Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 11, 2024 - The David Knight Show

03:02:28

The David Knight Show - 09/11/2024

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	you
	using free speech to free minds lines.
	you You're listening to The David Night Show.
	As the clock strikes 13, it's Wednesday, September 11th, 2024.
	The year of our Lord, 2020.
	We're going to begin by talking about what everybody forgot to talk about.
	9-11, the germ game.
	What is going on?
	They practiced it for 20 years, they ran it out four years ago, but of course, nobody's going to talk about it.
	ABC was part of it.
	Trump was part of it.
	La La was part of it.
	We're going to take a look at the debate as well.
	It is truly amazing that nothing of any substance is ever talked about in these shows, these pageants.
	And of course the Russians are laughing at us, rightfully so.
	We'll be right back.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	Outside the Pentagon, CNN's military affairs correspondent, Jamie McIntyre.
	Jamie, you got very close to where that plane went down.
	That's right, Judy.
	A while ago, I walked right up to next to the building.
	Firefighters were still trying to put out the blaze.
	The fire, by the way, is still burning in some parts of the Pentagon.
	And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in this sideway, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.
	The only sight is the actual side of the building that's crashed in, and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you could pick up in your hand.
	There are no large tail sections, wing sections, a fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around.
	Yeah.
	No large pieces.
	Nothing like a tail section or a fuselage or an engine or anything.
	And they put some things out there later.
	They put some pieces out there later.
	But he says, yeah, there's fire still burning.
	It had been quite some time.
	And they still hadn't bothered to scatter out there any airplane parts yet.
	Again, we're all the witnesses.
	We're all the cameras.
	The Pentagon was covered with cameras.
	One of the few places on earth covered with cameras at that time.
	Now everything is.
	Well, they went around, they confiscated some nearby cameras.
	Still no eyewitnesses.
	And again, the person that I met down in Texas at a tourist area, he said, Talking in the, nobody was there, um, off season.
	And, uh, Karen is looking around the store and I'm just kind of standing there.
	And, uh, she starts telling me her life story, how she and her husband had opened this up and they're making the things that the knickknacks and stuff that they sell and how fortunately for her, her husband retired first.
	And she left because she said, I was working in the very office where the plane went at.
	And she said, we were doing so much research into so much money that was lost, and we had so many people taking early retirement out of the military, out of Congress, in lieu of being prosecuted.
	She said there was trillions of dollars missing.
	Or, not trillions, it was billions.
	I think, well, I get confused anymore.
	I can't remember.
	We talked so much about trillions and billions.
	I know it wasn't millions.
	How much was it that was missing?
	I think it was six trillion.
	It was astronomical.
	Anyway, she never would put the pieces together.
	I asked her, you know, who do you listen to for news?
	Well, listen to ABC and things like the people that run the debate last night.
	Look, if the public will believe 9-11, they will believe anything.
	And I gotta say that if politicians like Donald Trump, like Rudy Giuliani and others, if they will embrace the lies of 9-11, when they obviously know better.
	That was one of the things that, oh look, when Trump was running in 2016, He said, well, I can't believe that building just went down.
	Like it was a controlled demolition type thing.
	He didn't use those words.
	He said, I can't believe it just fell down.
	That's one of the strongest buildings anywhere.
	That really doesn't make any sense.
	He said, well, it made sense to parrot the party line if he wants to become president, which is what he did.
	So, a lot of people were concerned about it because it just doesn't make any sense, and so they did an inquiry, a commission, and George W. Bush put this guy in charge.
	Today I'm pleased to announce my choice for commission chairman, Dr. Henry Kissinger.
	Do you have any concerns about once the commission begins its work, if fingers point to valuable allies, say Saudi Arabia for example, the implications, the policy implications this could have for the United States, particularly at this delicate time?
	I have been given every assurance by the President that we should go with the facts leaders.
	Yeah, that's right.
	Henry Kissinger.
	Mr. Bilderberg.
	Alex Jones hated Henry Kissinger in Bilderberg, but he loved Henry Kissinger's little guy, Steve Pichenik, who covered up, actually didn't cover up, he was part of Operation Gladio, where they ordered the assassination of the kidnapped Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro, according to the Italian government.
	But, you know, this is a great source on the inside, a guy who worked for Kissinger, Yeah, that's kind of interesting, isn't it?
	But he did their little cover-up, and they got that there.
	By the way, it was a little over $2 trillion, Travis said.
	I was thinking $6 trillion because that's what Trump did to the deficit, you know, Trump and Biden, $3 trillion a year plus each year.
	So what we've been going through the last four years is just the other shoe to drop.
	The germ game.
	You can call it a plandemic or whatever.
	What they did was they did a germ game.
	It was a game.
	It was a game.
	They had run this thing over and over and over and over again as a simulation.
	And then they did the real life game.
	Well, when Russia looked at the debate, according to them, they said that it is essentially a pageant.
	It's a pageant.
	It's a pageant.
	That's what it is.
	Yeah, a show.
	A show.
	That's what they said.
	They didn't say pageant, but it's a show.
	But it really was more like a pageant.
	It was like a beauty pageant, you know.
	And you're Burt Parks.
	Or you're Donald Trump, the guy who ran the beauty pageants.
	Except it was really pretty bad.
	Not a good event for Trump at all.
	On Rockfan, Jason Barker checked in and said, morning David and family.
	I watched the debate last night.
	I feel like I woke up a little dumber this morning.
	Jason Barker, Nice to the Storm, Foxhole Report.
	Yeah, it definitely was an idiocracy.
	And Russian foreign ministry spokesperson, you know, they'll tell you the truth about America.
	They'll lie about Russia, but they'll tell you the truth about America.
	He said, to be honest, I don't know why you think that's big news.
	Is it big news that we could see yet another show performed by people who clearly take no responsibility whatsoever for their words or for their actions, we could add?
	But the spokesperson just said, Maria Zakharova, said just for their words, you should answer for your sins, she said.
	At least for the second half of the 20th century.
	At least for a couple of decades.
	How about for just the last four years?
	You think Trump, you know, from 2020 on, Trump and Lala, you think they could answer for their sins?
	No.
	Not at all.
	Not even going to talk about it.
	At least sort things out with yourselves in Afghanistan.
	Sort things out with yourselves in Iraq.
	At least ask each other, have you managed to do anything anywhere without staining yourselves with blood?
	Yeah, so this is why Trump really was not able to debate, because he doesn't want to answer for his sins.
	So how do you, how do you criticize Lala for locking people down, Lala and Biden mandating stuff, and then saying it's your body, your choice when it comes to killing babies?
	How do you do that?
	Well, you can't do that if you are also part of a lockdown process.
	If you put people like Fauci in charge, if you didn't do anything to help people.
	So here's my take on the, um, on this, uh, uh, this whole thing.
	I thought you could watching it and then looking at the reaction, I think was very telling and go to drudge report.
	Drudge report is, you know, just happy dancing all over the place.
	It's the end.
	And it shows Trump with a AI picture of him surrounded by cats and other pets and stuff, because that was, I think, um, one of the lowest points of the, uh, of the debate, in my opinion, you know, there's a drudge report, uh, the end, you know, for Trump, there was so much that could have been talked about with what was happening in Ohio.
	But he chose to focus on the highly disputed, difficult to prove, issues about Haitians and cats and pets and things like that.
	Yeah, we saw pictures of them killing geese.
	There's a picture of one of them walking with a dead goose.
	And it is likely that this happened.
	There were a lot of people who said it.
	But of course, he gets fact-checked by the so-called moderator.
	The first thing Trump should have done if he was in charge, he says, so wait a minute, are you the moderator or am I debating you?
	Because if the mayor says it, this is the mayor that's not doing anything to help anybody there in Smithfield.
	Oh, the mayor says it.
	Well, I've got a lot of other people here who you just dismiss.
	You don't care what anybody says except for the mayor.
	And guess what?
	The mayor doesn't care what anybody says.
	And we played clips of all the people talking about the massive crime and intimidation and other things that were happening there.
	And the city council just ignores it.
	The police just ignore it, regardless of what is happening with that.
	But we'll talk about this coming up.
	When you look at Haiti, And you look at what happened there.
	This is a massive failure by the Biden administration that is wholly within his administration, beginning in 2021.
	You know, there was the country descended into chaos.
	They sent in Kenyan police to try to keep order.
	This is all part of the U.S.
	and the State Department trying to keep order there.
	And it has completely failed for three years.
	And that's why, why do you have all these Haitian refugees in the first place?
	Because of a failed Biden policy.
	Trump doesn't talk about that.
	Why?
	He doesn't know anything.
	He didn't prepare anything.
	He doesn't know anything about principles.
	He doesn't have any policies really.
	He doesn't plan on doing any of this stuff.
	It was all about him and it was so easy for Lala and the moderators to make it about him.
	And he took the bait.
	They absolutely took the bait.
	It was so bad, as a matter of fact, that the Harris camp is now saying, we want another one of those.
	We want another one.
	We'll see what happens.
	Taylor Swift immediately jumped in and endorsed Trump.
	And on the other side, this is what I like to look at.
	I like to look to see how the two different sides are portraying the opinion polls and all the rest of this stuff.
	Again, as if it matters, folks, you don't have a say in the government of our country.
	It was the most obvious thing in 2020, wasn't it?
	We were being run by public health departments from Fauci down to the local county.
	It was public health departments, unelected bureaucrats who were telling us, you got to wear a mask.
	You got to, you got to do this.
	You got to do that.
	You know, uh, Simon says, do this.
	And all these ridiculous things at the time can only walk in one direction in the store, stand on these little things that we put on the floor.
	It was like a children's game.
	And, you know, these useless masks, these useless superstitions, don't step on a crack, you'll break Fauci's back, you know, that type of thing.
	All of this stuff, we were governed by all that stuff.
	And I said in 2020, I'm done with voting.
	Look at who voted for these people that are ruling us.
	This is medical martial law.
	And guess what?
	These people are the ones who are picking who's running and they're going to pick who the president is.
	It's not going to be your votes.
	If they think that Trump is going to be more useful as an agent of chaos, they'll put him in.
	If they think that Lala Harris will be more useful as an agent of chaos, they will put her in.
	And so when you look at Breitbart as a good counterpart to Drudge, they are big, big partisan cheerleaders.
	And it was the entire website.
	Was Breitbart fact-checking Lala Harris and saying, you know, this and that about what Trump was saying.
	Um, I said Taylor Swift endorsed Trump.
	No, no, sorry.
	Yeah.
	I misspoke.
	Of course not.
	She, she, she endorsed Lala.
	Of course.
	I'm sorry.
	Thank you for correcting that.
	Uh, uh, as a live, uh, it's a live thing.
	It's a good thing.
	I'm not debating.
	Um, uh, Everybody be all over me.
	It's like, this guy is worse than Biden.
	Um, but, um, the, uh, uh, when you look at Breitbart, they're trying to make every excuse in the world that they can, and they didn't have any clips showing Trump owning her.
	Same thing on Twitter.
	Where are the clips of Trump owning her?
	Gone.
	So yeah, my take on all of it was, uh, you look at it and she was just unbelievably smarmy, uh, smirking as she looked at him constantly.
	When he would talk, she would look over at him and smirk and roll her eyes or whatever.
	When she was talking, he would look straight ahead at the camera, uh, to be the, um, you know, the mug shot thing, but he didn't look.
	Like he was in charge.
	He just looked like he was angry.
	How does that help him?
	Quite frankly.
	So when the two of them and they kept them on the split screen, just like they did with Biden and Trump and Biden was like, la la, you know, looking around all over the place, but she was focused on him.
	She was very controlled in what she did and what it was in the split screen.
	It was a mug shot versus a smug shot.
	And people are going to look at that and they're going to say, well, you know, he looks really angry and scary.
	And with all the January, the six things I've heard from the media, maybe I don't want to, that to me, I haven't seen people talk about that juxtaposition, but I think him making himself trying to look like a bad-ass, you know, he looks just angry and deranged in a sense.
	And she looks condescending, smirky and smug.
	And it was annoying, but, um, that's the, that's the issue.
	And so there was nothing on zero hedge, nothing on most of, most of the sites that do update in the morning, nothing at all about it.
	So I was like, Ooh, this is, this is really bad.
	Well, the other sites were just happy dancing.
	The left Democrat sites were happy dancing.
	So that's my take on it.
	Yeah, before they do any polls or any of the rest of the stuff.
	Now, it remains to be seen how the public will react to this.
	Did people watch it?
	I don't know what the ratings are.
	I haven't seen that yet.
	It is the only debate, but it also is just a show.
	It is irrelevant.
	And so, Travis says, if Camila wins, we can rename America to La La Land.
	That's right.
	That's California.
	All of America will become La La Land.
	Well, again, he was not prepared to handle the abortion issue.
	He was not prepared to handle the immigration issue.
	That's his issue.
	That's his issue.
	And he hung his position on that issue on whether or not pets are being eaten by Haitians in Smithfield.
	That's just plain stupid.
	And what he said about abortion was stupid as well.
	And it was fact-checked and that was one of the things the first things that I noticed was I thought it was outrageous that these both of these Moderators were debating him.
	Oh, no, you said this and that's absolutely not true There's not any kids that are being killed at full term and it's like well They eventually did come back and allude in a very indirect way to comfort care Referred to well the governor of Virginia said they just decided if they're gonna let the babies die or whatever.
	No, that's not it at all He's such a poor communicator.
	You know, he is the antithesis of Reagan.
	Reagan was the great communicator.
	Trump doesn't communicate at all.
	And he communicates things that he doesn't, I think, intend to communicate.
	And certainly that is grabbed and elevated by the other side.
	But he doesn't talk about comfort care.
	Look, comfort care, and this is a key thing that was in the Kermit Gosnell trial.
	In that trial, you had to be on the jury.
	You had to be pro-abortion in order to even sit on the jury.
	You had to agree with Roe v. Wade or they excluded you.
	And so when Kermit Gosnell was on trial, they had an abortion.
	I don't know if she did abortions or she's an abortion expert or whatever.
	There's an excellent film, Gosnell film about that.
	It's a courtroom trial.
	They don't get gory or anything, but that is the focal point really of the trial.
	And what got him convicted was when this person comes in and explains what standard practice is and what the law is.
	You cannot kill a child after an abortion with direct action.
	You can, however, set them over on the side, which is what the governor of Virginia, Ralph Northam, was talking about.
	You can set the child over on the side and just let them die because they've already been injured, probably pretty seriously.
	with the abortion attempt.
	So you can just set them over there and let them die.
	Don't give them any medical care.
	This is what the Romans used to do with babies that they didn't want.
	They'd take them to a particular spot, just leave them out in the open, let them die from exposure.
	Healthy babies that were born that they didn't want.
	And the Christians would go and watch that happening and then take the babies and adopt them.
	So, he didn't explain that.
	And it's a key thing.
	And the moderators, as well as Lala, everybody on the, you know, on Trump's side were saying it was three against one, and they're absolutely right.
	It was three against one.
	That's one of the things that could be used.
	I don't know how, you know, you've got the two camps that are so invested already in their two candidates that no debate is going to change that.
	But you've got the independents.
	And I don't know how they'll perceive it.
	It was highly biased, but again, Trump comes across as deranged, narcissistic, angry.
	So who knows how that's going to be perceived by the independents.
	I can't really identify that with that.
	I'm an independent, but I'm not a voter anymore.
	I don't care.
	I'm not playing this game anymore.
	I want people to look at their local situation.
	And you know, when we talk about what the mayor was doing, he should have talked about what the mayor was not doing.
	That's what he should have focused on.
	And that's why it's important that you focus on your local elections.
	You've got to have the right people in city council.
	They'll make things much worse.
	Or they can make things much better.
	And if they're going to be on the side of Washington, which is there to attack you and to destroy our country, like the city council and the mayor and the police department there in Smithfield, Ohio.
	If they're on the side of Washington and the globalists, well, that's going to be really bad.
	You better pay attention.
	Better get somebody who's going to do the right thing.
	But getting back to the abortion thing, he didn't talk about that.
	Later on he goes like, oh, you know, the governor of Virginia just said you can sit him off to the side and decide what you're going to do with him.
	But even more so than that, as Lala came back and said, well, I don't want to, you know, full term.
	No, we just want to go back to Roe v. Wade.
	Well, under Roe v. Wade in 1996, They allowed partial birth abortion.
	That's full term.
	And that's just a fiction, saying that baby hasn't been born.
	That was literal murder.
	That was semantics.
	That was prevarication, to say.
	That wasn't a murder of a full-term baby.
	And I know, because I was running for Congress in 1996, and that's what changed my mind on abortion.
	And showed what their real agenda was, what this truly was about.
	Partial birth abortion was allowed under Roe v. Wade.
	They specifically outlawed it because it was such a heinous practice.
	But he let them get away with that.
	And then he also said, well, states, I think states, many states are doing wonderful things.
	Some of them harsh, some of them very easy.
	And yeah, we want the people to control it.
	That's what democracy is all about.
	Now that is wrong.
	It's all about the 10th Amendment.
	And the Supreme Court finally got the 10th Amendment right.
	And I've been saying that all my life.
	After I started paying attention to Roe v. Wade.
	For decades I was saying, this is a violation of the 10th Amendment.
	Which is what Dobbs' decision said.
	It's a violation of the 10th Amendment.
	The Supreme Court doesn't get to decide that, and guess what?
	Neither does the President.
	Neither does the Congress.
	That should have been his answer.
	I stand with the Constitution, he should have said.
	So we can play Monday morning quarterback, but Roe v. Wade did not ban full-term abortions.
	What Roe v. Wade did was Roe v. Wade banned prohibitions of early-term abortions.
	See what a difference that is?
	Does he not?
	No?
	Of course he doesn't, because he doesn't care at all.
	There aren't any issues that matter to him except Donald Trump.
	It's all about him personally.
	It's not about any of these issues with other people.
	And that's the fatal thing, the fatal flaw in his campaign.
	Remember Hillary Clinton's campaign was, I'm with her.
	It was all about her.
	I'm Hillary Clinton.
	I'm great.
	It's my turn.
	That's what Trump is doing this time around.
	I'm Donald Trump.
	I was wronged.
	I'm great.
	It's my turn.
	I want revenge.
	Don't you want revenge?
	That type of thing.
	That's a really bad place to be.
	So when it comes to the pets, just in case you think I'm exaggerating this, In Springfield, they're eating the dogs, the people that came in.
	They're eating the cats.
	They're eating the pets of the people that live there.
	And this is what's happening in our country, and it's a shame.
	Yeah, very convincing, isn't it?
	Again, nothing at all about the Biden State Department, the mess that they've created for the last three years in Haiti.
	Nothing at all about the open borders, nothing at all about local government failing to protect people.
	We just walked right into that, and they camped out on it.
	And then there was this, where they asked him about health care.
	I had a choice to make.
	Do I save it and make it as good as it can be or do I let it rot?
	And I saved it.
	I did the right thing.
	But it's still never going to be great and it's too expensive for people.
	And what we will do is we're looking at different plans.
	If we can come up with a plan that's going to cost Our people, our population, less money, and be better healthcare than Obamacare, then I would absolutely do it.
	But until then, I'd run it as good as it can be run.
	So, just a yes or no, you still do not have a plan?
	I have concepts of a plan.
	I'm not president right now.
	Oh, I got concepts.
	I got concepts.
	Do you have a plan?
	I have a concept of a plan.
	That's even worse.
	I've got a plan.
	Well, you're president.
	Did you have a policy to act on the plan?
	No, I didn't.
	But now as a candidate, I don't even have a plan.
	I got a concept of a plan.
	Well, here's my concept of the way the government works.
	Trump, healthcare ain't your business.
	It's not the business of government.
	He's right where Hillary Clinton was 30 years ago, 31 years ago.
	Healthcare is something that needs to be fixed by government.
	When Trump ran in 2016, as I said, they memory hold his plan, his concept of a plan, because it wasn't his.
	It was an excellent program.
	I remember going over it point by point for the radio audience.
	And I said, uh, this is great.
	It creates a marketplace.
	It creates competition.
	It gives people purchasing power.
	It gives them information about doctors and hospitals to make an intelligent decision about healthcare providers and on and on and on.
	Never referenced it.
	He never referenced it.
	It was up on his website.
	He never referenced it.
	They just got rid of it.
	Same kind of stuff that Lala's doing.
	None of these issues, That they talk about, they have positions.
	Positions.
	And they're constantly switching positions.
	Because they don't have principles.
	And because they don't have principles, they don't have policies.
	And there really isn't anything to debate.
	You're going to talk about, well, who got the best zinger in?
	Who had the best sound bites?
	Who looked better on TV?
	All of that kind of stuff.
	By the way, when you talk about late-term abortions, Tim Walz signed a full-term abortion bill.
	They want to say that's not happening?
	It is happening, Walz is.
	He just didn't know anything.
	He doesn't pay attention to any of it.
	And then when they challenged him on, you know, things were said by Lala, she was not corrected by the moderators when she talked about Charlottesville and the fine people.
	That's a lie.
	It's been debunked.
	They're talking about the bloodbath, trying to imply that Trump was saying there's going to be a bloody revolution.
	No, he was talking about financial issues.
	It's going to be a financial bloodbath, but they did get him on the lost by a whisker thing.
	David mirror said to him, well, you admitted that you lost.
	You said that you lost by a whisker.
	I didn't say that.
	And he said, yeah, you did.
	And then he says, well, it was sarcasm.
	And that's when he engaged him, and again, I thought it was really not his responsibility as a moderator to try to fact-check him.
	That's one of the reasons why Trump said, well I had that debate with, he meant to say Megyn Kelly, because it was Megyn Kelly who was debating him, and she was rightfully criticized for that.
	But, you know, you ask the questions and then you let people fact-check them later on.
	You don't do it as a moderator.
	But yeah, it was a debate with him and Megyn Kelly.
	And it was a debate with him and David Muir and this other person, Lindsay Davis, I think.
	I don't watch ABC News at all.
	At all.
	I'd never seen these.
	Well, I'd seen David Muir before, but I'd never listened to him.
	And I'd never seen her, the other co-moderator in this stuff.
	But, you know, when Trump recalled it, when he was talking to Lex Friedman, He said when I debated Rosie O'Donnell.
	Well, it wasn't Rosie O'Donnell.
	It was Megyn Kelly.
	But it is a pageant.
	It is concept.
	It is total nonsense.
	And so they didn't talk about the Tenth Amendment.
	They didn't get to talk about the Second Amendment either.
	It was kind of interesting.
	You could make a long list of all the things that they didn't talk about that are of substance, but the key things that they didn't talk about.
	The germ games that were played on us by Trump in 2020 and by the Biden administration for years.
	So when you talk about Second Amendment, it was tangentially referred to.
	Harris said she's not going to take away anybody's guns, but she wouldn't explain why she had changed her position.
	says Bearing Arms.
	Gun control was one of the few issues that ABC News moderator David Muir and Lindsay Davis didn't directly bring up during Tuesday's debate.
	But Harris's 2019 plan to ban so-called assault weapons, to mandate gun owners turn them over to the feds and a mandatory buyback was still referenced on a couple of occasions.
	And again, just like what the Russian spokesperson said, You don't really have any right to talk about this stuff.
	You can't really talk about it because you haven't confronted your sins.
	Now they were referring to your wars, your bloodshed abroad.
	But this particular case, just like Trump can't come after them for their hypocrisy on abortion, things like that, because, um, uh, you know, he, he, uh, he can't call them hypocrites.
	We're talking about your body, your choice when they tried to, when they did mandate, uh, vaccines for so many people.
	And this way, he can't really come after her for the gun issue either.
	Because when she was running in 2019, she said, I'm going to, and I said it was going to be done, she was the Democrat who jumped on it first.
	I said, after Trump used an executive order to do the bump stock ban, I said, the Democrats are going to do it.
	And it wasn't even a week after he did it.
	She came out and said, and when I'm president, I'm going to give Congress a hundred days to pass my list of gun control items.
	And if they don't do it, I will do them all by executive order.
	I said, see?
	And then later Biden said the same thing.
	Uh, so.
	Davis asked Harris to explain why her positions on so many issues have changed over the past five years, including shifting away from mandatory buyback along with some other flip-flops on fracking and on universal health care.
	Though Harris promised to address every one of the issues he spoke of, she neglected to mention the gun issue and why she no longer supposedly supports a compensated confiscation scheme.
	So then Trump brought it up on two separate occasions, which led her to insist, we're not taking away anybody's guns.
	And yet, uh, that's exactly what she wants to do.
	She wants to do it by executive order.
	He can't come after her on a constitutional basis because that's what he wanted to do.
	He set that precedent.
	Such a move would be a constitutional abomination, says Bearing Arms.
	But that wasn't a deal-breaker for Harris five years ago, and guess what?
	It wasn't a deal-breaker for Donald Trump either.
	This is why I say, both of these people are picked by the establishment.
	And they're going to pick the person in this election, not you.
	You won't even, your vote won't even matter if you're not in a tight state.
	I mean, if you're in a solidly Republican or solidly Democrat state, your vote won't matter whatsoever.
	And there's only about seven states that are borderline.
	And I have no confidence that the votes are going to be counted honestly in those states.
	And why would the Trump people?
	They've spent the last four years saying the elections are rigged.
	Why would they think that's going to happen?
	Now they're going to be picked by the people who picked these two as contestants.
	So Harris says she won't take away America's guns because she owns one.
	I own a gun for probably the reason a lot of other people do.
	Is she afraid the government's going to take over our country?
	That's the purpose of the Second Amendment.
	The rest of this stuff, does she do any hunting?
	Does she hunt cats and dogs or wild geese?
	I don't know why she needs a gun.
	She's got so many people with guns that protect her all the time.
	And so does Trump.
	Trump can't say that he even owns a gun.
	His son owns a gun, but he doesn't own a gun.
	I own it for personal safety, she said.
	And an aide at the time said she had bought a handgun years before her statement, but it's all locked up.
	She would never use it.
	She doesn't need to use it.
	And so they move on to war.
	And Harris says in the debate that there are no U.S.
	troops deployed in combat zone, which is a lie.
	Anti-war calls her out on that.
	As of today, there's not one member of the U.S.
	military who is in active duty in a combat zone in any war zone around the world for the first time this century, she said.
	Well, any war says U.S.
	troops are deployed in Iraq and in Syria under the anti-ISIS coalition, and they actively participate in combat operations.
	Less than two weeks ago, seven U.S.
	troops were wounded in a raid against a suspected ISIS hideout in Iraq.
	So we're still in Iraq.
	Trump said we were lied into Iraq, so why did he stay there his entire four years?
	And why, three, four years later, are we still there?
	Because it was all based on a lie.
	He'll always talk about that with Dick Cheney, how Dick Cheney was a warmonger, how he lied us into that war, and yet Trump won't get us out of it.
	Just like he didn't get us out of Afghanistan.
	And what about Syria?
	When did we put troops into Syria?
	Under Trump.
	We should go there and take the oil, and that's what they're doing.
	They're occupying the Syrian oil fields.
	So when you see that American troops are getting shot at or they take some incoming rocket fire or something like that in Syria, you say, why are we in Syria?
	Trump put us there.
	And of course, Biden and Lala want to keep us there as well.
	It's a uni-party.
	They're both doing the same thing.
	That's why they have been allowed to be present, because they don't challenge the real government there in Washington.
	U.S.
	troops have also been injured in recent weeks by drone and rocket attacks on U.S.
	bases in Iraq and Syria.
	Back in January, three U.S.
	Army Reserve soldiers from Georgia were killed by a drone attack on Tower 22.
	A secretive U.S.
	base in Jordan on the Syrian border.
	Why do we have secret bases in Jordan?
	And why do we have troops in Syria?
	And were they in Jordan or were they in Syria when they were killed?
	And why are we and how did we get there in Syria?
	Harris made the false claim while discussing the U.S.
	withdrawal from Afghanistan.
	She criticized Trump for negotiating the deal that led to the withdrawal.
	She said he bypassed the Afghan government.
	He negotiated directly with a terrorist organization called the CIA.
	No, Taliban.
	Sorry, Taliban.
	Not the CIA.
	He doesn't negotiate with the CIA.
	He does what they tell him to do.
	And so does she.
	Trump defended the deal, calling it a very good agreement.
	He criticized the way the Biden administration carried out withdrawal.
	Well, they did a withdrawal because they had to, not because they chose to.
	And you didn't do a withdrawal for four years.
	As I said, he's got blood on his hands for the people.
	There were more people that died every year than died in that single event of the withdrawal from Biden.
	More people died every year from Trump while they were occupying Afghanistan.
	There was never any plan to leave Afghanistan.
	They loved the poppy fields.
	They could create opioids and export them worldwide.
	CIA loved that.
	There's lithium.
	There's a geopolitical position that is there.
	For all those reasons, they never planned on leaving Afghanistan.
	And although we were told that we went to war with Afghanistan because men in caves had flown planes into buildings, two planes into two buildings, three buildings fell under their footprint.
	So that war was based on a lie as well.
	Wait a minute.
	Are they all based on lies?
	These people did the worst withdrawal and, in my opinion, the most embarrassing moment in the history of our country.
	Well, he had four years to do it.
	He forgot to do it, I guess.
	It just wasn't on his list of priorities or something.
	The only thing I can think of why he was so poorly prepared is because Laurel Loomer was seen exiting President Trump's plane before the debate.
	Perhaps she's the one who prepared him for the debate.
	If he was being prepared for the debate by Laura Loomer and Matt Gaetz, that explains everything, folks.
	Everything.
	Just chain yourself to the podium.
	That's probably what she told him.
	Debate preparation, LOL.
	That should be the initials of Laura Loomer.
	What a joke!
	So Trump pushes the baseless claim about immigrants eating the pets, according to NBC.
	And again, they're going to litigate this back and forth.
	Why not talk about what is actually happening in Haiti?
	What is being talked about with the border?
	And I focus on this, and they're focusing on it, because immigration was his issue to win.
	He won on it in 2016.
	And he could win on it now.
	Instead, he focuses on the least provable, most, you know, they're laughing at it.
	I think that this is likely happening.
	I think people in Haiti are starving.
	And we know, there's a lot of reports, we should say, you never know anything for sure, right?
	There's a lot of reports that that type of thing was happening in Venezuela.
	And other places where the economy was ravaged by Marxist policies like the kind that Lala Harris wants to put in.
	And so, with what is happening in Haiti, the political unrest, the civil war, the very fact that these people are refugees, it's likely that they were trapping down anything that moved to eat it.
	That's what happens when people get in desperate times and are desperately poor.
	And there's unrest and economic oppression.
	They grab animals and they eat them.
	It's one of the things we always thought was interesting about China when we go to the restaurants.
	They had such a wide variety of strange things that they would eat.
	I said, well, it really kind of comes from the hard times that they've had under communists.
	And just anything that moves, we'll eat it.
	So again, David Muir comes back and says, well, the city manager says that's not happening.
	Trump says, well, there's people on TV and there's people on social media that are sharing this stuff.
	And who are you going to believe?
	It's what he should have said.
	But he didn't.
	Vance hedged in a statement earlier on Tuesday even saying, well it's possible of course that all these rumors will turn out to be false.
	It was shaky ground for them in the first place.
	Why make it about that?
	Because he wasn't prepared.
	Because he's just entitled.
	The Springfield mayor I repeat, on Tuesday, the city had no documented cases of immigrants eating pets.
	Rumors like these are taken from real issues, such as housing concerns.
	There's real issues about crime and intimidation.
	And there's people that I played the clips for you, talking about that, and telling the city council that, and the city council didn't want to hear it.
	Didn't care.
	So, immigration was his issue to win, but he made it about something that was a bit shaky.
	Uh, so...
	As that was happening, they actually got him into a narcissistic rage, talking about the election, talking about him as well.
	Uh, it was not a good look and it was a really bad debate for him.
	And again, I think, uh, uh, that's not just my opinion, but that's the opinion of the people who are trying to defend him now and attack her, uh, and the ways that an informed candidate would have attacked her to start with.
	So, what is really going on in the West?
	It's a symptom of something that is much larger.
	And the Daily Skeptic referred to Roger Scruton's term that he created.
	He called it oikophobia.
	This is not a fear of pigs.
	And I don't know if I'm even pronouncing it right, but I think it is called oikophobia.
	It is hatred of your home.
	Hatred of your homeland.
	Self-loathing as a nation, as a culture, a tribe.
	And that's really what is going on in the West.
	And it's a very intentional program that has been created that ran through universities.
	And Roger Scruton wrote about it.
	Roger Scruton died, what, a couple of years ago, Travis?
	Yeah, Travis likes Roger Scruton, read him quite a bit.
	I had an excellent series that actually got picked up on the BBC talking about beauty and how Western civilization doesn't even care about beauty anymore.
	We don't make beautiful, ornate buildings, whether they're church buildings or secular buildings or anything.
	Instead, we have this brutalist architecture, and it looks totalitarian.
	And that really is the kind of architecture that for most of the 20th century we had.
	Just plain, stark buildings made out of the raw material.
	The university I went to, University of South Florida, the engineering college that was there, looked like something straight out of You know, Kafka or Orwell or Soviet Union or something like that.
	Just bare concrete flat walls like a fortress or something.
	I guess it's cheap.
	That's because communists immigrated here and got heavily entrenched in the architecture.
	Yeah, yeah, that's right.
	All other materials were seen as bourgeois.
	Glass, steel, and concrete were the mediums of the proletariat.
	That's good.
	Yeah, you're absolutely right.
	And so, you know, we have to shun beauty.
	Just like we have to shun whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is pure.
	That needs to be shunned as well.
	Like I said, I haven't watched... I just don't have time to watch movies, and I don't go to movie theaters, and so I haven't seen Kevin Costner's Horizon.
	But I saw a film review that made me want to see it because the film reviewer was just mocking it.
	He said, he's corny, he's sentimental about America and about, you know, human nature and the West and all this other kind of stuff.
	And it's like, wow, wow, you are so incredibly cynical.
	It's like, please, please consider me to be corny.
	Because I want to uphold those values, and so did Roger Scruton.
	That's what we want to conserve, right?
	People talk about being a conservative.
	What is it that you want to conserve?
	Do you want to conserve our morality?
	Do you want to conserve our dependence on God, rather than being lovers of self?
	Do you want to celebrate what is noble and true and right and pure, as we are told as Christians to do, as Paul told the Philippians to do?
	Do you want to do that, or do you want to celebrate what is perverse and false and debauched?
	That's what Hollywood does.
	It says in this article from Daily Skeptic that, honestly, often harsh self-criticism is embedded in the Western tradition.
	Indeed, it's a core means by which our civilization has flourished over the centuries.
	From the medieval era through the Enlightenment and into modernity.
	And of course, we should always take a critical look at ourselves.
	And we should take a critical look at our historical figures, right?
	You don't give Thomas Jefferson a pass on slavery, but you look at it in the context of his time, what he was trying to do, and you understand he's a fallen person.
	He has his own hypocrisies and so forth.
	But that they moved the bar For society and for nations, and I think they left some people behind, but they moved the bar significantly.
	So you celebrate what they did.
	Like Frederick Douglass said, I love what he said.
	I love what Jefferson did.
	Paraphrase him.
	I love what Jefferson did, but let's extend that to everybody.
	That was the only thing that they didn't do right.
	They didn't extend it to everybody, but they extended it to most people at the time.
	And he acknowledged that slavery was a wolf.
	He said, we've got it by the ears, now what do we do with it?
	What do we do with this issue?
	Well, he wasn't a Christian, and you had William Wilberforce as a Christian in the UK.
	He took it on, and he stopped it.
	But Jefferson was a little bit before William Wilberforce even.
	Over the preceding decades, this tradition of thoughtful, constructive critique has been transmogrified into a poisonous campaign against the heart of Western civilization.
	In his 2004 book, England and the Need for Nations, Roger Scruton termed the rising liberal ideology of self-contempt, he called it oikophobia.
	The ancient Greek word for home is oikos.
	And thus, oikophobia, Scruton wrote, is stretching the Greek a little, the repudiation of inheritance and of home.
	It manifests as a consolidated, wide-spanning offensive against the historical, theological, literary, legal, and social inheritance that formed the modern West, he said.
	He observed that the left's oikophobic movement was cultivated in Western universities over decades.
	It was propelled especially by the Frankfurt School, a left-wing academic circle that originated in the Weimar Republic of the interwar period.
	Of course, Frankfurt School was heavily involved in not just universities, but culture, especially movies and things like that.
	Critically, its founding thinkers moved to American universities during the 1930s, within which they exerted a profound and lasting influence.
	Many of the writers, and I list a bunch of them which you probably would not know, describe the institutions and the very structure of Western civilization as being inherently oppressive.
	Sound familiar?
	They've been building this up for a century, folks.
	They've been corrupting the institutions for a century or more.
	They have been marching through the institutions for a century or more.
	Just as Antonio Gramsci, founder of the Italian Communist Party, the person that Pete Buttigieg's dad spent his entire life studying and celebrating, and then sent him to Harvard to study under somebody that also was an admirer and a follower of the Italian Marxists that immigrated to the country.
	The Frankfurt School Began a surreptitious, long-standing war against the foundations of Western civilization from inside its finest academic institutions.
	In his excellent book, Fools, Frauds, and Firebrands, Thinkers and the New Left, Roger Scruton dismantles the intellectual nonsense machine, he called it, created by the modern left.
	He observes that according to the left-wing rubric, the, quote, condition of society is essentially one of domination, in which people are bound to each other by their attachments and distinguished by rivalries and competition.
	And they used to make it about social class and economic things.
	As I've pointed out many times, they realized by the middle of the 20th century that wasn't working.
	We're going to make it about race.
	And we're going to make it about sex.
	And that's exactly what we did.
	They did.
	The left forged new cultural fault lines out of race, sex, and sexuality.
	This politics of personal identity eventually evolved into the woke dialectic which now dominates our universities with its crude caricatures and biases, and I would say prejudices.
	Importantly, this is not the first time that the intelligentsia had led Western societies dangerously astray.
	In a recent essay, Niall Ferguson illustrates the parallels between the left's ideological capture of the modern university and the leading role played by German academics in the Nazi movement.
	He says, non-Jewish German academia didn't just follow Hitler down the path to hell, it led the way.
	Anyone who has a naive belief in the power of higher education to instill ethical values hasn't studied the history of German universities and the Third Reich.
	A university degree, far from inoculating Germans against Nazism, made them more likely to embrace it.
	That's very important!
	Because for the longest time, haven't you heard?
	How did the most scientifically and culturally advanced Western nation, Germany, fall for this stuff?
	The universities, the educational system.
	What are they focused on here?
	This is why I focus so much on homeschooling.
	You've got to get your kids out of this assembly line to hell.
	It's an assembly line to hell for our society, and it's an assembly line to hell for them individually, rejecting God and Christ.
	And so, that's where your battle is.
	Your battle is not on that debate stage.
	Western civilization is being destroyed and they've got these two idiots up on stage hurling insults at each other.
	Well, how did he look?
	How did she look?
	How did they react to this?
	What was that?
	Who had the best soundbites?
	Who owned the other person?
	Folks, our society is being burned down by design.
	We don't have the great replacement.
	We've got the great judgment of God on us.
	Just look at who's picked to be our ruler.
	Is that debate last night not evidence of God's judgment against us?
	And we can say that about all of the Western countries.
	All of them have leaders that are in bed with and beholden to and walking in lockstep with this globalist agenda to take everything from us and enslave us.
	That is God's judgment, folks.
	It is a global judgment on these civilizations.
	He says, the ideological basis, I'm sorry, not ideological, theological basis of the modern West, Christianity, has been assailed ferociously by the secular left.
	And who do we have to defend it?
	We got a bunch of people who went to seminaries.
	Seminaries, that for the most part are as bad as the regular universities.
	And so they got, you know, they got rainbow stuff all over their pulpits.
	The attack gained momentum throughout the 20th century was given a strong boost by the popular new atheist movement of the early 2000s, which targeted Christianity and the Bible in particularly.
	Yeah, that's right.
	So Orwell said in 1941, he wrote a short essay called England, Your England.
	Talking about how they had mocked traditional customs and simple patriotism.
	The kind of stuff that they mock Kevin Costner for trying to do in his movie.
	I don't know if he pulled it off or not.
	But Orwell said in 1941, England, you're England.
	This is three years before he wrote 1984 and 1948.
	I'm sorry, seven years.
	Um, yeah.
	Um, and left-wing circles that has always felt that there's something slightly disgraceful and being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution.
	See, Oh, same thing now here in America.
	Somebody does a heartfelt story about America.
	First time I saw this, we had the video store early 1980s.
	I was all about the catalog.
	And we had a guy came to work for us.
	His family was very, very rich.
	Um, he was in college and they'd given him a Mercedes to drive around.
	And it always was strange to me that he wanted to work in the video store because he obviously didn't need the money.
	Uh, but he liked movies and he liked talking to people.
	And, um, so one day he's there and I'm talking to him about movies.
	I said, uh, uh, you've seen, uh, you know, I said something about, How the West was won or had a trailer of it or something.
	Somehow it came up.
	And he'd never seen how the West was won.
	Has he ever seen how the West was won?
	That's like the American great mythology about founding of this country.
	He never saw it.
	I explained it to him and he just kind of thumbed his nose like that.
	I don't see that.
	You don't want to see who I am?
	That's how we got to where we are.
	That's my worldview right there, pal.
	I don't get my worldview from the Franklin School.
	I get it from John Ford.
	I get it from the John Ford School.
	Anyway.
	There are a lot of different directors.
	He did direct a segment of it and it was kind of disjoint, but it was a great movie.
	I saw it and it made such a big impression on me when I was a kid.
	It was such a wide screen.
	They only had three movie theaters when I was growing up in Tampa and they were all downtown.
	They had the classic Tampa theater, which they spent millions of dollars making this thing very ornate.
	Unfortunately, I didn't never thought it was very beautiful.
	It was kind of a Spanish architecture that I never really Liked but they made it look like you were outdoors under the stars.
	You know and like there was a Balcony there that you know, it was pretty pretty amazing and it still is a very amazing building still there Then there was one right across the street from it and there's one down the way and one down the way had set up their They set up their small movie theater, had an incredibly wide screen.
	And so they start the movie and then the curtains open up, you know, like a typical wide screen would be.
	And then it keeps opening up and it was like 180 degrees going around you.
	And, um, so it was, it was pretty impressive that they had done such an ultra wide screen production, but, and it played there for quite some time.
	I went to see it several times, but, uh, yeah, that's, um, you can push people at a young age one way or the other, can't you?
	So, he said, it's a duty to snigger at every English institution.
	From horse racing to suet pudding, it is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during God Save the King than of stealing from a poor box.
	See, that's what's wrong with our country.
	Part of that is what people are trying to reclaim in the MAGA movement.
	I understand what they're looking for.
	MAGA people, you're not going to find that in Donald Trump.
	He doesn't share your values.
	He doesn't share your concerns.
	He doesn't share your constitution.
	He doesn't share your culture.
	He doesn't share your religion.
	And he cares nothing for you.
	We'll be right back.
	♪♪♪
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Well, I want to read you a note from David Weatherby.
	His wife is undergoing surgery this morning and it may still be going.
	It was scheduled to start early, early this morning, 7 a.m.
	Well, I hope it's over.
	I hope it hasn't had to go on for that long.
	I'll just read you what he wrote and tell you that he and his wife could certainly use your prayers this morning.
	He said it's just after 4 a.m.
	I'm taking my wife, Melissa, over to the Orlando Regional Medical Center, where she's going to have heart surgery performed on her this morning, something called AFib.
	Something I know about.
	Long story short, involves deliberately scarring her heart tissue, as if the Trump juice didn't do that already, to control her AFib.
	Dr. Google says there's possible side effects, one of them being death.
	So he certainly, they could certainly use your prayers.
	He said she also has the flu.
	So her surgery was supposed to start at 7 a.m.
	this morning.
	So please keep David and his wife in your prayers.
	And I want to thank those who have sent checks.
	I think we moved it up on the On the gas gauge here.
	First week of September.
	Checks and cash that were sent in the mail.
	R.D.
	from Oklahoma.
	H.D.
	from North Carolina.
	T.K.
	from Ohio.
	Thank you very much.
	Appreciate that.
	That's very generous.
	Marty K. Timothy W. Michael T. Anita S. Joel B. Ben and Cindy B. Mark C. Gene and Michael M.
	And several of these people made very, very generous contributions.
	I really appreciate that.
	Thank you for your excellent pro-life coverage of Daleiden and the FACAC victims of the lawfare.
	Our two adult children were adopted and were homeschooled.
	I wish the women voting for LaLa would see, and she doesn't say La, I say LaLa, would see the abortion for what it is, murder.
	And I tweeted out yesterday afternoon after the show I said, if only Trump would talk about David Daleiden, because...
	Lala Harris is trying to scare people about how Trump is going to come after them and so forth.
	But I said, here's the situation.
	She does that.
	Here's a certain course.
	She did.
	He didn't have any to come back for it.
	But, uh, when she does that, I said, he needs to talk about David delight in which I had talked about.
	And I pointed out that David delight in had said, uh, she actually came after me.
	She wants to tell everybody that Trump is going to persecute them for political purposes.
	That's what she did to me.
	She persecuted.
	A whistleblower.
	She didn't go after the wrongdoer.
	She didn't go after the people who were killing babies for hire to harvest their organs.
	Harvesting their organs while they're alive and then sending them to Fauci, it turns out, and others like that.
	And so I said, you know, he could turn this whole thing around and he could talk about how this is heinous and he could talk about it in a way that he doesn't have to Be hypocritical about it, you know, because if he talks about my body, my choice, he didn't care about our bodies and our choices when they were putting out the mandates about lockdowns and masks and all the rest of this stuff.
	But that would have been an opportunity for him to talk about it, would have been an opportunity for him to move the bar, even if he doesn't have the guts to show people the baby's ripped apart.
	You can't do that.
	You can't even show the 4D ultrasound or little baby Samuel grabbing the surgeon's finger.
	You can't show the positive sides of it.
	You can't show this is a real human being.
	And you can't show what they do to the real human being?
	You can't and won't talk about it at all.
	You deserve to lose.
	You coward.
	You craven coward.
	You'll do anything the globalists tell you to do.
	You'll sell anything they tell you to do.
	You'll come out and you'll make fun, you'll be the comedian, along with Fauci's straight man, about any alternative treatments after they scared everybody to death with the flu.
	So let's talk a little bit about what is actually what he could have talked about instead of cats and pets and Haitians.
	He could have talked about this, which is actually happening in El Paso.
	It's not just Aurora, Colorado, just outside of Denver.
	It's not crime inside of Denver.
	It's not even the crime in Smithfield, Ohio, but it's also in El Paso.
	And it's the same Venezuelan gang that's there.
	Hatchet-wielding, hard-partying migrants take over a Texas hotel and turn it into a haven for this Venezuelan gang.
	The Tren de Aragua gang.
	It's my guess.
	I don't speak Spanish.
	I have no idea how it's pronounced.
	But it's an El Paso and they're hanging out in a hotel that's interestingly enough called the Gateway Hotel because El Paso is really kind of a gateway for this stuff.
	Cops have been called nearly 700 times to this one hotel in El Paso.
	Surveillance footage shows one man wielding a hatchet.
	Others are spotted with knives.
	At least one man was seen firing a gun, said the El Paso County Attorney.
	Local officials are now working to shut down the hotel and take back control of the business, which they say has become a blight on the city of 680,000.
	And it's not just that one hotel.
	El Paso is known as a waypoint for its Venezuelan gang members after they cross in the U.S.
	And before they head on to cities like New York and Chicago and Denver, and that's another thing, Chicago, have problems with these Venezuelan gangs as well.
	So, gang members have also sought refuge at another hotel in El Paso, a Motel 6.
	I guess they leave the lights on for them.
	Biden has left the lights on.
	That should be the motto of Border Patrol.
	We'll leave the lights on for you.
	How about that?
	Two Venezuelan migrants believed to be linked to the gang ran off to the El Paso Motel in June, three days after allegedly taking part in a violent jewelry store robbery in Denver.
	Yeah.
	So, uh, this is, um, uh, there should be concern due to the establishment of the rise of Venezuelan criminal organization.
	Tren de Aragua at the Gateway Hotel.
	We discovered several Venezuelans have the tattoo identifiers said one El Paso cop, just like, uh, these other gangs, right?
	It's like MS-13.
	They, they, it's written all over their face.
	It had to be a real Inspector Clouseau not to understand what is going on here.
	They just don't care.
	They don't care.
	It's literally written across her face.
	But let's talk about the pets.
	Yeah, that's what Trump chose to talk about.
	Probably under the advice of Laura Loomer and Matt Gaetz.
	So, this is sent to me by listener Bruce, and I think it is a perfect metaphor for the U.S.
	and what is going on with the open borders.
	You know, we tell everybody, come here, we got all kinds of free stuff we'll give you.
	Free, free, free.
	Come here and fulfill your dreams.
	America is a land of dreams.
	We want dreamers.
	We want people who have a, it's not an American dream, but they want the migrant's dream of owning a home here and having the government help them to get it with nothing down.
	And so in Pakistan, they opened up a mall and they called it the Dream Bazaar.
	Oh, okay.
	And they were telling people that they get pretty much anything they wanted at an incredibly low price.
	Here's what happened.
	You can see here's the mall, the Dream Bazaar, in Pakistan.
	Then this happened.
	Total chaos, grabbing everything, looting everything, destroying it.
	Look at that.
	Kind of looks like Colorado or Smithfield.
	This is Dream Bazaar.
	It's located in the city of Karachi in Pakistan.
	Bye.
	According to reports, it was established by a Pakistani businessman living abroad.
	The mall was marketed as Pakistan's first mega thrift store, and the promises were lofty.
	Apparently, you could buy anything for as less as 50 Pakistani rupees. That's around 18 cents.
	18 cents.
	The opening day was a dime store. The store announced special discounts.
	There were aggressive marketing campaigns. It was set to be a grand affair.
	Dream Bazaar opened at around 3 p.m. local time.
	But by 3.30 p.m., it was completely looted.
	Thousands gathered outside the mall ahead of the opening.
	When the gates opened, they rushed in.
	The crowd swelled every minute.
	The mall management tried to keep things under control, but soon it was impossible.
	And things descended into chaos.
	People looted the entire store.
	They took whatever they saw.
	Some carried them out in their arms while others brought bags to stuff goods and carry them home.
	Meanwhile, the security there was overwhelmed.
	The crowd overpowered them.
	They beat up the security personnel, glasses were shattered, the property was destroyed.
	Some people even filmed themselves while vandalizing the store.
	That sounds familiar, doesn't it?
	Outside the mall, things came to a standstill.
	Traffic stopped and people gathered.
	But where were the police?
	Well, they were nowhere to be seen.
	Some allege the police ignored the looters and were beating up bystanders instead.
	Of course, the incident has since divided Pakistani social media.
	Some called it a banana republic.
	Others lamented the lack of rules or ethics.
	But more importantly, it's a commentary on the country itself and its economy.
	Well, you know, obviously the problem is these people are refugees and they need help and they need to come to America.
	They got a dream.
	And a lot of them fulfilled their dream at the Dream Bazaar.
	They looted, took whatever they wanted.
	They were told you can buy anything for 18 cents.
	So they show up and it's like, well, I think I'll take everything.
	It is a perfect metaphor, I think, for what is happening with the open borders of the West, not just the United States.
	Understand, this is a globalist agenda.
	It's a globalist agenda that we've seen unfolding for quite some time.
	And it is a globalist agenda that Trump never did anything to stop.
	Except when they told him that you got to control the borders because of the germ game.
	And so to play the germ game, he controlled the borders for a short period of time, but he didn't build the wall.
	He didn't do anything else prior to that.
	And of course, then they opened everything up for everybody at the next stage of the germ game.
	But the only difference is that these people are not crossing an international border to do this.
	They're just coming into a mall to take what they want.
	But we're promising people the world.
	And when they come here, they're going to take whatever they want.
	So we have the UN legal officer, and of course they're involved in this, heavily involved in all this.
	These NGOs, the UN, and of course privately being assisted and funded by the US government as well.
	A UN legal officer is caught on hidden camera stating that the UN's ambition is to become a world government.
	This is Stephen Crowder and I'm doing a James O'Keefe type of thing.
	I recorded a UN official, a legal officer for the UN, Jorge Paoletti, a self-described globalist and legal affairs official, in the UN Treaty Section.
	He said on camera, they created this institution, the UN, which is the closest we've ever gotten to kind of like a world government, a world state, he said.
	The undercover reporter asked, you mean like a world government?
	He says, exactly.
	He said, one of the objectives of the UN is to create an identity of global citizenship, of someone who shares an identity, a political identity with everyone on the planet.
	He lamented, however, that the UN is not as effective as it should be, though this could change if the organization had its own military power.
	You see, when they were talking about Brexit, they mentioned the fact, well, you know, the EU is looking to have an EU army.
	There's a couple of things that are necessary for a global government.
	Like any other government, you have to have a source of revenue.
	You have to have a global tax.
	Oh, you mean like a carbon tax or something like that?
	Yeah, exactly like that.
	You gotta have a global problem.
	A pandemic MacGuffin or a climate MacGuffin.
	And then people have to pay for this problem.
	Some kind of a global tax.
	And then you have to have a way to enforce that.
	So you gotta have a global police force or a global military that's there as well.
	All those things are necessary.
	And so when the EU was rumored that they wanted to have their own army, everybody debunked that and said, oh, that's just a crazy conspiracy theory.
	The next thing they'll be doing is telling us that the Haitians are eating cats.
	And then after Brexit, the documents were released.
	And it's like, yes, we are looking at how we can set up an EU army.
	But they just flat out lied about it.
	And so did the media as well.
	The UN doesn't have its own army, Pale Lady said.
	The undercover journalist says, well, should it?
	Oh, absolutely, he said.
	Exactly.
	You're not going to have a real government if you don't have a real army and if you don't have real taxes that are global.
	He said, in terms of being asked to respond to this, a U.N.
	official said, well, I will just state for a fact that this is not, you know, when someone is recorded without their knowledge in a private setting, we need to call Lala Harris and have her prosecute this reporter.
	See, that's what happened with David Daleiden.
	Now this particular guy did not admit to a crime.
	What he did was he admitted to a criminal conspiracy for a global government, and he's in their legal department.
	But she said, I don't think any good journalist could interpret this as being the official position of the UN.
	And you know, this journalist should be jailed.
	Because they're obviously not good.
	This is obviously misinformation, and the UN, among other global organizations, has called for us to punish that with being locked up, as a matter of fact.
	The summit of the future is coming up.
	The pact for the future is coming up.
	Just coming up at the end of this month.
	Very, very soon.
	Last American Vagabond has been covering that extensively, trying to get people to wake up to that.
	I'm going to have Ryan Christian from Last American Vagabond.
	He's coming.
	And he's going to be on the third hour today.
	We're going to talk about that.
	We're going to talk about the Pack for the Future, Summit for the Future.
	We'll see if he's got any comments on this show, this pageant that we were presented last night as well.
	But this document, the Pact for the Future, has 60 actions that member states should take, and nearly all of them, the agreement makes it clear that the country's interests revolve around the UN and its globalist system.
	You see, they're even talking about it being the UN 2.0.
	This is the point at which it starts to consolidate and subordinate the members that are there.
	Buried toward the end of the pact is a requirement that member states embed UN agreements and resolutions in their own national laws.
	The pact will be accompanied by two annexed documents, the Global Digital Compact and the Pact for the Future Implementation Roadmap.
	Say, is that thing the Implementation Roadmap?
	It's like the germ games that they practiced for 20 years.
	How are we going to implement this?
	Well, okay.
	We put out some, uh, some legislative patterns, you know, after the simulation, the germ game two months before 9 11, and then the anthrax attack a week later, then two months after that, they put out a roadmap, said here, give yourself this power.
	You're going to need it coming up.
	And that's exactly what they used 20 years later.
	The model state health emergency powers act.
	After the summit, the UN will monitor the implementation of the pact by countries who have signed on to it, with regular reviews and assessments to ensure progress and accountability.
	Now this is coming from the Exposé News, they point out, since they're in the UK, that the UK has expressed its commitment to it.
	And then they ask the question, did you give your government or its appointees permission to negotiate or to agree to this pact on your behalf?
	Did your government make you aware of the pact's commitments, the impact that it will have on you and your children's lives, or even notify you that this is being negotiated and being put to unelected bureaucrats to sign on your behalf?
	And it's on the 22nd of September, so we're only 11 days away.
	It's very similar to what was going on with the UN Pandemic Treaty and changing the IHRA rules and sneaking that stuff in.
	And fortunately that got significant coverage.
	And push back on that.
	But even taking a look at the Paris Climate Accord, all these questions, did your government or its appointees give permission to this?
	How are they ratifying this?
	Did our Senate ratify the Paris Climate Accord?
	No, they didn't.
	John Kerry said he and Obama did it themselves.
	We self-ratified that.
	And the Republicans let him get away with it.
	That was in 2015.
	When Trump took office in 2017, Nobody would say, and the Republicans were in the majority in the Senate.
	Mitch McConnell could have stopped it.
	He could have held a vote, and that would have shut it down.
	Instead, Mitch McConnell just went along with the fact that Kerry and Obama supposedly ratified us into a treaty.
	Just forget about what the Constitution says, right?
	That doesn't apply at all to these people.
	It really doesn't.
	It's only useful for the purpose of us to look at what a legitimate government should look like and would do.
	And it is also, the Constitution is only important for that and to show us that these people are lying criminal oath breakers who had never had any intention of paying any attention to the Constitution that they swore to as a condition of their office and their authority.
	So they are without Legitimate authority.
	When people like Mitch McConnell, and I would say every single Republican senator, did you see Ted Cruz or Rand Paul or Mike Lee or any of these people that are supposedly supposed to be about freedom and Constitution?
	Did you see any of them object to it?
	Of course you didn't see Marco Rubio or John Cornyn or anything.
	No.
	They didn't care.
	None of these Republicans cared.
	And Democrats just go along with it because it's the party line.
	And so when Trump gets in, Well, I don't know what we need to do about it.
	He's got this globalist, this environmentalist, this guy who pushed pedophilia at the Boy Scouts, Rex Tillerson.
	And then he's got Ivanka, and they're saying, no, don't get out of the Paris Climate Accord.
	And then there were people in the administration saying, no, you need to get out of it.
	And so what he did was he pretended that we were in it.
	Rather than just saying, this is null and void.
	Rather than publicly saying, Mitch McConnell needs to take the lead on this, or any senator needs to say, this is null and void because we never voted on this.
	But they won't do it.
	And so when you look at something like the pact for the future, it is very concerning.
	Because it wouldn't be the first time they've slipped something like this through.
	Now let's talk about really what happened in Haiti.
	And let's talk about the fact that the Biden administration and Blinken own this situation.
	This is what they should have been talking about instead of the pets and the wild geese and poisoning pigeons in the park or whatever.
	Secretary Blinken visited Haiti as the US backed police force from Kenya Is failing to wrestle control from the Haitian gangs there.
	So we got gangs everywhere.
	You know, anarchy is not really the absence of government.
	It's not really that there's no government.
	What anarchy is, is really a lot of little tiny competing governments like gangs that are happening.
	That's what anarchy looks like.
	Libertarian Institute says U.S.-backed government and Kenyan police struggling for legitimacy as the Kenyans have been unable to take Port-au-Prince from the gangs and the paramilitary groups.
	According to the Washington Post, Blinken's trip to Haiti is an unusual attempt to boost the country's interim leader and deliver a message of support for a U.S.-backed international policing mission that has so far failed to make a significant impact.
	After Haitian President Mozi was assassinated in 2021, when Biden was president, or figurehead, let's just put it that way.
	Biden was figurehead at that point in time.
	The so-called Biden administration backed Ariel Henry's claim to power in Port-au-Prince.
	Under Henry, Haiti descended into chaos.
	Paramilitaries and gangs taking control of most of the capital city.
	In response, the White House and Henry worked out a plan with Nairobi to have armed Kenyans deployed to Haiti to take control of the armed groups and to transfer it to the U.S.-backed government.
	However, the plan backfired and gangs shut down the airport in Port-au-Prince while Henry was in Nairobi inking the deal to have the Kenyan soldiers that he called police, deployed to Haiti, and he was unable to return to the country.
	But Trump wants to talk about pet food.
	Does he even have a clue about this?
	Nairobi's security force has failed to have a major impact on the ground, with its Haiti policy failing This White House is seeking to escalate the Kenyan mission to Haiti by declaring the police to be official UN peacekeepers.
	Let's bring the UN into it.
	Appeal to the authority of the UN.
	We are the UN.
	We are NATO.
	They're not these separate organizations that are...
	Our government is using these organizations to start wars, to attack us.
	So there's video of Haitians fleeing the country's violence, you know, running to the mountains and so forth.
	And then, you know, coming to America and going to Smithfield, Ohio and places like that.
	That's what should be talked about.
	Why do we have 20,000 Haitian refugees in the first place?
	Failed Biden policies, but we're going to give them a pass on that.
	Because Trump doesn't know, doesn't care.
	This is why I say, he is absolutely going to be useless to help people.
	And I've said it before, I'll say it again.
	It'd be better for me, personally, and this broadcast, if Trump were president.
	Because then I could show everybody, again, what an incompetent, bumbling tool he is.
	Or fool, depending on which it is.
	But if he loses everybody's gonna say, well, I get Lala Harris and you didn't defend Trump and so forth.
	And I was like, well, my answer will be they picked whoever was going to be the most useful for chaos in America, whether they think it was Trump or Harris.
	And so you have the governor of Pennsylvania who was.
	One of the two governors that Lala was thinking of, Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania or Tim Walz.
	She went with what a lot of people call the more radical of the two.
	And I think that probably he was or is.
	Because he is so focused on things like, you know, gender mutilation of children.
	He loves that.
	That's just a, it's just source of pride and joy for him.
	To be able to chop up the genitals of little kids and give them drugs to sterilize them and kill them at an early age.
	But this is what's happening in Pennsylvania.
	This is her Plan B governor.
	He's punishing anybody who works for the Pennsylvania government.
	He's taking away their First Amendment rights completely.
	The governor of Pennsylvania has issued an executive order stripping state employees of their First Amendment rights.
	The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, they go by the name FIRE, that's the acronym, says that Shapiro's quote sweeping executive order insists that public employees even when not on duty, even when not on duty.
	That's such a perversion of the First Amendment.
	The First Amendment protects your free speech even while you're on duty.
	And we just had a Supreme Court decision about that coach who silently prayed on the 50-yard line after the football games, and they got fired, and they said, no, he can do that.
	You can't stop the free expression of religion.
	You can't stop the free expression of political beliefs and things like that in school simply because somebody is on the payroll of the government.
	That's not what establishment of religion is about.
	Not at all!
	Establishment of religion, as I've pointed out many times, you know, this country was founded, one of the core values of this country was the free exercise of religion, because there had been so much religious persecution where they had come from, in England and so forth.
	And so you had all these different states, had an official state religion.
	In Pennsylvania it was the Quakers, and Rhode Island it was the Baptists, and Maryland it was the Catholics, and a lot of the New England states it was the Congregationalists.
	They were very concerned, when they created the federal government, that somebody there would say, this is going to be the official American religion, and it would come after their established religions.
	And so that was what that was about.
	With an established religion, you were forced in some states to attend that particular church, and in all of them, you were required to pay money.
	Which is exactly parallel to what is going on with the official indoctrination camps that we call schools now.
	The seminaries for Satan.
	That secular religion of secular humanism.
	We are not, right now at the moment, forced to attend.
	That used to be what was happening when I was a kid.
	You were forced to attend and you were forced to support it like an official state religion.
	Now you don't have to attend, but you still have to pay to support it.
	Another reason why it should be shut down.
	So, you're not establishing a religion if you're simply an employee who puts a Bible verse up on their desk, or who prays silently, or does anything like that.
	So, this is actually going to when they're not even on duty.
	They're now gagged from expressing any opinion that someone, somewhere, somehow could define as scandalous or disgraceful.
	These are very subjective terms, aren't they?
	And this is much broader than religious freedom, even.
	This would extend to politics and any kind of social commentary, anything that was scandalous or disgraceful.
	And this is coming from some of the most scandalous, disgraceful people we've ever seen in America.
	FIRE call that an impossibly vague restriction, effectively prohibiting wide swaths of speech protected by the First Amendment.
	They said free speech is the keystone of our democracy and today it's being threatened in the Keystone State by Governor Shapiro.
	No elected official can slap a gag order like this on state workers.
	This is an abuse of power and we're looking forward to challenging this flagrant government overstep in court.
	So, I mean, what is going to be scandalous, or what is going to be disgraceful, or prohibited by the people?
	What is their standard?
	It's just going to be whatever they don't like.
	This is very similar, by the way, to what the Republicans and DeSantis did in Florida.
	You're not going to say anything that's going to hurt the feelings of Jewish people, or we'll come after you and put you in jail as a crime.
	Free speech is a freedom to offend.
	And the response to offensive speech is to speak back, to debate, to expose.
	But, you know, what if it is not about Israel or politics?
	What if it's about something you say about the misgendering of kids, the gender gaslighting?
	Well, that would fall into that, I'm sure, as well for the Democrats.
	They sent a letter A few weeks ago, concern about this, but Shapiro's office did not respond.
	The state is strategically putting all the chess pieces in place to punish everyday Americans for nothing more than saying something that the government doesn't like.
	Because you see, this will apply eventually to climate deniers.
	We're called deniers if we deny their Gaia religion.
	We're infidels.
	Call me a climate infidel.
	Let's just make it clear.
	I'll accept that term.
	I accept the term conspiracy theorist, anti-vaxxer, I am a climate infidel as well.
	All those things will be punished by the government, of course.
	Our job is to smack those pieces off the board before somebody gets fired for speaking their mind.
	And in fact, the third U.S.
	Circuit Court of Appeals, whose decisions are binding in Pennsylvania, earlier blocked a state agency enforcement of an agency's ban on workers wearing political masks.
	Well, I think the N95 are political masks.
	His administration then followed with a warning about anti-Semitism.
	See?
	This is what he's targeting, just like DeSantis.
	Anti-Semitism.
	Criticism of Israel must be punished.
	That is more important than the First Amendment.
	But then they also throw in there, to try to balance it out, Islamophobia.
	There we go, see?
	We're not just doing this for Israel.
	We're doing it for Islam as well.
	Well, we're the Christians.
	Is it okay to hate Christians?
	I guess it is, right?
	And quite frankly, that's not a balance.
	I should be able to criticize Islam.
	I should be able to criticize Israel.
	I should be able to criticize anything that I want to criticize.
	If I can't, then it isn't free speech, is it?
	And when we talk about the information that's out there, how do we determine?
	We spend a lot of time talking about this.
	This eating of pets in Smithfield.
	I was talking about it the other day and I said, you know, I should have tied, somehow I should have tied Smithfield into the Simpsons.
	That's the town that they live in, Smithfield.
	And my son said, it's funny you should mention that.
	Look at this meme that he'd saved on his phone.
	And you know, the Simpsons dog was Santa's little helper and it's got Bart Simpson saying, It's not safe for you to go outside right now.
	But when we look at that, how do we determine what's true and what's false?
	Well, you know, if the mayor says that it's true, right?
	I had that argument with Jake Tapper on Twitter, briefly, until he banned me.
	They had put out, Sam Hyde, whenever there's a shooting or something like that, Sam Hyde will always put out a meme, or his followers will put out a meme saying that they've apprehended the shooter, it's Sam Hyde or something like that.
	And so CNN reported it, and I trolled them on it, Jake Tapper reported it, I trolled them on it.
	And he said, well, we were told that by a U.S.
	Congressman.
	I said, oh, so that's your standard.
	Anything that a U.S.
	Congressman tells you, you'll put that out.
	You won't check it, right?
	And then he banned me.
	Didn't want to respond anymore to me about that.
	But that's true.
	Yeah, well, what is the standard?
	And so, I had a listener send this to me.
	I talked about the truck that went through the bridge vertically, not horizontally.
	Now, the historical covered bridge is over 100 years old.
	Took it out because it was so heavy.
	It was an electric vehicle, a Ford Lightning the Ford F-750.
	And he sent this to me.
	He says, no, he says it wasn't a Ford F-750, but it was a dump truck that went through the bridge.
	That was interesting, because, and so I looked at it, and you have two different statements.
	You know, what he sent me was, and I don't want to discourage people from sending me stuff.
	I've made many mistakes before, and I've corrected them.
	Sometimes I catch them before other people, like the megawatts instead of kilowatts, or kilowatts instead of megawatts the other day I mentioned.
	But, yeah, always tell me I want to correct it if I've got a mistake.
	But in this particular case, I think the AP got it wrong.
	I don't have a lot of respect for the AP if you've noticed.
	If you listen to this program, you know, I call them associated propaganda all the time.
	They're not associated press.
	These are the people who are supposedly the standard of objective journalism and yet they're enforcing and have been enforcing redefinition of terms on people for a very long time.
	And so here's the AP story.
	It says dump truck.
	Leaves a hole in a covered bridge when it crashes into the river in Maine.
	The driver of a dump truck learned the hard way that it's not best to tempt fate on a covered bridge originally built before the Civil War.
	And it's a very brief article.
	It's only about five paragraphs.
	Now, they said the weight limit on the bridge was three tons, and the dump truck carrying crushed stone was, quote, multiple times that, unquote, said Paul Merrill, spokesperson for the Maine Department of Transportation.
	That's the only quote they have in here.
	And the quotes are not around the term dump truck.
	And so when I looked at this, I thought, well, where did I get this from?
	Well, I got it from the drive.
	The Drive.
	The Drive is a publication that's all about cars and transportation, stuff like that, right?
	Cars and trucks and stuff like that.
	Here's their headline.
	So the question is, who's right?
	These are contradictory.
	One of them says it's a dump truck.
	The other one says it's a Ford F-750.
	Well, take a look at that bridge.
	Scroll that up a little bit, Travis.
	Look at the bridge on the left.
	Now, do you think that a First of all, I looked at that and I was like, I don't know that a, uh, that a dump truck, a big dump truck would actually fit through that.
	I actually don't think it would.
	And I don't think if you pull that back up again, I don't think a dump truck, yeah, there's a dump truck there.
	I don't think a dump truck.
	That's actually a Ford F 750.
	So I think it's just.
	Oh, it could be both of those.
	Okay.
	I think the F 750 is set up like a mini dump truck.
	I see.
	So that's why they called it a dump truck.
	So maybe they're both kind of right, but I even looked up how high is a standard dump truck.
	A standard dump truck is, um, 18 to 20 feet high.
	I don't think that Ford F 750 is that high, even with that dump truck attachment on it.
	So it's just a semantics that are there.
	Uh, but, um, again, the bridge height is only 10 feet high.
	A standard dump truck is going to be 18 to 20 feet high.
	So, again, when we look at this, you know, we could get tied up in the dump truck or F-750 stuff, just like they're getting tied up.
	Well, is it cats or is it geese that they're...
	Primarily killing there.
	The real issue is why do we have so many Haitian refugees?
	Why are they overwhelming that city and these other issues that are there?
	That's the bigger picture.
	And the bigger picture of the truck stuff is the fact that we have these mandates that are being put on us.
	Unbelievably expensive vehicles that are being put out there.
	And nobody wants them.
	And it's all part of taking down Western civilization.
	Volkswagen can't compete because energy costs are too high.
	They're shutting down steel plants.
	The last steel plant in the UK shut down about a year ago because the energy costs are too high.
	They can't compete with China.
	China's been given a preference with the Paris Climate Accord.
	We didn't get a chance to vote on it.
	Our representatives didn't get a chance to vote on the Paris Climate Accord.
	This is how they're rolling this stuff out on us.
	And we're being rolled by this show that keeps us focused on the personalities and the parties that are involved.
	So we're gonna take a quick break and we're going to come right back.
	Stay with us.
	They're doing what?
	In the place they named after me?
	Good thing I have the David Night Show to keep me informed on the plots of these traitors.
	Making sense.
	Common again.
	This is the David Night Show.
	What do we do?
	I mean, certainly the local elections, make sure you don't have a city council and mayor like they have in Smithfield.
	That's very important.
	But there's other things that we can do to protect ourselves.
	I talk about the CivilDefenseManual.com when we start looking at the gangs that are coming into this country and being left alone.
	The police, I'm not going to do anything about that.
	Why is that a surprise?
	I mean, we saw that going back to the Rodney King riots.
	In LA, when those Rodney King riots were happening in LA, it was still a novel thing to have SWAT teams and armored vehicles for the police and everything.
	That was all happening First and foremost in L.A.
	with Daryl Gates, the local cop that was running things in that city.
	He was militarizing the police like nobody else was doing.
	And then when the Rodney King riots broke out, what'd they do?
	They circled the wagons around the police station, around City Hall, and let everybody else fend for themselves.
	Well, you better start learning how to fend for yourself.
	You better start having people who are going to help you circle the wagons around your home.
	And that's what CivilDefenseManual.com is really excellent about.
	And also making sure That if there's some kind of grid down or societal collapse or emergency that you still have access to food.
	But there's other things that we need to do.
	And that is to protect ourselves financially.
	What can you do with that?
	Certainly the stock market is looking shaky.
	Economically things are looking very shaky.
	It may get even worse.
	Goldman Sachs reports that gold shines bright.
	Amidst all the risks that are here with commodities and other things, Goldman Sachs indicates the current landscape poses significant risks for many popular commodities, with gold emerging as the premier safeguard against value erosion.
	That's why a lot of people jokingly call it gold in sacks.
	Analysts at Goldman Sachs assert we strongly believe in the diversifying role of commodities and investment portfolios based on several structural drivers, including commodities' hedging role against supply disruptions, not an uncommon occurrence in energy, and the potential for sharp rallies and select industrial metals driven by a combination of long supply cycles and structural green metals demand growth, which would also indicate silver.
	This is the type of thing that is business as usual.
	We've always talked about these types of things, business cycles, increase of inflation and stuff like that.
	This is very different though, because these people are very intent on completely restructuring the financial system.
	They want to put us into a digital surveillance mode, a central bank digital currency, and the rest of this stuff.
	And then, of course, we have just on the economic side, not even looking at the new world government police state surveillance stuff, we have this ongoing slow-motion collapse of the commercial real estate market that was kicked off by Donald Trump.
	Nothing has been done to change any of that.
	It was the germ game proposal.
	That's going to take down most of the small and medium-sized banks, most likely.
	There may be a massive bailout, but I simply don't see them doing that for the small and medium-sized banks.
	They only do that for the banks that are their partners, the too-big-to-fail banks.
	So, with all that on the horizon, what should you do?
	Well, according to Goldman Sachs, they say we're going to focus on our highest conviction views in the current environment, namely higher implied oil volatility.
	We're going to be long on gold, means they're going to invest in it and hold on to it, and short the long-dated European gas.
	The surge in gold purchases by central banks has been remarkable.
	Global net gold purchases by central banks reached 483 tons in the first half of this year, the most on record.
	It is a 5% increase over the previous record of the first half of the preceding year.
	So in 2023, first half, they set a record.
	First half of this year, they broke that record.
	It's a new record.
	A 6% year-over-year increase, up 6% over the record last year.
	Goldman Sachs remains optimistic about gold's prospects.
	Gold stands out as the commodity where we have the highest confidence in the near-term upside.
	The firm has set a bullish target of $2,700 per ounce for early 2025, driven by three factors.
	First, they believe that tripling in central bank purchases since mid-2022 on fears about U.S.
	financial sanctions and U.S.
	sovereign debt is structural and will continue, they said.
	Whether it is reported or unreported, they said.
	And so this is really what has kicked off the destruction of the petrodollar and it's going to continue.
	The financial sanctions of the Biden administration, the sovereign debt that was really kicked into high gear with Trump.
	Trump took that slope and he kicked it up to a new angle and Biden continued on that trajectory, that same angle, both of them rapidly increasing sovereign debt.
	Secondly, they anticipate that imminent Fed rate cuts are poised to bring Western capital back into the gold market, a component that's largely absent of the sharp gold rally observed in the last two years.
	So that's their opinion.
	And when we look at, hang on just one second here, when we look at the IRS, the IRS is saying, well, what can we do to try to get people A little bit more solvent.
	They're looking at, and of course this is limited by income means, and they limit it to people who are below the median income.
	But the IRS is coming up with plans, floating plans, on how to boost retirement savings with a $1,000 Savers Match program.
	I'm like, where's Congress in all this?
	Now the IRS is creating fiscal policy with this?
	Well, they're loosely basing it on the Secure Act, Secure 2.0 Act, to replace the saver's credit.
	And what they're saying is that if you put into this savings program $1,000, then the government will match it, you know, like a matching employer's contribution.
	But, you know, It is, you're much better off, instead of getting fiat currency, and instead of only doing it once, you're much better off with the tortoise and the hare approach, right?
	The tortoise does it slowly and surely, step by step, always doing it.
	That's why Tony has set up The Wolfpack for you to jump in at whatever level that you can afford, and on a monthly basis, each month, set aside gold and silver, depending on what level you put in.
	It sends out a different package, but you always get the discount of a group buy.
	And so that's one way to gradually accumulate it.
	It keeps the IRS out of it, and it keeps you out of the fiat currency.
	You can do that, or you can buy gold and silver directly with Tony.
	He doesn't have any lower limit on that.
	You can get to Tony through davidknight.gold.
	That'll take you to Wise Wolf.
	That's what Tony Aardman has.
	And it's not just gold, but it's also silver.
	This is an article from Zero Hedge.
	Silver, the unsung hero of the new economy.
	Saying silver demand is going to continue to surge, as Tony has said many times, based on things like solar panels, solar power, artificial intelligence.
	In 2023 alone, the silver market experienced a 15% supply deficit.
	Furthermore, the market is expected to reach a cumulative deficit of 1 million ounces between 2020 and 2024.
	And of course, the trajectory of the Green New Deal, which is what Biden says they should have called the Inflation Reduction Act, and Lala Harris even referenced that, saying, yeah, we should have called it that.
	That trajectory is going to go up even faster.
	Travis says people in chat are commenting that most dump trucks are only about 12 feet high since U.S.
	interstate overpasses are between 14 and 16.
	I think maybe 18 to 20 is probably with the bed raised to dump whatever it was carrying.
	Well, that's reasonable.
	Who knows?
	But meanwhile, the world is burning down.
	We'll take a quick break.
	We'll be back in a minute.
	you you You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Alright, so regardless of the height of the dump truck, the height of the bridge is 10 feet.
	So if it's 12 feet or 18 feet, and it didn't hit the top.
	So it either wasn't a dump truck or it was an unbelievably, ridiculously heavy Ford F- and that was my point.
	I said, look at how heavy electric vehicles are.
	That truck weighs 9,000 pounds.
	Is that efficient?
	No, it's not.
	How is that green?
	Green was supposed to be about being efficient.
	Nothing about this.
	It's all a massive transfer of wealth.
	It's all about making sure that we can't have private vehicles because they will not allow any so-called solution to their so-called problem except one.
	Just like with a vaccine, we've got a phony problem.
	We've got the so-called pandemic, the germ game, and the only solution that's going to be allowed is a vaccine.
	We have a phony problem, so-called global warming.
	The only solution that's going to be allowed are going to be very expensive, very heavy vehicles.
	And they're having to redesign parking garages because they said, well, if everybody buys an electric vehicle and put all of them in the parking garage, we don't have the capacity for that either.
	That's the issue.
	It's not about how this story was reported, but not any kind of dump truck is going to go there.
	They could have called it that simply because they got a 9,000 pound ordinary F-750 and filled it with rocks.
	But going back to 9-11, more Fire Department New York members have died from World Trade Center illnesses than were killed on 9-11 now.
	Dying slowly.
	And this is not exactly because of what Rudy did.
	And this is only looking at the fire department in New York.
	This is not looking at people who were in other capacities.
	You know, there were other emergency workers, policemen.
	There were people who lived there.
	There were people who went in and cleaned up this mess that happened 23 years ago.
	They were in a rush to get all the evidence removed.
	And so they sent people in.
	They didn't have masks on.
	People got respiratory illnesses, but this is looking primarily, as I've said many times, Rudy has killed more people, perhaps, than the so-called Saudis on magic carpets.
	He certainly has killed more firemen, although you could say that these people were there as part of their job at the initial event.
	23 years after September 11th, illnesses linked to the World Trade Center terrorist attack have now killed more members of the New York City Fire Department than were killed that day.
	On that day, the Twin Towers fell and also Building 7.
	They don't ever talk about that.
	Which was not hit by a plane.
	343 members of the fire department were killed.
	In the 23 years since, 360 members have died of World Trade Center-related illnesses.
	But not mentioned here is how many New Yorkers in general, right?
	Policemen.
	Just ordinary people.
	They were not there as emergency workers.
	We have seen our members become sick because of the time they spent working in the rescue and recovery.
	So they're going to go in and try to rescue and recover people that way.
	But, uh, the cleanup crews that went in that were not given masks, I remember it was a very big deal about, um, was it, uh, Christie Whitman?
	I think it was in New Jersey or something.
	Anyway, that, that there were, there was criticism of, uh, of her, but not of Rudy for pushing so hard to get all this material removed.
	You know, the still burning thermite and things like that.
	Uh, it was a coverup.
	Cover-up was mandated, and of course necessary for their purposes, but unnecessary to risk the lives of other people.
	And as that is happening, we look at what the bigger picture is now with the war in Ukraine.
	What they debated about was whether or not it would have started with Trump in office.
	And what was going to be done to stop it?
	And Lala Harris says, well he's just going to surrender to stop it.
	She's not promising to stop it.
	And he doesn't talk about his plan of how he would stop it.
	Like it's just going to be a charm offensive?
	That's how he's going to stop this war?
	With a charm offensive?
	Well, meanwhile, you have Lloyd Austin telling Zelensky that long range strikes in Russia will not be a game changer.
	In other words, it's not going to be another red line.
	We're going to give you longer range missiles.
	You know, it was a big discussion, which weapons should we give or not give?
	Because this may, you know, obviously everybody knows at this point that NATO is after Russia.
	But, you know, we don't want to ramp it up too quickly.
	And so they got a series of red lines, and they've been kicking these red lines down one after the other.
	And so now, you know, it was going to be a big red line to have F-16s, but they put F-16s in.
	Then, according to them, I don't know, I haven't seen Russia taking credit for shooting down the F-16.
	According to them, it was friendly fire that shot down this F-16.
	Maybe it's just incompetence.
	I don't know.
	But now they are going to give them even longer range missiles to shoot into Russia.
	They're not going to stop until this thing escalates into a World War III that involves us.
	That's the bottom line.
	We're already in a World War III and they want to ramp it up.
	And there's no talk or plan about stopping it on either side.
	Lala doesn't even talk about stopping it.
	Trump doesn't talk about his plan that he claims that he's got.
	In the latest $250 million weapons package for Ukraine, approved and released by the Biden administration, noticeably absent were the longer-range missiles which Lenski had long been pleading for.
	But Austin is saying that's coming.
	Not a problem.
	We can do that, and we don't have to worry about crossing that red line either.
	There are a lot of targets.
	He said, in Russia.
	It's a big country, obviously.
	And there's a lot of capability that Ukraine has in terms of UAVs and other things to address those targets, he said.
	An amazing cavalier attitude, isn't it?
	But then it starts to fall into place when you realize that the company that he used to work for, Raytheon, is key supplier of all these new and replacement weapons that they're going to do.
	This is what Zelensky said.
	He said, we need to have these long-range capability so that Russia is motivated to seek peace.
	This is what this is about.
	War is peace, as they said in 1984.
	And that's what Zelensky and Austin are saying.
	The Pentagon is inking a deal with Lockheed Martin and Raytheon.
	The people that Lloyd Austin worked for for so long that they had to have a special rule there to bring him back in the Pentagon for the largest javelin missile order ever.
	And so again, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, as a matter of fact, Lockheed Martin was just recently in the news.
	They're working with DARPA for a surveillance and speech control of the internet.
	Wasn't that interesting?
	We have our military think tanks and our big military contractors coming together to work about how they can watch us and censor us.
	My son saw that, he said, well, if only it had been Boeing, we could rest a little bit easier.
	We're not going to be able to accomplish that.
	We're going to take a quick break, and we're going to have our guest from Last American Vagabond, Ryan Christensen, is going to be on, and we're going to talk about what is going on with the UN pact for the future and the summit that is coming up in 11 days.
	We'll also talk a little bit about the state of politics here in this country.
	We'll be right back.
	♪♪
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	All right, welcome back, and joining us now is Ryan Christian from The Last American Vagabond.
	I wanted to get his, he's not part of the left-right Hegelian two-step here, so I wanted to get his take on the politics because, you know, it's just going to be, he said, she said, for most of the media, we're going to take a different approach to this.
	And I also wanted to get him on because they're going to be having live coverage of the UN summit, the pact for the future that's going to be happening there.
	That's a very concerning thing that we need to have all eyes on because they keep playing this game over and over again.
	But joining us now is Ryan Christian of The Last American Vagabond.
	Thank you for joining us, Ryan.
	My pleasure, David.
	Good to see you again.
	Good to see you.
	What was your take on the pageant last night?
	I mean, what's interesting is, to be completely transparent, I didn't watch the entire thing.
	I have a hard time doing that these days in general.
	I know.
	I didn't watch the whole thing either.
	I had to get away from it.
	I had a friend send me a text message and say, this is crazy.
	My dad's listening to it on one side of the house.
	My wife is listening to it on the other side.
	I got nowhere to go.
	Get away from it.
	Well, you know, what's funny is I make the same point around, like, the State Department briefings, the White House briefings.
	It's just painful these days.
	I mean, even the people in the room, the way they engage with them.
	The point is that if I take the time to really go through it, I'm going to have to take notes because I'm going to want to address it.
	And it's like I end up with like 45 pages of notes of like, you know, probably take me four hours to cover all the lies that were put out.
	But what I tend to do is look at the, you know, the different kind of highlights and the parts people are highlighting from what they thought was important.
	And then if important enough, I do tend to go back through it.
	But overall, my impression of it, because I was looking at it more this morning, it is different than I think people expected.
	But I'm very right out of the gate.
	I want your eyes to know that this year more than ever or this cycle, I feel that there's more coordinated effort than I've seen in the past.
	And that could just be my own personal kind of feeling about it.
	But I'm saying that because I tend to feel like we should be skeptical or questioning more than usual, whether these things are like being highly coordinated.
	I just want to put that out there, my personal opinion.
	Look at the way they got her in.
	I mean, no, she hasn't gotten a single point, a single vote as a point that a lot of people are trying to make out there.
	She's just installed, you know, as a candidate.
	She got less than 1% when she ran as a candidate four years ago.
	The thing about that, though, I find interesting is I think a lot of this is about sort of.
	Doing the thing that's actually the reality, like kind of make it like the point is that we already know the primaries are kind of an illusion, like the DNC made that clear, but let's not pretend it's only one side.
	They don't really have to do what we want anyway.
	So the fact that that didn't happen is sort of like, well, we like it doesn't.
	I mean, it should happen if it was actually being done properly, but it wasn't.
	So it's kind of like a, you know, that's where it's at now.
	I feel like you're trying to shove these things in your face, but to the point about the actual back and forth.
	It ended up to show where ultimately it seemed that Kamala Harris, the weeks leading up to it was almost, I don't know whether intentionally, but she was like, she did very airhead comments, like she was letting know what's going on all the time.
	But then she came out in this debate and seemed to put forward a very, you know, most of her responses seem to be pretty good to highlight the The claims of Trump that weren't accurate and so on.
	But the point was, as everyone's making, the moderators seem to only apply that fact-checking aspect to one side of the discussion, which is true, but they're all lying all the time, in my opinion, so it's sort of like a coordinated thing right there.
	But it did end up in a way to seem to highlight that Trump wasn't as strong in a lot of the things that they were pretending.
	You know, just so it's clear, my opinion is they're both pretty much the same thing and they're both just as dishonest.
	The way this went out, I don't know.
	It makes me wonder whether or not this might go a different way.
	My opinion is I think Trump is sort of the selection with all this.
	But either way, everyone seems to be on the same page that it didn't really change anything.
	People who are voting already made their mind up the moment these people announced their candidacy.
	And that's the real problem with our current political dynamic.
	It's really It's all boiled down to that person's a little bit worse than what I might be forced into.
	And that's so childish at the end of the day.
	And so that's kind of where I think it ended up.
	It was theater, it was entertainment.
	And that's what I talked about yesterday in the run-up to this.
	I played a clip from Thomas Massey who's just had enough of this stuff.
	Here we're going to do another theater.
	I've been involved in this.
	Don't expect me to be an actor in this play again, yet again.
	You always come up with a last-minute continuing resolution so you can justify throwing everything into one giant basket called the omnibus bill.
	And that's really kind of, in a sense, what happens with our presidential race, right?
	I've got an omnibus candidate over here, and I've got another omnibus candidate over there.
	And both of them, it's like if you went to the grocery store to buy groceries and say, sorry, you can't do any shopping yourself, you can't make your own choices, you can pick, we've prepared two baskets for you.
	This is what's in basket A, this is what's in basket B, which one of those two baskets do you want?
	You're going to have to eat everything that you take home, you know?
	And it's like, whoa, wait a minute.
	But that's what elections are.
	It isn't like an a la carte, I want this or this or this.
	And the government increasingly, it's now become orthodoxy of both parties that the government should do everything.
	You know, when Trump, they hectored him over Medicare for all, or whatever, and what he was going to do about Obamacare, and he says, well, you know, I have a plan, I've got a concept of a plan, and all the rest of it, but he never questioned the issue of whether or not the government should be involved in our health care.
	See, and that used to, it was only when Hillary Clinton, when the Clintons got in, that was what, 30, 31, 32 years ago?
	That was when they first started saying, well, we want to have the government run health care in the United States.
	And that was a big issue.
	But now both parties have bought into that presumption that the government should run health care.
	The question is, can Trump run health care better than Lala can run health care?
	Right, right.
	And see, that's the same point, isn't it?
	It's the exact same point.
	It's all being distilled down to this binary dynamic where the vast majority does not have their needs met, if honestly ever, with that dynamic.
	But the point to see is not just that it's always just two choices that aren't the reality we want, it's that they use the illusion of the back and forth to bring you into that.
	The point you made about the health care is so important because I mean, there's a valid conversation to be had about why there are people and I could take it a further step back and acknowledge it's because of other government lacking in policies, but that are in need in situations where they can't get what they might need and so on. And, but my, my, I would I always lean on the side of less government liberty in the same way, even though that would bring about problems.
	The point is I can understand why there might be an argument about around Medicare for all kind of thing. But that was my first point.
	It's like, I'm like, well, hold on. We just saw what they would do through COVID-19.
	Like how can we even ignore how those things can, you know, it's obvious what they would do.
	But to your point, is that it comes to a position now where instead of acknowledging that maybe we shouldn't even have them involved, they drive you in a position where you're like, well, her stance on government controlling everything is a little bit worse than his stance on government controlling everything.
	And that amounts to the same thing.
	The basket thing is a great analogy.
	I'm going to have to use that.
	And the point is not just you have to eat it all.
	You're not going to get half of what you want and half of it might end up being the brand you like.
	But too bad, those are your choices.
	It's crazy.
	Or you get home and you find that the boxes are empty.
	There's not actually any cornflakes in this thing.
	It's just an empty box.
	Wait a minute.
	That's supposed to be border patrol.
	There's nothing in there.
	I voted for border patrol or whatever you voted for.
	You go back and you look at it, like you point out, how did we like government running our health care four years ago?
	I hated that.
	But, of course, Trump thought it was a great deal.
	He thought he saved lives.
	He goes back to this old nonsense about the 1917 flu epidemic again to defend what he did.
	And, you know, he didn't make any mistakes.
	All the mistakes that were made in his administration were because of the germ game.
	That they played on us.
	It's just insane what they're doing.
	But they do this over and over again and everybody, you know, keeps falling into this same thing.
	So many of these, you know, a long time ago when I was much younger I would hang on these things and I would think about what they're doing and how it was going to be perceived by the other side.
	It was going to be to this guy's advantage.
	I'm just so far beyond that.
	I'm like Thomas Massey.
	It's like I've seen this play before and I know that this is just fake.
	And it's just to keep people distracted from doing the real things that are going to make a difference in their life.
	Can I comment on that point alone?
	It's so funny.
	I was just thinking about this yesterday.
	It's difficult to engage.
	For what we're doing, David, we have to be open-minded enough to engage with the people that maybe they just literally for the first time in their life decided to look into politics today.
	And like we have to be open-minded enough to be like okay that we've gone through so much more in the scene He's there and also that we could just be wrong You know the problem reason I'm saying all this is that I'm at the point with you where you're saying right there Well, I'm having a really hard time engaging Honestly with people that are taking some of these things seriously and I saw I have to temper myself I'm like I can't be rude I can't but it's really difficult because some of this stuff is so cartoonish and so Obviously against our interest that it's hard for me to
	engage with this as if I might want to get you know It could be the option. It's just difficult, you know But it's we've got to be open minded enough to consider there might be other options.
	But like what Thomas Massey is saying is that it's it's not necessarily that like I think what we're saying is that it's like an obvious manipulation where both sides are dishonest.
	I mean, he's kind of saying that, but he's also really just saying that they just give up with the end, like they want the same act.
	But at the end of the day, they kind of know that they're not going to get it.
	So it's more theater in that way.
	But even if you take his point, just that being the only problem, it shows you that they are still lying to everyone that they're talking to.
	They're convincing them that they're going to get this.
	And the reality being it's only going to come around to the if ever at a point when it's not necessary or after the fact when they think they need it for the election.
	And all of that ultimately, which we can touch on, I think, is a Trojan horse for the digital ID, which overlaps with the pact for the future.
	But the point is, however you look at it, we're all being played.
	And people like Massey, whether he's playing a role that I'm just being skeptical here as the one that kind of the revelation of the method comes out and shows you.
	So you gain the support and you know that happens to whether whatever it is, it's the truth and we are being played, you know.
	Yeah, there was an interesting article today on Brownstone, and it's Jeffrey Tucker.
	He says, what happened to libertarianism?
	He said, this should have been, in 2020 and on, it should have been their moment to shine.
	And I was just so, it's like, yes, yes, he nailed it.
	Exactly right.
	Because, you know, when you look at what happened to the libertarian movement, small L and big L, the libertarian party, There was only one candidate that I could find that was actually taking on the lockdown.
	That was Donald Rainwater in Indiana who was running for governor.
	He's running again this time and he's got some really good economic issues that I had him on and we talked about.
	But he was the only one who was pushing back against it and all of a sudden he's up like 15, 16 points or something like that in the polls.
	You know, of course, what we always see happen is that as you start get close to the election date, everybody reverts back to their tribe, you know, and so they'll say they're going to vote for an independent or a third party candidate, but then they go back.
	They fall back into, well, I'm going to vote for Republican or vote for Democrat.
	That type of thing always happens.
	But while he was doing that, I was so disappointed to see the National Libertarian Party was completely AWOL.
	And what Jeffrey Tucker talked about, and I didn't realize that because I have not really followed them since then, you know, it's like, OK, we're done.
	I used to be very active in the Libertarian Party.
	And it's like, that's that's it.
	After what happened in 2020.
	But this time around.
	Jeffrey Tucker says the guy that's running for president in the Libertarian Party, he was out there telling people they needed to wear a mask, he was a cheerleader for Pax Livid, and all the rest of this stuff, and shaming people if they didn't follow this.
	And really the presidential candidate was about as bad in 2020 as he is.
	But here's a guy that, you know, now for a couple election cycles this has happened.
	He says, so what's happened to the intellectual movement?
	We've really lost that idea.
	It's the same as always.
	It's always the way this has gone as far as I can tell.
	It doesn't mean it can't change in the future.
	So I always want to make sure we're thinking about this hopefully.
	I do believe we can change, which is why they're trying to suppress what we're talking about.
	But it's like the Green Party or anything else.
	It very rapidly gets co-opted by the same corporate entities and the same power structures that want to keep us falling into the left-right paradigm.
	And to your point about people falling in line at the end, we're seeing it more aggressively now than I think I've ever seen, which shows you just how vulnerable it is right now.
	But it got very quickly dialed in.
	Usually we hear it every year.
	Most important election of our lifetime.
	Very quickly we saw it happen.
	Both Kamala and Trump are gushing about how everything will end if we don't vote one way or the other this time.
	And the problem is that people want to do what they believe in.
	I want to vote Libertarian.
	I want to vote Green Party.
	Whatever it is.
	But then they get convinced by the adult conversation.
	You know, the way they're projecting it today that, well, all these people telling you to vote your third party, what you believe in, they don't understand how politics works.
	An adult will recognize the lesser of evils.
	I mean, it's just, it's always the same conversation that boils.
	It makes you ignore your own principles at the end of the day.
	And it's always that way.
	Like maybe there was one election out of 10, you know, cycles of elections where it seemed that way.
	And I can get the logic of it.
	But if it's literally every time, and literally every time it's the same narrative, this is why I think they're so desperately trying to pull new moves to change the situation, because I think people are seeing this more than ever.
	I really do.
	I think that it's also people want to do something, right?
	They see this and that, you know, being passive and just letting this happen is not an answer.
	So it's like, what can I do?
	And the national media and the establishment, the government is very quick to come out and say, here, you can do this.
	And they give them a fidget spinner, right?
	And so they go sit in the corner and they play with a fidget spinner, think that they're doing something.
	You know?
	And when there's really things that they need to do, they need to do, they need to investigate what's happening at a state and local level.
	We had a situation here, we had an excellent senator who had taken on the banking system.
	And he had taken on a lot of, and actually also put in a thing about stopping out-of-state money, but even though he's a Republican Senator, he couldn't get it passed by the other Republicans, and so guess what?
	Out-of-state money in the banks came for him.
	And took him out.
	And so you've got to get involved, and you've got to get involved at the primary time, because if you don't do that, then they're going to put in their people, and you're not really going to have a choice when it comes to the final election.
	And they're now starting, the big guys are now starting to pay attention to the state and to the local elections.
	They don't want you paying attention to that.
	They want you still doing the fidget spinner of the presidential election.
	And everything rides on the presidential election.
	I don't even think that Congress is going to do anything to help us.
	So I'm looking at it and saying, well, we need to figure out how we're going to nullify what's going on and do it at the state level and do it at the local level.
	Because that's worked for medical marijuana.
	It's worked for other things we've seen.
	Nullification work.
	And in the case of that, they stopped Jeff Sessions.
	That was his passion, to stop it.
	And yet because he didn't have any constitutional authority to do that, they had states all over the place doing first medical marijuana, then recreational marijuana.
	I don't, I don't, I'm not a marijuana advocate.
	I'm a constitutional advocate.
	And when people say, if you start nullifying federal government's overreach in their unconstitutional acts, Then that's going to lead to civil war.
	That's not true.
	And you can always point to that and especially point to that for the left, because they're the ones who typically support marijuana reform and that type of thing.
	And you can point and say, that was done peacefully, wasn't it?
	And so we can follow that model for a variety of things.
	And I really think that's really about the only thing that we've got left in terms of politics.
	And I don't make politics my entire life.
	But I think when you look at politics, that's the key thing at this point in time is state and local elections.
	Yeah, I agree.
	To be clear on my stance on that in general, like Catherine Austen Fish has said in a recent interview, in her mind, the presidential election represents about 1% of what you can do to actually effect change.
	And I completely agree with that.
	If anything, quite frankly.
	My personal opinion is I don't think your vote, speaking specifically about the presidential election, but quite frankly, I generally think this broadly, your vote does not translate to the outcome.
	And there's a whole conversation to have in there about the nuance about that.
	But for two things, one, 100% agree, if you're going to make an effect anywhere with a vote, regardless of the circumstances, local is where it's at.
	I completely agree with that.
	And I wouldn't say that they're only now doing that.
	I'd say that's always kind of been the case.
	So they're very aware of how they can use even the smallest elections, you know, trickle up in that same way.
	But I would argue that basically putting it this way, that if you think your vote makes a difference, obviously I support that.
	But I only ask, regardless of my opinion, but I only ask that you do what you actually believe in, which I was saying before.
	Don't fall into what they convince you is what adults do, lesser of evils.
	Just stick with what you believe in and vote for who you actually believe.
	That's Trump or Kamala, then I support that choice even though I disagree with it.
	But I think that more people are showing that, like all the comments I see online are all, well, they're both terrible, but I'm, you know, I'm Honest enough to acknowledge that I have to do this or she'll win or whatever.
	And so I'm like, will you stick Jill Stein or whoever else who you actually think might make that difference and stick with that?
	I just think that's super important that we're at a point where we can't we got to stop compromising our principles because people in the adult conversation, they keep framing it that way.
	Tell you otherwise, you know, that's important today.
	Oh yeah, yeah.
	Well, you know, when you look at it, as you point out, I think, you know, we've got the whole thing exactly upside down.
	Because as Musk has said, you know, he said, look at what Soros is doing.
	He's putting money behind local district attorneys because what he wants is chaos.
	And that's what he's getting with these district attorneys.
	And so he's not focused that much on Washington, and so Musk is saying, you know, the smart money is going to be focused on things the closer you are to yourself, the more effect that you're going to have.
	And of course, that is true even getting out of the political sphere and focusing on your family, focusing on your life, making preparation about your life.
	We don't want to ignore the politics, but we want to keep an eye on it so we know what we need to kind of defend against, and then, you know, make some effort to try to To nudge things in a particular way to the extent that we have the capacity to do it, but recognize realistically that you're not going to have a whole lot of say about that, but you do have a lot of say as to whether or not you're going to prepare, whether you're going to train, whether you're going to make alliances in the local area, that type of thing.
	That you do have some ability to do something about.
	I think that's really important.
	But it's kind of amazing to me how they get caught up And these petty side issues, so they don't have to talk about the fundamental thing.
	And of course, when they talk about gun control, Trump can't really say much about it, because he did set a precedent for doing gun control by executive order.
	It's really crazy.
	It's the interesting thing when you look at them more than I've ever seen and maybe by design. I don't know their narratives are Shockingly aligned right now like it's really strange like there's the typical wedge issues where we know they disagree But at the end of the day like I think jill stein's want to put out this compilation Of their different rallies that were basically around the same time where they were, you know, it pro israel go against iran four forward Biometric surveillance wall like all these different points in place and they're all kind of cheering how my guy's doing this
	they're not they're both like yeah you know pro-america You know, it's really an alarming thing where they're framing themselves as like the counterbalance and even in the debate.
	She keeps Israel won't be here tomorrow if she wins and she's like that's not true.
	I've supported my whole life and I'll support their war.
	It's like if they're debating about who supports Israel more.
	I don't know why the people I mean, I I think most people see it quite frankly.
	I think the only people driving this machine forward are the ones like we talked about that are team sport politics.
	They've chosen already.
	It doesn't really matter what they have to say.
	Yeah, oh I agree.
	Yeah, even on the things that she's flip-flopped on, right?
	Nobody holds her feet to the fire, fracking, all the rest of the stuff.
	Oh yeah, because what she does is she does a focus group, which is the same thing that all these politicians do.
	The Republicans for years knew that everybody wants to push back against, they don't like Obamacare, they don't like the open borders.
	So I'll talk about Obamacare and open borders and then I won't do anything about it.
	And of course, she can play that game as well.
	You know, I can support fracking as a candidate, and then, you know, go the other direction when I become president.
	So they'll just tell you whatever they know that you want to hear.
	They have focus groups, and they just have positions, and they can change their positions just as easily as shifting in a chair.
	Let's talk a little bit about what's coming up in terms of the UN pact for the future, because you're going to have reporters on site covering that as that's going through in about 11 days, right?
	Yeah, yeah.
	It's basically... So Derek will be on site, and he'll be doing stuff for TLAB live on our show as well, but I believe he'll also be putting stuff on Conscious Resistance, so make sure you check both out.
	The interesting thing about this that I find so alarming is that it's getting little attention.
	And I find the this so what we're talking about is the the the summit of the future and then within it they're talking about the pact for the future and that's the real alarming part for me because it's it seems to have all of the same possible mechanisms that like during the COVID-19 discussion we all were and it hasn't gone away so we're clear about that but the the pandemic accord and all these different overlapping points We're very clearly identified as a problem, right?
	Everybody was highlighting this.
	There was a lot of shows about it, even still right now.
	We should be paying attention to the way that goes forward.
	But Derek and I had a great interview about this.
	We're walking through the actual points.
	It seems like it has all of the same kind of mechanisms, at least potentially, but with far less oversight or far less, you know, like that truly matters anyway, but far less like it's very lofty.
	All these general concepts that could be used in the same way, and I wondered out loud whether the pandemic accord, which has happened a lot through history, was sort of like the clumsy, on its face, we're going to control your life thing, so we all push back on it, and then we accept the lesser of it.
	You know how they do that, right?
	That's what I think this might be.
	I've said that about the World Economic Forum.
	You know, it was always interesting because, you know, we would go to the Bilderberg group and we would talk about that, and nobody was talking about the Bilderberg group, but the World Economic Forum, they wanted all kinds of press coverage.
	They invited it, and they put this cartoon Nazi out there.
	It's straight out of central casting and it's like pay attention to this watch this and everybody's like you know but where the real work is getting done is that Bilderberg at the Club of Rome oh yeah they got one after the other where they're meeting and they wanted nobody to talk about these so they basically set up a lightning rod of criticism Which is the world economic forum, and I agree with you.
	And we also see that regardless of what their rationale is, whether it's we're all going to die because of global cooling, or then we're all going to die because of global warming, or we're all going to die because of a pandemic, whatever it is, it's always the same solution.
	We've got to have depopulation, we've got to have central control, we've got to have tracking of everybody.
	And so, they come up with these different MacGuffins, I call them, to get people afraid, but it's always the same solution.
	Whether it's a pandemic, or it's climate change, or freezing, or heat, or whatever, it's always the same solution.
	And so, that's really what this is about.
	This is about, you know, creating the structures to govern us.
	And I think the thing that is very concerning about it, and this was brought up by Exposé News out of the UK.
	Well, where is the discussion about this in the political sphere in the UK?
	Where are our representatives on this?
	Do we have a say in this?
	Well, the same thing happened with the Paris Climate Accord, and they always run this stuff through, they jam it through without getting people involved, and I think that's the really concerning thing, that we really need to pay attention to it.
	Absolutely.
	Well, a very common tactic today, if not like the only thing they seem to do anymore, is use the justification, like the same, it's a climate change model, right?
	We're all gonna die.
	It's our fault.
	We have to do this.
	We can't really wait for democracy because we're all gonna die.
	It's like the same, even though we all know that democracy, the mob rule, like, the point is that they ultimately use the idea that we've destroyed this, and typically pointing at the other party.
	That's usually how that goes, right?
	The whole scarecrow thing.
	And so they get us in the idea that we have to rush through this and so on, not dive into the reality and the facts and so on.
	And I think that the two main things around what this all is obviously tied to is just general world governance.
	I think that's what all of these main points are about, about driving us to a point to where, and obviously technocratic technocracy overlap, where we're not talking about necessarily the old classic politician.
	I mean that may even be what Klaus Schwab was supposed to kind of like taint us against but more so like the engineers and the scientists you know and so on like let them decide because we don't know enough that's the idea behind that and really it ends up just being elitist oligarchs in the world that decide these things for everybody and so that's what this is about is setting up this framework to make it look like No, we're not going to have some world government.
	We're going to have a mechanism in place that should there be an event, which is really what this is around, a world event that suddenly justifies that we need coordinated action.
	That may well be what the COVID-19 illusion amongst a lot of other technological experimentation and memory platform stuff may have been one of the main points.
	Setting us up to go, look, that's how we failed because we didn't have this in place, kind of an idea.
	And so now this is about setting up this framework and then triggering what they talk about in this discussion, a planetary emergency, or at least acknowledging, claiming, pretending one, whatever, to drive these things into place and then never relinquishing that power.
	This is the Patriot Act that never went away.
	It's the same stuff we've always seen.
	And then the other part of it, and there's more than just these two main parts, but in my mind, these are the central parts.
	And then the digital framework, because that right in this main discussion, they keep highlighting the global digital compact.
	So this is exactly what I'm worried about.
	Now, to go back to the point we said before, the SAVE Act, Thomas Massey's point, all these different it's right now to his point where he says they don't even really want it.
	I think it's really just about.
	I think they all want it.
	It's a Trojan horse for digital ID using the real ID compliant identification combined with Biden's mobile driver's license push.
	Once that comes into play, that removes the other options for paper stuff because it'll be digital, making it digital for all of your identification concepts.
	And then you go back to the actual save back and the only thing you have are real compliant IDs and that's digital identification.
	So that's driving us there.
	So when we get to a place where they're having a digital compact for the world, all that means is the same point, but on a global scale.
	And as we've all highlighted yourself, Catherine, I mean, it's this, I don't see how we come back from that.
	That once we get past that step, the censorship will become insurmountable.
	I mean, I don't want to say it's not possible, but let's just say it is.
	If we recognize right now that we're under some massive control, the insurmountable kind of effort that they, The average person starting a new show has no chance today with the level of censorship, right?
	40 times worse once they have a situation where it's not even accountable if it is even right now.
	The digital control, the boxing you out from websites or domains, like just, how about just not even being able to access the internet if your social credit score is too low?
	We've all talked about this stuff.
	That's what I think this is absolutely about.
	Yeah, as a matter of fact, you know, Microsoft's been working on the Coalition for Content Providence and Authentication, CCP, I call the Chinese Communist Party of America, where they can mark you, they can use, and the partnership is with Intel and other processors, as well as Adobe, so they've got the hardware, the software that's going to mark you, and then they've got their mainstream media that's going to decide whether you are somebody that should be allowed to talk or whatever, and you won't be able to even upload stuff.
	That's going to be the interesting thing.
	And I'm kind of in that situation right now with Spotify.
	Spotify has taken the lead in podcasts to ban me.
	They banned me within a couple of months of me starting my independent show.
	I'm banned on there as well, by the way, a while ago.
	And so they've and they've talked about giving their, you know, our leasing or selling or whatever their technology to other podcasts so they can do the same thing.
	It's just a matter of time before that happens.
	And so they'll stop it on the upload side of things.
	But it is a completely comprehensive thing to shut down anybody that disagrees with them.
	It's just astounding to me to see how everyone is is pushing censorship.
	And you notice there wasn't a single question about that.
	And the exactly right, the so-called press of ABC doesn't care at all about censorship.
	And neither the candidates brought it up either.
	So, you know, it was just fine for it to happen during Trump.
	He was it was only a problem when he was kicked off, just like the police state and the SWAT teams attacking people's homes and throwing flash grenades into the baby's cribs and stuff.
	That's only a problem if it might have happened.
	And Mar-a-Lago had the potential to happen, even though it didn't happen in Mar-a-Lago.
	But now it's a problem because they could have potentially done something like they're doing to everybody all the time in our homes.
	It's that kind of, you know, voyeurism that is really kind of occupying the average American, where they don't care about what happens to them or their neighbor.
	They only care about what happens to their, the guy that they've identified as a person who's going to save them.
	Well, it's kind of the othering, right?
	It's like the dehumanization.
	It's the same thing we're seeing in our country right now with left and right.
	It's been that way for a long time.
	But it's the idea that it only matters if it challenges our worldview or our beliefs or what we want to happen.
	It's just hypocrisy, plain and simple.
	You know, and if you think for one second that the censorship digital ID stuff is only coming from one side, it's not.
	It's both sides in different flavors.
	It always is.
	Coke and Pepsi, it's the same thing every single time.
	So right now, they're both clearly pushing digital biometric wall, digital identification from different angles.
	It's very, very clear.
	They may not even know that themselves.
	I'm not convinced that Indy's individuals necessarily are in the know about these larger plans.
	Frankly, I find it more believable that these were useful idiots.
	All of them.
	Congress, you know what I mean?
	But I mean, I'm sure at some level there's inside to it, but that's the thing I'm really hoping Americans can come to terms with right now, is that this is very clearly something that is bigger even than our election system, our political dynamic.
	There's something that is global.
	And if we can see it like that in other contexts, the COVID-19 illusion, you know, globalism in general, we have to ask, or even the Israel conversation.
	I mean, Americans, more than I've ever seen in my life, are like openly discussing Israel's aggressive control over Congress.
	And that's important.
	It's not about Jews or Israelis in particular.
	It's about Zionism.
	But that's important.
	And that right there is a huge part of globalism because a lot of the right narratives, they seem to try to decouple Israel from the obvious globalist direction that they have as well.
	The important thing is to see that it's one in the same and that it's all about keeping you compartmentalized in all of this.
	And by doing so, we're Sleepwalking into the very control structure that will allow this to continue.
	Yeah, and it's about, it's just okay, whoever wants to buy influence.
	It can be a foreign individual, it can be a foreign government, but it's all right.
	You know, she gets a half a billion dollars in one month and 350 million the next.
	That's fine.
	That's good news.
	That's good news.
	The media likes that because she's going to spend that money with them.
	And so they're not, they don't have a problem with it.
	And you know, Trump has the same thing.
	Yeah.
	Israel used to own Congress and rightfully so, he said.
	Is that right?
	You know?
	But when you look at it, as you're pointing out, they have their ways that they can channel both the left and the right to their common purpose.
	Their common purpose of having digital ID and total surveillance for the right, they're buying into it because they're concerned they won't e-verify because they don't want their jobs being taken by foreign people coming in.
	So let me set up a system where I've got to get permission from Washington to work.
	Let's take a look at, you know, what is going on the border.
	Well, let's put all kinds of technology that we can down there at the border to keep people from getting into the country or getting out at the same time, right?
	Right.
	And then let's also look at, you know, what is going on when the kid's looking at pornography.
	So let's have an ID for people to be able to use the Internet.
	You know, it's just you can find an issue.
	And I think, what do you think is the common thing here?
	I look at it as people, every problem that comes up, They believe that the government should be the solution to it, and more importantly, that the federal government should be the one to solve it.
	And that's what makes everybody so vulnerable to, well, okay, we've got a problem with the border, we've got a problem with people taking my jobs, or we've got a problem with the kids watching pornography.
	What's the government going to do about it?
	And that's what these debates are really feeding.
	What are you going to do about this problem in my life?
	You know, I've got a next-door neighbor that I don't like.
	What are you going to do about it, you know?
	Oh, well, exactly.
	Well, that's the thing is that that's what we were just discussing is it kind of, you know, that's what the point about how the majority in any election cycle are people that don't partake and then the people that do usually 40% of them are independent, you know, it shows you that it's all about trying to drive you in to Pretending that the left and right are the only things that matter in this conversation and then forcing you to have to pick between the lesser of evils and that there's no other option there.
	There are people in this conversation that are talking about less government or burning it down entirely, but they're never gonna be allowed to be on that stage.
	And so a lot of the Americans that engage in this are of the mind that it's either not there or that it's not prominent enough to be able to be considered because, well, they're not showing it to me, right?
	But that's obviously a false assumption because clearly there are a lot more people that want this change.
	You know, the idea that only government can make a difference in your life, I don't believe that most Americans even remotely believe that, But sadly enough, we get forced into it.
	Again, back to the point, that's why I think all this is happening.
	They're cranking up the heat and the violence because that's what drives people back into their comfort zone.
	Because right now, there are people asking questions they don't like.
	And so when war, you know, people's lives are made more uncomfortable, so you become emotional, you become vulnerable, and then you fall back into line.
	I genuinely think that.
	But whether we should want government in our lives, I mean, I think that it's a kind of quintessentially American to have less government in our lives.
	And now here's Trump and Kamala and they're both representing basic, you know, I mean, the funny thing is about the whole communism verse that they're both authoritarian capitalists all the way through.
	And it's very clear that they have differences, but they are not as different as they try to make them out to be.
	Like you said, more government, more control in your life, period.
	Yeah, that's right.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	The old paradigms of, um, You know, it used to be, well, the government, you know, the Republicans are going to give you freedom in the economic sphere and the Democrats and Liberals are going to give you freedom in your civil liberties and that kind of stuff.
	That's all gone away.
	They're all, and this idea that, well, there's government and then there's business and they represent different interests.
	No, they've merged.
	And so there's this merger of the parties, there's this merger of government and business and all the rest of the stuff.
	So these paradigms that have been out there, that even people are in the third party aspect.
	And again, Jeffrey Tucker touches on this when he talks about it.
	He says, well, you know, we have the combination of these two things.
	I've been saying it for the longest time.
	The liberals will say, well, business can do nothing right, government can do nothing wrong.
	The conservatives or libertarians will go the other direction.
	The problem that they don't see is that they've merged.
	You've got a fascist system here where you've got corporations and government have merged for their common interest.
	And neither of these paradigms are capable of addressing that because that's not even a part of their fundamental.
	They don't want to.
	It's not a part of their fundamental assumptions.
	And so they can't deal with this problem because their assumptions don't fit reality.
	Right well, it's the same old the classic saying or you can't solve a first step in solving any problem is simply acknowledging You have one and they all seem to be pointing in any direction other than the obvious problem And whether they see the problem or not It's not being addressed because nobody wants to talk about it And I think it's more so about the fact that you know these are NASCAR's right though You just can't see all the patches and advertisements all over like they're being funded and driven lobbied And I mean you know it's very very obvious, and we all joke about it But yet weirdly when it comes to these important moments those were told anyway
	The the larger conversation, and this is usually people that have their entire wealth or identity invested in the system Try to convince everybody that might be somehow aware of it that it's not what you think You got to vote.
	Otherwise nothing matters.
	We go through this for, that's really the point of the four year cycle.
	It's like right when people start going, maybe there is something.
	We get pulled right back into it, you know, it's like every single time, you know.
	Yeah, yeah, that's why, you know, I look at this and I just, you know, want to try to get people to focus on on other things.
	And, you know, rather than than these things that are just kind of a Sisyphus task, you keep pushing this rock up the same rock up the hill over and over again and nothing ever changes.
	But yeah, it is crazy.
	Well, what else is on your mind?
	They're at Last American Vagabond.
	Well, you know, I recently covered a really terrifying story that I think my impression of where this goes, the thing that really worries me is that I see through it sort of like the outlines of maybe like a new form of governance.
	Like we've all talked about technocracy.
	It's not a new concept.
	It goes back to the early 70s, right?
	The idea clearly Whether with good intentions or not it was it represents today in my opinion the opposite of what it pretends to be right this is just a very clear technocratic elitist mindset about you know overlapping with with eugenics and all sorts of terrifying things in my opinion and the point is that I see technocracy sort of showing itself in ways that I think circumvent government is the best way maybe to put it and so in Honduras
	Peter Thiel backs a company that essentially has tried to start or has started what they are pretending is some libertarian utopia, and not even remotely what it is in my opinion at all, based on every possible metric.
	To sum it up rather quickly, there's a lot in this story, but in 2009 in Honduras, the U.S.
	government backed a coup, which is pretty common knowledge these days.
	We do that all the time, don't we?
	Oh yeah, it's Tuesday, right?
	It's probably happening again right now.
	We're throwing this week, yeah.
	But so, essentially, it caused the chaos that we might expect, which is usually the objective to a degree, so they can take advantage of all sorts of things.
	Now, what's important to recognize is a series of leaders went after that, which caused, you know, even to this day, it's one of the most dangerous places on the planet, as I understand it.
	The point is, once that happened, it created the chaos that they allowed to happen because these despots are doing what they want, taking what they want, and they used that chaos to justify the need for sustainable, you know, special development zones, is what we've heard them called before.
	It comes from sustainable development zones, which is UN 2030.
	Point.
	Right.
	Now, in this country, they call them ZEDs or Z-E-Ds, Z-E-D-E, which is just another name for the same exact thing.
	So remember, it's important to recognize this comes from a U.N.
	2030 objective.
	This is Peter Thiel's back company.
	He's backing Vance.
	That's Trump's cabinet.
	It's important to see how these things are all connected.
	But the point is that they backed this pretend libertarian utopia city in a low... Well, first, they... Sorry, I'm jumping ahead.
	They created the ZED zones under the guise that they were going to help people because of the chaos.
	They started to set this up.
	They got pushed back from the Constitutional Court because nobody wanted it.
	So what'd they do?
	The legal thing.
	They kicked people off the judge positions and they put people in place that would vote the way they wanted them to, you know?
	Otherwise completely illegitimate, right?
	And they got this passed.
	So then once they got it passed, they then started to set up these fake libertarian cities.
	Now, it hasn't really accomplished anything.
	People are worried that it's already starting to absorb other parts of the area.
	It's a very weird dynamic.
	Now, jumping forward to right now, a presidential cabinet ran entirely on the idea that we're going to get rid of these EDs.
	The people in Honduras are wildly outspoken about how they don't want this.
	And essentially, it's important to understand that this zone, this area they built, one of them is called Prospera.
	I think it's Roatan, the island.
	They have their own laws.
	They have their own tax system.
	They have their own police force.
	Like, there's no sovereignty there.
	Honduras, that area is no longer theirs.
	It's wild.
	It's like Disney World.
	Exactly.
	This new government got put in place, right?
	And then they removed the law because they immediately voted for it.
	Nobody wanted it.
	So now it's technically illegal, even though they're already starting to build another one, which shows you don't care about the laws.
	Now, the important part is they're now suing Honduras.
	For 11 billion dollars.
	The GDP of Honduras is 35, 36 billion dollars.
	New York Times thinks they're gonna win this.
	So here's my point in all this.
	Right now, they're going forward anyway.
	The current government is telling us, on September 5th, they openly said they're doing it again.
	They're marshalling their forces, the US government's gonna back another coup, which I think they know, which is why they're not caring about this.
	But here's what's important.
	What happens?
	Like right now, how does that make sense?
	Like, what happened?
	Who has control over this area if they're the ones in control?
	So what does the government mean in that context?
	What happens if they win, which it seems they might?
	Do they take all the assets of Honduras because of a bankruptcy?
	And what does that mean for the people?
	The government doesn't go away, but arguably this...
	A technocratic, Teal-backed entity owns everything, so they're technically in control of everything, even though the government's there.
	So my long point, essentially pointing out, there's lots of these things happening in the world.
	Is this an example of technocracy, these elitist oligarchs sort of taking control of land and land grabs without even going through some illusion of a democratic process?
	It's kind of terrifying.
	And I think an important part is to see how this ties back to Teal and, you know, Palantir, Israel, all these different overlaps, but Just that concept alone worries me about where this goes and how they're sort of like reimagining the way that we should live under technocrats as opposed to elected governments, even though that's not even what's happening anymore.
	It's interesting.
	Yeah, you know, when you look at Palantir, his connection to Palantir is one of the things that really concerns me about Peter Thiel as well.
	He's not what he appears to be.
	Musk is not what he appears to be.
	Yeah, I guess he wants to have like another Rhodesia or something where he's the, we call it Tealesia or something.
	Right.
	Peter Teal Village or I don't know what he would call it.
	But, you know, that's the whole thing.
	And Musk Starlink, by the way, I'm sorry, I forgot that Musk Starlink is being allowed to be used for these for these areas.
	But as I can tell, not for all of Honduras.
	So I think that's interesting.
	I think that relates to the military purpose that might be coming.
	Go ahead.
	Sorry, I just want to include that.
	That's interesting, yeah.
	So what is your take on it?
	I mean, are they just trying to set up an example here?
	Is this going to be like the home base for them to flee to if they have to?
	Because in the past, I talked to Hugo de Garis.
	He wrote about artificial intelligence.
	He worked in the field.
	And he was a true believer in it.
	He thought they were going to create a godlike intelligence and so forth.
	And he said, but before that, he said, when people realize what they're doing, in other words, the technocrats, he said, what I think will happen is people will come for them.
	And to defend themselves, he said, they'll most likely set up some kind of high frontier type of thing.
	Gerard Cahill talked about in the 1970s, you had Jeff Bezos referenced it a lot.
	And you saw it in Elysium, where they got these toroid shaped things.
	And so he said, I think that they'll set these things up and flee to that, and then conduct a war against us with superior technology.
	He called them Cosmos, and the people that would be left on Earth, he'd call them Terrans.
	And he said, you know, I think that they'll flee to their space bases and then, you know, as a refuge.
	Maybe they're going to just go to Honduras.
	You know, it's funny.
	There's jokes we made about these people, but I tell you, there's something about that that I take very seriously, and that's a terrifying thing.
	Like, even the space aspect.
	I've been saying this for so long, and I don't know why it doesn't get, I mean, it's probably why it doesn't get much attention, but we don't know what the hell is going on up there in space.
	Like, there's been a long period where they have the ability to do all sorts of things.
	How do we know that they haven't even made contracts with other governments to be like, look, let's just black this out.
	People don't need to know, like colonies, space wars.
	I mean, I'm not saying I'm thinking that's happening.
	I'm just saying the fact that we don't know is pretty crazy to me.
	It's a Wild West up there for governments and technocrats.
	You make a great point in regard to Honduras and all the, by the way, I love your point there.
	It's a terrifying reality, but we have to realize that the point he's making is these people are wildly powerful, influential, in some cases overlap with government.
	And they could literally be creating a situation where they're driving into reality their worldview, which is technocracy.
	That's kind of terrifying.
	But yeah, the Honduras point, it could be, right?
	So my take on what it ultimately comes down to, it could be sort of a test bed, you know, like a litmus test to see how people respond.
	The main point to make is that the people of Honduras, that's again, the new administration was running on the removal of those, but the idea that they violated their sovereignty, I mean, they're even trying to argue that they violated the original contract, even the contract with the illegal governments.
	Both, by the way, the presidents that existed during those illegal contracts are both indicted by the current government.
	And even the U.S.
	government acknowledges they're both as criminals.
	So it just shows you how ridiculous this all is.
	But the point is that I think it's really about testing to see how we respond to what people will do and see how far they can take it.
	But I mean, it could be more than that.
	You know, this could be the beginning of something.
	I just think it's important to highlight that if it's that easy, you know, I mean, it shouldn't be easy, but military power, a quick coup overlapping with a corporation swinging in, making a contract with the government, the illegal government put in place.
	And then just saying, well, too late.
	You can't take this back, even though the laws have changed, even though it turns out you didn't even meet the contract to begin with.
	And now my point is that, like I said before, they just posted something on Twitter where they're saying they're building another city on the island that Prospera is on now.
	But that law has been removed for a long time now.
	So my point is, I'm convinced the people behind this, that's the Thiel company, Why would they do that if the law doesn't back it?
	I think that there's something in their mind that tells them they're going to be able to get away with that.
	That's why my feeling is, that's why she's saying that about the upcoming coup, that they think there's going to be a power swing and that they won't have to worry about it.
	That's completely my opinion.
	But so that's all about where this goes and the shifting of power and whether government is a thing of the past.
	You know, it's just a thought, but it does worry me.
	Yeah, it is interesting when you go back and look at it.
	I've talked many times about how Peter Thiel's grandfather, you know, was fully on board with technocracy back in the 1930s as H.G.
	Wells was doing Things to Come and Shape of Things to Come.
	They did the movie, they had the book, and he actually tried to enact that, and Canada had to flee to South Africa.
	So there's a certain, you know, this It kind of resembles this in a lot of different ways.
	The idea that, you know, they're going to kind of hedge their bets to make sure, even though they're making so much money out of government, and that's the key thing.
	You know, Elon Musk became the king of crony capitalism.
	Yeah, he made so much money and became so wealthy, and he's going to make even more doing the fact that he's able to get the satellites up and Boeing, you know, NASA said, well, we want to have another company is doing, and Boeing can't They can't get their act together.
	He's able to do that.
	So he's on track to become the world's first trillionaire by maybe 2027.
	So it's just a vertical takeoff in terms of the power that these people have.
	But Thiel and the powers and the companies that he's put in there, Palantir, that's unbelievably powerful.
	And so they put themselves into key technologies That the government is relying on, and a big part of that is going to be artificial intelligence, because in my opinion, that's the killer app of AI.
	It isn't that they're going to have autonomous robots that are going to come around and try to, you know, kill us individually.
	They want to use the artificial intelligence as a way to propagandize and to surveil us.
	I think that's the killer app.
	I think that's what they've been working on for a long time.
	And so, they're insinuating, inserting themselves into all of these key choke points, essentially, through technology.
	Yeah, 100%.
	And one of the important overlaps that we shouldn't miss with all of it, with Musk and Starlink and, you know, is the idea that what this is overlapping with the conversation we just had, by the way, with the pack of the future and the digital.
	I mean, this might very well be the beginnings of what this is meant to kind of the need that they're building that needs the role to fill.
	And like, for example, the 15 minute city, the smart city dynamic.
	I mean, it may not be exactly the same overlap, but it's the same general idea that we're simply in an area that is run by technocrats or run by people that are arguing they know better about your life, you know?
	And so it's a different flavor of the same kind of thing.
	And so what really should be worrying for the people that think they're on the side of the party that is against this, right?
	It's largely people tied right back to the administration that's running on Trump's side who are building this thing, you know?
	And that overlaps.
	And there's also so many overlaps to these people with the actual W.H.O.
	overlap and the World Economic Forum.
	If people are just kind of being willfully blind about it, you know, but your point is right.
	I think it's all about building into a position where artificial intelligence, digital identification, these things are not just necessary, but paramount to the way that the city functions.
	All, of course, always framed under the guise that it's better for you and it'll make your life more convenient, you know, and maybe that's in some minds, maybe that's what they're actually doing.
	But it's like that for that to turn into a technocratic nightmare.
	You know, and that's what we're all worried about is I want the positive if that's something that's genuine I mean I technically I actually don't I don't want any of this stuff But I mean like I opened to the idea that things might be positive But we need to realize that if you open that door, it's like a dual use concept It is going to be used against you eventually and I don't think we should take that step. Yeah Oh, I agree.
	That's what's happened really to technology.
	But, you know, when we look at the technocracy versus Marxism versus, you know, populism or whatever, you take these different approaches and the dangerous things about all of them, you know, we're talking about fascism or populism or Marxism or technocracy.
	The thing that makes them dangerous is the element of authoritarianism and totalitarianism.
	And they all have that in there as a strong aspect of what they're doing.
	And so they can all lapse into that commonality.
	You know, we're so used to thinking that Marxism is completely opposite from fascism.
	And it's not.
	You know, when you look at the Nolan chart, you see that they're down there at the bottom because they're both authoritarian or totalitarian.
	And the same thing can happen with a technocracy.
	It's just how they market it to us.
	One of them might come in and say, well, we want to have a brotherhood of man.
	That'd be Marxism.
	So you got to give all power to me.
	The other people say, well, we got a different MacGuffin.
	We want to focus around our culture and our nationality.
	So give all power to me.
	They've all got, just like the other things, it's like, well, we need to depopulate the earth, whatever it is.
	They've all come back to the same thing.
	They have different ways to sell it to you.
	And the reason I mentioned this is because when you look at the dangerous tendencies that I see in the electorate, Is the idea that, as I said before, we got a problem, it needs to be solved by the government.
	And we need a savior?
	Well, let's get a billionaire who says he's on our side.
	And I see that with Elon Musk.
	I see that so much with the people, the MAGA people who are focused on Trump.
	Look at this guy, he's rich, he's powerful, he knows he's successful, because obviously, because he's got a lot of money.
	And so if he's on our side, and I think he's on our side, because look, he's giving us free speech on Twitter.
	I'm not seeing any free speech on Twitter.
	But they imagine that, and you've got all these people who are cheering Musk and think that he's on their side, and he's going to be the guy who's going to save us after Trump.
	And that's such a dangerous thing.
	And they're playing these people, I think.
	I mean, here's the thought.
	100%, I completely agree with everything you just said.
	One thing that's jumped into my head, based on what we were just discussing, right?
	So if we're thinking this out, let's just say for sake of conversation, the long play is to get Americans comfortable with the idea of technocratic leadership, right?
	And one thing Matt Aret and I have talked about over the years is he's under the mindset that this is a very long play.
	This goes back to power structures, bloodlines that go back a long way, and the mindset being that At one point in time, there was a shift from kind of a monarch mindset into something where at least we pretend we have the power to elect who we want.
	And the argument is that that was something that was a veil pulled over our eyes where they convinced us we were choosing, but we really weren't.
	And now we're at a point where that veil is being removed because they've decided, well, we're going to step back out of the shadows for whatever reason.
	You know, and so it's possible to consider the fact that This whole thing is about manufacturing Elon Musk into some kind of position.
	He's already accepted a position.
	Whether it actually happens, that's still up in the air.
	But he said it, he's accepted.
	That's the Department of Government Energy, which just so happens to be Doge, which I find ridiculous.
	You know, the coin he's always talking about.
	Are they serious?
	I don't know, but he said it publicly.
	Trump stood up in an interview and said, I hope he's accepted it and I think it's good.
	So my point is, what happens if Elon Musk takes a pretty prominent role, right?
	And then runs for president next time, right?
	I mean, there you go.
	Just boom, just like that.
	And all of a sudden you've got a literal technocrat, oligarch, elitist, military contractor, who's the good guy saving free speech.
	I mean, that's a pretty terrifying step right there.
	I mean, if that happened, my opinion would be that would be, it's likely cordated.
	Yeah.
	Oh, I agree.
	I agree.
	It is a crazy time that we're living in, and things are accelerating very, very rapidly, and, you know, I think it is, again, we go through, I believe, these cycles of history, like they talked about, Strauss and Howe talked about in the fourth turning.
	I think we're at the tail end of that, and I think this next administration, whoever it is, Is really going to usher us in through this whole thing because it's going to take us right up to the end of it They want to have their new society in 2030. That means that they got a Terry thing down and start Rebuilding something else to get it there and in place by 2030 And so that means whoever this next president that they select That they're going to use to do this thing. So it's a
	people need to be aware of the overall landscape Understand how the you know how the dangers are shaping up and see what these threats are so that you can prepare yourself That's why I keep telling people Focus on your own life and don't live vicariously through these people who really don't care at all about you.
	I mean, we can just see that with January the 6th.
	They just use people and cast them aside for their own benefit.
	It's just absolutely amazing.
	Well, it's always great talking to you, Ryan, and tell us a bit more about The Last American Vagabond.
	And is it spelled out LastAmericanVagabond.com?
	Is that the website?
	Yeah, TheLastAmericanVagabond.com.
	And we also have our substack at TLAVagabond.
	I think it's at substack.com.
	I think that's what it is.
	You know, but it's all on the website.
	If you go to thelastamericabagabond.com, you'll find links to everything.
	As I say in just about every interview, don't let the platforms be the conduit between you and our information, right?
	Go directly to davidknight.com, go directly to the website, check out our content, you know, as opposed to the platforms, because I think there's control happening through those as well.
	Yeah, the platform I think is right now by the way. I were under some pretty heavy attack as always I think but the website I had a really amazing interview with Katherine Austin Fitz that was Focused aggressively about all this stuff around the two-party illusion the election around digital is always great. She's Outstanding and she had a really crazy conversation about like important and crazy around Neurological weapons, I'm sure you've talked about I've talked about the neuroscience like but like
	Claim saying that she has experienced it been there seen it and her argument is that's part of what's happening in this election anyway People need to check that out at The Last American Vagabond.
	An excellent interview with Katherine Austin Fitts.
	Thank you so much, Ryan Christian.
	Thank you all for joining us today.
	Have a good day.
	Let me tell you, the David Night 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 Night Show right now.
	Yeah, good.
	And you want to know something else?

▲