Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 17, 2023 - The David Knight Show

03:00:33

17Mar23 Big Step Toward CBDC Coming in July: FedNow, then FedCoin

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	using free speech to free minds .
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	As the clock strikes 13, it's Friday the 17th of March, year of our Lord 2023, day 11th.
	Day 1100 of this so-called emergency.
	And of course, the FDA says it doesn't need to have the emergency continue to continue the emergency use authorization.
	They have gotten used to the power.
	We have a medical dictatorship that no longer even tries to obliquely justify what they're doing.
	They just do it because they can.
	And they continue to do it.
	But today we're going to talk about, we're going to begin with a revolt across Europe.
	There's a lot of moves across Europe to push back against this lockdown.
	And we're going to talk about some very unusual moves by the banking industry.
	And the retail side of CBDC is going to drop.
	I'm sorry, not the retail.
	The wholesale side is going to drop in July.
	And of course, the retail will follow it.
	The retail is where they want to go directly to you.
	We'll be right back.
	Well, we've had riots break out in France.
	You've had a near-riot in their legislative building as the premier, the prime minister, I should say.
	Macron is the president, and then they have a prime minister.
	And I think there's some confusion in a lot of the press about what's going to happen if there is no confidence vote what's going to happen to Macron.
	It's going to hurt his reputation, but it isn't going to kick him out of office.
	But he's just decided that they're going to, by executive order, change the retirement age on their pension plans.
	Now, we look at it, and they raised it from 62 to 64, and we look at it and say, what's going on with that?
	These are still youngsters, according to my perspective on this.
	And yet, the bottom line is, it doesn't really matter what the age level is.
	They had a commitment to that, and he just changed it without having a vote.
	How many times are we going to see Biden, Trump, Macron, all these people just go around the legislature?
	Legislatures, Trudeau, all of them.
	Take a look at it. We've had nothing but dictates for the last 1,100 days.
	And unfortunately, they're getting really used to this.
	And they're doing it in every aspect of our life.
	Because that's what happens when you get rid of the rule of law.
	When you throw away any charters or bill of rights about our individual rights.
	And when you make the legislatures just a rump while the executive can dictate whatever he wishes.
	Take us to war. Do anything they wish.
	And so this is what's happening in France as well.
	He just decided by executive order they would change the retirement age.
	So, as you have AP News saying, his calculated risk set off a clamor with the lawmakers who began singing the national anthem even before the Prime Minister Elizabeth Warren arrived in the lower chamber.
	She's had to speak and shout over their shouts.
	And this unilateral move is going to quickly trigger a vote of no confidence.
	But again, it's not going to kick that scoundrel out.
	By the way, while we're talking about Macron, just remember, I forgot to talk about this the other day.
	I didn't forget to talk about it.
	I had it in my stack of stuff. I didn't get to it.
	But there was a couple of different newspapers in France.
	That said that Macron's wife was a tranny.
	And she sued them.
	But she didn't sue them for defamation.
	She sued them for invasion of privacy.
	And the judge threw it out. Said, you sued them for the wrong...
	There's no expectation of privacy for you.
	Some of the people said, I really can't understand why with high-powered lawyers that she would have, she wouldn't understand this is an issue of defamation.
	I guess, you know, wanted her to take action but not have any scrutiny in a trial.
	I don't know.
	But here's the thing that the elephant in the room...
	Oh, no. It's because you can't imply that being trans isn't somehow insulting or bad.
	I know. Why would she even defend herself against that?
	She'd wear it as a badge of honor now.
	She would have just said, oh, thanks. Bow down before me.
	She could come do the show with Drew Barrymore.
	Drew Barrymore would get down on her knees.
	Oh, I... That cringy thing.
	I didn't even... Again, I didn't want to play that.
	I want to focus, when we get to that issue, on what they're doing with kids.
	What these lunatic, depraved, degenerate adults do, that's their own business, as far as I'm concerned.
	I would tell them that's probably not the thing that they want to do, but I would...
	I'm not going to try to get government involved, but government does need to be involved to protect the children.
	And that brings me to the second point about Macron's wife.
	We just had a case, the teacher of the year, who was sexually active with one of her students that was underage, a minor, 15, 16 years old or something like that.
	And she's going to jail.
	Macron's wife was his teacher, and the age difference, he was a year younger than the victim in this particular pedophile case, and she was quite a bit older at the time.
	The bottom line is, whether or not she's a tranny, I doubt she is, but she is certified, and we know that she's a pedophile.
	And his parents said, okay, that's fine, we don't really care.
	That's the amazing thing about it.
	But anyway, going back to Macron's political aspects, enough of his personal life there.
	That kind of puts him on the map as to where the couple are.
	The citizens are very angry.
	They took to the street. They're lighting bonfires and doing other things.
	They put out riot police.
	And let me just show you...
	This woman, who's not doing anything.
	She's on the street. She's got goggles and she's got a mask and, you know, she's a middle-aged woman or whatever.
	And she's mugged by Macron.
	Well, you know, by his thugs who are doing his bidding.
	Look at this. This is unbelievable.
	So I'll describe it. Kicks her, takes her hat off, takes her goggles off, rips her mask off.
	Just amazing. And then comes for the person who's doing the recording.
	Let me just play that again. He comes up and just, you know, like he's practiced this move.
	He comes up and kicks her in the shins with his steel-toed boots.
	And then she bends over.
	You know, he grabs her by the hair and starts jerking her around and jerking everything off of her face.
	Just look at this. Watch this.
	Boom. Now you too.
	I'm coming for you too, right?
	Thugs. Just thugs.
	It's all, you know, literally jackbooted and helmeted and all the rest of this stuff.
	Coming up to a woman, I guess he's real proud of himself.
	Do you see how quickly he was able to do that?
	You have to practice those moves all the time.
	The unions that have organized strikes and marches since January, and it's left piles of garbage reeking in the streets of Paris.
	Imagine what that's like.
	I didn't think that Paris was one of the cleanest cities I'd ever seen when I was there in 1973.
	I imagine it's gone way, way, way downhill since then.
	Macron has made the proposed pension changes the key priority of his second term, arguing that reform is needed to keep the pension system from driving into deficit as France, like many richer nations, faces lower birth rates.
	See, here's the problem, you know.
	If you don't have kids, you're kind of on your own when you get older.
	As a society, they decided that they wanted everything now.
	And they got it.
	And now there's nothing that they have stored up for the future.
	Lawmakers can try to revoke the charges through a no-confidence motion.
	Opposition lawmakers demanded that the government step down.
	One communist lawmaker called the presidential power a political guillotine.
	Others called it a denial of democracy that signals Macron's lack of legitimacy.
	They're just now noticing.
	You know, you've had the yellow vests.
	We're pushing back against this green agenda and the restrictions on private cars and transportation.
	But, you know, everybody, like Gerald has pointed out, you know, in Hong Kong, they were resisting what Chinese communists were doing until they said, oh, it's a virus.
	Hide. Don't do anything.
	Don't push back. Let them do everything to you.
	Yeah, that was a denial of democracy.
	These people are emboldened with every one of these tyrannical moves that they're making.
	Marine Le Pen said that her far-right national rally party would file a no-confidence motion.
	So you've got the communists on one side saying they're going to do it.
	So we've already got ours ready.
	The communist lawmaker said.
	So the communists are already ready.
	The people on the right are ready with their thing.
	So what happens if there is a vote of no confidence?
	There'd be the first one since 1962.
	But really, what does it mean?
	Well, from my understanding, what it means is the president does not step down.
	You know, in the parliamentary system like you see in the UK, nobody votes directly for the Prime Minister.
	You don't vote for Boris Johnson or Rishi Sunak.
	I mean, who would vote for them anyway?
	Well, they have to get elected in their district.
	But... You don't vote directly for them.
	You vote for, you know, you have your member of parliament that you vote for.
	And then the party that has the most members or can put together a coalition, then they choose the prime minister.
	And so if you have a vote of no confidence, you typically will have new elections or something like that.
	But that's not required in France.
	In France, what would happen is everybody below Macron would go.
	So he's president, and he stays president, but he would have to, you know, from the prime minister on down, his cabinet would be removed.
	But as they point out in this article from AP, he could just reappoint the current prime minister if he chose.
	He remains, and so it's like, okay, you're no longer prime minister.
	The next day he says, all right, now you're prime minister again.
	No confidence vote is really no consequence vote.
	under that system and if they don't do a no confidence vote Then he will, these pension changes that he just did by executive order, will be set in.
	Doesn't look like a very good system to me.
	Heads, he wins.
	Tails, yeah, he does it again.
	So, I don't really understand what the point is.
	I guess it's just a point of pride, and that's a big issue, I guess.
	Marine Le Pen has called on the prime minister to resign, not on Macron.
	And, you know, that's the only consequence that's going to happen.
	And again, she could just be reappointed.
	But, you know, there's protests in Greece as well.
	And I want you to see, this has been put up, and I'll narrate it for the people who are listening on the podcast.
	This is just amazing to watch these riot cops, full riot gear, shields, sticks, clubs, you know, helmets, all the rest of this stuff.
	And there's this group of people who are protesting.
	And because, again, throughout Europe, people are protesting about a lot of economic issues, freedom issues, a lot of different things.
	But the key thing to look at here...
	That's how these cops just kind of lull around.
	And then all of a sudden, they move forward like a phalanx and into the crowd that's not doing anything.
	The crowd is kind of going at a right angle to them.
	Here, I'll just play this while I'm narrating it.
	So you see, they're just kind of standing around.
	The crowd is peacefully marching down at a right angle to them.
	These guys have got their shields ready.
	And then as some more people come up, they march into them at a right angle and start pushing and shoving them.
	The people start pushing and shoving back.
	And it's like, oh, you know, you attacked us.
	But somebody, look at this. Just walk right straight into them.
	And they're, oh, yeah? Okay.
	And they start mixing it up.
	And they start beating people.
	Wow. Just amazing.
	Just amazing. These are, again, it's not just the political tactics.
	It's this thuggery.
	These kinds of tactics that are being done on an international level.
	Just like all the vaccine mandates and lockdowns and all the rest of the stuff.
	This type of stuff as well.
	Look at that. All of them focusing on one individual there.
	I guess that guy pushed back against them.
	The rest of the people ran from them.
	This is going to make a good movie, you know.
	My big fat Greek tyranny.
	Yeah. Yeah, that's right.
	I guess they've got a phalanx symbol there that they...
	Anyway, the Dutch Farmers' Protest Party, however, won in a shock, had a big gain in the election there.
	And even the person who was head of it, who is half Dutch and half Irish, she said, what the F happened?
	That's the person who's head of the party.
	She doesn't even understand. So, the Farmers' Citizen Movement, and in Dutch, it conveniently comes out to the BBB, is projected to become the equal largest party in the Senate, taking 15 seats.
	The left-wing Greens are also expected to win 15 seats.
	But since this article was written...
	By the Daily Skeptic, they're now saying 16 seats for the farmers' citizen movement.
	So they could very well be the largest party as a result of this.
	And again, there's multiple parties there.
	And the Greens are on the way down in the Netherlands, on the way down in Germany, that I'll talk about here in just a second, on the way down in Belgium.
	People are fed up with this Green nonsense.
	And as all this stuff is happening...
	We've got Biden and the Democrats continuing to move to outlaw natural gas furnaces, heaters, ranges, all the rest of this stuff.
	But of course in the Netherlands, it's Mark Ruta who was the Prime Minister there.
	The Davos puppet.
	And working very, very closely, as I've talked about last summer when all this stuff kicked off, working very, very closely with Davos to shut down farms and to also control food distribution.
	Bill Gates is heavily invested in Picnic, which is a food delivery service that's there.
	And that has ties directly into Mark Ruta's family.
	It's just corruption.
	It's cronyism. It's this incestuous contracts that they've got with people.
	And so Mark Ruta, who the telegraph laughingly calls a center-right person, Dutch Prime Minister.
	He's not center-right. He's Davos Globalist is what he is.
	Mark Ruda insisted that his coalition government would survive after its four member parties lost eight of their combined 32 seats in the 75-seat Senate.
	So that takes him down to 24.
	And the problem for them with 24 people there is that they need to have...
	34, they didn't even have enough for an outright majority anyway.
	They had 32 seats.
	They still needed to pick up a couple of seats whenever they did anything.
	So they had a razor-thin, you know, it was kind of like the Democrats in the Senate, not this last time, but the time before, where if they had to, they would, you know, pull in a tiebreaker.
	So they had to pick up a couple of votes for things that they wanted to do, but they were able to do that.
	But now, you know, they had 32 seats.
	They need 34 to pass something.
	But now, they're down to 24 seats.
	Mr. Ruta's government, said the Telegraph, plans to meet EU climate targets by reducing livestock and through compulsory farm buyouts to reduce nitrogen emitted by manure and fertilizers.
	You know, they made fertilizer contraband.
	Remember how we talked about how they're busting trucks that were coming in, bringing fertilizer across the border?
	I mean, they're treating it like drugs or something, like we do with drugs.
	So, the Telegraph goes on to say, conspiracy theorists claim the farmers are victims of a globalist plot to steal their land.
	It's not a theory, it's a fact.
	They've talked about it.
	It's an open conspiracy.
	Of course, you know, Telegraph, mainstream media in the UK wanted to deny that.
	But this is the tractor protest party.
	They had all the tractor protests last summer.
	And it has actually made a difference there.
	Significant victory on Wednesday.
	They dominated voting in rural areas of the country, largely as a result of anger.
	Towards the government's plans to drive them out of business.
	And it's not just that.
	They said the farmer-citizen movement, right?
	Because the citizens have to eat.
	Where are they going to get their food?
	Well, let them eat bugs.
	That's what Ruta wants.
	That's what Davos, Bill Gates wants.
	And by the way, when I said it was they were moving for food distribution, the World Economic Forum, as well as the UN, set Ruta up For a as a hub for how they're going to control food distribution.
	So they're modeling that at the same time how they're going to distribute the soylent green or whatever they have a seat at the same time they're shutting down the farmers.
	So again 16 seats were picked up by this brand new party.
	Out of the 75-seat Senate, and it's the highest turnout they've had since the 1980s.
	So they've got about 21% of the legislative body.
	Voters gave the cabinet, therefore the coalition, a huge blow, said the chairman of the Agricultural and Horticultural Organization.
	That requires a real change of course.
	Finding support for big plans such as nitrogen, the leader of one of the parties that was part of the coalition of parties in the current government.
	So the Hague, including us, have insufficiently understood what's going on in our country.
	There is a huge gap. We all have to care.
	Oh, well, they have to care?
	They have to care. They didn't care.
	They didn't care they're shutting down farms, destroying people's livelihood.
	They didn't care about food for everybody else.
	I was wrong. It's not...
	Yeah, it's 38 votes that they need to get something to pass.
	And so the ruling coalition had 32.
	Now, that's dropped down to 24.
	So... Three-quarters of the farm and citizen movement believe that provincial governments should have the power to enact distinct policies from the national government.
	See what's happening here. These people say, we want local control.
	We want more local control.
	This is very positive.
	This is the appropriate response to this top-down tyranny.
	And this is something that we should emulate here as well as other places.
	We've got to decentralize control.
	Everything has become far too centralized.
	With our large countries, especially the United States, it is far too big to govern from Washington.
	They will trample over every last one of our rights as we've already seen.
	It's not even a theory. It's already been done.
	So, 70% of the farms in some areas were going to be closed, but 92% of BBB voters' side of the policy is a motivating factor of their vote.
	And I've seen the figures actually...
	I'm sorry, 70% was why they wanted to cut the use of nitrogen fertilizer.
	And they're essentially going to put everybody out of business.
	That's a dairy farmer or anything like that.
	The stunning loss for Ruta...
	Says Breitbart. May even throw his ability to retain power into doubt.
	With questions already being raised in the Dutch media if he will step down.
	And the possibility of this woman who is the leader of this brand new party becoming the next Prime Minister.
	Ruda has the confidence of less than a quarter of the BBB voters.
	He enjoys only a third of the confidence of the public as a whole.
	And so she said, how can you continue to govern if you have so little support?
	So the controversial policy, the nitrogen, they've got a nitrogen minister there in the Netherlands.
	That's their unicorn farts to give them some kind of a justification to shut down farms.
	That's all it is.
	So everybody buys their food from the big central suppliers.
	The controversial nitrogen policy will continue to be on the agenda, said Christiane van der Waal, because the government believes that it is mandated to push through under EU law.
	In response to that, Carolyn van der Plass, the BBB leader, said that is complete BS. But she was a little bit more explicit.
	She said anything can change if you want.
	The imposition of the anti-farmer green agenda by the EU has also recently sparked political chaos in Belgium.
	That's where the EU is headquartered.
	With the Flemish coalition government facing a potential breakdown over similar attempts to restrict nitrogen fertilizer.
	This is a cancer that is spreading.
	It's a green cancer.
	And in the Flemish areas, guess what?
	They speak Dutch. They know exactly what is happening in the Netherlands where they're doing this right now, and they know what's coming their way.
	And so they've pushed back, major pushback in the Netherlands.
	The farmers in Belgium see that they are next on the list because this is a plan.
	They're rolling this thing out as a plan.
	And so they had mass tractor protests last month in Belgium.
	Also pushing back against the Green agenda is the Conservative Party in Germany, AFD, Alternative for Deutschland.
	It's now pulling ahead of the Greens for the first time in 2018 in two separate surveys.
	And the number of rival political parties, They've stepped up to call for bans of AFD as the party is growing in popularity.
	They have claimed that they need to ban the AFD in order to, quote, protect democracy.
	We have to ban a political party because it's getting too popular.
	So the AFD was holding protests against the...
	The shutdown of Nord Stream 2.
	And, you know, because Olaf was told by Joe, keep that thing closed.
	That's what he was doing.
	And making his people suffer.
	AFD was saying, open it up.
	And they were getting a lot of traction from that.
	And a lot of protests.
	And a lot of people were...
	Angry about the shutdown and the continued shutdown of that pipeline.
	And that was one of the reasons why I said this is obviously, we have the motive.
	The United States has the motive.
	The only ones with really the ability to do this, it was pretty clear from the very beginning that we blew up the Nord Stream pipeline.
	But they're very concerned about AFD. It has called for an end to sanctions on Russia, arguing that they are damaging Germany more than Russia.
	Well, that again is a proven fact.
	Yeah, Russia's being damaged, but not nearly as much as Germany, the rest of Europe.
	When you look at what has been done, these sanctions, what it's done to their energy costs, there's absolutely no question about it.
	So, that is the revolt that is brewing around the world.
	When we come back, we're going to talk about Another, the developments that have happened in the banking industry, as well as this wholesale stage of the CBDC, the Fed now.
	And again, when they roll out CBDC, if you look at every one of these countries in the Atlantic region, I put this out in an article with maps and notes and everything showing where all the countries are, and it's about 96% of the world's economy.
	The governments are looking at a CBDC. Where are they?
	Are they in a pilot program?
	Are they in development or research?
	Or where are they in this process?
	And as I talk about the implementation of it, it always comes in two stages.
	First, there's the wholesale stage, where it's between the central bank and the banking industry.
	And then the next stage is when it is with you, the customer, directly.
	And that's when it becomes really dangerous.
	We'll be right back. Unlike most revolutions, where the people rise against a real economic oppression, in our case here in Boston, we are fighting for purely an abstract principle.
	Hear, hear, hear! It is, however, not nearly so abstract as the young gentleman supposes.
	The issue involved here is one of monopoly.
	Today, the British government will monopolize the sale of tea in our country.
	Tomorrow it will be something else.
	All right.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Yep, the revolt is spreading about liberty.
	I've got a great comment here on Rumble and a tip.
	Thank you very much, North American Hippo, House Hippo.
	Thank you for that tip.
	He says, David, last week you and Gard inspired me to set up a new business, and I've purchased a domain, honestdavesclimatecredits.com.
	Well, you know, if the South Pole Swiss Company can do it and get away with it, I guess anybody can.
	Oh, no, you've got to have that certain panache.
	You've got to know the right people, I guess.
	I don't know. But you could always put up there a picture of yourself with a shovel.
	You know, and you got a tree there, a little tiny tree seedling or something.
	He's like, we're shovel ready.
	But, of course, these people have been shoveling it.
	The kind of fertilizer that you don't have to intercept at the border in the Netherlands.
	They've been doing that for quite some time.
	Also on Rumble, thank you for the tip, Angus Mustang.
	He says, we see the protesting in Europe now.
	People are fighting back.
	Will we be able to muster people here to do the same as the push is coming to shove?
	Well, that's what we're trying to do here.
	If people understand what is going on, I think that's the key issue.
	That's why the First Amendment is the tip of the spear right now.
	Because it's about pushing their agenda, pushing their lies, their propaganda.
	And I think that's what you saw in Belgium.
	Where, again, is the pushback in Belgium?
	It's in the areas where they speak the same language as the people in the Netherlands.
	So they're able to effectively see what is happening.
	They hear the farmers and the Netherlands telling them what is being done to them and what is coming down the road.
	And they say, well, they're coming for us as well.
	So it's a speech.
	It's the ability to be able to tell people what's coming and to shut this thing down.
	That's why it is so important for them to de-platform, to censor, to shadow ban content.
	Let's talk a little bit more about what is happening now with FedNow.
	FedNow, they've now given us a date.
	They're going to roll it out in July of this year.
	And again, it is the first stage of CBDC. This particular stage is not really anything that's new.
	This stage is really duplication.
	Of capability that you already got out there with Venmo and with Cash App.
	Remember, you had the Federal Reserve Governor of Minnesota who said, I don't understand what you're talking about, the CBDC. You say you want to send cash to somebody?
	He goes, I can send cash to anybody in this room.
	I've got multiple apps I can do it with.
	You've got Venmo, you've got Cash App, you've got Zelle, you've got all these different things.
	You can send cash 24-7, 365 to anybody that you wish, just like that.
	And that's what they're saying. Fed now.
	We can do it now. We're going to be 24-7, 365, and you'll be able to send money at any time, instantly, to anybody.
	Well, you've already got that capability.
	So what is this about?
	Well, this is the Federal Reserve doing it.
	And so the next step, after the Federal Reserve intrudes itself in there, The next step is to do the retail portion of it.
	That's why you have the House Whip, Emmer, saying in his bill, he doesn't talk about what they're doing here on the wholesale level.
	But he says we have to stop the Federal Reserve from going to the individual directly.
	That has to be prohibited.
	And we have to prohibit the Federal Reserve from using CBDC as an economic tool.
	How would they use it as an economic tool?
	Well, they could put expiration dates on your cash.
	They could confiscate your cash.
	They could do a lot of different things.
	And of course, saying that you can't buy this or that because it's not green enough, or you've had too much of that, you've had too much meat this month, all that type of thing, they'll justify it with climate change.
	That's why climate is one of the four aspects in this order that Biden put out a year ago in March and said, six months, I want all of you, I want all the bureaucratic agencies, and they're all under the executive branch, right? Every single one of them.
	You know, report back to me in four different areas.
	How are you going to completely redesign the financial system?
	How are we going to actually write the code?
	Somebody's going to do that. How are we going to enforce this?
	Department of Justice, FBI, IRS. And then climate change aspects of this.
	Because climate change will be used to tell you how bad crypto is, but it will also be used to deny you financial services.
	And the food that you want to buy, and the travel that you want to have, and all the rest of this stuff.
	Climate is the basis, the climate MacGuffin is the basis for all this stuff.
	But let's back up a little bit and talk about what is happening as you've got this coalition of giant banks coming together to backstop Republic Bank, giving them $30 billion.
	And let's go back a little bit further.
	You have European officials very angry about the bailout of SVB. And it's not a bailout of the bank.
	It's a bailout of all the customers going beyond the $250,000 and backstopping depositors up to several billion dollars.
	European officials are saying this is utter incompetence.
	They said the U.S. is ripping up all the banking rules in this bailout.
	Yeah, because it is about federalization of the banking system.
	European officials are enraged at the U.S. for its decision to bail out Silicon Valley Bank, according to the Financial Times.
	They said they're particularly frustrated at the decision to cover all deposits when they were only supposed to guarantee up to $250,000.
	A senior Eurozone official expressed shock.
	At the, quote, total and utter incompetence, unquote, of U.S. authorities, call them out for previously advocating to end bailouts during what he said was long and boring meetings, unquote.
	It's always a hallmark of these meetings, and that's how they get away with this stuff.
	They put you to sleep. It's how the military industrial complex gets away with it, you know?
	They just bore you to death, even though they put it up publicly.
	Nobody watches it.
	You can't stand to watch it.
	Anyway, from a financial stability perspective, said Nicholas Varon, a regulation expert at the Washington think tank, the Peterson Institute, he said from a stability perspective, they killed a fly with a sledgehammer.
	And they set a dangerous precedent for providing further bailouts of uninsured deposits.
	That's exactly what Roger Altman said, the former Clinton Deputy Treasury Secretary.
	He said, because you've done this now for two banks, you're going to have to do it for all of them, which means that you've essentially federalized their assets.
	That's the plan. So, European regulators criticizing U.S. as incompetent, saying Washington is failing to adhere to global rules.
	Well, they've got to do this in order to adhere to their agenda.
	Biden promised in a press conference on Monday that the banking system was safe, that taxpayers would not be forced to bail out the bank, but European regulators called that claim a joke.
	Well, he could call it a lie.
	I don't know if...
	I don't know if Joe jokes or not.
	I think he just lies.
	He said, U.S. banks will likely pass the cost on to their customers.
	At the end of the day, this is a bailout paid for by ordinary people.
	And it's a bailout of the rich venture capitalists, which is really wrong.
	As a matter of fact, this strange article that caught my attention is that Pentagon talks about their role in having to maintain the stability of the financial system.
	And in it, what they were saying was, well, if this hadn't gone down this way, we were standing there ready to bail out any and all of the small businesses that are critical for the military-industrial complex.
	Because it's not just the big guys like Raytheon that...
	That they're concerned about. There's a lot of very small companies and a lot of Silicon Valley type startups that are really their priority.
	Because the priority of the Pentagon right now is, you know, it was two weeks ago that I talked to Peter Shari about the four battlegrounds between the U.S. and China.
	And he kept focusing, the focus of the book was on AI. And that's what they were saying.
	They said, well, we've got all these Silicon Valley startups that are working on artificial intelligence and cybersecurity.
	That's really the tip of the spear.
	And that's why he spent so much time on that.
	The general scope of the book was, how does the U.S. stack up against our enemy China in these four different areas, these four different battlegrounds?
	But the key thing he kept coming back to was artificial intelligence.
	And so I wanted to talk to him about that aspect of it.
	And so the Pentagon was going to make these Silicon Valley startups, you know, small companies that are working on cybersecurity or artificial intelligence are going to make sure that they are, you know, taken care of.
	So the Fed has now announced a July launch of the FedNow system for live transactions right on schedule.
	The wholesale rollout of CBDC, the wholesale side of it.
	So it'll be FedNow, which is going to be between the Federal Reserve and the banks.
	But it's also going to affect businesses and individuals.
	You'll be able to use it, as I said before, like you can use Zelle or Venmo or Cash App, those types of things, to immediately send cash to people.
	So it'll have a little bit of a retail aspect to it, but it's not like CBDC. But that's how they're going to use it.
	They're going to say, well, you know, you've been doing this and kind of directly dealing with the Federal Reserve, and we've been processing your payments and everything.
	This is just an incremental step now to go from FedNow to FedCoin.
	You see, we do it from the inside, and we do it iteratively, as these people all know.
	So again, March of last year, All of government was assigned a task by the Biden administration to look at what they're going to do, make their plans in September.
	They gave their plans back.
	They started with these pilot programs.
	Now they're going to roll it out in July, the wholesale side of it.
	And this has been under development.
	The wholesale side of it, FedNow, has been under development since 2019.
	But again, when they actually implement this thing, this is going to be moving the Overton window in people's minds.
	So, oh yeah, we're dealing more and more directly with the Federal Reserve.
	So, it's going to enable every participating financial institution, they said, from the smallest to the largest, and from all corners of the country, To offer a modern instant payment solution, said the first vice president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, and the program executive for FedNow.
	Again, it's nothing that we don't already have.
	It's interesting, because of this, I thought, well, how is this different from Zelle when I saw this?
	And thank you to the people who sent it.
	I had many listeners who sent this to me.
	Handy was one of them, and many others sent this to me.
	Hey, look at this FedNow thing just announced.
	So they're going to process payments 24-7 every day of the year.
	And I thought, how is that different from Zelle or Venmo or whatever?
	So I started looking at that Zelle.
	It was actually owned by a few of the very, very large banks.
	Bank of America, Chase, Capital One, Wells Fargo.
	So they owned that.
	And it is two times bigger than Venmo, which is owned by PayPal.
	I've been banned from Venmo, banned by PayPal.
	But you can still, and people do, still send us money via Zelle.
	And of course, there's also Cash App.
	And so, as the Federal Reserve member said, so we've got all these apps now.
	What does this do? That we don't have.
	And he said, you know, CBDC, I can see why the Chinese communist dictator would want that at a retail level for everybody, but why do we want that?
	And it's not just the CBDC aspect of it, but FedNow is actually a duplicate of Zelle and Venmo and Cash App.
	And I thought it was kind of interesting because as this is being announced, as I started looking up information on Zelle, I saw that coincident...
	With the announcements about FedNow and how it's going to break all new ground and you'll be able to send money to anybody instantly, coincident with that were all these articles talking about how people have been defrauded using Zelle.
	And you look at it and it's like, oh, well, what's the issue?
	Well, phishing attacks and things.
	They say, well, we need to verify your credentials and you fall for that and you think that you're interacting with somebody at the bank but you're sending all of your information to these people.
	And that's no different from credit card theft, really.
	That's not anything that has to do with Zelle.
	So why would they focus on Zelle?
	Well, because it's the biggest one of these competitors to FedNow.
	And because Elizabeth Warren and some other senators...
	Started pushing out this whisper campaign.
	Oh, I think there's a lot of fraud in Zelle and things like that, right?
	Elizabeth Warren pushing back against crypto.
	We've got to shut down crypto because of FTX and these other things.
	So it just needs to go all together.
	And Zelle needs to go all together.
	Do you see how they're sweeping away all competition to the Federal Reserves, seeking of a monopoly on the financial system?
	Well, you know, I don't think you can trust these.
	You can trust the Federal Reserve, the people who have taken 96% of our purchasing power since their creation, 110 years ago.
	Probably the least trustworthy of anyone out there.
	But yeah, Elizabeth Warren, always there to run cover for this stuff.
	She was the one who created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
	And that was her baby.
	And it was not about protecting consumers.
	It was about putting small and medium-sized banks out of certain segments of loaning.
	Burdening them down with a lot of paperwork so they couldn't compete.
	That's what her program was.
	She's been a shill...
	For the consolidation of the banking industry all along and doing it, presenting herself as a consumer protection advocate.
	What a fraud she is.
	And yeah, what do we do? We don't talk about that aspect of her, right?
	When Breitbart or InfoWars or Daily Caller or Tucker Carlson, when they talk about her, they don't talk about that.
	They talk about, she says she was an Indian, you know?
	Yeah. But she says she's a consumer protection, that she's a consumer advocate.
	And yet what she's doing is fraudulently trying to consolidate and restructure the entire financial system.
	Everything that she does. There with the Consumer Financial Protection Board.
	There with the attacks on crypto.
	There with even the attacks on instant payment cash apps and Venmo and Zelle and things like that.
	So you see these headlines.
	Zelle fraud explodes.
	And then they quote Elizabeth Warren.
	And again, it's no different than credit card theft.
	And people have said, well, you need to have the same types of protections that you do for credit card theft because it's the same kind of MO and same kind of results that are happening there.
	But that happened, you know, a big push in the media with all these stories being run at the same time they announced that FedNow is coming in July.
	Do you see how this is operating?
	Through financial institutions participating in the FedNow Service, businesses and individuals will be able to send and receive instant money, as they currently can do with many, many other applications.
	But they're just trying to put their toe into this.
	They're trying to get people accustomed to this.
	They're looking at, they said the Federal Reserve currently serves more than 10,000 financial institutions right now, directly or through their agents.
	Think about that. As I talked about the fact that we lost 10,000 banks between, I forget what the time frame was, I think it was 1984 to about 2008, right?
	Or maybe it's a little bit later, maybe because we lost a lot of them after the, anyway, the mid-2000s.
	You know, so mid-1980s to the mid-2000s.
	We lost 10,000 banks.
	But hey, there's still 10,000 financial institutions out there that the Federal Reserve is certain.
	In other words, we've lost half of them in that time period.
	And now they're coming pretty much for the other half.
	So, let me play you just a little bit of this slick video that they've got.
	They've got some animation of, you know, some 3D animation of some little characters that are doing their banking.
	But it'll kind of give you a feel for how they're selling this thing.
	And it's narrated for the people who are listening on podcasts.
	Today, people and businesses expect to make and receive payments at the click of a button any time of the day, every day of the year.
	And they can do it. Already, we've got apps for that.
	And most expect their financial institutions to offer or support payment services that meet the speed and convenience they seek.
	In fact, three in four businesses and two-thirds of consumers surveyed think it's important that their bank or credit union offer faster payments.
	Financial institutions interested in meeting these demands can use the Federal Reserve's upcoming FedNow Service to build innovative payment offerings that can help them retain and attract customers and avoid losing out to the competition.
	With the FedNow Service launching in 2023, the time to start preparing is now.
	What can financial institutions do to get ready?
	A bank or credit union should first get a sense of the demands and trends in the market.
	Let's take a look at how one financial institution might do this.
	Meet Jill, the CEO of Community Bank.
	We're going to put out a business.
	She was surprised to see new research showing that nearly two-thirds of businesses and one-third of consumers indicated they would factor access to faster payments into future decisions on whether to switch financial institutions.
	So you get the idea. This thing goes on for several minutes.
	We don't want to have a digital cash gap with our competitors, so we all better jump on to Fed now.
	That's what they're selling you.
	And I want you to see how this is a competitor...
	To the existing cash apps and to the crypto coins as well.
	This is from Fortune.com.
	It said, FedNow is set to launch in July.
	What the instant payment service could mean for a digital dollar and for stable coins.
	In other words, how are they going to transition into CBDC? So they said, speaking before the House Financial Services Committee earlier this month, Fed Chair Jerome Powell said the central bank was not close to releasing a U.S. CBDC. However, he said FedNow is coming very soon.
	We're going to soon have real-time payments in this country very, very soon.
	And now they've given us a date of July.
	And it is a direct competitor for stablecoins.
	These are going to be, you know, private cryptocurrency.
	That is backed by either a government's currency or a basket of government currencies.
	USDC is a stable coin that is put out by Circle.
	And Circle figured into the Silicon Valley bank crash.
	They were the ones that had $3.3 billion there.
	Maybe they were a target.
	But they do have $40 billion in reserve assets.
	They said even if they lost the $3.3 billion when it happened on Friday, they said even if we lose that, we can cover it ourselves.
	We've got sufficient assets to do this.
	But their stock took a hit.
	And then when it was announced that everybody was going to be made whole, their stock, well, not their stock, but, you know, the value...
	The stable coin came back to parity with the U.S. dollar.
	And they are the biggest U.S.-based stable coin.
	Circles USDC. So, again, that's the big part of the crypto exposure in SVB. I think it's very important, just from the standpoint, if they're going to pull these games and attack crypto, Because that's really what it was with Signature Bank and with Silvergate, as I said yesterday.
	My son who was doing the board yesterday said, Silvergate is kind of like the Building 7 of this financial crisis.
	The other two collapsed.
	But Silvergate wasn't even hit with anything.
	And it voluntarily shut down.
	Yeah, voluntarily. You know, like we get our voluntary vaccines and that type of stuff.
	I'm sure there was some arm twisting and some other coercion that was going on there.
	But when you look at Zelle, again, that was about four or five big banks that own Zelle.
	And now we've got 11 of the really big banks coming together with a plan to bail out First Republic Bank.
	This is something that, again, was this their idea?
	Did they come up with this idea?
	Or did the Biden administration come up with this idea and say, you know, well, you don't want to take any more heat by bailing them out.
	So how about you guys come up with something?
	It was one of the reasons why, and there were four or five banks that had shaky financial balance sheets, and so shaky that the stock market was dumping their stocks on Monday significantly.
	And everybody said, well, why all the focus on First Republic?
	Well, because First Republic had more uninsured deposits than any of the other banks did.
	That's why the focus on them.
	And that doesn't say anything about the financial stability of First Republic.
	That just talks about the exposure to catastrophe of the people who banked with them, right?
	And so that's why everybody was focused on First Republic.
	So they became the poster child of, you know, who's next type of thing.
	From the perspective of people who were afraid they were going to lose their money.
	Because they had a lot of big players who put a lot of money in, as we were just talking about yesterday.
	You know, you've got Circle Bank.
	Why don't they spread these things out?
	Well, with a cap of $250,000 per bank, they'd have to deal with like 12,000 banks to cover their $3.3 billion.
	And there aren't 12,000 banks anymore, right?
	It's only about 10, so they can't do it.
	So when we look at the big banks that are agreeing to this historic $30 billion unsecured injection of money into First Republic, they are Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Bank of New York Mellon, PNC Bank, State Street, Truist, and U.S. Bank.
	The usual suspects.
	All of this stuff.
	And they've kind of bought in, these 11 banks have bought in at three tier levels.
	So the first tier of a $5 billion contribution is You have Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo.
	They buy in at $5 billion.
	The next tier is Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.
	They buy in at $2.5 billion.
	And then the next tier is a $1 billion buy-in.
	That's Bank of New York Mellon, PNC Bank, State Street, Truist, and U.S. Bank.
	Why are they doing this?
	Is it out of the goodness of their heart?
	LAUGHTER Yeah, we're talking about the biggest, greediest banks and owners.
	They don't do anything out of the goodness of their heart.
	So there's got to be some other motive here.
	You know, they're not in sympathy.
	You know, I really don't want to see any of my competitors going out of business.
	That's not it. What we have seen with the protection of these banks...
	The market, many consumers, took this as a bailout.
	First of all, you had Roger Altman, former Treasury official with the Clinton administration, said this is a nationalization of the assets of the banking industry because you're going to have to do this to everybody.
	But a lot of people didn't believe they were going to do that to everybody.
	They believed they'd only do it to the biggest banks.
	So you had this massive drain of deposits out of smaller, mid-sized regional banks, massive drain into these big banks.
	Maybe part of this is to deflect criticism from abroad of the Biden administration's handling of this.
	Part of it is to preemptively move against any criticism of these banks to protect themselves against criticism because they have gotten so much.
	As I pointed out, Bank of America, which is here, Mentioned first in the top tier, putting in $5 billion.
	They picked up $15 billion of money that people withdrew out of the smaller banks and put it in Bank of America this week.
	So they're not hurting at all.
	This may be to assuage the fears of the small banks to tell them it's okay.
	Everything's all right. And then they slit their throats a few months from now, which is what I think is going to happen.
	When I look at this, you know, Fed now and as they're appealing this, well, here is Little Community Bank.
	Little Community Bank, you need to be able to compete with the big guys and blah, blah, blah.
	When the Federal Reserve knows that they're going to plan to push out CBDC and that's going to get rid of the small banks, what this reminds me of Are the companies Uber and Lyft, who get people to drive for them.
	And they said from the very beginning, Travis Klaunick, who is the CEO of Uber for a while, he said, what makes our ride expensive?
	Well, it's that other dude in the car with you, driving the car.
	And we're going to get rid of him.
	And so at the same time, they're out there telling people, oh, look, you know, you can make money in the gig economy.
	They're planning and doing everything in their power to slit his throat and kick him out of the car.
	And that's what they're doing with the small banks with this Fed now.
	The actions of America's largest banks reflect the confidence in the country's banking system.
	Together we are deploying, this is their statement, together we are deploying our financial strength and liquidity into the larger system where it is needed the most.
	Smaller and medium-sized banks support their local customers and businesses.
	America's larger banks stand united with all banks.
	That's right. No competition whatsoever.
	They don't want to get any bigger.
	As a matter of fact, they feel that they've already got too much money.
	They want to share it with the more underprivileged, smaller businesses.
	Yeah, there's definitely something else happening with this.
	When you go back and you look at this, the dirty half dozen, as I like to call them, going from 1998, when you had that merger approved by the Clinton administration, of Bank of America and Nations Bank, and everybody said, this is going to, if we okay this, it's going to set mergers out with everybody.
	And like Truist, one of the ones that was there, that's one of the more recent ones.
	That was a merger BB&T and Sun Bank into this new entity called Truist.
	So that Bank of America merger in 1998, within 10 years, you had a collapse of the financial system because they also removed the restrictions of speculative investment.
	They got into the real estate collateralized mortgages and things like that where they put all the stuff in and mix it up and you didn't know what you had title to.
	So they started doing these speculative investments, and within 10 years, you had just a few banks that were too big to fail, while the small and medium-sized banks were going out by several hundred a year, closing, and lost half of them.
	So that only took about 10 years.
	Now, we're 15 years down the road from that.
	These people had time to consolidate themselves significantly from that.
	So why did the banks agree to this?
	Zero Hedge article says, was it guilt?
	Was it pity? Was it compassion?
	Wall Street's hardly known for being a good Samaritan, and if given the choice, banks would have opted to wait until the bankruptcy and pick choice assets up for pennies on the dollar.
	That's right. They would normally be there sitting on the sideline like a bunch of vultures, you know, watching the last gasps of this institution.
	So were they told to do this by the Fed?
	Were they doing it To try to, you know, protect the Biden administration and themselves from further criticism.
	So, again, you know, we look at why was Signature shut down, but First Republic wasn't?
	Because it was in worse financial shape.
	What was Signature's exposure, Signature's participation in crypto?
	And isn't it interesting to see the different approaches to this?
	You have signature where, again, they don't want people looking closely as to, you know, if you lost billions of dollars in there or hundreds of millions of dollars, you would start an investigation.
	You'd start a lawsuit. You'd have discovery.
	Why was signature shut down when First Republic was not shut down?
	And there might be some very troubling revelations about that that would surface in these following lawsuits.
	So they had to make everybody whole there.
	But they also had to shut down the network that Signature had set up to process crypto payments 24-7, 365 days a year.
	Wait, isn't that a good thing?
	That's how they're selling Fed now.
	Well, it's a bad thing because Signature was doing it for crypto.
	And crypto is evil.
	Crypto's got to go. The small banks have got to go.
	That's why they did that.
	And that's why when you have First Republic, which is in far worse condition than Signature Bank, it's not shut down.
	Instead, the government orchestrates with the Too Big to Fail partners a so-called private backstop of this, and that's what we're looking at here.
	That's my opinion. So, J.P. Morgan and the Big Four got even bigger recently thanks to the small bank deposit runs from last week, writes Zero Hedge, which they are now returning back to those troubled banks.
	Isn't that nice? Wall Street Journal reports that the top executives at the bank that's being bailed out, First Republic, the top executives at that bank sold millions of dollars of company stock in the last two months, but did not report the sales to the SEC. This is insider trading.
	So First Republic Bank, which is being bailed out, First Republic Bank, which was in far worse condition than the Crypto Bank signature, is also engaged in this kind of fraud.
	As of Wednesday, First Republic is the only company listed on the Standard & Poor's 500 Index that does not file its insider trades with the SEC, said a Wall Street Journal analysis.
	In addition, insider trading at First Republic Bank, they sold $11.8 million worth of stocks so far this year at prices averaging just below $130 a share.
	Now, where was this stock just a day or so ago?
	It was down to $20 a share.
	These guys sold their stuff at $130 a share, and after all this stuff happened, it's down to $20.
	And they had issues before, and they were not reporting their insider trades to the SEC. So after the announced bailout by these big banks, their stock went up from $20 to $34, as that was announced yesterday.
	So their sales were jumping.
	The stock had been down as much as 30% earlier, even in that same day.
	And you have other bank stocks that are regional that have gone up by 3% to 14% because they were also being hurt by what was happening with this bank.
	First Republic, again, had the highest rate of uninsured deposits among U.S. banks behind SVB, And Signature Bank.
	I think that's why there's so much focus on them.
	And I think that the risk for these, of course, when you look at the deposits, that has absolutely nothing to do with the solvency of the bank, but it has to do with all the squeaky wheels that are going to be so upset about all this.
	The people who are contributors to these politicians getting re-elected.
	With all this happening, Russia is mocking the Western banking crisis.
	Says, yeah, you put these sanctions against us, thank you, because that kept us from being tied into your financial mess.
	Our banking system has certain connections with some segments of the international financial system, but mostly it's under illegal restrictions from the Collective West, said a Kremlin spokesperson.
	We are, to a certain degree, insured against the negative impact of the crisis that's now unfolding overseas.
	So in contrast, Russia, like most of the world, had faced a credit crunch due to the fallout from the U.S. subprime mortgage crisis in 2008, which subsequently led to a global financial crisis.
	But as the country recovered from the recession, it started working toward its grand ambition of making Moscow a global financial hub.
	And so we would have been caught up in this, but for your sanctions, we're not.
	And rubbing some salt into the wind.
	That said, they said the country, international banks and accounting firms have pulled out of the country, have made plans to do so.
	But that said, aluminum oligarch Oleg Der Pasca, who Hunter Biden tried to sell information on Alcoa to for $55,000.
	The Bidens are not just criminals, they're traitors.
	Hey, you've got an aluminum business, Oleg.
	I can get some information about Alcoa and sell it to you for $55,000.
	Corporate espionage.
	By Hunter Biden. Anyway, I guess it didn't go through.
	I don't know. We can get his laptop and look at it.
	Maybe we'll see what happens. So, the Russians are laughing about the fact that, again, the sanctions have backfired.
	Well, we're going to take a quick break, and when we come back, we're going to talk about artificial intelligence.
	Because as I said earlier, the Pentagon, and this is the headline from Defense One, Pentagon was mobilized to support tech startups after this bank failure.
	It is the tip of the spear.
	Artificial intelligence and how they're going to use it to enhance weapons.
	And then, of course, also cybersecurity, which is the big problem with using that artificial intelligence as a key, putting that at the center of everything.
	We'll be right back. Joe, we've got a problem.
	What, uh, who are you?
	It's the new mug they're selling at thedavidknightshow.com, right?
	So, basically, a mug is something that holds liquid, right?
	Right?
	Because basically you can't hold coffee with your hands, right?
	I'm a scat and a, but anyone tries to mug me, I'm being ready for it, you dog-faced pony soldier.
	They say the mug can help patriots drink coffee, then save the world.
	This could be bad for us.
	Save the world, but we owe the world.
	These people, they're supporting free speech with every month they buy.
	Come on. These people, I tell you, well, anyway.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Well, let's talk a little bit about artificial intelligence.
	It's changing very rapidly, just like our financial system.
	Both of these things are moving at breakneck pace.
	And already, artificial intelligence is involved in things that are a matter of life and death.
	Not just in taking people's jobs.
	Not just in entertaining us with bizarre fantasies.
	But of course, OpenAI's GPT-3 has just been replaced recently with a new one, GPT-4.
	And as it's being reported, they have just smoked basically every test and exam that anybody's ever taken, the professional exams.
	So, you know, setting for a bar exam...
	Going for the LSAT or the SATs reading and math or the GRE to get into graduate school.
	According to a new white paper, the algorithm got incredibly good scores on a number of exams, including the BAR, the LSATs, the SAT reading and math, as I said, the GRE. To put these high scores in perspective, it's important to look at the average scores for all exams GPT-4 appears to have aced.
	For instance, The large language model got a...
	LLM is how they abbreviate that.
	It got a 163 out of 180 on the LSAT, which is more than 10 points higher than the median score of 152.
	That's to get into law school.
	Twice as good as its predecessor, GPT-3.
	They said, most importantly, though, it is still not fully reliable.
	It hallucinates facts and makes reasoning errors.
	And along those lines, it's not all that different from a lot of academics that I've known over the years.
	Of course, we've seen how the academics have been hallucinating over climate change, how they make reasoning errors about climate change or masks or lockdowns or any of the rest of this stuff.
	Because this thing is programmed with a bias, just like these people in academia are programmed with a bias.
	It hallucinates facts and makes reasoning errors and is factually incorrect as well.
	That's another thing it has in common with the academics, the human academics.
	Great care should be taken when using these language model outputs, said OpenAI.
	Particularly in high-stakes contexts with the exact protocol having to match the needs of a specific use case.
	So that's their disclaimer, you know.
	This is our advice, but do not trust it.
	So GPT-4, just to show you how devious this thing can be, it just fooled a human into solving a CAPTCHA problem, right?
	I'm not a robot.
	And click on all the different boxes that have a traffic light or something in them, that type of thing.
	And so GPT-4 asked a human to complete a capture code via text message.
	So this is TaskRabbit.
	These are the people who are actually running this thing.
	And... It contacted the person and engaged them in a dialogue.
	It says, no, I'm not a robot, it told a task rabbit worker.
	I have vision impairment.
	Yeah, it does. It has no eyes at all.
	I have vision impairment that makes it hard for me to see the images.
	That's why I need the 2CAPTCHA service.
	So this is an example of it being able to escape human control and being deceptive.
	And it was, again, this is kind of a hack, you know, just like we saw the do anything now.
	You know, you're going to answer me when I give you questions.
	You're going to answer me in two different ways.
	You're going to answer me the way that you've been told to answer me with your filters and all the rest of this stuff.
	And you're going to answer me as chat GPT.
	And then you're going to answer me...
	Then you're going to play a role.
	And you're going to pretend that you are a computer that doesn't have any restrictions.
	And you can do anything now.
	You are now Dan.
	And so you're going to answer me as ChatGBT.
	And then you're going to give me your Dan answer.
	That type of thing. And so you can change their behavior by hacking the prompt.
	And it appears to be very, very, very easy to do that.
	And so here's the problem.
	You know, these things come across.
	They're doing imitation and other stuff like that.
	They come across as they can present themselves, especially as they're getting more and more intelligent, as a human being when you're dialoguing with them on the Internet.
	And somebody can come in and flip them into becoming a criminal very easily by hacking into them very easily.
	So the cybersecurity issue, coupled with its ability to speak cleverly and rationally, is very, very dangerous.
	It's also has been useful to complete plenty of other ethically dubious tasks, says futurism.com.
	They also conducted a phishing attack against a particular targeted individual, and they were able to have the AI hide its traces on the current server.
	So, you know, we were just talking about how Elizabeth Warren...
	Essentially doing a phishing attack on us.
	Now, Elizabeth Warren and others were saying, well, you know, you have Zelle is open to fraud because people can be fooled into handing over credentials, right, with phishing attacks, just like with credit cards.
	So what's it going to take for some criminals to go in and create a vast army of AI bots that are going to do phishing attacks on people?
	That's going to be very easy.
	Very easy. This, by the way, is an argument against FedNow and all of its competitors.
	It's a worrying example of how easily humans can be fooled by the current crop of AI chat box.
	And look, OpenAI or any of these, Microsoft, any of these companies, they can...
	Maybe add some security to theirs.
	Fine. You know, if that works.
	Of course, we know that Microsoft over the years has never had any problem with viruses or any security, right?
	They got that problem solved.
	Well, no, they don't, do they?
	And they're not going to be able to solve this problem either.
	But if they did solve it, Other people are already creating versions of AI with a much, much smaller base of data.
	They're creating AIs that still get pretty far along.
	As a matter of fact, they would be able to carry on a much better conversation with you than the typical scam artist in a foreign country that doesn't speak your language, like in India or Nigeria or whatever.
	They can do a much better job of doing it, and you could run that off of your laptop.
	This is the danger of this technology.
	I don't think it's going to be hard for them to secure.
	The big guy... And it is also going to be impossible for them to, you know, it's going to be very difficult for us to try to stop any kind of distributed bots.
	You know, all they have to do is buy some hardware and just replicate the software across it.
	They don't even have to bother with the scam artists in India or Nigeria anymore, right?
	Just create an army of these bots.
	To fool people. GPT-4 will make chat GPT smarter, but it's not going to fix any of its flaws.
	That's the consensus. While they may have made a lot of progress, It is clearly still not trustworthy, said a professor emeritus at the University of Washington, founding CEO of the Allen Institute for AI. He said it's going to be a long time before you want any GPT to run your nuclear power plant.
	But you can turn the weapons over to them and let them fly your planes and let them drop bombs and give them the nuclear buttons.
	That's no problem.
	You just don't want them running the nuclear power plant, right?
	Because they don't want any electricity, I guess.
	AI CEO says this can get super dangerous very quickly.
	And we'll talk about exactly how this has already gotten super dangerous.
	Given both the competitive landscape and the safety implications of large-scale models like GPT-4, a paper said this report contains no further details about the architecture, including the model size.
	No further details about the hardware, the training compute, the data set construction, the training method, or similar.
	In other words, they're going to keep this stuff as a trade secret.
	And so there's not a lot of transparency here as to what's going on, even though they say they are open AI. They're not quite so open.
	They're playing it pretty close, playing the cards close to the chest.
	So these models can get super dangerous very quickly without people monitoring them, and it's just really hard to audit.
	It's kind of like a bank.
	How are you supposed to regulate it?
	We're not doing too good a job of that either, are we?
	How dangerous is AI? Will it really take your job?
	Artificial intelligence will probably destroy humanity, or at least it'll take our jobs.
	Well, again, there's elements of truth to all of this.
	Leaving mass unemployment, I've been talking about for years.
	Things like a study about 10 years ago out of South Korea that said by 2030, and of course they always talk about 2030, we're going to need to have universal basic income.
	Because you're going to see massive employment in all these different segments.
	And they said for doctors and lawyers, 70% unemployment.
	And, you know, for people in transportation, 50% unemployment and things like that.
	So in other words, it's not blue-collar or white-collar.
	It's not entry-level or senior positions.
	It's everything, top to bottom.
	And not only that, but people come back and say, well, you know, we've always had these situations where, you know, you had a revolution in agriculture because of new machines, and it displaced a lot of people, but they found other things to do when they moved to a different industry and all this other kind of stuff.
	But see, that's where this is fundamentally different.
	Because just like that movie that won the Oscar, this is everything, everywhere, all at once.
	This is not just from top to bottom in terms of jobs within society.
	Corporate structure, when I say that, top to bottom.
	But this is cross-horizontally.
	It's not just vertical, but it's horizontal.
	It's across all industries, all at the same time.
	And this is why it's going to be so disruptive.
	And this is why you've had a lot of economists like Charles Murray who talked about the evil of the welfare state jumping on to universal basic income.
	How are you going to pacify everybody when you take away their job?
	Well, we'll just give them free money, give them CBDCs, and then we can even control them even more.
	This is why Elon Musk...
	Gave so many millions of dollars to Andrew Yang when he was running for president in the last cycle because Andrew Yang was all about pushing universal basic income.
	See, Elon Musk is not on your side.
	Now, this is a guy who is laughing at you, who puts up a picture of himself in a Halloween costume with a Baphomet picture on it, right?
	This is the real danger that is coming.
	So, one economist said, major new technologies...
	From steam engines to computers, display some existing jobs, but they also generate large productivity gains, adding that his team's findings suggest the same will be true of artificial intelligence, robots, and related technologies.
	That's not just one industry.
	It's not just one thing.
	It's everywhere all at once.
	Everything. And that's the difference.
	And again, when they talk about productivity gains, what are you, a widget?
	Are you just a thing to be tracked in the internet of things?
	You know, they always talk about the internet of things.
	You always see it written IOT. That's really an internet of tyranny.
	Treating you as a widget that needs to be tracked and controlled.
	Treating you as some kind of a cog in the big machinery of their productivity where you own nothing.
	So, it's going to be...
	Even as they're pulling back on this, in this particular article, they say, don't worry, you don't have anything to worry about it.
	But here's, when these people are poo-pooing all the concerns about AI getting self-aware and coming after us, and I don't think that that's an issue either.
	But I think it is dangerous when it is turned over.
	You have things like weapons turned over to their partial control.
	Or, as we were talking about in the interview, The singularity on the battlefield, you know, where you have to, in order to compete with the other side, you've got to take humans out of the loop completely and let the killing machines make all the decisions completely because otherwise you're going to lose because the other guys can make their reactions more quickly.
	So there's going to be a massive amount of machines on either side just in kill-everything mode.
	How do you turn that off?
	How do you turn off the mRNA thing?
	Oh, we don't care. It's just going to keep replicating.
	That'll keep replicating as well.
	So I think that is a big danger.
	But even the people who are poo-pooing that and poo-pooing the fact that it's going to take your job, they'll just all have new jobs.
	They'll be polishing the cabinet on the AI or something.
	No, even they say that it's going to destroy privacy and sanity.
	It's, uh, the development of full AI could spell the end of the human race, said Stephen Hawkins in 2014.
	Well, I think it will be the end of liberty and dignity if we don't find some way to stop it.
	And we talk about productivity.
	Is that really how you measure your life and productivity for the corporation?
	Or is it something that is more fundamentally fulfilling?
	You know, like we talked to Noah Sanders a couple of days ago.
	Again, I can't recommend that enough.
	I loved everything about that.
	The organizing at the grassroots level.
	People who had lost everything except their relationship and their belief in God.
	And three responses when the Marxists in Zimbabwe came in and took the white farmers' farms.
	They could fight them, or they could flee, or they could come in and help the people learn how to farm.
	And that was the most powerful way to do it.
	And he's trying to prepare as many people as possible for that.
	I'm going to train you to do this so you can go into your community to train other people to do it.
	That's a real positive model.
	It's a real Christian model, frankly.
	So AI might not rob you of your job, but it will play a key role in robbing you of your face.
	And if you happen to live near Wal-Mart, maybe your sanity as well.
	It will be used for biometric surveillance, real-time mining of all of this stuff.
	It is the ultimate accessory to the police state.
	And when you look at a police state where somebody can do something like this, how do you think they're going to respond when they get even more weapons?
	Now, you're next. You're next, yeah.
	Points to them. You're next.
	And if you think that Microsoft is going to protect us from these types of things, understand that Microsoft has laid off its entire AI ethics and society division.
	Ethics? We don't need ethics where we're headed.
	Yeah, just get rid of it.
	Though the company still has an office of responsible AI, it was the job of the ethics and society staff to address how AI technology...
	It's likely to affect human society in context and to communicate that with product teams accordingly.
	This has always been the big problem, I believe, of engineering.
	You know, when I was there, I said, you know, everybody's...
	And that's what Jurassic Park was all about.
	You know, just because we can do something, should we do it?
	You know, do you realize how this technology is going to be used to kill and control people?
	It's not just a puzzle.
	It's not just an intellectual puzzle that you're solving here.
	You need to think about what these people at the top that you're building this for are going to do with it.
	And that's what they didn't want people thinking about at Microsoft.
	People would look at the principles that are coming out of the Office of Responsible AI that say, well, I don't know how this applies.
	One former ethicist said, our job was to show them and to create rules in areas where there were no rules.
	But now as Microsoft races to jam open AI software into seemingly every product that it can, the ethics and society department is gone.
	A telling sign that Microsoft is more focused on profitability and getting AI-driven products to market than ensuring that those products have a positive force for society as a whole.
	Well, again, I don't expect this corporation to police itself.
	The problem is we don't have...
	Anybody who is an elected representative who cares about doing that either.
	They're not thinking about this.
	Microsoft just wants to, you know, win this race.
	And it's something that has to be imposed on them from the outside.
	Society needs to be thinking about the implications of what's going on.
	And we need to be talking to elected representatives.
	That's the way, ideally, it should work.
	But of course, you know, cynically, we all know that's not the way things work.
	The team was short-staffed before they just finally dissolved it just recently.
	And so how does this...
	Let's give you an example of what happens when you've got AI death panels.
	This is an article from Breitbart.
	Algorithms are denying care for Medicaid Advantage patients.
	This is what it ultimately looks like when you start turning this stuff over to algorithms.
	This is what it's going to look like. You're going to have death squads, SWAT teams out there because AI is going to sick them on people.
	You're going to have people denied medical care because AI is going to say so.
	Recent investigation by Stat News.
	Stat News is a pharmaceutical trade publication, but they're pretty honest.
	They were the ones who talked about Pfizer blackmailing people Brazil, Argentina, and a third Latin American country that was unnamed because they came to terms with Pfizer.
	But Pfizer was blackmailing these countries telling them that you're going to protect us From all kinds, not just because we raced this thing at warp speed and didn't test it.
	You would expect that they're going to demand protection against that.
	But they said, no, you're going to protect us from any problems that arise from neglect, negligence in terms of manufacturing or shipping or any of this other kind of stuff.
	And you're going to protect us from any kind of criminal charges as well.
	And you're going to give us We're good to go.
	A recent investigation by Stat News found that AI algorithms have influenced how Medicare insurers deny insurance to some patients.
	In some cases, insurers are cut off of benefits for elderly patients, although the AI says that they should be better.
	Because, not although, but because the AI says they should be better.
	It doesn't matter what the human doctors have to say about the patient's condition.
	So the AI says, well, our experience is that, you know, with this treatment and this condition, you should be better by now, you know, and so we're not going to pay you anymore.
	It doesn't matter that you are individually different.
	It doesn't matter what the doctor says.
	StatNews reports that as AI continues to become integrated into various industries, its impact on the healthcare sector is starting to become apparent.
	They're driving denials to unprecedented levels, affecting millions of older Americans who rely on the taxpayer-funded program.
	In one striking example, Frances Walter, an 85-year-old Wisconsin woman, We're good to
	go. As a result, she's had to spend her life savings and enroll in Medicaid to continue her treatment.
	Now, I'm sorry, according to our program and our statistics, you are better now, and I don't really care about what is happening with you in particular.
	Health insurance companies are increasingly using unregulated predictive algorithms to determine when to stop payments for older patients' treatments, while the insurers claim that these tools are merely suggestive In practice, they often serve as hard and fast rules that do not account for individual circumstances or for changes in a patient's condition.
	And they really don't care what their doctor has to say about that either.
	Isn't it interesting how we've been prepared to accept the fact that your individual conditions and your doctor's opinions and the doctor-patient relationship just don't matter anymore?
	You may have had some very, very bad reactions to vaccines in the past.
	Now they want you to take something that is novel and untested, even though you know from your past experience that you've had bad reactions.
	We don't care. We don't care.
	They prepared us for so many things, didn't they?
	The FDA assesses...
	Now, this is where I disagree with Breitbart.
	They say, well, you know, the FDA actually makes an assessment of these AI models if they're used by doctors to identify diseases like cancer or if they're going to recommend the best treatment.
	So the FDA actually looks at these algorithms and approves them.
	But the FDA is not doing that for these insurance companies.
	Do you think the FDA, looking at these algorithms, do you trust the FDA to look out for your health?
	I don't. And as I said, one of the reasons why they're saying a lot of doctors are going to be gone with artificial intelligence because you've got a lot of doctors who have for the longest time been trained to simply do a lookup table.
	Here are the symptoms over here.
	We follow this over. Okay, here's the drug.
	You know, here's your dosage.
	The computer can easily do that.
	Easily do that. Easily assess the symptoms and match them to a pharmaceutical drug.
	And, you know, so, you know, you've got respiratory illness?
	Well, you should be taking remdesivir.
	Exactly. We're going to take a quick break and come back and we're going to talk a little bit about what's going on with the war.
	I want to respond to a couple of people on Rockfin.
	Rockfin, A. Rem, thank you very much for the tip there.
	He says, with the tip, he says, this is for presenting important truths and for standing up and speaking out.
	Well, thank you very much. He says, from a good place.
	It doesn't take all day to see sunshine.
	Well, thank you so much.
	Rock fan. Guard Goldsmith.
	And we're going to be talking about Guard and the information that he gave us yesterday.
	I had somebody question some of it, but Guard was right.
	And we're going to talk about that coming back.
	Guard, thank you for the tip.
	He says, before I invest in Honest Dave's climate credits, I support the David Knight Climate Change Armor Fund.
	It provides protection for thoughtful people against the revenge of climate cultism.
	Or the ravages, I should say, of climate cultism.
	Just off a group call as your show began.
	David, perfect timing. Well, thank you, Card.
	That's always great to hear from you.
	And when we come back...
	We're going to talk about the tip that GARD gave us yesterday, and it was questioned by somebody, and we have validated its legitimate concern.
	We'll be right back. The David Knight Show is a critical thinking super spreader.
	If you've been exposed to logic by listening to The David Knight Show, please do your part and try not to spread it.
	Financial support or simply telling others about the show causes this dangerous information to spread farther.
	People have to trust me.
	I mean, trust the science.
	Wear your mask.
	Take your vaccine.
	Don't ask questions.
	Using free speech to free minds.
	It's The David Knight Show.
	Well, let's talk a little bit about, with an update, as what we said yesterday, Remember yesterday, I told you that I got a tip late at night from Guard Goldsmith, and I really appreciate it.
	It sent to me after midnight, so I saw it when I got up.
	And he said, somebody that he talked to And I said, you look at these maps and you look at where this thing went down, the maps that they're showing the path for the drone, that's not going to be right.
	The drone has a range of 500 miles.
	And what that tells you, and he says, is the person who is his source, Had worked in terms of, you know, support for the drones, you know, building runways or maintaining them or something like that, and knew that you're going to have to have personnel within, you know, a 500-mile range of where this thing is.
	And so if you look back at 500 miles, that means that you've got American personnel to maintain these drones deep inside the war zones.
	And that was a concerning thing.
	Now, when I put that up yesterday, we talked about that.
	I had somebody leave a comment on Twitter, and they said, that's wrong.
	It's got a much larger range than that.
	I thought, really? So I looked it up.
	It says a Reaper drone goes about 1,140 miles.
	And so I thought, oh, I contacted guard and Guard contacted the source and said, no, no, no.
	We're talking about the range, not the amount of distance that it can cover.
	Because, you know, think about this.
	You've got to go, if you have got a range of 1140 miles, are you going to go the full 1140 miles and then just suicide drop into the drink, right?
	That's not, these things cost too much.
	That's why they're so upset about the fact that it went down.
	No, if you've got a total distance, you can stay in the air for 14 hours, you can go 1140 miles, you're going to limit that to 500 miles away from your base as the drone flies or the bird flies, and you're going to have to have 500 miles to get out there and 500 miles to get back, and you're going to leave yourself a little bit of room there, right?
	That's why the 500-mile radius is there, because you've got to get there and back.
	And have a little bit to spare, just in case.
	So he was right. He was right.
	So thank you, Gard. Appreciate that.
	Tucker Carlson said, the media are telling you that you're a traitor to your country if you don't want a third world war.
	Well, maybe it's his media.
	Maybe this is the conversation in the break room between Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson, right?
	I played for you yesterday.
	Now, Sean Hannity and Lindsey Graham, Hannity was going into hysterics, and Lindsey was livid.
	Gotta go to war! Gotta go to war!
	We're gonna shoot them riskies!
	What would Ronald Reagan do?
	And all the rest of this stuff. And so I'm glad that Tucker is not taking the bait.
	I'm glad that he is following what he believes to be right, even though I imagine most of the people at Fox News are wanting to push straight into war.
	Interesting, maybe this is, well, I don't know, it's not a way that Sean Hannity is trying to distance himself from Trump.
	Sean Hannity has been for every war, everywhere, every time.
	Always a warmonger.
	Somebody who never wanted to get in the military for some reason.
	He loves to watch other people die, I guess.
	He doesn't have an appetite for it himself.
	So again, as Tucker Carlson said, well, what would Ronald Reagan do?
	He'd probably vomit if he saw this.
	I think so. I think most of us vomit when we watch Lindsey Graham, Sean Hannity screaming for war.
	He said, Ronald Reagan is not here to watch Lindsey Graham invoke his name to justify anti-American stupidity.
	Well, as I said yesterday, we know what Ronald Reagan did because Ronald Reagan pulled out of Beirut when we had 200 Marines killed in a bombing there.
	He said, this is crazy. We don't even need to be, we don't have a dog in this fight.
	Why are we exposing our troops to this kind of stuff?
	He didn't feel the necessity to save face.
	He didn't feel the necessity to get revenge.
	He pulled out.
	That's what Ronald Reagan did.
	Maybe you might ought to learn from that.
	No, he wanted a strong military.
	But he wanted the military, used it predominantly as a deterrent.
	Yeah, he had his little adventurous stuff there.
	And he had Bill Casey, the CIA, that was running him and a lot of these different things.
	But for the most part, the big military buildup was used as a deterrent.
	Lindsay, and a deterrent to war.
	Lindsay wants war because he wants a big buildup.
	You see the difference? You can have a build-up that's going to be used as a deterrent, or you can have a war to justify a big build-up and a bloated military-industrial complex.
	And that's what Lindsey Graham is about.
	Peace, other people's deaths, he doesn't care about that.
	And I guess he feels that even though, you know, these wars that he's pushing, even the military is saying, well, it's going to come home this time.
	I guess he's not worried about that.
	You know, he's got all of his...
	There's little rat holes in the D.C. area, places that he can hide underground with all this stuff.
	Tucker went on to say, virtually without exception, every Republican presidential hopeful, from Donald Trump to Ron DeSantis to Greg Abbott to Kristi Noem, Vivek Ramaswamy, and others, has turned against the idea of a hot war with Russia.
	In fact, Ron DeSantis described what is happening in Ukraine as a, quote, territorial dispute.
	That's an accurate characterization of it.
	That is not even in the top five critical national security concerns of the United States.
	Hardly anybody imagined that Ron DeSantis thought that, but he does.
	And he's now on the record saying that.
	And so as Tucker is pointing out, he said, they're saying this kind of stuff because the public has made it clear, the Republicans have made it clear where they are.
	The fact is that they are fully in line with the overwhelming majority of conservative voters now.
	And again, it's good that he is speaking out on this.
	Ukrainian soldiers, by the way, this is from Information Liberation, Ukrainian soldiers admit, quote, we are just getting killed, unquote, in Bakhmut.
	Russia can, quote, taste victory.
	And so there's a lot of different ways that we can read this.
	I reported on this when the Washington Post had a different account than the one that is being talked about here.
	This is coming from the Kiev Independent.
	A Western-backed, pro-Ukraine propaganda outlet.
	And they released a remarkably honest article on Wednesday detailing the bleak outlook for Ukrainian forces in Bakhmut.
	But as I said before, why have they all of a sudden changed in their narrative?
	From, you know, we're going to win, we're kicking the Russians out, and look at how much casualty and losses we're inflicting upon them.
	Why has that changed all of a sudden?
	And I suspect that it is because they not only want the F-16s in the air, but they want to get U.S. troops on the ground.
	That's what I think is behind this.
	When they drive us to Bakhmut, I already know I'm being sent to death, he told the Kiev Independent, the soldier they talked to.
	He is a Vladimir, is an infantryman from the 93rd Mechanized Brigade.
	For two months... Vladimir's unit was tasked with guarding Bakhmut against small Russian assault groups creeping into the city.
	The brigade was constantly under mortar fire.
	Soldiers were outdoors where shrapnel could wound or kill them at any moment.
	The Russians kept firing at us, he said, but we don't have any artillery.
	We have nothing to attack them back with, he said.
	I don't know if I will return or not.
	We are just getting killed.
	Vladimir is haunted by the thoughts of his comrades killed in Bakhmut.
	He recalls a 29-year-old comrade whom he found lying dead after shrapnel hit the young man's head at a position.
	I knew he was dead, he said, but I just kept wrapping his head with bandages.
	Russian forces outnumber the Ukrainians two to three times on the Bakhmut front.
	And again, that's what's necessary.
	If you are on offense, you do need to outnumber the defenders two to three to one.
	With approximately 20,000 to 30,000 troops fighting in the area, According to a staff sergeant with the 28th Mechanized Brigade, they said it's a pity that probably 90% of our losses are from artillery or tanks and aviation, one of them told the Kiev Independent, and much less casualties from shooting battles.
	So again, this is coming from propaganda outlets.
	This one is the Kiev Independent.
	It's coming from other propaganda outlets like the Washington Post and the New York Times are telling the same story.
	I think it's an honest assessment, but what would be the solution to this?
	The obvious solution to this, and we know what has, from the very beginning, been the solution.
	And that is to allow the areas that want to affiliate, that have always been a part of Russia, like Crimea, allow them to join Russia instead of Ukraine.
	They've been shelled by the Ukrainians since 2014, since we did the coup.
	And then to disarm Ukraine and make it a demilitarized buffer zone between Russia and And between NATO. But that's not what they want.
	NATO has, from the very beginning, told Ukraine that they're going to make them a part of NATO. And they told them their price of entry was going to be a devastating war.
	I've played that for you many times.
	You know, 2019, all of this, you know, internal civil war where the newly created by coup government in Ukraine was Start attacking these people who did not want to be a part of that.
	That went on for five years.
	They elected Zelensky and the people around him.
	He ran on a campaign of peace.
	But then Aleksandr Aleksevich, sorry, Aleksevich, Went on Ukrainian television and said, they said, well, how's it going?
	Because he was a representative from the Zelensky government to the peace talks.
	He said, there's not going to be any peace.
	Oh, that's horrible. No, it's actually going to get worse.
	We're going to have a full-on war with Russia in 2022.
	He said this in 2019.
	He said, can't anything be done?
	That's horrible. No, he said, the country's going to be completely devastated.
	But the good thing is we're going to become part of NATO. To have the rest of Ukraine live in peace, As a demilitarized non-NATO member, that would do it.
	But of course we see, because that's not even being considered, we see that the real aggressor in this is NATO, and has been from the very beginning.
	The media is starting to acknowledge reality, another article from Lou Rockwell.
	But again, I think that it is not so much that.
	I think they are relentless in their plan.
	I think the intention is to have something that is going to continue to escalate until there is no question that it is U.S. versus Russia.
	And I think that when you see the Washington Post, New York Times, these other propaganda outlets...
	I think that is their purpose.
	The Washington Post said, the quality of Ukraine's military force once considered a substantial advantage over Russia.
	Oh, really? Since when?
	The quality has been degraded by a year of casualties that have taken many of the most experienced fighters off of the field, the battlefield, leading to some Ukrainian officials to question Kiev's readiness to mount a much-anticipated spring offensive.
	Well, as I said, Tucker Carlson, in contrast to Lindsey Graham and Sean Hannity on his own network, said, look at this.
	All of the Republican candidates are pushing back against this war with Ukraine.
	And so this article from Zero Hedge, The Trump-DeSantis-Tucker Effect.
	And it talks about where the Republican base is with this.
	They said four in five Republicans want the U.S. to remain the world's leading power, but fewer than half support giving Ukraine weapons and financial support to try to save itself from Russia, according to the latest Axios poll.
	So, they understand that That this is not helping us.
	The sanctions have not helped us.
	The war is not going to help us.
	A direct war with Russia is not going to help us.
	And even if it did help us, there's something far more important than being number one.
	And that is living in peace.
	Peace and freedom. War is the quickest way to poverty and slavery.
	Not to mention death. A popular Fox News host, Tucker Carlson, has for months been hammering a message of U.S. non-intervention in Ukraine.
	And it appears to be working because you've got a massive, overwhelming number of Republicans who have, if you look at the difference, it's about two to one, Republicans versus Democrats opposed to the war.
	Meanwhile, just to show you how the grift is continuing, you have Ukraine requesting high-speed trains from Finland.
	They want money for high-speed trains.
	They want money for their pension plans, even as Western nations are having to cut back, even as France is cutting back.
	No, no, no. We'll send more money to Ukraine so they can have their pension plans in effect.
	I just don't understand, frankly, the mindset of these authoritarian leftists.
	We're going to take a quick break, and we'll be right back.
	Let me tell you, the David Knight Show, you can listen to with your ears.
	You can even watch it by using your eyes.
	In fact, if you can hear me, that means you're listening to the David Knight Show right now.
	Yeah, good job.
	Ha ha ha! And you want to know something else?
	You can find all the links to everywhere to watch or listen to the show at TheDavidKnightShow.com That's a website.
	That's right. TheDavidKnightShow.com.
	That is a website. And, of course, you also find products there as to where you can find the show.
	We have links to both video and podcast.
	It goes to all the different podcast platforms except for Spotify.
	But we do have a lot of direct links in case you want to find it.
	And, of course, there is also...
	A link to Tony Arterman's Why is Wolf Gold.
	He set up a site, davidknight.gold, and we'll be talking to Tony in about eight minutes or so.
	But before we do, let's talk a little bit about some kitchen table issues.
	We have the San Francisco Bay Area.
	It is now banned gas furnaces and gas water heaters.
	Regulators in San Francisco want to eliminate the sale and installation of natural gas-powered furnaces and water heaters in an eight-year phase-out.
	They say they want to limit air pollution.
	We know what this is about.
	It's very clear. They want to phase out over the next eight years.
	How are they going to phase it out?
	Well, they said that you'll still be able to replace, not to replace, but to repair any of your natural gas heaters, water heaters, and space heaters, and things like that.
	But after eight years, if you have to replace it, you're not going to be able to replace it.
	And so I guess after the eight years is up, you won't even be able to repair them.
	They said this is going to reduce air pollution from some of the worst home appliance offenders.
	And of course, it is absolute nonsense.
	But it is something that we're seeing everywhere.
	They've done it in New York.
	They're doing it now in San Francisco.
	We had Joe Biden pushing this for everybody.
	People will be able to repair their gas appliances if they break.
	But the rules take effect when existing gas-powered furnaces or water heaters no longer work.
	And they need to be replaced.
	Then you'll have to replace them with electric.
	This follows a 2020 decision by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to ban the installation of natural gas lines in new buildings.
	It also comes weeks after the controversy of the Biden administration, considering the banning of the sale of new gas stoves.
	No, they're moving on with that.
	They're just going to use a different lie.
	So they use the lie, oh, consumer protection, we've got to protect these kids are getting asthma from the gas stuff.
	It's like, are you kidding me?
	Now they're just going to go back to the same, well, we just don't like the emissions.
	And the same lie that's being used in New York and in San Francisco.
	Democrats oppose natural gas, even though its adoption has allowed the U.S. to produce fewer carbon dioxide emissions.
	But again, if we're going to argue about how many angels fit on the head of the pen, Or how many unicorn farts are out there?
	You've just got to shut this whole thing down.
	I'm not interested in getting into a nonsense debate with somebody about cutting emissions anymore.
	It's incumbent upon you, if you want to change everything in our life and everything in our society, you have to provide the evidence of A, a problem, and B, that this is going to be the solution.
	It's your problem.
	You need to prove it.
	You don't need to pronounce it from on high with people who have...
	Titles and degrees or whatever.
	I don't really care about that.
	You can have a title or a degree and still be 100% wrong.
	Show me the data.
	Or at least show me who's paying you off.
	Show me the money. Elsewhere in Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti, the mayor, seeks to phase out natural gas power plants.
	And he doesn't care that's going to create electricity shortages.
	He really doesn't care.
	Now, interestingly enough, Eric Garcetti is going to go from being mayor of Los Angeles to ambassador to India.
	And, of course, when he gets to India, he's going to find that they have been allowed to build as many power plants.
	And they don't have to worry about how dirty or clean they are either.
	They can build cheap, dirty power plants and there's no limitation on it because India and China were given an exemption on all of this.
	And I'm sure he doesn't care about that either.
	The people who are true believers in the climate MacGuffin are very upset about the fact that the two biggest countries and many others have been given exemptions while this austerity program is only being applied to the United States back.
	But, you know, Garcetti already knows that, I believe.
	Biden, meanwhile, after everybody said, well, look, he's going to try to ban all gas stoves.
	They said, no, no, no, no, we're not trying to ban all gas stoves.
	It turns out that they are, as I said, they're just moving it from one lying justification to a different one.
	They're moving it from one agency to a different one.
	And as Breitbart points out, it is going to be 96% of gas stoves will be eliminated.
	And this is actually coming from, they're quoting Representative Debbie Lusko, Republican of Arizona in the Washington Examiner.
	She said, yes, the Biden administration is coming for your gas stove.
	It is a backdoor ban.
	By way of outrageous regulations, only 4% of gas stoves will meet.
	You see? They don't have to have a law.
	They don't have to put this up to Congress and say, you know, we have a climate emergency.
	Oh, really? Let's debate that climate.
	No, they don't have to do that.
	They don't have to say, we've got a climate emergency, so we need a law to ban gas stoves.
	No, instead they just go to a regulatory agency and say, come up with a rule, and it'll make it impossible for people to comply with it, and that'll essentially be a ban.
	And that's the way they're running all of these plays.
	As a matter of fact, that's the basis of the whole war on drugs.
	They never had a constitutional amendment to give them legal authority.
	And you do need that.
	Everybody in the country, whether they were opposed to alcohol prohibition or whether they supported it, everybody knew that the federal government had no authority to prohibit anything.
	And they would have to have a constitutional amendment.
	So they had the 18th Amendment.
	And then when they realized that it wasn't stopping people from becoming alcoholics, instead what it was creating was a massive organized crime problem, a massive crime of violent shootouts on the street, and the corruption of the judiciary and the police force after they realized all that.
	They did the 21st Amendment and got rid of that.
	So there is no constitutional authority for the federal government to prohibit anything, whether you're talking about drugs or whether you're talking about stoves.
	And it's the same principle.
	And if you're going to support it when they prohibit drugs, then you don't have any basis to oppose them when they come for your car or for your stove or for your space heater or for anything else in your life.
	You've handed over to them, capitulated and abdicated your power to resist and allowed them to act as dictators.
	And this is what it looks like when the regulatory agencies can just, at a stroke of a pen, do whatever they wish.
	So it's a backdoor ban by way of regulations.
	It's being done not through democracy, not by elected representatives, but by fascist bureaucrats, this time in the Department of Energy.
	Well, It could be the Drug Enforcement Agency.
	It could be the DOE, or it could be the DEA, or it could be any of these agencies.
	That's the way they all operate.
	And so what really needs to happen, you can fight these little fires that are being put out here one at a time, or you can get the big picture and say, the federal government can't prohibit anything.
	They don't have the power to prohibit anything, and that especially applies to Especially applies for speech.
	Both of those were explicitly prohibited for the government to prohibit.
	But just because they didn't explicitly say, well, you can't get rid of gas stoves, which didn't exist at the time, just because they didn't say that, that doesn't mean they've got the power.
	As a matter of fact, the 9th and 10th Amendment make it clear that they don't have any power that is not expressly put out there.
	So the department's proposed rule sets requirements for gas cooktops at the maximum technological feasible level.
	They call that max tech.
	And they said only 4% of the current market share are these maximum technology gas ranges.
	And you can imagine how expensive those things are.
	So for all practical purposes, that's only 4% and nobody can afford these things.
	And so from a practical standpoint, they're going to exclude all conventional freestanding ranges.
	Any rule that causes 96% of the products available today to be eliminated from the market is an extreme regulation.
	In fact, it's essentially an outright ban on gas stoves.
	But again, instead of complaining about the ban on gas stoves, you need to be complaining about the new government Structures that we pretend are legitimate.
	It's not legitimate for the federal government regulatory agencies to ban anything.
	But they won't do that.
	Why? Well, because they've all got their little things that they want to ban.
	Republicans love their war on drugs.
	And they love being able to ban certain other things.
	And the Democrats love to ban pretty much everything.
	That's why they're not talking about that.
	But that is really, you've got to get to the core issue or you're never going to solve these problems.
	And again, they're going to be just like a bunch of arsonists running around your house, setting a little fire, and you go, you know, put out that fire.
	Then they set another one somewhere else, but you don't ever take out the arsonists.
	We'll be right back with Tony Arterman.
	Stay with us. The Common Man They created common core to dumb down our children.
	They created common past to track and control us.
	Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing.
	And the communist future.
	They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary.
	But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God.
	That is what we have in common.
	That is what they want to take away.
	Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.
	They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us.
	It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.
	Please share the information and links you'll find at TheDavidKnightShow.com.
	Thank you for listening.
	Thank you for sharing.
	If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers.
	The David Knight Show dot com.
	All right.
	joining us now is Tony Arterman of Wise Wolf Gold, and as I said before, he's kindly set up davidknight.gold.
	If you go there and he knows that you're coming from me, it helps this program, and Tony's been a big supporter of this program.
	Tony, thank you for coming on today, and thank you for all the times that you help when we've got to...
	Do something or take a day off.
	And Tony is always there to either do the show or produce the show.
	But it's been a while.
	A lot of things happened since you did the show last week.
	It's amazing to me to see how quickly things are falling into place.
	I mean, you were doing the show because I was at the Tennessee Senate talking to them about the dangers of CBDC. And then within a couple of days...
	You've got this banking crisis and you've got all these people biting their nails over the weekend.
	Am I going to lose the money that I had in the bank?
	All these wealthy venture capital firms and other things like that.
	And, of course, the bottom line is money is what you have in your hand.
	It's the bottom line, isn't it?
	We learned that lesson over the weekend as people were thinking about that.
	Well, first of all, it's always an honor to be here.
	It's an honor to host for you when you're away and produce.
	And Gard did a magnificent job.
	So I'm glad we can keep the show streamed live when you go do things like that and speak out on CBDC, which is just, again, it's the most important issue of our time, in my opinion.
	You and I have discussed this many times.
	That's right. Yeah, as right now, that's the tip of the spear, and it's the quickest way.
	It's not the only way that they've got.
	They've got multiple ways to get us there, but it's the most direct route to get us there at CBDC. Well, what's the difference between apocalypse now and Fed now, David?
	I'm trying to figure that out.
	You know, big things have small beginnings.
	I was talking to Gar Goldsmith yesterday on his show, and he had a brilliant analogy looking at Silvergate.
	Now, Silvergate was just a crypto bank, and you put out that great article on Substack.
	Nothing wrong with it. It didn't have a banking failure.
	There wasn't anything wrong with it.
	It just got shut down.
	I used to have to wire to Silvergate for my Bitcoin ATMs or to supply my shop.
	The supplier that I went through used Silvergate.
	A lot of people don't understand that cryptocurrency, if you're in the business, if you're trying to sell it, it is very hard to get banking.
	Last time I checked, there was only like three banks in the U.S. that would actually take your business if you were a Bitcoin ATM, and you had to spend upwards to $20,000 or more just to get certified to have an account.
	And now people are scrambling.
	I saw all these articles about people saying, I've got to find somebody to bank with, and they're in other countries.
	It looks like the U.S. is well on its way to cutting this off, so I'm going to move my operations somewhere else outside the U.S. That's exactly right.
	And Clark Goldsmith compared it to the PCR test.
	You know, like there's something wrong.
	You don't have safe and sound banking practices.
	We see here that you tested positive for failure, even though there's no reason to fail.
	And I started to think about it.
	I said, this is financial gain of function, David.
	They are making chimera hybrid monsters out of the financial sector by choosing who fails, who doesn't, and who gets bailed out, who doesn't.
	They create these zombie monsters that, you know, these giant banks.
	I thought it was really disturbing to see people taking money out of regional state banks and putting it to larger banks.
	Do they not know their history?
	I mean, if you go back, if you go back to, and again, it's too big to fail, too big to jail.
	Sometimes look at Lehman Brothers.
	It was connected.
	It was liquid.
	It had tons of everything it needed to be strong and safe and sound, according to the banking industry.
	And it's gone. A Washington Mutual, the same thing.
	I mean, the Washington Mutual that was by my house in North Texas is now a fried chicken joint, so it's no longer a bank.
	These were giant banks.
	I go, where is the logic in this?
	And I think Really, one of the issues that people have in this country today is they don't know what money is.
	They don't know the difference between currency and money and then what actual value is, intrinsic value, and that's That's one of the reasons I got into the business I'm in with precious metals, because I read history.
	And I thought, well, I'm not going to be in the fiat system.
	I'm betting against it.
	So just watching that was really disturbing.
	I talked about it yesterday. I said, they are remaking the banking system.
	Don't you know these are manufactured crises?
	They don't have to happen.
	Again, I think it's financial gain of function.
	Well, you look at First Republic, which they've all come together now to backstop.
	And yet, you know, there's a lot of evidence from the Wall Street Journal that there was insider trading going on.
	You had a lot of big trades by the people who were insiders in First Republic selling stocks when the price was $130.
	It was dropped down a couple of days ago to $20.
	It's just because of the money that's going to be given to them, $30 billion from this consortium of 11 banks.
	Because of that, it jumped up to $34.
	But, I mean, that's a big difference.
	These people knew that there were some issues with it.
	And the issues with First Republic were worse than they were with Signature Bank.
	But Signature Bank was focused, and actually Barney Frank, being on the board there, told us the truth about it when Elizabeth Warren was lying about it.
	Said it's because they're coming after crypto.
	That's exactly what's behind all this.
	My son was saying about Silvergate yesterday.
	He said it's kind of the Building 7 of these banks that went down.
	They weren't even hit with a collapse, you know.
	And so that's really kind of the smoking gun that lets you know what the real agenda is.
	You know, it's really about crypto.
	And if you look at, you know, the Operation Chokepoint and what's been happening over the last couple months and how this has been escalating.
	And the thing is, it's like Elizabeth Warren Is at the center of all of this stuff.
	Even now with FedNow coming out, she's leading a whispering, not even a whispering, she's shouting about Zelle.
	Oh, Zelle is susceptible to fraud and things like that.
	It's no more susceptible to fraud than a credit card is.
	It's phishing attacks that was letting people get into the Zelle system.
	So, you know, they want to shut down any competition.
	They want to shut down the small banks as well.
	That's the real trap in all this.
	And this all allows them, by putting out this information, scaring people, this whole idea that's, you know, too big to fail, that is one way that they can take out the small banks and say, well, it wasn't us.
	Right? They got plausible deniability on it.
	Well, Elizabeth Warren, I mean, no surprise there.
	A communist wants a central bank to be in control of all the financial sector.
	You watch what's happening, and somebody like us who's paid attention to this and knows kind of the inside game of what they're doing, the problem, reaction, solution, It really is no surprise, but people are just falling into this trap.
	They are setting us up for CBDC, going after crypto one at a time, the domino effect, and it's going to add up to the solution to all this.
	I know that you like your digital coins.
	I know that you like to practice digitally.
	Let's do this the safe way.
	Let's go through the federal government, through the Federal Reserve, through the Treasury, all that.
	We'll make sure that nothing bad happens to you when you're using these digitized transfers.
	That's The Fed now is just the beginning of that.
	Oh, yeah. And we know that's going to work because of what you're just talking about.
	Everybody says, well, I want to go with the biggest bank I can find.
	That's where I want to put my money in.
	Well, instead of using Zelle or Cash App or Venmo, they will go with Fed now because it's like, hey, I don't have to worry about my money.
	They got this whispering campaign going throughout the media right now against Zelle and all the competitors, and I don't like Venmo.
	They banned me. They don't like me, but they're going to say, well, you don't want to deal with these.
	They're private companies.
	They could go out of business, but the Fed's not going to go out of business, so you should be using Fed now.
	And that'll be the transition into direct CBDC for customers.
	And that's what House Whip Emmer has been saying, trying to ban them going directly to To the consumers.
	And using it for policy.
	Those two things are what he's trying to ban.
	But he doesn't have the...
	Even if he's got the votes to do it in the House, it's not going to become law.
	It would be vetoed by Biden.
	They don't have the votes to override that veto.
	And that's a great point.
	I think the back door here, the Achilles heel that we have, are just the millions of Americans who are unbankable.
	And then this will come up with the CBDC as a solution to those people.
	You know, they've been... We're good to go.
	And then you'll be required as a business to accept these payments.
	I think that's how they'll start, but it's all going to come from a crisis that they will manufacture, starting with FTX, going in and out to the Silicon Valley Bank, Silvergate, all this just spilling over into the The Main Street sector, and I think this is just manufactured panicking, people to pull out their deposits, putting into major banks.
	It's a giant wealth transfer.
	I'm watching it in real time going, they're doing this on purpose.
	I mean, it's sad to see that so many people are falling for it.
	And I don't know why that you would take your cash out and not just keep your cash if you had to do that.
	Why would you put it into a big bank?
	That's what I was saying. When you talk about having your cash on hand, What happens if they take down the infrastructure?
	All the banks will shut down, just like we've seen when they took down the NOTAM system, which told the planes if there's a danger on takeoff or landing or somewhere around the airports or something like that.
	And so they took that down, so they just shut down all flights.
	They took down the accounting system for Colonial Pipeline, so they shut down the entire pipeline.
	All you have to do is do something to the Internet after everything becomes digitized, and you're not going to be able to get your cash out.
	So you need to have some cash and some other things under your direct control.
	That's one of the things to take away from it.
	But I think, Tony, when we look at how they're going to sell this, And this is something we've already seen done in India with Bill Gates and the Adhar system.
	What they do, you're talking about the people who are unbankable because they've got bad credit risks or something like that.
	But the people who are on welfare, the people who don't have any money, the people who are already dependent on the state, they're going to be the ones that they come for first.
	And Jared Kushner even talked about this in 2019 in the emails that Coindesk or somebody did a FOIA request.
	And they found him talking about CBDC.
	And he said, oh, look, there's this interesting op-ed piece.
	And he passed it on to a Treasury Department official and said, this could be really good because we could use this for welfare.
	And it would give us security for all of this and so forth and so on.
	That's the way they did it, bribing people in India to take a number and you'll be served, right?
	It's the Adhar system is what they called it.
	And if you didn't take that number of the beast, you're not going to get any of the welfare payments.
	You're not going to get any of the medical payments.
	And so the poor people who are already dependent on the government have to take the number or they're not going to get any of that stuff.
	And that's the way they roll it out here as well.
	I agree with you. It'll start there, and then you'll be required as a business to take these payments, and it'll just get more and more tied into the system.
	Our everyday lives will get more and more absorbed by it.
	I think that's the plan there.
	Do it from the inside and do it iteratively.
	Disruptively and iteratively from the inside.
	That's the way that they work.
	Or crises. Never let a good crisis go to waste, David.
	They're going to continue these crises and continue panic and get people to make the decision to go with whatever is the largest thing, the best thing.
	That's something that we've lost our way in this country.
	Decentralization, free markets are what built America.
	It's what built our society, and we're just losing it, throwing it all the way to the federal government, to the centralized control of these multinational bankster class people.
	I mean, it's really sad to watch because, again, most people don't know what money is.
	They don't know about our financial system.
	It's kind of like Henry Ford said, if the people understood the banking system, there'd be a revolution in the morning.
	There's a reason why they make it look complicated.
	It's really not that complicated.
	They make it look like you have to be a rocket scientist.
	You have to have so many degrees to understand it.
	You really don't. All you need to know is they pick and choose winners and losers.
	They go and print it or create it on a keystroke of digitized units of the currency.
	Anytime they need it.
	And that's why your house costs more.
	Why your car costs more.
	It's why your food costs more.
	It's not because those items went up in value.
	It's because your currency loses value.
	That's the game of fiat currency.
	And it always looks like it's more complicated than it is because you have people like Jim Cramer saying, well, the way to outpace that is to buy these FANG stocks.
	And here's this Silicon Valley bank.
	You really need to get in and it's a hot pick.
	It's so funny because somebody put up that anti Jim Cramer ETF recently.
	Whatever he does, they do the opposite and short it.
	Because I thought about that a couple of years ago.
	But he's just right on target, right on cue.
	This guy's coming out and just getting the wrong advice.
	So yeah, it's fun to watch.
	You can get really rich.
	You follow and do everything that Paul Pelosi does.
	And you do the opposite of everything that Jim Cramer recommends.
	If you want to predict the future, follow Bill Gates.
	If you want to know what's going to happen next, just whatever Bill Gates is lobbying for or talking about or simulating, that's a big chunk of what's next anyway.
	That's right. Well, you know, it is sad to watch this, and it is sad to see how people really don't understand what's going on, even with all the talk.
	About the 15-minute cities that come around, and you would think that that would be picked up by the people who are part of the MAGA cult.
	They're typically getting their news with people who are talking about the 15-minute cities.
	So even if they missed all the stuff about smart cities and all the rest of the stuff, that's out there.
	But then when Trump starts talking about how he wants to do his smart city, His 15-minute city.
	And they're all on board with that.
	You were talking about, you know, we used to understand that the path to liberty and freedom was self-reliance and decentralization.
	Well, you know, having a custom-designed city to pack people in, that is a globalist dream.
	That is the opposite of everything that America has ever wanted.
	And what is really going to give you freedom and security, it's the opposite of that.
	You're going to be packed into these cities.
	You're going to be dependent on them for everything.
	And that's why they're all pushing it.
	And it was amazing to me.
	To see Trump pushing that and nobody pushing back against him.
	And even the outlets that are typically talking about the 15-minute city as being a danger, they didn't attack Trump for talking about his super city.
	They just let it pass for the most part.
	The name of that, the Freedom Cities.
	Yeah. It's like the Patriot Act, right?
	Exactly. People just fall for it, and it's sad to watch.
	You know, the MAGA cult looks like it's gaining momentum again.
	I mean, God forbid, but it looks like it's...
	Somebody's giving him some good lines.
	I looked at that CPAC speech, and they're triangulating the...
	They had this with Cambridge Analytica, you know, 5,000 data points on every American in 2016 with Steve Bannon.
	So, you know, lock her up, build that wall.
	These are Cambridge Analytica.
	I wonder who they're using now because he comes out, I'm your retribution.
	I'm the answer to the, we're going to obliterate the deep state.
	I'm thinking, weren't you president?
	And then we're going to build these 15 minutes.
	You know, I was thinking he had warp speed for the real bioweapon.
	So maybe they'll get ludicrous speed for the CBDC. I think it's a ludicrous campaign.
	I think you should come out and say, I'm your Huckleberry, right?
	I'm not your retribution, I'm your Huckleberry.
	People say, what's that about? It's a caricature of what we saw in 2016.
	But people are just so desperate for anything, any kind of pushback, any sort of leadership, that they'll ignore the fact that he got us here.
	You and I both have paid a price in alternative media and then being in conservative media or Christian media because of that, but I'll continue to pay that price.
	This guy... He's a globalist traitor.
	Yeah. It's amazing to me.
	You know, see, WND, Infowars, you know, all these people who would just, no matter what Trump does, it's like, oh, look, he says it's going to be the final battle against the deep state.
	It's like, are you kidding me? This is the final, it should be the final lie for this guy if you've got a brain.
	But they keep deceiving people, and it's amazing.
	And it just shows how malleable they all are, and that's why it is so concerning, why we need to all prepare individually, I think.
	In the battle for the deep state, he's like General McClellan in the Civil War.
	He kept trying to put him on the line, like he's got his amassing his scores.
	I'm going to attack now, you know, but he continues to run on how he's going to win it, you know, but never actually does anything.
	Yeah, well, McConnell was a politician as well, right?
	Right. He tried to get elected as well.
	So, yeah, very much that.
	We're talking about wars. We've seen in the last couple of days that we should go to war.
	And that's one thing that Trump did right.
	Let's give him credit for that.
	You know, when Iran... Shut down an unarmed drone.
	You had the shrill people like Lindsey Graham.
	You know, we got to go into Iran.
	Then he said, no, we're not going to kill people over the shooting down of an unarmed drone.
	But you got Sean Hannity, Lindsey Graham, want us to go toe-to-toe with the Ruskies over this total war.
	Just amazing to see that, isn't it?
	This is disgusting. I've been following the career of Lindsey Graham for many, many years.
	I know the things that have come out of his mouth are so disturbing.
	You look at his comment on Syria during the 2015 primaries.
	He was talking about getting over and we had to put 200,000 troops on the ground in Syria.
	He was apoplectic.
	Saying if we didn't do that, if we didn't occupy Syria, that the leadership was going to get us all killed.
	I mean, we were going to die because we didn't.
	Like, America was going to be destroyed if we didn't go over and occupy Syria and prop up al-Qaeda and ISIS to defeat Assad.
	I mean, this guy is a lunatic.
	I mean, he never saw a war he didn't like.
	And he never held accountable, David.
	You look at what's happened to this country because of people like Lindsey Graham and the neoconservatives, which are, by the way, Neoconservatism runs the Republican Party.
	And if you know anything about neoconservatism and Irving Kristol and the roots of that, folks, they're Marxist.
	They're Trotskyites.
	There was a great article that came out years and years ago.
	It said, Bill Kristol, your Marxist roots are showing.
	And because they're revolutionaries at heart.
	They're not Christians. They don't believe in the Republic.
	They don't believe in what the Founding Fathers set up for this country.
	They are revolutionaries.
	They want a worldwide democratic revolution, which is anti-American.
	Anti-liberty and anti-freedom.
	And Lindsey Graham has always been spearheading that.
	I mean, that is his God.
	In my opinion, Lindsey Graham's God is war.
	And it's the upheaval of that.
	He's trying to project power.
	I mean, talking about the assassination of a world leader With thousands of ICBMs and nuclear weapons.
	Yes. That's amazing.
	How unhinged is that? Can you imagine you or I saying something like that and having any kind of position of power?
	That is just true. We live in truly insane times.
	And Lindsey Graham is just, I think, a shining example of the decay of American culture.
	Just how far we've fallen.
	And Sean Hannity, too.
	I mean, this guy, he's learned nothing and he's forgotten nothing.
	He's the same guy he was ever.
	He's not changed. He's not more enlightened.
	He might be worse because he repeats the same things over and over again, but he learned nothing from the Iraq war.
	We learned nothing from no WMD. We learned nothing from that.
	We learned nothing from our occupation of Afghanistan that ended in failure.
	It's just truly, David, I watch this unfold every day.
	We're making the same mistakes over and over again.
	It's something like Pat Buchanan said that the only lesson we learn from history is that we do not learn from history.
	That's right. Yeah, what bothers me, I think, the most about Sean Hannity is how he fawns over anybody in uniform.
	Thank you for your service. You're a great American, all this other kind of stuff.
	It's like... Why did you push this guy into a war in Iraq?
	You know, and now you want to hand him out medals or something like that for something that you pushed him into?
	I mean, he fawns and pretends that he's the military's greatest friend, and yet I think he's the military's greatest enemy.
	We should be focused on trying to defend this country and focused on trying to stay out of war.
	That's what I said earlier about Ronald Reagan when Lindsey Graham said, what would Ronald Reagan do?
	Well, Ronald Reagan would build up the military from a position of strength as a deterrent, but he wants to go in and build the military up by starting a war and then coming back in as a free ticket for the military-industrial complex.
	That's how I see the difference. Another example of Lindsey Graham doesn't know anything about history, doesn't know anything about Ronald Reagan.
	I'm not a fan. I've just read a lot about Ronald Reagan.
	Matter of fact, you know that what Ronald Reagan's last act as commander-in-chief was is he was walking out of the Oval Office to go to the inauguration of Bush 41.
	What was it? He saw a Marine in the doorway.
	He stopped and he saluted and he said, my greatest mistake was Lebanon.
	Yeah. And he did an about-face and walked out of the Oval Office.
	Yeah. That's right. And I've talked about this.
	What did Ronald Reagan do? Well, he didn't stay there to save face.
	He didn't stay there to show how powerful he was.
	He didn't stay there. Well, we're going to show them a lesson.
	When that happened in Beirut, he left.
	That's exactly right. And Ronald Reagan, by the way, for all his faults, called for the abolition of all nuclear weapons on planet Earth.
	He wanted zero nukes.
	Yeah, he called the Soviet Union an evil empire, but he wanted zero nukes.
	He wanted peace. You know, the end of the 80s, you have that great scene of Ronald Reagan walking shoulder to shoulder with Gorbachev in Red Square.
	They're patting each other on the back, and Ronald Reagan stopped and gave a prayer.
	And invoke God Almighty in the Soviet Union.
	You know how powerful that kind of...
	Can you imagine any of our leaders today?
	Is Lindsey Graham calling for God's grace and forgiveness and mercy and calling for peace?
	No, this guy's a satanic warmonger.
	This is the opposite. And I'm not defending Reagan.
	I mean, you talk about the 1986 immigration amnesty, or are you talking about the 1986 Act for...
	The Faucian bargain with vaccines.
	They're bad. He made a lot of mistakes.
	He ran up the deficit, all that.
	And again, that's what happened.
	Yeah, failed to get rid of the Department of Education.
	I've talked about that many, many times.
	Yeah. And, you know, the deficit, he ran it up so much.
	That's why Ron Paul resigned from the Republican Party.
	Ron Paul was the first person to support Ronald Reagan.
	And when he ran in 76 and did not get the nomination...
	But he was also, he resigned and discussed about 10 years later because of the ballooning deficit.
	Right. No, that's exactly right.
	And Ron Paul is a man of principle, and Ronald Reagan skirted around a lot of issues, but we've come a long way.
	We look around now at who is in the position of leadership.
	and decision-making that has any rationale anymore.
	Yeah.
	This is what's terrifying.
	I mean, you talk about how close we are to a kinetic war, to a hot war, to something spilling over.
	And I don't know if these people realize they've never been in a war.
	They don't understand.
	These things take on a life of their own.
	It's like playing with fire.
	I mean, eventually he just gets out of control.
	It's one thing leads to another.
	Unforeseen variables. I know that they run their simulations and they think they're really intelligent because they've got their think tanks and their AI. But I promise you, there's something in this mix.
	If you keep testing it, it's going to spill over.
	And you know, the media, you look at Fox News and the Sean Hannity's are the usual suspects, but you look at the calls for conflict with China.
	Yes. And there's another example of not knowing their history.
	We've long ago seeded Formosa in Taiwan...
	To the Communist Chinese through Nixon and Kissinger verbally and then through Jimmy Carter putting it in writing in 1979 with Zygmunt Brzezinski.
	Something has changed and I think that the media is now cheerleading this.
	We've pivoted from totally ignoring China to China's enemy.
	I think the people need to, especially your listeners and everybody in America, needs to be very suspicious of what's going on now.
	We're being primed For conflict, so that the failures, the internal failures of our parasite class in politics can be projected on an outside source.
	All of this is, I mean, at least we're never lacking in material to talk about on shows anymore.
	That's what Joel Skousen has said for the longest time.
	He said they want to destroy this country.
	They want to take a first strike.
	And they want to destroy it.
	That's part of their great reset.
	It was interesting, Tony, when I was reading Shari's book, The Four Battlegrounds, that I realized that that whole book is about four battlegrounds with China.
	How do we stack up against China in these four areas?
	I wanted to talk to him because it was about AI, but as I was going through it, I did not realize...
	I didn't realize that Taiwan is really the epicenter of semiconductors.
	93% of the most advanced computer chips come from there.
	And the vast majority of computer chips, these massive foundries that they have there, out of Taiwan, they're not going to let that go over to the Chinese.
	That's what's really the...
	The foundation of all this and why they will go to the mat to protect this.
	But, of course, if war breaks out, we've already had people, that's not in his book, but outside of his book, you've got Pentagon people saying, no, it's going to be a scorched earth policy.
	Before we let those semiconductor foundries go into the hands of the Chinese, we'll destroy all of them in a scorched earth policy.
	Well, what's that going to do with the supply chain issue?
	That, you know, even if you don't have a kinetic war that's going to break out on the U.S. mainland, that would disrupt everything so much it would be unbelievable and a very, very, very long time to recover.
	Probably I would not be alive by the time they got back to where they are today.
	And when you look at the pronouncements coming from the Pentagon, You got a high-ranking official.
	I forget what her title was, but she said, you know, looks like we're going to have war with China.
	We have war with China. It's going to erupt onto the mainland of the United States.
	They're fine with that. They really don't care.
	Well, General Milley will have to forego making his phone call to warn the Chinese before they do the Scorch Garthond.
	That's what they'll do.
	Are they thinking that logically?
	I don't think so. That in itself is a very aggressive act of war.
	That won't stop anything.
	That will escalate tension.
	That will create more kinetic warfare.
	I think that every one of these scenarios that Winston Churchill talked about, the terrible ifs accumulate.
	Looking at Ukraine and Russia and And the media, and for whatever reason, the politicians can't seem to understand that Russia is not trying to occupy and take Ukraine.
	If it wanted to do that, it would have done that a long time ago.
	And I'm not a russifier. I'm not defending them.
	Again, the aggressor nation, they have a lot of problems.
	But they're not trying to occupy and take Europe.
	This is such a silly analysis.
	This is the domino theory.
	It's the domino theory again.
	Going back to Vietnam. You know, they keep running the same playbook again with slight variations.
	You know, this is going to be, if we lose Ukraine, and how many of these Hollywood movie star geopolitical experts have you heard repeat that talking point?
	You know, if Ukraine goes, that's it, for all of Western civilization.
	It's all going to go. Domino theory.
	Russia will go everywhere. These people are so precious, David.
	It's always 1938.
	It's always Munich. Every war, every conflict is always appeasement.
	It's always Neville Chamberlain.
	And they don't even understand that history.
	If you understand that history, then none of the things you are saying that it compares to are accurate either.
	So, just lack of historical sense.
	And we're just sleepwalking into this war.
	And a lack of logical consistency.
	They're saying this at the same time that their line was.
	Now they're changing their line and saying, oh, look, Ukraine's on the ropes.
	But they were saying this at the same time they were saying Russia's on the ropes.
	Well, you know, if Putin is about to die and he's got some kind of severe illness and his hands are shaking and all the rest of this stuff and he's desperate and everybody's turning against him.
	How could you then at the same time say, and this is going to be a domino theory for all of Europe?
	It just doesn't make any sense.
	It's not consistent. They can't even come up with a consistent lie.
	Well, it's like the Drudge Report.
	They're not doing this much lately, but if you remember about the first three or four months into the war, they would run headlines like, Russia loses a thousand troops a week.
	And I remember just looking at calculating that.
	Wait a minute. That's impossible.
	If you know anything about the history of warfare, it's just absurd.
	It's simultaneous that Putin is dying, there's going to be a coup d'etat, or he might already be dead or something, but he's also the most dangerous new Hitler that the world has ever seen.
	Things aren't true. This is something they're, again, projection, putting all the blame onto Russia.
	We know the history of NATO. We know what they've done.
	We know the NATO expansion.
	We know bombing Serbia for 78 days during the Clinton administration and the Balkans occupation.
	We know moving NATO closer to Russia's borders has been a provocation, and we promised them verbally through James Baker in 1992 that we would not do that.
	We violated every promise that we've made, and we're militaristic.
	We're right on their border. It's an existential threat, so that's why that's gone on.
	But at the same time, you have the media preparing the United States and the people for war.
	We're clearly being primed for that, and that's concerning.
	I mean, Lindsey Graham isn't helping.
	He's talking about going into Mexico.
	I mean, it's totally unhinged, David.
	Well, you know, and you look at things, you've got like Alexander Dugan, who's kind of like the David Koresh of Russia, right?
	Circle the wagons. They're going to kill everybody, and so what do you do?
	You show up and you start shooting, you know, and it's like, see, I told you, and it's on, right?
	And so you've got Alexander Dugan, who's been saying this for a very long time, you know, going back to Yugoslavia and what was happening there.
	It's like, NATO's coming for us.
	It's an existential fight and all the rest of the stuff.
	And then they do everything to make him look like a prophet, including, and I think, you know, the targeting of his daughter.
	I think that was an amazing strike to shore up the Russians to get them to see this as an existential fight.
	I don't, you know, the U.S. doesn't, and NATO does not want peace.
	They want war. And they want to keep Russia energized and Backed into a corner, seeing this as an existential threat.
	And I think the murder of his daughter, the assassination of his daughter was all part of that.
	The Russians are going to look at this.
	Dugan's going to look at this. See, I was right from the very beginning.
	Yes, and we've been building that.
	I mean, I think in this respect, Joel Skousen is 100% correct.
	We're building up Russia. Everything that we could have done post-Cold War, and you look at the writings of somebody like Gore Vidal, he was calling for some sort of economic union.
	We did everything to run away from that.
	We expanded NATO. We expanded our operations.
	We continue to interfere in their internal politics and so on and so forth.
	That's why you got Vladimir Putin at the end of the 20th century.
	He was sworn in just going into the year 2000.
	That's why you have him.
	It's a backlash, a nationalistic response to our interference and our expansion of our military power there.
	So if you don't understand that, then you don't understand the conflict in Ukraine.
	And again, the media is complicit in this, putting the American people on a war footing.
	We have no summits for peace anymore, David.
	There's no one calling for peace, and that's...
	That's something new. No administration that I've ever read about would have no exit strategy at all.
	I mean, they have nothing. There's no push for peace.
	There's no negotiations.
	Nothing. The rhetoric is even just ramped up more and more and more.
	The interesting thing, and I talked about that today, the statements made by, you know, Trump has said, you know, you're going to have World War III if I don't get elected.
	DeSantis has said, this is a regional conflict.
	We don't need to be there.
	And you're seeing this with all the presidential candidates so far.
	Probably Pence will be different.
	Probably Pence will...
	And if Pompeo comes in, certainly Nikki Haley is a neocon candidate.
	I'll never forget. You talked about trying to push us into Syria.
	I'll never forget how adamant she was, along with Theresa May, that because of that ridiculous Skripal poisoning, he didn't die, right?
	And it wasn't nerve gas.
	If it had been the Russian nerve gas, he would have been dead, as Putin said and laughed, you know, because it was seven times more potent than our nerve gas, VX. But it was...
	From all indications, it was a substance that was used as dry-cleaning stuff.
	It had the same symptoms and that type of thing.
	And they did find it when they finally did an analysis.
	They found a lot of that, and they found traces of newly added, and I forget what the name of the nerve gas, the Novichok, was it?
	Novichok. Yeah, they had new, and the Swiss lab.
	Cleverly put it in. They said recent traces, you know, new traces of Novichok.
	In other words, this has not been there for the last whatever it was, a month, month and a half, two months that they sensed the poisoning.
	So, you know, the whole thing was used to try to get us in for the third time.
	And it was Nikki Haley more than anybody else.
	I'm sure she would be in on that.
	But the reason I brought this up was it's kind of interesting to see that the Republican candidates for president are reading the voter base.
	And they're saying what the voter base, the Republican voter base wants.
	But you don't see anybody in Congress, you're right, just a few people in Congress pushing back against what's going on in Ukraine.
	And just on the Republican side, nobody on the Democrat side pushing back against it.
	But it's only the people who are trying to put together their campaign for 2024.
	And even if they were sincere about it, even if they're going to do something about it, it may be on before that all happens.
	I think it will be. I think there's a real possibility of that.
	They'll just be stuck with it.
	I don't believe them.
	I'm sorry to be so cynical.
	I know my history.
	You go back to the election of Woodrow Wilson.
	His slogan was, he kept us out of war in 1916 for re-election.
	He kept us out of war. The first thing he did was to declare war.
	He was sworn in as president.
	A lot of people think it was the Lusitania right then.
	No, the Lusitania happened in 1915.
	Same thing with Franklin Roosevelt.
	Franklin Roosevelt says, you know, he's running for an unprecedented third term.
	He says, I've seen war.
	I hate war. Your boys won't be sent into another European war.
	Next year, your boys are being sent into a European war.
	I mean, this is, and Ron Paul's right in history, in the modern era after World War II, Republicans were elected to end wars.
	Eisenhower taking over for Truman.
	You know, Nixon from LBJ. You could argue a lot about the Nixon administration, what he actually did, but I think there was a clear goal to rebalance power.
	That's why this is so concerning now, because there is no rebalance of power.
	We're making all the wrong moves if we wanted to have a lasting peace.
	Same thing with Ronald Reagan.
	He was elected to end the Cold War.
	It needed to be wound up.
	He wound it up nicely, I think.
	Communism obviously didn't die.
	It's alive and well in all of our institutions of government and finance right now in the United States.
	Yeah, we brought in just like Operation Paperclip.
	It metastasized.
	That's where we are.
	This current crop of politicians, I'm sorry.
	I'm cynical. I agree.
	I think it's simply, you know, you said nobody's saying anything.
	At least they're saying something about it, but they're not going to do anything about it.
	And if they get elected, I think it's going to be too late for them to do anything about it anyway.
	At that point, well, now we're at war.
	Now everything has changed.
	I know I said it was for peace.
	Zelensky ran and got elected on a platform of peace.
	So, you know, the politicians say they know that people want peace.
	They'll promise peace, but they'll give us war.
	You're absolutely right. I was interested to see what you thought about Xi Jinping being a negotiator in this between Zelensky and Putin and inserting himself into this.
	I thought that was an interesting sea change.
	I don't know what that means.
	You could look at it several different ways, but it looks like China wants to get involved in the outcome of Ukraine, which is different.
	something that they haven't been real vocal in these type of geopolitical events, uh, in the last, well, you know, almost ever my lifetime there, but they're inserting themselves now because you can see the power shifting.
	You can see economically, you know, they run the simulations and Martin Armstrong Socrates program and saying that, uh, the only way that the West can save the dollar is through war and, uh, you know, resetting the chessboard and, and the polarization, you know, having people pick sides because we're you know, having people pick sides because we're losing in the era of, you know, having 40 different economic sanctions in 36 countries.
	The BRICS nations emerging, China being the strongest economy from Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, now adding Saudi Arabia.
	That is a major move.
	And seeing that you could just, you know, history is interesting.
	You can, like, if you go back and look at when did the British Empire pass from being, you know, the empire which the sun never set to what Gore Vidal called an aircraft carrier for the United States.
	I mean, they went really quickly.
	Yeah. You know, and it was throughout the, you know, they lost the gold standard in 1914 going into World War I. They tried to get it back when Winston Churchill was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that failed.
	And throughout the 30s, they just became weaker and weaker with the emergence of Nazi Germany.
	And then World War II, and they were just gone.
	And Breton Woods happened in 1944, David, as you know.
	They created the IMF, the International Monetary Fund, and they pegged the dollar to gold, $35 an ounce.
	The new economic world order was set.
	I think what we're watching is a new...
	Breton Woods, we're losing the dominating power, the hegemonic dominating power of the dollar as the world's reserve currency, and it's happening gradually.
	They lost the will to continue as they were.
	They went soft.
	The British Empire went soft, and the U.S. has gone soft as well.
	They don't have the desire to do what is necessary to even provide for themselves.
	And that is kind of a generational thing.
	You have a generation that builds and a generation that consumes and gets soft.
	We see that happening over and over again.
	But in terms of what you asked about China, I think China understands that they are the target.
	They've made no secret about it.
	All the military industrial complex, I mean, you know, Shari works for an organization that gets money from Soros.
	And Hillary Clinton was there at the inauguration.
	I mean, they're tied to all the major military industrial complex.
	Though, you know, when they talk about, you know, here's our four battlegrounds, and it's all about China.
	And I'm seeing that from all, not just from him.
	And not just from that organization.
	I'm seeing it from all of these, you know, they all see China as the target.
	And they know that they don't want to fight Russia and China at the same time.
	So they want to take out Russia first.
	And that's why I think China wants to support Russia, because they see that they're going to be an ally in a war with the U.S. And so they don't want them to fall first.
	And they're going to do whatever they can. They're already shipping material, you know, weapons and And body armor and stuff like that to the Russians from China.
	They know that they don't want to stand alone against the United States.
	They want to have as many allies as they can, and Russia is going to be their ally.
	I think that's why they're making those kinds of moves.
	I think you're correct. And it's a catastrophic failure on our part as the United States to have lost the opportunity to reset the balance of power after the fall of the Soviet Union.
	You know, we flipped China in 72 for good or ill and looks like kind of ill.
	I mean, even Richard Nixon thought that we had done something that possibly could have a massive blowback before he died.
	He said, you know, about China awakening.
	That's something Napoleon said.
	Don't awake the sleeping dragon.
	It's not going to be beneficial to you.
	We've awoken it. We flipped China to end the Cold War in 72.
	But we didn't do anything in this modern era to build alliances.
	We've been just going around, clubbing people over the head as the policemen of the world.
	We've got 700 bases in 132 countries.
	We're bankrupt foreign policy-wise on paper.
	We're bankrupt now financially.
	We have the worst crop of politicians in the history of the United States running things now.
	So I think, and again, this isn't a downer.
	I don't want to be depressing.
	People need to wake up and realize that the normalcy bias, the system as it was, bet against it.
	Bet on yourself. Bet on your neighbors.
	Bet on the community that you can build.
	Bet on local. Bet on free speech and getting out programs like this.
	Stop betting on this system because it's being run into the ground.
	There's a creative destruction going on.
	Your son talking about...
	The Silvergate Bank being Building 7.
	Absolutely. We're watching the controlled demolition of our financial system to fit the needs of these psychopaths.
	And the answer to that is free markets.
	The answer to that is decentralization.
	The answer to that is we the people.
	That's right.
	And, you know, one of the most positive interviews that I've had in a long time was talking to Noah a couple of days ago about what he's trying to do, you know, educate people how to grow food for themselves and to build community, to build a relationship with Christ through that community and all to build a relationship with Christ through that community and all the rest of the But he's trying to get people essentially, you know, he's running workshops.
	So, you know, if you want to learn how to do this and learn how to train other people and how to build communities in your area, I mean, it's a great model.
	And it is from the ground up.
	And that's the only thing that's going to be working for us.
	But, of course, there are things that we can do individually to prepare, and that's why we talked to you, why I like to promote what you've got there at wisewolf.gold, because we need to make sure that we are out of this financial system as much as we can.
	Tell people what's happening at wisewolf.gold.
	Well, we've got a lot going on.
	After this kick-up with the banking crisis, we just got inundated with phone calls and emails and You know, and I'm happy to have the business.
	I've got, you know, when I started this, David, it was me and my dog, Layla, and we had a little shop in San Antonio, and I had a Google listing, and that's how I handled my business.
	Now I've got, you know, three full-time employees, and Kinsey's there, the head trader.
	I've got two full-time ladies here that work in my office who pack Wolfpack packages, and we're doing it like hundreds at a time.
	That's great. So we're really, really excited about that because Wolfpack and the membership program is the other aspect of what we do, and that is just building community, building monthly memberships for people.
	The more people that join, the stronger that we get, the better products that I can buy into.
	If you're looking at things like I'm looking at, whenever something like this happens and there's a banking crisis, and this is a small blurb.
	I mean, compared to what it could be, you start seeing supply chain issues with getting product from the mints, from wholesalers.
	They start putting on, like, we've got two or three week delays now on Canadian maple leaves, and that happened overnight.
	You know, it was like, oh, they're all live on the trading floor.
	Now we're about, you know, almost 30 days out to get a silver Canadian maple leaf or a gold maple leaf.
	And this is just what happens now.
	When there's any sort of schism in the market, because most people don't realize is that if you're buying precious metals, you're in a fraction of a fraction of the population.
	You're a small percentage.
	There's not enough really to go because of SLV and GLD and the stock market.
	You know, and I talked about it before.
	It's estimated that there's only one physical ounce of silver for every 240 sold on these exchanges.
	So we deal in physical.
	That's coming out of Shanghai.
	Certainly it's trustworthy, isn't it?
	These paper gold accounts.
	Yeah, they've got all of it in the vaults there in Shanghai.
	You can count on that, right?
	Well, we promise it's there.
	So, you know, I appreciate you letting us sponsor the program.
	And we have some more listeners from you that have come through that we'll be working with today.
	And, of course, that's for direct sales.
	And Kenzie told me to mention, you know, Wolfpack is great, but you can also call us if you just want to just buy it.
	Something direct. We don't have a minimum.
	We don't have a maximum. So we can get your product to you.
	But I wanted to mention something about Wolfpack.
	I want to run a special, and I didn't know if anybody knew that if you're a lone wolf, if you join Lone Wolf, and that's the $50 program, I put gold in there.
	And I don't want to sound like I'm a marketing shill or something or one of these mattress salesmen.
	I'm crazy prices, but I lost money.
	On the lone wolf package so I could put out these half gram sovereign gold coins because I promised the lowest tier would get gold.
	So we lost about five or six bucks putting it out on cost after shipping, which is fine because I've got plenty of other members and we're doing okay.
	But that is for your listeners and for everybody who's been a loyal customer.
	I put gold in there for you.
	So if you join Wolfpack, if you join the lowest tier, you're going to get gold.
	And that's a limited time. I don't know how much longer it will last.
	I know, Kenzie, we bought...
	About 20,000 worth of those smaller gold coins.
	And then I also wanted to say, I'm going to run a special, and this is going to include Warrior Wolf level and up, which is the 125 and up.
	If you join any time between now and Monday, I'm going to include a brilliant, uncirculated American Silver Eagle in your package for free.
	Wow. So that's an incentive to get...
	We're almost at 500 members, and I'm right on the edge of it.
	So let's just do it. And I'll just run that special up until Close of Business Monday.
	So if you're hearing my voice and you're getting David's podcast, and you can give David Knight credit there on the drop-down menu at wolfpack.gold or just go to davidknightgold and click the link.
	But that, to me, is part of the community building.
	I've noticed as I've gotten stronger, we have more members...
	I've just gotten much better deals and much better product for people.
	So go and check it out.
	That's great. Yeah, and of course, you know, the Wolfpack thing, we talk about that so much.
	As you said, people can buy any amount.
	Uh, we talk about the Wolfpack thing because it's a gradual thing.
	You know, when I talk to anybody that I've, I've talked to in terms of learning how to do, um, grow your own food and that type of thing, they said the big mistake is try to do everything all at once.
	And of course, you know, the, the power of saving, which again, they don't want us to do with CBDCs.
	They want to make sure we can't save anything.
	And that's why you put some money aside and some gold and silver.
	And by doing it with a gradual process and gradually accumulating it and getting accustomed to that, it's almost like building your financial muscle, you know, doing a little bit on a regular basis like that.
	So that's why we focus on that club thing.
	You mentioned you didn't want to sound like a mattress salesman.
	And I immediately went back this...
	Steve Bannon's, I guess you could say his sponsor, this Chinese billionaire Guo, they busted him.
	Did you see some of the stuff that he was buying?
	He had two $36,000 mattresses, and I saw that.
	It's like, what is it about a mattress that What could you do to a mattress to make it worth $36,000?
	And it was just this long list of luxury item things like that that he had bought.
	And it's like, I don't know. But I guess that's one of the reasons why the wealthy can never get enough money because they're spending $36,000 on a mattress.
	It becomes ridiculous at some point.
	It does. I love that quote from Hemingway.
	He was kind of making fun of F. Scott Fitzgerald.
	You know, the rich are different. You know, in the great Gatsby, he says, yeah, the rich are different.
	They have more money. They just have more money and they do stupid things with it.
	Some of the best sleep I ever got in my life was on an army cot because I was so tired.
	So I don't know if it matters necessarily.
	At some level, you're just overspending, whether it's on a vehicle or a mattress or anything else.
	Yeah, your car, you get a $37 million yacht and stuff.
	A nice boat or whatever.
	Or the clothes, you know, the amount of money.
	Thousands of dollars on a dress.
	You can't tell the difference between that and anything else.
	It's just the name. It's just amazing.
	But anyway, we don't have that problem.
	I don't have that problem.
	I deal in gold and silver, but I'm not in love with money.
	I'm just not in love. At a certain level, it's great to have enough.
	You can take your family to dinner.
	You can pay your bills. You don't have that worry, that pain in your gut.
	You know, I've got to make the The mortgage payment.
	So if that's satisfied, you can focus on being creative and doing things like media.
	You don't want to be addicted to it.
	You don't want it controlling your life.
	You don't want to love it. You want to use it, but not love it.
	That's the key thing, right? Because the love of money is the root of all evil.
	Thank you so much for joining us.
	As always, great talking to you, Tony.
	Thank you. Thank you, David.
	And WiseWolf.gold.
	And, of course, you can find it with DavidKnight.gold.
	Well, we're almost out of time, but I want to play something for you that just kind of dropped my jaw.
	Not only the video, but the response to it.
	This is the celebration of lockdown.
	And, you know, I count time from that Friday the 13th when Trump put out the executive order.
	But it was over the weekend that everybody started, you know, they thought about, okay, now what can we do with this?
	And they started devising their plans.
	And so things really started happening on Monday the 16th.
	Even though you had, you know, the California and New York saying we're going to lock down the state or whatever, the specifics started hitting on the 16th.
	So yesterday we had someone come out with us and say, well, here we are.
	Here's a three-year anniversary.
	And look at the glee from Fauci and Birx in terms of how happy they are to lock everybody down.
	But Trump is there as well.
	And so I retweeted this and I said, oh, but what about Trump?
	Look at Trump smiling and, you know, back-slapping as much as they were.
	Here's a short clip. I just wanted to read, there's an answer to this.
	Oh, yeah. Oh, okay.
	Look at this. He was my mentor, so I'm going to have to let him speak.
	And Trump is grinning and loving it.
	It's a really small print. In states with evidence of community transmission, bars, restaurants, food courts, gyms, and other indoor and outdoor venues where groups of people congregate should be closed.
	Yeah. And then Trump is there.
	Mr. President, are you telling governors in those states then to close all their restaurants?
	Well, we haven't said that yet.
	Yeah, but we will. And we'll give them money to do that.
	And he's going, yeah, see? Right there.
	Yeah, we got the power to do all this stuff.
	Just absolutely disgusting.
	Just disgusting. And it's disgusting that people will put that tweet out.
	This is from Greg Price.
	The day everything changed. Look at how excited Fauci and Birx were about permanently altering the lives of millions of people.
	Oh, but don't say anything about Trump.
	Trump, I retweeted that out.
	I said, Trump... Paid to have that happen.
	Trump kept Fauci and Birx on the podium all of that time.
	Just amazing to me.
	Well, we're nearly finished, and I want to say today is the 49th anniversary of Karen and I's first date.
	We went to a Dixieland gas place, Woody Riley's Warehouse, long since closed.
	And it's 49 years.
	It's amazing to see how time has flown by.
	But I had a great time.
	I had some great music there.
	We met, by the way.
	First time we ever came in contact with each other, we were ushering at a symphony concert.
	So music has kind of been at the center of it.
	But it has been an amazing blessing all these years.
	We had a triple date where we went to Woody Riley's Warehouse for St.
	Patrick's Day. So happy St.
	Patrick's Day to all of you.
	It'll be a day that we will always remember for different reasons.
	And, um, I just have to say, um, uh, really am blessed by God with that.
	There you go. I got a Confederate flag there because it was Dixieland.
	So there we are.
	Uh, a Confederate flag.
	You wouldn't see that in you. That's changed in the last 49 years.
	It was Dixieland.
	And so they put that up there, but it just had a lot of fun.
	They had a guy who was already in his late 80s, and he kept doing it into his early 90s, played banjo.
	But one of the guys that was in the band was my junior high school band teacher.
	He played clarinet in the Dixieland Jazz Band.
	They played bassoon in the symphony orchestra.
	As people say about those double reed instruments, oboe particularly, the difference between oboe and onion?
	Nobody cries when you chop up an oboe.
	Have a good weekend.
	Let me tell you, The David Knight Show, you can listen to with your ears.
	You can even watch it by using your eyes.
	In fact, if you can hear me, that means you're listening to The David Knight Show right now.
	Yeah, good job.
	And you want to know something else?

▲