Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 11, 2025 - The David Knight Show

03:01:16

Tue Episode #1965: Trump Tariff Tantrums; DARPA's Neuro-Weapons Race to Control Your Brain

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The End
	In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
	It's the David Knight Show.
	As the clock strikes 13, it's Wednesday.
	Tuesday.
	Tuesday, the 11th of March, year of our Lord 2025. Well, today we're going to take a look at the consequences of chaos, because it does have consequences.
	We're seeing it in the marketplace.
	We're also going to take a look at Bitcoin Reserve.
	What is it?
	What was announced?
	I didn't get to that yesterday, so I want to get to that today, especially.
	And we're going to take a look at some very horrific and frightening advances in neurotechnology.
	Mind War?
	Yeah, that's what you had Michael Aquino, the Satanist who worked for NSA. That's what he called it back in the 1980s.
	It is way advanced from that.
	So we're going to take a look at that.
	We also have a guest who is part of a farming family that's been involved for a hundred years.
	We're going to talk about what has happened to the farm, what the hope for the future is for the independent farmers, what has to change.
	It's a very fascinating look at this.
	He's someone who both grew up in a farming family, his sister is still running the farm, and he became a journalist.
	So we're going to talk about being...
	Land rich and cash poor.
	We'll be right back.
	Well, let's take a quick look at what's going on with the economy and A lot of shaking going on in the markets yesterday.
	And, of course, the people, the Wall Street bros.
	Everybody talks about the big tech bros and the Silicon Valley bros that are around Donald Trump.
	There's a lot of Wall Street bros there, too.
	And when you have this kind of volatility, they make lots of money.
	As a matter of fact, as the stock market was going down, Nancy Pelosi loaded up.
	She put a $5 million bet on NVIDIA. So just a stock tip today.
	Not that that's necessarily a genius move there.
	Everybody has been betting on NVIDIA, maybe to a large extent.
	But anyways, it took a dip.
	Use that as an opportunity to buy the stock, sell off, rattled.
	Wall Street is where he's deepened about trade strains.
	And what is rattling the markets and everything else is the Trump tariffs.
	On again, off again, on again, off again.
	Look, you can bait the merits or demerits of tariffs.
	If he really wants to grow the country, what he needs to do is get rid of regulations.
	It's just that simple.
	You don't add more taxes, which is what he's done.
	He hasn't replaced the income tax.
	He's not going to replace the income tax.
	He's added more taxes.
	Like a Democrat.
	Because that's what he is.
	Democrats think that you can grow the economy with taxes.
	No, what you do is you grow the government with taxes.
	So if he would deregulate, that would help industry a lot.
	And of course, people aren't going to be able to create...
	New companies and new capital here in the United States if they've got all this regulation of taxes.
	That's the big obstacle.
	Get government off of people's backs instead of putting new layers of government on people's backs.
	But it's even worse than that because he can't make up his mind.
	It's on again, off again, on again, off again.
	And who knows what they're going to do.
	He's pretending that there isn't any such thing as the USMCA that he bragged about.
	He's got a treaty that he has to abide by.
	And this will be adjudicated by arbitration.
	That's the way these things operate, the way NAFTA operates.
	So if he wanted to do this, he shouldn't have signed that deal.
	But he seems to not understand that it's in place.
	Maybe he's like Biden.
	Who knows?
	The U.S. stock market sell-off cut deeper on Monday.
	The S&P 500 dropped 2.7% to drag it close to 9% below its all-time high, which was just last month.
	At one point, the S&P 500 was down 3.6% and on track for its worst day since 2022. You get down below 10% correction.
	That has real significance.
	The Dow Jones dropped 890 points, or 2.1%.
	The NASDAQ composite skidded by 4%.
	All told, there was a decline in the value of stocks by $4 trillion.
	$4 trillion.
	The S&P 500 is slowing more than 1% up or down seven times in eight days.
	Seven times in eight days.
	Up and down 1%, which is a lot for the stock market.
	It's not a lot for crypto stuff, right?
	But the crypto market is very volatile as well.
	The only thing that's not volatile, yeah, gold.
	It's like 2920. It's hanging in there.
	People, it's where people go when chaos happens.
	And this is the chaos presidency.
	Just letting you know, just saying.
	Anyway, I knew there was a lot of Trump euphoria.
	It's putting gold on sale right after the election.
	And I'm telling you, this is Trump chaos that is putting everything else on sale.
	So, anyway, the worry is that whipsaw moves will either hurt the economy directly or create enough uncertainty to drive U.S. companies and consumers into an economy-freezing paralysis.
	That's what Trump is doing.
	He bankrupted his casinos, and he's going to bankrupt the United States.
	If you can't run a casino at a profit, I mean, how bad is that?
	So, yeah, it's volatility.
	Volatility and chaos.
	And his Wall Street bros love that.
	They rake it in when that happens.
	Trump says he wants to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S., among other reasons that he's given for tariffs.
	So, fine, due deregulation, not higher taxes.
	Not on-again, off-again tariffs.
	There's always multiple forces that work in the market, but right now, almost all of them are taking a back seat to tariffs.
	NVIDIA fell 5.1% Monday.
	Its losses for the year now come to 20%.
	But again, as I said, Pelosi stocked up $5 million, so she's expecting...
	It's going to come back.
	Maybe that's just chump change to Nancy Pelosi.
	Who knows?
	She's made a fortune off of insider trading.
	Musk's Tesla fell 15.4%.
	So far, Tesla has lost 45% of its stock value this year.
	Cruise ship operator Carnival dropped 7.6%.
	United Airlines lost 6.3%.
	It's not just stocks that are struggling.
	Investors are sending prices lower for all kinds of investments, whose momentum at earlier seemed nearly impossible to stop at times, like Bitcoin, for example.
	Bitcoin went down just the other day to 78,000.
	It had been up to over 106,000 in December.
	I know this because Cash App sends me notifications.
	Whenever it moves by more than 5% up or down, which is happening all the time.
	That's why I say, you know, sending the stock market up or down 1%, that is really noticeable.
	But, you know, crypto's making moves, Bitcoin's making moves plus or minus 5% all the time.
	Investors instead have bid up U.S. Treasury bonds.
	And, of course, gold is holding its own at $29.20 this morning when I looked at it.
	So, again, the stock market lost nearly 900 points.
	At one point in time yesterday, it was down 1,000 points.
	If it had finished at that low point, it would have put it in the top 20 worst days in market history.
	So, did the plunge protection team jump in there and rescue it?
	So, we didn't have a...
	A record-setting day.
	Trump says he hates to predict things like that when asked if he expects a recession.
	That was on Sunday.
	That probably didn't help the market either.
	Like I say, if he was trying to sabotage our economy, he couldn't do a better job.
	So, Trump's trade war with close friends.
	The people that he signed a treaty with.
	Anyway, Trump faced a slew of questions about the economic ripple effects of his tariff policies during an interview with Maria Bartiromo on Fox News on Sunday, including whether he worried about a looming recession.
	He says, I hate to predict things like that.
	Do you expect a recession this year?
	He said, well, there is a period of transition because what we're doing is very big.
	We're bringing wealth back to America, and that's a big thing.
	And there are always periods of, you know, it takes a little time, it takes a little time, but I think it should be great for us.
	I mean, I think it should be great.
	Yeah, everything's just great.
	We're all getting better and better.
	It's always up and to the left, isn't it?
	Except when it's not.
	Well, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik came right back and tried to tamp that down.
	He said, no, there will be no recession in America.
	Calm down, everybody.
	Don't listen to him.
	Listen to me.
	That's what he was saying about the tariffs.
	He says, well, I think we're going to pull some of those back real quickly.
	And they pulled back the auto tariffs, and then they read the treaty, and they said, yeah, we'll have to go back and think about that again.
	So he also came out right away on Sunday that America should absolutely not brace for a recession.
	As Trump had said that the U.S. is in a period of transition.
	He said there is going to be no recession in America.
	Global tariffs are going to come down because Trump has said, you want to charge us 100%?
	We're going to charge you 100%.
	Lutnick argued that Trump plans to unleash America out to the world.
	Unleash America out to the world.
	And to grow our economy in a way that we've never grown before.
	Yes, some products that are made foreign might be more expensive, but American products will get cheaper.
	That's the point.
	Well, why would they get cheaper?
	Would they get cheaper because they've got no foreign customers?
	Because of sanctions, because of tariffs, and because of retaliatory tariffs and things like that?
	You know, one of the things I'm going to be talking to the author of this book about is he was talking about the one-two punch of COVID and tariffs.
	And, or I should say tariffs and then COVID. And how damaging that was.
	You know, even though they gave a little bit of a stimulus check, a lot of these farmers went out of business.
	How do things get, when would American products get cheaper?
	Because they're struggling.
	Is that the way to grow our businesses?
	This is all a bunch of double talk smoke and mirrors, folks.
	That's what's happening with the Trump administration.
	You know, you want your businesses to grow or you want them to die?
	If you want them to grow, you get rid of taxes and regulations.
	These people are not doing either one of those.
	They're piling on the taxes and they're doing nothing about deregulation.
	The president, he says, is going to negotiate country by country.
	He's going to drive down other countries' barriers, unleashing our farmers, our ranchers, our fishermen.
	They're going to explode in value.
	And the prices of American produce, grow crops, produce, and fish are going to come down.
	How do those two things work?
	If you're going to have the price of those things coming down, then how does the value of the farmer and the fisherman, how does their business value go up if their prices are going down?
	It's just nonsense.
	Trump is behind them.
	He is protecting them, said Lutnik.
	Yeah, you've got to get behind somebody before you can stab them in the back, don't you, Lutnik?
	And you know a lot about that, don't you?
	He's got their back, and he's going to make them winners.
	And then all of America is going to become winners, because these prices are coming down.
	And the process starts April 2nd.
	Trust the plan.
	Man, I tell you, these people are con men extraordinaire, aren't they?
	You've got to ask yourself just how stupid and gullible their supporters are.
	It's just unbelievable how they lie to themselves about this stuff.
	So Trump told Barromo that those tariffs will still take effect on April 2nd.
	Should have made it April 1st again.
	I said, April fools.
	And that he doesn't plan to grant Canada and Mexico further extensions.
	Lutnik said tariffs on steel and aluminum would still take effect on Wednesday, March 12th, tomorrow.
	And that tariffs on lumber and dairy products will be delayed until April 2nd as well, citing Canadian tariffs on U.S. goods and the need for tariffs to curb the fentanyl crisis.
	Nonsense.
	That's not going to help.
	As a matter of fact, they're already got it because of prohibition, right?
	There's already a new, more intense form of opioids besides fentanyl that they put out.
	And that's the way it works.
	That's the way it always works, the prohibition, even when the government isn't the one that's running it.
	You know, we had alcohol prohibition.
	It was independent criminals like Al Capone that were running that business and the Kennedy family.
	So, you know, they were coming up with more intense forms.
	It's like I said before, people...
	Change their habits from consuming beer and wine to consuming hard liquor.
	And then you had the people who were making alcohol in their bathtubs and using wood alcohol and making people go blind.
	But you always get more concentrated forms of whatever it is that you're trying to prohibit.
	But what's different about this is that this drug war is being run by the CIA and the DEA and our government is running this.
	And they're the ones who are coming up with crack cocaine to fund their secret wars and all the rest of this.
	They're the ones who are operating in league with big pharmaceutical companies making sure they've got the opioids coming from Afghanistan or wherever, right, for their opioid epidemic and protecting them while they run their opioid scams.
	I mean, you just go back and look at the opioid situation and how they flooded that.
	What a big thing that was.
	And how when they finally decided they'd had enough, They come after Johnson& Johnson.
	They come after Purdue Pharmaceutical.
	They come after the Sackler family.
	What did they do?
	They run in and guns blazing, lock them all up, steal all their assets like they did El Chapo.
	Civil asset forfeiture?
	No.
	They sat down at the bargaining table and said, okay, what can you give us?
	And they got snookered by the Sackler family.
	You had all these state attorneys, generals, and they got snookered by this stuff.
	And the biggest snookering was the fact that it was the big pharmaceutical companies that were running that drug epidemic.
	And then protected for all of that.
	Yeah, they don't like competition from people like El Chapo.
	But, you know, when you start focusing on one of these drugs, what happens is that they move to something else.
	And usually that something else is a more intense version of that.
	Folks, this is like everything else that we face.
	It's fundamentally a spiritual issue.
	And it's not a law enforcement issue.
	And I've had so many law enforcement.
	I mean, it might be obvious that after 54 years of this, they're not going to be able to stop it using law enforcement.
	It was obvious from the very beginning.
	And we'd already had one experiment with alcohol, though we already knew this.
	What people need to understand is that it's their own government that's doing this.
	And I'll keep saying that.
	Trump's tariffs plans could adversely affect grocery prices in particular, of course.
	In 2021, the percentage of fresh fruit in the U.S. supplied by imports was 60%, 38% for fresh vegetables, excluding certain crops.
	Yeah, so you can expect your food to go up.
	And you could expect the farmers to go broke at the same time.
	It's kind of a variation of what he did in 2020 when we had empty shelves and we had farmers destroying food on their farms because they couldn't get it to market, because they couldn't get it to the restaurants in the format that the restaurants needed.
	So we're going to take a quick break, and we'll be right back.
	And when we come back, we're going to talk a little bit more about the economy.
	We're going to talk about Bitcoin and this Bitcoin reserve.
	And what it tells us.
	As you got them talking about, we're going to have a digital Fort Knox.
	Whistler said, does that mean that we can't see what's in it?
	Yeah, it's smoke and mirrors.
	That's what it means.
	It really does.
	So we're going to take a quick break and we'll be right back to talk about this Bitcoin reserve thing.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	A penny saved is a penny earned.
	Though, that's gotten tougher since they've stopped making them.
	Maybe it's time to start saving a different type of coin.
	Such as the new David Knight Show supporter commemorative coin.
	Saving these coins earns support for independent media.
	Featuring striking bas-relief with bold raised details and premium painted accents.
	It's not just a trinket, but a statement, a declaration.
	A way to show you refuse to be controlled by the establishment.
	It's a limited run of just 100 coins.
	So, much like the penny, when they're gone, they're gone.
	They silence independent voices.
	They censor the truth.
	But you can stand with real journalism and own a piece of the resistance.
	These coins saved is The David Knight Show sustained.
	Available now at thedavidknightshow.com.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	All right, welcome back.
	And yeah, this is the actual size of the coin.
	I sort of got that right.
	And we're down now to sold 43 of them.
	So, as he said, when they're gone, they're gone.
	And they're numbered, each of them on the side.
	Very attractive coin.
	I really do appreciate Ryan for putting that together.
	I love the road.
	Let's talk a little bit about the Bitcoin Reserve.
	On Friday, he signed an executive order that not only set up a strategic Bitcoin Reserve, but also the digital asset stockpile.
	And that's where he's sticking these coins that everybody was scratching their head about, saying these are coins that are set up for transactions.
	This looks like you're setting up some kind of public-private partnership to do FedNow, right?
	Remember, all of the plans, and every country pretty much on Earth had plans to go to CBDC. And it was a two-step process.
	First you do the wholesale, then you do the retail.
	When I mean wholesale, I mean setting up a digital exchange format for banks and corporations to transfer money between themselves.
	And then the retail version was what we actually call CBDC. So in the U.S., it was going to be FedNow.
	They already set that up.
	They started doing trials with the banks so they could move money around.
	And then FedCoin was going to be the actual CBDC. Now they've decided that they want to rebrand it and pivot this to something that's slightly different.
	But again, when you look at these coins that were there, Ripple and the others, it looked like they were doing FedNow.
	And everybody's like, what is going on with this?
	So, White House AI and Cryptozar, David Sachs, said in a post on Friday when they met for this, he said, We're going to be using, initially, cryptocurrency that was forfeited in government criminal cases.
	Forfeited as part of criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceedings.
	You know, that's all.
	Civil asset forfeiture, as you know, if you listen to this program, is a pet peeve of mine.
	The fact that government would steal stuff from people without any due process.
	Everybody saw that with Trump saying, take the guns, do the due process later.
	Well, that's not due process then, right?
	Due process has a due date.
	And you have to do the due process before you do the punishment, don't you?
	Aren't you supposed to have a trial?
	No, not a trial, not a conviction.
	You just take it right away.
	And you charge the physical object with a crime.
	Don't worry, I'm not charging you with anything.
	I'm just stealing your stuff.
	And they would call it, see, we have criminal asset forfeiture and we have civil asset forfeiture.
	For the longest time when I look at this, I would...
	Just immediately be drawn to this idea.
	It's forfeiture.
	Like you're giving it up.
	No, they're stealing it.
	You know, the language that they use.
	That's stealing it.
	You're stealing my stuff.
	You call it asset forfeiture.
	You're stealing it.
	The difference between criminal and civil is a criminal, they charge you with a crime and they convict you and then they steal your stuff.
	With civil, they don't ever even charge you with a crime, let alone find you guilty.
	And so that's the key thing.
	Civil.
	Civil.
	That's the key word there.
	They call it a civil proceeding.
	And because they call it a civil proceeding, they say you have no right to due process.
	You have no Bill of Rights.
	Because you're not guilty of violating law.
	And this is the same thing they do to us through the bureaucratic rules and regulations.
	You don't have any presumption of innocence.
	We saw this first with the IRS. But now all of the bureaucracies do this.
	This is a civil action.
	There's no criminal thing here.
	Yeah, they do have criminal charges for the IRS, but they can forfeit your stuff in advance.
	But all of these different organizations, you know, like, remember when people were not wearing their mask on the planes and the FAA came in and said, okay, $25,000 because you talked back to the flight attendant.
	And it's like, well, first of all, that's excessive punishment.
	No, Bill of Rights doesn't apply.
	And we're not going to give you a trial.
	We're just going to assess that fine against you, that type of thing.
	Anyway, the U.S. digital asset stockpile, which Sachs said would be made up of cryptocurrencies other than Bitcoin.
	He said Bitcoin Reserve was a, quote, digital Fort Knox for cryptocurrency.
	Mm-hmm.
	Yeah.
	And as Catherine Austin Fitz said, this whole thing is pump and dump.
	It's a Ponzi scheme.
	And what happens with the Ponzi scheme?
	You keep making money until the last person gets in.
	Well, who's going to be the last person, the last sucker holding the bag with all this stuff?
	Well, the taxpayer.
	They want the government to come in and to buy up everything, to bail them out so they can sell off at the top on their Ponzi scheme.
	That's what this is.
	And it's especially true that, you know, I don't see anything magic about Bitcoin.
	I think all this stuff is a Ponzi scheme.
	But especially when you bring in all these other cryptocurrencies, it becomes pretty obvious exactly what it is.
	That is what it is.
	It is a Ponzi scheme.
	It is a pump and dump scheme from Trump.
	Trumpity, pumpity, dumpity.
	So, other federal agencies, quote, will evaluate their legal authority to transfer any Bitcoin they own into the reserve.
	Nobody is saying this, but I think it's kind of interesting that their initial big stash of stuff was from Ross Ulbrich.
	Through that rigged trial, shamefully rigged trial about Silk Road where the FBI was actually running the website at the same time.
	And at the same time he had his trial, there were two FBI agents who were on trial for embezzling over a million dollars out.
	And that was not allowed to be brought up in his trial because if they realized that, hey, other people got the keys to this, they tried to make Ross Ulbrich and they did.
	They denied all this exculpatory evidence and so they made him the sole, Criminal and all this stuff.
	Well, no, there was actually the FBI in there.
	But this big stash of money that they've got, a lot of that came from Silk Road.
	So he gets his pardon and they keep the cash.
	And it becomes a Bitcoin reserve.
	Isn't that great?
	Don't you love our government?
	It's just amazing.
	Treasury and Commerce secretaries would make, quote, budget-neutral strategies for buying more Bitcoin for the Reserve.
	As for the digital asset stockpile, Sachs says its purpose is, quote, responsible stewardship of the government's digital assets under the Treasury Department.
	He added that the government wouldn't buy additional cryptocurrencies for the stockpile beyond those obtained through forfeiture proceedings.
	Well, that raises a question.
	Because he's saying that this is the, you know, they've stolen a lot of Bitcoin and Ethereum and everything.
	But, you know, when you're talking about the digital assets stockpile, these are the things, the Ripple, you know, XRP, Solana, SOL, Cardano, ADA, these things are really pretty new.
	And they don't have any of this stuff.
	I looked at this and said, have they actually forfeited any of this stuff?
	Well, actually, somebody else looked at it.
	Arkham Intelligence looked at it.
	And they said the U.S. government doesn't hold any of these three currencies that Trump was so excited about.
	So, they're going to be buying them.
	So, that means that David Sachs, the crypto czar, is actually lying to you.
	It just doesn't add up.
	I mean, it's like all of the stuff that the government says all the time.
	All the stuff with the bird flu and the measles and the vaccines and the rest of the stuff.
	It just doesn't add up.
	Well, we're not going to be buying any of this stuff.
	It's going to be coming from forfeited assets.
	Well, you don't have any forfeited assets of Ripple or SOL or ADA. You don't have any of that.
	If you're going to put that in there, you're going to have to buy it.
	Duh.
	Anyway, they do...
	It doesn't hold any of that.
	The government has $18 billion worth of crypto under its control right now.
	Almost all of that is Bitcoin.
	There's $119 million worth of Ethereum, but they have $122 million worth of Tether, the stablecoin.
	Now, when you look at Tether, think Lucky Lutnik.
	Howard Lutnick and his company, Cantor Fitzgerald, they've been at the center of a partnership with Tether.
	And going back to 2021, they were basically the...
	So Tether is tied to the U.S. dollar, and they tie that by getting U.S. treasuries.
	And so Cantor Fitzgerald and Howard Lutnick were the custodians.
	For the treasury securities that was the basis for Tether.
	And they also have a 5% stake in Tether.
	And so really they are the custodian.
	They're the investor in Tether.
	They are a strategic partner.
	They have a massive financial stake in Tether.
	And they are an advocate for Tether.
	And this guy is now the Commerce Secretary.
	So the government owns.
	Ethereum owns Tether.
	Tether has not been mentioned in any of this stuff.
	Ethereum and Bitcoin were, and they do own a little bit of Ethereum, and they own $18 billion worth of Bitcoin.
	However, these other three cryptos that everybody was scratching their head about, they don't own any of that stuff.
	And again, the cryptos are, David Sachs says, well, we're not going to buy any of this stuff.
	This is stuff that's already owned by the guy.
	Well, he's absolutely lying about it.
	And so, the market for Bitcoin, as this one headline from Cointelegraph said, what Bitcoin reserve?
	Bitcoin's price slips back below $90,000.
	It went down to $78,000.
	It's now back up to about $81,000, but it's been all over the place, and it doesn't look like people are as bullish on this as David Sachs is.
	Again, he says, a digital Fort Knox, he says, when he went on with Sean Hannity, Sean Hannity says, I got a lot to ask you.
	He said, because I did invest in Bitcoin and Ethereum, and I watched the fluctuations.
	And if you tried for the entire hour to explain to me Bitcoin's algorithm, and I have friends who have spent hours trying to get this through my thick skull, you will never be able to penetrate the way my brain thinks, and I will never get an understanding of it.
	However, it has proven to be a pretty good investment for me.
	Hey, it works!
	Put some money down on Red 7 in the casino, the crypto casino.
	That's right.
	Spin the wheel.
	It's a roulette wheel.
	He says, well, what do you think about all this and all these fluctuations in the crypto market?
	It is a digital casino.
	And, you know, so he went on to say that the government has no plans to sell government gold.
	And then he said, yet, yet.
	Well, you can...
	You convert that with Tony Ardivan.
	He doesn't have a fee to go from crypto to gold, or vice versa, actually.
	Michael Saylor is out there pushing U.S. government to purchase up to 25% of the Bitcoin supply by 2035, when 99% of all Bitcoin will have been issued.
	By 10 years, 99% of all of it will have been issued.
	And he says that the government...
	Should never sell Bitcoin.
	See, how can that be a profitable thing for the government if it never sells it?
	It's a profitable thing for the people like him who buy into it if the government doesn't sell it.
	The government keeps a floor on all of this stuff.
	He explained that the government should stick to a, quote, never sell your Bitcoin, unquote, policy, predicting that by 2045, the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve could generate $10 trillion annually and serve as a, quote, perpetual source of prosperity, unquote, for Americans.
	Beware of people who are selling you perpetual motion machines or perpetual prosperity machines.
	And I... Don't understand how, if you don't sell this, how is it going to provide $10 trillion annually if you don't sell it?
	Don't you have to sell it?
	I mean, you know, you got paper gains or whatever, but you have to realize those gains by selling it.
	That absolutely makes no sense at all to me, if you understand it.
	Give me a comment if you can interpret that lie for me.
	I think it's just a flood-out lie.
	It says the reserve could generate between $16 trillion and $81 trillion for the U.S. Treasury, potentially easing the national debt.
	I don't think that's the case at all.
	Again, I go back to Catherine Austin Fitz.
	I think she got it exactly right.
	She says it's a pump and dump.
	And they want the taxpayer to be left holding the bag.
	And when the bag explodes and there's nothing in it, Then what they do is they come after the physical, natural assets.
	And that's what Doug Burgum, Howard Lutnik, Scott Besant are looking at, I believe.
	And she thinks so, too.
	So, you know, it's a pump and dump.
	It's a Ponzi scheme.
	It goes bust.
	They take all the land.
	Because they've said, hey, we've got enough land.
	If we sell this land off, we've got $200 trillion, said Doug Burgum.
	I think that's where this is headed.
	If the U.S. government acquired 25% of Bitcoin's total supply, it would hold 5.25 million Bitcoin, far more than the 1 million Bitcoin that Wyoming Senator Cynthia Loomis proposed in her Bitcoin Act that she introduced in July of last year.
	So she made a really bold proposal that would have been about 1%.
	Now he's talking about 5%.
	Why don't we just own all of it?
	And we can pay off the people like Howard Lutnik and Michael Saylor and David Sachs.
	They can become trillionaires, and we just turn over all that to them and get left holding the bag.
	So, is it the end of fiat?
	You've got multiple states are moving to recognize gold and silver as legal currency.
	Because guess what, folks?
	Got to get real at some point in time.
	They're simultaneously pushing through legislation to undermine the Federal Reserve's unconstitutional monopoly on money.
	Free Thought Project article here.
	And they go through the 12 states, state by state, and talk about the current status of it.
	You might be interested if your state is one of them.
	And if it's not, this is the Tenth Amendment talking about this.
	If your state's not one of the ten, you need to get busy in your state.
	Get people to start writing letters.
	They really do respond, especially at the state level.
	to letter-writing campaigns.
	Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution expressly states that, quote, no state shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender and payment of debt.
	Based on this simple premise, many, most notably former Congressman Ron Paul, have argued for decades that the current U.S. monetary system run by the Federal Reserve of printing debt based on fiat dollars and policies of price-fixing is not only destructive, But it's completely unconstitutional, and he's absolutely right.
	So the Tenth Amendment Center is reporting that, and here's the 12 states, in alphabetical order, the Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Wyoming are in various stages of enacting bills that would recognize gold and silver as valid legal tender, as the Constitution stipulates.
	It's interesting, I think, that Texas is not in there.
	When we look at Tennessee, Senator Steve Sutherland has filed a Senate bill with the intent of officially recognizing gold and silver as legal tender in the state and establishing a bullion depository.
	Again, when we talk about making it legal tender, that means that people have to accept it for any debts that are going to be paid.
	Anything that you pay legal tender for, all debts incurred.
	Former University of Maryland economics professor and president of the Mises Institute, Thomas DiLorenzo, argues quite convincingly in his book, The Real Lincoln, and I'm reading this because I had a listener say, what is it that you have against Abraham Lincoln?
	It would take me two or three programs to go through everything.
	I've got wrong words that I've got against them.
	And one of the best examples, if you want a thorough expose of what's wrong with Lincoln instead of the schoolbook version, this book by Thomas DiLorenzo, The Real Lincoln, a new look at Abraham Lincoln, his agenda, and an unnecessary war.
	By the guy who's president of the Mises Institute.
	The ways in which the Lincoln administration not only waged a war in pursuit of mercantilist economic subjugation, contrary to the humanitarian crusade that has long been espoused in American history, but unquestionably, through his policies, he laid the groundwork for the welfare warfare state that we've all come to know and loathe.
	Through excessive tariffs and taxes to pay for his war, As well as the mass inflationary impacts of the unconstitutional legislation, such as the Legal Tender Act of 1862, leading to the issuance of fiat greenbacks.
	It wasn't just the Confederate money that was worthless.
	The Union did it as well.
	Of course, he instituted the draft for the first time.
	Martial law, he's arresting elected officials like Zelensky.
	It was our own Zelensky there.
	And many other things.
	Suspended habeas corpus right off the bat and so forth.
	Anyway, the National Bank Acts of 1863 and 64 that further centralized the economy.
	And by the war's end, the value of the U.S. dollar had once again been rendered a fraction of what it was once worth.
	It only looked good compared to the Confederate fiat currency, which basically lost all of its money, all of its value.
	A mere 48 years later, and that's the whole thing, he laid the groundwork and then the people who were in charge for the most part when they were in their 60s that had been a part of the war,
	they were in positions of power and they laid this foundation that became the Leviathan State that we see today.
	And it was the time of Woodrow Wilson.
	And so, you know, it was, these policies were laid, but also the mindset of the Grand Army of the Republic.
	I mean, these people were just fascists.
	You know, they were the ones who gave us the Pledge of Allegiance, which originally did not have under God in it until the 1950s.
	So if you read that, one nation, indivisible, right?
	And, you know, you pledge allegiance to that and everything, and you would also pledge allegiance with your hand extended out, palm down, like everybody's freaking out about Elon Musk.
	But they changed that after the Nazis were doing it.
	They changed it as a hand over your heart.
	And then they further softened it by putting under God.
	But it was pretty harsh language, and that was where this all was.
	And so these people got rid of the direct election of senators to break the checks and balances of states' power against the central government's power.
	And you wind up with Woodrow Wilson, the Federal Reserve Act, and all the rest of the stuff, and the income tax, and everything else.
	And when you look at the dollar's decline, This chart right here really shows it.
	If you go back to the creation of the Federal Reserve and look at how the dollar bill is just being eaten up to where it is virtually worth nothing compared to what it used to be.
	And along the bottom, it shows at various dates what you could buy with a dollar.
	In terms of just food that is there.
	But it's been disastrous.
	With the death of the petrodollar looming, the threat of central bank digital currencies on the horizon, and the clever bait and switch of the Trump administration that's currently playing on behalf of the deep state.
	And now, focus on this, because I'm very glad that Freethought Project has this.
	I'm glad to see somebody else say what I've been saying about this.
	They pretend that CBDC is going away.
	No, we're not going to call it that.
	And I said it's just a ruse that they're going to do this in a public-private partnership, and that's exactly what this article, Free Thought Project, says.
	The Trump administration is currently playing a clever bait-and-switch, seemingly opposed to CBDCs while actually laying the groundwork for a public-private partnership.
	Of centralized U.S. stablecoins.
	Stablecoins.
	What's that?
	Tether.
	Tether is the big one.
	Tether is tethered to Lucky Lutnik, Trump's commerce secretary and so forth.
	And so the time is now for Americans to get serious about reclaiming their financial independence.
	Whether one prefers decentralized private cryptocurrencies like Xano.
	Or physical assets like gold and silver, the fiat currency ship is sinking and you better put on a life vest.
	I'm glad that they're saying that and I'm glad that they see it as well.
	Everybody needs to be repeating this over and over again because we exposed the CBDCs to the sufficiently that they ran away from that label and they tried a different approach.
	We need to continue to do that with this public-private partnership that is coming from Lutnik and Trump.
	And we need to expose that that's really where they're headed with this stuff.
	I'm absolutely certain of it, and I'm glad to see that they're talking about that as well.
	Look, ultimately, you know, we can lobby, we can argue, we can try to educate people, but ultimately, you've got to get your own life vest.
	And that's what gold and silver is.
	And so I'm really happy to deal with Tony Arterman.
	He set up davidknight.gold.
	I'll take you to Wise Wolf Gold.
	You can get gold and silver.
	You can get it for your IRA. You can buy it large or small amounts.
	You can start accumulating it on a regular basis, but you better start getting that life jacket.
	Look at all of these financial instruments, whether you're talking about Wall Street, that rigged casino, or the rigged casino of cryptocurrency.
	Look, these people have so much money.
	They can trigger these markets one way or the other.
	The government's got its own plunge protection team, but you've got these large corporations like BlackRock and others, and they can create the plunges as well.
	And so we've got Thomas Massey and Senator Lee who have introduced bills to end the Fed.
	Thomas Massey tweeted out, He said, I just introduced End the Fed.
	The title is the Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act.
	He said, Americans would be better off if the Federal Reserve did not exist.
	The Fed devalues our currency by monetizing the debt and causing inflation.
	Joining him in the House as co-sponsors of this bill were Andy Biggs, Lauren Boebert, Eric Burleson, Kat Kamak.
	Michael Cloud, Elijah Crane, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Harriet Hagman, Scott Perry, and Chip Roy.
	Shortly after that, Senator Mike Lee said, I'm feeling dangerous.
	I think I'll take a page from Ron Paul and get together with my friend Thomas Massey to end the Fed.
	And he introduced that in the Senate.
	Notably, I don't see that he's got any co-signers with it.
	Did Rand Paul not sign in on that?
	As this article points out, this is a minority view, even within the Republican Party.
	But what it represents is a move in the Overton window.
	As I've said, when we were talking about this stuff in the mid-80s to the mid-90s when I was involved with the Libertarian Party, everybody was just like scoffing.
	You want to get rid of the income tax?
	You want to get rid of the Federal Reserve?
	Yeah, right.
	You guys aren't serious.
	Well, a lot of people are serious about this now.
	And that Overton window has moved.
	Elected officials are seriously talking about this.
	Nobody would talk about that 40 years ago.
	At CPAC recently, Elon Musk discussed the possibility of auditing the Fed.
	He called it absurdly overstaffed and has flirted with the idea of abolishing it.
	So, hey, if the President wants to do it, President Musk, then maybe he's got a chance, right?
	The FDIC is, you have some people trying to get information, Coindesk and others are trying to get information about what they call Operation Chokepoint 2.0.
	What was Operation Chokepoint to begin with?
	Well, that was the Obama administration trying to destroy gun retailers and manufacturers by cutting them off from banking.
	But it's not limited to that.
	Chokepoint 2.0, they started doing this significantly to crypto...
	To banks that were dealing with crypto and other things like that.
	Individuals.
	And so Coindesk knows that.
	Many of them experience that.
	But of course it's not limited to guns.
	It's not limited to crypto.
	They also come after people that they don't like.
	That's why I got banned from PayPal and Venmo.
	Some of the stuff is going through the banks and some of the stuff is going through the crypto things.
	And so I can tell you for a fact.
	That, you know, you're processing payments through something, and almost at that time, almost all of our payments were coming through PayPal.
	I had not set anything up.
	I mean, that was, it was just kind of, you know, after I was fired for telling people that January the 6th was a grift and opposing Alex through the year over the lockdown, over the vaccine, you know, we're like, well, okay, now what do we do?
	I didn't have a backup plan for any of this stuff.
	My only plan was, I'm going to tell the truth no matter what happens with this stuff.
	And so when I got fired, it's like, okay, now what do we do?
	And people started sending me in mail PayPal contributions.
	So we decided to keep the show going.
	And so for the first five months, almost all the menu was coming in that way.
	We hadn't set up anything else.
	We had not set up Subscribestar.
	We had not set up...
	The monetization of the podcast at all with ads or anything like that.
	And so when they cut that off in May, it's like, whoa.
	Now what are we going to do?
	Again, it's another one of these issues.
	It's a really big deal to get banned by the banking system.
	It's bad enough to get banned by social media.
	And YouTube, right?
	I have all these people sending me stuff saying, Alex Jones is back on YouTube.
	And he was.
	He got on for about a week.
	Now they sent me a thing today, didn't they?
	I think you saw it.
	Saying that they've de-platformed him.
	But I thought, when I got on, I get on to listen to music.
	And I can't log in.
	It won't even let me log in.
	And so, I got, even though I get on to listen to music, it pushed Alex Jones' stuff to me.
	To me.
	What is going on with this?
	I saw that before I saw any email messages about that.
	But they've now taken it off.
	But it's even more damaging than being kicked off of social media and then being kicked out of the banking system.
	So they're trying to get some information from the FDIC because their experience was not through PayPal and Venmo.
	Their experience was through the banking system.
	And the FDIC ought to be overseeing that.
	And so Coinbase has requested that the FDIC provide details in court.
	On how it conducted due diligence to ensure that no documentation related to any of this Operation Choke Point 2.0, that they're calling it.
	However, the agency has repeatedly refused to give them any information.
	Stonewalling on all of this.
	And so, one person, Ben Averbrook, said they've uncovered a new way to destroy companies.
	30 tech founders were secretly debanked.
	And so, Elon Musk retweeted that.
	And he said, did you know that 30 tech founders were secretly debanked?
	And as part of this, there's a video from Mark Andreessen.
	But they do it to any of their political enemies.
	And it's not just over crypto, it's anything that is political.
	But the FDIC is stonewalling.
	They're only giving little bits of snippets of the FOIA requests.
	And, of course, those are most likely, you know, heavily redacted.
	But as this headline says, gold is shining as chaos reigns.
	And that is always the case.
	Trump's crypto reserve, a power play or a risk?
	And why gold still wins?
	As this publication on Zero H says, gold isn't just another asset, it's real.
	It's tangible.
	It is wealth that has stood the test of time.
	While governments manipulate fiat currency, and while crypto markets are swinging wildly, gold remains the one constant in an uncertain world.
	Stability in a digital age, Bitcoin is now prone to price swings, regulatory crackdowns, and exchange failures.
	They didn't mention the fact that it is also a target for every hustler on earth.
	Everybody, anyone who is clever, can find and try to steal your Bitcoin.
	I don't like those odds.
	There are smarter people than me out there, especially when it comes to protecting Bitcoin.
	So I don't like that.
	Gold doesn't disappear in a hack.
	It doesn't get frozen in a government wallet.
	It doesn't rely on a blockchain to exist.
	Also, gold is a hedge against inflation and debt.
	The U.S. national debt is now north of $36 trillion.
	With over $1 trillion in annual interest payments, inflation is creeping back and even with rate cuts on the horizon, the purchasing power of fiat currency is eroding.
	Gold is the asset that investors turn to when they want something that won't be debased.
	And it's what central banks turn to.
	Because they know what's going on.
	While the U.S. considers crypto reserves, central banks everywhere else in the world are hoarding gold.
	What does that tell us about Trump and his corrupt team?
	This Trump administration, folks, like I said before, they're a bunch of robber barons with one R. It's just like the railroad robber barons of the late 1800s.
	That's what these guys are like.
	For the third straight year, over 1,000 metric tons of gold have been added to national stockpiles in China, India, Poland, leading the charge, ensuring that they will hold real wealth and not digital speculation.
	That's it.
	Trump's pump and dump.
	Gold or crypto?
	What do you trust?
	So, again, go to davidknight.gold.
	I'll take you to Tony Arterbin, and you can start to...
	Do something for yourself.
	There's only so much, you know, we can talk sense to these people, but look, if they're corrupt and they know what they're doing, they don't care.
	And that's really the reality.
	You can reason with them, you can plead with them, but you're going to have to take care of this stuff yourself.
	12 June 1776. How convenient, huh?
	The government created Bitcoin, confiscates its own contraband.
	Creature of Jekyll Island 2.0, yeah.
	KWD 68. Government can just create, quote-unquote, money.
	Strategic reserve.
	Yeah, that's what, again, going back to Catherine Austin Fitz, she said, so I get, you know, having a strategic petroleum reserve.
	I get holding gold.
	You know, those are real things you can use it for.
	But again, why would you hold Bitcoin in a reserve?
	And even more importantly, you know, I talked to her before David Sachs talked about this stuff.
	How in the world is it going to provide us $10 to $81 trillion?
	That's a pretty broad range or something that he came up with.
	But how is it going to?
	Give us a steady income of trillions of dollars if we don't sell it.
	It doesn't do anything.
	It doesn't produce anything.
	I mean, you could look at, you could say, well, we've got all these natural resources.
	We're going to put them to work.
	I don't think that they're talking about using government land to create wealth and businesses, you know, mining and all the rest of the stuff.
	Those rights have been sold.
	And they're not making that much from them, and that's largely going to private companies.
	But, you know, they're talking about liquidating and selling off the land.
	And even though you could do productive things with the land, right?
	You could use it for ranches and for farmers or for lumber and for mining and all this other kind of stuff.
	But no, they're going to sell it off.
	Well, then how do you get money out of a reserve, a Bitcoin reserve, that you never sell?
	It doesn't add up.
	Again, if you guys see it, that's fine.
	Government criminals have their own Bitcoin.
	They got tired of middlemen, says Octo Spook.
	Woodpecker, 5778. I'm thinking that as deeper Doge digs deeper into the depths of corruption, they will discover that 40% of the New York Stock Exchange, NASDAQ, S&P stocks will be funded by illegal taxpayers' funds.
	We'll see what happens.
	12 June 1776, Doge is a PSYOP for sheep children.
	I agree with that.
	I think all of these announcements, as I pointed out the other week, pretty much none of them have been realized yet.
	None of them, none even of the firings.
	I mean, they're not really talking about the big kind of cuts that have to happen.
	And as I pointed out, when you break down, if you look at welfare, warfare, And discretionary spending.
	Discretionary spending is the smallest part of that.
	And that just doesn't add up to $2 trillion.
	It doesn't even come close.
	It doesn't even add up to $1 trillion.
	And so then they started talking about firing people.
	And I think that was really more about, you know, a revenge program for MAGA. MAGA hates the government.
	They hate the bureaucracy.
	Let's fire them.
	All right, we're winning.
	It wasn't even about saving that much money.
	It was just about a wish fulfillment for MAGA that hates the bureaucracy.
	And I don't like the bureaucracy because I don't like pretty much everything they do is unconstitutional anyway, before they became heavily politicized.
	And they were heavily politicized with a thumb on the scale and engaging in warfare.
	But now Trump is doing the same thing.
	Precedent has been set, and so now that baton is going to get passed back and forth, and whoever's got the baton is going to beat the other guy over the head with it.
	And so if you look at even these firings, are they going to stick?
	I don't think so.
	And I said that from the very beginning.
	I said they're going to be challenged in court, and unless Trump wants to stand up to this stuff, and he has shown no indication that they will.
	Pam Bondi isn't going to push on any of this stuff.
	Again, she doesn't need to sue them in court.
	It's not necessarily even something that the Attorney General needs to get involved in.
	What he needs to do, and they know it.
	You've had J.D. Vance even say it.
	Andrew Jackson said to the Supreme Court, Well, you made your decision.
	Let's see you enforce it.
	They have no ability to enforce it.
	That's what the founders said.
	They said the judiciary should be the least dangerous of all the branches because it has no power.
	Congress has the power of the purse.
	The executive can decide what he wants to do unless he lets these judges shut him down.
	And now you have this situation.
	One district judge can say, sorry, and set policy for the entire nation and veto whatever the government is.
	Just one judge.
	And as I said last week, it got 94 different districts, 677 district judges, and all it takes is one of them to blackball any action that the president's going to do if he's going to comply with that system.
	Brian Sumner.
	I saw AJ was on there in my feed over the weekend.
	I was surprised.
	Yeah, well, yeah.
	They not only let him in, but the algorithm was promoting him.
	I thought it was, you know, the...
	The system promoting him.
	Because they have promoted him through X. System loves Alex.
	He tries to portray himself as an outsider.
	He is the ultimate insider, folks.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	Common again.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Hello, it's me, Volodymyr Zelensky.
	I'm so tired of wearing these same t-shirts everywhere for years.
	You'd think with all the billions I've skimmed off America, I could dress better.
	And I could...
	If only David Knight would send me one of his beautiful grey MacGuffin hoodies or a new black t-shirt with the MacGuffin logo in blue.
	But he told me to get lost.
	Maybe one of you American suckers can buy me some at thedavidknightshow.com.
	You should be able to buy me several hundred.
	Those amazing sand-colored microphone hoodies are so beautiful.
	I'd wear something other than green military cosplay to my various galas and social events.
	If you want to save on shipping, just put it in the next package of bombs and missiles coming from the USA. Well, I mean, he's not even getting the bombs and missiles from the USA right now.
	So he's totally cut off his supplies from...
	Getting any of these MacGuffin t-shirts.
	By the way, he was talking about, and we were showing, the MacGuffin t-shirt in blue.
	This is what that looks like.
	And we also have another design that is a different color.
	And so this is the other MacGuffin design.
	These are t-shirt designs that are here.
	And I'm not good at holding this stuff.
	I can't understand about how bad I am at product placement.
	But yeah, it's there.
	We got them.
	They look really nice.
	They got a nice feel to them.
	A good hand, as they say.
	Nights of the Storm.
	Doge is the new preferred drug for MAGA. The hopium dried up.
	I thought that was one of the funniest things, too, because it was the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, that was at the center of all this Doge stuff.
	And I said, yeah, opium.
	Opium, opium, whatever.
	It's the opium of the magas, of the masses, isn't it?
	Doge is the opium of the masses.
	The prayer phrase marks.
	Brian and Deb McCartney.
	Trump is clearing out the Justice Department of the people who investigated him.
	Yeah, they are very much afraid of Epstein, aren't they?
	And as a matter of fact, A lot of people talking about this.
	Tom Papert, who's now at the Tennessee Star, said Attorney General Pam Bondi should focus more on important issues before releasing Epstein files.
	You know, what else could we do besides release Epstein files in the federal government?
	I just can't think of anything.
	You know, it's got to be at the front of the list.
	And, of course, she's not doing a very good job on that either, is she?
	And it was nice to see, I appreciate Brian Shohavi at Health Impact News featured the interview that I had with Catherine Austin Fitz.
	And he did a, like, I don't do a great job of showing the t-shirts, although they're great t-shirts.
	We have great interviews, and I don't do a good job of showcasing them either.
	Brian did.
	I really appreciate that.
	He gave people a link to the full interview, but he pulled out about a seven-minute segment.
	Where Catherine Austin Fitz was talking about Epstein in that interview that I had with her.
	How many people in this administration have major files in the Epstein operation?
	Yeah, starting from the top down, wouldn't we?
	And so he talked about that, and he put in a clip from it.
	She said...
	They're all scared in the Trump administration.
	How many people, just to remind you of what Catherine said when she was on here, how many people in this current administration have major files in the Epstein operation?
	The only guy who doesn't look scared about the whole thing is Howard Lutnik because he had a house next door to Epstein's.
	I'm assuming he got the downloads.
	Are the Epstein tapes over in his house?
	She said, when I was in Washington, the Cabinet Secretary Jack Kemp I was working for was compromised in the Franklin cover-up.
	Just to remind you, in case you don't know, the Franklin cover-up was a massive child trafficking operation.
	It involved a lot of Republicans, allegations of Republicans being involved besides Jack Kemp, the Bushes, and that as well.
	And when Washington Times started running stories about the Franklin cover-up, he, as Jack Kemp, went crazy and was being blackmailed.
	I was in the middle of it because he was trying to order me to do illegal things that I wouldn't do.
	I've never seen a human being more terrified, more afraid.
	I mean, he was just terrified.
	Because here he is, you know, a big family man and a Christian, and somebody is blackmailing him, presumably over pedophilia, and he's scared to death.
	There's a wonderful book called The Red Mafia by Robert Friedman about the Russian Mafia.
	And the important thing to understand about the Russian Mafia is that they're 99% Jewish.
	So you have an enormous rat lines that are running through Ukraine into Israel, into New York, and to London.
	So London, New York, Israel, Ukraine.
	And we talk about Ukraine, you can't think of it as a war.
	I think of it, said Catherine Austin Fitz, as a huge financial money laundering operation.
	And the Epstein operation is right in the middle of that.
	And when Trump says to Zelensky, you don't hold the cards, Zelensky's thinking, no, my name is on the bank accounts, and I still got pots of money, and I have all the intel about where that money came from and where it went out, where it came in and when it went out.
	So he does hold the cards, is what it looks like to me.
	So very important what she had to say about that.
	And that's really what is happening there.
	All of this dance that is going on with all these MAGA influencers, you know, they do press releases about how they're going to release all this information.
	These people show up, and they give them little binders and tell them how important, how exclusive that stuff is, and there's nothing in there.
	The whole thing is a shift.
	It is a distraction.
	It's a red herring.
	To keep people from looking at what is actually going on.
	And Catherine Austin Fitz got to the center of what is actually going on.
	It's not just that they were on part of this pedophile thing, but it also involves Ukraine.
	Ukraine is at the center of this corruption and has been for a very long time.
	And both parties are involved in it.
	Well, yesterday we had an interesting thing in the morning.
	I had noticed that X was down.
	We're now being told that it was a massive cyber attack.
	There was a cyber attack.
	On X today, which shut it down and may have been foreign sourced.
	It's a big story.
	You want to give us a moment on that?
	Well, we're not sure exactly what happened, but there was a massive cyber attack to try to bring down the X system with IP addresses originating in the Ukraine area.
	Okay, so...
	We've talked about this before.
	Whenever anybody says, we've got a cyber attack and it's coming from China.
	We've got a cyber attack and it's coming from Ukraine.
	Look, Ukraine is a cesspool.
	Absolutely no doubt about it.
	And they're hopping mad with Musk, no doubt about it.
	They would have a motive to do that.
	But as we've all seen with Vault 7, and even before Vault 7 came out, I had interviews with William Benny, who was a former NSA technical head, also with John McAfee.
	And both of them were saying, look, nobody in their right mind would make this look like it was them.
	They would always make it look like it's somebody else.
	And then we saw the manual for how they do it.
	Actually, they have an app for that.
	It's called Vault 7. And their app for hacking other people and making it look like they are some other country.
	You know, CIA hacking somebody, making it look like they're China or Iran or Russia or whatever.
	They had an app for that.
	And so they can make it look like they're anybody that they want.
	You can't look at IP addresses and say, this is coming from Ukraine.
	It could be, but it's not sufficient to know that.
	And anybody who's any good, and they would have to be pretty good to hack X... It's not going to show where they're coming from.
	It's just that simple.
	You never know.
	And so when anybody tells you something like that, they're pulling your leg, and they've got their own agenda.
	And, you know, again, we don't need to know any more about Ukraine to know that they're our enemy, that it's a cesspool of corruption.
	It was back online after about a 30 to 45-minute outage that caused a nationwide disruption.
	When we look at technology, you know, computers, you can't live with them, you can't live without them either.
	And now as they're moving into cars, thanks to people like Tesla to an extreme, this article from Wall Street Journal, the latest car technology starting to drive people nuts.
	Door handles used to be simple.
	Now they're another piece of technology that can fail.
	Evidently, this is migrating away from even the Teslas.
	Teslas were the first ones to put door handles under software control.
	Unbelievably stupid.
	And I said this fundamental thing I didn't like about Tesla.
	It was deliberately overladen with gizmos and gadgets to impress the customer.
	The touchscreen that controls everything.
	Even the air conditioning vents have to go through the control of that.
	Now, how does that make any sense?
	What is easier to operate?
	To just reach up and grab something and adjust it up and down, or left or right, or even a little wheel underneath it to turn it off?
	And yet, you've got to do all that under software control.
	So while you're driving down the road, This is called distracted driving and they give people tickets for this when they do it with a smartphone.
	But hey, it's okay if you take the iPad and you glue it to the dashboard and you have to use that iPad to squeeze it and punch it as you're bouncing around on the roads to even change the direction and the quantity of your airflow in your car.
	Everything is under software control.
	Everything.
	And so the doors are as well.
	And I talked about my friend who's got a Tesla Model 3 and he got stuck in his car because the door wouldn't open.
	He had to call tech support at Tesla to get him out of his car.
	But it also has other...
	It's not just an inconvenience.
	It's not just stupidly complex.
	I mean, even when you look at electric windows, most of my life, early life, all the cars that I had, about the first four or five cars I had, All had manual window cranks.
	Remember those?
	And when I was in the little Spitfire, it was such a small car that if I wanted to roll the window down, I could just reach over and...
	Dude, I didn't even have to lean over.
	I didn't even have to have arms like a gorilla.
	I could roll down the window on the passenger side just by reaching over.
	It was so small.
	But if you go into the water, you've got to have some device that's going to bust the window out.
	Because if the electric window doesn't work, you're stuck.
	If you had a manual crank, you could crank it down.
	But no, now you've got that.
	Electric windows are drowning people.
	And the electric door handles are causing people to be burned alive in these Teslas.
	It's just that simple.
	And in the interim, these electric door handles are a needless expense, a needless complexity.
	It's a gizmo designed to entertain you.
	But again, I don't understand this whole philosophy of gluing an iPad to the dash.
	And then having all of the controls go through it.
	I mean, is that not distracted driving?
	Why don't we give tickets for that?
	And then this stupid article from the Daily Star.
	I saw it on the Drudge Report.
	Tech-obsessed humans could have hunchbacks and claw hands and smaller brains by 2100. I suppose you can guess what they call me.
	Lefty?
	No, Mr. Smart.
	I am employed by Chaos, the international organization of evil.
	My name is The Craw.
	The Craw?
	Oh, not The Craw.
	The Craw!
	Oh, yes, The Craw.
	Perhaps you tell me, Mr. Craw, what you've done with all those blondes you've kidnapped.
	They are all perfectly safe, Mr. Smart.
	Actually, the only girl we want is Princess Ingrid.
	Then why did you abduct the others?
	Unfortunately, Mr. Smart, all Americans look right to us.
	We may be diabolical, but we are not perfect.
	Yeah, of course, we can't do humor like that anymore.
	That was Buck Henry and Mel Brooks that did the writing for Get Smart.
	Yeah, the craw.
	So we might have craw hands.
	And smaller brains by 2100. Definitely the smaller brains.
	Creating a 3D model of future humans called Mindy.
	Scientists said people living in 2100 may have hunchbacks from hours of sitting over computers and looking at smartphones.
	Well, yeah, that could work.
	But we're not going to get claw hands and things like that.
	A lot of this, and I've seen...
	As a matter of fact, when I did the thing about transhumanism, you had an artist who was saying, well, this is how we're going to evolve in the next couple hundred years because of our devices and stuff.
	That's an even funnier joke than get smart.
	That is something that the 19th century Darwinists were pushing on everybody.
	It's called Lamarckian inheritance.
	Remember that?
	I mean, they were still pushing that to me when I was in junior high school.
	Well, how did the...
	How did the giraffe get its neck?
	Well, it wanted that fruit that was higher up, so it just kept thinking about it, and its neck got longer over several generations, and then it passed that along.
	It's like, are you kidding me?
	That Lamarckian inheritance was debunked almost as soon as it was put out.
	And some people would say, well, we're going to cut off the tails of the mice and see if their offspring have shorter tails.
	No, it didn't.
	Didn't work with the three-blind mice, but you still have these three-blind Darwinists that keep pushing this kind of nonsense on people.
	And that's basically what this kind of stuff, oh, we're going to evolve around our devices.
	That's really what that really is falling into.
	Scientists named their futuristic model Mindy based on their predictions for humans living in 2100. Not that far away.
	The model appears to have hunched back from hours of sitting over computers and looking at phones that might hurt your eyes.
	Bigger neck muscles to compensate for her poor posture.
	A thicker skull to protect from radiation.
	See, this is where the Lamarckian inheritance comes from.
	You're going to evolve a thicker skull to save you from the radiation.
	This is like the Hulk science, you know.
	Get exposed to gamma rays?
	Oh, that's a good thing.
	You're going to turn into some giant green monster with superhuman strength, right?
	No, it doesn't work that way.
	You just die from the radiation.
	And a smaller brain that has shrunk from leading what they consider to be predominantly inactive lifestyle.
	A smaller brain from paying attention to artificial intelligence, really.
	So, you know, they're talking about, they said, the way you hold your phone can cause texts.
	Claw, or craw, depending on your country of origin.
	Other things that are evolving, as I said before, we have drugs are evolving.
	Street dealers are switching to opioids that are more potent than fentanyl, they say.
	Well, I don't know if this is evolution or if it's intelligent design.
	I think it's sinister design by the CIA. Tony Blair, meanwhile, is urging Keir Starmer to bring out a national digital ID to use against the populist right.
	And they really understand it.
	Tony Blair is actually talking about the scheme out loud.
	And when I say the scheme, I mean the scheme that the GOP is using against us as conservatives.
	He said, hey, look.
	Conservatives and nationalists and everything don't like the open borders.
	And so we can sell them national ID to take care of the open borders problem that we created.
	He's actually saying that out loud.
	I've been saying that's a scheme all along.
	You know, we're going to have DeSantis and the Republicans in Florida dead mandatory E-Verify.
	Oh, well, that's because of illegal aliens.
	And we're going to do this, and we're going to do that.
	We're going to have...
	You've got to be concerned about benefit fraud, so you've got to have an ID. And we don't want the kids on the Internet to have access to certain things, so you're going to have to prove who you are online.
	You're going to have an online ID. You've got to get rid of anonymity online and all the rest of this stuff.
	You know, they do this stuff.
	They create the problem, and then they offer you...
	Tony Blair, evidently Keir Starmer, is so dense that he can't figure it out.
	So Tony Blair has to go public with what the plan is.
	He's not supposed to tell people what the plan is.
	Blair believes this will help to flush out anti-mass migration populace by forcing them to choose between what they want and their so-called solution to the problem.
	He thinks the public will trade privacy for efficiency.
	And that the government will win the debate on digital ID to take care of the government-created problems like immigration and benefit fraud.
	And, of course, they left off the kids on the Internet, which the Republicans always throw in there.
	Meanwhile, in the U.K., new guidance could result in harsher sentences for white Christian men.
	But you need that ID to protect you from the foreign invaders, right?
	They said the council, which is the UK Sentencing Council, said that we want to have lighter sentences for everybody except white Christian men.
	We're going to, and this is what the liberals have always done.
	You know, these people, they're victims of their environment, and so we need to cut them some slack, right?
	Judges order a pre-sentence report if an offender is a religious, racial, or gender minority.
	Well, wait a minute.
	Isn't the UK pretty far along the line of white people becoming a racial minority?
	They certainly are already there with Christians being the minority, I think.
	So we're not too far away from either of those.
	So what's going to happen with that?
	Well, then they'll change it.
	A more lenient sentence by describing the hardships of a particular offender may face.
	The Sentencing Council says a pre-sentencing report Should be produced if a convict is an ethnic minority, a cultural minority, or a faith minority community.
	Says that women, people who identify as transgender, and young adults, 18 to 25, are the groups who should benefit from leniency.
	So, that means that the people who don't get leniency are white Christian men.
	Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick, and when they say shadow secretary, what they do is they have...
	Typically it's between conservatives and labor, you know.
	And so when labor is in power, the conservatives will have a shadow version of every one of the cabinet positions.
	And so this guy is, they're saying, well, this would be our justice secretary if we were in power.
	He comes out, he says, I'll be challenging this sentencing guidance in the courts on the grounds that it enshrines anti-white, anti-Christian bias into our criminal justice system, while also anti-male that is there.
	And Puerto Rico.
	I've seen a couple of articles here about people who are pressuring Trump to give Puerto Rico independence in order to save $617 billion.
	Well, fine.
	I mean, if they want to save money, there's a place where they could save it.
	And these people want their independence and have wanted it for quite some time.
	We've got a couple of violent terrorist incidents going back to the 1950s where they wanted their independence.
	And besides, I think people ought to be able to have self-governance anywhere, especially if it saves us money, right?
	The question is, though, you've got this clash between the stated desire to save money in Washington with Trump administration and Trump's ego.
	So which is going to predominate?
	Is it going to be the ego or the economics?
	Maybe what we should call, you know, we've had Reaganomics.
	And you've had Bidenomics, and you've had all these other things.
	I think with Trump, we should call it Egonomics.
	Panama, Greenland, it's Egonomics.
	That's what Trumponomics is.
	That works better than Trumponomics.
	Reaganomics just kind of rolled off the tongue, I guess.
	Everybody kept using it.
	But I think with Trump, it's Egonomics.
	So how does the Egonomics play into whether or not Puerto Rico should have independence?
	I mean, if he gives them independence, that goes against his...
	Grain of wanting to take over Canada and Greenland and Panama and all the rest of the stuff.
	And yet, he could save $617 billion.
	Oh, the dilemmas of being president and king, isn't it?
	The island only has 3 million people.
	Same population as Iowa or Nevada, but its debts and liabilities are at least $617 billion.
	That's $192,000 per person.
	According to an exclusive in Daily Mail, members of Congress are circulating a proposed executive order that would renounce U.S. claims to Puerto Rico.
	They're encouraging it to become an independent nation in order to avoid the coming fiscal disaster that the island represents.
	Some Puerto Rican journalists on Twitter were very skeptical of this Daily Mail reporting.
	However, one of them, Kate Long, said the Daily Mail is reporting that Trump is being pressured to make Puerto Rico independent.
	Personally, I think this is bunkum, and Trump will view PR as critical to U.S. security in the Caribbean.
	PR meaning Puerto Rico, not public relations.
	But of course, PR is critical to Trump as well.
	That's where the ego part comes in.
	And so, as I said, there was a big fight about this back in the 1950s.
	In 1950, two Puerto Rican nationalist terrorists tried to assassinate Harry Truman.
	and their attack they shot and killed an officer leslie kaufelt the surviving assassin was oscar colazo truman commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment then in 1979 jimmy carter simply released him from prison and he returned to puerto rico i thought they would mention in this article but they didn't what happened four years later the
	In 1954, March of 1954, and I didn't remember the attempted assassination that killed a police officer, but I remember the attack on the House of Representatives because I talked about that when the Democrats got so freaked out about January 6th.
	It's an insurrection.
	Everybody's saying, oh, wait a minute, it's an insurrection where nobody's armed?
	They did have an armed attack.
	On Congress by Puerto Rican separatists in 1954, they were able to go into the house with guns.
	Because, you know, in the 1950s, even though firearms were far more common, we didn't have metal detectors in places.
	Not even Congress.
	Think about that.
	Had metal detectors.
	What a police state we live in compared to what I grew up in.
	It's just amazing to me when I look at it.
	So, they were able to carry guns into the house.
	They got up into the observer's lobby.
	And then they just started shooting down randomly at congressmen.
	They wounded five congressmen.
	And I talked about this before because this was...
	I said, this is quite a bit more serious than January the 6th.
	They acted like January the 6th was the worst thing that ever happened.
	It's not even close.
	Not even close.
	Militon Milakovic says, please like and share the stream.
	Thank you for reminding me.
	Thank you.
	David wasn't showing under my feed.
	Had to manually go to the channel this morning.
	Wow.
	Thank you.
	Yeah, that is a problem.
	That is a problem with the podcast as well.
	Well, I go to the podcast to check to see if they've taken me down or not.
	I do that occasionally because I've had situations now in the past where they have taken down the show and they didn't even send me a notification of that.
	But when I go to look for it, I have a hard time finding it on iTunes and some other places.
	So I go back to The David Knight Show, and I click on the link that we have to the podcast to make sure that it's there.
	So we have links to the different places that are there.
	But as he's pointing out, I disappear from their feeds.
	I disappear from their search engines for some reason.
	Why do they call that on Twitter?
	Yeah, it's called shadowbanning, isn't it?
	They can do that on other platforms as well.
	I have been doing it for quite some time.
	Audi, modernretroradio.com.
	Good to see you.
	I've said it before, but it bears repeating.
	Transhumanism is the satanic agenda for devil-worshipping oligarchs to have eternal life away from God whom they hate.
	And it won't work.
	You're absolutely right.
	And we're going to talk about that coming up.
	We're going to talk about some of the brain issues.
	I'm going to do that next after this break.
	Tony Garrett.
	Responding to Chevkin said, we will evolve beyond the need for a vessel of flesh and blood.
	That is the transhumanist's wish.
	Yeah, that's right.
	And they're making pretty big strides on the human brain, unfortunately.
	Niburo2029 says Puerto Rico was the tie-breaking vote that passed Obamacare.
	There you go.
	We've got to get rid of him.
	Guard Goldsmith.
	Good to see you, Guard.
	Liberty Conspiracy on Twitter and on Rock Fan in evenings.
	So I'm still thinking of that video David showed yesterday from the YouTube creator who lost his child.
	Just amazing strength through God and praise to God.
	There really was.
	I saw that, and again, it was something that's put up on my feed, and I've seen him once or twice before.
	His name is Joe Kirby, and his YouTube channel is Off the Curb, because he was a street preacher, I think is where that came.
	It's kind of a play on his name and what he was doing at the time.
	And he calls it K-I-R-B is the curb, the way he spells it.
	And I saw that and I watched the whole thing and I thought, that is really, really powerful.
	And we all need to understand that as Christians, that when you're at the beginning of your walk with Christ, God is very kind and gracious, just like we are with a toddler who's learning how to walk.
	And so a new Christian like Chris Pratt will come in and he's presented with a problem.
	And he asks God and he immediately gets an answer to his prayer.
	And that helps to build his faith.
	And that's a good thing.
	Then later on, other things are going to happen.
	More tests are going to come.
	And you're not going to get an immediate answer to prayer.
	It might be something that goes on for a very long time.
	It might be something that never ends.
	You know, Paul, as an experienced believer, struggled with a thorn in his flesh.
	We don't know exactly what that was.
	But God said, my grace is sufficient for you.
	So as we get older and stronger, God presents us with other challenges.
	And as he was pointing out, Joe Kirby was pointing out, those challenges are to strengthen us.
	And if we were better parents, we'd be doing that all the time with our kids, wouldn't we?
	That's the way to do it.
	And so he said, don't ask God, why me?
	Why is this happening?
	Why aren't you doing something about it?
	He said, ask God, what are you trying to teach me?
	Because that's what it's about.
	What God is trying to teach you.
	That's the right answer.
	That's the right approach to take to it.
	That was a very powerful video.
	Thank you for reminding me of that, Gar.
	A Syrian girl says, if Puerto Rico wants independence from the U.S., they probably figured out they can suck more money out of us in foreign aid.
	Yeah, they could become...
	Another Ukraine, you know, hopelessly corrupt and everything that they're doing.
	All right, we're going to take a quick break, and we will be right back.
	Thank you.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	A penny saved is a penny earned.
	Though, that's gotten tougher since they've stopped making them.
	Maybe it's time to start saving a different type of coin.
	Such as the new David Knight Show supporter commemorative coin.
	Saving these coins earns support for independent media.
	Featuring striking bas-relief with bold raised details and premium painted accents.
	It's not just a trinket, but a statement, a declaration, a way to show you refuse to be controlled by the establishment.
	It's a limited run of just 100 coins.
	So, much like the penny, when they're gone, they're gone.
	They silence independent voices.
	They censor the truth.
	But you can stand with real journalism and own a piece of the resistance.
	These coins saved is The David Knight Show sustained.
	Available now at TheDavidKnightShow.com You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	And we're back.
	And the coin, as I said, we're down to, we've sold 53, 43 of them now.
	Took one of them to the post office yesterday that was going to Australia.
	It was interesting.
	The cost to send this to Australia was nearly what the retail price of this was, like 22 bucks or something like that.
	And then when I filled out the thing, what are the contents?
	Put down coin.
	You can't send coins to Australia.
	It's like, what?
	Okay, put it down as a decorative medallion.
	Yeah, that'll work, said the person at the post office.
	That's very helpful about that.
	So, yeah, we want to make sure that our friends in Australia can get these, even though they are postally challenged in terms of cost and things that they can get.
	So, thank you very much, and I appreciate that.
	Guard Goldsmiths, I've got to fly for a bit.
	By the way, did you all see how Trump wants to primary Thomas Massey?
	Again?
	Again?
	You know, Thomas Massey stood up to him when he did that $3.5 trillion corrupt stimulus and PPP thing, the Payroll Protection Plan and the CARES Act, $3.5 trillion.
	He said, we can't do that.
	And he says, if we're going to do that, I want everybody to come here to Washington.
	We're going to have a vote.
	We can't come.
	We'll all die.
	Wasn't it a tell that all of these elderly people like Dianne Feinstein and Mitch McConnell, none of them got sick?
	That was proof right there that there was no COVID pandemic.
	Anyway, and then Trump said, we're going to primary him out.
	Well, they didn't get him out.
	And then AIPAC said, we're going to primary him out.
	We're going to run $300,000 worth of ads against Thomas Massey.
	And so now I guess Trump is at it again.
	Because Trump...
	Again, he is a spendthrift New York Democrat who has bankrupted one casino after the other, and he's on his way to bankrupt America.
	All this stuff about, oh, we've got Doge, is going to eliminate waste and fraud and all the rest of the stuff.
	Are you kidding me?
	From the president who gave us the biggest waste and fraud that we had seen up to that point in time?
	Now they keep building on that precedent.
	You know, Biden built on Trump's new precedent, and now Trump's going to build on...
	What Biden built on all of that stuff.
	But this is a guy who came in talking about Doge and demanding that we get a two-year removal of the debt ceiling.
	He's not serious at all about this stuff.
	He's going to put us in debt.
	He's going to put us in recession.
	He's going to play these terrorist games.
	They're on and off and on and off.
	It's ridiculous.
	Guard Goldsmith says, color me shocked.
	I dug a lug.
	It says, ordered a new MacGuffin tea.
	Well, thank you.
	And a DK coin, and will double as a throwing star.
	They can throw at the FBI if they kick down my door.
	Well, let's hope that doesn't happen.
	Let's talk a little bit about a weird new computer that is running artificial intelligence on a captive human brain cells.
	I saw this.
	And it immediately made me think of this old science fiction movie, The Brain That Would Not Die.
	You've lost the urge to experiment.
	I wish I'd lost the urge to experiment.
	Unfortunately, they...
	Every time you touch me, I go out of my mind.
	A car accident.
	It's supposed to hit a truck before they put the Mansfield bar on it.
	Let me die.
	Let me die.
	The brain that would not die.
	We live in a science fiction movie.
	...by experimental science, by a man whose abnormal passions inspired him to try the impossible.
	I brought her back.
	She'll live and I'll get her another body.
	What's locked behind that door?
	Horror.
	No normal mind can imagine something even more terrible than you.
	Horror has its ultimate.
	And I'm that.
	Behind that door is the sum total of Dr. Cortner's mistakes.
	Yes, that's right.
	Unfortunately, they have not gotten, they've not tired of experimentation.
	And there is a horror behind that door that is something that no normal mind would imagine.
	An Australian startup.
	Cortical Labs has launched what it is calling the world's first code-deployable biological computer.
	Human brain cells.
	And presumably, this is not being sourced from Alexandria Occasional Cortex.
	They need these things working all the time.
	A shoebox-sized device.
	Dubbed a CL1. I hate to think what CL2 is going to be.
	A notable departure that uses human brain cells to run fluid neural networks.
	So now they're going to do neural networks using real neurons.
	And 2022, Cortical Labs made a big splash after teaching human brain cells in a Petri dish how to play the video game Pong.
	Which, by the way, was the thing that...
	Musk was doing, wasn't he?
	With BC, I think.
	Didn't he have somebody playing a pong or something?
	You know, thinking pong.
	The CO1, however, is a fundamentally different approach.
	As New Atlas reports, it makes use of hundreds of thousands of tiny neurons, roughly the size of an ant brain each, which are cultivated inside a nutrient-rich solution.
	And spread out across a silicon chip.
	There you go.
	Okay.
	A lot of little ant brains in there.
	I guess this is a hive mentality.
	Through a combination of hard silicon and soft tissue is what the company says.
	Hard silicon.
	And soft tissue.
	They claim the owners can, quote, deploy code directly to the real neurons to solve today's most difficult challenges.
	A simple way to describe it would be like a body in a box or, you know, a head on the desk like that movie, you know.
	But it has filtration for waves.
	It has pumps to keep everything circulating, gas mixing, and, of course, temperature control.
	There are so many different options.
	It could be used for disease modeling or drug testing.
	There we go.
	Yeah, if we can get some of that big pharma money, we're in, like Flynn, right?
	So maybe they could redeem this abomination, like Curtis Chang said.
	Yeah, we can redeem abortions by using them in vaccines.
	That's how twisted these people are.
	Just like just one thing stacked on top of another.
	There's so much nuance when it comes to the brain, they said.
	But you can actually see that nuance when you test it with these tools.
	So he says, I hope we're going to be able to replace significant areas of animal testing with this.
	For now, the company is selling the device as a way to train biological AI.
	That's what we need.
	Thank you.
	Neural networks that rely on actual neurons.
	In other words, the neurons can be taught using a silicon chip.
	The only thing that has generalized intelligence, he said, are biological brains.
	What humans, mice, cats, birds can do that AI can't is to infer from very small amounts of data and then make complex decisions.
	Yeah, you see, the fool has said in his heart there is no God.
	Look at these people constantly trying to copy and imitate and duplicate what God has done.
	It's amazing.
	The approach could have some key advantages.
	For instance, the neurons only use a few watts of power compared to the infamously power-hungry AI chips that require orders of magnitude more than that.
	Yeah, think about that.
	Think about how much we can do with our brains.
	Not requiring the amount of power that could light up a city.
	And he says, I know where it's coming from because it's clear that these human neuronal networks learn remarkably fast, said a Queensland biologist.
	At this stage, I would reserve my judgment because learning Pong is one thing, but making complex decisions is another.
	Well, as...
	I saw on Twitter, C.J. Hopkins put something out, it was critical of Musk, and somebody replied to him and said, say what you will about Elon Musk, but he's the only person in a position of power that has a positive vision of humanity's future.
	Really?
	You know his vision of the future is transhumanism.
	This person doesn't think that the Christian view is a positive future?
	Or does he think that there's no Christians in office, in power?
	No, actually, he's bought into this transhumanism.
	C.J. Hopkins replied, and he says, well, that's quite a vision.
	It's sad that I won't be around to see all of the working class have their brains chipped and twirling away on Mars.
	That really sums it up, doesn't it?
	And then we have transhumanism.
	Is it the salvation or the end of humans?
	This is from Technocracy Review.
	And when we look at this, of course, this is the holy grail of these technocrats, these globalists, as Klaus Schwab reminds us time and again.
	The very idea of human being some sort of natural concept is really going to change.
	Our bodies will be so high-tech, we won't be able to really distinguish between...
	This is the World Economic Forum's video.
	Inside our own heads is the most complex arrangement of matter in the known universe.
	You might ask yourself, can we get to be superhumans?
	The fourth industrial revolution, right?
	I think it sounds like forced industrial revolution.
	Well, I'm not going to force me.
	And the arrogance and stupidity of that, talking about, as I see, the complexity of the human body, to be able to maintain this arrogance.
	You know, even Charles Darwin, his concern about the eye, you know, not just the human eye, every eye of every creature.
	Created by God.
	He says it's kind of like a black box because that's a real problem for my theory.
	How in the world could something as complicated as a human eye or any other eye, how could that evolve gradually?
	It doesn't make any sense.
	You're right, it doesn't.
	It wouldn't have any utility at all until it existed as a complete thing.
	It has to be designed.
	You know, he lived in a time, his tools were so primitive.
	I remember They had his lab set up as a replica.
	And all it was was a bunch of books, and he had a magnifying glass.
	And he could take that magnifying glass, and he could look at a glass of stagnant water.
	And he could see things that were growing in it.
	And he thought they were spontaneously generated.
	He had no idea what was going on there.
	It's just that it got big enough that he could view it.
	And so he came up with these theories, and yet these people today, they really have no excuse.
	When they see DNA, when they understand even more about the complexity of the eye and everything, it is just an unbelievably foolish and arrogant atheism that drives these people who want to be God, who think they can live forever.
	Well, they are going to live forever.
	The question is, in what form?
	That's the real issue.
	You think about that.
	I remember one of the chilling when we, I don't watch horror films anymore, but one of the most chilling things was the idea, it was a movie called The Hunger.
	It had David Bowie in it, and there was two women who were vampires.
	I have a vague recollection of it.
	What I remember was that they, at the very end of the movie, spoiler alert, they get trapped in this.
	In this box, this coffin or something like that.
	And they're conscious and they can't get out.
	They're stuck there.
	And you stop and think about that.
	I thought, wow, that's like hell.
	You're going to live forever in that particular state.
	That's what these people are talking about.
	Yeah, you're going to live forever.
	You better just pay attention as to where and under what circumstances.
	A synthetically engineered virus containing targeted genes.
	Can change the DNA of every cell in your body.
	Welcome to cellular reprogramming.
	Human trials could start by the end of 2025. The mechanism that allows scientists to control genes from outside an organism, such as turning them on and off, typically involves advanced genetic engineering techniques, like the CRISPR system.
	Cryptogenetics involves using lights to control cells within living tissue, typically neurons, that have been genetically modified to express light-sensitive ion channels.
	By shining light on these cells, researchers can activate or silence them.
	This method is primarily used in neuroscience, but it can be adapted for other applications.
	CRISPR-Cas9 is a powerful tool for editing genes, Researchers often use inducible promoters or other regulatory elements that respond to external signals.
	Recent advancements include using magnetic fields to control gene expression.
	This involves incorporating magnetically sensitive proteins into the genetic system, allowing for activation or deactivation via magnetic fields.
	Frequencies in the terahertz range, such as 5G or 6G. Can alter gene expression, but it cannot be precisely controlled and mostly just causes DNA degradation.
	However, the coming 6G will be used extensively in Internet of Bodies and body area networks.
	Now, all that was from Patrick Wood, who's the editor of Technocracy.
	Then we jump to the Washington Post cheerleading program about this dark science.
	That is being used.
	For those hoping to cure death, and they are legion, says the Washington Post, a 2016 experiment at the Stalk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego has become a seminal moment that changed everything.
	It involved mice that were born to live fast and die young.
	Sounds like Silicon Valley mice.
	And break things on the way.
	They were bred with a rodent version of progeria.
	A condition that causes premature aging.
	That is a horrific condition.
	We actually, the church we're in in Tampa, there was a family that had a child that was born with that.
	And, you know, it turns that child into an old person by like the age of six or seven.
	Just horrific.
	Anyway, left alone, the animals grow gray and frail and die within seven months compared to a lifespan of about two years for typical lab mice.
	But the Salk scientists had a plan to change that.
	They modified the DNA, made the rodents' bodies young again.
	They didn't get the full lifespan of the others, but they lived about 30% longer.
	And with that, a longevity gold rush entered a new era.
	Tech titans and venture capitalists started throwing billions of dollars at labs exploring the technique called cellular reprogramming.
	Experiments begin on mice as well as on worms and on monkeys.
	Cellular reprogramming is now hailed by supporters, promising scientific approach to improving human health spans and life spans.
	But the process is not efficient or benign.
	In a dish containing millions of elderly cells, many of them will become youthful stem cells after exposure to these factors that they've created.
	They call them the Yamanaka factors.
	After the guy who did a lot of seminal research on it.
	But many others won't.
	And for that reason, the reason remains mysterious.
	Some cells will resist the process, some will die, and some, almost invariably, transform into huge, rapidly dividing growths known as teratomas, or monster tumors.
	It's not a tumor!
	They give it a different name.
	Okay, but it's a tumor.
	It's like the tumor meat that they want you to eat as well, right?
	I mean, talk about this mad scientist stuff.
	It's got consequences.
	God designed this stuff to work a particular way.
	And you go in and you mess with it.
	You bust stuff.
	So he says, when a stem cell doesn't know what to do, becomes the wrong kind of cell, you can wind up with teeth cells growing in a pelvis, or bone cells growing in an eyeball.
	Sounds like cancer to me, right?
	When you talk about a particular type of cancer, what does it do?
	You know, you've got kidney cancer, what does it do?
	It goes to some other part of your body.
	It goes to the brain, maybe, and starts trying to make a kidney in your brain.
	Or something like that.
	So basically we're talking about giving people cancer with this genetic stuff.
	But we've also have people who want to ban artificial intelligence for satire.
	We talked about that yesterday.
	The people who did that Trump thing, they were horrified that he liked it and pushed it out, even though it was making fun of him.
	They said, well, we shouldn't allow AI in satire.
	Well, they're putting AI in legislation.
	They're going to let AI write the laws.
	And folks, they're going to let AI decide the court cases as well.
	And then you've got the Pentagon has just signed a deal to deploy AI agents for military use.
	How's that for a secret agent thing?
	Now, we talk about AI agents.
	I mean, this is a new field where they're trying to get...
	Artificial intelligence to do a sequence of tasks and things like that.
	So you think about it as maybe, you know, doing a whole bunch of computer tasks for you.
	Well, they are pushing this more and more into military usage.
	And there's a new group, new to me, that I had not seen, a multi-million dollar deal that is being spearheaded by the Defense Innovation Unit, DIU. Oh, it sounds almost like a DUI, doesn't it?
	I guess we could say this is defense under the influence, under the influence of the tech boys, under the influence of the artificial intelligence grifters.
	That's a very serious thing, because they're going to turn this over to AI, which hallucinates.
	And you know they're going to do it with its own kill decisions.
	But what they're saying with this is, no, we're going to use these AI agents for strategy.
	Well, that is still a serious issue.
	And then finally, because we're getting close on time here, let me read the comments first, and I'll read you this last article, because this is about neuro-warfare.
	Mind war is the way that it was put by the Satanists that was out there.
	DG8 says, David, if God gave us everything we need, we would never turn to him.
	I thank God for trials and tribulations in my life, and I've grown stronger in my faith because of those times.
	Praise Jesus.
	Yeah, I agree.
	And you know, the other part of it is, is that I've noticed that a lot of times God doesn't give me something that I ask for.
	He gives me something that I want.
	He gives me something that I need.
	And I mean that even from the standpoint that I can look back in time and say, well, if I'd gotten what I wanted, that would not have worked out well at all in my life.
	And so this is like a parent making a better decision for a child.
	Because that's exactly what it is.
	Militon Milankovic.
	Thank you for the tip.
	Says, subscriber drive for March.
	Help David by subscribing to Rumble and to Subscribestar.
	Thank you very much.
	And he gifted 10 subscriptions as part of that.
	Thank you.
	Thank you very much.
	Shadowboxer.
	Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
	Arthur C. Clarke.
	Yep, that's right.
	That's a great quote.
	People will not recognize what has been happening to them.
	Yeah, it just happens like magic, and I can't understand why things are going the way that they are.
	The race to apply emerging neurotechnology, such as brain-computer interfaces.
	Who is it that's into that heavily?
	Oh, that's Elon Musk and Neuralink, the BCIs.
	And he's not the only one doing it.
	You know, everybody talks about Elon Musk.
	Microsoft's got a program that all these tech companies are into BCI. Why?
	A big part of it is the money that is coming out of the government.
	In 2013, Obama started the BRAIN program, and it's an acronym, but, you know, massive funding.
	It's a couple hundred million dollars.
	And DARPA's got its own neuroweapons program as well.
	There's a lot of money there.
	This new battlefield in an era of neuroweapons can be broadly defined as technologies and systems that could either enhance or damage a warfighter.
	Or a target's cognitive and or physical abilities or otherwise attack people or critical societal infrastructures.
	And it has begun.
	It's been going on for some years.
	And many countries have these types of programs.
	And so it's a race.
	It's an arms race to hack into your brain and your nervous system.
	Brain-to-brain connections or brain-to-machine, while bringing new dimension to both hard and soft power struggles of the future.
	So the military-industrial complex has been doing this for decades, as they point out.
	Neuroscience's very origins lie in war, just as the American neurology science was born out of the Civil War, looking at nerve damage and other things like that, I guess with the amputations.
	The roots of neuroscience are embedded in World War II, like most of these abominations that we have.
	Project Bluebird and artichoke.
	We're 1950s-era projects that worked to determine whether people could be involuntarily made to carry out assassinations through hypnosis.
	The especially infamous MKUltra, where human mind-control experiments were carried out in a variety of institutions in the 50s and 60s.
	And so, you know, we look at these things, and as I've said, from the very inception...
	DARPA and many of these agencies were always focused on mind control and for, as you see, nefarious acts.
	Let's kill people.
	Let's control people so we can use them to kill other people.
	Always.
	About the violence and stuff.
	And that's why I say that DARPA is so darkly demonic and occultic.
	And so now you've got the Brain Initiative.
	You've got DARPA's Next Generation Non-Surgical Neurotechnology, where they don't have to open up your brain and stick in a probe like Musk is doing.
	They call that N-cubed, because of three N's there.
	The military is intensely interested in emerging neurotechnologies, and they have intense funding for it.
	A lot of it rolling through DARPA. A 2023 write-up of DARPA's neurotechnology efforts.
	They've initiated at least 40 neurotechnology-related programs over the past 24 years.
	From the Interface, a publication describes the current state of affairs at DARPA funding as effectively driving the brain-computer interface research agenda.
	That's exactly what Eisenhower said was going to happen with the military-industrial complex.
	They would drive the agenda for research, swamp it, and use it for dark things.
	In more recent years, DARPA-funded scientists have created the world's most dexterous bionic arm with bidirectional controls.
	They have used brain-computer interface to accelerate memory formation and recall.
	That's like total recall, right?
	Have you even transferred a memory from one rat to another where the rat receiving the memory almost instantaneously learned to perform a task that typically took weeks of training to learn?
	Think about that.
	And they've also, so you can transfer memories.
	They said DARPA was bragging about how they were going to do it to help people with PTSD. I said, that's not why they're doing that.
	You know, they're not creating these armed robots to help little ladies walk across the street.
	They're not doing memory altering and putting in different memories that you didn't have.
	They're not doing that to help people with PTSD either.
	Brain program that stood for Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies.
	That was back in 2013. That was initially, I think, about $200 million.
	It built on the Human Genome Project, which is where Francis Collins worked before he did his Frankenstein science at the NIH. But this neuroscience is also being led by the NIH, and I believe that's one of the reasons why they put Francis Collins there.
	And also by DARPA. And so, as they talk about the different things that they have been doing, haptics program where you can have you feel something that is remote, technologies that are able to extract information from the nervous system quickly enough to control complex machines and to do it wirelessly.
	This is the kind of stuff that they're working on.
	Rice University neuroengineers are leading an ambitious DARPA-funded project.
	To develop a non-surgical device capable of both decoding neural activity in one person's visual cortex and recreating it in another one in less than 1 20th of a second.
	So in the early instantiation of DARPA and NSA and stuff, they were using the occult to try to do remote viewing.
	With this, what they would do is they would use essentially hardware.
	To let you tap into the visual cortex of what one person is seeing and let the other person see it.
	They've hacked into this, and you look at this, it's like what the Bible says, as in the days of Noah.
	We are modifying humans in really crazy ways.
	So the incubed funds are also developing what they call brainstorms, an injectable.
	Brain-computer interface, which one day could, in tandem with a helmet, be used by someone to direct or to control vehicles, robots, and other instruments with their thoughts.
	And if you go back and look at, you know, some people point out that Elon Musk is all about the military-industrial complex, and of course he is.
	You know, you look at the things he's involved in, you know, satellite communications, rockets, and stuff like that.
	But it's also some of the early, you know, brain-computer interface.
	One of the first DARPA projects was self-driving vehicles.
	So you start to put all these different technologies together, and that's what you wind up with is what we have here.
	Something to help warfighters interact with a command military infrastructure using their thoughts without the need for an invasive Neuralink-style implant.
	So his stuff is not necessarily, by far, The most advanced stuff.
	They don't call it Star Wars.
	They call it Small Wars.
	Small Wars.
	Augmented cognition.
	Technology is capable of extending by an order of magnitude the information management capacity of a warfighter.
	And the U.S. is not the only one doing this.
	The EU's got the Human Brain Project, the China Brain Project, Japan's Brain Minds Initiative.
	And Canada has Brain Canada.
	A 2024 RAND report speculates that if BCI technologies, brain-computer interfaces, are hacked or compromised, a malicious adversary could potentially inject fear, confusion, or anger into a BCI commander's brain and cause them to make decisions that result in serious harm.
	Neural implants could control an individual's mental functions, perhaps to manipulate memories, emotions, or even to torture the wearer.
	And stop and think about this, even though they're doing this and saying, we're going to do this with our soldiers who submit to this.
	If they're going to be using nanotechnology, and if they're going to be able to do things wirelessly, then they can use this for the kind of mass mind control that they would like to.
	And of course, they have massive tools of mind control, don't they, already?
	Through social media, through artificial intelligence.
	We can turn those things off.
	It may be more difficult to do this as transhumanism moves forward.
	But this is all about transhumanism.
	And if you understand where the technocrats want to go, it is an essential part of the technocracy, this transhumanist goal.
	Again, the idea that they're going to become like gods and live forever.
	And the fact that they are going to control other people.
	Such efforts towards transhumanism are being pushed from the top with little room for meaningful public debate.
	These efforts are also intertwined with ongoing pushes towards stakeholder capitalism, of course, the World Economic Forum, and efforts to hand decision-making processes and common infrastructure to an unaccountable private sector through public-private partnership.
	That, I believe, is what the Trump administration is all about.
	Both sovereignty and humanity are under attack, both on and off the battlefield.
	Well, we're going to take a quick break.
	Do we have our guests?
	Okay, so we're still working with it.
	We're going to take a quick break, and when we come back, we're going to take a look at some news so we can establish our interview.
	But I'm real interested to talk to our guests.
	And just to give you a tease for it, This is someone who grew up on a farm.
	He's like fourth or fifth generation.
	I forget how many it was.
	But it's about 100 years ago that his ancestors immigrated to the U.S., set up a farm in Wisconsin.
	And it was a dairy farm.
	And he left the farm to become a journalist.
	His sister stayed there.
	And he's written a very compelling book.
	He's a very accomplished writer, but he's written a very compelling book about the situation with farmers, and we're going to talk to him about the COVID crash and the road to revival, a couple of chapters that are there.
	But as he talked about his experiences there, he said, On our farm in a deep valley filled with rich brown dirt, he and my great-grandmother built a future together as the Depression gripped the country.
	Out of their 14 children came the eldest, my grandfather, Albert, who married my grandmother.
	Their generation helped expand our family's dairy farm up out of the valley and into the hills above.
	And then his eldest, my own father, took over, feeling like his father before him that he had no choice with what he was supposed to do with his life.
	So he and my mom rose each morning to milk the cows, bounced countless hours on the seat of a tractor, shoveled, carried, and heaved until they expanded the farm further still, buying a third farm that was once run by my dad's aunt and uncle, bringing the Reisinger family acreage to a height of 600 acres.
	My dad found, despite feeling that he had no choice, that farming was his calling.
	Each day, it sank deeper down into his blood and then his bones until it was a part of him.
	To me, he seemed to share the instincts of his animals and to sense the changing weather bearing down on his crops for 45 years.
	Morning and night, every day of the year, he milked 50 cows in our old but sturdy red barn, sometimes rotating in more cows in shifts when he could manage it.
	To make a little more money and harvested enough crops each year to feed his herd and maybe sell a little on the side.
	He and my mom built our family a farm that was worth more than any point in its 100-year history and gave my sister and I choices that my dad never had.
	For me to find my own way, whatever it may be, and for my younger sister to decide to take over the farm in what had been a man's world.
	And each year more people shrugged and told us, little family farms like ours.
	So much work for so small a milk check.
	Just couldn't make it anymore.
	And so as he points out, he's been there for a hundred years.
	His father built it to a pinnacle.
	But then the things that have happened recently nearly took it down.
	And his sister had to completely rethink the operation to try to keep the farm going.
	So we're going to talk to him about that.
	The effects of COVID, the effects of tariff.
	And then what can be done?
	And this is something that applies to all of us, even if we don't want to farm, even if we don't have it.
	We need to keep that access to good food open.
	And that's something that is really missing.
	And so I'm anxious to talk to him.
	We're going to take a quick break, and we will be right back.
	Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen.
	Your annual Global Risk Report makes for a stunning and sobering read.
	For the global business community, the top concern for the next two years is not conflict or climate.
	It is disinformation and misinformation, followed closely by polarization within our societies. followed closely by polarization within our societies.
	In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
	You are listening to The David Knight Show.
	The David Knight Show.
	The David Knight Show.
	All right, welcome back.
	And the book is Land Rich and Cash Poor.
	And we're talking to Brian Reisinger.
	And this is about his family's story, but it is also something that's happening across the Western world.
	We're seeing this happening in the UK. We're seeing it happening in France.
	We're seeing a lot of things happening in America.
	but he's going to speak to us about some of the specifics that have happened when things really took a downturn and how his family has managed this but we also want to talk about what is coming forward brian has an interesting background he He grew up in a family farm in Wisconsin, and then he became a columnist, a consultant.
	He's worked for a lot of large mainstream publications like USA Today, Newsweek, and others like that.
	So he's really ideally suited to tell this story.
	He's lived it.
	That's been a part of his family's history for 100 years.
	And now he is a writer, and so he is able to articulate what has happened with them.
	And so welcome, and thank you for joining us, and thank you for this very important book, Brian.
	Hey, thank you for having me on.
	I appreciate it.
	It's really good to be with you.
	Tell us a little bit about your family.
	As an introduction, I read from your book, you're talking about your father and mother and how they'd expanded the farm to the biggest that it had ever been.
	Farm that belonged to your aunt and uncle and everything.
	And then things turned difficult.
	Tell us a little bit about that.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Well, you said it exactly right.
	You know, we were and are a small farm.
	But through the generations, we had built it up to be able to make it.
	And from my great-grandparents to my grandparents to my parents, it was each generation added a building block.
	And my parents got it to that height, as you said.
	And, you know, almost in the same moment.
	Things began to decline.
	And I was lucky to grow up with a middle class living that my mom and dad fought for us to have.
	And to be in college, partially paying my way on newspaper hourly wages and partially with my parents helping.
	But at the same time, we began to see that farms our size just couldn't continue to deliver that kind of living.
	And what happened is, in the generation from my dad to us, we saw the...
	American economy fundamentally shift.
	The farm crisis in the 1980s played a big part of it, but fundamentally shift where the medium and small size farm really was in a downslide and couldn't make it in a way that had been possible in past generations, even though it had always been tough.
	You know, this is a story.
	My dad had a small business, and it was not a farming business, but it was the kind of business I saw that regulations were going to choke it off, and it wasn't going to be able to continue with that.
	And I have seen small businesses.
	So, you know, when my wife and I began our business, it was a service business, because that's the kind of stuff that's left to us now.
	And even that is being choked off to us everywhere.
	So your story is very...
	Relevant, because it's really the American experience.
	You know, for centuries here, every generation has been better.
	Now we've reached this, and now it's been a sudden downturn.
	And it doesn't matter really whether it's a farm, or whether it's a small business, or even a service business.
	Forget about manufacturing, you know, the Chinese competition and things like that.
	But you can't even, you can't do, it's difficult for Americans to really have a dream that they can pursue.
	And so I like what you had to say.
	say in terms about the road forward with this but talk a little bit about what caused that immediately and you talk about covid you talk about tariffs and other things like that they're really kind of the immediate causes of what was happening and that crisis for your family tell us a little bit about that you hit on it exactly right if A family farm is a small business.
	And small businesses of all kinds have faced different variations of what farms face.
	Farms, I think, face a lot of unique challenges that had a confluence that really tell the story well.
	But to your point, there's a lot of parallel experiences.
	What happened is we moved into the 90s.
	You know, I was growing up in the 80s and 90s.
	As we moved into the 90s, we had the family farm suddenly confronting a world that was so much...
	Bigger, defined by bigger business, bigger government, bigger markets, all of these different things.
	And that was the latest chapter and kind of a progression.
	So we really began to lose our farms actually in the 1920s, believe it or not, 100 years ago.
	And we've been losing farms at the rate of 45,000 a year on average ever since.
	And there are...
	Economic crisis reasons, crises that we didn't understand how it affected the farm on the ground.
	There are political reasons, mistakes by our political leaders, and there are technological reasons.
	All of those issues have been piling up for a dang near a century.
	And then when we got into the 90s, all those compounding forces combined with this emergence of the family farmer really being a little guy in a way that...
	Blew out of the water all the past challenges.
	And so we had what's going on with global trade.
	We had a lot of agriculture markets that have become broken.
	We have bigger and bigger industries surrounding farming requiring that everyone else get bigger.
	And all of those things kind of hit as we had all these horses from years past.
	And so next thing you know, a farm that...
	You know, in the 1980s, a dairy farm, the midpoint for a dairy farm was about 80 cows.
	And our farm milked 50 cows for a lot of our history.
	So we were on the small end of medium, you know?
	Alpha midpoint, David is...
	1,200 cows, 80 up to 1,200.
	And it's not just dairy, it's all types of farming.
	So that's the acceleration that we saw in the 90s and 2000s.
	Wow.
	And it's that kind of consolidation.
	I mean, we've seen that.
	You take a look around, even in the retail trade, you see the fact that in the 90s, you know, Romney and other people started putting together things like Staples and stuff like that, driving out hardware stores with Home Depot and Lowe's.
	And so what we see is all these different retail Well, we can't
	operated loss you know and and uh and we can't get money from wall street and so that's the situation that we're in but you've also got with the farms uh this seems to me like recently there's been a tremendous turn um in europe especially where they're coming after the farmers where they used to protect them everybody used to realize hey we need to be able to feed our own people here so we're going to protect the farms even if we got to subsidize them now they're at the point where
	uh and it's not just the farmers but especially the farmers where they're going to come after them because they are land rich and cash poor the tax policies of inheritance things which really fall on all small businesses but especially the farmers they have to be forced to sell their farms in order to pay for the taxes When the parents die, they can't continue it from generation to generation.
	And they're directly challenging them with tax policies.
	They're directly challenging them with environmental policies, as we saw in the Netherlands.
	There seems to be a concerted effort to get rid of the farms.
	What do you think is really going on here?
	It seems to me like they want to consolidate and own everything, and they want to feed us the soil and green out of the labs.
	That's what it seems like.
	Well, that's where it's going to end if we don't do something about it.
	And here's the reality.
	I think that political leaders on all sides of the political spectrum have not understood what's going on on the ground on our family farms.
	And some of the things you're talking about now, the tax policies and the environmental policies, farmers want to do smart things with their money and farmers want to do things that are going to be good.
	For our soil, for our water, for our natural resources.
	So there's ways for all these people to be able to work with farmers.
	I think something that's happened with some of the folks that are pushing a lot of those anti-farm policies is they've convinced themselves that the only farms out there are the great big farms.
	And we can talk about the big farms and we wrestle with that in the book.
	And I try to talk honestly about some of the pros and some of the cons about that.
	But a lot of the people out there that are attacking farming have convinced themselves that it is big farms out there and that's it.
	Well, what the reality is, even though we've lost 70% of our farms in this country, and even though the farms that are left are struggling, the thing that people don't realize is 88% of them are small family farms.
	And so people say, how can that be?
	I don't hear about those farms.
	Well, what's going on is those folks are working two to three jobs.
	And that's farms like ours, where people are working the land and they're also working, you know.
	You know, working factory shifts or pouring concrete or working construction site or, you know, got another small business on the side, whatever the case may be.
	They're working two or three jobs and the farm is supplemental income.
	So what we're doing when we attack farming is the biggest farms have the money and the resources just like any other larger business to absorb those attacks.
	The smaller farms are the ones that are going to get hit and going to get wiped out.
	So a lot of the people who are doing this, if they realize that they're shooting at the small farms, they might rethink it because those are the types of farms that for decades, to your point, people...
	Well, you know, as you point out in your book, I'll just read the sentence here for you, but both parties, both political parties, used food as a weapon abroad.
	Just as economic catastrophes of our own making were unfolding at home.
	And that's true.
	I mean, we use them as, you know, we put tariffs on.
	And so what happens, one of our major exports, of course, is agricultural product.
	So the farmers got hit with Trump's tariffs.
	And then we had Biden do sanctions and so forth.
	And we had the COVID stuff happening in the middle of that.
	Was that the point at which things got super difficult for your family?
	Because you began your book talking about...
	Your dad, who as you, and the quote that I read, grew up on the farm and it just kind of worked into his entire life to the extent that he was one with it.
	And how depressed he was at the fact that he had to sell off his dairy cows in order to keep the farm going.
	Was that what happened?
	Was it that crux there at that point in time?
	You know, it was really the 90s and 2000s that pointed us in the direction of becoming smaller and smaller relative to the rest of the economy.
	And what happened during COVID, to your point, is when COVID hit, and depending upon the situation and the perspective, the spread of the virus and or the government's response to the virus, that did was it put farms through a...
	You know, last additional shock.
	And for our farm, what happened is we were continuing on, and I don't know how long my dad would have continued on working the farm, even though the economic scale wasn't there for a dairy farm anymore.
	He might have gone up forever if he hadn't gotten.
	So sick with COVID. And I know there are a lot of people who had different experiences with COVID, lighter cases and different things like that.
	And a lot of discussion, debate, and difficulty around how cautious should we be?
	You know, but in any case, my dad got a case that he was older, he was 69, and he got one of those cases that sends you to the hospital and they're talking about, they're having ventilator conversations and things like that, right?
	So he got up from that and he survived it and he just looked at it and he said, man, if something had happened to me and I hadn't come back, we would have had a farm.
	That wasn't in any shape to move forward for the next generation.
	He'd gotten it through his generation.
	He'd ran his race, right?
	And we had no debt.
	We owned the farm free and clear.
	And it was, what does the next generation want to do with it?
	And if something had happened to him, what would we have done?
	And so he knew that he couldn't continue milking physically.
	And then we needed to evolve the business model in the way that my sister and he could work on into the future.
	So COVID for us really was kind of a final...
	Shocked the system.
	It was a shock to so many people because we had a situation where farmers couldn't sell their goods.
	Oh, it's crazy.
	It was absolutely crazy.
	Destroying the food on the farms while the shelves were empty.
	And we're seeing a lot of that stuff in this idiotic approach to bird flu as well, where they test one bird with a PCR test.
	And then if they get one positive, they kill millions of them.
	But, you know, there's also maybe some other things that are going on, as I've reported.
	You've got situations where these big, gigantic egg corporations have already been brought up on charges and had to pay tens of millions of dollars to General Food and all the rest of these companies that were fixing the price.
	And so there's a question there, you know, is like, what is going on here with this?
	Or we look at the foreign situation where the Chinese buying up pork, for example, in North Carolina, where I used to live.
	They went in and bought these different farms.
	RFK Jr. had a great video explaining exactly how they were taking over all the different pork farms and things like that.
	So we have these massive corporations.
	We even have foreign countries that are interested in getting a stranglehold on our food.
	And then at the same time, you've got a lot of people who just want to have a monopoly on everything.
	That really seems to be what is happening.
	Yeah, you're absolutely right.
	And you're hitting on a really important part of what's happening to our food supply.
	So we saw it during cold.
	We're seeing it right now during bird flu, which is the disruption of our food supply.
	So you can talk about bird flu and like, okay, in this case, should we have euthanized as many birds as we did?
	Or you can talk about the individual responses on the ground.
	But here's the thing.
	Whatever the response is, the impact on that on our food supply is outsized.
	And the reason for that is because our food industry is so concentrated that our supply chain is vulnerable.
	So if we hadn't been wiping out 45,000 farms a year for the past century, and we had more businesses of more kinds and more sizes, to your point on small business, involved in the purchase and the processing and the transport and the wholesale and the retail of our food, if we had more links in that chain, there'd be more ways for the food to get We get from the farm gate to the dinner table, including direct sales from farms to consumers for those folks who want to do it that way.
	But because we've been wiping out farms and because we've been hammering the egg and the food industries as much as we have, the reality is that our supply chain is very vulnerable.
	So you got in COVID, you got this almost dystopian situation where farmers can't sell their goods if they can.
	It's for a lower price in the basement.
	Consumers can't find the food they need if they can.
	It's higher prices through the roof.
	Same things happen with eggs right now.
	Bird flu.
	It does not have to have the impact it's having, but it is so disruptive because if you have one distribution center that goes down because of something like that, that really affects the supply of eggs in a really big way, in a way that it wouldn't if we had many small operators in many parts of the country.
	Oh, yeah.
	Absolutely.
	You talk in your book about the commodity trap.
	Talk a little bit about that.
	Yeah.
	You know, that's something that the community I grew up near and so many fall into.
	And what happens is when you start out, and you know this as a business guy, when you start out, With a new industry or a new business idea, you might be selling something that's a little different.
	And it could be a sophisticated product or it could be just something that you do a little differently.
	A dish that a local restaurant prepares in a way that sets them apart.
	It's high in innovation and it's lower in its availability.
	Over time, industry gets more mature and all this stuff is natural, but we fall into it in an unnatural way.
	It gets more developed and evolved.
	And, you know, at some point, you know, growing, people in Iowa will get mad at me for this as a Wisconsinite.
	The corn, the field corn in Iowa and wood corn in Wisconsin, very similar, right?
	They'll say no.
	A commodity is a product that is basically very similar regardless of who's producing it.
	And there's certain things and goods that make sense to produce that way.
	But what happens is if an entire industry, farming, and an entire community That's based on one industry.
	Slide into that.
	Where now your whole economy is just based on producing corn the same way that every other community and every other state that produces corn does it.
	Well then, the only thing that you can do to...
	Be able to make more money and survive as things get harder and as, you know, the economy has its ups and downs as you produce more of it for cheap.
	And it's good to be more efficient, to produce more of something for cheaper.
	That's a good thing.
	But when that's the only card you can play and you don't also have innovation doing something new different or having a new thing that people are willing to pay money for, you don't have economic growth and opportunity.
	You're just sliding into this kind of downward spiral where the only thing you can do is produce more of it for cheaper and that's it.
	And what happens is that squeezes out industry.
	That squeezes out small businesses.
	And consolidation is a normal thing.
	Shifting toward commodities is a normal thing.
	But when you go so far...
	That there are so few operators who can make it.
	And by the way, when you've got misunderstood economic crises and faulty government policy and technology tilted against the little guy, all three of those things making it worse, now we've got kind of this unnatural, unholy shift where it's not normal competition.
	It's not normal consolidation.
	It's a completely twisted market that is tilting the tables against American entrepreneurship.
	Oh, I agree.
	Yeah.
	And so the question is, you know, what do we do about that?
	When I look at engineering, because I also worked for a while in the semiconductor industry, and what we saw was the commodification of, like, memory chips, for example.
	And it wasn't too long.
	At first, the memory chips were, oh, this is, you know, we've gone to integrated circuits instead of board-level stuff, and so this is a real innovation.
	But then it became, you know, commodification happened, and so then it became who could produce it more efficiently.
	And so these Asian countries were doing a very good job of doing that and doing it cheaply.
	And so it essentially drove the U.S. companies out of that.
	But they were able to succeed.
	By going to CPU design and things like that.
	We see that now with NVIDIA. You know, they're very successful because they have focused on some innovative, specialized thing.
	But how does that translate?
	You know, I can see how that works with technology, but how does that translate with food?
	Because food is fundamental, like you point out, you know, corn is corn, you know, when you go different places.
	How are you going to escape that commodification thing?
	If I come to you looking with a crazy, innovative apple, you may not want to eat it, right?
	That's right.
	Well, they have produced some of those, and you're right, I don't want to eat them.
	Yeah, the genetically modified ones, yeah.
	Bill Gates is doing some of that in a lab, and I wouldn't need help.
	It's got to grow naturally out of the ground.
	But no, you know, the way that it works is actually the intersection of agriculture and technology.
	So this ties back to your exact point.
	So when I talked about economic crises, government policy, and technology tilting against us, here's what happened.
	We stopped having what is called scale-neutral technology in this country, meaning a large farm or medium farm or small farm could all have different sizes and types of that technology that's scalable for them.
	It's affordable for the small farms and practical for them to integrate, right?
	And we stopped doing that kind of in halfway through the 20th century.
	And here's why.
	Farm wages were Much lower than factory wages.
	And we had a big challenge with a lot of people moving from rural areas to urban areas to chase You know, industrial jobs and making sense.
	But we needed to have farms be able to grow and keep up a little bit.
	So some of that technology helped farms be able to take on more acres and more animals with fewer people breaking their backs to do it.
	And it allowed farm wages to grow.
	It allowed us to not have to depend on labor quite as much.
	And it also meant that fewer people had to grow their own food.
	So at some point, technology that helped farms just kind of be able to produce more and get a little bigger was a good thing.
	In the mid-20th century we got to the point where we kind of balanced that out.
	That wasn't needed anymore.
	So now the technology that's made to just make farms bigger, more and more field rows, more and more animals packed into a building.
	All that's doing is making it so that big farms can get bigger, and it's not something that a small farm can do because it doesn't make sense for them or they can't afford it.
	You've got to take out too much debt to build a big building or whatever it is for the small farmer.
	And so we lost that scale neutral technology that we could have large, medium and small farms doing different things in our economy.
	And you had perfectly good medium and small farms that were competitive other than they couldn't afford that next technological innovation.
	So they fell behind, even though they were efficient, hardworking, resourceful, scrappy.
	In some ways, as you know, sometimes small businesses are more innovative because they got a little freedom to figure something else out or take a different risk that a bigger one isn't going to.
	So innovation can come from all places, but not if the technology is tilted against certain players in the market.
	And now you've got the situation with, you know, John Deere is pretty famous about this, coming in and saying you're not going to be able to fix your tractor.
	You know, farmers are always the jack of all trades and being able to do that.
	And so I guess if you're a large, you know, farm concern, you don't really care about that.
	You know, I don't want to fix my tractor anyway, so fine, I'm with it.
	But if you're a small farmer, that becomes a real barrier to being able to own and operate that.
	And so, you know, sometimes that takes place.
	Technology can be twisted and used to make it more difficult.
	Instead of being an assistant, it makes it more difficult for them as well.
	Yeah, you know, that's right.
	And look, my dad probably drives John Deere green tractors, you know, and that's been a brand in our family for a long time.
	And the reality is that I think it's actually in the interest.
	Of all of the companies that exist in our food industry, in our agribusiness industry, in our manufacturing industry, all of the different industries that intersect with agriculture, I think it's in their interest to be long-term, to be able to build, continue to build machinery that can be used by farms of all sizes.
	Because here's why.
	If we don't do that, if we keep losing farms at the rate of $45,000 a year per year for the next century, like we did in the past century, we're going to lose most of our...
	Remaining family farms in the next 40 years, just mathematically speaking.
	And so those great big farms that people are taking shots at, whether they should be doing that or not, those are going to be the only ones left.
	Now, that is fewer customers for suppliers.
	That is fewer customers for buyers.
	All of the larger agriculture and agribusiness and food companies, they at some point need to have a robust farming sector.
	And we can't have farming, I guess.
	For lack of a better phrase, get to the point of being too big to fail.
	It really doesn't benefit these other industries to not have a robust farm sector that's got some economic diversity to it with large, medium, and small farms alike operating and playing different roles and being there, especially during supply chain crises and other things like that.
	I agree.
	We look at it and we all understand that this kind of consolidation of everything is not in our best interest.
	It is the interest and the obsession with the people who are doing the consolidation and they've got so much money.
	So what do we do to push back against that?
	Because you address that in your book as well.
	I want to give people a positive vision of things that can be done that we are not necessarily helpless about that.
	What are some of the things that you talk about in terms of helping smaller farmers to survive?
	Yeah, well, these are things that I found as we looked in the book at the hidden areas of history driving the disappearance and weaving that with my family story of survival from the Depression today, I found just places where it seems like we made a choice in our country that we didn't have to.
	So can we make a better choice next time?
	These are things that right, left, big, small industry, outside farming, inside farming, all trying to find things that we could all find a way to agree on.
	And There's a number of things.
	The first is we need to have a research and development revolution in this country.
	We don't have enough research and development that is done to figure out what's that next great innovation for farming and for agriculture.
	And when we do, to the point of our prior discussion there, it is technology that really is tilted against the medium and small size farms.
	So we need a research and revolution where we've got more innovation happening and more innovation reaching more farms.
	That involves private sector and that involves public sector.
	The next thing that we need to do is we need to make sure that we have fair markets, internationally and domestically.
	And that means that getting it right on trade, meaning we get tougher to wipe out some unfair trade standards and things that have made global trade while free trade is good and needs to be fair trade.
	So we've got to address that.
	And then our domestic markets, to your exact point, we have to have an economy set up that allows small business, the individual American entrepreneur, to be able to thrive in addition to...
	Larger industry.
	And then the third thing, there's more, but the third kind of basic concept is that we all need to orient ourselves around what can we do To create more opportunities for our farmers.
	And that means the farmers being willing to move from some traditional crops and products into new crops and products, figure out what is it that they can shift off of because they've got these broken markets that they depend on and there's a certain amount of income there.
	So you've got to continue to do what you know because you know you can make some money there.
	It's not enough.
	It keeps diminishing.
	And you don't have a market for other things.
	Well, farmers need to be ready and willing to make some changes as we have a growing market for those people who care more than ever where their food comes from.
	And then those people need to act on that.
	Caring about where their food comes from.
	We need more people who are willing to buy locally and regionally from farmers, willing to buy in specialty food markets, willing to go to farmers markets and local butcher shops and permanent outdoor markets and patronize, you know, CSAs and things like that in addition to the normal places to buy their food.
	Can't expect everyone to just throw out the way they buy their food.
	But we can all take half steps.
	So if everybody's doing that, it can really help.
	So if we do those things, we have a research and development revolution, make sure our markets are fair, and we make sure that we have farmers and consumers moving in this direction together to where people care and where their food comes from, we can begin to see some changes.
	And I hope we do it, but the challenging part about it...
	Is that it requires all of us to do a little something at once.
	We're all jumping in the water at the same time, and it can be tricky to get people to do that.
	Yeah, you know, when I look at these situations, you know, the farmers in France or the farmers in the Netherlands or something like that, and they're pushing back against, you know, in the Netherlands, they're banning fertilizer, you know.
	What are you doing this for, you know?
	And they're protesting, and I'm looking at it, and it's like, okay, so the farmers are doing this, but the people who eat the food.
	Or just kind of sitting on the sidelines, like, oh, well, whatever, you know.
	You know, my food doesn't come from the farm, it comes from a box, you know, or whatever.
	You know, there's this total disconnection that they are going to be fed by this or not fed by this, depending on how this comes out.
	To me, it seems like, you know, there's this, there's also the situation, I talked about how, I think it was Joanne's Fabrics.
	It was a huge thing, because women used to make their own dresses, right?
	And women used to also be interested in cooking, you know, or men as well.
	And so we're losing this interest in doing things ourselves.
	And a big part of that is, hey, I just want to buy something that is pre-processed food.
	I stick it in the microwave and eat it, you know.
	Fast food, even if it's fast food that we get out of the grocery store.
	Now, maybe people...
	are going to start looking at this and start to realize that that's going to negatively affect their health.
	There seems to be a big disconnect about that.
	If they were concerned more about what they eat, they might be more concerned about learning how to cook and things like that.
	But it seems like we've got this huge hurdle to get over because we've become so pacified and so dependent and so really just...
	You know, we don't want to make our clothes.
	We don't want to cook our food.
	We don't want to know how to grow our food, even, or where it comes from.
	And it seems to me like that's a big part of it.
	I did a video a few years ago.
	It was for...
	A farm association, we talked about locavores.
	Instead of a carnivore that's going to eat meat, somebody's eating locally.
	And there's great stuff that's out there in the farm-to-table stuff or farm-to-market type of things.
	But people have to want that.
	And right now, that's really kind of the only innovation that I'm seeing as a consumer is that some farms are out there trying to sell high-quality food to people.
	But it also comes at a price, and that's a bit of a problem as well, because then it becomes kind of this designer food, and only a few people can afford that.
	So is there anything that you're aware of that people are taking a slightly different path to try to do things in terms of direct from the farm to the consumer?
	Because that's a real issue, and of course, government regulation is a big part of stopping that in many cases as well.
	Yeah.
	You hit the nail on the head.
	And I think that there is reason for hope, but there's a lot of work to do.
	And what I mean by that is we had this kind of paradigm that's set up where the cheap food was the stuff that you could buy off the national supply chain and all the normal conventional ways that we buy it in this package and all that.
	And then the other healthier food and the food for those who cared where it came from was just more expensive, right?
	And here's the reality.
	While there is still truth to that, the other thing that's going on is We've got this supply chain vulnerability that's driving up the price of conventional food.
	And that's happening at the same time that you've got more and more farmers realizing that we need to take the local food movement out of the corners and out of the more affluent areas and spread it further to more people buying the food more that way.
	More people interested in that at a time when our conventional sources of food are more expensive than ever.
	Eggs is a really good recent example for the same reason we talked about bird food and the same reason that much of our food got more expensive after COVID. We get these supply chain disruptions where this great big supply chain that can provide any kind of food you can imagine any time of year, any part of the country.
	That's a miracle, but it is Ebola.
	It hits these shockwaves where suddenly there's spikes in prices of food.
	If that's happened, At the same time that farmers and consumers are thinking more and more about where their food comes from and farmers are innovating more and consumers are getting more creative in terms of how they buy their food, we may have a world where Balance this out a little bit.
	And people get some of their food that is, you know, from another part of the country because that's the only place that it's grown, just like bananas need to be imported, you know.
	And there's a role for that.
	And then people also get a lot more of their food from local regional sources.
	And farmers can sell into those local regional sources where they're selling, you know, fresher local food.
	They can also sell into specialty food markets.
	A good example is Wisconsin cheese.
	Wisconsin got surpassed by Californian milk production in the 90s, around the same time that I was talking about the farmer becoming the little guy.
	That's what happened, is the great big farms in California that were bigger than Wisconsin could produce more milk for cheaper.
	But Wisconsin said, wait a minute, we still have a lot of dairy farmers left, even though they're suffering.
	And we have a lot of small cheesemakers.
	So let's specialize.
	And Wisconsin is the only state that has a master cheesemaker program.
	And that's why you'll see Hook's Cheese from...
	You know, right near where I grew up in Wisconsin, you'll see that in California and Texas and all over the place because that's a specialty cheesemaker.
	They sell something special and unique.
	It's their variety.
	So we need more farms selling locally and regionally and more farms selling into markets that have these specialty foods where people who care, you know, about that food just a little more can buy something that really fits their taste.
	Well, that's great.
	When you look at the title of your book, Land Rich and Cash Poor, that is the leverage that they're using, in many cases, to drive the farmers out.
	And so...
	You know, what is it that, you know, how do we avoid that as the cash keeps going further and further down, the temptation for all these people just to sell out and shut it down?
	We've seen that with a lot of the people who've been severely damaged by the USDA's program, a mass culling of chickens.
	It's like, okay, I'm done.
	I'm just going to sell the land and get out with this.
	You know, what can be done about that?
	Of course, tax policy and some other things like that.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Absolutely.
	You're absolutely right.
	Land-rich cash, before that dilemma, for people who haven't read it or studied it, it's a simple concept, which is it's harder and harder to make money, make a living on that land when you own it, but it's worth a lot if you were to sell it.
	And so the dilemma that farmers face is each year it gets harder and harder where dad and mom are, you know, fearing that they're going to face today where they have to say to the kids, we can't make ends meet anymore.
	The alternative is they can sell it, and when you do that on a family farm, you lose everything else because a farm isn't just your mom or dad's job.
	It's your home.
	It's your community.
	It's your heritage.
	So that's the dilemma.
	Farmers are locked into holding onto this land that means more to them than anything, and they make less and less money each year.
	And so the problem that it creates, to your exact point, is it makes people think farmers are wealthy.
	You could have land that's worth about a million dollars.
	But the living that can be made on that land is getting squeezed out and is really very modest and probably at this point isn't full-time income for the family anymore.
	They're probably working two or three jobs.
	So having that land on paper and having the tractors on paper, yeah, you could go sell that, but that's one little mini bonanza for one generation of the family.
	And, you know, in the next generation, the family will level out and have, you know, what are they going to have?
	Well, they lost the land.
	They lost their heritage.
	They lost their way of living.
	You know, farmers really are not in a position of being wealthy.
	They're in a position of being working class with a target on their back.
	And so then, what do we do about that?
	One issue is the inheritance tax.
	You're absolutely right.
	You got land that has been taxed as property and has been taxed whenever there's money made off of it from an income standpoint or a sales standpoint.
	And then they tax it again.
	At the family's most vulnerable moment, you know, the older generation has passed away.
	The next generation that would have normally probably bought the farm from the prior generation is now inheriting it.
	But if they have to pay a massive tax on that, on top of how hard it is to make a living, and the fact that that's happening at a time when their family is going through a really difficult time, there are so many families that have no choice but to sell the farm.
	And it gets sold for development or it gets sold to a millionaire or whatever the situation is.
	Oh yeah, absolutely.
	And we've seen that here locally as well with a local dairy.
	That same situation.
	A death.
	And now there's a couple of dairies that were there.
	Now there's just one.
	We still go there to get milk.
	But the other dairy and other farm has just been chopped up to a lot of retail.
	By the way, let me show people the...
	The book cover here, Land Rich, Cash, Poor My Family's Hope, and the Untold History of the Disappearing American Farmer by Brian Reisinger.
	You know, when we look at this in your own personal example, tell us a little bit about what your sister did after you have this dairy farm that's been built up over a century, many generations, and then times get tough.
	You have to sell off the dairy cattle there.
	But your sister has continued.
	What has she done?
	Innovative ideas that are the kind of thing that give you hope for the next generation, which is really what's going to be able to move this situation forward through the crisis.
	So my sister came to my dad and as we were thinking about selling the cows because the economic scale just wasn't working anymore and it hit us and all of these issues, my sister began talking to my dad about, you know, having what we call a diversified farm.
	And so we raise now, we raise heifers that become milk cows on other dairy farms.
	So we supply those farms.
	We raise beef that is sold to consumers and we also cash crop.
	And we are constantly experimenting with new types of livestock and new types of crops to try to figure out what's that next food product or what's that next agricultural product that can make sense for us to do.
	And what we're finding is that it's working from the standpoint of we're hitting the income targets, my sister projected, and it's just an ongoing challenge because expenses are always going up for farms.
	So we've found a path forward for the time being, and we're hopeful about the future, but like every generation, it is always...
	And it's unclear the future.
	So we're living this out as we go.
	And, you know, I'll just say one thing about my sister.
	The really incredible thing about her is just her courage and her spirit.
	And, you know, a lot of people root for her being a woman in a man's world taking the farm over.
	And the reality is that she descends from four generations of farm women who have done the work of men.
	For a hundred years.
	There's a lot of independence.
	I don't know if I can use the word feminism, but there's kind of a farmland feminism, if you will.
	There's a lot of independence and strength from women who've grown up in farm country.
	They just never, they might have been celebrated if they'd picked their head up from the work to tell their story, you know, and my sister's the fourth generation of that.
	And so I'm incredibly proud of her.
	And it's amazing to see where this goes.
	And we all work on it together.
	You know, my dad still owns it.
	My sister's working to take it over.
	And for me, you know, I pursued a writing career off the farm.
	And I'm grateful to be able to tell her story.
	And I help out a little bit on the business side.
	And like any farm kid, when I'm home, they throw me in a tractor on my quote-unquote day off.
	I'm glad to be part of it in that way, and we're trying to figure it out as a family.
	But we couldn't do it if it wasn't my sister leading the way on the ideas for what we need to do next.
	Well, it's such an important thing.
	It's a hard life, and it's not for everybody, but I was talking about...
	One family on a farm in Virginia, and they were talking about how positive it was for the kids.
	You learn a work ethic.
	You have to do things.
	You have to do hard work.
	It's a necessity there.
	You have to be able to be a jack-of-all-trades in order to make this work because, again, you're cash poor with this.
	And so you have to learn how to do things.
	You have to get up and work hard.
	And that's a wonderful thing.
	But it's also something that if we look at it as society as a whole, Jefferson was very much focused on the importance of an agrarian society just from the standpoint of political independence and not being so dependent on everything as you are in an urban environment.
	I look at this and I kind of wonder.
	I've seen now.
	I've talked to some farmers who have set up, done like a mentoring program.
	They want to teach other people how to farm.
	They can make a living doing things like that on the side.
	Even having people pay to come to the farm to learn how to do things.
	And so there's a lot of people out there who I think are interested in learning how to grow some things, and they don't know anything about growing them.
	Or how to take care of animals or chickens now because of eggs.
	So there's an opportunity there.
	And I think once people start to taste the better quality food, I mean, they really get a taste for it, right?
	Part of it is that they've grown up eating packaged food.
	food and and maybe uh if you get a situation where as and it might be out of necessity uh that people start getting farm fresh food they get a a craving for it and a taste for it and they want to be able to either support the people in the area or learn how to do it themselves so to me that seems to be the hope uh because people have to want this you know they have to have to want a a local you know farm to market or farm to table type of experience i think yeah
	well here's the thing you know You know, not only does it taste better, you feel better.
	I grew up in an area where we had some types of fresh local food available to us, but there also wasn't a lot of food awareness for a lot of the country for a long time.
	We didn't necessarily have as many local stores as we once did to buy from, so a lot of people end up driving 30 miles down the highway to the big chain to get whatever's packaged.
	So I had a mixed experience with, on the one hand, drinking milk straight from the bulk tank.
	On the other hand, having frozen pizza for dinner.
	And things have really progressed where people of all walks of life in all areas, including in urban and rural areas, care more about where their food comes from.
	My wife and I have made that shift as much as we can.
	You can't get everything without going to some of the conventional places.
	And a lot of places are willing to carry more fresh local food if they know people will buy it.
	But you can do a lot.
	And boy, you feel better.
	Yeah.
	You sleep better.
	You have more energy.
	It makes a difference to grow something that came up out of the ground naturally.
	It does at the end of the day.
	Yeah, I know.
	This last year, we started doing our own chickens even before this bird flu thing happened, and then my wife learned.
	I started growing vegetables for the first time.
	We've done that.
	And it was just so much better than anything we could get at the grocery store, you know?
	And so we really enjoyed it, and it's really kind of built our taste for doing this type of thing.
	And so that's really where my hope is, that people have to change.
	You know, we grew up in the 60s.
	Everything was going more and more towards packaging and convenience, so you get your TV dinner packaged in aluminum, you know?
	You put the oven, then later on they put it in something non-metal so you can microwave it and everything, and it tastes awful and it's bad for you, and people are now becoming aware of that.
	So we may have an inflection point where people start to care more about taste and about health and things like that, and that might work out for everybody's benefit.
	Hopefully it will.
	Well, it is a very interesting book and really do appreciate you giving that hope and those ideas to people.
	And it's a fascinating story, too.
	It's wonderful to have somebody talk about what it was like growing up on the farm and to take a critical look at the bigger picture that is happening to it.
	And as I said before, it is something that we can all relate to in a lot of different areas because this consolidation...
	It's happening very rapidly, and it's happening across all sectors, but in the farm in particular, we've got to be concerned about that because that's what we need to have to eat, and these people really do want to just serve it to us from the lab.
	I mean, they want to take it to the nth degree in the opposite direction, and I'm starting to see a lot of pushback against that, and so maybe that'll work out well for the local farmers.
	Well, that's my hope.
	And we did our best to, as you said, take a look at these issues, honestly, wrestle with them where there was debate.
	And we did our best to tell our story, you know, from the Depression to today and that survival story, the things we've been through.
	We did our best to tell it, honestly, the good and the bad.
	And my hope is that we can tell a raw and honest story that gets people thinking about these issues.
	And gets us all working to solve them together.
	And so I appreciate the opportunity to talk about the book.
	I agree.
	And I want to say one more thing before we stop.
	And that is, I thought it was very telling that the very last chapter in your book, or it's like kind of an appendix, you talk about suicide and trying to get help.
	That's how dire things are.
	And I've reported on what is going on in India.
	You know, when Monsanto would go in and use glyphosate and GMO seeds and everything, and these farmers who are extremely poor, they then, after they use it one season now, they can't grow anything else there, and they've got to buy their seed from Monsanto.
	And they couldn't afford, and they were losing everything, and massive numbers of suicides that were happening there.
	But with all these other market forces that are there, that's just how bad it is.
	And, you know, of course, with this rapid change that is happening now, that is something that everybody needs to think about today.
	Talk a little bit about that and about the pressure that you saw on your father and in your family.
	Yeah, well, thank you so much for asking about that.
	You know, the opening pages of the book and the closing pages of the book deal with a story from our family where, you know, the day after we sold our cows, we were As I said, shifting towards some hope for some new types of farming we want to do, but also selling the dairy herd that you milked morning and night is akin to a death in the family.
	And for the farmer, trying to figure out how to move forward and whether we're going to make it or not, there's that pressure.
	And then there's the pressure of the generations that came before.
	You know, great-grandpa escaped pre-World War I Europe.
	You know, to take a better living out of the dirt.
	Grandpa survived the Depression.
	Mom and Dad made it through the farm crisis.
	Why can't I make it?
	That's kind of the generational pressure that builds.
	And my dad was staring down the barrel of realizing that he had been the first in 100 years that wasn't going to be milking cows on our land.
	We were grateful to have our land and have a plan for the future, but he still woke up asking himself, you know, what am I here for?
	And I... I had an experience with my dad that we talk about in the book where I was standing there on the porch of a cabin that's out back at the farmhouse where we both grew up.
	And I was wondering whether he was thinking that.
	And I found out in the course of talking to him for the book that he was.
	And so here we were standing right next to each other, but we were a world apart because how alone he felt.
	And I'm grateful that he continued on.
	And the way that he did it was he thought about his grandkids, you know.
	He started thinking about the next generation.
	He said, you know, I got grandkids here and I got to teach them things.
	And he realized that the farmer goes on whatever happens to the farm because there's two words here.
	There's family farm.
	There's the family part.
	And he focused on that.
	And it's the same thing that carries every...
	Farm generation forward, just think about the next generation.
	And so I'm grateful that through that and through all of us talking about it in a way that a lot of farm families don't find themselves able to do, we're able to bring them out of it.
	And I asked my dad really, candidly, if we wanted to talk about that book.
	We decided we were going to bear everything in the book, but I asked him, do we want to admit that?
	And he said, yeah, we do, because I want other people who feel that way to know that it isn't that way, you know, that they aren't alone.
	That's good.
	And that is a key thing.
	It is turning the father's heart.
	To the children, right?
	That is the restoration.
	That is the salvation of a culture.
	If you think about the next generation, you prepare for them.
	Otherwise, you know, we all get to a point where we say, what's the point of this?
	Well, the point of it is for the next generation.
	The love of the family, creating the family, propagating that, that is the heart of a civilization.
	That's why the family farm, as you point out, is so important.
	It really is.
	Well, thank you so much.
	And again, the book, Brian's book, Brian Reisinger, Land Rich, Cash, Poor, My Family's Hope, and the Untold History of the Disappearing American Farmer.
	And I would also say the disappearing family that is happening.
	That is something that really does build a family.
	And I think that is one of the most important aspects of the family farm.
	Thank you so much for joining us, Brian.
	It's been a pleasure.
	Thank you for having me.
	I really appreciate it.
	Anybody who wants to find a rich cash park and do it on Amazon or anywhere else online, also independent bookstores all across the country, and I just appreciate anybody who keeps the conversation going on these issues, and I appreciate you shedding light on them.
	Thank you so much.
	That'd be great, yes.
	Amazon, yes, and any independent bookstore.
	Thank you so much.
	I want to cover some of these comments here people had about farms before the program ends.
	Brian and Deb McCartney, he says, we love our little farms here, and we do our best to support them.
	T. Norman, Everyone used to have chickens in the yard in all the old movies.
	May 2022 says anyone can grow food.
	If you have a patio, a corner, a room, etc., you can grow food vertically.
	And I think that's a real opportunity, really, for a lot of these farmers.
	They've got a great deal of knowledge that has been lost by the public in general.
	One of the things that Brian was talking about was how pervasive farms were in the early part of the 20th century.
	And he talked about how many of them have left.
	But a huge number of, you know, a huge percentage of the population worked on a farm at least one way or the other.
	And we've lost that.
	Knights of the Storm, farms, banks, retail stores, et cetera, all being consolidated.
	The key to control is taking away options and forcing consumers and only one or two choices.
	They do it with rises in operating costs and regulations.
	Tariffs will expedite this consolidation process.
	I agree.
	I agree.
	Well, thank you so much, everyone, for joining us.
	We don't have time for more of the comments.
	One person's talking about my mozzarella recipe.
	I'm going to read that comment after the show.
	Thank you so much.
	Have a good day.
	Have a good day.
	Has vital information been held prisoner by mainstream and anti-social media?
	It's the duty of every thinking person to make the great escape to thedavidknightshow.com.
	There you'll find links to live streams, videos, audio podcasts, and support links.
	Live stream the show at DLive and every Monday through Friday, 9 a.m.
	Eastern videos at bitch shoot and huge to new audio podcast, the real David Knight show at pod bean, iTunes, stitcher, I heart and more.
	But even though there's a light at the end of the tunnel, without your support, the show will run out of gas.
	The links to support the show are at TheDavidKnightShow.com to donate via Subscribestar, donate via...
	Or donate via Cash App, Bitcoin, or P.O. Box.
	Our sincere thanks to all of you who have stood with us to get this far.

▲