Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 21, 2023 - The David Knight Show

03:01:18

The David Knight Show - 07/21/2023

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Transcription by CastingWords
	Transcription by CastingWords You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	As the clock strikes 13, it's Friday the 21st of July, year of our Lord 2023.
	The David Knight Show.
	Well, today we have in the third hour, a very interesting book I've been reading, haven't finished all of it.
	A lot of information in it.
	School World Order.
	It was Jason Barker who recommended this to me, actually sent it to me.
	So I appreciate that, Jason.
	Yeah, it picks up where Charlotte Iserby left off.
	And it talks about how, what is happening from both parties, from Trump as well as Obama and all the rest of it.
	It is a public-private partnership To put education under centralized government control, a kind of private-public partnership, as we have seen with the green agenda or with the pharmaceutical agenda.
	But it's going to be a very interesting discussion in the third hour.
	We're going to begin, however, with a follow-up on what is happening with the Trump insurrection.
	And what is the overall plan here?
	How are they looking to get rid of both Trump and Biden?
	We'll be right back.
	Let me begin with a note from a listener and a longtime supporter for the love of the road, for love of the road, on Subscribestar.
	And he began by talking about my concern about what is happening to these poor people that have been charged with eight felonies in Michigan, looking at up to 85 years in jail.
	Many of them are elderly.
	Even a small portion of those crimes being found guilty, even a small portion of the sentences would put them in jail for life.
	It's just so far over the top.
	And Reason picked it up and said, is this legitimate?
	And hopefully it isn't.
	I want to talk about what their opportunities are to beat the rap.
	Because I think it is legitimate.
	They have a legitimate case to say that this is just really egregious political persecution.
	Pretty obviously so.
	And it's not just them, of course.
	There's several other states.
	There were a total of seven states.
	In two of them, there were some caveats there.
	And we'll talk about that.
	So it looks like those two states, they really would not have a case whatsoever.
	But it all falls into, what is the goal of these prosecutions with Trump?
	I think there's multiple things that they're after.
	They understand, they know, everybody knows, that the more indictments they throw at him, the more popular he becomes.
	And I think that this is a plan to make sure that...
	Even if Biden drops out, the Republican field will be so damaged, so divided, that we couldn't beat even Lala Harris, for example.
	But this is what For Love of the Road says.
	He says, I don't agree with Nessel's overkill.
	That's the Soros Attorney General in Michigan.
	And prosecuting these fake electors.
	I know the only reason she's doing it is because they're Republicans, more so that they support Trump.
	But at the same time, I wouldn't want Democrats doing what they did.
	It really is unfortunate that the Trump campaign told these people to do it.
	So obviously they knew what needed to be done.
	Another slate of electors, like you said, the question is, why didn't they go about it in a way that would have been legal and would have been recognized as legitimate?
	And I think that's part of it.
	It's part of, you know, the, you know, typically some leader has around him what they call a brain trust.
	We had lack of a brain trust in the Trump administration.
	Absolutely clueless about how to do anything.
	No idea whatsoever.
	Anyway, he says, when we look at this, he said, he pointed out that this is already, some moves have already been made in Georgia.
	Last summer, an Atlanta prosecutor told all 16 people acted as fake electors in Georgia.
	They were targets of a criminal probe.
	And as he pointed out, and I've not talked about it, They've already had at least half of those Georgia so-called fake electors have reached immunity deals with the prosecutor and they're talking.
	You see, here's the bottom line.
	Trump keeps saying, I'm between them and you.
	And as usual, the truth is exactly the opposite of what Trump is saying.
	No, we are between Trump and them.
	And they and Trump are in a Game of Thrones, and they don't give a fig about us.
	But Trump is using these pawns that are between him and the people who are his political opponents.
	So let's take a look at where this is headed, by the way.
	Does reason set? Jacob Solemn on reason.
	Does Trump's alternate electors plan justify criminal charges against them and him?
	And as I said from the very beginning, I'm really more concerned for these people and how they're being over-prosecuted.
	And I believe that many of them are well-meaning and sincere in what they do.
	I believe they're wrong, but I think they were sincere.
	They were not acting criminally and fraudulently.
	I can't say the same thing for Trump and Giuliani and the people around him.
	I think it was a grift. I've said this from day one.
	I said it and got fired for saying it.
	I said it when I was still at Infowars.
	I said Trump was grifting.
	Alex was grifting with this stuff.
	There was no way that they were going to resolve this.
	And I pointed out that they'd already hit the point where the Electoral College had submitted their slate of electors.
	I said it's already done at this point.
	What's the point of January the 6th?
	Well, the point of January the 6th was to raise money.
	So I believe that Trump and, you know, Alex would stop the steal.
	Trump would save America. I believe they acted fraudulently, knowingly fraudulently, not necessarily a crime against the federal government that they're coming out.
	They're trying to come after him for insurrection.
	Why are they doing that instead of coming after him for fraud?
	Well, because if they convict him of insurrection, then they can bar him from taking office.
	You've seen all of these stories, and I've reported what these people have said to you.
	That he can run for office from jail.
	As a matter of fact, we've had candidates who've done that in the past.
	So, you know, even if they lock him up and put him in jail, he can still run for president.
	He can still be on the ballot and so forth, unless he's got a conviction for insurrection.
	And then they can use the 14th Amendment to keep him out.
	And I think that they have no interest in locking up Trump.
	I think they do want to lock up people who were there on January the 6th.
	They want to lock up the Proud Boys.
	They want to lock up Oath Keepers, Stuart Rhodes and those people.
	But really the reason that they're coming after them is to make a case.
	And Stuart Rhodes has said this.
	It's pretty obvious what is happening.
	They laid this stuff out, these ridiculous charges of seditious conspiracy.
	I talked about this from the very beginning.
	As a matter of fact, Darren Beattie, who pointed the finger at Ray Epps and kept pointing the finger at Ray Epps to get on national media.
	Darren Beattie also pointed the finger at the Proud Boys and at Stuart Rhodes.
	And when they charged them with seditious conspiracy, see, that just proves that they're Fed agents.
	Because that's such a ridiculous overcharge.
	And it was. Except they got a conviction, because it's in D.C. And so, same thing is going to happen with this, I believe.
	And they were laying the groundwork, saying, hey, look, we've already found a couple dozen people guilty of seditious conspiracy.
	And, of course, they're going to say they were taking their orders from Trump.
	And so, therefore, Trump is guilty of seditious conspiracy.
	If they convict him, they may not send him to jail.
	They may just say, well, okay, we don't want you in jail with all the Secret Service agents having to sit outside your cell or inside your cell with you.
	So we will give you a magnanimously, give you probation.
	But if you decide to get involved in running for president, or maybe they might even put a condition in there, say if you get involved in politics, we're going to consider that to be a violation of your probation, and then you will go to jail.
	I think that's what they're aiming for.
	So again, the 14th Amendment to get rid of Trump.
	They've got the 25th Amendment to get rid of Biden in terms of competency.
	But let's talk about what's going to happen to these other people because they have a real possibility of going to jail.
	A lot of people have been in jail for years under very harsh circumstances.
	Un-American. No Americans should be imprisoned the way these people were.
	But of course, this is something that's happening all the time.
	Communication management units, as I talked to Marty Gottesfeld so many times about that and other people.
	We've already got several political prisoner domestic gitmos around the country.
	Communication management units.
	Set up to keep people who are political prisoners isolated from being able to communicate with the outside world.
	That's where they're going to put Julian Assange.
	And so, these are prisons that are designed specifically for political prisoners in the United States.
	And so, it is a very real possibility that these electors will go to jail.
	Just so these people can have leverage against Donald Trump.
	What an outrage this is.
	I mean, here we are, three and a half years later.
	A little bit more than that.
	I still cannot believe how they are using their own, his own audience, his own followers, how the alternative press is using their own listeners and followers.
	I can't believe how they're cynically using them for their own personal benefit.
	Anyway, as I point out, Jacob Solem at Reason says, well, I thought it was interesting that these indictments were put out on the same day.
	Because he thinks that there's a connection with that.
	And again, I think the biggest connection is going to be the insurrection thing.
	But I think this will be a part of it.
	I think this will be a part of building the case for what they're going to charge Trump with.
	I think it's a given that he's going to be charged with seditious conspiracy.
	But with this stuff with the electors, that builds their case that it is a broader conspiracy.
	It's a part of building that seditious conspiracy involving electors in multiple states.
	And so, as he pointed out, the key to all of this, however, is the intent to defraud.
	You know, you can say, well, they signed this paperwork, and I said, well, maybe, you know, trying to think of as their lawyer, you know, maybe they did believe that they were legitimate electors, and I think that is the case.
	Certainly, you could say, arguing it from a semantic standpoint, well, they were legitimate electors for the Republican Party.
	But it goes beyond that.
	For her to win her case and put these people in jail, she has to show that there was fraud involved.
	And that's the key.
	As I said, I think that there was obvious knowing fraud from Giuliani and his lawyers and from Trump and others.
	But I don't think there was fraud on these people's part.
	Pence commented on this, and of course he's now testified in this Jack Smith thing.
	They've called him in for questioning.
	He didn't with the congressional hearings.
	He said, I'm not convinced that the president, acting on bad advice of a group of crank lawyers that came into the White House on the days before January 6th, I'm not convinced he's actually a criminal, he said.
	But the bad advice that he's talking about, says Jacob Sullivan, Pence's mention came coming from crank lawyers like Rudy Giuliani, who may face Georgia charges for his role in the alternate elector's plan.
	Another important crank lawyer was John Eastman.
	Eastman conceded that Pence's intervention would violate the Electoral Count Act, but he argued that the statute was unconstitutional.
	So Jacob Sullivan says it's plausible, given everything that we know about Trump, that he favored advice from lawyers who told him what he wanted to hear.
	It is also plausible, although by no means clear, that he honestly believed that he had won re-election and eagerly latched on to any claim.
	This is why I played that clip yesterday from Christie, because I think it's so important Chris Christie saying that, no, he really didn't think he was going to win because he told me personally that he didn't think that.
	And so that is something that would be very key because fraud is the key issue here.
	You know, if Trump really thought that he won, Then the actions that he was doing wouldn't necessarily be fraudulent.
	They might still be fraudulent.
	But if he didn't think that he was going to win, then it puts everything that he did in a very different light.
	So his people face eight felony counts, including various forgery-related charges.
	But all of that hinges on intent.
	And so that is the key thing.
	And I think that's very important because they, and even some of these people they call crank lawyers, they had, as I pointed out yesterday, going back in history, the 1960 election between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy.
	You had the situation in Hawaii where it was very, very close.
	They only had 140 votes separating the two.
	It was initially called for Nixon.
	As the winner by 140 votes.
	But the Democrat electors said, you know, we don't accept that.
	And we are electors.
	And so you had competing slate of electors.
	You had the officially recognized Republicans and the Democrats said, no, we are electors.
	Now, in that particular case, there was a recount underway.
	And that's one of the key issues, is the fact that all of this stuff was shut down, as you saw in Michigan and other places.
	They did not really do, I think, a thorough job of looking at what was happening with the votes.
	But nevertheless, on December 19, 1960, a recount was underway.
	Both groups, the Republicans and the Democrats, Both groups of electors, because remember, each party has got a group of electors.
	That's, you know, from the very beginning, in case you win, these are the people that are going to represent you.
	So both groups of electors had signed certificates that they sent to Washington, D.C., And although it did not reflect the official results, the Democrats' certificates unambiguously identified them as, quote, duly and legally appointed and qualified.
	The same language, by the way, that was used by these Michigan electors and the other ones, that is now the source of these felony charges by this Soros LGBT Attorney General that is there.
	And so what happened is that eventually you had a situation where they did the recount and Richard Nixon was vice president.
	So he had the role that Pence had in the 2020 election where the vice president reads the, you know, what is what has been sent in.
	And again, understand that what we do with the Electoral College really does not reflect what's in the Constitution whatsoever.
	And we've like so many other things we have just established a tradition that completely ignores what the Constitution says.
	Whether you're talking about our money or our elections, doesn't look anything at all like it.
	And of course, we just got further away as the Supreme Court, I think, in an overreaction to this, took away the authority of the state legislatures to set up congressional jurisdictions.
	But anyway, in five of the seven states that Trump supporters identified as disputed in 2020, The would-be electors did essentially the same thing.
	They used that same language, duly and legally appointed and qualified.
	However, in Pennsylvania and New Mexico, they put in a caveat and said their votes would only be counted if ongoing court battles broke in favor of Trump.
	So I think they are completely covered in those two states.
	But there could be another four states where the electors are charged with felonies.
	And it certainly looks like that's going to happen in Georgia.
	At least half of them. The other half have said, we're going to talk about what these lawyers, Giuliani and the rest of them, did.
	Now what happened was, eventually, when they got to counting the stuff on January the 6th, Back in 1960, Nixon, who was Vice President, saw three different groups of electors coming in from Hawaii.
	And this is what I said from the very beginning.
	If they made a case to the state legislatures, you would have, with the imprimatur of some officials, the state legislatures looked at this and they said, no, we think Trump won this, if you had made the case to them.
	If you presented multiple slates of electors to Pence, he would have had to make a decision.
	Do I go with what the governor and the Board of Elections says, or what the legislature says?
	And that was the decision that Nixon had.
	He had actually three sets of certificates.
	He had a GOP slate, he had an uncertified Democrat slate, and then he had a certified Democrat slate.
	And it's interesting because Nixon picked the newest one, which had been done after the required meeting of the electors in all the different states that we call the Electoral College.
	So he picked one of the three slates from Hawaii.
	The one that he picked out of the three slates was one that was put together after the Electoral College had met.
	So this is going to play, I think, the history of this in 1960.
	It was talked about by these lawyers.
	It will be talked about a great deal in all these trials.
	And I think it's going to be very important for them to show that they did not believe that they acted fraudulently.
	Now, what Jacob Selim says is that in contrast with what happened in 1960 when there was a genuine fact-based dispute about the outcome and why, the self-certified Trump electors in Michigan relied on unsubstantiated fraud claims that were never accepted by election officials or the courts.
	But I still think that it's going to be very, very difficult for the Soros Attorney General to prove that they acted fraudulently instead of sincerely.
	As we all know, the old saying, you can indict a ham sandwich because you don't have any opposition.
	When you go to a grand jury, you don't have somebody there arguing the other side.
	That happens at trial.
	And so he points out, Jacob Sullivan does, under Michigan's forgery statutes.
	In any case, what really matters is whether the defendants believed that their conduct was a legitimate way to preserve objections that they thought were well-grounded.
	So if their intent was not to injure or to defraud, it was to correct the consequences of a massive fraud, they believed, even if it was an imaginary fraud.
	And I think, you know, when you look at that clip that I played yesterday, how law-abiding and even polite those people were, trying to get it, well, we got paperwork here, we'd like to deliver it.
	Is there somebody we can deliver it to?
	Well, you accepted. No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
	Yeah, completely shut down.
	But, you know, there wasn't anybody who tried to shove their way in.
	They didn't even speak in harsh, raised tones.
	Now, if you're going to send people to jail for that, this country truly is over.
	And they truly do want a civil war.
	It's just that simple.
	There was no intent to defraud.
	There was no intent at an insurrection.
	And you can see that clip.
	And I played yesterday, and that makes it pretty clear.
	So a lawyer for one of the Michigan defendants said, I'm very disappointed in the Attorney General's office.
	This is all political, obviously.
	If they want to charge my client, how come they didn't charge Trump and the Trump lawyers that he sent here to discuss with the delegates what to do?
	Well, that's coming.
	This is just laying the groundwork.
	They're throwing these people under the bus that's going to go after Trump.
	Were Giuliani and Eastman true believers?
	What about Trump? Jacob Solem says, honestly don't know.
	I'd put money down that they weren't because I know this was about the money.
	This is about the money. Follow the money.
	There is evidence pointing in both directions, he says, but when the evidence is mixed or ambiguous, prosecutors may have a hard time making their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
	Well, again, it's going to be the seditious conspiracy charge.
	That is what they're going to come after with Trump.
	And that is why they're doing that to these people.
	They want to support Trump.
	Well, they're going to be supporting Trump by being under his bus.
	So, again, as I said at the very beginning, they want to get a 14th Amendment conviction on him.
	That's what the seditious conspiracy stuff is, to underscore the insurrection.
	And as I said, when the seditious conspiracy charges came out, I said, not only is it a ridiculous overcharging, but I understand that when they did the 14th Amendment right after the Civil War, it was to prevent people who had been involved in an insurrection against the government from holding office.
	Although, you could have Congress come together.
	There was a mechanism where you could make an exception on a case-by-case basis, even with that.
	And the bottom line is that they did not prosecute anybody in the Confederacy for a seditious conspiracy.
	Think about that. Think about that.
	It was the, you know, I look at the Civil War and I see it as the Second War of Independence.
	That's what Stonewall Jackson said, and I believe that's true.
	That was their mindset. I think that's what it was.
	We have a right to self-government.
	You know, we were, the southern states were some of the states that had created the centralized federal government, just as the United States and others created the United Nations.
	Since we created it, since we are sovereign states, we have the right to get out of the United Nations at any time we wish.
	And they had a stronger case to peacefully secede than the founders had to secede from England.
	This country's principles, founding principles, were based on secession and on individual self-government.
	And so clearly they could have seceded from an organization that they had created.
	And it was not a civil war in the sense that the South was trying to take over control of the North.
	They wanted to go their own separate way.
	But when I say this, you know, the importance of this and today's seditious conspiracy charges are where, you know, when this was done at the end of the Civil War, the country was exhausted.
	People were tired of the killing.
	But it tells you a great deal.
	The Democrats are not concerned at all about a civil war.
	They're not concerned at all about the consequences of any of these authoritarian, draconian actions.
	They're quite ready for a civil war.
	And they want to use the statute that was never used after the Civil War.
	Seditious conspiracy, these charges.
	They want to use that to push us into a Civil War, I believe.
	And as I said, I don't think they'll send him to jail.
	I think they'll give him probation.
	It'll be a condition that you violate this and you start organizing things politically, then we will send you to jail.
	During the closing arguments for the Proud Boys, prosecutors tied the Proud Boys to Mr.
	Trump. All the stand-by and stand-down comments and things like that that he made.
	Stuart Rhodes has publicly said, no, this is the reason they came after me, the reason they did this.
	I wasn't even there.
	They want to say that I was involved in this because I masterminded it.
	That is clearly coming after Trump.
	Paul Bedard wrote a column saying the 14th Amendment is going to be used to ban Trump's second term.
	And I absolutely believe that is the case.
	A federal legal expert that he quotes, Jed Babin, says, if you engage in an insurrection according to the 14th Amendment, you can no longer serve in federal office.
	End of story.
	And the group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, goes by the acronym CREW, published a report, as this stuff is being, these charges are coming out, a 90-page report detailing their charges against Trump and their claims of insurrectionist actions.
	It said, Section 3 is the measure that the Reconstruction-era framers designed to ensure insurrectionists like Trump are accountable and cannot serve in the government that they attack.
	And addressing the current risk is exactly what it is there for, they said.
	So they're pushing this as well.
	The amendment does provide a way to get out.
	Congress, in a two-thirds vote, can waive it on an individual basis, but of course they don't have that kind of majority and are not likely to have that kind of majority.
	This is not going to happen, said Jed Babin.
	So this is the Democrats' endgame and what the second impeachment was all about.
	The second failed impeachment was to basically charge him with inciting insurrection on January the 6th, and that failed.
	So whatever Smith is going to do, I'm sure it will charge Trump with inciting an insurrection and thus try to keep him out of the presidency.
	As I said, it'll be the 14th Amendment for Trump.
	It'll be the 25th Amendment probably to get Biden out.
	But in the wake of all this, as Trump is calling in radio stations in Iowa, they're doing this.
	He called into a radio station and had an interview in Iowa on the Simon Conway show.
	And the guest host there that day said, is it something that concerns you of the people making sure that they don't go out of their right mind?
	Is that something, like if that happens, for example, if they say, Jack Smith says, okay, I'm going to put Donald Trump in jail, is that something that concerns you?
	Are people going to get out of their right mind?
	And Trump said, well, I think that's a very dangerous thing to even talk about because we do have a tremendously passionate group of voters, much more passion than they had in 2020, much more passion than they had in 2016.
	But I think that would be very dangerous.
	He has now, for at least the third time, come right up to the line, if not crossed over, of threatening these prosecutors.
	This is why I say Trump is his own worst enemy.
	You know, the way that he talks about things, and the way that he can't stop talking about things, he creates perjury traps for himself.
	And you know, if you threaten a prosecutor, that is in and of itself a key thing.
	We're going to take a break, and when we come back, there was another statement that Trump made when he was on with Sean Hannity that I thought was even more amazing.
	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.
	Thank you.
	I will tell you that.
	But think of President Xi.
	Central casting, brilliant guy.
	You know, when I say he's brilliant, everyone says, oh, that's terrible.
	He runs 1.4 billion people with an iron fist.
	Smart, brilliant, everything perfect.
	There's nobody in Hollywood like this guy.
	Wow. Wow.
	Yeah, authoritarianism.
	Isn't that great? It's brilliant.
	It's perfect. You can run 1.4 billion people with authoritarianism.
	It's an admirable thing.
	It's a pragmatic thing to Trump.
	He's not the first one of these rulers to say things like this.
	Remember we had George W. Bush saying, well, I wish I was like the guy who runs China.
	I could just tell people whatever I want them to do and they've got to do it.
	Trudeau said the same thing.
	Trudeau said, when they asked him, other than Canada, what country do you admire the most?
	Well, I like China and their form of government, essentially, because you can just tell people what to do and they'll do it.
	I can just, you know, I want to fix the climate, I just tell them what they have to do.
	And here's Trump. Xi is brilliant.
	Why is this communist dictator brilliant?
	Well, because he rules with an iron fist.
	See, this is, to Trump, it's not despicable, but it's brilliant.
	Was it brilliant for Stalin to rule with an iron fist or Hitler?
	Was it brilliant for Mao to do it?
	You know, when Stalin ruled with an iron fist, we call that the iron curtain.
	Oh, it's brilliant. If your only standard is to get what you want, George W. Bush, Justin Trudeau, Donald Trump, they love these dictators.
	And we seem to love dictators as well because we want to make sure that our presidents, whether they're Democrat or Republican, depending on which team we're on, we want to make sure that they are above the law.
	And you know, when you look at this, that clip there was cut.
	He said one more thing after that.
	But this was true admiration.
	True admiration for Xi.
	It should be condemned.
	It should be a window into his dark soul that we have seen so many different manifestations of.
	It's not just the assessment of an enemy.
	Oh, wow, this guy is brilliant.
	He's very dangerous. No, it was real genuine admiration.
	He's smart. He's brilliant.
	Everything perfect, he said.
	Everything perfect. And there's nobody in Hollywood like this guy.
	Hollywood? What does Hollywood have to do with any of this stuff?
	Well, that's another insight into Trump, right?
	It's all theatrics.
	It's all a play. They're all puppets on the stage.
	Nothing in Hollywood like this guy, right out of central casting.
	He's brilliant and all the rest of this stuff.
	Well, what he's leading up to there...
	Was to say, to build up Xi so that he could make himself look important.
	Because the next thing that he says, right after that, is after he says that, you know, China, this brilliant guy can just order people to do whatever the leader wants.
	Right after that, he says, and I got him to pay $28 billion because he screwed our farmers for years.
	Oh, so I'm even smarter than this brilliant guy.
	Now, it wasn't 1.4 billion people, but he was able to lock down with an iron fist, you know, 300 million people in America, 330, whatever it is.
	But, you know, he says, well, I got to pay $28 billion because they screwed our farmers.
	Is that really what happened? Well, that's not true either.
	The reality is, is that Trump said our deficit with China is too big.
	And he was right about that.
	And so he raised tariffs on China.
	In retaliation, China stopped buying agricultural product from the United States.
	It was a massive drop across the board for farmers.
	Some of the things like soybean, because they use a lot of soy, tofu and things like that.
	Soybean exports to China dropped by 70%.
	And so what Trump did was he gave, Trump gave, $28 billion to the farmers to assuage some of the hits that they had taken from the falling exports.
	You look at this, and the guy is so twisted in terms of the way he twists the truth and what happened.
	This is not ancient history.
	This just happened a couple of years ago.
	It's absolutely, truly amazing.
	And then the petty vindictiveness of him.
	It's starting to come out yet again.
	We saw this with Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds, as he and others are campaigning in Iowa.
	He wanted her endorsement.
	She refused to give it.
	She has appeared at some events with DeSantis.
	That outraged Trump.
	And now he is outraged at Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who was his, if you remember for a long time, his press secretary.
	She has now, in the last election, she was elected governor of Arkansas, the daughter of Mike Huckabee.
	And he wants her to endorse him.
	And he's publicly said this.
	And now he is publicly complaining about her lack of loyalty, because that's the key thing.
	He doesn't have to have loyalty to anybody, and he doesn't show loyalty to anybody, but he demands absolute loyalty from everyone around him.
	Nobody's done more for her than I have, he says.
	So she wants to stay neutral in this, and the best that he can get, she's put off, he's really demanded that he wants her endorsement for a long time.
	And according to the New York Times, reportedly asked her for endorsement at the start of the year.
	She denied to do that.
	Her father, Mike Huckabee, who's got a TV show, endorsed him publicly, and Then Trump said on Truth Social in March, I never asked Sarah Huckabee Sanders for an endorsement.
	I gave endorsements.
	I don't ask for them.
	He's a big man.
	Oh, he's a big man. He's such a petty little guy.
	He's just amazing to me.
	With that being said, nobody has done more for her than I have, with the possible exception of her great father, Mike, who endorsed me, you know.
	So he's great. Moreover, Sanders has reportedly developed a close relationship with Ron DeSantis, a GOP source close with both of them, told Axios that Sanders and Casey DeSantis, Ron DeSantis' wife, have reportedly grown close over their shared experience with cancer.
	I wasn't aware that Sarah Huckabee Sanders had had cancer.
	Meanwhile, the Arkansas governor attended a retreat with prominent DeSantis donors and other governors last year.
	Governor Sanders loves President Trump and believes our country would be much better off under his leadership than President Biden and that President Trump is the dominant frontrunner and our likely Republican nominee in 2024 was the best that they could get from a Sarah Huckabee Sanders spokesperson.
	And so he's not happy with that.
	But he is getting some endorsements in some important areas.
	Sound of Freedom, it's crossed $100 million, as I pointed out yesterday.
	On Wednesday, when you're coming up to about the one-week mark, they started doing big blockbusters.
	Typically, movies will be released on a Friday.
	And I think Oppenheimer is being released this week, is it, Travis, I think?
	Certainly, the Barbie movie...
	Don't go see that.
	Stay away. Save your money.
	Save your time. Keep your loved ones away from that.
	If there's any women that you love or children that you love, don't let them see this movie.
	Yeah, it looks like Oppenheimer is releasing today.
	Yeah, just such a piece of agitprop.
	From the left, it's just disgusting.
	I don't find that to be entertaining.
	And like Solzhenitsyn said, when he was talking about live not by lies, he goes, so what do you do about this?
	He goes, well, you may not openly speak out against the government like I've been doing because you may lose your home.
	They may send you to a gulag or whatever.
	He said, make it your determination that you're not going to live by lies.
	So if there's some play or something like that and they start pushing these lies, you get up and you walk out.
	Get up and you walk out. Or don't go there in the first place.
	If you've got a review and you know it's going to be there.
	But anyway, it truly is a phenomenal success.
	The Sound of Freedom is an important issue.
	Again, be careful about the solutions that are going to be pushed out there.
	Just because there's a problem, don't knee-jerk accept any solution because it's got the seal of approval from Republican politicians, especially, right?
	Look at it apart from any partisan connections and say, is this really going to help the situation?
	And so, but it got $100 million because people are really looking for something that isn't pushing that kind of LGBT or Marxist hating America agenda.
	And so, it's a well-made film.
	And doing better than Mission Impossible did that was released last weekend.
	That's why I started talking about what days of the week they get released on.
	Typically, movies are released on a Friday.
	A lot of times, what they'll do is have midnight showings at Thursday.
	And then they started stretching it more and more.
	So there would be some box office on Thursday.
	And so Wednesday was the end of the first week.
	And it's been several weeks since Sound of Freedom came out.
	It's unprecedented, pretty much.
	To see the movie go up in revenue.
	Typically they drop off exponentially after the first week, and especially the first weekend.
	So it actually brought in more money on Wednesday than Mission Impossible did.
	But Jim Caviezel went to Trump's place in New Jersey, Bedminster.
	They brought them in for a special showing of Sound of Freedom.
	And Trump got Jim Caviezel and the people behind the movie...
	To support him.
	And so Jim Caviezel went on with Brian Kilmey and said this.
	We have to do a lot more.
	And we've got to start with Donald Trump.
	What do you mean? Well, he's got to be in there because he's going to go after the traffickers.
	Do you think he understands that?
	We were with him last night.
	Oh, I didn't know that. Oh, so he's going to be moved to do this, do something.
	I didn't know that. He wasn't here last night.
	Oh, I didn't know that. He's the new Moses. I mean, I'm still Jesus, but he's the new Moses.
	Pharaoh let my children go free.
	All right. I did not know that was an impressive screening at Bedminster, I guess.
	Eduardo, Jim Caviezel, great to see you again.
	Congratulations. Yeah, so Brian killed me.
	Oh, is he? Oh, he's concerned about Trump?
	I didn't know that. Yeah.
	How do I break this to these guys, he's thinking.
	You know, he was there for four years.
	You know, he was hanging out with Jeffrey Epstein.
	He's your guy that's going to stop all the trafficking, right?
	Even Brian Kilmeade knows better than that.
	Oh, come on, Dad. Didn't you know Trump was in the tunnels under the white ground, bare-knuckle brawling with the sex traffickers?
	Yeah, that's right. Yeah, that's all this QAnon stuff.
	That's the sad thing about this, as I said before.
	You know, I like Jim Caviezel.
	I think he's a fantastic actor.
	And I think he's got a really sincere heart.
	And a good heart. Wants to do the right thing.
	I think he's also got zero discernment.
	And it's a very dangerous thing.
	He keeps hanging around. He's done interviews just recently.
	After this movie, he's got part of his promotion tour.
	Doing interviews with Mr.
	QAnon. Michael Flynn running these, you know, Reawaken America tours where he's doing these pagan occultic prayers with a bunch of Christians.
	What a phony guy he is.
	Where he was pushing, as I pointed out many times, Kristen Beck, a guy that was Chris Beck.
	The Pentagon psychologist pushed to tell him, this Navy SEAL, that he was in the wrong body.
	I don't know what all he did to himself, but he's furious about it, speaking out.
	But it was Michael Flynn pushing that.
	So Flynn pushes the LGB transgender stuff.
	Flynn pushes these occultic prayers.
	But Flynn is, you know, a hero to Caviezel.
	And Trump is a hero to Caviezel.
	Let my people go, he says.
	You know, that's what I was saying throughout 2020.
	Let my people go.
	You've locked us down, you SOB, with your money and all the rest of this stuff.
	Your money and your Fauci and all the rest of this stuff.
	The games that you were playing with people statistically, the authoritarian.
	Look, we have science on our side and we've got lots of money to pay you if you kill people in the hospitals while I make some fatal vaccines.
	Give me a break.
	Oh, so he's going to do that?
	Says Brian Kilmeade.
	I'm sure when that interview was over, he goes backstage and he's rolling his eyes.
	Can you believe this? Unbelievable.
	Yeah, maybe we can have the, you know, this is the new Moses, said Caviezel.
	I mean, I'm still Jesus, but he's the new Moses.
	Well, you know, you're not Jesus.
	You play the role. And let's not confuse Jim Caviezel with Jesus.
	He's not. He seems to sometime think that he is.
	He's not Jesus.
	And this other guy, Rumi or whatever his name is, is playing Jesus in The Chosen.
	People are like, you know, come speak to us.
	We want to watch Jesus talk to us.
	Like, get over this.
	You know, I liked Mel Gibson's movie, but look, this guy is, and he said it and he laughed.
	But sometimes he's not quite joking, I think.
	He talks about this.
	And you want to know which character Trump played in the Ten Commandments?
	He was Pharaoh. He was Pharaoh.
	That's what he was playing.
	YouTube is, by the way, pulling the interviews and reviews of Sound of Freedom.
	And people are getting really surprised by this.
	You know, they're putting up trailers of it or snippets of interviews and things like that.
	And they're getting strikes against them.
	They're getting demonetized.
	You see, these are a lot of people who are still on YouTube because they didn't oppose the lockdowns, because they didn't oppose the virus narrative, because they didn't oppose the vaccines.
	They're still on YouTube.
	And I don't really have much sympathy for them, frankly.
	You know, when it was really important, you kept quiet.
	You played the game.
	And you're still on YouTube.
	And you thought it was safe now?
	To talk about child trafficking in a film?
	You don't realize what you have enabled with your silence.
	You should have come out of that a long time ago.
	Come out of them.
	And so, the bottom line is, we've got an emperor who's not wearing clothes.
	We've got to point it out.
	You want to be, this is, at the same time I saw this, I saw these people getting kicked off of YouTube and it's like, now you're getting kicked off of YouTube?
	You know, years into this stuff?
	You know, we've been into medical martial law for three and a half years and you're just now getting kicked off?
	Shame on you. Shame on you for whatever you're saying that, yeah, you want to be the first person to speak up and tell people the emperor's got no clothes.
	You want to do it as soon as you realize it.
	You don't want to play around.
	And, you know, when somebody says, yeah, what do you think of that outfit that the emperor is wearing?
	Well, it's really something, isn't it?
	You know, that's the kind of stuff we used to get from Tucker Carlson at Fox News.
	Yeah, that's, uh, it's really something.
	Won't say that he's not wearing an outfit.
	Won't say he's butt naked.
	But, yeah, you want to speak out, not be afraid of the, you know, social media, which, and YouTube is part of it.
	But all of that, what's happening on the internet, as I've said many times before, and I'll just say it real briefly again, it is a combination of the Milgram experiment and the Ash experiment.
	Both of these things were done in the early 1960s.
	The Milgram experiment, you know, where they're telling somebody, you know, run up the juice on this person when they give the wrong answer or whatever, and the person is faking it.
	And they're not really harming them, but they think they are.
	And the person is pretending that they are suffering a great deal of pain.
	And they eventually would get the people to ramp it up to a fatal level.
	And they reproduced this as a game of death as a game show in France.
	And it was very popular.
	The studio audience didn't know what they were doing.
	And the contestant didn't know what they were doing.
	And they liked that. They found they redid this experiment.
	And it's not just an American thing.
	In every country, they found about two-thirds of the people would be willing to follow the authorities.
	And, you know, I was just following orders, the Nuremberg excuse, and execute these people, if necessary, if told by the authorities.
	Then the ASH experiment went the other way.
	The ASH experiment was, are you going to follow the crowd even when you know it's wrong?
	And so they would have very simple things, like show them the length of a couple of different lines.
	And it was obvious which one was longer than the other one.
	But after a while, these people start to wait to see what the crowd was saying, and they would go along with an obviously wrong answer.
	This is what social media is about.
	Social media is about pushing authority figures.
	I am science.
	The science is settled on climate and on COVID and all the rest of this stuff.
	It's about pushing authority figures to get you...
	To, this totalitarianism, to live by that lie, whether the lie is coming from an authority figure or whether it's coming from your peers and the crowd.
	So we'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	Making Sense.
	common again.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Well, Travis told me that Tony Bennett has just died at the age of 96.
	It's...
	He had a very, very long career.
	I mean, he's performing just a few years ago, still performing.
	If I remember correctly, I think Frank Sinatra said that Tony Bennett was his favorite singer.
	He was a nice, relaxed guy.
	They're all gone now.
	Tony Bennett and Perry Como and Frank Sinatra, all these guys that I grew up with.
	I remember...
	My daughter, we brought her from China.
	Karen loves White Christmas and we watch it over and over again.
	I like the music. And so my daughter liked it as well.
	And she got to where she really liked Bing Crosby.
	And somehow it came up that he had died many years before, you know.
	And she said, but what about the point of the different characters?
	And what about this and what about that one?
	And no, no, you know, because the movie was so old and she just stops and he goes, they're all dead.
	It's like, yeah, that's what happens.
	It comes for all of us.
	So, yeah, sad to see that he...
	You know, you see oftentimes easygoing people.
	I think of John Williams, who is still very productive as well, and in his 90s.
	But a lot of times you'll see these conductors and musicians who have lived for a very long time, because it really does have a way of taking away the stress.
	You know, music does. It really does.
	I want to talk a little bit about R.F.K. Jr., Both the good and the bad.
	You know, we need to look at these people.
	We need to learn from what they have done and said publicly.
	And there was some good stuff that came out from RFK Jr.
	I'll talk a little bit more about that in terms of what he was saying about CBDC. About the U.S. dollar, about the necessity to back it with gold and some other things like that.
	But let's talk about the other side of RFK Jr., the really dangerous side.
	He's got several different dangerous policies that are out there.
	But the climate thing is what he has been known for.
	And there was a connection.
	Well, before I do that, let me just thank Geese Busters.
	Thank you very much for the tip on Geese Busters.
	That's really kind of you. Thank you, Geese Busters.
	He says, in the Ten Commandments, Trump played the snake.
	Ha ha ha ha!
	Not Moses, yeah.
	Ha ha ha! He knows a little bit about that from being up there in the New Jersey area.
	Thank you, Geistbusters.
	You're right. When we were locked down, the response from R.F.K. Jr.
	was very troubling. What he had to say was this.
	Somebody resurrected this tweet.
	He said, coronavirus lockdown hasn't just slowed COVID-19, it reduced lethal air pollution associated with mortality.
	When lockdown lifts, the risks of status quo will return and could worsen as governments weaken their environmental regulations and pour billions into polluting industries.
	Now, that's very concerning.
	Lockdown is a good thing.
	It's saving us from this pollution that's going to kill us all.
	It's saving us from climate change that's going to kill us all.
	And in order to make sure we don't come back roaring back, we've got to have more regulations.
	And he said that, and he retweeted an article.
	It was a Forbes article.
	A dirty economic restart could kill more people than the coronavirus.
	Well, anything could kill more people than the coronavirus because I don't think the coronavirus killed anybody.
	I think it was the medical hospital protocols that killed people.
	It was what the doctors were doing, refusing treatment.
	They killed people in their statistics.
	People who were dying anyway, they denied treatment to them or gave them remdesivir or ventilators or whatever to kill them because they were being paid to do it by Trump.
	It was the vaccine that is killing people.
	A lot of people who died with multiple comorbidities, on the average about two and a half comorbidities.
	People who were at or above life expectancy, and they all, they called them all COVID-related deaths.
	So yeah. Anything could kill more people than their phony pandemic.
	But this is what Forbes said at the time, and this is what RFK Jr.
	liked a lot. And thumbs up and retweet this.
	The coronavirus lockdown hasn't just slowed the march of COVID-19.
	Did not work. He thinks it did.
	It has reduced lethal air pollution and associated mortality risk we usually take for granted.
	But when the lockdown lifts, those risks of the status quo might not just return to normal, they might worsen as governments weaken environmental regulations and pour billions of dollars into pollution industries.
	That's essentially, he paraphrased that to get it to fit into Twitter.
	He agrees with that opening paragraph.
	They got everything wrong. He got everything wrong about that.
	It's very concerning.
	He told people the truth about the mRNA stuff, about the VAERS and so forth.
	But now he's off on this tangent about the virus and the Wuhan lab.
	He loved the lockdown.
	This shows us what we need to have.
	And this is, again, you get RFK Jr.
	in there, you're probably going to get climate lockdowns.
	You're certainly going to get more regulations.
	Of course, there are short-term effects on the environment, says Forbes, quoting a director of a Belgium research center.
	Oh, he's an authority. There are short-term effects on the environment, a substantial drop in air pollution, a fall in greenhouse gas emissions, etc.
	But in the long term, these temporary effects will probably be insignificant.
	Yeah, because all of the greenhouse gases and things that you're worried about are absolutely insignificant.
	Anyway, Total CO2 concentration, 0.04% of the atmosphere.
	How much of that is man-made?
	It's absolute nonsense.
	They have no data to back this up.
	They are as zealous in covering their tracks on their data as anybody else.
	If you were to go to, let's say that, and we're going to talk about this coming up here, one of the white-collar criminals that Trump let out, Went right back into it, ripped off a whole bunch of friends and family and other people in his Hasidic community for tens of millions of dollars again.
	After having been convicted multiple times, Trump gives him a pardon, and he goes right back to it.
	And so, you know, let's say that you go to this guy, and he's got this investment vehicle, and you say, you know, I'd like to see your books, or I'd like to see some of the numbers about this.
	Well, hey, I'm not showing you that.
	You can't see that. You know, you're a performer and you've got an agent who's stealing from you.
	You think he's stealing? Let me see the books.
	Let me see the bank account. I can't show you the bank accounts.
	What would you expect of somebody like that?
	What would you expect of a scientist who tries to hide all their data, as we saw with the climate change stuff over and over again?
	As we have seen with the COVID stuff over and over again?
	One Stanford professor says Forbes in this article that RFK Jr.
	loves so much. One Stanford professor projected that China's two-month lockdown saved up to 77,000 lives of children and the elderly, a number that dwarfs the 3,100 killed by the coronavirus in that country over the same period of time.
	So much to see here.
	1.4 billion people.
	And China, in trying to make a case, tells us whether it's true or not.
	That 3,100 people out of 1.4 billion died.
	Now, even if that were true and not an inflated number, how absurd that they would lock down 1.4 billion people.
	And it's not an epidemic.
	Certainly not a pandemic.
	And then for these people that RFK Jr.
	agrees with, to say that China's two-month lockdown...
	Saved 77,000 lives of children and elderly.
	Understand, this is...
	By the way, this came out March 29th of 2020.
	So we'd had two weeks to flatten the curve.
	Did Forbes and RFK Jr.
	really believe Fauci that they're going to let us go after two weeks?
	Evidently, because they said, you know what?
	It's been two weeks now.
	They're about to lift this lockdown.
	So we've got to be careful that we don't have a lot of economic activity because we could all die, you know?
	They were naive enough to believe that Fauci was going to let people go in two weeks.
	Especially RFK Jr.
	RFK Jr. I think knew at that point in time.
	Maybe he didn't know it at that point in time.
	I don't know. He put it in his book.
	Anthony Fauci talked about how they had practiced locking everybody down and keeping them locked down until an experimental vaccine was rushed without approval and required by everybody in order to get out of lockdown.
	You know, he's written about that in his book.
	Maybe he didn't know it at the time.
	Maybe he didn't know the plan was to keep everybody locked down and fearful until they could get their vaccine pushed on you.
	I don't know. But again, how in the world can these people come up with this kind of nonsense that 77,000 lives were saved by China's two-month lockdown?
	That's pure nonsense.
	It's based on models, it's based on opinions, it's based on assumptions and wishful thinking.
	Just like all their climate models.
	And these people constantly put out garbage like this.
	Anyway, so they point out aspects of this economic restart pretend of a worsening climate scenario.
	Let me just say, you know, RFK Jr.
	buys into this stuff. And he's going to kill our economy and he's going to kill our freedom because he's a climate spook.
	He's a climate peer.
	It's a very dangerous thing.
	You've got to understand how dangerous that is.
	And he's a true believer in that.
	And I look at, you know, whether you look at COVID or you look at climate, you look at the MacGuffin and the way it was done.
	I would no more vote for RFK Jr.
	than I would vote for Anthony Fauci for president.
	Anthony Fauci would do it with a lockdown.
	RFK Jr., a climate lockdown.
	Now we've got to take all this stuff from you.
	Both of them, if they believe this stuff, are incompetent and not worthy of the office.
	Governments are reviving their fossil fuel industries and supporting polluters like airlines.
	Keep the airlines down on the ground, right?
	Kill them. Kill them. Some governments, including the United States, are suspending enforcement of environmental regulations.
	Unleashing polluters and others are using the pandemic as an excuse to renege on climate pledges.
	Kill them. Kill them. Lock them down.
	Lock them down. Says Forbes and RFK Jr.
	Two weeks. End of the lockdown.
	Above all, climate change is not a crisis, said this guy.
	Well, I agree with that.
	No, he says it is an irreversible transformation.
	There will be no going back to normal.
	No vaccine for this, he said.
	Instead, we need structural measures, not short-term ones like vaccines.
	This is one of the first times that it was put in print.
	There is, this is the new normal.
	We're not going back to normal.
	Again, this is March the 29th.
	We had been locked down for two weeks.
	And RFK Jr.
	liked this, endorsed this, believes this.
	Very dangerous. Look at California, the East Coast, New Jersey's move to ban all new cars by 2035, all new gas-powered cars.
	And of course, does he care if there's any replacement, any infrastructure to support the new technology?
	No, he doesn't. They're going to, by the way, they're going to move that date ever, ever closer to today.
	They've got to have it before 2030, and it will continue to move up.
	He's buying into this plan that's coming out of California.
	Of course, they had signed on to the California Air Resources Board CARB to those rules, and so now he's making it clear.
	He's proud to be the California of the East Coast.
	As part of his, quote, energy master plan, Governor Murphy on Monday unveiled environmental rules to require vehicle manufacturers to make 100% of their passenger cars, trucks, and SUVs electric by 2035.
	Think about that. Think of the authoritarian hubris of having an energy master plan.
	Yeah. They got a master plan, all right.
	The master plan is depopulation.
	That's the master plan.
	And think of the fact that this is all central planning.
	This is a politician demanding how the cars are going to be made.
	These are politicians who have never built or designed anything that works in their life.
	And they're telling you, well, we've got to have this or you're going to have nothing.
	Well, it's going to be nothing. And we've got to do it right now.
	We can't wait. Murphy's proposal aligns with New Jersey and California and other deep blue states.
	This is what I've said in the past, you know...
	Tennessee area here, and I don't think it's a good thing.
	I'm not a big fan of alcohol, but it really has taken off.
	They've got all these... Not just microbreweries.
	I first started doing that when we were in North Carolina.
	A lot of other states let people brew beer.
	And so people go to the restaurant, get the beer that's made fresh, that's right there, their particular formula.
	But in the last few years, because we've always been coming to this area before we moved here, and what has really caught on are these moonshine places.
	And they're taking over everything.
	And, you know, it's...
	So everywhere you go, you've got, you know, here's some free moonshine they want to give you and all the rest of this stuff.
	Hard liquor. You know, we need to, if we're going to allow that, we need to start having some micro refineries where I can get the stuff I need to run my car.
	We need to have...
	So the state legislators put that in there and encouraged and legalized some micro refineries so we can start making our own fuel because these people are going to cut it off.
	You know, we can keep our cars running and we can make internal combustion engines and we can make them however we want, but we're going to have to have that juice or we can't cut loose, as Tower of Power would say.
	New Jersey environmentalists defended the electric vehicle mandate.
	These people who hate men in the patriarchy, why do they love mandates?
	They don't even want to date men, but they love mandates.
	It's crazy. The Sierra Club in New Jersey called the program one of the most important policies for New Jersey to adopt because this has been their desire for 53 years to kill the car.
	Going back to the first Thursday.
	Some experts, however, doubt that electric vehicles will actually help the environment.
	They require large amounts of mined and processed and refined minerals to be built and so forth and so on.
	But it is all about the coercion.
	And just to remind you here, you don't hear him in this, but, you know, Biden is right there with Klaus Schwab in Davos as they're talking about coercion.
	To our discussion, which we had...
	At dinner two days ago.
	With Biden. The fourth industrial revolution has one big challenge.
	It is the holding out of the middle class.
	Yeah. So we must force them, right?
	I like the way he says that.
	His fourth industrial revolution always comes out as the force industrial revolution.
	Use the force, Luke and Joe.
	We got to use the force on the middle class, yeah?
	But this is what it's going to look like.
	The 15-minute city.
	The 15-minute city means basically a neighborhood where you can reach everything you need within a 15-minute footwalk.
	A doctor, grocery store, and so forth.
	However, if you now fancy another store and it does not happen to be in your neighborhood, you won't be going to that store anymore.
	Total control is what we're talking about.
	Once they decide you're no longer allowed to leave your 15-minute immediate area, they don't have to fence it in or anything.
	It will be done via digital ID. With the social credit system, kind of maintaining compliance.
	And there's pilot projects already going on in Bologna.
	It's called the Bologna Wallet.
	And in Vienna, it's called the Vienna Token.
	It's voluntary for now.
	And it's only pretty much enticing people to get some ticket for a little less or something like that, to go to theater, something like that.
	But soon there will be a time you don't have a choice anymore.
	You have to have this digital green certificate, this QR code, whatever.
	And then they... Yeah, the bologna wallet.
	It sounds like bologna to me.
	Yeah, get ready.
	They're going to push this on us.
	And it's both parties.
	You know, 15-minute city, smart city, a freedom city from Trump.
	Who knows? Well, again, I'm hopeful that these...
	Maybe we can get these...
	What you can pray for is that these two people fight each other.
	These two factions fight each other for control.
	Take each other out.
	God can do anything.
	A Biden official behind the gas stove cracked out admits that she has absolutely no clue what it takes to install a gas stove, and she couldn't care less.
	She said she doesn't know how an electric stove is installed.
	During testimony, she was asked She is the Deputy Department of Energy Secretary.
	It's her department that is dictating this.
	Geraldine Richman, the Under-Secretary of Energy for Science.
	I am the Underminer!
	Nothing is beneath me.
	She oversaw the rulemaking process and says she doesn't know how electric stoves or what is going to be involved with this.
	And so it was explained to her by Representative Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, a Republican.
	He says, well, here's how this works.
	If you're not making a lot of money, you can't afford the expensive one that will meet the standard.
	So you're going to have to buy the other one.
	If you have a gas stove in your home right now, there's a gas line coming to it, you probably have a 110 connection located into your kitchen to that site.
	He says, do you know what it takes to put an electric stove in your home?
	He asked her. No, I don't, she said.
	Well, I do, he said.
	You've got to run a 220 line, which means that you've probably got to get an electrician to do that.
	He's going to have to go through your house and run a 220 line, and then you're going to have to put that in there.
	You're going to have to hire somebody to come in, drill holes in your floor, pull the wire to the panel, hook that whole thing up, he said.
	And so if you include the cost of insulation, what are the estimated energy savings on this?
	Well, they're not there. She began to say, we're strongly in favor of consumer choice.
	He says, apparently you're not.
	Yeah, these people, they're not pro-choice on stoves.
	They're not pro-choice on how we educate our kids.
	They're not pro-choice on whether or not we vaccinate ourselves or our kids.
	They're not pro-choice on masks or travel or cars.
	The only thing they're pro-choice on, and I've said this for years, but boy, the last three and a half years, they have shown us how anti-choice they are.
	You don't even get to choose what words you use.
	They're going to tell you what to say.
	Don't say mom and dad, parent one and two.
	Use my pronouns and this and that.
	The only thing they support choice of is to kill or mutilate your children.
	If that's your choice, they will support that and fight for that.
	But other than that, they are anti-choice on everything.
	Also, along with the Department of Energy's rules, I had statements from a Biden-appointed commissioner of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
	These are the geniuses out there who are also trying to ban airsoft guns.
	Airsoft guns are about as harmful as gas stoves.
	These people are just dictators.
	These are emperors without clothes.
	They have no authority for any of this stuff.
	This is a hidden hazard, he said, just like, you know, the airsoft guns.
	Any option is on the table.
	Products that can't be made safe can be banned.
	And, of course, that was when they were trying to sell the nonsense that these stoves caused childhood asthma.
	But as I briefly pointed out the other day, I'll just repeat it.
	I'm not going to get into details with this.
	But it's also going to apply to portable power generators that you use when power goes off.
	Those will be outlawed based on emissions as well.
	And they will not allow stockpiled things to be sold either.
	They've got to do this at warp speed.
	No time to get anything right.
	No time to have people change over engineering to get an alternative.
	No, we're just going to shut everything down now.
	That is a common thing with the MacGuffins that they're pushing on us.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	But when the candidates have some good ideas, we should pick up those ideas.
	Reject the bad ideas.
	Like, lockdown is good.
	It saved us from some of the climate change, and we've got to keep everything in lockdown.
	And we've got to add more rules and regulations to keep it like this, as a new normal.
	No, absolutely reject that.
	But he does have some good points in terms of CBDC, gold, real money, and that type of thing.
	By the way, you know, it's July and FedNow has launched and the Federal Reserve is actively telling people that it is not.
	Two lies. Two big lies.
	Lie number one, it is not intended to kill or replace other money transfer options like Venmo, Cash App, PayPal, or Zelle.
	Oh, really? What a surprise.
	Because it goes in direct competition with them.
	And that's the way they sold it.
	You'll be able to get money.
	24-7, 365.
	And you had one of the Federal Reserve people said, well, we can do that right now.
	We've got any number of apps that allow you to instantly send money to people and it doesn't depend on banks being open.
	So that's lie number one, that it is not...
	It's meant to compete with them, to replace them, or to kill them.
	Lie number two is that it is not a step to CBDC. It has no relation to CBDC, they said.
	No, it does.
	As a matter of fact, if you look at CBDC, and it's been talked about by the establishment press, especially the Atlantic, which is cheering CBDC, World Economic Forum, and others, they will show you The maps.
	And they color the countries to say, well, this is being studied.
	This is being implemented.
	This is in the wholesale stage.
	This is in the final stage, the retail stage.
	And the wholesale stage is what FedNow is.
	First, they implement it and say this is going to be transferring money from bank to bank.
	And what's key about that is It gives the central bank a more active, more direct presence than it currently does.
	It's adding more functionality, more immediacy to that.
	They're grabbing customers' information as part of that.
	And then the second stage is when they go full-on retail.
	And so when they say, well, this isn't CBDC, well, yes, it's the next to the last stage of CBDC. FedNow will only be available to customers of the banks that choose to implement FedNow.
	The Fed says that all 10,000 or so banks that are regulated by the Fed can join but will not be required to do so.
	Yet. Right?
	They put that in there as a caveat.
	They didn't say that. The claim is that for everyday people, FedNow could make managing money much easier and faster.
	It could also allow you to pay your mortgage bill on Christmas Day without worrying about it being delayed or late because of the holiday.
	Again, nothing that you don't currently have.
	And the functionality is being offered out there in direct competition.
	But what it also means is that you're now going to have a centralized record of every transaction.
	Big Brother's going to know everything that you do.
	Big Brother's going to know your preferences.
	Big Brother's going to have specific information about you as well.
	It's getting right up to that line of CBDC. The U.S. Federal Reserve clarified that its new service for instant payments between organizations, the FedNow Service, has no relationship with CBDC. Well, no.
	They increased centralization, and it is obviously the penultimate step to it.
	The ultimate step is the CBDC, but they're getting there quickly.
	The Federal Reserve further confirmed that it has not yet decided on issuing the highly anticipated CBDC and will only proceed with the issuance of a CBDC with an authorizing law.
	Yeah, as if.
	Biden, again, going back to March of last year, he gave all of his swap, all of the executive branch, all of the alphabet agencies that are under the presidency, he gave them all tasks to implement CBDC. Oh, but this is just a conspiracy theory, right?
	No, it's just a conspiracy, not a theory.
	And again, you know, in March, maybe we should beware the Ides of March, right?
	We had the lockdown from Trump, and we had the CBDC from Biden in March, two years later.
	So... Yeah, they're stabbing you in the back instead of Caesar, is what they're doing on these Ides of March.
	Bruce Wiles argues that FedNow is just another step towards more control over the individual.
	FedNow truly seems to be a Trojan horse to usher in a CBDC. Maybe instead of calling it FedNow, they ought to call it Nudge.
	Nudge coin. There we go.
	It points out that while not everyone will choose to opt in and to adopt such a system, it will appear to be benign to most people and it will be rapidly accepted.
	Even those that resist will find that government will most likely force them to use it when dealing with official agencies.
	Yeah, like with the IRS, for example.
	Remember how they tried to push that idea on everybody in order?
	Well, we're not going to answer any of your questions after such and such a date if you don't go into this portal and give them your identification and your biometric stuff and all the rest of this.
	Because we get too much fraud, you know, and so forth.
	The thing that shut that down was that that portal that they were directing everybody to couldn't work.
	It wasn't that they realized that this was a bad idea.
	It wasn't that there was somebody in Washington or the Congress that said, you know what, we don't want to go down this path.
	No, it's just that they couldn't get the thing to work.
	So what is RFK Jr.
	now saying about this?
	He was speaking on Wednesday at an online forum that was hosted by a super PAC called Heal the Divide.
	And they are trying to pick people on both sides, both of these parties.
	They have helped Marjorie Taylor Greene.
	And so then, you know, they're reaching out to RFK Jr.
	And so he spoke at this, and he also issued a press release talking about his vision.
	And I think there's some very good aspects in it.
	He's got a detailed plan.
	Doesn't mean that he would necessarily implement it.
	I remember when Donald Trump was running, he had a detailed plan that somebody in his campaign had put together for him about how to fix health care.
	And it had all the necessary ingredients in it.
	It was like, well, we've got to have a marketplace.
	We've got to have consumer choice.
	We've got to have consumers empowered to make those choices by taking off some of the tax burden and some other things like that.
	You know, we have to allow competition, even across state lines and stuff like that.
	All of these different things that were there, they were excellent.
	And what happened when President Trump became president They flushed that website and the policy down the memory hole.
	It's just gone. You can still find it with a Wayback Machine, but they flushed it down the hole.
	So that may be the case with RFK Jr.
	Who knows? But he does have some good plans there, and so I want to take a look at him.
	He said that he will support the U.S. dollar with Bitcoin if he wins the presidency.
	He also said, quote, backing dollars and U.S. debt obligations with hard assets could help to restore strength back to the dollar, rein in inflation, and usher in a new era of American financial stability, peace, and prosperity. Well, he's right.
	And he's also talking about, when he talks about hard assets, as I pointed out yesterday, when I was talking to Tony Arderman of Wise Wolf Gold, he was also saying gold, silver, platinum, as well as Bitcoin.
	Kennedy said that in his administration, conversions of Bitcoin to dollars would be exempt from capital gains tax.
	He said the goal of making America the global hub of cryptocurrency, particularly Bitcoin.
	And again, he also talks about getting rid of the SEC trying to wedge their way in there.
	It's not going to be a security. There's not going to be capital gains tax.
	We're going to start treating it as a medium of exchange.
	And of course, he's not the only one who's talking about this.
	We've had Ron DeSantis, you know, actually did something as governor because he has the power to do something as governor.
	He actually said with the UCC, we are not going to allow the use of CBDCs either by the U.S. government or by a foreign government.
	It's not going to be accepted for payment.
	And also, since part of Biden's master plan that he did put out to the...
	Agencies March of last year is to push forward Bitcoin while prohibiting crypto.
	He did just the opposite.
	DeSantis did in Florida.
	Ramaswamy has also spoken out in terms of supporting Bitcoin and opposing CBDC. And that's it.
	Not Pence, not Chris Christie, not Trump, not Biden, of course.
	You know, go down the list.
	Now the rest of these people are on our side with this.
	They're on the side of the central banks.
	All of them, including Trump.
	So, and by the way, if Trump were to say something about it now, you know...
	He may, if this becomes a public issue, he'll probably jump into it with the same amount of credibility that he has with finally jumping in and saying some things about gender mutilation of children, which, you know, he has been a big, big pusher of LGBT stuff, even campaigned for that.
	Proud of the fact that he moved the bar on that.
	But anyway, so what did RFK Jr.
	say specifically? Let's get into some of the specifics of it.
	My plan would be to start very, very small.
	Perhaps 1% of issued T-bills would be backed by hard currency, by gold, silver, platinum, or Bitcoin.
	Well, that's really good. That's smart.
	And he's right about that.
	We should remember that when hopefully somebody better becomes president.
	So this was at Freedom Fest that he made this statement.
	He said his plan will strengthen the U.S. dollar by proposed backing of the U.S. Treasury bill's notes and bonds with actual assets, a combination of precious metals and Bitcoin, a combination.
	He discussed how after getting off the gold standard in 1971, the dollar has been in serious decline, eroding the savings and earnings of everyday Americans.
	This unbacked fiat dollar has been afloat by its use as the only accepted medium of exchange for trading oil, the petrodollar.
	And because of this reliance on oil to guarantee the dollar, Kennedy described how the U.S. engages in disastrous global wars to maintain its declining currency.
	Probably helps he doesn't like petroleum.
	He doesn't like the petrodollar because he wants there to be no oil either.
	But anyway, here's the multi-point plan, some of the aspects of it, that I think are very good.
	That he released, Heal the Divide, has been tracking his publicly proposed Bitcoin policies in addition to today's announced policies.
	And so they put this together, I understand.
	He didn't put it together. But what they're saying is this is what he has talked about in various ways.
	Number one, ensure the right to Bitcoin self-custody, meaning that you can have your own wallet private.
	That's important. Ensure the right to run nodes in one's home.
	Second thing.
	Third thing. Adopt a policy of industry-neutral regulation of energy to promote energy abundance for crypto operations.
	When he means industry neutral regulation, I'm not really sure what he means by that.
	Maybe he's saying clean energy, because if you remember, that's a big selling point when, as I've said before, in March of last year, Biden told all the different agencies, I want you to do something in one of these four areas, and he assigned it to different ones.
	So, you know, there's going to be, let's redesign the financial system.
	Let's implement the code to handle CBDC. Third one is to the FBI and Department of Justice.
	How are you going to force people to do this, right?
	How are you going to enforce this?
	That's the concerning thing. And then the marketing aspect, the fourth one, was the green aspect.
	And that's how they're going to come after crypto.
	So I'm not really sure what he's talking about with this aspect of it.
	Number four, to secure U.S. position as a global hub of cryptocurrency innovation, investment in technology, we will encourage Bitcoin mining as a means to incentivize greater investments in green and renewable energy production.
	He would use it to say, well, because we want to have crypto, that means we've got to do more government subsidy of so-called renewable energy.
	And that's why I said, you know, he wants to talk about, oh, well, you know, the oil industry and all of that fossil fuel stuff, that'd just go away if you didn't subsidize it.
	Well, you know what would really go away at the speed of light, at warp speed, would be if you don't subsidize all this green stuff.
	That would definitely go away.
	Definitely. But he would subsidize it more for this.
	So that's not good. Clarify and enforce sensible jurisdiction and governance.
	Recognizing that Bitcoin is not a security and should not be recognized as one and regulated as one.
	So that's coming after the SEC. They're trying to horn in on this.
	Then, you know, we've got control of this.
	They're all trying to stake out their jurisdictional empire.
	Number six, consider pardoning Silk Road founder Ross Ulbrich.
	Yes. And others like him.
	Quickly examining whether prosecutors and regulators are pursuing people for actual crimes or violations, or instead, are they using prosecution as a means to crack down on Bitcoin and crypto adoption?
	That's exactly what they did with Ross Ulbrich.
	Poor guy's got... Multiple consecutive life sentences because he ran a website and because he used Bitcoin.
	That's it. The dark web.
	The web that is dark to them.
	It's not that the stuff on it is any darker than what is on the regular internet.
	It's just that they couldn't see what was happening.
	And it was money that they didn't control.
	So he was operating in a web, you know, in an internet that they didn't control with a currency that they didn't control and they're going to nail him to the wall.
	I've talked to his mom multiple times.
	It's such a sad situation.
	Alex Winter's done a documentary on it.
	You know, the guy that was in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure with, I don't know if it was Bill or Ted, I don't know which is which, with Keanu Reeves, but Alex Winter was in that.
	He did a great documentary on Ross Ulbrich.
	And the injustice of that.
	Stopping the federal government from usurping First Amendment rights for open-source, privacy-enhancing technologies.
	Software code is free speech, so go away.
	And that's right. And that's something that's been established by the court battles over 3D-printed guns.
	Cody, is it Cody Wilson, I think?
	And, you know, they deliberately did this, took it to court.
	The court said, well, this is just computer code that people are shipping around.
	You can't ban that, ATF. That's free speech.
	Code is free speech. And there are multiple court cases.
	That's not the one, the court cases they referenced in this, but, you know, that's yet another one.
	Number eight, stopping bank regulators, such as the FDIC, OCC, Federal Reserve, from penalizing banks through operations such as Chokepoint 2.0 for providing services to companies legally operating digital asset businesses.
	And of course, this is a big part of the prohibition of crypto.
	To tell banks, and we saw this with some of the bank failures, you're going to get out of the crypto business or we're going to shut you down one way or the other.
	And then other people who wanted to get into the crypto business and operate as an entry point or as an exit point into and out of crypto, the Federal Reserve would not give them the banking access licenses and privileges that they needed.
	Number nine, prevent the U.S. government from adopting a CBDC due to its use as a tool for invasive surveillance and control.
	All of that is good, and we should pay close attention to that.
	Those points need to be brought up.
	Anybody who's running for president, say, where do you fall on these points?
	All of them, except one or two of them, I think are very, very good ideas.
	And before we take a quick break here, still talking about money, the BRICS thing that is coming up at the end of August, And all the talk about them putting together a currency backed by gold.
	And I thought this from Doug Casey was very insightful.
	Doug Casey is always very insightful.
	And this is done in the form of an interview with a writer there at International Man, interviewing Doug Casey, and talking about the fact that the Russian government recently stated, and he talks about this statement here, the BRICS countries are planning to introduce a new trading currency, which will be backed by gold.
	So I said, what's your take on this?
	They said, well, let's try to parse the words here in this statement, and particularly the use of the word trading.
	I'm not sure what the difference is between a trading currency and an ordinary currency.
	My guess is that it would only be used for setting accounts internationally.
	Also, if it's going to be backed by gold, where will that gold be held?
	He was talking about Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa.
	Who's going to hold the gold? To back up this so-called trading currency.
	Again, he says, I don't think it's going to be internal to those countries.
	It's going to be something where they're going to trade between themselves.
	Where will the gold be held?
	And he says, well, the amount of this currency, let's call it the brick.
	I think it'd be good. Maybe you could call it the gold brick.
	Where will the gold brick be held?
	That different governments are going to get based only upon the amount of gold that they have in their treasuries.
	That's what it's going to be. You know, you've got X amount of gold.
	You can trade that in for X amount of gold bricks.
	Will the currency be just for the governments?
	Or will it be available to companies or to the average guy?
	He says it's unlikely to be of any use to the average guy.
	In the first place, they won't be putting 100 gold bricks or whatever they call it in this age of CBDC. They won't be printing them up.
	Allowing its use by the plebs would give them entirely too much freedom to take their assets across the borders.
	That would be the plebs taking their assets across borders.
	Remember, almost all the countries talking about replacing the dollar now have crappy, blocked currencies that are essentially worthless outside their own home country.
	So my guess is that the new brick currency We'll be international settlement only, just so they don't have to use the dollar.
	Citizens will still have to use their crappy national currencies domestically.
	And there's a basic question we have to ask ourselves.
	He said, why is this new currency backed by gold in the first place?
	Why not simply use gold?
	The obvious thing, right?
	That's what the founders did.
	In the Constitution, currency is going to be gold.
	They'd had it with fiat currency.
	They'd had it with the continental dollar.
	Now, they talked about coining gold and silver and how the U.S. Mint could do that, but that's just making it in a smaller form so that it's usable.
	He said, in other words, why have a government middleman in the first place?
	Who needs some untrustworthy intermediary to give you paper?
	The only reason for a currency is because they're planning on manipulating it.
	It's a trick. And this is exactly what we've been saying about BlackRock and their ETF on Bitcoin.
	What's the point of that?
	Well, the whole point of it is that they're going to manipulate it and you somehow.
	That's what BlackRock is up to with this Bitcoin ETF. Why not just get the Bitcoin?
	Well, you know, again, when you talk about this with governments, why not just use gold?
	Gold and silver, things like that.
	Again, it's because they want to manipulate you.
	And that's why the honest people who founded this country didn't go with that.
	That's why the honest people who founded this country, like, Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, they fought the central bank idea.
	They fought Alexander Hamilton and these other people who wanted a central bank.
	They fought it as much as they could.
	And we need to revive that fight.
	So the only reason you have a currency is because you're planning on manipulating it, which means that you're going to inflate it at some point.
	It'll be nominally backed by gold, this gold brick thing.
	But it has to be because none of these governments trust each other.
	Who among them can be trusted to store and to redeem the gold?
	Nobody, says Doug Casey.
	That guarantees that although it might start out well because somebody says that it's redeemable and limited in quantity, it will eventually fall apart.
	And so then an international man asks him, But what does this mean for the US dollar?
	He says, I'm all for anything that gets the world off of the dollar standard.
	And we should all agree with that.
	And he tells you why here.
	Yes, it is going to, when we come off the dollar standard, it is going to be, it's going to have some real economic consequences for us.
	But do you understand the consequences that the dollar standard has already produced for us?
	He says the fact that the dollar is accepted everywhere allows the government to do all kinds of things, almost all of them stupid and destructive.
	That it wouldn't ordinarily be able to afford.
	Roughly $800 billion are exported annually.
	That trade deficit has been going on for over 40 years.
	It has artificially raised the standard of living of Americans and has made them think that government economic policy is wise, which it isn't.
	Decades of accumulated offshore dollars will someday, soon, come back home.
	Many trillions of dollars will be traded for real wealth in the U.S. Prices will skyrocket, and the standard of living will collapse.
	Yes, it's increased our standard of living, but it is a phony high.
	And there's going to be a reckoning, one way or the other.
	And the longer that they continue to go on this, the more they have more wars and other things that they're doing with all that phony cash.
	Since the early 1980s, a major U.S. export has not been Boeing or wheat or computers.
	It's been dollars, he said.
	Who knows how many scores of trillions of dollars outside the U.S. now?
	Foreigners only use the dollar because it's traditionally accepted and convenient.
	Americans use it because they must, because it is quote-unquote legal tender.
	At some point, foreigners will dump the dollar for a number of reasons.
	It's a time bomb waiting to go off.
	So he finishes up and he says, well, they should just use gold itself.
	Gold is honest, it's uncomplicated, it's non-political money.
	That's what the founders understood.
	And that's what you need to understand. By the way, I'll just give Tony a plug.
	DavidKnight.gold will take you to Tony Arterman and WiseWolf.gold.
	And you can deal with Tony.
	And it's honest and uncomplicated to deal with Tony.
	Just like gold is honest, uncomplicated, real money.
	We're going to take a quick break and we'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	It's the David Knight Show.
	We've got our guest coming up in about 15 minutes or so, and I wanted to respond to an email that we got because I thought it was very significant.
	This is from some listeners, Kathy and Keegan, and asking for prayer.
	So I wanted to pass that on to you.
	He asked for us to pray for them, but also he didn't ask for me to pass this on to the We're good to go.
	And he also says, also if Travis could tell us more about his stem cell therapy, I'd love to hear his experience.
	I too live with chronic autoimmune condition.
	And he says, I wonder if the vaccines I've taken in my life have contributed.
	Well, let me just say, you know, and I've told the story, I don't remember how much of the story I've told about, you know, not having kids for 13 years, being married for 13 years and not having kids.
	And it was an amazing blessing, and it was an answer to prayer when we had the kids.
	But, you know, when I look back on it, and we understand, you know, Why does God say yes?
	Why does He say no? Why does He say wait for different things?
	I don't know. I'm not God.
	His ways are not our ways.
	So we can't set in judgment of that.
	We don't really know what is happening.
	Remember, Paul said that he had a thorn in the flesh.
	People speculate what they think that might be, but he said he'd ask for God to remove it many times, but God told him, he said, my grace is sufficient for you.
	So we don't know why God does things like that.
	I just have to say that it was something that was very, very important in our life.
	The children have been very important and the children have been used to grow us as people and to grow us spiritually and to grow us towards God.
	And I think that was perhaps the most important aspect of it as much as we love our children.
	I grew up in a church where we were very active in it, went there all the time, and I was reading the Bible.
	Unlike Tucker, when he said he's 54 years old and he's never read the Bible before, I was reading it very early and studying it intensely.
	And as a child, and in the church that I was in, part of it was their doctrine, and part of it was just my childish understanding of it.
	I got very discouraged the more I read.
	I was like, well, I can't keep those standards.
	And I really didn't understand grace.
	And I really didn't have any...
	I didn't really understand the basis of my position before God.
	I thought it was based on what I did.
	And it's like, well, I don't know.
	I can't handle that.
	And I hear people say, well, you know, just try to do the best you can, and God's maybe going to fill that in.
	It's like, well, I don't see that anywhere.
	It looks to me like the standard is perfection.
	I don't know how I do that.
	When I got to the point where I was in, you know...
	Late high school, early college, just like, I can't do this.
	It wasn't that I had a crisis of faith.
	I didn't stop believing in God.
	I just stopped believing that I could do that, and I walked away.
	And then later, you know, I met Karen, and she was a cultural Catholic.
	Again, she, you know, didn't really have any, you know, religious beliefs, except that's, you know, tradition.
	We've always done that. And, you know, it was just something that we just kind of, because we had differences of opinions about things, but also mainly because of where I was, we just didn't talk about it for a very long time.
	And after we'd been married a number of years, I started thinking, you know, I should talk to her about this.
	She never reads the Bible.
	I should give this to her and start reading it.
	And she then asked me, she said, would you pray for kids?
	So we did.
	And, uh, it was a very different kind of prayer than she'd ever heard.
	She just always had like an Our Father or something like that.
	And I prayed in the way that I had been told.
	But, of course, that was another aspect of it.
	You know, it was always, you know, always finish the prayers.
	But nevertheless, your will be done and not mine, you know.
	And in a sense, it was always this sense that, well, I know you're really not going to answer this.
	I know you can do whatever you want to do anyway, so I don't really care.
	It wasn't any expectation that was going to be answered.
	But she heard it and she really spoke to her.
	Anyway, shortly after that, it was within a month, she got very sick.
	And that led us to, as part of going to the doctor and everything, that led them to finally find out what was physically wrong that we couldn't have kids.
	But it was about nine months later that Travis was born.
	And we didn't know anything about that.
	We had tried adoption.
	We had tried, you know, medical things.
	And we couldn't figure... Nobody knew why we couldn't have kids.
	And we tried adoption. We got shut down.
	Domestic adoption, we got shut down.
	Foreign adoption, we got shut down.
	We had all of our paperwork.
	And Karen's brother was a doctor, chiropractor up in Virginia Beach.
	And he... We were up there talking about that.
	And he said, well, I know somebody that does adoptions.
	Let me ask him. And so he contacted him.
	He goes, it turns out that there's this open adoption and the family that was going to adopt the baby just bailed out at the last minute.
	This baby is going to be born in about a month.
	And we had the paperwork and we got on it right away.
	So that was Travis. And then our child was born, natural birth, about a month, about eight months later, I should say.
	And that was consequently because of them finding out what the issue was.
	And so the kids were about eight months apart, but she was about a month pregnant when we adopted Travis.
	And so we look at this.
	It wasn't just the fact that they were able to finally identify what's physically wrong with her.
	It was also the fact that God moved in another state, in another way, at the same time as that.
	And so... It was really, clearly, God not a watchmaker who created the universe and just kind of goes off and does his own thing, is now a distant observer and is going to do an audit with you at the end of your life.
	It was a God who was there immediately, who answered prayer.
	And it really changed everything in our life.
	And so kids are a blessing, but we don't know You know, with what we're going through, exactly what God is working on.
	You know, it's kind of like the story, the basis of Amazing Grace, you know, the guy who gets healed.
	You know, I was blind but now I see type of thing.
	When they asked him, you know, when the disciples asked Jesus, so, Why is this guy blind?
	Did he do something wrong? Did his parents do something wrong?
	Well, he was born blind, but Jesus said it was so.
	So God would be glorified in this.
	And so I think that's the thing that we look at.
	A lot of the stuff that we go through, we don't really understand.
	And the bottom line is that God should be glorified in this.
	Whether it is pain and suffering, or whether it is poverty, or whether it is good things.
	And so we keep that in mind, but we also know that there is a God who works.
	And so we can ask with confident expectation.
	One last thing here, too, before we take a break and I get off of this.
	I had somebody write me because we're talking about Tucker Carlson and reading the Bible.
	I said, what translation do you use?
	And I went back and I said, as many as I can use...
	As many as I can find, basically.
	I go to, I like to read them in parallel in many cases.
	BibleGateway.com is a place that you can go and you can pull up pretty much any translation that you want and you can pull up multiple ones and see how they compare.
	And I think it's very interesting because as I've looked at that, I had that question, which one should I read?
	And as I started to look at them and compare them to each other, I started to realize there really isn't all that much difference between these different translations.
	Yes, you have some where the goal of the people is to go back to the original text, whether it's in Hebrew or Greek.
	And to be as accurate as possible, word-for-word accuracy and everything.
	But then that can give you some very awkward grammar and some things like that.
	And then you have other people who want to go on a thought-by-thought basis.
	That makes it a little bit more readable, but also it's not quite as accurate.
	But what I found is that there's not a great deal of difference.
	And I like to read different ones because when I get familiar with a passage and I see that they used some different words or expressed it slightly differently, and usually it's just a word order that they put in there, you know?
	But if there's a difference, then I go to, you know, when I go, well, why did they do it that way?
	And if it's something I think maybe is significant, there's another website called the Blue Letter Bible.
	And you can go there and they have, you know, they have the King James version and you can tell it a verse and you can click on it and it'll show you the original Greek or Hebrew word by word and you can click on those.
	It's like an online interlinear dictionary and it will give you a definition of that word.
	It'll show you all the different places where that word was used and how people translated it in different places.
	And give you a definition of it, multiple definitions of it.
	And I found that to be really one of the best ways to read the Bible.
	There's a lot of, some of the thought-by-thought things, like the New Living Translation is good to listen to as an audio.
	It's a little bit harder to listen to some of the more literal translations, you know, like the King James or New King James or New American Standard or something like that.
	It's a little bit harder to listen to them than it is the New Living Translation.
	There's an excellent recording by Mike Kellogg, which is very good.
	There's also a really good recording of the NIV by David Suchet, the British actor.
	And And you can find a lot of different recordings of things like that that you can listen to when you're working or driving or something.
	And I hate to tell you to listen to something besides me when you're driving, but there are more important things out there than what I have to say.
	I would just say that the only one that I would not recommend is The Message.
	That is one guy's paraphrasing commentary is not even trying to go back and To the original at all.
	It's pretty much just his idea.
	That's fine if you get something out of it, that's fine.
	It's kind of like The Chosen.
	The Chosen is Dallas Jenkins' idea of what's there.
	Sometimes it doesn't really have much relationship to the actual thing.
	But pretty much all the rest of those, you can look at them in parallel, and I think it's pretty amazing how similar they are.
	We started doing a Bible study in our neighborhood years ago, and we had Karen's parents come in, and she was very reluctant to do it.
	Well, you guys are Protestant, we're Catholic, and that type of thing.
	And it's like, well, just bring your Catholic Bible.
	And it was a Dubé Reams Bible.
	And she would sit there and read it while we were reading ours.
	And it's like, well, they're saying basically, they're saying the same thing.
	Mine says the same thing as that.
	That's not the issue. It's not really the Bible that's the issue.
	The problem is the way we filter it, right?
	And the way we understand it.
	We're going to take a quick break and we'll be right back.
	We're going to take a quick break.
	Decoding the mainstream propaganda.
	It's the David Knight Show.
	Let me tell you, The David Knight Show, you can listen to with your ears.
	You can even watch it by using your eyes.
	In fact, if you can hear me, that means you're listening to The David Knight Show right now.
	Yeah, good job.
	And you want to know something else?
	You can find all the links to everywhere to watch or listen to the show at TheDavidKnightShow.com That's a website.
	Welcome back, and the book is School World Order.
	Let me get this where I'm not getting some glare on it.
	School World Order. The author is John Kleizik, and I want to thank Jason Barker for telling me about this and actually buying this book and sending it to me.
	So thank you, Jason. I appreciate it.
	Let me tell you just a little bit about John, and then we'll let him tell you about his book.
	He has an MA in English and has taught college rhetoric and research argumentation for over a decade.
	His literary scholarship concentrates on the history of global eugenics and Aldous Huxley's dystopic novel Brave New World.
	He's the author of this book here, School World Order, The Technocratic Globalization of Corporatized Education.
	And he's a contributor to Unlimited Hangout, New Politics, the Center for Research on Globalization, Activist Post, and many other publications.
	And he also holds a black belt in classical taekwondo, certified kickboxing instructor under the Muay Thai Boxing Association.
	So be nice to him because and pronounce his name correctly.
	I think I do have your name correctly.
	John Kysak.
	Is that correct?
	Kysak.
	You got it.
	OK, Kysak.
	Thank you for joining us.
	And.
	Let's talk a little bit about this because it's a very long list of adjectives there.
	Technocratic, globalization, corporatized education.
	But those are all very significant.
	So tell us how you see this folding out.
	I see your work, by the way. Let me just say this.
	And you actively acknowledge this.
	It's really kind of an extension of what Charlotte Disserby began talking about, but you're bringing it up to date and fleshing it out with the current situation as well as a lot of the organizations that are behind this.
	But it really is a global thing.
	It really is part of the global technocracy as well, isn't it?
	Yeah, definitely. Yeah, it definitely is an extension of Charlotte's work.
	One of the most significant things that she did was leak something called Project BEST. That was basic education skills through technology.
	And effectively, it was a plan to corporatize the education system through public-private partnerships with big technology corporations that would implement Skinnerian operating conditioning to condition students for workforce training.
	And I have recently, in the last couple years, I guess it was, After the book, anyway.
	It was recently after the book.
	I wrote a piece on a package of files that she gave me on something called UNESCO Study 11, which was actually sort of the international version of Project Best.
	Or another way to say that is that Project Best was sort of our domestic version of this UNESCO project.
	And so that sort of gives you an overview of sort of the technocratic, the globalist, and the corporate angle.
	So the book basically goes through the evolution of the privatization of big government schooling, and then sort of looks at how that is going to be facilitated through these EdTech partnerships.
	And then I sort of go through a series of different technologies that are being implemented, and those are adaptive learning courseware, socio-emotional biofeedback wearables, And then eventually brain-computer interfaces that will hook up to social credit algorithms.
	There's a lot of stuff there.
	But, you know, basically you talk about school world order, and if we understand what the new world order is, I would say, and we'll see if you agree with this, this really, when we're talking about global governance, it is a fascist merger of government and these multinational corporations, the technocracy. It's a key part of it.
	And so what you do in terms of talking about school world order, you show how this is being used as a seminal way to establish that new world order.
	Getting the kids at an early age, the public-private partnerships that you're talking about, that is a real concern.
	Every time we see that, you understand what is happening with that, of course.
	And whether we're looking at the green agenda or whether we're looking at the pharmaceutical agenda, there's always these public-private partnerships.
	It's always a merger of governments and corporations for global governance.
	And that's what is really happening with the way these schools are being redesigned, these educational programs.
	Talk to us a little bit about what was going on with Betsy DeVos, because you talk a great deal about Trump's education secretary, the corporation that she had before she became education secretary, her vision of that, and how she's moving along this public-private partnership and their vision of what they want to do with kids, basically. Yeah, so there's three significant things to point out as far as DeVos' corporatization agenda.
	And so one would be your connection to a company called K-12 Inc., which was the first virtual charter school that was ever established.
	It's one of the largest.
	It might be the largest in the United States at this point.
	It was actually created by Secretary of Education Bill Bennett, who took the torch from T.H. Bell.
	T.H. Bell was the guy that set up Project Bell.
	So he basically carried on the tenets of Project Best and eventually developed this virtual charter school out of that agenda.
	Betsy DeVos was involved in the funding of K-12 Inc.
	early on. She was also heavily involved in something called ALEC, so that's the American Legislative Exchange Council, and what they do is basically create boilerplate legislative templates We're good to
	go. And then the third thing that's significant to note about DeVos was that she was invested, I think she was on the board of trustees or the board of directors of a company called NeuroCore.
	NeuroCore traffics in EEG wearables.
	So these are some of the biofeedback wearables.
	It's basically a halo or a headband that the kids can wear, and it data minds their EEGs while they're doing work, and then it takes various algorithms and sort of tracks their personalized learning based on those headbands.
	That's one of the things in your book that I thought was very interesting, and I had not thought about this before, and that is how important it is for them to get all kinds of information about kids.
	The data mining is so important, and we see this happening now as we move into artificial intelligence.
	Everybody is manic about sweeping up as much information as they can everywhere.
	And so that's especially true of our kids.
	You know, they have to train their artificial intelligence.
	They need massive amounts of data.
	The more data they can get, the better their AI is going to be.
	And so they're trying to grab this stuff from our kids.
	and it's not just looking at their test score results or their essays and anything, but your point is actually looking at their EEGs or whatever, looking at the brain waves that they've got.
	It's absolutely amazing how manic they are about following all this and very sinister, I would say, as well.
	Yeah, it basically, you know, the way I looked at it was that, you know, they tout this stuff as it's going to personalize learning for the children.
	But actually, whatever the children might be learning from these technologies, the AI is learning more and it's learning faster.
	Which leads me to conclude that the basic premise or the actual, the primary goal is the data mining to develop the AI. It's not the use of the technology to develop the children.
	And, you know, interestingly enough, so the biofeedback wearables and the adaptive learning course where the biofeedback wearables are basically data mining the students' emotional or feeling algorithms, the adaptive learning course where It's data mining what they call their cognitive behavioral, basically their thinking algorithms.
	And it's all based on operant conditioning stimulus response loops, which you can basically just convert from stimulus response to input-output.
	And you take that feedback loop, and that's basically what feeds the artificial intelligence.
	So for people who don't know about what I mean by stimulus response, it's basically the basis of all behavioral psychology.
	It was started by Wilhelm Wundt.
	He came up with the first laboratory psychology department in Leipzig, Germany.
	And basically his theory was that all of human consciousness, all of learning is actually just neurological reflexes to environmental stimuli.
	So, you know, the classic example would be like Pavlov's dog.
	And so, you know, you can associate natural responses to natural stimuli.
	And you can condition artificial responses to artificial stimuli by putting the two together, right?
	So associating the food and the dog, right?
	The food is the natural stimuli.
	The dog salivates. If you associate the artificial stimuli being the bell, you can associate that with the salivation.
	You can condition the dog to salivate.
	So basically, you move down the line over several decades.
	You get to people like E.L. Thorndyke and eventually B.F. Skinner.
	And basically, he takes this idea of stimulus response, adds a series of rewards and punishments, and puts them in four quadrants, positive and negative, and then converts those stimuli to what they call learning stimuli.
	So he had these analog teaching machines, and he basically...
	So the learning stimuli would be the...
	Questionnaire, multiple choice, matching, something like that.
	The response is how the student performs on that, so the analog machines would have a little wheel around the old ViewMasters, so it would be like an analog box, and you'd have like a disk.
	With the different learning stimuli, different question, answer, short answer, etc.
	And then there would be two slots, one where you read that and one where you describe the answer.
	And as you went forward, it would give you an automated feedback and then eventually they would also program some of these to distribute chocolate, to have the reinforcement mechanism.
	So you just take that concept and you digitize it and replace the gears and wheels in the paper and pencil with clicks on a mouse and clicks on a keyboard.
	Maybe you gamify it, make it some video games in there, some other multimedia to make it more interactive.
	But the idea is basically the same, that what they're data mining is the feedback loop between how the student responds to whatever prompts they have in the curriculum.
	And I think one of the things about it, you know, B.F. Skinner, his book, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, when I saw that, and again, that's always been a big part of educational curriculum.
	Karen had that as she was getting her master's degree in education.
	It's like, what is that? And I started reading, and it's like, this is horrific, because his idea is that we are all simply animals, and he can manipulate us very quickly.
	And his training mechanism has been very effective for training animals, you know, pigeons or dolphins or whatever, dogs, cats.
	His operant conditioning, you associate the clicker training, if you've ever seen that.
	That is very effective, but they treat us like animals.
	And he says, there's nothing special about you.
	It's antithetical to everything that we believe religiously, everything that our society is based on, the Bill of Rights and all the rest of this stuff.
	We don't have intrinsic rights.
	We're no different from the animals, and they treat us as animals.
	And that's a very telling thing that that's become so central to their point of view.
	That's how they see us.
	And then also the fact that they feel entitled then to manipulate us for their purposes.
	And that's what we're seeing with these corporations and these people.
	You pull in all the different relationships between people like Betsy DeVos and, you know, where they're having meetings and they've got Bill Gates and Tim Cook and Betsy DeVos.
	And Peter Thiel, all these people who are essentially looking at how they can make money off of us and also how they can control.
	That's really kind of the public-private partnership, isn't it?
	Control for government and money for these corporations.
	And they see us as their slaves to manipulate, don't they?
	Yeah, and they basically see us as the term they use is human capital.
	And so one of the terms that's often used is human capital management.
	So not only are you the workforce drone, but you're also, and not only are you the consumer of the product that you produce, but you are yourself the product, right?
	You are the... You are the reservoir of data that they're using to basically create this artificial intelligence that will be used to basically dictate your life through social credit systems that will basically permit or restrict your access to the public square, commercial services, everything from healthcare, transportation, housing, education, jobs.
	In China, they have blacklists so you can't even gather in public and things if you have wrong think in some of your We're good to go.
	In that book, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, what it indicates is that for him, the very notion of morality, of consciousness, of free will, these are all basically antiquarian superstitions that have gone by the wayside.
	You can't actually say that someone is wrong or bad or immoral.
	You can only say that The environment that he or she is responding to was not organized properly.
	In other words, whatever immoral actions this person might exhibit has nothing to do with the nature of their own soul or consciousness.
	It has everything to do with the stimuli that they're responding to.
	And, you know, once you reduce human consciousness to basically algorithms, to basically stimulus response inputs and outputs, you know, we're left in a situation, as you sort of alluded to, in which the very notion of any form of democratic self-governance in which the very notion of any form of democratic self-governance is also
	Because if there's nothing, if there is no consciousness, right, there is no agency, then you have no, you have, there's no justification for you to oppose or to resist any, the larger social credit system, right?
	If the social credit system, if we can come up with the data that will make you behave in the proper manner, It doesn't matter what you might, you know, in your illusionary conscious think to rebut, because that's all just ephemeral.
	It's like in Homo Deus, that's Yuval Noah Harari's book, where he goes deep into transhumanism.
	He equates consciousness, basically the analogy he uses, is to the roar an engine makes as it's flying through the air.
	The roar that an engine makes when a plane is flying is entirely secondary.
	It doesn't actually propel the vehicle through the sky.
	It's a secondary effect.
	For him, the inner monologue that you have inside your head, the thing that you recognize as yourself, your consciousness, your soul, that's just the roar that an engine makes.
	It's secondary.
	It's the sounds you hear when all those chemicals bounce around in your head.
	Wow. Yeah, but that's a key thing that you mentioned right at the very beginning of that.
	The fact that they're going to divorce any morality, any responsibility for people's actions.
	And we see that pervasive throughout our society.
	Well, you know, when the liberals, the way that they view crime, for example, right?
	We're not going to punish this person.
	We'll send them in. We'll rehabilitate them with some manipulation.
	Of course, that never works. But we're not going to hold them morally culpable for anything.
	They're just the product of their environment, right?
	You hear that over and over again.
	Well, where does that come from? That comes from this pervasive idea.
	B.F. Skinner and others of behavioral stuff.
	But it's also the aspect that we've seen for the longest time that, you know, we know that social media is set up to observe us.
	They can make money by observing us.
	They can tap into the To the hive mind, which is what Elon Musk is really interested in, I think, with Twitter, knowing what the hive mind is all about.
	But they can market that.
	They can make money off of it.
	So we've known for the longest time that, hey, you are the product when it comes to free stuff, free social media, because they're watching and monitoring that.
	But you're now becoming the product in a different way.
	And of course, just by collecting all that information, that gives them the power to control and to manipulate us, especially with the ability of government to force us.
	That's a concerning thing.
	But now, it's going into another area as they move this into AI and grabbing that information with it.
	Let's talk a little bit about the charter school thing, because I've talked in the past with Mark Hall, who's done an excellent documentary called Killing Ed, looking at what was the worst-case scenario in a sense of corruption, perhaps, and that is the Fatala Gulen movement and how much money they were getting out of the charter school stuff.
	But talk a little bit about charter schools as part of the bigger picture of this global technocracy and this kind of fascist control of our kids from a very early age.
	So I see the evolution of the American education system in three broad phases.
	So the first would just be the compulsory education phase, starting with Horace Mann in the mid-1800s.
	Then there we go through sort of a federalization phase.
	It sort of starts actually with like the foundation funding, so your general education board that was created by the Rockefellers.
	And then your Carnegie Institution, Carnegie Center for the Advanced Community Teaching, Ford Foundation, and then moving into the development of first the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and then eventually the Department of Education.
	But the third phase is then this corporatization phase.
	So you basically force everybody to have to go to a state school.
	Then you blow the budget with federal dollars.
	And then, as we've seen recently, when we hit these budget crises, what happens is this is actually how I started writing the book because during a time when the governor in Illinois was a guy named Bruce Rauner.
	He's a big charter school proponent.
	There's actually a Rauner charter school named after him.
	It's in the Noble Network of Charter Schools in Chicago.
	And basically what was happening was the federal, they wouldn't pass the budget, which meant they couldn't get state funds, which meant she couldn't get federal funds.
	And come to find out one of my departments, the adult education department that I was teaching some GED in at the time, was actually 90% funded by the federal government.
	So that meant that the whole department shut down.
	So I wrote this article about the corporatization of education and Charlotte saw it and that was how I got to meet her and all that.
	But basically, after getting you sort of dependent on that federal budget, they sort of pull out the rug and go, oh, here's the solution.
	It's these corporate charter schools, these public-private partnerships.
	And the thing about it is, and you're seeing this push right now, right?
	You see it especially as a sort of an election thing where the Republicans are pushing a lot of school choice stuff is sort of the antidote to all the craziness that's going on with the wokeness schools right now.
	But what you have to understand is that, you know, charter schools, what they do is it's still a government school because they're subsidized by federal dollars.
	Right.
	And once you put the federal strings attached, right, you're.
	That's right.
	Yeah, you're.
	Oh.
	We froze there.
	Okay, sorry. It froze for a second, but we're back.
	Go ahead. Sorry. It's even worse, Abby, than just having the government school because the government...
	Yeah, I saw something froze.
	Where did I cut at? Yeah, it froze, but I think we got you.
	Go ahead. Continue with where you were.
	We didn't lose too much of it. You were talking about the federal dollars and how they...
	If they control the money, they control the purse strings, they control what's happening.
	Yeah, so... That's freezing up again.
	Okay. Right, and it's even schools because...
	Are we going to need to...
	Yeah, let's... Okay, so...
	Let's cut... I think we need to...
	You want to try to reestablish connection?
	Yeah, let's try to reestablish connection.
	And, John, and we're going to cut it, and then we're going to recall you.
	Maybe we'll get some things a little bit better.
	I don't know why it's freezing like that.
	I think he's okay now. Should I close out?
	Wait, Travis says he thinks you're okay.
	He thinks you're okay. All right, let's just go ahead and continue.
	We're talking about how if they're going to get the private funds...
	Of course, the government is going to control it.
	They're going to first bribe people and then they will blackmail you once you get used to their money, right?
	That's what always happens. So go ahead.
	Right. And it's worse than just the big government school because...
	With the government school, at least you have an elected school board.
	Regardless of how poor or whoever might be in charge, you still have access to go and vote the people out.
	With the corporate charter school, that doesn't exist.
	They have a corporate board.
	There is no voting anybody out.
	You're basically stuck with it.
	If they can convert...
	A large portion of the schooling system to this public-private system.
	Basically, what you'll have is the removal of any civil recourse, any Democratic resource to any elected school board or otherwise.
	The other thing that should be noted is that the Democrats, the left, have pushed charter schools just as much.
	So it's not a right wing thing.
	It's not a conservative thing, not just for the reasons that I just laid out.
	But you have some.
	I mean, the Obama administration was one of the biggest pushers of charter schools.
	Arne Duncan, who is the secretary of education and received massive funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, he basically he kicked off all of the charter school privatization in Chicago before he came to be the secretary of education.
	And then you have somebody like Kevin Chavis.
	Kevin Chavis, he belongs to the American Federation for Children, which is that charter school nonprofit that Betsy DeVos is part of as well.
	And he was also connected to, I believe it was Jeb Bush's Digital Learning Council, and the Digital Learning Council was what came up with these 10 elements for quality digital learning that Alec adopted for the Virtual Public Schools Act.
	So what you see here is not just that Democrats and Republicans have both pushed it, but they've actually been involved in some of the same foundations and other institutions to promote this.
	So, I mean, it's not a left-right thing.
	That's just a dialectical thing.
	Yeah, yeah. When you look at these key things that they're pushing at us, you see the Uni Party in the same way that you see the public-private partnership, you see the Democrat-Republican partnership as well jumping in on this because, again, it's the massive amount of money that's there.
	Now, one of the things that you mentioned I thought is interesting, one of the things that's driving this with the Republican base, of course, It's what we see in terms of the wokeness in the schools.
	Well, we've got to have more control of the schools, and they think that they're going to get that with a charter school.
	But talk about this, because one of the things that the corporations have been selling is this whole idea of competence.
	And so how does this competence thing play off against the woke stuff that is out there?
	Well, so competency-based education is an extension of something called outcomes-based education.
	Outcomes-based education dovetailed with something that was called PPBS, Planning, Programming, and Budgeting Systems.
	It actually was developed by the RAND Corporation, was first used by the military, and then it was sort of outsourced as a way to We're good to go.
	Back in the day, they called it values clarification.
	Nowadays, you know, it's all the critical theory, woke stuff.
	It's basically the re-education of the American populace, transitioning them from traditional Christian values to, you know, this new basically post-Marxist or cultural Marxist ideology.
	And then the workforce development would have to do with the basic job skills that they need.
	So the way that you train those outcomes, the way that you achieve those outcomes through the PPBS is by training the students We're good to go.
	Teamwork and grit and self-esteem and things like that.
	But basically, you can think of the social-emotional stuff as what's driving a lot of the, I guess, the woke agenda.
	But the competency-based stuff in terms of the workforce would be more, I guess, promoted more by sort of the right of center.
	And for those that don't know, actually, the charter school movement was actually created by By the American Federation of Teachers, President Albert Schenker.
	And the AFT, what was different about the AFT from the NEA was that it was actually, the NEA is largely considered a union of professional associations.
	The AFT is considered a trade union.
	And so the AFT was really big on partnering with the companies to basically, so that they could We're good to go.
	Base education is basically the development of the workforce for job skills, but also some of that woke stuff.
	Yeah, it's kind of interesting to me because, you know, the left loves this woke stuff, and the right is buying into the competency thing.
	But what they don't realize is that those are both all about, as you pointed out from the very beginning, is about manipulating the kids as some animal devoid of any morality, devoid of any free agency and free will, any of that kind of stuff.
	And so both of them are really Skinner-esque in their manipulation.
	It's just what their immediate goals are focused on.
	And the left buys into one of those and the right buys into the other one.
	And yet the reality is that even competence is not really what our kids need, is it?
	I mean, there has to be something there where they understand the bigger picture.
	I'm thinking, John, back to R.L. Dabney, who was writing about the dangers of government involvement in education.
	And he said, you can train people.
	Uh, for certain things, but that's not education.
	And if you start actually doing education, which in his mind, it was his view of education was completely antithetical to BF Skinner.
	His whole idea was he said, look, any kind of competency training where you're training people to do stuff, that's all well and good.
	That's fine. But you've got to have people who have some kind of a moral foundation or religious foundation.
	And we don't want government having anything to do with that.
	It's going to be real problematic if government is involved in that.
	But the rest of this stuff is, if you take that out, what are you going to wind up with?
	You're going to wind up with these automatons that have no moral basis whatsoever.
	And that's what we're really seeing in both the woke and the competence stuff, isn't it?
	It's just the different angles that people are coming out at.
	And what they want out of their kids, and they all see the kids as a product to be manipulated, don't they?
	Yeah, I mean, so you point out sort of this left-wing version, this right-wing version, this left-wing version sort of being the critical theory and the woke stuff, basically called for Marxism.
	So that's basically, you know, your leftist Hegelian ideology, And on the right, when you talk about the workforce training, the public-private partnerships between the government and these big businesses to facilitate a planned economy, I mean, that's the fascist anger or the right-wing version of Hegelianism.
	So what they both have in common, both philosophically and historically, is Hegelianism and, you know...
	Hegel basically believed that it was a collectivist philosophy.
	He basically had this theory that history evolves through ideas.
	There's usually a dominant idea that he called the thesis.
	Then there's these other ideas that come in conflict with that.
	And those are the antithesis.
	And then through that, you come to a synthesis.
	And for him, the synthesis was expressed in the state, right?
	So all the contradictions between the thesis and the antithesis would eventually come together in the evolution of the state, which he said was God marching on Earth.
	So in both instances, basically what you have is two pillars that have built what today is called stakeholder capitalism being pushed by the World Economic Forum in And the Great Reset was actually developed in the 70s by Klaus Schwab.
	And when you look at it, what are the two tenets of your stakeholder capitalism?
	Well, you have your public-private partnerships, right?
	But then you also have your DEI, your diversity, equity, and inclusion, based on the different stakeholders, and with a particular emphasis on what they call community-based stakeholders.
	And this actually leads us into another...
	This is sort of the left-wing counterpart to the charter school privatization, and that's something called community schools.
	And the way that those privatize is through something called wraparound services.
	And these wraparound services in the Every Student Succeeds Act...
	To be a full-service community school, you have to have these public-private wraparound, or sometimes they call them pipeline services, and that's where the school plugs into healthcare workforce training programs with the in-demand industries in the local areas, and then also criminal justice programs to prevent at-risk youth from becoming delinquents.
	And so again, you see this left-wing version, this right-wing version, but they both basically come together in the same project at the end.
	Yeah, it's kind of interesting. You're talking about the social-emotional learning and the SEL is what we typically see it abbreviated as.
	And that is going in and starting to look at, as you point out, bringing in the larger community aspect, the family, and that type of thing.
	But of course, in their vision, there is no family.
	There's just God marching through society in the form of government.
	Talk a little bit about what happened During the Trump administration with Betsy DeVos and some of the things that happened there, as I look at this lockdown, the more I look at it, reading your book and their emphasis, DeVos' emphasis on remote learning and monitoring the kids, all of that is part of it.
	I thought, well, that really played into kind of their vision of a more technological development Education, as Charlotte had talked about, you know, the monitoring what the kids are doing, feeding it to them through the computer.
	That was the way everybody was being forced to operate and do school during the lockdown.
	It really helped to advance that.
	I've talked many times about how it gave parents an opportunity to see what was happening with the...
	The CRT stuff and the LGBT stuff in their classrooms.
	I think a lot of them didn't really realize the bigger picture of how it was drawing the kids into this technological paradigm of getting their education through the computer box, did they?
	Yeah, one of the things that was passed early on during the whole lockdown phase were some new federal regulations on distance learning, and I believe the federal regulations, FR 18638.
	And what they did was, this is right in the, I don't want to say it's like April, so this is like a month or two into lockdowns.
	Before these new regulations, in order to be accredited, For a course to be accredited and transferable to other institutions, you had to have a certain number of what were known as Carnegie units.
	Carnegie units are measured in terms of classroom hours.
	In other words, hours during which the student is in contact with the human teacher.
	The student is gaining some form of instruction through interaction with the instructor.
	So what these federal regulations did in early April of, I guess, 2020, was they authorized the substitution of that human-to-human interaction, student-to-teacher interaction with, quote, adaptive learning and, quote, artificial intelligence.
	And then the term CBE or competency-based education is used over 100 times in those federal regulations.
	So basically what they did was they said that, no, you don't have to have all that human interaction anymore.
	We can accredit you just based on the students using adaptive learning courseware, which, as I mentioned, is the modern digital version of the Skinner box.
	And one thing I should also add about that is that the algorithms they tell you, like on some of the companies, Adaptive Learning Courseware Company.
	Some of them are... There's Clever, there's Newton.
	Both of those are funded by Peter Thiel, by the way, who had a private meeting with DeVos at one point while she was Secretary of Ed.
	But then you had other, like, Smart Sparrow and then Brightspace Lead, Dreambox.
	And then Dreambox... They specifically say not only that the algorithms they use are based on Skinner's operating conditioning algorithms, but they're also based on the same algorithms that Netflix uses for behavioral advertising.
	So built into it is this, right?
	It sort of gets us back to, we're data mining students not just to develop this AI, but also to enhance our abilities to, you know, turn the students into human capital resources.
	Yeah, it's just amazing how manipulative it all is.
	And while we're talking about manipulation, you know, we talked a little bit about BF Skinner.
	Define Skinner Box for our audience.
	Yeah, the Skinner box, so it's a play on what was called the puzzle box experiments that were created by E.L. Thorndyke.
	So, you know, whereas Vuent was doing what was called basically associative or classical conditioning, right, just seeing if you could get certain responses in association with particular stimuli.
	E.L. Thorndike would come with these puzzle box experiments where he put the rat in the maze, right?
	Where the pigeon has to click the button or something like that, right?
	To see not just can you have the animal associate certain reflexes with certain stimuli, but can it be...
	Or, to use Skinner's term, this is why he uses it, operant.
	In other words, with the right schedule and the right system of stimuli, could you condition the animal to perform operations or procedures?
	And that would be more readily transferable to conditioning a human being to perform a particular workforce.
	So that term Skinner Box was basically just what he called the different experiments he did with his animals.
	But later, when he came up with his teaching machines, he literally said that the teaching machine is my box.
	So for him, you could use the Skinner Box both as a reference to the animal contraptions that condition the animals, but also the early iterations of the teaching machines.
	And so in a general sense, you know, what we're looking at are more sophisticated and extended versions of the Skinner box when you're talking about this computer instruction as they're using it, right?
	Yeah, and honestly, the entire social credit system is just a giant scanner box, if you think about it, because everything is basically conditioning you to, right, through rewards and punishments, right, through, like, either, you know, in China, if you have a really high social credit score, you can get discounts on your hotels, or, right, you can jump to the front of the line at the doctor's office, right?
	Those would be the rewards.
	The punishments are like, you know, you're going to have to pay extra if you want that beer this week, or you're going to have to pay extra for You know, to play this video game or you're not allowed in the store today because you're not up to date on your vaccine or whatever it might be.
	So, you know, everywhere you go, every institution, public or private, right, you're incentivized to basically gain access to these different digital rewards and punishments.
	It's interesting that we see the same things being used over and over again.
	They got the same MO for everything.
	You got to monitor everybody, use that to manipulate and coerce people, but also to have complete foresight as to everything that is happening.
	There's also a eugenics aspect to this as well that you talk about in your book.
	Talk about how they're applying eugenics in education.
	Yeah, so it really comes out of the mental hygiene branch of eugenics.
	So eugenics back in the day, there was two branches, right?
	There was what was called race hygiene, and then there was mental hygiene.
	And the race hygiene is most well known in terms of Hitler's, you know, attack on Jews and other ethnic populations that were not Aryan.
	Right? And so it's basically...
	Or also here in the United States would say, you know, Margaret Sanger, her intention to abort black kids, you know, because she didn't like black kids, that type of thing.
	Yeah. Yeah, 100%.
	And it was the Rockefeller Foundation from here that funded the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics.
	And then you had people like Charles Davenport, who was pen pals with some of the people that were running some of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes.
	One of them would have been Fritz Lenz.
	Uh, there was a couple others that escaped me right now.
	Um, but so, so the, so the Hitlerian eugenics project was actually an extension of the American corporatization of the British eugenics project.
	It started with, uh, really with Darwin and then ultimately his cousin basically took that idea of natural selection and said, we can basically control evolution.
	We can steer it through what he called positive eugenics.
	So that was like inbreeding between the elites and the negative eugenics, which was to sort of call the Gene pool from the unfit, and that would be like sterilization, euthanasia, abortion, okay?
	And those would have been applied in terms of race hygiene just based on your ethnic lineage.
	But let's say, you know, let's say you fit the ethnic...
	Profile to be acceptable to, you know, Hitler or whoever.
	If your IQ was too low or you had some other mental issue, right, well, you still needed to be sterilized or otherwise segregated from society.
	And that was called the mental hygiene.
	And one of the aspects of mental hygiene was based on the IQ tests, which were developed in the early Simons-Binet IQ tests.
	And so basically what they would do is, you know, your mean was 100, and then every 10 points below that, deviation from the average was considered either, and these were like scientific terms at the time, you had like moron, idiot,
	imbecile, like these were categories that would render you to be either, you know, put in a home or sterilized, etc., So based on this theory, what you get over time was, well, it basically gets brought back with the bell curve.
	And Charles Murray wrote the bell curve.
	And by the way, he has attended Bilderberg meetings.
	Oh, yeah. He's pushing universal basic income now as well.
	You know, he's one of these guys talking about losing ground and how the welfare system would not work.
	But now he's out there pushing universal basic income.
	I didn't know that he had attended the Bilderbergs, but that makes perfectly good sense.
	Yeah. Yeah, and I noted that in the book that, you know, this libertarian guy is for a UBI, right?
	And what's funny is one of the things they used to justify their data was something called the Flynn Effect.
	And the Flynn Effect basically said this.
	So the question was, you know, after we discovered the horrors of the Holocaust, you know, eugenics became this four-letter word.
	And a lot of the eugenics societies changed their names.
	So the British Eugenics Society became the Galt Institute.
	It's recently changed its name again, like this year or last year.
	I can't remember what it is.
	The American Eugenics Society is something like the Society for the Study of Social Biology.
	But basically, it went underground into something called crypto-eugenics.
	And those would have been things like, basically, it was Friedrich Osborn.
	Abortion was, for him, a good use for crypto-eugenics.
	And what we saw in terms of the concerns of overpopulation over the decades that culminated in...
	In, you know, the one-child policy in China, these were also, you know, for people like Osborne, who, by the way, was a member of the American Eugenics Society, that these were also methods of crypto-eugenics, okay?
	So people started to wonder, or the question was, was that IQ score based on genetics, or was it based on the environment?
	And so they started to do some studies over time that showed that IQ scores...
	It had risen over the decades, and they attributed a lot of that to access to education and things.
	But what they also studied, so somebody like Jim Flynn, he would have looked at that and said, see, this means that...
	And none of these guys are just in one camp or the other.
	It's sort of like, right, it's a ratio.
	Like, how much of it is genetic?
	How much of it is environmental? But for Jim Flynn, it's more environmental.
	Charles Davenport, or Charles Murray, people like that, Richard Lynn.
	I'm trying to think of some of these other guys that were part of the Pioneer Fund, which was basically this white supremacist think tank.
	You had people like Felipe J. Rushton, Arthur Jensen, Linda Godforson, okay.
	And basically, what people like that would have said is they'd look at the Flynn effect and say, okay, yeah, you're right.
	Look, you can increase people's IQ with environmental conditions, right, so access to education and stuff, but they said, look, the deviation stays the same.
	Meaning whites are still at 100 average, black, brown people are going progressively less, and then Ashkenazi Jews and Asians are always above.
	So even though you can increase the IQ with education and other things, the deviation stays the same.
	So somebody like Murray says, this means that we have to personalize education based on a student's genetic IQ. And so the burgeoning trend is called precision education.
	It's a play on precision medicine, which is a burgeoning field that basically wants to treat all ailments, personalize them by treating them based on your genetic code.
	And so one of the ways that they're building the data to sort of apply this to education is through companies like 23andMe, where when you send your DNA in there and you ask them, hey, what's my ethnic lineage?
	You can also check this box, and this box says something like, can we use your DNA for research?
	Well, if you say yes, they'll try to find sequences in there that correlate with other physiological or mental conditions.
	Maybe it's allergies, maybe it's IQ, and they've got a whole set of stuff Right, right. Like, you know, skin color, hair type, it's like 90%, right?
	I mean, like, Mendel could predict it, you know, just doing his punnet squares with roses and peas and stuff.
	When it comes to IQ, you can't do it like that.
	But they think, you know, that it's...
	For them, if it's...
	You know, just like they do with pharmaceuticals.
	If it's more than 50%, you know what I mean?
	That means it's applicable, right?
	And so they want to take that, and there's a guy by the name of Robert Plomin.
	He's actually siding the bell curve, and he wants to apply it through something called the learning chip that would basically keep a record of not just your genetic IQ, but perhaps other learning disabilities.
	And then that would set you on the trajectory of what types of adaptive learning course or what types of wearables you'll need.
	To get you to the competencies and the outcomes that they have planned through the PPBS and everything else.
	Wow. So they're going to look at that and they're going to kind of send you down a track where, very much like Brave New World, as you talk about, you know, where maybe they're not manipulating people in the hatcheries, but they're going to manipulate you as you go through the school system to make you somebody who's going to be a janitor or somebody who's going to be a CEO that puts you on these different tracks based on how they so-called analyze your genetic makeup, which they currently don't know yet.
	Talk a little bit more about these wearables, because that's one of the creepiest things.
	Where are we with that? I haven't seen much of that in terms of, you know, Betsy DeVos's, what was their neuron, the company that she had, NeuroCore.
	Yeah, I haven't seen much of that.
	What is the status of that?
	Is that still kind of experimental?
	Have they rolled that out anywhere?
	What kind of devices are they working on?
	You know, I was busy, busy, busy, but I thought last night, and then this morning, busy, busy, I was like, I should have sent him, you, I should have sent you the, there's a clip, okay, and anybody can check it, and I'll send it to you afterwards, you can play it on your next episode.
	If you go to, if you go on YouTube, you just type in BrainCoChina.com, WSJ for Wall Street Journal.
	You're going to get a short little documentary that shows you how, in China, how they're using a particular wearable called the Focus One Headband.
	It's developed by a company called BrainCo.
	It was developed by It's a team of Harvard academics in partnership with the Chinese state-owned Electronics Corporation.
	And in this short documentary, what you'll see is classrooms of students with the halo on their head, and it's feeding that data into a dashboard on the teacher's desk, and then the teacher is going to monitor that, and then, you know, basically what's showing is, are the students paying attention?
	Are they frustrated? Are they daydreaming?
	Are they enjoying the curriculum?
	All these types of things. If somebody's algorithms go funky, the teacher, I guess, is supposed to intercede and maybe help get them back on track.
	It'll take that data and it'll send it to the parents so the parents can punish you if you were following instructions as well.
	And then it goes into the broader social credit database.
	And they show basically, I mean, not just the classroom aspects, but they just show the broad social credit infrastructure with all the surveillance grid technologies that are basically all tracking that data and associating it with your digital ID or your biometric ID as you move through real space but they just show the broad social credit infrastructure with all the surveillance But in the United States, where we're at with wearables is actually there's a company called HeartMath.
	So right now we've talked about the EEGs, the headbands, the data mining the brainwaves.
	But there's also wearables that data mine the heart rate.
	And one of the companies that does that is called HeartMath.
	And I wrote about it in my book.
	They have two products.
	One is called M-Wave.
	The other one's called Interbalance.
	And it was largely piloted, as most of this stuff is.
	It's piloted to help, usually at first, with people who have learning disabilities.
	So, like, this was supposed to help students with, like, who have test anxiety.
	So you're supposed to put the heart rate monitor on before you, you know, before you get really worked up on the test.
	And they have, like, meditations, like breathing exercises that, by the way, are trademarked.
	So I guess you're not allowed to use them outside of the premises or the purview of the product.
	Yeah. They even own and control how you breathe, right?
	It's funny because it comes out of this new-age company.
	They have a for-profit branch and a non-profit branch.
	They have this multi-level marketing system where you can be a heart map coach.
	You can train people to use this trademarked breathing technique.
	They're all into this communitarian, collectivist, whatnot, but yet they trademark a breathing technique on a technological device that's going to data mine you.
	So the students use that to kind of get calmed down before they take the test.
	And just recently, maybe a month or two ago, I got an email from one of the colleges where I teach, one of the community colleges where I teach.
	I'm an adjunct, so I bounce around at different community colleges.
	They're using it at one of those schools now.
	And I think it was in partnership with the Health and Wellness Center or something like that.
	So it's not like in the classroom, but if you're having some stress about studying or something, I guess you can go to the Health and Wellness Center and they'll hook you up to one of these things and you'll do some meditation or whatever and it'll...
	I can't think of anything more stressful than even from an early age, like you're talking about the kids in China, knowing that it's going to know if you're paying attention or not and how good you're paying attention, watching everything that you're doing, feeding it into essentially your permanent record, and this is going to set you on a trajectory for what you'll be allowed to do in your life.
	We're seeing this happening, John, with a with the Amazon drivers who have every bit of movement that they're doing is being watched and analyzed and reported and you know that kind of pressure that's being put on people and this is the kind of you know as you're talking about these different aspects and about the eugenics aspects of this and everything makes me think of all the worst aspects of all these dystopian films like not just you know Brave New World but also things like Gattaca you know
	you know, where they're going to, you know, put you on one track or the other based on their assessment of your genetics and your capability.
	It's such a horrific thing.
	And yet, you know, it seems to me that's kind of where the competency part melds with the wokeness part, you know, where they're going to categorize you and put you in a box based not on your skin color or your chosen gender or this or that, but also now based on how they have where they're going to categorize you and put you in a box based not on your skin color or your chosen gender or this or that, but also now based on how they have identified you with your genetics, you're not going to have a
	You're going to be pigeonholed by these people and they're going to control you for the rest of your life.
	What a horrific model these people What do we do to try to pull back against this?
	Of course, a big part of it is your book, School World Order, pulling, as people can hear, you've got a tremendous breadth and depth of understanding about the relationships and the history of this stuff.
	And so that's what's really good about this book.
	But other than educating ourselves about where these people want to go and the tactics that they're going to use, what would you say the best way to defend against this is?
	So when I wrote it, you know, I'm a public educator.
	I came out of public education.
	And when I wrote it, you know, this was kind of prescient because it was published in October 2019.
	It was only a few months until lockdowns came.
	And then basically everything that I thought I had about 10 years to warn people about was basically thrust down our throats, right?
	I mean, we were just all... Plugged into the computers 24 hours a day.
	At the time, I was hoping that there might be some way to try to reform public education.
	So I had a five-point program in there.
	The first one was to local control, public control.
	It means locally elected school boards, no public-private partnerships.
	The other one was to ban the behavioral educational psychology as a methodology for teaching.
	It doesn't just mean with technology and data mining.
	It means You know, the whole reward and punishment system with gold stars and detentions and all that type of stuff.
	To the extent that we use technology, this is the third premise.
	There should be no data mining involved.
	Certainly no biometric, psychometric data mining.
	And then the last two had to do with a return to the classical method.
	Which is grammar, logic, rhetoric grounded in civics and history rather than social studies and critical theory with an emphasis on history of philosophy.
	But then grounded in metaphysics, right?
	And, you know, it's one of the denser chapters because, you know, I'm not quite saying, you know, God, but I am, right?
	Because if truth is objective and morality is objective, that means it's metaphysical, right?
	It means it comes from right beyond our social conditions, right?
	It comes... From the universe, God, nature, however you want to call it, right?
	And so I thought that, you know, if we could at least have a discussion of metaphysics in an educational setting, which is totally gone, right?
	All philosophy, all postmodern philosophy, there is no discussion of metaphysics or ontology.
	And that's what gets us to this relativistic state where we can transmute the human person through merging with technology.
	We're changing the categories of identity with all this woke stuff, right?
	But, you know, in the wake of lockdowns and the mandates, I've been promoting, you know, homeschooling.
	100% homeschooling, pods, co-ops, finding people in your neighborhood.
	All these other premises still apply.
	It's just that rather than trying to reform from the inside, I say we have to build...
	An organic, a truly community-based homeschooling system.
	And to do so, you'll need to hopefully find some people around you that are good at that.
	But what I'm trying to do, I'm trying to put some courses together through Autonomy University.
	That's Richard Grove's organization.
	And so sort of a basket of these different off, you know, non-accredited, non-institutional approaches as sort of a broader basket.
	That would be the best I could.
	I couldn't agree with you more.
	You're absolutely right.
	It's moved too quickly and it's gone too far and it's too pervasive in terms of governments and corporations and all the political parties are in on this thing.
	The institutions have totally been taken over, and I really do think we have to do this on a parallel manner, and you're absolutely right.
	One of the best ways that people can look at it, it's a very rigorous way to go, but a classical education is really ideal.
	And to get people to think about things, as you're pointing out, taking out the metaphysical and going really with this Skinner-esque thing, focusing just on us as individuals Our animal nature, essentially, which is what they're trying to do to control us.
	We have to pull back from that and look at the bigger picture.
	And that really, truly is the anecdote.
	And that has to be a part of our education, critical thinking, and all the rest of this stuff.
	But laying that foundation that is there, getting kids to think about the bigger picture instead of just the immediacy of what they're going to do, I think that is one of the most...
	Important ways that they have purged God out of the schools.
	You know, they focus on these things.
	Well, we can't have a silent prayer even in schools anymore.
	That's just the tip of the iceberg.
	That is just a little superficial thing that really didn't matter.
	What is really mattering is what you talked about, the fact you can't even have these discussions, and you will never really have these discussions.
	One of the things R.L. Dabney was saying is, if you're going to pull this into the government, who's...
	Thank you very much.
	Yeah, so, I mean, I've tried to do some of it on my own.
	I have, like, a really short video on Introduction to the Trivium on my YouTube and my bit shoot.
	One of the things that Richard Grove is going to help me out with is, you know, the time it takes to edit and everything like that.
	So the first thing I'm going to do is just do a crash course in the book, but eventually I'm going to do a series on rhetoric.
	I think he has some series on philosophy and on basic Trivium stuff with some other creators.
	And the thing I think that's important about developing these types of courses, Is that another issue that I didn't touch on in the book, but I think I've always kind of known it intuitively, but helped bring it to the forefront of my consciousness, was a friend of mine who's part of the Undercover Mothers.
	And she's told me that the private schools are just as bad with a lot of this woke stuff.
	And of course, they want the vouchers, which would just, you know...
	Basically federalize them.
	But the reason why the private schools do that is because of the national accrediting agencies, like the National Association of Independent Schools.
	So in other words, one of the concerns that adults or parents have when they bring their kids to a school or when they're thinking about making the decision to move to homeschooling is like, Is my child going to get a good job or be able to go to a good college?
	Are they going to be afforded the opportunities that they would be afforded from an accredited school?
	At the end of the day, education is really not teaching you how to think.
	It's teaching you what to think. More importantly, it's accrediting you.
	It's giving you those competency certificates so that you can fit into the planned economy.
	So we have to actually also break away from the accreditation system through this process of homeschooling and independent coursework.
	And one more thing I want to add is that this doesn't mean so when you take your kids out of the public school and your homeschool, you can still go to that public school board meeting and you can still be very careful and polite because you're, you know, because they want to label you a terrorist, which they've done to many people, but you're still paying taxes.
	So just because your child isn't in that school doesn't mean you still have every right to go in there and politely, with rhetorical savvy, explain what reforms you would like.
	You can even continue to run for school boards.
	So these two tracks, I think we need to work them both at the same time.
	Vote with our dollars on our feet, get out, and still put pressure on them through the civic sphere.
	Yeah, Alex Newman has put it.
	He says, so your kids are in a burning building.
	First thing you get to do is get them out.
	And then the second thing you do is work with other people in the community to put out the fire so it doesn't burn down the entire community.
	That's exactly what you're talking about.
	Get your kids out. Take care of your kids.
	But at the same time, you can still engage the school institutions because it's going to have an effect on the entire community.
	You're absolutely right. Yeah, and the other part of it, I just underscore as well, that whole thing about accreditation, if they can hold that over you, you know, like the Wizard of Oz at the end of the movie, you know, you want to get that medal saying that you've got a brain or courage or whatever.
	If they can hold that over you, they've got you.
	If they're going to hold out this accreditation thing, that means that they're then going to define the test.
	And then the curriculum is going to then teach to that test so that you can get those medals at the end.
	The end product that you want from your kid at the very end is the ability to think and also to have a kid who doesn't graduate with honors yet.
	But a kid who is honorable.
	And if you focus on that and the real stuff, everything will work out in the end.
	John, it was great talking to you.
	It's an amazing book.
	I can't say enough good about this.
	Again, the book is Social World Order by John Kleizak, right?
	Is that the way I pronounce your name correctly?
	The Technocratic Globalization of Corporatized Education.
	Thank you so much. It was a fascinating interview, fascinating book.
	I highly recommend it. We'll get you back on sometime.
	Thank you. All right, that's it for the broadcast, folks.
	Thank you. Have a great weekend.
	Thanks for listening. 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.

▲