Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 5, 2023 - The David Knight Show

03:01:44

The David Knight Show - 06/06/2023

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Using free speech to free minds.
	Soon.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	As the clock strikes 13, it's Tuesday, the 6th of June, year of our Lord, 2023.
	3. - Well, today we're going to take a look at the interview that RFK Jr.
	had with Elon Musk on Twitter Spaces yesterday.
	Something very interesting was said.
	I did a sub-stack about it, but I want to go into it in a little bit more detail and talk about some of the other things that were said and some of the things that were not said.
	We're also going to take a look at the new Apple headset that is going to be introduced next year.
	One of the reasons why the price went up for the stock and then went down.
	It was trending when I went on Twitter.
	I saw Black Mirror trending for a reason.
	And we're going to talk about that as well as a lot of other dystopian technology.
	And we're going to have something a little bit different.
	We're going to have a science fiction author on with us.
	Someone who has won an Emmy, a Tully, a lot of different awards.
	And he has got a dystopian, sci-fi, 1776-style revolution set in the future.
	We'll be talking to him in the third hour.
	Looks like it'll be interesting.
	Stay with us. One of the things that I thought was interesting about this, the interview that we're going to have about the book, is called Revolution Empire.
	And as I was looking at some of the reviews for it, I saw one from a homeschool curriculum training and support program called Homelink Yakima.
	And the person said, it's filled with concepts, challenges so increasingly familiar in today's chaotic world, Revolution Empire presents a thought-provoking, inspiring lesson into the often brutal truth of absolute power.
	And the preciousness of the freedom that can defeat it.
	And many other things.
	So it piqued my interest. This author is very successful, so I thought let's get him on and we'll talk about that.
	Something a little bit different. But let's talk about the Twitter spaces last night.
	Now this did not crash this time, interestingly enough.
	And from what we could see, and they didn't criticize it for not having as many listeners, the New York Times was very, very critical, as always, of RFK Jr.
	They really do hate him.
	They use every baseless slanders that they would pose against me or any of us, not criticizing him for the things that I would criticize him for.
	But one of the things that they said, and they didn't say it in a critical way, was that it peaked with 60,000 listeners.
	At first I thought, when I saw that it didn't crash, I thought, well, maybe Musk fixed it.
	But he had a much, much smaller crowd than DeSantis did.
	So I thought that was interesting.
	But just to give you an idea of how visceral the hatred is at the New York Times of RFK Jr., here's what they say.
	He has used his campaign platform to promote misinformation, asked during the discussion by David Sachs, a top DeSantis donor, who is also close to Mr.
	Musk, quote, What happened to the Democrat Party?
	Mr. Kennedy spent nine uninterrupted minutes attacking Mr.
	Biden as a warmonger and claimed that their party was under the control of the pharmaceutical industry.
	Where do you get these crazy ideas?
	Ha! A little bit of candid conversation from a candidate.
	Can't have that.
	Not on the New York Times.
	He said, I think the Democrat Party became the party of war.
	I attribute that directly to Biden.
	He has always been in favor of very bellicose, pugnacious, aggressive foreign policy.
	And he believes that violence is a legitimate political tool for achieving America's objectives abroad.
	Well, that's absolutely 100% true.
	New York Times hates that, though.
	Specifically because it so accurately drives a scalpel into the heart of the problem.
	Biden's campaign declined to comment.
	Declined to debate. Declined to comment.
	Of course, that's going to be the way that they respond to this.
	For more than 30 minutes at the event start, and this is what I thought was interesting.
	The person that I downloaded this from, and I didn't have time to actually watch it and listen to it, so I downloaded it and did a transcript.
	That's what I have to do with something.
	I mean, this is two hours long.
	I don't have two hours to listen to chatter.
	So I download the thing, I look at it, and I scan it, search it for particular terms to see if they're covered there.
	Much to my surprise.
	They talked about gun control.
	First time I've seen that.
	And that's what I wrote the substack about.
	With some quotes from it and my comments.
	But I'll give you more. As I said...
	When I put it up last night, I said, I'll have more to say.
	So, today, for more than 30 minutes at the event start, and that was the unusual thing, there was about 18 minutes that was missing.
	No, it wasn't Rosemary Woods who put this thing up on YouTube.
	I don't know why the guy, whoever put it up, cut that off, but I know that at the beginning there was a lot of introductions, and as the New York Times said, for a half hour, He interrogated Musk.
	RFK Jr. interrogated Musk.
	And that was what was going on at the beginning of the clip that I got.
	I thought, that's kind of weird.
	But it was good in the sense that Yeah, he was asking him some pointed questions about artificial intelligence, neural link, self-driving cars, and things like that.
	Those are questions that need to be asked, but of course he didn't get really good answers.
	Musk was evasive in them, but they are questions that need to be asked.
	He was very flattering to Musk, of course.
	And I understand that.
	He's kind enough to give him a platform when he had been kicked off from Instagram.
	They just reinstated him, by the way, and brought back his users after an absence of two years.
	They cut him off on Instagram and Facebook for the same reasons they cut me off.
	They cut me off in 2018.
	They cut him off in 2021.
	So... They did bring him back and said they brought him back because he's running for president.
	Maybe I should try that.
	No, I'm not interested at all.
	I've already done the quixotic quest of running for Congress.
	That was enough. That was beyond the pale.
	It wasn't even my idea.
	I did it just so that we'd have a candidate in that jurisdiction.
	And I did get in a televised debate.
	But anyway, so that experience has taught me a lesson that I won't repeat.
	Anyway, they talked about that and eventually Musk said, well, these are very interesting topics, but let's talk about your candidacy and moved it on.
	So, the New York Times corrects him on one thing that he said.
	They make a big issue out of it because they don't like what he had to say about guns.
	And I said in my Substack article, I said there's a couple of things here.
	Number one, it's going to really PO the left on this stuff.
	Because he said to them, forget about coming after the AR-15.
	Forget about the rest of the stuff. Now, he didn't say forget about gun control.
	He just said that's not going to happen and it's going to kick off a civil war.
	And that's very important to understand.
	And it's very important to understand that unlike Biden and so many other Democrats, he says he doesn't want a civil war.
	And I believe him. I think he doesn't want a civil war.
	And I believe Biden and Eric Swalwell and these other people, Beto O'Rourke, who do want a civil war.
	And they can kick it off by coming after the guns.
	No doubt about it.
	But anyway, he said that Switzerland has a larger percentage of people who have firearms.
	And they said, well, that's factually not right.
	So they were very happy about that.
	They caught him. On a factual error, but that's beside the point.
	The second part of what he did, which was so important, is he brought into the conversation SSRIs.
	He said, you know, I want to stop these school shootings.
	Maybe we'll have to look at what one of the foundational or the foundational problem is in all this.
	Why is this happening now?
	It's never happened before in history.
	Now, he didn't say, as he could have, probably should have said, As we've pointed out for a long time, many, many people who are Second Amendment defenders say, why was it that we could bring guns to school in the 1960s and 70s for target practice?
	Why could people drive around with their pickup trucks and a gun rack in it?
	And we didn't have these kind of shootings?
	Why was it that what has changed in our society?
	He doesn't look at the broader issues of society, and that is certainly a factor.
	But a key thing in all of this is the murder-suicide pills, the SSRIs.
	And he brought that topic up.
	I'm very glad that he brought that up.
	See, this is the important thing about the campaign.
	It's not so much that I'm looking for a solution or a savior out of Washington.
	And I've said that over and over again.
	And it's not that I support any of these people or I would even consider voting for them.
	If I go to vote in the next election, this is where I am now at this point.
	If I go to show up at an election, it's going to be because there's somebody local that I want to support.
	Otherwise, I'm not going to vote.
	I'm just at that point now.
	I'm so disgusted with this corrupt system.
	Both parties, I'm sick of it.
	I've pushed against this thing for 30 years and I'm fed up with it.
	But we need to understand how they're coming after us.
	Different people will come after us in different ways.
	But the campaigns are an opportunity for us to talk about important issues and to bring them to the surface.
	And even the New York Times can't wish that away now.
	That's there. That toothpaste is out of the tube.
	And RFK Jr.
	is going to continue to say this, I think.
	Some of the other things he said. Borders are a real problem.
	They didn't like that either.
	Besides Biden being a warmonger, and he also said big pharmaceutical companies own the Democrat Party now.
	He said it used to not be the case.
	It used to be the GOP, but now they own the Democrats.
	That's true. The New York Times said, well, the Republicans get more money than the Democrats do.
	Regardless of who gets more money, And who knows who gets more money?
	Is this money above board?
	Is it reported? Is it under the table?
	Who knows who's getting the most money from Big Pharmaceutical?
	We know that they're both owned.
	That's the key thing.
	We know that Big Pharma owns the Democrats.
	Big Pharma owns the Republicans.
	Big Pharma owns CNN. Big Pharma owns Fox News.
	They own all of it.
	He talks about free speech and how important that is.
	But let's talk about, oh, and the things that he didn't talk about.
	Did not talk about abortion.
	Did not talk about the trans agenda, the LGBT, the gay this and gay that, the Pride Month.
	He didn't talk about any of that stuff.
	He didn't talk about crypto.
	He didn't talk about CBDC. He didn't talk about universal basic income.
	The only thing that was digital that he talked about was artificial intelligence, and they did talk about that.
	So it's interesting to see that there's still a lot of question marks about what he would say about these issues.
	And frankly, there's still a lot of question marks about his character.
	He's been very candid about a lot of things.
	But he acknowledges that he's got a background that's very concerning.
	He's on the Epstein planes.
	He talked about his sexual addiction.
	He had a wife who committed suicide.
	All these different things.
	There's a lot of questions about character.
	Just like there was with Trump.
	Multiple wives and things like that.
	Those types of things...
	If he wants people to vote for him, I think.
	It needs to be addressed directly.
	We can all admit that we made mistakes and talk about the change.
	But unless you want to actually talk about the mistakes that you made, the bad things that you've done.
	And I think that is something that needs to be discussed when it is so big.
	And of course, the key one of these things is this call to lock people up.
	He talks about himself being a free speech absolutist, but if he talks about a decade ago locking up people who disagree with him on this climate MacGuffin, he needs to address that.
	Well, I used to think that until I was the victim of censorship and that changed my thinking.
	Something like that, you know.
	What was it that changed his addictions and things like that?
	These types of things need to be addressed.
	But perhaps he will still early in this.
	But let's talk about the gun control issue.
	Because I said I'm really happy in this Substack piece, I said I'm really happy to hear him call out what I believe It's a fundamental problem with the school shootings that is ignored by both Republicans and Democrats and even by Libertarians, capital L. Even they don't talk about it.
	Reason doesn't talk about it.
	Cato Institute doesn't talk about it.
	People go out and they'll attack the gun or they'll defend the gun or gun rights or whatever.
	But they won't talk about the pharmaceutical aspect of it.
	It's amazing the amount of power that big pharma has over people.
	Look, even if you don't get money from big pharmaceutical companies, all of these media outlets know that they can shut you down if you talk about their product.
	I know that.
	I know that. I knew that before I started talking about it.
	And then I experienced it.
	They can absolutely shut you down.
	So they don't want to talk about it.
	Republican, Democrat parties, candidates, and the Republican, Democrat media do not want to talk about it.
	So I said in the article, I said, Substack, I said, but first, what did he say?
	Did you expect all politicians to say, even the ones that want to take your guns?
	Well, they all say what he said.
	I'm a constitutional absolutist.
	And they all say that.
	You can hear somebody like Eric Swalwell or Joe Biden say, well, I absolutely believe in the Second Amendment, but, you know, we've got to save the kids.
	So I'm going to take away your guns.
	But I believe in the Constitution.
	And as I said, they'll then try to kill the Second Amendment by a death of a thousand cuts, a death by a thousand infringements, or, what is usually the case, well, they do both, Immediately, they'll deny that the Second Amendment was what it was about, which is about individual rights.
	If you look at the Bill of Rights, it's pretty obvious that the first eight, I would even say the nine and ten, all ten of them are about individual rights.
	Number ten talks about the power of states and the powers of the people collectively.
	But all the rest of them are about the rights of an individual.
	You know, to have due process, to not have excessive fines, to not have your free speech taken away by the government, and to not have your weapons taken away by the government.
	All the rest of this. It's all about individual rights.
	And so what they'll do is deny that this is talking about individual rights.
	Oh, no, this is about the collective rights of the state to do whatever we want.
	No, no. But then he went on to say, this is what would disappoint the leftists.
	He told the leftists that the Supreme Court has ruled in, quote, a very expansive interpretation of the right to own a gun, end quote.
	And then he offered an olive branch to them.
	I said, look, look, I understand.
	I understand the pain that families feel in all of this.
	My father, my uncle were killed by a gun.
	But then he said, I know as president that you're going to expect me, and I'm going to do everything I can to reduce gun violence in this country.
	I think one of the tools that's been taken out of my hands, however, is taking away people's guns.
	And he says, because the Supreme Court said I can't do that.
	I commented and I said, well, that's true.
	The president doesn't have that power.
	Trump didn't have power to do gun control by executive order.
	Biden doesn't have power to do gun control by executive order.
	It didn't stop Trump or Biden, however.
	But the reality is it's not because of any Supreme Court decision.
	It's because the Constitution says so.
	And because you don't have any authority to govern in any capacity from president to dog catcher without swearing an oath to the Constitution.
	And once you violate that oath, you may have power, you may have an army alongside of you of armed goons, but you don't have any legitimate authority.
	And we have the legitimate authority to resist you because you're an usurper, a liar, an oath-breaker.
	So anyway, but he points that out to them.
	Again, he appeals to the Supreme Court for his authority, not to the Constitution.
	That's worth noting, by the way.
	But he goes on to say, quote, taking people's guns, he said, I don't think that's the right thing right now.
	Because it'll just polarize our country.
	Again, right now.
	Okay? But this is the bigger context of what he's saying.
	Is that it'll polarize our country.
	We're living in a time, he said, when the Constitution has been under attack.
	All the other amendments in an unprecedented way.
	And how would that be seen by the people who strongly believe in the Second Amendment as part of a systematic assault on our Bill of Rights?
	That was a great statement, he had to say.
	Because he's laying out for the left.
	He said, look, you want to come for the guns?
	You understand? That all of the Bill of Rights is currently under attack and everybody sees it.
	If you come after the Second Amendment, well, you know, the people, millions, tens of millions of people who are armed are going to understand that it's over.
	And so he said, and it'd be right to understand that.
	I wrote on Substack, I said, unlike the bellicose idiots, Eric Swalwell, Beto O'Rourke, and Joe Biden, who all threatened as candidates to use the military to go to war with gun owners, RFKJ de-escalates and isn't going to engage in this kind of bullying demagoguery.
	As a matter of fact, he says, we need to pull this back or we are going to have a war.
	Big difference, isn't it?
	And this is the kind of talk that we need to hear.
	This is a good thing for somebody to say, let's not have a civil war.
	Because you have Biden pushing for it.
	You have Trump pushing for it.
	You have the activist base, grassroots, both the left and the right, pushing for it.
	So anyway, then he pivots to something that people of both parties should be interested in.
	But the politicians are not interested in talking about, and that is why.
	Why the school shootings?
	I wrote, after every one of these school shootings, I remind people of the murder-suicide pills, the SSRIs.
	I've had several guests on recently to talk about it, from SSRIstories.com.
	Also, Kim Witsack, whose husband committed suicide after being prescribed an SSRI simply because he had difficulty sleeping.
	I gave links to that interview.
	You can see it as a podcast.
	Or here it is a podcast.
	You can see it as a video on the video channels.
	Anyway, then this quote from RFKJ. He stated, when I said, he stated the obvious that no other politicians will say.
	Here's what he said.
	And I quote, I also look very closely at the role of psychiatric drugs in these events.
	And there are no good studies right now.
	That should have been done years ago on this issue because there's tremendous circumstantial evidence that those SSRIs and benzos and other drugs are doing this.
	There's something happening in our country, in our country right now, that is not happening anywhere else in the world and has never happened in human history.
	And you have to look at some of almost all of these drugs If you look at our manufacturer's inserts, they include a side effect of homicidal and suicidal behavior.
	Let me insert here.
	Kim Witsack had to push really hard to get a black box label to warn people about that with these drugs.
	And it was a big fight for her to get that warning label put on there.
	But she was the one who got that put on.
	Anyway, going back to RFK Jr.
	Prior to the introduction of Prozac, he said, we had almost none of these events in our country.
	And we've never seen them in human history, where people walk into a schoolroom, have children or strangers, and start shooting people.
	There's other nations that have as many guns per cabinet as we do, like Switzerland, which is one of the last school shootings was 21 years ago.
	We have one every 21 hours.
	The one thing that we have, it's different from anybody in the world, is the amount of psychiatric drugs our children are taking.
	Now, the response of the New York Times is interesting.
	Look at that dynamite statement.
	They completely digressed, and they said, well, no, Switzerland doesn't have the same number of guns that we do in the U.S. We have, what was it, something like 125 per 100 people, guns?
	125 guns per 100 people, they said.
	And they said, Switzerland only has about 27, and the number two, Yemen, is somewhere in the 50s, 57 or something like that.
	That's not the point. He was offering...
	The example that why is it that Switzerland is heavily armed?
	Not necessarily as heavily armed as America, but that's, you know, this number three.
	Why is it that they don't have these school shootings?
	What's different in their society?
	Maybe we should ask that question.
	New York Times doesn't want you to ask that question.
	New York Times wants to say, well, he said this, and factually we can say that he's wrong, and we don't even mention the gist of what he was talking about.
	The SSRIs.
	The murder-suicide pills.
	Isn't that amazing?
	The New York Times is such a dishonest paper.
	I cannot stand them.
	And the Washington Post, right there.
	And guess who's going to be deciding what is true or false?
	Shoveling that over to the tech sensors, hardware and software, to mark you and mark your content and keep it from being uploaded.
	And not just me. You as well.
	You want to make a meme?
	You want to post an article somewhere?
	Oh, well, no, that's coming from so-and-so.
	We've already identified him as someone who is false.
	And nothing that he puts up will be allowed to go on.
	So, anyway, it was an interesting what he had to say.
	Never in human history have we had people walk into a schoolroom, have children or strangers start shooting people.
	One thing we do have, it's different from anybody in the world, is the amount of psychiatric drugs our children are taking and our people are taking.
	And we need to look at that.
	And I should have done that years ago, but they will not do it.
	And they will block other people from doing it.
	And of course, the New York Times will not report what he's saying.
	I mean, he went on for quite a while about this.
	Because they're working for the pharmaceutical industry, this is their major profit center today.
	Pharma does not want you to hear about any problems with SSRIs, but I will do those studies immediately when I get into office, and we're going to get the truth.
	And it's something, you know, guns, the proliferation of guns is clearly abets violence, he said.
	No. No, he's wrong about that.
	We've got a very peaceful society.
	When they were more widespread in use.
	Anyway, he says, anybody who tells you that they can remove it with AR-15s, whatever, by tinkering at the margins and get to the kind of situation that they have in Western Europe, anybody who tells you that is pulling your leg.
	We need to look now at other solutions.
	And we, and the only way we're ultimately going to get gun controls in this country is through consensus.
	You see? He's getting back to his core.
	You know that he wants gun control.
	But what he's saying is, to the left, we don't want to have a civil war.
	And so he says, we're going to have to build a consensus.
	And we're going to have to, first of all, try to focus on what is causing these shootings.
	And so let's take a look at the SSRIs.
	And then we can take a look at the guns.
	It's not that he's averse to gun control.
	And he is not a Second Amendment absolutist, as we begin by saying.
	Because he said only then, ultimately, can we get to gun control in this country.
	You see? He said that consensus cannot happen when we're all at each other's throats.
	We need to assure the public people who feel insecure about the Constitution that our Constitution is no longer under threat.
	And nobody wants to come and take away their guns.
	And that will bring people to the table.
	We can say, okay, now how do we protect our children?
	And that's what I'm going to try to do as president.
	So there's both good and bad parts in this.
	And, you know, I'm not going to endorse him.
	I know that fundamentally, I know where he is on big important issues, parental rights, abortion, gun control, you know, all these issues.
	And as I said, I'm not interested in endorsing anybody.
	I'm not even interested in voting, folks, except for local and state offices.
	So we need to prepare ourselves for this.
	Because, you know, they are going to make some moves.
	And we need to be able to not just defend ourselves, but we need to be able to feed ourselves.
	And we need to be able to have a community of like-minded individuals.
	And we need to be working on how that's going to be organized.
	And most importantly, you know, we're not going to find any salvation in these secular saviors, these politicians.
	The foundation of what we're going to do is going to be there because we believe in God.
	And because we have, as I said many times, a hope, a confident expectation of how this is all going to work out eternally.
	And that gives us a massive leverage point, a fulcrum that is outside of this life.
	That's how you change things.
	You have to have that foundation.
	You have to have that confidence.
	Confident expectation.
	And one of the things that that does is that's going to turn your heart to your children and your family.
	You're going to take the longer view.
	You're going to understand this life is just a moment.
	And you're going to be judged for what you do.
	And you're going to be judged for who you trust in.
	Talk about his past.
	What was it that changed him around?
	I know he went to Alcoholics Anonymous, and that can be very powerful.
	Part of that is looking at a higher power.
	But of course, the real...
	Higher power that gives you absolution from the mistakes that you have made.
	The rebellion, not just mistakes, but absolute rebellion to God that you've made.
	That is the thing that gives you the ability to start over.
	That has to be there. That was there in the people who built Western civilization.
	That was there in the people who built this country.
	And we're not going to rebuild it without that foundation, first and foremost.
	And so, it was kind of interesting to see, like I said, you know, he began with a flattering musk.
	He went right up to the line of being obsequious, but he didn't cross over it, fortunately enough.
	And they talked about self-driving cars, artificial intelligence, Neuralink, and some things like that.
	Let me just read some of the comments here.
	I know people have been leaving comments.
	Angus Mustang, I don't trust RFK. He seems like a combination of Biden and Trump, but definitely a lying politician.
	Yeah, there's, you know, again, I don't trust him.
	You shouldn't trust any of these people.
	I don't trust Biden, DeSantis, any of them, and certainly we know that Trump is not trustworthy.
	He's proven it. Or Biden.
	But the bottom line is that, again, it is important to have these conversations.
	See, it's important for people to understand this SSRI thing.
	I talk about it constantly, but I have a very small audience because I talk about things like this constantly.
	And it's one of the reasons why he gets purged.
	But now that he's running for president, he gets back on to Facebook and Instagram.
	He laid out an important thing about the SSRIs.
	And so, KWD68 on Rumble says, I would take RFK over Biden or Trump, but then bureaucrats and agencies are running the nation with support from corporations, media, and education.
	When the government wants to take your guns, nothing good follows.
	Mass shootings are the ruse to confiscate you.
	The reason is control, but our founding fathers knew was possible.
	Just like his father and uncle, RFK Jr., is flying close to the proverbial sun, and he's definitely on the radar and in the gun sights.
	That's right. Jason Barker.
	Hey, Jason. Good to see you there.
	I hope the move went well.
	Apparently, he doesn't understand that they use school shootings to push for consensus.
	That's true. That's true.
	Yeah, that's what this is about.
	And every time, they use that.
	And so, you know, if we were to do the SSRIs, I mean, they'd have to fall back on their MKUltra training exclusively.
	It'd be a little bit harder for them.
	But look, we had the SSRIstories.com.
	7,000 of these stories.
	Murder-suicide stories.
	And, you know, it is huge.
	It's a big factor in what's going on in our society.
	Look, you're still going to have shootings in Chicago and things like that, the drug war, the culture that we have inculcated through our schools, our media, our drug wars, all the rest of this stuff.
	Those are things that are different about America as well.
	But it's a very important factor, and it needs to be understood.
	Even to the extent that the effect of these things needs to be understood, not just to stop school shootings, but to stop a suicide of somebody like the husband of Kim Witsack.
	He'd still be alive today.
	If we understood how dangerous these pharmaceuticals are.
	He goes to a doctor.
	She said he trusts the doctor because he was an athlete.
	And he would go to them and, you know, he'd have minor problems with joints or muscles or whatever.
	They would fix the stuff. So, you know, that created a trust in the medical community that was misguided.
	And so he's having trouble to sleep.
	They give him the SSRIs.
	And he had horrific experiences immediately.
	He collapses on the floor a few days after he started taking them in a fetal position.
	My mind is outside my body.
	He was in all kinds of pain and everything, and not too much longer after that.
	He committed suicide. She wasn't there.
	She was traveling at the time.
	It could have been that because of these severe issues that he stopped cold turkey.
	If you do that, it puts you into withdrawal.
	And that's when the murder-suicide stuff really happens.
	A Syrian girl. Kennedy is overlooking the elephant in the room.
	Even if government steals all of our guns, the criminal alphabet agencies like the CIA that killed his father and uncle will still have them and lose them against us and probably him.
	Absolutely right. Absolutely right.
	Little Ford Schoolhouse.
	Thank you for the tip.
	It says, from Michael's mom, thank you for praying for him.
	He's home and doing well.
	Good. Unfortunately, we will go back for more surgery July 18th for his head condition.
	Craniosynostosis. We hope and pray this surgery goes better.
	Thanks for spreading the truth and common sense.
	Well, thank you. So, pray for Michael.
	That sounds very serious.
	July 18th.
	Please keep us informed.
	Well, as I said, he talked to Musk about some of these other issues, and I do want to get into a lot of technology today, not just politics, because of the Apple thing.
	We're going to take a quick break and we will be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	Well, like I said, the interview began with him interviewing Elon Musk.
	So I thought that was kind of interesting.
	Here's some of what they had to say.
	RFK says, I want to thank you, sir.
	I do want to ask you a question about...
	I really started following you.
	I had to look at some of these things because when I do the transcript, some of the words do not...
	I started firing you, for example.
	I started following you.
	I do want to ask you a question.
	I really started following you about an interview you did years ago where you said that we should be terrified of AI. You said, I think, and I quote that, you said, first it's going to take our jobs, then it's going to kill us.
	So you said, I see what you're doing with Neuralink, and it seems to me that that is a technology that could potentially be really ethically dented.
	That's a good way to put it.
	Ethically dented, denigrating both democracy and human freedoms.
	Like I said, it was very flattering to him, but he didn't cross the line to being obsequious.
	It seems to me like what you're doing is ethically dented.
	It's going to be a threat to human freedom and democracy.
	And so Elon Musk goes in and says, well, you know, we're helping, you know, we're going to help the blind to see and the lame to walk, right?
	I don't know. Sounds suspicious.
	Anyway, we're enabling somebody who's a quadriplegic or a paraplegic.
	If Stephen Hawking was able to communicate as well as someone with a full functional body, that would be incredible.
	But long term, he said, I think we have hopefully some chance of mitigating artificial intelligence's existential risk by enabling a closer symbiosis of AI and humans.
	This is his transhumanism.
	He said, And he's made it clear.
	You've got to become one with a machine.
	Singularity. And all these people are the same.
	Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Ray Kurzweil, all these Google executives, they believe they're going to live eternally by merging with machines.
	And of course, that's not for you, really.
	Just understand that.
	But that is the deception that they're following.
	And so, anyway, RFK goes on after Elon Musk talks about how important it is for us to head off We have to be able to think as fast as it or faster, which means that we need to have neural link to have a brain-computer interface that's going to have sufficient bandwidth so we can outthink the AI and that type of thing more quickly.
	But then he goes on, RFK follows up and talks about self-driving cars.
	He said, I think something like 40% of the jobs in America are from our driving jobs or involve driving.
	So what are you going to do with all these, he said.
	I'm using a very bad characterization, but you know, surplus humans, said RFK Jr., because that's what a lot of people are going to feel like.
	Well, Elon Musk knows that.
	Nowhere did they talk about universal basic income, UBI. And of course, Musk was the first supporter of Andrew Yang when he ran in 2020, because Andrew Yang's issue was UBI. Musk supported him because he wanted to put UBI out there in a positive light.
	And that's why I'm saying, you know, and he did.
	And it became a big thing.
	And he was going to, I wanted to interview him about that.
	He agreed to it. Then he realized where I was on UBI and he didn't want to come on.
	The whole point was to use Andrew Yang to put a positive spin on universal basic income.
	And all these billionaires, not just the people in Silicon Valley.
	Michael Bloomberg said the same thing when he was running for president in 2020.
	You know, we had the farmers, we replaced them, put people in factories.
	And the factory workers, they're replaceable as well.
	None of these people are, to use a term that Trump used, essential.
	They're all non-essential people.
	And the smart ones of us, said Michael Bloomberg, just have to figure out how to placate them when we take their jobs so they don't come after us with guillotines.
	That was his word. Guillotine.
	And we're going to use your universal basic income.
	And so all these billionaires know this.
	They all know that.
	They all know about the fourth turning.
	And the mainstream media will go to such great lengths to talk about all these different generations.
	You know, we've got boomers and we've got millennials and we've got the X and the Y and the Z generation and all the rest of this stuff.
	Why don't they talk about the fourth turning?
	Well, because they don't want you to know.
	For the same reason that they'll quibble over statistics with RFK Jr.
	about gun ownership in various countries, but they'll completely avoid talking about SSRIs.
	Won't even use the term in their article where they attack him.
	And that's why this is important.
	It's important for people to know that, you know, Musk wanted people to see the good side of UBI. I want to see people seeing the bad side of SSRIs.
	And that could be a positive thing coming out of this candidacy.
	But anyway, it's just the discussion part.
	So he says, Elon Musk says, well, I think it actually could end up being a good thing, you know, to replace drivers, he says, with self-driving vehicles.
	And that, you know, instead of driving one car, you could actually manage a sort of fleet of nine cars.
	Oh, well, there you go.
	Hey, Elon, what happens to those other nine drivers?
	What happens to them?
	What do they do, right?
	If you get your way.
	He says, I'm just saying, self-driving, I don't think it's an existential risk to civilization.
	Well, I think that it is a key part of a plan that is an existential risk to civilization.
	The climate MacGuffin, the COVID MacGuffin, all these things, and that's what this is part of.
	All of this is part of a plan that is designed to depopulate the Earth.
	And it is, by definition, an existential threat to humans.
	That's what this is all about.
	So, yeah, every taxi driver is going to make nine times more money with self-driving cars.
	Now, from the very beginning, at Uber, you had Travis Kalalnik, when he was CEO. He said, we're going to have human drivers, but he said, the reason that our rides are as expensive as they are is because of that other dude in the car with you, and we're going to get rid of him with self-driving cars.
	And then you have the guy who's the CEO for Lyft.
	And he's all about that as well.
	As a matter of fact, that guy, I forget what his name is, but he has a background of being an urban planner.
	And he wrote an op-ed piece that I talked about in length many years ago, saying that cities are the best invention of mankind and that automobiles are the worst invention of mankind.
	And we need to maximize our smart cities and we've got to get rid of all private transportation.
	Yeah, I hate this urban sprawl.
	These suburbs, that's a bad idea.
	Individual homes for people, that's a bad idea.
	We need to pack them in like rats in our city where we can control them.
	Yeah, that's an urban planner right there.
	That's the CEO of Lyft talking.
	Anyway, then he talked about the border, which I thought was interesting because he said some things there that not even the GOP has acknowledged when they criticized Biden on the borders.
	We need to seal our borders.
	That function is a key existential function for every nation in the world to be able to control immigration at its borders.
	Having millions of people, or hundreds of thousands in this case, millions of people flowing across the border is not something any nation can or should put up with.
	And you know, worst of all, it's created a humanitarian crisis at the border.
	The notion that we have an open border is now a gospel around the world, so that people are flying in from all over the world, from Europe, from China, from Asia, taking full planes in Ecuador.
	And then, you know, they're being assisted by non-profits and by government groups to actually make their way to the U.S. border.
	And it was in buses.
	And that needs to be shut down.
	He talked about what Michael Yan has exposed.
	Down there at the Darien Gap in Panama and so forth.
	The mainstream press and not even the Republican candidates who want to talk about the chaos at the border, they don't even talk about that.
	And so it's good to have that spoken up.
	You say, we have people in this country who are poverty stricken, who don't even have access to Because the paucity of public assistance don't even have access to public assistance.
	And you know, we need to be protecting these people in our country, in our urban populations, rural populations.
	If the 7% of Americans that cannot put their hands on $1,000 if there's an emergency, we don't have the capacity to support a lot of new immigrants and this huge flood of new immigrants.
	It's coming into our cities, it's stressing the school systems, stressing the social service systems for people who are already, and Americans are already struggling with it, and it needs to be turned off.
	So my comments on this.
	First of all, he doesn't understand that this is the Cloward and Piven strategy.
	Secondly, you see this paternalism that is so characteristic of Democrats.
	Even sincere and well-meaning Democrats are paternalistic that it is the government's job to take care of the poor and needy.
	No, that's our job.
	That's your job, that's my job at the local level.
	We used to do that at the local level.
	We used to do that with voluntary organizations that we would create to handle that at the local level.
	We used to do it through churches and other things like that at the local level.
	But now even the churches are demanding, well, they see a problem.
	Instead of the churches, especially the, and I'm talking about the left-wing, mainline, liberal churches who are all about social activism, They don't care.
	They're functional atheists, if not total atheists.
	They don't believe there's a God.
	They don't believe in Christ.
	They don't believe there's going to be a judgment.
	They don't believe in his substitutionally paying for your sins, any of that stuff.
	They just believe they've got to be good people.
	They've got to be involved in social work.
	And yet they don't do it themselves.
	They hector the government to do something about it.
	And Alexis de Tocqueville, when he came to America in the early 1800s, it was after the socialists had taken power in France.
	And he said, unlike France, where everybody calls on the government to fix every problem, in America, if they see a problem, they come together and they need a fire department, they create a volunteer fire department.
	They need a library, they come together and collect money, and they create a library.
	They see people who are poor or needy, they take care of it in their community.
	And that's how you...
	Address genuine need.
	Because, you know, people can't always...
	This is why I disagree with the hardcore libertarian approach of Ayn Rand.
	Hey, tough luck, survival of the fittest type of thing.
	No, we all hit times when we need help.
	And we should be helping each other.
	And that is something that time and chance will overtake each and every one of us at some point in our life.
	Even if it's at the very end.
	But there needs to be something there to help people.
	But if you do it at a local level, if you do it with a local community, if you do it with a church community, you can determine if these people are faking it If they're just looking for a free ride, and so you can do it more efficiently and more effectively.
	You can help the people who really need it and not the people who are trying to game the system.
	And that's the problem with trying to do it through the government.
	And that's the problem with being a true believer in big government.
	So then he says, I'll also open up legal immigration and so forth, and we've seen this.
	But the person also asked him about the regulatory state and how it controls things.
	And he said, well, the role of these agencies in compelling behavior from U.S. corporations is appalling.
	And as soon as I get into office, I'm going to issue an executive order forbidding the federal agencies, whether it's NIH, whether it's the CIA, the FBI, from participating in any efforts to censor speech by the American public or to compel other behavior from the American public that is not legally required.
	And that's what we saw during the pandemic.
	We saw it in the vaccine mandates.
	And we saw it through the censorship of speech.
	So he said, immediately in the first week I'm in office, I will sign an executive order.
	Again, we need to burn some of these agencies down.
	Both DeSantis and RFK Jr.
	are talking about the fact that we have agencies that have used corporations.
	They don't use the term that I use, deputized state corporations.
	It is a public-private partnership.
	They are deputies of the state.
	As a matter of fact, if you want to understand why we have all of these problems, it was laid out for us in 2017 by Larry Fink, the CEO of BlackRock.
	He's not specifically mentioning the terms ESG, but he shows how they use corporations.
	And, of course, he's at the upper level.
	And he is pulling the strings of these corporations through BlackRock, which holds significant amounts of stock in these companies.
	Here's what he bragged about, boasted about, in 2017.
	The guy that's there on stage with him, who chimes in, the former CEO of American Express.
	You now make a point of, that's an investment criteria for you.
	Well, behaviors are going to have to change, and this is one thing we're asking companies to You have to force behaviors.
	At BlackRock, we are forcing behaviors.
	Forcing behaviors. Fifty-four percent of the incoming class are women.
	We added four more points in terms of diverse employment this year.
	And, you know, what we are doing internally is if you don't achieve these levels of Impact, your compensation could be impacted, okay?
	We're doing the same thing. And so it's just, you have to force behaviors.
	And if you don't force behaviors, whether it's gender or race or just any way you want to say the composition of your team, you're going to be impacted.
	And that's just not recruiting.
	It is development, as Ken said.
	And ultimately, it's still going to take time.
	But I am just as much shocked as Ken is that we have not seen more opportunities, and we're going to have to force change.
	We're going to have to force change.
	We're going to have to coerce people. We're going to have the corporations coerce people.
	Now, he's one of the higher-level people, right?
	And the reasons that we have all these different things happening with Target and with Bud Light and all the rest of this stuff, or to even take NASCAR, right?
	You're not their customer.
	You just think you're their customer.
	They've got one customer.
	Actually, they've got two customers to please.
	They have to please Washington, and they have to please Wall Street.
	And if Wall Street is happy with them, and Washington is happy with them, they're going to be flush with cash.
	If you please Wall Street, you'll have Larry Fink hand you all the cash you want.
	If you please the Biden administration, or even under Trump, if you please the established bureaucracy that remains there, even under Trump, you'll have all the cash that you need.
	Wall Street can manufacture cash out of thin air through happy stories on the stock market.
	Just like Washington can manufacture money out of thin air with the Federal Reserve.
	You're never going to run out of cash if you make those guys happy.
	So, as far as the customers are concerned, They don't care.
	You're not a factor in what they do.
	And so it is very important that we not play this game, that corporations are somehow operating in a free market and that they're there to please the customer.
	It's like how many times and in how many different ways do we have to have that naive notion jammed down our throat and into our face by these corporations before we finally catch on?
	What is happening with this?
	Anyway, that was the New York Times forum there, you know, pushing those lies.
	And as RFK was talking about the psychiatric drugs and stuff, this is, again, there are a lot of people.
	It's not just a local...
	State paper that's there in Nashville, a Tennessee Star, pushing for this manifesto of this trans shooter.
	But you also have other organizations that are involved.
	You have a Tennessee gun organization, Tennessee Firearms Association, said we need to be able to see this.
	The law is that we have open transparency here in Tennessee.
	You're violating the law.
	Wisconsin is Institute for Law and Liberty.
	Their acronym is WILL. W-I-L-L. So this wants the FBI to allow access to this manifesto.
	It's filed a motion that, hey, you know, you're violating the Freedom of Information Act.
	Of course, the FBI always does.
	And so you've got several organizations that are out there trying to get this information.
	What is it that they don't want us to see?
	Well, certainly they don't want to portray trans in light of hatred against Christians, the insanity that's there.
	But I think there's also possibly some stuff about the SSRIs that they don't want people to see.
	And that's one of the things that Kim Whitsack said.
	He said, look, you've got to get over the idea that once somebody is dead, you've got to keep their medical records sealed.
	We're talking about mass murder here.
	And we need to start getting to the bottom of what the cause is here.
	And these are the people who are trying to hide that from us.
	My son, as he heard me talking about Uber, he knows, I've said it so many times, what Thomas Jefferson said.
	Cities are a threat to the health, the wealth, and the liberty of mankind.
	He said cars are a threat to the health, the wealth, and the power of the elites.
	That's absolutely right. Heron H, after telling him the bad experience that I had, After weaning off of bupoprin, a bad SSRI drug, I had written a suicide note but thankfully didn't follow through.
	The doctor prescribed me a different antidepressant.
	I didn't take it.
	Go figure. Yeah.
	Just be very careful. Again, one of the big risks, if you're on SSRIs, you've got to come off of that very, very, very, very slowly.
	Think of the analogy of a scuba diver who has been down for a long period of time and they have to come up very, very slowly, stay at different levels to decompress or they'll get the bends.
	You know, the pressure has dissolved the nitrogen into their bloodstream.
	If they come up too quickly, that'll bubble out, cripple or kill them.
	And so that's the issue with the SSRI. And many, many other drugs are like that as well.
	Dickon Rockfin said, if they wanted to stop mass murder events, we'd have a law making all photo, video, audio evidence public.
	Instead of a police-FBI-owned state secret, as it always is.
	They tell us what happened on TV. Yeah, it's not just the revolution, but it's the mass shootings that will not be televised or be out there for anybody to look at.
	So, again, the Washington Post, just as bad as the New York Times.
	Everything is conspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy.
	Isn't that interesting how this weaponized term, weaponized against people who did not believe the obvious lies About the JFK assassination.
	The lone shooter, the magic bullet, and all the rest of this stuff.
	Who saw that that also didn't just defy logic, but it also was contradicted by eyewitness testimony, by the Zapruder film, many other things.
	So the response of the government, the FBI, was to create this thing called a conspiracy theorist.
	And that's the way that they're attacking after they use that to cover up questions about killing his uncle.
	That's the way they come after RFK. That's the Washington Post for you.
	Before long, Kennedy was arguing that the 2009 tabletop exercise about mock pandemic talking about a May 25th appearance in Indianapolis actually revealed a secret plan involving U.S. spy masters to enrich drug companies and to suppress free speech.
	Well, that's a very naive, inaccurate characterization of his book, Fauci, where in the 12th chapter, he talks about the long history of these germ games.
	That's the way the Washington Post characterized it.
	You talk about fake news.
	These are the people who are fake news.
	And then listen to this.
	He then rattled off clinical data from a coronavirus vaccine trial that was not designed to measure mortality, falsely suggesting the vaccines killed more people than they saved.
	He made no mention of the abundant science, says the Washington Post, the abundant science that found that the vaccine prevented serious illness and saved lives.
	Well, the reason he didn't mention it, Washington Post, is because it doesn't exist, except in your lying narrative.
	I'm sick and tired of the lies of the Washington Post.
	Yes, democracy dies in darkness, and it dies in the kind of lies that are being pushed by the mainstream media, Washington Post, New York Times, at the top of the list.
	And, of course, they're the ones who vet everybody for truthiness.
	That alarmist message, said the Washington Post, has given him a platform that he believes will remake the Democrat Party.
	Alarmist. No, the alarmist message was part of the lockdown.
	The alarmist message was warp speed and all the rest of this stuff, all the panic.
	This is why I'm not even going to talk about it anymore.
	I'm fed up of people talking about the Wuhan lab.
	That is nothing other than alarmism that is designed to undergird the lies of the COVID pandemic to make it seem real.
	It's not real. The real issue is the vaccine.
	Anyway, he said people want the truth.
	And that's the key thing.
	People do want the truth.
	It remains to be seen whether we will get it.
	But they are very, very concerned.
	And they just, throughout this article, conspiracy this, conspiracy that.
	And this is how they're coming after him.
	Anyway, one of the things that he said, Was after his father's death, and this is in the Washington Post story.
	Of course, they put the stuff out and then they'll pull it apart.
	After his father's death, he became friends with Roger Ailes, the former head, now dead, of Fox News, who he claims once told him that he would fire any TV anchor who reported about the dangers of vaccines because the pharmaceutical company pressure.
	So what happened to Tucker?
	Right? Don't pay no attention to that.
	And Tucker, as I said, did that deliberately.
	He got nervous for Tucker as he was saying that.
	He does this long analogy.
	What if Fox News told you that you had to get a MyPillow and everybody had to buy not one but two.
	You had to get a booster pillow and all the rest of this stuff.
	And it's killing people or something like that.
	He said, no, of course, Fox News would never do that.
	He pulls it back. But as he's laying out this hypothetical case, everybody knows that he's accusing Fox News.
	Of pushing the vaccine on people.
	Knowing that the vaccine was going to kill people.
	And I think he did the same thing that Matt Drudge did to get away from Fox News.
	He knew where their red lines were.
	And he crossed them to get fired.
	Same way that Matt Drudge did.
	Matt Drudge knew that Fox News would fire him if he showed a life-affirming picture.
	Of a young baby, at 20 some odd weeks, reaching up and grabbing the finger of the surgeon who was working on him because he had spinal bifida.
	And, you know, he knew what hypocrites Fox News were.
	And Tucker knows that as well.
	But, of course, we're supposed to believe that Fox News would not do that, according to the Washington Post.
	He went on to say, Senator Frank Church, he'd had the Church Committee hearing investigating the CIA's deepest secrets in the 1970s.
	He said, Frank Church's wife was my sister's godmother.
	I know all these people.
	So that's one of the reasons why they label him as a conspiracy theorist.
	He authored a 2005 article for Rolling Stone Salon arguing that mercury and vaccines had caused a rise in neurological disorders like autism.
	It was later withdrawn and By both publications, they debunk the claims that mercury harms in vaccines.
	Oh, that's right, yeah. That's right.
	Mercury is great for you. Did you know that?
	Mercury is really, really good for you.
	I haven't had my mercury supplement yet today, but I plan on taking lots of mercury.
	And it's even better if you inject it intravenously, isn't it?
	I didn't realize for the longest time That thimerosal was mercury.
	So they used it as a preservative in vaccines.
	And I had tried contact lenses a long time ago.
	And soft lenses.
	And I would put them in my eyes and they'd immediately turn blood red.
	And the doctor said, oh, that's the thimerosal that's in there.
	And I just couldn't wear them unless I got something else to sterilize them.
	So I had to boil them and stuff like that.
	I eventually just quit wearing them.
	But, you know, decades later, I had an ophthalmologist that actually is an optician said, have you thought about using contact lenses?
	I said, no, you know, thimerosal.
	Oh, we don't put that in anymore.
	That's mercury. It's like, what?
	A lot of people did not have their eyes turned blood red when they injected the mercury.
	I did. So maybe some people don't have a reaction when they inject the mercury into their bloodstream.
	That doesn't say that it's good for you.
	Right? It just says that they can deal with that disruption, but it's not necessarily good for them.
	And, of course, that was one of just many toxins that he said have caused the disorder.
	And they said, well, we debunked this because we saw that after we got rid of the thimerosal, autism continued to rise.
	Well, could be a delayed reaction, but it's also...
	A lot of other adjuvants that are in there.
	It's preservatives and it's also adjuvants.
	I had somebody challenge me on the radio one day calling in about that.
	They didn't even know what an adjuvant is.
	An adjuvant is put in the vaccines because they admit their vaccine is not working.
	So what do we have to do? Well, we got to irritate the immune system.
	So let's put a bunch of stuff in there that's going to attack the immune system and wake it up and get it to fight.
	Well, the problem with that is that you, in many cases, create autoimmune disease in a lot of people with those adjuvants.
	But then you have other things like mercury and formaldehyde that they have used as preservatives.
	And so when you look at all of this stuff, you can't dismiss it, as the Washington Post does, as a bunch of nonsense.
	It's a bunch of nonsense and a non sequitur.
	To ignore this.
	And at the same time, they're pumping these lies.
	Here's an example. This is Washington Post in the same article.
	The mRNA vaccines were found to be more than 95% protective against symptomatic illness of early strains of COVID during the clinical trials.
	That is a bold-faced lie.
	A bold-faced lie.
	Look at how many times. And I've showed that somebody put together a video.
	Over the Hall of the Mountain King from Pier Gint by Grieg.
	Dun-dun-dun-dun-dun-dun-dun.
	You know that one? And they just have this countdown.
	Oh, it's 100% effective.
	It's 99%.
	It's 95% and keeps falling.
	25%? I mean, what a lie.
	And this is being sold now.
	This article was just written by the Washington Post.
	Washington Post and New York Times, their subtitle ought to be, never let the facts get in the way of our government propaganda.
	So, yeah. Then they go on to complain about him talking about the Milgram experiment and some of his things.
	Well, of course, they don't want you to understand the Milgram experiment.
	He hasn't talked about the Ash experiment, which is what social media is.
	But Washington Post...
	Is a partner in the bigger Milgram experiment that the government authorities are pushing on you the entire time?
	Well, I do have an interview that's coming up, and we're getting kind of long on this, so I want to get on to some of the technology stuff and talk a little bit about Virtual reality and the reality behind virtual reality that they're trying to force on us.
	But a couple more questions. Audi MRR. In the 1970s, several FBI indictment recommendations had to be tossed because the FBI violated so many laws to obtain their intelligence.
	The FBI should have been defunded decades ago.
	Absolutely. Just look at the name.
	Federal bureaucracy, right?
	Federal Bureau. It's a federal bureaucracy.
	That was the lifetime project of one of the most corrupt people we've ever had in government in American history, Jagger Hoover.
	And it's no longer a federal bureaucracy of investigation.
	It is now a federal bureaucracy of instigation.
	They do more instigation than they do investigation.
	They set these things up.
	They're like the pyromaniac fireman who lights a fire so he can then put it out and be a hero, right?
	That's what the FBI is.
	There's no constitutional authority for it to exist.
	And it was created in the early 20th century by people who had absolutely no respect for the Constitution whatsoever.
	People like Woodrow Wilson and the FBI. Jager Hoover got his start as part of the Palmer Raids.
	All of this stuff that fractured this country and broke this country so that the warmonger, Woodrow Wilson, could get us involved in World War I. A Syrian girl.
	Conspiracy theorists.
	A weaponized label against people who don't believe government conspiracies.
	That's right. They keep us silent.
	Well, we're not going to be silent. When we come back, we're going to talk a little bit about this virtual reality headset from Apple.
	We'll be right back. 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.
	Well, let's talk about the Apple headset. let's talk about the Apple headset.
	And it rocked the stock market yesterday, as a matter of fact.
	It was going to be the subject of the Worldwide Developers Conference 2023.
	This is something that really began as, you know, explaining to developers where they were going with their hardware and that type of thing.
	Now, under Steve Jobs, it became a massive media event.
	Consumers were as interested, if not more interested, than the developers were because the developers get some advanced information anyway.
	I used to, 40 years and a lifetime ago, I was an Apple-certified developer.
	But Apple's been developing this for many years.
	They called it the Reality Pro.
	It's not real.
	And it doesn't exist yet.
	And then they severely disappointed.
	Their stock hit an all-time high ahead of this launch.
	And the people, as they wrote about this in anticipation, they said, well, the expected price is around $3,000.
	And if they surprise on the, come in on the small side of that, if they come in less than $3,000, that's really going to be very positive for the stock.
	Well, it wasn't $3,000, it was $3,500.
	About one sixth, you know, 17% more, right?
	So that was a big disappointment for Wall Street.
	And then they said, well, it's not going to come out until 2024.
	Hmm, that was even more negative.
	And so by the end of the day, their stock had dropped quite a bit.
	So it was a big seesaw, up and then down.
	A lot of people are calling it the Apulus, you know, kind of combining Apple and Oculus.
	The other headset, as a matter of fact, that guy who put that together created a lot of buzz a couple of weeks ago.
	He said, I've seen it, and I forget the exact term he used.
	He said, it was just awesome, you know.
	And this is a guy who became a billionaire in his teens, I think.
	But anyway, he was really hyping it.
	But the big story was that, and it really upset people when they saw that it was going to be $3,500 and another year to wait.
	And so the Wall Street did not like that.
	But what is this thing?
	Well, here is the demo that they put together.
	And the only reason I found this yesterday...
	Was because when I got on Twitter, I saw hashtag Black Mirror was trending.
	And everybody was referring to this as Black Mirror.
	Well, it looks like the new season looks insane at Black Mirror.
	And then they referenced this video.
	Introducing Apple Vision Pro.
	Vision Pro is a new kind of computer that augments reality by seamlessly blending the real world with the digital world.
	Oh yeah, it's real, huh? It's the first Apple product you looked through and not at.
	Vision Pro feels familiar, yet it's entirely new.
	You can see, hear, and interact with digital content just like it's in your physical space.
	And you control Vision Pro using the most natural and intuitive tools, your eyes, hands, and voice.
	With Vision Pro, you're no longer limited by a display.
	Your surroundings become an infinite canvas.
	Use your apps anywhere and make them any size you want.
	Capture photos and videos and relive your most important memories in an entirely new way.
	Watch your movies, shows and sports and immerse yourself in games on a giant screen surrounded by spatial audio.
	And connect with people as if you're sharing the same space.
	As if. As if.
	But you're not, you know. They call it Vision Pro, not Reality Pro.
	And of course, when you look at this, one person said, when you realize that Black Mirror and Ready Player One become so close in just one event.
	Oops, sorry. I'm putting this up here.
	This is a still picture.
	Vision Pro is a new kind of...
	Introducing Apple Vision 2.
	I keep hitting the wrong button here.
	Okay, this is going to be the right button.
	Ready, set, go. Ready, player one.
	It says, okay, ready player one and Black Mirror all come together in one event.
	Because, yeah, you can just drop out of society, sit in your little, you know, storage shed, and imagine that you are anywhere in the world and you can be anything that you want.
	You can be a furry person. It can be any kind of gender, any kind of imaginary being, and you've got this immersive situation where it creates a massive display.
	So you can turn your living room into an IMAX theater.
	And it'll be so captivating, and it will be.
	It'll be captivating, and it will be addictive, and it'll be like shooting up some kind of crack cocaine or something in a different way.
	That's the trap. That's the trap that they're laying for us.
	Yuval Harari has already told us, right?
	This is not just my understanding of this, but he said the quiet part out loud.
	He said, we're going to control these people.
	He said, we don't need them. As RFK said, you know, they're going to have these, what are you going to do with these surplus humans?
	Well, Yuval Harari said, we just keep them entertained.
	We will keep them subdued with drugs and with games, you know, virtual reality.
	It'll be so compelling. It'll be like a drug.
	And they will get you to drop out of society.
	You'll be happy just to stay inside your little solitary confinement hovel and play games and live a fantasy life.
	What a sad thing, you know, when you come to the end of your life and then after that you look back on your life after it ends.
	That's what I did with my life.
	I played games.
	I sat in a room.
	I didn't have any connections with real people.
	I didn't do anything real.
	I didn't make anything real.
	What a tragedy that is.
	And it's the way that they want to control us.
	And of course, that also controls the population.
	You know, you stay in your little hovel and play video games, you never have any kids, and so they don't have to worry about the next generation either.
	It takes care of itself, doesn't it?
	It's a very clever strategy.
	And as I've said for the longest time, I said as soon as I started talking about the transgender stuff in 2013, I said, this is a pedophile agenda.
	If a child can consent and has the maturity to consent to mutilating their body permanently, permanently, then of course they'll say that that child can consent to have sex.
	This is a pedophile agenda.
	But it also said that this is, that's not where it stops.
	Because the purpose of this is Is to put us into a fantasy world.
	Now that we've seen how widespread transgenderism is, and you see how detached these people are from reality, and how they demand that you play their game along with them.
	This is about putting people into a virtual reality, the transgender thing is.
	And so that's building the mindset that, you know, hey, I shouldn't have to do anything difficult.
	I'm entitled. I need to have all this stuff.
	And just putting you into a mindset where you just want to be catered to.
	And so if they give you a little bit of food and lots of games, they don't have to give you the drugs.
	And you'll pay for your own imprisonment.
	Right? It was the NSA that said in some of the files that were leaked in 2013, so I don't know at what point in time the NSA created these three Slides that were part of a slide presentation.
	Again, this was never publicized in the U.S. It was only publicized in Germany in Der Spiegel.
	And I've shown it many times.
	But it was three slides. The first one was a clip from Apple's 1984 commercial where they introduced the Macintosh.
	And I said, who would have thought in 1984 that this would become Big Brother?
	And they show Steve Jobs holding up an iPhone.
	And the third slide is, and that the zombies would line up to pay for it themselves.
	So will the zombies line up to pay for this virtual headset themselves?
	It's not a black mirror.
	You know, the guy who came up with that said, you know, really referencing the smartphones.
	He said, we look at it, and he goes, it's really a black mirror.
	You can see your face in it before you turn it on.
	But this is not something, as I said, that you look at, you look through.
	So maybe in reality this isn't black mirror, it's black window.
	A black window that cuts you off of reality.
	Yeah, as Jesus said, if the eye is darkness, how dark is the soul?
	You know, if you black out the light that comes in, if you cut off the reality that comes to us, how dark is the soul in that case?
	Yeah, it is a sad commentary on where we are at this point in time.
	One of the things that I thought was interesting, well, let me get some of the comments here.
	Angus Mustang, a Zoom meeting strapped to your head.
	Yeah, that's right. That's right.
	Syrian girl. Wow. People will never have to leave their 100-foot apartment again if they have all that reality to experience in their pajamas.
	That's the point. John Henry, 3777.
	The Matrix had it so right.
	Yes. And then there's this comment from Futurism.
	They said, the bizarre headset has front-facing screen that shows the user's eyes.
	You saw that picture, and they were doing it from a distance, and so it looked like it was translucent, and you could see through it to see the person's eyes.
	But that's not what is happening.
	Maybe this is why it's $3,500 instead of $3,000 or less.
	They went to the trouble of putting a camera in there to look at your eyes, because maybe they're tracking your eyes.
	And then projecting your eyes and your face onto the headset, the front of the headset.
	Apple has finally announced its long-awaited AR headset at today's Worldwide Developer Conference.
	It looks even stranger than we anticipated.
	Perhaps its quirkiest feature is its front-facing display, which shows its wearer's expressions to people nearby by displaying a live view of their eyes on a front-facing screen.
	I can just see the applications coming out now, you know?
	You've got all these apps that change people's faces as they're zooming.
	The most famous one, I guess, was that lawyer who called in and didn't know how to operate his computer, and he put on a filter that turned him into a cat.
	As he's talking, the cat's mouth is gone.
	So I guess that'll be the next thing on this.
	That'll be a feature, not a bug.
	A front-facing screen confirming previous leaks.
	The feature Apple is calling EyeSight is a seriously strange decision, they said.
	Making it look like the wearer's eyes are stuck to the front of the ski goggles-like device, like a pair of googly eyes.
	And it immediately made me think about Ernie Kovacs and his character, Percy Dovetonsils.
	Bullet Lord. There you go.
	I'm angry. He's got the...
	Somebody flipped a brown martini in on me here.
	He's got the eyeglasses that have...
	They're all eyes that stand out from his head.
	So it looks...
	That's immediately what came to mind when I saw that.
	Ernie Kovacs had a...
	Made an indelible impression on me as a very young child, I gotta say.
	And he goes on to read poetry with those strange glasses that make his eyes look like they've come off of his head there.
	I guess it's one of the reasons why I can never take poetry seriously.
	Percy Dove Tonsil's Ernie Kovacs ruined it for me.
	Or maybe he helped me.
	I don't know. But the...
	People will pay $3,500 for that experience.
	And we can laugh at them when we see them.
	Given what we've seen today, they said, we've got some serious questions about the company's execution.
	Will anybody actually shell out a whopping $3,500 for this thing?
	Will Apple single-handedly revive an industry that has failed to bring VR headsets to the mainstream for years?
	Social media had a field day with the high transparency feature, mocking it in a series of memes.
	We'll be right back.
	Thank you.
	Decoding the mainstream propaganda.
	It's the David Knight Show.
	Alright, let's do a follow-up on a story that I think it was Friday that I talked about this.
	We had the U.S. military is now in damage control mode over this report that came out.
	They were doing simulations and you had the guy's rank is colonel.
	He's a colonel. He's pretty high-ranking.
	He doesn't know what he's talking about, though.
	A U.S. Air Force colonel, Tucker Cinco Hamilton, the chief of AI test and operations, gave a presentation to the Royal Aeronautical Society at a summit last month.
	As I pointed out yesterday, he said, look, what do we do about artificial intelligence?
	It creates a real problem because we told it that You know, it gets points for killing people.
	It's an autonomous killing machine, but it does have a human in the loop.
	And so it gets points when it successfully kills the enemy, but it has to get permission from the human operator.
	And so it worked out that the human operator was keeping it from getting points, and so it decided to kill him in the simulation.
	And so then we told it, no, no, no, that's really bad.
	It's going to cost you a lot of points if you kill the human operator.
	And so then it decided that it would take out the communications tower.
	That type of thing. And so the military, the Air Force has now come out with strong denial after this news story broke.
	Air Force spokesperson has now denied any simulation of that kind was ever taken place, according to a statement made to the press.
	Quote, the Department of the Air Force has not conducted any such AI drone simulations and remains committed to ethical and responsible use of AI technology.
	It appears the colonel's comments were taken out of context and were meant to be anecdotal.
	Well, I guess he can forget about becoming a general.
	The Royal Aeronautical Society has also updated its summary of the conference to reflect this sentiment.
	So it was done about a month ago, and they thought that that was what he was saying.
	He apparently seemed to think that that was what he was saying when he recounted that, you know, when he was quoted on doing that.
	But even he came out and retracted this.
	He said, I misspoke.
	This was a thought experiment.
	We've never run that experiment, nor would we need to in order to realize that this is a plausible outcome, he said.
	However, as this article points out, it's worth pointing out, though, that his original quotes sound unequivocal, that he was recalling something that actually happened, and that the language of the summary seems to buy into its veracity.
	The title of the presentation was, Is Skynet Here Already?
	And so when he says this in a very emphatic, declarative way, well, he said...
	AI decided to go after the humans that it saw interfering in the ultimate mission.
	He said the system started realizing that while they did identify the threat at times, the human operator would tell it not to kill that threat.
	But it got its points by killing that threat.
	So what did it do? It killed the operator.
	It killed the operator because that person was keeping...
	It sounds like he's talking about a simulation that he ran.
	But you know, you get that call from above.
	It's like, you better take this back.
	Because now this has gone public.
	It was there, and it was reported by the society that he gave the speech to, and it stayed that way for a month or so until somebody picked it up, and then it went public last week, and then they immediately pulled this back.
	The plausibility and the popularity of Hamilton's story, whether it is hypothetical or actual, at the very least accentuates the public's general fears around AI that the industry leaders are beginning to echo.
	As a matter of fact, they have an interesting meme that The people who are AI experts, they continue to refer to it as a horrifying monster with a friendly mask.
	When I first saw that I thought, well that sounds like Fauci.
	Horrifying monster with a friendly mask.
	No, actually they refer back to this H.P. Lovecraft character that he imagined.
	In a novel from 1936, The Mountains of Madness, this thing, I don't know if I'm saying it the right way, the Shoggoth, something like an octopus with beings with razor-sharp teeth and that type of thing.
	But it was always depicted as a grinning, smiley face sticker pasted over the monster's hideous face like a mask.
	As if to say that behind the surface level, guardrails, lurks an otherworldly, unpredictable monster, and that's now become a meme with the people who work with AI to refer to their work.
	Oh, well, that's kind of interesting.
	This dark, satanic monster lurking under the surface of a smiley, friendly mask.
	They said it is a potent metaphor that encapsulates one of the most bizarre facts about the AI world, that the people working on the technology aren't totally sure if it's going to be good or bad for the world.
	Well, I'm totally sure.
	I can already see that it's evil, that it's satanic.
	Why? Well, because it's deceptive.
	Because it potentially has great power.
	To deceive. And also great power to control us.
	To be used as a means of control.
	That is its greatest power, quite frankly.
	And if we take a look at these means of control, you don't have to look too far.
	And I'm going to talk about the real threat to podcasts that's coming from AI. So it's going to be a big extension.
	On their ability and their capacity to censor everything.
	And that is the primary directive now, apparently, of technology.
	Is to create this panopticon of control in every way possible.
	And to shut down every avenue of speech.
	And of course, podcasts have been one of the last remaining ones where you can get on a large platform.
	YouTube has monopolized the video platform.
	That has been denied to me and to some others and to some content.
	But before we get into that, I wanted to play you something else that was from Hollywood.
	I thought there was kind of a... This is about AI as well.
	Hollywood's next big fight, because they're fighting right now, I think, over the scriptwriters.
	I don't know if they got the screenwriters, have reached a settlement, or if they're still on strike or not.
	But the next big fight, they said, is over how actors will get paid for work that is done by their AI digital doubles.
	Now, I did a report in 2013 about a movie that came out in 2013.
	It starred Robin Wright, and they used her name, and they referred to movies that she had been in, like The Princess Bride and stuff like that.
	The movie was called The Congress.
	And it was really a strange movie.
	I've got a clip of it here, the trailer for the movie that I'm going to play for you here in a moment.
	But it presented this exact scenario.
	And you'll hear them set this up in the sense that she was a very successful actress.
	Robin Wright was there as Robin Wright.
	Very successful actress. But then the fictional part, she's got a child who's got issues.
	And she's kind of pulled back from all of this.
	And they said, look, we can have a situation where you can continue to make money.
	We'll create an AI double of you that will continue to work.
	And you can stay home with your child who's got issues.
	And so then they start to explore what this is really about, and they go in and they completely digitize everything that she does.
	All of her movements, her facial expressions, the way she speaks, all of the rest of this stuff.
	So they can essentially create an AI clone.
	And this is what these people are concerned about.
	They said, Hollywood is gearing up for another union battle this week.
	A big topic will be how actors are paid for work done by their digital doubles.
	Quote, the rapid advances in generative AI technology over the last 18 months have been something that we've been observing in real time.
	And it's already affecting our members.
	Said a chief negotiator at SAG, the Screen Actors Guild.
	They said for actors it might even be more vital because the AI future is already here.
	We've had convincing deepfakes of Keanu Reeves, of Tom Cruise have popped up on TikTok.
	De-aging technology has become standard on projects like the upcoming Indiana Jones sequel with Harrison Ford.
	James Earl Jones even allowed his voice to be recreated by AI so his iconic rendition of Darth Vader could live on in perpetuity.
	Actors want to ensure that they're paid appropriately for their work by their digital doubles.
	That they're able to give informed consent about how those doubles will be used.
	The performer's name, likeness, voice, persona, those are the performer's stock and trade.
	It's really not fair for companies to attempt to take advantage of that, and it's not fair to compensate and fairly compensate performers when they're using their persona in that way.
	And so again, this was something that was touched on by this movie, The Congress, 10 years ago.
	I thought that was very significant.
	It didn't get very many views.
	People didn't really watch the movie.
	They didn't watch my report about the movie either.
	Just in case you're interested now that it's coming true, here's what was being talked about 10 years ago.
	You had it all, Robin.
	Movie queen at 24.
	And you slammed all the open doors, crushed all the dreams.
	Then Aaron's condition started going downhill.
	Eventually, you will be completely blind.
	This proposal won't be on the table again.
	Robin Wright for Jeff Green.
	You're in the future, Robin.
	You're a princess bride.
	And now I'm... I'm in this situation.
	What situation are you in, Jeff?
	The situation of offering you the last contract that you'll ever have.
	We want to scan you.
	All of you. Your body, your face, your emotions, your laughter, your tears.
	And we want to own this thing called Robin Wright.
	I have to take care of my son.
	Robin, things are changing quickly.
	You're entering a new age.
	Once we've scanned you, there's no going back.
	Yeah, and this is where it gets really weird.
	She gets into a virtual reality where she's animated and everything else is animated, and I think that was part of the problem with that movie.
	But the reality is, as we see everything being pushed into virtual reality, That she finds herself trapped into this cartoon universe after they scan her.
	Again, you know.
	But that is the reality that we can find ourselves trapped in this cartoon universe.
	Not just the actors who are scanned, but the audience as well.
	As we live not in virtual reality, but in a sick kind of voyeur reality.
	And that's what they've been establishing for a long time.
	This is a long, drawn-out process.
	If you stop and think about movies, and I've, you know, fortunately seen way too many movies in my lifetime because we had a video store right there.
	I didn't have time to watch all of them.
	I would watch trailers and I could get a gist between watching the trailers about the quality of the movie, looking at the director's history, looking at the actors that were going to be in it in the box office.
	I could pretty much figure out what to purchase.
	The bottom line is that if you look at this long trajectory of movies and look at how, from its crude beginnings, how much more immersive it is, and it can draw us into a universe that seems to be more real than reality itself and hold us there.
	And with all this technology, it's becoming even a more powerful draw, isn't it?
	Actors could end up being in multiple places at once because these tools could help them execute different projects at different stages, said one of the people who was part of these negotiations going on in Hollywood.
	Well, that's fine. So we'll have Tom Cruise forever.
	We'll have Robin Wright forever and some things like that.
	And it kind of reminds me of what happened in the music business as well.
	When I was in high school and college, it was already becoming very difficult to do any live venues and get paid for it.
	And of course, that's pretty much disappeared as music technology has advanced a little bit.
	Everybody's using canned music instead of live music.
	It's very predictable. As a matter of fact, you know, everybody knew when I was in college that if you wanted, there's going to be a few studio musicians who are incredible musicians.
	And they could pick everything up and get it right the first time and sight read everything perfectly.
	They were going to be operating in the studios and everybody else is not going to be doing anything.
	And now we've progressed to the point, as humans become weaker and weaker, we see that artificial intelligence is not just artificial intelligence, but you know, computer capability has come in.
	To do auto-tuning and stuff like that to an extent that really surprises me when I turn on the radio occasionally and hear it being done with all different genres.
	You know, even country and westerns are doing it.
	But, you know, rap music and all these different singers.
	With MTV it became very visceral.
	They started bringing in people who looked great, dressed them up, sexy costumes, and then synthesized their voices.
	Because I couldn't sing. And for the most part.
	And so now you have a situation where they made that synthetic and now the next step is that they go in and they sample songs that have been around for a very long time.
	They don't even bother to auto-tune some new thing.
	They just go back and clone what was previously done before.
	And that's what we're going to see in the visual arts as well.
	What's happened in musical arts.
	So you're going to wind up having nothing new.
	Everything is recycled. We're going to have some favorite performers, like we have some favorite musicians.
	You know, first it just starts contracting, you know.
	Studio musicians, now even the studio musicians won't have a job as much because they just go back and sample stuff that's already been done.
	That's what's going to happen with this other stuff.
	The other aspect of artificial intelligence, I think, is very negative.
	And this is a report that was done by Reclaim the Net.
	And they talked about this new thing that is the justification for censoring podcasts.
	The term is called brand safety solutions.
	Brand safety is what they're going for.
	And what that means is Microsoft coming in with several different applications to label your content as to whether or not it's going to be safe for advertisers to be involved with it.
	You don't want to get involved with somebody like me.
	I talk about politics.
	I talk about religion. I criticize the government and the CIA. You don't want to associate their brand with me.
	I talk about things that, if you were to advertise on this, you might get your funding cut off by the government or by BlackRock, because that's who these people increasingly work for.
	So the big money out there for advertising, coming from the big corporations, is looking for brand safety.
	Brand safety.
	And I'll say it again.
	Anytime you see the term safety used, it is antithetical to liberty.
	So new tools are now being used by some of the largest advertisers in the podcasting space to ensure that ads only run against brand-safe content.
	Various flags are out there for different types of speech and podcasts.
	They don't want, for example, things that are firearms-related content.
	No, no, no. Don't put my ad on somebody who's talking about the Second Amendment or firearms.
	Or, Speech that we hate, which they call hate speech.
	Or if you're going to debate sensitive social issues.
	Well, you want to talk about parental rights and abortion and the transgender and the LGBT. Oh, no, no, no.
	We don't want to talk about that. Or profanity.
	Well, hey, I've got one area there that I don't have to worry about.
	Except that's not really the one they're concerned about.
	And so Microsoft has got a couple of different apps.
	This first one. We'll assign a risk, low, medium, or high risk, to podcasts.
	And it's able to do that because it is able to suss out this stuff pretty quickly.
	iHeartMedia The largest podcast publisher in the world, and one of the U.S.'s biggest podcast platforms, Odyssey, not to be confused with the video platform, which is spelled differently.
	Digital ad exchange, an audio advertising platform that reaches over 100 million listeners per month, Audio Hook.
	The leading demand-side platform for audio advertising.
	Just some of the large podcasting companies that use this tool, Sounder, to help their advertisers target brand-safe content.
	And this is why I can't get on those.
	I can't get on YouTube.
	And even where I am right now, as I said before, It's, you know, the days are numbered on this.
	Not just for me getting any advertising because I've already seen the advertising drop about 40% this year.
	I don't know if that's, that they're bringing this on board or if they are because the downloads have not dropped.
	But that has dropped significantly.
	Downloads are up slightly, but the ad revenue is down significantly.
	Because when I go there, I see the podcasts that they are always pushing are things like Latter Day Lesbians.
	Because, you know, we all want to know the day-to-day ruminations of two lesbians who used to be Mormons, right?
	That's what they want to push.
	They don't want to talk about the issues of the day.
	Of course, that is an issue. And so, because of these things, you know, because of talk about debated social, sensitive social issues, Guns, speech that they hate, all the rest of the stuff.
	They used the same type of tactic we saw during Trump's lockdown.
	Churches were labeled by the CDC as being the highest risk activity that you could engage in, right?
	More so than a casino and all the rest of the stuff.
	No, they had three different levels, green, yellow, and red, just like they have now for the podcasts, to tell you what they don't like.
	And what they don't want you to hear.
	And the information that they want you to miss, they call misinformation.
	NewsGuard has launched these two brand safety things to target podcasting.
	The ratings give a podcast, in addition to Sounder, they give the podcast a trust score, ranging from 0 to 10.
	So, big companies can avoid advertising on podcasts that regularly convey false information.
	No. Misinformation.
	Information they want you to miss.
	Avoiding advertising quote-unquote heavily biased or politically slanted news shows.
	That's the key thing they're focused on.
	What I do.
	So, promoting highly trustworthy news.
	And information podcasts, you know, things like Latter-day Lesbians.
	NewsGuard's second brand safety product for podcasting was launched in collaboration with Barometer.
	It's an AI-powered podcast scanning tool that can, quote, detect potential misinformation at the episode level in merely seconds.
	Make sure it doesn't get any reach at all.
	Barometer has partnerships with several major podcasting companies, including Audio Hook, Cats Digital, a podcast hosting and monetization company that reaches 90% of Americans in the streaming audio space.
	And this is one of the reasons why I haven't really tried to focus on getting advertisers.
	Because I could see this coming.
	But it's now here.
	And the bottom line is that there's no way to monetize this based on advertising.
	They're going to cut us off.
	Of that. It's only going to be if people want to hear it and support it directly.
	That's the key thing.
	Reclaim the Net says a proliferation of these brand safety tools is likely to create a YouTube-like environment where those who talk about topics that are deemed to be unsafe will find it increasingly difficult to monetize their podcast.
	And, of course, you'll be kicked off.
	It isn't just that I would get my ads shut down on YouTube.
	I never had any ads running.
	They just shut me down.
	And they shut me down when I put up a Christmas music channel.
	Because it's me. That's the other part that they don't even talk about in this.
	That they mark you as an individual to be censored.
	According to podcast analytics company PodTrack...
	33.7% of Americans now listen to podcasts on Spotify, compared to 27.6% on Apple Podcasts.
	Spotify is where I have been most heavily censored.
	It is the YouTube of podcasts.
	And as you see, those two have the lion's share of what is happening.
	There's a lot of other podcast places that are out there, and they work just fine.
	But people don't look for them.
	That's why we have a lot of links at TheDavidKnightShow.com where you can get podcasts.
	You know, if Apple cuts me off, there's still other places out there.
	But the question is, will people even look for it?
	People look for it on Spotify, can't find it.
	Apple podcast market share has declined by 9%, while Spotify has increased by 21%.
	Spotify...
	Doesn't let listeners subscribe to podcast RSS feeds directly.
	And it has the capability to use AI-powered brand safety scores to determine whether the podcast within its walled garden get amplified, suppressed, or deleted.
	And in my case, deleted. When I changed hosts...
	They would always, of course, put it out to a lot of, you know, immediately send this out to a lot of different podcast platforms, and Spotify being the biggest one, they would send it to them.
	And so I've been banned by Spotify now three times.
	And before I was banned the third time, I was contacted by an advertiser who said, hey, I've listened to your podcast.
	We'd really like to get you on. And, you know, they had a great program for monetization.
	It was a lot more than I was making where I was before it dropped 40% even.
	And so I said, sure, I'd be interested to do it.
	But I said, they've already banned me twice, and I don't know if they're going to allow me to be on there.
	Well, while she was putting together a package, she contacted me back and said, you've been banned.
	Can't do this anymore.
	Just like PayPal. So, not only does Spotify have direct access to the technology that makes this AI-powered censorship possible, but it has also demonstrated that it is willing to police speech in podcasts.
	And to offer their services to other podcasts to do the same.
	And they do this while they're paying Joe Rogan tens of millions of dollars for him to push psychedelic mushrooms to people and other garbage.
	Information garbage.
	What a limited hangout that guy is.
	Just amazing to me.
	Totally owned by these people.
	That's the real pharmakia.
	Psychedelic mushrooms and stuff.
	That's quite literally it.
	It certainly does apply when you look at the pharmaceutical industry.
	But, you know, you talk about psychedelic mushrooms to take people out of reality, to have a quasi-religious experience, to connect with the occult, all the rest of this stuff.
	That's what he's pushing. That's great.
	It's great. You should have that, yeah.
	The beginning of the end, when it started, With the rise of closed platforms like Spotify, as it has eroded the openness of podcasting.
	And now that AI-powered sensors are here, it will accelerate the decline, says Reclaim the Net.
	Well, it is going to be there, and we will be here as long as you choose to support us.
	We know what the future looks like with us.
	Not concerned about it.
	God knows what the future is.
	And if He wants me to do this, He will make a way for it.
	We're going to take a break and we'll be right back.
	The End
	The End
	Analyzing the globalist's next move.
	The End And now, The David Knight Show.
	I have some comments here.
	Audi MR has got a couple of comments.
	He said, the solution is parallel societies and independent platforms.
	Yeah, that is a solution. And, of course, it's the walled gardens.
	Like Spotify, like Facebook, like Twitter.
	It used to be that people would use search engines, and it used to be that search engines would be honest.
	Now they have become tools designed to hide things.
	That's what Google has become.
	Designed to hide. It's a search engine designed to hide stuff.
	And Matt Drudge talked about this before he switched sides.
	He used to say it all the time.
	He would say, you know, we've got these walled gardens that are being built in social media.
	People go there for information because, you know, that's what he did.
	He created a news aggregator site.
	But people were going to social media to get their news.
	And of course, you know, there was going to be a walled garden for him, so he could see that trend that was happening.
	He was very concerned about that.
	And that's the key thing.
	People aren't going to go to a site to find the stuff, you know, like thedavidknightshow.com.
	They'll go to social media if they don't see me on Facebook because I'm not there.
	Oh, well, I guess he's gone.
	I guess Alex was right. He just disappeared.
	That type of thing. He also said, I'm a musician.
	And my band partner and I find it odd that so many of our music peers use software in lieu of playing instruments.
	We're old school. We record with the guitars, etc.
	And if we screw up, we start over and get it right.
	Absolutely. Well, you know, I'm one of those people that use...
	Because I don't have any way to play an orchestra.
	And some of the instruments, like you just heard on that song there, you know, all those instruments were keyboard instruments.
	So I play the keyboard, and I do the arrangements, and...
	And actually, that's the technology that's there.
	That's kind of different. It can be very hard to make that sound realistic.
	And one of the things that I enjoy doing...
	It's going back and taking songs I used to play when I was a kid.
	And I say kid, you know, high school, college and stuff.
	And going back and doing a cover of those, like we would do in the past, you know, where I was just the only person.
	I was only one part in the band.
	And now I can play all the parts.
	Or to go back and take something that was a piano piece, like a Christmas arrangement that I used to play, and to go back and reorchestrate it with different orchestration.
	I find that to be interesting.
	But again, that is, you know, technology is a two-edged sword.
	It can be good. It can be bad.
	And there's always good aspects to some of this stuff, and there's ways that we can turn it around.
	This was being pushed pretty hard yesterday in the press.
	Intelligence officials say the U.S. has retrieved craft of non-human origin.
	And as I read this article, it struck me how all these people were former intelligence officials and people that were deep into the intelligence community and the rest of this stuff.
	And I started thinking, wait a minute, aren't these the same people that lied us into the Gulf War?
	Aren't these the same people who told us lies about weapons of mass destruction?
	Aren't these the same people that tortured people?
	And then tortured the data to put us into a lockdown situation.
	The key whistleblower is a guy who's 36 years old, a decorated former combat officer in Afghanistan, and a veteran of, wait for it, drumroll, the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency.
	Ah, there it is.
	That's the agency that James Clapper rose to prominence in.
	Geospatial intelligence, a vastest growing part of the intelligence community.
	The people who are there to monitor us and to map our political and religious beliefs and to map our relationships with people and institutions and all the rest of this stuff.
	Those people. He worked for those people.
	Same bureaucracy, the Pentagon and these intelligence communities that were just selling us the stuff about the Chinese spy balloon.
	Now they want to tell us about UFOs.
	Well, maybe they're telling you the truth.
	Maybe they aren't.
	But either way, it doesn't really affect me.
	It doesn't affect my theology one bit.
	We've got our guest is ready to connect.
	So we're going to take a break and connect with him.
	I think you're going to be really interested in this book.
	It looks like a very interesting premise.
	And he is a very successful writer.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Alright, welcome back. We're going to be talking to an author who has, as I point out, he's an Emmy Award winner and many other types of awards like tellies and things like that.
	But he's also a writer.
	He's got a new novel out.
	It's called Revolution Empire.
	I read you one of the reviews from homeschool curriculum training and support group, Homelink Yakima.com.
	It offers the brutal truth of absolute power and the preciousness of the freedom that can defeat it.
	Another review said, Serious though its themes are, Revolution Empire is above all entertaining, highly readable.
	It will find a big audience and so its ideas will be deservedly spread wide.
	Stories like Revolution Empire give us hope that the young will leave behind a better world than that which previous generations have handed them.
	And then finally this.
	To pull the reader deep into a web of dystopian oppression and thrilling intrigue, Rob has created a strange new world that will be eerily familiar to careful readers and students of history.
	And I would say probably to careful observers of what is happening to us right now.
	So joining us now is Rob Travolino.
	Thank you for joining us, Rob.
	Pleasure to be here, David. Thanks for having me.
	Let's talk a little bit about what inspired this.
	I'm sure there's a lot of parallels to contemporary events and dystopian novels.
	What inspired you to write this?
	Oh man, it's been a long journey.
	Part of it really just comes out of my career.
	I started off at a college in advertising and marketing.
	I had intended to be a journalist.
	And during my senior thesis, I got to interview some people high up in a major network news organization.
	This is back in the late 80s who actually told me because I was trying to determine whether news was still news or whether it had become more entertainment based.
	And they told me on the network side that I should go into like local newspapers or something else because the network news had sort of been hijacked a little bit by corporate sponsors telling them what they wanted them to say and sort of approving copy and approving stories.
	And, you know, there was the movie, the Russell Crowe movie, The Insider, certainly talked a lot about that, showing the trouble they had exposing big tobacco, because the network was trying to censor the story, or the sponsor was trying to censor the story.
	And oddly enough, I was drafted into advertising, and Just basically I interned at an ad agency in college and they hired me on the spot.
	And so I went on this really strange journey in advertising for a number of years.
	I worked a lot in the kids space.
	I worked on G.I. Joe.
	I worked on Transformers.
	I worked on Batman. I worked on bringing all of these really big franchises to market.
	And while I was there, and this is kind of a convoluted journey, but I'll tie it all together.
	I started to see from inside the sort of the boardrooms of the kids' business as the corporate concerns in the 90s and in the mid-90s started buying more and more of kids' companies, that there was an agenda driving the narrative in the country that there was an agenda driving the narrative in the country in terms of how entertainment was being sort of steered toward
	And I didn't know what it was, but at some point it wasn't as much about kids and their power and their empowerment.
	It was more about somebody else's sort of molding into the message they wanted, if that makes sense.
	Oh, yeah.
	And so rather than selling toys and games to kids and teenagers, I wanted to sell them what kids and teenagers play with toys and games for themselves.
	They play because they want to learn about good and evil.
	They want to learn about changing the world.
	They want to learn about their personal power and not the brand they're being sold.
	The brand that they want to develop is themselves, their own sort of determination, their own ability to sort of make their own life.
	And so that sort of molded into my entertainment career.
	And where Revolution Empire came to be was after selling a TV show to Disney and developing a TV show for Discovery, I sort of got the gist in the entertainment space that, again, there was an opportunity to give kids stories that were Yeah.
	Yeah. Yeah. You know, changes, the Patriot Act, things coming up.
	I saw rights being sort of stripped away.
	I saw things in, you know, in the culture and in the entertainment space and in the political space all starting to work in a similar fashion or a similar agenda.
	And not to put it towards a conspiracy angle, but...
	The profit motive, I think, kicked the door open for big companies and governments to recognize that the more you could control discourse and narrative, the more money you could make.
	Does that make sense? Oh, yeah.
	I just played a clip earlier in the show about Larry Fink saying that six years ago.
	He said we're going to force corporations to do this and that because you've got the purse strings and you've got unlimited amount of money if you do what we say.
	Otherwise, you're not going to get anything.
	So that really becomes what they're focused on.
	They're focused on satisfying the people at the top of the economic food chain who are above the corporate level and they're focused on selling a narrative that the government likes as well.
	So that's really... A prescription for disaster, a prescription for a kind of dystopian society that you talk about in your novel, and you have a lot of parallels into the American Revolution.
	Talk a little bit about that. It's set in kind of a...
	Is it a parallel universe or is it a...
	Kind of a recapitulation of the American Revolution that you see in this empire?
	I kind of looked at it like a thought experiment, and the idea being that I don't define whether it's a parallel universe or if it's a future time.
	I kind of leave that open for the reader.
	But ultimately, as I looked at the world changing, and this is interesting you brought up, Larry, but the idea that...
	If you look at the way the world is sort of headed, you see a large sort of globalism component to it.
	You see a lot of recipe for tyranny.
	You see a lot of recipe with surveillance, with you having to register all of your devices a certain way.
	I'm not saying that we've hit tyranny yet, but there's an incredible danger and potential for it.
	And when you look back at the revolution, You know, of the United States in 1776, it was the largest corporate entity on the planet was the East India Trade Company.
	And the British Empire was the largest corporate banking entity on the planet.
	And so it's almost like history is repeating in a way.
	I know I only see you smiling because it's...
	That's what the danger is to me.
	And so when I looked at that, and I look at the way from inside the advertising marketing space, how people are segmented and divided.
	When I hear people talking about systemic racism, and I hear people complaining about it in the context of the present day, I watched corporate America for years segment minorities, blacks here, Hispanics here, you know, whites here, Asians here, and everything else, and they sold to them that way.
	They sold to them that way because it made more money.
	Whether they did it on purpose or whether they did it by accident, the quest for profit created a systemic inequality.
	And those things are all tyrannical in their own sort of sense when they're taken far enough.
	Am I correct?
	I'm going a little too off the rails.
	But as I looked at things, I looked at a present-day version of There's royalty and elitism in celebrity culture, in expert culture.
	You can't make a decision without an expert telling you what to do.
	You can't make a decision without government telling you what's best for you.
	You can't make a decision without your computer reminding you that you shouldn't do this or your software telling you, hey, step back and you can't say this or you shouldn't be mindful of your words.
	I use a program called Grammarly.
	Which constantly tells me, be aware of, you know, worry about your speech, and you're not being inclusive here, and you're doing this, and I'm like...
	So they folded in the Associated Press's terms that you're allowed to use for this and that?
	Kind of. It's kind of permeating everything.
	And you look at the core, and I look at the...
	To go off on another small little tangent, there's an effort in the last 20 years to make socialism seem like it's a wonderful thing.
	And historically, and again, this is leaving the ideologies out of it and the current political discourse out of it.
	Historically, socialism and communism have killed more people than most wars combined.
	That's right.
	And so why are we talking about that?
	Why are we suddenly making it look like it's okay?
	And then when you look at that in the context of, you know, how control systems work and how, you know, altering language, for example, cancel culture and altering language is a version of That's a Marxism playbook.
	By association.
	And that's a very slippery slope between losing your right to speak freely out of association to losing your right to speak by mandate, by law, by some official decree.
	And when you look back in the revolutionary days, people were jailed for pamphlets that they said they were unjustly accused and taken prisoner during the American Revolution for You know, during the early stage of the American Revolution, we're speaking out against the king, speaking out against the, you know, taxes and speaking out against the infringements on their rights.
	And so I look at the world today and I go, I hope we're not heading that way, but a lot of signs point to the fact that we're heading that way.
	Well, you know, human nature doesn't change.
	That's one of the reasons why, as you pointed out, you know, the corporations change and the nature of the business changes.
	You know, we don't have the East India Company anymore.
	You know, we've got Big Pharma, we've got other things that are out there, and they're going to be allied with the government that is there, and kind of, you know, a lot of these ideological labels are there kind of as a distraction, I think, to keep us from really seeing what's happening here.
	because there's a merger between the government and between these corporations.
	And we even have this, you know, we have some people over there who say, well, you know, the corporations can do no wrong, the government can do no right, and vice versa.
	They don't understand how they have merged together.
	And so that's a key thing.
	And so in your book, you know, human nature does not change, but it's interesting to be able to reach a younger audience to show them and to put it in a different context because you start telling them some of these things and going back in history and it's like, oh, I can't relate to that.
	They didn't have phones and they didn't have cars or whatever, virtual reality, so I can't really relate to that world.
	So you put in some of the trappings that we have now because human nature doesn't change and you still have essentially the same story that's going to be repeated again, right?
	Absolutely. And that's the fascinating thing.
	That was always a fascinating thing for me, because the idea that when I look back at the...
	If you Google some of the founding fathers' words and the documents and the Federalist Papers and everything else, you tend to get 20 search results that are irrelevant or are why they don't apply, why they don't work in today's world, or they're bastardized and changed and...
	And almost manipulated versions of what they are, or they're spun to an agenda.
	And again, it's not like, again, I'm not saying that there's some concerted effort going on, because I don't know and I can't prove that, but it certainly seems like there's an effort to disempower the founding principles of this nation, whereas...
	But in the meantime, they were the...
	They were the truths that were unassailable in the 1700s and in the 1800s.
	Those truths at some level could not be argued with.
	You could not argue with born with inherent rights.
	You could not argue with some of the core principles of the ownership of private property Are what actually are tied inextricably to freedom because if you can't own things, you have no freedom at some point.
	And they don't want us to have any freedom or dignity.
	That's one of the things you look at, especially over the last few years.
	It's like a B.F. Skinner type of world that they've created.
	And he said, you know, we need to move beyond freedom and dignity.
	And they want to move, in order to move beyond freedom and dignity, they want to move beyond these principles that were put there because people had lived under tyranny and they knew what it looked like.
	Yeah, they're pretty obvious about the fact that when you listen to these people in academia, they're upfront about the fact that they want to deconstruct everything about our society and our culture and government and everything else and institute, you know, what we have seen in the past is pure dystopian societies.
	And isn't history full of, you know, examples every few decades, every hundred years, every millennium, where that does not work?
	An inherent sort of drive to believe in greater things and an inherent drive to be free to choose ultimately end up saying, we can't do this.
	It's against my nature.
	Human nature has, again, it's a double-edged sword.
	In the John Milton Faustian sense, it's a double-edged sword because you're either going to Sell yourself for some security in the Ben Franklin sense.
	You're going to give up some security and liberty in the interest of security.
	And then you're going to lose these things forever.
	And at some point you're going to like, I want them back because that's who defines who I am.
	And so revolution, again, you can't teach that necessarily to a kid.
	And in a young adult novel space, you can't just go out and say, here's the article, here's the Bill of Rights, here's this, and you can teach them in a classroom.
	Here's why these things matter.
	Here's why these things worked.
	Here's why these things took down tyranny globally for a period of time.
	They took down authoritarianism globally.
	They took down communism, you know, in every instance until maybe recently.
	And so, you know, ultimately, the best way to teach those things or at least give people the choice again, because that's for me, that's that's the birth of the revolution empire.
	The amount of what I saw was we're losing the choice.
	We're losing the free will we're supposed to be born with.
	And we're losing the free will that the country was was had instilled and enshrined.
	And it's a very founding documents and core principles.
	And so these things, you can take these things in small doses, and I'll get to the book in a second, and you can say, You know, you can look at the 1619 projects and go, okay, here's all the bad things we did.
	But you can also look at the fact that all those documents and all those core principles are how we ended the bad things that human nature allowed us to do.
	You mentioned Franklin, you know, of course, Franklin talking about people who are willing to trade I looked at the world around me and I saw that We were moving sort of in that direction.
	We were moving in the direction, as Ben Franklin said, and again, it's an illusion of security in a lot of ways, right?
	Because all the things that were being sold now were not any more secure.
	We're actually less secure.
	So I looked at the world. I noticed that there was an incredible parallel between the way things were headed and the royal kings and queens, you know, giant financial concerns that everything about them was...
	Being in control, dictating what my subjects could do, defining their freedoms, and then holding the purse strings so that if they were bad citizens or they didn't do what you wanted to, we would just take away their ability to survive.
	We'll take away their livelihoods.
	We'll take away their money. And if we had to, we'll constantly increase their expenditures in the form of different taxes in different ways.
	And so when I looked at that, I was like, well, this is something that I think We all really feel, because as adults and as taxpayers, we always know that it's always a battle of each little slice, whether it's coming in inflationary.
	Inflation is sort of a hidden tax.
	There's a fee for this.
	It's a tax. And now corporations are on board.
	They're charging a fee for everything.
	You used to have all these things on a navigation system in a car that now you have to pay extra for.
	You're constantly being reduced in your choices unless you pay for them or unless you play nice to get them.
	And that's very similar to the British Empire in a lot of ways and what happened with the colonies.
	And an age-old struggle between the population and the people with the rights they feel they have.
	So I wanted to construct a world that would allow...
	Kids and teenagers and young adults to learn the concepts as they read them and as they saw them, as opposed to reading them off of these old documents that to me are relevant, to you are relevant, but to... 17-year-old or 16-year-old, maybe not so much.
	But the concepts under them are timeless.
	The concepts under them still apply.
	The concepts under them, when you really study them and actually learn them and realize what they say, and don't read the Cliff Notes version or the version somebody told you to read, You say, wait a second, this is what my struggle is.
	This is your childhood.
	This is adolescence. This is young adulthood.
	This is all the stuff I'm doing.
	I'm trying to define who I am.
	I'm trying to find my power. I'm trying to find my right to be who I am.
	And instead of having it being sold to us, you can be this, or you can be that, or you can be this.
	No, no, you're not supposed to be sold a menu of things you can be.
	You're supposed to decide what you want to be.
	If you have to create something new to be, that's what you should be able to do.
	You're supposed to be able to create a new world starting with yourself.
	And so Revolution Empire basically is a dystopian thought experiment on what would a surveillance state, technologically advanced society look like Blended with the world of the 1700s.
	That's great. Yeah, so I used some of the slang of the period.
	So there's colonial slang throughout the book.
	Oh, that's interesting. Like what, for example, what kind of colonial slang?
	Uh, um, colonial slang are things like, you would call the boxman, instead of calling an undertaker, you would call him the boxman.
	And an undertaker at the time was an undertaker slash pawnbroker, because he would take, I mean, you see like the, you know, the old Christmas Carol scene, where the undertaker's selling off property from the person who died because they had no That's great.
	Yeah. Yeah, exactly.
	So fire cake is a, you know, hard-baked, like, hard tack that's just kind of, it's just, you know, whatever dough you got thrown together and baked into, like, a hard biscuit that can be stored and held for long periods of time.
	And because the kids in the story, Revolution Empire also, the entire story is, are teenagers.
	Everybody's Teenagers in their 20s that are the critical aspect of the story because people don't realize or recognize so much that there were people who signed the Declaration of Independence that were 22 years old, 24 years old.
	There were people fighting in the war that were 14 and 15 years old.
	There were people who were Founding players-to-be that chose to do this at 14, 15, 16, 17 and left home.
	Some people disguised themselves as adults.
	Some women disguised themselves as men to join the fight.
	It's a remarkable story that we don't have told in the detail that it really happened.
	So I'm faithful to a lot of the things that really took place and that's an important thing as well because you know we are so babied in our society you know we yeah we we live in this uh you know for for 12 years uh you go to this institution where everything is highly structured highly structured you got one authority figure up in the front of the room and that type of thing but in the real world of a couple hundred years ago just or even less than that you know I
	think that's one of the reasons why it seems like the longer you stay in school, the number you get.
	Because it's like a baby's head.
	It dulls your imagination.
	It actually dulls your inquisitiveness and critical thinking and all the rest of this stuff by just kind of keeping you in this controlled environment.
	But that's a real important thing for people to learn.
	And I think that is something that is very beneficial for young kids to see.
	I know my son learned to read by reading G.A. Hinty novels.
	He was a novelist back in the Victorian period.
	And he would take a 17-year-old and he would put that 17-year-old in a historical context.
	And he would be interacting with these historical adult figures that you know of, right?
	But he would be right there in the midst of it.
	There's always a coming-of-age novel.
	I imagine that's a key part.
	You talk about characters being...
	17 years old and around that age.
	Yeah, Donovan Rush is the main protagonist of the story, and he's kind of a blend of George Washington, Thomas Paine, and Benjamin Rush.
	Well, that sounds great. Yeah, and basically the premise of Revolution Empire is there's an underground society that is literally under the empire.
	The empire is kind of like a giant city-state, and it's...
	And it's miles high and literally buried under it is the remnants of a previous world and a previous civilization.
	And that civilization lives kind of the disenfranchised.
	And since I've had it set it up in a present context, it's kind of like the disenfranchised masses.
	It's anybody who's at or below the poverty line or at or below the cultural line in the world today, whether they're refugees, whether they're Native Americans, whether they're inner-city kids,
	black, white, Hispanic, because in one of my documentary filmmakers, I did a documentary in the South in the late 2000s, and I found unbelievably depressed and poor cities in the South that were incredibly integrated, because they all had everything in common.
	They were all struggling together to survive.
	And when you look at the world from that perspective, you realize, especially now, that we're so top-heavy with a small group of people controlling, I forgot what it is, it's 90-something percent of the wealth is controlled by, like, 5% of the people in the world.
	And so in a lot of ways, we are all in some form of debt strictitude, and we are all in sort of the same boat in a lot of ways.
	There's something very similar in that regard to people who leave home to go to a new world for the hope of finding a way to build a better life because they were sort of the cast-offs of society or they were disenfranchised or they lacked the freedom to be who they wanted to be, whether it was religious freedom, whether it was economic freedom, whatever it might be.
	So the world is literally underground called the sewers.
	These people live in near-perpetual darkness, And all they have left behind is a book written by a guy named Dr.
	Rush, who's kind of like a Thomas Paine, Benjamin Rush character.
	And he's the father of Donovan Rush.
	And he wrote this long treatise on rights and on inherent rights and on property ownership and on liberty and all these concepts that these kids have no idea of because they live in this oppressed under society where they're not allowed anything.
	They're basically allowed what gets thrown down from Empire City into their midst, except for Empire City has a form of a lottery, which is, again, vaguely familiar to today's world.
	These floating, magnetically floating ships will come down once in a while, find groups of kids that shouldn't be assembled or find kids to pick, and they'll literally lift them up into the light.
	It's called becoming an empire builder.
	You're brought out into the light of Empire City and offered a chance to serve his magistrate In a much more sort of, you know, advanced way.
	You can get coveralls on, you get dressed in the Empire garb, and you get a chance.
	It's like winning a lottery ticket so that you're suddenly being granted the opportunity to get out of your miserable state and into a land of opportunity where you can quote-unquote be wherever you want to be.
	But it's only if you succumb to all the rules that are in the Empire system that's above you.
	And very few kids get up here and get accepted and get kept.
	So Donovan, in his following his father's book, looks for a way out of the sewers for his people, for his kind, for all the people that are sort of aligned with him, all the kids, all the people who are just franchised.
	And he gets taken in an empire builder transport and dumped into the city and brought to the magistrate's tower and meets a guy named Dr.
	Richard Franklin, who's A sort of rakish character in the Empire who is a friend of his father's and got his father a pardon from a death sentence and thrown in jail and Donovan is finding his way to the Empire and Franklin was hoping, because he's sort of a Brad Franklin character, that some kid would break out at some point.
	And lead a change, because Franklin thinks the Empire is unjust, and so he's working sort of clandestinely to undermine it.
	So when this kid appears in the Empire City, he sees the next level of prison.
	So his father always says that like freedom The one place they can't take freedom from is in here.
	The one prison you can put yourself in is in your own head.
	Once you're in that prison, you're never going to get out.
	Once you realize that you're free there, you can free yourself everywhere else.
	Once the kid goes back to the sewers, he organizes a A channel crossing, which is kind of like Washington crossing the Delaware, where these kids break out of the sewers and they sail across this massive channel and they land on the shores of the colonies.
	The colonies are A industrial business sort of suburb of Empire City where the people there aren't allowed to go to Empire City either.
	They're the commerce, commercial engine, factory workers, all the people who do all the working to support the Empire.
	So they are separated like the American colonies, but they can't go back and forth.
	Some of the people in power can go back and forth, but most people work there their whole lives and some of their money goes to the Empire.
	So when Donovan realizes that the world is unjust, based on his childhood writings, he leads a landing in the colonies.
	And that's the first book, because the Empire realizes they've got a problem, and they don't know who caused it, and they suspect that Richard Franklin is behind it, and they realize the only way they can quell it is by giving some of these sewer rats a foothold in the colonies, As long as it makes money for them, as long as it helps them stay in control.
	And so it's out of one trap into another trap, waiting to get into another trap.
	That's kind of how the book is set up.
	Interesting. Kind of like some of the people who came to America as indentured servants.
	It was being run by those.
	And they actually employed them as indentured servants once they landed the colonies.
	Yeah, interesting. Show the cover of the book there.
	Again, so the first book is Revolution Empire, and there are several books in the series, right?
	How many of them are? There's three. The first one is called Revolution Empire History Never Retreats.
	Mm-hmm. And that tells the story of Donovan Rush escape from the sewer and leading some of the sewer rats, as they're called, to the colonies.
	And then there'll be a second book, which he's already written, called The Wild Colonials, which shows what happens there.
	And another thing that's really important to the book is that all of the main characters keep journals.
	And so the book does a very unique thing where there's journal pages spaced throughout it.
	So every once in a while you get an internal dialogue from Donovan, an internal dialogue from Richard Franklin, an internal dialogue from various other characters.
	And all the words and all the dialogue are based upon the writings, speeches, and letters of Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, because all the characters are in the story.
	So you learn, as a reader, the concepts that these...
	Again, to circle it back again, I know I talked about a lot of things because I tend to...
	Global and all over the place.
	But you learn the concepts of the Federalist Papers.
	You learn the concepts of, you know, the motivations behind George Washington.
	You see what made them tick and you hear their own words through the journal entries.
	But you don't absorb it as the dense information as it is.
	you learn it on the fly as it applies to the situations that these characters are in, and you look at a world that's reflective of today and you go, oh crap, that matters.
	This matters, and this matters, and this is why it matters.
	This is why people break out of a prison instead of just to be free, but to change the world.
	This is why people take the stands they take.
	This is why people recognize inequality in its true forms.
	This is why people recognize tyranny.
	This is why people can recognize authoritarianism.
	You know, there's standards of individual power and individual rights that without them, you can't measure authoritarianism and tyranny.
	You can't expose it and recognize it until you realize what it actually takes from you personally.
	That's a great way to put it.
	And that's a really ingenious idea that you've got there.
	I mean, you're giving them the philosophies and the writings in a way that, you know, is...
	Being put out there gradually and in a context that they can relate to and they're not realizing that they're really learning this kind of stuff.
	You know, that's one of the difficult things about educating kids because, or anybody, you know, you put stuff out in a didactic way like a lecture and you say, well, this is this and that is that.
	And that doesn't really get through to most people.
	It's like handing them some kind of a pamphlet or something like that.
	But then the next step is to do a documentary.
	And the documentary is more engaging because you see visceral pictures and you hear people and you see things.
	And so... That brings it in a little bit more.
	But when you do it as a work of fiction, you can really draw them in in a very visceral way because they can get inside the characters' heads.
	And that's a really ingenious way to educate these kids about these principles that are so vital and so timeless that are now being destroyed.
	And that's a great approach.
	I really love what you're doing with that.
	I appreciate that.
	That's my worry.
	My worry is some of these things have been lost.
	Some of these things are being taken away.
	Some of these things are under attack.
	And the way the narrative discourse is going, you know, in terms of the medium, you know, obviously yourself and those who are, you know, Talking about the same subjects as you and examining the world the same way you are.
	Your voice is getting...
	People try to distract people from what you're talking about.
	People try to distract people away from...
	There's an agenda trying to silence the discourse.
	One of the things that Elon Musk talks about in Twitter In terms of the restoration of free speech, whether he's done it or not, or what his ultimate intentions are, although I'm fascinated by what he's been doing, without the discourse, without the free speech, without the ability to discuss these things, If we really look at them freely and fully, we're going to lose them.
	And we're already losing them to some extent.
	So the book is really designed not to push a certain agenda, but just to make the comparison between...
	I mean, obviously every writer has an agenda to some extent, but my agenda is to expose, again, where the dangers are in the present world.
	Where those dangers are historically, where they've always sat, where they've always been, the damage they've caused, but what they fundamentally take away from us as individuals, the rights they really strip, the control they really exert, all the flavors of the control and all the flavors of servitude they put upon you so that people, kids will learn through the course of an adventure, they'll say, wow, I agree with this.
	I agree with this thing that John A. is talking about.
	That's the John Adams character.
	I agree with this thing that Richard Franklin is talking about.
	I see what they're fighting against.
	It's actually kind of like what I see going on around me.
	And then at least have the conversation and say, well, if this applies in this narrative concept, in this entertainment concept that I'm looking at, but it's reflective of the world, like all good entertainment is always, I've got to think about this.
	Because if I'm being told this all the time, but this feels true, we got a problem.
	We should be talking about this.
	And that's what I'm hoping. I'm hoping the book is a conversation piece.
	Oh, yeah. And of course, it's key.
	You know, we go back and we look at the middle of the 20th century.
	Orwell, Solzhenitsyn, they understood that it was about control over your mind, right?
	2 plus 2 equals 5, or, yeah, language, and getting you to say even what you know is not true.
	So Solzhenitsyn wrote, you know, live not by lies because you knew that was the ultimate thing.
	To get you to live by what you knew was not true.
	That's how they control your mind.
	That's what totalitarianism is.
	But of course Jefferson understood that as well.
	That's not a new insight.
	One of his most famous quotes, it's inscribed there, the monument to him in Washington, is fighting every form of tyranny over the mind of man.
	And so he knew that tyranny's ultimate throne was to take control of your mind.
	These people, you look at it, one of the things I find interesting about the American Revolution is that these people were very wealthy and elitist, and yet they didn't accrue all that power to themselves because they also saw themselves as the underdog to an even higher tyranny that was there, what you talked about.
	The East India Company and the big bank and the big corporations and the big empire and all the rest of this stuff.
	And they didn't want to recreate that because they knew what it was like to live under that in the same way that people have lived under a communist government can smell that a mile away.
	These people knew what totalitarianism was about.
	They knew it was a tyranny over the mind of man and all the rest is why they enshrined freedom of speech and religion as the very first thing.
	But they understood that, and so they weren't going to reinvent that.
	And we're coming up to a time where things are getting very difficult, and if the population doesn't have this understanding of what tyranny looks like and the reason that we had these things in there, we're in big trouble.
	That's why what you're doing in terms of reaching to kids that way and putting it in this context where they can understand, assimilate, and identify with it, that's really important.
	And so I can understand why Homeschooling Foundations would recommend your book.
	So there's going to be three of them, right?
	The first one's about to come out in July, is that correct?
	Yeah, and the third one goes up to a surprise ending, but I obviously can't tell you about it, but the idea is that there's way more than three books to tell the story fully, because the story parallels the American Revolution, so it parallels an uprising in the colonies, a stand against the Empire at some point, and all the players are involved.
	I don't know how into the details of history you are, but even characters on the other side are represented.
	You know, General Burgoyne is in the story.
	There's a guy named Banastri Tarleton, who is a notoriously vicious British officer.
	Oh, yeah. War crimes.
	He's a central character to the story.
	And I've added other characters into the story.
	There's a gang leader named KZ... Who is loosely based on the Marquis de Lafayette, but a combination of the Marquis de Lafayette and sort of Confucianism because there's a component of the empires outside of the empire itself.
	There are other geopolitical players that are reminiscent and reflective of today's world because they need a France and they need a Spain and a Portugal in the story.
	But if you look at today's world, we have all that stuff still going on because we used to have all the great seafaring, you know, nations.
	Now are the nations that have, you know, giant, you know, navies and nuclear arsenals.
	So they're the same.
	It's the same struggle, right?
	It's the same. It's always the same struggle.
	It's a struggle for resources, a struggle for hearts and minds.
	It's a struggle for, you know, for influence.
	And so... All these things are incredibly reflective.
	You can look at, you know, you can look at, if you look at the American Revolution in the context that I want to find everything that's wrong with it, you can.
	If you want to look at, you know, if you want to look at any point in history and find what's wrong or right in it, you can.
	But at the end of the day, you cannot, you really can't assail the principles.
	And I'm glad you talked about the fact that some of these guys were very wealthy.
	Some of these guys were very elitist.
	They understood above all else human nature.
	They understood how they got there.
	They didn't want to get there to be in control of it.
	It's a difference between an authoritarian and a person who believes in liberty and freedom and God-given rights.
	One person wants to lift everybody else up or give everybody else the opportunity to come up to their level.
	One person wants to control how they do it.
	That's right.
	One person wants to meet it out to them in little doses so that they will always and forever be in control.
	These guys understood their own human nature as well as anybody ever has or may to the future, the way we're going.
	They knew to build in safeguards that prevent the world and even themselves from taking control.
	Did it work entirely?
	No, because people chipped away at it.
	People started using lawfare as early as 1780 and 1790 to chip away at these principles because they knew these principles When they worked, prevented people from assuming authoritarian control.
	This country's been doing this battle for over 200 years.
	We're starting to slide with global help.
	Yeah, it's a constant battle.
	It's a constant battle. It has to constantly be renewed, and Jefferson said that as well.
	You know, constantly tree of liberty, constantly refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
	It's like if you sell your soul at some point, you're, you know, good luck getting back out.
	You know, once you go far enough into hell.
	You know, the ad was, you went to Churchill, if you find yourself going through hell, keep going.
	There's no exit sometimes.
	You can't get too deep, you're not coming back.
	I know. I said that at the very beginning.
	You know, when we went into lockdown on that Monday following the Friday the 13th, I said, you know, keep calm and carry on.
	Remember, that was the sign that was there.
	They had this massive army right across the channel.
	And also, freedom is in peril.
	Defend it at all your might. I said, look, these guys knew they were going to die.
	It isn't any question if there's some disease or something like that.
	But they were concerned about preserving liberty.
	And freedom, just as Jefferson was.
	He said, look, you can't take away life and liberty.
	You can destroy those, but you can't separate them from each other.
	And so that was what gave us a free society that respected freedom and dignity and all the rest of these things.
	I can't even imagine anybody in today's world saying the kinds of things that JFK said, for example.
	He said, look, a rising tide floats all boats.
	Can you imagine anybody thinking like that anymore?
	And that wasn't just him thinking, saying this on his own.
	That was really kind of the whole zeitgeist of our society and of our government at the time.
	Let's let let's help everybody get a home.
	Well, that's not what they're doing anymore.
	They're all in it for themselves.
	They're all a saluting mentality that is happening at this point in time.
	And they all think that they're going to come out on top.
	That's a part that I saw back when I was in school.
	My family worked very hard to move to the suburbs.
	Both my parents worked. My mom went back to college.
	By the time I was in late in elementary school and high school, I was home alone most of the time.
	My brother and my sister went off to school and I raised myself in a lot of ways.
	We came from a very upper-lower class, lower-middle class sort of beginning.
	When I went to school, I saw...
	When I went to school in an affluent suburb of New York, I saw as a kid the agenda sort of switch.
	I saw the way they were teaching us change.
	I saw myself being given choices instead of being given...
	I saw myself being taught by some teachers in an increasing matter through high school, especially.
	You were taught about the things you could, again, like I said before, the things you could pick from a list as opposed to the things you could make, if that makes sense.
	And that sounds a little weird, but oddly enough, I went to a Catholic college and And the most freedom I had to argue with my professors or my teachers, the most freedom I had to choose what I wanted to study, the most freedom I had to, you know, to disagree or agree was in a Catholic school, which my entire high school taught me was not the case.
	Like, or you go to a Catholic school, they're going to just, they're going to ram religion down your throat and you're not going to give you any, they're going to control your mind, you're going to do this.
	And then when I, it was an eye-opening experience for me because I went to Iona College and when I got to Iona College, I was arguing theology with my, you know, with my, because I had to take one class in, you know, theology.
	I was arguing, you know, God in theology with my professor, and he was like, great, bring it on.
	This is the conversation we should be having.
	Yeah, exactly. This is completely different from what happened when I was in high school.
	People were telling me, like, you know, oh, we can't have that conversation.
	You should know. Yeah.
	If you really believe, if you've wrestled with this stuff yourself, and we all should, And you understand, you know, you cared enough to look into it.
	Is there a God? And you've looked into that.
	You welcome the discussion that is there.
	You don't try to hide, run from what is true.
	You unleash it, as Augustine said, right?
	Truth is like a lion that you unleash.
	Let's have that debate. And it really is, out of those kinds of religious foundations, That our society said, well, the answer to bad speech is more speech, and we're going to continue to want to free things up.
	We don't want to have some small clique of people who are going to control everything.
	You had Francis Bacon who said that.
	We want to have a scientific method.
	We don't want to have experts.
	But now we're going in the other direction really hard, and we've got to push back hard against that.
	That's a key thing to reject this idea of scientific dogma that's going to be put on people.
	That's an intolerant religion that can't stand scrutiny.
	A lot of scientists are complaining that it's become a dogma or religion.
	More and more scientists are complaining every day that it's a dogma or religion.
	Again, is this Marxism?
	It sort of smells and looks like it, because at the end of the day, Making everything a division, you know, a quantification in a division, making everything into a dogma is literally straight out of, like, the Saul Alinsky, straight out of the Marxist playbook.
	And it's really funny, too, because when I went into advertising, I studied Edward Bernays, and I studied all the...
	All the tools and propaganda I could use because that was my job.
	But when I got into it, I had to learn the human nature behind it.
	And I'd taken psychology in school.
	I actually majored in it for a while.
	But when I saw it in operation, I was like, wow, this is really dangerous stuff.
	At that point, I chose to use it for...
	I'm going to teach kids.
	I'm not going to sell my clients' products.
	I'm not going to sell their toys and games.
	I'm going to sell why kids come to...
	I explain to people, but there's no such thing as a brand without people.
	You can make a logo.
	You can do a million television commercials.
	You can bombard people with a message.
	But unless people join and they're seeking some kind of experience or empowerment or some kind of benefit, That's where the brand lies.
	The brand lies in the consent of the governed, for lack of a better way to put it.
	And so you can govern them all you want, but when you go off the rails with your brand, You know, the way some companies have in the last two or three years, let's say.
	The people just go, we're not having it.
	This is not who we are. We don't care what you are.
	This is not who we are.
	And again, that's a big component of what I wanted to take away from Revolution Empire.
	We have consent.
	We were born with consent.
	We were born with the ability to make the choice and make the decision.
	That we are free to do so.
	That's our call.
	And when governments are built, they're supposed to be built, what gives five people the right to rule over 500 people or 5,000 people?
	That's right. Only if those 5,000 people agree that those people can govern.
	And again, that's a big central premise.
	I want a boardroom. Do I want a boardroom telling me what I can and can't buy and what I should do?
	Do I want Wall Street telling me what I can and I can't buy and what I can do?
	No. It's like, I want the choices.
	I want my choices.
	I want my freedom.
	That's right. That's typically sold to us as these people who are experts.
	They know better than we do. You know, it's a paternalism that is there.
	And that enables the socialism.
	That is what they come in with Marxism.
	Oh, we're going to do this for the good of the group, right?
	Trample over the rights of the individual.
	And it was a very different approach that Jefferson and others took where they said, what is government's purpose?
	Well, government's purpose is to Protect our God-given rights and otherwise leave us alone.
	And so that's a fundamentally different approach than any of these other systems or any of these other historical governments had.
	And, of course, we have gotten away from that in our paternalism.
	You know, when you talk about your book, that's a key thing, and I think it's important for people to see this type of Understanding this approach, this philosophy, in a futuristic standpoint.
	Because that's another thing I see people despairing of.
	Well, look at this sophisticated technology.
	We've never wedded this kind of totalitarianism with technology.
	And we need to understand that human nature can overcome that technology or anything that is created to control us by other humans.
	We can overcome that. Listen, 95% of the universe is invisible and can't be measured.
	Dark matter. That's right.
	And so, you know, a lot of scientists are looking at intelligent design now, cosmologists, because they're going like, well, wow, we can't figure out how this universe came to be.
	We don't know where it came from.
	We know that it started.
	That's all we know. But the complexity of it and the sheer, you know, the sheer mind-numbing complexity of that and DNA seems to have an imprint of a design, a predetermined design.
	But the takeaway is we're only as good as the tools we have to measure, right?
	And so in terms of science, science is limited by our powers of observation and our materials that we use to measure.
	I'm going to shift this over to what you were just talking about.
	When you talk about totalitarianism and you talk about new technology, you talk about new things that we can use, which may or may not damage our rights, What are we measuring those with?
	And so the greatest tools we have created on earth to this point, in terms of government, in terms of rights, is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, because those are the one group of documents and group of thoughts that restored power from the few to everyone.
	They gave power to everyone The idea of these documents was to give power to everyone equally, in a sense.
	You had your power.
	Those are now measurement tools.
	They're almost like scientific tools.
	If you look at AI, we should be measuring that against rights.
	We should be measuring that against our rights as sentient beings, our rights to determination.
	At some point, giving away any of that is a danger.
	Giving away any of our choice is a danger.
	These things, like everything else, are tools.
	I'm using...
	I'm using AI right now in various things.
	I do a lot of consulting work, too, and I'm using the AI in the consulting work.
	I keep it in a box because that's where it should be.
	I keep it in a box over here.
	I use it for what it is, but I use it so I can evaluate it.
	Because the dream is, you look at, what's a guy named Noah Harari?
	Is that the guy's name? Yeah, Yuval Harari, yeah.
	Right, right. Oh, the machine should just make all the decisions.
	I'm sorry, go ahead. Not to say, just what a wacky thing to say.
	The machine should make all the decisions for us.
	You know, I remember back in the day, I didn't believe it, a friend of mine sent me a thing that said, That the slogan of the World Economic Forum was, you'll own nothing and be happy.
	And I didn't believe it.
	And I looked it up on the site, and there it was.
	And I took a screenshot of it, because I couldn't believe that I saw it.
	It's been taken down, like, long ago.
	Two years ago or so, it was taken down.
	And the UN had a site up that said the same thing.
	I had screenshots of it. It was taken out.
	I couldn't believe that it was there.
	And I'm going, like, if that's the vision that we're going towards, then this book needs to come out.
	Oh, yeah. And we can see how that is rolling out.
	We can see how that's rolling out as well, because we look at this foundation of individual liberty, how it was used to create prosperity, and you look at the middle of the 20th century where we started having the ability to have a home, and that necessitated people being able to Commute, the suburbs that they hate, and all the rest of the stuff.
	But now, even the appliances, you know, not just the cars, but now they're even coming for the appliances, coming up for ways to take everything away from us.
	And so we see this, it's like a bell-shaped curve.
	We got up to the top, and now we're on the way down where they're stripping all this stuff away from us that were essentially accoutrements of the liberty and freedom so that they can get down to that foundation of liberty and freedom and take that away from us and completely enslave us.
	That's what it's all really about with what they're doing.
	It's a pretty clear agenda, I think.
	For sure. And David, just, I mean, like flashing back to the revolution, to the post-revolution, you know, let's flash back to the early 1800s.
	Some of these things were stripped away, were being stripped away then by decisions that were being made by people.
	But the thing that people forget when you look back at the country and if you want to be a person who You can pick these things out as individual moments and say, well, freedom was taken away here and this was then there.
	But these were always done by people who had authoritarian or controlling agendas and wanted things to be controlled or parsed out in a certain way.
	And they They damaged our rights.
	They switched things in the Constitution.
	They switched things a little bit.
	Again, they changed laws.
	They maneuvered around things.
	So, again, the fundamental rights and principles always apply.
	Applied from the beginning, still apply.
	The only way authoritarians can get a hold of this country is to bastardize them.
	Yeah, that's right.
	Let me ask you, because there's so many parallels in your book to 1776, you understand that, you're teaching that in this in an interesting way.
	As we mentioned before, you know, we talk about God-given rights, and of course their faith in God was a key aspect of that.
	Does that play a role in your book as well?
	Absolutely. Good.
	Well, that's a key thing.
	It's too big of a part of human history, and it's an important part of human history.
	Again, behaviorists, psychologists, and scientists, again, admit for the most part that human beings, for whatever reason, I don't know what it could be, are wired to believe in In a higher power.
	We are literally genetically, evolutionarily wired to believe in God and predisposed to believe in God.
	Well, why do we have that?
	Why would we...
	What's the evolutionary purpose of that?
	If we're purely scientific perspective, like if I was Elon Musk, well, what's the purpose of...
	Why would we have that?
	So we have it for... We've evolved it for some reason.
	What did it serve?
	Well, you know, it's funny.
	I just did a consulting work on this.
	And, you know, it turns out statistically people are healthier.
	They live longer. They live better together.
	They live better with each other if they are believers in God.
	They're believers in the divine.
	They're actually better people.
	Not better people. That's a bad way to say it.
	Well, they have a better life.
	We'll just put it that way. They end up in a better life and they end up better to each other and they end up doing better things in the world.
	And so let's...
	I don't understand why...
	I didn't understand why churches were shut down during the pandemic and bars and strip clubs were open.
	I couldn't process it.
	I couldn't process why we're assailing all religion and all faith when we're And meanwhile, we're, you know, as some global governments, they are fighting against nations and people who are fiercely religious and God-believing.
	And so, at some point, you're like...
	Like, what's going on?
	So I had to put that in the book because it's a huge component of life that, again, is under attack.
	Religious liberty is under attack the same way personal liberty is.
	And you can't leave that out of the story of America.
	Or the idea of freedom and individual liberty either.
	Well, the book is called Revolution Empire, and it is book one, History Never Retreats.
	And it's going to be a series, and it looks like a wonderful book.
	And we've got a writer here, Rob, who says, Guard Goldsmith is a listener.
	He's got shows of his own, Liberty Conspiracy.
	He says, I can't wait to get those novels.
	And I think it's going to be a very popular series and it truly has been interesting talking to you.
	I can't wait to see it myself either.
	So thank you so much for joining us and good luck with this.
	And I hope it gets a wide audience.
	We'll do what we can to push this out there.
	Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
	Have people look it up at Amazon by name because Amazon has a weird sort of thing where The new books, sometimes they bury, they're a little harder to find.
	So if you look at Revolution Empire, you might see 12 other books with it.
	If you're looking for Revolution Empire with my name.
	Rob Travolino. T-R-A-V-A-L-I-N-O. Rob Travolino.
	Look that up on Amazon to find it.
	That's great. It's coming out in the middle of July, right?
	The first book. It was out July 25th.
	Okay, great. Great.
	Look forward to seeing that. Thank you so much, Rob.
	I appreciate it. Thank you.
	Before we cut, folks, I just want to say thank you to GMO. Thank you for the tip.
	I appreciate that. And KWD68 says, technology is a two-edged sword, but I would gladly reset to 1960 or even 1860 tech compared to where we are and where we are going.
	Well, that absolutely is true.
	Because I think... You know, when I look at technology, I went into engineering because I was interested in technology, but as I look at the way that it's being used, and it really goes back to the warning that Eisenhower gave us of the military-industrial complex.
	Talking about how not just the military and industrial complex, but also including in it academia, saying they were going to be taken captive by the government, and it was already happening at that point in time, that they would be directing the research and these other things.
	And when you look at what is happening with technology, with the internet and all the rest of it, every bit of it is not just contaminated with authoritarian control.
	But it is the very essence of everything that they do, apparently, at this point.
	Well, thank you for joining us again, Rob Travolino.
	It's going to be an interesting series.
	Thank you. 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.

▲