RADIODecember 16, 2024

Will AI & Drone Warfare be the Next Atomic Bomb?

The New Jersey drone mystery has gotten Glenn thinking: Is this American military technology that we’re just not admitting we have yet? Either way, with the rise of AI, Glenn predicts that the next war will be breathtaking, unlike anything we’ve ever seen. Just like the atomic bomb changed the world forever, so will the AI, drone, and quantum computing weapons that may be released in the next war. Glenn lays out what he believes it will look like and why it will likely make us say, "Dear God, what have we done?"

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So I want to -- we asked what's your name again? Yeah. Bob.

Justin Buttrill, our chief researcher. Former military intelligence.

STU: Or Bob.

GLENN: Or Bob. Sometimes called Bob, Jeff, whatever. But I wanted him to stay in.

Because we were talking about quantum computing. And how far that is. Stu, explain what Google just did again.

STU: So they came out with the new chip. They have announced. They have this chip called Willow.

It was able to complete a problem in five minutes, while the same task would have taken today's supercomputers ten septillion years, which is longer than the universe has existed.

GLENN: Okay. Okay.

So, by the way, think of that. That's what that can do in five minutes.

You have a problem, you're dealing with. You're like, you know what, let me sleep on it.

Do you know how long that is, to a quantum computer?

By the time you get back, it's like, who are you again?

STU: Right. It's already evolved.

GLENN: It's so far ahead.

So everything is about to change.

We started to talk about this.

Because of the drones over New Jersey. And New York City.

They're -- we think they may be something -- new technology, that we have. And -- and others may have.

That we have reverse engineered.

That's what has been planted in our heads here for a while.

But war and everything else is -- is going to change.

And this time, it's going to be -- even if it doesn't get to nuclear war.

It's going to be horrifying.

Absolutely horrifying.

Everything that we have.

Aircraft carriers, everything else.

It's done. Done.

Now, let me take you through this.

The British, when we fought in the revolutionary war. They were like, what, these animals.

They're savages. They won't line up, so we can shoot them. Right?

We used you're brains, instead of everybody else's bodies.

And we won. But that changed war.

Then the next war we had, that was really horrifying was the Civil War.

And that was horrifying to Americans. And I know from diaries in the family.

My great, great grandfather, who fought for the union was -- he came back. He was in Andersonville. And he came back, and he was never the same.

And people weren't the same after that. Because of the 600 thousand dead, in our country, at a time when we had how many million?

Three. I mean, the blood was just everywhere.

Then we -- we had other wars. And they -- everybody was pretty much okay.

And then the big one was World War I.

Because we went out on the battlefield. Remember, the Gatling gun was not used in the Civil War. Because everybody thought it would be a waste of ammunition.

Wow!

That would have solved things pretty quickly if one side or the other would have had that.

But we come with a Gatling gun.

And we bring it on the -- you know, on the back of a wagon.

Dragged by a horse.

Okay?

In World War I. That's all mechanized. And no one saw that coming. No one knew what that was going to be like.

People had started to make tanks.

We started to use air warfare. We started to use gas, and science.

All of this stuff was used. And people came back, and literally were shell-shocked for the rest of their life.

They had never seen anything like that.

The quickness of death changed war forever.

Then World War II happens. And we fight it pretty much the same way.

What affected people, for a very long time, was war. They were affected, just like everybody else in every other war.

And every other epic.

However, you were -- you were really set back, if you walked into one of the concentration camps. And you saw how science was being used.

Or you witnessed -- witnessed the explosion of the atomic bomb. You never recovered from that.

And I know this used to be top secret. This is from major Robert A. Louis.

He was on -- was it the Enola Gay, that bombed Hiroshima?

So he was on the Enola Gay, and he was the navigator, I think. And his job was also to make notes of what was happening.

This is his -- this is the original text, from the Enola Gay, in his handwriting.

He says, 0730, we are loaded. The bomb is now alive. It's kind of a funny feeling, knowing it's right in back of you.

Knock wood. We started our climb to 30,000 feet at 0748. Well, folks, it's not long now

At 18,500 feet, I sat on autopilot for the last time, until bomb's away. I checked with the crew at 20,000 feet.

So far, everything is satisfactory.

We've just reached our altitude at 0830. He's saying with a report primary, target is the best target.

Everything is going well. So far, it looks like we're making the bomb run at Hiroshima. Right now, we're 25 millions from the empire. And everyone has a big, hopeful look on his face.

Okay. It won't be very long before it happens, now.

So he says, they will be -- because he's taking minute by minute about what's happening.

And he writes at the bottom of page five. There will be a short intermission while we bomb our target. So they drop the bomb. They have to be up at 35,000 feet.

And they turn the plane, you know, they're trying to beat hell away from it.

But they also need to observe it.

He said, here's a brief blow by blow, description of the bombing run.

We turned off our IP, and had about a four-minute run on a perfectly open target.

Tom scrutinized, on his briefed AP, and let go.

For the next minute, no one knew what to expect.

The bombardier and the right seat jockey, or pilot, both forgot to put on their dark glasses.

And therefore, witnessed the flash, which was terrific. Then in about 15 seconds, after the flash, there were two very distinct slaps on the ship. Then there was physical affect, we felt.

We turned the ship, so we could observe the results. And there in front of our eyes, without a doubt, was the greatest explosion man had ever witnessed. Three exclamation points. The city was nine-tenths covered in smoke of a boiling and large column, a white cloud, in less than three minutes.

It undulated with buildings and fire, as they were blowing up. Then, that undulating cloud, reached 30,000 feet. And then went to at least 50,000 feet.

I am certain the entire crew felt this experience was more than any human had ever thought possible.

It just seems impossible to comprehend.

Just how many in Japan, did we kill?

I honestly have the feeling of groping for words, to explain this.

Or I might explain, my God, what have we done?

So right before they drop it, he says, we have smiles on our face.

Three minutes after they drop it. He says, my God, what have we done?

So this was the next big change in war. But it was really, up until the '80s. It was theory. Nobody had really seen it.

We knew it was going to be bad. We were afraid of it.

But only the people who actually witnessed it, said, dear God, what have we done?

Okay. That changed war.

That changed everything for -- since that day, we have all been saying, let's just not get to nuclear war.

In the '80s, we all learned from that -- that movie, the day after, which was on TV.

And Gorbachev, and Reagan both came together and said, this can never be fought. Because it can never be won.

And we thought we were past it.

Now we're there again.

But that's not what war may look like, this next time.

It may get there, quickly.

But that's not what war -- war this time, is going to take the breath of everyone away. Because it won't be humanized.

It's beyond mechanized. It's computerized.

And so now, it will happen at such a rate of speed, you won't be able to comprehend.

Do you agree with that?

JASON: Oh, completely.

And what's interesting to me, in hearing you read that, I'm actually more interested in his comments before they dropped the bomb. Less so, on afterwards.

Because before, remember, if you watched Oppenheimer, the scientists didn't know what was going to happen. They said, it will either be a big explosion. Or a chain reaction. The entire world will combust. And we're all dead.

So they didn't know. What's about to happen?

Very similar to today! And going along on your theory of, we're getting rid of the old weapons before these new weapons are unveiled.

GLENN: These new AI weapons.

JASON: They don't what an they're about to set off!

What era this unleashes. What's going to happen.

GLENN: Do we happen to have the audio?

We played it a few days ago. Guy from San Francisco told me about buying Bitcoin. Marc Andreessen.

STU: You remembered because of the billion dollars you lost by not listening to him.

GLENN: I think it was 2 billion now that I would have been worth, had I listened to Marc Andreessen with personal advice. And I'm like, eh. What does he know?

Ugh! Anyway --

STU: A lot, apparently.

GLENN: A lot. Yeah, a lot more than me.

We had it a couple of days ago.

Let me take a one minute break.

See if you can find it real quick.

Because this is stunning, what the White House told him.

It's why -- you notice, all of a sudden, Silicon Valley was like, yeah, you know what, I think I prefer Donald Trump. There's a reason. And he's the first to spill the beans on it.

GLENN: It does not make sense. We're just looking up on CNN, talking about these drones. The White House says that they're -- they don't know what it is.

But there's nothing to worry about.

How could you possibly say that?

JASON: That New Jersey rep, I think he's a Democrat. He said, this is unacceptable. That we can't identify them.

Some of them.

But then he follows it right back up, just like you said. With, yeah. But we're not concerned that it's --

GLENN: How would you not know it's a public safety rep?

Unless someone high up told you, hey, don't worry.

GLENN: So weird. So weird.

So let me show you how close we are to absolute insanity. This is Marc Andreessen, on Bari Weiss. Just I think, last week. Talking about a meeting, last fall at the White House, talking about AI. Listen!

VOICE: We have meetings in DC in May, where we talked to them about this. And the meetings were absolutely horrifying. And we came out, basically, deciding we had to endorse Trump.

VOICE: Marc, add just a little color to absolutely horrifying. What did you hear in those meetings?

VOICE: They said, look, AI -- AI is a technology, basically, that the government is going to completely control. This is not going to be a startup thing.

They actually said, flatout, to us. Don't do AI startups. Don't fund AI startups. That's not something we will allow to happen. They will not be allowed to exist. There's no point.

They basically said, AI will be a game of two or three big companies. Working closely with the government.

And we're going to basically wrap them in a -- I'm paraphrasing. We will wrap them in a government cocoon. We will protect them from competition.

We will control them. And we will dictate what they do.

And then I said, well -- I said, I don't understand how you will walk this down so much. The math for AI. Is out there.

It's being taught out there.

They literally said, during the time Cold War. We classified entire areas of physics. And took them out of the research community. And like entire branches of physics basically went dark and didn't succeed.

And that if we decide we need to, we will do the same thing to the math underneath AI.

VOICE: Wow.

VOICE: And I said, I just learned two very important things. Because I wasn't aware of the former. And I wasn't even aware that you were conceiving of doing it to the ladder.

And so they basically just said, yeah, we're going to take total control of the entire thing, and just do.

VOICE: For the listener, what was their argument?

VOICE: Well, it's -- so this gets into this whole like, these debates around AI safety. AI policy.

So there's sort of several dimensions on it, and I'll do my best.

So one is to the extent, this stuff is relevant to the military, which it is. Like, if you draw an analogy between AI and autonomous weapons, being like the new thing that will determine who wins and loses war, then you draw an analogy to the Cold War, that was nuclear power, and that was the atomic bomb.

And the federal government. The federal government didn't let startups go up and build atomic bombs. Right? You had the Manhattan Project. And everything was classified.

And at least according to them, they classified, down to the level of actual mathematics.

And -- and, you know, they technically controlled everything. And, you know, look, that determined a lot of the shape of the world.

Right? So there's that. Then there's the other -- that's part one. Then look, I think part two. There's the social control aspect to it.

Which is where the censorship comes right back. Which is the exact same dynamic we've had with social media censorship. And how it's basically been weaponized, and how the government became entwined with social media censorship, which is one of the real scandals of the last decade.

Like a real problem. A real constitutional problem. Like, that is happening at like hyper speed and AI.

And, you know, these are the same people who have been using social media censorship against their political enemies. These are the people who have been doing de-banking against their political enemies.

They basically, they want to use AI the same way.

And then look, I think the third is, I think this generation of Democrats, the ones in the White House, under Biden, they became very anticapitalist.

And they wanted to go back to a much more of a centralized, controlled, planned economy. And you saw that in many aspects of their policy.

But I think, quite frankly, they think that the idea that the private sector plays an important role is not high up on their priority list. And they think that generally companies are bad, and capitalism is bad. And entrepreneurs are bad. And they've said that a thousand different ways.

And, you know, they demonize entrepreneurs as much as they can.

GLENN: I --

STU: Huh.

GLENN: That's kind of like the Pentagon coming out and saying, oh, by the way, UFOs are real.

Let's move on. I mean, what he just said is -- you know it's true. And the first one is the only one that you go, okay. Well, I kind of see that.

I don't want people making nuclear weapons. But you're not going to -- it will only be very, very, very big companies, because it will be quantum computing, with AI. That will control everything.

So that will only be government level or Google level kind of companies.

That's scary enough. But then when you put on top of that, you put what he said, then there's the social control aspect.

Oh, my gosh.

The world is about to change. And, you know, where I started, the show today was -- you know, we -- we -- we have to know the truth. This is why Dow Jones and everything else is so important.

They need to declassify all of this stuff.

We need to know, what we can trust. What's true. What's not.

Because otherwise, everything runs out of our control, entirely.

And we need to be able to trust and know, are we being manipulated, or not?

And the answer right now is absolutely yes.

Did Google Just PROVE Other Universes Exist?!

Google recently claimed that its new Willow quantum computing chip just proved the existence of "parallel universes." How is this possible and is it different from multiverse theory? Glenn and Stu discuss this incredible alleged discovery, as well as how the Willow chip was apparently able to solve a problem in 5 minutes that would have taken modern supercomputers 10 septillion years to solve. But at the same time, there's another incredible story that might be related: Bible sales have increased 22% year over year, especially print versions!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Hello, America.

Let me -- let me just refresh your memory, where we were on Monday. Where we were on Monday, with Willow. Which is a new computer chip from Google, that they just -- they just tested.

With the new quantum computer.

Two years ago, we talked about quantum computing, because it -- it could process 54, what are called cubits.

That was astonishing at the time.

And I read article after article, once you get over 100, it's going to be like -- you won't believe what this can do.

And we're at the very beginning.

Two years, we were at 54.

We're at 155 cubits.

Cubit is a way to open up.

I don't even know how to explain it.

The universe.

And test a theory, and -- and search for all answers.

At the same time.

So right now, we have to think linearly.

We have to think, okay.

Two plus two is one.

No!

Two plus two is two? No. Two plus two is three. No! Two plus two is four.

Yes!

Okay. So it's ones and zeros. It's either a yes or a no. It doesn't have to be. But that -- we don't have to go into that. Yes or no.

And it tests all of them vertically instead of linearly. Got it?

So they can -- it can come up with answers, like nobody's business. And it -- it works with quantum physics. Which, quantum physics -- everything breaks down with quantum physics.

Einstein said, God doesn't play dice.

Well, if quantum physics is true, perhaps he does. A little bit.

Because the -- what they're finding now, especially since Monday!

Is one thing. First, they can solve the most complex problem, that we have ever tried to solve.

I don't even know what it is.

I would like to ask that question.

But it took this new quantum computer five minutes, to solve a problem.

That would have taken our best supercomputer, 10 septillion years, to solve it.

Go through the -- it's million, billion, trillion.

STU: Trillion. Quadrillion.

Quintillion.

Septillion.

GLENN: Okay. That's a lot.

In fact, they describe it as vastly more than the age of the entire universe.

STU: Quite an understatement there.

GLENN: Yeah. How old is the universe, they think?

STU: The accepted one is 13.8 billion years.

GLENN: Okay. 13.8 billion years.

This is 10 septillion years.

Would have taken to solve this problem. With our supercomputer.

I would like to ask the question: What was the question?

And what is the answer?

And how do you know it's right?

All right.

So now, that happened on Monday.

They announced that on Monday. Now, the guy who is the head of willow.

The guy who is in charge. He's the founder and leader of the Google AI team.

He's a physicist. He said, the result. The high speed result, I'm quoting, lends freedom to the notion that quantum computation occurs in many parallel universes.

So -- I mean, you have to almost go to marvel to understand.

It's -- it's as if -- as if, when they put a question in, all the Spider-Man movies are stacked up on top of each other.

You know what I mean? Not the Spider-Man. You know, Spider-Man one, two, and three, with the same actor.

He's in one universe.

All the other ones with different actors. They're all happening at the same time.

Okay?

That's what it means for parallel universe.

And he says, it shows, that that's where the quantum computing is happening.

It's going -- it's actually opening up, and going into other universes.

It's fascinating. Do you want to hear why they think that, Stu?

GLENN: Sure.

GLENN: It's very nerdy, but it's really cool.

All right. So you know what a neutron and an electron does. Right? What does an electron do?

It circles. And it circles the neutron.

And the neutron, it -- reason why the electron circles it.

It acts as a force to keep the neutron in place.

Without the electron, it goes -- it just like explodes, and goes away.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: So you have to have the electron.

Going around it, to keep the neutron, in place.

The reason why they first came up with quantum physics, is the electron, when you observe it.

It disappears.

No. When you -- when you observe it, it's there.

When you don't observe it, it's there. And then not there.

There and not there.

There and not there.

And so it keeps going.

It just disappears.

STU: How do you know that?

GLENN: The energy.

The energy -- it's one of the other, if you observe or not.

I can't remember which.

It's been years.

The energy goes full, nothing.

Full nothing. Full, nothing.

And those nothing areas, the -- neutron should dissipate. Okay

What they thought, this is the theory. Is that it's actually flipping into several different universes, as it's going around to hold that neutron in place, in all these different universes.

Okay.

Crazy.

STU: This is really what they think.

Incredible.

GLENN: This is really what they think.

That's the theory!

So he's now saying, yep. This is had it proves that that theory, is where we're doing the computations.

In all these different universes.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Now, the problem is: Over the weekend, there was a massive nerd fight.

And another guy, who is an astrophysicist, Ethan Siegel. He says, that's ridiculous!

And the Google guy should know.

And he says, that has nothing to do with it.

Blah, blah, blah.

So there's a third fight on the -- can he said, parallel universe -- parallel universe, and multi-verse are very different.

Now, I don't even think Marvel can explain the difference.

I have no idea.

But that's the level of the nerd fight we're in.

However, here's what -- what's really cool is, at 54 cubits, okay?

So about half of what we have now, and don't ask me how this happened. I have no idea.

They opened some -- you know, a molecule. And they could measure it here.

And when it was turned on, or whatever.

I have no idea.

I'm sorry for everybody who is really past an eighth grade education.

I apologize here.

Your head will hurt.

They opened it somehow or thorough.

And they were observing it through Silicon Valley or wherever this is.

They opened the same one.

It appeared in London.

And they verified, that the changes they made in Silicon Valley. Were happening with the -- it's the same molecule.

And it was happening at the same time, someplace else. Isn't that nuts?

STU: What! Yes.

GLENN: They thought, at that time, at 54 cubits, they thought, that is going to lead us to the discovery of how to travel without airplanes and everything else.

STU: Instantaneous travel.

GLENN: Instantaneous travel. That would be incredible.

STU: Uh-huh. Yes!

GLENN: Okay.

So all of these things are coming up. Now, listen to this.

What they say is: This is such big news, because we're going to be able to solve some of the biggest problems.

Okay. I want to know what the first question. Are you interested in what the first question was?

That took that. Okay. I don't know what it is.

I'm sure it's just mathematical. But I don't know what it is. I would like to know. And do you think that these are our biggest problems?

When you have the most powerful, they're saying, it will tell us how to make batteries better.

Really? That's what we're going for.

We're going for, how batteries can be made better?

They said, also, it could -- it could further humanity by curing some diseases.

Some diseases?

STU: It could be big. It could be maybe --

GLENN: Yeah. I think that might be an understatement. You're opening all this up. Yep, we'll be able to drive for 400 miles. Maybe as much as 700 miles an hour.

Come on. Come on.

There's got to be something bigger than that.

So, anyway, as all of this is happening. And makes no sense. To anybody, I think, all of the scientists are even bluffing.

They don't know what they're talking about.

It makes no sense. Let me give you this story!

New sales data from BookScan shows that Bible sales have increased 22 percent through October of this year! Compared to the same period last year.

I don't know if you know this, Bible sales have been going down for maybe about 100 years. Went up 22 percent this year!

In the first ten months of the year, American -- Americans purchased 13.7 million Bibles. Which, Bibles now are on track to suppress -- to surpass last year's 14.2 million!

Here's why it matters.

Over the same period of time, print book sales, increased less than 1 percent.

So people are -- you can get it online.

People are actually going out and buying paper Bibles, for their house and their family.

At unheard of rates. When everywhere else, the Bible is going down.

Why is that happening?

Try to relate it to the first story, I just gave you.

Nothing makes sense!

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Nothing makes sense in our world. You're like, I -- what?

STU: People are looking for foundational --

GLENN: They're looking for foundational truths.

The world is changing so rapidly. And nothing makes sense. This is really good news.

Seeing that, that's the first sign of -- of an awakening.

Where people get so disillusioned with things, they realize their lives, the country, war, science, everything is out of control!

There are no experts to listen to.

That you're like, okay. Maybe I should start listening to myself, and is there something bigger than me? That makes sense.

This is an extraordinarily good sign!

As the world makes less and less sense, the only way to solve this is a return to universal principles.

And -- and it will still -- I -- do you know that the Big Bang theory was developed by scientists? Developed by scientists, and they used it, at first, the religious people, used it at first, to say the Big Bang theory, proves God exists.

And so science at that time, accepted it for a little while.

Then they were, no, no, no. It doesn't prove -- it just started. And it started as, well, that's the way God created it.

So God lit a match. Happened to the Big Bang. That explains your expanded universe and everything else.

Now scientists use that, because they cut the original part of the theory out, that God lit the match.

And it leaves you with the question, I've asked a million times.

Right. Big Bang.

But what lit the match?

What was just before it?

Where did all of that come from?

Who started the fire?

That was part of the original Big Bang theory! God. And they conveniently axed that part, to now disprove God.

We don't know what the answers are. And with quantum computing, the world will look.

And science will look very different, very fast. But there are certain truths, that used to be self-evident.

That are eternal. And we're looking for them, in record numbers!

Is This PROOF Jill Biden Voted Against Kamala Harris?

Glenn’s seen enough to be convinced that Jill Biden not only despises Kamala Harris, but voted against her. First, there was the red dress the First Lady wore to the voting booth. Then, there was the moment at the Kennedy Center, where the Bidens and Harrises appeared to not even look at each other. And finally, there was Jill Biden’s recent apparent jab while speaking to the press. Glenn reviews the clip, where the First Lady used the word “joy” in a similar way to the Harris campaign, and he points out the moment that he was convinced Jill did it on purpose.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. So on the -- on the day of the election, what was Jill Biden wearing when she came out smiling after the vote?

STU: Red. Famously red.

GLENN: Okay. And I thought, okay. Maybe.

I mean, she has a blue vote dress, that she's worn before. I don't know if you ever saw that. She wore it like in a convention or something.
And it says "vote" on it.

STU: That sounds terrible.

GLENN: It was pretty terrible. But if you want to send a message of voting and voting blue. That's what you would wear.

STU: Also, but you wouldn't have to send a message with every outfit.

GLENN: Amen to that. So I'm like, okay. Maybe. I think you're read too much into it.

Then they don't talk to each other anymore.

This week, all of a sudden, they're at the Kennedy center, sitting next to each other. Okay?

The Bidens and the Harrises sitting next to each other, Bidens -- they don't -- she is sitting right next to Kamala.

They don't -- Kamala never turns -- I mean, sorry.

Biden never turns and even says, hello.

Doesn't look her way, the entire time. Now, how do you do that?

That takes effort. That takes control.

Okay. So there's no love lost there. Now, here's where I'm going to prove to you, they despise her. And she voted against Kamala.

This is what happened at the White House, yesterday.

She was on prompter. She was talking about Christmas.

And then she uses the word joy, in her speech.

And then she says this: Listen.

VOICE: So I hope that you all feel that sense of, you know, peace and light and that just for a moment, when you leave here today, that you feel, I don't know, a little -- a sense of joy. Because I think we all need like this -- you know, we all need to feel joy now.

During this -- this time of the season. During -- just during this time.

So, anyway, okay. Now, I'll start.

You're all reading into that.

GLENN: Okay. If you're watching Blaze TV, you may have spotted what I just spot. Spotted.

But play the last ten seconds of that back, if you can. And if you can't, just play the whole thing.

VOICE: You know, we all need to feel joy now during this -- this time of the season.

GLENN: Okay. A word. If you're aware. You don't use at this point, but okay. She's using it.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Go ahead. Keep playing it.

VOICE: Because I think we all need like this -- you know, we all need to feel joy now during this -- this time of the season. During -- just during this time.

GLENN: Stop! Just during this time.

Not just the time of the season, just during this time.

So now he's narrowing it down to there are problems, okay?

And we should feel joy.

Well, that was the campaign slogan, there are problems.

But we have joy, and we're going to solve them.

Now, here's -- here's where it cuts the throat.

Listen to the audience, and then if you're watching Blaze TV, watch her eyes.

Watch her movements.

You -- it's very easy to lie. But your body will always give -- unless you're a great actor or actress. Your body will give away the lie.

Your body will not act the same way as your mouth and even your eyes. Her eyes and her body betray her here.

Watch.

VOICE: During -- just during this time. So, anyway, okay. Now, I'll start.

You're all reading into that.

GLENN: She did not look at the crowd. If that's happening naturally, that would have easily been, if she didn't even think of that connection, you would have immediately looked at the crowd. Your eyes would have darted back and forth.

Like, what am I missing? And you might have even said, I'm sorry. What did I say?

Okay. Her eyes didn't dart.

She didn't -- she wasn't startled by it. She just leaned down to the microphone, and said, okay. You're reading too much into that.

I'm sorry. No. Nope. That was intentional.

That was she despises Kamala Harris. Despises her.

Disagree with that?

STU: I mean, I could see it. I don't know that I'm convinced as you are. I mean, joy say word associated with the holiday season. You can easily toss that out there.

GLENN: That's why it's fine, in this season.

STU: But she just seems to be stuttering looking around trying to get to the end there. I don't know. I think it's possible. But it's interesting.

And I'm not a fan of Kamala Harris. You may know that.

GLENN: Really? You didn't vote for her?

STU: No. No.

At veepthoughts.com, you can watch all of her greatest hits. But like, is she the one to get mad at for the Bidens? What did she do here?

GLENN: I think she feels. I think the Bidens feel that she was knifing them.

Remember --

STU: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: I know. I think it's the Obamas.

STU: And Pelosi.

GLENN: And Pelosi. Which I don't think they've talked to Pelosi since, have they?

STU: No. I think that one is real.

I think this one is real too.

I just don't know it makes all that much sense. Kamala Harris.

GLENN: Since when have the Bidens made sense?

STU: That's true. That's true.

He's famously just stutters his way through nonsensical jabbering.

But I just feel like, you know, I will say this, for Kamala Harris.

From the Joe Biden perspective.

She -- she -- her opportunity to become president of the United States, was to say, he did a bad job.

If she would have said that, she would have had a chance, at winning that election. If she would have said, look, I talked to Joe behind the scenes.

I tried to get him to move on the border. He had a different vision.

And what happened it didn't work. So I fought, fought, and fought. And finally we got those rules changed.

I know it's nonsense and BS. She could have taken an attack to make him.

GLENN: I know. And she never did.

STU: She never did. In fact, she went on The View, and said she couldn't think of anything that she would have changed in the entire administration.

GLENN: Because that's also true. She couldn't think of anything.

STU: It is true! But that's -- what does that have to do with anything?

GLENN: You're forgetting, on that particular one, you're forgetting how stupid she is.

STU: Okay. That could be. Again, whatever the reason is, she didn't go after the 25th Amendment. She didn't leak to the media, that he was having these moments behind the scenes, throughout three and a half years of the presidency.

I don't think there's a good case, that the problem with Kamala Harris from the left's perspective is that she wasn't too disloyal to Joe Biden.

GLENN: All right. All right.

Let me share one of -- I want to share something that I've been thinking about lately, on somebody I have to call. And make amends to.

Let me share a story, I don't think you even know. Okay? A bad story about me.

STU: Oh, gosh.

Open up the book. Do we have to add another chapter?

GLENN: You will never guess where this is happening, hiding my alcoholism in Baltimore.

Yeah, strange.

All right. So this company, that I was working for, was playing around with our contracts and stuff.

And they -- they wanted to hire me. But I was partnered with Pat. And we were best friends.

And we were killing it.

But they just didn't want to pay Pat.

And I said, I'll renew my contract. If you renew Pat's contract. So we can continue on.

They said, fine.

So they did. As soon as we signed the contract, they just invoked the clause to pay him off.

And got rid of him. And replaced him with someone else.

Without me knowing anything about it. Okay?

STU: I remember the outline of the story. Which is typical radio, by the way.

GLENN: Typical radio. Just knife you in the back. Lock me in for five years.

And the guy who I've wanted to partner with forever, gone.

STU: Yeah. Gone.

GLENN: Okay? For no reason whatsoever.

And so I'm working with my attorneys. And they're like, Glenn. There's not much you can do.

And I'm like, oh, yeah, there is.

Oh, there's lots I can do.

And so this guy named Larry Wax. Came in.

And it was his big shot. To be on, you know, Baltimore radio.

And he was very excited.

And he would --

STU: You were not excited.

GLENN: No. No.

And I did not participate in, you know, helping plan the show.

He would plan the whole show. Okay. Because he knew.

Hmm, I'll just follow you.

STU: So you were so angry.

You were protesting essentially.

GLENN: Yeah. I'll follow you. Which you know me, I've never done that.

My name was first on the show.

Larry, you go ahead and tell me what we're going to do.

And he would say, okay.

Right before the break. We'll end here. But I'll say this. And you'll say this.

And then we'll get into this conversation about this, see where it goes. But we're ending here.

Okay. He would open up the mic.

And he would say, so what did you do last night.

And I was supposed to say, oh, I watched Netflix.

And I said, I didn't do anything. I went to bed early. And he would just look at me, like what the hell --

STU: What a jerk.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. I destroyed everything. And I eventually, I apologized to him. I said, Larry, this is not. I'm sorry.

Because he looked at me with these big sad eyes. And he's like, Glenn, you're killing me, man.

And I'm like, I know. But they signed me to a five-year contract, and I'm not going to be here for five years.

I'm not doing it.

STU: So you're trying to get yourself fired.

GLENN: I'm trying to get myself fired. Because I didn't have an option out.

And I just looked at him -- towards the end, I really felt bad.

And I was like, I'm sorry, Larry.

I know I'm destroying your one shot.

STU: Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: I mean, it was horrible.

And I feel -- he's been coming to mind so much. I don't even know where he is. I don't know what happened afterwards.

And I feel really bad -- feel like I should call him and say, hey, Larry, please tell me you're not like in the sanitation industry now. Please tell me that you had some success afterwards.

STU: In the industry.

GLENN: That I didn't --

STU: So wait. You never -- lost are contact with the guy. Never kind of talked this out?

GLENN: You would be surprised. We didn't have a good relationship.
(laughter)

STU: Oh. So you were bringing that up on the Kamala Harris context.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: We think that she was maybe --

GLENN: It doesn't matter if it was her.

She was the tool used to take her -- no matter how nice she was to have.

Larry was very kind to me, and gracious on the air. Okay? I was not having any of it. I was never mean to him, but I would never play along.

STU: You were not helpful.

GLENN: Not helpful at all.

All right. That's what I think is happening with Kamala.

First of all, she has a record of knifing her boss in the back.

STU: Totally. In fact, that is her specialty.

One talent she has. Although some former mayors of Los Angeles have ideas about her talents, but generally speaking, the one talent she has is behind the scenes -- for power.

GLENN: Right. Right. But I have absolutely no evidence of that, other than her history.

I don't know. She seemed to be very kind and everything else. And very gracious about it. But she was at least the tool -- she was his -- Larry Wax. Sorry, Larry, if you're listening.

I really mean that. It's been bothering me. I'm going to try to find you.

I'm sorry.

But that's what it is. That's what it is.

STU: Because I think you could make the argument that Biden was doing that to her, the entire term.

Like, she was always positive about her.

But then would -- the entire administration was leaking negative things about Kamala for three and a half years.

GLENN: I don't know though, that was necessarily him.

I think it -- I mean, all the stories were everyone hates her.

Everyone around her. Everyone in her office, hates her!

Okay?

So I don't know if that was necessarily Joe Biden going, let's come up with some bad things.

I just think everybody hated her, like she's a nightmare.

Now, he did set her up on things like, you're the border czar.

STU: Yeah. I mean, he sunk her.

Again, she's terrible.

And never really had a chance at success.

In her political career.

But I will say, you know, he didn't help.

GLENN: Now, you might be asking yourself. Why are you guys debating this?

Because in about six months, no one will remember her name.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: So if we're going to talk about it, we have to talk about it right now.

STU: And we already are there with Tim Walz, which I love. We've already forgotten him, unless you happen to live in Minnesota.

GLENN: Yeah. And you're remembering it going, what the hell did I do?

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

"Shazam!" Star Gets Real About Suicide, God & Being a Dad | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 238

There are only three people in Hollywood Glenn wants to interview — Denzel Washington, Chris Pratt, and Zachary Levi. In this episode of "The Glenn Beck Podcast," Glenn sits down with Zachary Levi, author of “Radical Love,” an actor known for his leading roles in “Chuck,” “Tangled,” and “Shazam!” Glenn and Zachary discuss his “coming out politically” and do a deep dive into Zachary’s fall into a “dopamine spiral,” his battle with suicide, and how “insanity” runs in Glenn’s family “like a pack of wild animals.” The pair “thank God” Trump won the election but worry about the “snark” and “sarcasm” within the conservative movement and hope we all maintain the humility to say, “I was wrong.” Zachary says the legacy media has played a “nefarious” role in dividing Americans. Glenn explains the “octopus of the administrative state,” and they both agree that we are not prepared for AI’s infiltration of every single industry. After discussing the deep state, smartphones, BlackRock, Syria, Ukraine, vaccines, Elon Musk, and even the afterlife, Glenn asks the question on everyone’s mind: What does Zachary, who has just announced he’s going to be a father, mean when he says he’s going to “lock it down” with his girlfriend?

Are the New Jersey Drones RECREATIONS of Alien Spacecraft?

Everyone is watching the skies in New Jersey after tons of mysterious large drone sightings. But the government either can’t verify them or is refusing to. So, what’s going on here? Glenn’s head researcher & former Dept. of Defense intelligence analyst Jason Buttrill joins to explain one theory: These are U.S. military recreations of UFO craft. While countries like Russia have gone “all in” on hypersonic weapons, why has the U.S. not? Is it because we have something better? And does this explain why the Pentagon has confirmed UFO sightings and why experts have testified to Congress that the U.S. government is “reproducing” or reverse-engineering alien spacecraft? Or is this all just a psy-op?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. So Jason Buttrill is our head researcher for the show.

And head writer for TV. And -- and also, former military intelligence.

I wanted you to come on, because I wanted you to explain, the reverse engineering, that these drones may be.

Because Stu and I were talking earlier today.

Like in the last five years. The New York Times printed, UFOs are real. And we were like, wait what?

And nobody paid attention to it. Well, UFOs are real, but we're not really sure.

Well, we're not really sure. But we have pieces have UFOs. That are definitely otherworldly.

Huh. And then there was testimony after testimony. And the latest testimony was, they're real.

Well, they may not be real.

But we do have devices that don't come from this world.

And we're trying to reengineer. Because China and Russia and everything else is trying to reverse design these things.

And you're like, my -- my head is going to explode.

So what do you think is -- because all of this could be misdirection.

What -- tell me the reverse engineering thing. And do you believe that?

JASON: Okay. That's a loaded question. It's kind of like when Michael Shellenberger, just testified at the UAP, you know, thing in front of Congress. Where he was like -- he was the one extremely brutally honest person. Said, look, these things are real, I don't know they come from.

I don't know where they come from.

I will say, that the last time, the UFO phenomenon has been brought out so much, especially as kind of a cover for what the government was doing, was the stealth program.

Exactly, the B2. All that tech.

There was story after story after story of the government encouraging UFO talk, because they wanted to mask what was going on.

Now, there's things going on right now.

There's a couple of different technologies in the military-industrial complexes all over the world. One is hypersonic weapons. Russia has gone all in on hypersonic weapons.

China, eh.

Secondary. The US. Eh. Secondary. That's kind of just odd to me. Why would we be like, eh. And kind of look at Russia as they kind of go all out. News today, that the United States and NATO is expecting another hypersonic attack/tests from Russia, their Oreshnik missile, hypersonic missile, is going to be used in the next 24 to 48 hours. That's what they're expecting.

GLENN: It's good they're telling us in advance.

JASON: They're telling us, letting us know. But, again, why is this not such a big deal to us?

Why are we -- are we prioritizing some other tech?

Now, I start thinking about that. And I start thinking about this entire UFO phenomenon. You talk about the retro fitting. And reverse engineering.

GLENN: Reverse engineering.

JASON: It came out in that -- in that congressional hearing.

GLENN: It came out a couple of times. But in that congressional hearing where Shellenberger was there with so much credibility.

JASON: They talked about a program. The government program called the immaculate constellation. And they were very honed in on what they called reproduction vehicles. Which, the first thought in my mind was the back of granddad's '57 Chevy. That sounded like a reproduction vehicle.

GLENN: I don't think that's what they meant.

JASON: That's not what they meant.

GLENN: That this was immaculate.

JASON: Exactly right. Now I get the reason for the name. We're connecting dots like only you can.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. They're not making 57 Chevies.
(laughter)
All right.

JASON: But so what they meant, actually meant by that was UFO craft, UPE craft, what they're hinting at, that they have either recovered or reserved. And tried to retrofit it. And tried to make it on their own. Reverse engineering.

And they even go so far as to say, these are actual government reports, that they said, they are observing hostile country off certain waters, that were doing a test of their reproduction vehicle.

Now, to me that sounds like China.

They talk about it in detail, how there was Naval assets.

They were watching to see. It looked like they were scanning, to see if it showed up on their radar. Then after the test, they dispersed and went away, and the vehicle went away.

Now, personally, I think there's huge talk about drone warfare. This is not happening in a New Jersey turnpike vacuum.

Three hours ago, there was a story from Reuters. Over the past couple of weeks. All of these random, what happened to be drones, were appearing over Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany. This is happening all over the place. And it's accelerated over the, what? Past two years? Two, three years. This is accelerating. This is not just a New Jersey turnpike phenomenon. This is everywhere. Now, all the attention is right there.

And to me it's very interesting. That after Russia is going all in on hypersonic weapons, and gone to fully using them on the battlefield, in a war that we're actively engaged in.

That now we're talking about this a whole lot more.

GLENN: But how does this not make us look pathetic? Because you wouldn't believe. I mean, if Russia did this.

And also, we cannot track it on our radar.
You would be like, oh, really? Ivan. You can't track it. Wow, I believe you.

I mean, you would have to do it over somebody else that would fool their tracking. Not ours.

Why would you -- I just think that makes us look weak.

Which makes a case, that, yes. The Biden administration is behind it. Because it makes us look weak.

JASON: Right. Remember then, if a lot of these disclosures are true and accurate -- and, again, I'm not saying that they're from outer space. It could be. But I'm not saying that. It could just be --

GLENN: I don't think they are.

JASON: Would you agree that we're on the verge of a technology explosion?

GLENN: Yes.

JASON: Quantum computing and everything. Wouldn't that seem like aliens?

GLENN: Yes. Remember what I said about the Hindenburg last hour. And the war of the worlds. They knew at the time.

The whole country was unsettled. Radio was about the age of the i Phone.

And -- I mean, as far as being masked.

And people were just unsettled. War was in the air.

They knew everything was about change. It was just in the air.

That's where we are.

I mean, that's what I said Zachary Levi.

He's like, Glenn, three years from now. By 2030, no one will recognize anything.

You won't recognize your job.

You won't recognize your life.

You won't -- you won't recognize anything by 2030.

He said, 2030, I think we've got two years.

And I said, maybe. Maybe four.

STU: Those aren't -- those lines aren't that far apart from each other.

It's already 2025. It feels -- 2030 feels like it's way out in the distance.

Really, not that far away.

GLENN: But remember when I said 2030.

STU: It felt like this.

GLENN: Everyone was saying 2050. 2050.

If we ever get there.

And I said, I'm telling you, it's 2030.

And now, others are saying, it's right around. Not just Zachary Levi.

Other people who actually know things. Unlike me. Are saying, it's some place very soon.

Could be next year. Soon. But it's here.

STU: On the quantum computing front.

There's that announcement from Google this week, on the Willow chip. They say that Google claims that Willow was able to complete one particular problem, in five minutes, while the same task would have taken today's supercomputers 10 septillion years to finish.

And septillion is -- that's a lot. Ten, then zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero.

GLENN: You could have just said the federal deficit.

STU: Yeah. That's, by the way, longer than the universe existed. Has existed. That's what they say.

So that -- our today's super computers, longer than the universe has existed, and it took the Google chip five minutes.

So you add AI to that.

You're not going to go to the library. And go, I want to do this quantum computing. That is going to be sold for the highest dollar.

You're going to have to bid on the time. You're going to have a really good reason.

And it's only going to be scientist studies. Governments. That have access to these things.

Oh, one more thing. AI will have that.

Now, what do you do when you introduce something, as we talked about last, what? Tuesday, Wednesday show.

When you have something that you -- you think is your friend, but it can think in five minutes, what -- what to you, would take longer than the history of the universe.

Not even you. The supercomputer of today. Longer than the time -- the entire universe has existed.

Yeah. We're going to be able to put that back into a bottle.

It's not going to outsmart us.

DUNCAN: Yeah. I think we are on the verge of a wildly transformative time, in military hardware.

GLENN: Yes.

JASON: And I think there is a lot of posturing, as far as what is about to get exposed and used accurately.

That's personally what I think is going on right now.

I don't think every single sighting that's happening everywhere.

It's probably hobbyists. If you listen to what John Kirby actually said.

He said that most of us or some of.

He didn't say all of everything that's being observed out there, is something that they can't explain.