Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 19, 2024 - The David Knight Show

03:01:41

The David Knight Show - 01/19/2024

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	you
	Using free speech to free minds.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	As the clock strikes 13, it's Friday the 19th of January, year of our Lord 2024.
	Well, today we're going to be talking a lot about some of the craziest things coming out of Davos.
	And it begs a question with their focus and their laser-like focus on us, on our speech.
	Oh yeah, Biden is coming after Trump, but you understand that it has all been focused on us for at least the last five years, six years now.
	It has been focused on stopping us debating.
	They don't want to debate.
	Why have a debate if the election is settled and as Klaus said, As now said, maybe we will just pick the candidates for you.
	Has anybody been paying attention?
	I think that's been going on for quite some time.
	We're going to begin, therefore, with the election, and then we will get into Davos.
	We'll be right back. Davos Well,
	it made me furious when I saw people defending Trump and saying, well, all that stuff about killing people with vaccines, that's four years ago.
	Well, no, actually.
	It's just so four years ago. I'm so tired of hearing this, said Tim Poole as he screamed, and that got me really angry.
	And I said, well, you know, you're not tired of talking about the election that was four years ago in the midst of that betrayal.
	And so everybody has their certain sore spots, right?
	And it seems that Steve Bannon has a real sore spot when the Speaker, he has ample places to criticize what Speaker Johnson has done.
	But the thing that bothered Steve Bannon was that Johnson would say that the Biden presidency is God's will.
	Well, yeah, it is.
	I mean, the question, the open question is, these leaders that God gives us, Are they a blessing or a curse?
	That's the question.
	Of course, if you want to go there, you can say that both Trump and Biden were curses to America.
	I think if you look at what happened, you have to interpret it that way.
	But he got very upset about this.
	He began his program.
	He's got a podcast. He said, be prepared to have your heads blown up.
	He says, you know, Speaker Johnson said that the Biden presidency was God's will.
	And he said that just outraged him.
	And he says he's an illegitimate president.
	And I'm not going to stop talking about this four years later.
	Well, you know what? It was illegitimate lockdown.
	It was illegitimate to tell us that we're non-essential.
	It was illegitimate to destroy our businesses, our educations, our schools, our churches, all these other things, as much as he could.
	And of course, you know, we talked about it yesterday.
	The church is just like the schools.
	People got an opportunity to see some real glaring problems that have been hidden.
	And the schools, as they brought the schools home and did Zoom classes, they could see what was happening in the classroom with the racism that was being pushed, the Marxism that was being pushed, the sexualization that was being pushed.
	And a lot of people took action on that.
	A lot of people did nothing about it.
	And we also got to see which of these churches really had any commitment.
	And people changed accordingly.
	Some of them found another church.
	Some of them just dropped out in disgust.
	And so, when you look at the last four years, there's only one thing that matters to these Machiavellian power brokers like Steve Bannon, and that's to get elected.
	Nothing else matters to him.
	You know, he doesn't need God.
	He's got a Chinese billionaire called Guo.
	Who needs God when you've got Guo?
	Right? That's where he was arrested.
	He was on Guo's yacht. The guy's a Chinese Communist Party functionary.
	That's how he became a billionaire.
	That's how anybody becomes a billionaire in China.
	You have to be part of the Communist Party.
	He's now reinvented himself as an anti-communist.
	And Steve Bannon, the Goldman Sachs banker, has now reinvented himself as a man of the people.
	That type of thing. But he also...
	He doesn't need any morality either, because, you know, he's also got Trump to pardon him when he does anything wrong.
	So, you know, he's got Guo and he's got Trump, who these people think is God, right?
	I mean, how could God ordain that Biden win the election when Trump is God?
	I mean, this is just, yeah, it blows my head up.
	And it must blow up Steve Bannon's head and his listeners as well.
	How could God take himself off the throne and put Biden in his place in the presidency, right?
	Well, what is it that made him so upset?
	Here's the quote from Speaker Johnson.
	He said, the Bible says that God is the one that raises up people in authority.
	I believe God is sovereign. Now, this is what he said when he was asked if the Biden presidency was God's will.
	He said, by the way, the founders believed that as well.
	He said, they acknowledge that our rights don't come from government, they come from God.
	That we're made in His image.
	That everyone is made the same.
	We're all given equal rights and value, and that's something that we defend.
	So if you believe all those things, then you believe that God is the one who allows people to be raised into authority.
	It must have been God's will then.
	That's my belief. Because, you see, nothing's going to happen that God doesn't want to happen.
	That's part of being God, right?
	One of the definitions of being God.
	And so Bannon couldn't take it anymore.
	He cuts the clip. And he says, yo, dude, he's an illegitimate president.
	Have you lost your freaking mind?
	This election was stolen.
	Don't be a theologian.
	I don't need a theologian.
	Oh, yes, he does.
	He needs one very badly.
	So pray for Steve Bannon.
	He is the Speaker of the House.
	That's what this country needs.
	Joe Biden's not a legitimate president of the United States.
	No to the speaker. So no, God did not raise him up.
	And again, just like with Tim Pool, what is important to them is nothing but the election.
	Nothing else had happened to us over the last four years, and moving us so deeply into this fourth turning and this transformation of society.
	By the way, in the third hour, we got an interview with an author about the New Dealer War, the war within World War II.
	It should be a very interesting interview, because that was the last time that we had a radical transformation of our society.
	And it was a radical transformation of society.
	And by the globalists, by the Marxists, that type of thing.
	Anyway, Bannon, you know, when you look at this whole wall thing that they got him on, he and Brian, I think it was Kofalji, I think is the guy's name.
	It was in a wheelchair. And the two of them were running this thing called We Build the Wall.
	Why were they raising money privately to build the wall?
	Because Trump didn't do it.
	You see, Bannon nearly went to jail.
	The other guy did go to jail.
	But Trump pardoned Bannon after he was convicted.
	And the reason they sent him to jail, they raised money to build a wall on private property.
	And they actually did it. They did it in a short period of time.
	But they said, you didn't use enough of this money to...
	Qualify is the same type of thing they're doing with the Italian Christmas cake to try to censor social media influencers and that type of thing in Italy.
	You take this money for a charitable cause and you didn't use enough of it for the cause.
	And so that was what they came after Bannon and the other guy for.
	I take no opinion on that.
	I didn't bother to look at it that much.
	What I thought was more interesting, rather than the details of the case, whether or not there was fraud involved, was the fact that the existence of that project, to take money to voluntarily build the wall, was a condemnation in kind and an embarrassment, really, to the Trump administration.
	And to Trump for not doing his signature issue.
	Now, I've said all along I was not a big fan of the wall.
	Walls can keep people in as well as keep people out.
	But if you've got a big enough welfare magnet, you're not going to keep anybody out, but they may keep us in.
	I'm not a big fan of the wall.
	I think that there needs to be some border patrol and border control for sure.
	We need to know who's coming in.
	However, however you do that, you're still going to get illegal immigration, massive illegal immigration and an invasion.
	If you offer people a lot of free stuff, we want people who are going to come here because they want freedom.
	That was what the waves of immigration from Europe in the 1800s and early 1900s was all about.
	It was people who had severe hardship, whether it's the Irish potato famine or the aftermath of the Italian Civil War.
	That happened at exactly the same time as our Civil War.
	Whatever it was, people were coming for economic issues, but they were also coming because they wanted to be free.
	And when they came, they would come with just some spare change in their pockets maybe sometimes, and they would work.
	And they were willing to do that, to have a start and to live in a free country.
	And so that's what we need.
	We need immigrants that are like that.
	We don't need people who want to come in and live off of everyone else.
	And we don't want people who are criminals coming in.
	And they may not be able to stop that, but we can stop rewarding that.
	So it's the magnet.
	It's the welfare magnet that's the issue.
	But the issue with that we build the wall was that it was an embarrassment to Trump.
	And it was his administration, his Department of Justice, that charged both of them.
	I think that had something to do with it.
	And then what Trump does is he lets the other guy he doesn't know go to jail, and Bannon, he pardons.
	But what Bannon really needs is to find a real savior who's going to pardon him.
	And these people just never ceases to amaze me how the princes of this world shake their fist.
	God and His anointed.
	Isn't it amazing? Never ceases.
	And it's a bipartisan thing.
	It truly is. So this article from The Hill reminds us that Johnson is a Southern Baptist who has faced scrutiny over his faith and how it affects his viewpoints on things like abortion and the separation of church and state.
	There's nothing like that in the Constitution.
	What he's talking about is the free exercise of religion instead of the suppression of the free exercise of religion.
	The role of the federal government has been pursuing that since the middle of the 20th century.
	The First Amendment talked about not establishing an official state church.
	And they have twisted this into shutting down the free exercise of religion.
	And everybody has the right To free exercise of religion, even if they work for the government in some capacity, and even if they're on the job in some capacity.
	That doesn't stop your free exercise of religion anymore.
	That stops your ability to have free speech.
	But of course, this tyrannical government hates all of those things.
	Hates free exercise of religion, free speech, the rest of it.
	In his first speech as Speaker in October, says The Hill, Johnson said God has, quote, allowed and ordained each and every one of us to be here at this specific moment.
	A comment then likely prompted Wednesday's question about the Biden presidency.
	See, we're at this situation now where Christianity is no longer understood and it's not tolerated.
	And it's not tolerated or understood by people like Steve Bannon either.
	You want something to criticize, Steve?
	Well, criticize this.
	Congress approved a funding extension, avoided a shutdown, and keeps kicking all of these various cans down the road.
	I mean, they've got so many cans tied together, it's like honeymooners leaving the chapel, you know?
	And they're kicking or dragging those cans down the road to do whatever they want.
	And I think the honeymoon is over.
	So this should be criticized.
	The Senate voted 77 to 18, and the House voted 314 to 108 to extend funding for the government to March 1st and to March 8th because they don't want to make the difficult decisions.
	And they'll kick the can down the road again when they get to that.
	And so as RealClearPolitics says, shut the border or shut the government.
	And I absolutely agree with that.
	Tell these people, just go home.
	Just go home.
	Stop all these show trials that Jim Jordan is doing.
	He never does anything. He's always hamming it up for the cameras.
	He's his successor to Trey Gowdy.
	And I imagine he'll eventually go to Fox News.
	But just stop all these pointless show trials and do something.
	And what is the power that Congress has?
	Power of the purse, for sure.
	And they're going to have to wield that.
	They're going to have to shut the government down in order to shut the border down.
	That's the power they have.
	And they don't want to use it.
	They need to figure this out, go home, figure this out, stop all the, you know, the self-aggrandizing shows and everything, and then come back and do the real thing.
	When House Speaker Mike Johnson and 60 GOP members of the Congress went to Eagle Pass, Texas, recently for a photo op.
	That's all it was, was a photo op.
	They were probably shocked that the first question they were asked was for a show of hands of those who would shut down the border if President Biden doesn't shut the border.
	Are you going to do anything about it?
	Raise your hand.
	They don't answer either. Right?
	So, as RealClearPolitics says, it's much easier to shut down a reporter who's seeking truth than it is to shut down the border and save the country.
	The show of hands question came from Ben Bergwam of Real America's Voice.
	And he's been at the Darien Gap.
	He's been at the border for a very long time reporting on this.
	This is what he has focused on.
	And you've seen the clips.
	I've played some of the clips that he does where he has the people that have been brought in by the Border Patrol.
	And they're waiting to be processed.
	They're going to be given phones and an appointment in a few years to come back and talk to somebody if they want to.
	And tickets to wherever they want to go and, you know, cell phones and all the rest of this stuff.
	And so they're sitting there waiting for their quote-unquote processing.
	And he goes up and down the line and he says, where are you coming from?
	And where are you going? And that in and of itself is very instructive.
	And so he says, yeah, they're coming from all over the world.
	They're not coming from Mexico or even Central or South America.
	Yeah, there's a lot of people from Venezuela, but just as many from Somalia.
	Egypt, West Africa, or China.
	And most of them are military-aged men.
	They aren't escaping from persecution.
	They're not escaping from violence.
	They're coming to America for benefits and to drain our country of resources.
	That's pretty evident when you ask them where they're going.
	Most of them want to go to New York.
	And so from that standpoint, Greg Abbott is just helping them.
	The Biden administration is helping them get across the border, and Greg Abbott is helping them to get to their desired destination because they want to go to New York because they want to live off of the lavish welfare state.
	He also goes to the cities where they say they want to go to that have opened up their doors, that have shut down schools so they can put these people in the schools when the weather gets cold or whatever.
	Where you've got governors telling people, you need to let these people into your home.
	Let them stay with you. How does that work out?
	What does that really tell you about the true agenda of all this stuff?
	Well, the border showdown...
	I guess today, are we going to see something happen?
	Yesterday was the deadline, not just for the natural asset companies, which, great news, those things were shut down.
	But yesterday was January the 18th, and the Biden administration says that Texas has got to stop enforcing the border, stop enforcing laws against people who come here illegally.
	And so something of a showdown was supposed to happen yesterday.
	Maybe it happened today. Or maybe it won't.
	What is the Biden administration going to do with this?
	Right? This could be a very important precedent.
	Just like, regardless of what you think about the marijuana issue, the fact that you would have so many states, and especially beginning in the left-wing states, who tend to think when anybody starts talking about self-governance, A nullification.
	They immediately jump to secession, immediately jump to slavery, racism, all the rest of the tropes that are there, and try to shut it down.
	And yet, they nullified the illegal prohibition of marijuana and other things.
	If you want to prohibit it, get a constitutional amendment like you did with alcohol, otherwise shut up.
	And Jeff Sessions, who really hated that, had to shut up because he didn't have any legal authority whatsoever.
	And the real question is, if the Biden administration is not going to enforce the border, and the state government is, what's the federal government going to do about it?
	They can't commandeer people in the state to do something that the people in the state don't want to do.
	That's been taken to court many times, a non-commandeering thing.
	Very important. And so, I don't think that they can do anything about it.
	And I think it's going to be a very important bluff calling that's going to happen at Eagle Pass and many other places.
	We're going to take a quick break and we will be right back.
	Hear news now at APSRadioNews.com or get the APS Radio app and never miss another story.
	Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, your annual global risk report makes for a stunning and sobering read.
	For the global business community, the top concern for the next two years is not conflict or climate, it is disinformation and misinformation.
	followed closely by polarization within our society.
	In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
	You are listening to the David Knight Show.
	Well that was Ursula Von Der Leyden.
	It was like, I think the first Bond girl was Ursula Undress.
	That was Dr. No.
	No. But yeah, they are literal Bond villains.
	And thank you, Angus Mustang.
	Thank you very much for the tip.
	It says, should we not declare the World Economic Forum a terrorist organization and eliminate them now?
	Yes, yes. They're a terrorist organization.
	They're Bond villains.
	They're crooks, criminals, liars, thieves, murderers, mass murderers.
	I think we shouldn't stop with the World Economic Forum.
	We should also continue with Trump and Biden as well.
	And I'm serious about that.
	They're mass murderers. You take them.
	They're talking now about ecocide and making that an international crime.
	Well, you know, international crime they've been pushing all along.
	The Pfizer stuff.
	Anyway, Ursula von der Leyen, as you just heard, we've got to focus on the truth.
	You know, these people, I think it's appropriate to call them the Fourth Reich.
	You look at the EU, look at Bilderberg, again, their first meeting.
	Ten years to the day after the last Nazi victory.
	And they had their first meeting there at the Bilderberg Hotel at the site of the last Nazi victory.
	And the two people who were there, the Englishman and the German that were there, Prince Barnhart, actually Netherlands, but the British guy, Peter, I think it was Peter Carrington, if I remember.
	Anyway, the two guys that were there at the beginning were two people that...
	Because of that Market Garden failure there, the bridge too far, we see the movie The Bridge Too Far.
	Many people believed that Prince Barnhart had leaked that information about battle plans to the Nazis.
	And we know that the British guy had command of some forces that he would not bring up that also caused that defeat.
	And so the two of them began that at Bilderberg.
	They talk about how they'll have economic union and then I think it was their second meeting, they talked about how they'd have a common currency in Europe, the euro.
	And so this is all recycled Nazis and Klaus's father was a Nazi industrialist and all the So when you look at where these people are coming from, they've decided that they're going to rule the world, but they got smart this time.
	Rather than using the military, they decided that they would use financial controls and political unification.
	So it's just a smarter, more dangerous version, more subtle version of worldwide dominance that we're looking at here.
	And so...
	The Ursula von der Leiden, president of the European Commission, said these risks, actually we would say these truths, are serious because they limit our ability to tackle the big global challenges, such as changes in our climate, shifts in our demography, and in our technology.
	There you go. So it's right there.
	The climate MacGuffin. The migration MacGuffin.
	And, of course, the technology that gives them control.
	So it's not about conflict.
	In other words, war.
	It's not about climate.
	In other words, sanctions.
	The climate stuff is all economic sanctions.
	And if that fails, they take us to war.
	But, you know, that's on the menu further down.
	But not war.
	Not sanctions. But lies, propaganda, and censorship is what they must focus on right now.
	So their list, they've got a list of the top ten risks within the next two years.
	And then they have the top ten risks over the next ten years.
	And it's kind of interesting because, you know, the number one risk, as you just said, was misinformation and disinformation.
	In other words, truth.
	Truth. Truth and dissent.
	That's what they've got to stomp out.
	The number two right now, within the next two years, is extreme weather.
	Okay, so that's the climate thing that those lies are going to push.
	And then after that, you have cybersecurity.
	You have, well, social polarization is number three, then cybersecurity.
	And so forth as they go down.
	Inflation is way down the list.
	They're not worried about inflation because they can use that as a way to reset the financial system and push us into CBDC. So the number one thing, misinformation and disinformation, that falls to the secondary concern.
	It's always going to be at the top for them.
	So within the next two years, that's the number one thing, and that's what they want to focus on.
	But even within the next 10 years, that's still number two.
	Because you can't control a population unless you've got Big Brother censorship and control of information.
	But what goes to number one over the 10-year time frame?
	Climate. Climate.
	Because, again, these people...
	This time around the Fourth Reich is using economic sanctions and these types of you know the soft control and subtle control from within to subvert everything and So the I'm sorry the Misinformation disinformation censorship falls to number five not to number two Number two... We'll be the official change to earth systems.
	Number three, biodiversity, loss of the ecosystem, natural resource control.
	That's the NAC. So you see how the climate thing is really the main thrust.
	Over the next 10 years for control for economic sanctions or chaos.
	But immediately they have to control information and it will still be number five, even as they continue to roll out their climate control.
	While governments hold many of the levers, she said, to deal with the great challenges of our time, Business has the innovation, the technology, the talents to deliver the solutions we need to fight threats like climate change or industrial scale disinformation.
	Industrial scale disinformation.
	Europe is uniquely placed to show how this can work.
	I think we need to talk about government scale disinformation.
	Government scale disinformation is even bigger than industrial scale disinformation.
	But you notice that she's making this appeal to the businesses.
	It says, you people can innovate.
	No, they're making the appeal to the businesses.
	As I said before, you think of this public-private partnership.
	You can think of...
	The UN, as the people who are creating these agendas, like the Agenda 21 for the 21st century, then the more specific UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
	But they need to have some people going to actually run this thing through.
	So you can think of the UN as this big legislative branch.
	That, you know, comes up with these big schemes.
	And, of course, they need to have somebody who's going to run with it.
	Not so much maybe even an executive branch as it is a bureaucracy, because that's the way our government operates.
	We have the Congress that says, well, we've got a big agenda here that we want to do.
	So let's create, let's kick it over to one of the existing bureaucracies, or let's create a new bureaucracy to get this done.
	And that's the role that is done by these various NGOs and globalist organizations like the World Economic Forum, like Bilderberg and others.
	They kick it over to them to get it done.
	Well, how are they going to get it done if they don't have any money?
	And they don't have any way to tax everybody globally.
	The carbon taxes are not in place yet.
	So the money is going to come from these corporations.
	And they will pony up to buy a stake in the future fascist, communist world that these people are putting together.
	And so that will be their budget.
	They're not supplying the innovation.
	They're really supplying the cash, and they're also supplying technology.
	But that's the two things that they must have.
	And that's why this is trending more and more towards the corporatocracy.
	These people in the big multinational corporations with so much money and so much technology understand the power position that they're in, for sure.
	And so they not only want a place at the table, they not only want to have a monopoly or duopoly on what is happening, they're going to have a say in all of this.
	She went on to say that...
	Disinformation and misinformation at the very beginning of my mandate.
	This is the EU president.
	She calls her election a mandate.
	I guess everything that she's done has been, she desires to do as a mandate.
	She says, with our Digital Services Act.
	See, this is this most repressive piece of censorship.
	That conspiracy theory guy from the EU came over.
	Theory Breton. His first name is Theory.
	Doesn't spell it the same way.
	But, you know, he was the one who came over after Elon Musk kind of bought a place at the table with Twitter.
	And he came over and told him, you're going to do everything we tell you to do with the DSA, right?
	And Elon Musk bowed and scraped before him in a very cringy video that was made of the occasion.
	And so that DSA, which has just recently become effective, but they haven't really begun enforcing it.
	They've made a lot of statements about it.
	But that is one of the most oppressive pieces of...
	Censorship that has come out to date, especially when you look at it from a Western standpoint.
	The Chinese and the Russians and the Germans and the Nazis have come up with this type of stuff before.
	But this is unique to see something like this in the formerly free Western civilization where they valued individual rights and free speech because we learned our lesson about 500 years ago about free speech.
	And now we're about to learn it again real hard.
	With our Digital Services Act, we defined the responsibility of large internet platforms on the content that they promote and that they propagate.
	Digital Services Act is the most ambitious regulation in the world.
	There is no other legislative act in the world having this level of ambition to regulate social media, online marketplaces, very large online platforms, and very large online search engines.
	So the first part of that was her describing it.
	That last part of it, saying that it's the most ambitious regulation in the world.
	That's what they're boasting on the website that they set up for the DSA, Digital Services Act.
	So, as people are looking at this and commenting on it, one podcast, the All In Podcast, David Friedberg said, the era of the open internet as a decentralized technology platform for the benefit of individuals and not to be overseen and run by the government is over.
	It's over. He said, the Digital Services Act is one of the most overreaching threats to any open, transparent, democratic opportunity on the internet.
	And that's not anything that they haven't bragged about themselves in that website description.
	It says, it gives this EU government the legal right to go into my computer, pull information out of it, scrutinize it, and make decisions about what I'm doing and whether or not I'm compliant with whatever the commission's enforcement standards are that day.
	This is about as 1984 as you can get.
	It's really serious stuff.
	And I don't think people are recognizing the second-order and third-order effects of what this is going to do over time to services and to the experience that we get on the Internet.
	Well, understand this is just the beginning of this.
	And understand that it's not the EU by itself.
	It's a global agenda.
	And the U.S. government, the federal government, is ever much on board with this as Klaus is.
	It is DARPA that is pushing out through Microsoft things like the CCPA, the Chinese Communist Party of America, or what it actually stands for, they say, is the Coalition for Content, Providence, and Authentication.
	Once they identify, once they go into your computer or in public and they see something they disagree with, whether it's open dissent or they don't agree with the truth that you're putting out there, About what they're trying to do, like the pandemic, then they will label you as a dissenter and they will stop your stuff from even being posted.
	And they will do it.
	This coalition is a coalition of hardware manufacturers, CPU manufacturers, and the software that creates the things that you're going to say online.
	So whether it is a meme, a picture, Or whether it is text, even.
	Or whether it is audio and video.
	They will shut it down. And they're already talking about how they're going to do that in this next election with OpenAI.
	Well, we're going to control the memes that people do, and you've had problems as well, right, Travis, with trying to do thumbnails of certain people, and it will not allow you to put their names in.
	And so they can easily do that.
	They can easily exclude the voices, the faces, anything like that of individuals.
	That's where they want to head with all of this and completely control any satire, humor, any dissent.
	Argentinian President Javier Malay was there to speak.
	You know, look at this, and it's like, I really get my spidey sense starts tingling when I see somebody go to Davos.
	And, you know, when you've got Brian Kemp or Glenn Youngkin, these two governors, one from Georgia, one from Virginia, or you've got mayors who go, the...
	The alt-stream media will immediately label them as Davos traders.
	And I don't necessarily disagree with any of that assessment either.
	I think that when somebody goes to Davos, you can talk to these people, you can talk about them, you can talk about their agenda without going there.
	And when you do go there, you have to always wonder, well, what's happening behind closed doors with these meetings?
	Regardless of what these people say in public, And so I thought the same thing about Trump.
	But of course, oh no, Trump is there to own them.
	And we see the same thing now with Javier Malay.
	He's there to own these people.
	Well, he did have some good things to say, actually.
	He had a much better speech than the one that was written for Trump, which basically just bragged on himself and his administration and how he's going to make America great again.
	The Argentinian president actually focused on what was happening with the decline of the West.
	We'll have to see what happens with him.
	It's kind of a mixed bag as I look at him.
	The New York Post Douglas Murray said, you know, and he was commenting really about this opening blessing I showed you yesterday, that shaman from Brazil.
	And still, the thing that struck him also struck me is the fact that people didn't say, get away.
	I don't want you blowing in my face with this stuff, and I don't want to have anything to do with your pagan religion either.
	But, you know, he says, a wise old friend once said to me that if Christianity died out, what would come next would not be atheism, but polytheism.
	That is, instead of worshiping one god, people would start worshiping a whole range of gods.
	And that's what we saw. This Brazilian shaman was kind of like that.
	She blows right into their face, and they all are very serious.
	They're not surprised by this and everything.
	It's like, you talk about political correctness.
	And he says, can you imagine if it had a priest come up there and offer them a communion wafer, how they would have recoiled?
	But no, you've got this shaman, and she can blow on their faces and all the rest of this.
	And they're just fine with that. He said they've also got another ancient shaman there at World Economic Forum, John Kerry, a false prophet of doom.
	We're all going to die.
	We should have died a long time ago.
	I don't know why we're still alive.
	I guess I didn't get it right.
	Shaman Kerry described 2023 as, quote, literally the most disruptive, climate-disrupted, most climate-consequential negative year of human history.
	What a bunch of nonsense. What is disruptive and climate disrupted?
	What does it mean for something to be climate consequential?
	And negative. Negative in that.
	And then he says, after this dire warning, he then disappeared into the clouds on his private jet.
	He says, this year, however, there was a party crasher to this pagan worship service of their power, and that was Javier Malai.
	And again, you know, when I look at Malai, he has a lot of economic things that he says that I agree with.
	And I thought it was interesting.
	They said he's going to take on the central bank and change the currency and all the rest of the stuff because they're having, was it, 150% inflation or something?
	But then as you look a little bit closer, you see the theatrics, You see, you know, the personal life that he lives.
	And so that gives me pause that I see him going to Davos with this, just like I did with Trump in 2018.
	But he is smarter.
	He appears to be more principled.
	He understands the issues involved.
	And he has already started implementing some of the things that he said he was going to do.
	So maybe it'll work out.
	I hope so. We'll see how it goes.
	Talk is cheap. Anybody can say anything.
	But when these guys get in, you have to watch what they actually do.
	So far, he's been trying to implement his program.
	I think his program is perhaps a good way to try to reform the abuses of the communists.
	And he talks a lot about socialism, Marxism, communism, about feminism and things like that.
	I talked to Axel Kaiser, who wrote a very popular economics book in Central America and knows Javier Malay.
	They have the same things, basically, that they're fighting that we are.
	They're global. Except for the racism, MacGuffin.
	And the racism of Guffin right now is really focused in the U.S. and in the U.K. because you've got to have a diverse population, different ethnic groups before you can start them fighting each other, right?
	But they're working on that in the rest of Europe.
	Very rapidly, that'll become an issue everywhere else.
	Maybe not even in Argentina, but everywhere else.
	So he said, while the gods of, this is the New York Post reporter still on his theme of paganism, he said, while the gods of Davos have spent recent years warning against climate change and populism, Moai has a different prognosis.
	He says that the West is in danger because those who are supposed to have to defend the values of the West are The world should instead embrace free enterprise capitalism.
	To bring an end to world poverty.
	And the thrust of his speech was to push the value of free enterprise capitalism as contrasted to the centrally controlled socialistic world that these people are all trying to push.
	Whereas when Trump spoke, he was touting not the benefits of The free market or capitalism or anything like that.
	He was touting the benefits of his administration and the greatness of America.
	So, he wasn't tackling the agendas and the ideas that are destroying America and destroying the world.
	He didn't tackle those things head-on.
	Javier Malay did.
	And of course, in his country, they've tried collectivism in a big way, and it's led to complete ruin, as the New York Post points out.
	So he offered a positive way out of the current trends.
	Where the Davos crowd now seems to see human beings as the problem, he said, no, we're the solution.
	There's no reason to see population growth as a negative.
	Or to think of the world's resources as some kind of a zero-sum game.
	Instead of seeing free markets as a challenge, Malai reminded Davos that they are an opportunity.
	And he said, we also have to reject radical feminism, the environmental agendas, and these are all fueled by socialism as well.
	We say Marxism.
	Same essential thing.
	Again, all the different elements are there everywhere.
	Racism where he is is not that much of an issue yet in terms of their agenda.
	It was a roughly 20-minute speech, and he said, socialism ultimately leads to poverty.
	The state is not the solution.
	The state is the problem.
	And how leftism has co-opted Western government institutions to further its agendas.
	I'm here, he said, today to tell you that the West is in danger.
	In danger because those who are supposed to uphold the values of the West find themselves co-opted by the worldview that leads to socialism and consequently to poverty, he said as he opened his speech.
	And so he said some people have embraced these leftist ideas out of a desire to help other people.
	But others have done so in order to belong to a privileged caste.
	And that's the people he was talking to.
	They're Davos. We're here to tell you that collectivist experiments are never the solution.
	On the contrary, they are the cause.
	Believe me, there is no one better than us Argentines to bear witness on these two issues.
	They say capitalism is bad because it's individualistic.
	That collectivism is good because it is altruistic.
	And consequently, they strive for social justice.
	But he said, the problem is social justice is not only not fair, and this is good.
	Listen to this. Social justice is not only not fair, it also doesn't contribute to the general welfare.
	On the contrary, it is intrinsically unjust.
	And as I've heard some Christian pastors push back on it, they said, social justice, justice doesn't need an adjective.
	It's either just or it's unjust.
	And what Javier Malay says is social justice is unjust.
	It's an unjust idea.
	Why? Because it is violent.
	It is unjust because the state is financed by taxes and taxes are levied coercively.
	Or can any of us choose not to pay taxes?
	Which means that the state is financed through coercion.
	And the greater the tax burden, the greater the coercion.
	He says, it must never be forgotten that socialism is always and everywhere an impoverishing phenomenon that failed in all countries where it was tried.
	It was an economic failure.
	It was a social failure.
	It was a cultural failure.
	It also took the lives of 150 million human beings.
	What he fails to talk about, though, and that's all true, and his audience is not necessarily the people there at Davos, but maybe the larger world that he's talking to.
	But this argument is lost on those people.
	Why? Well, because socialism works for them.
	Socialism worked for Castro, worked for Mao, worked for Stalin, worked for Hitler.
	It worked for Hugo Chavez.
	It works for Klaus Schwab.
	It works for Ursula von der Leyen.
	It works for all of these people.
	It doesn't take everybody down equally.
	It lifts them up on the backs of everybody else.
	And so that's why, when we look at this, it's kind of like an educational system.
	You know, you can argue that the educational system that we have doesn't teach Johnny to read or write or to do math.
	And that's true. But you have to understand that's what it was designed to do.
	It was designed to deliberately dumb down people.
	The educational system is doing exactly what they wanted it to do.
	And when socialism and communism come in and take everything from everybody and give it to just a few elites, that's what the Davos people want.
	He also said, He said,
	The only thing that this agenda of radical feminism has resulted in is greater intervention by the state to hinder economic growth, giving work to bureaucrats who did not contribute anything to society, whether in the format of the Ministry of Women or in international organizations dedicated to promoting this agenda.
	And so, when you look at this, again, everything for him always comes back to economics.
	That's his background.
	He's named his dogs after monetarist economists like Milton Friedman and so forth.
	I don't know if he calls his dog Milton or Friedman, but he's named his dogs after these economists.
	So it all comes back to money for him.
	You see, money can't save us.
	And the love of money is the root of all evil.
	And so ultimately it's not a satisfying philosophy when you look at this.
	And just as he, you know, I'm sure he realizes that these people are the ones who are going to benefit from these systems of socialism and communism and Marxism.
	You know, he's not talking to them, he's talking to the bigger audience.
	But this is, the bigger audience needs to understand that That, you know, having the right economy is a good thing, but it's not a sufficient thing.
	And they need to understand that what is really behind this is not even the greed of these people.
	What is behind them? You know, we fight this war.
	We don't fight with flesh and blood.
	As I said yesterday, I've got to keep reminding myself of that.
	I get really angry, angrier than I should, I think, with the people.
	Because they're somewhat victims, deceived victims, of the agenda behind them.
	This is one of the reasons why this doesn't change.
	People can say, well, why is this agenda continuing on for centuries after centuries?
	Is it the Freemasons?
	Is it this group? Is it that group?
	Is it this family? Is it the Rothschilds or the Rockefellers or whatever?
	And yeah, those are aspects of it.
	But it is a vast conspiracy.
	And it continues because it's a spiritual war.
	And because the spiritual war, the beings that are aligned against us, that are really running this, these people are just their front, their minion.
	Who is controlling this?
	There obviously is a sense of control.
	People can sense that.
	Just like when you look at the world that God created, you see the design, the organism behind all of that.
	And you know that there has to be an intelligence behind it.
	And everybody knows there has to be an intelligence behind this evil.
	And they're looking around for which group of people, which institutions are really focusing on this.
	And that's why, ultimately, a political or economic answer To these issues misses the point.
	And it's insufficient. And if it is purely political or economic, it can easily be turned around.
	If it's an economic solution, we're going to have free markets and, you know, people will be able to compete against each other and we're going to get rid of all the crony capitalism and all the rest of it.
	Then ultimately that will be turned against us as well if we begin to love money that much.
	So everything he says, they're just right here.
	I agree with all of that.
	But it still misses the core issue.
	Because, just like Steve Bannon, he doesn't see God in any of this.
	He goes on and he says the socialists maintain that human beings damage the planet and that it has to be protected at all costs, even going so far as to advocate for population control mechanisms or the bloody agenda of abortion.
	I like that. The bloody agenda of abortion.
	These harmful ideas have strongly permeated society.
	So since we've decided to abandon the model of freedom that has made us rich, we have been trapped in a downward spiral where we are poor every day.
	Again, it always comes back to that.
	And the depopulation agenda, that must be something that really is a head-scratcher for him because you understand that people, governments even, get richer and more powerful if they've got a lot of people.
	Typically, it's always been the most populous places that have been the most dominant civilizations.
	Nineveh was the most populated city-state.
	You know, they had city-states at that time.
	They had the most people of any place on Earth.
	Later on, you would see it shift around.
	London, at one point, was the most populous.
	Then, massive amount of people in America with resources, but it was also the system, because there were always more people in China or India, but they were repressed by this system.
	But a lot of people are actually a resource.
	This system can stop it, but what they don't really understand is that people like the Chinese Communist Dictators We'll reduce their population when told to, and they're following an agenda that is anti-human, and it is a satanic agenda.
	So again, I say he's...
	Certainly wiser than Trump.
	He's focused on broader issues that affect everybody.
	On liberty, he's focused also on optimism.
	He's not simply bragging about himself and how great Argentina is, like Trump did, about America.
	And he directly challenged them on their existential premises, which are environmentalism, Centralized control, control of speech, and control of everything, and feminism, and all the rest of this stuff.
	But again, he's started to act already.
	Time will tell as to whether or not he gets it.
	I liked what he had to say again about the bloody abortion agenda.
	And today is the March for Life in Washington.
	Interesting, isn't it? I don't think any of the politicians who are running for office are going to that.
	We'll have to see. I don't know.
	I didn't look at the roster, but I didn't hear anybody talk about that.
	I know that Trump and Nikki Haley have kind of kicked that issue to the curb.
	If anybody was going to go, it would be DeSantis to the March for Life.
	And, of course, Biden is adamantly opposed to life.
	But he's better on abortion than Trump is in 2024.
	He called out population control.
	He talked about, as I said, the bloody abortion agenda.
	He said, neo-Marxist claim that we human beings damage the planet, and so they've got to kill us with their bloody abortion agenda.
	And so when we look at this, Given the dismal failure of collectivist models, the undeniable advances in the free world, socialists are forced to change their agenda.
	They left behind the class struggle based on an economic system, and they replaced it with other supposed conflicts, which are just as harmful to life.
	The first of these new battles was the ridiculous and unnatural fight between men and women.
	But, you know, in our country we also see this as instead of class warfare, We had people, Marxists, the Weather Underground, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dorn, they recognized very early on that class warfare was not working in America, but that race war would work.
	And so they took the idea of white skin privilege, renamed it white privilege, and pushed it really hard, and pushed it through the educational institutions.
	Also there, perhaps as a counter, who knows, was the president of the Heritage Foundation, the largest conservative think tank in the United States, speaking at Davos.
	And again, I always question when people go there.
	He was there to comment on what was going to happen with a Republican nomination and is Trump going to be coming back and that type of thing.
	But I'm not a big fan of the Heritage Foundation.
	The key agenda of Davos right now, as I played for you, is censorship and repression of dissent.
	And stopping all debate about the elections and certainly stopping debate about what they are doing.
	It's interesting. I never interacted with the World Economic Forum on Twitter.
	I saw an article within the last year.
	I saw an article and thought, you know, I should be following them and get them on my feed.
	I used to only use Twitter as a news feed.
	Now it's pretty much gotten back to that now as well.
	Just interested to see what certain people have to say, whether I agree with them or not.
	So I thought, I should follow them.
	And so I clicked on the article to take me to Twitter and click, you know, take me to their account there on Twitter to follow them.
	And it comes up and says, you've been blocked by the World Economic Forum.
	It's like, what? They know what is going on, and they're using this to censor people.
	And the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, when all the censorship hit in 2018, August of 2018, August 6, as a matter of fact.
	And then after that, Trump did a little dog and pony show at the Rose Garden, and he invited a lot of people who had not been censored, and nobody who had been censored.
	And he invited the Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute to come there, Cato Institute being a libertarian think tank.
	And both of them gave us the line that, well, corporations can do whatever they want.
	I don't like it. We've heard this forever from Reason, from Cato, from John Stossel.
	I don't like the fact that they're censoring me, but hey, they're corporations and they can do whatever they want.
	No, they can't. And are you really that naive and foolish that you don't understand where this censorship is coming from?
	Really? You seriously don't understand the corporation is just a beard?
	We all see that now. We've had the documents have been released, and it's still hard to get these people.
	So frankly, I don't really trust these think tanks.
	Even though Heritage Foundation is the biggest of all the conservative foundations, I don't think tanks, I don't really trust them at all.
	I don't trust their judgment, their discernment, their knowledge, their honesty.
	I don't trust their worldview that corporations are equal or superior to you and I. And as I've said many times, a corporation is a creature of God, of government.
	We are creatures of God.
	And the basic idea of the Declaration of Independence, which Javier Malay quoted, is that since we are creatures of God, We all have liberty and other rights as creatures of God.
	A corporation is a creature of the state.
	A corporation has privileges.
	It doesn't have rights.
	And even if you don't understand it at that level, you ought to understand what is actually happening, that they're the beard.
	And so I don't trust their discernment on any of this or their worldview, as a matter of fact.
	So this president of Heritage was there in Davos, he said, to participate in a roundtable discussion that was titled, What to Expect from a Possible Republican Administration.
	In other words, Trump. Roberts described what he saw as a divide between ordinary American views and elites' views on global issues such as climate change.
	Let me just say this, you know, their fear of Trump is not because he's not going to do what they want.
	It's because it's just a Game of Thrones.
	He's going to be a competing power center with him.
	But he's going to be open to doing a lot of the stuff that they want.
	He was open to doing everything that they wanted in 2020 to lock us down and the rest of it.
	And they have ways to control him.
	They need to know if he's going to be there.
	Okay, how are we going to control him?
	Who's our next Fauci?
	And so Schwab has predicted that AI is going to make elections obsolete.
	Well, aren't they already? As I said at the beginning of the program, who thinks that the elections are open and fair and honest?
	It begins by controlling who gets on the ballot.
	As I've said many times, we had Dr.
	Shiva Ayadurai come on and talk about how difficult it is for him to get on the ballot, how easy they make it for themselves.
	This is a bipartisan conspiracy to close the ballots to people.
	Now they don't want to have debates between themselves, and they don't want you debating anything on social media.
	And all that happens before they even start supposedly counting ballots or stuffing ballot boxes or messing with computers and all the rest of that stuff.
	That predates all of that.
	That's where the corruption starts.
	And if you don't have an honest ballot where people can get on...
	If you don't have the ability to debate and you shut down all debate, what does an election mean anyway?
	Even if you counted the votes honestly, you've now manipulated everybody to the extent you've propagandized them, you've censored them, you've censored the ballot, you've censored the public's debate.
	What does an election even mean with that?
	But Klaus goes a little bit farther.
	Here's what he has to say. The technology now is, and digital technologies mainly have an analytical power.
	Now we go into a predictive power, and we have seen the first examples, and your company very much involved into it.
	But then the next step could be to go into a prescriptive power.
	Which means you do not even have to have elections anymore because you can already predict what predict and afterwards you can say why do we need elections because we know what the result will be.
	Yeah, he says AI is more than capable of choosing a nation's leaders.
	Again, who do you think is choosing them now?
	He called for AI to go into prescriptive mode, as you just heard there, right?
	Which means that you do not have to have elections anymore because you can already predict.
	And afterwards you can say, why do we need elections?
	Because we know what the result will be.
	And that's precisely what the geospatial intelligence and social media was designed to do.
	To give them feedback.
	You know all this stuff that we've seen.
	He's like, why do we need to have elections?
	We already know what the result will be.
	Isn't that what we've seen for the last year with Trump and these polls?
	Mainstream and alt-stream media have been feeding you polls and telling you, it's done.
	Trump's got the nomination.
	And how much of that was predictive programming?
	And how much of that was honest reporting from the polls?
	It's not possible for us to know, but they do know.
	And so they can manipulate public opinion, and they do it all the time with push polls.
	And if they go in and say, well, you know, we know what everybody's going to vote, so we don't even have to have the election.
	Whether or not those polls are accurate or whether or not those polls are honest, they have a way, and that's what the social media was designed for, it's what the internet was designed for, as a way to feed you their information and then take that propaganda and turn it into a closed-loop system, as I've said before. You look at the evolution of their control from print media to radio to TV to internet where they can then instantly look at how their narrative is working and fine tune it.
	And they can also predict what we're going to do very easily already.
	For the longest time with geospatial intelligence and these other things that they've done on the internet, they've been feeding anticipatory intelligence as a part of that.
	They work on that a great deal with the military, with the police to anticipate what people are going to do.
	This whole pre-crime and everything, that's been their focus.
	To anticipate what people are going to do.
	And they love to say, we know what you're going to do before you do it.
	And they're playing with that with everything.
	You see that in terms of the content that they feed you, the movies that they feed you, if you subscribe to one of their streaming services, any of that stuff.
	They're always trying to predict what you're going to do.
	And that especially includes the polls.
	But they've been doing this for the last year.
	We're already done, right?
	Trump's got the nominations done.
	We don't even need to have any.
	There's not going to be any surprises, and maybe there's not going to be any surprises because their control is so pervasive.
	And so I have an email from a fan of the UK, very upset with the way that I pronounced Ursula's name, the Bond villain.
	It is Ursula von der Leyen.
	I guess I got to take the D out.
	So I'll try to remember to do that when I mock her.
	But I don't always try to get the pronunciation right when I try to mock people.
	But, you know, I don't know.
	So, yeah, propaganda, the closed-loop feedback, debates unwanted, polls not needed.
	That's where we are in elections. No doubt about it.
	They've already got really what they want.
	We just need to understand where this is headed.
	And there was an interesting discussion between Jake Sullivan...
	U.S. National Security Advisor and the World Economic Forum's President.
	Now, here we go.
	I'm going to try this foreign name here.
	Borgia Brenda, I guess.
	I don't know. I didn't listen to somebody introduce him.
	B-R-E-N-D-E. Anyway, the World Economic Forum President said, we're on our way to a new order.
	So we are between orders.
	Do you agree with that?
	What are we able to keep on the positive side from the old order to bring in the new world order?
	It's the new world order.
	I had to talk about this last time.
	And so Jake Sullivan is a little bit wiser.
	He understands exactly how all this talk about world order, new world order, and all the rest of this stuff is going to stick in the throat of Americans.
	And so he immediately pushes back on that.
	Well, I think this is a little bit more of a transition of eras.
	I'd say errors. More of a transition of orders.
	But the two are kind of cousins of one another.
	I don't think the international order, says Jake, built after 1945 is getting replaced wholesale with some new order.
	It'll obviously evolve.
	We have the capacity to shape what that looks like.
	And at the heart of it will be many of the core principles and core institutions of the existing order adapted for the challenges that we face today.
	So you see these people, whether it's Republicans or Democrats, the megalomania of the American federal government, just as Karl Rove said, we're history's actors.
	And you will analyze what we do.
	And while you continue to analyze what we do, we'll continue to act and change things and make them.
	And the same thing is essentially being said by this guy.
	And, of course, as they keep talking more and more, they're not ashamed to talk about the New World Order in the Nazi World Economic Forum.
	But, you know, in the U.S., they don't like to use that term.
	It kind of wakes people up.
	And Biden has already explicitly said, as Winepress points out, he's explicitly said the New World Order is coming, and the U.S. is going to be the ones to lead it.
	And the Republicans want to do it just as badly as the Democrats want to do it.
	But anyway, so this is going back and forth.
	In March of last year, the Trilateral Commission held an incognito meeting in India where they declared this year, 2023, is year one of this new global order.
	Well, as I said, I'll tell you one more thing before we move on to some other things here, and we'll talk about the eco side after we take a break.
	But I think what is deficient in Javier Malay's understanding is, again, it's limited to economics.
	He's very much about economics.
	And so, of course, he would be invited to the World Economic Forum.
	They used to. At the beginning, at least say that they were about markets and capitalism.
	That's the way you get started, you know.
	You get started as a globalist by saying, I'm about making America great again.
	You get started as a communist organization pushing world dominance by talking about, oh, let's have an economic forum.
	Let's see how we can make the economy better.
	Well, LifeSite News commentator here.
	He talked about it in a perspective that's a little bit deeper.
	Transhumanism. And he said, remember, we look at the soaring cost of living that's been caused by the very governments and businesses and these organizations like this.
	SWAB wishes to further empower.
	We've had our lockdown policies.
	We've had our ruinous sanctions.
	And I said from the very beginning, I said, this lockdown is a sanction.
	They're talking, I think, about the Biden sanctions, really on Europe, not so much on Russia.
	Russia was able to get around the sanctions, but it created hardships for Europe, especially the pipelines that we blew up and the economic sanctions.
	But the lockdowns themselves, in each and every country that did it, and they all did it at the same time, Just like the World Economic Forum wanted.
	All of those lockdowns were economic sanctions against us.
	And I said at the very beginning of that, I said, they're going to war with us.
	That's how wars begin, with economic sanctions.
	And so the lockdown policies, the sanctions, the popularization of the sense of a global environmental crisis, all of this resulted in measures which didn't address any of these problems, Made them arguably worse, but lowered the standard of living for everybody now and in the future.
	But the moral inversion of our mass media-based culture, writes LifeSiteNews, has created virtues out of vices in the minds of a nihilistic population of individuals who simply seek pleasure.
	Sex, self-indulgence, individual extremism without limit are the hallmarks of the banality of an unrestrained desire.
	And our economic prosperity and freedom is really what fed that stuff, you see?
	If you're pointed at the wrong thing, and many times people remind you that sin originally comes from a term of archery.
	You know, you missed the mark.
	Well, you're not going to hit the mark if you're not even aiming at it.
	If your aim is lower, and you're looking at the fruit and not the root, Freedom and prosperity.
	If you're looking at your economic systems and not looking at God and, you know, all the founders were that people want to argue about whether they were deists or they were Freemasons or whatever they said that, you know, what they had been able to accomplish was a blessing from God.
	They made that very clear.
	Well, if you think that you're doing this on your own, you've already missed the mark.
	People are now increasingly patterned socially on a screen-based simulation of reality which is feeding the mental health deterioration.
	And so, as I said before, when you look at transhumanism and you look at the transgender stuff, transgenderism is immediately about pedophilia.
	If these kids have the maturity to do this, they've got the maturity to do consensual sex and all this other kind of stuff.
	But beyond that, on the longer term...
	Transgenderism, and what Javier Malai was talking about, this fight between men and women and everything, that really is about pushing people into a virtual reality.
	And we can see that now with the furries and things.
	I saw an article, one school official or local official said, we've had it with these people, these kids showing up in school as furries and dressed up as an animal or something, the teachers trying to go along with that.
	If you're going to continue to do that, we're going to call animal control.
	Give you a dose of reality.
	It's just a fantasy world, and that's just a placeholder for putting you into a Ready Player One type of environment where you're going to just stay there all day with your headset in this virtual reality.
	And that is a very gripping thing.
	Forty years ago, I had a friend who was in the military, and he was doing tanks.
	And they would train them with these simulators.
	And even though the graphics were incredibly crude at the time, he said, you have a situation where somebody backs up and they run over a mine and they jump and explodes and they jump out of the simulator screaming.
	He said, that's how you get caught up in this thing, even if...
	The graphics are not very realistic.
	Well, they can make very realistic graphics.
	And that was done before, you know, they would get into these tanks and, you know, every port where they would be able to look out was a monitor that was feeding them something to create that illusion.
	Travis says, my solution would have been to give all the other kids paintball guns and tell them it's hunting season.
	Let the problem sort itself out.
	But you know, when you look at this, it ultimately is going into a virtual reality, and that's what this author here with LifeSite understands.
	He said, the means by which people are informed, malformed, about the nature of reality itself is making them mentally ill.
	What's more, these messages are shaped by a system of algorithms patterned in the trillions of data points gathered from almost 20 years of social media.
	In short, the agents of the state have a hand in shaping your views about yourself, your reality, your life choices, without you even knowing it.
	And we really are in a kind of a post-reality situation now.
	That's what we're headed for. You know, we used to talk about modernism.
	Modernism was where people would debate, and it really was a philosophical and religious thing where they would debate the truth of the Bible.
	It's a Bible truth. They do it. They called it higher criticism in Germany.
	And then they got to the point where they said, well, you know, truth doesn't really even matter.
	I don't even really care what. You've got a truth.
	I've got a truth. That kind of moral relativism they called post-modernism.
	But now we're in a post, they're pushing us into post-reality is what I would call it.
	He goes on to say, these formerly inalienable liberties of movement, of conscience, of expression, were suspended for a dubious global emergency.
	Trump did that. Trump did that here in America.
	This shows that our rights, far from being inviolable, are to be dismissed when their free exercise would prove inconvenient to the people who manage us.
	And so that is the heart of the issue, that these rights, therefore, are not rights at all.
	They have not been postponed, but canceled.
	This is what people don't understand.
	This is why this is all still relevant four years on.
	Let's just move on.
	Let's talk about Trump, and let's talk about his election four years ago, but let's not talk about the lockdowns and the suspension of liberties that have been recognized throughout Western civilization.
	And the protections that have been refined of those liberties throughout Western civilization.
	Let's just move on from that. And as long as you don't cancel that, if you don't cancel those powers that they've taken, they've canceled your rights.
	And he said the policies over the global health emergency, those around the controversial mRNA treatments, got a pass without mention.
	And they're still getting a pass.
	Especially by these alt-media, alt-stream media people.
	No one speaks about the free world anymore.
	As the West has arguably lost its legitimate claim to moral superiority.
	I've talked about that. I said, you know, I was growing up.
	People were saying, you know, can I do this?
	Hey, it's a free country.
	You ever hear anybody say that anymore?
	It's no longer a pluralist liberal democratic society strongly tending toward a one-dimensional ideology where we can agree or we can suffer the consequences of public dissent if we notice a growing list of basic facts and we speak it out loud.
	To be a dissident these days is to speak as a normal person on social media.
	The shocking transformation of our culture from one which was proud to defend the tolerance of opposing views to a censorious surveillance state, enthusiastically policed by unpaid, vengeful commissars, has no place in the world economic agenda.
	It is this kind of algorithm-unfriendly behavior which will likely be edited out of our futures.
	As people refer more to screen-based media than to one another for their sense of how to live, we can expect to see the machine selecting the very independence of mind and strength of character that makes for the best in all of us.
	So Schwab is arguing for a technocratic vision of humanity that is transformed by the transition to a less human future.
	We have a management problem, he said.
	Yeah, we do. The people who manage us and manage our lives are never held accountable for their disastrous decision-making.
	That's what I began the program with yesterday.
	A half hour. Of, you know, these idiots like Tim Pool and Laura Loomer, and they're doing it for their own benefit.
	They don't want to hold anyone accountable.
	That's what Luke was saying to them.
	Luke would ask, he says, can't they accept some responsibility that they did the wrong thing?
	Can they own up to this and say they did the wrong thing and we're not going to do it again?
	No, they will never do that.
	Men in power will never admit to a mistake.
	They'll make two mistakes, but they're not going to correct that first mistake.
	And, of course, it wasn't really a mistake.
	It was an agenda. Finally, he says, James Lovelock, this is the guy who came up with the term Gaia.
	Gaia is a Greek mythological goddess, Mother Earth, that type of thing.
	And the Gaia theory that James Lovelock came up with was, Mother Earth is this sentient being that just came into existence on its own.
	And it's wonderful, and all the ecosystem that is there is wonderful, except for the humans.
	The humans are a virus.
	And the human virus is going to kill Gaia.
	It's going to kill this wonderful nature that we see, and all the creatures that we see, all the flora and the fauna are going to be destroyed by this human virus.
	So we've got to get rid of this human virus.
	We've at least got to get it under control.
	And so that kind of weird pagan view was snatched up big time.
	When we were in the UK, I took the kids there in 2001, March of 2001.
	Guy theory was everywhere.
	It was in the kids' museum. It was on the cover of Science magazine that was left behind on the train that we're riding and everything.
	And it just permeated everything.
	And he's now pulled back away from this climate agenda, but people still are focused on this Gaia thing.
	He foresaw a future of human beings being replaced by cyborgs.
	And that's what Elon Musk is telling people.
	It isn't amazing.
	How the alt-stream media is selling you Elon Musk as the savior of humanity.
	It's disgusting.
	It's absolutely disgusting.
	You see it all the time. From conservative people, Babylon Bee bought into it.
	Alex explicitly states it, that, you know, Elon Musk is going to save us all.
	The World Economic Forum presents this attempt to encourage people away from face-to-face human reality and to further blend their identities with pixels and algorithms.
	They present this as a beneficial exercise in human cooperation.
	But it really is the virtual world that they want to put us into.
	As he points out, it is creation reimagined by Zuckerberg and people of his ilk.
	And it has the depressingly childish avatars to match its fake reality.
	These processes are not only sinister in their aim to refocus humanity on screen-based virtual alternatives to real life, but they're also infantile.
	And infantilizing.
	It's making you kids, okay?
	Infantilizing. Thank you.
	I had the emphasis on the wrong syllable.
	I couldn't get past it. From the point of view of technocratic management, humanity is a problem to be solved.
	And the way you solve it is to delete everything that anchors us into the real human-scale world.
	From belief in God to our customs of nations and kinship, everything which defines human nature is to be altered in a project of rationalization.
	This is a dream for the masters, but for those of us who are mastered.
	Their dreams will be the dreams of the machines.
	And that is really what we have to be concerned about.
	Okay, we're going to come back in just a moment.
	And I guess we'll go out with one of these Klaus Schwab comedy things.
	Somebody asked me who did these.
	And... This is actually done by...
	I've got it on the list here.
	Here we go. This is my list.
	Time Lies. Greatest Schwab's.
	And, of course, I have been... You'll see it here on the thing.
	At SnickLink.
	S-N-I-C-K-L-I-N-K. So, these are the people who produced it.
	They did a great job doing this.
	We'll be right back. Just a small town boy drinking.
	Genetically mortified soy.
	This ensures he doesn't procreate.
	Please stop the reading.
	Stop the reading.
	We are almost 9,000 people.
	Please stop breathing right now.
	Elvis. Ladies and gentlemen, The Beatles!
	And the sweet sounds of Motown.
	Find them on the oldies channel at APS radio.com After the break.
	You can find the link in the description.
	Thanks for watching.
	Please subscribe.
	And leave a like.
	Thanks for watching.
	Please subscribe.
	And leave a like.
	Thanks for watching.
	Please subscribe.
	And leave a like.
	Thanks for watching.
	Please subscribe.
	And leave a like.
	Thanks for watching.
	Please subscribe.
	And leave a like.
	Thanks for watching.
	Please subscribe.
	And leave a like.
	Thanks for watching.
	Please subscribe.
	And leave a like.
	Thanks for watching.
	Please subscribe.
	And leave a like.
	Thanks for watching.
	Please subscribe.
	And leave a like.
	Thanks for watching.
	Please subscribe.
	And leave a like.
	Thanks for watching.
	Please subscribe.
	And leave a like.
	Thanks for watching.
	Please subscribe.
	And leave a like.
	Thanks for watching.
	Please subscribe.
	And leave a like.
	Thanks for watching.
	Please subscribe.
	And leave a like.
	Thanks for watching.
	Please subscribe.
	And leave a like.
	Thanks for watching.
	Please subscribe.
	And leave a like.
	Thanks for watching.
	Please subscribe.
	And leave a like.
	Thanks for watching.
	Please subscribe.
	And leave a like.
	Thanks for watching.
	Please subscribe.
	And leave a like.
	Thanks for watching.
	Please subscribe.
	And leave a like.
	Thanks for watching.
	Please subscribe.
	And leave a like.
	Thanks for watching.
	Please subscribe.
	And leave a like.
	Thanks for watching.
	Please subscribe.
	And leave a like.
	Thanks for watching.
	Please subscribe.
	And leave a like.
	Thanks for watching.
	Please subscribe.
	And leave a like.
	Thanks for watching.
	Please subscribe.
	And leave a like.
	Thanks for watching.
	Please subscribe.
	And leave a like.
	Thanks for watching.
	Please subscribe.
	And leave a like.
	Thanks for watching.
	Please subscribe.
	And leave a like.
	Thanks for watching.
	Please subscribe.
	And leave a like.
	Thanks for watching.
	Please subscribe.
	sense. Common again.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	And you can walk 500 steps, but not a single step more, until the curfew activates and all but cops vent at your door.
	Yeah, yeah. What a great a set from Time Lies.
	Another Davos speaker that I want to talk about was the one who came on talking about ecocide, a new term that they're going to start kicking around.
	The idea is that she wants to tie this to something like genocide.
	So she calls it ecocide.
	And she wants the International Criminal Court...
	To prosecute what she says is a crime against humanity, what she says is a war crime.
	Well, I'd like to see them process the giant crime against humanity.
	17 million people killed with this Trump shot?
	And these people who were the little princes of the World Economic Forum and the WHO and all the rest of these people like Trump and Trudeau and Macron and Bojo and the UK, they need to be brought up for criminal charges.
	And we need to find out whose orders they were taking.
	I just have to break in here. This woman's picture, it just reminds me of every nosy little busybody in our neighborhood that we grew up in, you know?
	She has the exact expression and face.
	Yeah, that's right.
	They would call her Karen, except we don't want to use that phrase.
	We like Karen.
	But she takes this to everything that people are doing normally as well.
	And talks about being a busybody.
	Farming, fishing, energy production, all that stuff has got to be charged as Ecoside.
	By the way, she co-founded an organization in 2017, seven years ago, Stop Ecoside.
	And she's an ally of Greta Thunberg.
	What our organization and other collaborators aim to do is to have this recognized legally as a serious crime.
	Because one of the issues that pervades this discussion is that we have a culturally ingrained habit of not taking damage to nature as seriously as we take damage to people and to property.
	So we're going to take it as...
	Damaging as if you were killing massive numbers of people, which we don't take very seriously, right?
	That's just fine.
	Here's the full quote from her.
	I mean, ecocide as a word is becoming better known around the world, and the concept is generally mass damage and destruction of nature.
	But legally speaking, what our organization and other collaborators aim to do is Is to have this recognised legally as a serious crime.
	Because one of the issues that sort of pervades all of this discussion is that we have a kind of cultural, very grained habit of not taking damage to nature as seriously as we take damage to people and property.
	And that, I mean, you know, if you're campaigning for human rights, at least you know mass murder, torture, all of these things are serious crimes.
	But there's no equivalent in the environmental space.
	And unlike an international crime like genocide that involves a specific intent, with ecocide what we see is actually what people are trying to do, what businesses are trying to do, is make money, is farm, is fish, is do all of these things.
	Producing energy and so on as well.
	But what's missing is the awareness and the conscience around the side effects, around the collateral damage that happens with that.
	That's from Raul News.
	Isn't that insane? Yeah.
	Unlike international crime like genocide that involves a specific intent, you're not really trying to commit ecocide.
	What you're trying to do is to farm, to fish, to produce energy, but we're going to make that a crime.
	And we're going to make it an international crime.
	And we're going to intimidate people.
	She says, if you create a criminal category of ecocide, it would quote-unquote steer individuals and businesses and governments around the world in a healthier direction.
	What an amazing...
	What do you say to this kind of lunacy?
	These are the people who kill us for the climate, MacGuffin, just like they did for the pandemic.
	And by the way... Wes Robertson says, Charles Eisenstein on RFK Jr.'s campaign team is a Gaia-worshiping Web3 nutball.
	Well, I don't know anything about Charles, but I do know that RFK Jr.
	himself is an environment-worshiping nutball when it comes to that.
	He gave out some good information in terms of the pandemic and some vaccines, but it was limited as far as he would go.
	And when he was just focusing on the environment, he wanted to lock up anybody that disagreed with him.
	I guess they were committing ecocide.
	Give them three hots and a cot.
	Very dishonest in terms of how he later characterized that, as I said, when he was finally asked about it.
	He said, well, I was talking about the corporation.
	No, he said about the corporation, he said they should be given, if it's a fraudulent corporation, give them a death sentence.
	And I agree with that. I think J.P. Morgan, for example, ought to be shut down and the assets sold off.
	Because it's a criminal enterprise.
	Just look at its rap sheet.
	Look at its convictions. These are not charges that have been put against it, but its convictions put against it.
	So why would you let that continue with somebody like Jamie Demon at the helm?
	Just shut the thing down.
	But that's not what he was talking about, because he was talking about putting somebody in jail, giving them hot meals, giving them a cot and three hots.
	So the latest buzzword just dropped from the Devil's Den in Davos, says a Twitter user, Cat Canada.
	Farming, fishing, and making money is now called ecocide.
	So basically, if you want to live, you're committing a crime if these people get their way.
	Jeff Flynn on Twitter says, I guess ecocide doesn't include killing whales to put up windmills.
	A person responds, that's right.
	Net zero is net population growth of zero.
	That's what they were after all along.
	No more euphemisms about carbon emissions.
	They're moving on.
	And it will get more explicit and it will get more authoritarian as time goes on.
	So, as we begin this with, and you will walk 500 steps but no more, the 15-minute city guru is coming to town in the UK, into Oxford.
	And this is from Daily Skeptic, Alex Klosshofer.
	He said, with COVID over, I was hoping that Britain would begin a process of reflection and the core values of my country would reassert themselves.
	No, see, you were governed with the core values of the World Economic Forum and the UN and the WHO, and those things have not been repealed.
	And everybody else wants to move on, except when it comes to things that affect Donald Trump.
	Then we have to stay focused like a laser beam on what happened to him four years ago.
	But forget everything that happened to you.
	And forget about all your friends and family that were killed and crippled by all this stuff.
	It's their fault, as Laura Loomer said.
	You know, you've got a decision to make.
	Somebody is coercing you, saying, we're going to take away your ability to have a business, to work.
	We are going to take away your ability to get an education, to travel.
	And you were stupid enough to do that, says Laura Loomer.
	Well, that's on you if you went ahead and did that.
	I've got a lot of sympathy for people who are lied to, who are coerced.
	I don't think you blame the victims who were coerced into this and give the people who coerced them a free pass, which is what she's doing.
	What Laura Loomer is doing is essentially the same as when somebody, when you got a female jogger going through Central Park and she gets raped, you got these people saying, well, she should have known never to do that.
	They don't talk about the rapists.
	They don't talk about that. They talk, yes, her fault.
	She did it. That's what Laura Loomer is doing to the people who are coerced, who are deceived into taking the Trump shot.
	Or as he likes to call it, the Trump scene.
	That's what he wants to call it.
	Give him credit. Same dynamics and behaviors has took place under COVID. That is the creation of two groups.
	One group is good.
	The other group is bad.
	Along with the...
	Good group insulting the latter for questioning new policies.
	They're repeating themselves again in another form.
	Well, what he doesn't see, of course, is the MacGuffin.
	And although the goal, although the idol, the god that you are trying to appease or the goal that you are pursuing is going to be different, I call it a MacGuffin because they still want you to do the same things, right?
	It's still to get you to do the same types of things.
	It's still about depopulation with both of these things.
	And many other things like that.
	Limiting your movement. For all these.
	And so what he's talking about is the Hegelian nature of this.
	You know, pitting one group against the other.
	Divide and conquer. But, you know, the thesis, the antithesis, all this.
	But, you know, the MacGuffin, it's just multiple idols to achieve the same outcome.
	So he said... At its core of all this stuff is the big idea of the 15-minute city.
	He said, He's an urban planner, and he got his start, was given the ability to play around with his theories in Paris by the Marxist mayor there.
	He coined the term 15-minute city at COP21, a model for future cities which has since been enthusiastically embraced by bodies such as the UN and has become the focus of numerous websites.
	So think about this. This isn't that long ago.
	You know, COP21. So this new term is catching on like wildfire.
	The idea behind the event is clearly to gain support for an experimental scheme that was approved by Oxford County Council November 2022.
	And... The cabinet member there explained to the Sunday Times that the idea was to turn Oxford into a 15-minute city.
	So then in autumn of 2024, as we've talked about many times here, six traffic filters will effectively divide the center of Oxford into 15-minute zones.
	They've already started dividing it.
	And they've got cameras and they've got, you know, obstacles that they put in different places, you know, trying to get people to do these loop types.
	This is all aspects of the 15-minute city.
	You know, you can go from within your little area, or I think maybe adjacent areas or something like that, and you can get out of those little areas only a certain number of times.
	That's the whole theory behind the 15-minute city, and they're implementing all this stuff in Oxford.
	They're pleased to be one of the test sites where they turn their citizens into lab rats to try to navigate this maze of obstacles, prohibitions, and rules to be able to live.
	The city will be monitored by cameras, and any journey taken without permits will result Fines.
	Unsurprisingly, the scheme, along with Oxford's low-traffic neighborhoods, has generated a great deal of controversy.
	Yeah, a great deal of controversy, to put it mildly.
	So yeah, you will not go more than 500 steps.
	We're going to take a quick break and we'll be right back.
	New world order in music.
	One, two, three, four, five.
	All the unvaccinated are still alive.
	A little bit of Pfizer in my arm.
	A little bit of BioNTech does no harm.
	A little Johnson& Johnson does the trick.
	A little Espezenica so you don't get sick.
	It's booster number five.
	APS Radio delivers multiple channels of music right to your mobile device.
	Get the APS Radio app today and listen wherever you go.
	Listening to The David Knight Show.
	you Well, we were talking about Javier Malay earlier, and I mentioned this briefly, but didn't talk a great deal about the fact that one of the things that he's already started doing, he already had some of the bureaucracies that he was going to shut down.
	Unfortunately, a lot of times when they do that, they just take the people and the policies and they put them over into other ones.
	So it remains to be seen whether that's really going to be anything other than musical chairs and window dressing, or if it really will be a reduction in the size of government.
	We'll see what happens with that.
	But something else that he's done, he's been focused a lot, of course, on the Argentine dollar.
	That's got 150% inflation.
	And one of the things that he's doing that's very interesting is that he's going to allow the provinces to circulate their own currencies.
	And again, this is one of the reasons why so many people are trying to focus on state banks and gold depositories.
	And just yesterday, we had another state that jumped into that to try to have a backup to that.
	Because if the central banks and the central control by the government of the currency is failing, and it is everywhere to a large degree, then you've got to have some kind of a backup.
	And as I pointed out, even during the Depression, you had some people that would coin wooden coins in communities and use those as kind of a community coin, or set up barter exchanges and that type of thing.
	So President Malai promised not to oppose any provinces' attempts to launch their own currencies after a public exchange between him and the governor of another province.
	On January the 14th, during an interview, he confirmed that he would not legally oppose the creation of local currencies by provincial authorities in Argentina.
	He believes the market will ultimately decide.
	He said those who receive payments in quasi-currencies from irresponsible governors will clearly see a loss of their income.
	What is not taken from them through budgetary adjustment will be taken from them via inflation in the quasi-currency.
	Meanwhile, in Rosario, Argentina's third most populated city, a local landlord and a tenant sealed an agreement for the rent to be paid in Bitcoin.
	The contract is the first of its kind in Argentina, made possible by recent law, with amendments by the new presidential administration.
	So we're going to have to have some way to exchange goods and services.
	And the question is, as we look at what is happening in Argentina, I think it's going to be very interesting to see them as a laboratory trying to do these different things.
	He wants to shut down the Argentine Central Bank.
	That was his campaign promise.
	And as a temporary measure, as a temporary measure, Tie it to the U.S. dollar.
	He said all the central banks are awful.
	He goes, but ours is the worst of all of them.
	So it's not like he's naive enough to think that the Federal Reserve is a good central bank.
	He's just looking at this as a transitional step.
	This article from Gold Switzerland, the gold wagon, catch it or lose your fortune.
	Says Von Greerz is the writer for this.
	With the U.S. shooting itself in the foot again, we're now certain that this is the final farewell to the bankrupt dollar-based monetary system.
	He said, I decided 25 years ago the destiny of the world economy and the financial system necessitated the best form of wealth preservation that money could buy.
	He said, the total mismanagement of the U.S. financial system has led to the dollar losing 98% of its value since Nixon closed the gold window in 1971.
	Most other currencies have followed the dollar down at varying speeds, but now comes the really exciting phase, the race to the bottom.
	Because we're going to live in interesting times, as they say.
	He said we've only got 2% left for the dollar-based currency system to go to zero.
	But as Voltaire said in 1728, paper money always returns to its intrinsic value of zero.
	But he said, think about the fact that for it to go this final 2%, it's got to lose 100% from where it is today.
	He says, I know skeptics will say this is not possible, but these skeptics don't know their history.
	Since fiat currency's records are perfect, no one must believe that because we live today, it's different than it has been over the last 5,000 years.
	And we've got a faultless record of success, or should we call it failure, of currencies always going to zero.
	Question is, of course, with any kind of economic investment, the timing.
	He says, owning gold will not solve all of our problems, but it will at least give us a very important nest egg and also protection against the coming financial debacle that is going to hit the world.
	And it's something that is coming soon.
	Not by accident, not by mismanagement, but by design.
	France is melting down millions of coins.
	Isn't that interesting? And this, again, is because of this increasingly authoritarian EU demanding to control every minute detail.
	They have to remelt 27 million coins after they've failed to get approval for their design.
	From the European Commission.
	So I guess that was part of the mandate of Ursula.
	Ursula von der Leyen, I guess.
	Lion. It should be Lion, I guess.
	The executive body rejected the new money after it had already been minted.
	The 10, 20, and 50-cent coins were produced with a new design in November.
	However, the bloc's legislative arm decided that the way the stars...
	So, I mean, is this just kind of an obsessive-compulsive disorder?
	Are these people perfectionists, these totalitarian bureaucrats?
	Or maybe they just don't want any coins made.
	I mean, I was surprised to see that France was minting any coins still.
	Everything must be controlled and be compatible with the Euro.
	The reversal has reportedly saddled the facility with costs of up to $1.6 million to melt and to re-mint the coins.
	So again, what surprised me about all that was that we'd even allow coins, because coins?
	Something that you can hold in your hand.
	Physically holding your hand and completely anonymous from them.
	They don't like that. They want to know everything everybody's doing and be able to control preemptively everything that everybody is doing everywhere.
	That's one of the reasons why we'll fight this.
	We're going to be coming up. We're going to be talking about the New Deal's war on the Bill of Rights.
	And of course, a big part of that is taking your money.
	And doing other things with it.
	They may try to take our coins and melt them down, but again, that is, when the government does something like that, I think it's going to get some pushback this time.
	But if you want to get some coins, probably they don't like because they don't approve of you having any kind of cash, especially cash that has an intrinsic value.
	It's not a fiat currency. DavidNight.Gold will take you to Tony Ardobin and his Wise Wolf Gold, and there you can buy gold and silver, and you can even do it.
	He'll work with you any size purchase.
	He'll... Catch it at the price that it's at right now.
	You know, we go to the big retailers that are bragging about that because there is a lot of consumer demand.
	Everybody's very concerned about what is going to happen to the financial system.
	So people are going to some of the big retailers, but when they're out, they're out.
	Now, Tony can lock the price in for you and get that at that price, and he can also help you to accumulate it on a gradual basis.
	He set up a monthly purchasing program there.
	So any amount, small or large, Tony can handle there at Wise Wolf Gold, and you can find it with davidknight.gold.
	We will be right back.
	Whether you're feeling like the blues...
	Or bluegrass.
	APS Radio has you covered.
	Check out a wide variety of channels on our app at APSradio.com.
	You might want to hear it in your pod.
	You know nothing.
	And be happy.
	Ain't got no cash, ain't got no car, but 24 booster shots in your arm.
	Oh, nothing. Be happy.
	You can't even buy shit in the store because of your low social credit score.
	Oh, nothing.
	Be happy.
	You owe nothing.
	Woo!
	And be happy.
	Be happy and eat some bugs.
	Yeah, be happy. Just eat the bucks.
	I'm a rock fan, Angry Tiger.
	Good to see you there, Angry Tiger. Of course, Angry Tiger, along with Jason Barker, they do Knights of the Storm.
	Angry Tiger has the Tiger and Snake economic report.
	He says, farming and fishing done correctly are good for the environment.
	People have farms and outdoorsmen want to conserve the environment responsibly.
	That's right. Some of the best stewards of that.
	It's kind of like when you go back and look at...
	At rodeos. You know, when we lived in Texas right after we got married, we really enjoyed the rodeos that were there.
	And there was a little small town rodeo outside of Houston where we lived.
	And in Symington.
	And it was an indoor rodeo.
	And it was always a lot of fun.
	And we would go there frequently on every Saturday.
	And they had amateur cowboys, which makes the rodeo a lot more interesting.
	And you would see the same animals week after week.
	And they had some of the same characteristics.
	They had one that they called April showers that when they let this one out of the pin, its bladder would always cut loose.
	And if you saw this happening and you weren't in the first row, you would not come back.
	But when you saw that happen, you would not want to sit in the front row.
	And everybody knew that.
	And they had a foreign delegation that came in from the Chinese government to see the rodeo.
	And the announcer welcomed them and pointed out that they were sitting in the front row.
	And then they let out April showers.
	And anyway, I always enjoyed the rodeo.
	And like I said, it was the same animals week after week.
	They had a hard money event.
	We tried to take a bag from around the neck of this Brahma bull that was very aggressive.
	And if you were successful in that, you would win the kitty.
	And everybody, in order to enter the event, they'd have to pony up some money that would go into the kitty, and then you would share it.
	Except that it accumulated week after week after week after week, because people couldn't get that off.
	And that was always the same one as well.
	It was a white Brahma bull they called cocaine.
	But... We would see these same animals all the time, and they would have to take care of these animals because that's their business.
	No more than if you had a taxi company that you would abuse your taxi.
	Because then you're not going to be in business anymore.
	So they would take very good care of these animals.
	And then we went to North Carolina and we saw, oh, a rodeo was coming down.
	Let's go see the rodeo. We went there and it was all these animal rights people demanding that the rodeo be stopped.
	And that's exactly what Angry Tiger is talking about.
	People who do this are good stewards of the environment.
	And that's the difference between stewardship and And a radical environmentalism that is born out of a pagan religious worldview that these people have.
	It also makes me wonder if they've ever seen a rodeo.
	It's generally not the bull that's in danger.
	That's right. That's right.
	It was especially the amateur rodeos.
	The bulls were doing just fine.
	The horses were doing just fine.
	It was the cowboys that were taking a beating.
	And in those days, they didn't wear any vests.
	They didn't wear any helmets, any of that kind of stuff.
	And we saw some people get seriously injured.
	It's like having Hulk Hogan wrestling a three-year-old and then worry about Hulk Hogan.
	Calling it child abuse, yeah.
	But, uh... Yeah, they don't care about the child abuse.
	They care about Hulk Hogan.
	Let's talk in a little bit of time we've got before our guest joins us here.
	The depopulation agenda, of course, and today is the March for Life, but you've got in Australia, as well as in Canada, they're pushing euthanasia very hard.
	And in Australia, the people who are shepherding this voluntary assisted dying bill through We're actually trying to open it up to children under the age of 18.
	And of course, this is exactly what we've been seeing with the transgender stuff.
	You know, pushing the idea that children have rights and that they can make responsible decisions, which we all know is not true.
	And this is why they've been treated differently in the past, why God gave them parents and created the family to nurture children, because they're different.
	They can't make these kinds of decisions.
	They don't have the experience with maturity.
	They don't even have the ability to think critically that they will later in life.
	But this is the fruit of this...
	Transhumanist, transgender stuff, pushing them towards transgenderism, transhumanism.
	This is the fruit of all that, the idea that children have rights.
	And if they've got rights, well, they've got a right to be killed.
	The ACT Commission critiques that the bill does not make this form of suicide available to minors under the age of 18.
	And you've got to do that because you've got to have due consideration for the rights of children.
	Children do not have rights.
	Adults have rights.
	Children have parents.
	And we need to focus on parental rights.
	And this has been where this thing has been headed for a very, very long time, for over 15 years.
	I've been pushing this thing maybe longer than that now.
	Anyway, the minor meets all the requirements of the bill, and if they can demonstrate maturity, Demonstrate maturity.
	Do you have to demonstrate maturity in kindergarten to decide that you're a different gender now?
	No. No.
	They're having their way with the kids.
	They said that we understand this is fraught with ethical issues, to say the least.
	And they want this committee to consider making these changes when the bill has been in place for three years.
	Because, you know, they've got to do this gradually.
	As Fauci said, you know, you do it from the inside, you do it with disruption, and you do it iteratively.
	So let's get people used to the idea of government-assisted murder, and then we will extend this to the kids gradually over the next three years.
	All this has been requested under the guise of human rights and the catchphrase, death with dignity, allowing children to request legal suicide and It's a dangerous proposition when it's known that decision-making skills are not fully developed in humans until they're early 20s.
	Minors may also be more easily influenced, of course, by caregivers and parental decisions, friend groups and social media, all of which make voluntary assisted suicide appear to be the best solution for their pain.
	These efforts to broaden the scope of assisted deaths are likely to follow in Canada's footsteps.
	So this is what's happening to the English-speaking world now.
	Not only are we getting rid of individual rights, but we are, because of this depopulation, anti-human agenda, they want to focus on children.
	And they want to harm children.
	They want to mutilate them. They want to kill them.
	If they can't kill them in the womb, they can help them to have government-assisted death.
	And this, in British Columbia, they want to quietly authorize free fentanyl for kids without parental notification or concern.
	Again, children's rights.
	All of these different things are being done in the name of that.
	And isn't it interesting how...
	This contradicts the whole basis of abortion, right?
	Abortion, we don't really care about the kid at all.
	It's what the mother wants.
	And then after the child is born, we don't care what the mother wants.
	We're going to do what we want to do to the kid.
	But the only way to understand that kind of lying hypocrisy is to understand what their true agenda is, and that is depopulation and harming children.
	British Columbia has apparently authorized distribution of free fentanyl to children without parental consent, perhaps even without their knowledge.
	The influential research organization told National Post that their protocols for the prescription of safe fentanyl tablets to children were to, quote, further support clinicians prescribing safer supply across the province.
	According to the protocols, the only special requirement for children to obtain fentanyl is the use of a, quote, two-prescriber approval system.
	This means one doctor will run the initial patient interview while a different doctor will review the child's charts before signing off on the drug prescription.
	You've got to have two opinions, in other words.
	Big deal.
	Especially considering the low ethical bar of the hospitals as we've seen in the last four years.
	In addition to having low requirements for children to obtain the drugs, it fails to list a minimum age for receiving recreational fentanyl.
	Furthermore, the protocols completely neglect to mention the rights and the roles of parents.
	According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, fentanyl is 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine, which is a highly addictive drug as well.
	Because of its potency, the drug is often mixed with other less powerful drugs, which can easily lead to an overdose.
	Additionally, fentanyl users will need to increase their dose as the brain adapts to the drug to receive the same results.
	And just like we saw with the opioid epidemic, how many times do people go in, they need something for pain, and they're not looking even to have recreational use of drugs.
	They're not looking to get high.
	And yet they still get addicted to these things by their doctors.
	As a matter of fact, Chris Christie, when he was running in 2016, used that as an argument for the drug war and for banning marijuana.
	You know, it was a lawyer that he knew that was very successful, lost his practice, lost his family, and committed suicide because he injured his back and they got him hooked on opioids.
	But now they want to do fentanyl to kids in Canada.
	Since the release of the National Post-Expose, Canadians have voiced their disbelief and their dismay over this.
	As one of them said on Twitter, now in British Columbia, the National Hospital System, supported by Trudeau, has approved the handing out, at taxpayer expense, actual fentanyl, including to minors under the age of 18.
	Now, that's pretty consistent with Trudeau.
	And then in Finland, I've not really talked about this, but I've talked about it in the past in our previous trials.
	This is a senior Finnish politician who has already had two trials.
	Because several years ago, she had between 2004, 20 years ago, and 2019, she had on several occasions on social media discussed the Bible because she's a Christian.
	And because at her church they were going to have some kind of an event or something that was going to honor homosexual marriage, and she disagreed with that based on her religious beliefs.
	And for that quote-unquote crime, that thought crime, that religious crime, this Finnish public prosecutor has taken her now for the third time, took her to a lower court, and she was found not guilty, appealed it, and at another trial found the same thing.
	As a matter of fact, that court said it is not our business to To make determinations about what the Bible says or what Christianity believes.
	And so it appeared to be that might be the end of it, the appeals court, but no, not with this particular prosecutor.
	He's going to take her all the way up to the highest court.
	So now this will be the third time that it happens.
	And it's all about hate speech.
	This is one of the reasons why I say, you know, hate speech is such a vile construct of persecution.
	And to persecute both speech and religious views.
	And so, as they pointed out, the people who were defending her, Alliance Defending Freedom International said, we think that she's going to win in this.
	But they said, the reality of these hate speech trials is that the process itself has become the punishment.
	And so that's really what they're looking at.
	She said, I know that it is going to be, you know, an ordeal, but she's going to do it because this would establish such a dangerous precedent, not only for Finland, but for all of the European Union, if this guy were to get his way.
	The Inquisitor is not necessarily a persecutor, but he is an inquisitor.
	Okay, we have our guest ready, and I'm very anxious to talk to him about his book, The New Deal's War on the Bill of Rights, the untold story of FDR's concentration camps, censorship, and mass surveillance.
	Yeah, he kind of set the ground rules for what we're starting to see getting good and hard right now.
	And, of course, if we don't understand the principles involved here, it's going to be much worse with the new technology.
	So we'll take a quick break and we'll be right back.
	Thanks for joining us.
	This is a production of the U.S. Embassy in the Philippines.
	Analyzing the Globalist's next move.
	Thank you for watching.
	And now, The David Nutt Show.
	The seed in our homeland, boys Let it grow where all can see Feed it with our devotion, boys Call it the Liberty Tree It's a tall old tree And a strong old tree And we are the sons, yes we are the sons The sons of liberty Liberty.
	It's your move.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Interested in a curated list of the finest classical music?
	Find it now at APSradio.com.
	All right, joining us now is David Beto.
	He's an emeritus professor of history at the University of Alabama.
	Right now, he is a senior fellow at the Independent Institute, an excellent organization, and we're going to talk to him about freedom issues.
	The book that he has here, published by the Independent Institute, is The New Deal's War on the Bill of Rights.
	The Untold Story of FDR's Concentration Camps, Censorship, and Mass Surveillance.
	Thank you for joining us, David.
	Thank you. This is something that I think everybody's going to find very interesting because we know so much about FDR and what he did with the war.
	People talk about Pearl Harbor.
	They talk about the economic takeover.
	But this civil liberties aspect is something that's not usually talked about much.
	Yeah, it isn't talked about, and I'm interested in those issues, certainly.
	But I said to myself, why don't I just zero in on this?
	And the more I found, the more I found there was a story here that really has not been told, or it's only been lightly told, about FDR's attitudes toward the Bill of Rights, towards the protections of the First Amendment, toward privacy, and And so forth.
	And FDR's record is atrocious.
	I would say worse than Woodrow Wilson, and that's saying a lot.
	It really was. And of course, it was a major change, and so many things were restructured.
	You know, when we look at him, he really did rule as a tyrant.
	And we've always had this kind of construct that...
	Well, you know, liberals are for civil liberties, and Republicans and conservatives are for economic liberties.
	You know, they're good on those two things.
	And actually, they're not. The liberals are not good on civil liberties at all, are they?
	And FDR is proof of that, isn't he?
	He's proof of that, although one of the more encouraging things that I found in this book is there was pushback against FDR coming from a lot of people on the left.
	Not only conservatives, but people like Norman Thomas, a great defender of civil libertarianism, who was a socialist.
	There were new dealers in the Justice Department that really pushed back against a lot of things that he did, including Japanese internment.
	So in contrast to Woodrow Wilson, FDR is getting a lot of pushback from people, from subordinates, from New Dealers, from conservatives, some socialists.
	And that is, for me, an encouraging lesson for today, that maybe there is potential for people on the left and the right to get together to defend civil liberties.
	Because if they don't, then they're more isolated.
	Yeah, let's begin with the concentration camps, because that is the one aspect of the civil liberties stuff that people are somewhat familiar with.
	But break that down for us, exactly what was done to the Japanese-Americans, and when this all began as the war was rolling out?
	When did the concentration camps begin?
	Well, the standard view of FDR you're going to get in textbooks is, well, Japanese internment is a bad thing, and he shouldn't have done that.
	But they often portray him as distracted, as if it's really, this was done by subordinates.
	He went along with it.
	There was hysteria.
	I see that with Trump all the time about the lockdowns.
	Yeah, he was distracted.
	He was playing 40 chess or he didn't know what was happening or whatever.
	But yeah, that's always what the apologies are.
	Yeah, FDR, the great leader, right?
	The guy that's always on top of things is somehow clueless and distracted.
	That was not convincing in me.
	And the more I looked into it is that FDR is a leader on this.
	He's very much proactive.
	In the 1920s, his attitudes towards the Japanese were very clear.
	He said, California has a right to deny Japanese immigrants the right to own land, for example.
	We can never have racial mixing with them.
	It just isn't going to work.
	In the late 30s, he said that if there is a war with Japan, we need to put any Japanese American who had met with Japanese sailors or their family members, we need to put them in his words.
	He uses the term concentration camp.
	There's a debate, are these concentration camps?
	Well, I think they are.
	They're not death camps.
	I don't think they're the same as the Nazi death camps.
	But FDR called them concentration camps, and I think that's what they are.
	So he was prepared for this.
	He was already talking about it.
	But he's very smart.
	FDR has deniability.
	He's very charming. He would not talk about this in public.
	But he lets it happen, right?
	After Pearl Harbor, it took two months for him to issue his executive order.
	And he's sort of subtly opening the door to people from below to say, all right, you want to put them in concentration camps?
	Well, we'll consider that.
	And then he signs off on it.
	But the initial attitude of Americans after the attack on Pearl Harbor and the press is not one of, gee, we should put the Japanese Americans in concentration camps.
	That takes time to happen, and FDR lets that hysteria develop and signs off on it.
	So he is proactive in this.
	He's not clueless. He's a very well-informed man.
	He knows about the issues.
	He knows what's going on.
	And there are a lot of top people that are telling him, you don't have to do this, including his own attorney general.
	Nick Francis Biddle.
	And Biddle is very much against this.
	He ends up going along with it, but he tells him, Mr.
	President, we don't have to do this.
	There isn't this demand for it.
	J. Edgar Hoover is against it.
	Secretary of the Interior.
	A lot of top people in the Justice Department are telling him, don't do it, and he doesn't.
	Yeah. And, of course, it served a very useful purpose for him if he could, you know, always to create the enemy, especially an enemy amongst us.
	That heightens the fear and people running to the leader for help.
	And very easy to do that when you've got people who don't look like you.
	You know, they couldn't do that with the Germans so easily and people of German descent.
	But I mentioned they might have squeezed some of that stuff in there in more subtle ways.
	But that was really kind of a PR thing.
	He did it with an executive order.
	So what is the presumed authority that he might have claimed to be able to do something like that, to arrest people just because they're Japanese?
	Well, you look at his executive order, and I used to have students read it, but they couldn't figure it out.
	And I realized when I looked at it, I couldn't figure it out because it uses terms like persons whose removal is, who must be removed.
	It never uses the term, it's like the Constitution, never uses the term, Constitution never mentions the word slavery.
	FDR's executive order never mentions Japanese Americans.
	He said, basically, it's a military argument, right?
	He sort of says, well, the military, you know, this has been deemed necessary for national defense.
	So we have to remove these people from these areas, namely the whole West Coast.
	And then what we'll do, you know, the initial order says we'll remove them.
	Then it says, well, then they have to go to these assembly centers and so forth.
	So they're told, essentially, they can't live where they are.
	And they have nowhere else to go, and we will create these camps for them.
	But he never uses the term Japanese or Japanese Americans.
	That comes later in the enforcement orders, which are signed by the military.
	And that's why he's able to ship blame to them.
	And it's all people of Japanese ancestry.
	I didn't do it. That includes people in orphanages.
	So they actually say, well, they got to go to the camp.
	Yeah, yeah. Yeah, but I didn't do it.
	It was the Democrat governors who did it, or it was the military who did it.
	And so I guess it was the, if you were a Japanese American, you're minding your own business, and then you get a knock on the door and it's a bunch of uniformed soldiers.
	Was it the military that was going out and rounding people up and taking them in?
	Yeah, what they do is it's publicized, right?
	So they'll go to the neighborhood, they'll put posters everywhere, and say, report to this assembly center on June 8th, right?
	You go there, and they take you to camps.
	And you got a family dog you love?
	Well, too bad. You know, you can't take that dog with you.
	You better figure out what to do.
	You got some property?
	Well, you better sell it.
	And of course, there's a lot of bargain prizes.
	So they're only able to take the bare essentials with them.
	Wow. It's really quite cruel.
	And the cruelty of this is part of the story.
	FDR keeps them in the camps until late, well, 1945 basically.
	Keeps them through the 1944 election.
	Even though by 1943 the U.S. is winning the war, Again, the advice he's getting is even more overwhelming from top people in the government.
	You can let them go now.
	But he says, well, there's that California.
	You know, I want to carry California.
	And so he keeps him there.
	And so there's a cruelty there, a cold-blooded aspect to him that people haven't picked up on.
	So they kept them interred until the papers were signed, essentially, with Japan, I guess?
	No, it was clear that the Supreme Court was going to rule on, and they did this in, I think it was December 1944.
	So, he knew that the court sustained it, but he also knew that it was going to be ruled on.
	So, to deflate that, basically they announced, you know, well, we're going to let him go.
	We're going to wind down the camps by the end of 1944.
	And that's what they did.
	So, it was kind of a farcical argument.
	But they knew basically at that point the election is over and they decided at that point to do it.
	And they knew the courts were going to start ruling on it.
	That's amazing.
	And of course, as we were talking off air, you pointed out that there was also some actions that he took against a black GOP member.
	Tell us a little bit about that. Oh, yeah, that's one of the more interesting chapters of the book for me.
	Someone told me about this, and I said, well, this is interesting, but how does it figure into the broader story?
	And I looked into it, and it fits in just perfectly.
	Now, there was this guy named J.B. Martin.
	He was the head of the National Negro Baseball League.
	He owned a drugstore.
	He's African American in Memphis, and it was kind of a showcase drugstore.
	A lot of people went to it.
	He was a pretty wealthy guy.
	Well, he was a Republican, and he was the head of the Shelby County Republican Party, the Memphis Republican Party.
	And they had a weird deal with the local mayor there.
	Well, he wasn't mayor. He was mayor briefly, but he was the city boss, Boss Crump.
	And Crump had a deal with the black Republicans who said, you guys can vote.
	However, when I need you for particular things, you know, you're going to serve me.
	And they were in charge of vice and that kind of thing, right?
	So he sort of uses them as a tool.
	Well, by the late 30s, Crump no longer needs them as much because he's become very close to FDR. He's getting a lot of New Deal money.
	But Martin doesn't know that, you know, maybe he shouldn't push it.
	So in 1940, Martin wants to carry the state for the Republicans, for Wendell Willkie.
	And he organizes a quite massive interracial rally.
	So there are white Republicans in Tennessee.
	They tend to be from the mountain areas, and they have this alliance with these black Republicans.
	And he has this rally against over 1,000 people.
	Boss Crump is upset and he says, you don't do any more of those rallies or I'm going to police you.
	And Martin says, well, I'm sorry, I'm going to do it.
	And he did it. And what does that mean, policing?
	Well, Boss Crump sent in police to search every customer, white or black, coming in or leaving the drugstore.
	Wow. However, he comes back two years later to go to a baseball game in a stadium.
	He helped to build.
	The police come to his box at the stadium and tell him, basically, put him in a holding cell, and then he's told he better get out of the city.
	Wow. All right? Now, okay, so Martin and others go to the federal government and complain.
	And what happens is that the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, the guy there just says, this is really a slam dunk case against Crump here.
	This is like reporting in the newspapers and, you know, it's like a big deal, right?
	That he's doing this. Even the local Memphis paper is saying this is going too far.
	And he's ready to prosecute, deposes Martin and so forth.
	But it goes to higher ups and it's vetoed.
	And A. Philip Randolph, the labor leader, who's very strong on civil liberties, comes to the aid of Martin and goes to Eleanor Roosevelt.
	And she sends a very brief note saying, you know, I've been told we just don't...
	We're not supposed to look into this.
	This isn't a good idea.
	And nothing happens.
	Nothing happens.
	And again, Crump is very close to Roosevelt, to both Roosevelts.
	He had supported Franklin since 1931.
	He had played a key role in getting him in the nomination.
	He gets a lot of federal money.
	He's an important figure in 1944 to get Truman in.
	Mm-hmm. And so forth.
	So, Roosevelt is this alliance with big city bosses like Trump, and they can do whatever they want, suppress the vote, and he's not going to do anything.
	And that's exactly what happens in this particular case.
	Wow. Wow. And, of course, you know, many people have tried to point out the history of the Democrat Party.
	Vis-a-vis the black community.
	And it was still happening at that point in time.
	And then very quickly, they just kind of reversed themselves.
	It's kind of interesting. It's kind of like seeing the guy who started Southern Poverty Law Center, Morris Deese, and how he went from defending the Ku Klux Klan to takes a powder, works on building a business that is direct mail, and then comes back in as an anti-Klansman, even though the only thing he did in the Civil Rights was to defend the Ku Klux Klan.
	It is interesting to see how the Democrats very rapidly did a complete U-turn on all this stuff and made that their issue, isn't it?
	Yeah, and Roosevelt really, you know, I mean, I don't talk about anti-lynching, but there's an anti-lynching bill, and it's filibustered and stopped by the Democrats.
	Previous presidents, Coolidge and Harding, had supported the bill.
	Roosevelt does not support the bill, and it is...
	He doesn't do anything for civil rights, basically.
	But a lot of money is spent.
	And a lot of relief money.
	And he's able to use that effectively with not only African Americans, but whites.
	Throwing that money around in a big way.
	It's very important. There's stories that people at the WPA would get the phone and they'd forget themselves and they'd say, Democratic headquarters, right?
	So it was intermixed, intermingled, the relief money and the political machines.
	And these local political machines, FDR is perfectly willing to use them, but creates its own machine in a sense.
	Mm-hmm. Let's talk a little bit, you know, you mentioned Woodrow Wilson, another very dangerous president.
	I call him a president, but he's also a president.
	A lot of presidents that he set.
	When we talk about censorship, that's one of the other aspects of your book here.
	With Woodrow Wilson, I frequently talk about the Supreme Court case where he threw a guy in jail for a movie that he did.
	And I talk about in terms of, you know, hey, the Supreme Court reverses itself frequently.
	You know, when everybody says this is such and such as the law of the land, they're always reversing themselves and making wrong decisions.
	Sometimes they do it pretty quickly.
	Sometimes it takes decades.
	But they locked this guy away because he did a movie called The Spirit of 76, which the British is a bad guy.
	And the Supreme Court upheld that.
	He got a jail sentence and a pretty stiff fine because Woodrow Wilson wanted to portray the British as our allies.
	What was the kind of things that FDR was doing in terms of censorship?
	Well, FDR, of course, had experience during the Woodrow Wilson administration.
	He was assistant secretary of the Navy.
	And his attitude was, if anything, more anti-civil libertarian than other people in that administration.
	One guy, for example, did an article.
	He said, well, why isn't, kind of implied, satirical, why isn't FDR in uniform?
	Assistant secretary of the Navy is in his 30s.
	Why isn't this guy in the Navy himself?
	And FDR was so mad that he went to the federal prosecutor and said, why don't you prosecute this guy?
	And the prosecutor said, well, we really don't have a case.
	And FDR said, he should be in the penitentiary.
	That was his attitude.
	So he comes in with this kind of attitude.
	And FDR is... View is social good, right?
	We need social justice.
	The ends are the important thing, and let's not worry about the means.
	All right, well, censorship.
	There was a senator named, this is one of the cases where there was pushback.
	There was a senator named Sherman Mitten.
	There's a bridge in Indiana named after him.
	When I look him up, that's the main thing that comes up.
	But Mitten was head of a committee in the Senate that was investigating anti-New Deal organizations.
	And he was getting a lot of pushback from these people.
	So Mitten got very frustrated and proposed a bill that would have made it a felony to publish any newspaper article known to be untrue. Again, the president and the new dealers are very worried about misinformation. They're very worried about fake news. In fact, I think they even use that expression. Now, the question is who put Mitten up to it?
	And I don't have slam-dunk evidence, but people at the time said Mitten was not the kind of guy to do this kind of thing on his own.
	So I think if FDR was floating a trial balloon, that's my opinion.
	But what happened was there was universal opposition to this bill coming from the left and the right.
	And Mitten had to pull it.
	These leading New Deal newspaper publishers said, you can't do this.
	This is going too far.
	And he had to pull it.
	Now... More direct FDR involvement was with Minton's predecessor, Senator Hugo Black, who was an attack dog for the New Deal in the Senate.
	Black had a committee, was having a similar problem.
	He was investigating anti-New Dealers.
	They were not being very cooperative.
	They were getting some public sympathy.
	So Black comes up with the idea, or someone does, what if I could get access to their private telegrams?
	Mm-hmm.
	And so he went to the telegraph companies, Western Union, and says, I want to get all telegrams sent, for example, by every member of the Congress over a nine-month period, to and from going through Washington.
	I want all those.
	And, you know, Western Union says, well, we don't want to, we're not going to do this.
	You know, customers aren't going to like this.
	And so he goes to the Roosevelt administration and the FCC, working in tandem, and they basically instruct Western Union to do this.
	And they don't want to do it, but they agree.
	So black staffers and Western Union people go, I mean, and FCC people go into Western Union one day and said, okay, give us, you know, these telegrams, right?
	They went down the list who's in Congress and so forth.
	And they would bring out these big stacks because the law required Western Union to keep copies of all telegrams, right?
	So they had to keep copies of all of them.
	So they go through these copies.
	They go through several thousand today and it adds up.
	To over 3 million that they go through.
	Wow. And the instruction comes from Black staffers as well.
	If you see things of a personal nature, don't worry about that.
	Don't look at that. Look at anything having to do with lobbying.
	And what is lobbying?
	Any attempt to indirectly or directly influence lobbying.
	I don't know, political policy.
	So what we're doing to be lobbying, right?
	Yeah. So anything like that.
	It's about as broad as you can get.
	And they go through these.
	And eventually, it comes out.
	Because Western Union starts to inform people that this is going on.
	One of the people they inform is Senator Newton Baker, who'd been Secretary of War under Wilson.
	Baker's kind of a moderate, you know, New Dealer, kind of quasi-New Dealer, you know, kind of just this mild-mannered guy.
	He is so outraged by this that he finds out his telegrams have been searched that he says, look, if somebody saw somebody lynching Senator Hugo Black I would not join the lynching, but I would not stop them from putting the noose around his neck.
	And this is a mild-mannered guy.
	Anyway, this is a long story, and there's a lot of pushback.
	There are courtsuits that are successful against this, but Black is able to get all this...
	Booty, and then he gets on the Supreme Court, because Roosevelt is very appreciative.
	This is the main reason that Roosevelt puts Black on the court.
	He's very appreciative of this.
	So anyway, that's the story of that.
	But it is condemned, though.
	Again, this is another thing.
	You get people like Walter Littman.
	Someone who's a liberal. You get a lot of Washington Post.
	You get a lot of people in the press who are normally supportive of Roosevelt saying, this is going too far, and there's pushback against it.
	That's interesting. Human nature doesn't change, especially the human nature of politicians.
	It's just that they've got better tools today.
	All this stuff that you're talking about.
	Well, we're going to look for misinformation.
	We're going to see if we can find something on anybody.
	It reminds me very much of what Truman said eventually about J. Edgar Hoover, how he's got files on everybody, and he's trending towards the Gestapo.
	This is really pretty pervasive.
	It's just that it wasn't as widely reported as things are right now, and it wasn't directly affecting the public In the same way the social media surveillance and things like that are rolling out.
	And so it was kind of the people who were inside politics that knew about this, that were getting directly impacted with this.
	Now with the technology, they can do this with everybody.
	But the impulse is always the same, isn't it?
	Well, I will disagree in one sense.
	This is headline news. Front page news.
	The Black Committee. The Black Inquisition.
	That's what it was called.
	I mean, I'm not just talking about right-wing.
	I mean, this was...
	And it's interesting how historians have just...
	Yeah, that's the thing. You don't see it.
	Just do a search at ProQuest, you'll just see Black Committee, my God, all this stuff coming up, and historians have not paid attention to it.
	But you're right in a sense that a lot of this can be hidden a lot more effectively.
	Yes. And it's been hidden by the historians.
	And it's been hidden by the historians.
	So it's good that you brought that out, as you point out, well-documented at the time, but then flushed down the memory hole for the most part as they polished up the image of FDR. Let's talk about something that a lot of people that listen to this program are being concerned about, and that, of course, is what FDR did with gold in terms of talking about civil liberties.
	It was H.L. Mencken who said, you know, a year ago if I had a flask of whiskey in my pocket and a gold coin, the whiskey was illegal and the gold was legal.
	Now this year the whiskey is illegal and the gold is illegal.
	Tell us a little bit about that and people's reactions to his gold confiscation.
	Well, I didn't focus on that very much.
	But I certainly agree with you.
	I could have done a whole chapter on that, I'm sure.
	It's a fundamental violation of the freedom of contract, of contractual rights.
	And again, there were people in the administration who recognized this and were outraged by it.
	But FDR is able to take advantage of this window of opportunity, which doesn't last that long.
	When he becomes president, but it lasts for a while where he can just, you know, everybody's willing to say, well, this is the president.
	This is a crisis worse than as bad as the Great World War.
	They're often comparing it to the war.
	This is a wartime situation, very much like, you know, what we saw with COVID, right?
	And, oh, I don't know, the Patriot Act and so forth.
	This wartime footing and people are willing to defer to the executive branch.
	And that's another example of that.
	And of course, you know, what we look at is the standard procedure, as I said, human nature doesn't change.
	The tactics that these people use doesn't change.
	Their technology is the thing that's changing.
	But it's always about generating this change.
	The sense of fear about the others we see with the Japanese concentration camps and that type of thing.
	And just using this sheer demagoguery and the power politics behind the scene to get whatever they want done and to keep people quiet about it.
	Talk a little bit about some other instances of mass surveillance and censorship that were going on in the FDR. Well, during World War II, you had a situation, it was very different in World War I. World War I, there remained a lot of opposition to the war.
	Most of Roosevelt's opponents pre-war, you know, including some of these big publishers and so forth, the Chicago Tribune and the so-called Patterson-McCormick interests, They all said after Pearl Harbor, we're in, we support the war, right?
	So there really isn't much opposition left.
	World War I, there's a lot of opposition, a lot of people go to jail and so forth.
	So FDR really wants to go after these people who had opposed them before the war.
	However, he's getting some pushback.
	His own attorney general basically says, well, they're not against the war anymore.
	They're not obstructing the war.
	They pledged support for it.
	But he blames them for restraining him in the pre-war period, and he very much wants to go after them.
	But he gets pushback.
	But they do prosecute...
	So, in other words, the standards are the same as World War I, if not even more severe to be prosecuted.
	However, there just aren't as many people that are opposed to the war.
	So they're sort of searching around for people to censor, in a way.
	FDR wants to do a lot more censorship, but he's getting pushback from the Justice Department.
	And they go after one little paper called the, it's almost got a vendetta against this, called the Boise Valley Herald.
	This is a paper that's anti-New Deal, defends Japanese Americans, is pro-civil rights.
	But they remain critical of the war.
	They're one of the rare people to be critical of the war.
	And so they go after this little small-time newspaper.
	Daily newspaper has weddings and obituaries and all that.
	They make a case out of it.
	They prosecute them under the Espionage Act.
	In World War I, they were prosecuting a lot of people, but a lot of people were still against the war.
	So, the situation is a little different than in World War I in that sense.
	But FDR is not more tolerant.
	I would say he's less tolerant, because he wiretaps people, leading publishers.
	He goes after the black press in a major way.
	That story's not been told.
	Because the black press is very critical of the administration, and they are talking about prosecuting them for sedition.
	But people go to FDR and say, look, you can't prosecute the Chicago Defender and the Pittsburgh Courier for sedition because you want the black vote, and they're a main source of news, right?
	You don't want to alienate them.
	So what they do is FDR has the FBI go around to these black publishers and basically tell them, okay, cooperate, or you might get prosecuted.
	And basically the black publishers say, well, give us more access to news and we'll cooperate.
	And they don't get more access, but what happens is there were all kinds of stories in the black press about...
	Federal mistreatment of African Americans about discrimination in the military about discrimination by federal contractors discrimination in government programs those stories Disappear over time.
	Instead, you're getting stories criticizing private employers, private discrimination, or, you know, things like that.
	They actually start pulling their punches because there's this kind of really quite effective indirect censorship where they get a visit from the FBI and they say, we're very concerned about this.
	And these black publishers back off.
	So they're not formally charged with sedition, but they are strong-armed and intimidated to ease up on their criticism of the administration.
	Now you were talking about earlier, you know, there was a sense of, you know, like a war that not happened yet, but the sense like we have, like they use with the Patriot Act and 9-11 and that type of thing.
	And so in the lead up to this, a lot of this stuff is happening before the war.
	We expect to see some censorship stuff.
	They're going to make the statement of national security.
	But this is stuff that was happening a lot of this before the war.
	Talk a little bit. You mentioned the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover.
	He was right there with Woodrow Wilson.
	He kind of cut his teeth on all that stuff with a Palmer raid and helped to create the FBI. He was keeping files on everybody.
	What was the relationship between FDR and J. Edgar Hoover?
	And how did he use the FBI besides what you just talked about, intimidation?
	Well, Hoover was a loyal servant of FDR. I don't find him to be as big a player as a lot of people do.
	Because if you look at Hoover's wiretaps, in a single day, for example, he might be wiretapping...
	You know, 150 people, right?
	You know, a lot of this is illegal, black bag jobs, off the books.
	But it isn't quite this massive scale.
	Hoover is actually against Japanese internment.
	So in some cases, he kind of pushes back on FDR in a good way.
	Now, the main way Hoover had come in...
	Well, let me ask you about that. What was his argument against it?
	Was it... I can't imagine Jagger Hoover being a civil libertarian.
	Was it a pragmatic argument against it?
	What was his argument? He does make arguments like, well, these are American citizens.
	We shouldn't do this.
	He says that. However, he doesn't want anything to do with it, right?
	Right. He doesn't want his agency to have anything to do with that.
	So he hands it over to the military.
	But he is against it.
	He doesn't think it's necessary.
	He, in fact, does tell FDR, look, we don't have that severe problem with the Japanese-American population.
	There isn't an espionage problem here, you know, of any significance.
	You know, we don't have to be concerned about that.
	Now, there is one thing during the war that the FBI does play a role in is investigating that I didn't talk about, but it's very timely, and that's the Great Sedition Trial of the war.
	This is a trial, sounds very familiar here, where they get 30 defendants from all around, 32 defendants from all around the country.
	They scoop them up.
	And, you know, you find some guy that has a little newsletter in Topeka, Kansas.
	Well, let's bring him in. And these are people that had been, you know, a lot of them were kind of anti-Semitic, that had been anti-war, but some of them weren't.
	And they're all brought to Washington and prosecuted in D.C., Under the Smith Act, and there's a provision of the Smith Act, which was originally aimed at communists, but most of these people are right-wingers, who had supported the Smith Act, interestingly enough.
	And in this, it says, promoting insubordination in the U.S. military with the goal of participating in a worldwide Nazi conspiracy.
	All right? Most of these people didn't even know each other.
	They didn't like each other.
	And a lot of them are kind of crazy.
	And they're all brought to Washington in one courtroom.
	They each have their own lawyers.
	And it's completely chaotic.
	And over time, a lot of people on the left recognize that, look, the government really has no case against these people.
	Washington Post compares it to the Moscow Purge trials.
	Mm-hmm. And a lot of these lawyers, court-appointed lawyers and New Deal lawyers, end up becoming sympathetic to the case of these often wacky defendants.
	And the trial becomes very chaotic, and it ends because the judge dies.
	He has a heart attack, and a lot of people think...
	He lost control of this trial.
	He dies.
	And then the government, for a while, thinks about continuing it, but people in the Justice Department, like Biddle, didn't really want to do this anyway.
	It's a sop to FDR. He wants to prosecute the head of the Chicago Tribune.
	So he says, I'll give you these sedition trials.
	And people on the left are thinking, these are a warning.
	This is just the beginning.
	We're going to get these small fry, but we're going to get We're good to go.
	And of course, a lot of these guys that were prosecuted are all for that.
	So there's hypocrisy on both sides.
	Yeah, yeah. So, yeah, J. Edgar Hoover is always a very astute politician.
	He didn't want the optics of the Japanese internment camps.
	But he...
	He would go for these other trials of political viewpoints.
	It's kind of interesting to see how that evolved.
	Talk a little bit about the switch-out of the vice president from Henry Wallace.
	I've always found that to be fascinating to Truman.
	What was going on behind the scenes there between Wallace and FDR, and what were the power politics behind all that?
	Okay. Well, Wallace is made vice president in 1940.
	The predecessor to Wallace was John Nance Gardner, who was kind of a conservative Democrat, who, interestingly enough, thought that it was time to have an anti-lynching bill.
	And FDR, when he found out about this, laughed.
	Laughed! He just uncontrollable laughter.
	And, of course, FDR did nothing to bring about an anti-lynching bill.
	Even Gardner supports this.
	Ha ha ha! Anyway, Garner is the vice president, and he, you know, Wallace, he doesn't get along with FDR, and they bring Wallace in, who's a big pro-New Dealer guy, right?
	Yeah. Kind of a younger guy.
	He's kind of a dynamic speaker.
	He's a little wacky, but he's got a base of the pro-New Deal elements in the party.
	And initially, Wallace is going to run wartime mobilization, but he's so inefficient in the people around him that it doesn't work out very well.
	And there's a lot of people in the business community that are very upset by Wallace.
	FDR likes Wallace.
	I think he'd rather keep him in there.
	But in 44, basically, people in the business community and a lot of these big city machines are telling FDR, look, he's going to be a drag on the ticket.
	And FDR is near death in 1944.
	That's covered up in a massive way.
	He's in terrible shape.
	And so they don't want Henry Wallace to be president.
	FDR may not have figured it out, but he's probably not going to live much longer.
	And so they engineer basically kind of a coup at the convention.
	And Wallace is sort of out of the country during the pre-convention period, so he doesn't prepare very well.
	But it's kind of a near thing.
	But they're able to get in Truman, who's considered much more of a kind of moderate...
	Democrat, pragmatic guy, not a wooly-headed idealist.
	And, you know, they basically...
	They're able to engineer this, and Truman gets the vice presidential nomination.
	And FDR, I think, wanted Wallace, but he wasn't willing to stick his neck out for him.
	Because he was pragmatic.
	He wanted to win. And he thought, these party bosses want Wallace out.
	Well, I'll kind of pull back and let them take him out.
	Maybe a foreshadowing of what's to come.
	This election cycle, right?
	Kind of a woolly-headed ideologue that can't really do anything.
	I read some of Wallace, and he's more a pragmatic guy than I thought he would be.
	He's sort of like he's into small business and all that stuff, but yeah, you can see why they got rid of him.
	But he's allied with the pro-New Deal element in the party, and he's seen as a loose cannon.
	Yeah. Well, it's very important, and it's important for us to see, again, I forget who said it, but history doesn't repeat.
	It rhymes. And we see so many different rhyming aspects in what you've been talking about here.
	And, again, human nature doesn't change.
	Political nature doesn't change.
	The nature of men in power doesn't change.
	The only thing that changes is their reach.
	And so we can see how all this stuff plays out, and it really is amazing to take a look at the Bill of Rights aspect of the New Deal and FDR. But the Bill of Rights has always been, and it was designed that way, as an obstacle to these tyrants, and so it's not really a surprise that he would take it on directly.
	Yeah, that's not a surprise.
	He's not somebody that cares about due process and individual rights.
	Maybe he cares in some sense, but if they get in the way of some goal that he has, he's not worried about these little procedural issues.
	He wants to get the goal achieved.
	That's right. Yeah, the same way that we can see that in Pearl Harbor.
	You know, hey, if these ships and sailors get in the way of my goal, so what?
	You know, they're expendable and all this stuff.
	And so the Bill of Rights was expendable as well.
	Well, that's a very interesting perspective on FDR and a very interesting perspective and real warning.
	For what may happen to us in the near future, as we see our society going through this massive change and with this part of the fourth turning, it is really a book that should be on everybody's must-read list, I think. So thank you so much for joining us, David, again.
	This is published by the Independent Institute, and is it available on Amazon, or do they need to go to the Independent Institute?
	No, it's available on Amazon, but you can get it directly from the Independent Institute as well.
	And that'd be better because you can help to support them instead of supporting Jeff Bezos.
	It's a great organization, Independent Institute.
	And again, our guest is David Beto, who is working with him as a fellow and a professor emeritus of history as well.
	Certainly do know your history.
	Thank you so much for joining us, sir.
	Thank you for inviting me.
	Thank you. And we will be right back, folks.
	Stay with us..
	the
	you you You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Whether you're feeling like the blues or bluegrass, APS Radio has you covered.
	Check out a wide variety of channels on our app at APSRadio.com.
	You know, I think it is amazing as I spoke yesterday, people's...
	Delusions about Trump, and we see this on Parade yesterday.
	As a matter of fact, there was an article that was done by Axios talking about the selective memory of Trump supporters on economic issues.
	And I talked about this before with David Stockman in his book, Trump's War on Capitalism.
	But I was surprised to see the pushback on Zero Hedge.
	And this is not an article from somebody else.
	This is actually Zero Hedge writing this.
	And they say, Axios beclowns itself in an anti-Trump rant.
	They've gone full BuzzFeed, they said.
	And actually, their article was factually true.
	It is Zero Hedge that has beclowned itself.
	It's Zero Hedge that has memory-holed how awful things were.
	And we see this over and over again.
	It truly is amazing to me to see how this is spreading to anybody who has been organized on free market or conservative principles and how they're falling in line with this partisan division.
	And I know that it's going to become even more partisan as we get closer and closer to the election.
	Because there's going to be more of this Hegelian dichotomy that they offer you.
	Well, it's either this person or that person.
	It's like, no. That's a fake...
	The choice that you've given me, there's other things that I can do in my life that are going to make a lot more difference than getting caught up in this, and I'm absolutely not going to support somebody that did the things that Trump did the first time around.
	And I hope that you're like that as well.
	I'm not going to change.
	I'm going to oppose these actions that were done.
	And here's what they had to say. This is their headline.
	You know, Zero Hedge said they'd be clowned themselves with this headline.
	Why Trump supporters give him a pass on record high unemployment.
	I pointed this out at the time that it happened.
	When he did this two weeks to flatten the curve.
	I remember going back and looking at this, how they just shut down the economy.
	Everybody's losing their jobs.
	We can't get product to marketplace.
	What kind of a strategy is this?
	Nobody could be that boneheaded stupid to think that that would work, as I said before.
	And as I said at the time, if you're going to shut down and lock down everything, how are we going to get medicine to people?
	How are we going to get food and fuel around to people?
	If you just shut everything, oh, well, we'll keep the essential places open.
	Well, they didn't. We saw shortages on the grocery store shelves.
	Why? Because by shutting down...
	These institutions, what they didn't realize is that when they closed down the offices, a lot of people were getting food in an industrialized, not industrialized, but in a setting where they would get it from restaurants or other places like that.
	And the food that was going to those restaurants, it was feeding a portion of the population, Could not be repurposed and sent to the grocery store.
	Just like the toilet paper couldn't.
	Just that simple. A lot of people, as they had jobs and were going to school and going to work and other things in public that got made off-limits to them, well, they would use the toilet paper at those places.
	And then when they shut them down, they didn't have the toilet paper in a format that they could sell it to consumers at the stores.
	It's just that simple. Simple economics.
	I spent a long time Talking about iPencil.
	Trying to explain that to people.
	Just the invisible hand and the way the marketplace serves these needs and this ham-fisted response to just shut everything down.
	I said you're crippling yourself even if it were a real pandemic.
	And so I remember when this happened, I went back and I looked at statistics with the Great Depression.
	And, you know, everybody thinks, well, 1929 stock market crash has kicked it off.
	But it took a while, took a few years for unemployment to reach high levels.
	And we exceeded those high levels of over 20%.
	We exceeded that immediately.
	And kept it there for several weeks before things started to ease up a little bit.
	And so what Axios said was, well, they like to point to the first three years of Trump, and they don't pay any attention to the last year.
	And what you hear from these people is, well, he didn't have any control over that.
	That was the pandemic. Isn't that interesting?
	We condemn that when Fauci says, well, the pandemic did this, or somebody else said the pandemic did that.
	But the defenders of Trump will say the pandemic did it to him.
	He didn't do it. No, it's his response.
	His response to a pandemic, whether it was real or whether it was fake, which it was fake.
	It was his response that was boneheaded.
	And so... They point out even the inflation, and this is what David Stockman pointed out, even the subsequent inflation was due to the massive spending and the welfare checks that he was handing out to try to placate people that he had locked down.
	Trump supporters want to reminisce about his time in office.
	I thought he was an excellent president.
	Said a woman in Davenport, Iowa.
	I'm really happy how the country used to be, said another one.
	The country was running really smoothly under Trump.
	I think the economy was a ton better.
	And we weren't paying $6 a carton for eggs and on and on.
	His track record speaks for itself.
	It's like 2020 never happened for these people.
	And, you know, now you see...
	Them coming on board with that and criticizing Nikki Haley for bowing down and kissing the feet of the vaccine king, Bill Gates.
	This is a headline from Revolver, but of course I talked about how she did that.
	Did Trump do that? Did Trump bow down to Pfizer and Moderna?
	He did more than kiss their feet.
	He gave them tens of billions of dollars.
	He gave them factories.
	He even set up Johnson& Johnson.
	Hey, you want to get into vaccines?
	We'll give you a factory.
	And we'll give you billions of dollars.
	And we'll give you immunity from all of this stuff.
	And we'll use the military to deliver it.
	They want to portray that the MAGA media wants to portray their opponents as being sycophants to Bill Gates and the pharmaceutical industry.
	Nobody did that more so than Donald Trump.
	And then there's the announcement about CBDC. He came out very briefly and said, oh, and one more thing.
	I'm not going to let him do CBDC. As a supporter, and thank you for the tip, sent on Zell.
	And he says, well, I guess he got enough social media analytics to see that there was a lot of support if he just says, I'm against CBDC. Does he know what it is?
	Does he know that his Treasury Secretary began the process, Steve Mnuchin, former Goldman Sachs banker?
	Does he know that his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, was working with Steve Mnuchin to get this ball rolling?
	Do you believe that Trump is really going to oppose CBDC? Or will he reassess the options and the needs for it when he becomes president like he did everything else that he promised?
	Look, when you're a candidate, it's important that people understand that you share their concerns.
	He's taken a very long time to talk about this.
	Perhaps it was the influence of Ramaswamy, who was quick to catch on to that.
	DeSantis had already talked about it.
	He'd held a conference on CBDC, called it Big Brother Digital Money.
	But then when he got finished with his 20- or 30-minute presentation, the very first question was, but what about President Trump in New York and this district attorney and all this other kind of stuff?
	And it's like, they weren't interested.
	They're not interested in the policies. They're not interested in the existential issues that affect our lives.
	Nobody's interested in anything except how it affects Donald Trump and quite frankly I don't believe for a minute that he's going to be an obstacle in the way of CBDC.
	Thank you very much Emulated Void.
	Thank you very much for the tip.
	I appreciate that. I didn't get time to get to it, but we'll talk about it on Monday.
	A cloud of doom hanging over the commercial real estate under the Biden economy.
	Under the Biden economy. How many years did Gerald Salenti and I talk about how the lockdown of Trump was going to destroy commercial real estate?
	But now, it's the Biden economy.
	Lockdown, supposedly.
	Thank you for joining us. 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.

▲