an actor that was talking the other day and he's not an actor you'd maybe definitely know. This isn't a super uber famous. He's been on some shows, and he got over 50 residual checks, and it totaled like $86. Wow.

So this is the conversation they're having at the table. And now the actors have joined the writers in solidarity because, frankly frankly that strengthens their position and the actors know how crucial the writers are to their craft and their work uh so it's good to see the solidarity happening here um but AI is something we're going to be looking at in a lot of different industries uh starting to get the attention here but that's going to be I mean in a lot of different industries, starting to get the attention here, but that's going to be, I mean, we've seen it in grocery stores, right? To get to that place. How many cashiers are there now? Well, not as many because you've got 20 self-checkouts that one person watches. So we need to have a conversation about what are AI replacing

and what does that mean for a workforce in America? Yeah. When you're talking about grocery stores, I think we're going to see that escalate. I just saw that when Dixie and another chain were bought by Aldi's. Now, Aldi's is not all that big in the United States, but they're very big in the UK and in Europe. And they have, of course, Corbin. I forget which one. I get them mixed up.

Two brothers. One is Piers. The other is Jeremy. One of them went into an Aldi's and they didn't want him to pay with cash. It had to be cashless. And they've got other things. They're getting very highly automated where you enter in and you've got biometric ID or something like that. Or you don't get into the store and then it follows you around and charges you automatically. That's the type of thing with Aldi buying domestic grocery store chains.

I think we're really going to see that proliferate. And so that, as you point out, that's going to be another big issue there. But getting back to the Hollywood stuff, it is, and we look at this, as you point out, when you sent this to me, you said there's a 1.7 million people outside of California. That's the other thing, you know, people think, oh, you know, George Clooney or whatever, but it's not just the big stars. You see the multimillion stuff in Hollywood, the film industry. A lot of that is outside of California. Uh, 1.7 million people who work outside the state, $158 billion a year in wages. And so it's a very big industry.

It's not limited to one town or one state. Earlier in the show, when I was talking about artificial intelligence, I pointed out that in New York, there's a law that's been introduced saying that if you're going to use AI to replace some of these actors, then you're not going to get the tax breaks that they use to incentivize people doing production into their states. So there's different things like that that are starting to happen. Are doing production into their states. So there's different things like that that are starting to happen. Are we seeing that in other places as well

that you're aware of? I don't know that we've seen it official in other places, but I think we will see that be a tactic that some states take. There is certainly a growing conversation happening in state legislatures and in Congress about are we going to be able to wrap ourselves and laws around AI before it's too late, frankly. Because this is something we need to catch up. We're still catching up in some ways on the Internet at this point. I mean, a lot of times you see new laws about can you share certain images of someone and the law says it's okay. We sort of know intuitively the ick factor and that's not maybe something that the person gave as what they'd want to share with the public. But the law hasn't caught up with the fact that we have phones that snap a picture and send and text and can, you know, just hasn't caught up to that.

So I think we're going to see that be a situation with AI in many different ways, but in this particular conversation as to the jobs, but the actors are very worried about can their likeness be used without their consent in AI. So this is something that we need to stop acting like is in our future and start having real conversations and discussions and hearings about right now. Yeah, I talked about it about a decade ago. I did a reference earlier in the show. I did a report about a movie called, I think it was titled The Congress, but it was about Robin Wright. And she made this deal with a studio that they could digitize her essentially and very deeply digitize her entire image, her voice, everything, her persona, and then they would own her. And it is kind of interesting when you think about that. We haven't seen that yet, but we're right at the cusp of something like that being done. And, uh, and they could kind of see that coming about a decade ago. When you talk about residuals versus the company's copyrights,

we see that the corporations get their copyrights extended and extended and extended. These things have gone longer and longer and longer. It used to be that it was tied to the person's life and then a little bit beyond that for their heirs and that type of stuff. And now, you know, they've extended it quite a bit below beyond that, but this is all something that is really being done to the benefit of the corporations, not so much to, uh, other people. And as they own these types of things, own people's images, just like, uh, they have done with copyright music or copyrights of film and that type of thing. We're going to see that to an increasing degree. And I think it's kind of

interesting as you're talking about technology, how it is rapidly advancing and people are kind of on their back heel in Hollywood in terms of the writers and the actors. how do we keep from all of this stuff accruing to the corporations? We're not getting our residuals, but they're getting their copyright residuals, if you will, extended into perpetuity. But, you know, you've got streaming, which is out there, you've got, and that's changed things quite a bit. And then you've also got kind of the death of cable and even broadcast. Linear TV is really collapsing. So the distribution channels are really changing rapidly as well. All of this is in a state of flux. Whether you're talking about residuals and copyrights or the way that people are viewing the information,

as well then as people, actors and writers being completely replaced by artificial intelligence how far away are they from reaching an agreement there's so many different issues here it doesn't sound like they're really close yet yeah it's so complicated um but you might even see more people sort of join the solidarity uh different production crews we'll see what broad Broadway does. I mean, they could even grow this. There's radio that is represented by unions, but not on the strike right now, like at NPR and places. So we may see it grow. That could force the hand a little more. We may see them start to make some gains at the negotiating table i do think it's great that a lot of the quote-unquote mega stars have given funds to the strike fund a strike

fund is absolutely key to if a union is able to stand up and stay on strike because a lot of these people again like they're not getting their benefits. They're obviously not making a salary, and the strike fund is able to help sustain them and their families through this time. Yeah, that's been one of the practical issues about strikes, the fact that, you know, if it's an extended strike, even if you get some gains that may have been wiped out

by the amount of time that you're out. When you look at how we move forward with this, this has been a big agenda for a very long time. And I've been talking about this for a very long time. Universal basic income and the statements being made by a lot of people in the tech industry. But even when Michael Bloomberg was running for president, he made those statements and everybody said, look, he just called farmers stupid. Well, he didn't really call farmers stupid. He was talking about how farmers were replaced

and they went to factory workers and he said, and the factory workers have their thing, but we can replace the farmers. We can replace the factory workers. And he said, right now, we're looking at how we're going to replace everybody. When you start talking about solidarity with other groups, he said, we can replace everybody. Our only issue is how do we keep them pacified so they don't come after us with guillotines? That's what he said. And so this has been a process where you look at Bloomberg or you look at Elon Musk. They've talked about massive unemployment. I remember about a decade ago,

there was a South Korea survey, and they were talking about how much unemployment would happen with artificial intelligence replacing doctors and lawyers. It was up in 60, 70% range. For transportation workers that we were talking about earlier, I don't know if that was a part of the ups strike but the issue of self-driving delivery vehicles or drones or anything like that that is also something that has been on the horizon and they've had a a target on pretty much every industry where there's transportation where there's white collar jobs blue collar jobs they're looking to replace everybody with artificial intelligence and robotics. So I am wondering if this is going to be the start of something that is much bigger. Did the self-driving issues and drone things come into play in the UPS

contract, as far as you know? I don't know if they were part of the contract because I wasn't in the engineer seat, right? And there's a bill calling making sure that there's always a two-man crew because there is a safety element to this. It's a concern across the board, right? I mean, it's only so long until I think they're going to try and tell you well let's have robots uh serve the coffee on the airplanes well that's let's talk about this when did the robots think it's a good idea to open the door uh also they're not a waitress in the air they are a safety element to your flight as well um but we're going to continue to see this. And, you know, you mentioned it's, I think people really place it in blue collar, right? They think of the factories, they think of farmers,

and that's true, but it is a problem. Like there's a possibility that it's the lawyers and they're having robots write the bulk of the briefs. That's right. Or doctors. You know, if the doctors have become basically a lookup table for a pharmaceutical drug, which is the way a lot of them operate. You know, you come in, you got X symptoms.

You know, you could easily have an AI that's going to do as good a better job than the doctor is going to do of that. And that was the thing that surprised me when I saw it a decade ago, the fact that for a lot of white-collar jobs, they saw that as, and now we're starting to see that with the writing and other things like that, they saw them as more vulnerable than the blue-collar jobs to being replaced. And so it is going to be a major disruption in our society. In addition to what we're seeing with inflation, that is, I think, the bigger issue. And that is the artificial intelligence thing. And they have been looking at this for the longest time. I remember when Uber was in its early days and you had Travis Kalalnik was still the CEO. And he said, the reason our

cars are expensive is because of that other dude in the car with you. And we're going to make him go away. So they got people who are, you know, working as in a gig job and supplying their own car, maintaining their own car. Meanwhile, they're working on how they're going to make him go away. So they've got people who are working in a gig job and supplying their own car, maintaining their own car. Meanwhile, they're working on how they're going to slit that person's throat. But we've seen some really bad results as you're talking about the robot serving coffee on the airplane. We've seen some really horrific things already with the self-driving cars. And they just had a big traffic jam I talked about yesterday in San Francisco.

The people there hate those driverless taxis. They're creating safety issues around fires and other things and creating massive traffic jams going particular places and just stopping and none of them will move. And so there's a lot of issues with that besides replacing everybody and just putting us all on some kind of a government handout welfare check, which people don't want. Right, exactly. It's complicated and we can't keep putting our heads in the sand and ignoring it. It has to be something that we're taking a look at and we have to look at it with an imagination like what could be in 10 20 years

because there are a lot of safety and danger concerns when it comes to this too because they don't they know how to set it up so that it starts learning but even the scientist building it are not completely clear on what point it starts to teach itself more and what exponentials that happens and we don't even know how it's doing that you know it's like it sounds like a sci-fi movie but it's not it's like at what point do they does the the ai thing the robot or whatever say oh this is the danger and it's like, at what point do they, does the, the AI thing, the robot or whatever say, oh, well, this is the danger and it's the people and what it does with that. And can we control it? I mean, I know that sounds like an insane Hollywood movie, but we're closer to that

than I think people really realize. Well, you know, we saw that already happen in the last couple of years. You know, we gotta, we gotta, here's our, here's our problem. And, uh, we're not sure the solution, but we got to do it really quiet quickly. We got to do it at warp speed. Uh, we don't know if this thing works. We don't know if it's dangerous, uh, but we got to do it warp speed. And you wind up having some people who make a tremendous obscene amount of money and other

people who get hurt. And, and this, I think is, is being played out in this, you know, we have all these different, uh, nightmare scenarios that people have always talked about, about runaway technology and about, you know, the Terminator type of technology, Skynet becoming self-aware and coming after us. I just talked today about some new information that shows that it might just go the opposite direction. If it starts, the more content that it puts out on the internet, uh, that is synthetic as it starts to read its own content, uh, it within about five generations of synthetic stuff, it's kind of like cannibalism is kind of like the, uh, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease or mad cow disease. It's feeding on itself. And, uh, and it just becomes incredibly stupid. And instead of becoming incredibly smart, it becomes incredibly stupid and useless.

So that was a hopeful bit of information. Maybe this thing isn't going to become super intelligent. Maybe it's going to become super stupid. And in the interim of either two of these scenarios fulfilling themselves, you're going to displace people out of jobs. You're going to create an economic problem and situation where there aren't these middle class jobs to have. So we really need to have the leaders of this country and people pay attention to this and figure out how are we ensuring that we have an economy that's going to keep running. And that's a strong middle class. I mean, that's the backbone of the U.S.

And when you've got strong union representation, it helps keep a strong middle class in America. And talk a little bit about the extent of this outside of L.A. and outside of Hollywood. I mentioned some of the numbers, 1.7 million people, $158 billion industry. How is that? Um, you know, I know when I was living in North Carolina, uh, they had offered a lot of subsidies to film companies to film there. And so they were making a lot of films there. And there were a lot of

people who were working in the industry. How, how is that looking now? How's that distributed? I think there's still a lot of films being made in a lot of different places. Georgia has a great deal, New York, Illinois, Washington state. Um, there's a, there's a lot of films being made in a lot of different places. Georgia has a great deal, New York, Illinois, Washington State. There's a lot of the industry that's around the United States and some because states very specifically, like you said, in North Carolina, pass maybe different tax credits or other incentives to have the filming come there. And other places because they're just so geographically perfect for so much of what they're making that it's it's a place that makes sense um we do see a lot go to canada as well i think there's um a lot of desire for the u.s to keep that in in country um but we do see a lot of filming that that happens

up there for the same sorts of reasons um so know, it's something that's going to affect states outside, like you said, of California. It's a real problem for some states now because of how much they've grown the industry there are taking a big hit on the economy. Yeah, yeah, going to affect a lot of people. The Illinois Nurses Association is involved in some labor strikes. Tell us what's going on there. Um, and, and those sorts of, uh, situations arise that these workers need to be sure to have a working environment that is safe for them.

And particularly if you're thinking about your nurses, you don't want them to be walking around overtired or in a possible safety issue, because that's not good for any of the patients either. I believe they went on a two day strike. So it's sort of a warning strike. And this is, you know, just kind of showing what the problem could be and what they'd have to deal with if they were on a full strike. And that's often what we see with hospital workers and whatnot. But yeah, this is not, again, it's not just about the pay. It's more about their working environment. Let me ask you,

is it, does it have anything to do with some of the mandates that happened in terms of vaccines and stuff like that? Because I know that was a real sticking point. A lot of people left their employer, left some of the hospitals that were doing that type of thing and went somewhere else. Is that a factor in this,

those kinds of mandates? I haven't seen it come up in this particular strike as a factor. But, you know, the medical workers, much like our Army and our Navy and whatnot, have had a lot of vaccine requirements for their entire job. I mean, that sort of comes with entering that industry. That was not simply a COVID mandate. There's a whole host of vaccines that they have to have to be able to work in that particular environment. So that's nothing new for a healthcare worker. Yeah, I was just wondering if maybe it was a new concern for them and that's going to start taking place there. But that was

throughout Illinois. Are there other things like that happening in other states that you know of in terms of the health industry? I haven't heard of a new one in the health industry right now, although, you know, stuff pops up. I know the nurses in Buffalo had a strike a couple years ago and successfully met that. But we are seeing possibly UAW and workers in Michigan putting together the union-made cars. They might be on strike soon. There's discussions about that. We obviously have the hotel workers in strike in Los Angeles. And we're seeing a lot of organizing. You know, I mean, that's the other element of this. It's not just those who have it and are

striking, but we're seeing a lot of new organizing happening and people working to see if they can form a union and join a union. And, you know, just for viewers to know, like, that's a process. There's cards that have to be signed. There's lots of paperwork that's submitted. There's votes that happen amongst the workers. So it really has to be that a large majority of the workers want to join a union. And it means that they've met with a particular union, they've talked through that, they understand what sort of the demands that they may want to make on the employer. And it might be that they have already have other places that belong in that industry, belong to a certain union, It may be a fresh new one. So we are seeing a lot of organizing happening across the country right now too.

Yeah. And I think you're going to see the kind of disruption that maybe not as many different factors as you see in the entertainment industry in terms of all the distribution and the manufacturing and the involvement of technology, but certainly technology and this push for electric cars is going to be very disruptive. They're going to be simpler. They're not going to require as know, the involvement of technology, but certainly, uh, technology in this push for electric cars is going to be very disruptive. They're going to be simpler. They're not going to require as many people and they're moving the power plants out of the heavily unionized states into the non-unionized states as well at the same time. Uh, and I think they're looking at lower volume. I think most of these automotive companies are now looking to be mobility companies renting

cars by the ride, you know, getting back to the crews and the driverless cars and stuff like that. I think that's really their focus, whether they can make it work and what kind of a time frame they can make it work. That's going to be another issue. But I think that they'll waive the regulations and get this push for them one way or the other. Well, it certainly is an amazing topic, and it has so many different aspects to it. Just in Hollywood it does, but we're going to be seeing this type of disruption. It's a massive time of economic disruption,

and it's going to be very challenging for everybody as this rolls out. Thank you so much for talking to us. Again, we're talking to Nicole Brenner-Schmitz about the labor strikes that I think are going to continue to proliferate in this kind of an economic environment. Thank you so much for talking to us. Thank you for having me. Thank you. All right, folks, we're going to take a quick break, and we will be right back. uh Thank you. Analyzing the globalist's next move. And now, The David Knight Show.

Well, welcome back. Before we broke for the interviews, we were talking about the rise of psychedelics and how you have people across the political spectrum, people in both science and the occult all agreeing this is something that we need to have. And it is kind of interesting, as I pointed out, showing this big question mark out there. A lot of this is from your perspective, how you view these things. I imagine if we were to take a point of view from another point in the universe,

we wouldn't see a question mark there. We would see something different. But as one person speaking at the conference said, I came to quickly realize that we can turn with great interest to investigate the present moment, and in this case, for me to cultivate gratitude for this astonishing mystery in which we find ourselves. This is a person who was advocating psychedelics, but had informed the people there at the conference that he had just been diagnosed with stage four metastatic colon cancer, unlikely to survive into next year. And I thought, how sad this is, that he has now been distracted, turned inward,

turned to the occult rather than turned to God by this death sentence that he has received. A month before the conference, you had the Colorado governor, Jared Paulus, sign into law a regulatory framework for implementing this psychedelic therapy. And so they're only concerned that a lot of these people had there, as I said, the natives that were there said, we've been using this for religious purposes. You think that you're going to use this for recreational purposes? Well, you're dealing with some beings here that you don't really understand. I think that's very true.

And so when we move forward with this the political aspects of this the psychological aspects of this that people are trying to harness you know when these veterans were talking about ptsd and they said well just a few doses of this stuff and it completely changed my perspective on things i think people don't really understand the full extent of this and it's another one of these issues that we constantly run into um and using these things whether you're talking about a vaccine or talking about a um a drug you don't really understand the consequences of it uh in the article from reason they said well you know some of these things work better than um ss. And they had absolutely no awareness of what SSRIs have done to people. None whatsoever.

They don't know about the murders and suicides that are there, endemic to that. And, you know, Prozac, they said, yeah, you got Prozac there. And so the pharmaceutical industry has invested $400 million in this. You're not going to see the end of this. You're going to see the proliferation of this.'s going to be everywhere and it's not just going to be medical uh and it's not just going to be financial it's going to be spiritual as well you know the chinese communist government they've done everything they can to suppress the

underground church there and it just keeps getting bigger they're getting desperate and they have gone in in the past. They have some above-ground churches who agree to the restrictions and the revisions that the Chinese communists have imposed on them. They call themselves the church of the three-person self. They don't really have a clue. They don't understand it. They see it as a threat to their authority, primarily because they see themselves as God, these authoritarians do, totalitarians. And so it continues to grow. They're trying to find other ways that they can come after it. In some jurisdictions, they've been coming in and tearing down these church

buildings of these churches that decided that they would play along with the communists. They've now, you know, had their people locked up just like the underground church. And they've had their church buildings destroyed. They mandated, she mandated that if you're going to put up a crucifix in one of those buildings,

those church buildings, you got to have a picture of him on one side of Jesus and Mal on the other. He doesn't realize he's setting up the two thieves on either side of the cross. But they just are coming in in a ham-fisted way to rewrite the Bible. They went to the story about Jesus and the woman caught in adultery. And they rewrote that, for example. And it's an interesting story in and of itself. You know, somebody asked me what version of the Bible I read. And of course, there's not a great deal of difference in any of the Bibles, in the Bible translations.

You have, some of them are based on the Textus Receptus. So the King James and New King James version are based on those. Those are the most widely spread and have tons of those everywhere. And so that's the ones that they used for the translations. And then some of the newer translations that came out subsequently were based on some documents that they found in Alexandria and other places that they carbon dated as being older. Now, that's neither here nor there. Some people put a lot of credibility on that. But, of course, the counterargument to that is that, well, that was not the one that everybody seized

on. So this is the popular one because everybody took that as being the real version. And other people say, well, there's not very many of those. So it wasn't highly respected, even if you have an older one. And the reason that that's been preserved is because nobody was using it. So you have this back and forth argument. But the bigger issue, I think, and one person made an analogy of a hologram. When you use a laser to capture a three-dimensional image on a hologram, you shine a light on it, and you get your 3D image that you can move around.

If you cut off part of that, that part, you can still eliminate that part and still get that image. The only thing that you've lost is a little bit of resolution on it, but you still get that image. And the person said the Bible is that way. And the more I look at these different translations, some of them based on different documents,

the more that is true. And so there's really not much difference between them. That's why I say the most important thing is not which version of the Bible you read, but if you read it, to look for God. But in this particular case, this story about Jesus and the woman caught in adultery, and he bends down and he writes in the sand something, and he says to the people, you know, those among you without sin cast the first stone. And then they walk away slowly, starting with the oldest, right?

And then he says to the woman, who are your accusers? Well, then neither do I accuse you. And he offers her mercy. It's a really beautiful story. And it is, like I said, some of the, that's to me the biggest difference that I've seen in terms of these different translations. Some of them don't have that. Some of the older manuscripts don't have that. But the more popular manuscripts all do have that. Now, what the Chinese have decided to do is to rewrite this and listen to what they did with that story and their version, the Chinese communist version.

Jesus once said to the angry crowd who was trying to stone a woman who had sinned, he who is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her. When his words came to their ears, they stopped moving forward. And when everyone went out, Jesus stoned the woman himself. You know, only a communist would think of something like this, right? And then said, I also am a sinner. This is the way they're trying to redefine. It's a joke, really.

It's sad. But you know, the thing is that no matter how many of these things they put out, the real version is going to prevail. No matter how many of these things they put out, the real version is going to prevail. No matter how many people they put in jail, how many people they kill, the real version of Christianity is going to prevail. But we know that for certain. And one person talking about this said, the Chinese are no longer content with all these

attempts to try to forcibly get Christians to deny their faith. Now they've taken it to a new level where they're trying to rewrite the scripture and what the Bible says to confuse them and to prevent them from becoming Christians. But that's not going to happen. We know that. Bob Fu of China Aid said, so this is happening right now. We have seen the escalation. Bibles for children are totally forbidden, and all the Bible apps and Bible-related apps are forcibly removed from every e-commerce app store. Millions of Chinese Christian children were forced to sign a form renouncing their faith in public. And they see the gospel, they see the Christian message as something that would take control away from the Communist Party.

Are we really that different? When we look at how active our government has been in terms of trying to purge religion, especially out of our educational institutions, must not have it there at all. I mean, they're very zealous to get rid of any individual freedom of religion expression. And this is reflected in a bipartisan way in a story that I thought was pretty amazing. You have a woman on social media who put up on Twitter, now called X, there's no hope for any of us outside of having faith in Jesus Christ alone. And she was taken to task by two congressmen for that out of Ohio. Jewish Ohio Congressman Max Miller, who's a Republican, and Casey Weinstein, who's a Democrat,

joined together to attack this Christian woman as being bigoted. The idea that salvation can come through having faith in Jesus Christ alone, and that is the offense of the gospel. That's what is offensive to people. But it's not one of many, but it is the Christ is the way. It's one of the things when Ramaswami talks, he's a Hindu, and he says, yeah, you know, we like Jesus. He's one of many. And he goes, I know that that's different from what you believe, but that's what I believe, that type of thing. And it says that he supports religious liberty, but these two guys did not.

First of all, the Republican, Miller, said, this is one of the most bigoted tweets I've ever seen. Delete it, Lizzie. Religious freedom in the United States applies to every religion. You have gone too far. How stupid that is, right? To talk about, well, you should delete this because we should have, in the name of religious liberty. He said, God says that Jewish people are the chosen ones.

And he self-described himself as a proud Jew. And he says, but you say we have no hope. And she came back and she said, I'm sorry, before we get her reply, the Democrat, Casey Weinstein, also Jewish. So we might be on opposite sides of the aisle, but I stand right with Max on this. Delete it, Lizzie.

So both of them are saying, delete it, Lizzie. Well, she didn't. Instead, she said, sorry, Congressman, but these are the words of Jesus himself. I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. And that has always been the offense of the gospel. Not that there would be a free gift of eternal life, that he would die for a penalty, that he would give us his faithful obedience.

That's the good news, but people don't like that. And that has always been offensive because of its exclusivity. And so, you know, we don't, when you look at it, the early Christians who could have easily just taken a pinch of incense and thrown it on the altar at certain places where they had emperor worship in order to enter the building, but they would not. And that became an offense because of the exclusivity, but that's part of our religion. And so she said, no one has hope outside of Jesus Christ. Every knee will bow one day, declaring that Jesus Christ is Lord. Then Miller eventually came back and said, let me take that back.

I posted something earlier that conveyed a message I did not intend. I will try to hide my mistake. I'll not try to hide my mistake or run from it. I sincerely apologize to Lizzie and everyone who read my post. The Democrat also deleted his tweet, but he did not apologize. How typical. And even Ilhan Omar jumped into this. Ilhan Omar said no when they said delete the tweet. The Muslim Ilhan Omar said stating the core beliefs or principles of your faith isn't bigoted, as Lizzie did. It's religious freedom, and no one should be scolded for that. And a lot of people jumped in on that. DeSantis's PR director said, regardless of anybody's religious beliefs, it's just fundamentally

wrong for a member of Congress to order a citizen to delete a tweet. This isn't a dictatorship. But do you see how close we are to that? And do you see how this is what is happening actually in our educational environment? And so it did not surprise me when I saw that Moms for Liberty, which has been active in a lot of different areas, saying that we want to have policies where parents are in control of what is being taught. We don't want to have the LGBT agenda. We don't want to have our kids sexualized. We don't want them propagandized with the politics of Marxism.

We don't want history rewritten. All these different things. Many of them take their kids out of school, but as we've said in the past, if the school is going to transform society, and that really is its purpose, that's why the, the communists said we need to have in order to have social or have socialism or communism, we have to have compulsory state funded schools that will control this, that will shut down what you have to say, just as these two congressmen want to say,

and will tell people what they can read, what they can think, and push their agenda on them. And a kind of Huxley's Brave New School. And so there's now a pushback. They've got another organization in Florida. They call themselves Parenting with Pride. And they want to push the LGBT agenda on kids and they're coming out to support that. Here's the thing. If they're going to be parenting with pride,

they still can do that, right? You can take your kid out of school. You can homeschool your kid. And, um, you know, unfortunately there's, there's no oversight of parents. And I say, unfortunately, because I think it should be, I think what they're doing with these kids in terms of transitioning. And there's a lot of parents who are doing this just as we go back to James Younger and save James. It was the mother who was pushing this. The father did not want it pushed. And, um, you know, the parents can transition their kids at a very early age, play these gender games with them. I don't think that's any more appropriate than sexual abuse of the kids by parents. And I think the government ought to start a step in, but that's not happening right now. And so these LGBT parents, if they want to push pride on their

kids, uh, they could take them out and they could, um, educate them, so-called educate them themselves. But that's not what this is about. Instead, this is about them using the institutions, the government institutions, to educate other people to shape society. And this is why R.L. Dabney said, 160 years ago, he said education is fundamentally about religion and about those types of values. And it will always be about that. And you will always have this kind of conflict as to different agreements about what a religion is and why, you know, no matter what you do,

even if you go with a secular humanism, it's going to be exclusive. It's going to impose secular humanism on kids in an exclusive way to Christianity or Judaism or Islam or whatever. It's going to impose that value. There is going to be some system that is going to be imposing religious beliefs. And so any way that you slice it, said R.L. Dabney 160 years ago, government schools are going to violate the free expression of religion.

But now we have a lot of different ways to do that, don't we? We'll be right back. Decoding the mainstream propaganda. It's the David Knight Show. Well, I want to thank some people who contributed yesterday. We had a lot of people contributed on Rockfin and Rumble. And we also had some people who contributed on subscribe star i want to thank um timothy m thank you very much and left a note about uh gave me a tip on somebody uh in bitcoin that i might want to talk to and of course uh also kevin h on zell thank

you very much uh for uh your support of the show. As I said yesterday, we had a lot of people, had several people who signed up on Subscribestar yesterday. And I said, you know, if on Subscribestar, you can do it for as little as $5 a month. And I said, if we had the number of people who download this, even the low side on a low day, the number of people who download this, even the load side on a low day, uh, the number of people who, um, uh, downloaded, even if they gave us one to $5 a month, that would be, uh, more than,

uh, what we're making with a few people who support us very strongly. And that's, that's my concern. Cause I, yeah, I don't want to be a burden to those people. Um, and so I would just, uh, ask that you think about that. And again, we had several people who joined as subscribers on Subscribestar yesterday. And thank you on Rumble to A. Wootz. Thank you very much. I appreciate the tip there. Let's talk a little bit about an update to that story about the Kansas City small town newspaper. Been around for like 150 years or something like that and had a 98 year old woman who owned it along with her 69 year old son the police raid that was over the top shut the paper down stole their

computers took people's phones and many other issues like that stress caused her to die from a heart attack later that day. And this has been picked up significantly by mainstream media, which is, I guess, in one sense kind of surprising, but in another sense it's not because we're talking about a newspaper here. And so, you know, the mainstream media is interested in people who get raided by the police. And this over-the-top raid, which they have now agreed is over-the-top. They have

withdrawn the search warrant and they have also turned back in the equipment that was taken. And when you look at the basis of this, as I last talked about it, when I first talked about it, it really didn't make much sense because it was supposedly the center of this as I last talked about it when I first talked about it, it really didn't make much sense because there was a supposedly the center of all this was a restaurant owner who didn't like the politics of the newspaper or the person that was being interviewed and kicked them out of the newspaper. And there were some harsh words, I guess. Somebody sent some information to the newspaper saying that this woman had had a DUI and some other issues like that that would possibly affect her liquor license. They thought they were being set up. They also, I guess, believed that that would be vindictive. They chose not to run with that.

They chose not to run with it. That was supposedly the basis for this, even though they never printed it. Supposedly the basis for this police raid. Subsequent to that, we found out that the guy who was police chief in that area had been in another jurisdiction. I think it was in St. Louis, if I remember correctly. It was a big city in Missouri. And he had allegations of sexual misconduct at that location before he was made police chief here. Now, that was something that was sent, again, to this newspaper, somebody sending them dirt. And they decided not to run with that. They were having difficulty verifying that.

They actually did their due diligence and were not going to jump in and become some kind of a gossip rag, attacking the past of this restaurant owner or the past of this police chief. But it was suggested that perhaps that was why they went in and confiscated all the computers and all the phones. Maybe he wanted to see who was pushing that information out about him. Nevertheless, this has now been pushed back, and the investigation has now been turned over to the State Bureau of Investigation, away from this police chief. Nobody with the police chief or anybody that worked with him would respond with comment to not just that newspaper,

but now to media outside the area, NBC News contacted. They would not talk. The police station would not talk. So it looks very much like there's something corrupt going on within that police department one way or the other. But in a broader sense, think about NewsGuard. NewsGuard, which was created by Microsoft, supposedly, but the real creators of this, behind this, was DARPA. DARPA was behind NewsGuard as well as its sister, ElectionGuard. Yeah.

Think about that. They created NewsGuard and ElectionGuard, you know, to keep the news true and to keep the elections true, or maybe it was to manipulate both of those. And it was DARPA that gave a $10 million grant to the subsidy, wholly subsidy of election guard the only money that was given to them was 10 million dollars by darpa so we got the pentagon out there trying to go to war with our first amendment is really what is happening and news guard has been going out and labeling um their their approach is not to label a particular story true or false. They don't even do that.

They just say, you don't want to go to this news site, this entire news site, this entire website. Take the whole thing down. Or give a thumbs up to the people, the mainstream press that ran with the Russiagate stuff that's now been discredited and all these other things. Oh, no, they don't get any marks against them. First of all, to say that you're going to demonize or you're going to lionize entire news organization instead of looking at the stories one by one is a brain dead idea.

But this is not coming from Microsoft as much as it is coming from the Pentagon, coming from DARPA. An independent news outlet is suing the Internet's self-appointed arbiter of truth for what it calls slander. And again, NewsGuard is not self-appointed as part of DARPA, and they understand that.

In this article from the Tennessee Star, they actually get to the connections between the intelligence services and NewsGuard. But this is a lawsuit that's been filed by Consortium News, an independent site that has been around since 1995. They say in the lawsuit, they say, NewsGuard, a self-appointed media safety company, falsely labels each and every consortium news article or video production

that appears on its subscribers' computers as purveying false content, quote-unquote. Violating journalistic standards, failing to correct errors, and by being an anti-U.S. news organization. That is slander. It is defamation. And I hope these people prevail because it's being used against a lot of people, myself included. NewsGuard. NewsGuard attaches an electronic label to every Consortium News item on search engines and social media. It warns NewsGuard subscribers to proceed with caution because they say Consortium News, quote, fails to maintain basic standards

of accuracy and accountability. Such statements slander and defame Consortium News and are arbitrary, wanton, malicious, reckless. And that's part of the legal complaint, the lawsuit. Remember, NewsGuard came about in 2008. That was the year of the big purge when I was at InfoWars, taking everything down everywhere on social media. That was when they really escalated this to a new level.

Created NewsGuard, also created ElectionGuard at the same time to manipulate elections just like they manipulate the news. They're not guarding either one of them. Despite the fact that the company gives perfect rating scores to websites that claim the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation, its own CEO of NewsGuard claimed in 2020 that the Biden laptop story was likely Russian disinformation. One of the things that I find most grotesque is that there's nothing natural about NewsGuard, the attorney told the Tennessee Star. This is not a market that would exist without government pressure.

Of course, it's far worse than that. It was created by government. It wasn't just government pressure. It was created by government. And the Tennessee Star points out that, listen to the advisors of NewsGuard. You have retired General Michael Hayden, former director of the CIA and of the NSA, former principal deputy director of National Intelligence. You have Don Baer, White House communications director during the Clinton administration. Arne Duncan, secretary of education during the Obama administration.

Tom Ridge, the first Secretary of Homeland Security. Richard Stengel, former editor of Time magazine, former Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy during the Obama administration. You understand where this is coming from? You have other advisors from Wired magazine, Reuters, Bloomberg, Radio Canada. These are also the people who pushed all this false news about Russiagate, pushed lies about Hunter's laptop. Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, is also an advisor to the organization. Yeah, that is what is happening to our news,

and that is how this is being put out. Just understand this is coming from the intelligence agencies from the pentagon and as i was talking about artificial intelligence and uh the big problem that they've got that as they put more and more content out and they're putting it out very rapidly uh they're going to be the artificial intelligence is going to be consuming its own data and becoming increasingly degenerate, if you will, in terms of losing its intelligence, dumbing it down. Meta put out an open language model called Galactica. And the idea of this was that it was going to look through scientific papers and summarize them to help people essentially index that. So it went through 48 million scientific papers. And after they had it out for two days, they shut it down. It looked like it was going to be a big advantage to researchers,

but a University of Washington professor called it a BS generator, like a lot of the chat GPT stuff. So even though it was going out and had a source of 48 million papers, which were created by humans, uh, this is going to be a research papers, textbooks, reference materials, compounds, proteins, other sources of scientific knowledge, while it sounds good on the surface, right, but he says, proteins, other sources of scientific knowledge. Well, it sounds good on the surface, right? But he says it pretends to be a portal to knowledge. In their words, a new interface to access and manipulate what we know about the universe. Except it got it all wrong.

The Wikipedia article on Hanlon's razor says something other than that. It shows how Galactica failed to generate a wiki article. Hanlon's Razor is an adage or rule of thumb that states, never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Not a conspiracy, it's incompetence, that type of thing. And yet, the official website has a warning message in bold stating never follow advice from a language model without verification outputs may be unreliable language models are prone to hallucinate yeah we'll wait until they get mad cows disease it's only gonna get worse uh and uh yeah especially

when we look at what is happening it's just so sad to see what's happening in San Francisco. You know, not only are they shoving these non-functioning cars down everybody's throat, but it is the intentional chaotic takedown of the city. The latest example of this, a luxury San Francisco store that has been in existence for 166 years, now having to shut down because of what they call the litany of destructive policies making the city unlivable. Thank you for joining us. Let me tell you,

the David Knight Show you can listen to with your ears. You can even watch it by using your eyes. In fact, if you can hear me, that means you're listening to The David Knight Show right now. Yeah, good job. And you want to know something else? You can find all the links to everywhere to watch or listen to the show at the David night show dot com. That's a Web site.