The David Knight Show - 3Jan23 Big Stories, Missed Stories, and Misdirection in 2022 — 2023 The Year of CBDC

Episode Date: January 3, 2023

OUTLINE of today's show with TIMECODESThe big stories of 2022 2:06Most positive story of 2022 shows civil disobedience is the key to the future.9:132022 shows it's hard to get people’s attention even when you’re talking about taking away their food16:24The "15-Minutes City" — "Smart City" conspiracy got more details19:43Where the globalists jumped the shark in 202224:05Stew Peters "Lied Suddenly" - a roach in the loaf of bread41:46Australian physician who faced backlash for injecting kids dies suddenly dies.52:36Andrew Tate and the right way, wrong way to respond to injustice.1:10:52The vaccine is a bio-weapon, but medical side is harder to prove than political side1:23:57The mainstream propaganda machine is using technology to move us down the road.1:30:11NATO & Biden's desire to blow up the world1:31:08How much is $100 billion for Ukraine? It could have given an extra $200 million to every congressional district in the US.1:42:23Quadcopter drone use in Ukraine is a taste of what's coming with swarms of killer robots1:44:11The Biggest NON-STORIES of 2022, and stories where the key point was missed1:57:19Some finally, reluctantly admit corporations are what I call the "Deputized State". They're "private-ish" says Reason2:20:53Take a quick break and we’ll be right back.2:38:54Lots of high tech security features in $100 bill. But the risk is on the side of the public2:40:13WATCH: FDIC bankers say public doesn't realize their money is NOT safe2:40:10If this does go down during 2023, we can expect the mother of all federal quantitative easing $5 trillion instantly on the balance sheet expansion.2:47:26EU moves to ban crypto as a threat to the environment — just like they're moving to ban cars for the same reason.2:52:35Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here:SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation through Mail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @[e-mail] App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money is only what YOU hold: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverBecome 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. Using free speech to free minds. You're listening to The David Knight Show. As the clock strikes 13, it's Tuesday, the 3rd of January, 2023. Day 1027 of the emergency. And we're going to see what happens this next year. We're going to talk about what happened last year. We've got some predictions for this year.

We also have some state legislatures that are looking at stopping this proliferation of executive orders. Because we have to understand that as bad as the medical stuff is, and we have some breaking news about that as well, some more died suddenly, as bad as that is, this is fundamentally political. We'll be right back. Sous-titrage MFP. Well, it's the beginning of a new year, and thank you so much for all of you for your support this last year. You cannot imagine how much it means to us. I've

changed the studio around. That's what we were doing partially for the day that we took off yesterday, Thursday and Friday. We need some time, and I appreciate your understanding. It's been a long year, and I guess when I go back and look at this last year, I went back to look at what I'd reported on. Because I saw a lot of big stories and other things being put out by people that I just, I don't really know that this is really the key issue here. I have a disagreement with them on so many different things. And it really bothered me to see how this has, uh, run off in the last year. Um, it is, um, I don't know if people are waking up or not.

You know, I look at what they say. The big stories are, let's take a look at the big stories of 2022. Uh, of course the Ukraine war, NATO's Ukraine war, expanding and escalating. And I say NATO's war because this is a war that's eight years old. Yeah, it escalated in a big way last year. And it may, this year, may blow up into a world war, into a nuclear war. Who knows? That's the purpose of this thing, isn't it?

But this thing started eight years ago. This is an old story. And of course, when it's being reported, nobody talks about that context. They don't talk about the context of the political plans, where this thing is going. It's funny because even though the mainstream media and even the alternative media doesn't talk about it, the people who are running the plan talk about it. They talk about it in their meetings. They do it publicly now.

They don't have to do it under Chatham House rules like they did at Bilderberg. They just do it openly, Davos. And so, you know, the big stories this year, Ukraine and the Twitter files. Another story that's eight to 10 years old. Who knew that the FBI and the government and the CIA were using social media and the internet to control narratives? I've been talking about this for at least 10 years about the fact that they were on the, the, the deep state that everybody's now just discovered, the FBI and OGA, other government agencies, like the CIA, the NSA and all, they were on the boards, the venture capital firms that were creating Facebook and Twitter and all the rest of these companies as soon as the internet became practical.

And the internet was designed by a psychologist at DARPA in the 1960s. He called it the Intergalactic Computer Network. This whole thing was designed as a PSYOP from the very beginning by the deep state. They funded it. They picked the competitors just like the Republicans and Democrats picked the shills that are going to run for office every year. And then they let them fight it out. And because they have that real fight and they're pulling dirt up on each other.

They're making stuff up about each other. Everybody gets drawn into this. Oh, this is real. This is real. Look. So yeah, the, the big stories of 2022 were the big stories of 2012, the big stories of 1999, because nobody talks about the context of this stuff. So again, what we saw were new phases of this.

We saw the plans being implemented. We saw Biden not just pushing in this NATO war, Ukraine war, but also Biden pushing us into climate poverty. The Biden war on energy made a big move. It's been going on. I mean, he began his administration with it, so I guess you could say, you know, that's not the Biden war on energy.

It actually started as soon as he took office because he was shutting down domestic energy right away. Roe v. Wade, I think, was a big story this year, of course. I've got a story coming up where Trump says, I didn't cost the GOP the election. It was Roe v. Wade. And these radical people who are trying to stop abortion at all different stages. You just shouldn't be, you know, we can't give up our political power in order to save human life.

You know, we got to play some 4D chess here, you know. It's most important thing is for me to stay in office. And, you know, you can kill a few more babies if it means that trump can stay in office he is single-handedly destroying every reason that conservatives imagined that they had to support this guy you know now he's uh he have, he could have taken credit for it, right? All the conservative pundits and the Trump lovers out there. Oh, look, you know, he fixed the Supreme court. So we got rid of Roe v.

Wade, but no, he doesn't. Instead it's like, well, they, they messed this up for Republicans. I didn't do it. It wasn't my pick of, uh, Oz or Herschel Walker or any of these other key Senate races that turned the Senate over easily to the Democrats. They gained seats in a midterm election. Uh, no, it's, it's, um, it's not me. It's not my picks. It's Roe v. Wade being overturned by the Dobbs decision. So, you know, we just need to sacrifice the kids for Trump because, you know, he is the greater good. And if you think that for his being able to stay in office, for his own personal gain gain that he wants to trash children and i mean literally trash them rip them to pieces and throw them in the trash do you think you'd have any

qualms about putting out a genetic code injection that's going to kill massive numbers of people of course not we know what he is. We're just haggling over the price. Then you had the good news of last year. Yes, there was some good news. The Freedom Convoy. I looked at that and I thought, you know, that is the story of the year, in my opinion, that I think showed the heart of resistance,

the correct way to resist. You didn't have any of this, you know, nobody got violent. You didn't have any, there's no Canadian Proud Boys, I guess. But you didn't have that kind of stuff, right? They peacefully showed up and occupied the place and did it very peacefully. And then they showed the world what was coming, right? By peacefully protesting this and refusing to go along,

they forced Trudeau to show the globalist hand a little bit early. I thought it was a masterpiece of civil disobedience, the Freedom Convoy. So kudos to those people this last year. Great job. Great job. Cannot. And, of course, we also saw, as I've talked about many times, the other thing about the issue, it started with the truckers because they couldn't cross the border. When did that happen?

Well, that happened. Trudeau did it one weekend. And then the following weekend, Biden did it. And on a Saturday, because Saturdays are slow news days and nobody pays any attention to it. 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 live score bet this is total betting sign up by 2 p.m 14th of march bet within 48 hours of race main market excluding specials and place bets terms apply bet responsibly 18 plus gambling care.ee and they had announced that they were going to do it months in advance. So it wasn't an emergency. It was a plan. And as I've pointed out many times, you saw this with the vaccine mandates at various stages. You would see Macron announce it and Biden announce it. You would see Trudeau announce it and Biden announce it for another thing. Well, we just did such and such. And in two months, we're going to do the next step.

Because you got to do it from the inside. You got to do it with disruption. And in two months, we're going to do the next step. You know, because you've got to do it from the inside. You've got to do it with disruption. And you have to do it iteratively, as Fauci said, a couple of months, in October of 2019. How do we do this? How do we force everybody to take an untested vaccination? And so it showed that as well. It showed that there really wasn't any pandemic. That was the other thing that was very important about this. They show up, they don't wear masks, they go to the Capitol,

they're out in the streets, nobody's dying, just like the churches where they had to arrest the pastors in 2021. That was also in Canada. They seem to understand the idea of peaceful resistance much better than Americans do. And that is the thing that wins. We have to understand our weapons are mighty. They're prayer.

They're peaceful resistance. They're refusing to comply with tyranny. It's taking whatever they throw at us and standing there until they kill us. Because they can't kill us if we take the longer view. If we are Christians who understand that we have a focal point that is outside of this life, they can destroy the body, but they can't kill me. And if we take that approach, they cannot defeat us. But if we decide that we're going to become them,

if we're going to become a mirror image of them, and that really reflects on the story of Andrew Tate, which I'm going to talk about coming up here. The approach of Andrew Tate versus the approach of Jeremy Slayton, who I interviewed a few months ago and played a repeat, interestingly enough, before this stuff went down with Andrew Tate. But of course, in some of the other big trends and news that we saw in 2022, this is a, you know, he kicked off the financial war in a big way. You know, Biden kicked off the energy war in 2021.

He escalated it in 2022 as they created a situation. I think analogously, we see that in the financial area, he's kicked this thing off as well from the very beginning, but he escalated significantly last year, and he's going to escalate it even more this year into CBDC. You know, he had, as he began his administration, he picked this woman, Omarova, who had, she was a literal communist, a Marxist. She was a literal graduate of Lennon University before the Soviet Union fell.

Her plan was to reorganize the entire financial system of America and put it under the direct control of the private Federal Reserve. How could that be? She's a communist. Well, take a look at the communist in China. It is fascism labeled as communism because it's the people, the few oligarchs in charge who control and own everything. And so that's what they're setting up with the private Federal Reserve. Now, because of her background, she was a graduate of Lennon University and a hardcore Marxist.

It was easy to oppose her. But the people that they put in are just as bad. They're coming from the same philosophical position, but they wanted to put her in as comptroller of the currency. And so what we see, and we'll talk a little bit more about this, but the financial war against us, the 87,000 IRS agents, what is that for? And of course, Operation Chokepoint that we see ramping up. And that was started under the Obama administration. So they want to use the banks to kick gun retailers and gun manufacturers out of the financial system.

And they've extended that now to speech and other things, as you see with PayPal. That was another thing that came out last year. We saw that made clear how they were going to kick people between PayPal and Trudeau. They made it very clear what they're going to do with CBDC. And so this last year, Biden made major steps towards CBDC. In March, he demanded all of the bureaucracies, which are all underneath the president, that all the bureaucracies put together a report,

gave them four different areas to report on CBDC. How are we going to reorganize the financial system completely? How are we going to enforce this? Let's have some of you write some code for this or whatever. And then the fourth one was climate. And of course, climate is going to be how they're going to push through the ban of Bitcoin and competing cryptocurrencies. So it is a financial war that has begun, not only an energy war.

And of course, those two are tied together so closely, aren't they? Not just in the economy, but they're tied together so closely. That's why we have the petrodollar, energy and currency. Because energy is really the currency. There's a point in time in the 1930s when they talked about, let's just get rid of these fiat currencies and start pricing things directly in energy. You also had the Department of Justice created their National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team. NSAID.

N-C-E-T. A new department to seize assets. And the person that they put in charge of it was the one who was running the shameful prosecution of Ross Ulbrich in Silk Road. And it was a rigged prosecution, if ever there was. I mean, taking out exculpatory evidence, not telling people that the FBI was running the sites, had the key to the sites, not allowing them to even tell the jury

that two FBI agents were at that time being prosecuted for embezzling a million dollars out of Silk Road. And then implying that he had murder for hire, even though he was never even indicted by a grand jury for that. And on the basis of the allegations that never rose to the level even of an indictment, the judge gave Ross Ulbrich three consecutive life sentences so that this young man will

never get out of prison without a presidential pardon. Well, good luck with that. When you look at Trump and you look at other presidents that we have, uh, this last year, we also saw the Netherlands take the lead on food, taking away food. Now, of course, they've already talked about how they want to take the lead on banning cars. I think they have one of the earliest dates of car bans. They're 2025. We're only two years away now from Netherlands banning cars. And not just cars, but all internal combustion engines, diesel and gasoline. for them since it was also the Dutch farmers who pushed back against what was happening as they were trying to confiscate their lands, shut down their farms, and meat and milk production

for all of us. That is the plan. And you have Mark Ruta there, this other Davos puppet like Trudeau, who is taking the lead in that uh so global food hubs from davos set up right there netherlands is the beta test site for all of this so all eyes are on the farmers and what are they going to do meanwhile the government is working to take away their tractors and what are the people of the Netherlands interested in? I mean, some of them have joined and supported the farmers, but not that many, frankly.

When you say it, you're talking about taking away their food. How do you get people's attention anymore? I mean, were they focused on the World Cup or something? If you've got somebody talking about how they're going to shut down your food supply, how does that not get your attention? I understand that energy being shut down, cars are being shut down. That's one or two steps away from being able to eat. So, you know, maybe they can't connect the dots on that.

But when they start talking about shutting down your food, how do you not connect the dots on that? We also saw this last year, the smart city being clarified as the 15-minute city. This is analogous to what they did in 2015. The UN had for a long time talked about UN Agenda 21. And we used to talk about the maps, and we would show the maps, and you would see that everybody was going to be concentrated in these gigantic mega cities, you know, like what they're building in Saudi Arabia, the Neom thing, right, the line.

We're going to empty out the countryside. We're going to jam everybody in the cities. And, you know, that was the early version of you'll own nothing. But it was very vague in terms of when it was going to happen. It was going to happen sometime in the 21st century. And then about 2015, the UN and Davos started making, announcing that they were merging in many different areas, that they had a memorandum of understanding,

and they were coordinating what they were doing. And at that time, the UN changed it from Agenda 21 to the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainability, Sustainable Development. And their Sustainable Development Goals are essentially the same thing that the World Economic Forum is putting out, where they're you'll own nothing types of videos that everybody is now familiar with. But all that happened about 2015. So they went from, you know, here's the general plan,

and they got a lot more details and specificity in it in 2015. Sometime in the 21st century? No, now it's 2030. That's the date we will have this in place. And so the same thing kind of happened last year with the smart cities. We'd seen so much information about the smart cities bragging about how they will lock us down in prisons. But now they're getting a little bit more specific and you're starting to see aspects of it being implemented

in cities like Oxford and Cambridge and other UK cities. The 15-minute city. They'll break the cities into zones and control your movement. You will not be able to go from one zone to the other. Everything will be there. Then you can walk to it within 15 minutes. So this is, I think those are the key stories of the last year. I think the key story of the next year is really going to be food and money.

And they can control everything with money. That is the bottom line. So I think the big push this year is going to be CBDC. We'll get into the what is coming up section in a moment. But I want to take a quick break. uh, what is coming up section, uh, in a moment. Uh, but, um, I want to take a quick break and we come back. We're going to talk about the ways that they jumped the shark this last year,

uh, going a little bit too far and waking people up. So stay with us. 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 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 we'll be right back. © transcript Emily Beynon Thank you. Analyzing the Globalist's Next Move and now the David Nutshell let's talk about how the other side has jumped the shark for the most part the other side we've jumped the shark on our side a little bit and we'll talk about that as well. I think the 87,000 IRS agents, I think that was a bridge too far. Now we have a gavel fight coming up today and we'll be covering that if anything develops. There's a vote in the house as to who the speaker of the house is going to be. The Republicans are divided.

There is an adamant number of people in the house of Representatives who can actually change things. I think that's the dynamic that is most interesting of all these. What you have now with such narrow control of the House of Representatives, you have some of the conservative Republicans now are in a position to exercise power, whether or not McCarthy is Speaker of the House. It's beginning right now, and it's going to continue. I haven't seen anybody talk about what is ahead, regardless of whether McCarthy becomes Speaker of the House or not. These people are going to be in the position that Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema were in the Senate with the Democrats.

The Democrats had a razor-thin margin, and it's essentially the same thing now in the House, and it's likely to get even thinner, unless they're going to stick with this George Santos character. It looks like the establishment Republicans are. They're going to own this pathetic liar. And they're going to wind up with more egg on their face than they can ever clean off.

But, uh, but it's very narrow as it is right now, because you look at this, uh, speaker fight and they have, um, he needs,

um, four votes, and there's five people that have said that they're not going to vote for him. And he needs to get at least one of them to vote for him. And if he does, then he gets it in. That's how narrow things are. So you can have a hardcore of determined conservatives that can really affect things now with such a narrow control of the Republicans. That's why you have Kevin McCarthy trying to sound like a conservative.

Which in and of itself is kind of amusing to watch. But yeah, they jumped the shark with 87,000 IRS agents. And so McCarthy says, look, you put me in and the very first thing I'm going to do is get rid of those 87,000 IRS agents. And then I'm going to protect the border. And then I'm going to do this and I'm going to do that. No specifics as to exactly how that's going to happen. Yeah. How is he going to do that? First of all, they lost all their leverage when Mitch McConnell and others

pushed in this, uh, uh, funding bill, the $1.7 trillion that went in. That means that the real power that the house has is the power of the purse. They lost that power. They gave that power up before, you know, just before the Christmas break. So I don't know what the plan is, how he's going to do that, but clearly Biden jumped the shark with the 87,000 IRS agents, increasing the IRS by about eight fold in terms of funding, uh, let alone personnel. So, um, even Democrats are talking about pulling back some of that. Even Democrats are talking about pulling back this, uh,

10 99 K. I think it is, you know, what used to be that it required a 200 transactions and, or a $20,000 amount before you had to file paperwork. Then Biden took it down to a single transaction, not 200 and or, uh,

something $600 or more. And all of a sudden everybody's like, Whoa, do you realize the amount of paperwork that's going to cost? Uh, you know, even with computers, that's going to be insane. And even the IRS doesn't want it.

So you've got Democrats and Republicans and the IRS all pushing back against Biden because he jumped the shark on that one. You have the Inflation Reduction Act, which actually is demonstrating the insanity of MMT. What they call the modern monetary theory. I call it the magic money tree. They always said with MMT that inflation doesn't matter. Spending doesn't matter, rather. If inflation gets out of control, what you do is you increase taxes. And so everybody's looking at Inflation Reduction Act. All you're doing is increasing taxes. That's right. They're increasing taxes on the people they don't like. You,

the general public. After they've given the money to a few big guys, they come after the little people with additional taxes. That's MMT. That's the Democrats' economics right now. It's a really insidious form of economic fantasy loosely based on Keynesianism, which has already been discredited. You had Poudig gay jumped the shark. Uh, I think in many ways, uh, I thought he was beyond help when he started spending money to tear down racist highways, but that didn't really do it for the mainstream media. Now the mainstream media is upset about him.

They're blaming him for all the air travel debacles that we had over the holidays. He was telling everybody he had it covered. He doesn't have anything to do with that. The reason this is happening is because of all the supply chain disruptions, because the personnel that got forced out or died. They've got personnel shortages. But he is trying to destroy infrastructure, using billions of dollars to do that. He was also given billions of dollars to hand out favors to local politicians to pave the way for him to run for president.

So I don't think he's done, even though he did jump the shark on that. You have Trump pushing the death penalty for drug dealers. Remember right after he made his announcement? You know, that was one of the key things he's talking about. You know, well, I'm, I'm going to be all about law enforcement and I'm going to show you how tough I am. We're going to give the death penalty to drug dealers. How about we give the death penalty to politicians and bureaucrats who use drugs to kill people worldwide? Should we talk about that? You know, maybe, now that didn't go anywhere because people have looked at the war on drugs for 50 years and everybody fundamentally understands that you're not going to end our problems with addiction and we do have problems with addiction i have a very touching uh video i'm going to play

coming up here from um anthony hopkins talking about have been 40 some odd years that he had been sober and um he you know was very deferential as you have to be if you want to work in Hollywood. I'm not saying that I know anything. I'm just telling you what my truth is, that type of thing. But what he does say is touching. Even though he's afraid to really stand on it, he's trying to tell people, hey, this works, and you don't have to be an alcoholic and you can get this out of your life. But he's afraid to really stand on that truth. But yeah, people realize that law enforcement is not the way to handle addiction and drugs. Whether or not they understand the constitutional issues of it,

that the war on drugs is totally unconstitutional, whether or not they understand how it has corrupted our police, our judiciary, how it has destroyed liberties for everybody, how it has created, it's been used as the excuse for a militarized police force, no-knock SWAT team raids, and all the rest of this stuff. People are starting to realize that doesn't work. So Trump's call for death penalty didn't really go anywhere. Uh, but, uh, it did point out, I think the, um, hypocrisy of Trump, uh, Fauci and others.

So over this last year, we've had, um, things I think the monkey pox is another one where they jumped the shark. They tried to scare everybody to death. It's going to be the new thing. Uh, they are, I think they're actually going to have to release some kind of a real plague on people. 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 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 2 LiveScoreBet. This is total betting. Sign up by 2 p.m. 14th of March. Bet within 48 hours of race.

Main market excluding specials and place bets. Terms apply. Bet responsibly. 18plusgamblingcare.ie Because they've cried wolf so many times that nobody's paying any attention to this. So monkeypox didn't go anywhere. And then they decided, well, since this seems to be just limited to the homosexual community, uh, monkey pox is, uh, makes them sound bad.

So we'll change the name of it. We'll call it MP or something or impacts or forget what it was that they changed it to. Uh, so if you look at what happened and how the world has changed, things have swung our way to a large extent because in terms of public understanding of the vaccines, we've had a lot of people, it's become a common thing, died suddenly. And so you had Stu Peters who jumped on that term and discredited it as usual. That is his business model. He, um, I, I did not talk about died suddenly when it came out, had a lot of people sending me the thing and it's like, Oh, it's Stu Peters. I don't have the time to watch the nonsense.

A lot of people did a lot of people push back against it. A lot of people said, well, there's a lot of truth in there, but he's added a lot of very obvious lies and fakes to this. And so he is discredited of the truth and that's the danger, but that's the business model. You understand that's the business model of Stu Peters. That's the business model of Alex Jones, and it is phenomenally successful. If you don't care what happens to society, you can make a ton of money as a carnival barker adding false details. And this is one of the oldest tactics of the intelligence community. If the truth escapes, what they do is they grab the narrative and they add some lies to it that are going to be very easy to debunk and they will be debunked by their people in the media but they'll add some lies

to the truth that escaped and then they'll do it in a sensational way and they'll use their people to promote it to make sure that that becomes the definitive thing and then they expose the lies i've seen it done over and over again with alex with stew peters is now doing it this thing watch the water i talked a great deal about it at that point in time that was beyond stupid but it wasn't as bad as died suddenly because died suddenly has got some truth in it uh stew peters would just with watch the water it was so off the wall stupid that nobody took that seriously but now with died suddenly i'll talk a bit more about this coming up uh you have um that truly is jumping the shark and jumping the shark on our side. But I think it's an intentional thing. It could just be because he wants to have money, but it could

be that he is a disinformation agent. That's the way Alex has rolled this stuff out. Given this information, given some sensational false details and, uh, and running with it, making lots of money and not caring what happens to everybody else. We've seen PayPal with their confiscation of $2,500. They're fine. They backed it up, but then they quietly put it back in place again. We saw in February, we saw Salon saying that not jabbing your kids was child abuse. Getting to that point and coming after the children was where they really jumped the

shark. And I say that not because people care so much about children in our society. It's become acceptable to rip them apart or to kill them by chemical burning. They call it abortion. So we care about the puppies that are being tortured by Fauci, but we don't care about the babies that are being tortured by him who are having their organs harvested while they're still alive and used to make transhuman mice.

We don't care about that side of it. So it wasn't really that society in general got upset about the murder of children with a vaccine. Where they jumped the shark was the fact that because children, two things, children's metabolism, it shows up more quickly. They have a faster metabolism. So it's like it is with an animal in a sense. And so we're seeing these things happening more quickly. They have a faster metabolism. So it's like it is with an animal in a sense. And so we're seeing these things happening more quickly. We saw that when Fauci and Slaoui did their previous collaboration with Pandemrix, the vaccine they rolled out without testing in response to H1N1 in 2009, reportedly in response

to that. And we saw there was children where it showed up more quickly took about a year for it to show up and in scandinavian countries where they weren't controlled by the pharmaceutical industries like america is 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 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.

They discovered that and they identified that that was the cause. But when you start doing that, one of the things about the mRNA and the spike, the genetic code injection, is just how quickly people start having problems with it, including the polyethylene glycol encapsulated, the pegylated nanoparticle delivery system. That in and of itself causes anaphylactic shock to a lot of people. But it is happening much more quickly than we've ever seen with the vaccine. So it has reduced their plausible deniability. And then when they injected that into kids, then it happened even more quickly.

And so those are the, that's where they jumped the shark, I think, on the vaccine. We had the left jumping the shark on the definition of a woman. Now this is Matt Walsh who began this actually before Marsha Blackburn did it with, um, Brown Jackson's confirmation hearings in the Supreme court. That was the one that was, uh, really illustrated, but Matt Walsh had brought transgenders on and asked them,

so what is a woman, you know, and pointed out the illogical explanations from these people. But when Marsha Blackburn, Senator, asked that in the confirmation hearings of Brown-Jackson, and she said, I don't know, I can't say. That was when that really went viral. But of course, they, even though it's become absurd, they will not turn back from it. And so now at the end of the year, you've got all the dictionaries or changing the dictionaries

to say, well, a woman is anybody who thinks that they're a woman. Well, what makes you think you're a woman then? Please explain that. What is that? And of course, as all of that, you is that? Uh, and of course, as all of that, you saw the,

uh, the fight with Disney and DeSantis, but at the core of it was the executive. Carrie Burke is president of general entertainment at Disney saying that she's got two kids. One is transgender. The other is pan gender, two children.

And they know this. Why do they know this? Well, because they've got a mother who has decided that of all the characters, 50% of them need to be in Disney movies. 50% of them need to be LGBT or minorities. So maybe she's doing that kind of thing with her kids as well. I think one of the biggest phony stories of the last year was the fusion thing. It's interesting that that was held out there as a tiny sliver of hope. And it was held out by both the mainstream media, by the alternative conservative media saying, oh, look, now we got it. Well, we've out-engineered these tyrants who are trying to shut everything

down. Yeah. The engineers have got this. No, they don't. Fusion. First of all, this is not a breakthrough. Most of the people agreed that it was not the breakthrough that the media touted. Secondly, uh, they are still many decades away from the practical application of

this. But they're trying to hold that out as if there is some way to have your cake and eat it too, to have net zero and not to have starvation, deprivation of zeroing everything out. That is going to be a big lie that they've come out. Of course, we've had other things like Zelensky demanding that the letter Z be banned, but apparently not from the beginning of his name. So let's go back to the died suddenly thing. The reason I'm covering it now, because it was, I guess it was at the beginning of, no, it was in November. I was going to say it was the beginning of December, but it was in November that it came out.

And as I said, I'd already talked about Stu Peters and his tactics, and I didn't want to take the time to go through the documentary, Life's Too Short. But it's gotten 15 million views on Rumble. On Rumble. So, you know, I know how to get something that is sensational. If you take the tactic, as Stu Peters and Alex Jones and Roger Stone, all of them have said, you know, it's the only thing that's important is to be famous. You know, infamous is just as good.

You know, if people point to you and say, he's a liar, he's a criminal, but everybody is pointing to you and everybody's writing stories about you, you win because you can always portray yourself as a martyr, as a victim, as a persecuted truth teller when you're telling lies and when you're discrediting the truth. And so the New American picked up on it. So I thought, well, you know, and the title says it all. Died Suddenly, Tainting Truth with Falsehood. And that's important to understand.

That's what this business model is. And we have to walk away from people who do that on our side. What is happening with this bioweapon from Trump is far too important for somebody to play games with it, to make money and to build an audience. It's despicable. And so Rebecca Terrell at The New American says, it's been incredibly successful, but it's also injected a deep wedge within the medical freedom movement.

And frankly, I don't care about that either. I don't care about infighting and I don't care about movements and I don't care about unity within movements, obviously, or I would guard my comments a little bit more carefully about what I say to me, what matters is the truth. And what it has done is it has smeared the truth. I've talked about this before. It's like you, if you got a loaf of bread and it's all tied up and everything, and then you get ready to untie it and take a piece out, and you see a cockroach inside there. That's it.

That's it. I'm not eating any of that bread, right? That's what died suddenly is. It's a cockroach put into a bag of truth. And I've seen this done so much in the alternative press. The film earned accolades from credible sources, such as Steve Kirsch, says Rebecca Terrell, and Trump administrative official Dr. Paul Alexander.

Well, I would just ask, where were these credible sources when all this stuff was rolling out for the first year? They were taken in by that. As a matter of fact, as I talked about, Stu, not Stu Peters, Steve Kirsch, he's done a lot of very valuable things, I think, in terms of debates, in terms of discovering real statistics. He is not a shill like Stu Peters. I would not put him in the same boat,

but he has been on with Stu Peters a lot because a lot of the real data that Steve Kirsch has uncovered is sensational. The truth is sensational enough that you don't need to embellish it unless you haven't got anything new and you're trying to pretend that you've got something new, you see. So, you know, Steve Kirsch, he recently came out with, look at, you know, here's the doctors that were the first ones to come out with this. He got that totally wrong. There were a lot of doctors who talked about that. There were a lot of people who were not doctors who talked about that.

And I talked about that last week. I said, first of all, the doctors were not the first ones to come out and oppose this. They were too cautious because what was going on took a little bit of time. Even though it rolled out very rapidly and we started seeing people getting sick, dying, getting injured immediately in unprecedented numbers, it still wasn't really clear what the mechanism was. And that's the problem with the medical community.

They have to see what the mechanism is. And there was nobody who wanted to fund any studies. There's nobody who wanted to buck the system. Most people knew it was going to be the end of their career. And we saw careers ended when people told the truth because they were concerned about people being killed. You had some people like Dr. Joel Hirshhorn who were retired. And he was an early adopter of a lot of this stuff.

Not adopter, but explainer of how this is going. But it was fundamentally political. And it is easy to point out the politics of it. That's why I don't like to get, that's another reason why I didn't want to get into the back and forth with died suddenly. But it turns out that he was doing a lot of things like taking clips of people who were injured

or died suddenly well before there were any vaccines, 2019 and earlier. There was one in particular of a young baby that he used. The baby had no nose and that made it easy to identify who that baby was. And people point out that was well before any of the vaccines rolled out. So he embellished it. He discredited it. As New American says,

Dr. Robert Malone published an insight for review in which he criticized died suddenly as sensationalized. He called Stu Peters, a modern carnival Barker. And I agree with that. And I've absolutely, you know,

but I've also criticized, uh, Dr. Malone. He says, well, I'm inventor of the MRNA. If he's the inventor of the M mRNA, why did you do that?

Why would you do that? 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 live score bet this is total betting sign up by 2 p.m 14th of march bet within 48 hours of race main market excluding specials and place bets terms apply bet responsibly 18 plus gambling care.ee there's a fundamental

disconnect there with dr malone that I have a problem with. It's just like Elon Musk. I cannot warm up to him as a savior of free speech on social media, because free speech is a lot bigger than just social media. But I can't warm up to him because I know his background. I know what he's done up to this point. And I feel that way to a degree with Dr. Malone. You know, he's been cautious about what he does.

He hasn't trashed things like Stu Peters has. But still, he's right about this. It's sensationalized. Peters is a modern carnival barker. He cited portions of the documentary that contained demonstrably misleading information, noting that such distortions of truth, he said, cause both damage to the credibility of the arguments being made and can also cause psychological pain to people.

But it's the damage to the credibility of the arguments. And what people, other people are not saying, they're not accusing him of falling into a CIA plan. But quite frankly, it could just be because he wants the audience. It could be that simple. But this is a real agent of misinformation. Another vaccine skeptic, Josh Getzcow, who I've not heard of, but they mentioned in The New American. He said, died suddenly is typical trash from Stu Peters, the same guy who discredited us with the COVID is snake venom garbage. He said, it truly is a shame in this case because there is much valuable true information

in the film that is now being tainted by being mixed together with so much false information. That's exactly how it works. In my estimation, he said, Stu Peters is one of the worst offenders amongst the medical freedom movement. That was not the previous guy. That's a statistician, Matthew Crawford. He did a four-part review of the film. And he said, Stu Peters takes plenty of true information

and he mixes it together in one program with highly questionable, unverifiable, or simply false information. That's the plan. That's the plan. News reports and footage of people collapsing unexpectedly is put in there in the montage. The BBC made very short work of that because much of it was not true. One of the headlines that he has in his montage is,

my kind, compassionate son died unexpectedly. Another clip shows a young athlete dramatically keeling over. They said, yet just a couple more clicks of that article would reveal that the son in question died in a car crash. And the athlete, a college basketball player, collapsed on December 2020 before he could even have had a COVID vaccine. And he didn't die suddenly.

As a matter of fact, he returned to the basketball court last week, they said. You see, we saw this tactic being used. This is one of the reasons why it makes me suspicious whether he's simply a non-entrepreneur carnival barker or whether he is a CIA carnival barker. Because we saw this same narrative coming from these people. We had, oh, look, this is the guy who died in a car crash or died in a motorcycle. Well, it could have been COVID. They were labeled as COVID deaths.

So he's going to take that same thing and do it in this? Other footage depicts a clot being surgically removed from a beating heart. The video clip was actually stolen from Dr. Eric Baer's YouTube channel. The original video was posted April the 2nd, 2019. Worse yet, the original video had a watermark with his name on it at the point where the large blood clot is pulled out of the pulmonary artery, but they removed that so they knew what they were doing as well. So plagiarism, false information, added to the truth, even discrediting the died suddenly issue. You had an Australia physician who faced a backlash

for injecting kids and causing severe adverse reactions. Dies suddenly. Plus a second ABC News producer died suddenly last week. This is coming from the COVID blog.com. This is happening. This is a real phenomenon. And now, though, what Stu Peters has done with his documentary is now when you say, well, look, this person died. Oh, you know, you're just one of these conspiracy theorists none of this stuff is real this is a guy who

said if you still trust mainstream doctors after reading these four stories then may god help you says the covid blog this doctor who died in austral a Hong Kong born UK trained physician Dr. Wilson Chin he was a general practitioner on the Gold Coast in Queensland he had gotten attention in the press previously because two girls that he injected under the age of 12 on January the 17th, the country just authorized injections for the five to 11 age group. And so he immediately, he's there injecting young girls. Both girls suffered immediate convulsions in front of their frightened mothers.

He told the establishment press, as the COVID blog points out, he told Nine News, Vax, Zealot, that's the way, reporter, quote unquote, in air quotes, McKenzie Callahan. He told her that the girls are fine. The incidents had nothing to do with injections. It was just a complete coincidence, right? Nothing at all to see.

But that's where he got exposure nationally. And of course, inralia they have already going back to 2021 you had the health care practitioner regulatory agency threatened to do the same thing that california is now doing effective january the first california is now saying if you say anything that contradicts the establishment, we'll take away your medical license. And that's what the Australian rules were at the time. But this guy who had been at the center of all that played the victim role throughout and says the COVID blonde. He cried on mainstream media about threats and harassments. Once that story got out about the two girls who collapsed and look at going

back to, uh, let's see, 2018 spring. And it was in, uh, Samoa. And you had two toddlers who went in for their MMR shots died suddenly.

As soon as they were injected. The first toddler died and the mother who's waiting in line to get her kid, the MMR shot said, um, we're going to go. And they talked her out of it. So no, it had nothing to do with a shot, nothing to do with a shot. So they talked her into it. The doctor, however, died Christmas Eve, 34 years old. And they came out and said it was medically related.

It was not mental health related. You know, they say that because so many people commit suicide around Christmas. Sad, but true. You know, people looking back at their life, looking forward at their life and despair, feeling alone. That is something that happens a great deal. It's not something that I guess, you know, goes back to Christmas Carol, Charles Dickens. Anyway, they put that out in the press and said it was not mental health related. So it was not an intentional suicide, perhaps. Nevertheless, if it was due to the vaccine, it was a form of suicide. And he should have known better.

He was a general practitioner. He should have known better. He should have been skeptical. He should have demanded that they do the tests. That was the obvious smoking gun from the very beginning. They skipped the tests. Trump bragged about it for years. It's not something to brag about.

But we've also now had a second ABC News producer dying suddenly and unexpectedly. The first one, if you remember, was December the 23rd. That was Dax Tejera, an ABC News producer. And now you've got Erika Gonzalez, also with ABC News, 49 years old, died unexpectedly December 21st. So it is something that we're seeing over and over again. And yet, now if you say somebody died suddenly, oh well, that's just this completely debunked idea. Going back to New American, they said the list of fallacies in

the movie died suddenly. It doesn't stop with specious video and news stories. They have misleading reports of data, not only from U.S. military medical archives, but also from Australia's vital records, Pfizer's safety reports issued to the U.S. FDA. And again, just like ClimateGate, when you look at this and they try to cover this stuff up, when the FDA says you can't have these Pfizer papers for another 60 some odd years, all of that is a smoking gun. You don't have to get into the nitty gritty of this stuff. You don't have to get into a debate about the mechanics of it. You just look at what is happening in the insurance industry with non-COVID deaths. You look at what is happening in the

funeral home industry. And you look at what is happening with regulatory oversight agencies saying, we're not going to let you see this for another 60 some odd years. And we know that means never because we've seen that done before with JFK papers and other things. Uh, many are delighted at the infamy cast on the medical freedom movement by the film. David Gorski, uh, who is a big vaccine proponent, says,

crank fight, hilarity is ensuing. And so Gutzkow laments, he said, the movie would have been far more effective if it had just focused on the long, white, fibrous material that embalmers interviewed in the documentary. They say they're finding in dead people's arteries and veins after the vaccine rollout. One of the embalmers that he interviewed Wallace Hooker, a funeral director in Indiana with more than 30 years experience is a member of

the British Institute of embalmers serves on the advisory board of Worsham college of mortuary science. He told the film's producers about a lecture that he gave to 100 professionals at the Ohio Embalmers Association, a fall seminar in October. He posted photos of these atypical fibrous clots. He asked attendees if they'd seen anything like them. Nearly all had, and they agreed that it began after the rollout of COVID vaccines.

One headline reads, I'm sorry, looking at the rollout of this after the COVID vaccines, he says, I'm not trying to say that I know what this is. And see, that's where you jump the shark. If you say you know exactly what this is, they haven't done the research on it. As a matter of fact, when you have PolitiFact pushing back on this, they talked to a hematologist who said, well, I've heard of some embalmers' claims about this, but I haven't seen any studies.

And so, you know, this doesn't exist. But he doesn't call for any studies. He doesn't do any studies. I've seen this type of thing for the longest time about medical marijuana, for example. You have a lot of anecdotal evidence about how it would help people. The government, the DEA, the Department of Justice would come back and say, well, that's just simply anecdotal evidence.

There is no studies that show any of this stuff. And you have to say, well, why not? Why don't you do a study? If you've got a bunch of people saying that it's helping them with this, if you've got a bunch of people who are saying, I've got a child who has uncontrollable seizures. None of the pharmaceutical medication helps, but medical marijuana stopped it. This kid was having constant seizures. We tried everything. Medical marijuana helped. Why wouldn't you do a study of that? Well, for the same reasons that they would shut down ivermectin and all the rest of the stuff. They've got a product that they want to push, a narrative that they want to push,

and they're going to shut out everything else. And so that's the reality of this. And so that's what the embalmer is saying. He says, I'm not trying to say that I know what this is. I'm telling you that I know what normal looks like, and this isn't normal. And so that is the way to approach this. But we understand, as I said before, fundamentally, this doesn't hinge on whether or not you can explain medically

what is happening to people because they're not going to do the studies and they're not going to show you the data that they did of the limited tests that they did. They did limited tests. When I talked about this, it didn't go viral. I talked about, look at some of the stuff that came out of the forced release of some of these FDA Pfizer things. Blue green breast milk.

Pfizer knew, FDA knew. That was the title of my video. And it was based on the documents that came out. They said, oh, look, you know,

we've got, you know, breast milk of some vaccinated mothers and and it turned blue-green. Oh, and we found that intercourse passes along the spike protein, the mRNA, and things like that. Well, that's pretty sensational, isn't it? And it's also true. Why doesn't that go viral? It's just absolutely amazing to me to see how

certain things are picked up and other things are completely ignored and it wasn't something that i was saying i mean i picked that up from an obscure article but nobody else picked it up from the article nobody else wanted to talk about that this is far more interesting to uh do some sensational untrue details about this. Now, we have to focus on what we can prove. And what we can prove is a conspiracy between Fauci and the big pharmaceutical companies to get rid of all testing, a conspiracy to shut down all criticism, all scientific inquiry. And that is in their own words. And we got their own video.

We don't need a doctor, anything. We don't need to make anything up. They were monologuing like supervillains over this stuff at the end of a superhero movie. We know exactly what they did and why. Thank you. I'll say what they did and why. Thank you. I'll say on the Rockfin tips, I'm going to talk about that coming up here in a moment. Well, let me just say, thank you very much, Mary Moore.

I appreciate the tip. It says you're so right about not looking to Washington. They'll do the usual GOP kick the can down the road. It is a uniparty. Yeah, it absolutely is. A. Woots, thank you also for the tip. Hey, David, have you tried the AI chat GPD? No, I haven't.

I've read about that. And it is interesting. It says Theodore Dallarimple, I haven't read that, has an essay about his experience with it. I'd be interested in your take on it. I guess I should try that. read that has an essay about his experience with it i'd be interested in your take on it i guess i should try that um you know i have uh i really like talking to real people why on earth would i want to talk to a machine well the thing is you know whether you had that story that came out

um i don't know it was the last year of the year before uh that google engineer who says uh this has gone um sentient you know, you know, Google's program. And, uh, you had the story that came out, said, oh, look, it's code red. And, um, for Google, um, supposedly from the inside Google saying, well, this thing is not just reformulating stuff and copying it back, but it's actually, uh, putting it in a way that, uh, is, is very thoughtful and considerate. And so it looks like it is intelligent, whether it is or not.

And I've talked about this from the very beginning. I mean, one of the earliest computer programs you could type a line in and, uh, it was like, uh, it was like Eliza or something like that. And, um, and it would chat with you and, uh, you know, say, hi, how are you doing today? And you say, okay, but I'm feeling this way or that way. Well, tell me a little bit more about that. And then you'd say something else and say, well, that's interesting. Why do you say that?

And so it always asked these open-ended questions. It was like, you know, the drill that you would get, I guess, on a psychiatrist's couch. I've never been on one, but I can imagine that's the game that they play. And so this computer program, this is the very, very early days of computers. I mean, this is when we were working with floppy disks and stuff like that. They didn't have a lot of computing power. There was no pretense that it was artificial intelligence, but it was quite a bit of artifice involved

and making it sound like it was a real person. And it was fairly easy to do that as a trick. And so the question is, how much of this is kind of feedback with it? You know, we have a story over the weekend, and it was put out by this tabloid out of the UK called the sun. And they're just absolute garbage. I mean, it's, it's about the level of the national inquiry, you know, oh, look, that boy, uh, has, has been discovered. And, you know, they show pictures of a boy with like a vampire bat.

It's all cartoony. And well, the sun is about that level. The sun is running stories about Nostradamus and all the rest of the stuff, but it gets picked up by the drudge report and a lot of other people. Why? Because it's sensational. And even though people know that it's not true, though, but it's fun. You know, that's the same thing that Alex said about, uh, the Chenik and the sting. Oh, but it's fun. It's fun to tell people that, uh, Trump's already pushing back against this. The election was stolen that Trump's already pushing back against this. The election was stolen and Trump's already pushing back against this. And we need to go to Washington on January the 6th and put him back in office.

Oh, that was just a lot of fun, wasn't it? Yeah, a lot of people's lives were destroyed with that. Fun. Fun. So they had a story from the Sun was AI predicts World War III. And to show you the thing, they had pictures. This is what it's going to look like. Artificial intelligence shows us what it's going to look like in Moscow,

in London, in Washington, D.C., after a nuclear war. And what it was was a graphics program, and there are several of these out there now, artificial intelligence, and you can go in and you can describe something, right? And so you describe a scenario, like say London. Show me London after a nuclear bomb or devastation or something, and it'll take a couple of landmarks and it'll mess them up and, and, and a scene of total devastation. And it can do a pretty good job.

Uh, but it's just pulling together elements of things that it finds on the internet and throwing them together. And I don't know what the rules for composition are, but they look pretty good. But it's not an AI prediction of what's going to happen. You know, the AI did not go in and say, well, it's going to be X number of bombs that are going to hit with a capacity of this many megatons and all this other kind of stuff. And then, oh, this is the damage that's going to happen. It wasn't that at all. It was an artistic representation from somebody just said, show me Washington after a nuclear bomb. And then they oh, this is the damage that's going to happen. It wasn't that at all. It was an artistic representation from somebody who just said, show me Washington after a nuclear bomb.

And then they're using this. And, you know, the only thing I would applaud is that if they can scare some people about the possibility of nuclear war, that would be a good thing. Because most people are dead asleep about this thing. But it wasn't real. So we're going to take a quick break, uh, before I go, I just want to say, um, uh, thank you to some of the people who've left tips on rock fan, Jason. Thank you very much. Uh, he says, good to see you back, David. Glad to see you're still over the target with your topics. Well, thank you. I appreciate it. Um, we're going to, when

we come back, I want to talk about, uh, the Andrew Tate, uh, situation, uh, What's going on with that? And what's going on with Andrew Tate as well? Yuri Jenkins, thank you very much. He says, happy new year, David. Thank you for sharing the truth always. Well, thank you. And I do hope that it is happy new year. And we're going to talk about the right way to approach this when we come back.

When we look at the things that are wrong in this world, there are positive things that we can do to address them. And then there are some very negative ways that we can react to this. So stay with us. We're going to be right back. Thank you. you're listening to the david knight show all right let's talk a little bit about um andrew tate and um the right way and the wrong way to respond to injustice entertain as somebody and i'm sure you probably know, it's kind of interesting after all this stuff happened. Uh, he was the number one search on Google. Who is Andrew Tate? Uh, I had not heard of him before 2022. Uh, he got pretty big, um, during the summer. And he has, he's a former kickboxer, and he's involved with the mixed martial arts stuff,

I think as a commentator or something like that. But he's made a ton of money by selling a, what I think is a pathetic so-called defense of masculinity. He sees the problem out there. We all see it. We understand the hatred that is being inculcated against males. And we understand how that's being pushed by the media. It's being pushed by politicians.

It's being pushed by everybody, social media, especially. And so there's a lot of different ways that we can react to it. Now, the way Andrew Tate reacted to it was to talk about how he hates women. And he says, well, you can't shame me because I'm going to tell you right now I'm a misogynist and,

you know, I have hate about, and, and so, you know, he asserts his masculinity that way. Yeah. Women are nothing. You know, I have hate about, and, and so, you know, he asserts his masculinity that way. Yeah. Women are nothing.

You know, they're weak. I can push them around that type of thing. And when all this stuff happened, you know, we were running, uh, some, uh, of the best of interviews that we'd had recently. And it just so happened that we'd already pulled up an interview that I had with a guy named Jeremy Slayton. I don't know if you saw it again, or if you saw it when we originally aired it, or if you saw it when we put it up. I think it was maybe on Friday.

And so when I tweeted it out, I said, you know, he's got a completely different way to address this issue, the hate that's being addressed to men in particular. He did it the right way. He did it by building men up, Jeremy Slayton, building men up instead of tearing women down, you see. There's a big difference with that. He has a website called Warrior MBS, Mind, Body, and Soul. He brings people together. It's a thing where people encourage each other. They build themselves up,

mind, body, and soul. He's a Christian. And so he's not going to take this us versus them approach. If you've got some radical feminists, you've got the LGBT or you've got politicians for their divide and conquer strategies, if they're trying to attack one group of people, well, rather than going out there and saying, oh, yeah, well, I'm better than you and, you know, that type of thing. Anything you can do, I can do better. Instead of doing that, you build up people. You build up the group that the society is trying to tear down. And, of course, that's going to be the way that he approaches this because he's a Christian. But the thing that bothered me about it was when I saw these stories

about Andrew Tate, there was something like 168,000 people worldwide. They're paying something like 50 bucks. If I remember, I mean, we're talking about, you know, millions of dollars a month that he's getting. And he tells them things like, I don't need you. You need me. Look at how successful I am. And, you know, flaunting his wealth and flaunting everything else and you know there's a back and forth everybody focused on his back and forth with greta thunberg and how they were trolling each other and said oh look you know there's a a story that appears to be false that uh his uh his taunting back of uh greta Thunberg showed that he had ordered pizza from this Romanian pizza parlor.

And that was how they found him. But they were looking for him. And they were looking for him because there were already allegations from multiple women that they had been abducted. So they got human trafficking charges as well as rape charges that they brought up against him. There were allegations about an American woman that disappeared, but the other ones were, the other women were different nationalities. And I got to say that it doesn't look like a setup, which InfoWars is trying to say that

it is. It looks to me like it fits with the pattern of behavior. I don't know if he's guilty or not. I mean, the jury's going to have to decide that. These are allegations on the side of the government. But when you look at the past behavior and statements of this guy, he was kicked off a big brother because he was beating a woman with a belt. They said, well, it was consensual, whatever.

But when you look at that, when you look at what he says about women, when you look at the fact that he is in Romania, for example, why would you be hanging out in Romania? What is there in Romania that is so interesting? Well, I mean, if you wanted to do human trafficking, if you want to make a lot of money off of the Internet doing human trafficking, you might figure out that you could get away with it in Romania, or maybe that you could bribe the people if you didn't get away with it in Romania. I mean, it all looks,

certainly looks, the allegations look plausible based on his past experiences. But I think it just underscores a problem with our society. You see, Andrew Tate is not the problem with our society. The 168,000 people who pay him $50 a month are the problem with our society. Those are the people who are Peter Pans. They look at somebody who's successful and they think, well, well, you know, I could be like that. And this, he holds that out for them. You know, I can show you how to be like me. Here's how you become like Andrew Tate.

You have success in something and then you flaunt it and you tell other people that, um, uh, you got a secret to life. Uh, send me your money. That's how you make all this money. It's like these people, it's like, I can tell you how to make millions of dollars by flipping houses. Well, there's a little bit of advice in that. That's a little bit more, uh, depending on the market, that's a little bit more rational and reasonable than what he was telling people. But you know, he put, puts himself out there as this guru. I know I'm not supposed to say that. That's now on the list of banned topics to say somebody's a guru.

But he puts himself out as that. And the problem, though, are the Peter Pans. The problem is that you've got a lot of men who make it easy to be mocked because they sit around on the couch and they do nothing and they play games. Kid adults are now responsible for a quarter of all U.S. toy sales. Adults buying toys for themselves. Men who will never grow up. The Peter Pans.

They don't know anything. They don't know how to do anything. They've got no ambition. Why do they expect that anybody's going to respect them, let alone women respect them, right? If you want to be respected, you have to earn it. You don't demand it. And that's what Andrew Tate is doing. I'm going to demand I be respected because I'm stronger than you are,

that type of thing. No, you earn respect. You don't demand it. And the problem is, is that the real attack on our society, even before you get to the politically correct Marxists and their hatred of that group over there, which happens to be our group, if you're a male, especially a white male, especially a white Christian male. You know, we're the ones, even more so, I guess, than Andrew Tate because Jeremy Slayton is a Christian white male. I guess he would be in the crosshairs. But, you know, they pick a group and they come after you. But you can make it easy for them by doing nothing.

You know, it has always been a thing. It's not something that's new. Men who don't do anything have always been mocked by other men, by society. You go back and you look at, you know, the, uh, the Walter Mitty's who lived by fantasy, but they never do anything or whatever, but they just, just, uh, you know, in the Western movies, you would have the, uh, the dude that, um, had no practical skills, couldn't do anything, but, uh, you know, he's just occupying space and he's a,

you know, he's got a fancy dress from the East or whatever. This has been an ongoing thing throughout time. What has changed is that's now become the majority of people. We become passive. The technology is making us passive. It is dumbing us down. And that's the thing that's really changed. See, that's your real enemy. Your real enemy is not women. It's not even the feminists out there. Of course, a lot of that stuff is coming from the CIA as well. But the real issue is how we conduct ourselves. So, yeah, as you've got these big things that get everybody's attention, some of the most dangerous stuff that has happened in the last year are the things that are flying under the radar quietly,

but they're relentlessly pushing things forward. And for the most part, this has been the surveillance and the propaganda stuff, but especially the surveillance. You've got the push for global ID, again, coming back to that. CBDC pulls into that, and it touches on so many different things. I'll start sorting articles by surveillance or by speech or something like that, and it touches on so many different things. You know, I'll talk about, I'll start sorting articles by surveillance or by speech or something like that, and yet they all converge, don't they? Because their surveillance is the other side of the coin

of the control of information. They want to know everything about you, and they're telling you what to think. And then they're monitoring what you say so they can fine tune their narrative to make it more effective. And so over the last year, we've talked about the relentless progression of vaccine passports. Nothing is stopping about that. We talked about the military mandates.

Oh, well, you know, we got that fixed in the NDA, didn't we? No, no, no. The NDAA did not fix that. And I had Davis Shantz on to talk about that. That is one of the biggest head fakes that has come out in this last year by the Republicans. Because it's not going to do anything to anybody who's already in progress and process. How could you not be in process since these things have been mandated for a year and a half now, practically, I think it was September of 2021.

So, you know, 15 months, this thing's been going on for 15 months. How could you not already be in progress and process? So if it doesn't apply to people who are in process, it doesn't apply to anybody and it doesn't restore anything to anybody who is unfairly disciplined. It doesn't restore the people who were purged out of the military, who lost their investment in their career. It doesn't do anything really to stop any of this stuff. So the vaccine mandates are still moving on.

And all of the technology that they're putting in for the vaccine passports, they're now making that permanent, just like we see this executive order that's now 1,027 days old. All this stuff had two components in it. It was setting a precedent, and it was normalizing this behavior psychologically with the populace. You've got people who cannot get rid of their face diaper, their security blanket on their face. You got a lot of people who are in that situation and they're trying to bring that back now as well. So, you know, we saw this last year.

We saw the China lockdowns. 26 million people in Shanghai. Nobody died. Nobody died. This is just the raw exercise of political power. That's why I say you want to argue about the details of how the spike is affecting your body. Well, that's interesting. We should talk about the research and the studies as studies are done by people.

But for the most part, we don't need those. We can look at what happened in China in 2020 before we were locked down. We can look at what they were doing this last year. You understand then at that point that it is totally political. It is totally political. Yeah. The vaccine is a bioweapon. We do need to talk about the aspects of that. But, um, when you look at, uh, the brain computer interface, the brain implants or the other tactics where they don't have to interplant

anything into your brain. You know, these types of things that they're relentlessly progressing on. It's not just Elon Musk's Neuralink. You know, Gates has invested in it. Bezos has invested in it. They've all got their companies. There's multiple companies that are all working on this simultaneously and in parallel. You look at the blood transfusions. Again, another, and I had several of these interviews that we put on the best of this

last week because I think it's very key to understand how this medical tyranny is moving relentlessly into all these different areas. Now, throughout Europe, after the COVID thing, we still have the capability of doing it theoretically in the U.S., depending on the hospital that you're talking about. But in Europe, you used to always be able to pick a donor or you could save your blood in advance if you needed to have an operation. If you've got an emergency, of course, that's a different thing. You're injured in an automobile accident.

You've lost a lot of blood. It's got to be replaced very quickly. But if it's an operation, you can have people that you know and trust don't have diseases, and you can pick them as donors. That's been taken away. That freedom has been taken away. And, of course, when I talked to the guy from Switzerland, I can't remember his name again.

It was hard for me to pronounce. First name was George without an E. And he was pointing out that in a lot of hospitals, there's equipment that allows them to recover your own blood as it spills out on the operating table and to put it back in you. But they are removing these types of things from us. It's the creeping medical martial law coming out into all these different areas and taking away our freedom of choice.

We have the executive orders that revolve around gun control that Trump set the precedent. And of course, that has this last year worked its way through. We've had the Biden administration, the ATF under the executive branch that he has there put this through, and they've taken it to the Supreme Court this last year. And the Supreme Court says, no, yeah, we're going to uphold that bump stock ban that Trump put in there that establishes the precedent for gun control by executive order, gun control by the bureaucracy. So you don't even have to convince the majority of people in Congress to violate the constitution. Now the bureaucracy can violate the constitution at will.

The unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy. Now the bureaucracy can violate the Constitution at will. The unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy. You've got this last year. We had besides the CBDC executive order, which rolled out and they're underway with that. You had Biden's 17-page executive order in September calling for a kind of warp speed approach to a bio economy genetic engineering to write circuitry for cells and program biology is the way they talked about it and of course they call me a conspiracy theorist for saying that the Trump shots were genetic code injections, GCI. Well, now they're talking about, you know what we need to do?

We need to do genetic engineering to write circuitry for cells and program biology. I started calling it genetic code injections because that's the way that Moderna described the mRNA vaccine. It's kind of like a software, you know, you have the computer, and we're just rearranging some of the code for the better, you know. So we've had everything in terms of lockdown. When you look at what is happening in China, and you look at, again, the creeping aspect of this, one of the key reports that I had last year that I thought was significant was the way that they use technology to assuage objections.

So as this lockdown has now been established, they came out with a hyper real 3d televisits. And again, it wasn't just a high resolution TV. It had multiple cameras. And as you could move, you're looking at something and it's not a projection on a flat 2d surface. It really does look like you are the way that they did the technology. It looks like you're looking at somebody on the other side of a glass, you know, and as you move, you're going to see a different side of their face and that type of thing. So it is a,

a three G three D projection essentially inside the TV screen. It's not holographic either. I mean it, uh, uh, but they were able to create that. I said, you know,

when you look at this, it's kind of like having somebody come to visit you in prison. And, um, you know, you've got a glass between you and everything, but you can move to the side and you can see that they're three dimensional. And that's the way this,

this thing was hyper realistic 3d. And if they offer that to people, are people going to be content to be locked down? Are they going to be content to be put into a type of reservation system like we did to the Indians? You're not going to go anywhere. We're going to take away your ability to take care of yourself, to earn a living. And we're going to, but we'll provide what you need within 15 minutes. And you'll have these hyper 3D televisits that you can have with people

who are not within your 15-minute sphere of influence. Now, they're using technology to move us down the road. Now, when we come back, we're going to talk about the war specifically and how we are gradually progressing into a world war. Stay with us. We'll be right back. decoding the mainstream propaganda it's the david knight show well um as we talk about the war again um pull up the pictures of those ai predictions of what nuclear war would look like with attacks on london moscow and washington maybe that will

jar some people into thinking about what is coming up. Again, it is nothing other than some AI art program, you know, last man on earth and the rest of this stuff and the remnants of cities. But what is happening, as you look at those pictures, what is happening is a real escalation towards something that will look like this or worse. I don't know if anything will be standing after a nuclear attack. That's where I think the AI art program got it wrong with the description.

But Moscow says Ukrainian rocket strike has killed 63 Russian troops. One of the deadliest attacks since the war began 10 months ago. Six rockets, they said, from a HIMARS launch system. That's one of the ones that we gave them. And two of them were shot down, they said, from a high Mars launch system. That's one of the ones that we gave them. And two of them were shot down, they said, but four of them got through and killed 63 Russian troops. So things continue to escalate. Meanwhile, Russia deployed multiple exploding drones and another nighttime attack on Ukraine as the Kremlin signaled no let-up in its strategy of using bombardments to target the country's

energy infrastructure and to wear down Ukrainian resistance to its invasion. Of course, this is an article from AP. So they're taking a very one-sided propagandistic approach to it. They even talk about the fact, they said, well, there was 40 drones that were headed for Kiev, but we shut them all down. The, the, uh, air defense forces. Well, maybe that's true, but maybe it isn't because what is kind of interesting is that even though they say they shot down all 40 of them,

they said energy infrastructure facilities were damaged as a result of the attack. How did that happen? Uh, and so the attack. How did that happen? And so the Associated Press actually reports that. And then says it wasn't immediately clear whether the energy infrastructure facilities that were damaged was caused by the drones or by other munitions. Trying to cover for these people. No, the reality is, is that you can lie about.

Yeah, they shot a bunch of stuff at us and we took it all down. Now we got an iron dome over us. Well, maybe they do. Maybe they don't. But, um, uh, you can't hide the fact that the energy grid went down. So you kind of come up with another lie about that. Uh, always again in a war, you can't believe anything from either side. Nothing is believable.

Zelensky has accused Russia of energy terrorism. Really? After Biden has terrorized the West, terrorized America, terrorized the EU, Biden and NATO with sanctions freezing us out. I mean, we have done more to harm these leaders and NATO, the EU, the White House, have done more to harm their own citizens than anybody else. As a matter of fact, as I pointed out many times this last year, we gave a $340 billion bonus just the first few months to Putin who paid for that citizens did,

right? We paid in the, in terms of higher oil prices. And even though, um, uh, Putin was offering a 30% discount. If somebody would buy his oil with um rubles or with um gold

the price of oil went up so much that he was still making a tremendous profit selling less oil than he did before 340 billion dollar bonus and that was just at the very beginning so who's doing the energy terrorism who is it who is it that blew up the nordstream pipeline of course yeah that was one of the major stories last year as well so um matthew errett has a story that was picked up by zero hedge the high cost of blowing up the world yeah i mean you can there's probably some pretty expensive technology to blow up the Nord Stream pipelines. They were, you know, heavy metal encased in concrete and all the rest of this stuff. I'm looking at this comment from Susie Moody.

Thank you for the tip, Susie. She says, I signed up for chat GPD. They make you prove you're not a robot. Oh, you did? Yeah. You signed up for it? Yeah. Okay. Okay. Well, thank you, Susie up for ChatGPD. They make you prove you're not a robot. Oh, you did? Yeah. You signed up for it? Yeah. Okay.

Well, thank you, Susie, for the tip. Travis says he signed up for ChatGPD. They make you prove that you're not a robot to talk to a robot. It's like some really lame version of Blade Runner. Well, I would like for you to ask the robot then, how many traffic lights do you see in this picture? See if it can count. You know, can I found it out with its hoof or something? It's time for you to answer this question. I got some questions for you. What is the meaning of life? Yeah.

Explain 42 to me as well, right? Deep thought is going to explain all this stuff to us. So will Americans wake up to the reality they've been walking on the wrong side of history for too long or has a point of no return been crossed the high cost of blowing up the world. Talking about the 2023 NDAA total us support for the Davos managed disposable ward. Zelinsky is now up to 111 billion. I think that's a little bit low. I kind of a little bit higher than that. for the Davos Managed Disposable Ward, Zelensky,

is now up to $111 billion. I think that's a little bit low, kind of a little bit higher than that. But anyway, they're also continuing to weaponize Taiwan, another $12 billion to get that kicked off as well. And, you know, very similar to what happened in Ukraine, you had, as he points out, just as Ukraine has suffered U.S.-directed color revolutions in 2004 and 2014, so too has Taiwan been strung through a

similar sunflower revolution regime change in 2014. Isn't that interesting? At the same time, they were doing the the obama administration cia were engineering a coup in ukraine they were also doing something like that in taiwan as well saw the uh party taken out of power just as final stages of economic integration agreement with mainland china were being finalized oh yeah we have a history of doing that, don't we? A lot of people don't remember what happened in Iran. But the American history with Iran did not start with a takeover of the American embassy, not by a long shot. There's decades of context for that. Another election that we didn't like and another coup that we staged and a dictator

showered with cash, just like Zelensky put into power the Shah and the Savak, his secret police that were used in a reign of terror against any of his political opponents uh yeah we had decades of that before uh the blowback of the iranian takeover of the u.s embassy in 2000 there was a report that came out from the new American Century Think Tank, right? Those people have put out a lot of stuff. 2000, the Rebuilding America's Defenses Report, or they just call it the 2000 RAD, R-A-D. RAD envisions a future in which the United States,

this is its introduction to itself. RAD envisions a future where the U.S. is in complete control of land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace of planet Earth. Pinky, are you thinking what I'm thinking? Take over the world tomorrow? Well, that's basically what RAD was all about. RAD was about an American empire. And what is the cost of an American empire? Probably one of the most dangerous and revealing aspects of RAD was found on page 60, where the authors outline a program that soon grew into obscene proportions in the wake of the 2001 anthrax attacks, which justified the later passage of Cheney's 2004

BioShield Act, as well as the growth of 320 plus international biolabs run by the Pentagon. You know, one of the things that was interesting about Wuhan, when I reported the fact that they had their only biosafety level 4 lab in China, was in Wuhan. And of course, we had something to do with that. But they have set these things up internationally. Almost all of these biolabs, whether they're in China or Ukraine or in the community near you at a university,

almost all these things were set up by the Pentagon. They were predicated on the 2001 anthrax attacks, which were a false flag in many different ways. You know, they use those anthrax attacks, as I've pointed out many times. You had two months before 9-11, you had the dark winter simulation. Then two months, you know, then you have 9-11 and the week after 9-11, you have the anthrax attacks. That was used initially as a false flag to say this is an attack by Iraq. That was debunked.

Even the New York Times and Washington Post debunked that. It was a strain of anthrax that only the U.S. had, and it was a means of delivery that was even rare in the United States. There were only two places where that kind of delivery mechanism could be manufactured. And both of those places were bioweapon labs that were affiliated with the CIA. So the FBI looked elsewhere and set up somebody else. And then on the basis of that, they put out the Model State Health Emergency Powers Act. So there's model legislation for the states to give themselves the powers that they've been using for the last 1,027 days,

although they paused the implementation of that for now. But they gave themselves the power that Trump triggered with the executive order. But they also used it as a false flag to say, well, now we have to create a lot of bioweapon lands. So they create a weaponized anthrax. They create a weaponized delivery system that's very sophisticated for the anthrax. They kill several people with it. And then on the basis of that, they lay the foundation for the other shoe to drop from 9-11 that landed in 2020 under Trump and, uh, use it as a basis also to start a war and to, uh, create all these bioweapon labs to further this out. Thomas Massey said a hundred billion dollars for Ukraine could have given an extra $200 million to every congressional district in the United States.

Now I know that Thomas Massey doesn't want to see that kind of money spent. And I know that we don't need to be giving $200 million to every congressional district. It's a ridiculous amount of money. But it's a great way to get people to understand the enormous sums of money that are involved. I mean, when we look at $100 billion, that doesn't really sound like a lot of money because we're spending trillions, right? We just spent $1,700 billion in this NDAA. And out of that $1,700, 100 of it went to Ukraine. That's a pretty big chunk.

But as he points out, think about every one of these congressional districts having $200 million. A congressional district is not that large. It doesn't encompass that many people. That's how much money we are bleeding out of this empire. It cannot be sustained, frankly. I thought this was an interesting, as we talk about whether or not Ukraine was able to shoot down all the Russian drones and the HIMARS rocket system that killed 63 Russians. When you look at the technology of the stuff, I think going back to World War I,

and I keep thinking about World War I with this war, kind of this idiotic sleepwalking into this massive conflict for which there is no real reason. And World War II was really kind of a continuation on with it. And World War II was significant because it was a fourth turning. You know, I didn't see anybody, there have been people, I'm not the only one who talks about fourth turnings by any means, but it's not talked about all that much. And I didn't see anybody talk about that in the context of the

previous year or the coming year, you know, where we are in all of this. And, um, it is very significant. The, the people who are pushing this stuff through the people who are pushing to ban food and ban cars in a couple of years, the people who want to have us completely locked in slavery and some kind of a reservation system by 2030, some kind of an Indian reservation system. These people are very well aware of the times that we're living in. But as I look at this, I keep seeing all these similarities to World War I. And when I saw this article about quadcopters,

I said, look at how effective these things, simple things, they're not very expensive. A lot of people have said, well, it's a sign that Russia is scraping the bottom of the barrel that they got to buy drones from Iran. Well, no, what it shows is that you can have some very effective weapons that operate in asymmetric warfare. You don't have to have hypersonic missiles. Yeah. You can,

as we saw with the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, asymmetric warfare, where you come in and you completely devastate any military assets that a company at country has. And then you have to occupy the country because you're going to build it, uh, uh, to be,

um, you know, whatever you want it to be, you know, get involved in nation building. Well, when you start to occupy the country because you're going to build it to be, you know, whatever you want it to be. You know, get involved in nation building. Well, when you start to occupy that country, now you're involved in asymmetric warfare. We've lost every one of those wars. We went in with nation building. So in this particular instance, as 2022 draws to a close, Samuel Bendett put up on Twitter, he said a few words about how technology has helped to shape and influence the war in Ukraine. Specifically, the impact of commercial quadcopters.

These are not expensive devices, but they can be very, very effective. Because of the commercial quadcopter, off-the-shelf components, essentially. You put a bomb on it, you can fly it into some vulnerable infrastructure target or something like that. And as I looked at this, we don't need to get involved in all the details of it, but just something that you would buy off the shelf, a DJI quadcopter or something like that because you want to do some drone footage or something, that can be turned into a weapon very effectively.

And as I thought about it, it kind of reminds me of where airplane technology was in World War I. You know, you stop and think about it. You had a few dogfights, you know, with Snoopy and the Red Baron type of thing. But, you know, they have occasional dogfights. But at the beginning of World War I, they would basically use the biplanes that they had for reconnaissance. After a while, you know, some of the guys would go up and they'd carry a little, some small ammunition and, you know, drop a bomb on the people that they're flying over or something like that. And then things rapidly accelerated with World War II.

And it's amazing to see how airplane technology took off in World War II, as well as munitions. But it started in a very crude way, and that's what we're seeing right now. And so if you stop and think about it, I'll give you a little bit of a spoiler alert here on a Daniel Suarez story. And I like his, he incorporates technology trends

into a storyline he had one that was change agent that was about genetic modification of humans and of course he extrapolates it into some improbable areas but for the most part he brings up some very important issues and he did one

about the military industrial complex and about drones and and drones that would swarm and the technology behind it you know tying it in to insects and how they would basically um you know communicate with each other and how they could identify targets targets, and the bottom line is that at the end of the book, you find out that these swarming drones are so effective that they made pretty much all of the conventional weapons obsolete. And so everybody was rushing to try to come up with something that was going to counter them, or to come up with their own version of swarming drones and that type of thing. And you find out at the end of the book that the swarming drones were actually put out as kind of a false flag by the military industrial complex because they wanted to make all of the weapons obsolete, which is kind of an interesting approach. We see that kind of happening with what is going on with the war in Ukraine, for example.

They are not making the weapons necessarily obsolete. They're just using them all up, so they've got to be bought again. It's basically feeding the military industrial complex beast. Speaking of military industrial complex beast. Speaking of military industrial complex beast, I had a listener who, uh, I said, well,

I was talking about Lindsey Graham and now he's pushing. Well, we got it. We got to take out that Putin. You know, this isn't going to get any better until somebody assassinates him. We got to do that. And then,

you know, we got to steal all of their stuff that we froze and all the rest of the stuff. This guy is a one man, Dr. Strangelove. And I said, what's the matter with South Carolina? And so this listener said, um, well, he says, um, I'm, uh, involved in, uh, precinct politics in the County and South Carolina. And he gives me some information about it.

And he says, um, you asked what's wrong with South Carolinians on the show today. Well, nothing is wrong with us. We know that Lindsay is a homosexual and, uh, and the party that is, uh, you know, hiding under that, but we've censured him in the county parties. My chairwoman attempted to censure me for mentioning that he's a homosexual. And I made the motion to censure him for warmongering a war with Russia last time and blocked me introducing a new resolution to censure him on his proposed pro-death abortion bill in Congress. She had a cop there, according to one EC, to intimidate us to set us up.

We have never had security at our meetings, and we've not even been asked to appoint an SGT at arms, even though we just elected a parliamentarian for our meetings, one meeting before that. You understand what's going on here, right? The problem is, and I know this, it's not just Lindsay. You know, he is the poster child for all this stuff. And I mentioned his homosexuality, his closeted homosexuality, because, you know, he keeps getting reelected in a very conservative area where you would think that that would be a disadvantage to him. But he can succeed because of his ties

to the military-industrial complex and because he is a warmonger. And the GOP establishment coalesces behind him because he is a warmonger, because they are warmongers as well. So he said, at least four, if not six, county parties have censored Lindsey Graham this year alone, and more are trying to, as I type. All of these are swept under the rug by state and local media. He said the South Carolina GOP state chairman, Drew McKissick, is trying to dissolve county parties to prevent us from fixing the party and removing Tim Scott and Lindsey Graham.

Yeah, that's the problem. Yeah, when you see senators like Tim Scott and Lindsey Graham. Yeah, that's the problem. Yeah, when you see senators like Tim Scott and Lindsey Graham from a conservative state, you know there's something on the state party. And this underscores why I say there's no solutions coming in Washington because there's no solutions coming really at the state level with rare exceptions.

And even when you have some good legislators at the state level with rare exceptions. And even when you have some good legislators at the state level, they get shut down by the establishment party there. And so that's why I say that the solution is at the local level. And I would just suggest that as you guys have got people at the party level, at the county level, at the county level, focus on your county elections, focus on your sheriff and other things like that. Start trying to get those six counties at least doing the right thing, moving in the right direction.

It's a very long letter, so I won't read all of it, but I appreciate him sending this to me. We're going to take a quick break. And when we come back, we're going to talk about political theater because there's been a lot of it as we look at the year in review and a lot of it that is moving forward. So stay with us. We'll be right back. ¶¶ In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. You're listening to The David Knight Show. Well, you know, as I look back on 2022, I've talked about some of the biggest stories, talked about the stuff that's quiet and under the radar that is relentless and

progressing into their agenda. But I think there was also some really big non-stories. And I think the biggest non-story of 2022 was what we're finding out in the Twitter files about the FBI. Who knew that the deputized state is an agent of the deep state and the two have been working hand in glove in order to give each other a plausible deniability. Who knew that? Well,

of course, I've been saying it for a very long time. It's kind of like the Ukraine war. It escalated to another level, but it's been going on for eight years. Well, this has been going on forever. This has been the way that J. Edgar Hoover operated. You know, the thing that's changed, interestingly enough, is that the left used to be very upset about Jager Hoover's

COINTELPRO and, uh, you know, the files that he had on Martin Luther King and on JFK and all the rest of this stuff. Uh, you had, um, you had Truman talking about how Jager Hoover had blackmail files on everybody. Nixon said the same thing. And, of course, it was true. You know, his assistant that worked for him all of her life was destroying all that stuff as he died. But that's been the way that the FBI has always operated.

So why is any of this a surprise? And I was talking about this when they were concocting all this Russia nonsense about Trump, you know, what is it, six years ago now. I said, look at what the FBI has always done. The difference is that the FBI used to be under J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI had a kind of a right-wing orientation and went after leftist groups. Now the FBI has a left-wing orientation and they're going after groups on the right. That's the only thing that's changed. You had J.

Edgar Hoover was very, very clever in terms of doing PR. You know, he created, you know, the FBI with J. Ephraim Zimbalist Jr. Right.

That was a J. Edgar Hoover production. Even though they didn't credit himself too much on it. But, you know, the whole thing was his propaganda piece, and it fooled mainstream America. They thought, you know, these guys are on our side. Truth, justice, and the American way. But no, it's always been about this.

And the idea that the censorship, I call these corporations the deputized state, Reason fought against it, Cato fought against it, the biggest libertarian think tank, Heritage Foundation fought against it. So many people were saying, well, they're just private corporations and they can do whatever they want. That, I think, is the only benefit of these Twitter files. It seems to have adjusted the consciousness of the libertarians at Reason and Cato Institute. I don't know about the Heritage Foundation, but at least Cato and Reason are saying, you know, these corporations that we said were just doing their own thing and I don't like what they're doing. You know, we saw that all the time.

We see it from John Stossel. We see it from Reason. Well, you know, it's really awful and they just purged me. But, you know, they have the right to do this. And, you know, corporations are fundamentally good and government is always bad, that type of approach. No, they were complicit in it. Now they've taken the approach that, well, the corporations are having their arms twisted by the government.

Well, that's true in many cases, but it's also true in many cases that they are, uh, they're coming to government because they want to do favors for the government so that they can get favors in return from the government. There's a lot of that that happens with the corporation show, but of course they want to pretend that does not happen. Uh, but at least they understand that the corporations are doing the bidding of the government. That's the most important thing we can talk about, you know, the

motivations and all the rest of the stuff. But the important thing is that people understand this is censorship that is coming from the government. And then I guess the question is, so what is going to be done about it? You know, uh, now everything is okay because speech has been freed by Elon Musk and he's

spent his fortune freeing speech. We should be so grateful to him. That's what we're told. Now let's talk about political theater. You know, we've to him, is what we're told. Now let's talk about political theater. You know, we've had a lot of political theater in 2022. I guess it's, everything is becoming,

we're ramping in towards a civil war. They're creating more and more division. Both sides are guilty of doing it. The government and many people want this to happen. Some people are doing it just because it's good business for them, just like adding false details to the truth about the vaccines and stuff like that, like Stu Peters is doing. You also have people who, as Matt Taibbi pointed out, they're in search of a demographic and they're going to feed that demographic what they want to hear and just like we saw with Andrew Tate a lot

of times that takes the approach the other side is all shameless defense of George Santos, this liar from Long Island. And the Republicans are now coalescing around because they got such a razor thin margin in the house that they want to protect. They're coalescing against around this guy, Marjorie Taylor green, probably the worst defender of this thing. I think she's gone native, you know, that's what they used to say about the missionaries, you know, send a missionary to a foreign country and rather than, um, you know, they'd start living there for awhile. And rather than telling people about Christ, they would just go native,

you know, so, you know, they're out, uh, sitting on the shore and, uh, um, and their loin claws and that's basically what's happened to Marjorie Taylor Greene. She has become this partisan party hack in Washington, D.C., defending the indefensible liar George Santos. But if we look at what happened in 2022, it's become a lot of theater. And everybody is really focused on politics now because Hollywood has become so pathetic. Hollywood is so pathetic that the last movie star, Tom Cruise, is leaving it. He says he can't stand the place.

It has become nothing but political propaganda. So Hollywood has become politicized. Politics is like the blob. It's taking over everything. Politics is taking over churches. Politics is taking over entertainment. Politics is taking over anything that you want to take over medicine, right? So this last year we had the Supreme Court leak. That was politicized, wasn't it? I mean, that was pure political theater. Whoever leaked that, and isn't it interesting that Roberts has not followed up with an investigation? I said from the very beginning I thought it was him.

He said, I'm going to find out who died. I'm going to get to the bottom of this. I'm going to do this. I'm going to do that. He hasn't done anything. He hasn't done anything. I mean, what was it, nine months ago or something that this all happened he's done nothing which again points the finger at him more than anything else but we had a tremendous amount of political theater because it was an election

year most of it involved trump trump trump trump trump because it's the the apprentice uh guy out there and he had a lot of new apprentices that he had handpicked. You know, people like Herschel Walker, people like Dr. Oz, people like Morgan Ortegas here in Tennessee, you know, handpicked celebrities. You know, they either had a lot of money or they had a popular program or they were a football player, but they didn't know or care about politics. And if they did, they were on the other team, but Trump liked them.

You know, this, uh, Morgan Ortegas here in Tennessee, there was an open seat in Tennessee and he had all these people who moved to Tennessee so they could run for that seat and she was one of them. She was the most Democrat of all of the people they're posing with Obama, long history of Democrat party activism and everything. She had a short stint in the Trump White House because she was attractive. And so Trump endorsed her. Fortunately, in Tennessee, they understood what was happening with all these carpetbaggers moving in here.

And they said, well, you know, you got to in tennessee for three years before you can run for state office we're going to apply those same rules to running for congress i have an idea for a law what's that how about i'm going to call it the davy crockett law if you're a politician you're only allowed to move to another state if you're going to die defending it that's right you have to die defending it very rapidly. So after he died at the Alamo, he could run for office. Okay. That makes a lot of sense.

Okay. Well, you know, we had a lot more about January the 6th. We still got stuff about, you know, oh, look, it was a setup, Ray Epps and all the rest of the stuff. Guess what? Who cares? Anybody that told you to go to January the 6th, don't listen to them talking about, oh, you know, there was a lot of feds there. Didn't I say that? Didn't I get fired for saying that? Didn't I tell people to stay away from that, to stop giving money to that, that it was a grift by Trump, by Alex, by Roger, by Ali Alexander, by all these people?

Didn't I say, don't, there's nothing to be done. They're just ripping you off. And don't go to Washington, it's dangerous. And I said it the morning of, because that was a Wednesday. And on Tuesday, Trump had played his usual games to lose the Senate in 2020 in Georgia. They did nothing to correct the new fraud that had been instituted by the lockdown that Trump had done, the mail-in elections.

So as I said at the time, by the way, it doesn't really even matter who is in Congress if we're going to be ruled by the bureaucracy, as we had been from March of that year to the election that's still going on. So, again, this is nothing but political theater. You know, you got political theater from the January 6th committee, the Democrats running it, you know, to get after Trump and everything.

And it is obvious political theater. It's despicable. And people on the right understand that. People on the left think it's great. Oh, we need to have more of that. But when it comes to, you know, feds and, you know, agent provocateurs on January the 6th, the conservatives can't get enough of that. And frankly, it's political theater.

It's an old story. This is just like the FBI. You know the FBI? Did you realize that the FBI was manipulating Twitter and social media and the Internet and doing it on behalf of the CIA? No, really? Yes, I've got the documents here. Well, now we can believe it, except that the left doesn't even cover that.

But that was an old story. We all knew that was going on. You could put the pieces together. Now they've got the documents and now reason believes them. Uh, the, uh, the Trump rate that was more political theater by the FBI. And the purpose of that was not to get Trump. The purpose of that, that's the key thing, right? And that's why I talk about political theater.

It's a distraction. It's Kabuki theater. They're trying to distract you to something else. What are they trying to do? Their real purpose is not to get Trump. Their real purpose is to start a civil war. Trump is the perfect character for this kind of division. You know, the parting on the left and the parting on the right,

well, it's all parting over Trump. And this whole thing about the Mar-a-Lago raids. That's all about stoking this civil war. Take a look at Paul Pelosi. Uh, take a harps. Thank you for the tip. He says,

happy new year, uh, nights, uh, more Travis cam, please. Well, he's the one who has to punch that up.

I'll have to get a Travis cam set up. I know how much you guys miss me. Well, we've changed some things, um, uh, over the weekend. We moved some stuff around. And, uh, so there's a couple of things that are going kind of haywire with this as we're doing the show, trying to work our way through it. Uh, but let's take Paul Pelosi, for example, right? I've seen so many of these.

Well, you know, what's coming up this next year. We're going to find out the truth about Paul Pelosi and that other guy, the poppe or whatever, you know, that hit him with a hammer, like a Beatles song or something. Um, we're going to find out the truth about that. Yeah, that is a big, the real story about Paul Pelosi is the insider stock trading. You know, Nancy Pelosi was the person they even, you know, when they put together, when she got exposed by 60 Minutes years ago, when 60 Minutes used to do something other than partisan hack reporting, they talked about all the insider trading that she was doing.

And it wasn't illegal. It was okay for her to do it. It was okay for her to do it. It was okay for staff to do it as well. But they shamed her over it. And she should be ashamed. And so they put together the Stock Act. But a lot of people called it the Pelosi Act to stop insider trading because they were famous for it.

And after the attention got moved on in a couple of new cycles to something else, he came back and fixed the legislation and eviscerated it so that they were able to go back and do insider trading again with immunity. And as I pointed out before, if you want to know what stocks to trade, you could look at Paul Pelosi. Because he was the one who was doing the purchasing based on insider information that Nancy Pelosi was giving him. That's the story. You know, there was even a, just like you had a Twitter account that followed Elon Musk plane. There was a Twitter account that followed Paul Pelosi's investments because they were so spot on. Why?

Because you know in advance which companies or typically which industries you're going to take down and which ones you're going to reward. And so that's the story, but everybody makes it about this, uh, you know, his sexual private life and everything, which is probably a, you know, a real story there, but a real sensational story there. But from our perspective, it ought to be about the insider trading. Mitch McConnell and GOP opposition. Boy, that's political theater, isn't it?

Does GOP oppose anything? Is it Mitch McConnell? No. No. The big pundits have now come out this last year against the Trump shots. That was an interesting development this last year, but it was all political theater. You got people like Dan Bongino, Ben Shapiro, Tucker. They're now saying, no, the shots are bad. But do they talk about the executive order? Do they talk about who

bragged about being the father of the vaccine? No. No, why not? Well, there's a big reason why they don't do it. Because if you look at where their bread is buttered, we know that they are brought to you by Pfizer. Yeah, that's exactly where this is coming from. So it's a limited hangout. Because they don't want to anger their sponsors. They don't want to anger their audience. So they're not going to tell you the truth about this whole thing.

And it's very safe for them to talk about, oh, where did COVID come from? As if it was the problem. COVID is not the problem. The political virus was the problem. The lockdowns, the masks, the universal basic income, mass, the, uh, universal basic income, which was the kickoff of universal basic income with the stimulus and the rest of this stuff and the PPP, that was a kickoff of UBI that all happened under Trump, but they won't do that because not only that they won't talk about the

things that are going to anger the Trump supporters, their audience, their demographic, and they won't talk about things that are going to anger their sponsors and big pharmaceutical companies. Doug Mastriano, Michael Flynn, Julie Green, the false prophets of Christianity, these people who are clothing themselves in Christ talk, makes me puke. People like Doug Mastriano having Julie Green giving her a platform, one false prediction

after the other, she says, thus saith the Lord. And Michael Flynn doing the same thing. Going to these big mega churches where they spend tens of millions of dollars on a building? On a building? What does that have to do with Christianity? Where's the money for widows and orphans or something like that if you're going to do something with your money?

Or spreading the gospel or whatever? No, they put it in a building. They gild this building. $30 million. And they have this political rally there where Michael Flynn has the audience recite a prayer from Elizabeth Claire prophet calling on ascended masters I mean that it's disgusting to see this phony false Christianity that's being pushed everywhere again George

Santos a poster child for the morally corrupt GOP, the royal family and the man formerly known as Prince. That has become a major distraction over this last year. Kushner, painting himself as a hero for pushing the ventilators that killed so many people. Nearly everybody who got put on a ventilator died. It's probably got a higher case fatality rate than even the injections. But of course, Kushner took all the credit for it. While he says, you know, this guy totally involved in transhumanism and the rest of this stuff, just like Elon Musk and our other heroes of the right. Of course, Kushner's not a hero to the right.

Somehow they always were able to push him away from Trump in their minds. But Trump wasn't pushing him away. But Jared Kushner says his generation may be the first ones to live forever. Well, got an inside track on that, I guess, from Elon Musk. Two of them were at the World Cup games together. I guess they're talking about how they're going to live forever. It's going to be a real surprise to the two of them if they really believe that stuff. But 63% of voters now want the FBI investigated. Isn't it interesting that 37% don't?

Nearly 40% are just fine with what has been documented about the FBI. And we've known this for many, many, many years. But even when you show people the documentary evidence, they don't care. Or they want it. So, you know, they want the FBI investigated for social media censorship push. How about just shutting the FBI down

and restoring at least that little bit part of the Constitution? I don't know. The Twitter files. The question becomes, should this form of censorship be officially investigated by Congress? And the Congress, the GOP, is excited about that. GOP is like, hey, let's put on a show. It's like the old, uh, uh, Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland movies that they did over and over and over again,

you know, two kids. And it's like, well, I don't know. We've got this crisis, but you know, we could put on a show and we could raise some money.

My, my grandfather's got a barn we could use and everything. So, um, the GOP has got a house they could use now and they can put on a show and they're going to put on a show. Uh, they're going to, but that's all they'll do.

It'll just be a show. Uh, it's going to be a lot of, um, flash and a lot of grandstanding and absolutely nothing. If you don't believe me, think back to Trey Gowdy and the Benghazi hearings. What'd that do? That got the guy a gig on Fox news. And that's the only thing that came out of the Benghazi hearings with Trey Gowdy. Republicans plan a committee on the weaponization of the federal government. Again, you didn't know that this was going on?

You didn't know when Nixon said it? You didn't know when Truman said it? You didn't pay attention to any of this stuff over the history. So this will be coming to a conservative news outlet near you. It'll be ignored by the mainstream media and the left. And I imagine when they get in there, it'll be the kind of stuff that you've had in the past. When, you know, Rubio said to the social media people,

you're going to censor who we tell you to censor, right? Who I tell you to censor. You're not going to censor the people China tells you. You're going to censor who we tell you to censor, right? Who I tell you to censor. You're not going to censor the people China tells you. You're going to censor the people we tell you to. And so now we're supposed to pretend that that never happened in 2018? That the government wasn't directing the censorship even after, and it wasn't just Rubio. The Democrats were saying that same type of stuff.

In Europe, they were saying the same things as well. They were saying, we're going to tell you who to shut down. Now, the negotiating part of it was how much time they were going to give the social media companies to do it. So the Twitter files reveal that politicians and officials are evading the Constitution's restrictions. No, really? Wow.

Yeah. Who knew? Yeah, it is the deputized state uh the deputized um uh state that is working for the deep state the corporations of the deputized state and uh the deep state is using them for deniability. And so you have Reason Magazine. That's the people saying, well, we found out that the politicians are evading the First Amendment by using these corporations. No, really?

Who would have thought that corporations could do anything wrong? What if these outfits are private-ish, private-ish? You know, like George Santos said, I didn't say I was Jewish. I said I was Jew-ish. Kind of like a Jew, but not a Jew. I don't know. So these companies are private-ish.

They're kind of like private, but they're not really private, right? They look like they're private. What if they're private-ish. They're kind of like private, but they're not really private, right? They look like they're private. What if they're private-ish? That's the reason. They enact policy on behalf of politicians to spare them pushback or to allow for end runs around constitutional protections. They do so out of ideological agreement. They just wanted to do that.

Or fear of government retaliation or a mix of both. It never enters into reasons calculations that these corporations might be trying to curry favor with the politicians so they can get special favors. Is that the business model of Elon Musk? You better believe it is and was. That's how he got to be the world's richest man by practicing crony capitalism you know i noticed that uh you want everybody driving electric cars and you'd like to have them be self-driving under your control i can do that for you yeah anyway um

i could do the satellites for you as well i can do the brain implants for you as well just you know give me some darpa contracts the messy scenario is what the Twitter files reveal of the relationship between social media giant and federal officials. It's a glimpse of a bigger problem. Well, you know, when we talk about it being private-ish, I said for the longest time, you know, we had Aaron Schwartz, who was murdered, I believe, because he was pushing back against CISPA.

They, I won't go into the details of it, but you know, he was pushing back against CISPA. He'd pushed back against ACTA, SOPA, PIPA, CISPA a couple of different times. And then supposedly we're supposed to believe that with these trumped up charges that a federal attorney brought against him that he was just so distraught that he somehow committed suicide. He picked the fight. He picked the fight and he'd been in it for a long time, but eventually they got CISA through. What was the difference between CISPA and CISA?

They took out the P. What was the P? The P was for protection. Protection of private companies that would do the bidding of the government. Because as they point out in Reason, you know, the only private companies could be doing this because they don't like conservatives. They could be doing it because they're being intimidated by the government. And we've seen that happen a lot of times, you know, give me the information from say, well, I don't want to do that. Well, you better do it, you know, or else, well, I can't do that because

if I do that, I'm going to get sued by the people that I turn the information over to, we'll fix that, you know, we'll, uh, guarantee that you cannot be sued for giving over the private information of individuals. And now you don't have any excuse. There's no downside to this. So give us the information. We've already had court's rule going back to when the CIA and the NSA was spying on people through telephones. We had the Supreme Court rule that once you give this information to a company, it belongs

to them. Even though it could be very, very private information about you. Oh, no, it belongs to a company, it belongs to them. Even though it could be very, very private information about you. Oh, no, it belongs to the company. And we don't need a search warrant if we ask somebody for something that they own and they voluntarily turn it over to us. That's the fiction under all this stuff. When it was telephones, they were talking about pens. And so the Cato Institute has finally come around to this Cato Institute says

in America government censorship is limited by the First Amendment in theory nevertheless seizing upon the relationship between platforms and speakers government officials increasingly demand that the platforms refrain

from publishing disfavored speech. They threaten platforms with punitive legislation, with antitrust investigations, with prosecution. Government officials can use informal pressure, bullying, threatening, cajoling to sway them. And of course, they have removed any downside from this by giving them protection with CISA.

So they said, one of Hong Kong's last remaining pro-democracy activist groups has had its account with online payments processor PayPal terminated, reported Voice of America in October. Voice of America, where Tucker Carlson's dad always worked. They'll tell you about PayPal in China. They'll tell you about PayPal in China. They'll tell you about PayPal in Hong Kong, but they don't like to talk about PayPal in the United States.

And, um, you know, they kicked me off in May of 2021, kicked us off. The business kicked me off personally. Other examples are not so dramatic. They said, uh, look, and this is an interesting example. This is not the internet, but this is a private company, a Phoenix apartment complex. And they banned people backing into parking spaces. Now, I would like to see that banned because I don't like to wait for people backing into parking spaces. But no, they banned that and they did it because the government there said, well, we got a safe property partnership. You know, we'll come by and we'll do patrols and that type of thing and, you know, make sure that we have a visible presence there to make your property safer.

However, we would like something in return from you we would like to make sure that in you know in arizona where this took place a phoenix apartment complex they don't have license plates on the front of cars they only have them on the back so you know if people back into the parking space we can't come by and, uh, you know, get people's license plate information and, you know, create a surveillance, uh, file on them, dossier on them. Uh, so we'd like to make sure that everybody parks with their license plate so we can read it and create a surveillance dossier on everybody. Would you work with us on that? Because, you know, if you do, we'll help you with security at the apartment complex, you know, have a visible presence there.

If not, um, it might take us a long time to get there. You know, that type of thing. That's the way it works. But, of course, you know, you could have also, again, people coming there selling themselves to the government. Saying, you know, I could do something for you, but what are you going to do for me? That type of quid pro quo.

The regulatory state has long been criticized for impeding innovation and raising barriers to entry, but it's also a weapon for imposing authoritarianism and defiance of restrictions on the power of officials. Well, good. I'm glad they're finally doing that. You know, I talk about them being the deputized state, and I'm glad that Reason finally acknowledges,

after the Twitter files, that the government is turning to private proxies, as they pointed out, to impose authoritarianism. That's been the case for a long time, but they've been in denial about that. Oh, no, they're just, it's reprehensible, but it's what a corporation can do. Well, now they understand it. And I would say, when we're talking about the deputized state, maybe

we ought to call them, you know, we've got the posse, you know, we're talking about deputies, right? Now the posse comitatus, the power of the community. You would always have the sheriff and he would have a couple of permanent deputies, and then he would kind of deputize the community. If they had a bank robbery or something like that, they needed a lot of manpower. You know, they would have the same. They didn't want to have a standing army of sheriff police officers

like we do now everywhere. Just like they didn't want to have a standing permanent army, army, the real army. But we've got a permanent standing army. We've got an army of police officers everywhere and sheriffs, deputies, and everything like that. But in the past, you would keep a corps of officers that would be trained at West Point or something like that.

But you'd have a corps of officers and a core of people, but you wouldn't have a massive army like we do that's standing on people's, to be standing on people's throats. And you wouldn't have a massive army of police officers. You would just have a core of people who knew what they were doing and they could give guidance to the, to the militia or to the posse comitatus that would come along, that would be directed by them and instructed by them. So I guess if we have that same analogy of the deputized state, the corporations, maybe we should call them the posse corporatio, if I'm pronouncing that correctly. That'd be the Latin for corporations.

The power of the corporations. Instead of the power of the community, you've got the power of the corporations. The power of the corporations. Instead of the power of the community, you got the power of the corporations to do the bidding of a few people, the sheriffs and the CIA, for example. So there's a talk about the political theater. Mitch McConnell jumped in, supported this $1.7 trillion thing because there's a lot of pork in it for him.

And he's going to be making an appearance with Biden to kick off 2023. You have two Democrats, two Republicans, two people from Ohio, two people from Kentucky because they've got a massive infrastructure bill that they put into that $1.7 trillion thing. Kentucky and Ohio will get $1.6 billion for a project near Cincinnati. So you're going to have Democrat Senator Sherrod Brown from Ohio, and you're going to have the Democrat governor from Kentucky, Beshear. You're going to have DeWine, the Republican governor from Ohio,

who was the one who pioneered all of the vaccine lottery stuff. And you're going to have Mitch McConnell. And they're all going to be there, you know, vote for me. I brought all of this money into the state. So today we're going to see what happens with the gavel fight. McCarthy is trying to become Speaker of the House. There's, as I said before, a few people that have said, no way am I voting for him. A lot of other people have refused to say I'm going to vote for him, but haven't really committed one way or the other.

I think Warren Boebert is one of those people. I'm not committing to vote for him, but haven't really committed one way or the other. I think Warren Boebert is one of those people. I'm not committing to vote for him. We'll see what happens. But you have five people who have said they're not going to vote for him. And if that happens, he's not going to become Speaker of the House. And they're running Andy Biggs. They've kind of got him there as a candidate, mainly just to, not because they see him as winning the Speaker of the House, but because they want to stop McCarthy from becoming Speaker, because he's another character like Mitch McConnell.

He truly is. So they've got Paul Gozar of Arizona, Chip Roy of Texas, Dan Bishop of North Carolina, Andy Harris of Maryland, Andrew Clyde of Georgia, along with some newly elected representatives, Andy Ogles of Tennessee, Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, Eli Crane of Arizona. They said in a letter, they said, regrettably, despite some progress that's been achieved, Mr. McCarthy's statement comes almost impossibly late to address continued deficiencies ahead of the opening of the 118th Congress, January the 3rd. to is the fact that seeing that he was on shaky ground, he met on Sunday afternoon with GOP members to try to pull together a vote. And he also, this came after he put out a New Year's Eve position paper. They called it Restoring the People's House and Ending Business as Usual.

That was his pitch to make it right. So in response, these five said, no, it's too little. It's too late. We don't believe he's going to do it. The letter continues to say that McCarthy's 14-year presence in senior house leadership puts the burden of house dysfunction on him. He says, hey, the house is not working. Well, you've been there for 14 years uh so you know are you not

responsible for that so uh 218 votes are needed uh they have um a majority of 222 seats that means that if they can pick up uh with five people opposed he needs to get one of those five people to switch. And they're having that vote this morning. So we'll see what happens with it. But he's made a lot of promises. He said the very first thing we're going to do, he said, is to repeal the 87,000 IRS agents. Do you believe that?

Is that really the goal? Isn't that what's wrong with conservatism? I tell you what, you know, we're, we're not going to do anything to reduce taxes. We're not going to do anything to reform the IRS. We're not going to end the IRS. Uh, and who needs the IRS, right? Do they care anymore about a balanced budget? They don't care. They don't care. So why do we have to be taxed? I mean, the taxes that they put on us through the income tax, they don't care. They don't care. So why do we have to be taxed? I mean, the taxes that they put on us through the income tax, they don't come anywhere close to what these people are

spending. Nowhere even close. So what's that about? It's simply about taking away your disposable income. They're not trying to pay for what they're spending. They're trying to take away your economic freedom by taking away your disposable income. That's the purpose of the income tax at this point. Nobody cares about it. They've got MMT. They don't care about deficits. So there's, um, you know, there is no reason for there to be an income tax. But, of course, the conservatives will come back and they won't go back except, you know, a few months ago, a couple of weeks ago, maybe a year ago. But they're not going to go back to America before that.

No, no, no. They're going to consolidate the gains of the progressives, of the socialists. They're going to leave those in place. It's a ratcheting effect. As one person said, you know, the problem with conservatives is that something that is false becomes true over a matter of time just by having been there long enough. And that's the way all this stuff is. So now, you know, we've got to have the IRS and you know, that's,

that's ingrained in their thinking. You can't rethink that. You can't change anything about that. You can't get rid of an income tax. You can't get rid of the IRS. Now what we'll do is we'll not grow the IRS by an eightfold, which is what Biden wants to do. That's the best we can do from these people.

So in the very first day, first thing we're going to do is repeal the 87,000 IRS agents. Then we're going to secure our border. Then we're going to make ourselves energy independent. Then we're going to find out where COVID came from. What a bunch of nonsense. First of all, those three things, he doesn't offer any plan for how to get that done. It's just total BS, just like it was from Trump.

He has no more intention of doing it than Trump had an intention of doing it. And when you talk about the origin of COVID, that is the ultimate misdirection. It's the vaccine. The vaccine is a bioweapon. They don't want to talk about it. So $1.7 trillion spending bill requires platforms to verify the ID of those earning $5,000 revenue per year. They are gradually strangling, um, you know, or an imposing for the purposes of taxes or other things like that they're gradually strangling us into a ID system

that has all kinds of you know surveillance information about us biometric information about us and that is a real that is one of the things that is quietly relentlessly pushing forward and everything and they're not going to do anything to stop that they're not going to do anything to stop that. They're not even talking about that. The issues that Kevin McCarthy is talking about are things that should have been fixed 14 years ago. He's been there for 14 years, has done nothing about any of that stuff.

Just like Trump was there for four years, did nothing about any of it. Now Trump knows how to fix free speech. Now Trump knows how to fix the border. He knows how to do all these things now that he refused to do all these things now that he refused to do while he was there. But I think an interesting story is to see how things have been developing. Going back a couple of weeks for Marjorie Taylor Greene, she's gone to war with

Matt Gaetz about this leadership thing. She's gone to war with Lauren Boebert. They used to be buddies and all this stuff. But now she's sucking up to McCarthy and the establishment. If the chaos that Gates is now publicly projecting comes to pass, says Breitbart, because they want to see an orderly transition of power to the Republicans. So they can do what? Well, I don't know. But I said, you know, if McCarthy doesn't get seated, it's going to be absolute chaos.

Chaos. Really? A real possibility if McCarthy does not win. The House would be completely incapacitated, possibly for weeks or months. Good. Shut it down. As Mark Twain said, no man's life, liberty, or property are safe while Congress is in session. So shut it down, at least for a couple of months.

They can't do anything anyway. The bill that they just passed has cut all the possibilities for that away from Kevin McCarthy, even if he wanted to do any of this stuff. But I think the most amazing thing about Marjorie Taylor Greene is not the fact that she is supporting McCarthy because she wants to have an orderly transition of power, and that she's opposing her best friends that she had there before, you know, Gates and Boebert and all those guys. But the fact that she has hooked herself up now to George Santos to defend him. She put out a series of tweets attacking Tulsi Gabbard, who, and again, I'm not a Tulsi Gabbard fan. You know, she's questionable connections to Davos and the rest of the stuff.

She's been a Democrat. She used to be pro-life. Then she decided she wanted to get elected in Hawaii as a Democrat. So she jettisoned the kids in order to get elected. So, you know, I understand what's going on. And that's some of the stuff that Marjorie Taylor Greene points out about it. But she says, Tulsi Gabbard, who says she is a former Democrat, gave Representative-elect George Santos zero grace, while George is admitting and apologizing for lying about his resume. just like our other former colleagues are giving George zero grace

and even demanding that he resign. Everything on his resume was false. Everything was false. This guy has absolutely no character, absolutely no integrity. You can't trust him with anything. But because he is supporting McCarthy, Marjorie Taylor Greene, who's become a bipartisan hack, not a bipartisan, a partisan hack. If he's got an R behind his name, he's good.

It's just that simple. And Tulsi Gabbard, why is she coming after Tulsi Gabbard? Because she did a takedown interview with him. And essentially said, have you no shame? You're still lying about this stuff to George Santos. Have you no shame? And I'm sick of the Republicans who say, well, you know, uh, yeah, George Santos may be a bad guy, but he's our bad guy.

And you know, what about this thing that these other people did? And as I said, it's a race to the bottom. This kind of partisan quibbling over this is a race to the bottom. Why can't we have a higher standard? Why can't the Republican Party say, we don't want this guy? Kevin McCarthy is silent. Why? Because George Santos said, I'll vote for you.

It's just that simple. They're just prostitutes. The lot of them, the entire group of them, they should be leading the charge to get him out instead of waiting for the Democrats to get this guy out. She said, I think Republicans should give George Santos a chance and see how he legislates and votes and not treat him the same as the left is. Because again, the only thing that matters to her now is the R behind the name. That's it. So we're going to take a quick break and we will be right back.

Stay with us You're listening to The David Knight Show. Let's talk a little bit about CBDC. I said at the beginning of the program, I think 2023 is going to be the year of CBDC. And some very troubling things have come out about the financial system in general. But I want to begin with this article from Zero Hedge. These are the security features of American money. In 1739, Benjamin Franklin sought to tackle the issue of counterfeit money in America. And a visual capitalist site has broken down a graphic talking about all the different security measures that are on a $100 bill. And so they've got all kinds of stuff.

They got watermarks. Oh, maybe Steve Pachinik was right, huh? Maybe they're quantum as well. Who knows? They got a security thread. They got 3D ribbons. Hey, you know, 3D chess, 3D ribbons. No, it's not.

You know, these are all things to stop counterfeiting. The, of course, the simplest thing that they've had for the longest time is a serial number. But they also have something that's called a Euryon constellation. It's a star-like grouping of yellow rings near the serial number, only detectable by imaging software. Then they also have ink that changes color. If you look at it from different angles, because it's got little metallic flakes in it. They also have on the a hundred dollar bill, a Liberty bell image using that ink. They have micro printing that allows again for them to verify whether this

bill is genuine or not, but you can't tell it It can't be seen by the naked eye. It can't be scanned by photocopiers, but it has USA 100 written invisibly in multiple places, only viewable by special equipment. They have something called intaglio printing. Rather than regular ink that is pressed onto a paper, intaglio printing uses magnetic ink, and every different bill value has a unique magnetic signature. They've woven security threads and 3D ribbons throughout the paper. The paper itself is special. They have all these different things. Have you noticed something that is central about all this stuff? Does it protect you?

Does it validate that this is a genuine bill, that it has real purchasing power? Of course not. This is all to protect the government from counterfeiters. But the biggest counterfeiter of all is the government. The government is creating fiat currency out of nothing. And yet they're moving people away from cash very rapidly. A Pew Research Center found that while it is dwindling in its share of use among the population, 58% of people still use cash for some or all of their

weekly purchases. That's down from 70% just four years ago. It's dropped from 70% to 58%. Or if you go back seven years ago, it was at 75% of people used cash some on a weekly basis. Now it's down to 58%. So when we talk about security from our standpoint, we would typically think about, I don't know, the FDIC, for example. You know, we put this money in the bank and it's supposed to be insured. And yet we've had some very troubling statements made by the FDIC in meetings. Very, very long meeting, over three hours long. And again, this is the way they get away with stuff.

I would go back and I would look at asymmetric warfare meetings from the military brass and stuff, and you just put to sleep before you get to anything of any value. But it was difficult. If you got through it, you could find some nuggets. And so Wall Street Silver, I guess, suffered through this and pulled out a couple of cuts and listened to what they say about not alarming the public about how shaky our financial system is.

It should be accessible when people need to know, but I don't think you have much hope of reaching a public that doesn't have a professional need to know. I completely agree with that. I almost think you'd scare the public if you put this out. Like, why are they telling me this? Should I be concerned about my bank? Like, my insurance company doesn't tell me what they're doing with my assets if they

just assume they're going to pay my claim, right? I think you've got to think of the unintended consequences of taking a public that has more full faith and confidence in the banking system than maybe people in this room do, that we want them to have full faith and confidence in the banking system. They know the FDIC insurance is there. They know it works. They put their money in. They're going to get their money out. So there's a select crowd of people that are in the institutional side. And if they want to understand this, they're going to find a way to understand this. There's a bunch of law firms representing this room. There's a bunch of people that will charge them by the hour a lot of money to explain this all to them. And it's fine. I

don't have a problem with that and they all have huge staffs, but I would be careful about the unintended consequences of starting to blast too much of this out in the general public. Okay. Now that was a meeting that happened in November and you heard him say, a general public has more confidence in the banking system than the people in this room. Who are the people in that room?

Those are the people who are insuring the banks. We don't want the, if they knew what we know, they'd be, we might start a panic. As a matter of fact, they talk about bank runs next. I wondered whether there are some market tests of whether you're being heard. And I think about T-LAC. So T-LAC should spread, should respond to good and bad news about the institutions. And it's really important. I mean, it's a little bit conflicted, right? I mean, it's important that people understand they can be bailed in, but you don't want a huge run on the institution, but they're going to be. And it could be an early warning signal to the FDIC and the primary regulators when these

things happen. And there may be some other prices, this is similar to what Jay was saying, in the market that you can tell whether people understand who's going to be protected, who isn't going to be protected. It would be, I think an interesting study to look at the evolution of market prices in a situation like March of 2020,

for example, and see whether people understood what might happen. So you understand, he says, um, uh, we, um, you don't want a big run on the institutions and there's going to be, you heard him say that and talking about, uh,

people need to understand there might be bailed in. You understand a bailout is when you get in trouble and they get you out of it. Bail in is when they create the problem and they suck you into it, right? They suck the money out of your account. That's what they're talking about. Big financial situation coming down now. Uh, wall street silver as a comment says,

if this does go down during 2023, we can expect the mother of all federal quantitative easing $5 trillion instantly on the balance sheet expansion to bail out the banking system and massive amounts of congressional stimulus and bailouts. One person says, ha-ha, only $5 trillion? More like $20 trillion at a minimum. Who knows what that is? Bottom line is it only underscores what I was saying before

about the income tax situation, right? They don't care about this. We saw this in 2020. Nobody cares. Democrats didn't care. Republicans didn't care. Trump administration didn't care. The only person who cared about the $3.7 trillion initially that Trump threw in there,

the only person who cared about that was Thomas Massey. What was the response? Trump said, we're going to primary him out of Congress. We're going to put somebody up against him and get him out of Congress. Unfortunately, they didn't. But it was crickets from his colleagues. Nobody else stood up to this and called it out for what it is. They don't care about the amount of money that they're spending.

There's absolutely no end to it. As a matter of fact, talking about what is real money, Zero Hedge has an article from Alistair McLeod about gold in 2023. He said, gold should be viewed from a monetary and an economic perspective. It is gold whose purchasing power is stable. That of fiat currencies is not stable. Analysts who see gold as an investment producing a return in national currencies have made a fundamental error. And that's what I've talked about over and over again. You know, we look at the fluctuating price of gold. Gold is, you know, pretty much standard.

And he makes this case. He says, if you go back and you price commodities or you price oil or you price some other things, you price them in gold, it, you know, hasn't really changed that much. But with the dollar amounts, it's gone all over the place. He said, not only that, but when you look at what the central banks have and you look at what the bank, the money that is there, just like you heard the FDIC talking about that. Well, you know, we may have to, we may lose that. People don't realize that, you know,

we may not be able to bail all that stuff out. He says, well, you know, a central bank's balance sheet, not just your retail account at a bank that is supposed to be insured, but the central bank's account is a liability. Under any definition, these are the characteristics of credit and having to match debt obligations. Macro economists, the people who tell you that, you know, you got to balance things if you're talking about your own personal family's checkbook. But, you know, when you got something that's really big, you don't have to worry about it.

Right. Yeah. Just Keynesians and all the rest of the people. It's just this is kind of idea, you know, from Looney Tunes that, you know, it's only the small rocks that are going to crush you. You know, the really big ones, they float. But macro economists have an explanation for why it is that they don't have an explanation for why it is that they don't have an explanation for why it is that central banks continue to hoard massive quantities of gold and their reserves.

Well, it's because they know there's nothing backing up any of this stuff. And at some point, uh, you know, people are gonna, you know, the Looney tune character is going to realize he's been running on thin air for a long time. He's going to look down and see the ground and go straight down. Uh, as illustrated this year, when the Western Alliance led by America emasculated the Russian central bank of its currency reserves with a little more than a stroke of a pen. This is the other side of proof that the legal distinction between money and credit remains, despite any statist attempts to redefine currency as money. That can be reneged upon, further confirms that it's a credit status.

And again, if they can do this to an entire nation, would Biden do it to you? Of course he would. So he says, you know, when you look at the price of oil on dollars between 1950 and 71, it's basically stable. No variation at all, pretty much. Almost no variation, he says. And he's got the chart here. It was also a time we had the Bretton Woods Agreement, 1950 to 1971. It was suspended in 1971.

Bretton Woods was then tied the dollar credibility to gold until the expansion of dollar credit became too great for the agreement to bear. So then priced in U.S. dollars, not only has the price of crude been incredibly volatile, but before the Lehman crisis in June 2008, it had increased 54 times. But if you measure the price of oil and gold from 1971 to 2008, oil only doubled in price. And that was because the cartel was pushing this thing through. But if you value it in fiat currency, it went up by a factor of 54.

And then he put together a chart that showed a lot of different commodity groups. Same story. Priced in gold, it's stable. Priced in the dollar, it's not because the dollar is fiat and it's going down. So he says since 1970, the U.S. dollar has lost 98% of its purchasing power that you can see here. So as you see all this lining up and you see the moves against central bank digital currency, and I should have done this sooner. Thank you for the tip, LFA.

Please, we need more Travis. I keep telling him that as well, but we'll have to get them on a bit more. Uh, anyway, what is happening is that at the same time, the central banks are running to gold. You see that the European union is talking about how they're going to ban Bitcoin specifically. Ethereum is something that they believe that, um, you know, they, they, they've changed the way it operates, but the European Union is equivocating proof of work, which is the basis for Bitcoin and most of the cryptocurrencies. They're saying proof of work is kind of like internal combustion engines.

It's bad. We've got to get rid of it. Proof of stake, however, which is what fiat currency is, what central bank digital currency will be. It's just like, you know, we have a stake here. We're the authorities. This is what it is because we say that's what it is. And we can define reality for you. And we can define the value of money and we will define what money is and all the rest of this stuff. So, you know, doing it by an order, doing it by fiat, the proof of stake, they said that's like electric cars.

And we're going to find a way to punish one of them and to reward the other one. Because in the European Union this last year, they already tried to completely ban Bitcoin. They came up with an agreement, and the agreement was all based on energy consumption. And that's going to be the way they come after central bank digital currencies. So the compromise that they came up with, and it's the left wing, it's a socialist, it's the Marxist who are trying to ban Bitcoin.

They want to establish central bank digital currency because that is total centralized control. That's why Biden wanted to put in a Marxist as the office of comptroller of the currency. So they're going to be forcing all of the miners to put out a statement like you would get on your refrigerator or something, talking about what the environmental impact is of the mining that they're carrying on. And you notice how all this stuff is coming together. That's coming from the European union in March of this last year. What did Biden tell his different groups? As I pointed out before,

you know, you've got one group, how are you going to implement the code? Another one, how are you going to design the financial system of the department of justice and the FBI? How are you going to enforce this? You know?

And the fourth one was about the environment, about climate. And you're going to find that they are, and they already are doing it. Elon Musk, as a matter of fact, came out and said, well, I love cryptocurrency, but we got to save the planet. You should understand, if you don't already, which side this guy is on. He made it very, very clear that he is going to do the will of the establishment, the will of Davos and the rest of these people. All of this stuff about Twitter is just to gain your confidence.

It's like Felix Dzerzhinsky and the trust and what they did to the anti Bolsheviks. I think that is the role of Elon Musk. No, it's all going to be about saving the environment. And it's going to result in a worldwide attempt to try to throttle Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. We'll talk more about that tomorrow. Thank you. The common man. They created common core to dumb down our children.

They created common past to track and control us. Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing. And the communist future. They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary. But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God. That is what we have in common. That is what they want to take away. Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.

They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us. It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide. Please share the information and links you'll find at thedavidknightshow.com. Thank you for listening. Thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. thedavidknightshow.com. Thank you.