The David Knight Show - 13Oct22 More Pfizer Lies And Half Truths Exposed

Episode Date: October 13, 2022

Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showYou can now support the show while purchasing gold and silver: www.davidknight.goldOr you can send a donation throughZelle: @[e-mail] App at:  $davidknightshowBTC to:  bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Mail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak Tn, 37764Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

At LiveScoreBet, we love Cheltenham just as much as we love football. The excitement, the roar and the chance to reward you. That's why every day of the festival, we're giving new members money back as a free sports bet up to €10 if your horse loses on a selected race. That's how we celebrate the biggest week in racing. Cheltenham with LiveScoreBet. This is total betting. Sign up by 2pm 14th of March. Bet within 48 hours of race.

Main market excluding specials and place bets. Terms apply. Bet responsibly. 18plusgamblingcare.ie Don't let foot pain or discomfort hold you back. At Foot Solutions, we specialise in high quality supportive footwear. And use the latest scanning technology to custom make orthotics. Designed for your unique feet. If you want to free your feet and joints from pain,

improve balance, or correct alignment, book a free foot assessment at footsolutions.ie or pop in store today. Foot Solutions, the first step towards pain-free feet. Using free speech to free minds. You're listening to The David Knight Show. As the clock strikes 13 over Airstrip One, this is the David Night Show. Day 944 of the emergency. Welcome to the program, everyone.

Thank you so much for being so supportive of David, Tony Arterburn. I'm Gardner Goldsmith filling in for David Knight as he and the family head down to Texas. And Tony Arterburn is doing his thing behind the scenes.'s awesome tony is awesome i'll be checking into the rockfin chat in a little while seeing what's up i have that on my little monitor so i will uh check and see don't forget if you want to uh donate and help out uh you can definitely do so and everything will go to David and the family so hopefully I've got everything all set up you might be aware that I've been pretty ill in just a second. Welcome, welcome. You might be familiar with my work at MRCTV. If you're just joining us, you haven't seen me do a fill-in for David before. I work for MRCTV writing articles and doing videos for MRCTV.org. It's the Media Research

Center's television analysis division. And I also have my own sub stack. I used to work in script writing out in Los Angeles and I have written fiction and things like that. I have a few novels that are supposed to be coming out, but we'll see when they're going to be coming out. The publisher delayed them and I declined one book contract because they wanted me to separate my political work from my name for fiction. And I wouldn't do that. So there you go. So everyone, thank you so much for your kind words as well. I called into Tony yesterday when he was filling in and I just sounded really bad. I know that I don't sound so great today either. And my eyes are all puffed up and everything like that. I have some things I'm going to be reading, and I actually might have to wear some glasses

because my eyes are all blurred out. But anyway, we've got a lot to cover, and I'm going to be looking forward to seeing all of your comments over on the chat. And I want to give you a quick overview of some of the things I want to discuss. And, oh, by the way, if you want to reach me on Twitter, it's at guardgoldsmith on Twitter. And don't forget thedavidknightshow.com, thedavidknightshow.com, where you can go to the store. It's phenomenal. There's so much great stuff there. It's really, really wonderful.

So I'm going to share my screen with you in just a second. But first, I want to let you know, this is on tap for part of the program. I'll give you some visuals to go with these in just a second. But we've got the FDA and CDC have approved the untested mRNA gene vector jabs for kids as young as five. If, of course, those children aren't too busy attending drag queen shows. Now we will see, hopefully in my first segment, how the Pfizer CEO dodged appearing before EU MPs. There actually was one who had a pretty good question and he was invited to answer questions, Mr. Brulow, but he declined. So he sent his president of international affairs and wait to see her bizarre answer to a question when she was pressed about foreknowledge of the ineffectiveness of the jabs. And of course, we all know that

this is a set of jabs that were government funded for a government funded virus. The United States Constitution has nothing in there about viral research. This is the sort of thing that they ended up moving over to China during the Obama administration to dodge regulations that said, don't do this anymore. So they did it in China. And of course, they worked with EcoHealth Alliance to hide the money. And then of course, when the WHO went to investigate whether the virus could have come from Wuhan, China. The people they had investigate were the ones who did it. So no, no, it didn't come from China. No way. No way. It wasn't us. Move along. These aren't the droids you're looking for. And we'll see more of how Pfizer, now wield its U.S. tax subsidized power in Brazil and in Argentina

to get vast immunity and even government assets to back it up. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. There are also new moves afoot by the censor police, not just in California, where, of course, Gavin Newsom and his gang are ready to yank the medical licenses, which is already a problem. To have to ask permission of the government for something you should be able to freely do, invite people to accept your services. Why do you have to get a license for that? Why do people talk about that? You know, I mentioned one of the first fill-ins I did for David. There's a very good book that talks about occupational licensing and how it was early on in Reconstruction,

America was used to basically discriminate against, to punish Southern blacks who were now free on the plantations. But the plantation owners wanted them basically to work as basically like chattel servants and keep them on the plantations. And they didn't want them to leave. And so they created all sorts of Byzantine licensing rules for recruiters who wanted to get workers who could move west and earn more in places like Louisiana. And in fact, in around 1870, there were more people, more black people who owned property

in Louisiana because they were getting very wealthy. They were working hard. They were buying property up. There were more black people than white people who owned land in Louisiana around that time period. So occupational licensing is just incredible, incredible fascism. And it's amazing that people accept it. So we'll talk a little bit about that being translated into something else. It's news of this speech policing, not just for licensing, but for getting online. You know, remember that so-called whistleblower? There was a woman who came out and said, oh, Facebook just isn't doing enough to stop false information. Meantime, we've all experienced having our pages shut down and

stuff that we posted being blocked and so on. It's like, wait a minute, what do you consider false information? Of course, she's a collectivist. She wants to tow the government line. And yeah, guess what? She's joining a new group. We'll tell you about that as well. And we'll also talk a little bit about Twitter and Twitter banning Peter McCullough. And also I got flagged for even posting something on Facebook that was Peter McCullough actually speaking and testifying in Texas in front of a government committee. Also, we're going to get onto the subject of warmongers, including Mike Pompeo, who is spreading his reptilian pterodactyl wings in New Hampshire, which I think is a forerunner to him running for president.

And then I want to talk about as the United States steps on to the ever darker path, followed by Sri Lanka and Holland and Germany and Great Britain regarding starving people of energy and fertilizer and very important things in the food and energy chains. We're going to see how, and of course, inflation is coming about with all this. They've been pushing the dollar into such stratospheric numbers that the price increases are following. We're going to see how the Biden administration has actually switched enemies. It's enemy carousel. It's nemesis carousel. Remember when Venezuela was the enemy? And I mentioned this to Tony on the phone yesterday. Venezuela, we couldn't get any oil or natural gas from Venezuela. Remember that? Yeah. Well, Biden is now, the administration is now making overtures that they might lift some of the sanctions against Venezuela. And what does that tell us? That tells us that sanctions hurt us. That's what it tells us. Sanctions against foreign items, against foreign services, always hurt the people in the native country where

the government is imposing the sanctions on the foreign goods. So while we have the opportunity, I'm going to go over, I'm going to get into the infinity screen here. Pardon me for just a second. And I'm going to share my screen and hopefully I'll be able to do this right. And yep, you get the infinity screen. So I'm popping over here.

At LiveScoreBet, we love Cheltenham just as much as we love football. The excitement, the roar, and the chance to reward you. at LiveScore Bet we love Cheltenham just as much as we love football the excitement the roar and the chance to reward you that's why every day of the festival

we're giving new members money back as a free sports bet up to 10 euro if your horse loses on a selected race that's how we celebrate the biggest week

in racing Cheltenham with LiveScore Bet this is total betting sign up by 2pm 14th of March. Bet within 48 hours of race. Main market excluding specials and place bets. Terms apply. Bet responsibly. 18plusgamblingcare.ie And I've got lots of, lots of important items.

You'll see some of these things up here. And first I want to go to some international news. Set up a little video for you. Now, if you don't watch Redacted, I highly recommend Redacted. They're on at four o'clock on YouTube. They're very, very good. And the Redacted team is

Natalie Morris and Clayton Morris. Clayton used to be a host on Fox News. Natalie has done stuff for CBS News. And over the past couple of days, they've exposed some incredible information. And this is the first one I want to spring on to you. So let's just check this out right now. Also, because there was news that he and Ursula van der Leyen had been exchanging texts for weeks in advance of the rollout and everyone thought that that was shady AF what is she talking about she's talking about the head of Pfizer and the head of the EU As we heard a couple weeks ago, they had been exchanging emails about special

deals where the EU would give a no-bids contract to Pfizer. Now, wait till you see what Pfizer has tried to do in other countries. I've got some video from India that I want to show you, but check out what happened when the Pfizer head did not go to the EU to answer questions, but he sent his wonderful assistant. What is her name here? Janine Small, president of international markets. All right, everybody check this out and they'll give you the intro on this. That's Natalie Morris. That's Clayton Morris. The show is redacted. They are phenomenal. They're really, I watched David in the, in the mornings and I watched them in the afternoons and then I pack everything else in, but I definitely watched those guys all the time. And so he did not want to have to show up and talk about texting with the head of the European union about rolling out a vaccine to millions of people. So remember,

yeah. Remember the whole narrative of two weeks to flatten the curve. The only way you could flatten the curve was if you stop transmission. That was the narrative that they were pumping hard at the beginning. Yes. And the way that we're going to do that is both to stay home and to take the vaccine. And that's what we'll do it. Right. So now I just want to pause there.

Anybody who knew anything about vaccines knows that you're never going to get to endemic status using vaccines. It's not going to work because different people get vaccines at different times. The vaccines don't last. Some people, they don't work. You're not going to get, what you give is you give people a false sense of security by promoting the idea that they are going to be protecting others by getting the vaccine or even protecting themselves by getting the vaccine. The way to get to endemic status is through natural immunity. It always has been. And anybody, oh, by the way, anybody who tells you that things like,

you know, major diseases like smallpox and things like that were eradicated by the vaccines. They don't know what they're talking about. CEO Albert Borla didn't show up. He was too scared to show up. So Janine Small was sent out there to answer some tough questions. And this might be one of the most amazing and important soundbites that I've seen this year. Watch this. Was the Pfizer COVID vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before it entered the market? If not, please say it clearly. If yes, are you willing to share the data with this committee? And I really want straight answer yes or no, and I'm looking forward to it.

Thank you very much. Regarding the question around, did we know about stopping humanization before it's entered the market? No. No. No. Can you believe that? Can you believe that? They sold this thing. Trump sold this thing. They all sold this thing as if it was the be all and end all. We knew that it wasn't. We knew that it was dangerous. We knew that it was possible for this stuff to enter the genes, mess with the genes inside the cell interior. We knew all this stuff. People started speaking about it early on. We knew where the virus came from. We knew that they originally did the research at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, and moved it to Wuhan. It was all a setup to get to the vaccines. Billions and billions and billions of dollars all around the world. And all these people now hurt or killed because of this.

Let's continue. Clayton's reaction is fantastic. We had to really move at the speed of science to really understand what is taking place in the market. And from that point of view, we had to do everything at risk. So we had to move at the speed of science. What the hell does that mean? Don't you love that glib line, move at the speed of science? Now, and they're going to get into this, so I'll play it and give them credit

because they deserve a lot of credit. I'm going to be showing a little bit more from them later. Speed of science is slow. The speed of science, what is that? It's like she's almost implying the speed of light. The speed of science, speed of science is slow, methodical, questioning, publishing, debating, that sort of thing. It's never done. That's why it takes so long to put these things out. And of course, they should have liability, but they don't. Move at the speed of science. Maybe Philip, maybe our micro... Oh, Philip has something to say about this. Philip, our microbiologist. I should mention Philip, who studied microbiology, who knows a thing or two about scientific trials.

Molecular biology. So what does it mean to move at the speed of science? Not to throw you under the bus. Philip is our technical director. No, that's fine. Typically, the speed of science would be if you formulate a study, you actually study things. You get it peer-reviewed by other people. The speed of science is actually quite slow. Now, the speed of scientific studies, there's lots of them out

there, but for it to eventually be accepted by the scientific community as a whole is a rigorous process. And it's supposed to be because it has to be replicatable by other people for it to be considered science. Okay. Pretty simple. Speed of science is not what she says. Excuse me. It's not warp speed. It's not any of this idiocy. It's certainly not done through government because government is political. They have all sorts of crony friends. There's all sorts of rent seeking. And that is what the FDA is. That's what the CDC is. They're rent seekers. That's what they are. Now, I want to now flip this over as you, you know, I'm looking very tiny and the screen is very, very dark up there, but I put together a line of video clips for you. And I thought this would be a good way to be able to show them to you.

And I hope you find these interesting. This is the next piece of information I want to give to you just to show you the unbelievable graft and cupidity of the people at Pfizer as they dealt with South American countries. Check this out. This comes from WION of India. Watch this as they literally. So remember, they have liability protection unless they can be shown to have defrauded people, which appears to be the case. RFK Jr.'s group and Dell Big Tree are doing great work uncovering that information. Very, very good.

Because it looks like they might be liable now. But this is what they asked for to give people what they touted as life-saving medicine, right? Wink, wink. All right, here we go. It'll take just a second to get it forward here. And since we're discussing Pakistan, terrorism comes to mind. Terror comes in many forms, they say. Sometimes it's from the neighborhood, sometimes it's online, sometimes it's from those you entrust with saving lives. Vaccine makers, for example. While countries like India are sending free vaccines to poorer nations, there are companies like Pfizer which are bullying governments.

It's a story in contrast, and what a stark contrast this is. The U.S.-based company Pfizer is holding governments to ransom, interfering with their legislation, even demanding military bases as guarantee. Would you believe it? A vaccine maker asking for a country's military base in return for vaccines. On Gravitas Tonight, we'll bring you two horror stories from Latin America and the bizarre demands that Pfizer is making. Alright, I just want to pause it here and mention, David referred to this

and so I was able to get the video. At LiveScoreBet, we love Cheltenham just as much as we love football. The excitement, the roar, and the chance to reward you. That's why every day of the festival, we're giving new members money back as a free sports bet up to €10

if your horse loses on a selected race. That's how we celebrate the biggest week in racing. Cheltenham with LiveScore Bet. This is total betting. Sign up by 2pm 14th of March. Bet within 48 hours of race. Main market excluding specials and place bets. Terms apply.

Bet responsibly. 18plusgamblingcare.ie I just wanted to mention that David already got into this a little bit. That's all sharp. He did this like yesterday, the day before. He's on the ball. Let's start by looking at Pfizer's business in the region. It has vaccine deals with nine Latin American countries.

Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, Peru, and Uruguay. Two major Latin American nations are missing from this list, Argentina and Brazil. Neither has a deal with Pfizer, but both have a story to tell. Let's start with Argentina. Talks between Argentina and Pfizer began in June 2020. In July, President Alberto Fernandez held a meeting with Pfizer's CEO in Argentina. Guess what followed? Pfizer asked to be compensated for the cost of any future lawsuits.

What does that mean? Say someone filed a civil lawsuit against Pfizer in Argentina, and if that person wins the case, who pays the compensation? It won't be Pfizer. It would be the government of Argentina. So check that out, right? So the government already paid for the development of the drugs. The government paid for the development of the virus.

That's us. So taxpayers in the United States paid for the development of the virus, paid for Fauci, paid the EcoHealth Alliance people, paid the Wuhan lab scientists, paid the people at Chapel Hill. None of it's constitutional. They're all criminals. They should all be in jail. Then they pay Pfizer billions of dollars for the drugs. And then Pfizer has to develop all these boosters, right? We'll get into the boosters in just a minute. But Pfizer then starts to sell them around the world and makes even more money. And while they're demanding more money from these other nation states, taking it from their taxpayers, they're demanding collateral in case they get sued. They're demanding it from the government. Unbelievable. I mean, the hubris of these people is just beyond comprehension.

It's like, wow, you couldn't even. This is like this is like the fantasies of a James Bond bad guy. Like they wouldn't even be this bold and brass. It's crazy. Argentina had never done this before, but it made an exception. It needed lifesaving vaccines and desperate times call for desperate measures. So Argentina's parliament passed a new law in October 2020. But Pfizer was unhappy with its phrasing. The law said Pfizer needs to at least pay for negligence for its own mistakes. If it happens to make any in future, Pfizer rejected this. It won't pay for its mistakes. Argentina then offered to amend the law

to define negligence more clearly, to include only vaccine distribution and delivery under negligence. Pfizer was still not happy. It demanded the law be amended through a new decree. That's when Argentina put its foot down. They refused. Pfizer then asked Argentina to buy an international insurance. What for? That's when Argentina put its foot down. They refused. Pfizer then asked Argentina to buy an international insurance.

What for? To pay for potential future cases against the company. Argentina agreed. In December 2020, Pfizer came back with more demands. It wanted sovereign assets as collateral. What does that mean? Pfizer wanted Argentina to put, and listen to this, put its bank reserves, its military bases, and its embassy buildings at stake as collateral. Pfizer wanted Argentina to put its sovereignty at stake for what? Just to secure vaccines. There is no doubt that Pfizer is sitting on a pile of life-saving drugs, but what gives it the right to bully a gun? All right. So we'll just let that go. That's obviously, there is doubt there. By the way, I think it might've been John Henry who partners

up with the new prisoners, new prisoner number six or Harps. I don't know, Harps, if you sent this over to me and, you know, did this through Twitter, but somebody sent this out on Twitter. Way to go. This is just epic. This is just, you know, when you're doing news or you're just, you know, you're just interested in the news and you're talking with people who are devoted to principles, you know, things go by so fast. It's unbelievable, right? These are the kinds of things you want to hold. That's why the purges at YouTube have been so frustrating because then it disperses everything. It's like dropping a stone. You got to get the ripples. Where do the ripples carry those leaves? You know, where's that information? Very difficult.

So anyway, I'll continue. This is just a great report here from the people at WION. Profiteering from your plight and mine. You see, vaccine manufacturers have always enjoyed a certain amount of liability waiver. Say you receive a vaccine from Pfizer. you have adverse effects because of the jab, you can always go ahead and file a lawsuit against the company. And if you win that lawsuit, instead of Pfizer, it will be the government that will be compensating you. And this is a normal practice. In the United States, for example, the PrEP Act. You heard David talk about that going back decades, the PREP Act.

That's the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act. Gives total immunity to companies like Pfizer and Moderna. But this is only if something goes wrong unintentionally. This does not apply to negligence. Pfizer is not happy with that. It wants more, not just sovereign assets, but a fraud insurance. Argentina was not okay with this. What about Brazil? What did Pfizer do in Brazil, the world's third most affected country? Pfizer went a step ahead and asked Brazil to create a guarantee fund and deposit money in a foreign bank account.

On the 23rd of January 2021, Brazil's health ministry put out the statement citing excerpts from Pfizer's pre-contract clauses. These are Pfizer's demands. Look at this. Number one, Brazil waives the sovereignty of its assets abroad in favor of Pfizer. This is a vaccine company. Number two, that the rules of the land be not applied on Pfizer. Number three, that Brazil take into consideration a delay in delivery. Number four, that Pfizer is not penalized for it, for a delay in delivery. And number five, in case of any side effects, Pfizer be exempted from all civil liability. Can you believe it?

And it's like David said, that number five, the minute you hear that, would you deal with anybody if there was somebody coming in to fix your plumbing? And he said, oh, well, you know, you got to make sure I'm exempt from all liability before I'll work on your house. Ah, sorry, dude., you got to make sure I'm exempt from all, all liability before I'll work on your house. Uh, sorry, dude. See you later. Arrivederci. No way. Right. And then all the other ones, you just sit there like, man, this is like a skit out of Saturday night live. You know, this is like, this is like the worst possible dumbest thing. It's like Monty Python in that skit that they did called The Bishop, where Terry Jones plays the bishop. And it's a takeoff of The Saint.

And they use the same sort of graphics. But he's a Catholic bishop. And he's running around. He's got the scepter. And he's got all these guys in their mod turtlenecks with their black shades. They're driving around. I think it was like a barracuda or something like that it was insane it was it was if you're catholic i yeah i could see that that would be kind of annoying and upsetting uh but jeez um and so terry uh ter uh who is it um man. I can't remember. But anyway, one of the actors is there and he's playing an insurance guy.

And Eric Idle is talking to him. And something's happened to something that Eric Idle got insurance for, like his home or something like that. And he says, oh, yeah. Or is his car or something? He says, oh, you know, my car, my my car got got hit. He goes, oh, well, yeah. Well, well, what you see here is, oh, you got our never pay policy. See? Yeah. Yeah. You pay us premiums. And then when you make a claim, well, we don't pay. Eric, I was like, never pay policy. Oh, yeah, yeah, it's right here. And then the bishop comes and goes, all right, devious, don't move. Oh, man, that's what it is. You can work for Pfizer. The government of Brazil calls these clauses abusive. And they're right. It goes without saying the Pfizer deal with Brazil failed failed too. This is a report by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

It talks about a third country, one whose deal with Pfizer was reportedly pushed back by three months. Why? Because Pfizer made similar bizarre demands. The company has just two billion doses to deliver this year, and that is on a first-come, first-served basis. A delay of three months can cost a whole year, and it can cost a lot of lives. Pfizer is playing with life-saving drugs. It is abusing its position, and having developed a vaccine with the help of government funding, it is now throwing tantrums at governments. Did you know that Pfizer's German partner, BioNTech, was given $445 million by the government of Germany.

The U.S. paid Pfizer $2 billion as early as July 2020. This was against pre-orders. Now, I want to pause it there again very quickly. I won't be as divergent as talking about Monty Python. I could talk about Python for so long. Love those guys. And Terry Gilliam, brilliant. And Douglas Adams. Rest your soul, Douglas Adams. By the way, I am going to be divergent very quickly. If you ever hear the song by Coldplay called 42. At LiveScoreBet, we love Cheltenham just as much as we love football.

The excitement, the roar, and the chance to reward you. That's why every day of the festival, we're giving new members money back as a free sports bet up to €10 if your horse loses on a selected race. That's how we celebrate the biggest week in racing. Cheltenham with LiveScore Bet. This is total betting. Sign up by 2pm 14th of March.

Bet within 48 hours of race. Main market excluding specials and place bets terms apply bet responsibly 18plusgamblingcare.ie It's about Douglas Adams because Douglas Adams was an atheist

throughout most of his life and then just before he died he started to question. So the lyrics are they say you might be a ghost they say you might be a ghost you didn't get to heaven but you made it close.

And it's called 42 it's a great song be a ghost they say you might be a ghost you didn't get to heaven but you made it close um and it's called 42 it's a great song great song by cole play um but anyway um and i certainly hope i certainly hope i certainly hope and pray because he was the hitchhiker's guide is such a great great dig on bureaucracy and uh and freedom it's a not a dig on freedom, but it's a wonderful morality play. But what she says there, don't forget that before the so-called vaccines, the jabs, were rolled out, 60 Minutes did a piece on the organization and they talked to a military man. I think he was a, it might've been a general who was in charge of the rollout. They already, and he was bragging about it. Well, we have, we already have many doses. And so the reporter for 60 Minutes asked him, how many doses? Well, many. So this is before they had been approved. They already bought them and had them ready to go out

before they were approved by the FDA, which tells you what? Of course they were going to get approved by the FDA on that emergency use approval. Unbelievable. Pfizer is looking at making $15 billion, $15 billion from vaccine sales this year. It is in talks with 100 countries and organizations. There is no dearth of money for this company. Why then is Pfizer bent on squeezing desperate countries of their assets? Like we showed you, nine Latin American and Caribbean countries struck deals with Pfizer for vaccines.

What did they have to give up in exchange? Military bases, embassy buildings, sovereign funds? Look at Pfizer's hypocrisy. It is bullying poor countries behind closed doors and in front of the press. It is playing Messiah. On the 22nd of January, Pfizer signed an agreement with COVAX, the Global Vaccine Alliance. It committed 40 million doses to poor countries this year. And the company put out a press release. You must listen to what they say. I want to read out a particular quote from Pfizer chairman and CEO Albert Bourla. At Pfizer, he says, we believe that every person deserves to be seen, heard, and cared for.

And that's why from the very beginning of our vaccine development program, Pfizer and BioNTech have been firmly committed to working towards equitable and affordable access of COVID-19 vaccines for people around the world. Does this make you angry too? It's time we call out such companies that are out to profiteer from the pandemic. Good job. Vyond is now available in your country. Download the app now and get all the news on the move. By the way, folks, I left that on there because I wanted to give the WION folks some play, and I am going to check them out. That was an excellent, excellent report. And, you know, I thought to myself, wouldn't it be nice to get this information more readily than have to turn to, you know, just by chance, somebody giving it to you on Twitter?

I mean, what happened to Peter McCullough? He's off of Twitter. What are they going to knock off the person who sent out this information, right? Unbelievable. Well, I don't think you can count on it. And as you know, they just purged Peter McCullough, as I said, and Facebook just red flagged my post and posts by others of McCullough testifying in Texas about myocarditis and pericarditis. And he's now opened up a sub stack and, uh, he had to do it just like people like, uh, Steve Kirsch, Caitlin Johnson, um, me, um, David, uh, let's see. Um, Oh, check out Vince Agnelli, Don, just Donald Jeffries. It's amazing. Great, great work by Donald. And you can, I'd love to bring him in.

Well, I can't do it today, but next time I do do a fill in. Don't know if he'll be available maybe Saturday, but we'll see. But now here's the next piece of video that I want to show you. But first, I want to go over and we're going to get a little something going here. I want to show you a little bit of information about the so-called Facebook whistleblower. And she, remember, she was the one who came forward from Facebook who said, oh, we need to act as soon as possible to stop. And she was called a whistleblower. But she was, it was like a false flag whistle.

It was a false whistle. As you see here from The Guardian. And by the way, when we talk about Julian Assange, we're going to talk about The Guardian as well. We're going to talk about Julian Assange coming We're going to talk about the Guardian as well. We're going to talk about Julian Assange coming up a little bit later. Terrific protests, rallies in honor of Julian Assange and the appearance of his wife with John Bolton was so powerful. I hope to talk to Tony Arterburn about that in the 11 o'clock hour. Tony's military experience and his devotion to freedom, both of those are so essential to understand.

And he brings such knowledge. I can't wait to talk to Tony. And don't forget Wise Wolf Gold and Silver Exchange. Now, if you're new to the program, you might hear David mention this. You might hear me mention it. You might hear Tony mention it. It's Tony's company. And they're based just outside of Branson, Missouri. And sometimes when you enter a program new and you hear this, you think, oh, well, you know, the person who's doing the show is all set and he's got, you know, big advertising and so on. Tony loves the show and he's devoted to David. David knows that Tony's ideas are valuable and they are offering something that they're just offering to people, not in some great money-making scheme or anything like that, but as some ideas

for people to prepare and to get hard assets as things really start to go south for the dollar. The only reason the dollar has not collapsed worse than it has is because the relative other currencies, the relative demise of other currencies is so bad. But here So as you can see here, it says, Frances Haugen left her role as a product manager at Facebook in 2021, bringing with her a cache of internal documents illustrating allegations of wrongdoing at the company. Did you ever see any of those documents? I didn't. A year later, despite congressional hearings and investigations, Meta, Facebook's big corporation, has made few meaningful changes to its policies, Haugen says, and as the U.S. midterm elections approach, the stakes are high.

Quote, I'm extremely concerned about the upcoming election, and I'm even more concerned about future elections, Haugen told The Guardian. Without transparency and without oversight, we should expect Facebook will not spend money on safety. They won't produce a level of safety we deserve. Frustrated by the inaction, Haugen is one of dozens of former government officials, independent researchers, and public health advocates who are joining, yeah, you got it, repo man, a new bipartisan coalition that hopes to force fundamental change to the world's major tech platforms. Oh boy. Launching on Thursday, or as they would say in police squad, how many fingers am I holding up? Thursday. Launching on Thursday, the Council for Responsible Social Media, CRSM, oh my, responsible in whose eyes, aims to advocate for bipartisan solutions and serve a critical mechanism in holding these

companies accountable. The council is trying to bring together a bipartisan, diverse set of people to emphasize that these are not partisan issues, Haugen told The Guardian. These are common sense solutions that can make a really big difference, and we need to act now. Kind of like common sense gun control. It's common sense speech control by the government applying pressure to corporations. Awesome. Well, at LiveScoreBet, we love Cheltenham just as much as we love football. The excitement, the roar, and the chance to reward you. That's why every day of the festival, we're giving new members money back as a free sports bet up to 10 euro if your horse loses on a selected race. That's how we celebrate the biggest week in racing. Cheltenham with LiveScore Bet.

This is Total Betting. Sign up by 2pm 14th of March. Bet within 48 hours of race. Main market excluding specials and place bets. Terms apply. Bet responsibly. 18plusgamblingcare.ie We'll talk about corporations.

And David and I started a great exchange about corporations and what powers they have and the dangers of government interfering with corporations when they start to call them public squares. And unfortunately, when corporations are created by government in the first place, the question is, what do business people give up if they ask for corporate status and protection from liability from the government? That is, I think, one of protection from liability from the government. That is, I think, one of the major hearts of the question. And that is what confuses the issue when we're talking about private property and whether or not these corporations really are private property or they're government creations. How far can the government go in forcing them to act in certain ways? And I'll just bring this up as an aside, just to think about this, everybody. And I want to get over in the chat. I have to check my monitor and see if I can look into the chat, you guys. So, because you've just been so wonderful to me. And I know that I sound very ill today.

Tony has just been so awesome. I can't even tell you. It's been crazy to be so sick recently, but I want to persevere because hopefully I put together some information that I think I can get across to people. And just to let you know, as I was preparing for this, I was praying that I could feel okay enough to do the show. And I was moving some things around here at the house. This is the house where I grew up. And my dad always used to have a little battery checker. It was a little wire that you could put on a six-volt battery or whatever. And it had a light bulb on it. And it would make a connection you know the degree of intensity the light bulb would tell you how how good it was it was an old style sort of a thing you could hold it and i was moving stuff around and i was like please god please lord please let me do to the

show please let me do a good job and uh i went and there was and my dad really trained me on politics and economics i mean he took me under his wing. As I mentioned, he went through books and annotated them. I mean, we're talking 800-page books by Ludwig von Mises and Adam Smith. And he put notes in the side to teach us. If he weren't here, we'd have that information. He was an amazing guy. And that little light bulb thing popped up. And I was like, I knew, I was like,

all right, I'm going to be able to do the show. So anyway, thank you all for being so kind. But anyway, so this thing about the corporations, one of the things I just want to bring up before I get back in the Facebook thing and how the government might be able to regulate, can't regulate, Section 230. It's a very large conversation to have. And David and I touched on it a couple of weeks ago. It's really interesting. And the great thing is that being able to talk to David about it is it's an exchange of ideas. Like we're exploring an engineering project. Like,

well, wait a minute, you know, how this gear was put in here. How does that affect that gear? You know, it's, it's very interesting. So it's like looking at vectors or something. But when you think about it, and I mentioned this to Tony too, and I'd love to get his thoughts at 11 when he can come in. Think about this, you guys. And this is one of the major problems that I have when we talk about corporations. And I'll get into the Google blacklist. Somebody told me yesterday, and I want to thank that person as well. Someone told me yesterday that I'm heavily shadow banned on Twitter. I didn't even know that. I haven't checked on that for like over a year. And it makes sense, actually. I'm massively shadow banned on Facebook. Like nobody sees my posts on Facebook. And Don Jeffrey's experience is the same things.

So it's through you that we get the word out. And I try as much as possible. You can find me on Gab at Gardner Goldsmith. I post more on Twitter, but I'm at Gard Goldsmith on Twitter. And, you know, luckily, you know, with MRCTV, they're very helpful because they have a very widespread as well. But here's the problem. If we say there's a term in constitutional law called, as I've mentioned it before, it's called unconstitutional conditions. And there have been cases like the Grove City College case where they found against Grove City College and against Hillsdale College because they said, if you take students that take Title IX money, or if you take students that take federal money, you must conform to Title IX, having equal sports

for men and women and so on. And they said, we can't afford that. We get more draws from sports for men. We can't afford these things for women. We try to do donations. We just can't afford that. We get more draws from sports for men. We can't afford these things for women. We try to do donations. We just can't have the same number of teams. They said, well, you're going to be fined by the US government and so on and so forth. So both Hillsdale, the Supreme Court found in favor of the government there. Both Hillsdale and Grove City said, we're not going to take federal money anymore. And that's back when George Roche headed up Hillsdale. He was a great, great libertarian-minded guy. Big fan of Frederick Bastier.

It's gotten a little more neocon now, Hillsdale. It's still not bad, but they don't have the central question of government itself. The central root of the problem, front and center as they used to, which was one of the things George Roach did. But on the other side of it, they have what's called the Cabrini-Green case. This will show you that the Supreme Court flips based on political expediency, and of course, the members of the court. But it wasn't too long afterwards that the Supreme Court found in favor of people who were living in Section 8 housing just outside of Chicago, when the government agents who were running the Section 8 housing, the bureaucrats, through the city and the state and the federal government, were demanding that they have to accept no-knock drug searches inside their apartments. And the reason the government gave the rationale they gave for that was there had been a shooting

of a small child out in the parking lot and a drug deal gone wrong. And they said, okay, now you're going to have to open up your apartments anytime we want to check for drugs. Now, the Supreme Court flipped on that. And they said, no, just because you're accepting something from the government doesn't mean that you have to give up a constitutional right, which should apply to free speech and freedom of religion and all sorts of stuff for schools like Hillsdale and Grove City, but it doesn't. It applied in this case because, I don't know, maybe it was political expediency, I think. I don't know. Maybe it was racial stuff. I don't know. Now, if you were to apply that to the TSA,

the TSA would be out of the airports immediately because they're breaching the Fourth Amendment on a daily, hourly, minute-by-minute basis. It's patently unconstitutional. The very existence of the TSA is unconstitutional. The existence of the FAA is unconstitutional. So then you say to yourself, okay, they have established the standard of unconstitutional conditions, which isn't really a standard. It's flexible. So with corporations like this, how far, and this is the question I'd like to explore with David, I think it would be a great conversation. the federal government go in saying, hey, if you want corporate status, you must accept these preconditions? I don't think there is a clear answer on that. And I'll bring it all the way to the revolutionary era. Now, this is a bit of a stretch, but think about this. The colonies, most of them started as corporations.

So where did the corporation end and the self-governance begin, can the offspring of people born into a corporation be held that they have to conform to the corporation and its agreement with the government, with the royalty? And this goes to the question of all the so-called social contracts, which is bogus. There's no such thing as social contract. If you're born into it, you never had a chance. You either have to try to escape to another place where they've got a gang of goons that are going to shake you down, or you got to capitulate,

or you're going to go to jail. It's not self-governance at all. It's just separation from another government. And they were corporations when they started. So they're very open questions. But I'll get back to this story because this woman says the council is trying to bring together a bipartisan, diverse set of people to emphasize that these are not partisan issues. Common sense, common sense gun control, right? Okay. So let's just hop over here for a second. This is a piece that I did in December of 2021. Facebook claims in legal documents that their fact checks are protected opinion. And let's check out my wonderful visage, sounding a little better here, all right?

Hey, in legal documents, Facebook's mega corporate legal team just offered a revealing admission about those fact checks they use to silence people's posts and lock them out of their accounts. Now, well, shocker, they say they're just opinions. At LiveScore Bet, we love Cheltenham just as much as we love football. The excitement, the roar, and the chance to reward you. That's why every day of the festival, we're giving new members money back as a free sports bet up to 10 euro if your horse loses on Hi everyone, I'm Gardner Goldsmith for MRCTV. You know, Liberty backers and those who are critical of big government are acutely aware that Facebook restricts the reach of our posts for long stretches or labels them false and then memory holds them when its wonderful team of fact

checkers claim that something isn't true. Some of us just grimace and bear it, trying to figure out ways to stay in touch with friends and then continue to get our posts seen, despite Facebook's wizards of UGG telling us that our reach will be limited for stretches of time. And curiously, this just happened to me over the past 24 hours, and I'll be restricted even more than previously for the next three months. I think it is. But thanks to pro-liberty reporter John Stossel, who isn't sitting back and taking it. I just learned something striking about Facebook slash Meta's view of its fact checks in legal documents provided in a defamation suit brought by Mr. Stossel against Facebook slash Meta. Meta's legal team openly claims that their so-called fact checks merely are. Yeah, you got it. Opinion.

The American thinkers, Thomas Lifson, starts things off for us as we dive into this. And let's keep in mind the Slippery opinion, not an actual check of facts and declaration of facts. Oh, man. Under libel law, opinions are protected from liability for libel. What a surprise. But this makes matters very complicated for Meta, and we'll explore exactly why in a moment. Right now, let's note that many fans of Mr. Stossel might be familiar with his excellent work. He has even created a video and instruction series called Stossel in the Classroom for Kids, which is excellent. And let's also assume that folks might have heard that Stossel was suing Facebook slash meta platforms for defamation. It's the details

that meta has released that hint at how politically driven the meta gurus appear to be and how slippery their legal team seems to be as they try to wriggle out of what looks like a clear case of defamation by now claiming the opposite of what they have told us users for years. They always told us that they were fact-checking our posts on controversial topics. Well, Lifson refers readers to the well-known climate science writer Anthony Watts, who, of course, writes at Watts up with that. And Watts saliently points out that very key claim made by the meta lawyers in their legal briefing. Quote, the labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory. To the contrary, they constitute protected opinion. And then Watts

offers a longer passage from the meta document. You'll note in the PDF from their legal filing, folks, it says, for another, Stossel's claims focus on the fact check articles written by Climate Feedback, not the labels affixed through the Facebook platform. The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory, as I mentioned before, is what they said. To the contrary, they constitute protected opinion. And even if Stossel could attribute climate feedback's separate web pages to meta, the challenge statements on those pages are likewise neither false nor defamatory. Any of these failures would doom Stossel's complaint, but the combination makes any amendment futile. And Wass also offers what many

of us might offer upon seeing this flagrantly obvious rhetorical chess move. Quote, so in a court of law, in a legal filing, Facebook admits that its fact checks are not really fact checks at all, but merely opinion assertions, end quote. But of course, that's not what they tell us. That's not what they told me when they non-person me over the past 24 hours. No, in fact, Factbonk has long heralded its so-called fact checker system, even as we users could see the leftist slant that indicated to us that there was something very fishy going on. They applauded themselves for employing groups

like the Poynter Institute to put our posts under their so-called fact check microscope. Yet, as John Stossel recently noted in one of his excellent videos on the subject, like all human organizations, Pointer's team has subjective people in it, and it doesn't exactly seem non-biased. Video from John Stossel spells this out. To do the fact- fact checking, Facebook partners with groups like these, all of them approved by something called the Poynter Institute. It calls itself a global leader in journalism and claims it has a commitment to nonpartisanship

and fairness. But they're hardly nonpartisan. Just look at their website. Their eagerness to honor left-leaning reporters and their push to decolonize the media and change language shows their leftist bias. Poynter once even apologized after it tried to blacklist conservative news sites. Remember that? Corinne Weaver wrote about it for Newsbusters on May 2nd, 2019, including the fact that in that particular smear attack, Poynter utilized an asset at the ultra-left Southern Poverty Law Center to construct its unhinged narrative. Quote, Poynter, which has started the international fact-checking network, shared the new report and data set called UnNews, declaring at least 29 right-leaning news outlets and organizations to be, quote, unreliable news websites, end quote. Report author and SPLC producer Barrett Golding combined five major lists of websites marked unreliable. That result, which consisted

of 515 names, included many prominent conservative sites. Breitbart, cnsnews.com, Daily Signal, Daily Wire, Drudge Report, Free Beacon, Judicial Watch, Life News, LifeSite News, LifeZ, Live Action News, the Media Research Center, PJ Media, Project Veritas, Red State, The Blaze, Twitchy, and the Washington Examiner. Ah, yes. Good times. Good times. An American thinker, Listen, notes this about the new revelation from Stossel's defamation suit against Meta. Quote, Meta's attorneys come from the white shoe law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, with over a thousand attorneys and more than a billion dollars a year in revenue. They obviously checked out the implications of the matter for Section 230 issues the legal

protection Facebook slash Meta have from liability for what is posted on their site. But at a minimum, this is a public relations disaster, revealing that their fact checks are not factual at all and should be labeled as our opinion or some such language, avoiding the word fact, end quote. And this is where it gets a little complicated. By Section 230, Lifson means Title 47 of the U.S. Code, Subsection 230 of the wonderful 1996 Communications Decency Act. Now, it's a little tricky here. This act allows a website carrying other people's posts to claim it is not a publisher but a platform, but not if it doesn't edit content. Many people mistakenly think that it can make the claim

as long as it doesn't edit. But in fact, Section 230 allows for editing or so-called curating as long as it is done in good faith. And that's a term determined, of course, by our overlords in the federal government. So if it remains listed as a platform, hence the addition of platform within Meta's snazzy corporate title, the feds in the 1996 law give the corporation protection against defamation suits over material posted by users. And the feds also allow the corporations to be mostly immune from state laws pertaining to pornography posted by users. That's quite a different matter. Now, Stossel's team may be able to pierce the federal protection given to so-called platforms by this unctuous Section 230.

And Facebook certainly doesn't seem to be operating on good faith either. And on a larger point, I think it's important to note all of this Section 230 federal meddling stuff within the 1996 Communications Decency Act and the act itself. Even the FCC actually run counter to the First Amendment, which gives the feds zero, zero power over speech controls. So perhaps this suit will open a few eyes. John Stossel and his team are going after Facebook slash meta platforms for defamation. And many of us have experienced similar attacks when posting clearly factual information. Now, thanks to Stossel in the legal response to his suit, Meta just showed the world that it isn't fact checking at all. It's doing what we thought, engaging in opinion propaganda.

Hey, thanks so much for watching, everybody. Remember, please like and subscribe. If you're watching on YouTube, we'll see you in the comments section, see in the comments section on Rumble, and find us on Facebook, find us on Twitter, on TikTok, on Instagram. All right, there you go. Hopefully that was a decent exploration of it. There's more about Facebook, but I just want to give you an update about the John Stossel case. The John Stossel case, Stossel v. Meta Platforms, filed on September 22nd, 2021. John Stossel's the plaintiff represented by Krista Lee Bauman of Dillon Law Group, Incorporated. And the status of it down at the bottom here, you can see right now it is pending,

pending, pending, pending. So there you go. We'll see what happens with that. But John Stossel doing a good job. Now, the other little bit that I want to mention here is how social media outlets helped the collectivists try to redefine recession on the fly. By the way, the Poynter Institute not only is connected with the Southern Poverty Law Center, it's also connected to John Panesta. So just a couple of things about that. So I just wanted to bring this up because you might have heard how they didn't want to use the term recession when Biden was in office over the summer, even though it was we're in a recession and it's going to be a depression. But one of the things I wanted to bring up just as a sort of a memory jogger to everybody is that there are very few people in the world of economics where I teach who have had the guts to use the term depression to describe what happened between late 2007 and 2011. And you'll find that people like Paul Krugman and others

would use the term economic downturn. They wouldn't even use recession at first. Then they called it recession. When actually, when you have a downturn of GDP that does not return to its original level, that lasts that long for that many quarters, it's a depression. That's what it is. So there has been a depression most of you watching in your lifetime. That was between 2008 and 2011 because GDP levels did not rise to their pre-2008 levels until 2011. There were negative numbers during that whole period for three years. But people won't talk about it.

Very few will. There's actually one economist who was willing to admit it. Let me see if I can find it here in the piece. Oh, by the way, here's what Robby Sov said for reason about Meta. Facebook and Instagram have been flagging as false information the actual truth about the word recession and about the Biden regime's old cozy place in the midst of one. Bobby Sov, Robby Sov reports for reason. Meta's third-party fact-checkers have flagged, oh, this skips around, has flagged as false information posts on Instagram and

Facebook accusing the Biden administration of changing the definition of a recession in order to deny that the U.S. economy has entered one. This is yet another reminder that the project of purportedly independent fact-checking, I have this on Edge and it jumps around. I should have opened it on Brave. The purportedly independent fact-checking of social media is a highly partisan one in which legitimately debatable opinions are passed off as objective truth. And I said, and he offered more context. Last week, the White House published an online article disputing the standard definition of an economic recession, i.e. two consecutive fiscal quarters in which GDP growth was negative. That's why the 2008 to 2011 period was not a recession.

It was bigger than a recession. It was a depression by any economic standard. At LiveScoreBet, we love Cheltenham just as much as we love football. The excitement, the roar, and the chance to reward you. That's why every day of the festival, we're giving new members money back as a free sports bet up to 10 euro if your horse loses on a selected race. That's how we celebrate the biggest week in racing. It's so ridiculous. And by the way, I have here, even as quarter after quarter of negative GDP piled up following the crash of early 2008, I and other free market economists were calling it like it was a depression. Yet despite the fact that US GDP did not return to pre-2008 levels until

December of 2011, the pop media and its go-to jawbreakers, including Paul Krugman, insisted at the time that it was an economic downturn. Now, meta is part of the cabal. Actually, it's more than meta, as Sov reports. The fact checker, this PolitiFact participated in it as well.checking website run by, you got it, the Poynter Institute. The Poynter Institute. So now let's go back to our whistleblower and check out this little bit. Other members of this wonderful organization, the Council for Responsible Social Media, CRSM, are people like Leon Panetta, former Congress members Claire McCaskill and Dick Gephardt, and former National Security Director Michael Rogers. Are any one of those people trustworthy to you? Not a chance. No way.

Let's just take a look at Leon Panetta on video. When, oh, there was a new CIA director who was being nominated by Trump. CIA, effectively for so many years, yourself. What are your thoughts of Gina Haspel? She's a career CIA officer. She spent almost 30 years in the CIA. She worked for me when I was director of the CIA. I found her to be extremely competent and dedicated and committed.

I support her nomination to be head of the CIA. Yeah, he supports her nomination. Very competent. As David has pointed out, as, let me see, John Kiriakou has pointed out, and I met John, what a great guy. She was the one who was the key player in torturing numerous people when the United States invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Completely unconstitutional. They went in there and occupied both nations, captured people, brought them out to rendition sites, so that later, when Barack Obama entered office after W. Bush and George Stephanopoulos asked him, will this waterboarding and, as they called it, harsh interrogation continue? He was able to say, well, when I'm president, because he was just about to be sworn in, when I'm president, the U.S. military will not be doing that. Well, it wasn't the U.S. military

that was doing it mostly. These were agents that were either hired by the CIA or they were CIA agents in places like Libya, places like Romania. They were torturing people extrajudicially, no trial whatsoever. That is in addition to the drone killings of thousands of people. Everybody from George W. Bush to Barack Obama to Donald Trump. Obama the worst with John Brennan. Wiping people out, targeting their cell phones, didn't even know where the cell phones were, going after the cell phones, killing innocent kids playing soccer. And of course, Biden just did it earlier in his presidency in Yemen. Unbelievable. Now, that is a supporter of that woman. And he is part of this truth squad. And she got rid of the evidence of the torture and he supported her.

That shows you how many insects are inside the CIA, how they maintain themselves. And people like Trump clearly knew about that. There's no possible way he didn't know about Haspel's background. No way. Unbelievable. Then we got this guy, Mike Pompeo. Mike Pompeo, Mr. Conservative. Well, if you're in New Hampshire and you watch TV, this guy's face is in almost every television commercial if you watch the local news. If you watch YouTube videos and you don't have an ad blocker and you're in New Hampshire, he's everywhere. I was able to catch part of this wonderful ad. Check this out, you guys. Oh, gosh. Listen to that music. And look, he's in front of the Iwo Jima Memorial. What a guy.

Make sure you check out how many times he mentions radical left. The wrong priorities, then Americans will be a lot less safe. We'll use the right pronouns, but what we won't have is the capacity to keep our country safe. We have to walk away from this radical left ideology. We cannot let it penetrate our military. The fight is on. The fight is on. How wonderful. That's awesome. The fight is on. All right. Let's talk about a fight. Let's talk about a fight against these

criminal elements. That guy wanted Julian Assange assassinated. Julian Assange. Julian Assange, you'll see as I bring up this next video segment, Julian Assange had to marry his wife while he was a prisoner. His ability to see his kids grow up has been next to nil. The man is suffering merely for exposing wrongdoing of the government that takes our money or will go to jail. The government that points guns at us, the United States government, the government that flouts its constitution every time it can and panders to whatever group it can, the military, play those trumpets, wave those flags, get in front of the Iwo Jima Memorial, Mr. Pompeo. Just a vile, vile, disgusting person. May someday you ask forgiveness for what you've done,

what you support. These are moral issues, sir. Your soul is at stake. And he's coming to New Hampshire. He pops up here. He's playing favorites because he wants to run for president. I'm sure he thinks that Donald Trump will be indicted. I think Trump probably will. And I think that he wants to put himself in line as the neocon alternative to the Florida governor, DeSantis. I have a few problems with DeSantis. I have problems with government itself, but unbelievable. Now, let me show you this. This was Julian Assange's wife being brought on the Piers Morgan program in England, and she was put up against John Bolton. Now, I think they did not surprise her. I think they let her know that they were going to do this, but she held it together so well. God bless that woman and their whole family. Now, remember, the key thing about Julian Assange was that he exposed wrongdoing. One of the key things was that Chelsea Manning, then Bradley Manning, I have no problem calling Bradley Manning Chelsea if he wants to change his name, me to call him a woman. And I said, no, you're not a woman. I'll call you by a different name, like a nickname, but you're not a woman. You're a male.

And he accepted that. He understood. But check this out. Now, Piers Morgan, sometimes I wonder how stupid Piers Morgan is. I don't think he's stupid. I think he does things so he can get ratings. But in a way, I think he almost knew that Julian's wife was going to be this strong. I think he almost knew that she was going to slam Bolton.

Check this out. What do you hope to achieve? What do you think may happen here? Well, Julian faces a potential sentence in the United States of 175 years for doing journalistic work, for receiving information from a source and publishing it. And it was in the public interest. It was about U.S. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. And he revealed tens of thousands of civilian deaths

that had not been acknowledged before, and war crimes that have never been prosecuted. Let me play devil's advocate. As a journalist, I thought that a lot of the stuff that appeared in the New York Times and The Guardian and various other newspapers who acted in collusion with Julian and WikiLeaks over those revelations, they redacted a lot of the more sensitive stuff which might lead to people's lives being impacted by the revelations wiki leaks didn't they just all right this is where i have to pause them i forgot i wanted to bring this up at live score bet we love cheltenham just as much as we love football the excitement the roar and the chance to reward you that's why every day of the festival

we're giving new members money back as a free sports bet up to 10 euro if your horse loses on a selected race. That's how we celebrate the biggest week in racing. Cheltenham with LiveScore Bet. This is total betting. Sign up by 2pm 14th of March. Bet within 48 hours of race. Main market excluding specials and place bets. Terms apply. Bet responsibly. 18plusgamblingcare.ie. It's the exact opposite. And this was the major problem. WikiLeaks did redact when they went to The Guardian. And this is why Glenn Greenwald, one of the major reasons why Glenn Greenwald left The Guardian.

When they reached The Guardian, an editor at The Guardian pulled a lot of those redactions. That was the thing. So they're accusing Julian Assange of doing this. He didn't do it at all. As a journalist, you would never do that. So they weren't really acting as journalists. They were acting as here it all is and work it out for yourselves. Whereas the newspaper editors acted like what I would say proper journalists should do, which is to be careful about exactly where you put the public domain. Do you accept that? I don't accept it because it's not true. Wikileaks did actually redact all of

those publications from the Manning, that Manning gave to Wikileaks and in fact it was in cooperation with those newspapers. They told Wikileaks what had to be redacted and then Wikileaks published it redacted. In fact Wikileaks withheld 15,000 documents from the Afghan war logs, got criticized over redacting too much. Very good. Now we're going to go to another segment. Why is America so intent on bringing Julian Assange to unbelievably draconian justice

of 175 years, i.e. the rest of his life in prison. And by the way, if you're listening, this is John Bolton, with whom Piers Morgan is now talking in a split screen. Well, I think that's a small amount of the sentence he actually deserves. He's committed clear criminal activity. He's no more a journalist than the chair I'm sitting on. The information that he divulged did, in fact, put many people in jeopardy. It undercut the ability of the United States to have confidential diplomatic communications, not just with other foreign governments, but in many countries with

dissidents, people who even speaking to American diplomats could find themselves in trouble. And so, you know, he's been complaining about his treatment over the past period of time. He's the one who sought asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. Now he faces extradition to the United States. I presume he will get due process in the United Kingdom to determine whether extradition should go forward. And when he gets to the United States, he'll get due process here. And I hope he gets at least 176 years in jail for what he did. What a piece of garbage. Well said.

Going back to the folks that redacted, and I want to give them a little opportunity to say something. 175, no, 176 years in prison. Oh, it's because of go ahead go ahead phil oh i was just gonna say like correct me if i'm wrong but as i remember it the the big part of this takeaway was that what uh assange and manning exposed was uh an attack on civilians that killed something like upwards of like 80 civilians wasn't isn't that what like the big yeah takeaway was so what sensitive like diplomatic uh channels were harmed in that like i it's so bizarre right and remember the other footage and uh i i was gonna i was gonna put it in the show but i it's most of you have seen it if you haven't seen it you can go on bit shoot

uh probably on rumble or odyssey and find it uh it's the footage that the u.s helicopter team took while they were shooting civilian camera people and the people who came to rescue them. Just unbelievable, unbelievable stuff. Continuing. I'm not sure. And I think the United States harmed its own diplomatic relationships when it was tapping heads of states' phones, as we learned about, such as Angela Merkel. That was one of the reasons I kept that in there.

Natalie made a great point there. Stella? Well, of course, Ambassador Bolton is kind of the ideological nemesis of Julian. He has, during his time for the Bush administration and later the Trump administration, sought to undermine the international legal system, ensure that the U.S. is not under the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction. And if it was, Mr. Bolton might in fact be prosecuted under the ICC. He was one of the chief cheerleaders of the Iraq War, which Julian then exposed through

these leaks. So he has a conflict of interest here. Ambassador Bolden? Well, that's ridiculous. I have an opinion. through these leaks so he has a conflict of interest here. Ambassador Bull? That's ridiculous I have an opinion so does Assange's wife I guess we both get to speak to him. You know I think that what she fears is being brought to the United States and having Assange put under trial. If he's innocent, if she can at least show reasonable doubt that he's not guilty he'll go free. What's she worried about?

Just laughs, laughs. She just said you should be under trial, but you are changing the circumstances so that you cannot be. Right. So if you believe so heartily in trials, let's all have one. All right. Now, I just want to pause there and I want to bring you some information about John Bolton. I sent it to myself in some emails here, so just going to open these up. Saves me a little bit of space. Here we go.

The Life and Crimes of John Bolton. Let's check that out, shall we? Yeah, let's take a look. Get rid of the whistleblower thing. Bummer. Looks like... There we go. This from July, from the Real News. On July 12th, former U.S. National Security

Advisor John Bolton admitted on national television that he had helped orchestrate coups in foreign countries. Bolton was speaking to CNN host Jake Tapper amidst the hearings in Congress on the January 6, 2021 attack, so-called, on the Capitol by supporters of former President Trump. During the exchange, I don't know how it's an attack when they're let in, many of them, but I wouldn't have done it, but whatever. I don't think Dr. Simone Gold was attacking anyone when she walked on the floor and read something. During the exchange, Bolton stated his disagreement with accusations that the riot was a coup d'etat aimed at the US Constitution, arguing that it was a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence. Tapper then stated, one doesn't have to be brilliant to attempt a coup. Bolton's response in a widely circulated clip was, I disagree with that. As someone who has helped plan coup d'etat, not here, but you know, other places. It takes a lot of work. And that's not what he, Trump, did.

Citing his expertise, quote, having planned coups, end quote, in Tapper's words, Bolton declined to go into specifics, only to say, well, I wrote about Venezuela in the book, The Room Where It Happened, and it, the coup, turned out not to be successful. Not that we had all that much to do with it, but I saw what it took for an opposition to try and overturn an illegally elected president, and they failed. End quote. I see. Well, let's go to another little item from John Bolton. What's wrong with standing trial, says John Bolton. Let's see. Oh, look at this. John Bolton threatens war crimes court with sanctions and virulent attack. U.S. National Security Advisor ICC calls ICC illegitimate and says we will let it die on its own. John Bolton, the hawkish U.S. National Security Advisor, has threatened the International Criminal Court with sanctions and made an excoriating attack

on the institution in a speech in Washington. Bolton pushed for sanctions over an ICC investigation into alleged American war crimes in Afghanistan. He also announced on Monday the closure of the Palestine Liberation Organization office in Washington because of its calls for an ICC inquiry into Israel. What a shock. The United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court, Bolton said. Can you believe that? The United States has been running around ham-fistedly destroying nation after nation after nation, setting things up for cronies to come in and take over. Corporations like BlackRock,

even way back, helping out oil corporations, working with the British to set up Aramco back in the early 1900s. I knew a guy who worked for a Ramco early on. He's like 90-something years old now. This man Bolton is just insufferable. So bad. So bad. Puts his finger to the wind and finds out wherever the bomb smoke is going. Just unbelievable. He doesn't want, he thinks that Julian Assange should be put on trial, extradited for what? The Espionage Act? Tell me how that's constitutional. Where is the United States government in some sort of war right now, Mr. Bolton? You're such an expert. When did the U.S. declare war since World War II? How can there be espionage? At LiveScoreBet, we love Cheltenham just as much as we love football. The excitement, the roar, and the chance to reward you. That's why every day of the festival,

we're giving new members money back as a free sports bet up to 10 euro if your horse loses And how can we have agents running around the planet if there's no war? Why are they doing all of this? Where is that sanctioned by the U.S. Constitution? I don't see it. And I know that presidents have used dark means in the past to get information. George Washington had spies. But I'd like you to justify it. I'd like you to rationalize. Give me some information on this. Because as a Christian anarchist, I don't want to force my neighbor to pay for it. How about you? I think you do, don't you? You also want to force my neighbor to pay for the extradition and torture of Julian Assange. You would like to see him wiped out. You would like to see secrets

like those that were exposed by Chelsea Manning not exposed, wouldn't you? Seems like it to me. Now, let's turn back to video and get some more thoughts from the fine folks over at Redacted, because I want to give them more opportunities. They're fantastic here. Excellent stuff. You have one, too. You are a war criminal, John Bolton. You are a war criminal. Yeah.

And by the way, I want to play for you something now. I set this up, and I'm glad I'm able to fit this in. Now, I just want to give you something, a clip. I want to present you a clip from, I even wrote some notes here, what I think is one of the most prescient and best executed moral allegories of our age. It's a warning against false flags, against fascism, against scientism, against biological engineering. It's Genesis of the Daleks from Doctor Who, starring Tom Baker as the Doctor. This was probably the greatest Doctor Who story ever produced. And second would probably be The Talons of Wang Chiang,

which is an allegory to British colonialism and inflation. And at this time, there clearly were libertarians working on this show. In fact, during this time period, which is now 1975, 76 or so, they actually have an episode where one of the aliens who's fighting against the doctor, not in this story, but a different story, say to another alien, the doctor has a long association with libertarian causes. That term libertarian had not been around for many years. It had only really been coined in the late 60s, early 70s. So this team under Philip Hinchcliffe, who was the producer, produced a show called Genesis of the Daleks, which goes to the Daleks' home planet, where the Khaleds are fighting another race

called the Thals. They've been at war for thousands of years. The doctor has been sent by the Time Lords to stop the Khaleds and their lead scientist, Davros, from genetically engineering the Daleks. Because the Daleks have been genetically engineered without any morals. They're there to destroy and take power. They're all about power. So it's an allegory to fascism and Nazism. You'll see in the costumes very much. They have false flags in it. And the scene that I'm frozen on right here, that I freeze froze, this is actually a false flag just a little spoiler if you haven't seen the show Davros finds out that his research funding is going to be cut so he will no longer be able to develop these super beings called the

Daleks which will be the fighting machines that will allow the Kaleds to be the victors and allow the Daleks to spread throughout the universe and take over everything. And he's a megalomaniac. He thinks that his way is right and everybody should fit into this, kind of like Plato and the guardians. So the scientists, which is what we've got, obviously we have this from the Cowabunga 19, scientism, trust the science. The scientists have been given free reign by the college to develop these machines. But now they found out that the development, the people who have been giving the funding, they found out that the development isn't good. There's an immorality to it.

Davros goes to the Thals and he gives them a secret formula on how to destroy the shell that is around the Khaled city where they're living. It's a protective dome that can protect them from all of the rockets from the falls. And he gives them the formula to destroy his own people. Sound familiar? FDR sound familiar? 9-11? Viral research. Since 1975. Watch this. Because David brought up a point. And my mind went to this a couple of days ago on David's show. And thank you again for letting me fill in, David and Tony. Thank you for your help. And audience, I haven't been able to check. I have to go down and see if I can look in the Rockfin chat, everybody. I really want to look. So I hope you don't mind if there's a momentary distraction in a moment when I try to check on the chat. And I love you all. You're so great. Watch this. Davros ends up capturing the doctor in a moment.

This is sort of a series of clips here. This is where the doctor sees what has been done to the Khaled dome, and he leaves the Thal city. But as he leaves the Thal city, he discovers that the Daleks have been sent to the Thal city, and they're wiping them all out. So the only one standing will be the Daleks, the elite, the genetically engineered, and of course the scientists who created them and so from this scene to the next there's some some material that gets jumped but watch this the doctor realizes he couldn't save the college now he's he'll be captured in a second now he's captured Davros wants to know why he came to the planet Skaro. And the doctor will explain it to him.

And the doctor knows that Davros now understands that he comes from another planet. And he's not sure, but he thinks he understands that he comes from a different time, from the future. To stop the development of the Daleks why because having lived in what you would call the future I have seen the carnage and destruction they have caused and my Daleks do go up they do survive yes there's weapons of hate and machines of war fascinating but there's still time to change all that. Why not make them a force for good throughout the universe? I could do it. Then do it.

Be remembered for that. You have seen my Daleks in battle? Many times. I fought against them. And do they win? Do they always win? Not always. They have been defeated, but never utterly defeated. The Dalek menace always remains. If, as you say, they become the supreme preachers of war, how can they lose? How can they fail? Misfortune, lack of information, sometimes overwhelming opposition.

Yes, but tell me, how do the Daleks fail? No, dear Ross. there is a question that the future must keep secret what mistakes do they make you will tell me no I will not neither Neither. You will tell me, because you have a weakness that I have totally eliminated from the minds of the Daleks so they will always be superior. A weakness that will make you give me the knowledge to change the future. You are afflicted with a conscience.

That applies to us in their eyes. Pompeo, Panetta, CIA, all of them. We are afflicted With a conscience We're afflicted We can't make the nation state grow And become huge Giant leviathan Hegemonic across the world Overthrow the government of Ukraine

In late 2013, early 2014 Mess around With Nazis in Ukraine. Drone kill thousands of people a year. Pompeo. Oh, and then there's this. Check this out. The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there and we don't have to fight Russia here. Oh, of course. Thank you.

What an honorable man. And this. At LiveScoreBet, we love Cheltenham just as much as we love football. The excitement, the roar, And this. biggest week in racing. Cheltenham with LiveScoreBet. This is Total Betting. Sign up by 2pm, 14th of March. Bet within 48 hours of race. Main market excluding specials and place bets. Terms apply.

Bet responsibly. 18plusgamblingcare.ie So if you happen to be an Al-Qaeda or ISIS terrorist, chances are you're not watching our show. Hopefully you're not watching our show. Well, if you happen to be, then NATO and Ukraine want you to come fight in Ukraine and they'll pay you handsomely for it we already knew this was happening but in recent weeks it has actually accelerated in you because

Ukrainian forces have been nearly decimated and wiped away, almost entirely eliminated from the battlefield. I spoke to Colonel Douglas McGregor last night who says the forces are almost gone. Listen. As you point out, most of Ukraine's best forces are gone. They've been killed or wounded. Ukrainians have lost roughly 100,000 dead, perhaps two, three, even 400,000 wounded. They started out with an army of 600,000. Remember, we spent eight years building this army up with the express purpose of attacking Russia. That's what it was designed to do. That's why the Russians attacked it. So, you know, I couldn't help but thinking, and some people in the chat are saying this,

like, you know, Uncle Sam wants you to join us in war. And that's like what I'm thinking when I picture basically like the recruitment now for al-Qaeda and ISIS terrorists in Ukraine. Like, you know, NATO wants you. They want your support, terrorists, to come and fight in Ukraine. So, of course, they need fighters who can become cannon fodder, as Colonel McGregor was telling us last night. And so, in March of this year, the cradle reported that al-Qaeda and ISIS fighters were arriving by the busloads into Ukraine from northern Syria and passing through Turkey. Now, NATO has been paying these al-Qaeda and ISIS fighters a few thousand dollars a month. Just let that sink in for a moment. NATO has been paying these al-Qaeda and ISIS fighters a few thousand dollars a month. Okay.

Did any of you know this? Thank goodness for redacting. Good job. Now, we're going to tie this into Ukraine in just a minute from 2013. I'll show you some images that i put together and uh but i want to i want to give some more time to the redacted team they're just phenomenal here did a great job so i mean it probably warrants more than that kind of a response don't you think like i mean think about this like as American taxpayers or European taxpayers, you are funding terrorists to go into Ukraine. The same organizations that we funded wars to kick them out of places.

Right. Or that we lay claim to. We're fighting ISIS in these particular countries. That's why we need to be in Syria. Or that's why we need to be in Afghanistan. Or that's why we need to be in Syria or that's why we need to be in Afghanistan or that's why we need to be in Iraq or have some kind of a presence. So you can't pay your heating bills right now or your rent, but your tax dollars are going to fund al-Qaeda and ISIS fighters in Ukraine. Yeah. So let's think about this.

Now, I bring it back to 2011. I think it was 2011. I was out in Los Angeles. Might have been late 2011. I was in Los Angeles with my friend Glenn Jacobs, the wrestler formerly known as Kane. He's now the mayor of Knox County in Tennessee. Glenn is a great guy.

And we went to dinner at a Middle Eastern restaurant and the manager came out and he said, you know, they're going to go after Assad. They're going to try to overthrow Assad. And I didn't know what he was talking about. I thought he was like, what? What are you talking about?

He said, look, Assad's not a good guy, but they want to eliminate him. And then I started to look into it. And it had to do with Russian energy exports, as I've mentioned before. So I won't go too far into it because you've heard me discuss it before on David's show, they wanted to block Russian energy exports starting around 2009 when the Russians started to drop long-term U.S. bonds because they saw how much money was being printed and they knew that the dollar was being inflated. The money supply was being inflated and that they would get paid back later with bonds that were virtually worthless. I wouldn't buy anything. So they started to dump them. They started to get their gold. They started to work with other countries. That's how BRICS started to form, the BRICS nations. And it has led to all of this. That is where it started. The U.S. government wanted to isolate Russia. That's why they overthrew Ukraine. They wanted to stop Russian oil exports and natural gas exports through Syria. That's why they tried to overthrow Syria. That's why John McCain is in photographs with guys who helped form ISIS in Syria, the al-Nusra Front. They border between Turkey and Syria. They go back and forth. And if you wonder whether or not John McCain was a real stand-up guy,

whether Joe Biden was a real stand-up guy. Don't forget that these guys went over to Ukraine and started to meet with Ole Tianybak and members of the Slovoda party, which is a neo-Nazi party, as they started to put together the government that later Victoria Nuland and Jeffrey Pyatt were caught on the phone deciding who would go into office. So here's a little bit more for you about these outstanding people. Oh, look, there we are. Victoria Nuland with Mr. Chani Bak. Mr. Chani Bak. Oh, look at that. That is, sorry, let me just bring it down a little bit here. That is Joe Biden. There's Mr. Biden. There's Mr. McCain, Mr. Chani Bak. There she is. And by the way, she's of

Ukrainian heritage. There he is giving the Nazi salute. And there's President Biden. Just before he was brought in to be a power broker with the formation of the new 2014 government for Ukraine, which ended up, as you know, slaughtering thousands over the course of the next few, the next almost decade. That's what they were doing in the Donbass. These people, they were put in by these people, by these people. How is it that a guy who drives around in a little car and listens to punk rock on the CD player can find this information and share it with you guys. And you guys know it already, but you won't see this on ABC News. How is it that you won't see

Jake Tapper bring up these photographs and ask people these questions. Why is it that when Victoria Nuland is in front of Marco Rubio and she openly admits that the United States has been working with that installed Ukrainian government on multiple bioweapons labs, there's no follow-up, really, to investigate it. Why? How in the world do we have to deal with these people who somehow are not afflicted with a Davros would be proud. The Daleks are everywhere. They're here. And it didn't take any genetic manipulation. It's the darkness in the human soul that needs to be overcome. These people are so short-sighted, they don't understand what's at stake it's their own souls it's crazy it's absolutely nuts anyway here's a little bit more from another famous person this will show you what uh editing can do as well Oh, take a little break. My movement's a bit too long. Has your news been censored, banned, censored, banned over and over again?

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 the davidknightshow.com. There you'll find links to live streams, videos, audio podcasts, and support links. Live stream the show at DLive and TREE every Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. Eastern. Videos at Bitchute and Ugetube. New audio podcast, The Real David Knight Show, at Podbean, iTunes, Stitcher, iHeart, Spotify, 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. Please don't forget to share the links and pray for the country as well as our family. Hey, everybody.

I just got the opportunity. Well, that water was great. I just got the opportunity. And I want to switch around just a little bit here and just go over to my screen real quick. So pardon me for going to the infinity screen here. Yeah. Just want to say, uh, thank you so much everybody for the, the tips. Um, it's just so nice what you've done. Uh, and you know, it's, it's, it's really, it's a weird thing, uh, feeling so awful. And I don't know, maybe I've got, you know, conjunctivitis or something like that. I don't know what's going on. Um, but you know, like I told Tony, I look forward to this so much. And it's because of you guys and David and Tony. It's just fantastic. And I'm going to be, you know, trying to do my own stuff a little bit more. You know, and I do work for MRCTV, but you don't

get to, you know, chat with people so i want to i want to thank real mccoy uh i want to thank lori light lori light uh you know every time i see your handle lori i think of red lori yellow lori uh it's it's really cool um and i wanted uh brian deb mccartney um so many awesome awesome people who have been just uh really nice and thank you so much for your donations everyone um i really really appreciate it real mccoy great stuff and i think tony is uh in the back room jason jason i go i want one of those coins jason big time want one of those coins so i'm checking out my little monitor, putting that aside. Tony, how you doing, man? What's up, Bart? Great show.

Oh, thanks, man. Thank you. Thank you so much. You know, it's great to see you, dude. And thanks for your help this morning, too, getting everything all together. My pleasure. together. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. I'm just turning my volume up there a little bit. Yeah. So hopefully I don't sound like, you know, I'm too tortured or anything like that. And then I'm putting out some good information. So Tony, I, I, I'm really curious. I'd love to get your, you know, your background in the military and, um, your research into things like false flags and the way that patriotism, they reframe it into nationalism, into blind nationalism. A person like Leon Panetta applauding the so-called Facebook whistleblower for joining this. Obviously, just this shill of a group that's going to be further promoting more censorship online. Then we have Julian Assange's wife going up against John Bolton. And it was pretty funny, actually.

I was listening to Russell Brand and his producer goes, yeah, well, you know, she was talking to Michael Bolton. And Russell Brand's like, no, Michael Bolton. No, no, no, no, Michael Bolton. He's all right. It was hilarious. He goes, oh, I have a couple of his albums. No, he's all right. Oh, no.

Reminds me of Office Space. No, you can just call me Mike, you know. Yeah. Oh, the Mike. Yeah. Or the mustache. Yeah. I'd love to get your thoughts on this. As a guy who, you know, you enter the military and, you know, I almost went into the Navy because of my father from World War II. And I'm glad I didn't now, you know, because I would have been used.

And it's so troubling. I mean, you're a survivor. So many other guys didn't survive. Women didn't survive. And people who have seen these decisions that they've had to make and they've made the wrong decisions, I don't know. I don't know how people deal with it. Maybe you can sort of expand on that a little bit. Well, it's not easy.

Sometimes you never really get to deal with it? Maybe you can sort of expand on that a little bit. Well, it's not easy. Sometimes you never really get to deal with it. You know, these decisions, if you're a part of the warrior class, if you sign up to serve this country, unfortunately, the country and the foreign policy is run by psychopaths and Luciferians, as we found out over the many years. And our foreign policy is built on false flags that's how we arrived at our current situations it's all false flags i mean it has it's the fruit of the poisonous tree guard and that's really unfortunate it's a hard pill to swallow um you know in the veteran community of people that i serve with i mean they tolerate me some of them are still my friends um. My wife was my combat

medic on my first tour in Kosovo. I'm still close with people, but they understand that I have a, and I started to get that take even as a young man, in my early twenties, and especially Iraq, I was vehemently opposed to, I was going to be a part of the invasion force. And I thought, what are we doing? What is the, what are you, what, what logic is this? And then I didn't know about the neocons. That's before I read like Buchanan's the death of the West and really went into the foundation of Trotskyism and what neoconservatism is and how, I mean, just, just shape-shifting and evil that movement was and how it hijacked the movement that Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater had put into motion there at the end of the Cold War.

I mean, it really was just an evil genius, the way they were able to infiltrate the real conservative movement and then turn that around to where patriotism and and love of the republic meant bombing people all day every day everywhere on behalf of multinational corporations and foreign lobbies like the israeli lobby yeah it's uh it's amazing you know my mom was born again christian and um used to talk about how, you know, we, you know, it's the royal we. It's always the royal we, and people got to break out of that thinking. We have to support Israel. We have to do this. We have to do that.

I said, Mom, you know, there's a problem here because you're assuming for other people what their priorities have to be. If you want to write a check to help Israel, you go ahead. Sure. You know, and that's your choice. But nobody ever asks me what my opinion on Ecuador is. Like, are you supporting Nicaragua? I mean, no one ever says like, hey, you seem like a decent person. Obviously, all of your support is behind Singapore.

No one ever does that. It's only that one thing, right? And then they've morphed. It's a nation state. It has its own self-interest, and you can look into the history of it. Again, this is the David Knight show, so you guys go do your own research. I just see it as another country. It has its own interest. It's going to have its own agenda. But again, when we talk about the project for the new American century, you're talking about the, you know, September of 2000, that document, the catastrophic and catalyzing event that they needed, such as a new Pearl Harbor, that project for the new American

century was about rogue state rollback, as John McCain would call it, but it was, you know, seven countries in five years that General Wesley Clark talked about. That's all of that built in to Operation Chaos in the Middle East. It was setting the United States foreign policy up for what was most important to that group of intellectuals, you know, such as Bill Kristol and Paul Wolf and others, you know. And so, and others. We have foreign interests and international interests that run the United States government and foreign policy. I always go back to this one example, and I'm sure you know it well, Gard, but Strobe Talbot.

This is so shocking to me. The guy was Secretary of State for the Clinton administration, and he said, this is before Madeleine Albright said it was acceptable for half a million Iraqi women and children to die because of our sanctions. But Strobe Talbot said that the nation state was irrelevant. I'm paraphrasing, but basically it was obsolete. And I'm thinking, but you're the secretary of the state. I mean, they believe they're internationalists they believe in some sort of one world realpolitik you know that you're i mean you're familiar with all this

stuff but that's really what we're talking about and if you listen to talk radio if you listen to like conservative talk radio now which i'm still a tiny sliver a part of, but I used to fill in for, or not to fill in. I used to follow Mark Levin, uh, on freedom 1160. It doesn't exist anymore, but it's in San Antonio. I had a daily show and I'd go finish everything at the shop and I'd drive over the studio and I'd do it at 8 PM central time. But, uh, a lot of those callers that were calling Mark Levin were from San Antonio. You could hear him call him.

They never called my show because I, I would always start off talking something about foreign policy, the military industrial complex, the surveillance state. And it's kind of like, well, this guy's a vet, but he doesn't want to go bomb everybody. And that's what's exciting to that demographic. There's a big demographic there. They always want to talk about external threats, external things. But the thing is for guys like us and what we found in our research, is that everything is internal. Yeah. Right? It's all internal.

And, you know, you look at what's happening in Ukraine and Russia and this tragedy that's unfolding before our eyes. It's like this slow motion, like we're going over the precipice, and I'm like just trying to stop it. And, you know, sometimes history is out of your hands. stop it. And, you know, it sometimes history is out of your hands. We're just we're just men, you know, just individuals. Yeah. I haven't even I haven't even discussed the lack of response on the part of the Biden administration. In fact, it's a twisting of a response by the Biden administration and the State Department, where Putin extended again the offer to negotiate. And they're saying essentially that he hasn't done that and that they're not going to listen. What choice do they have?

I mean, they've got to have – see, they're playing by the old rules. The old rules were you rattle your saber, you get to the table you guys work out you bang out something that you both can agree on and live with but the problem is they can't live with nato on their border or in bio labs and nuclear weapons and exactly there's never happened before and i you know that's that's that's what bothers me so much about this this is why i'm so pessimistic on it because even in our you know even when reagan was calling the soviet union an evil empire reagan wanted to abolish all nuclear weapons yeah you know he ramped it up because he what he wanted was to end the cult you know they went or we win they lose that was his foreign policy i get it and again you you know fast

forward to the end of the 1980s and he's walking through Red Square with Gorbachev, patting him on the back and praying over Soviet citizens. I mean, so this is a remarkable shift where we're just like, no, there is no negotiating. We're expanding NATO. So it's a question of national survival for the Russians. I don't have to agree with that. It's funny because it's kind of like the left-right paradigm here. Like, oh, you don't like Joe Biden, so really you're a Trump guy. No. I can have multiple viewpoints. I don't have to just go where, just because it's the opposite. So I'm not really sticking up for Vladimir Putin, but I will say that if I was in the Russian

government, I'd be looking at the United States and thinking, you guys are schizophrenic. All of the most dangerous people. I mean, look at the 2016 election. Hillary Clinton was saying that we were going to shoot down Russian aircraft that were trying to kill Al-Qaeda in Syria, which we have no business in, but we're willing to risk a nuclear showdown so we can protect the people that supposedly attacked us on 9-11. I mean, the amount of crazy in that. Yes.

It should have been a big red flag to everybody. But I don't know. I was watching those debates in 2016 going, is anybody else listening to this? This lady, you know, and that's kind of, but that's the Paul, you talk about Leon Panetta and all these, these people have are unhinged. I mean, John and these other, I mean, they're just completely unhinged. Like for their hobby horses, Russia. And it's really interesting, isn't it? Oh yeah. Oh yeah. Yeah. It's, it's very strange. It's almost like they've been put through indoctrination camps and it's like they have blinders like they're horses and they can only see one direction. And it doesn't go outside. That's what it's like. They're walking around in their gown her. Just absolutely vile. And really, I think it really just in a snapshot showed what the type of character that that person is. And yet for

quite a while, I think many people finally turned on him when he was sort of wishy-washy with Trump. But for quite a while, he was held up by many of the traditional conservatives who were sort of pulled in by the neocon agenda yes i remember a famous uh uh painting that somebody did it was called like crossing the swamp and it was kind of in a in the spirit of washington crossing the delaware but it was trump in a boat and they're in dc and they're you know they're going through the swamp right and trump's up front and he's got his leather jacket on and bomber jacket but in the boat is john bolton with a with a shotgun and i thought what is he going to do shoot trump in the back what what did who put this in this painting but to them to the person who made that like that was it was so funny it's like during the q anon thing when they had like

uh here's what's going to scare the deep staters. And it's Bill Barr. And I'm like, Bill Barr is the deep state. What planet is that? I know. What? Yeah, that's the thing. John Bolton, I mean, just a warmonger of the highest order. And even if you just take that away, his foreign policy moves are all defunct, all bankrupt uh they huge mistakes all of them were

bad so even if you just take the warmonger out and say well you know how are you on the grand chessboard fail yeah and you failed and uh none of those guys got called to the carpet i mean even george w bush called uh william crystal and charles crownhammer all these guys like he called him the bomber boys i mean even he got it so i mean so i i don't even i don't think he got most things but he got that right yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah well you know it blows me away it blows me away tony because you know guys like they will be, it's amazing the way the media will play these guys off. You know, John Bolton is now brought on as, as this voice of reason where five years ago, the left was portraying him as some sort of, you know, evil person, you know, and it's,

it's one of these things where it's like, look, you can't continue to do this. You know, evil person, you know, and it's, it's one of these things where it's like, look, you can't continue to do this, you know, it's just not working. And it's similar to me. It's a similar thing that I see with the COVID stuff, you know, and people are waking up to the fact that they've been taken for a massive ride. And unfortunately, this ride is leading to a lot of deaths. And as many of these little alphabet groups that they can create with Leon Panetta and this woman from Facebook joining them and things like that, I don't think that they're going to overcome the grassroots communication that we have with each other. The problem that I see is that the regulatory system that's already been established with things like energy and food, the EPA, the FDA, CDC, they are so entrenched and the money

is so important to so many governors that you're not going to see too many governors be as gutsy as Ron DeSantis and give the middle finger that many times because their budgets are dependent. Their welfare systems are dependent. Their police are dependent. Their Medicare systems are dependent. And if they don't get the money from the feds, they're screwed. Now, I wanted to bring up one other thing, Tony, and I hope you don't mind. I'm just going to go over to this story that I wrote recently for MRCTV. There are a couple of these. First, the feds announced a pilot program for major U.S. banks to manage climate-related financial risks.

So I'm going to click on this. And I've got – I shot a video, and I can play the video, or I can just read it aloud. But I'd love to get your thoughts on it either way. I can show it to the audience in video form, whatever you'd like to do, or I can just read it out loud to people. Let's show it. Show it? All right. So let's hit it up here. Here we go.

And sorry, folks, getting the infinity screen. All right, here we go. Hey, have you heard of ESG? Not extrasensory perception, ESP, but the top-down Marxism meets fascism command and control plan being constructed via executive orders, restrictions of our lives and commerce, which are really one and the same, restrictions of our free speech, and of our bank accounts. Hey, you can forget market price signals, profit and loss, resource discovery, market-based resource allocation, and competition, because now you can get ready. The Federal Reserve and government-friendly banks are preparing us for ESG.

Hi, everyone. I'm Gardner Goldsmith for MRCTV, and here is the story. In a newly revealed document, the federally created fiat money printer of the Federal Reserve announced on September 29th that it has wrangled six major U.S.-based banks to create a key component in the government's crony push for environmental social governance, ESG, presaging a monitored, carbon-taxing, digital currency-based economic system that rewards or punishes people like you, depending upon how well you conform to corporate government policy edicts. Their initial boast, quote, the Federal Reserve Board on Thursday announced that six of the nation's largest banks will participate in a pilot climate scenario analysis exercise designed to enhance the ability of supervisors and firms to measure and manage climate-related financial risks.

The entire concept indicates just how strong are the ties between the central bank, which the U.S. government has unconstitutionally granted the power to create and control U.S. government has unconstitutionally granted the power to create and control U.S. legal tender, and other banks. And that opener, it drops a bigger payload. For the final phrase there, to measure and manage climate-related financial risks, hints at more than just investment and loan liabilities from any natural disasters that these woke shirts might errantly ascribe to the mythological monster of man-made climate change. Now, the six banks are Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan, and Wells Fargo. And as you can see, and as readers of my MRCTV piece will see by visiting any of the hyperlinks in the article, every one of those banks is already deeply involved in pushing the ESG agenda. And the Fed document indicates that these banks

will begin formulating the rules for what are environmental liabilities. And you can bet simple energy use will be near the top of their list. And of course, they're going to put together metrics, metrics by which they will arbitrarily establish how much those environmental liabilities cost. It's another manifestation of the top-down climate credit scheme we've seen with the regional greenhouse gas initiative that has been started in nine northeastern states. It's arbitrary price so-called attachments placed on carbon-based fuels that have nothing to do with the market, which will be enforced by political entities or by entities tied to the national banking system and, of course, the international banking system and the multinational

political regulatory system they've been setting up to fearmonger about climate for a long, long time. The modus operandi runs along typical lines, wherein national politicians, bureaucrats, Fed-connected U.S. bankers, and corporate cronies will partner with each other and partner with international politicians, bureaucrats, crony bankers, and corporations to toss around terms such as stakeholder as they decide who will get to contribute plans to their centrally planned fascist political economy. Following the rent-seeking pattern that economists James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock pointedly dissected in their political careers, these politically favored stakeholders define the terms, create exclusive barriers to entry, and engage in a feedback loop

that favors the politicians, bureaucrats, ideologues, and banking interests that, in return, help them by forming official policy that affects everybody. It's policy, of course, which means government commands, that if you defy them, you do it at risk of government and government corporate retribution. The Federal Reserve gushes about this in their press release. Quote, the pilot exercise will be launched in early 2023 and is expected to conclude around the end of the year. At the beginning of the exercise, the board will publish details of the climate, economic and financial variables that make up the climate scenario narratives. You know, strangely, the Fed hasn't mentioned people who engage in scenario narratives all the time, every day as part of their role in the market. And those would be insurance companies and reinsurance companies, which have a financial interest in calculating risk and transmitting that

information to clients in the form of, oh, higher charges for insurance against disaster. Check the insurance policies for homes and property anywhere along a seaboard, not just immediately beside the beach, however. Sure, at the beach, you can see if insurance costs have risen as a result of higher water tables or bigger, badder cyclonic storms. By the way, there have been fewer of them since 1990. And if the rates have increased in Concord with general inflation and relative to the increasing values of in-demand properties, all of which play a role in repair costs should a storm hit Park. You won't see a climate change surcharge for risk because it's not a risk. And any insurance company that tries to apply such a surcharge would lose customers in a free market because customers could see that it's not a risk

to their property and would shop for insurance elsewhere as many folks have pointed out and as successful investor real estate mogul and entrepreneur dan pena has said if the climate cult is right and the water on the planet will rise 10 feet over the next 40 to 50 years, that's by the best scenario by many of the climate cultists. Well, he says, that means England is gone. Most of Europe is gone. And I can go, most of Central America is gone. Okay. If that's the case, in the prospectus, you invest, there should be, in the footnotes, if global warming is for real, they won't put it that way, global warming happens and water rises 10 feet, this investment, has alluded to global warming.

In a natural free market, climate change fears are not a risable factor at all. Top down world where politicians and their cronies create arbitrary carbon taxes and other penalties for not complying with their edicts. Does one see a fraudulent political market being created? A system that's not really a market at all, but is a way for neo feudal lords to impose their wills, claim certain activities are sinful, then demand we or our businesses pay them indulgences to continue what in reality is an activity that isn't harming anybody. It's an imminent extortion racket, and the Federal Reserve celebrates its construction. Quote, over the course of the pilot, participating firms will analyze the impact of the scenarios on specific portfolios and business strategies. The board will then review firm analysis and engage with those firms to build capacity to manage climate related financial risks. insights gained from the pilots at an aggregate level reflecting what has been learned about climate risk management practices and how insights from scenario analysis will help identify potential

risks and promote risk management practices. No firm-specific information will be released. Does anyone else see this as another piece of the ESG puzzle? I'll pause it there, Tone, and go back to us. I think seeing my face on there is enough, but I think we get the message. I don't know if you want me to switch over the screen or if you want to switch over we're good okay cool man i put us back normal brother i was thinking about you know it's so funny you know you could really roll with a lot of this the the climate change narrative and just say okay well i think climate change is the root cause of right-wing nationalism and in order and be like there's so much climate change is great and so that it's it's like that

that creates it and so you'd have to say well there is no climate change so it would go away out of something like that maybe throw it back in their lap be like every time it gets worse it keeps growing i'm you know we have to stop the climate change because you know so they can't ever have it go away uh that's what i was thinking but you know, we have to stop the climate change because, you know, so they can't ever have it go away. That's what I was thinking. But, you know, it's funny. Nothing real. You know, Harry Truman said it best. The only thing new under the sun is the history you don't know. And you're talking to me. I feel like we're in the Gary Allen book of none dare call it conspiracy all over again. You have all financiers, the multinationalabanks, and they're setting up communism.

Oh, who knew? I was talking about yesterday on the show. I'm like, this has never happened before. I can't believe it. So true. No, I was going to say I was going to pull out Wall Street and the Bolsheviks by a sudden. By a sudden. Yeah, I got it right here behind me. Yeah, yeah, exactly.

Exactly. And it's so funny uh i just have to mention i was watching amazing polly the other day i saw on her bookshelf she had uh um um uh do not live by lies on her bookshelf i was like oh that's great yeah i i agree with you and and it makes me it makes me you know i think about these guys who came ahead of me, people like Sam Blumenfeld and John Taylor Gatto and, you know, Charlotte Azabeat and, you know, some of those folks. And, you know, my dad was friends with Sam Blumenfeld and Sam's work influenced Charlotte and influenced John Taylor Gatto. And my dad edited that book called NEA Trojan Horse of American Education. And, you know, they were they were on top of a lot of this stuff. And there were so few. You had guys at the John Birch Society and, you know, none dare call a conspiracy.

But now, thanks to you and thanks to other people, you know, checking out Jay Dyer stuff. Jay does great work. Charlie. Charlie Robinson's awesome. Billy Ray is awesome. Don. Don Jeffrey's great. You know, these guys, you guys are wealths of information. You're like, it's like that generation, I think, can be very happy that such solid guys have picked up and caught on to what has been going on with the trilaterals going back to the Rockefellers. That source of evil, that corporatism. And I have to

say, Tony, I mentioned this maybe once to you off the air, but I think the Brits, some of the more, curiously, some of the more left-wing Brits were a little bit ahead of me regarding corporatism. And again, I'll refer to Dr. Who, I mentioned this before, but they have a fantastic episode called The Sunmakers. And it's basically about corporatism, colonialism, that sort of stuff. And the doctor and his companion, Lila, they land on Pluto, which is just one giant city. It's covered with these things called Magropolises, which makes you think about what they've been trying to do in the United States with manipulating things and getting the cities connected. And everybody who's there, it's multi-generational, basically just victims of this corporation that's been granted the right to run Pluto

with all the people there is basically corporate serfs. And they go through their lives constantly in debt from day one. And when their parents die, they have to pay this massive debt surcharge to get rid of the body. And they put something in the air to basically anesthetize people. But when you go down to the low, low, low levels, it's not in the air. And that's where the revolutionaries live, down in the subsections. So the doctor hooks up with these people. And the curious thing about it that I found out, and again, this was during that period of Philip Hinchcliffe producing, and the writer on it, I believe, was Robert Holmes, who wrote a lot of great stories. It's mostly interiors. And the signs on all the hallways are the names of British tax forms.

So when you have to go down hallway, you know, XY203, that's a British tax form that they have up on the wall. So they're walking through this world of British taxes. it's just genius it's so good and um and you know i thought about later how corporations oh the kitty cat wants some attention she's going to probably come down and join me in a second tony do you oh by the way do you have do you have beans the brave there i've got beans the brave in studio we can we can bring her on here before we close out. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'll see if I can get Flandre to stop by. Flandre, I always sing songs to Flandre. I sing the Star Wars theme to Flandre. And I sing.

And then when she wants to go to the garage, I do La Cucaracha. Oh, okay. Go garagey, go garagey, go, go, go, go, go garage. She's looking at me like, I want some fish just get a fish man so anyway but um yeah i i think i think you know the the question of whether or not this can can be resolved through political means is is a difficult one um but i think clearly we know the forces that are up against us now and how they've been cobbled together throughout many, many years, this feedback rent seeking loop.

And I unfortunately, I think many lefties and I talked to Captain Sensible about this or the damned, the guitarist of the damned. He and I agree on so many things. He sat down with me one time at this place before they had a show. And because we knew each other. And as he goes, oh, God, can I sit with you? I'm like, yeah, sure. So we had some like falafel together with a friend. And we're down in Boston. And, you know, this is the guitars for the first punk band that ever released a single in England.

That's Captain Sensible. They're, you know, they influenced the Offspring, so many different bands. 80s by Killing Joke is a takeoff of a song by The Damned. And they're great. They're just great. They're legendary. They're awesome. Chrissy Hind was almost in an original version of The Damned. And she's friends with them as well from The pretenders. So he comes from a more left-wing background, Captain Sensible, but he's very much in favor of peace. And he sat down with us. We were talking about Libya. And he says, oh, you know why they did

that? And I said, yeah. And he goes, yeah, because he was going to form a gold-based currency. I was like, yeah, Captain, exactly. This guy's the guitarist for a punk band in england and he knows it right now the the problem is and he's very anti-corporatist but then he would say well you know guard we need to have some sort of safety net we need to you know stop the big corporations i'm like how do you think they got so big this is how they get big. You think you're creating a protection force when the protection force is a corporation and you're forcing it on everybody. They have no competition. And you think they're going to protect you from other corporations. They need those corporations to get reelected. That's how it works. And it's particularly in that case with General Dynamics and all the defense contractors, and now with Big Pharma and the communications people. So I don't know,

maybe I'm wrong, but I'd love to get your thoughts on this ESG thing and that video that I put together, because this is clearly, they're putting this together now and they're using corporate banking government ties and they're trying to put these rules in place so that people think that when the rules are applied, they're just natural parts of the way the economy works. When they have arbitrarily come up with these things. It reminds me, I'm sure you're familiar with Christopher Hitchens, the late Christopher Hitchens. He died in 2011. I always wondered what his last words were.

So I looked a few years ago, I looked it up. He was dying of esophageal cancer in a hospital in Houston. And his last words were capitalism downfall. He was thinking about that was right around the time of the massive amount of injection of of of dollars into the system by the Federal Reserve to continue to keep the markets propped up. And after TARP and all the rest that you're really familiar with, gold had gone to a $2,000 an ounce or close to it. And the silver price had reached $50 an ounce. And the feds stepped in and said, we won't do this again. So everybody calmed down, right? So it was,

it was looking at that time was going to be the big shift in people using the dollars, the reserve currency and savings. But the Fed stopped that from happening, stopped the bleeding. And so the price of gold receded, the price of silver receded. I think this is what you're watching is is capitalism in and of itself is dead. I mean, what we understand, like I'm a capitalist because, and I say that loosely because I do believe in, I mean, I think a lot of the, and you and I would have a great talk on this because I've studied the Ayn Rand philosophies and libertarian philosophies and all the rest, and I'm more of a paleo con guy. My friend and your friend, Donald Jeffries wrote the book, Survival of the Richest, and he talked about how wonderful Huey Long was. I happen to agree with a lot of the stuff that after you really see what he was talking about, that some of the things that Huey Long was going after before he was murdered.

But I think I think if you really boil it down like I can go and and start a business and to do all the forms and all the regulation and take the risk. If I fail, I fail. You know, in the lingo of growing up with my father and my grandfather, it's called you go kiss the pig when you fail. You know, you're done. Well, these kind of companies like BlackRock and these multinational financiers and who have gotten control. And again, the reason why I say it's a death, death of capitalism is because your grandfather's stock market was based on

profit. Like the company had to serve the customer and had to make, it was going to go and be competitive and it had to have the ultimate edge. And it used information. It's kind of like Gordon Gekko in the movie wall street, you know, you know, blue horseshoe loves Anacost steel, that kind of stuff, because it was about taking things and like getting production out.

Now it's all gone. Yeah. I say it's all gone because all you have to worry about now is what is my relationship with the central bank? And that's where it comes into. It's not about profit anymore. So the entire construct of the stock market, as I understand it, is void because it's not based off of, did I earn? Did I beat my competition? Did I make a better widget? That's all over with. And the top echelon, but us, see, the thing is we're still practicing free market.

And it's like what Gore Vidal said, you know, we have a free enterprise for the poor and socialism for the rich. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Yeah. And, and, uh, you know, in that article, uh, that I wrote about the ESG and the federal reserve, uh, excuse me, that under the Trump CARES Act, they literally have a clause in that statute that allows the Federal Reserve to buy the bonds of any corporate entity that they want to buy without releasing that information to anybody, as you know. So that's a direct link now for them to create the rules by which they will say you are favored or unfavored. And as you know, the way economics unfortunately works with central banking is the people who get the money first get to use it before the buying power of it depreciates. And so they have now opened a direct channel to allow the Federal Reserve to bail out anybody they want, to favor anybody they want or or any form of industries they want, without any legislation in any way whatsoever. And even if legislation had been passed, it wouldn't be

constitutional in the first place. So they've completely circumvented everything, all under the auspices of maintaining this debt-ridden government. And as they do it, they keep increasing the amount of money that's out there and destroying our buying power. You know, Tony, I had a couple of things. I just wanted to get your thoughts on this. And I get, yeah, I agree with you. I, my friend, Sheldon Richmond, an ARCO voluntarist said that many years ago, probably about 10, 12 years ago, told me he used to edit the Freeman Magazine. And he now heads up the Libertarian Institute and works with a lot of anti-war people. Great guy. And his books are phenomenal. And so he said, yeah, Gard, I don't use the term capitalist anymore. There's a kitty cat. He says, I use free market or I used controlled market or centralized corporatist state, that sort of thing. You know, he says, but I don't use capitalism anymore because capitalism says it was,

it was essentially kind of brought to the fore by Marx anyway. Um, but, uh, he says, I don't want to use their terminology because when they use capitalism, they really mean mercantilism. And, uh, you know, Adam Smith spoke about mercantilism a long time ago. Um, and, uh, this, this is, again, you know, this is one of the areas where you and I might disagree because I think, unfortunately, you can't put the tariff power inside the hands of politicians and not have it start to get manipulated. I don't disagree with you. I mean, I think, okay, so here's where we would probably disagree. I think the tariff, nations rise on economic nationalism. There is no example of a nation rising to prominence on free open and free

trade. There is none. They don't, they don't, they decline on it. It's, it's all throughout history. And then we could talk about that.

The reason is, is because the, you know, the economist and the political class will preach it, but when it comes to actually practicing it, they don't do it. That's why the Chinese still have like 50% tariffs. I mean, they make Smoot-Hawley look tame back from the 2930 era in the United States. So I don't think that – and again, the Chinese use our old playbook,

and that's how we beat the British. It's how we – the British had It's how we you know, the British had the empire, which the sun would never set. But the United States eclipsed that really quickly because the British went free trade and they went off the gold standard. And we just caught up. You know, we caught up with them really quick. So I would say that I agree with that. But now who's going to implement that? Like we we don't have representation. And for what I just said doesn't even make sense to the average politician like, you know, that, you know, Pat Buchanan's written you do the math. And so if you had a 25 percent tariff on incoming manufacturing goods, just 25 percent across the board, you could eliminate the corporate income tax in this country. So that would mean you would offset whatever losses or whatever price increases you would have, you would completely offset by the amount of sheer investment that would be going on in this country. It would free up a lot. And that way, say, if you want to do business here, then you move your factory here. That's what a tariff

is. The problem is, I don't know who would implement it. So now I'm just kind of like, well, let's let it be. So until we actually had any real representation, because they're, and they're, they're not going to use the tariff unless it was actually hurting us. So that might be a thing too, you know, because now we look more, we, we look like the colonies again, because of how much we import. Yeah, you know, and I do have to, you know, sort of stand up for my free market roots here and just mention there are some examples. Like if you look at the Dutch after they got free from Spain, they were very free market and they survived. The question is, how long can it survive? And I think this is a major dilemma. And some people say, well, you just have to try to manage whatever income source you're

going to try to have so that that feedback loop doesn't get created. Personally, I think tariffs are a bad idea because they can be manipulated. And I think the fair trade fraud by James Bovard is an excellent example of that. And the information he got from that was not supposed to be released. He got like 500 pages of stuff that he sneaked out in his pants from a gathering. It was amazing. He's just the coolest dude. But, you know, showed all these crazy tariffs that they've got on stuff people don't even know, like French brassieres and all this stuff. And, you know, it's a way to play favorites. The question I think, and then this brings me back to my anarchist roots. And, and

again, people will question whether or not that's, that is practicable now. But I think the problem is the state. The problem is that any agency that claims some sort of power to be able to get money for itself is going to start playing favorites on whom it punishes when it takes that money or whom it favors by reciprocal means when it takes that money. And so I think that, I mean, we look at the civil war, that was one of the major problems that brought about the civil war was the tariff. And, you know, but then again, you look at another example, just to, you know, again, play my side of it a little bit. You look at why they put the interstate commerce clause in that originally was supposed to be put in so that states wouldn't have conflicts against each other over tariffs. So it's difficult because then if you say, okay, look, if you're going to fund the state in some other way, what's the other way? A flat tax, is that going to work politically? This is where I always run into the situation of decentralize, make it

smaller, experiment, compare. At least that's closer to the people the way F.A. Hayek described it. You've got the information problem. Things are so big, you just can't have one rule dominating everybody. Now, personally, I would rather have no state at all, no force, because that's the only moral option for human interaction is not to engage in aggressive violence against another person. So all forms of the state to me are illegitimate, morally illegitimate. The question is, if you're going to have it and you're going to be stuck with it. What's the best form? And I agree with you. I think a tariff was seen by many people. Jefferson himself saw that as an option. I think by mid-1800s, it was seen as failing, unfortunately. And that also was very tied into the monetary system that Andrew Jackson tried to hope, tried unsuccessfully to unsuccessfully to, to, uh, uh, set right.

And he couldn't do it because Hamilton had set it up so well. So I think all of these are endemic to the state. And, um, I don't know how, you know, I don't know exactly how to get around it, but there are examples in historically that at least I can look back on and say, well, at least those guys did it right. At least can smile at the ancient irish or the ancient ancient vikings you know well sure um and i i'm sure i was thinking primarily of empires and you know great powers you know that you know that again that was something that germany did uh they put they put the tariff on back in the 1870s and And that's where you, you, again, they grew into the Bismarckian, you know, empire that would again go up against the British and the Americans

eventually in the French and World War I. So I think that's, it's a good debate to have, but it's kind of irrelevant now. We watched the last many decades, the free trade policies, the United States siphon off the wealth, the technology, the spirit. You know, we were once the manufacturing marvel of mankind. You know, there's that great picture comparison of Detroit in 1945, this bustling, you know, this city that's making everything for the great arsenal of democracy, so-called. And there's all these, you know, new buildings and all this construction going on. And then it shows Hiroshima completely decimated. And then you fast forward to like 2012, and here's Detroit looks like Hiroshima, and Hiroshima looks like Detroit, you see.

And that's what we did. That's what free trade, in my opinion, the free trade policies, the general agreement on trade and tariffs, the WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA. That's what, to me, because what you, again, you have a, we have regulation, we have taxation, all this stuff pressing down on these companies. And then we say, oh, by the way, here's a back door. You can move your factory to Mexico, ship it back in. No, no cost, no big deal.

Just run it straight over the border. So those companies have no incentive to fight for freedom and fight for tax reform or fight for low or no tax. They don't have any incentive. And now that's kind of morphed into this ESG thing where they're just like, well, my incentive isn't even profit anymore. And that's what,

that's really the thing. But yeah, you're, I mean, you're classically educated on this entire subject matter and I find it fascinating. It's a good conversation. I think when we talked about when we did our hair truther episode,

we kind of went back and forth on some of this stuff. I'm really flexible on it because I don't, I'm with you. I mean, I'm anti-state. Yeah. The only thing, the only time you can really have a Republic guard is in a small localized thing. You just start,

when you start growing it outward and outward and outward, I think you just lose the bigger the government, the smaller the citizen. That's really what, so I think we can agree on that. And, and so part of, part of my nationalistic side fights my anarchist side. They battle all the time in my head because I'm like, well, I, you know, I believe in the country, so I'd like to see it strong. But these are all theoretical things. I mean, I've been reading about economic nationalism for years and fascinated with it. But I don't know if that will ever be a reality just based off of, I mean, what are you going to get Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell to like,

understand what we just said? I mean, that was never. They're too busy counting the money from their, their payoff people. Now, let me ask you a question. This, this has a bit of a frame up here, but this is something I've been intrigued to ask about. I often think about these sorts of things. I wish, but this is something I've been intrigued to ask about. I often think about these sorts of things. I wish my dad were around and I could talk to him about it. But you're going to take the place of my dad for a second, okay, buddy? So that's a good thing, man.

And again, you know, to the audience, everybody out there, thank you so much for donating and everything. And remember, Tony, give a quick plug on how people can contact you over at WiseWolfGold. Just go to DavidKnight.Gold. Everything through DavidKnight.Gold. And you can even join Wolfpack, which we are getting. I mean, it's really taking off. Wolfpack is going to be so much fun. I've been sending out packages all this week and last week,

and Kenzie's working on the spreadsheets for me because that's a guaranteed monthly deal and David gets credit for that as well. So anytime you join it's just locked in and unlike just going and buying gold or silver direct, you're going to get discounts and deals. We actually show you a comparison sheet. We don't know what you're going to get, but it's going to be something we bought in, you know, through, uh, through individuals or through wholesalers. And we'll be able to put together this. Everybody gets pretty much the same thing if you're in that tier. So if you join as a lone wolf, it's 50 bucks. You're going to get the same thing that everybody else got for the most part, right? Depending on what time it goes out. So, uh, really excited about that. You can join

through, uh, davidknight.gold.Gold. And we've had a lot of success. And I'm just really thankful to be associated with this program. I mean, you talk about the history that we're a part of right now, Gar. Like, it's crazy that you and I get to fill in for, I mean, David's the greatest broadcaster of our time. I don't know. No one touches David Knight. His capacity. I don't even understand it. It's like, it just blows my mind. And yes, the Wolfpack, Tony, you are, the way you operate is so smooth. It's so well done. I know, you know know you're probably doing a million things back there but you treat people so well and I just want to mention everybody if I can get two or three more people to investigate the wolfpack David Knight

dot gold that'd be awesome because I'm I'm in I'm in and I got mine yeah you did you did get yours that's right yes yes it's so worth it it's so worth it right now so let me let me frame this for you. Because I often think to myself, and again, audience, thank you so much for accepting me, you know, being sick like this. And Tony, thanks again, too. But so let's look at it this way, right? If we think about, I often wonder whether just free markets are susceptible to this. And, you know, this is generally a philosophical question, whether they will morph into this itself anyway. But when we look at, I mentioned the last time I filled in for David, I was talking

about how even ancient man, you know, high schools and middle schools, they get it wrong. They say, oh, division of labor started when men had settled agriculture. That's false. Division of labor started as early as mankind because it's a state of nature for people who are weaker to not go out and be liabilities on the hunt. They're going to stay inside and do something else. So they obviously would split families. Pregnant women wouldn't be out hunting. They'd be inside doing something productive. As they start to do it more and more often, they become better skilled at what they're doing, whether it's hunting or making spears or anything like that, and they will get surplus. With that surplus comes a certain level of the margin of diminishing

returns. So you're not going to apply more of the effort making that stuff if you don't need that thing anymore. So, okay, what do you do with the surplus? Well, if you're that good at what you're doing, why switch over to doing something else when you can direct your labor doing that and you can trade with people? Now, that runs parallel to the division of labor, runs parallel to things like the simple machines. The simple machines, if you look at things like Archimedes talking about these things or Galileo or anybody, any of the ancient Greeks, they had the six or seven simple machines, the lever, the inclined plane, the pulley, those sorts of things. And then they expanded as technology got better, the wheel, then they

applied the wheel to a screw and made it, you know, that sort of thing. So that you could apply force in smaller amounts over a larger area, get the job done. Now you've removed one person and you've replaced that person with a tool. And you can get more done with more people if you just make the tool once. So instead of having three people lift something very heavy, you can slide it up an inclined plane. It goes over a little more distance, but one guy can do it now. You put a big block on rollers, you can roll it across pavement rather than having to have 10 guys lift it, right? So all these simple machines, division of labor is a simple machine. They would not have

kept it if it didn't help people. Language is a simple machine, would not have kept it if it didn't facilitate things. Trade, once you get to surplus, then you barter. You say, okay, now barter can be clunky because what happens if the guy who makes really good brownies doesn't want your lawn mowing services, but you want brownies and you've got lawn mowing services. But he does need a window fix. Then you've got to go to the window guy and say, do you need lawn services? Can I get a certificate for your services to bring over to the brownie guy? Because I'd like to get his brownies. And that's where money arises. We get something that is universally recognized as valuable to people. It's some sort

of precious metal. Sometimes it's salt. Sometimes it's dried fish, wherever you might be. Eventually it starts to sort of hammer out. Sometimes it's grain, but it has to be splittable and carryable. And it has to retain its value and be recognized by people as tradable, as you know. So when we see division of labor and we look at things like tariffs, the problem that I see arising is when we see free markets, free markets facilitate all of this. They allow people of different skills. I can't fix my car. Now, if we really want to be locally grown, if we really want to be made in America, you can continue to reduce that down to your own home, to your own town. Don't trade me on your town. Yeah, but, you know, we don't grow peaches that well in New Hampshire.

Don't get Georgia peaches because you're hurting the New Hampshire peach growers. Yeah, but I can get them cheaper and then I'll have. The key thing about division of labor is it frees up the labor to do more. Trade with somebody who does something more efficiently allows you to do what you do very efficiently and trade with somebody else. So if you've got two island communities, one is a group of giants who are seasick all the time, but they cut trees very well. And the other is a group of pygmies. They don't get seasick, but they can't cut trees well. They can fish very well. Well, it's not in the best interest of the giants to go fishing and vomiting over the side all the time, although that

could be good chum. It's in their best interest to trade with the pygmies who are really good at fishing, and they'll trade them what they do best. So in all these instances, principle wise, economics wise, free trade is 100% indisputably good because it helps people get more for their efforts. And to stop free trade is like eliminating the inclined plane because you're taking work away from the other guy who would be lifting something. The only trick that I see is when you start to get government involved to say, well, we need to help this group. We need to help that group. We need to make money for the government. And that's what starts it all. We need to do,

this is a very good, this corporation should be protected. Oh, and now we're going to get money from the corporation. So that's sort of the way that I see it, that I see that. I wonder whether or not you can, whether or not you'll end up at tariffs if you have free trade anyway, because somebody is going to try to form the government to protect themselves and rent seek at the customer's expense. I mean, my take on it, too, is that if we can't make it, then it's no there should be no barrier whatsoever. If it's not made should be no barrier whatsoever. If it's not made here, no barrier whatsoever. And, you know, Pat Buchanan famously someone asked him about, well, what about automation?

You know, they're eventually going to have all the robots. And what are you going to do then? I mean, what about jobs? And, you know, you talk about putting up a tariff. He said, well, who's going to build the robots? And I thought that's a great that's a great question. Who made who? Right. Well, here's another question. Here's another question too. Given the forces, and this is really where I wanted to go. I've wanted to ask you this for a while. I want to ask David this too.

Given the forces of corporatism and the Rockefellers and the minds that have been behind a lot of these things, what you were referring to earlier, it's very easy to get businesses to start Nike plant that was taxed at 40% in the United States left and went to Indonesia, right? Because they're going to make their product cheaper. People who buy Nikes now won't have to pay that surcharge of 40%. So what I really am wondering is, has the free market been used by these mines who will make it more expensive here so that they can off-ship jobs elsewhere and bring down the manufacturing base here. What do you think about that?

Well, I was thinking while you were going over that, have you ever heard of, have you ever heard the quote by Karl Marx who talked about this, about his view? And I just looked it up. If you give me a second. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I want to read it. Let me find it. And I just looked it up. If you give me a second, um, I want to read it. Let me find it. So I got the whole speech here. Okay. Yeah. I can find it. Okay. I have to go through this, that he, he really hits on the note. And I, I've always found this to be fascinating. I haven't talked about it in years. It's funny. You you're digging up a lot of my old wheelhouse that I have since great into

the new world you know what else tony is i yeah i wasn't i wasn't you know because i've been so sick i wasn't really prepared so i hope i'm doing a good job i hope i'm bringing this up in the right way oh great great and i've got some from social needs in here too that i want to mention to you let me let me hold on one second they gave me the whole speech. I want the quote. So hold on. Oh, this is fun. This is so great. Oh man. They gave me the, so there's, there's so much text here. I just want to get the quote, but they, I keep finding the links and they're all the whole, the whole speech. And I don't want to do that. Let me just type in a quote here. I know this is live radio, ladies and gentlemen, but while you're doing that,

I'm just going to read this little bit from everybody. Most everybody knows this anyway, but it's a little bit from Ephesians. Well, I have a second. I got to put the glasses on here because this is usually what I use. These are the cheesy glasses I use when I'm editing video to make sure everything's clear. Ephesians, put on the whole armor of God that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places amen to that amen good stuff i found the quote uh all right ready guard this is this is uh karl marx himself on the question of free trade he says but in general the protective system of our day is conservative

while the free trade system is destructive, it breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade, Karl Marx. And I think right there, Karl Marx had a little insight into what the central banking guys would do. Yeah, I think so. It's so funny. Because on the flip side of that, you have national socialism. Right.

So the two answers, it's the false dialectic. It's the false choice. You got Marx speaking out against free trade, which he anticipates won't be free trade because the proletariat plane, you're getting more for your effort, not less. You're allowing people to do what they do best and freely trade with each other. It's a moral principle. Leave people alone and they will decide for themselves. That's not what Marx wanted. What Marx wanted was to paint free trade as destructive to the workers. When free trade isn't destructive to the workers, it's manipulated trade that's destructive to the workers when free trade isn't destructive to the workers. It's manipulated trade that's destructive to the workers. It's we're going to tax your corporation so much that they're going to want to move overseas. Right. You know, now some people can say, hey, when they open up some plant over in Indonesia or China, you know, Americans were put at a disadvantage for that. It's very important

that people understand, and especially when you look at the so-called trade deficit, trade deficit is always in balance. Now, people can talk about trade deficits as being bad. Typically, what that signifies is that the dollar is relatively stronger than something else, and it's buying the products from the other country more than they're buying our products. But the money that goes over there is going to come back to the United States in investment as long as productivity is high. If productivity isn't high, it's not going to come back. They're going to invest in other things like gold or silver or other commodities. So as you know, so the problem that I see is I hope people aren't afraid to think about how getting something from

someone else from another country is no different than getting something from another state that might be cheaper or having someone who's better at doing something, do it for you rather than spending all your time on it. The problem is the political manipulation of it and who's going to get their bread buttered. And I, you know, we can explore the answers there, but that's the way that I see it. And I think Karl Marx there, again, was using his play, the David versus Goliath play on the worker to demonize free markets and basically shut down the idea of choice for people. Because for Marx, choice was just not it. And he wanted internationalism run by central banks, which was key for him, while Hitler and Mussolini favored the nationalism. And that was really the only difference. They were ball socialists. No one could make a real

choice in the market. Well, let's not forget, you got two minutes left. Let's not forget that liberty works, but human beings will try everything else first. And I think it's just, it's kind of that part of me that understands the hard reality of just human nature. It's why I, you know, again, I'm fighting both of those sides. That's why it's so interesting to talk to you

and your intellect and your devotion to human liberty and throwing off the yoke of the state and all the rest. I think it's fascinating. It's a great conversation to have. You kind of have those two, not necessarily opposing views, but we're doing the dialectic just like Hegel. We're doing the whole dialectic back and forth and working it out.

This is what we do. We're running up on the last minute 30 guard. You want to tell people when you'll be back? I'm sure Saturday for sure. Yeah. Yeah. Saturday for sure. I'm going to, I'm going to hop to the doctors. I think it's, I think what I got is probably like conjunctivitis or something like that is as you were seeing, we were talking before, it's probably some bacterial infection and just take care of that.

And I'll be back Saturdayurday night i can't wait i'm gonna be watching you tomorrow man it's gonna be great and uh again you know it's been a remarkable thing tony um because you know i met david when i approached him to do a segment or a couple of segments for a project for MRC TV on Karl Marks. And then he and Travis and Karen were at in Kingston at a Gerald Salente thing last year. And I got to meet them there and we just, you know, bonded very quickly. And it's the same feeling I have with you. And it's very strange to be sort of feeling under the weather, but still like energized and pumped and everything because it's just, yeah, you guys are great.

And the audience is great. You know, I'm looking at my little monitor there, all the people who've donated. It's just fantastic. 183 people watching just on Rockford alone. Super, super cool. And I can't wait to work with you in the future. So people want to find me.

It's Gardner Goldsmith Substack and Liberty Conspiracy on Bitchute, Rumble, and Odyssey. On Twitter, I am at Gard Goldsmith, and on Gab, I'm at Gardner Goldsmith, and there's mrctv.org. Oh, and my fiction. My fiction's on Amazon. My fiction is on Amazon. Gardner Goldsmith.

Thanks, buddy. Thank you, everybody.