Speaker 1: Using free speech to free minds.
Speaker 2: You're listening to the David Night Show.
Speaker 1: As the clock strikes thirteen, it's Thursday, the thirty first
Speaker 1: of October. He're of our Lord twenty twenty four. Well,
Speaker 1: it's also Halloween, and so we're going to talk about
Speaker 1: where the new rules are for trainees and the left,
Speaker 1: what can you dress as, what can you not dress?
Speaker 1: And we're going to contrast the darkness with the light
Speaker 1: as well. And we've also had some new science actually done.
Speaker 1: They've discovered that they misunderestimated, as George Bush would say,
Speaker 1: the CO two absorption by plants. Well, that throws all
Speaker 1: their models off. Maybe that's why they've been wrong for
Speaker 1: nearly sixty years on all of these climate models. And
Speaker 1: we're told that a pig now has bird flu. Yes,
Speaker 1: that's right, a pig flu. Look at the assumptions of that.
Speaker 1: And also they're back pushing the nudge. I've said from
Speaker 1: the very beginning, there wasn't any science of this except
Speaker 1: for behavioral science. Well, we're going to begin with an
Speaker 1: old story, Pentagon waste and Endless Wars will be right back. Well,
Speaker 1: as I've said, it's just an old story, but it
Speaker 1: just keeps going on and on. There's no end to it.
Speaker 1: Pentagon paid nearly eight thousand percent markup on Boeing's bathroom
Speaker 1: soap dispenser. It's not the six hundred dollars toilet seat.
Speaker 1: This is much worse. They're taking things that you are
Speaker 1: right would pick up for twenty thirty dollars and costing
Speaker 1: thousands of dollars and folks, this is Boeing, and this
Speaker 1: is an example of just how corrupt and spoil this
Speaker 1: monopolistic defense industry chain has become. Boeing can't do anything right.
Speaker 1: Their planes are falling apart, literally in the air. Their
Speaker 1: spacecraft is leaking like a sev and had to be abandoned,
Speaker 1: had to abandon the astronauts. They're still not back, and
Speaker 1: this is part of it. This is how well government
Speaker 1: welfare destroys everything, including once sufficient corporations. There used to
Speaker 1: be the standard, and now they are the example of
Speaker 1: what happens when we have government corruption welfare programs. The
Speaker 1: bathroom on the C seventeen Globe Master three cargo plane,
Speaker 1: there's nothing special. The soap dispensers are exactly the same
Speaker 1: kind of pump the customers could find in a civilian
Speaker 1: airliner in a restaurant bathroom, in your own kitchen. There's
Speaker 1: nothing different about it at all, and yet they put
Speaker 1: a nine and forty three percent markup on it, costing
Speaker 1: taxpayers one hundred and forty nine thousand dollars more than
Speaker 1: should have been. But that's just the beginning of it.
Speaker 1: There was a whistleblower that went to the US government
Speaker 1: and told them how they were being overcharged, and so
Speaker 1: they had a two year audit of the Boeing Company
Speaker 1: and surprisingly nobody sent a missile through the Pentagon window
Speaker 1: that was doing the audit. Like nine to eleven. Out
Speaker 1: of a selected sample of forty six spare parts, the
Speaker 1: Pentagon's internal watchdog found the Air Force overpaid for twelve
Speaker 1: of them about a quarter a little more than a quarter,
Speaker 1: i'm sorry, a little less than a quarter, costing taxpayers
Speaker 1: an additional million dollars on top of the parts four
Speaker 1: point three million value. So, in twenty fifteen, the Pentagon
Speaker 1: found that it was severely overpaying for Patriot missiles. They
Speaker 1: negotiate a new contract at that point time that saved
Speaker 1: them half a billion dollars five hundred and fifty million
Speaker 1: dollars in twenty nineteen, the Inspector General found that the
Speaker 1: military was paying forty three hundred dollars for a half
Speaker 1: inch metal drive pen that should have cost forty six dollars.
Speaker 1: How does a half inch metal drive pen cost forty
Speaker 1: six dollars in the first place, That's what I want
Speaker 1: to know. But they charge one hundred times more than
Speaker 1: that soap dispensers. Again, this is the headline article, the
Speaker 1: one that they've picked to put up at the top.
Speaker 1: You could pick any number of these things. The Air
Speaker 1: Force did not validate the accuracy of the data, they said,
Speaker 1: because they were just looking at the prices that subcontractors
Speaker 1: are charging and just you know, well, if they're not
Speaker 1: really marking that up, we're okay with it. So again,
Speaker 1: you know, oh well, this uh, this intrimental drive pen,
Speaker 1: should it cost forty six dollars? I don't know how
Speaker 1: it even should cost forty six dollars. But if it's
Speaker 1: not marked up strictly by Boeing, I guess they don't
Speaker 1: find it. But see, part of the problem is that
Speaker 1: there's a revolving door. As we've seen. Lloyd Austin, who
Speaker 1: is now the secondary defense for the Biden administration that
Speaker 1: had to change the rules so he could come back.
Speaker 1: You know, usually that revolving door only goes in one direction,
Speaker 1: just like you know the buildings you know, usually only
Speaker 1: goes in one direction. They had to go in and
Speaker 1: do an operation so the revolving door could go back
Speaker 1: the other direction. Again. You know why this type of
Speaker 1: thing happening. Why is it that you've got people in
Speaker 1: the Pentagon that are just approving this kind of absurd costs, well,
Speaker 1: because they hope to go to work for these companies
Speaker 1: when they get out and they do. It's evolving door,
Speaker 1: just like it is with FDA and pharma, and it
Speaker 1: is consolidation, corruption, monopolistic stuff. As they point out, these
Speaker 1: types of soap dispensers, you can buy them online for
Speaker 1: thirty dollars, but they marked it up eight thousand percent.
Speaker 1: Even tape they said they went through, they found bearings, screws, gaskets, lights,
Speaker 1: even tape. Inspector General says Boeing overcharged two one thousand,
Speaker 1: six hundred and sixty four dollars for some tape. And
Speaker 1: this is the way you can sneak stuff in. You know,
Speaker 1: these are all nondescript things, right, screws, gaskets, lights, tapes
Speaker 1: of something that we had on employee who was a
Speaker 1: trusted manager who did that with us. I caught him.
Speaker 1: I had the ability back in the nineties to be
Speaker 1: able to log in and watch what was happening on
Speaker 1: the computers to check the sales and stuff. And he
Speaker 1: was very he was very clever about it. He would
Speaker 1: do it on other people's shift, not on his own.
Speaker 1: And he left us and went to work for a
Speaker 1: pizza place next door, and he came in. He was
Speaker 1: stealing from us when he was working for the pizza place.
Speaker 1: He just came in and said, Hey, you want to
Speaker 1: take a break and I'll relave you a little bit
Speaker 1: if you want to get something to eat. Oh yeah, great, thanks,
Speaker 1: you know, And I didn't know he was on the clock.
Speaker 1: And he goes in and what he did was he
Speaker 1: took bubblegum. And he knew that we didn't inventory the
Speaker 1: bubblegum stuff that we sold for like a penny and
Speaker 1: or whatever some nominal amount, maybe a nickel or something
Speaker 1: like that, and so he put the price in as
Speaker 1: negative and he sold a whole bunch of these things,
Speaker 1: and then he took the difference in cash and I
Speaker 1: caught it on it. That's what they do. They'll go
Speaker 1: in and they'll take something that is nondescript like that. So,
Speaker 1: in an interview with sixty Minutes last year, a former
Speaker 1: Ratheon contract Negotia not Lloyd Austin. He's not honest enough
Speaker 1: to do this with somebody other than Lloyd Austin, who
Speaker 1: worked for raytheon his director of Defense pricing. He blamed
Speaker 1: a lack of competition. He said, in the eighties there
Speaker 1: was intense competition with a lot of different companies, and
Speaker 1: so the government had choices, they had leverage. But we
Speaker 1: have limited leverage now. Why because they allowed these companies
Speaker 1: to consolidate and so you've only had a couple of them.
Speaker 1: You know, you don't have competition between companies anymore. You
Speaker 1: don't really have oversight. Well, there's going to be a
Speaker 1: whole new wave of spending. As I've talked about this
Speaker 1: several times and said, you know, Eric Schmidt, the x
Speaker 1: CEO of Google, is now the big guy in the
Speaker 1: Pentagon especially he's all about AI. He's there all the time,
Speaker 1: but especially on military stuff. And if you remember, and
Speaker 1: I've forgotten the guy's name now, but the book was
Speaker 1: the Four Battlegrounds. Everything about it was oriented towards we're
Speaker 1: going to war with China, and so here's the four
Speaker 1: Battlegrounds are going to go to war with China on
Speaker 1: And I had the guy in because of what he
Speaker 1: had to say about AI and the progress on it,
Speaker 1: how they were testing it, what the limitations were. Because
Speaker 1: I talk about AI many times, I'm very concerned about
Speaker 1: the fact I use it helps me to remember the
Speaker 1: three SPC right, and so we have surveillance, we have propaganda,
Speaker 1: we have censorship, and that's really the way they're using
Speaker 1: the generative AI that's on social media and that type
Speaker 1: of stuff. But then there's another part of it, and
Speaker 1: that is the killer. So I guess we could say
Speaker 1: SPC K, the killer robots, the killer autonomous drone swarms
Speaker 1: and that type of thing. And so that's what Schmidt
Speaker 1: is pushing there the Pentagon, trying to get them to
Speaker 1: change over. And I've also mentioned in the past before
Speaker 1: a book by Daniel Schwarrez. As a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: two things in the news today that harkened back to
Speaker 1: books by Daniel Suarez. This guy is kind of like
Speaker 1: Michael Crichton. They really should make his movies his books
Speaker 1: in the movies, but they're not. Maybe maybe they're too
Speaker 1: close to what these guys are planning on doing to
Speaker 1: even be predictive. Maybe they're descriptive as to what they're doing.
Speaker 1: And we're going to talk about how there's a US
Speaker 1: company now that is doing doing IVF and using it
Speaker 1: for eugenics, has already started screening for IQ and that
Speaker 1: type of thing. That wasn't another book that he did,
Speaker 1: but I was in Change Agent and Kill Decision. He
Speaker 1: was talking about swarms of autonomous drones and how they
Speaker 1: would communicate with each other. They went out, they got
Speaker 1: somebody who was an expert in how insects do swarm.
Speaker 1: We talked a little bit about this the other day
Speaker 1: when Sheva was on. You know, they kind of move
Speaker 1: as a unit, and it isn't that they're just keying
Speaker 1: off of each other's movements when it comes to insects.
Speaker 1: And so that was kind of the basic theory. But
Speaker 1: the whole point is it's kind of a spoiler work.
Speaker 1: This is being in the book. It is a complete
Speaker 1: paradigm shift, and it is something that allows the entire
Speaker 1: military industrial complex to just reset itself from the very beginning,
Speaker 1: all new. All the old weapons are now obsolete, and
Speaker 1: we've got to buy all new stuff. Right Well, the
Speaker 1: ex Google CEO Schmidt is urging the army to replace
Speaker 1: tanks with drones. Remember a few weeks ago is now
Speaker 1: four or five weeks since we've had the hurricane, and
Speaker 1: we were talking about the lithium mine. We were talking
Speaker 1: about the Pentagon being involved in that lithium mine, and
Speaker 1: I said, you know, they want to have lithium batteries,
Speaker 1: and their manic about that at the pen and they
Speaker 1: want to get involved in this thing that's happening in
Speaker 1: North Carolina. They're not looking for lithium batteries to power tanks.
Speaker 1: I said, it's about the drones. And there we are.
Speaker 1: You know, it is about the drones. Google's former chief
Speaker 1: executive officer, Eric Schmidt is urging the US military to
Speaker 1: replace the fleets of useless tanks he calls in with
Speaker 1: drones powered by AI.
Speaker 3: Said.
Speaker 1: I read somewhere that the US had thousands and thousands
Speaker 1: of tanks stored somewhere. He said, give them away by
Speaker 1: a drone instead. Well, of course they're not going to
Speaker 1: give them away. What they'll do is they'll start wars
Speaker 1: and sell them to both sides. That's the Pentagon model, right,
Speaker 1: We'll have a war over here, and now you can
Speaker 1: buy our tanks which are obsolete. We do sell our
Speaker 1: obsolete weapons to people. Schmidt founded a startup building autonomous
Speaker 1: kamikaze drones for Ukraine. According to reports by Forbes, he
Speaker 1: told the gathering that the Ukraineussian war has demonstrated how
Speaker 1: a five thousand dollars drone can destroy a five million
Speaker 1: dollar tank. Ukraine has been using cheap off the shelf
Speaker 1: drones to counter Russia's military supremacy, but tanks have also
Speaker 1: been central to the fight. The Israel Hamas War has
Speaker 1: also seen Israel, which possesses scores of sophisticated drones, rely
Speaker 1: on infantry forces and deploy thousands of tanks to Gaza
Speaker 1: Strip in parallel with the air raids. And so they
Speaker 1: still have a use, I guess, especially in an asymmetric
Speaker 1: war where the civilians don't have much to fight back with.
Speaker 1: But when you look at the rapid change of all this,
Speaker 1: you know, you see the pictures of the of the
Speaker 1: tanks with kind of a it looks like they've got
Speaker 1: like a trashy lean to house on top of the
Speaker 1: tank to try to have the drone explode a little
Speaker 1: distance away from the tank so it doesn't penetrate the tank.
Speaker 1: And they're also putting up now videos of Russia dropping
Speaker 1: nets to catch the drones. So this is something that
Speaker 1: has in its infancy kind of like watching the beginning
Speaker 1: of the twentieth century the development of aerial warfare, and
Speaker 1: so that's where these drones are right now. Schmidt was
Speaker 1: the inaugural chair of the US Defense Innovation Board, advising
Speaker 1: senior defense leaders on how they could come up with
Speaker 1: autonomous killer robots and drones. He also led the National
Speaker 1: Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, which in twenty twenty three
Speaker 1: made recommendation of Congress on how to best deploy AI
Speaker 1: for national security and defense. Ukraine and Russia drone taxis
Speaker 1: are changing every three to six weeks as a too
Speaker 1: rush to innovate. The cost of autonomy is falling so
Speaker 1: quickly that the drone war, which is the future of conflict,
Speaker 1: will get rid of eventually get rid of tanks, artillery
Speaker 1: and mortars, said Schmidt. Still, the indicates that he thinks
Speaker 1: the government of the armed forces in the West will
Speaker 1: be slow to adapt to the autonomous killer robots. Well,
Speaker 1: how does this affect us at home? Right again, we're
Speaker 1: going to just you know, change, scrap all stuff, give
Speaker 1: them away, maybe they'll sell them, who knows, and they
Speaker 1: will buy all new weapons. Well, there was an interesting
Speaker 1: article on American Conservative about war in the cost of groceries.
Speaker 1: You know, we always hear this guns and butter argument.
Speaker 1: You know, what do you do? Do you you build infrastructure,
Speaker 1: do you build defense? And that type of thing. Well,
Speaker 1: we're literally talking about butter price of food. On CNN's
Speaker 1: town Hall when La Law is being interviewed, as I
Speaker 1: write here, she was asked a pretty straightforward question about
Speaker 1: progressives recoiling from the Biden administration's apparent inability or unwillingness
Speaker 1: to use US leverage with Israel to bring an end
Speaker 1: to the civilian carnage and Gaza. And she said, well, okay,
Speaker 1: but staying on the count, you not voting at all
Speaker 1: because of this issue? She said, I'm not going to
Speaker 1: deny the strong feelings that people have. I don't know
Speaker 1: that anyone who has seen the images who would not
Speaker 1: have strong feelings about what has happened. But but forget
Speaker 1: about that. He said, I also do know that for
Speaker 1: many people who care about this issue, they also care
Speaker 1: about bringing down the price of groceries. And he says,
Speaker 1: although this is done as a rhetorical side of hand,
Speaker 1: let's talk about something else. He said, these things are
Speaker 1: not unrelated. So you want to abruptly shift from the
Speaker 1: deaths of nearly forty three thousand people of this placement
Speaker 1: of nearly an entire population of over two million in
Speaker 1: the gods of strip and start talking about milk and
Speaker 1: bread at the grocery store. So it's kind of cringey,
Speaker 1: but they're one and the same. If you don't think
Speaker 1: that sending billions of dollars of weapons to Israel, after
Speaker 1: years of sending arms in cash to Ukraine, that that
Speaker 1: doesn't in some way affect American's consternation at the cash register,
Speaker 1: then we need to talk. In twenty twenty one, the
Speaker 1: average American family, the middle twenty percent of income earners,
Speaker 1: paid seventeen nine hundred dollars in taxes to federal, state,
Speaker 1: and local governments. Of that, ten three hundred ninety one
Speaker 1: went to Washington and the federal bureaucracy. By the way,
Speaker 1: the middle twenty percent is the family that's earning between
Speaker 1: forty six thousand and seventy eight thousand a year, and
Speaker 1: I have any send ten thousand to the government. And
Speaker 1: guess what that is nowhere close to what's being spent.
Speaker 1: As they're sending a quarter of their income, their gross
Speaker 1: income to the government, to the federal government, and you
Speaker 1: know even more than that to with all the taxes
Speaker 1: that we pay, it doesn't come close to paying for
Speaker 1: what the government is spending. We are going further and
Speaker 1: further in debt ourselves and our children and our grandchildren,
Speaker 1: even though they're taking a quarter to a half of
Speaker 1: what we make. As many people have said, God only
Speaker 1: asked for ten percent right when Israel was a nation
Speaker 1: in the Old Testament. So buying on credit, he says,
Speaker 1: a credit card, Well, the interest rates are in the stratosphere. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they're not going to do anything about that usury stuff.
Speaker 1: Banks are going to get whatever they want and they're
Speaker 1: going to be left alone. It doesn't matter that they
Speaker 1: can get the money for free from the federal Reserve.
Speaker 1: They'll charge you twenty thirty, forty fifty percent on the
Speaker 1: credit card. We used to lock people up for doing that.
Speaker 1: They used to be the game of organized crime. Well,
Speaker 1: it actually is still the game of organized crime. And
Speaker 1: they still do wear the nicest suits, you know, not
Speaker 1: just them offia. Since the Hamas attacks on October seventh,
Speaker 1: the US is given Israel nearly eighteen billion and eight
Speaker 1: seventeen point nine. This includes the annual three point eight
Speaker 1: million billion rather Israel normally gets, plus the fourteen billion
Speaker 1: dollars supplemental package passed by Congress in April. Typically Congress
Speaker 1: would have to approve each major weapons system, but they've
Speaker 1: got a way to get around that. The Biden administration
Speaker 1: has been very inventive in terms of getting around any rules, laws,
Speaker 1: or congressional approval. The Biden administration this year has greenlit
Speaker 1: hundreds under the twenty five million dollar threshold for reporting
Speaker 1: to Congress, So tons of weapons have literally flown to
Speaker 1: Israel under the radar the legislative branch, and the cost
Speaker 1: of war reports suggests that much of this was never
Speaker 1: included in the eighteen billion dollar total. Now think about this.
Speaker 1: This is Joe Biden, who has accepted bribes and laundered
Speaker 1: money and I paid his taxes on stuff from Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Is a criminal. He knows how this stuff works. This
Speaker 1: is somebody who in his administration decided that he was
Speaker 1: going to start having banks report on us if we
Speaker 1: had a six hundred dollars transaction. Remember that used to
Speaker 1: be like ten thousand or something, and that was years
Speaker 1: and years ago when we were in business. They mad
Speaker 1: adjusted that for inflation, but he took it down to
Speaker 1: six hundred. And then what is he doing. He's structuring
Speaker 1: transfers to Israel by keeping them under the reporting limit
Speaker 1: of twenty five million. What a criminal he is. So, yeah,
Speaker 1: we're not going to file that. Yeah, that TPS report,
Speaker 1: let's not do that. This is like structuring deposits. This
Speaker 1: is this is what they sent Dennis Haster to jail for.
Speaker 1: Actually he was structuring withdrawals, which they shouldn't even worry
Speaker 1: about that. But you know, they didn't send him to
Speaker 1: jail for pedophilia, although the judge referenced that that's really
Speaker 1: what he was being sent to jail for for a
Speaker 1: short period of time. But you know, it cuts both ways.
Speaker 1: That's why he was picked to be a Republican in
Speaker 1: Congress and why he was made the Speaker of the
Speaker 1: House where the Republicans were the longest amount of time,
Speaker 1: was because he was blackmailable in a pedophile, but then
Speaker 1: when somebody black mailed him and he tried to take
Speaker 1: the money out, then they sent him to jail for
Speaker 1: structured withdrawal. Anyway, Israel is not trying to save money
Speaker 1: in an effort to destroy Hamas. By May of this year,
Speaker 1: Israel had dropped more weight in bombs than what was
Speaker 1: laid waste to Hamburg, Dresden, and London combined during World
Speaker 1: War II. As of December, Israel had fired twenty nine
Speaker 1: thousand air to surface missiles at Gaza. Only half of
Speaker 1: them were precision guided. The rest were American made dumb
Speaker 1: bombs that indiscriminately destroy whatever they fall on. At that point,
Speaker 1: some eighteen thousand people had been killed and fifty one
Speaker 1: thousand wounded in a matter of two months, in addition
Speaker 1: to the tens of thousands of missiles and bombs all
Speaker 1: the way up to the two thousand pound variety shells, tanks, rounds,
Speaker 1: small arms defense systems, shoulder fired rockets, f thirty five
Speaker 1: fighter aircraft, army vehicles, even fuel provided by the US
Speaker 1: gave Israel it's most advanced missile system, as well the
Speaker 1: FAD Terminal High Altitude Area defense, which costs anywhere from
Speaker 1: one to two billion dollars per battery. Are they worried
Speaker 1: about climate change? No, all these explosions and fuel jets
Speaker 1: and all the rest of stuff, with all these wars everywhere, No,
Speaker 1: they not have to worry about that. And you don't
Speaker 1: have to worry about climate change. When it comes to
Speaker 1: electricity being used for AI to do surveillance, propaganda and censorship,
Speaker 1: you have to worry about it either, and that great.
Speaker 1: Just like China doesn't have to worry about it, India
Speaker 1: doesn't have to worry about it, the surveillance state doesn't
Speaker 1: have to worry about it, the military industrial complex doesn't
Speaker 1: have to worry about it. The Pentagon doesn't have to
Speaker 1: worry about it. But you should not be allowed to
Speaker 1: have meat and you will not be able to afford
Speaker 1: meat because there were with us in that area. And
Speaker 1: that's fair as well. And the excuse is climate change. Right,
Speaker 1: with all of these explosions, all this money that is
Speaker 1: being wasted, all these lives that are being wasted, it's
Speaker 1: spent US made of the Washington spent an additional four
Speaker 1: point nine billion dollars increasing its own military presence in
Speaker 1: the Middle East, last year, including leading a coalition of
Speaker 1: countries against the hoodie attacks and commercial shipping in the
Speaker 1: Red Sea. I think that should be hoothy, hoothy. I
Speaker 1: just have to call it hoody, like hoody and the blowfish,
Speaker 1: because they're blowing the fish out of the water too.
Speaker 1: Rather than use the leverage, listen to this. Rather than
Speaker 1: use the leverage of all these billions of dollars that
Speaker 1: are being given to Israel, rather than trying to use
Speaker 1: that to as a lever to try to get a
Speaker 1: cease fire, the US appears to be content to fire
Speaker 1: off two million dollar missiles at cheap, hoothy weapons that
Speaker 1: seemed to be an endless supply over the last year.
Speaker 1: Does anybody ask how long can America take it? And mean,
Speaker 1: we're just talking about the economic aspects of it, the
Speaker 1: bankrupt aspect of it. What about when they are successful
Speaker 1: in terms of bringing to our shores and to our country.
Speaker 1: We're not isolated from this, and they're doing everything they
Speaker 1: can to expose us to it. Leave the borders might
Speaker 1: have come on, everybody come in, especially young single men. Whatever. Well,
Speaker 1: they'll print more money, they'll raise the taxes, they'll give
Speaker 1: us an army of I r S agents. They'll use
Speaker 1: AI to scrutinize every single aspect of our bank accounts,
Speaker 1: higher prices at the grocery store, just one aspect. I said,
Speaker 1: it might be easier to stomach if we knew that
Speaker 1: our heart earned income was not being sent to fight
Speaker 1: other government's battles with no effort or influence put into
Speaker 1: ending them, And also might be easier if we knew
Speaker 1: that it wasn't being used to kill children and continue
Speaker 1: on with the war. I had a listener who has
Speaker 1: been a listener for a very long time. So I
Speaker 1: understand you oppose your country's involvement in foreign wars, and
Speaker 1: I completely agree with your reasoning. However, it's difficult not
Speaker 1: to share the joy of these Iranians who were seen
Speaker 1: dancing on the roof after the Israelis attacked. So what's
Speaker 1: going on with that? Well, if we go back and
Speaker 1: we look at the American involvement in Iran, we went
Speaker 1: back in the nineteen fifties and started the coup. You know,
Speaker 1: it's interesting. The people part of the propaganda is determining
Speaker 1: where the beginning point is going to be. Right, if
Speaker 1: you're a beginning point for what is going on in
Speaker 1: Iran is when they took over the embassy, which is
Speaker 1: what they want everybody to think of. And nobody thought
Speaker 1: about Iran before that, which is always there was always
Speaker 1: a Shaw in Iran, right, well, no, never, you know, Iran, Iraq.
Speaker 1: These are constructs after World War two. You know, these
Speaker 1: ancient people groups that were there, the Babylonians, the Persians,
Speaker 1: the Meads, the Meads, Kurdistan and everything, but they split
Speaker 1: them up between these two, so they didn't really have
Speaker 1: a homeland. They're fighting everybody trying to get a homeland.
Speaker 1: The Iranians came out of the Persians, Iraq came out
Speaker 1: of the Babylonians. But you know, they make these arbitrary distinctions,
Speaker 1: and then when they get a leader, a left leaning
Speaker 1: leader who wants to do something with you, all of
Speaker 1: the CIA takes them out and puts in the Shaw
Speaker 1: of Iran and a brutal regime that was there. And
Speaker 1: then that brutal regime and there were a lot of people,
Speaker 1: was a very western country there under the Shah for
Speaker 1: a couple of decades, but the brutality of the Shaw
Speaker 1: and the CIA training and torture that blew back and
Speaker 1: they wound up with the Iatola and they got even worse.
Speaker 1: And so there's a lot of people in Iran that
Speaker 1: a lot of them are Christians. A lot of them
Speaker 1: want to have a free and open society. They don't
Speaker 1: want to have this Islamic you know, rules and religious
Speaker 1: police like there in Saudi Arabia on everybody's back, beating
Speaker 1: and arresting in the case of Saudi Arabia killing people.
Speaker 1: Know that the Iranians chop off heads like the Saudis do.
Speaker 1: But still a lot of them really hate their own government,
Speaker 1: which is a blowback because of what the CIA did.
Speaker 1: And again it goes back to our involvement. What are
Speaker 1: we going to These people are dancing on the roof,
Speaker 1: They're likely going to be collateral damage in a war
Speaker 1: as Christians. As Christians, we should be trying to stop
Speaker 1: these wars on a moral basis. As Americans, we should
Speaker 1: be fed up with the cost of this, even if
Speaker 1: it's only the cost in dollars, if we don't even
Speaker 1: care about the lives that are there. He says, I
Speaker 1: agree with you on net now, who's lack of moral fiber? Well,
Speaker 1: so do the many of the people Israel as well.
Speaker 1: He says, though, not all with your belief about the
Speaker 1: origins of the Ashkenazis. And I don't really care about that.
Speaker 1: Ethnic groups don't matter to me, not hell I care
Speaker 1: about at all. I know Gerald does. I don't care
Speaker 1: about it at all. But he says, I find it
Speaker 1: difficult to fault his decision to retaliate. And I don't
Speaker 1: fault his decision to retaliate. I fault his decision to
Speaker 1: continue this conflict for over a year with a stated
Speaker 1: goal of killing every man, woman and child. That's genocide
Speaker 1: so they can have land, and saying, well, we're headed
Speaker 1: to Damascus next right, They're on a crusade of endless
Speaker 1: war for conquering, killing civilians for land. I don't support that.
Speaker 1: I won't support it. I will never support that, and
Speaker 1: I will not support that as a Christian. And I
Speaker 1: don't care what your eschatology is. You're not going to
Speaker 1: convince me that your eschatology, even if you got it
Speaker 1: right over rules the clear moral principles for Christians. And
Speaker 1: so that's where I come stand on all of this stuff.
Speaker 1: But thank you, Giles, and thank you for your support
Speaker 1: over the years. And he finishes it with a nice comment,
Speaker 1: so I really do shade that and had a email
Speaker 1: from Texas Freedom Forever. I said, during Ashieva's interview, you
Speaker 1: said outsourcing tyranny. You need to write an article with
Speaker 1: that title. I do. I need to write some articles period.
Speaker 1: But I think that is the way that we should
Speaker 1: view this stuff. We look at whether it's censorship, they
Speaker 1: outsource the tyranny. You know, they use them as they
Speaker 1: use these private corporations as a beard. Oh, it's not us,
Speaker 1: it's private corporations, except they're giving the orders to the
Speaker 1: private corporations. They're giving money to the private corporations. And
Speaker 1: we see it happening again with the flock surveillance cameras. Well,
Speaker 1: it's not US, it's is private corporations creating a massive
Speaker 1: national and international network of geospatial intelligence to track and
Speaker 1: to anticipate your every move. This is something that the
Speaker 1: US government has been working on for decades. It's like
Speaker 1: they've worked on the Internet for decades. Just like they
Speaker 1: wanted to have total information awareness, they wanted to have
Speaker 1: your lifelog. But then they people say, oh, we don't
Speaker 1: want the government keeping a lifelog. Okay, well great, Facebook,
Speaker 1: how about that that'll be lifelog. So they are outsourcing
Speaker 1: the tyranny and pretending it's not coming from them, and
Speaker 1: we know full well where it's coming from. We always
Speaker 1: knew that the censorship was coming from the government, even
Speaker 1: before we saw the documents. And now that we've seen
Speaker 1: the documents, you still have the same liars and crooks
Speaker 1: who are doing this stuff, ignoring it, pretending that they
Speaker 1: don't know anything about that. I'll just say one more
Speaker 1: thing too. I got this is from Texas. Swift said
Speaker 1: about a year ago, you had to show with a
Speaker 1: brilliant rant about I hate Trump, I hate Tucker, hate
Speaker 1: Wayne Allen Root. They did it for the money, they
Speaker 1: did it for politics. They're judas goats and anything. And
Speaker 1: so I looked at that and I thought, wow, maybe
Speaker 1: I need to kind of tone it down. I don't
Speaker 1: know whether the thing was, but I look at it.
Speaker 1: And of course, you know, we can always always have
Speaker 1: to look at what we do, and we have to
Speaker 1: think of it. You know, whenever we get angry, we
Speaker 1: always think we're justified in it, right. But I do
Speaker 1: think that as this continues to go on, we have
Speaker 1: to warn people. And I was just talking the other
Speaker 1: day about how artificial intelligence is being used to scam people.
Speaker 1: They nearly used it to scam as a scam to
Speaker 1: take people's property. I mean, should we talk about that
Speaker 1: type of thing? You know, what if somebody is ripping
Speaker 1: people off, stealing their homes, stealing their bank accounts, should
Speaker 1: we continue should we just say, well, okay, I don't
Speaker 1: want to sound hateful to warn people about that. I mean,
Speaker 1: I look at this, and I've made the analogy as
Speaker 1: well with the shots. I said, we've got some guys
Speaker 1: on the top of a building and he's shooting people
Speaker 1: in the street. You don't give him a pass, even
Speaker 1: if it's Donald Trump, right, And you've got to warn
Speaker 1: people about that. And if you know who did it,
Speaker 1: you got to warn people about that person. Don't give
Speaker 1: him another rifle, don't give him another four years. And
Speaker 1: I'm not saying vote for Lalai either. Look, there's no
Speaker 1: good choice. There's not anybody that I will vote for.
Speaker 1: But if you want to vote for one of them, fine,
Speaker 1: just don't endorse either one of them because they're clearly immoral.
Speaker 1: I mean, if we want to do something in the
Speaker 1: privacy of the voting booth, but don't flaunt it. Out
Speaker 1: in public. Okay, folks, that's all I'm saying. And yesterday
Speaker 1: while we had the g. Edward Griffin interview, I hope
Speaker 1: you all enjoyed it. What an interesting life he's had
Speaker 1: and a really remarkable man. We had some tips and
Speaker 1: I wanted to thank people for that as well. Sprumford,
Speaker 1: thank you very much, and he or she writes love
Speaker 1: she Edward Griffin. This man, along with Eustace Mullens, was
Speaker 1: responsible for waking me up for our captured monetary system
Speaker 1: via the Federal Reserve Act of nineteen thirteen. Mister Griffin
Speaker 1: is a model American. Yes, don't frag me, bro, Thank
Speaker 1: you very as much, says A Please ask mister Griffin
Speaker 1: if he thinks that we're headed to an economic collapse
Speaker 1: on the scale of the Great Depression and his thoughts
Speaker 1: about the Fourth turning Great Reset, And of course it
Speaker 1: was a recorded interview, so he didn't get that comment,
Speaker 1: but he does think that we are headed for really
Speaker 1: awful situation. He made that pretty clear. And so just
Speaker 1: be prepared, you know, make sure you've got skills, make
Speaker 1: sure you've got some supplies, make sure you've got relationships.
Speaker 1: Look at things that are happening locally, but more than anything,
Speaker 1: you need to have a foundation your relationship with God,
Speaker 1: and that's going to get you through a lot of things.
Speaker 1: It's going to get you through eternity regardless of what happens.
Speaker 1: D thank you for the tip day. We keep up
Speaker 1: the good work. God bless you in your family. Thank you,
Speaker 1: Mark C. Thank you as well. You liked the interview.
Speaker 1: Ac SAB, thank you, and they thank us. Star Barkley
Speaker 1: now a monthly supporter, Thank you very much, and for
Speaker 1: all of the road, thank you for all that you too.
Speaker 1: I appreciate that he does our put stuff up on telegram.
Speaker 1: He said, Karen, please have David give his opinion on
Speaker 1: ranked choice voting tomorrow. I emailed him about it last night.
Speaker 1: Thinks he did it earlier today. God you got ged
Speaker 1: Gord Griffin on he's a goat. He is, he really is.
Speaker 1: And so yeah, we did the rank choice voting and
Speaker 1: I put that in the description for the show. I
Speaker 1: put the time code for where that was. We didn't
Speaker 1: break it out as a separate as a separate report
Speaker 1: because it's kind of short. Big Daddy Kane from yesterday,
Speaker 1: he says Farmer's Insurance canceled my homeowners policy said I
Speaker 1: had a hazardous material seen from satellite photo all blurred.
Speaker 1: I had to appeal by showing photos of the yard
Speaker 1: and the garage area. Well, hopefully that took care of it.
Speaker 1: It didn't take care of it for the these people
Speaker 1: that I was talking about yesterday's three solar panels, I
Speaker 1: think and Liberty Mutual believed that it was mildew or
Speaker 1: something or algae on their roof and they cancel them.
Speaker 1: But it was clearly They even had a somebody come
Speaker 1: out and look at it and say, look at solar panels,
Speaker 1: and there's no structural damage at all to the roof,
Speaker 1: but they canceled them for that. They were just looking
Speaker 1: to cancel people in California because they've had a lot
Speaker 1: of disasters there and because California, I guess, has put
Speaker 1: limitations on what they can do in terms of raising rates.
Speaker 1: So the other alternative is to just cancel you. We're
Speaker 1: gonna take a quick break. We'll be right back.
Speaker 2: You're listening to the David Knight Show.
Speaker 1: About what we are allowed to do by the feminists.
Speaker 1: These people have lots of rules for us to live by.
Speaker 1: They've got pronouns for us to use as well. The
Speaker 1: war on Halloween twenty twenty four, you got feminist costume ideas.
Speaker 1: This is coming from Armageddon pros. What can you dress
Speaker 1: up as? Can you use black face this year? Don't
Speaker 1: think so?
Speaker 4: Uh?
Speaker 1: And as the points out, he's a Dylan mulvaney gets
Speaker 1: to prance around in front of cameras cause playing femininity
Speaker 1: with impunity. But you better not wear a blackface or
Speaker 1: even sunglasses at night to pay homage to Stevie Wonder.
Speaker 1: That would be racist and ablest. This is the ethos
Speaker 1: of the social justice banshees, who don't want the deplorables
Speaker 1: never have any fun whatsoever. Obviously, being a protected class,
Speaker 1: trainees are free to dress as however they wish, or
Speaker 1: to undress completely if necessary. Right, remember it just it
Speaker 1: just amazed me. You know, that's one calls up. I'd
Speaker 1: like to report there's a naked man walking down the street.
Speaker 1: What where is he said the police, this is what happened,
Speaker 1: you know, and it's like, oh, it's such such a way.
Speaker 1: Oh that's just the pride pary. Don't worry about it.
Speaker 1: So trainees, I have one hundred percent immunity from reproach.
Speaker 1: But the shoe is on the other foot. It's a
Speaker 1: hate crime if it is. The poll found that only
Speaker 1: a third of respondents approve of blackface. With Halloween nearing,
Speaker 1: a new you gov survey asked Americans about the Halloween
Speaker 1: costumes and whether they find certain costumes. By the way,
Speaker 1: if we talk about blackface, you do know that there
Speaker 1: are exceptions for Democrats with all this stuff, right, just
Speaker 1: like Ralph Northerm or Justin Trudeau. I you know, if
Speaker 1: you are with them politically, they don't care. We should
Speaker 1: tell you that they really don't care. It's just a
Speaker 1: political tool of oppression, is really what they're talking about.
Speaker 1: With Halloween coming close, they ask Americans about their Halloween
Speaker 1: costumes and whether or not they find certain costumes. For example,
Speaker 1: a costume with a realistic gun. Oh that's not good.
Speaker 1: I can't have that. Or a cultural costume worn by
Speaker 1: somebody who is not of that culture. Is that acceptable
Speaker 1: or unaccepted? Majorities of Americans say the following are acceptable
Speaker 1: Halloween costumes. A woman dressing up as a man, yeah,
Speaker 1: seventy percent saying that's okay. A man dressing up as
Speaker 1: a woman slightly less but still sixty five percent. A
Speaker 1: child dressing up in a cultural costume if they're not
Speaker 1: part of that culture sixty two percent. And think about this,
Speaker 1: this is you know, we still have about a third
Speaker 1: of the people who think that's not okay. An adult
Speaker 1: dressing up in a cultural costume if they're not a
Speaker 1: part of the culture. That's falling down to fifty six percent.
Speaker 1: Fewers say that it's acceptable for a non Native American
Speaker 1: person to dress as a Native American person only fifty
Speaker 1: two percent four eight. And again, as I point out
Speaker 1: many times, that was a mascot. At our high school,
Speaker 1: we even had our drum majors didn't wear like a
Speaker 1: drum major outfit. They had. They dressed them up. There
Speaker 1: was a chief, so they dressed them up with this
Speaker 1: big head dress, and they had a spear. Actually spared
Speaker 1: the base drum once though, one of these guys did
Speaker 1: because they go out and twirling balance and stuck the
Speaker 1: spear through the base drum. But for the most part,
Speaker 1: they were not clownish. I mean, they look pretty good,
Speaker 1: but they would they were shirtless and they would rub
Speaker 1: Texas dirt all over them so they looked redskin. And
Speaker 1: then they would paint them on top of that, and
Speaker 1: it was Oh boy, I tell you that would really
Speaker 1: freak people out today, wouldn't it trying to find some
Speaker 1: of those pictures and put them up to freak me out?
Speaker 1: It's not okay for a person who is not transgender
Speaker 1: to dress as a transgender person. Only thirty nine percent
Speaker 1: of the people supported that. Or for a person to
Speaker 1: wear a costume with a realistic looking gun or other weapon.
Speaker 1: That's even worse, only thirty four percent. Two thirds of
Speaker 1: people don't want you wearing, you know, dressing up as
Speaker 1: a cowboy. I guess that's you know, you could still
Speaker 1: dress up as Woody because Woody never had a gun, right,
Speaker 1: there's a big message with that. I talked to my
Speaker 1: sons about that watch toy story ex kids. Or for
Speaker 1: a white person to wear black face makeup in order
Speaker 1: to appear as a black person thirty three percent only
Speaker 1: what approove of that? Turlock journal says, I confess somewhere
Speaker 1: out there photo may exist of me wearing a white
Speaker 1: sheet and before someone finds it and posts it on Twitter,
Speaker 1: causing floodgates of indignation to open up, person says, well,
Speaker 1: it was Halloween. I was ten years old. I was short,
Speaker 1: I was heavy. My mom was a single mom, had
Speaker 1: four kids. She couldn't afford to do it, so she
Speaker 1: got a sheet and she cut some holes in it,
Speaker 1: and I went as a ghost. But she's not saying
Speaker 1: chill out about this. What she says is the biggest
Speaker 1: fear you should have as a parent should not be
Speaker 1: about razor blades and candy, the urban myth or distracted
Speaker 1: drivers running over your kids, or your kid eating enough
Speaker 1: Halloween candy to ultimately pay for your family dentist next
Speaker 1: trip to Hawaii. Know what you should be concerned about,
Speaker 1: she says, is what your child wears costume could derail
Speaker 1: their chances of getting into college or destroy their career
Speaker 1: thirty years down the road. Oh, they'll be okay as
Speaker 1: long as they're a Democrat. Isn't that amazing. Yeah, don't
Speaker 1: worry about them getting run over by a car. Worry
Speaker 1: about how that costume is, if that it's going to
Speaker 1: be shown. Another person says, well, Halloween, it's the best
Speaker 1: time the worst of times, especially if you're socially conscious feminist.
Speaker 1: On the one hand, you can get candy and you
Speaker 1: can dress up, but on the other hand, something about
Speaker 1: dressing up seems to bring out the worst impulses in people.
Speaker 1: I noticed just look at the racially insensitive costumes that
Speaker 1: are popping up every year. So what is a fun
Speaker 1: loving costume appreciating feminists to do? Well, we did the
Speaker 1: vetting for you. These suggestions will save you some trouble
Speaker 1: figuring out which costume best shows off your passion for
Speaker 1: gender equality and so thanks, how you can dress up
Speaker 1: as AOC or as that soccer lesbian with purple hair.
Speaker 1: This is a satire with this one. So it's this
Speaker 1: is this is where we are with our society and
Speaker 1: it truly is crazy. But it's even crazier in real
Speaker 1: life sometimes, I guess, you know. In the Scottish National
Speaker 1: Party has now come out and said there are twenty
Speaker 1: four different genders. This is Halloween every day, right, you
Speaker 1: can be whoever whatever you want to be. You can
Speaker 1: pretend that you're a different sex and gender, you can
Speaker 1: pretend that you're a different ethnic group. You know, just
Speaker 1: don't have any fun with it. I guess I don't know.
Speaker 1: Scotland's National Party has branded has been branded disconnected from
Speaker 1: the real world, after they put up a list of
Speaker 1: genders with twenty four options. So you know what you
Speaker 1: need to do is you got to vote for Trump
Speaker 1: and he'll put an end to this.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 1: Oh, wait a minute, he want bring the trainees into
Speaker 1: the beauty content. Oh Milania, Okay, she loves all this
Speaker 1: stuff and she likes porn too, and the two of
Speaker 1: them used to hang out with Epstein. So yeah, we
Speaker 1: need to have this revival. You know, Vaiveik is fine
Speaker 1: with all this stuff as long as you don't interfere
Speaker 1: with women's sports. Listen to this.
Speaker 6: Our message to gay Americans tonight is this, You're free
Speaker 6: to marry who you want, if you want, without the
Speaker 6: government standing in your way. But that doesn't mean that
Speaker 6: boys get to compete with girls and girls sports, or
Speaker 6: you do genital mutilation and chemical castration on our children.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know what he's doing. Right. They've identified the
Speaker 1: demographic of women as being a problem for them, so
Speaker 1: let's throw them a bone. Let's talk about men and
Speaker 1: women's sports, but everything else. Hey, that's okay, right. So
Speaker 1: the Scottish National Party, where it's twenty four different genders,
Speaker 1: they put that list onto a document that was guidance
Speaker 1: for public body in Scotland who collect data on sex
Speaker 1: and gender. And it comes after the first Minister, John
Speaker 1: Swinney and July confirmed that there were only two genders.
Speaker 1: But now they are moving away from that silly assertion.
Speaker 1: Who just thought that male and female right Scottish National
Speaker 1: Party needs to stop playing to the minority and start
Speaker 1: governing for the majority by showing some common sense and
Speaker 1: focusing on the real priorities of people. They said, And
Speaker 1: it is pretty amazing when you think about this. You know,
Speaker 1: twenty four genders and they've got fewer people than Tennessee.
Speaker 1: You know, they got five and a half million people.
Speaker 1: Tennessee's got slightly over seven. Britney Spears, by the way,
Speaker 1: here's where this leads. Britney Spears is so confused that
Speaker 1: she married herself. She dressed up and it wasn't for Halloween.
Speaker 1: She dressed up in a wedding dress, took pictures of it.
Speaker 1: This is what Hollywood and these depravity and there does
Speaker 1: to people. A video she said, I want to make
Speaker 1: a major announcement. I have married myself, you know, the
Speaker 1: person she loves. And but the question is with Britney Spears,
Speaker 1: will this marriage last? Will the personalities split off in
Speaker 1: different directions? She said it was the most brilliant thing
Speaker 1: she's ever done. Well compared to her music, perhaps, yes,
Speaker 1: pretty much everything looks brilliant compared to her music, so
Speaker 1: called music. She appeared wearing a wedding dress on October
Speaker 1: the twentieth in a video she put on Instagram to
Speaker 1: talk about how she'd married herself. The pair of posts
Speaker 1: came in the wake of her divorce from her ex
Speaker 1: husband after only a year of marriage. Again, so, like
Speaker 1: I said, how long would this marriage? To herself? Laugh, last,
Speaker 1: it was a blessing to be able to share my
Speaker 1: life with someone for such a long time, she said,
Speaker 1: after that your marriage, and you know, people grow apart
Speaker 1: and people move on after a year. She's thirty years old.
Speaker 1: So where are we now with all of this stuff? Well,
Speaker 1: we have. It is a dark time and we should
Speaker 1: take the darkness seriously. This is an ex psychic who
Speaker 1: is warning about her life in all of this darkness.
Speaker 1: She says, I am a former psychic, and I am
Speaker 1: noticing the tools of divination, such as Ouiji board tarot
Speaker 1: cards are being marketed more in the Halloween season. Parties
Speaker 1: are having tarot card readers. You're seeing this and home
Speaker 1: goods cvs. Your kids are going to these stores like
Speaker 1: five below. They're glorifying tools of divination. They're making them
Speaker 1: seem like they're fun, like it's no big deal. She said.
Speaker 1: It's interesting to see that this goes along with the
Speaker 1: Halloween season, isn't it. She said, There's something demonic in there.
Speaker 1: She said, when I was twelve, I actually had two
Speaker 1: psychic attacks, and she defines a psychic attack as receiving
Speaker 1: information psychically. She said around that time she had her
Speaker 1: first tarot card reading. She said it seemed to be innocuous,
Speaker 1: though now she believes that it was a satanic practice.
Speaker 1: She said what seemed to be innocuous ended up being addictive.
Speaker 1: She said, it was a horrible rabbit hole of destruction.
Speaker 1: I always say there's a gateway or an entryway into
Speaker 1: the demonic, whether it is tarot cards or Ouiji boards,
Speaker 1: or horoscopes or what have you. She found herself increasingly
Speaker 1: doing readings and exploring tools like devnation, numerology, astrology, other
Speaker 1: practices like that. She said. One of the facet of
Speaker 1: her experience that initially convinced her to continue for years
Speaker 1: in the occult was that the demons she was summoning
Speaker 1: would appear as clients deceased loved ones. I could see
Speaker 1: the demon because that's what it is. She said, it
Speaker 1: was masquerading as a mom. Actually heard a Christian teacher
Speaker 1: wants to say. You know, he was a pastor of
Speaker 1: a big church and he said, I had somebody asked me,
Speaker 1: he said, he said, what would you say if I
Speaker 1: told you that my deceased mom appeared at the end
Speaker 1: of the bed and talked to me. He goes, I'd
Speaker 1: believe you. I just wouldn't believe as your mom. My
Speaker 1: biggest warnings, she said, would be when you do devilish things,
Speaker 1: you get devilish outcomes, and you will get devilish results.
Speaker 1: Satan masquerades as an agent angel of light. So what
Speaker 1: you think is fun, what you think is innocent, is
Speaker 1: actually a tool of the devil, a game of the devil,
Speaker 1: and it's not a game to mess with, which then
Speaker 1: brings us Halloween and it's now becoming a very big
Speaker 1: thing in Ireland, where it really goes back to a
Speaker 1: pagan festival. Always pronounced this as sam Hayne. They say
Speaker 1: it is pronounced as so in, and you know, maybe
Speaker 1: that is the correct pronunciation. With it, but it's such
Speaker 1: a big deal that Irish Catholics have started an organization
Speaker 1: to oppose this growing pagan festival. And they said, it's
Speaker 1: a public campaign organized by the Irish Society for a
Speaker 1: Christian Civilization seeking to inform people about the true nature
Speaker 1: of the annual Puka festival. And again, I have no
Speaker 1: idea if that's the way you pronounce that or not.
Speaker 1: It's got some kind of a accent on the U,
Speaker 1: so I don't know how you pronounce that. The festival
Speaker 1: has grown to significant prominence in Ireland in recent years.
Speaker 1: They have it from October the thirty first to November third,
Speaker 1: and the official website scribes a festival as marking the
Speaker 1: mystical traditions of so In, yet brimming with contemporary energy
Speaker 1: and visitors to dance with other worldly creatures, to experience
Speaker 1: Halloween and a small, most authentic form. The multi day
Speaker 1: program posits two evening two events as particular highlights, the
Speaker 1: gathering of the spirits and the lighting of the sam
Speaker 1: Hayn fire, which is so In fire, I guess, the
Speaker 1: street performance music and a while celebration of lore. The
Speaker 1: looming darkness, they said, as light turns to darkness, and
Speaker 1: the veil thins, so too will the visions of other
Speaker 1: worldly shape shifting spirits on their journey through the original
Speaker 1: home of Halloween in Ireland. The lighting of the fire,
Speaker 1: the organizers right, is a way to connect festival attendees
Speaker 1: to the ancient pagan rituals, and so the ritual serves
Speaker 1: to bridge the gap between the physical and spiritual world.
Speaker 1: And of course, you know, maybe they can drop some
Speaker 1: hallucinogenics as well, because that's now being normalized, being normalized
Speaker 1: by therapy. It's also we've got mainstream articles talking about
Speaker 1: There's one that's put up on the Drudge Report. This
Speaker 1: is a housewife who is doing mushrooms, you know, like
Speaker 1: once a week or something like that. And you know,
Speaker 1: kind of made me think of the White Rabbit. Was
Speaker 1: that the name of it from Jefferson Airplane. You know
Speaker 1: the pills that mother gives you don't do anything at all, Well,
Speaker 1: this Moilem's got some pills out. So the Pagan festival
Speaker 1: was held to mark the turn of the season from
Speaker 1: summer to winter. They believed it to involve the passing
Speaker 1: of spirits between the world. It centered around evil spirits,
Speaker 1: particularly one known as Puoka and the time was marked
Speaker 1: by the brief and temporary ascendency of the powers of darnings.
Speaker 1: I wonder if that is the right way to pronounce that.
Speaker 1: I remember at a film Jimmy Stewart Harvey. They said
Speaker 1: Harvey was a pookah. Yeah never never. I thought, what
Speaker 1: are they talking about? But maybe that's what that is
Speaker 1: the first commandment, as I am the Lord your God,
Speaker 1: you shall have no strange guys before me that is broken,
Speaker 1: that is replaced by false God, like this puokah, this divination.
Speaker 1: And at the same time, we've got George Barna, who
Speaker 1: looks at surveys people's attitudes, what they tell them about,
Speaker 1: what they believe, their worldview, what their life is like.
Speaker 1: He says, you know, we've rejected God. And he said,
Speaker 1: I think it is fueling the crisis that underlines our
Speaker 1: country as part of America's massive mental health malay is
Speaker 1: actually rooted in a spiritual crisis. They asked, he said,
Speaker 1: we're in a situation where the best estimates are that
Speaker 1: we have about one out of every four adults with
Speaker 1: some kind of diagnosable mental illness. There's a wide range,
Speaker 1: but when we look at it more deeply, we find
Speaker 1: that those numbers are higher the younger a person is.
Speaker 1: So as you try to dig into it to try
Speaker 1: to figure out things like anxiety, depression, fears, suicidal thoughts,
Speaker 1: OCD tendencies. Yeah, when they liked everybody down and said
Speaker 1: stay away, don't touch anything twenty twenty, he said, Nation
Speaker 1: really was addictions. So when we look at all those things,
Speaker 1: what we find is that often what may be happening
Speaker 1: is that it's not that they have some kind of
Speaker 1: chemical imbalance or some kind of a physical issue that's
Speaker 1: causing what appears to be mental illness. What's causing it
Speaker 1: may be their belief structure, their worldview. And so he
Speaker 1: says the majority of people in general gen Z, that is,
Speaker 1: fifty six percent of gen Z, which are individuals in
Speaker 1: their teens in early twenties, fifty six percent of them
Speaker 1: struggle with mental health issues. He said, only one percent
Speaker 1: of them have a biblical worldview. Then millennials forty nine
Speaker 1: percent of them. These are people in their mid twenties
Speaker 1: to late thirties and early forties. They say they consistently
Speaker 1: wrestle with anxiety, depression, fear, et cetera. And only two
Speaker 1: percent of that generation has a biblical worldview, he said,
Speaker 1: but older generations like and baby boomers, who have a
Speaker 1: higher proportion of members embracing a biblical worldview, have a
Speaker 1: lesser percentage of people struggling with this mental illness. He says,
Speaker 1: people have a biblical worldview are less likely to end
Speaker 1: up in prison, less likely to have abortions, less likely
Speaker 1: to engage in other risky behaviors like addiction. You so,
Speaker 1: they're much more likely to have longer lasting marriages, not
Speaker 1: to marry themselves, even they don't have a one year
Speaker 1: marriage and then marry themselves. They rate their marriages higher
Speaker 1: in terms of fulfillment and joy, and they're much more
Speaker 1: likely to have a clear, compelling sense of the meaning
Speaker 1: of life. So, you know, when we look at what
Speaker 1: is behind all this, this is I'll finish up here
Speaker 1: this section before we got to break. This was from
Speaker 1: the Center dot com and I don't know who the
Speaker 1: writer was. They didn't identify, but it's an excellent article
Speaker 1: talking about contrast is the language of God's glory, and
Speaker 1: what we see here is a real contrast. You know,
Speaker 1: we see people who are increasingly embracing the darkness and
Speaker 1: openly and publicly doing it at this time of year,
Speaker 1: in Halloween, and I think that there's a great deal
Speaker 1: in terms of contrast is so important. Without it, we
Speaker 1: can't really see what is happening. And that's one of
Speaker 1: the reasons why when I cover the news and I
Speaker 1: do you know, events that I think or items I
Speaker 1: think are important, and when I try to get my
Speaker 1: perspective on it, try to analyze it, it's always about
Speaker 1: comparing and contrasting, because if you don't have contrast, you
Speaker 1: can't really see what's going on. And he begins with
Speaker 1: the example of photographs. He said, I you've got a photograph.
Speaker 1: It's got really poor contrast that you can't yah. It's
Speaker 1: not interesting. You can't really see what is happening there.
Speaker 1: There's no detail, it's not very intense, there's no death,
Speaker 1: there's no definition, he goes, but you crank up the
Speaker 1: contrast on it. And in the world of photography, for example,
Speaker 1: a dull image that doesn't have any contrast doesn't have
Speaker 1: any life. It's indistinguishable, it's lost among other images. It
Speaker 1: holds no defined shape or purpose. But if you add contrast,
Speaker 1: if you intensify the shadows, if you brighten the highlights,
Speaker 1: Suddenly it pops off the page. Every line, every curve,
Speaker 1: every intricate detail pops up with new life. And there's
Speaker 1: clarity and depth that draws the viewer in and captivates
Speaker 1: and refuses to let go, so he says, in the
Speaker 1: hands of the eternal King and Holy One. Contrast is
Speaker 1: the force that magnifies as glory against the background of
Speaker 1: a world veiled in darkness. Of course, God's glory is
Speaker 1: never that is never dull. It is absolute and it's brilliance.
Speaker 1: But it's against the backdrop of our own shadows, our sin,
Speaker 1: our darkness, our self imposed blindness. That's where we see
Speaker 1: His glory standing out, made even more brilliant by the contrast,
Speaker 1: he says, God, in his infinite wisdom, used our wickedness
Speaker 1: for his glory, for his radiance, his justice, his unyielding holiness.
Speaker 1: None of it would be fully perceived if not for
Speaker 1: the contrast provided by world bound to sin. Like light
Speaker 1: splitting through dark clouds, the brilliance of God's nature shines
Speaker 1: even brighter when placed next to humanity's flawed and fallen nature.
Speaker 1: God's love what a profound, incomparable thing consummately revealed in
Speaker 1: John three point sixteen, and Dougal Lug didn't know I
Speaker 1: was going to talk about this. He put a tipan.
Speaker 1: He said, well, today's verse is John three sixteen. For
Speaker 1: God so loved the world that he gave his only
Speaker 1: begotten son, that whoever believes in him should not perish,
Speaker 1: but have everlasting life. And that's where this author goes
Speaker 1: as well. He says, we know that verse, we see
Speaker 1: it on put everywhere John three sixteen. He says, just
Speaker 1: a few verses later, what we see there is and
Speaker 1: this is the judgment. The light has come into the world,
Speaker 1: and people love the darkness rather than the light because
Speaker 1: their works were evil. He says, what a revelation. God's
Speaker 1: love and our rejection of that love are set against
Speaker 1: each other and brutal, unavoidable contrast. We want the darkness
Speaker 1: because it hides our shame, and we avoid the light
Speaker 1: because it exposes what we truly are. Yet God's glory
Speaker 1: isn't tainted by this. God's glory is intensified by this.
Speaker 1: The pure holiness of God is brought into clear view,
Speaker 1: not by being diminished, but by revealing the depths of
Speaker 1: man's depravity against such darkness, the beauty of His light
Speaker 1: is undeniable and inescapable. We live in a world where
Speaker 1: we see through a glass darkly. The full radiance of
Speaker 1: God's gloriation yet to be revealed to us in this
Speaker 1: fallen world. But we watch, and we catch glimpses moments
Speaker 1: of piercing clarity. But here's the wonder. God doesn't use
Speaker 1: contrast to shame us, to leave us helpless in our sin. Instead,
Speaker 1: he uses it to eliminate a path toward redemption, His glory,
Speaker 1: his holiness, his justice. All of these attributes come to
Speaker 1: us as light piercing through the darkness, calling us out
Speaker 1: not to condemn, but to save. How would we know
Speaker 1: the brilliance of forgiveness if we hadn't tasted the bitterness
Speaker 1: of guilt? How do we know the depth of grace
Speaker 1: if we hadn't first fallen in God's economy. Contrast isn't
Speaker 1: just a remainder of what we lack. It's an invitation
Speaker 1: to step in the glorious salvation that he offers. Some
Speaker 1: may say, well, that's harsh. Why couldn't God have created
Speaker 1: a world without the possibility of darkness? Why allow sin
Speaker 1: at all? Yet in his wisdom he has used the
Speaker 1: very contrast of light and dark, sin and holiness to
Speaker 1: reveal his love in a way that defies comprehension. We
Speaker 1: cannot understand the brilliance of God's light if we pretend
Speaker 1: that the darkness doesn't exist. But when we accomplish, when
Speaker 1: we acknowledge both, when we see the contrast, then we
Speaker 1: began to grasp the magnificence of who he is. So
Speaker 1: think about that this time of year, when the darkness
Speaker 1: is on display, when the darkness as being worshiped. He says,
Speaker 1: we may still walk around this world of shadows, but
Speaker 1: in those moments when his light breaks through, we understand
Speaker 1: even if just for a moment, his glory is brighter,
Speaker 1: his love is deeper, his truth more real. I didn't
Speaker 1: say this in here, but it reminds me of, you know,
Speaker 1: the very beginning of Genesis, what I did say, let
Speaker 1: it be light, and he separated light from darkness. We'll
Speaker 1: be right back.
Speaker 2: You're listening to the David Knight Show.
Speaker 1: Audimodern Retro Radio dot Com. Thank you very much. That
Speaker 1: is very kind of James. I appreciate that he says.
Speaker 1: I have to say once again that it is stunning
Speaker 1: that Maga voters are positively a bluffy to Trump's blazingly
Speaker 1: unconstitutional record as president, and I agree. I never thought
Speaker 1: I would see in my lifetime what was done in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty, the lockdowns and all the rest of this stuff.
Speaker 1: I never thought that people would put up with that.
Speaker 1: And by the time we got to the summer, by
Speaker 1: the time we got to July, we were never getting
Speaker 1: out of this. If people are this dumb to go
Speaker 1: along with this, even one day of it. You want
Speaker 1: to talk about a masquerade, you want to talk about it,
Speaker 1: silly thing like Halloween, you want to talk about darkness.
Speaker 1: And after four months of it, I don't think we're
Speaker 1: ever going to get out of this. And now they
Speaker 1: want it again. And you know, as I thought about it,
Speaker 1: I thought, and you know, of course, it would come
Speaker 1: from a Republican who is actually a New York Democrat
Speaker 1: New York City. It would come from somebody who was
Speaker 1: a lifelong frien and best friend of Jeffrey Epstein and
Speaker 1: the Clintons, who would pose, as you know, that people
Speaker 1: who hate everything that they stand for would embrace them
Speaker 1: as their Savior's just the most delusional thing I've ever
Speaker 1: seen in my life. You're going to talk about contrast,
Speaker 1: you talking about light and darkness. Twelve June seventeen seventy six.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. I really do appreciate that. So
Speaker 1: that's for all those feeling the pinch at present that
Speaker 1: support the DK family day in and day out. This
Speaker 1: is from them all. Thank you so much. I appreciate that.
Speaker 1: Thank you all my friends. I really do appreciate that. Well,
Speaker 1: let's talk a little bit about the vaccines as they're
Speaker 1: now lining things up to try to do this to
Speaker 1: us again. You know, well, everybody knows they're going to
Speaker 1: play this game again. How do we know they're going
Speaker 1: to play this game again? Because we've not stopped anybody
Speaker 1: from either it's both parties that did this. It's a
Speaker 1: uniparty approach. So it doesn't matter whether it's La la
Speaker 1: or don We know they're going to play this game.
Speaker 1: And the only question is, you know what lies are
Speaker 1: they going to tell us? Is it going to be
Speaker 1: bird flu? Is it going to be something else? Well,
Speaker 1: here they are talking about bird flu and a pig. Yes,
Speaker 1: when pigs fly or when pigs flu spells?
Speaker 7: Tonight's sounding over bird flu after a pig tested positive
Speaker 7: for it. For the first time ever in this country.
Speaker 7: The AD Department says this pig is from a backyard.
Speaker 1: Farm in the Norse shut down the backyard farm or.
Speaker 7: Commercial farm, but it's a farm that's still under quarantine.
Speaker 7: They say there's not a risk right now to the
Speaker 7: pork supply and that the risk to humans is low.
Speaker 7: But keep in mind the pigs are kind of a
Speaker 7: special kind of virus Petrie dish. They can be infected
Speaker 7: with bird and human viruses at the same time, which
Speaker 7: makes it kind of dangerous. The news comes as this
Speaker 7: bird flu, the H five N one virus keeps it
Speaker 7: spreading fast among dairy cows across the country. Berkeley Loveless
Speaker 7: is joining us. Now, Okay, how did they find it
Speaker 7: and what does it mean? Yeah, so it is concerning.
Speaker 8: So they did find it in a farman Kirk County, Oregon,
Speaker 8: and so this far had positive cases of poultry on
Speaker 8: the farm.
Speaker 4: So out of abundance of.
Speaker 8: Caution, they decided to test this pig and five others
Speaker 8: for the five other.
Speaker 9: Pigs on the farm for H five and one bird flu.
Speaker 8: So this one pig did test positive for it. They're
Speaker 8: currently testing two others. One out of five so that's
Speaker 8: that's a good sign as well. But overall, as you mentioned,
Speaker 8: this is concerning because picts are essentially mixing bowls for
Speaker 8: flu viruses that can become infected with bird and human
Speaker 8: viruses at the same time, which can allow.
Speaker 4: Them to mute.
Speaker 1: He's laughing, he knows this isn't serious.
Speaker 8: So the concern right now is a virus that can
Speaker 8: spread to humans, and so there's been a lot of
Speaker 8: attention on bird flu right now. So far, there's been
Speaker 8: thirty six human cases of bird flu in the US,
Speaker 8: which has been a concern.
Speaker 4: Most of the cases he is farm workers who.
Speaker 8: Worked directly with.
Speaker 1: With who didn't have the flu.
Speaker 8: Even there was a case in Missouri ready some alarm bells.
Speaker 8: This person did not have any contacts with any animals
Speaker 8: stat rate.
Speaker 1: Just a PCR test, but only contact.
Speaker 8: That there was no signs of human human transmission.
Speaker 7: So what's the CDC doing about it at this point?
Speaker 7: I mean, I'm kind of monitoring, keeping an eye on it.
Speaker 8: So they're continued to test animals, so they're testing more
Speaker 8: of the pigs listen to have this end under quarantine
Speaker 8: as well. I could think A big question right now
Speaker 8: is whether or not the pig truly tested positive for
Speaker 8: birth flu, so they're going to do additional testing. So
Speaker 8: is this pig really was infected with birth flu either
Speaker 8: through sharing feed with the poultry animals or water, or
Speaker 8: did the pick somehow pick up fragments of the virus
Speaker 8: and so that fragment came up on the testing as well.
Speaker 8: So those are all tests. Those are all you know,
Speaker 8: remaining questions right now for that. But there's there's you
Speaker 8: know a little bit.
Speaker 7: Concerning Yeah, Berkeley lovels, I keep an eye on it
Speaker 7: and keep us honest on that one.
Speaker 3: To appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Thanks, keep us honest. Is that a Freudian slip? And
Speaker 1: at the very end of this, it's like, well, you know,
Speaker 1: they're not really sure how this pig got it, did
Speaker 1: he really have it? Did he have fragments of it?
Speaker 1: So you know, what they're doing is they're doing a
Speaker 1: pcr tet. What do they even testing for. They haven't
Speaker 1: isolated this virus. They don't ever isolate viruses. Remember we
Speaker 1: talked about that. I forget the person who was doing
Speaker 1: the research. She sent you know, over two hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty different institutions globally said do you have the covid
Speaker 1: virus isolated, and you know they said no, or a
Speaker 1: lot of them said, we don't ever do that. We
Speaker 1: are you talking about? We don't ever do that. We
Speaker 1: come up with a genetic model that we think approximates that.
Speaker 1: In the same way that when they would do the
Speaker 1: annual flu shot, well we don't know what flu strain
Speaker 1: is going to be around this year, they would say,
Speaker 1: so we're just gonna pick one and we'll vaccinate everybody
Speaker 1: for that one. Oh, well, that should do it, right.
Speaker 1: And so you know, when you start talking about human cases,
Speaker 1: what absolute nonsense. Again, all of these people that now
Speaker 1: they're saying this up to thirty six, but you know
Speaker 1: when it was about a half dozen, wasn't anybody that
Speaker 1: had any respiratory symptoms, They didn't have any fever. What'd
Speaker 1: they have? They had conjunctividus. That's one of the most
Speaker 1: common things that you have, especially if you're working in
Speaker 1: a dirty environment around animal feces and things like that.
Speaker 1: If you don't clean your hands, you rub your eyes,
Speaker 1: you're going to get conjunctivius. That's all they had. Pinki
Speaker 1: they were calling pinki bird flu and using the PCR
Speaker 1: test and the other thing was, well, this is a
Speaker 1: backyard farm. Was it a backyard farm? I mean they
Speaker 1: had chickens, they had pigs and things like that. Maybe
Speaker 1: it was a house. Maybe it was. They later on
Speaker 1: called it a farm. Maybe it's just a small farm.
Speaker 1: And when they say it's not a you know, real farm,
Speaker 1: maybe they mean it's not commercial agricultural endeavor with millions
Speaker 1: of pigs or something. And why would you let them
Speaker 1: test your livestock. I don't understand why anybody would allow that.
Speaker 1: So again, it's PCR test. What are they even looking for?
Speaker 1: Do they know the other pigs were not sick, It
Speaker 1: was not being transmitted to them. But you better be
Speaker 1: worried because you know they might somehow get transmitted to you.
Speaker 1: Even though these pigs that are known to not be
Speaker 1: the cleanest animals and living in close proximity with each other,
Speaker 1: could not pass it on to each other. It says
Speaker 1: something that the pigs are a petree dish, a pig
Speaker 1: tree dish. I guess what, Well, let's try to keep
Speaker 1: it honest. And I'm going to try to keep them honest.
Speaker 1: They don't like me for that. We're going to try
Speaker 1: to keep them real hones there the godfather of vaccines. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, we got Trump, who is the He's made
Speaker 1: it very clear that he is the father of the vaccine.
Speaker 1: But there is a godfather of the vaccines, Stanley Plotkin.
Speaker 1: Going back to the early nineteen sixties. This guy is
Speaker 1: pretty elderly now. He was doing pediatric residency as a
Speaker 1: young man in London at the Hospital for six Children.
Speaker 1: He admitted in a twenty eighteen court case that orphans
Speaker 1: mentally handicapped and babies of mothers who were in prison
Speaker 1: or being experimented on for the development of vaccines. He's
Speaker 1: an American physician who, in his retirement has now worked
Speaker 1: as a consultant to the Big four vaccine manufacturers, as
Speaker 1: well as to biotech firms, nonprofits, governments. His book Vaccines
Speaker 1: is the standard reference on the subject, according to Wikipedia.
Speaker 1: He has been nicknamed as the godfather of the vaccines.
Speaker 1: When he's asked about that, he said, well, I think
Speaker 1: it's ambiguous. Since the godfather was a criminal. I wouldn't
Speaker 1: call myself that, but obviously I can't stop other people
Speaker 1: from calling you that. There are quite a few people
Speaker 1: who do call him that. I call him a criminal.
Speaker 1: During the COVID pandemic. He was sought for advice on
Speaker 1: recommendations for the use of MR and A and other vaccines.
Speaker 1: But of course, you know the father of the COVID
Speaker 1: vaccine is none out of the Donald Trump. I don't
Speaker 1: know why the people who follow him would not give
Speaker 1: him that. And you know, you got to be careful.
Speaker 1: He's going to get really angry with you and do
Speaker 1: something to stab you in the back if you don't
Speaker 1: kiss his in other parts of his anatomy. You better
Speaker 1: give him what he wants or you're going to be disloyal.
Speaker 1: And you know what Trump does to disloyal people. In
Speaker 1: an article on Tuesday, Roman Bistrionic said, the medical establishment
Speaker 1: sees you as part of an unending experiment. Boy, is
Speaker 1: this not true? Listen to this. This guy nails it.
Speaker 1: The medical establishment sees you as part of an unending experiment,
Speaker 1: a subject for trial in an array of medications and vaccines,
Speaker 1: without ever being fully informed about the potential dangers. You
Speaker 1: likely trust these products are meticulously tested. You believe that
Speaker 1: corporations and governments would never risk your well being. But
Speaker 1: history tells a different story, and our personal history does
Speaker 1: as well, doesn't it The national vaccination of DTP dipheotetanus
Speaker 1: pertessis began in the US in late nineteen forties, in
Speaker 1: England by nineteen fifty seven. Very early on on there
Speaker 1: were indications of problems. A nineteen forty six article discussed
Speaker 1: twin boys aged ten months who both died on June nineteen,
Speaker 1: nineteen forty five, after receiving their second injection of DPT DTP. Rather,
Speaker 1: a nineteen forty eight article and Pediatrics discussed cases of
Speaker 1: brain damage following use of the vaccine. A nineteen eighty
Speaker 1: report tied the use of the dp DTP vaccine to seizures.
Speaker 1: But hey, you know it's rare. It's rare. We don't
Speaker 1: care about that, right, I mean, how many people are
Speaker 1: going to sacrifice? We don't really care. Wait, we did
Speaker 1: have during the some previous vaccine campaigns when a couple
Speaker 1: of people died, he had nine states outlawed. We don't
Speaker 1: care about that anymore. Dystrionic, quoted Stanley Platkin's testimony in
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen a Michigan court were he admitted to DTP
Speaker 1: vaccines being used in developing countries such as Latin American Africa,
Speaker 1: despite there being a ten times greater death rate among
Speaker 1: those who got the vaccine. He admitted that children of
Speaker 1: mothers in prison, the mentally challenged populations, and developing countries
Speaker 1: were experimented on by vaccine researchers and developers. Reading from
Speaker 1: the transcript of the court case where he was under oath,
Speaker 1: they asked him, have you ever used orphans to study
Speaker 1: an experimental vaccine? Yes? Have you ever used mentally handicapped
Speaker 1: to study an experimental vaccine? And he says, well, I
Speaker 1: don't recall specifically having done that, but in the late
Speaker 1: nineteen sixties it was not unusual to do that, and
Speaker 1: I wouldn't deny that I may have done so. Well,
Speaker 1: have you ever expressed that it's better to perform experiments
Speaker 1: on those less likely to be able to contribute to society,
Speaker 1: such as children with a handicap, than with children without
Speaker 1: or adults without handicaps. Well, I don't remember specifically, but
Speaker 1: it's post sup wh I said that? He says, Well,
Speaker 1: I'm going to hand you what has been marked as
Speaker 1: Exhibit forty three. Do you recognize this letter that you
Speaker 1: wrote to the editor? He says, yes, did you write
Speaker 1: this letter? Yes? As a matter of fact, of this
Speaker 1: letter was Exhibit forty three was something that he wrote
Speaker 1: to the New England Journal of Medicine, a nineteen seventy
Speaker 1: three article that he wrote called the Ethics of Human Experimentation.
Speaker 1: And so he asks him, He says, here's something that
Speaker 1: you wrote in that The question is whether we are
Speaker 1: to have experiments performed on fully functioning adults and on
Speaker 1: children who are potentially contributors to society, or to perform
Speaker 1: initial studies in children and adults who are in human
Speaker 1: who are human in form but not in social potential.
Speaker 1: Do you hear that they are human in form but
Speaker 1: not in social potential, And so you know, we can
Speaker 1: do experiments on them. We can abort babies, can do
Speaker 1: humanized mice, we can whatever. You know that they're in
Speaker 1: human form and they're going to eventually become humans if
Speaker 1: we let them go. But they're not humans. Now there's
Speaker 1: something else, I guess, and so we can do whatever
Speaker 1: we want to to them. And he said, yes, I
Speaker 1: did write that, And I said, well, it may be
Speaker 1: objected that this question implies a Nazi philosophy, but I
Speaker 1: don't think that it's difficult to distinguish non functioning persons.
Speaker 1: From members of ethnic, racial, economic, or other groups. He says,
Speaker 1: m hmm. Have you ever used babies of mothers in
Speaker 1: prison to study in experimental vaccine? Yes? Did you do
Speaker 1: so in the Belgian Congo? He says, yes. Did that
Speaker 1: experiment involve almost a million people that wasn't prison people?
Speaker 1: But he's asking him did you go to countries that
Speaker 1: were under colonial rule? Right? Did that experiment involve almost
Speaker 1: a million people? Well? Well, all right, yes, yes, you see,
Speaker 1: it never ends, and so you know when he says, well,
Speaker 1: these are people that aren't really going to yeah, because
Speaker 1: how do you know that young children, you don't know
Speaker 1: they're going to contribute anything. So you give Beethoven the
Speaker 1: shot because his mom's you know, he's poor, and you
Speaker 1: know his disease and all of us stuff. You can
Speaker 1: identify all that stuff. But when you hear all of that,
Speaker 1: doesn't that kind of harken back to what Trump was
Speaker 1: saying in terms of essential businesses and essential people and
Speaker 1: things like that, was that maybe what he was being
Speaker 1: told by the people that he followed. And you know,
Speaker 1: we he pretended at the beginning of when he's running
Speaker 1: as a campaign, and at the beginning he pretended that
Speaker 1: he was something of a skeptic about vaccines. But then
Speaker 1: in twenty nineteen, you.
Speaker 8: Have to get this shot.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I played this over and over again. Right, Well,
Speaker 1: it turns out that if we take a look at
Speaker 1: some of the people, but he's also referenced. You know,
Speaker 1: he started, he didn't go to the nineteen eighteen flu
Speaker 1: when Joe Rogan pressed him on it, because you know,
Speaker 1: if he would have pressed him on what he did
Speaker 1: with the COVID shot, eleven billion dollars to the pharmaceutical
Speaker 1: companies to develop it, push it around, tell everybody it's
Speaker 1: the best thing that's ever been invented. He saved millions
Speaker 1: of lives, and he would have fallen back on this
Speaker 1: nineteen eighteen flu nonsense. But instead, you know, they mentioned vaccines,
Speaker 1: and he pivots over to polio. Oh, vaccines are good.
Speaker 1: Look saved everybody from polio. Well that's not really true.
Speaker 1: But you know, they let's not talk about COVID stuff.
Speaker 1: And again when Joe Rogan was questioning about it, he said,
Speaker 1: I had determined ahead of time that I was not
Speaker 1: going to talk about the COVID vaccines and so but
Speaker 1: he couldn't help. But when Trump said something about polio,
Speaker 1: and Gazi goes, well, that's from the oral vaccine, isn't
Speaker 1: it that you're geting people? Now here's a clip of
Speaker 1: the guy Saban who created the oral polio vaccine. Listen
Speaker 1: to what he has to say.
Speaker 10: Is to get rid of these virus.
Speaker 4: Why would he call it an obfuscation if it was
Speaker 4: a virus?
Speaker 11: It was because well, there are forty different viruses in
Speaker 11: these vaccines anyway, that we were inactivating.
Speaker 4: And but you weren't activating me.
Speaker 12: That's correct, No, that's right.
Speaker 10: But yellow fever vaccine had leukemia virus and it. You know,
Speaker 10: this is in the days of a very crude sense.
Speaker 10: So anyway, I went down and talked to him. Now
Speaker 10: with some well why are you concerned about it? I said, well,
Speaker 10: I'll tell you what I said. I have a feeling
Speaker 10: in my bones that this virus is different. I don't
Speaker 10: know why to tell you this, but I've been around
Speaker 10: bos the only time. I just think the squarus may
Speaker 10: has some long term effects.
Speaker 2: And he said, what m.
Speaker 3: Cancer?
Speaker 10: Yeah, no, I said, I said, I think I'm nuts,
Speaker 10: but I just had that feeling. In the meantime, we
Speaker 10: had taken this virus and put it him too, monkey
Speaker 10: take him to the hamsters.
Speaker 6: Uh huh.
Speaker 13: So we had this meeting and that was sort of
Speaker 13: the topic of the day, and the jokes that were
Speaker 13: going around was she we would win the Olympics because
Speaker 13: the Russians would only loaded down the tuburs.
Speaker 12: This is where they Gotson was being tested.
Speaker 3: This was this day.
Speaker 12: I Anderson right, so and he really destroyed. I mean,
Speaker 12: you know, it was a big engineer. So you never
Speaker 12: sort of the topic, you know.
Speaker 13: Anyway, was this they meeting the New York This.
Speaker 10: Was the sister ken was.
Speaker 11: Sister Kennedy and Delveco got up. He said he for
Speaker 11: some cottons, for these kinds of agents. Why didn't this
Speaker 11: get out in the press? Well, I guess we had
Speaker 11: an press or.
Speaker 13: He sent the objective students, don't get wrong, this is
Speaker 13: the scientific affair, and then the scientific community.
Speaker 3: This is the scientific.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's what these guys do. The guy who was
Speaker 1: questioning him, by the way, was the chair of the
Speaker 1: medical history at the University of Toronto. The laughter was
Speaker 1: not added. That was there an the original original thing.
Speaker 1: It's pretty pretty wrong video, but that's all there. So,
Speaker 1: like Gy says, the lockdown's masks and especially the social
Speaker 1: monitoring Americans did to each other gave me an entirely
Speaker 1: new perspective on my countrymen, on their cowardice and their obedience. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's not a pretty sight. And now we see these
Speaker 1: same people who are cowardly and obedient and compliant lining
Speaker 1: up to vote for one of these two people that
Speaker 1: was pushing all this stuff on us. That's a whole
Speaker 1: new level of compliance. In my book, gion Beret Syndrome
Speaker 1: associated with seventeen vaccines, including COVID and flu shots, a
Speaker 1: long term study accessing the association of vaccines with reported
Speaker 1: cases of gion beret syndrome. This is coming from children's health,
Speaker 1: and a lot of people are hoping that things will
Speaker 1: change because RFK is there with Trump, and I think
Speaker 1: he's using him as a beard, just like he used
Speaker 1: him to get contributions from big pharmaceutical companies. I don't
Speaker 1: even trust rf K Junior frankly, and I certainly don't
Speaker 1: trust Trump using rf K Junior. Don't people remember how
Speaker 1: quickly he goes people out the street for whatever reason,
Speaker 1: and he doesn't when he gets somebody that's good in
Speaker 1: a position like he had Scott Prewitt at the EPA.
Speaker 1: That was the bright spot of the Trump administration was
Speaker 1: Scott Prewitt, who had been attorney general in Oklahoma and
Speaker 1: he had fought and challenged the EPA. It was a
Speaker 1: big win to get him in as head of the EPA,
Speaker 1: and he resisted a lot of stuff. But Trump resisted
Speaker 1: him on things like the Paris Climate Court and other
Speaker 1: things like that. And then the Democrats manufactured these scandals,
Speaker 1: silly scandals. Oh you know, you're you're renting this apartment
Speaker 1: at below market value or something ridiculous stuff, and Trump
Speaker 1: just abandoned him. So he left. Look, there's a number
Speaker 1: of ways that he'd get rid of RFK Junior, or
Speaker 1: RFK Junior could leave, or RFK Junior could betray us.
Speaker 1: I don't put any hope in any of this. We
Speaker 1: better not think that we're going to get these solving
Speaker 1: problems solved in Washington. They are our problems, and we
Speaker 1: need to solve our problems and not hope that they're
Speaker 1: passively hoped that they're going to be solved by somebody else.
Speaker 1: One of the ways that you stop this is just
Speaker 1: to stop complying. You know, when people stopped with all
Speaker 1: the masks and all the other nonsense. It just kind
Speaker 1: of gradually disappeared. It wasn't that any of these leaders,
Speaker 1: you know, they were following us. If you go back
Speaker 1: and remember this, right, It wasn't like one of the
Speaker 1: day they came up and they said, all right, we
Speaker 1: got some we've thought about this a little bit more,
Speaker 1: we've done some actual science, and we're not going to,
Speaker 1: you know, do these superstitious measures anymore. No, they tried
Speaker 1: to put a happy face, a brave face on it
Speaker 1: when people just stopped complying, we have the power. There's
Speaker 1: more of us than there are of them. We never
Speaker 1: had to do any of that stuff, and so we
Speaker 1: need to again recapture that understanding and not put so
Speaker 1: much concern on what going on with this election. I
Speaker 1: understand that you can make a lot of money doing that,
Speaker 1: and I know a lot of people who do that.
Speaker 1: That's their business model. It's the business model of people
Speaker 1: on both the left and the right. Shame on them.
Speaker 1: The study, published October the nineteenth and the Journal of
Speaker 1: Scientific Reports, part of the Springer Nature family of journals,
Speaker 1: examined global cases of giamber Ray syndrome between nineteen sixty
Speaker 1: seven and twenty twenty three, and the authors found that
Speaker 1: of the nineteen vaccines examined, seventeen vaccines, including COVID nineteen
Speaker 1: and the flu vaccines, were potentially associated with Giambra syndrome.
Speaker 1: If we go all the way back to the nineteen seventies,
Speaker 1: that swine flu thing that was exposed by sixty minutes
Speaker 1: and Mike Wallace and the key lady that was talking
Speaker 1: about she had been injured. She had Giambrace syndrome. She
Speaker 1: couldn't walk for the longest time, she was paralyzed, and
Speaker 1: then she was at the time he interviewed her. She
Speaker 1: had brace is on so that she could walk. And
Speaker 1: we had a friend Church who had a flu shot
Speaker 1: and then wound up in the hospital gym brace syndrome.
Speaker 1: Couldn't connect it. You didn't connect it. I mean, you
Speaker 1: got Franklin Graham pushing the vaccine, he winds up in
Speaker 1: the hospital, pair of card iis. It doesn't connect it.
Speaker 1: You know, one to two Giambrace syndrome cases per one
Speaker 1: hundred thousand people. That's rare. Don't worry about it. Forget
Speaker 1: about it, right because these people are not essential, you know,
Speaker 1: So you know you got a got a million people.
Speaker 1: You got one hundred million people, right, Well, you're going
Speaker 1: to have a few hundred people who are not essential,
Speaker 1: and they're just going to be taken out of society.
Speaker 1: We don't really care about that. It can be deadly.
Speaker 1: According to the Cleveland Clinic, less than two percent of
Speaker 1: people die from it in the acute phase of the disease,
Speaker 1: when symptoms are at their peak, but according to the study,
Speaker 1: the more reality rate can reach seventeen percent in countries
Speaker 1: that have limited resources. According to The Lancet in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty one, ap rumble Seat says, those WW two camp
Speaker 1: experiments just went underground, that's right. Brought these guys over here,
Speaker 1: brought them over Operation paper Clip. They became the basis
Speaker 1: of our biological and chemical research programs or at Fort Dietrick,
Speaker 1: I think it was in Maryland, and they would bring
Speaker 1: in these guys from Germany and they would put American
Speaker 1: up at the top, and they would be like, you know,
Speaker 1: the number two, number three person, just like when and
Speaker 1: the Trump administration put Gena haspell In is number two
Speaker 1: under Pompeo, but she's really running the thing. And then
Speaker 1: eventually they put her in charge. They went underground they
Speaker 1: were hidden behind bureaucratic constructs like I just talked about, Yeah,
Speaker 1: like a vaccine delivery to create disease. They've been experimenting
Speaker 1: on the public for decades. That's absolutely right, one jdav says, David.
Speaker 1: Did you see they're pushing the regular flu again lately?
Speaker 1: Notice that in the news get your shots? So I
Speaker 1: see the signs everywhere grocery stores, drug stores. Talked about
Speaker 1: it last week. You go in and get your get
Speaker 1: your shots, and they'll give you like twenty dollars, you know,
Speaker 1: off of groceries or something, And it's really come down
Speaker 1: from the potential to win a million dollars. But yeah,
Speaker 1: you've got to ask yourself, where are they getting Who
Speaker 1: is incentivizing all this stuff that they're handing out all
Speaker 1: this money. We're gonna take a quick break. We'll be
Speaker 1: right back.
Speaker 2: June listening to the David Knight Shift.
Speaker 1: Well, welcome back. We're still trying to get Tony on
Speaker 1: the line, and he should be joining us shortly. But
Speaker 1: it gives us a little bit of time to talk
Speaker 1: about this nudge thing that I didn't get to. The
Speaker 1: NIH is spending millions two point two million to nudge
Speaker 1: now elderly people to get more vaccines. And as I've
Speaker 1: talked about this, even going back to the Yale study
Speaker 1: that was released in July of twenty twenty, they target
Speaker 1: people demographic groups, by age, by race, ethnic group, whether
Speaker 1: they're Christians or non Christians, or all these different things.
Speaker 1: They have different tricks to trick us into this. They
Speaker 1: call it nudging. So this is targeting people with propaganda
Speaker 1: based on their demographics and how they look. And I've
Speaker 1: said for the longest time this is a sciop And
Speaker 1: so the only science in all of this pandemic superstition
Speaker 1: of the mask and the social distancing and the six
Speaker 1: feet apart, so are the only science in any of
Speaker 1: this is behavioral psychology, behavioral science. And so they're they're
Speaker 1: testing this. They have they're going to test it for
Speaker 1: five years. Maybe they should test the JAB, you think, No,
Speaker 1: they don't care about it. They know what's in the JAB,
Speaker 1: and they know the results they're getting, and they're getting
Speaker 1: what they're going to test and fine tune is the propaganda.
Speaker 1: And so the two point two million dollars is for
Speaker 1: a clinical trial they call b Immune, which began in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty. Yeah, we noticed and we'll run through twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five, spend five years figuring out how they can
Speaker 1: trick and deceive people. Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania
Speaker 1: and the University of Washington are using electronic health records
Speaker 1: data to target African American Hispanic Asian people who have
Speaker 1: lower flu and pneumonia and herb's vaccine rates. The trial
Speaker 1: is testing strategies drawn from the behavioral economics, which uses
Speaker 1: insights from psychology to understand, in this case, to nudge
Speaker 1: or to direct people's decision making behavior. This is simply propaganda.
Speaker 1: They call it nudging. And as cast Sunstein did this
Speaker 1: with the Bond administration wrote a book on it at
Speaker 1: that point in time. So the experts who are combining
Speaker 1: they said, medical and business based strategies to run studies
Speaker 1: like this, go back to Edward Burne's Madison Avenue. These
Speaker 1: are the people who were using psychological programming to manipulate
Speaker 1: us into wars. Then you know that's what he did
Speaker 1: for Woodrow Wilson, and then he goes to Madison Avenue
Speaker 1: to get us to buy their products. And how they're
Speaker 1: still doing the same thing. And these people are so
Speaker 1: good at pressuring you that they can get you to
Speaker 1: inject poison. The pen Medicine University of Pennsylvania, they have
Speaker 1: in house what they call a nudge unit. They've worked
Speaker 1: really hard on the science of this, where behavioral design
Speaker 1: teams are dedicated to figuring out how to influence patient choices.
Speaker 1: Do you see how they target this, how they practice this.
Speaker 1: I mean, it is a fine art to these people,
Speaker 1: the fine art of deception. The grant is part of
Speaker 1: a massive initiative by the NIH to increase vaccine uptake
Speaker 1: by changing how people make decisions. Hundreds of millions of
Speaker 1: dollars in grants since twenty twenty to create quote, culturally
Speaker 1: tailored pro vaccine propaganda to promote COVID nineteen and flu shots,
Speaker 1: and of course Trump was funding it very heavily. It
Speaker 1: also included more than fifty grants worth forty million dollars
Speaker 1: designed to increase HPV vaccine uptake. The range of tested
Speaker 1: interventions is scaled on a ladder. Nudges lower on the ladder,
Speaker 1: try presenting people with information so they can make their
Speaker 1: own decisions about vaccines. And as you move up the ladder,
Speaker 1: it's this pyramid. As you move up, they become more
Speaker 1: and more coercive. Nudges that are higher on the ladder
Speaker 1: either prompt people to make decisions or simply plan their
Speaker 1: decisions for them. At the very top, we've scheduled you
Speaker 1: for this, and you must go that type of thing.
Speaker 1: One nudge automatically sets up a vaccine appointment for people,
Speaker 1: compelling them to go to their appointment and to get
Speaker 1: vaccinated unless they intentionally opt out. Have so many different
Speaker 1: ways they can gaslight people. You have to say, well,
Speaker 1: what leverage do they have over people? Well, you know,
Speaker 1: if you are in the VA or something like that,
Speaker 1: they might make this, as we have seen, they might
Speaker 1: make these vaccines your healthcare in other areas contingent on
Speaker 1: your vaccine uptake. That's at the very top of the pyramid.
Speaker 1: At the very bottom, they say, do nothing, simply monitor
Speaker 1: the vaccination rates. So the next one that provide information,
Speaker 1: offer education on benefits of vaccination. The next one frame
Speaker 1: the information, deliver social comparison feedback on vaccination rate among
Speaker 1: peers and healthier individuals, and on and on and on,
Speaker 1: and then you make it more and more. We're going
Speaker 1: to help you to do this. Finally, you get to
Speaker 1: the point where they say, I've scheduled you for it,
Speaker 1: You've got to go get it. The opt out framework
Speaker 1: has been effective in other areas of healthcare, for example,
Speaker 1: in colorectal cancer screening or persuading more people to take
Speaker 1: their flu shots. I have these people try to do
Speaker 1: that to us. You know, oh, well you got to
Speaker 1: have this test, you know, because your age are gonna
Speaker 1: have this test. Or it's like, sorry, if it ain't broke,
Speaker 1: don't probe it, because you're not gonna fix anything. You
Speaker 1: start probing around, you're probably gonna break something. So stay
Speaker 1: away from me. If something's hurting, I'll let you know
Speaker 1: and I'll get your opinion about it, and then I'll
Speaker 1: find my own treatment. I just got to say, you know,
Speaker 1: doctors kill both of my parents. Doctors have injured both
Speaker 1: of my sons. I despise these people. Absolutely evil pens
Speaker 1: Nudge Unit, which builds itself as the world's first behavioral
Speaker 1: design team embedded within a health system. Again casting Sunstein's
Speaker 1: two thousand and eight book Nudge and I remember talking
Speaker 1: about that is that look at this they're putting the
Speaker 1: plan out about how they're going to manipulate and propagandize people.
Speaker 1: Penn Pennsylvania univers Interests in Pennsylvania launched their Nudge Unit
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen, inspired by David Cameron's Nudge Unit in
Speaker 1: the UK, which was put in in two thousand and ten.
Speaker 1: And so this is an established practice, that is, these greedy,
Speaker 1: deceptive monsters who make money by harming people. Even the
Speaker 1: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Gavey says, well, this theory
Speaker 1: has its critics. Detractors argue that nudges can be paternalistic,
Speaker 1: they can be invasive, they can be ideological and coercive
Speaker 1: in ways that he rode public trust. Do not trust them, absolutely,
Speaker 1: do not trust them. Well, I don't trust this guy either,
Speaker 1: with his lemonade stand. We're going to take a quick
Speaker 1: break and we've now got Tony on the line, and
Speaker 1: we'll be right back. Folks, stay with us.
Speaker 9: China analyzing the globalists, next move and now the deep
Speaker 9: and nutshell.
Speaker 1: All right, we're back. I don't know if we've got
Speaker 1: Tony or not. I'm not really sure what's happening here.
Speaker 1: We're going to have some problems of the board. So
Speaker 1: we're going to continue on. We got Tony on the line.
Speaker 1: We're trying to get this set up. But we've got
Speaker 1: some technical issues here, not really sure what's happening. So
Speaker 1: let's talk a little bit about climate. As I said before,
Speaker 1: we have now somebody's done some science and they said, well,
Speaker 1: you know the science that was settled, Well, actually isn't.
Speaker 1: We found, according to our experiments, that plants absorb thirty
Speaker 1: one one percent more CO two than we ever thought.
Speaker 1: As I said at the beginning of the program, perhaps
Speaker 1: this is why every one of their computer models has
Speaker 1: been wrong for sixty years. Maybe if they start with
Speaker 1: that fundamental misconception, they can't get anything to work. A
Speaker 1: new study reveals the plants have been absorbing thirty one
Speaker 1: percent more CO two than previously believed, a glaring error
Speaker 1: that cast series down on climate models, emission scenarios, and
Speaker 1: policy prescriptions like that zero None of this stuff makes
Speaker 1: any sense, folks. We know that it's all been science
Speaker 1: fiction for years. We were told that the science was settled,
Speaker 1: that the urgent action was needed to avoid catastrophic warning.
Speaker 1: But this discovery suggests that our models have been dramatically
Speaker 1: underestimating nature's ability to manage CO two. This revelation not
Speaker 1: only upends a rationale behind aggressive policies. But it also
Speaker 1: raises broader questions about the supposed certainty of climate science.
Speaker 1: And they begin by talking about the myth of subtle science.
Speaker 1: But I always said science is never settled. The only
Speaker 1: time we've had advances in science is when you've had
Speaker 1: somebody who's questioned the status quo, the conventional wisdom. Every
Speaker 1: time science advances is because one person stood up against
Speaker 1: the collective wisdom of history and the academy and said, yeah,
Speaker 1: but actually, I did this, and I think the results
Speaker 1: that you're talking about. We looked at this and we
Speaker 1: can't really isolate any viruses, and we haven't really been
Speaker 1: able to see any evidence of contagion. Even though we
Speaker 1: put people, we did a forty five year experiment on
Speaker 1: trying to transmit coals to people. We haven't been able
Speaker 1: to do that. So at some point you've got to
Speaker 1: be able to question the science. And if you've got people,
Speaker 1: as we do now, who will their response to all
Speaker 1: this is just to sensor you and shut you down.
Speaker 1: We're not talking about science. We're talking about authority. We're
Speaker 1: talking about authoritarian society. Here's the abstract. By the way,
Speaker 1: this was something that was sent and published on Nature,
Speaker 1: and the abstract says terrestrial photosynthesis or gross primary production
Speaker 1: GPP is the largest carbon flux in the biosphere, but
Speaker 1: its global magnitude and space SIHO temporal dynamics remain uncertain.
Speaker 1: The global annual mean of GPP is historically thought to
Speaker 1: be around and they give the units of measurement, but
Speaker 1: it's about the thirty one percent lower. They said, this
Speaker 1: susperity is a source of uncertainty in predicting climate carbon
Speaker 1: cycle feedbacks. Here we infer from the we infer what
Speaker 1: this is from carbonyl sulfide, an innovative tracer for CO
Speaker 1: two diffusion from ambient air to leaf chloroplasts through sotumata
Speaker 1: and mesophil layers. We demonstrate that explicitly representing mesophyl diffusion
Speaker 1: is a important for accuracy quantifying the space show temporal
Speaker 1: dynamics of the sulfide taken up by the plant. So
Speaker 1: we're getting into the weeds here literally. But the bottom
Speaker 1: line is that's just the technical jargon of this study.
Speaker 1: The bottom line is that the plants are absorbing a
Speaker 1: great deal more CO two, and so okay, we do
Speaker 1: have it fixed. We've got tony Okay, so we're gonna
Speaker 1: take a quick break and we're gonna get Tony on
Speaker 1: right away, and I'll give you the rest of this
Speaker 1: and the consequences of this when we come back. We'll
Speaker 1: be right back.
Speaker 5: Using free speech, two free minds. It's the David Knight Show.
Speaker 5: It takes so long to get John Tony. It's great
Speaker 5: to have you on. Always interesting to talk to. And
Speaker 5: right now everything is really changing besides the election and
Speaker 5: the effects on that. At somebody send me this article.
Speaker 5: Saint Louis fed releases an article on why a gold
Speaker 5: standard won't work. They said it's because of goal's lack
Speaker 5: of a fixed supply is a significant problem. It's like,
Speaker 5: what are.
Speaker 1: They talking about when you can have Yeah, you just
Speaker 1: need to be able to manufacture as much of this
Speaker 1: stuff as you want. And so they say the supply
Speaker 1: of gold is not fixed to us, A lot more
Speaker 1: fixed than the supply of their paper money, isn't it.
Speaker 1: It's amazing to.
Speaker 4: See that, argues, that's an interesting observation. The fact that
Speaker 4: gold is not fixed makes it their problem. And I
Speaker 4: think my founding fathers would disagree with that. I think
Speaker 4: history is going to judge them and disagree with that.
Speaker 4: Did you see the press conference where Janet Yellen was
Speaker 4: asked about is she worried about the dollar losing the
Speaker 4: world's reserve currency status? And when the question was asked,
Speaker 4: the monument for the Treasury Department fell off the podium.
Speaker 1: Did you see. I didn't see that. I didn't see that.
Speaker 4: That's great, that was It was only a couple of
Speaker 4: days ago. Yeah, live, I mean you asked about tariffs,
Speaker 4: and then she was asked about this is do you
Speaker 4: do you have any anxiety about the dollar losing the
Speaker 4: world's reserve currency status. As soon as the question was asked,
Speaker 4: the literally the Treasury seal fell off the podium, and
Speaker 4: Janet Yellen just looked kind of dazed and around the
Speaker 4: pla I'll have to send it to you. Dagon very apropos.
Speaker 1: Then Dagon falls over and the head breaks off, and really, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's uh, it's crazy, that's crazy. Uh yeah, something that's
Speaker 1: a sign for us, isn't it. Uh, Well, we're when
Speaker 1: we're looking at what is happening with this election, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of uncertainty about that. But of course I
Speaker 1: think everybody understands that nothing is really going to change afterwards.
Speaker 1: I mean there's not nobody is talking about any fixes
Speaker 1: for inflation. I don't I'll be surprised if we've got
Speaker 1: to fix for the wars, but certainly nothing to stop inflation.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, both of them are looking
Speaker 1: to increase spending and you know, as a handout tax
Speaker 1: breaks to various other people. So all the fundamentals are
Speaker 1: still going to be there, I think after the election.
Speaker 4: Right, oh, absolutely, And I mean we're looking at an
Speaker 4: all time high for gold. It hit twenty seven and
Speaker 4: ninety dollars. Really, what that is is that the currencies
Speaker 4: around the world are losing to gold. I mean, they're
Speaker 4: printing more, the governments, the central banks are printing more.
Speaker 4: It's devaluing their own currencies and against gold, which is
Speaker 4: a fixed asset, is a commodity, is a precious metal,
Speaker 4: is finite, and they're losing against that. This is something
Speaker 4: that's happening. It's not just in the United States but worldwide,
Speaker 4: and we're going to continue to see gold prices rise.
Speaker 4: And they're not really rising though. I mean again it's
Speaker 4: currencies are falling against gold. And you know, it's interesting.
Speaker 4: I was reading that since the invasion of Russia by
Speaker 4: Russia into Ukraine and the sanctions that were placed. Central
Speaker 4: banks have bought five times more gold. They increased their
Speaker 4: central gold bank purchases by five times. And every time
Speaker 4: that one hundred tons of gold gets bought by the
Speaker 4: central banks, the price of gold goes up between one
Speaker 4: point five and two percent. And this has been steady
Speaker 4: for the last two plus years. I think we're only
Speaker 4: going to continue to see these trends because again uncertainty,
Speaker 4: geopolitical tensions, and really the failures of governments to have
Speaker 4: any sort of fiscal sanity in the face of reality,
Speaker 4: and we're going to have I think a reset of
Speaker 4: prices globally.
Speaker 1: Yeah, oh yeah, absolutely. And you know when you look
Speaker 1: at what is happening with the bricks, that is only
Speaker 1: accelerating and it's going to be that competition between these
Speaker 1: two economic systems. I think that's going to continue to
Speaker 1: drive the accumulation of that. In addition to what you
Speaker 1: always talk about the fact the massive data accumulation that
Speaker 1: we've got globally is not going to go away. So
Speaker 1: all of those things, you know, they're trying to set
Speaker 1: up different standards, trying to get themselves to be trusted
Speaker 1: by more than the other system. That kind of competition,
Speaker 1: I think all that is going to drive continue to
Speaker 1: drive gold accumulation by the central banks.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's just the trend that's going to continue. Nothing's
Speaker 4: really going to derail that. Regardless of what happens this
Speaker 4: coming Tuesday with the election, Gold and I think bitcoin
Speaker 4: will continue to rise. There may be, you know, I mean,
Speaker 4: short term differences in the depending on which candidate makes
Speaker 4: it across the finish line or what's selected. But I'm
Speaker 4: just looking at the bigger picture here, and the trend
Speaker 4: is worldwide countries like the Bricks nations moving away from
Speaker 4: the dollar. The dollars in trouble. We're going to see
Speaker 4: a continued loss of purchasing power with the US dollar.
Speaker 4: People are going to move into gold, and that's going
Speaker 4: to continue to what appears to be driving prices higher.
Speaker 4: Really what it is is that currencies are falling.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you've got CBDC and all of the climate stuff
Speaker 1: of the Bricks manifesto that they released. I mean, they're
Speaker 1: fully on board of everything from the UN and all
Speaker 1: the rest. So we got two competing systems, except it's
Speaker 1: like the two competing parties that We've got right states,
Speaker 1: I've got Democrats, Republicans, all we got you know, the
Speaker 1: brick system, we got the you know, the the Western
Speaker 1: system with Swift and all the rest of this, and
Speaker 1: yet both of them are embracing this full on digital ID,
Speaker 1: the CBDC and all the rest of this stuff at
Speaker 1: the same time. I just look at it and the
Speaker 1: only thing that I see is that they're both going
Speaker 1: to be trying to shore up their credentials by buying gold,
Speaker 1: and that we don't want to be a part of
Speaker 1: these systems. We want to try to be outside of it,
Speaker 1: and we should be trying to shore up our independence
Speaker 1: as well with gold. I think.
Speaker 4: So, you're absolutely right. And it's like talking about politics
Speaker 4: during this country. If you start criticizing one party, they
Speaker 4: assume you're for the other one. So if I start
Speaker 4: talking about what the bricks nations are doing, you know,
Speaker 4: to get outside of the Western system, the US system,
Speaker 4: the dollar and d dollarization, they assume that I'm cheering
Speaker 4: for bricks, which is which is ridiculous. I'm not. I
Speaker 4: sympathize with a lot of you know, their ideology and
Speaker 4: where they're headed and their strategy getting out of the
Speaker 4: swift system and utilizing their own cross border payments. I
Speaker 4: think that's great. I like decentralization, but I think it's
Speaker 4: an opportunity for all of us to look at us
Speaker 4: being outside of the system, being your own bank, learning
Speaker 4: how to do that, because that's the opportunity in the
Speaker 4: crisis that we're facing. I mean, it's never going to
Speaker 4: go back to the stability that we had a relative
Speaker 4: after the Cold War. There was you know, maybe fifteen
Speaker 4: twenty years where it was it was decently smooth for
Speaker 4: the economy. The dollar stayed pretty much the same and
Speaker 4: there was a slight inflation, but it was manageable. Those
Speaker 4: days are done. I mean, you just look at the
Speaker 4: damage done. You were talking about it last week when
Speaker 4: we're you know, it's not just going a trillion dollars
Speaker 4: in debt every hundred days. It's closer to two point five.
Speaker 4: And you know, how do you manage that? I mean,
Speaker 4: the interest on the debt paying that is over a
Speaker 4: trillion dollars a year. It's just unsustainable debt to GDP ratios.
Speaker 4: They have to create a monetary reset, and they're doing that,
Speaker 4: and they're telling you they're going to do it. The
Speaker 4: last people to know will just be the regular folks
Speaker 4: and that are just walking around thinking that you know,
Speaker 4: they have normalcy bias and we all do it to
Speaker 4: some degree. But I think that's really what we need
Speaker 4: to take from this, not necessarily join a team and
Speaker 4: I'm for bricks or I can't wait for them to
Speaker 4: do whatever. You know, and there's speculation. You know, we
Speaker 4: talk about gold being a fixed asset, that ideology has
Speaker 4: to die off. I mean, this is modern monetary theory.
Speaker 4: As you point out all the time, the magic money tree.
Speaker 4: This is like just establishment thought. It's pervasive and all
Speaker 4: of the economists that run academia and so much of
Speaker 4: a politics, and this experiment that we've been in since
Speaker 4: nineteen seventy one, it will come to an end. And
Speaker 4: it's not that the dollar is going to go to zero,
Speaker 4: I think, or you'll have wheelbarrows full of cash to
Speaker 4: buy a low for bread or anything. I'm not an alarmist,
Speaker 4: but I think you'll just start to see that the
Speaker 4: fix is in. People will start moving away from things
Speaker 4: that are too much counterparty risk, or they see that
Speaker 4: they've got to get them, you know, cash out of
Speaker 4: the bank or out of savings and there's no yield
Speaker 4: on it. There's no return any CDs anymore because of
Speaker 4: interest rates. And you'll see them, you know, buying assets,
Speaker 4: whether it's land, you know, whether it's precious metals or
Speaker 4: something like bitcoin. That will be the trend moving forward.
Speaker 4: And it's nothing I can do about it. I mean,
Speaker 4: I'm necessary I'm not even necessarily cheering it on unless
Speaker 4: people are learning. So if people are learning about what happened,
Speaker 4: then they can make better decisions. And I applaud that
Speaker 4: it shouldn't be out of fear, but it should be
Speaker 4: from education.
Speaker 1: Oh absolutely, Yeah, if we get into inflation or something
Speaker 1: like that, you know, again, if you can get some
Speaker 1: money into gold. I think the end game of this,
Speaker 1: the great taking all the rest of stuff, is to
Speaker 1: to say, well, we've got the debt. It needs to
Speaker 1: be paid, so we're going to confiscate your mortgages or
Speaker 1: anything like that. So to the extent that as the
Speaker 1: inflation kicks in, perhaps gold is is going to be
Speaker 1: relatively worth more and that might help you to buy
Speaker 1: off some of these things to keep them from getting confiscated.
Speaker 1: That's that's one aspect of it. I just want to
Speaker 1: have the privacy having some medium of exchange that is
Speaker 1: outside of their system. I've got a question here from
Speaker 1: Atomic Dog says, Hey, Tony, is there an end in
Speaker 1: sight to this long run up on gold and now? Silver?
Speaker 1: Seems like it runs up, then there's some profit taking,
Speaker 1: then it runs up some more. It seems to be
Speaker 1: the cycle.
Speaker 4: Well, I think that's a great question because you wonder
Speaker 4: where I how that we Well, we hit an all
Speaker 4: time high again yesterday, and I assume that if history's
Speaker 4: my guide. I mean, first, you know, it's from twenty
Speaker 4: eleven to twenty twenty there was no all time high,
Speaker 4: so let's just talk about that. And then from twenty
Speaker 4: twenty it took to twenty twenty two to hit another one.
Speaker 4: Now again we're hitting it, you know, every other week,
Speaker 4: and sometimes multiple times in the same week. So I
Speaker 4: think what you'll see is you'll continue to see this
Speaker 4: trend where the gold will go up, there'll be some
Speaker 4: profit tanking, it'll pull back a little, the same thing
Speaker 4: with silver. But there's a there's a level here, I
Speaker 4: think when the paper gold and the ETF separate from
Speaker 4: the physical gold. When the demand continues to go up,
Speaker 4: which we're going to see from central banks Like I said,
Speaker 4: it's gone up fivefold since twenty twenty two. That's central
Speaker 4: bank demand that's only going to increase. So I think
Speaker 4: that you know, watching it go up and then the
Speaker 4: profit taking that's going to contend. I don't think we'll
Speaker 4: see any cratering. I don't think that it'll you know,
Speaker 4: you're definitely not going to see two thousand dollars gold
Speaker 4: again unless there's an absolute market crash, but that'll only
Speaker 4: be temporary. I think there'll be a more consolidation in
Speaker 4: the gold price we're heading to. And this is not
Speaker 4: just me saying this, but I think I think it's
Speaker 4: a conservative estimate to be at three thousand dollars gold
Speaker 4: in twenty twenty five. Again, not financial advice, not about investments.
Speaker 4: I'm just telling you where it's going to be against
Speaker 4: the dollar and against other currencies. The real story besides gold,
Speaker 4: and I think even the clips and gold. I've shared
Speaker 4: this with you, I think a couple of weeks ago,
Speaker 4: but it was a game changer the Russian government putting
Speaker 4: silver and pulatinum and palladium on their strategic reserve asset
Speaker 4: list and really putting silver out front. There's something to
Speaker 4: that and this is a big move really no government
Speaker 4: since the pre communist Chinese, we're heavy on silver for
Speaker 4: strategic reserve assets. Russia moving into that, I think just
Speaker 4: underscores that silver truly is the most undervalued asset in
Speaker 4: the world, given all of its industrial uses and medical
Speaker 4: uses and then monetary uses, and the fact that it's
Speaker 4: you know, under thirty four dollars an ounce is extremely
Speaker 4: cheap giving its history. I have to remind people fifty
Speaker 4: two dollars and fifty cents in nineteen eighty. It was
Speaker 4: a bit of an anomaly, but that had to do
Speaker 4: with the Hunt family buying physical silver, and nobody's done
Speaker 4: that since they were punished by the deep state. I mean,
Speaker 4: they were run through the mill for that, and you know,
Speaker 4: I think targeted financially because they exposed the weakness of
Speaker 4: the dollars. So I know, the trend to me is up.
Speaker 4: There's always it doesn't always go up into the right,
Speaker 4: but the trend for both precious metals against the currencies worldwide,
Speaker 4: I think is going to continue to go up.
Speaker 1: And of course you're talking about the fifty dollars silver.
Speaker 1: Gold was around eight hundred or something like that as well.
Speaker 1: Around that time, and about what would that be today
Speaker 1: if we did that that for inflation.
Speaker 4: Well at least you know, four or five thousand.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, So you know, when we look at this
Speaker 1: that the fundamentals and I think the reason that there
Speaker 1: is some profit taking but it continues to trend up
Speaker 1: is because the fundamentals are that they're not going to
Speaker 1: do anything about the spending and they're not going to
Speaker 1: do anything about making you know, printing more money and
Speaker 1: inflation and all the rest of this stuff. And it
Speaker 1: doesn't matter, you know, which one of these two teams
Speaker 1: gets in. That's the way they're going to run it.
Speaker 1: I mean, we look at what the La LA team
Speaker 1: is talking about the Green New Deal, endless amounts of
Speaker 1: money being spent on this fantasy talking about reparations. And
Speaker 1: then on the Trump side, he has absolutely no aversion
Speaker 1: to debt whatsoever. And we saw that in twenty twenty. Yeah,
Speaker 1: just you know, do a bill three and a half
Speaker 1: trillion dollars in Hey, if you oppose that, you say anything,
Speaker 1: we're going to primary you out, you know, he said
Speaker 1: to Massey at the time. So he has no aversion
Speaker 1: to debt. That is something that he has used all
Speaker 1: of his life as leverage, and he knows how to
Speaker 1: use it. He's very comfortable with it. He's the debt king,
Speaker 1: and so you're going to see that go up. And
Speaker 1: he's not even serious tony about trying to limit the deficit.
Speaker 1: And when he starts talking about tariffs, he says, no,
Speaker 1: I'm just going to use it as leverage to get
Speaker 1: things to onshore manufacturing in the United States. So he's
Speaker 1: not really necessarily talking about increasing the tariffs. He just
Speaker 1: wants to use it as a leverage thing. And that's
Speaker 1: the way he always used debt. He uses his debt
Speaker 1: as a leverage with a bank. So both of them
Speaker 1: are big spenders. Both of them don't care about any
Speaker 1: kind of you know, responsible balanced government whatsoever. And it's
Speaker 1: going to continue.
Speaker 4: I think what Trump learned early on is that he
Speaker 4: had amassed so much debt going into the nineteen nineties
Speaker 4: that he was more dangerous to the bank than the
Speaker 4: bank to him. And they needed him and he really
Speaker 4: took him years. You know, he had people like wilburh.
Speaker 4: Rosscombe and you know who's Roschild's agent and helped him
Speaker 4: to you know, steer through that navigate that there was
Speaker 4: huge losses of equity, you know, in the taj Mahal Casina,
Speaker 4: all that stuff that imploded, and you know he'd learned
Speaker 4: he had called himself the king of debt. If it
Speaker 4: was a fallacy in it though, you know when you
Speaker 4: kind of use that. You can use debt to a
Speaker 4: certain extent if you're in the private sector and you
Speaker 4: become that big, that's true. But you're talking on a
Speaker 4: global stage, David, with that much on the line and
Speaker 4: GDP and all of that. The this strategic strength of
Speaker 4: the United States relies on its currency. You start messing
Speaker 4: with that, that's very dangerous territory. So I would you know,
Speaker 4: I would think that creating an environment where you know,
Speaker 4: you could invite companies to come here and build things,
Speaker 4: you can use tariffs for that, But there has to
Speaker 4: be a combination of safety in the currency. You can't
Speaker 4: just bully people. Can't just say well, I'm going to
Speaker 4: place one hundred percent he said, this is going to
Speaker 4: place one hundred percent tariff in a country that's not
Speaker 4: utilizing the dollar. Well, that's still a weaponization of the dollar.
Speaker 4: It's just a different strategy by other means. So I
Speaker 4: really think those those type of strategies. I'm all for
Speaker 4: trying something new, and I agreed with what Trump said
Speaker 4: on the Rogan interview about William McKinley being, you know,
Speaker 4: the tariff king and how well we did in the
Speaker 4: nineteenth century. But there has to be this this debt
Speaker 4: issue and the currency issue has to be addressed. You
Speaker 4: have to remember William McKinley had the gold standard, you know,
Speaker 4: that's you know, that was the whole point of William
Speaker 4: Jennings Bryan running against him and saying, you know, the
Speaker 4: cross of gold speech that we had such a strong currency.
Speaker 4: They wanted free silver injected into the into the economy
Speaker 4: to lower the purchasing power of the dollar, to get
Speaker 4: people out of debt. So that was a that was
Speaker 4: a populist, uh, you know, political uprising, if you will.
Speaker 1: So I critcified the country on a cross of gold.
Speaker 1: He needed liquidity from silver. Yeah right, Yeah.
Speaker 4: That's where they hit the comstock load. That's where you get,
Speaker 4: you know, the first Morgan silver dollar eighteen seventy eight.
Speaker 4: You know it's coming out of that. There's a massive
Speaker 4: silver hit, you know, in Nevada and then so that's
Speaker 4: the bonanzulist that's right, that's the TV show that Nixon
Speaker 4: would interrupt to take us off the gold standard.
Speaker 1: Ironically. Yeah, we went out to Nevada, the Tahoe thing
Speaker 1: when the kids were little. We went around some of
Speaker 1: those silver mines and everything that we're out there. I
Speaker 1: wanted to see where they'd filmed Bonanza, but you know,
Speaker 1: we wound up doing the silver mines as well.
Speaker 4: I was Ponderosa.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right, Vondorosa. They ran that thing for years.
Speaker 1: They had the cast, the three of them. They set
Speaker 1: up a tourist resort around there. But it's kind of
Speaker 1: deja vou to see that. But yeah, getting back to
Speaker 1: the to the silver standards, getting off on the Dangineer,
Speaker 1: it is when you look at Trump, he's willing to
Speaker 1: do these very risky things. And of course the bad
Speaker 1: who was able to use at as leverage. But the
Speaker 1: bad thing was that he bankrupted casinos and so the
Speaker 1: bottom line is that he eventually lost the casinos. All
Speaker 1: he cared about with the rostyle people was you're going
Speaker 1: to keep my name on the buildings right until they
Speaker 1: completely go away. And so if he's got his name
Speaker 1: on the US, he doesn't really care what's happening fundamentally
Speaker 1: with his stuff. I think it's going to be a
Speaker 1: very dangerous time regardless of whoever is there. And it
Speaker 1: is because the same mentality is there with uniparty on
Speaker 1: so many of these different issues, but especially on the
Speaker 1: fiscal stuff. There's not going to be any change to
Speaker 1: it talking about it, you know, with the going back
Speaker 1: to his examples of the nineteenth century, the real issue
Speaker 1: was also spending, right, and they're not going to stop spending.
Speaker 1: They're going to continue to double down on the spending
Speaker 1: and just rearrange the deck chairs. Let me, let me
Speaker 1: give a tax break to this demographic voter group over here.
Speaker 1: I won't put taxes all, make a policeman all tax free,
Speaker 1: no tax on tips for waitresses. And that's the kind
Speaker 1: of games that they're playing. So it isn't going to change.
Speaker 4: I mean history that history shows us that great empires
Speaker 4: or countries rise on sound money and economic nationalism, they
Speaker 4: decline on fi currency and free trade. Yeah, and that's
Speaker 4: where we're in that cycle right now. And until we
Speaker 4: hit some sort of wall, if you will, something that
Speaker 4: where the music stops and there has to be you know,
Speaker 4: the people have to get we have to have a
Speaker 4: sober look at our our fiscal house. Everything's you know,
Speaker 4: up in the air, but we don't. There's no telling
Speaker 4: you know, how bad it will get as far as
Speaker 4: what happens to the dollar or you know, what kind
Speaker 4: of economic damage is done from just not getting our
Speaker 4: fiscal house in order. Again, this is this is something
Speaker 4: that's not it's not in our politics, it's not in
Speaker 4: this election it used to be. And it begs the
Speaker 4: question like, what what changed have they just decided to,
Speaker 4: you know, do a controlled demolition of this economy to
Speaker 4: replace it. Besides, it is build back better. In order
Speaker 4: to do that, you have to first destroy something to
Speaker 4: build it back better. So that's really where my mind goes,
Speaker 4: because it doesn't seem like anything's being done to to
Speaker 4: prop up the dollar or our economy.
Speaker 1: For a love of the Road says Tony has said before.
Speaker 1: He's referring to d G eight about the Tomahawk missile.
Speaker 1: Selling you put that up there first, uh DJA, says David.
Speaker 1: Can you ask Tony if we go to warwill silver
Speaker 1: skyrocket how much silver is in a Tomahawk missile? For
Speaker 1: the love of the Road says he wants to say
Speaker 1: that there was about one hundred ounces of silver.
Speaker 4: It is a monster five hundred ounces, five hundred, five
Speaker 4: hundred ounces a monster box, monster box, which is five
Speaker 4: hundred ounces of silver, and every Tomahawk missile.
Speaker 1: And I wonder how much CO two there is. Yeah,
Speaker 1: ant of they don't care about anything. You know, They've
Speaker 1: got their goals of it. And all the stuff that
Speaker 1: they're telling us is existential, life threatening, and all that
Speaker 1: they don't care. I mean, their missiles are life threatening.
Speaker 1: We got to be alarmed about that, but they want
Speaker 1: us alarmed about CO two and eating meat. It's just
Speaker 1: absolutely insane what we see coming with these people. How
Speaker 1: are things doing in terms of being able to get supply?
Speaker 1: That was always the thing. You saw this coming. We
Speaker 1: could see what the fundamentals were. We knew that there
Speaker 1: was going to be this type of thing and everybody's
Speaker 1: going to be scrambling for supply. And you said, it
Speaker 1: starts hitting all these consecutive all time highs, and I
Speaker 1: think it's going to be the issue how things looking
Speaker 1: on that side.
Speaker 4: It's getting harder to get supply on a consistent basis.
Speaker 4: And I'm really glad that I have the two physical
Speaker 4: gold and silver exchanges because pretty much any one ounce
Speaker 4: silver rounds that I'm buying, or coins or bars or
Speaker 4: even ten ounce silver bars, they all go into a
Speaker 4: wolf pack, you know, because we have over thirteen hundred
Speaker 4: members across the United States now, and we get orders out,
Speaker 4: like if your card is charged, I'm getting that order
Speaker 4: out within forty eight hours, and you've got a tracking
Speaker 4: number for that. We don't keep. We try to get
Speaker 4: the packages out to satisfy every order as fast as possible.
Speaker 4: And it's been it's been pricky. I had to front
Speaker 4: end load a lot of wolf Pack for that and
Speaker 4: just replacing the same items. It's getting trickier. And of
Speaker 4: course price is the price fluctuation, David, It's been interesting
Speaker 4: to keep track of, to say the least, you know,
Speaker 4: when gold especially you know, with the price of gold
Speaker 4: going to where it is, just having to cover that
Speaker 4: buying an ounce of gold. So I'm built for it.
Speaker 4: I love what I do, but it is going to
Speaker 4: get diceier. I think as time goes on. You know,
Speaker 4: you point out is that question from for level of
Speaker 4: the road about is the price of silver going to
Speaker 4: go up if we go into a hot war. I
Speaker 4: think the price of silver is going up regardless. I
Speaker 4: don't think there's anything that can stop it. And we're
Speaker 4: about I think we're we've reached really peaked paper silver
Speaker 4: the way that that trades. And I've said this before,
Speaker 4: but I think it's estimated that for every two hundred
Speaker 4: and fifty or so ounces of silver that's traded in
Speaker 4: the paper market, a one ounce of silver actually exists
Speaker 4: in the third dimension in the real world, so physical
Speaker 4: one ounce to two hundred and fifty ounce these things,
Speaker 4: and this is going to come to a head eventually.
Speaker 4: And and again there's another metric to this too. It's
Speaker 4: two hundred and twenty five million ounce deficit coming up
Speaker 4: this year. It was over two hundred million ounces last year.
Speaker 4: So every time you run these, you know, two hundred
Speaker 4: two hundred plus million ounce deficits, you have to take
Speaker 4: from the this thing above ground supply. It's not coming
Speaker 4: from mining, so it has to continually come out of
Speaker 4: the above ground supply. You don't have to be a
Speaker 4: math wizard to figure that out that. You know, eventually,
Speaker 4: just you know, basic economics kiss kicks in and we
Speaker 4: just haven't reached that point yet, but it will happen.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's the thing about the paper gold and paper silver.
Speaker 1: I had started accumulating that years ago, I guess maybe
Speaker 1: about ten years ago, and you know, putting our ira
Speaker 1: in it, and it was like then, I know, then
Speaker 1: the price started changing. Well you know, it's going horizontal
Speaker 1: for a long time like that. You didn't really notice anything,
Speaker 1: and it's like, oh, okay, this is easy and get
Speaker 1: a tenth of an ounce at a time. And then
Speaker 1: gold started going up, and it didn't go up, you know,
Speaker 1: and they didn't start tracking it. And that's when I
Speaker 1: looked at It's like, what's going on with this? Why
Speaker 1: doesn't that track? And that's when I found out, Oh, well,
Speaker 1: there's this thing called Shanghai Gold Exchange where they got it.
Speaker 1: And it's like, oh, okay, so this is in China,
Speaker 1: so nobody's actually checking this got anything at all. I
Speaker 1: don't know what it is on gold, you said, its
Speaker 1: too earned. Fifty to one is an estimate of your estimate
Speaker 1: of where it is on sob I imagine it is
Speaker 1: easily that way. They create these derivatives and it just
Speaker 1: lets them completely escape any reality and manipulate the price
Speaker 1: of the real assets as well. At the same time,
Speaker 1: it's crazy.
Speaker 4: Absolutely, It's one of the reasons I think in the
Speaker 4: primary goal of bricks is to reset commodity prices with
Speaker 4: their own exchanges. I mean, aside from the cross border payments.
Speaker 4: I really don't think when I read into this, and
Speaker 4: they may have developed some sort of unified currency, but
Speaker 4: I don't think so. I don't think those countries can
Speaker 4: agree on a real unified currency. I think it might
Speaker 4: be a unified payment system, like Vladimir Putin was talking
Speaker 4: about the bricks bridge system. But really, David, in my
Speaker 4: opinion that reading at what I do and looking into it,
Speaker 4: it's about the reset of commodity prices they do. It's
Speaker 4: no longer about you know, dedollarization. It's about the West
Speaker 4: in general, the way the West has run its markets,
Speaker 4: and you know how to stranglehold on commodities because in
Speaker 4: an era of fiot, you have to troll commodities against it.
Speaker 4: If you really look at the historical trend to what
Speaker 4: happened in the seventies, and you know this, I mean
Speaker 4: you were there, You're watching what happened with the rise
Speaker 4: and interest rates, there was an alarm bell that went
Speaker 4: off in the night. You have Paul Voker from the
Speaker 4: Federal Reserve. They raised interest rates to the teens And
Speaker 4: why did they do that, Well, because the money supply
Speaker 4: needed to be contracted and the purchasing power was going
Speaker 4: down and inflation was rampant. And then it reflected itself
Speaker 4: in the price of gold and silver. They put a
Speaker 4: stop to that, and it lasted for a while, you know,
Speaker 4: it lasted until I was about in two thousand and
Speaker 4: five going into that era. It lasted until I was
Speaker 4: about twenty five years old. And then this trend has
Speaker 4: been up and up and up, and you know, sometimes
Speaker 4: taking a dip. But now look at where we are now,
Speaker 4: and it really reflects the fiscal insanity, you know, and
Speaker 4: the amount of currency creation, the amount of debt, and
Speaker 4: just an absolute irresponsibility when it comes to our budget.
Speaker 4: It reflects in the price of gold, and eventually you'll
Speaker 4: see it truly reflecting in the price of silver. But
Speaker 4: you have to remember that the largest holder of silver
Speaker 4: in the world is JP Morgan Chase, and JP morgan
Speaker 4: Chase was convicted of suppressing the silver price, and that
Speaker 4: just gets lost on a lot of people. Why would
Speaker 4: you suppress the price of something that you primarily hold
Speaker 4: that's because you want to get more of it. Yeah,
Speaker 4: that's always hard to make the rest less attractive.
Speaker 1: That's right. That's what we started in the real estate stuff.
Speaker 1: I remember when that all kicked off. We had our
Speaker 1: neighbors refinanced their home. The interest rates were very low
Speaker 1: and dropping and they got some equity out of it,
Speaker 1: and they thought, well, let's do that as well. And
Speaker 1: but you know, it was only just a couple of
Speaker 1: weeks and all of a sudden everything had changed. It's like,
Speaker 1: how could it change that quickly? And said, well, this
Speaker 1: is being imposed from California. So I'm looking at it's like,
Speaker 1: so why would they manipulate the market like this to
Speaker 1: make the real estate less valuable? And as you point out,
Speaker 1: they're playing the long game. They want to accumulate more
Speaker 1: of it, so they make it less valuable. And they
Speaker 1: put a lot of people underwater, and a lot of
Speaker 1: people lost their homes, but they were able to accumulate
Speaker 1: them at an even cheaper price to all that stuff.
Speaker 1: And again it's part of it.
Speaker 4: Was the.
Speaker 1: Derivatives market and all the rest of these things that
Speaker 1: they were playing with people. And that's what they're doing
Speaker 1: now with the commodities, and you're right when you look
Speaker 1: at bricks, it's all about the commodities. Everything that they're
Speaker 1: talking about and getting a lot of these getting on
Speaker 1: board a lot of Third world countries that are rich
Speaker 1: in natural resources and commodities. It is a big move
Speaker 1: toward the commodities. It truly is. Yeah.
Speaker 4: I mean, we looked at the gold supplanting. The euro
Speaker 4: is becoming the second most held reserve I set by
Speaker 4: central banks and number one being the dollar. I think really,
Speaker 4: if you're paying attention though, and if you're in the know,
Speaker 4: you get that gold is already the world's reserve currency.
Speaker 4: I think it's supplanted the dollars some time ago, and
Speaker 4: it's just now playing a game of de dollarization getting
Speaker 4: out of those holdings. And you know how else that played.
Speaker 4: It's a very interconnected worldwide economy, as you know. But
Speaker 4: the trend, and it's accelerating. I think we're just going
Speaker 4: to see this is going to continue to be and
Speaker 4: eventually will bleed into even though I know they don't
Speaker 4: want it, mainstream will start happing cover this. They'll have
Speaker 4: to actually admit that something is afoot and that commodities.
Speaker 4: You know, this boring thing. You know, gold, this barbarous
Speaker 4: relic and you know what it what did Warren Buffett
Speaker 4: call it? A pet rock? It doesn't do anything, you know,
Speaker 4: it just sits there. I think I think this will
Speaker 4: this will be headlines. You know again, mainstream will start
Speaker 4: covering the stuff that you and I talk about every
Speaker 4: week very soon because it'll be too large of an issue,
Speaker 4: not too Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, so next time we talk, it's going to be
Speaker 1: two days after the supposed election, and I imagine that
Speaker 1: there's going to be a lot of chaos from both sides.
Speaker 1: Nobody is willing to accept the other side winning, I
Speaker 1: think on this time. So what do you think is
Speaker 1: going to happen? I mean, we look at the long
Speaker 1: term trends of this stuff, and we were talking about
Speaker 1: regardless of which party is in power, they're going to
Speaker 1: continue the debt accumulation and the spending without any responsibility.
Speaker 1: So we know how the effect of that's going to be.
Speaker 1: But the short term, I mean, what do you think
Speaker 1: this If everything erupts into accusations of stole an election
Speaker 1: all the rest of stuff, well you think that's going
Speaker 1: to really rock the markets this next week?
Speaker 4: What are you looking for oh, I think I think
Speaker 4: it has the possibility to know, there's several things that
Speaker 4: could happen in scenarios, you know, if you if we
Speaker 4: know early, which I don't see how we could, but
Speaker 4: if we know, like it's a sane country anymore, like
Speaker 4: there's an election result, and then you know, there's some
Speaker 4: sort of consensus that hasn't been the trend. But let's
Speaker 4: say we do. I think gold would pull back a
Speaker 4: little bit, depending on like if if if Trump wins
Speaker 4: uh selected, I think gold would pull back a little bit.
Speaker 4: I think silver might pull pull back a little bit.
Speaker 4: Bitcoin would probably go up. If you put that in
Speaker 4: a reverse order where you know, Kamala is selected, I
Speaker 4: think gold goes up. I think silver goes up. I
Speaker 4: think bitcoin maybe goes sideways, maybe falls back a little bit.
Speaker 4: So those really I think the two best case scenarios.
Speaker 4: And then if we're in some knockdown, drag out legal
Speaker 4: battle and you know it stopped the steal part two,
Speaker 4: the reckoning or whatever, if we go into that, then
Speaker 4: all bets are off. I think I think the markets
Speaker 4: will start going their own way. I think they just start,
Speaker 4: you know, saying this is a you know, whether this
Speaker 4: fiscal house. This is insanity over here on the on
Speaker 4: the ruling class side, they'll start looking at alternatives if
Speaker 4: we are in chaos. That is where you know, fear
Speaker 4: goes right into the precious metals market because again, it's
Speaker 4: a it's a store of value. It is actual money,
Speaker 4: and it's physical, and it's outside of the system and
Speaker 4: gives people the opportunity to at least house that wealth
Speaker 4: and energy and work and not have counterparty risks. So, uh,
Speaker 4: there's a there's a lot of scenarios here, I think.
Speaker 4: But long term, David, you and I both know the
Speaker 4: trend for things that are finite in a world of
Speaker 4: fiat is open to the right and you know, against it.
Speaker 4: You know, the gold really has no top and the dollar
Speaker 4: really has no bottom. And that goes for silver and
Speaker 4: bitcoin too.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, those are the things that get us outside
Speaker 1: of that fiat currency, the gold, silver and bitcoin. Let
Speaker 1: me ask you, I see why you'd say that Trump
Speaker 1: be bullish for bitcoin because he's talked about it a
Speaker 1: lot and say he's going to protect it, maybe even
Speaker 1: use it, you know, have the government buy it and
Speaker 1: keep it as a store of value, and that type
Speaker 1: of thing, and the Democrats have been very active to
Speaker 1: try to purge crypto bitcoin, but all the crypto What
Speaker 1: about gold and silver? Though, why do you say that
Speaker 1: that would perhaps go down a little bit with Trump
Speaker 1: and a little bit up with La la what you're
Speaker 1: thinking on that?
Speaker 4: And it may be short lived, but I think when
Speaker 4: you see like a healthy stock market, people and a
Speaker 4: lot of times when you see gold go up, it's
Speaker 4: because they look around, there's a lot of uncertainty and
Speaker 4: they just get out of those positions and get into gold.
Speaker 4: Think if you know the psychological impact of Trump, and
Speaker 4: we saw that in twenty sixteen, and it was short lived,
Speaker 4: but not because a policy will just be like, oh, well,
Speaker 4: there's a businessman, he knows the markets, you know, he
Speaker 4: knows about He's going to be friendly or at least
Speaker 4: in rhetoric to Wall Street and Main Street in rhetoric.
Speaker 4: It doesn't even matter what he does.
Speaker 1: I think.
Speaker 4: And the reason I say it's temporary, this is just
Speaker 4: my opinion. I think you'd see a slight pullback and
Speaker 4: it may just go sideways, but I think there'd be
Speaker 4: some positions that would be cashed out because they're waiting
Speaker 4: to see what happens and that'd be put back into
Speaker 4: the market. But you give it another quarter and we're
Speaker 4: going to see you might even see it. Within the
Speaker 4: thirty days, you would see another all time high for
Speaker 4: gold because those trends are going to continue. But in
Speaker 4: the short run, I think psychologically you may see a
Speaker 4: little bit of a pullback, but maybe just sideways.
Speaker 1: Well, that's interesting. Of course, many of us are not
Speaker 1: day traders in anything, including gold and silver. It's a
Speaker 1: buy and hold strategy, gradually accumulating it. That's what Wolfpack
Speaker 1: is so great at that you can gradually start to
Speaker 1: take you know, have a savings plan where you can
Speaker 1: put stuff there and have kind of wealth insurance with
Speaker 1: gold and silver, and so we know, you know, we
Speaker 1: feel good about it. In the long term just looking
Speaker 1: at you know, how people are going to perhaps be
Speaker 1: reacting to it the psychology, and we can all guess
Speaker 1: what that's going to be. If nobody knows for sure exactly,
Speaker 1: you've got a program that's going to be immediately following
Speaker 1: this one. Tell everybody about that. And is there anything
Speaker 1: that is happening at wise wolf that you want to
Speaker 1: clue us on.
Speaker 4: Well, I would say, you know again, but we have
Speaker 4: the free silver giveaway. It's still promo code seventeen seventy
Speaker 4: six and go to David Knight dot Golden. We have
Speaker 4: the program starting as low as fifty dollars a month
Speaker 4: for Wolfpack, going all the way up to five thousand,
Speaker 4: and I have some announcements coming from Wolfpacks, and I'm
Speaker 4: working on some stuff meeting. I'm in Florida right now.
Speaker 4: I have meetings going on that I'm going to be
Speaker 4: bringing some new programs to wolf Pack that I'm really
Speaker 4: looking forward to. So yeah, please, if you're in the
Speaker 4: market and you like physical precious metals and you want
Speaker 4: to trade your Fiat in for something real, go to
Speaker 4: David Knight dot gold And Yes, I have my radio show,
Speaker 4: the Arteburn Radio Transmission every Thursday following your show on
Speaker 4: x at Tony Arderburn on Rockfin the America Unplugged channel.
Speaker 4: You can find me on Rumble as well America Unplugged
Speaker 4: and we do we do an hour. Come over there
Speaker 4: and join the chat. Love to see you, and that's
Speaker 4: what I like.
Speaker 1: I like the fact that you're, like you said, you're
Speaker 1: in Florida looking at something to do with Wolfpack. Wolf
Speaker 1: Pack is a very innovative thing. It's not anything that
Speaker 1: I've seen anybody else do, and I really do appreciate that.
Speaker 1: I appreciate working with you all these years. It's great
Speaker 1: to have somebody that can trust you, and and that
Speaker 1: certainly is the case with Tony Ardovin and Wise Wolf,
Speaker 1: and you can get there through David Night dot Gold.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Tony, Thank you for supporting the program,
Speaker 1: thank you for coming on. And it's going to be
Speaker 1: interesting times. As the Chinese say, that's a curse. You know,
Speaker 1: we're going to have some really interesting times in the
Speaker 1: next few years as we get closer and closer to
Speaker 1: this twenty thirty thing that is coming up and just
Speaker 1: right around the corner. Thank you so much for joining
Speaker 1: us and for all you do. Thank you, Tony, have
Speaker 1: a good day.
Speaker 4: Thank you. David appreciate it.
Speaker 1: And everybody, don't forget his program's coming up right after
Speaker 1: this and we'll be right back.
Speaker 2: Making sense common again. You're listening to the David Knight Show.
Speaker 1: All right, welcome back, and Eric, thank you very much
Speaker 1: for the tip. I appreciate that ap Rumble Seat writes
Speaker 1: build back better for the elites. They're obviously deliberately dismantling
Speaker 1: finance and society according to their ambitions for control. That
Speaker 1: is absolutely true. But let's talk about their move to
Speaker 1: dismantle society in terms of the or well and things
Speaker 1: that they're doing to each and every one of us,
Speaker 1: the depopulation shots, but also the eugenics. And this is
Speaker 1: something that has been on the horizon talked about with
Speaker 1: the IVF issues, and I understand. I mean, we've been
Speaker 1: there from the standpoint of not being able to have kids.
Speaker 1: We didn't try IVF, but I understand that that desire.
Speaker 1: But this is a new US company. This is a
Speaker 1: company that says that they can screen your embryos. So
Speaker 1: you create the embryos in a glass right in vitro
Speaker 1: fertilization and a Petri dish, and then they're going to
Speaker 1: genetically test them and determine what their IQ is and
Speaker 1: their height and their eye color. I talked earlier about
Speaker 1: the drone swarms, and I talked about Daniel Suarez in
Speaker 1: his book that was Kill Decision, and he had another
Speaker 1: book that was really about genetic modification of humans and
Speaker 1: he called that Let's see, what was it called change
Speaker 1: Agent I think was the name of that. It's been
Speaker 1: a while since I listened to it, but the very
Speaker 1: beginning of it, I ought to read it someday on
Speaker 1: the air because it's such a brilliantly written exchange. You
Speaker 1: have a couple that is pregnant, and what they're saying is,
Speaker 1: we can modify that baby, and we can increase its
Speaker 1: IQ for X amount of dollars, and if you want to,
Speaker 1: we can do some other things. We can do some
Speaker 1: things to make it the baby super strong or healthy
Speaker 1: or this or that. So they have all these different
Speaker 1: modifications that they can do different aspects, physical aspects, make
Speaker 1: the baby taller or whatever. We can modify the genetics
Speaker 1: on that, and each of them came with a very
Speaker 1: big price tag, and it was all in the black market.
Speaker 1: Because these things came online, people banned it, but of
Speaker 1: course realistically it's going to happen in the black market.
Speaker 1: And so as he's got this scene set up, you've
Speaker 1: got this person who's trying to upsell them on their baby.
Speaker 1: You know, these different attributes that they're going to have
Speaker 1: out there, and so you got the two parents. One
Speaker 1: of them is for it, the other one is against it,
Speaker 1: and so he's kind of this interplay back and forth,
Speaker 1: so that you see the thoughts on either side. And
Speaker 1: final thing that he does is to say, well, if
Speaker 1: you don't do it, other people are going to do it,
Speaker 1: and your baby is going to wind up being the
Speaker 1: servant of these other kids. And on the other hand,
Speaker 1: if you do it for this baby, those traits are
Speaker 1: going to be passed on to future generations. So you're
Speaker 1: increasing the IQ or whatever of not just your child,
Speaker 1: but also of your grandchildren. And that type of thing.
Speaker 1: A very interesting scene that was there, And now we've
Speaker 1: got in real life a new US company raising concerns
Speaker 1: with embryo screening for IQ, eye color, other things like that.
Speaker 1: An undercover journalist, So the other thing made me think
Speaker 1: about that book. Undercover journalist goes in it starts talking
Speaker 1: to these people about how they can screen for this stuff.
Speaker 1: They're not genetically modifying it yet, but what they would
Speaker 1: do is they would create one hundred embryos and then
Speaker 1: rank them by these different characteristics and then you decide
Speaker 1: which one you want, you throw the rest of them away.
Speaker 1: An undercover journalist has found that a US fertility startup
Speaker 1: companies pushed further into the world of eugenics with an
Speaker 1: alleged offer to allow wealthy clients to weed out their
Speaker 1: children based on their projected IQ, sparking more concern about
Speaker 1: the ethics of IVF and about genetic enhancement. The IQ
Speaker 1: testing controversy was exposed by a group called Hope Not Hate.
Speaker 1: They sent an undercover reporter to helio spect Genomics, posing
Speaker 1: as a potential customer seeking IVF With his partner. He
Speaker 1: was quoted fifty thousand dollars to use the screening tool
Speaker 1: polygen X, which is marketed as a way to analyze
Speaker 1: genetic data to find out which embryo will have the
Speaker 1: highest IQ. Let me, just as a parenthetical aside here
Speaker 1: say that how do we measure IQ? I mean, do
Speaker 1: we really trust that? Right? It's different as I look
Speaker 1: at it. I have come across so many people and
Speaker 1: somebody different walks of life that have different aptitudes and abilities,
Speaker 1: And so how do you test that? I don't think
Speaker 1: that you can sort people by these IQ tests? First
Speaker 1: of all. I mean, it's just so many different types
Speaker 1: of people, and there's different types of gifts, and you know,
Speaker 1: like I've said many times, you might have somebody who's
Speaker 1: very gifted academically in terms of you know, writing and
Speaker 1: reading and stuff like that, but maybe they can't figure
Speaker 1: out how to fix anything or build anything. And somebody
Speaker 1: else who's I've typically seen this type of intelligence. Somebody
Speaker 1: can be an absolute mechanical genius, but they don't talk,
Speaker 1: they don't write, they can't do any of that kind
Speaker 1: of stuff. So how do you rank this? And do
Speaker 1: we want a society where everybody is going to be
Speaker 1: above average in school but they can't do anything. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's different types of intelligence that are out there. And
Speaker 1: then the issue is how in the world could they
Speaker 1: possibly as difficult as it is to measure aptitude and
Speaker 1: intelligence and things like that with us. How in the
Speaker 1: world are they going to do this with an embryo?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 1: How are they going to look at the genetics there?
Speaker 1: I don't think it's going to be very reliable. Maybe
Speaker 1: they use a PCR test for intelligence, right, because it
Speaker 1: is something of an intelligence test, isn't it. Danish CEO
Speaker 1: of this company push this as a way to help
Speaker 1: every parent to have all the children they want and
Speaker 1: have children that are basically disease free, smart, healthy. It's
Speaker 1: going to be great, he said, Yeah, I'm going back
Speaker 1: to that scene from the Daniel Suarez book. At the binning,
Speaker 1: The Reporter also participating in several online meetings with helio
Speaker 1: Spect and was presented with the company's polygenic scoring service.
Speaker 1: It said that selecting the ten smartest embryos would allegedly
Speaker 1: lead to an IQ gain of about six points. Well
Speaker 1: that's not all that much anyway. It would also screen
Speaker 1: the mbros for height, for obesity, and even for acne.
Speaker 1: They see this is where I call bs. You tell
Speaker 1: me them to that level of detail. I think this
Speaker 1: is a con game, but this is where the ethics
Speaker 1: are headed. And you know, the issue is not whether
Speaker 1: or not these people are actually able to do it,
Speaker 1: but the ethical decisions as they continue to try to
Speaker 1: go down this path. If they were able to do this,
Speaker 1: they score these embryos. So how do they determine this, Well,
Speaker 1: they score the mbrohs based on a database. They call
Speaker 1: it a biobank. In the UK, they've started creating a
Speaker 1: taxpayer funded bio bank of genetic information. These are people
Speaker 1: who have voluntarily agreed to share their genetic data for life,
Speaker 1: and so what they're trying to do is find a
Speaker 1: correlation between the real world and what they see in
Speaker 1: the genes and these people are volunteers in that. They said, however,
Speaker 1: the information of those who volunteer people are mostly white,
Speaker 1: wealthy individuals, and because of this, they said, well that's
Speaker 1: going to skew the results. You can't necessarily extrapolate this
Speaker 1: into other ethnic groups. Necessarily. The company is staffed by
Speaker 1: supporters of eugenics, like a guy who calls himself Jonathan Anomaly.
Speaker 1: Although his last name was Beaz, he legally changed it.
Speaker 1: In twenty twenty, this guy, Jonathan Anomaly, published a book
Speaker 1: Creating Future People, in which he argued in favor of
Speaker 1: eugenics and said eugenics became a dirty word because the
Speaker 1: Nazis and the Holocaust. He's defended liberal eugenics as a
Speaker 1: way to allow parents to be free and maybe even
Speaker 1: encouraged to use technology to improve their children's prospects. Well, no,
Speaker 1: it's simply what it is is. It's a thing that
Speaker 1: detegrates people. It's a system that allows people to play
Speaker 1: god based on what they think the values should be.
Speaker 1: In the same way that people who decide they're going
Speaker 1: to set into a position of censorship. Well, I will
Speaker 1: decide what is true, I will decide what information people
Speaker 1: should have out there, and it is usually they're wrong
Speaker 1: about that. Polygenics is expected to go public in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five. But they said to this guy, they said, well,
Speaker 1: there's already babies on the way, despite the fact that
Speaker 1: that is prohibited in the UK. However it is completely
Speaker 1: legal in the US, and so that is the way
Speaker 1: they kind of got around this. Now, as we move
Speaker 1: further into this and we see people's attitudes and you know,
Speaker 1: we're just talking about embryos. But there was an interesting
Speaker 1: article on the Daily Mail talking about a wealthy couple
Speaker 1: doing a having a baby using surrogates, and listen to
Speaker 1: what this couple did and look at their attitude toward
Speaker 1: human life, their attitude toward the babies, their attitude toward
Speaker 1: the surrogate mother as well. So the Daily Email reported
Speaker 1: the story of Marty and Melinda Rangers, a couple whose
Speaker 1: quote unquote busy careers prevented them from having a family,
Speaker 1: but not from getting wealthy and retiring to the Caribbean.
Speaker 1: From the beginning, they treated the process as one in
Speaker 1: which the surrogate's body belonged entirely to them. The surrogate
Speaker 1: they chose spoke to them twice a week, but they
Speaker 1: also noted kept watch over the women's social media for
Speaker 1: any sign that she was violating their lengthy contract. Then
Speaker 1: one day they spotted her online having what appeared to
Speaker 1: be an alcoholic drink. She said, it was all going
Speaker 1: fine with our surrogate present pregnancy and told Melinda saw
Speaker 1: that instagram, said Marty, it was a complete shock for us,
Speaker 1: and when we confronted her about it, she said it
Speaker 1: was water that she was drinking, but there was something
Speaker 1: about her reaction that left me unconvinced. After much deliberation,
Speaker 1: we decided the best thing to do would be to
Speaker 1: terminate our baby at twenty weeks. So I see a picture.
Speaker 1: They said, Well, I'm not sure she had an alcoholic
Speaker 1: and I don't know, but let's rip the baby apart
Speaker 1: and smash its skull. Yeah, that's what they did. It
Speaker 1: was a tough decision, they said, but the trust had
Speaker 1: been broken and we were unsure of what else this
Speaker 1: woman was capable of. Now, this baby was completely theirs
Speaker 1: in terms of genetics. It was just kind of they're
Speaker 1: renting a womb, you know, womb for rent. There is
Speaker 1: no indication that they underwent testing of any kind. To
Speaker 1: see if the baby had been affected by the one drink. Instead,
Speaker 1: they merely ordered the surrogate to kill their child and
Speaker 1: the second trimester, and she complied, and as Live Action says,
Speaker 1: according to their retelling of the story, the surrogate was
Speaker 1: twenty weeks pregnant. The baby was not far from being
Speaker 1: able to survive outside the womb. The most common abortion
Speaker 1: procedure at this point in pregnancy is dilation and evacuation DNA.
Speaker 1: During this procedure, the abortionists literally rips the baby apart
Speaker 1: limb by limb, then crushes the baby's skull. As I said,
Speaker 1: I was talking about that abortions, he said, you know
Speaker 1: you got the baby's skull when you see this white,
Speaker 1: you know, gelatinous material oos out. They kept watch over
Speaker 1: the women's social media after they did it. They've got
Speaker 1: another surrogate and they kept watch over her social media
Speaker 1: to see what was happening with it as well. They
Speaker 1: didn't just do it once. They got a different surrogate
Speaker 1: and tried it again, so he says, but you don't
Speaker 1: need to worry about what happened with this first one.
Speaker 1: You know, unless she had an abortion, she was well compensated.
Speaker 1: He said for agreeing to undergo the abortion, hate her
Speaker 1: a bonus, so she'd kill their baby. The couple men
Speaker 1: switch to another agency, which costs nearly twice as much,
Speaker 1: but they were still not satisfied. She refused to get
Speaker 1: a COVID vaccine. The baby was healthy. The Rangers decided
Speaker 1: to go on to have yet another baby, using a
Speaker 1: third surrogate for our second child. We got them to
Speaker 1: commit more explicitly that they would follow medical orders on pregnancy,
Speaker 1: whether it's vaccines or diet or whatever it may be. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, you should always give pregnant women every vaccine possible, right,
Speaker 1: Think about how that's changed in just the last decade.
Speaker 1: These always exempt pregnant women. Now they target them specifically
Speaker 1: with these vaccines. So Marty described that the third and
Speaker 1: final experience renting another woman's womb was quote like something
Speaker 1: out of a Disney movie unquote. He said, she was
Speaker 1: so happy for us and happy to meet that baby,
Speaker 1: but she also had the attachment of having raised the
Speaker 1: baby for nine months. That's their words. So they know
Speaker 1: that the baby that they had killed was a baby.
Speaker 1: They acknowledge it. They don't try to call it a
Speaker 1: fetus or anything that they acknowledge it was a baby,
Speaker 1: and I just killed the baby. Anyway, Well, this article
Speaker 1: was talking about, as I've mentioned before, and it just
Speaker 1: never ceases to appall me when I see all of
Speaker 1: these people, many of them part of something called the
Speaker 1: New Apostolic Reformation, all around Trump praying for his political
Speaker 1: power and everything, but not praying for the man. Is
Speaker 1: this One person said, there's something like vultures. He said,
Speaker 1: These vultures are steeped in the Brew of something they
Speaker 1: call the Seven Mountain Mandate. They feast on the souls
Speaker 1: that they have lured in with promises of defined authority
Speaker 1: and earthly power. Yeah, the prosperity gospel these people have
Speaker 1: been prospering off of materially is a natural fit for
Speaker 1: Trump with his love of Norman Vincent Peel and self
Speaker 1: help stuff like that, and seeing God as a essentially
Speaker 1: as a lucky charm. You know, God's this lucky charm
Speaker 1: is gonna, you know, bring me prosperity and go get
Speaker 1: a rabbit's foot or something, you know, if you want
Speaker 1: to do something. They preach a gospel of personal conquest
Speaker 1: and gain, not the good News of Christ. They offer
Speaker 1: a gospel that glorifies man, that flaunts wealth, that exalts
Speaker 1: earthly authority, as if the Kingdom of God could be
Speaker 1: broken like a business transaction, their faults. Prosperity gospel is
Speaker 1: an intoxicating blend of self worship and national conquest, a
Speaker 1: recipe that ensnares followers under the guise of god giving mandates,
Speaker 1: but ultimately leaves them drained, exploited, and spiritually bankrupt. But
Speaker 1: I got to say, this isn't limited to just the
Speaker 1: immediate circle around Trump. These people who take selfies of
Speaker 1: themselves praying with Trump so they can be seen of men?
Speaker 1: What Jesus say about that? But the question is, are
Speaker 1: people who were saying we need again vote for whoever
Speaker 1: you want in the privacy of the voting booth. But
Speaker 1: if you're going to go out there and jump on
Speaker 1: board a bandwagon, if you're going to go out there
Speaker 1: and yoke yourself to one of these corrupt politicians, are
Speaker 1: you practicing the prosperity gospel? Well, you know, I really
Speaker 1: I don't. There's a lot of stuff about Trump I
Speaker 1: don't like, but you know, I want. I think things
Speaker 1: are going to be better for me under him. So yeah,
Speaker 1: let's let's jump on board that this guy study evangelicals
Speaker 1: should be gravely concerned about this strange parade of spiritual deception.
Speaker 1: The true gospel, this rooted and repentance and faith and
Speaker 1: the only living God who saves, has been nearly drowned
Speaker 1: out beneath a self serving narrative that urges believers to
Speaker 1: seize influence. That's what these people are doing who are
Speaker 1: gathering around Trump, and a lot of people who are
Speaker 1: not a part of this club and never will be
Speaker 1: a part of this club, want to be on the
Speaker 1: winning team. I watched this when they would have the
Speaker 1: fake elections going all the way back to when I
Speaker 1: was in junior high school, and they would ask all
Speaker 1: the kids, you know, and it's like, well, a lot
Speaker 1: of the kids that they want to be on the
Speaker 1: winning side. So it's whoever the media is telling them
Speaker 1: is heading the polls. They want to be on that side. Well,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of different rationale for supporting one of
Speaker 1: these other. The reason I mentioned this is because this
Speaker 1: guy says, yeah, Trump is lost, He's spiritually dead, and
Speaker 1: Satan has seized on that with these false teachers. No
Speaker 1: denying it, but he says, given the role of the president,
Speaker 1: look at the alternative and ask yourself, if you can
Speaker 1: live with the blood of millions of babies on your hands?
Speaker 1: That's right. We should ask ourselves that. Now, is it
Speaker 1: just abortion or is it wars? And if it's wars,
Speaker 1: is there any difference between the two of them? I
Speaker 1: don't think so. What about the can you live with
Speaker 1: the blood of not just millions of babies or tens
Speaker 1: of millions of babies, but what about the lives of
Speaker 1: tens of millions of people worldwide whose lives have been
Speaker 1: destroyed because of the treachery and the lies of Donald
Speaker 1: Trump and putting this out the father of the vaccine,
Speaker 1: the father of lies about the vaccine, the father of
Speaker 1: lies about the satanic vaccine? Can you live with that?
Speaker 1: Because I can't. I can no more support him than
Speaker 1: I can support this satanic sex worker who elevates abortion
Speaker 1: even when she goes into places they call churches. Yeah,
Speaker 1: she comes in with her white coats, and she's got
Speaker 1: ten abortion doctors who can't be bothered or don't know
Speaker 1: what to do when somebody has a medical emergency during
Speaker 1: their speech. Yeah, she wants to kill babies. She bought
Speaker 1: in all this vaccine stuff as well, but so did
Speaker 1: he and I cannot support either one of them. But
Speaker 1: you know, that's that's your choice to make. But it
Speaker 1: is just a desperate attempt to have some relevance and
Speaker 1: to think that you're going to get what you want.
Speaker 1: This person, for example, an apologist, a Christian apologist, explains
Speaker 1: the we're old that Christians play in the crisis ahead
Speaker 1: of election day, and again, all this is predicated on
Speaker 1: the idea that I think is because of my experience
Speaker 1: in politics. I think it's absolutely foolish to think that
Speaker 1: you're going to change anything, and that is especially true
Speaker 1: of presidential politics. Even if you live in one of
Speaker 1: the seven states, pretty much the other ones, it's so
Speaker 1: much in one direction that your vote isn't going to
Speaker 1: make any difference. But even in those seven states, I
Speaker 1: don't think it's going to make a difference. With new
Speaker 1: data suggesting that more than one hundred million people of faith,
Speaker 1: including Christians, Mormons, Jews, Muslims, might set out the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four election, one apologist is suggesting that believers are
Speaker 1: and at least part responsible for the problems plaguing this country.
Speaker 1: And I agree, but not in the way that he
Speaker 1: says doctor Jeff Meyers of Summit Ministries. Because these people
Speaker 1: don't know where the battle is. The bat is at
Speaker 1: the ballot box, and the battle is not one day,
Speaker 1: and it is not one action that you take on
Speaker 1: that one day. And that's the big issue that I
Speaker 1: have with all this election hand ringing and you fire
Speaker 1: alarms and flashing red lights and all the rest of
Speaker 1: this stuff. It's going to be the most important election
Speaker 1: of your life. No, every day is an important one.
Speaker 1: Sixty eight percent of people that they talk to these
Speaker 1: are Christians, he said, say they don't have an interest
Speaker 1: in politics. Well, politics is still interested in you. And
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that we rejected. I'm saying you better
Speaker 1: watch these people. They're dangerous. You just don't have to
Speaker 1: join them. I mean you think of them as like
Speaker 1: some kind of a criminal gang, right, You watch that
Speaker 1: criminal gang and you know what they're coming after. But
Speaker 1: you don't join the bloods or the crips. Fifty seven
Speaker 1: percent so they dislike both major candidates, and there's other
Speaker 1: elections that are local. There might be something that you
Speaker 1: could do there. Fifty five percent they don't believe either
Speaker 1: candidate reflects our most important values. Fifty two percent, So
Speaker 1: they don't believe their vote will make a difference in
Speaker 1: the outcome. And I certainly think that is the case
Speaker 1: for president. But this person says, and I've heard this
Speaker 1: argument before, we're obligated as Christians to be good citizens
Speaker 1: of the place in which we find ourselves. So and yeah,
Speaker 1: we've talked about this as friends. So if you live
Speaker 1: in Rome, let's pretend for a moment that you had
Speaker 1: a vote in Rome, who do you support? Nero or Caligula?
Speaker 1: Money and support? And of course you know you might
Speaker 1: make a choice between one of them for some reason
Speaker 1: that you think one of them is maybe going to
Speaker 1: single you out in the way that the other one isn't.
Speaker 1: But would you ever want to go around with a
Speaker 1: hat that says vote for Nero or vote for Caligula.
Speaker 1: That's that's my point about endorsing this stuff. And then
Speaker 1: he gets this exactly upside down. He said, the founders
Speaker 1: of the US focused on the core principles. First, they
Speaker 1: didn't focus on personalities. Then they developed policies that could
Speaker 1: bring us to those principles. Well, yeah, I mean, ideally
Speaker 1: we would have something like that, but you know what
Speaker 1: principles have we seen debated by la Law and Trump. None.
Speaker 1: They don't want to have debates. And when they did
Speaker 1: get together once, why they talk about each other? They
Speaker 1: talked about each other's personality. So they're the ones, not us,
Speaker 1: who are focusing everybody's attention on personality. And there is
Speaker 1: absolutely nobody coming to the rescue to ask them any
Speaker 1: of the questions. And so he says, so when he
Speaker 1: talks about this, when he talks about personality, I found
Speaker 1: it interesting that he doesn't talk about character, because if
Speaker 1: you don't talk about character, what does it mean to
Speaker 1: talk about core principles that then develop into policies. If
Speaker 1: somebody doesn't have integrity, can you trust them on a
Speaker 1: personal level? Can you trust them in terms of having
Speaker 1: principles or changing those principles into policies? What about the
Speaker 1: people who are so obviously lacking in integrity that they
Speaker 1: won't even talk about principles or policies. The difference, he says,
Speaker 1: between the founders of this country and where we are
Speaker 1: now is that voters have inverted this triangle of building
Speaker 1: up from core principles to policies and so forth. He says,
Speaker 1: we're making decisions based on personalities. Rather than principles and policies.
Speaker 1: So you have Trump because you know, seizing on the comments.
Speaker 1: It's every day it's from one side or the other.
Speaker 1: I gotcha thing. Well, you know, the comedian said this
Speaker 1: about Puerto Ricans, that the the Madison Square Garden things.
Speaker 1: So we're going to run a couple of days on that,
Speaker 1: and everybody's going back and forth on it, and you know,
Speaker 1: it was a sort of thing where it's not the
Speaker 1: kind of humor that I like. I never liked. Who
Speaker 1: is the guy that Don Rickles? I hated that stuff
Speaker 1: and it became a really big thing back in the seventies.
Speaker 1: It's roasting stuff. I don't like that kind of comedy,
Speaker 1: but you know, that's what this guy does. And John
Speaker 1: Stewart actually defended him on that and said, you kind
Speaker 1: of have a sense of humor at that's not your
Speaker 1: cut style of comedy. But he goes, it's not racist.
Speaker 1: But they seize on this stuff. And so you know,
Speaker 1: because he says that Puerto Rico is an island of garbage,
Speaker 1: then Biden says, no, the MAGA supporters are garbage. And
Speaker 1: so then Trump flies in on his personal jet and
Speaker 1: puts on a garbage man's outfit with a reflective vest
Speaker 1: and he rides around in a garbage truck to go
Speaker 1: to the rally. This is silly stuff. This is really
Speaker 1: serious stuff. You want to tell me, Like, let's get
Speaker 1: telling people like alex is telling people, Oh, this is
Speaker 1: the most important election ever. It's like, seriously. They don't
Speaker 1: seem to be taking it very seriously, do they. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's all about playing gotcha and having insults and building
Speaker 1: on those insults to insult the other side. Well, that
Speaker 1: is their personality, and it tells you something about their integrity,
Speaker 1: And so I would say that these candidates don't have
Speaker 1: any integrity, that this is all just as superficial as
Speaker 1: the McDonald's jobs and the superficial marketing that they're doing
Speaker 1: about their personality, just like all their promises about the
Speaker 1: money that they're going to hand out to targeted voter demographics.
Speaker 1: Maybe they'll do that, maybe they won't. A lot of
Speaker 1: people are going to be very disappointed if they don't
Speaker 1: get this stuff. But you know, this person soays, So
Speaker 1: my recommendation is that we go back to the way
Speaker 1: the founders did it. We got to start with principles
Speaker 1: and then with policies, and then we got to deal
Speaker 1: with the personalities of this stuff. Well, again, you're not
Speaker 1: going to get any of that. If these people don't
Speaker 1: have any integrity, and where is the integrity on our side?
Speaker 1: Don't we have responsibility if we are people of integrity,
Speaker 1: to hold them responsible for what they have done when
Speaker 1: they violate that, or should we just say forget about it.
Speaker 1: I don't really care what he did. I don't care
Speaker 1: that he vacts any people. I don't care they spent
Speaker 1: three and a half trillion dollars. I don't care that
Speaker 1: he did gun control by executive order. None of that
Speaker 1: stuff matters. What's I say about our integrity when we
Speaker 1: do that. If we don't have integrity, we're not going
Speaker 1: to have leaders who have integrity because we're picking those
Speaker 1: people ultimately. And if we don't have the integrity to
Speaker 1: walk away from this stupid pageant, so you can participate
Speaker 1: in if you wish. I'm just saying, don't get caught
Speaker 1: up in it because it's a game and they are
Speaker 1: trolling people in this game. DG eight, thank you for tip,
Speaker 1: says Dave. Please look into the Project Esther from the
Speaker 1: Heritage Foundation. It shreds the First Amendment, and Trump said
Speaker 1: he is for it. Project Esther. I will look that up.
Speaker 1: I know that they were making claims about in one
Speaker 1: of these churches they went into. They're making claims about
Speaker 1: La La being like Esther, you know you picked for
Speaker 1: such a time as this and so forth. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I'll look that up Project Esther. I have not really
Speaker 1: looked that much of the Project twenty five. I know
Speaker 1: that that's become a big thing for the left. And
Speaker 1: you know, Trump has said that he doesn't like Project
Speaker 1: twenty five, but if he bought into Project Ester, I'll
Speaker 1: take a look at it. But I don't think I've
Speaker 1: said I don't think that this is a none of
Speaker 1: these things. I don't, just as I don't think that
Speaker 1: either Trump or La LA is going to do anything
Speaker 1: for fiscal solvency. They're not going to stop spending. They
Speaker 1: don't care about the deficit, and neither of them cares
Speaker 1: at all about the First Amendment, not at all. And
Speaker 1: so you know they're they're doing everything that they can
Speaker 1: to uh, to put out there and to threaten people
Speaker 1: with censorship.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: Jason Barker, I don't know, David six points is a
Speaker 1: difference between brain Dead and AOC. That's good. I like
Speaker 1: that talking about finding an embryo that's got a six
Speaker 1: point IQ. That's a good joke, Jason, for the love
Speaker 1: of the road, thank you for that. Whenever you mentioned
Speaker 1: change Agent always reminds me of Gatica. Yeah, with Ethan Hawk. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the world will probably be like that someday. Eugenics and
Speaker 1: transhumanism are definitely on the New World Order wish list.
Speaker 1: And if you remember the key thing about Gatica, he
Speaker 1: had to pretend that he was somebody else because they
Speaker 1: looked at his genetics and said, no, you're going to
Speaker 1: stay in this job forever, right like Brave New World,
Speaker 1: Plato's Republic and everything. They always want to pigeonhole people. No,
Speaker 1: you're going to be You're an epsilon. We reread you
Speaker 1: for an epslin. We're never going to let you try.
Speaker 1: And so he's like, you know, trying to get other
Speaker 1: people's DNA to pass off as being a different class
Speaker 1: of people that they've engineered than somebody else. I tell you,
Speaker 1: there's just so much that can be done with science
Speaker 1: that is evil, and these people have really hijacked it.
Speaker 1: Matthew Ronson I said thank you for a TIPIC said
Speaker 1: God's blessing David, his family's true friends and associates in
Speaker 1: Jesus's name. Thank you very kindly, Flower Sower, thank you
Speaker 1: very much. It's very kind. Grateful for your dedication, faithfulness
Speaker 1: and proclaiming the good news of our Lord Jesus Christ
Speaker 1: and as generous mercies that helps to counter the negative
Speaker 1: news and the world around us. I don't know what
Speaker 1: I wouldn't be able to do this program, but all
Speaker 1: the bad news in the world if it wasn't for
Speaker 1: the good news, is that contrast between light and darkness
Speaker 1: that each of us needs to be able to see. Well,
Speaker 1: we're going to take a very short break and we're
Speaker 1: going to be right back, and I want to talk
Speaker 1: about the censorship that is now expanding to removing entire
Speaker 1: website very very quickly. We'll be right back.
Speaker 3: H m hm hm.
Speaker 2: You're listening to the David Knight Show.
Speaker 1: Well, we had a news site that was very critical
Speaker 1: of US foreign policy that was hacked and then even
Speaker 1: removed from we Now it kind of appears to be back.
Speaker 1: It's Consortium News. When I went to it yesterday, I
Speaker 1: only saw the a French version of it, not an
Speaker 1: English version of it. That might tell us something about
Speaker 1: who the hackers are. That might be that it is
Speaker 1: the people who are running US foreign policy that they're
Speaker 1: critical of. Is I talked about many times, you know,
Speaker 1: in August of twenty eighteen, August sixth, that was when
Speaker 1: the social media hammer hit on info Wars and all
Speaker 1: of us that worked there. And then within two months
Speaker 1: I talked about this recently the Free Thought Project. Guys,
Speaker 1: within two months, free Thought Project in about eight hundred sites,
Speaker 1: most of them were critical of US foreign policy. Wasn't
Speaker 1: really the Trump sites, but it was all the people
Speaker 1: that were there were against the police state, against the
Speaker 1: surveillance state, usually against US foreign policy. All disappeared real
Speaker 1: quickly from social media. Now you've got Consortium News, which
Speaker 1: has been critical of US forign policy, disappearing from the web.
Speaker 1: That's the next step. But out security state critical US
Speaker 1: news site, Consortium News has been hacked and replaced. So
Speaker 1: this is something goes back to the nineteen eighties. Robert Perry,
Speaker 1: who died in twenty eighteen the age of sixty eight,
Speaker 1: founded it, and he had broken a lot of news
Speaker 1: on Consortium News. I guess this is why ring a bell.
Speaker 1: That's not something that I typically look at. He broke
Speaker 1: a lot of news about the Iran contra. Garbage is
Speaker 1: being done by Bill Casey, the CIA guy running the
Speaker 1: Reagan administration, and they had a lot of very important
Speaker 1: archives there and they deleted it. Now again it's still
Speaker 1: kind of an indeterminate state. Same thing is happening with
Speaker 1: the Wayback Machine. They don't want to have the wayback machine.
Speaker 1: The Internet archive. It's been under attack and there was
Speaker 1: a very valuable source of information. They want to memory
Speaker 1: whole a lot of stuff. And you know it is
Speaker 1: the US government, they say some other hackers too, but
Speaker 1: that the people you look at, who's going to benefit
Speaker 1: from this, who's got the motivation for doing this, who
Speaker 1: has the technical ability to do this. It's been under
Speaker 1: attack for a long time and they've been able to
Speaker 1: shut it down at least to the extent that you
Speaker 1: know some archives are there now, but it was completely
Speaker 1: gone for a few weeks and now it's kind of back,
Speaker 1: but you can't really search. It's not able to do
Speaker 1: new stuff. We just had a listener who was saying,
Speaker 1: take a look at Project Esther, it's anti free speech. Well,
Speaker 1: We don't have to look at that to know what
Speaker 1: Trump and Lala think. There was an article on Reason
Speaker 1: about Trump thinking that news outlets should lose their broadcast
Speaker 1: licenses even when they have none. Well, they do talk
Speaker 1: briefly about Lala, but this is a problem both of
Speaker 1: them have. Look, she comes after Twitter and social media
Speaker 1: because that's what's opposed to her. The rest of the
Speaker 1: mainstream media they like her, so she's going to leave
Speaker 1: them alone. Trump is just the opposite way, they said,
Speaker 1: despite his cluelessness, the former presidence inclination to punish constitutionally
Speaker 1: protected speech reflects as authoritarian disregard for civil liberties, and
Speaker 1: so we know where they stand on these issues. They're
Speaker 1: not going to come out and necessarily say it, but
Speaker 1: in this particular case he did, and it was all
Speaker 1: because of you know, personal vendettas. Last November, he complained
Speaker 1: that MSNBC quote uses free ollipper case, free government approved
Speaker 1: airwaves to execute a twenty four hour hit job on
Speaker 1: Donald J. Trump and the Republican Party for the purposes
Speaker 1: of oliper case election interference. He said, Well, first of all, MSNBC,
Speaker 1: as many people pointed out, was not a broadcast thing,
Speaker 1: so it didn't have involvement with the FCC, But then
Speaker 1: he came after some of these other outlets ABC, CBS
Speaker 1: because he didn't like the way they covered him or
Speaker 1: he didn't like the way they covered La La Harris.
Speaker 1: Now they are part of the FCC. But as Reason
Speaker 1: pointed out, he was doing this when he was president
Speaker 1: in the first term. Nobody wants to talk about how
Speaker 1: he hated the First Amendment in his first term. During
Speaker 1: his first year, as a matter of fact, as president,
Speaker 1: he suggested that NBC in the networks quote unquote should
Speaker 1: lose their licenses because of their partisan, distorted and fake
Speaker 1: news coverage. He said, he said, it's bad for the
Speaker 1: country and it's not fair to the public. Ajut Pie,
Speaker 1: the Republican chair of the FCC at the time, pushed back,
Speaker 1: and he said, the FCC under my leadership, will stand
Speaker 1: for the First Amendment, and under the law, the FCC
Speaker 1: does not have the authority to revoke a license of
Speaker 1: a broadcast station based on the content of a particular newscast.
Speaker 1: You know, there was a thing called the fairness doctrine,
Speaker 1: and they used that to threaten and to intimidate and
Speaker 1: to shut down broadcast stuff and it was a lifting
Speaker 1: of the fairness doctrine that allowed Rush Limbaugh to get
Speaker 1: very big, that allowed all of conservative radio to get
Speaker 1: very big. We want to be able to have freedom
Speaker 1: of ideas and debate and all the rest of this stuff.
Speaker 1: And yet Trump went on with Dan Bongino on the
Speaker 1: October eighteenth program and he said, it's very embarrassing moment
Speaker 1: for them. He said to Dan Bongino, but the media
Speaker 1: is not pressing it. You would think that the media
Speaker 1: would be pressing it. And I go step further, so
Speaker 1: bad that they should lose their license and they should
Speaker 1: take sixty minutes off the air. And of course Dan
Speaker 1: Bongino immediately said, haven't you read the Constitution. Don't you
Speaker 1: know that'd be a violation of our god given rights
Speaker 1: of free speech. No, dan Bongino cheers him on. Dan
Speaker 1: Bongino cheers. He doesn't challenge this guy. He's going to
Speaker 1: lick his boots. That's Dan Bongino. We're talking about a
Speaker 1: news organization doesn't have to be licensed. That is the
Speaker 1: antithesis of free speech. And again he doesn't care about
Speaker 1: that at all. And yet now we got the Democrats,
Speaker 1: just in case you think that they're any different. They
Speaker 1: want to come after social media. They so we've got
Speaker 1: all this misinformation about the hurricane. See the uniparty Democrat
Speaker 1: and Republican hates free speech, they hate the free press,
Speaker 1: they hate you having information. See. Winning has been the
Speaker 1: focus of these people, not principles. That's why it is
Speaker 1: naive to think that we're going to build on principles
Speaker 1: and then policies, and that these people are going to
Speaker 1: have the integrity to put it through. We don't even
Speaker 1: have the integrity to throw them out and reject them
Speaker 1: when they violate our fundamental principles, and that comes back
Speaker 1: to us. Instead, what do we do? We cheer them.
Speaker 1: It's just amazing. It's electionist like being back in twenty twenty. Again,
Speaker 1: thank you for joining us. Have a good day.
Speaker 14: The David Night Show is a critical thinking super spreader.
Speaker 14: If you've been exposed to logic by listening to The
Speaker 14: David Night Show, please do your part and try not
Speaker 14: to spread it. Financial support, or simply tell the others
Speaker 14: about the show causes this dangerous information to spread. Father
Speaker 14: people have to trust me, I mean, trust the science.
Speaker 14: Wear you mask, take your vaccine, don't ask questions.
Speaker 2: Using free speech to free Minds. It's the David Night Show.
Speaker 7: H