Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 12, 2024 - The David Knight Show

03:03:42

The David Knight Show - 09/12/2024

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	you
	using free speech to free minds You're listening to The David Night Show.
	As the clock strikes 13, it's Thursday, the 12th of September.
	Hear of our Lord, 2020.
	Today we're going to take a look at how the press covered 9-11 yesterday.
	It's really kind of amazing.
	At the same time, they say, well, we must never forget they're doing the best they can to forget so many things, aren't they?
	And we're going to start today with a look at public health.
	I had a listener send me a sub stack that somebody wrote about someone else's opinion about what is going on.
	And look, I agree with both of them.
	The core issue that we have to address is public health.
	Public health, like public education, are designed to destroy this country.
	They are communists, and I say that.
	I know people are going to roll their eyes.
	Oh, you can't talk about communism.
	Post-McCarthyism, right?
	Well, it's a thing.
	It's real.
	And that's what this is.
	We'll be right back.
	I want to thank Amos Poole for sending this to me.
	I had not seen it, and he has been such a big help to us in terms of the issues with my son.
	Sent me a book about vitamin C. Sent me some vitamin C as well.
	And a lipospheric, I think I'll call it liposomal, because it is lipospheric, but it's in a capsule.
	I really do appreciate that, and I've been a supporter for a very long time.
	And I also want to thank Austin.
	Thank you so much for the support that you have sent, and we're going to be moving.
	We've had four or five people who have been very generous in their support.
	We're moving it up to a quarter, so we're on track to get there this month.
	But this article that was sent by Amos Public Health is a Marxist-Communist creation.
	And he forwarded along a substack from Celia Farber, The Truth Barrier.
	She's got a substack there.
	And she actually wrote this.
	So I thought, well, I've seen this.
	I've had this for a while.
	And she said, I want to talk about it.
	It's a guy from India.
	He's an Indian public health historian.
	Has said the unsayable.
	And she said, now hear me out.
	I'm going to tear off a bandage that you're not going to want to have torn off.
	Please listen to what I have to say.
	Yeah, I learned long time ago that if you tell people the truth, if you're really looking for the truth and you're going to follow it wherever it goes, and you're going to talk about it, whoever's ox it gourds, you are going to be ostracized.
	You're going to be punished.
	That's just the way this world is.
	They punish you for telling the truth.
	But she said, um, and she put this caveat there.
	She said, look, he's Indian.
	He's living in Australia.
	He's an economist.
	He's a public health historian.
	And she said, I don't agree with many of the things that he talks about.
	And he's, she says, um, he's got blind spots about GMOs and about industrial toxins.
	And, uh, he says that RFK Jr.
	Is an idiot who's bought into Rachel Carson's wrong ideas.
	I would say he hasn't bought into the wrong ideas, I think he's bought into the wrong solutions.
	The solution is not to lock up your opponents because of free speech.
	And I don't believe that he's changed, because he hasn't admitted.
	He lied about what he said back then.
	So, you know, yeah, he's been punished and maybe he has changed He needs to come clean on it.
	So Then there's a lot of other issues besides these things with RFK jr But she's a she's a fan of RFK jr.
	Nevertheless, you know and a lot of times I will I'll talk about something that somebody says and then I'll get all these letters Well, do you know that so-and-so believes this and does this and I'll say and it's like yes.
	Yes.
	I know I don't Whenever I talk about something from somebody, I don't always go through and say, well, here are the things that I know negative about this person, but still, I think this thing is great.
	I just talk about what I think is correct.
	Excuse me.
	What I think is correct.
	Sometimes I do the opposite.
	Sometimes I'll come after somebody that I probably agree with 80 or 90% of the time because I really strongly disagree with the one thing that they've just written.
	So, you know, it goes both ways.
	The point is, it's about what I'm talking about.
	It's not about the person.
	And many times it was a real, it was a real pet peeve and rightfully so of Lee Stranahan to say, well, you're going to label me because I work for this organization.
	I think he worked for Sputnik or something at the time he'd worked for Breitbart.
	He'd done a lot of good work and I got to know him when he was at Breitbart and they went to work for Sputnik and.
	Oh, we're going to just, uh, uh, you know, this guy can't be listened to because he works for Sputnik.
	And I experienced that as well, you know, working at Infowars.
	Sometimes people believe everything that I had to say because I was there.
	Sometimes people believe nothing that I had to say because I was there.
	And it was a real pet peeve with Lee.
	He said, just go with these things one at a time.
	The New York Times, you know, has been exposed as fraudulent, deliberate fraud, especially even around a, I forget the woman's name, but she wrote a series of articles About a young poor kid on the street in New York.
	It's all fiction.
	She made it all up.
	She won a Pulitzer Prize for it.
	Later, they admitted it was wrong and so forth.
	Washington Post has done the same type of stuff.
	They don't.
	They frequently, usually, I think, get it wrong.
	And they engage in deliberate misinformation and propaganda.
	Obviously, we've all seen that.
	And yet, they can sometimes say the right thing.
	Wall Street Journal, all of them.
	Apart from the caveats.
	What does he say that she is so interested in?
	Well, she says, he points out that public health is a Marxist-Communist creation.
	This is a guy who is a public health historian.
	That's his field.
	I'm studying the history of public health.
	Oh, it came from communism.
	He says, it is a death trap.
	He says, public health, the public health historian says.
	It's entirely political and ideological.
	It's not science.
	Not science, yeah.
	That's what we were told by Kerry Mullis.
	He says Fauci's not a scientist.
	He's a lying bureaucrat.
	He'll look you right in the eye, look right into the camera, and lie to your face.
	It's political.
	It's ideological.
	It's not science.
	It's not honest.
	If it feigns interest in science, It is only on the level that a serial killer feigns to have interest in carrying a woman's groceries up the stairwell.
	That's it.
	That nails it.
	And as I'm thinking about this, I'm like, yeah, you know, public health, I've said so many times, you've heard this over the years, I've said for the longest time, there is no such thing as public health.
	Because public health, is a fraud that ignores individual health.
	Individual health is to be sacrificed to the public's good all the time.
	That's what they always say.
	And so public health is nonsense.
	It's a propaganda term.
	But it's also very similar to public schools, isn't it?
	And it's kind of interesting to me That when I was growing up, up until 1979, we used to always hear about the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
	HEW.
	HEW this, HEW that.
	It was always talked about.
	It's Health, Education, and Welfare.
	And I think the big sicknesses in our society are the idea that we think that health, education, and welfare should be done publicly.
	None of those should be done publicly.
	Public health is an issue.
	Public education is an issue.
	They're both Marxist.
	They're both destructive of the very thing that they're supposed to aid and promulgate.
	And when it comes to welfare, same thing there as well.
	When we had, in America in the early 1800s, when Alexis de Tocqueville came and wrote about democracy in America, he talked about how welfare It was really done as charity, organized by local people.
	And when you send it off to create entitlement programs that people can qualify for, that people can game, and there's nobody who knows who's getting it, or if they really deserve it, you give a lot of money away to people who don't deserve it, and people who do deserve it don't get it.
	It's this horrible misallocation of of welfare.
	And yet, it is destructive.
	It's destructive just like public health and public education are destructive.
	I also found it interesting, well, you know, when did they change this to HEW?
	From HEW to splitting these things up?
	Well, if you go back and you look at the history of the bureaucracy, we're talking about the history of public health, but you look at the history of the bureaucracy, this all began with a Republican president, Harding.
	Back in 1933, he proposed that there ought to be something like the Health, Education, and Welfare Department that was eventually created by another Republican, Eisenhower, in 1953.
	So, I'm sorry, I said 33.
	1923, Harding.
	So 30 years apart, two Republicans created this.
	One of them had the idea, the other one implemented it.
	Eisenhower.
	I thought, hmm.
	General MacArthur always said that Eisenhower was a bureaucrat.
	Said something like, best secretary I ever had, or something like that.
	Yeah, he was a little bureaucrat.
	He set up HEW.
	And it was there for, you know, from 53 to 79.
	53 to 79 and this this tumor this public tumor this cancer kept growing and so they had to cut it into pieces so it could keep growing again right Prune it back a little bit.
	No, they didn't prune it at all.
	They just separated it into two different domains.
	And so in 79, that's when Jimmy Carter created, um, the department of education that Ronald Reagan immediately said he would kill, but he didn't.
	They grew that.
	But then what was left, the HE, uh, I'm sorry, the HW, um, that kind of became, um, Health and Human Services, HHS.
	And it's under HHS that you have these public health agencies like the FDA, the CDC, and NIH and things like that.
	So that's the bureaucratic history of it.
	But then what about the political history of it?
	He says, and she's looking at this, she says, those of us who are trying to work for health freedom, She says, I look at it and it's difficult to get people to push back against the public health bureaucracy per se.
	Well, they mean well.
	They did good work until this happened and all the rest of the stuff.
	I think it can be reformed.
	It's like, no, it's going to be cut out.
	It's like all this stuff.
	It's got to be cut out.
	It's got to be cut off or cut out.
	If the federal government won't cut it out, we need to cut it off.
	At the state level.
	And so she said, but this is nobody's song.
	You'll hear people talk about corporate capture.
	You'll hear them talk about the bankruptcy of virology.
	And all these things are true, really.
	But it's the government that needs to be separated from our health.
	The government needs to be separated from our education.
	And the government needs to be separated from welfare.
	Our welfare.
	And charity.
	She said, none of these things are root causes in terms of corporate capture or the bankruptcy of virology, she said, but people don't understand the why and the how of all of this.
	And so she quotes, going back again to this Indian guy, Sabhik.
	No, sorry, it's not a C, that's an O. Sabhyak, I guess.
	He says, public health is pervasively political, hence ideological.
	He says, we need to understand that this is an ideological discipline, not a science.
	We need to understand that Fauci is a bureaucrat, not a scientist.
	And he says, when you go back and you connect it to the Communist Manifesto, he said, many of the founders of public health Talked glowingly about the Communist Manifesto and how it was rooted in that.
	Public health has long placed Karl Marx on a pedestal.
	And undermine those who would oppose this.
	Richard Horton's claim and the Lancet discussed here later are just the latest examples.
	And this widely cited 1998 American Journal of Public Health piece, which claims that the vision of social justice, this is talking about social justice back in 1998.
	We didn't realize just how foundational that was going to become to their agenda.
	So this vision of social justice is the foundation of public health.
	And he points to Marx's Communist Manifesto, which was 1848.
	1848 is the year in which the Communist Manifesto was published and became a landmark text coalescing the era's vision for social changes.
	This period also marks a burgeoning of public health activity from studies of workers' health in France to public health legislation elsewhere.
	Isn't it interesting that in 1848 you have the Communist Manifesto, and in 1948 George Orwell writes 1984.
	And you know the mass purges of Stalin were many of those are still to come.
	But in that century, so much had been done to make communism the justification for every kind of totalitarianism and authoritarianism.
	But the Marxist-Communist Manifesto of the Lancet, he says, Public Health published a full-blown political manifesto in the Lancet in 2014.
	It was written by Richard Horton, an educator.
	This so-called medical journal, again the Lancet is like the Journal of the American Medical Association here in the U.S.
	rightly called it a manifesto since it is indistinguishable from Marx's Communist Manifesto or George Bernard Shaw's Fabian Manifesto.
	This is a case of a so-called scientific discipline publishing a full-blown Communist Manifesto and most of us were entirely unaware of it, says the public health historian who's drawing our attention to it.
	So what exactly does the Manifesto 1?
	He says, I've summarized it below.
	Six points.
	Number one, it has nothing to do with science being repeatedly characterized as a social movement.
	Number two, to overthrow neoliberalism, which they describe as an unjust global economic system that must not be tolerated.
	Now when they talk about Neoliberalism, they're talking really more about the classical liberalism.
	In other words, individual liberty, that type of thing, what used to be called that.
	Stop production and progress, number three.
	Progress is dangerous and there is overconsumption.
	I had a Marxist professor when I was in college over 50 years ago.
	Boy was he all about, he hated the whole idea of progress.
	Which I thought was kind of funny because they have embraced the label of progressives.
	They kept saying, there is no such thing as progress.
	I said, well, I work in technology.
	I think we've seen a lot of progress.
	Unfortunately, I didn't know what was coming, and now they were going to use it.
	I should have paid more attention to what Eisenhower said about the military-industrial complex taking over science and academia and engineering.
	But anyway, number four, public health will decide everything for us as our independent conscience.
	They call for collective action led by public health.
	We want to promote health.
	You want to foster resilience.
	And number five, focus on equity and social justice.
	Six, people are stupid, so their values must be transformed.
	In particular, we must trust public health.
	Trust the science.
	You know, you don't know nothing about any of this stuff.
	I'm the scientist.
	See my white coat?
	I'd like to put these people in a white coat, the kind with the long sleeves that tie in the back.
	You know, that's what kind of white coat that they belong at.
	These people are crazy, crazy, like Mingala crazy.
	That's what they're crazy like.
	Um, so he says, uh, you can have a read yourself and he's got a link to it in this excellent article.
	And so, uh, Savio says, um, he creates a chart.
	And in the chart, he's got a cycle of five things.
	Number one, create and amplify pandemic fear.
	Well, that's where we are right now with the bird flu, isn't it?
	Number two, a government pumps vast amounts of money into public health to address this fear.
	I guess you could say that's already being done as well.
	Number three, fund corrupt researchers to produce models to further terrorize the people.
	As Trump said.
	These two smart people have given me this information.
	Where'd that come from?
	The Imperial College of London.
	Impeccable academic credentials, right?
	And laughable nonsense.
	You know, these emperors who want to rule us have no clothes.
	It's just like the climate stuff.
	Number four, get Big Pharma and its associates, like Bill Gates.
	Two, fund the media so you can control the message.
	Number five, fund research into new ways to terrorize the people.
	Behavioral aspects, right?
	The psychological stuff.
	They did all of that with COVID.
	And when you talk about Big Pharma funding the media so they can control it, It truly is amazing.
	When you look at the amount of money the pharmaceutical companies have put into it, the tens of billions in just the last decade, over 50 billion in just the last decade, that buys a lot of friendly coverage in the media.
	And it makes sure that the people who run Fox News or CNN or whatever else make sure that Tucker Carlson or whoever is working there isn't going to oppose them.
	He might do an eye roll every once in a while, but that's all.
	Because he knows he's writing his check.
	The check's being written by Pfizer.
	He's not going to bite that hand that's feeding him tens of millions of dollars.
	We need to revert to classical scientific public health.
	But the academia in public health is occupied by socialists.
	It may take decades, if not centuries, to stop this killer organization.
	And in it, he talks about, we've had three different approaches to public health.
	He says in the medieval period, they would quarantine people, but they rejected sanitation.
	And then you had a period of time where they rejected quarantine, and they went with sanitation.
	They just switched places.
	But he said now, in the modern public health, You have, they've embraced everything.
	They've embraced both quarantine and sanitation, but they've also embraced social engineering, socialism, and eugenics.
	And he says, we need to go back to the classical model that was in vogue from about 1800, 1860, which is to reject quarantine, uh, embrace sanitation and reject socialism and eugenics.
	The public health people ought to just be concerned about sanitation.
	That place where you're preparing the food and everything, is that clean?
	Okay, have a good day.
	If not, we're gonna do something about it.
	But that's the limit of what so-called public health should be doing.
	He said, or rather she said, one stunning fact I just learned.
	Glyphosate was patented first as a chelator.
	Guess what it chelates?
	Mostly, very potently, copper.
	And without copper, the body can't function.
	It breaks down iron, it becomes dysregulated, and disease follows.
	She says, in all my years as an HIV dissident, nobody really addressed root causes of disease.
	Things like copper depletion, or things like that.
	And so, this guy who wrote the book on public health history, Subtitled, The Malthusian Marxist Darwinian Livestock Model.
	With the ear tag and everything else.
	That's pretty much it, isn't it?
	He really did nail it.
	And she says, I believe that Marxism is satanic.
	I believe the only science in it is the science of breaking the human soul.
	For this reason, I don't see virology collapsing without a root cause admission that its father is eugenics and genocidal socialism.
	The Marxist eugenicists have always loved quarantining without any scientific basis whatsoever.
	And they have always loved vaccines.
	So there's no change, no big surprise.
	We just don't know history.
	And when you look at it, quarantine and vaccine are the key aspects of the germ game.
	The first one being dark winter two months before 9-11.
	Then they had their false flag of anthrax and people were killed with the anthrax.
	They blamed it initially on Iraq.
	And it's an attack, and it's an attack, and so forth.
	And so they put together some model legislation two months after that, sent it out to all the states, and then they practiced the germ game for two decades before they actually did it.
	These agendas have never had or even sought any basis in science.
	The ideology just invents any excuse out of thin air to lock people up and oppress them.
	That's what we saw with the lockdown.
	The lockdown was a lock-up.
	And they're always looking for an excuse.
	And always creating problems, as well as creating fear.
	So they can lock people down and punish them.
	Look at how the Chinese communists loved it so much with their zero COVID.
	They kept it going for years.
	Locking down Shanghai to teach them who was in charge.
	That's really what that was about.
	People wailing, you could hear them Just getting out on the balcony of their high rise prisons and screaming at night.
	Oh, the Marxists love that.
	Don't they?
	The communists love that.
	That is the black soul of so-called public health.
	The mystery is over.
	That's right.
	We know exactly what it is.
	And so now you've got the national science foundation.
	Science is investing $72 million in four university pandemic research centers.
	It's going to keep going.
	Military-Industrial-Academic Complex.
	And so this guy Sanjeev Savyak says, I'm investigating the precise sequence of thought which led Charles Maclean to ultimately become such a major opponent of quarantine.
	In his rather short 1796 book, he focused mainly on proving that plague and yellow fever are not contagious.
	He was 100% correct.
	He then raised a few questions about the validity of quarantine, which he said requires more investigation.
	Since no one bothered to investigate, he set out to investigate it himself.
	And in the 1800s, he spent vast amounts of energy to study the empirical performance of previous quarantines.
	And the rest is history.
	He then became the most vocal critic of quarantine in human history.
	Very much like the Bailey's when I talked to them from New Zealand.
	And their book, they talk about the 50 year, I think it's maybe a little bit more than 50 years, 50 year experience in England of this area where they're going to study the common cold.
	And they tried to do everything they could to transmit, get sick people to transmit to other people and sneeze on them.
	They would take mucus from them and put this in your mouth and gross stuff like that.
	I couldn't figure out how this was being transmitted.
	It's like, well, maybe it's not contagious.
	No, no, we know it's contagious.
	We're going to argue from that standpoint, no matter what the evidence shows.
	That's the one thing we're going to believe.
	It's like these people.
	The leftists who say there is no such thing as absolute truth, and that becomes their absolute truth.
	Well, the fact that the cold was contagious was their absolute truth.
	They finally shut it down after 50 years, but they would not change their hard belief that it was based on contagion.
	He did it himself.
	This great scientist, says Sanjeev Sohobiak, this great scientist has been entirely cancelled by the thugs who call themselves public health today.
	And so he says, he has an excerpt from something that was written that's in the archives from the scientist.
	Another advantage would result from rejecting the doctrine of contagion and pestilential diseases is that the quarantines usually exacted of ships coming from places suspected of contagion would no longer be considered to be necessary.
	Which made me think about the Diamond Princess.
	I used that over and over again at the beginning of all this nonsense in 2020.
	I said, okay, so, you know, it's, it's there.
	And, um, in Japan, I think it was close to Fukushima, even as a cruise ship, somebody tested positive.
	And so they had, um, um, they, they quarantined this thing and it's like, Oh, everybody's going to die.
	And very few people did die.
	But they put them through some horrific conditions and kept them quarantined for quite some time.
	When you look at the demographics of a cruise ship, the one cruise that Karen and I took, well it's actually the second cruise we took.
	We did a Disney cruise when the kids were little because it was their parents' 50th anniversary.
	When you look at the one cruise that we took, they had to have a helicopter come out and take somebody away to the hospital.
	I mean, it's very old demographics, and people are not engaging in the healthiest of activities.
	I mean, they're just indulging around the food trays and everything, eating constantly.
	It's not a good thing.
	So it's not surprising that you had people under harsh circumstances that they were keeping them in.
	And the diamond princess that you had a few people get sick and die, but it was a very, very, very tiny percentage.
	And I talked about the numbers.
	I said, extrapolate this out to the general population.
	Why are we locking everything down?
	You know, just look at the diamond princess.
	And then later you had a Navy ship where the commanding officer, uh, there was like somebody tested positive for COVID and it's like, that's it.
	We're going to go to the shore and everybody get off the ship.
	They fired him, or relieved him of command, is I guess the way that they do it.
	And rightfully so, I think.
	Can you imagine somebody that has that kind of attitude actually being in a war?
	Can we stop pretending that the left used to be decent, she says.
	I stopped pretending that a long time ago.
	We always say, nobody saw this coming, the public health pandemic, the new world order, Gates, technocracy, transhumanism agenda.
	It just rode in on the winds of Western romanticism about the unfinished utopia of Karl Marx.
	It's what we're living.
	It's what is killing us without mercy.
	Mercilessness is in its very DNA, she says.
	And so she said, What did I mean by virus communism?
	She said I wrote back in 2022.
	She said I was thrilled that it was noted by someone back in 2022.
	She made a video recording of it.
	She said I had a civilized exchange with Mark Miller about whether I should or should not use the word communism and post McCarthy America.
	To borrow their metaphors, they inoculated themselves against being called communists.
	Hollywood worked very hard about that.
	I mean, the reality is that they really were communists.
	You look at the Coen brothers and their movie Hail Caesar.
	They did excellent satire.
	They do really funny satires.
	But it was a satire about Hollywood in the fifties.
	And of course, Everybody is, all the writers were communists, and actually they're meeting in secret, plotting in secret, and they actually have a meeting with a Russian submarine or whatever.
	I mean, you know, the Coen brothers know that it was really happening in Hollywood, and so you had the Frankfurt School and all the rest of the stuff that was pushing it through entertainment.
	She says, I truly like Toby Roberts personally, and his writing is excellent, but in his central thesis he has a blind spot.
	He believes that public health became psychotic.
	In other words, it's not in his DNA.
	It's not what it was created to do.
	And I have this, you know, when you look at public health or you look at public education, People don't realize that's what it was designed to do from its very inception, and its roots go back to the early 1800s.
	Public health does, just like public education's roots go back to that.
	Alex Newman.
	I had him on.
	His book is a very excellent history of public education, just like this guy's done a history of public health.
	And we can see communism in both of them.
	Communism, totalitarianism.
	It really is about dominating and controlling other people.
	That's its primary function.
	And then of course they combined it with the transhumanist and the depopulation stuff.
	So she said all the leading lights of the left think that they were suddenly betrayed in 2020.
	And the conservatives, because of Trump, can't come to grips with the fact that they were even betrayed.
	That's where we are right now.
	She said, this core thesis is popular since most in the COVID truth movement feel a similar betrayal.
	Since they were mostly at peace before 2020 with both rotten public health religion regarding things like HIV and AIDS and also with the left being the good guys and public health as being a benign construct and a benign force.
	Well, you know, fortunately, um, I wasn't there from the political perspective.
	Because I had already seen what they do with vaccines, with autism, with flu shots, and the rest of this stuff.
	And I knew about Dark Winter.
	And so did the people that I work with.
	But they chose to sell panic and fear so they could sell product.
	So what you won't find, she said, with the partial exception of many Russians, are people who lived through socialism or communism and will still make excuses for it.
	She said, I learned last week that Nicole Shanahan's mother, that's RFK Jr.' 's running partner, she married one of the founders, was it Sergey Brin, I think she married, of Google.
	And he's got hundreds of millions of dollars.
	And then he divorced her.
	And she got a million dollars out of the divorce, a billion dollars out of the divorce settlement.
	So she's a billionaire.
	And that's one of the reasons why she was brought in.
	But she also, as we saw, has some real concerns about public health.
	And she said, I realized, I just learned that her mother came out of communist China, which is why she was not taken in by all this stuff.
	It's kind of interesting.
	What if parents taught kids instead of public education?
	That'd make a lot of difference, wouldn't it?
	I also thought it was interesting what you said.
	What you won't find from people who live through socialism and communism is that they make excuses for it, except you'll find many Russians who do.
	When I interviewed Alexander Dugin, you know, the guy who had his daughter was killed because they were trying to get him, I think.
	Uh, but he was, uh, you know, vilified in the press as being Putin's Rasputin.
	It's got a certain ring to it, doesn't it?
	And so I interviewed him and, um, he, uh, I was very surprised that he was very positive about communism.
	What's going on with this guy?
	He had a very different perspective.
	It's interesting sometimes to talk to people that we don't get to hear from.
	He had a very, very different perspective.
	Very anti-American.
	He saw America as just being an extenuation, a continuation of the sea powers, and that Russia was a land power because they have so much land and so forth.
	But he saw that kind of competition as just being a very long-running competition.
	I thought about it.
	Yeah, from his perspective, I'm sure that there's a lot of truth to that.
	You look at the fact that the Crimean War that happened was the British Empire fighting the Russians.
	And when Russia owned Crimea and everybody knew it, now we pretend that Crimea was never owned by Russia because, you know, we flush history down the memory hole.
	But he had this kind of nostalgia even for Lenin.
	And I was very surprised about it.
	He embraced Christianity and the Russian Orthodox Church and pre-communist Russian architecture and culture and things like that, but he still liked the communists and said, why do you like the communists?
	Oh, well, it was a very important time in history and we prospered and things like that.
	Yeah, you always see that.
	You see people who celebrate Stalin in Russia.
	You see people who celebrate Mao in China.
	You got people who celebrate Abraham Lincoln in the United States.
	It's like, oh, this is... Don't worry about how many people they killed.
	We, the country, really grew.
	So, it is, when you look at this, there was an interesting clip that she put in her sub stack from somebody talking on Reddit, and it was a Reddit thing about communism 101.
	And this guy says, well, I recently, very recently, became a communist.
	I definitely agree with the wealth of Marxist thought, though there's still quite a considerable amount of reading I've yet to do.
	Yeah, there is.
	You keep reading, pal, because he said, however, in a debate with an acquaintance of mine, I was absolutely perplexed by this quote from Marx Ingalls on Britain, Marx Ingalls on Britain, that was published in the People's Paper, April 16, 1853, where he said, the classes and the races, too weak to master the new condition of life, must give way.
	He says, I'm worried that this, Hans, are we the bad guys here?
	I'm worried that this implies that both Marx and Engels argued for genocide.
	Is there any other explanation?
	Did they perhaps have a different meaning for race?
	That does not appear to be the case, reading through the document.
	Were they talking about revolution in general?
	Even if that's the case, I do not see how they could justify genocide.
	Does he not mean that he's talking about their death when he says they must give way?
	These questions worry me.
	I hope someone has answers.
	Please explain to me so that I can keep my newfound love for communism.
	These guys are genocidal murderers on a power trip.
	Well, it all flows back to eugenics, and it does all come back to that, and that's the thing that is the most demonic about it all.
	Satan always seeks to destroy humanity, and that's truly what this is about.
	We're going to take a quick break and when we come back we're going to talk about a change to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System.
	I think it's going to be pretty significant and it shows the deliberate lies and fraud and cover-up that has been put into the VAERS system by the to public health agencies that run it.
	The FDA and the CDC.
	It is absolutely criminal, as you would expect from agencies that were designed to do this.
	We'll be right back.
	♪♪
	Analyzing the globalist's next move.
	And now, The David Nutt Show.
	By the way, when he put that clip in there about the person who said, you know, I just read this stuff about genocide.
	Hans, are we the bad guys?
	He said that you always hear from the communists, well, yeah, Stalin and Mao were butchers, but Ingalls was a good guy, and Trotsky was a good guy.
	They were the good communists and so forth, right?
	That type of thing.
	That's why, you know, when you hear somebody say, like Alex, that Trump's playing 4D chess, it's the same stuff, folks.
	Same stuff.
	They won't call it a spade when it's a spade.
	Their vaccine injury reports disappeared from there, so they developed a tool that anybody can use to track their own reports.
	This is a group of people injured by the Trump shot.
	These are medical people that were injured by it.
	And at first, they went as a group to the FDA.
	They were able to get an audience with very high officials.
	And then they realized that they were just placating them.
	They weren't going to do anything.
	The same kinds of things that people who had AIDS had complained about Fauci.
	Oh yeah, he'll, yes, yes, I'm on your side type of thing.
	And then he'll do nothing.
	That's the way this whole thing operates.
	On Rockfan, NN said VAERS must be multiplied 10 to 100 times.
	Healthcare providers have no incentive to report and fought not to do so.
	There was no tracking of recipients of experimental jabs whatsoever.
	That's what we're going to talk about here and what they're doing about this.
	This is an article from Children's Health Defense.
	Now these people are developing a system to audit vaccine injury reports and attempt to try to hold public health officials accountable.
	Well, that's a start, but it's got to be destroyed.
	Um, you know, you can try to hold them accountable.
	I think it's a necessary, incredibly time consuming process, but we have to document their fraud and we have to tell people about it as well.
	Uh, so the CDC, the FDA jointly oversee VAERS.
	Uh, this group that is pushing back against it is called react 19 founded by a small group of medical professionals who were injured by these Trump shots.
	Uh, the group is teaming up with a computer programmer, Liz Wilner, founder of Open VAERS, a website that provides tools for more easily accessing the VAERS data.
	And, um, uh, they're working with children's health defense to develop the tool.
	React 19 worked with outside experts to review a sample of 126 VAERS reports filed by some of its members who wanted to know what had happened to the reports.
	What do you do with this?
	Even before all this stuff happened, I remember that ICON, Del Bigtree, his group, along with Children's Health Defense, I think the two of them were working with us, they are connected and Children's Health Defense does fund Del Bigtree's network there, but they went to the various people and they said, okay, so, and the FDA, all of them said, you got
	Your immunity, your legal immunity in 1986, and you set up this system and you were going to set up VAERS and you were going to track adverse events with the intention of making recommendations to improve the safety of vaccines.
	What recommendations have you made?
	What have you found?
	And they stonewalled them.
	And so they had to sue.
	And that's not an uncommon thing when you ask for freedom of information requests from these various government agencies.
	They all have contempt for the Constitution.
	They have contempt for the law, especially for FOIA.
	And so you usually have to get a judge to threaten them before they'll produce anything.
	And then, of course, they just redact everything, too.
	But you can still sometimes find out something.
	Uh, what they found out in this particular case, after all the stonewalling and the lawsuits and everything, they finally come back and they said, well, we haven't kept any data and we haven't made any recommendations.
	It's like, well, that was for 33 years.
	We haven't recorded this stuff, done anything with the data or made any recommendations because we don't care about safety whatsoever.
	None.
	So they said after tracking down each person's reports and following them through the VAERS system, they were, quote, kind of shocked at how bad it really is, they said.
	They found that only 61% of the reports filed were correctly logged and published.
	22% were never issued a permanent ID and therefore could not be seen publicly.
	12% were deleted.
	And in 5% of the cases, a report couldn't be filed.
	Or in the report number remains unknown due to system errors.
	So that means that more than a third of the reports searched could not be found in the database that is meant to be publicly accessible and transparent.
	It also suggests that the problems of omission of data and under-reporting may be even greater than estimated.
	Because Harvard had done a study that said only about 1% of these events are actually reported because they make it difficult to report.
	And then when we had COVID vaccine, They made it frowned upon to report it.
	That always made it time-consuming and difficult to report.
	Then they actively discouraged people from doing it.
	The group also found the medical status of the deleted reports, by and large, had a worse outcome than the ones that were still in the system.
	In other words, they were going through and taking out the worst ones.
	And they actually left in a lot of obviously satire things in order to say, well, all these reports are exaggerated and they've gone in and taken out many of the worst ones.
	For example, the public facing VAERS system, 23% of the reports were for permanent disabilities, but in the deleted reports, 53% of them were for permanent disability.
	One of the more alarming things we found out was that not all death reports are investigated, said the founder of React 19.
	Her name is Breanne Dressen.
	At the time, the group was meeting regularly with top officials, including Peter Marks, who's the director of the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.
	He's supposed to be evaluating this stuff.
	And he's head of it.
	And because they're, you know, formerly worked as medical, they've lost their ability to work.
	But he met with them to discuss vaccine injuries and why the agencies were doing nothing to address them.
	The F.B.A.
	told them that VAERS wasn't a reliable indicator for vaccine injuries because anyone could file an injury complaint, even Mickey Mouse or Michael Jackson.
	We told them, we know thousands of people that have not had any follow-up on their VAERS report that are not Mickey Mouse.
	And they're suffering.
	They're suffering every single day, waiting for you guys to get back to them to investigate what happened to them.
	And of course, then they never did anything.
	So we were like, okay, fine.
	If they're not going to generate the evidence, then we will ourselves.
	So they submitted the findings to him.
	During a meeting with him and his team.
	Based on their findings, they also requested an external audit of the entire VAERS system.
	And they posted a series of questions, listed on their audit report webpages.
	And they never heard from the agencies again.
	We were like, really?
	We were having these regular meetings with them, one every month or every two months, and then after that, they refused to meet with us anymore.
	She was injured in the AstraZeneca clinical trials.
	She has a diagnosis of post-vaccine neuropathy and other vaccine-related disorders.
	That was confirmed by the National Institute of Health.
	She said her own VAERS report is not visible to the public and the agencies haven't told her why.
	You know, when we look at these explosions in the VAERS report, And I remember early January, 2021, I was looking and it's like, do you realize that they filed, you know, there's more reports of injuries already than we've had in a couple of years of MMR shots and flu shots and all the rest of the stuff that was there, uh, more than a couple of years combined.
	And they just kept growing and growing.
	And within a few months, it was more than 33 years of that stuff combined.
	And they didn't do anything to stop it.
	They really don't care.
	So, she was injured with the AstraZeneca thing.
	More recently, still hoping for accountability, the group has submitted its audit and complaints to the Office of Inspector General at HHS.
	But the only response that they received is an auto response confirming receipt of the complaint.
	Now the group is scaling up the project to do a larger audit with more data.
	Uh, and so you can find this online.
	If you or people, you know, have been injured by this, it's called, uh, open VAERS.
	And, uh, the team built a backend, the automated administrative tracking system, which eliminates the need to manually search for each report and its journey through VAERS.
	Something the analyst had to do for the first iteration of their audit.
	And, um, so.
	Um, they've got to get this information, you know?
	And like I said, when I was talking about Trump's, you remember when he ran in 2016, what are the big issues?
	Well, you all remember that it was the border, right?
	And, uh, you know, then government spending is always an issue with Republicans.
	Um, but another big issue was Obamacare.
	You know, war and peace and the welfare system and wasteful government spending and everything.
	But Obamacare and the border were big issues, right?
	Obamacare was new and he was going to fix it.
	He was going to get rid of it.
	He had a plan to do something about it.
	And part of that plan was to give people information that they could make decisions about.
	So they could know which doctors and hospitals and institutions had not done a good job, and to give them the ability to participate in a market.
	So you've got to have information, you've got to have purchasing power, you have to have the freedom to make those choices.
	All those types of things were part of those reforms.
	None of it was done.
	None of it was done.
	Trump didn't even talk about it during the campaign.
	If something that was just put up there by some policy wonks and I said, well, what happened?
	I said, this is really great.
	I doubt since he hasn't said anything about it, he's going to do anything about it.
	As soon as he got elected, they just completely deep six, that memory hold that page, never saw it again.
	Users can share any information they have about a VAERS report, their ID number if they have one, or if not, details about their case.
	Then they will receive a monthly email with a status of their report.
	For example, somebody who has a user ID in a public-facing report will be informed if their report disappears.
	If the case of those people who filed a VAERS complaint but never got an ID number, the system will search each month for a record and try to find the ID.
	We'll be able to track these reports to the system, figure out what happens to them.
	Do they disappear?
	Do they appear and the person doesn't get notified?
	Do they appear correctly?
	So again, we already know what the problem is.
	And we know these people are not going to do about it.
	I mean, we look at the fluoroquinolone antibiotic that injured my son two weeks ago.
	That thing had 60,000 complaints about it in 2006.
	By the time they got up to 250,000 complaints, they said, all right, we'll put a black box label on it.
	They did that three different times.
	Three different times they upped the black box label.
	Nothing on the label of the antibiotic.
	Nothing said by the physician.
	Nothing said by the pharmacist.
	And everybody knows what it is.
	You can find all kinds of stuff about it.
	And a lot of people have sent me good information about it.
	But it is so well known.
	Floxans, you know, Cipro and other things like that.
	It's a whole family of things.
	All the pharmaceutical companies have got a hand in it.
	They're all making money from it.
	And the FDA doesn't care about it whatsoever.
	So, that's the way it goes.
	I'm just at the point where I will never take anything that's put out by the pharmaceutical companies.
	It's poison.
	A lot of people said, oh, look at this!
	They call it the poison thing in Australia and everything.
	And it's like, well, yeah, that's what it is.
	It really is poison.
	They don't mean it in the sense that everybody took it, but the sense that everybody took it is absolutely true.
	It is absolutely poison.
	It doesn't matter what it is.
	It could be a painkiller, it could be antibiotic, it could be anything.
	They keep changing this stuff, right?
	And it does keep changing to the extent that You know, when you look at marijuana, the things that they're talking about, marijuana after it's been intensified because of prohibition and so forth, the things that it's coming up with, just like they keep changing wheat or marijuana, they keep changing the drugs and they keep making them more and more intensive and creating more and more problems with all that stuff.
	So I'm done.
	I'm done with that stuff.
	And so now we have a group of injured people.
	They'll all be talking with one voice, they said, without more pressure and more discovery, I don't think we're ever going to be able to get the truth out.
	Ultimately, we want to get this information to the masses of people that just don't know what is happening, particularly with this data.
	And they don't know that we've all been duped.
	She said the project is an attempt to bring power back to the people.
	Well, that's fine.
	We need to understand that we've been duped.
	We need to understand these people are murderers.
	We need to understand they'll kill people for money.
	But here's a solution.
	We've got to end public health.
	And look at how Pfizer has interwoven public health with public education.
	I mean, everything that they do, they use the education to deceive people.
	The government schools.
	Don't call it public health.
	Call it government health.
	Call it government schools.
	That's what it's about.
	It's about the health of the government.
	It's not about your health.
	It's not about your welfare.
	It's about the welfare of the government.
	It's about the education.
	The education is about informing you to think what the government wants you to think.
	It's not directed for you.
	It's directed against you.
	So Toby Rogers says, in the debate, Trump expressed far more concern for dogs and cats than he did for the chronically ill children.
	That's right.
	That's right.
	It's the same type of stuff that we saw with Fauci when they found out that he was torturing beagles.
	Oh, people cared.
	When it was reported that Fauci was paying Planned Parenthood to have babies born alive and then extract their organs from them while they're alive and send them to him so that he could do some of these experiments and he could make humanized mice and everything, everybody's like, eh, whatever, you know.
	But boy, if he tortures puppies, come after him.
	But if he rips up babies, eh, we don't really care.
	And if he poisons babies and poisons their mommies and poisons toddlers with his poison, his Trump shot, we don't care about that either, do we?
	And the conservatives don't care.
	You know, nothing was said about any of this stuff.
	Of course not.
	Because the media is a partner in it, the Democrats are a partner in it, the Republicans are partners in it, and la la, and Trump are big-time partners in all of this stuff.
	Of course they're not going to talk about the agenda to harm and kill people, to help the pharmaceutical companies and themselves.
	What a bunch of criminals they are!
	But I tell you, it certainly does fit, doesn't it?
	When the Bible says, the great men of the earth will not repent of their murders and their pharmakia.
	Well, they're not going to repent.
	They're headed straight to hell.
	Unless they do repent.
	And they just won't.
	I mean, all these people were going to die.
	I saved them.
	It was going to be like the 1917 flu and all the rest of this stuff.
	He will not repent.
	He's not sorry about any of it.
	He doesn't think he needs forgiveness for anything he's done in his life.
	And it is really kind of sad to watch somebody like that.
	Well, you know, back in 2007, Jim Carrey, I've played this clip before.
	I want to play it again.
	Uh, Jim Carrey was dating Jenny McCarthy.
	She had a son who had been injured by vaccines and was autistic.
	And, um, they went on with, uh, Larry King.
	And of course, like Jim Carrey, he's kind of deranged about Trump.
	Definitely not kind of, but definitely deranged about Trump.
	Uh, doing these crude drawings about him and everything.
	He actually got a gallery there, but he hasn't done anything now for a decade.
	Um, he's done a little bit of cartoon voiceover stuff and he is an evangelist for hardcore socialism.
	He got very big into the Law of Attraction, Transcendental Meditation, and all these other types of things.
	And, of course, the Law of Attraction that Oprah Winfrey is saying, that really is just kind of a prosperity gospel for atheists.
	It's what Joel Osteen sells to Christians, but these people will package it up in a New Age spirituality type of thing.
	Alex Jones has a website that you can pay $150 to get this This guru that he partnered with, you know, we're gonna we're gonna get the All of our minds together are gonna have our collective consciousness And we're gonna win this war against the globalists and all that kind of stuff, right?
	But it's essentially a law of attraction type of things But Jim Carrey was definitely right about this Big Pharma is not altruism Big Pharma is autism I don't know what happened in 1990.
	There was no plague that was killing children that we had to triple the amount of vaccines.
	Let's be smart.
	What happened after 1989?
	Why do they triple?
	They're born to 26 more vaccines.
	Greed.
	Are all of them absolutely necessary?
	They want to make money.
	Of course.
	It's twice as many as anywhere else in 30 countries in the Western world.
	We give twice as many shots as any of those countries.
	Why is that?
	What are you against?
	Don't vaccinate for this, but vaccinate for that?
	Yes!
	I think we have to choose which one is absolutely necessary.
	You should educate yourself.
	We want to empower parents to educate themselves.
	Do we need to have the chicken pox?
	Do we need the hepatitis B shot on the second day of life?
	I don't think we can afford to assume that the people who are charged with our public health any longer have our best interests at heart all the time.
	Parents have to make their own decisions.
	None of the time do they have your best interest.
	Space out the vaccines.
	Delay them till after one.
	Clean out the toxins that are in them.
	We don't need that many.
	Why would a doctor not want to know more about something that could save a life or prevent a disease?
	I don't understand.
	The AAP is financed by the drug companies.
	Uh, medical schools are financed by the drug companies.
	This is a huge business.
	The drug companies pay for your program, Larry.
	And this is 2007, right?
	They control medical schools.
	They control medical schools.
	What we're asking is for them to pay us for the good of our children.
	That's a tough sell in a boardroom.
	Gregory Dish, thank you very much for the tip.
	What's your opinion on the election coming up?
	And if Trump loses, will there be an upside?
	Well, my opinion is that you need to focus on what's going on locally.
	When you look at 2020, It made a big difference what the local officials were like.
	I know because I went across the country.
	I know because I talked to other people who went across the country.
	I know people who relocated out of New York to this area because they drove around and they found places where it was not oppressive.
	That's a function of your local politics.
	You can have far more effect in local politics and you probably don't know who's on the ballot there.
	But you can have far more affect local politics, whether it's working for the campaign, or donating money, or even just voting.
	Your vote counts infinitely more.
	Your vote might be one of 10 or 20,000 people, rather than one out of 300 million people.
	That makes a big difference.
	And that's really what you need to take a look at.
	There's going to be a difference.
	There's going to be some difference on some issues between the two of them, because they have to try to make it a little bit of a distinction on things like abortion and some other things like that.
	But the people who are running the country are not on the ballot.
	You never get to vote for them.
	They have an agenda of war and depopulation.
	And regardless of whether it is Trump or Lala, They're going to go with that agenda, just like we saw in 2020 and 2021.
	It didn't matter if it was Trump or Biden, it was a tag team handoff.
	Trump prepares the vaccines.
	He talks about how wonderful they are and he's incentivizing everybody.
	Here's some money, do it, do it, you know, here's money.
	And then Biden comes in and his approach is to punish people.
	I'm going to, you know, Trump.
	Bribes you, and Biden blackmails you, right?
	All this kind of stuff.
	That's the difference between them.
	They have a different approach, but it's fundamentally, they both wanted you to get that vaccine.
	Why?
	Because whoever is behind them, whoever is running the show, and we've got some pretty good ideas of who that might be institutionally, those people wanted it.
	It's part of the globalist agenda.
	Well, we'll talk a little bit about politics coming up, but on Rumble, Audi, Modern Retro Radio, good to see you there.
	Many nurses don't even know what VAERS is.
	That's alarming.
	Yeah, they don't know.
	They don't care.
	Like I said before, big pharma is autism.
	It's not altruism.
	Public health is government thriving, people dying.
	That's what public health is.
	Just like public education is about, you know, government indoctrination and creating a vast idiocracy.
	We're going to take a quick break and we'll be right back.
	The common man.
	Oh No.
	They created Common Core to dumb down our children.
	They created Common Past to track and control us.
	Their Commons Project to make sure the commoners own nothing.
	And the communist future.
	They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary.
	But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God.
	That is what we have in common.
	That is what they want to take away.
	Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.
	They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us.
	It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.
	Please share the information and links you'll find at TheDavidKnightShow.com.
	Thank you for listening.
	Thank you for sharing.
	TheDavidNightShow.com Yes, please do share and please do like the stream wherever you're watching it If you're watching it live or if you're watching it delayed, please like that.
	We really do need that.
	We need to bring in some new people.
	We got a lot of people who don't like what I'm saying about politics.
	They want me to...
	They want me to tell them what they already want to believe.
	And I'm going to tell you what I believe.
	And so if people disagree with me, they head out.
	So we need to be able to get to other people.
	Of course, it's very difficult for us to do that.
	In many different places we have been banned.
	Yes, liking the stream really helps, and after the show ends, when we post the podcast, sharing that is a huge benefit to us as well.
	Yes, yes.
	You'll see it up on social media.
	You'll also see it on the different platforms.
	If you want to know who these different platforms are, go to thedavidneisshow.com.
	We have links to where you can find the show as an audio podcast, links to where you can find it as a video broadcast, and of course, these video sites Um, bit shoot, odyssey, rumble, a huge tube.
	We have also, um, clips that we take out on a daily basis.
	Whenever we do an interview that comes out separately.
	And whenever we talk about something, we'll also certain topics.
	We'll, we'll put up a shorter clips of those topics as well.
	Uh, let's talk a little bit about politics.
	Harris and Trump are debating on the Titanic says RT and of course, Moscow.
	And of course they're doing it even without having any deck chairs to rearrange.
	They're not arranging the deck chairs because they got no deck chairs.
	This is Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova.
	She said she didn't consider this to be a high-profile event.
	It mattered, she said, as much as the outcome of a hypothetical wrestling match.
	If it was conducted on board the Titanic during his trip across the ocean.
	She said, who do you think won?
	Why would it matter?
	The iceberg is 15 minutes away.
	She said, and when you look at these two people, neither one of them are going to try to go to the, um, to, to the, uh, uh, control room and try to take the wheel.
	To change course.
	They're not changing course.
	Nothing that either one of them are talking about would change the course of anything that we're doing, domestically or internationally.
	They're not going to take the wheel.
	America is on its way for a total global disaster and the rest of the world is trying to prepare for it, she said.
	She said it was a mixture of fantasizing about the future And citing a few made-up facts from the past, were the candidates failing to agree on what those facts were?
	We were given the latest show by people who apparently never, ever take any responsibility for what they say.
	And I would add, they don't take any responsibility for what they actually do, or what they don't do.
	International audiences, you said, paid attention to what happened in Philadelphia Tuesday night because they want to know which nations are going to get punished and how much by the next US president.
	That's why we pay attention.
	Not because we've got to say.
	These four nations around the world are watching the American election.
	With a great deal of interest, they've got no say so on what's going on.
	Just like we watch what's going on in Davos, even though I don't get to choose Klaus Schwab or his successor, I still watch what they say they want to do, so I know how they're going to be coming after us.
	That's why we watch politics.
	For the same reason that we watch the World Economic Forum.
	For the same reason we look at the UN and its pact for the future, or whatever.
	Right?
	The UN summit that's coming up.
	Or you look at the WHO.
	What is the WHO planning on doing?
	How are they going to try to accomplish this?
	Is there any way that we can stop them or block them using anything?
	That's why we pay attention to federal politics.
	Or to politics in general.
	Try to figure out what the angle of attack is going to be.
	By the way, we talked about a ship hitting an iceberg.
	They just had a carnival cruise ship collide with an iceberg.
	Just happened.
	I guess, fortunately, it was a drifting piece of ice.
	It wasn't the same as the Titanic, of course.
	And this is the mindset of people on these cruises.
	One person posted a video on TikTok.
	As they were headed down to the ice because, you know, you get this momentum and you just can't turn a ship around like that.
	You got a lot of inertia going on and you can't turn the ship of state around.
	Even if you went to the control room and tried to do, you can't turn it on a dime.
	And, uh, so they posted this video on Tik TOK and the person said, well, if we die, it was well worth it.
	That's a Titanic moment.
	And then the vehicle strikes the ice.
	That's great.
	And I go down with some bravado, you know, land of the free and home of the bravado.
	It's not that big a piece of ice that it certainly isn't like the situation with the Titanic.
	Of course, the Titanic was unsinkable, right?
	God took the pride down to the bottom of the ocean.
	But, uh, you know, they had, they said that because they had all these different compartments and yet they had this grazing, uh, brush with the iceberg, which penetrated all those apartments on one side.
	Shannon joy tweeted out.
	She said, so Trump can't take on a few low IQ debate moderators, but y'all think that he can take on the big, bad deep state.
	Because he goes on the day after the debate and he threatens ABC's broadcast license.
	Reason is talking about it.
	The leftist Democrat publications are talking about it.
	Reason says this, Trump's greatest enemy on Tuesday wasn't ABC, it was himself.
	We has met the enemy and he is us.
	Trump said when he went on with Fox and Friends, he said, ABC took a big hit last night.
	No, not him.
	It was ABC.
	Yeah, they're very biased.
	But again, like Shannon Joy said, you can't handle that.
	But you're going to be, you're our savior.
	You're the savior that MAGA is looking to to fix our country, but you can't handle a couple of journalists.
	He said, I mean, and this award got really amazing.
	He says, I mean, to be honest, they're a news organization.
	They have to be licensed to do it.
	And they ought to take away their license for the way they did that.
	Whoa!
	Whoa!
	No, Benedict Donald, I know you haven't read the Constitution.
	Let me explain to you what it says.
	You don't have to have a license.
	To do journalism.
	You don't have to have permission to speak on social media either.
	That's why we call it free speech.
	It's free of permission slips.
	And it's free even though you don't like it.
	It's free even though Lala doesn't like it.
	Do you remember just last week that I was playing the clip from La La that was so despicable?
	He has lost his privileges and it should be taken down.
	And the bottom line is that you can't say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter.
	The same rule has to apply, which is that there has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites to understand their power.
	They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation and that has to stop.
	You see how both of them have the heart of a totalitarian.
	The difference is she hates Musk and Twitter because they're not doing what they're told like Facebook.
	Trump Hates ABC because they were biased against him.
	And both of them say, well, they need to be shut down.
	Trump says they have to be licensed to do it.
	She says they've, they've got a privilege.
	That's what it is.
	It's a license.
	It's a privilege, whatever you want to call it.
	Same.
	They're talking about the same thing.
	And here's the interesting thing is that conservative media doesn't want to talk about that.
	Conservative media is ignoring what Trump said about shutting down ABC because they were biased and unfair.
	And they were biased and unfair, no doubt about it.
	The answer to bad speech and biased speech is more speech.
	But we don't have news organizations that have to be licensed or privileged or whatever, despite what these two presidential candidates want to say.
	And why do they say that?
	Because they're nothing but puppets for this totalitarian government that is waiting in the wings to do the same thing to us, whether it is Trump or whether it's Lala.
	Same thing.
	And to their shame, the mainstream media or the mainstream alternative media, they will report it when one of them says it, but they won't report it when the other one says it.
	Right?
	Daily Beast was like, look at what Donald Trump just said about shutting down the media.
	And they don't say anything about LaLa.
	Versus when she does it, oh, the mainstream alternative media was all about what she said.
	Did you see what she said?
	She said we need to criminalize and shut down X or Twitter.
	But yeah, that's horrible.
	And it is.
	But they just completely ignore it when Trump says we need to shut down ABC.
	And all of them, for the most part, have been pretending that there wasn't really any coordination, there wasn't any censorship of social media, there's not any coordination with mainstream media either.
	We have example after example of this administration coordinated, apparently, according to a federal court by your agency, pressuring, coercing social media companies to engage in censorship.
	Is that constitutional?
	That is unequivocally false.
	It's what the emails show.
	It is unequivocally false, Senator.
	That's, uh, that's Mallorca in 2022.
	Saying it's false.
	That is correct.
	We are not.
	in 2022. Saying it's false. That is correct, we are not.
	Here's my point, Mr. Secretary, it has been established for years in this country, as you very well know because you're a lawyer, that the federal government may not use private third parties to engage in activities that are unconstitutional.
	That's exactly what you and this administration are doing.
	You are leveraging private companies to carry out censorship on your behalf.
	It's dystopian, but worse than that, it's unconstitutional.
	It's also false.
	...turn out to a story breaking overnight.
	Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg claims he was pressured by the White House to censor content related to COVID-19 during the pandemic.
	Aaron Koterski joins us now with details.
	Aaron, good morning to you.
	Just expose New Yorkers as a full-faced liar.
	...views that challenge the general consensus in the medical community, especially about the origin of COVID-19.
	Now Facebook's founder surprisingly says they're right.
	This morning, Meta Chief Mark Zuckerberg admitting he bowed to pressure from the Biden administration to censor content.
	The Facebook founder issuing a letter to the House Judiciary Committee that said senior administration officials pushed the social media platform to censor posts about COVID-19 and expressed a lot of frustration when the company resisted.
	Zuckerberg saying, I believe the government pressure was wrong and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it.
	Adding, I feel strongly that we should not compromise our content standards due to pressure from any administration in either direction.
	And we're ready to push back if something like this happens again.
	House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan celebrating the letter, calling it a big win for free speech.
	No, it's just about owning the libs.
	They're not going to do anything to change anything.
	And of course, as many people point out, what about the people who lost their life?
	What about the people who were harmed because you suppressed truth?
	Because you pushed lies?
	You censored the truth, and you propagated lies that were told to you.
	And we see the Biden administration officials lying there to Senator Hawley two years ago.
	Well, we all knew that they were lying.
	Now we got the receipts.
	The question is, what's going to be done about it?
	Nothing will be done by Jim Jordan.
	Nothing will be done by Hawley.
	They're just using it to score political points.
	That's all this is about.
	So when we look at Trump or Lala, they both want to shut down their opponents.
	They both want to control speech.
	They both think that speech is a privilege, that it should be licensed.
	This is the headline from the Daily Beast.
	Trump demands ABC be shut down for daring to fact check the debate.
	Yeah, that's, uh, we keep saying that over and over again, that there really isn't much of a difference between them.
	And then when you look at WorldNetDaily, a conservative, Trump supporters.
	It was not a debate, but it was a campaign contribution.
	A new push for ABC to be prosecuted, and they're on board with that.
	You see, nobody has principles anymore.
	Everybody is just about going after their enemy, whatever means it takes.
	They don't care.
	Gotta shut them down.
	But actually, the bias worked in his favor, apparently.
	Both on Fox News and on Reuters, they found that independent voters surprised the pollster with reactions to the Trump debate performance.
	They said we didn't expect this kind of result.
	Lee Carter joined Faulkner Focus voter panel to reveal the reactions to the Trump-Harris debate.
	So Frank Luntz is gone.
	But his little dial that he's got there, you know, he goes, he brings in people who are Republicans, Democrats, Independents.
	And then they sit there, you know, and if they like something that somebody says, they dial it up or they don't like it, they dial it down.
	And then, um, you know, it's just, then they, you can see this, this chart as people are talking, you know, what they're reacting to positively or negatively.
	Then you can see it collectively going up or down based on a different group.
	But what they found was.
	That, uh, these people liked what Trump was saying and didn't like what she was saying.
	And so even though she was more articulate, more on the point, and she had a very well-practiced demeanor and he didn't, uh, she had a talking points that he hadn't bothered to work on.
	The, uh, Reuters found the same thing.
	A Reuters focus group.
	So this is a Fox news had a focus group.
	Reuters had a focus group.
	They said undecided voters leaned two to one to Trump after the debate when they watched it.
	So again, you know, he's out there, but he, he doesn't, it's all about winning.
	It's only about winning.
	And he doesn't care about the principles.
	He wants to punish the people who, um, who criticized him.
	And, um, uh, that's in that he is just like Lala.
	Uh, Lala wants to say that she's just like.
	Gun owners.
	She said, uh, I own a gun.
	And so Vox, another leftist publication says, wait a minute, Lala Harris owns a gun?
	Well, you know, she's made a lot of statements back and forth about guns.
	She's not going to take the guns, but except when she is going to take the guns.
	And again, to show you how alike they are.
	I've played many times Trump bringing everybody in and Democrat, Republican, all these senators around the table with him.
	He's got Dianne Feinstein on his left and he's got John Cornyn from Texas on his right.
	And he's saying, you know, there's a lot of things that we can do and I'm going to do these things.
	There are certain things that I want you to do and I'm going to do some of the things myself.
	And Dianne Feinstein's like, yeah, yeah, this is great.
	John Cornyn is like, have I just committed political suicide?
	He's got this expression on his face.
	It's like, oh no, can I move further away from him when he's doing this?
	And so he says, well, fortunately, you know, when it comes to mom stock, I can do that myself.
	I have that power.
	No, you don't.
	But he tried to set that up as a precedent, and the NRA just shut up and went along with it because they didn't care about bump stocks.
	I didn't care about bump stocks either, but the precedent was very important.
	We never had the Second Amendment.
	stomped on by executive order.
	Before we've had the Congress stomp on it, we've had the courts stomp on it, but this is a new time for the executive to stomp on it, and that's even more troubling because they don't have to get any kind of a consensus.
	You can just be ruled by a dictator.
	When you allow executive orders to lock us down, to create a poisonous depopulation vaccine to go around the world, or you tell people I'm going to ban this type of gun or ban that type of gun, as I said when it happened, I said This is going to be grabbed by the Democrats, and the first one to grab it was Lala Harris, who said, when I'm elected president, 100 days for them to enact the gun controls that I demand, and if they don't do it, I'll do it by executive order.
	Where did she get that idea to do it by executive order?
	From Trump.
	And so this is what she's saying about gun control versus what she's said in the past.
	About gun control.
	This business about taking everyone's guns away.
	Tim Walz and I are both gun owners.
	We're not taking anybody's guns away.
	This is the debate.
	So stop with the continuous lying about this stuff.
	I support buybacks and it's something I'm so passionate about and so looking forward to being president to address.
	We've got to deal with this.
	How mandatory is your gun buyback program?
	It's mandatory.
	Stop with the continuous lying about this stuff.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Maybe she could stop the lies, but, um, this was put together by the Federalist 25 lies that Lala told in her debate against Trump.
	First of all, she said she's a middle-class kid.
	She was very wealthy.
	She grew up, uh, very wealthy.
	Um, she, she talked about the tax cuts and project 25 in January six and the Trump sales tax and restoring row and all the rest of this stuff.
	But what they didn't talk about were really the existential issues facing us.
	They're not going to even touch on the big issues.
	And even if they get to where climate change is and play these games of the fracking ban and all of the rest of this, they're not going to get to the foundations of it, neither one of them.
	Trump would not remove the Paris Climate Accord.
	He pretended that it had been legally enacted.
	If it had been legally enacted, he wouldn't have had to wait for four years to get out of it.
	But it wasn't legally enacted.
	He pretended.
	Mitch McConnell pretended.
	Every one of the Republican senators pretended that John Kerry had self-ratified it, as he claimed he had done.
	That's not in the Constitution.
	That's absolute nonsense.
	They're all playing along with each other and pretending that it had been done when it had not been done.
	He could have and should have just shut it down.
	But do they talk about that?
	Do they talk about the important issues?
	Does Trump talk about the role of the Tenth Amendment in the Dobbs decision when he talks about abortion?
	No, he just says, no, so now we've got democracy and that's a good thing.
	No, the good thing is, President Trump, that we finally had a Supreme Court that recognized Do we have a Bill of Rights and a Constitution?
	And that's a very different thing than democracy.
	We want that Bill of Rights.
	We want that Constitution.
	We want a republic.
	We don't want to have mob rule.
	That's not anything to be celebrated.
	He's absolutely totally clueless about it.
	But what was the response from the Republican side?
	Besides saying ABC needs to be punished.
	And Trump saying they need to have their license taken just like Lala Harris.
	Well, you had people like Laura Loomer pushing this thing.
	Well, Lala had a microphone in her ear and she was getting instructions.
	It doesn't matter if that's true or not.
	They focus on the minutiae.
	They focus on the sensational.
	They don't focus on the direction that the ship is headed.
	None whatsoever.
	To focus on this kind of silly nonsense is the same thing as I mentioned yesterday.
	Focusing on whether or not the Haitians are eating pets or not.
	I don't care to have that debate.
	The question is, why do we have 20,000 Haitians brought into a city of 60,000 residents?
	And how are they going to be supported?
	And why don't the police want to do anything about the issues that the people there are complaining about?
	And then beyond that, if Trump knew anything about what was happening in Haiti, he would know what an utter disaster the Biden administration has been with that.
	They were probably involved in what happened with the coups and the unrest as they were trying to put their people in charge because, you know, what is the strategic importance of Haiti?
	Nothing.
	Nothing.
	Nothing at all.
	Who cares?
	Well, we care.
	Why?
	Well, because we're totalitarians and we've got to rule everything.
	The American empire has to be everywhere all the time.
	There can't be, you know, whether it's some small Caribbean nation, we've got to be the ones in charge.
	These people have to report to us.
	And so we got to get involved.
	How did they get involved?
	Well, they had Kenya, a Marxist state as well, failed Marxist state.
	They had Kenya send soldiers in and they called them police, a standing army.
	And here we are after a couple of years, that standing army could not get control.
	And so that's part of why people are fleeing.
	And why there's the abject poverty that's there?
	Why it's likely that they were eating pets in the streets?
	Because they're eating pets in the streets in Venezuela as well.
	You have these cesspools that are created by totalitarian Marxist governments, and rather than call that out, Rather than call out the Biden administration on this failed policy and their megalomania to have hegemony over everything, anywhere, regardless of what an irrelevant small corner of the world it is, from their political perspective.
	He wouldn't call that in.
	Instead, they're going to argue about whether or not reports of them eating cats are true or not.
	Something that they can't resolve.
	Or they're going to talk about whether or not Harris wore audio earrings.
	All that would address is whether or not she's got a good memory.
	Everything that she said was obviously rehearsed and prepared.
	They even talked about the fact she'd rehearsed for a week or so.
	Biden had rehearsed for a week, but he couldn't remember.
	She rehearsed for a week and she could remember.
	Okay, she gets a gold star for having a better memory.
	What difference does it make?
	A couple of quick comments here on Rockfin.
	Dougalug, thank you very much.
	And he thanks us.
	Thank you.
	And on Rumble, Marky Mark, New Jersey, thank you for the tip, says, how did that liner miss the iceberg?
	Even if radar missed it due to its low profile, the lookouts should have seen it, especially during the day.
	By the way, international law requires lookouts on all underway ships.
	Well, you know, a lot of people are breaking a lot of laws internationally and otherwise.
	How do we have the two planes collide in, um, in Atlanta?
	Uh, that's, that's against the law.
	Something's going on with that.
	I don't know if we've got some DEI pilots, they're working for Delta or if we got DEI air traffic control.
	But where is Pete booty gay?
	Where's mayor Peewee?
	Come on, we need you.
	This is the kind of thing that you're supposed to be involved in.
	Uh, where is he?
	I don't know what he's doing.
	Uh, but he's not involved in that.
	And they got planes crashing on the runway.
	Fortunately, um, you know, did a lot of damage, but fortunately I don't think, uh, any, anybody was hurt because they're just taxing around the runway.
	We're going to take a quick break and, uh, Tony Aarderman is going to be joining us.
	Uh, anxious to talk.
	Tony has been a couple of weeks.
	We'll be right back.
	♪♪
	Defending the American Dream.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	All right.
	Welcome back.
	And joining us now is Tony Arterburn of Wise Wolf Gold.
	And Tony has set up David Knight Gold.
	That'll take you to his website.
	Let him know that you're coming through us.
	And when you get there, you can start to save gold and silver gradually.
	He's got Wolfpack, a club where you can determine how much you want to set aside each month.
	And you can benefit from the group buy that is there.
	You can get better buys on your gold and silver.
	And you can also, of course, buy individually whatever you want in terms of silver or gold.
	Tony doesn't have limits one way or the other there with that.
	And he can also help you with your gold or silver IRA at Weiswolf.
	So joining us now is Tony.
	Thank you for joining us, Tony.
	Always great to be here, David.
	Thanks for having me.
	Well, thank you.
	You know, this last week we've had a lot of interesting things happen.
	I really like the article that was up on Zero Hedge.
	They had, I'm sure this, he did not pose for it, but it's looking pretty realistic with these AI pictures.
	They had Warren Buffett in a suit and tie sitting on a toilet saying that he was dumping But of course, fortunately, they had his pants up, you know, when even they didn't subject him to that kind of indignity.
	But I thought it was funny.
	They had him sitting on a toilet with his hands crossed and his dump-a-thon.
	They said nearly $7 billion of a dump.
	The questions swirl as to why.
	Well, I think a lot of people are looking at a shaky, bubbly stock market.
	And they're looking at the fact that the Federal Reserve is going to reverse course after we've hit this iceberg and nobody's paid any attention to it.
	And so there's also all the banking issues that are there.
	It's a very unstable world, isn't it?
	That's why I like gold and silver.
	Well, it's funny because Warren Buffett has always talked about gold in a derogatory way.
	He said it doesn't do anything.
	It just sits there.
	You know, he didn't have anything good to say about gold until right around 2020.
	And that's when Berkshire and his team started buying up Barrick Gold and other gold mining opportunities.
	And it's I think it's again, this is an indicator if you really want to see the future.
	Well, they call him the Oracle.
	Go look and see what he's doing.
	He's dumping, you know, Bank of America stocks and some of the traditional stuff that has been a performer.
	And that's because we're going to go into, well, even Jamie Demon.
	I mean, he said there's going to be an economic super storm.
	And I asked the question, what a year or so ago, I said, has anybody ever seen a major bankster?
	I mean, he's the top banker, top banks.
	Yeah.
	Uh, not cheerleading the economy.
	They usually cheerlead it like it's, you know, like you're talking about the Titanic moment.
	It's like, they usually just like your, uh, Oh, everything's fine.
	Like even why the boat sinking.
	Um, so that's, that, I think those kinds of things are, are.
	Opportunities for us to pay attention.
	Uh, some things on the horizon, you know, Jerome Powell just came out and said that the time is, is right, uh, to adjust policy.
	Um, you know, and as I'm talking about a rate cut, 25 basis points.
	But what that means is more inflation.
	And they didn't win the war against inflation.
	I know that because gold is $2,548 an ounce right now.
	I know that.
	If they had won the war on inflation, gold would be something like $1,200, $1,300 an ounce.
	And we're never going to see that again.
	Those days are long gone.
	So I think there's a lot of Interesting times on the horizon, David, for sure.
	Well, you pointed out 25 basis points.
	I mean, that'd be the minimum they could raise it.
	A lot of people are pushing for them to do 50 because look at how fast they raised things, you know, and that created problems for the small banks.
	I don't imagine that Warren Buffett has any stock in small or medium-sized banks because they're like Dead men walking at this point in time.
	Even the big, you know, too-big-to-fail banks like Bank of America, he's getting his money out of that even.
	And so certainly he doesn't have any money in the smaller banks that are there.
	And of course, the situation that they're in, there's nothing wrong with it.
	Nothing has changed for the smaller banks except for two things.
	One, the lockdown that Trump did that, you know, put the knife in the heart of commercial real estate.
	And the second thing is the You know, what the Federal Reserve did in terms of starting to raise the rates so rapidly, you know, 75 basis points every, you know, every month or whatever it was, the interval that they did it.
	I saw them burst that bubble back with the housing situation back in 2007-2008.
	They went up 25 basis points like every month or whatever it was.
	It's just like a stair step when you look at it.
	And they did it this time except they were doing it three times faster and the banks couldn't recover and they were invested in the stuff that the Federal Reserve had put out there and they didn't have enough, they raised, they changed the interest rate situation so rapidly these banks got trapped.
	So all of this is a problem of the government and when you look abroad All of these sanctions and everything that kicked off the exit from the dollar, all these things the Biden administration did that killed the petrodollar and killed the dollar as a reserve standard, because it is, just like the banks that are circling the drain, they haven't failed and the dollar hasn't failed, but they're all just waiting for that to happen.
	And even though that happened, I covered earlier this week the fact that Europe is buying more natural gas now from Russia than they are from the United States.
	And that's one of the key policy objectives of all the blowing up the pipelines and all the rest of this stuff.
	The sanctions have failed, and along with it, they've taken down the dollars.
	Truly amazing, isn't it?
	I think what you're witnessing is the decline of the liberal New World Order, everything that was set up after 1944, after Bretton Woods, really, David.
	I mean, look at, I saw a tweet from Gold Telegraph, an account I follow.
	It's really good information on precious metals.
	And he said, how come they didn't bring up in the debate, of course, they didn't bring up anything of substance in the debate, but they didn't bring up in the debate that the dollar is a reserve asset.
	In 2001, it was like 71% as a reserve asset around the world.
	Now it's 54% and declining.
	So that means that these banks are dumping dollars.
	This is Triffin's dilemma.
	Robert Triffin, an economist in the 1960s.
	What happens when those currency units that we've stocked in all these central banks worldwide come home?
	And you know, again, the first stress test will be the smaller and medium-sized banks.
	and you're absolutely right.
	Jerome Powell has raised rates faster than any time in history.
	They did that because of the massive money creation, massive currency creation, the likes of which has never been seen.
	80% of all the dollars ever created made in the last 48 to 50 months or so.
	uh Damage, again, to our dollar that is irreversible.
	Yeah.
	And they had to raise rates.
	Again, but they didn't win the war.
	Gold, despite all of their projections, continues to break all-time highs.
	And gold's broke its all- I don't even know how many times it's broke its all- I keep up with this.
	I live in this world.
	I don't exactly know the number, but it's multiple, multiple times.
	in the last year, that's because central bank gold buying is increasing, de-dollarization is increasing at the same time.
	As these central banks stock up on gold, the BRICS nations especially, as they stock up on gold, they're de-dollarizing, which again, it's coming home, it's affecting our economy, and you're just starting to see that on the periphery.
	Warren Buffett may be correct.
	The hardest hit sector will be the banking sector because it's going to cause all sorts of turmoil in loans, margin calls.
	You mentioned the commercial real estate sector.
	That's a time bomb that hasn't gone off yet.
	It will eventually.
	It's still aftershocks of everything that we experienced in the lockdowns and you can't outrun that forever.
	That's right.
	And all this is self-inflicted wounds, you know, self-inflicted wounds with a dollar worth of sanctions, self-inflicted wounds with a, you know, quantitative easing and printing them and all the rest of this stuff and what they did with interest rates.
	It's just amazing to look at this and, you know, it brings us back to the question, are these people stupid or evil?
	I mean, is this, they not know what they're doing or is this by design?
	That's the only question that remains when we look at this kind of stuff, isn't it?
	Well, right.
	I mean, if they were just stupid, then every once in a while they'd err in our favor, but they never do.
	They have some really stupid people that work for them, but I think it's all a coordinated plan.
	You know, this is something that's being carried out.
	You know, you're looking at what has to happen, all the things that have to happen to really take us.
	I mean, you look at the debate, I mean, you kind of go into the political side of this.
	If you step back and take all emotion out of it and partisanship and everything else, and whatever your favorite hobby horse is that you want to see come to fruition politically, take all that away.
	It's stupid.
	I mean, it's just that we've dumbed everything down to the lowest common denominator.
	There's no substance in it at all.
	And so we're left without, again, we're not asking the big questions.
	This is all bread and circus and a distraction.
	Meanwhile, geopolitically, the earthquakes that are happening around the world.
	You and I were talking off air.
	You mentioned Turkey, looking to join the BRICS nations.
	Well, you know, there's some backstory to that.
	Turkey's always been called like the sick man of Europe.
	They've been put into NATO but not really brought to the dance.
	They weren't brought into the EU like you said.
	We were talking about that and again but they have massive gold holdings and you know the BRICS nations are trying to reset all of their commodities.
	That's really the goal here.
	It's not necessarily in my opinion.
	I haven't seen anything about A unified currency with the BRICS because some of them are at odds with each other, you know, India and China aren't exactly friends, you know, so economically, you know, they look at the United States, they see the hegemonic dominance of the dollar system and the bullying and the sanctions and everything that's happened, especially in the last 20 years, it's been Really put on a hyperdrive.
	I think these nations look at it and say, how do we have cross-border payments and get away from the dollar?
	They don't necessarily have to have a new currency that supplants the dollar, but just a way to transact.
	Gold is that answer, I think, because all of them are stocking up on that.
	I mean, Russia's gold purchases are up 601% In the last month or so.
	Wow.
	I mean, we live in unprecedented times.
	De-dollarization is rapidly happening and that should be the number one story politically because it's going to affect the United States, you know, economically, socially, across the board.
	But we're not talking about that.
	And to your point about India and China, I mean, they've got areas of the border where they're shooting at each other.
	And yet, to them, it's more important the threat from America than the threat that they present to each other on their own border.
	And yet, we don't even talk about it in the debates.
	You know, Turkey, oh, well, you can be part of our war team here with NATO, but I don't know about putting you into the EU or any of that.
	So they're looking to To have an economic alliance outside of all of that.
	It truly is amazing when you look at what they're doing.
	Now, there was an interesting article, I know that you're talking about, you're looking at doing something with Bitcoin there at WiseWolf.
	I want to get your take on this.
	This is on Wall Street Journal.
	The shadow dollar that is fueling the financial underworld.
	In this particular case, they're not coming after Bitcoin, they're coming after Tether.
	But it looks very much like the same type of attacks that they do whenever, you know, they see something as competition to the dollar.
	They, oh, it's the dark web or it's the shadow dollar or this or that.
	What do you see happening in that sphere?
	Well, it's the stablecoin world, and to be completely honest, it's not something I've really ever dabbled in.
	I do understand that it's used especially with cross-border payments and settlements and things like that, and then they've digitized it.
	I'm wondering if this is because Tether has been so successful and there's been many audits of Tether.
	This is again, I'm not sanctioning it, I'm not endorsing it, but I've looked at a lot of articles that looked at Tether and their backing, you know, can they dollar for dollar back up what they have as far as what's being traded?
	What I've seen, it says yes, but again, I don't have any control over that.
	You know, these kind of articles that come out always make me think, you know, are you being, uh, because it's successful, because it's tied to the dollar, are you being softened up a little bit to accept maybe a supplanting of tether?
	Um, you know, so some people have asked if tether is going to be, uh, used as a, as a, uh, treasury asset.
	No, because first of all, the CBDC.
	It has to be installed, and I think that's the issue here.
	If you're going after something that is successful, that is pegged to the dollar, I'm wondering if it is a way to get people to look at a possible alternative with the central bank digital currency being implemented, especially with FedNow.
	That came out over a year ago, and they built the backbone for that in the settlement system.
	That's a good question, David.
	David Morgan, MPH, CBC News, New York Times, Inc.
	I was wondering if you thought that maybe it was kind of what you're talking about there.
	Maybe it's a way of pushing, nudging people towards the CBDC.
	Because then they say, well, you know, it's a stable coin.
	It's tied to the dollar, one-to-one, and everything.
	And then, of course, Montana is going to be putting together a stable coin next year, but I don't think they're pegging it to the dollar.
	I think they're pegging it to gold.
	Is that correct?
	That's what I've heard.
	Yeah.
	David Morgan, MPH, CBC News, New York Times, Inc.
	Pegging something to the dollar is not a great idea, but I mean as far as like, I mean the dollar still is the world's reserve currency, but this is again we're talking about de-dollarization and things are happening rapidly.
	I don't think you're going to wake up one day and the dollar's gone to zero or anything.
	You're going to have plenty of time, but it's not something You know, if you, you definitely don't save dollars, you definitely don't house your value in dollars.
	This is a very much a transitory system.
	You want to get in and out, use it as a, you know, a method of payment or something like that.
	That's what tether is supposed to be.
	Uh, but I asked the same question.
	I see those kinds of articles.
	I just wonder, are you just being psychologically softened up because tether works as far as I know?
	I mean, I've heard nothing but good things on the use of tether and their financials.
	Yeah.
	I thought it was interesting.
	I'm sorry, I thought it was interesting about the headline, you know, oh this is a shadow dollar and everything, implying that it's like the dark web, implying that it can't be tracked, and yet buried into the article they say, well, you know, they can track it on the blockchain, and of course all these things can be tracked except for Monero and PirateCoin.
	They can all be tracked on the blockchain, and so are they just kind of subtly putting that out, you know?
	You may want to look at the digital dollars and think that you can do this and nobody's going to see what you're doing or whatever.
	That's the feel that I got from it.
	I don't know.
	Yeah, it's funny.
	Some of the last place you'd ever want to do like a great deal of illicit activity is in cryptocurrency.
	It's literally on a open source blockchain ledger.
	I've always thought that was just so silly that you had these.
	And that's just kind of a group think deal that they put out.
	And it's just, you know, especially after Silk Road thing, look, all this is just illicit money laundering and sex trafficking and drugs.
	It really is silly.
	It's permanent.
	It's on the block.
	It's forever.
	And it's open source.
	So no, I don't think that's where criminals go.
	Criminals go to stacks of cash.
	Dictators and drug cartels have pallets of U.S.
	currency.
	So not hoarding Bitcoin, not hoarding Tether.
	Yeah, it is amazing.
	And those have been their two big arguments.
	Oh, well, it's illicit activity, and it's using too much energy, and it's going to burn up the planet and everything.
	Now they've got to pretend that's not the issue because of AI.
	They never come up with anything that's as energy intensive as AI.
	So that's blown that argument out of the water.
	And the other thing is just really a charade.
	So I'm really kind of wondering, how are they going to try to sell CVDC to people?
	You know, is it going to be something like they just did with this?
	It's like, oh, well, you know, look, we have successful things with Tether.
	A lot of people have talked about how they might use Ethereum as the backbone to switch over to it or something.
	Who knows what they're going to do?
	We know they're going to push it.
	We just don't know how they're going to try to nudge us into it.
	Will it be an incentive?
	You know, will they try to bribe us or will they just beat us over the head with a, you know, rubber mallet or something, you know, to do it, you know?
	Well, I definitely think it'll be because we haven't, it'll be an enemy, an external thing.
	It's an external that they did this.
	These other nations got together and there's a, it's kind of like, you know, shades of what Nixon talked about when he closed the gold window in 1971.
	And, you know, there's speculators and other things that are going after.
	We have to keep our strong dollar and we're all in this together.
	One of the ways you can do this is, oh, and there's, you know, there's so much fraud.
	And I mean, there's, there's multiple ways they can do it, but it won't, I don't think they'll, it'll come in the guise of you have to do this.
	I think it'll be, um, we're in this together and, uh, you know, this is, this is a way to save yourself.
	And, you know, this is, there's free credits in here and all this stuff and you just get your biometrics tied to it.
	That's, that's the way they'll do it.
	We, you know, there's just a war on cash.
	There's a war on things that exist in the real world.
	Uh, I mean, I like digital currencies.
	I like, um, I like Bitcoin.
	I mean, I'm no, again, I've never shied away from that.
	Uh, but you and I really, uh, our talks always go back to, to physical, uh, something that, you know, real like gold and silver.
	I mean, that's my first choice.
	Uh, in this, in this, uh, era, I definitely think I'm, I'm going to be in the physical domain.
	Um, but that's the way they'll go.
	Uh, they'll go, they'll push, they'll push the, uh, you know, this, this is benefits all of you.
	It benefits us.
	Everything's we're all in this together and there's an external enemy.
	They did this and now we have to fight back and, you know, band together, download your digital wallet, all that stuff.
	That's right.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, COVID did it to us, right?
	Right.
	The invisible enemy.
	Yeah, the devil did it to us all.
	Yeah, it is interesting how they're using Tether, you know, because there was that article from Wall Street Journal, and then, you know, on Cointelegraph, they've got an article about Tether at the same time.
	All of a sudden, we're seeing a bunch of stuff from Tether, where he says that Bitcoin is unstoppable.
	It's the only decentralized currency.
	But of course, there's a difference between currency and money.
	You know, gold is the decentralized money because it's got intrinsic value and that type of thing.
	And it also really is shadow.
	It's out of their system.
	It is private and all the rest of these things.
	So it is interesting to see how this is shaking out.
	But it is going to be a time of shaking, isn't it?
	A lot of things are going to be shaken, and I think they're just kind of propping this whole stuff up until after the election.
	Some things may fall before the election, though, in October.
	They don't have absolute control, even though they have control of a lot of things.
	They may not be able to control it, but I think if they had their druthers, they would do it.
	Next year after the election is when we're going to definitely see them try to pull something.
	Something might fall, you know, like this big Jenga puzzle or something.
	Something unintentionally fall before the election, but definitely they're gonna pull out the bottom linchpin after the election.
	I think it's gonna happen.
	Is that what you think's gonna happen?
	What do you think?
	I think so.
	You know, I've tried to figure out what exactly is happening here.
	They want to I think put in the lap of whoever is in control or perceived control after the election is going to have to deal with the economic fallout of the massive, again, massive currency creation the likes of never has never been seen before on this planet that's happened in the last five years.
	Somebody is going to have to pay for that.
	There's going to be massive setbacks economically as far as our purchasing power, our standing in the world geopolitically.
	Again, the BRICS nations are unifying and getting away from the dollar system.
	All the liberal New World Order set up in 1944 is coming apart at the seams, and this is part of the fourth turning process.
	So the open question is, and it's funny because If you look at the headlines, there's so much finality.
	Oh, well, there's the debate and, you know, it looks like it's Trump's over with or that or, you know, Harris is leading.
	Folks.
	A month or two in politics is an eternity.
	It's an eternity.
	Things change on a dime.
	I don't think there's any way to prognosticate anything at this point, but the open question I have is, what suits the ruling class better?
	Who's holding the bag?
	It's not a question of we're going to have an economic downturn.
	We are going to have one.
	I'm sorry, I don't want one to happen, but the numbers are too...
	We pay more on interest on the debt than the Defense Department budget.
	Annually now.
	I mean, that is mind-blowing.
	If you've studied economics a little bit, I'm not an expert at all.
	I just like history, and I'm a paratrooper who likes books.
	So I look back at history, and I say, this has never happened.
	Is anybody else paying attention to that?
	But no, we're not really.
	We're just doing surface-level politics.
	But you've got to think two or three steps ahead.
	I think we're going to be fine.
	I mean, they're going to take the taxes off of tips.
	We'll be fine.
	Both of them agree.
	I mean, we're good.
	That's their economic policy.
	No tax on tips.
	But 80,000 more hirers.
	They have to be running the simulations.
	I mean, one of the ways you get rid of nationalism forever is you say, well, here's nationalism one, and then we got the Great Depression 2.0.
	That's right.
	Worse than any time in history.
	And you had Biden running around talking about how Trump was Herbert Hoover.
	Herbert Hoover.
	He said it over and over again.
	Are they trying to, you know, kind of like the Hoovervilles and branding him like ahead of time?
	Yeah.
	Oh yeah.
	These are the questions I ask.
	I agree.
	You know, I said it's like whoever is going to be best at creating chaos and that thing for them, but also they could finally shut down nationalism by handing him the exploding cigar.
	And congratulations, and walk away and let this whole thing blow up in his face, and blame it all, like you said, on nationalism, populism, and everything.
	See?
	See?
	You did that, and look what you got.
	Right?
	Right.
	Yeah.
	Oh, I agree.
	I agree.
	So, yeah.
	Be careful what you ask for.
	You just might get it.
	That's been my thing.
	I mean you probably mean I think even psychologically there would be a boost in the economy if Trump wins just because I think people would think more associate him more with business and you know whatever happened prior to 2020 was not so bad you know low gas prices in the stock market was high.
	But that'll be short-lived.
	Again, even if it's a small boon in the economy, you still have to pay the piper.
	There's still so much happening right now that is not in the mainstream headlines, that just accelerating the de-dollarization is real.
	I agree.
	Yeah, I associate him with bankruptcies.
	If he takes six casinos into bankruptcy, what's he going to do with this casino, the stock market, and the rest of the country?
	I mean, you know, if you can't make money at a casino, we basically have a license to print money there.
	If he's going to leverage it that much and doesn't care about debt, of course he's not going to care about public debt and that type of thing.
	I certainly associate him with the loss of money because I've lost money, you know, because I have to like do my best analysis.
	It doesn't involve worshipping him in the cult.
	So I get tossed aside.
	People don't use my business or listen to me because I don't tell them what they want to hear.
	That's right.
	Oh, yeah.
	Tell me about it.
	You know, the angry stuff.
	And, you know, they're angry at me.
	And you.
	Even though we told them what was going to happen and it did happen, it's not what they wanted to happen and so they're angry about it.
	They blame it on us and not on Trump.
	It's just the most amazing thing when you look at January the 6th.
	I use my job at Infowars to try to warn people about it.
	I get fired.
	And then, you know, when all this stuff is happening, and after January the 6th, it's like, okay, what's he going to do to help these people that he used?
	Nothing.
	And, you know, I'm criticizing, leave him alone, he's not president anymore.
	And I said, he's not done.
	You know, he's going to, but they were angry at me.
	It's like I stole the election from him somehow or something, you know, it's ridiculous.
	But that's the way that it is.
	Now you got, You got your program coming up right after this program at 11 o'clock on Twitter and on Rockfin and on Rumble.
	Tell everybody about that, what you're going to be doing today.
	Yeah, we have the once a week with Arterburn radio transmission.
	I just signed a deal with the radio station in Dallas.
	They're going to replay my show on the weekend.
	So that's a station I've been listening to for 20 years.
	And I've been with Salem now for six since I started broadcasting in San Antonio.
	So that's something cool that we're doing again.
	It's only what used to be five days a week.
	I can't do that anymore.
	We do once a week, uh, Arbor and radio transmission again, live on rock fan, uh, Twitter at Tony Arbor and the rock fan and the rumble channels are, uh, America unplugged.
	That's where we do the show with Billy Ray Valentine and the legendary Don Jeffries once a week.
	So we share that channel.
	So if anybody would like to come over and subscribe and join the chat and you got questions, anyone throw at me, that'd be great.
	I'd love to see you guys.
	That's great.
	That's great.
	So you've got the radios coming up in Dallas and other places, and you've got the show immediately, America Unplugged, following, I guess, is it the America Unplugged or Ardvin Radio?
	Art of Burn Radio, we use the America Unplugged channel.
	We just shared that channel, all three of us, Billy and Don and myself.
	It just helps keep people on the same channel and grow that.
	I think we have a lot of cross-pollination from our audience.
	That's good.
	It's been a good experiment there.
	That's great.
	It's coming up.
	We certainly appreciate your support of this program.
	You've always been a friend of ours and a friend of the program.
	We thank you very much for that.
	So, people, if you want to get into gold and silver and do it gradually, or if you've got a lump sum that you want to do, either way, Tony can help you there at WiseWolf, and you can get there via davidknight.gold.
	Easy to remember.
	Tony set that up for us.
	Thank you so much, Tony.
	Appreciate it.
	Thank you, David.
	Thank you.
	All right, folks.
	We're going to be right back.
	Stay with us.
	Help.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	show.
	Thank you.
	Well, you took that down, but there's still a bomb scare there at the City Council in Springfield.
	I keep saying Smithfield, I almost said it, but Springfield, in Ohio.
	There's a lot of anger, a lot of unrest there.
	And this is an interesting comment here on Rumble from DG8.
	He said, David, these people are refugees brought in by Republican COVID tyrant DeWine.
	Yeah, I've said it many times.
	The worst of any of the governors.
	He was the guy that came up with the million dollar lottery.
	You know, hey punk, you feel lucky?
	When that first came out, I ran the deer hunter where they were playing Russian roulette.
	I said, this is insane.
	You know what he's doing?
	But that was his idea.
	A Republican.
	And so he says, he's a Republican COVID tyrant DeWine, which by the way, Vivek Ramaswamy was right there with him.
	You know, his angle was he wanted to get into contact surveillance and tracking and make money off of that.
	Ramaswamy did.
	Just, just, anyway.
	Springfield has a Republican mayor.
	I didn't know that.
	Republican congressman.
	I knew that.
	And Republican governor.
	And the congressman's not doing anything as far as I can tell either.
	So from the mayor to the congressman to the governor.
	All Republicans.
	Both parties have disdain for us.
	That's right.
	That's right.
	And if it's bad at a local level...
	Uh, you know, that's the worst possible scenario.
	All those people coming into the city council and talking about what's happening with these masses of people hanging out on their property, refusing to get out of the way, kind of standing them down.
	And, um, the, uh, uh, when they go to Walmart or wherever, uh, all these other things that are happening, it's just, it's brought in for conflict.
	And nobody cares.
	And what the Republicans are going to do, they're going to use, they always, uh, they'll participate in this chaos so they can push forward their own agenda.
	It'll be things like, well, we need to have an ID so that we can know, um, who's American and who is a refugee.
	And we need to, you know, protect your jobs.
	So you're going to have to have a federal government approved E-Verify in order to get a job.
	And Florida, the Republicans said, we're going to have mandatory E-Verify.
	E-Verify has been around for a long time.
	And the Republicans in Florida, DeSantis and the Republicans there, said we're going to mandate it.
	Why?
	Well, because we've got all these illegal aliens.
	They use the problems.
	They won't fix the problems.
	They will use them to push you down the road to their predetermined goals and agendas.
	That's what we see from both parties there.
	On Rumble, DG8, thank you for a tip, says, David, I'm 20 minutes from Springfield.
	I know and see exactly what's going on.
	It is a shame.
	And, you know, of course they're not going to do anything about it.
	They are helpless even from a rhetorical standpoint.
	They're obviously not invested in any of this stuff where they can push back against it.
	So they fall back to irrelevant things or they skip it all together and jump to another topic.
	We've seen that over and over again.
	Well, I want to talk about this op-ed piece on Brownstone because I mentioned the one from Toby Rogers the other day, Society Without an Organizing Thesis, and he basically laid out a bunch of problems, and he said, well, it's really important for us, he said, the urgent task for the resistance, those of us who see what is being done,
	is to define a political economy that addresses the failures of conservatism, liberalism, and progressivism while charting a way forward that destroys fascism and restores freedom through human flourishing.
	That's the conversation we need to have and we need to have it all day every day till we figure this out.
	And so that was on Brownstone.
	And he's pointing out the fact that all these different political philosophies, whether it's conservative, and I think when he has liberalism and progressivism there, I think what he's really talking about is conservatism, libertarianism, and progressivism, which is socialism.
	And we have to do it to figure out how to do this without having fascism, totalitarianism.
	But he didn't have any answer, he just kind of put that out there as a call, and so on Brownstone, This woman, Haley Kenefen, I guess is the way you pronounce her name, she responded to it.
	And so she said, yeah, she said, and in it, Rogers briefly tours the dominant political philosophies that are spanning the past few hundred years and points out how each of them has failed us.
	And so now we're left with a broken, fragmented culture.
	We're on the brink of institutionalizing a fascist dystopia as its principal ruling structure.
	Folks, that's true.
	Just look at the response.
	When they don't get what they like, you know, when Twitter puts out stuff that Lala Harris doesn't like, well, they should have their license removed.
	And then when Trump should have his privileges have been violated, and that needs to be taken away from him.
	And then when Trump doesn't get what he wants out of ABC News, well, they have to have a license, and that license should be taken away from them.
	All the rest is stuff.
	That's authoritarianism.
	It's not really fascism.
	Fascism is nationalism, and it is a combination of government and business merging.
	And so in that sense, Communist China is really fascist.
	And that's why a lot of these labels are not really very meaningful.
	It's far more important to talk about liberty versus totalitarianism, because that's what we're seeing here.
	And so she says, I couldn't agree more.
	This happens to be the precise problem I've spent the last 15 years, more or less, on working.
	So I thought I would take the opportunity to share some preliminary insights that she has.
	Now, she's coming at it, he's coming at it from an economic standpoint.
	She said, I should clarify that I'm not an economist.
	He is a political economist by trade.
	She says, I am a philosopher with a background in behavioral neuroscience.
	Well, I don't know about the neuro part of it, but certainly when I said, when we talked about this germ game that they ran on us for the last several years, I said, there's no science in that except for behavioral science.
	But then she starts talking about it from a psychological standpoint.
	She said, you can't remove human psychology from any examination of what humans do, nor can you remove social philosophy from any examination of what humans do collectively.
	Well, I don't agree with that, because I don't really See, you know, whether you're talking about Jordan Peterson or you're talking about Sigmund Freud or fraud, whoever you're talking about, these are people who say they're studying the soul, essentially is what psychology is, but they deny that you have a soul.
	They're looking not at the right thing.
	They try to look at human behavior, but they really don't have any explanation for it.
	They're groping in the darkness, really.
	All this stuff is downstream from our relationship with God.
	Not from as Freud thinks everything boils down some kind of a sexual experience or something in your childhood So yeah, it boils down to relationship with God We are in the middle of the fourth turning and so she points out various social factors that have competing ideologies and value systems are intensely seething with hatred for each other and
	And because of that, and because of our failed institutions, we're seeing the failures in our institutions that have really, they've been around now for 70 to 80 years.
	And so the flaws are very well known.
	And then we have the polarized society.
	That's what the fourth turning is really about.
	She said governments and institutions are, at the same time that we see them failing, they're assuming more minute details of our lives.
	And people are demanding that.
	I mean, just take a look.
	At the same time, that's the mode of failure.
	When Trump goes to the Economics Club of New York, what do they ask him?
	What are you going to do about child care?
	Now, a Republican from 40, 50 years ago would have looked at them and said, child care is not the responsibility of government.
	But Trump, since he's a New York Democrat, when he talks to the Economic Club of New York, he says, well, I'm going to do this or I'm going to do that to fix child care for everybody out of Washington.
	He's going to fix everybody's problems with everything.
	All the minute details of our life are going to be fixed by Washington, by the president, we're told.
	And that's true whether it's Trump or Lala.
	The only difference is that the two of them have different, quote unquote, solutions.
	To fix all those minute details in our lives.
	And the reality is that they don't have anything that's going to fix those details in our life.
	Nothing!
	Neither of them can fix it, but they'll both promise that they can.
	That's the reality.
	So, she says there's a cultural vacuum.
	Again, culture and politics are downstream from our relationship with God.
	There is a spiritual vacuum.
	And what they don't see is that, you know, when we look at these things, the way the Bible describes it, the lust of the eye, the lust of the flesh, the pride of life, the lust of the eye, money and greed, the lust of the flesh, sex, the pride of life, power.
	It's money, sex, power.
	It's what it is.
	It's not that complicated, is it?
	And isn't that really, you know, when we look at America, Isn't that what comes to mind?
	Money, sex, and power?
	We're checking all the boxes, folks.
	She says, we are badly in need of some kind of social repair.
	We're badly in need of spiritual repair because we're checking every one of those boxes.
	So we need tools by which we bring each other together again to be able to create a vibrant, meaningful, living, and cohesive culture focused or founded on mutual nourishment and respect for individual autonomy.
	All the people who seek to create utopian societies are completely clueless about the fundamental nature of man, which is sinful.
	The heart is desperately wicked.
	Who knows it?
	Well, certainly not the people who come up with these utopian ideas.
	Can't we all just get along together?
	Can't we all just create a society that is based on our individual autonomy?
	Well, of course we can't, because we've got the kinds of people who run government, who run the big pharmaceutical companies.
	They're greedy.
	They're evil.
	They want power.
	They want sex and money and all the rest.
	That kind of stuff is motivating them, and they're not going to let the rest of us live alone, even if we desire.
	Have a society that is founded on mutual respect and mutual nourishment and individual autonomy?
	These people don't want that!
	They want to control you, and they're the ones who have money and power.
	She says, as Rogers points out, we can't accomplish this by simply returning to the way things were in some previous era, or by bringing back forgotten values.
	Why, she says.
	Well, because the old ways of organizing society, both morally and culturally, did not work for everybody and will not work for the vast numbers of people today.
	See, this is the secular viewpoint.
	This is a secular mindset.
	There isn't going to be anything that helps everybody.
	And there's a lot of people who don't want to be helped.
	There's a lot of people who like things the way that they are and have a much darker vision of what they want.
	These are the people who are now leading us.
	We can't just bring back forgotten values.
	Well, yes, you can.
	Yes, you can.
	You can't bring them back in your secular strength and out of your own willpower.
	The founders of this country understood that liberty was a blessing from God.
	You never hear anybody talk about that.
	Why isn't God blessing us with this?
	No, they never asked that.
	But the reality is, is that, you know, you have a couple of different races of men, as Ken Ham said, the difference is which direction they're racing.
	Toward God or away from God?
	That makes all the difference.
	If we truly want to build, she says, a restorative philosophy of freedom, and with it a restorative culture of freedom, if we truly care about freedom and autonomy itself, Rather than just maintaining a desire to impose our personal visions of utopia on the world around us, what would cause you to do that?
	Who are you responsible to?
	You're going to do this because it's part of your enlightened self-interest?
	That's not the way that mankind operates.
	You need to understand that you're responsible to someone.
	But the bigger issue is that she's describing the fruit of what Christianity brings to individuals, not to a society.
	The society is nothing more than a collection of the individuals.
	And when we talk about, you know, there is no public spirituality, just like there's no public health and there's no public education.
	It's not something that's done collectively, it's something that's done with us, each one of us, one-on-one.
	That's both good news and bad news.
	The good news is that you don't have to have, you know, the government can't stop you.
	And nobody else is going to stop you.
	If you want a relationship with God, they can't stop you.
	Nothing can stop that.
	And so that is one thing in life that you can have that nobody can keep you from having.
	But what you can't do is you can't make that happen for other people.
	You can't even make that happen for people in your own family.
	And so these people who want to reform society are very much like Richard Dawkins.
	He was upset about what he sees happening in England.
	He says, well, I wish we could go back with some of those Christian values.
	And they're going to say to him, no, you can't go back.
	Those don't apply today.
	We are so much more different and everything is new now and everything has changed now because none of that stuff will work because we didn't have the kind of technology that we've got today or something like that.
	No, it's not based on technology.
	It's based on man's heart and man's soul and our character and our humanity.
	Those things are eternal.
	They don't really change.
	Our natures don't change, unfortunately, as a society.
	The natures are going to have to change one person at a time.
	And only God can do that in relationship with him.
	As I said before, when we talked about Dawkins and his sorrow at seeing England falling, he wants the fruit of Christianity, but he doesn't want the root of it.
	He rejects Christ.
	And so economics and philosophy and nostalgia and all the rest of these things are just not going to do it for us.
	And, you know, we can theorize all the time that we want, but those things are not capable of bringing the kind of reform that is really needed.
	That begins from the ground up.
	That begins with each of us individually.
	I've talked about this guy in the past, Curtis Cheng.
	He is a left-wing, professing Christian, and he is talking to a professing professor.
	A university professor who's professing to be a Christian and professing to be an intellectual.
	But these Christians are a good example of how, even in the church, the people who self-identify as Christians, even they won't turn to Christ or defer to Christ in what they're talking about.
	Here's Curtis Chang, and he's got a podcast.
	I talked about him in the past as being somebody that's being heavily funded by the Trump administration and also by the Ad Council to push vaccine propaganda.
	And he was focused on pastors.
	And so he was putting together programs and addressing them to pastors and saying, tell this to your church, do this to your church.
	He was giving them psychological nudging techniques straight out of the Yale study back in 2020 to manipulate.
	Here's how you manipulate the people who trust you.
	Just despicable.
	And he was getting very heavy funding from the Ad Council and from these other organizations that have been set up by the Trump administration to push this stuff and telling people, here's, you talk to them about loving your neighbor, about, you know, the miracle of science and how it's a gift from God and all these other things.
	And he had people like Robert Jeffries.
	It's like Robert Jeffries and Paula White are the two hangarons, the self-professing Christians that hang around with Trump.
	Robert Jeffries has a big megachurch in Dallas.
	And he and Curtis Chang did videos together talking about how everybody needs to take the vaccine.
	Robert Jeffries, this Trump pastor.
	That's what he is.
	I think of him as a follower of Trump, not of Christ.
	I don't know his personal life, but when I look at what he's publicly done, it is to sacrifice people on the altar of his political access to power, to Trump.
	He's going to sacrifice his own people, that megachurch on that.
	And so here's Curtis Chang, the video that Robert Jeffries and Curtis Chang did together was very, very popular.
	And so here's Curtis Chang and this guy that he was talking to, talking about abortion.
	And the individual that he is talking to, I don't know this guy, I've never seen this guy before, but he is Is someone who I'm looking for his name here.
	Um, well, I'll find it.
	I'll play the clip for you and I'll tell you who this guy that he's, this is the guy that's doing all the talking is, uh, on with Curtis Chang and this clip and, uh, Curtis Chang is just nodding his head in agreement.
	As this guy is going through, talking about why you really can't support and be pro-life.
	You have to, in some cases, you've got to have exceptions.
	You should, if it's rape or incest, you need to just kill the baby.
	And he says these things like that are why he is not pro-life.
	And obviously at some point along the lines of pregnancy, whether you're in the 6th, 7th, 8th month, 9th month, I mean, that's a human being.
	And so I've always felt like we should give the benefit of the doubt to that entity and treat it with some degree of reverence.
	I'd say the caveats that I've had are Are several fold.
	I don't think I've ever been able to live what I think is the logic of that position.
	And let me explain what I, what I mean by that.
	One thing is, uh, I believe in, uh, and I've always believed in exceptions for rape and incest.
	Oh, the exceptions.
	He's all about the exceptions.
	Pro-life positions would not allow those exceptions.
	They would say that's a human child.
	No, at any point in pregnancy and whether, That pregnancy happened because of rape or incest.
	That child should not pay the ultimate price.
	So there's no room for the exceptions.
	Beyond that, you know, it's just a biological fact that half of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions.
	Do we treat that?
	Should we treat that as the same thing as if somebody took a two-year-old child, lined him up on the side of a building and put a bullet through his skull?
	Is that morally the same?
	Is it viscerally the same?
	Is it in any respect the same?
	I've never felt that it is.
	Well, that's amazing.
	Maybe he's never seen some of the pictures of the aborted babies.
	Yeah, the abortion's actually worse because at least the bullet to the skull is quick and painless.
	That's right.
	I mean, you know, has this guy never seen the pictures that we've shown over and over again of the aborted babies torn apart limb by limb?
	As you point out, Travis, it's absolutely worse.
	Absolutely worse.
	So they've got a new project together.
	They call it the After Party.
	It's supposed to offer biblical guidance for navigating political tensions within the church.
	So the important thing is for us to unite around, I don't know, politics or unite around America?
	Unite around unity.
	How about that?
	We're not going to follow Christ, though, with all this stuff.
	Curtis Chang, by the way, one of the things that he said when he was pushing the COVID vaccine, he said that the vaccine, the Trump shot, the mRNA depopulation shot, redeemed the use of abortion-derived cells.
	See, he went after everything.
	He's telling people, take it.
	Oh, you've got a problem with the fact that abortion plays a role in the development of these vaccines?
	Well, get over it.
	The vaccine redeems the abortion, is what he said.
	This is how twisted this deceiver is.
	Just amazing to me.
	This person said, that is a statement that is as absurd as it is offensive.
	So it shouldn't come as any surprise that he and his guest, and his guest is Pete Wehner.
	That's the guy that was doing all the talking and Curtis Chang in this particular one was just nodding his head.
	It shouldn't be a surprise they question whether or not a fetus is a human being and whether or not it is worthy of the same protections as a two-year-old child.
	And again, he says, OK, well, we're talking about the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th month.
	I mean, that's a human being, he said.
	OK, so it acknowledges that it's a human being.
	But he just doesn't feel it.
	He just doesn't feel any empathy for this.
	And he says, should we treat it with some degree of reverence?
	Well, you could start out by using a pronoun to remind you that you're talking about a human being, a person, rather than an it.
	And then he said, and I would say the caveats that I have had are several fold.
	Okay.
	So this is a human being.
	However, however, I believe in the exceptions.
	Yeah, that's, that's, that's Trump.
	Oh, please vote for me because I believe in exceptions.
	Well, um, you know, if your dad is a criminal, you should be executed.
	You know, Trump isn't just for executing drug dealers.
	He's for executing the children of criminals.
	And strictly speaking, he said the pro-life position would not allow for those exceptions.
	They would say that that's a human child at some point in pregnancy.
	Whether or not that pregnancy happened because of rape or incest, that child should not pay the price.
	So for somebody who's pro-life, there's no room for those exceptions.
	He understands all of this very clearly, doesn't he?
	But then he says, but then what about, you know, if there's a spontaneous abortion?
	We're not talking about spontaneous abortion.
	I don't know why he even brings that in.
	That's not a connection there at all.
	We're talking about deliberate murder.
	Spontaneous abortion would be something like a miscarriage.
	That's not something that anybody planned to do.
	But of course, if you harm a pregnant woman and cause her to have a miscarriage, there are legal consequences for that.
	But I don't know why he starts talking about a spontaneous abortion.
	Should we treat that the same as if somebody took a two-year-old child and put him on the side of the building and put a bullet through his skull?
	Like Travis said, it's much worse than that.
	Much worse, if you look at the pictures.
	So, they had an episode, and the title of the episode, the podcast that Curtis Chang did, That guy was his guest, Pete Wehner.
	Oh, I see, he's a columnist at The Atlantic, and guess what?
	A former speechwriter.
	For who?
	George W. Bush.
	The Terry Shavo people, you know, George W. Bush and Jeb Bush, they didn't have... See, if you're not pro-life, if the If the Bush family has always been as much involved in Planned Parenthood except secretly, they've been as involved as the family of Gates, the patriarch of the plan, Prescott Bush.
	His name was up there on the letterhead with Margaret Sanger on the very first fundraiser for Planned Parenthood.
	When she was a hardcore eugenicist, he was right there with her.
	The Bushes are eugenicists.
	The Bushes are for Planned Parenthood.
	And you go back and you look at what happened when Jeb Bush was governor of Florida.
	Florida at the time was giving money to Planned Parenthood.
	He bragged politically that he had stopped that, but the family more than made up for the money that was stopped, the taxpayer money in Florida that was stopped, the Bush family made up for that.
	And so the Bushes have got a lot of, the difference again between the Democrats and Republicans isn't what they believe, what they want to have happen, the agendas that they fall behind, but the perception of the public that they are on the other side of the issue.
	When in reality they're in lockstep with the Democrats on all these things.
	And you can certainly see that with the Terry Chabot thing.
	That was the end of the line for any respect that I had for the Bush family at that point in time.
	I've since learned a lot more that I didn't know about the Bush family at that point in time.
	But when I saw both the President and the Governor allow her to be murdered by a probate judge and arresting people who wanted to give her a cup of water, I was done with them.
	Well, you know, this guy wrote speeches for George W. Bush that you just heard there.
	Pete Wehner.
	And so in this podcast, they say they examine how this issue, abortion, has distorted evangelicals, Trump, and the Republican Party.
	I guess the bushy people don't like it at all.
	How did the Republican Party start getting so opposed to Planned Parenthood?
	Curtis also reframes the politics of abortion through the Old Testament offices of prophet, priest, and king.
	Really?
	How does that apply?
	Is this like some kind of sacrificial rite?
	R-I-T-E?
	Here's the bottom line.
	Both of these guys are there and they're saying, well, they're making theological arguments about this.
	And the name of Chang's podcast, he actually calls it Redeeming Babel.
	I don't think there's been any redeeming of Babel or Babylon at all.
	But what it shows in terms of their theology is they really don't care.
	They really don't care what Christ says.
	That's why I say they're professing Christians.
	They profess to be followers of Christ, but they really don't care what he has to say.
	You know, I've said before that I really didn't pay much attention to abortion, and I was inclined, as a libertarian, to say, just get government out of it.
	Let people make those decisions on their own.
	But as I was running in office in 1996, the partial birth abortion thing came up.
	People asked me what my position was on it.
	I didn't even know what it was, so I looked it up.
	It's like, that's just murder.
	That's just murder of a full-term baby.
	Oh, well, yeah, but the foot was still inside the mother, so it's not murder.
	The baby wasn't completely born.
	That type of thing.
	It's like, okay, I understand now.
	This is not a disagreement, an honest disagreement about when life begins.
	These people got an agenda of murder.
	And then after that, that year, Christmas time, It caught my attention in a way that it hadn't before.
	And Luke, when you're talking about the birth of Christ, and Mary meeting Elizabeth, and John the Baptist is six months old at the time, not born yet, but he's a six-month-old baby, and his mother.
	And when he meets Mary, the baby leaps inside the womb.
	Wait a minute, the baby?
	The baby leaps?
	And then we look at, this guy wants to look at Old and New Testament.
	Go back to the Old Testament.
	You knit me together in my mother's womb.
	You knew all the days of my life before one existed.
	So, this is nothing but rank disbelief by these people who are professing to be pastors, philosophizers, Christians, speech writers, politicians.
	Don't call yourself that.
	You're just deceiving yourself.
	Nobody else is being fooled by what you're saying when you completely reject the fact that it is God who has put together this child and that it is a child.
	So, when you go back and look at the debate, the economy was discussed on stage more than any other issue for ten minutes.
	Abortion was a close second at just under eight minutes.
	And yet, When you look at the arguments for gun control and a lot of these other issues, Trump is totally disarmed when it comes to gun control.
	He's got no argument to make.
	He doesn't know anything about guns.
	He doesn't use guns.
	He doesn't know anything about the Second Amendment.
	He doesn't obey the Second Amendment.
	And so, you know, how is he going to be your champion?
	When it comes to any of these types of things.
	And so now we got anti-gun groups that are saying, in order to reduce gun violence, we have to mutilate children.
	That's a good headline from the Gold Report.
	And the reality is, maybe that's one of the reasons why they want to keep that manifesto secret of the training shooter in Nashville.
	So you don't see just how dark that is.
	The Supreme Court is poised to rule on U.S.
	v. Scarametti, that's the Tennessee Attorney General, where the Biden-Harris administration is trying to strike down a Tennessee law banning sex change procedures for minors.
	If the Supreme Court sides with the government, children across the country may be given cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers in the name of transgenderism.
	So the federal government is suing the state government of Tennessee because Tennessee said these are children we're talking about.
	They don't have the maturity to permanently alter their body in ways that could cause them such incredible discomfort, pain, and sterilize them.
	They don't have the judgment to make those kinds of decisions as a minor.
	This is absolutely insane.
	The answer is clear regardless of what the Supreme Court ultimately decides.
	In the face, this is coming from the gun control people, right?
	The Giffords people, the Brady Center, and all the rest of this stuff.
	What they say in their brief to the Supreme Court to say that we're going to stop gun violence By pushing transgenderism, they say, in the face of the ongoing gun violence crisis gripping our nation, ensuring access to gender-affirming care for transgender youth is not merely a matter of medical necessity, it is a crucial component of our fight against the epidemic of gun violence that disproportionately threatens this vulnerable population.
	Such an absurdity.
	Now I know that there's no chance that Clarence Thomas or Scalia are going to fall for that.
	I don't think that Gorsuch would either.
	But you never know about three of them, right?
	You never know about Roberts, you never know about Kavanaugh, and you certainly don't know about Amy Coney Barrett.
	She's turning out to be another Sandra Day O'Connor, appointed by Reagan, one of the most liberal justices while she was there.
	And of course, you do know about the two that were appointed by Obama and the one appointed by Biden.
	The rationale is that if transgender children are allowed to undergo sex change procedures, they will feel more supported.
	No, that's absolutely not true.
	And we now have enough experience to know that that's a lie.
	Current data, however, shows a record increase in suicides among transgender youth, despite at least 24 U.S.
	states allowing medical mutilation for kids, also a record high.
	I read you the diary of somebody who did it.
	This child was manipulated and gender gaslighted as a minor at school, but waited until she was 21 to have these debilitating, let's just call them bottom surgeries, right?
	And then committed suicide because her life was so miserable from that.
	They're stopping it in other countries, and yet we have the Biden administration, this evil group of people, are pushing to try to force this at the state level.
	And what they need to do, look, they have absolutely no, the court has no constitutional authority to weigh in on this issue.
	This is not a federal issue.
	There's nowhere in the Constitution that this decision, just like abortion, just like the definition of marriage, there's nowhere in the Constitution that this issue is given to the federal government.
	So whatever branch of the government, whether it's the executive branch or the judicial branch, they're weighing in on something that they have absolutely no authority under the Tenth Amendment.
	Things that are not explicitly given to the federal government are powers that are reserved to the states and to the people.
	This is reserved to the states and the people.
	But of course, they will go along, meekishly, with whatever is decided by the Supreme Court.
	It's been suggested that hormone treatment reduces the elevated risk of death by suicide in this population, but the evidence does not support this conclusion.
	It shows just the opposite, as a matter of fact.
	So, when we look at this and the way forward, how do we reform our society?
	And again, it's about discovering truth and it's about discovering beauty.
	It's about discovering God, who is truth and beauty, and about discovering and building that relationship with God.
	A little bit at a time, each of us, with God's help.
	We ask for that help.
	Seek and you'll find.
	Search and you will find it.
	Keep seeking, keep searching.
	Keep asking, keep knocking.
	This is an op-ed piece from someone named Zephyrin Foster.
	And it's called The Music of the Spheres, Music as a Universal Language from Creation to Redemption.
	And I thought it was really beautiful what they wrote here.
	I want to give this to you.
	Zephyrin said, music is often called the universal language.
	It speaks to human beings on a unique and powerful level.
	It can affect us in a deep way.
	Music, with its rises and its falls, its tensions, its resolutions, its dissonance and its harmony, is not easily explained.
	Music stands as a testament to the enchantedness of God's spoken word.
	Music serves no evolutionary purpose.
	It doesn't aid in survival.
	It provides no defense against predators of the natural world.
	It doesn't help us to survive.
	But as C.S.
	Lewis said, it gives value to survival.
	It's an enigma that serves only to direct our gaze upward, toward glory, toward beauty.
	And you can say this about, you know, any real art.
	That'd be the way that you would define it.
	Music, and again, music is not just sound, right?
	We talk about that, you know, just like, you know, art is not taking some paint and throwing it against a canvas.
	Literally, throwing it against a canvas.
	You know, we talk about music and art and architecture, things like that.
	We're implying...
	There is some thought, there is some creative process in it that really matters.
	It's not something that would be done by an animal.
	And of course it is something that would indicate that we are created in God's image.
	Something more than just a random chance.
	Something more than just an animal.
	Music is embedded in this created world.
	Embedded here because just like story, because God is the great and first storyteller.
	Just like language, Christ is God's spoken logos.
	Just like love, God is love.
	This is something that runs through the veins of the cosmos because of who the Creator is.
	When God creates, it's not distant, it's not detached.
	God creates by the means of His very Word, and the Word which is spoken by the Father is the Word of God, the Logos, the Son.
	God's spoken Word by which He creates is Himself, the Second Person of the Godhead, the Eternal and Equal Son of God.
	This is important because music at its core is an auditory transmission of meaning.
	It is language.
	It is the universal language.
	When we speak of God creating the world by speaking it into existence, one possible way we can examine and interpret that is to say that God sang the world into existence.
	And it's kind of interesting.
	He mentions JRR Tolkien and how he has in his Silmarillion, where he kind of lays out his entire universe that he creates there.
	And that's what he sees happening.
	He sees the universe being sung into existence.
	We also see that in C.S.
	Lewis, in Narnia, being sung into existence.
	Well, I won't go into the details of what he goes from this point, he jumps into J.R.R.
	Tolkien, but I thought it was a really beautiful understanding of what it is that part of, I think, being in the image of God, part of what separates us from the rest of what God has created.
	We're going to take a quick break and we'll be right back.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Well, you know, yesterday was 9-11, and a lot of people were talking about it.
	I talked about it briefly at the beginning of the program.
	I said, well, everybody wants to talk about the debate, but not so much about 9-11.
	Well, later in the day, people did talk about 9-11 after they had Gone to great effort to try to defend Trump and to make the arguments that he failed to make in the debate.
	Breitbart put up a 9-11, a visual history.
	Except that it wasn't the kind of images that really told the truth.
	It was iconic.
	It was touching.
	It was apocryphal.
	But it wasn't truthful.
	250 pages of images at Breitbart.
	And they said, in 2021, to mark the 20th anniversary, to ensure that future generations never forget, Breitbart assembled the following visual chronicle of the day that changed the world forever in two decades of war that followed it.
	So they ran that through.
	And it made me think, when I saw that introduction there, it made me think of the meme that you've probably seen.
	Where it shows the two Twin Towers, and it shows Building 7.
	And it says, never forget, and it shows, and it has an arrow pointing to the two Twin Towers.
	And then it says, forget, and an arrow pointing to Building 7.
	You're supposed to forget about that third building that just fell into its own footprint there, right?
	Don't think about that.
	We need to Remember the Twin Towers, but forget about everything else that happened.
	And don't ask any questions about what happened.
	And in this 250 pages or so of pictures that they put together, and have run every year since 2021, they put in things like this.
	Ong, I guess.
	O-N-G.
	I don't know how to pronounce it.
	Forty-five, a flight attendant aboard American Airlines Flight 11.
	And her fellow flight attendant stayed on the phone with authorities to the very end and so forth.
	And we were told that Ken Olsen's wife was on the phone with him.
	Have you ever tried that?
	Have you ever tried that?
	I did.
	You know, they would always tell you, turn off your phones.
	You've got to completely turn your phone off.
	Don't just even put it in airplane mode.
	You've got to turn it off because we might crash.
	Well, you know, I would do my best to make it look like I complied and I would turn my phone on.
	I would try to get phone calls of people.
	As a matter of fact, if I could connect them, I didn't have to actually hold it up to my ear to do that.
	I knew it wasn't going to interfere with the phone.
	Am I stupid?
	It's like telling me, you know, we're getting into an area where there's a lot of AM radio stuff.
	So turn off your FM radio.
	Yeah.
	You don't realize that the cell phones and the communications inside the airplane are on different frequencies?
	How naive do you think we are?
	Well, most Americans are that naive.
	Most Americans believe that even though a plane is at high altitude and even though the You know, the signal strength is not directed upward, it's directed, you know, horizontally and that type of thing to try to maximize that.
	And even though it's a different frequency, they think that, you know, you're going to interfere with the planes, or they think that you'll be able to use a cell phone while you're flying.
	Even if you could get a cell signal, it goes through the different cells so quickly that it couldn't track you.
	So it's always nonsense, but as I point out, the audio of her call to the American Airlines emergency number was included in a montage that was released by the TSA in 2018.
	Well, now in 2011, the TSA had told everybody there is no threat to planes or to airports or to airplanes in their own internal documents that they accidentally posted for an afternoon and then put up the redacted part of it in a lawsuit.
	It's all a lie.
	Such an amazing lie.
	And so they said, some Florida students are clueless about 9-11.
	This is the New York Post.
	Despite state law requiring lessons on the tragedy.
	Well, what are they telling them?
	Are they telling them, for example, that you can have steel towers just collapse in their footprint?
	Something of this kind is what we should have seen when the top section of the towers collapsed onto the lower one.
	The upper and lower sections should have mutually destroyed each other until all the energy is dissipated and the system comes to a rest.
	What could not have happened is this.
	A little tiny chunk of the building can't possibly fall and crush the entire structure below it.
	This is such a simple fundamental concept that architects and engineers were astonished in seeing it totally ignored by NIST.
	This is high school physics and our whole society is being led to believe that these fundamental laws of physics, hard science, don't apply anymore.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Well, Marky Mark in New Jersey thinks that Betty Owen Gee used an earphone.
	Maybe she did.
	I know that they did have earphones that used satellite signals for that.
	So then explain what happened to Ken Olsen's wife.
	She was not using an earphone.
	And there's absolutely no way.
	And there was no way that this pilot was going to make that kind of tight turn.
	And of course, when people sued for the film footage, they said, well, we don't even see anything there.
	Well, they sent them back a very low-resolution in terms of frame rate thing.
	They said, well, it just came in so fast that you couldn't see it.
	But talk about this, OK?
	Explain this.
	If there was a local fire-induced collapse of the Twin Tower on 9-11, It would slow and stop above the lower building structure that was not damaged.
	That's because a massive network of structural steel core columns and beams connects to every single floor at many points.
	This creates a robust, resilient support system where each floor is supported by the strength of the entire structure.
	Think of it as a screen door, or as a fishing net, or a tennis racket.
	It's made out of steel.
	They have networks of beams that support each other, so that if one beam snaps, the entire network does not fall apart.
	And a network of welded, bolted steel beams and floors is much stronger than a fishing net.
	A floor-by-floor collapse would be impossible.
	That's why the 9-11 story, just one reason why it is junk science.
	Just like the idea that somebody in a regular cell phone is going to be making a phone call to her husband, Ken Olsen, who was the guy who helped Bush get into the White House.
	You know, the hanging chad stuff and everything that was in Florida.
	And then there's the testimony of this medic.
	The Red Cross rep was like, he goes over and he says, well, you've got to stay behind this line because they're thinking about bringing a building down.
	They didn't say what building.
	They just said bringing a building down.
	So we're like, okay, you know, we'll take their word for it.
	You know, we'll stay behind the line.
	Building 7 by the way. He went over and he talked to one of the through all the commotion He goes over and he asked one of the Red Cross or one of the firefighters What was going on? I guess I don't know if he got an answer or not he came back over with his hand over the radio and what sounded like a countdown and At the last few seconds he took his hand off and you heard three two one and he was just saying just run for your life just run for your life and And then it was like another two, three seconds, you heard explosions.
	Like, ba-boom!
	It's like a distinct sound.
	It's not like when the compression, like boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.
	Like floors that were dropping and collapsing.
	This was, ba-boom!
	And like you felt a rumble in the ground, like almost like you wanted to grab onto something.
	To me, I knew that was an explosion.
	There was no doubt in my mind.
	Or take a look at the modeling from the University of Alaska that nobody was caring about.
	September 2019, engineers at the University of Alaska published their four-year study on World Trade Center building a 47-story high rise that collapsed Based on drawings from the Building 7's structure engineers created sophisticated computer models, what did they discover?
	Contrary to the government's account, fires could not have caused the collapse.
	This should come as no surprise.
	It says, since no steel-framed high rise has ever collapsed from fire before 9-11 or after.
	So yeah, we have seen this over and over again.
	And then you have One guy who, after he talked, Barry Jennings, was killed shortly after exposing the truth about 9-11.
	Well, me and Mr. Hesch, the corporation counsel, were on the 23rd floor.
	I told him we got to get out of here.
	We started walking down the stairs.
	We made it to the 8th floor.
	Big explosion.
	Blew us back into the 8th floor.
	And I turned to Hesh, I said, this is it.
	We're dead.
	We're not going to make it out of here.
	In 2001, Barry Jennings was the Deputy Director of Emergency Services for the New York City Housing Authority.
	After the first plane hit the North Tower at 8.46 a.m.
	on the morning of 9-11, Jennings was called to the city's Office of Emergency Management in World Trade Center Building 7, along with Corporation Counsel Michael Hess, to help coordinate the emergency response.
	Hours later, World Trade Center Building 7, also known as the Salomon Brothers Building, Collapsed at freefall acceleration directly into the path of most resistance.
	After seven years of investigation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, determined that the building had not come down due to explosives or controlled demolition, as many alleged, or due to structural damage from the collapse of the Twin Towers, an explosion in the building's fuel oil systems, or any of the other suggestions that had been put forward and retracted by NIST over the course of its investigation.
	In September 2008, Just as NIS was presenting its final report concluding that WTC7 had spontaneously collapsed from ordinary office fires, it was reported that Barry Jennings had passed away in hospital the month before.
	No further details of his death were offered.
	Dylan Avery, seeking to bring closure to Barry Jennings' life, answer questions about his death, and honor the bravery of a 9-11 survivor who spoke the truth even when it was unpopular, hired a private investigator to determine the circumstances of Jennings death.
	In a remarkable and bizarre turn of events, however, after pursuing the case, the investigator referred the matter to the police, refunded his fee, and told Avery never to contact him again.
	To this day, no time or cause of death of Barry Jennings has ever been publicly announced or confirmed.
	The man stepped over bodies.
	We know that happened.
	He and Hess both talked about internal explosions.
	That building housed the CIA, the Secret Service, the SEC.
	I'm just confused about one thing, and one thing only.
	Why World Trade Center 7 went down in the first place.
	I'm very confused about that.
	I know what I heard.
	I heard explosions.
	Well, and of course, um, the other shooter dropped.
	It was 20 or so years later.
	19 years later.
	That shoe was dropped on us by Donald Trump.
	And then Joe Biden picked it up and beat us with it for the next two or three years.
	Yeah, there's a lot of questions about this.
	I could go on and on and on, but we're out of time today.
	Thank you for joining us.
	By the way, that was James Cobert.
	Excellent report from him.
	Thank you.
	Thank you, have a good day.
	If you've been exposed to logic by listening to The David Night Show, please do your part and try not to spread it.
	Financial support or simply telling others about the show causes this dangerous information to spread farther.
	People have to trust me.
	I mean, trust the science.
	Wear your mask.
	Take your vaccine.
	Don't ask questions.
	Using free speech to free minds.

▲