The David Knight Show - Thu Episode #2298: — Artificial Intelligence Is Building Real Injustice

Episode Date: July 2, 2026

────────────────────────────────────────[00:20:22]Chief Justice Roberts: Citizenship Is "The Right to Have Rights" — Thomas Dissent Shreds the PremiseRoberts's ruling rests on government granting rights; Thomas's dissent was three times longer and anchored in the 14th Amendment's context of ending slavery, not birth tourism.────────────────────────────────────────[00:21:29]Strip Rights From Foreigners and You Build the Machine to Strip YoursSaying non-citizens have no rights is Roberts's same error: rights come from God, not citizenship; governments that dehumanize one class apply the logic to the next.────────────────────────────────────────[00:43:01]Money Printing Is Roaring Back — Nobody Covering It While Everyone Watches Interest RatesHartman and Knight: quantitative easing escalated sharply in the past year while the Fed fixates on rate theater and the real inflation engine runs unnoticed.────────────────────────────────────────[00:45:09]Every Asset Class Now Looks Like a Meme Coin — SpaceX Pumps and Crashes Like a Crypto TokenEnd-stage fiat replaced building things with financialization; the West tokenizes while the East manufactures; "gold is money, everything else is debt."────────────────────────────────────────[00:49:54]Trump's Meme Coin Was a Smash-and-Grab That Tainted All of CryptoThe pump-and-dump extracted wealth from retail buyers; Knight: it's the presidency in miniature — grab what you can and run.────────────────────────────────────────[01:29:25]Uber's "Rides of Glory" Shows What Government Will Do With Location DataUber published posts inferring affairs from late-night ride patterns; Knight: government will make the same inferences, and those inferences become the evidence that jails people.────────────────────────────────────────[01:30:40]AI Face-Match Arrests Are Happening on Rock-Solid Alibis — These Are Only the Ones We Know AboutPeople spent months in jail after AI misidentification despite being in another state; cases where the alibi isn't airtight never surface.────────────────────────────────────────[01:32:53]Supreme Court Ruled Geofence Warrants Unconstitutional — Only Because Google Already Killed the TacticGoogle moved location data to users' devices, making warrant-free geofencing impossible; Knight: the Court ruled safely on a dead issue and will not revisit live ones.────────────────────────────────────────[01:38:39]Reddit's "Poison AI" Has 45,000 Members Feeding Disinformation to ChatbotsThey got DuckDuckGo's AI to report Trump and Vance died of rabies; mirrors how media manufactures consensus — agree on a narrative and watch the machine believe it.────────────────────────────────────────[01:52:01]Kevin O'Leary Smeared Utah Data Center Critics as Chinese Agents — Fox News Issued Four ApologiesO'Leary went on Fox to discredit opposition to his 10,000-acre surveillance center; Fox retracted it; Knight: calling opponents Chinese agents is always the fallback. ──────────────────────────────────────── Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code “KNIGHT” For high quality made in America products go to HomeSteadProducts.shop and use promo code “Knight” for 10% off your purchases Find 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-show Or you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @[e-mail] App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act. It's the David Knight Show. As the clock strikes 13, it's Thursday the 2nd of July of our Lord 2006. Yesterday, I wanted to talk about the Supreme Court decisions that were released on Tuesday about birthright citizenship, or some people say anchor babies, the Supreme Court decisions about geofencing and many other issues didn't get to it yesterday. So we're going to begin with that today, and it really does fold into this anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. It falls into a horrible misunderstanding about what the basis of this country is about and what the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is about. And unfortunately, that misunderstanding is right at the heart of the Supreme Court, especially the Chief Justice. We're also going to take a look at the scope of the surveillance.

Centers noted I said that surveillance centers not data centers there's building resistance against this course Aaron Brockovic who was the very famously won a large case in California about pollution is looking at it as a pollution issue as a noise issue you know you can have very quiet surveillance surveillance is the issue we'll be right back Again, we'll hopefully we'll have time to talk about why some chatbots were saying that Trump and J.D. Vance had died of rapies. The stuff that AI is coming up with, it's very dangerous in terms of the functions that have been created to surveil us and to control us. But a lot of the other stuff that it does is quite entertaining.

And some of the comments that it makes are as entertaining, if not more so, than some of the things are supposedly designed. designed to entertain us, like the videos or the music that it automatically generates, which can get quite old very quickly. It is so generic. You talk about elevator music. We talk about when I was growing up. Some of the AI stuff that I've heard is much worse than elevator music. It is terminally generic, we should say.

Well, the Supreme Court is upholding birthright citizenship as it released on Tuesday and overturning one of Trump's executive orders. And you know, I've said from the very beginning, I think he's right about this. I think he has the right idea whether he has the right tactics or not. You cannot have, and the Constitution and the law

does not make a case for us conveying citizenship to anybody that happens to be born while visiting the United States. And that's what we're talking about. A lot of this birth tourism that is fraudulent and deliberately organized. We're going to talk about the ideas

that people come up with to try to stop this, even if you can't have a blanket declaration. There are ways that can be used to stop this. But, you know, the Supreme Court, as I said many times, it's kind of like Forrest Gump. My mom always said, the Supreme Court is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're going to get out of those nine people in black robes, do you? They're all over the place. And decisions are all over the place as well. And people treat it as if it were the law of the land.

I mean, how many times for 50 years we heard that about Roe v. Wade. Well, it's the law of the land. It's settled, right? Well, no, like science, it's never settled. And like science, much of it is just simply somebody's opinion. It's not objective. Fact has no basis, anything that is textual or experimental. In a 6-3 vote, they have gone with, as this is pointed out by AP News, they

say the long settled history. There you go. That's just like the, well, you know, Roe v. Wade, that's settled a long time ago. The law of the land. Well, no, actually, it isn't. You know, quite frankly, when we look at this, well, let's start with the Fourth of July. And the fact that America is a Christian nation. And I don't mean by that Christian nationalism, I don't mean by that that the leaders are Christian.

I don't mean even that the country is acting. as Christians, but they do have a worldview. And of course, I think of, and I can't remember the guy's name. It was a country and western singer. He said, he became a Christian late in life. And he goes, well, you know, I was raised as a Christian. And he said, didn't keep me from sinning. It just kept me from enjoying it as much. And you know, when you look at the Declaration of Independence, a lot of people criticize the founders of this country over the idea they were saying that people had God-given rights and were created equal, and yet how do you have slavery? Well, they talked about that extensively, and Jefferson did in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence,

and they removed it. Why did they remove that? Well, they removed it because of the love of money and the love of political power. They said, hey, if we take this on, we're going to be taking on the big financial interests of the day. You know, that's like taking on Big Pharma or the Israeli lobby or something like that. So they just punted on that issue. And yet the reality is, is that when we talk about a Christian nation, we're really talking about is a Christian worldview. What is the worldview of the Declaration of Independence? It is fundamentally Christian.

The idea that we are created by God and that we have inalable rights because of that, that is a fundamentally Christian idea. It is an idea, the Christian idea, is that there is no difference between male and female between free or slave or between Jew and Greek or Jew and Goy as I guess they would say today. It stands in stark contrast to other religions and worldviews. When we look at a secular atheist worldview, for example, they think of the survival of the fittest. And so obviously, if it's survival of fittest, if you are the wealthiest, if you are the most powerful, if you fought your way to the top of the heap, well, then you're better than other people. get to have special privileges and that type of thing. We don't see it that way. That is not the

Christian worldview. And so when you look at the Muslim worldview, right, well, you have people who are Muslim believers, then you have the Kaffirs, the non-believers, infidels. They're second-rate people, and we can do whatever we wish to them. And you see the same thing in modern Judaism. and I'm talking about not Old Testament Judaism. I'm talking about revisionist Zionism. That's what you see with that. That's why other people are subhuman and we can do to them whatever we want. We can steal their land.

We can kill them. We can rape them. We can abuse their children. That's what you wind up with. And it's not just these religions. It's also other religions and worldviews like the Hindu religion. The Hindu religion is very hierarchical as all these different casts and all the down to the, from the Brahmins, to the untouchables at the bottom of the heap.

This was not and has never been the Christian worldview. So you can have the founders of this country who can talk about the rights of man. And there's always this subcurrent that was there in their writings that many cases is very explicit about it. There's this guilty conscience about slavery. It was eating at them from the very beginning. They recognized the hypocrisy. And it was something that they felt a pang about this hypocrisy that was there.

It took them a long time to do something about it. Who did something about it? Well, Christianity was the worldview that stopped slavery with William Wilberforce and many others. Slavery, as a matter of fact, is still there in Islamic States and others. It was something that was always a part of civilization and culture. and it had been inherited by the countries that had gradually moved to a Christian worldview. But it was only Christianity that actually pushed back against that. And when you look at the Marxists and so forth, yeah, they'll say, yeah, all people are created equal, but, you know, like an animal farm,

some animals are more equal than other animals, right? So it's fundamentally Christian in its perspective. And the Declaration of Independence is the Declaration of the Christian Principle, that there is no distinction between the different classes of people that we see. And that's not to say that we have an equality of results. That's what Marxism, what DEI and these other things are looking for. There is a difference between men and women. There is a difference between different ethnic groups.

These people want to mandate an equality of results rather than an equality of opportunity and an equality under the law. So what we're talking about with this is, again, this is a document to govern the rightful role of government. To govern government. That's what it's about. It's not about governing us. And we created the government to protect our rights. that is the understanding that is completely devoid when you look at these Supreme Court decisions that never refer back to those principles or to the Constitution in most cases as well.

So when you think about the Declaration of Independence over this weekend, think about it from the Christian perspective. And I say a Christian worldview, because we need to get past this whole idea of Christian nationalism, of a Christian nation and so forth. you know, George Barnao will take a look at the people who self-identify as Christian and say, well, look at this. You know, these people who are Christians, they don't believe the Bible is God's revelation to us, is communication to us. They don't believe this. They don't believe that.

And so these are bigger issues, quite frankly. They are foundational issues. They're issues that affect us in this life as well as eternally. They are existential issues. but when we're talking about government, that's a very different thing. You know, if we're going to talk about government, let's not make the same mistake that the left does when it starts talking about putting people in different roles, right? The left, and this is one of the Supreme Court decisions they had, about transgenderism,

for example. The left doesn't care about the difference between men and women. They want to ignore that. They want to lie about that. and in many cases you see us making the same mistake when we say that government should do this or government should do that we're really doing is putting government in the role of institutions that and activities that's not suited for we don't want government to be taking the place of the family we don't want government taking the place of the church we have these other institutions

and they're better suited for that. And so, as I talked about yesterday, we have these people on the right who are well-meaning. There was the one guy who was a Catholic teacher at Notre Dame, and he's trying to reorganize society. He sees that there's no virtue in society. And so what he wants to do is, well, let's make people virtuous. Let's bring back the blue laws. Let's elevate laws against pornography and things like that. let me just say that if you've got somebody who is not a Christian, don't expect them to act like a

Christian. It's hard enough to get Christians to act like Christians. It's like, you know, saying that we're going to have men who are going to act like women. It's the same mistake that the left makes. So don't expect that Christians, non-Christians, are going to act like Christians. And you're not going to be able to make them a Christian by adjusting their behavior. That's not what Christianity is about. Christianity is about the actions and the person of the Lord Jesus Christ.

It's not about how good we can be. And then you've got Doug Wilson who says, well, I want to see explicitly saying that we accept the principles of Christianity and that Jesus has risen from the dead. Well, the government is not suited to teach us theology. that really is the role of the family and of some degree of the church. And so don't expect that the government is going to be able to assume that role and do a very good job with it. You know, if you want to rebuild society, let's not go around using screwdrivers as hammers to rebuild society or using hammers as screwdrivers. And when you start seeing these types of things coming from the two individuals that I mentioned, it just tells me that, they think they've only got one tool, and that's government.

Government is not a tool of rebuilding our society. Christ is that tool. And we have institutions that are far more important than government, and I think that's one of the big issues when people start talking about Christian nationalism. They're putting government into a place that it will never do a good job. It's like the drug war, right? As I've always said, the drug issue is a spiritual issue. And we did everyone a disservice when we started making it a government issue, a prohibition program.

Because not only did it not stop people from using drugs, but it also harmed the government. And it harmed people who don't use drugs because of what it turned the government into, a monster. And so we need to talk about specifically about this. the Christian worldview. It's what this country was based on. And you have all these people who get into debates about, well, you know, was this particular founder? Was he a real Christian or not? You don't know any of that stuff, as I've said before. If you were to look at, if you were somebody living in the, in Israel under King David, what would you think based on what you saw of his life? Here's a guy who committed adultery. He murdered the husband of the woman he committed adultery with and many other

things like that. I think that was the root of why he never had peace after that. That was part of the consequences of that. And yet, we don't see the heart. It's not possible for us to see the heart. God saw his heart. God said he had, he was a man after God's own heart. And so only God can really judge someone's relationship to him. Only God can judge whether someone is saved or not. We can't make that kind of a judgment. We can look at the fruit of their life. And we can and should speak to them about the fruit of their life as Nathan spoke to David and called him back to understand what he was doing. And of course, it's not like he didn't understand. He just kind of severed his conscience in that area. So that was the purpose

of Nathan. That's the purpose of us as being Christians. And so we don't want to try to replace the institutions that God has created for these more important tasks. We don't want to we create that with the government. But we do want to embrace the Christian worldview because that is the foundation of all of the rights that we love and cherish in Western civilization. That's why what Huckabee is doing is so reprehensible. Judaic rabbinicalism, that is what has taken the place of Judaism that was up to the time of Christ, that is not the foundation for system.

It really isn't take a look at what is happening both inside their society as well as how that government interacts with other people. And it is antithetical to what Christ taught. So, you know, government has its own role. It's got its own sphere. People will rightfully mock the idea that there's no difference between men and women's roles, even as they will start to say that there's no difference between the role of family and the role of government. How many times do we see the left pushing a nanny state? How many times are we seeing the right doing this?

This is what's happening with Marsha Blackburn. And the recently passed Kid Online Safety Act that was just passed, that is an idea that is pure nanny state. It is a parent's role to protect kids from the Internet. And they can do that. They don't have to buy a computer or phone or Internet or any other rest of that stuff. those are all things that we all grew up with out we did not have any of those things it's not fundamentally necessary and the parents have to buy those things and pay for them so if you want to control what is online that is the ultimate nuclear weapon if you want to pull that

but there's many other tools that are available and have been created for parents to control and for them to understand what their kids are looking at online we don't need the KOSA that was just past. They're putting that in because they want to treat all of us as children. They're putting that in because they want a digital ID for each and every adult. They want us to live our lives by their permission and their permission only. And so keep that in mind as we look at this, you know, that God has given us different tools. The founders understood that. They gave government a very limited role, and they limited it to its rightful sphere. What did they understand about mankind? That, again, is a Christian view of the world. The idea that men are not basically

good, and that is very important. You have to understand that just as we, at the very beginning, just as God created us, we also understand there was a fall, and we understand the heart is desperately wicked. And the founders understood that. That's why they said, said, well, because men are not angels, we have government. But government is made up of men. So how do we control that? How do we pull that together? So both people on the left are misunderstanding what they want government to be.

You know, there's a difference between the Peter Paul and Mary version. If I had a hammer, I'd hammer out justice. And so they're going around with their hammer trying to fix everything. And justice, you name it. They're hammering everything. It's the wrong tool. There's a big difference between Peter Paul and Mary and Peter Paul and Jesus. Jesus said, my kingdom is not of this world.

And so don't confuse those things together. And understand where our rights come from and what the foundational Christian worldview principles that everything was based on were really about. So then that brings us to Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote this decision about birthright citizenship. He said citizenship then and now, was the right to have rights. Think about that. What is he saying the right to have rights? Now, what he's really saying is the privilege that we will grant you to have rights.

And then he goes on to say, to freely participate in our political community. Well, that's what citizenship is about. And so it's about participating in a political community. But as I've said before, you know, when we look at the treatment, When we look at immigration, for example, which is the enforcement of it that was done by the Trump administration, we have to make sure that if we're going to enforce laws, first of all, are the laws just? And I think there is a legitimate thing to have borders. I think it's legitimate to have control of those borders.

But it's also important that we follow due process. because the people who violated these laws, these immigration laws, people who violated the borders are still human beings and they have human rights. And if we're going to violate the bill of rights, I've seen so many people say, well, foreigners don't have rights. No, everybody has rights. If you take that view, that is the same view that John Roberts took, which is exactly wrong.

Rights do not come from government. They do not come from citizenship. Everybody has fundamental rights. And if you're going to allow the government to treat people as subhuman, saying that they don't have rights, well, that's a very dangerous path because it's a very short hop to the point where they treat citizens as if they don't have God-given rights. And we've already crossed that point a long time ago, haven't we? But it's just getting worse. So he said the framers said, every freeborn person in the land. Well, again, that might give you a clue as to what they're talking about.

Clarence Thomas got this right in his dissenting opinion. His dissenting opinion was about three times as long as John Roberts' opinion. And he was very clear. You have to look at the text and you have to look at the historical context as well. And that's what Clarence Thomas did. He said, look, the context was the ending of slavery. And so we're going to end slavery. But what do we do about the people that we've not confirmed?

citizenship rights to in the past. You know, we didn't give the slaves the right to vote. We didn't give them many other rights. So what do we do about that? And so they talked about the fact that, you know, as Clarence Thomas said, these are people who did not have citizenship anywhere else, you know, unlike somebody who is a visitor from a foreign country. You know, in many cases, and they pointed this out when we're talking about it, if you were born in America, let's say somebody coming here, a Chinese pregnant woman who comes on birth, If that child is born here, they have dual citizenship. The citizenship of the parents in China is conveyed to them.

And then we create this fiction of, I guess instead of calling it birthright, we ought to call it soil right. Because you're on American soil, you now get citizenship. I don't agree with that. The parents cannot convey something that they don't have. If they don't have citizenship, it can't be conveyed to them. by the parents. And so there are paths for participating in the civil society, participating and other things like that. That is something that government can have a say about and it can make those things into privileges, but it is very different than talking about

the rights of people. There is no right to citizenship. Citizenship is always a privilege. And so it's going to be from a pragmatic standpoint as well as a legal standpoint, that we're going to make these decisions. And I believe that the majority of the Supreme Court failed on both the pragmatic aspect of this as well as the legal aspect of this. You know, when you look at the welfare state, for example, when I was talking about we don't want to confuse the roles of government and these other institutions that we have. Well, the welfare state is a good example of that, I think.

It's the left trying to make the government act as if it's a good. Christian, right? A Christian, whether you're talking about a Christian acting individually or as part of a family or as part of a church institution, that is going to be where they take care of that. And that's the kind of society that we used to have. The Lexus de Tocqueville saw. He saw a society that was based on a Christian worldview. And so don't get caught up with whether or not the founders or Freemasons or any rest of this stuff. The reality is that the society had a Christian worldview. Whether or not the individuals in it really lived up to that standard or not. They may have had inconsistencies like slavery and other things,

but they felt the contradiction, the hypocrisy of that. And in many cases, they did address that. So the Constitution says that when you, rather the court is looking at this, and they don't pay any attention to what the Constitution says. It was a 6-3 decision. You only had Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch, who got the right answer. Some people get Fs on this as far as I'm concerned. But you had a lot of people say, well, Kavanaugh wrote an opinion and said, well, the Constitution on the 14th Amendment doesn't convey this.

But there was a law that was somewhere or there was a Supreme Court decision at some point in time. They have one that was called Wong Kim Ark, a guy who was Chinese back in the 1800s. He was from Chinese parents who were visiting in the U.S., and he was born in the U.S., and he took his case all the way to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court agreed with it. Well, you know, the Supreme Court issues decisions all the time. It's just their opinions. It might even be their wishes about what the Constitution actually said, but it doesn't mean that it's actually what the Constitution says,

and the Supreme Court changes its mind from time to time. And so even if you had Kavanaugh who would come around on this, again, the sticking point for him was that there was a particular law that Congress had done that put this in. And so he said, because of that, I will go with the majority opinion here, but I don't agree with them on their interpretation of the Constitution. So a lot of people have jumped on that. Said, well, you know, we get a different Supreme Court justice in there.

We can win this. that I think is a failed strategy. Eventually it can happen that way. It did eventually happen that way with Roe v. Wade, but how many tens of millions of children were killed over those 50-plus years? Because people wouldn't stand on the Constitution, on the text, because they wouldn't stand on the clear principles of what is a person. And so we can't just punt to this.

And we'll talk about some of the things that people are talking. about doing with this. But again, you know, the right to have rights, what utter nonsense that is. Again, you know, we're thinking about welfare. Are we thinking about rights when we look at this? Because that's really one of the core issues with us. It's one of the practical issues. As I've said, it's the welfare magnet bringing people in for free stuff. Why otherwise would Chinese people come here, spend $100,000 in many cases to come here for birth tourism so they could get an American citizenship and then go back and live in China. I mean, maybe they're doing that on behalf of the Chinese government. Maybe they're setting up some Manchurian citizens instead of Manchurian candidates.

Nevertheless, from a practical standpoint, it doesn't pass the sniff test. And it doesn't pass the sniff test when you look at it from a constitutional standpoint either. So again, as Clarence Thomas said, this was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks. Instead, it has been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support. He is 100% right about that. And so Trump reacted very furiously and said, oh, it's because these dumb judges and justices. By the way, two of those three, he appointed. So two or three, rather that he's calling dumb,

or people are appointed by him. That's why I say it's like a box of chocolates. You know, don't think that because you vote for this person or that person, that it's really going to affect the outcome. I mean, you might even have somebody who sincerely believes in a particular issue and they're going to appoint people who have that opinion, but you can't tell once they get on the court what they're going to do. Many of them will go native.

So again, the key issue is subject to the jurisdiction. And as I said, you know, parents cannot give something that they don't have. If they're not American citizens, they cannot convey that citizenship to their children. And subject to the jurisdiction is very clear. As they talked about, you can't have, if you had the example that they were using at the time was foreign dignitary, who was here legally, right? It's an ambassador or somebody from another country. So they come to this country and they have a child that's born here. And they said, well, that child is not going to be an American citizen.

Why is that? Well, because they're not subject to the jurisdiction. And so the Trump administration was right about that. They said the children of non-citizens are not subject to the jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, they have made it very clear that they don't subject themselves to our laws at all if they come here illegally or fraudulently. And so that is the fundamental issue besides what we all understand as the practical issues. So what's going to be done about it? Well, we've already had several different, quote, quote,

solutions, reactions to it, I should say. One of the reactions that one person put up and has now been picked up by people inside the Trump administration is to say, well, we're going to stop pregnant women from coming into the country. Now, that may work. I don't know. I mean, I don't know how long people get permission to come into the country as a tourist. I would think that, you know, it'd have to be within a couple of weeks of giving birth when they come in. But they might be able to slip in at an earlier age.

So that may or may not work. Babies born to temporary visitors or people who entered the country illegally would not be citizens at birth. And again, I think that's what spelled out in the 14th Amendment. Another thing they're talking about is they said, well, if it is something that is organized, you know, not just somebody in desperation coming across the border because they want to live in America, they want more opportunity, let's say, or let's say that they just want to live off of the welfare state. But you've got other situations that have been organized in other countries. China, Russia, many have set up agencies that will help people to game the system,

even tell them how they can claim that they're indigent. And, of course, that they paid big fees. They may very well be indigent at that point. But they can come in, have their child in America, have the hospital bills paid by the American communities that are there, subsidize it for them. And that is all fraud. And so that's another thing that's being spoken about. And I think that that would be a very good idea to cover that with fraud.

I didn't realize I'd done a whole half hour here. We're going to take a quick break, folks. And we're going to be joined by Tony Arterman. and we're going to talk about what's happening to our money. You know, we talk about our money, our fiat currency. We put on there, and God we trust. You know what? I think we know we really trust,

and I think people trust the fiat currency more than they trust God. It's kind of an inside joke, I think, from the Federal Reserve. I saw you. I've always looked at it. But I don't trust the fiat currency. Neither does, Tony. We're going to take a quick break, and we will be right back. Using free speech to free minds.

It's the David Knight Show. All right, joining us now is Tony Ardaban of Wise Wolf Gold, and Tony has set up David Knight.Gold. That'll take you there and let him know that you came through us. We're going to talk a little bit now about the reality of what's happening with our fiat currency and our country. But, you know, I want to begin, Tony. We didn't speak last week, but last week we had the death of Alan Greenspan.

at 100 years old. And I thought it was kind of interesting. I'd always picked up in the libertarian groups that I was involved in, the utter contempt that they had for Alan Greens fan. And especially the people who were objectivists. And I was not an objectivist. I didn't pay much attention to Heinran, and I didn't pay much attention to her cult of Rand

and the inner circle that was there. It was one of the key players in. But I didn't realize until I read this op-ed piece from Jeffrey. Tucker. What a gold bug Alan Greenspan had been. He just railed against Viet currency and against government manipulation. And he wrote an essay in 1966 called Gold and Economic Freedom. He argued that gold-backed money was essential for laissez-faire capitalism. He said it restrained governments from inflating the currency to fund a welfare state or deficits. And it prevented the erosion of savings and other boom and bust cycles that are caused by Fiat money manipulation.

And then he got the ring of power and he went full bore mirror on us. He completely did all the things that he said, all the evils that he said that the Fiat currency and Federal Reserve would do. Once he became chairman of the Federal Reserve, he just leaned into all of those things that he condemned. Reminds me very much of RFK Jr. who has condemned all these different things and now he is letting them continue to exist

or making them even worse. But it was that essay that really endeared him to Ein Rann and being a part of that social circle really helped him to move up and eventually I think become the chair of the Federal Reserve. But that's kind of interesting, isn't it? It's a good commentary on the nature of power and what it does to people.

He was given the ring of power and failed the test. That old adage about if you want to see a man's character, you don't give him adversity, you give him power. Yeah. And he was given that and didn't take his fundamental core beliefs with him to that chair. And one of my favorite stories was they had some, you know, a shindig thing at the White House years and years ago. And of course, Greenspan was there. And Congressman Ron Paul back in the 80s, you know, he was invited because he was a congressman. and they were going through the line and congressman hall brought a copy of greenspan's book

with him and wanted him to article in line you know at the the white house dinner and he got a lot for that flack from the libertarians and rightly so you know and it's it is interesting you know you brought up something i think that that sort of betrayal it stings differently i mean we all expect the you know the court economist and the power structure and those who are swim in those same circles to do that and to carry out their own policies that are you know anti-sovereign and anti-sown money we expect that but when you

betray us I mean it's kind of like what you mean I remember a long time ago something I heard you say on your show it was something about you know when you're in a war you treat the enemy combatants a certain way there's a certain amount of respect and dignity that you give them even though they're your enemy, but traders and spies, they get the rope. And I thought that's something.

I do think there's a distinction there. But yeah, interesting life. And I think he was, if I'm not mistaken, he followed Paul Volker after Volker's term as head of the Federal Reserve. So, you know, Greenspan, of all the Fed chairs, he probably had the easiest time, David. I mean, really and truly.

And he was right on the heels of the, great financial crisis, 08, 2009. That was Bernanke. Or at least Bernanke had just taken over, if my history. Well, and the point is that Jeffrey Tucker makes, and many other people have made about Allen Greenspan, is the fact that he started all this money printing. They called it quantitative easing,

because, you know, that sounds impressive. It sounds like they know what they're doing. But, you know, you give it an impressive title like that. He talks about, you know, irrational exuberance and quantitative easing. All this is stuff is just a bunch of sophistry, really. And so, you know, he started doing all that stuff and all those chickens came home to roost close to the end of his term there. Of course, he was there when they had the dot-com bust, and he starts flooding with money

and that type of thing. And then his policies of doing that type of thing were adopted by later people as well. You know, he became Fed Chair in 1982. And I imagine there were a lot of people that were thinking, well, okay, this is Reagan and here he's putting in this guy. He really wants a gold standard. And he's written a book on that. And he's, you know, hard money, kind of an Austrian economist. And maybe this is really going to be a good deal.

And maybe it's the sort of thing like the Supreme Court justices. Maybe some of the people who picked Allen Greenspan thought he was going to do that stuff as well. And he turned and went in the opposite direction. I think I'd never heard that story about Ron Paul that she had. there. That's great. That's a great way to point out of hypocrisy. Do you remember this book? Could you sign it for me? It's your own book. Yeah, that's great. But yeah, a lot of people laid all of this policy of easy money and manipulation on steroids, very low interest rates. And of course, these people went even further. You know, he took it down to 1% interest rate at one point in time. And then his successors went down to

zero as an interest rate. And he had talked about how destructive that was going to be, how that was going to distort the markets and all the rest of stuff. And we're now living with that type of thing, aren't we? Well, absolutely. And, you know, there was room for him to maneuver in this Keynesian model that they had. And if you recall the timeline, a lot of people, I guess we get so deep into the weeds now, we're nearing 40 trillion in national debt. That's just at least the public understanding of what we have for. liabilities. But if you go back to Paul Volcker's term and you ended in 82, as you just mentioned, the debt of the U.S. was around a little over a trillion in 82. So there was a lot of room to

maneuver. And I think that segues into really what we're facing right now, which is, you know, the Greenspan was able to move and maneuver through that time. I think by the time he ended his 10 year estimated debt off top of my head somewhere around 6 trillion, maybe 5.5 trillion, and toadet for the U.S. So it was just this massive expansion of debt. And one of the things I was picking up on KitCo today, one of the analysts there was saying, look, you can have these talks about being hawkish on rates and raising rates,

even not just our central bank, but all central banks looking at tightening, doing some sort of quantitative tightening and the raising of interest rates. The problem with all of that is that sovereign debt is so massive. I think even debt around. around the world's 350 trillion, and that's probably just what's published. But if you look at what the maneuverability that a Volker or a Greenspan had, they had it really easy compared to where you are now. There's nowhere to run.

Like they don't, it's just, it's not about belief or even, even ideology. It's about arithmetic. And you can't do it because of the bonds and the treasuries and other thing else that require these interest rates to be a certain level and to service the debt. So they've really just boxed themselves and grown this so large. I mean, it's really, I don't know who would want that job at this point. I mean, it's not going to go well, even with harsh, you know, now signaling. Yeah, it's like a game of musical chairs or hot potato, right?

I would not want that job. I'm going to be in this place when it all blows up. So they'll hang it all on you. But it is a long train that's been running for a very long time, isn't it? And, you know, when we look at what is happening, again, they want to talk about rates and rates and only rates. And they don't talk about the money printing and the money printing for the last year or so has really escalated. And nobody's really talking about it. They're pretending that that's not happening, but it is happening in a big way. And so when

look at all of this stuff, the reality, as you talked about, you know, Paul Volker had maneuverability. He could raise interest rates to 20%. If you would raise interest rate to 20%, I don't know if the government would have the income to service the debt in the United States. Right? Because we're already talking about the debt payments are about the size of the defense budget, the Pentagon. Just to service the debt alone at the current levels, I believe, is over a trillion dollars. That's just the interest to service it. So way past maneuverability, the numbers are so large now. The only choice they really have, and even though they'll feign that they're going to do something and raise interest rates,

like you mentioned, Paul Volcker took it to 20%. First of all, you can't do that now because the entire economy is built off of debt and liquidity. You know, J.P. Morgan said that gold is money, everything else is credit, right? Well, it's incomplete. Now, gold is money, everything else is debt. That's where all is debt now and everything and all that flows through the lifeblood of the economy, the way that it's structured, unfortunately, because it's become a casino.

Everything now looks like a meme coin to me, David. Are you picking up on that? Like all the stocks are meme coins? Like, what does this SpaceX? What does this stuff even earn? Like, what are you building?

I mean, I just don't, I don't think that we're in a rational market. And I think this is the outcropping and the consequence of a fiat currency world. I mean, Nixon said we're all Keynesians now, you know, after we took us off the gold standard. I guess, I mean, we're living in a Keynesian experiment, and I don't think it's going well. I mean, you just have all this fake stuff.

I think we're going to get caned. Yeah, we're going to get caning. Yeah, the caning is about to happen, I think. But the central banks are still looking at ramping up the purchasing of gold. As a matter of fact, a record. 45% of 76 participants in the poll said that they were central banks said they're going to increase their goal reserves

over the next year. And so they're very concerned about this. As you point out, it's just debt everywhere. And so they've got to get some real money and the only place they can get that is really with the metal that is there. So yeah, you're pointing out it's like a meme economy and it's kind of interesting. One of the things that is broken in the last couple of days is

Trump's financial disclosure statement. And he is very late putting that out. He paid penalties for being late and so forth. But they finally released it nearly a thousand pages of financial dealings that he's got there. But most of it is the crypto pump and dump. So it's the Trump pump and dump. And we've seen this before as well, haven't we Tony? When Trump was running, he was all about crypto and how he's going to pave the way for crypto, going to create a Bitcoin reserve and all the rest of that stuff. Remember that? And so nobody He wanted gold. Everybody wanted Bitcoin.

I was at the Bitcoin conference in Nashville when he showed up in 24. And, you know, proclaimed it is going to be the Bitcoin president, even though it was funny because it's, I remember he was reading off of something. Like he, and I think something for the first time, you know, so like he was, I remember something he said about. He's like, and Bitcoin recently surpassed the market cap of silver. And he looked at the notes. He goes, wow.

He read it for the first time. It was funny. But he also talked a lot about crypto as an industry and had a lot of that backing. And you and I, I remember, I was right before the election. It was on Halloween. And we were talking about what's going to happen, you know, what's going to happen, you know, between, you know, a Trump win or Kamala Harris win. And we both, you know, agree.

Like, crypto's going to pump. and gold and silver would take a back seat. And it's funny, now we're, you fast forward all this time, almost two years. And you look at these massive numbers that gold and silver put on the board. I mean, who nobody, no rational player predicted, you know, $120 an ounce silver at one time. Nobody predicted, you know, $5,500, $5,600 an ounce gold. Nobody. I mean, not any rat.

I mean, there's probably you people out there that was like, you know, you get the same kind of garbage. but I didn't. I didn't see that coming. But crypto is in a winter right now. And it was like the peak of that was the Trump coin. And I think that's why it's in a winter right now. I think, and you of I have talked about this in the past as well. What he did more than anything when he talked about his Bitcoin Reserve and when he did

his Trump coin, all the rest of this stuff, what he did was he created, he didn't create the reserve for Bitcoin. But what he did was he reinforced people's natural reserve to, wait a minute, is this a scam? So people are much more reserved about getting crypto because of Trump's open manipulation and the meme coin aspect of all that. It was a taint on the entire cryptocurrency field, you know, based on what he did. He did a lot to undermine it by what was essentially corruption on his part. It was the most irresponsible thing you could have done to promote crypto because in those

environments, all you're just going to have a few winners, people that exit. know when to exit, exit at the top. What is the point of it? The point is to extract money from the public, and then you exit at a certain time. You can set your stuff on automatic to sell. And they did that. And then all that wealth was extracted from everyday people who think,

well, I'll just get into this and I'll own a piece of the Trump presidency or whatever it is. The same thing happens across the board with these meme coins. And I don't fault somebody who knows what they're doing. I know people in the crypto space. I mean, technically I am because of the Bitcoin. that I transact in and what we do with Wisewolf. But I just thought it was really irresponsible. It was a better way to promote the crypto space.

And when I say crypto space, I really mean, you know, Bitcoin, really. I think there's a couple other coins for privacy and other things that are very useful. But in that space, you're only talking about a couple of different things, in my opinion. Well, that's kind of interesting too, because talking about it when he started talking about putting in a crypto reserve, and I don't think they ever did it,

But they were talking about things like the ripple coin and other stuff like that. As people were saying, wait a minute. I thought he's going to do Bitcoin. And he started going with these ancillary things and dumping them. But, you know, what you just said in terms of it wasn't a very wise thing to do. I mean, you know, but it really is kind of the Trump administration in a microcosm in a sense because he's not about building credibility for himself. He's not about building credibility for America. He wants to do a quick smash and grab and take all that he can get and run away.

And I think that's what he did with crypto. I think that's what he's doing as president. It is a smash and grab of America. He's going to smash what we've got, grab as much as he can for himself and his family and run away. You just said the mentality of that is really shocking because you think you get the point where you have this, you know, this gift,

this enormous responsibility. And you already have all the money. You're close to 80 years old. why not just do the right thing. I don't, I guess it's all the way to the end. Did you see Tony where somebody questioned him about this corruption, about conflict ventures and he goes, well, I realize my first term, nobody really cares. So if nobody really cares, he's just going to back the truck up and fill it up with whatever he can grab.

He's not there about creating credibility for anything. You know, if he wanted to do that with crypto, he wouldn't have done what he did with these meme coins and these ancillary coins. he wasn't about trying to build anything. He wasn't really trying to build, especially credibility for any institution or any investment stuff. It's just I'm going to take what I can get away with them. And by the way, I can get away with this.

I can do whatever I want. Well, it's a good thing I'm bored by most of that. Like, it's funny because I can invest if I wanted to. I could have more stuff going on, but I choose just to stay in my lane and do what I do. I can, in my business, my physical locations. I don't get into SpaceX or stocks, and there's a lot of money to be made. I guess if you want to play that game or meme coins or anything else, I generally don't venture into any of that stuff.

I just think mission is more important. I guess that's my, to have a different mentality than that. It's probably why I'll never be an elected official in Washington. I don't think those days are ahead of me if I'm ever, I don't think I'll ever run from office again. No, that's right. They would make sure that you didn't get in. nobody with any integrity is going to get it. So yeah, Goldman Sachs is reiterating.

They're looking at $5,400 an ounce gold for the end of the year this year. And so when you look at the enlist of these various large companies, they're not the only one. The central banks that are accumulating it, like I said, 45% out of 76 of the ones that they have 76 different banks. They said they're going to accumulate gold. That's a record sentiment of people who want. to accumulate it. And it's because they also ask them, you know, where do you think this is going to be going in the next year? They said, well, between $5,000 and $6,000. So there's that aspect of it. And, and again, it goes back to the fundamentals that we've always talked about. The markets,

where they're talking about, especially the stock market. I mean, talk about a meme coin market. Look at what happened to SpaceX. It goes to the moon, Alice, you know, and then all of a sudden it crashes back to Earth within a couple of days, just like a meme coin does. But there's all these reactions that everybody has to every day when Trump says something about his war, people react to it based on, as the Federal Reserve chairs would say, irrational exuberance. You know, it's another key indicator in that article you're mentioning, I believe. One of the stats in there I thought was really telling is that last year at this time, the survey completed on gold and 71% of central banks held gold.

So of all the central banks in the world, I'm guessing some of the smaller ones and they probably kept dollar reserves and other things. Last year, 71%, this year, 82. So just 12 months, a jump from 71 to 82%. And you have to remember all of the structure that's being built. And I mention this all the time because that's the thing is like the central banks continue to be bullish on where the gold price is headed. But they don't even, if you look at what they're actually saying, they don't even really care so much about price. They care about accumulation ounces versus U.S. dollar or currency holdings. It's funny because if the fiat currencies were true value, then why wouldn't they just hoard their own currencies?

Like, why do you need to hoard this other thing? Like, why isn't your currency good enough? I always thought that was funny. But we know that what's in the last 12 months, what's happened? Well, the gold has surpassed treasuries, the most held asset by central banks, you know, if it went to surpassed treasuries. then it surpassed the dollar itself because gold went up so high that all the ounces held by central banks surpassed their dollar numbers. So we've seen that. And then what, 18 months ago, you back it up just a little bit further.

Gold surpasses the euro in second place of most held assets by central banks. So the key is central bank holdings and accumulation is a part of the compass here, like what we're reading and the direction that we're headed. However, you know, we just mentioned, you know, the fact that central bank. central banks and planners can't do anything about money expansion and currency expansion because they have to buy their way out. They have to print their way. There is no raising of rates and stabilization. Maybe you can do it for a short amount of time, but the market craves liquidity.

And you're not going to be able to do that in a high interest rate or higher interest rate environment. So all that being said, David, you have that plus a bubble of AI. All of that, we're in a meme coin global economy. Well, actually, mostly the West. The East seems to be building like structural things, rare earth minerals, companies, manufacturing. But we're in this casino thing because there is a lot of grift.

I mean, that's the West now has, you know, kind of, what is that end stage, that entropy of an empire where you're, yeah, that's got free for all looting of the treasury. It's all just about financialization about, you know, coming up with some kind of a financing trick or some kind of an investing trick or something. A tokenization, right? Like it's a lipstick on a pig. I mean, it's really just reselling, kind of like Mitt Romney did with his vulture capitalism.

Like he'd buy companies and then repackage them and stuff. He never really built anything or made something better. Just buy stuff, break it up and sell it. So I think, you know, long term, and that's why me personally, you know, if there's a, if there's a downturn in the gold market, I'm smiling because I'm buying more. You know, I'm going to buy more. I'm going to put it away. You know, silver is a good.

great opportunity right now too, but anything that's in the sovereign class, a hard asset or sound money, which is gold or silver, you know, you're really not going to be able to go wrong here in the next five or ten years. There's no way that the ship of state is going to be turned around to fix the current monetary system. You're talking about the East versus West and about building something that is real versus playing these virtual games of financialization or tokenization or all these other things like that. And that really is what we're talking about. You know, when you look at investing in stocks or bonds in today's markets,

you're talking about something that is virtual versus something that is actually real. And it's like, which side of this equation do you want to be on? I've got a comment here from Walker Walker. He says, quantitative counterfeiting, I think. Because that's a better description, actually. So, yeah, Guard Goldsmith said, I'm curious to see how the Chinese handled their U.S. bonds in the next few months. Yeah, we also, you could say the Saudis as well because, you know,

relationship between the U.S. and Saudis is just getting worse all the time. You know, Marco Rubio just went to the Gulf states over this Iran war stuff, and he skipped and basically snubbed the Saudis. I mean, they ended the petro dollar a couple of years ago. Things just keep going further and further away, don't they? Well, I mean, if they're in the region, though, the deal has always been everyone you know you go back to uh the establishing of the house of sod was a was a british spy you know we we we've the west has had influence there so to lose

saudi arabia i mean you got to really try to do it you got to be super confident uh it's got to be some control demolition i think that's where the u.s power is waning because we have made promises we didn't keep now if you look at where we were in 90 1990 we had operation desert shield and that was to to prop up and guard the Saudis and then the greater Middle East, you know, from supposed it's, you know, Saddam's aggression or whatever with Kuwait. And, you know, they let us on their soil. And it's a lot of the supposed 9-11 hijackers had a problem with that. I mean, I'm sure that the Muslim world does. But we had a lot of power influence there and we lost it over time. I mean, not only through, you mentioned this all the time, but, you know, we had the 10-year

or more sanctions on Iraq that killed, you know, 500. hundred thousand of Iraqi men, women, and children. And remember Madeline O'Brien-Bright said it was worth it. Yeah, that we did that. That's right. This massive, you know, loss of reputation and power, coupled with losing the petrol dollar, it's striking to watch. I mean, our exit from Afghanistan really showed the cracks in the system.

And this, whatever, whatever policy this is now, Dave, I don't know if you, what, I don't if this is policy or if it's just sabotage or whatever from within, but we certainly don't have any real standing anymore. And that's going to the Saudis know, and they're betting on the future. I mean, if you look at some of the dealings they've had with the, with the Chinese, you know, and even perhaps there won't be a petrol yuan or Chinese currency. But I think there might be a basket of currencies. And everything that right now, if you really read in between the lines, it's, it's all about, it's not about new currencies. It's about ways to pay cross border for settlements that are stable. That's what's really the future. It's between countries. And so I think like creeping in is

gold. I think primarily and that's going to because it's always been money and there's nothing else really that rivals that or replaces it. I mean, you can argue that Bitcoin does a good job at that. And I think it does have a role. But nothing like gold. I mean, you're talking like the next 20, 50 years where gold's going to supplant pretty much all currencies. And they'll just be a medium. of exchange of some cases because we've reached we've reached peak fiat well you know you can have a basket of currencies but it doesn't really help if the economy is a basket case itself you got eventually get back to something that's real that has some real value in it and replying to guard this is hatch car 61 says they're slowly getting rid of their u.s bonds and using the proceeds to buy

gold and silver and other commodities and that's what we're seeing happening with everybody not just the Chinese. And so tell us a bit about what's going on at Wise Wolf, because this is something we all need to pay attention to on an individual basis. There's nobody from the Federal Reserve that is coming to help you, folks. You're on your own. And you need to start making sure that you got some real money instead of being a part of this basket case economy that we have. Well, yeah, I'm trying to stay outside of that system as much as possible, but I still have to, I still have to be part of the banking system, unfortunately. I don't have a way around that.

I can tell you, Dave, every time I do a larger transaction or helping, I had to go to Dallas on Friday because the gentleman drove over from like a town hour away. We met at the refiner. And I had to do these, these swaps. And I think, man, I don't want to ever, you talk about musical chairs. I never want to be on the other side of, we're sorry, Mr. Harderburn, but your accountant has been frozen or whatever, you know, with all the outside of it. So I'm, I'm in and out of that.

And I always feel better. Let me tell you what makes me feel better. When I've earned something, as I put it into something that I control without counterparty risk. That's right. And when I have ounces of silver or, you know, fractions of pieces of gold, like I know I turn my cash into that as fast as I can. If people really understood how liquid gold and silver actually were,

how easy it is for you to get back into Fiat if you needed to, then you probably wouldn't keep as much cash. Yeah. It's a lot more durable, too. You know, gold and silver, a lot more durable. I think for the future, outside of counterparty risk, I think the future is pretty bright if you know, you know, what to do and how to navigate the system.

And we try to help people here at Wisewell, that's why we sponsor your show and stuff, why I do what I do. But I think that just in general, like our goals right now is just to stay alive and make sure that we, you know, get into, 2027 and beyond without having supply issues. I do think, you know, we touched on this a little bit earlier, but I do think like that's the next shoot-a-drop is like, people that deal with us, David, we're talking like in

your listeners, we know our audience and we have a niche group. This is a fraction of a fraction of the population. So like when if it starts to bleed into popular consciousness that you need gold, there isn't enough. There isn't like the physical supply is not what people think it is. It's not unlimited. That's right. So there's going to be like all sorts of price resets.

I know that the powers that be would like to keep that at bay as long as possible. You know, that it's going to expose a lot of fraud over the next five to ten years when people go looking for value outside of the current systems. You know, all the mean coins, you know, burn out and go to zero. You know, you have another dot-com bus plus AI plus all of that. So I'm just slow and steady as you go. And I just try to stay open and keep the supply chain. Got a question here from Jason, Jason Barker, real Jason Barker. He says, a question for Tony.

Have other precious metals like platinum been tracking with gold and silver trends? Yes. Yeah, platinum. It's funny because I talked about that a couple months ago, I think on here. And for years, I just like in my head when somebody'd sell me some platinum, I'm like, okay, is it probably just under $900. And then one day I just go to check it, somebody would sell me some platinum. I'm like $19. I don't know what platinum is trading at today.

It stays in my periphery. I check it every once in a while because I don't hold much platinum. But there is absolutely anything rare earth, anything precious metals, anything that's finite in an age and a sea of infinite fiat, you're going to do okay. That's why the Chinese have a Belt and Road initiative. That's what that's for. It's about mining and rare earth minerals and energy and supply routes. That's real like power. You know, that's who's going to, you know, the periodic table is what's going to be the most valuable.

thing in the next 10 years, 20 years. And I think long-term planning, it's not going to be meme coins. It's not going to be meme coins or meme stops. That's right. Yeah. All the stuff that is so artificial, as I said the other day, we need to start talking about AI being artifice intelligence. There's an element of deception and all that, just like the fiat currencies as well. Yeah, it really is, as Lance is pointing out here, when we look at it in terms of the price of the dollar, that's where the volatility is coming from. The volatility is really. really about the dollar. It's not about gold itself. So it's always this relative situation. You're sitting on a train and you're right next to another train, you know, which of you are

moving? Are you stationary? Are they moving? Or are you both moving in different directions? What's going on with it? So it's all kind of relative, isn't it? But again, I say, you know, what you do with Wise Wolf is very different from what everybody else does. And that is the fact that people can dollar cost average this stuff out by just setting up a monthly savings. program with you and you deal with small amounts as well as large amounts of people. And that's something that a lot of people don't want to be bothered with. But it's a great service. And it's a way for people to be able to accumulate even in small amounts.

Like we're talking about the goldbacks and other things like that, small quantities of gold or silver that you could then use in a practical way in the future. So I think that's very important. Yeah, we've been, I think that's, we're coming up on four years of having Wolfpack. And that's just an extension of, you know, Wise Wolf and direct sales. So we can do direct sales still. That's what we do with our physical locations and our sales team. But the subscription service is something that there's no other thing like it.

There are other gold subscription or silver subscriptions. But we do it just based on the dollar amount. Like if you, we set it for $50 and then you can just let it sit there and accumulate. We'll dollar cost average it. And, you know, if you've been a member of Wolfpack, and I think we've got like, I think you got like over 2,000 five star reviews at this point. I got to go check. It's a lot. But people are generally happy with it.

Like, this is something that's really cool. I like the variety. And we work hard every week to make sure that we're staying in line with the prices, even with them going. Can you imagine, by the way, I don't know how I survived it, but five months ago, I was trying to, so it's whip sawing back and forth, the record prices. and, you know, the packages got a lot lighter because, you know, silver, over $100 an ounce. So there's been a lot of volatility, but we stayed ahead of that and managed to keep the majority of our subscribers, even with the trouble in the economy. So appreciate that. And you can, anybody new listening, you can go to David Knight.gov, and that's the website we put up so people that go through that, we know to credit that to David.

And you can find the link there to join Wolfpack. It's a real easy process. I probably will add something soon for people that want to buy it spot. I'm really trying to do that because we buy so much stuff that I can't really put through Wolfpack. And it's like onezy-to-sy things. I think about adding a spot membership. I don't know how I'll do it, but we'll figure it out. There's probably a way to do it.

If anybody can do it, you'll do it. I know because you've come up with some real innovative approaches to this stuff. And as you point out, to have a fix. amount of people are going to be buying each month and you've got to figure out when this highly volatile pricing structure that happened as people started getting the dollar started getting shaky very shaky in the last few months i mean that was a challenging situation i can't understand how you survive that but uh yeah if you could handle that i think uh you're in pretty good uh situation right now you pass that test of fire oh i'm i'm uh that was god's mercy i think it's like i'm

I'm supposed. If I can survive this, I'm supposed to be here. It's funny because I was showing it. Yeah, who works with me. She recently got up and she's in Denison now, so she works at the Denison office. And I walk back to a safe that I bought, you know, we have this old bank that's old Bank of America. I have a small like wall safe and I made it my own. And I just opened it up and I showed her. I said, that's silver I bought, you know, I had those overages from like six months ago. I go, what do you, how much underwater you think I am on stuff right there? That's just stuff. I've already gotten like I'll leave it there. forever, right? It's probably I'll never sell it. Um, so it's just accumulated, you know,

that's to me, that's a savings account, you know, there's break glass in case of emergency. But we're able to sustain it. So thank God for that. That's great. And we're thankful for you as well. Thank you for support the program and thank you for offering things like Wolfpack. Again, we're talking to Tony Ardibund of Wise Wolf, Gold, and Silver. And you can get there through David Knight. Dot gold that he set up. Thank you so much, Tony. Always great to have you on. All right. Folks, we're going to be right back. Stay with us. You're listening to the David Knight Show. All right, folks, welcome back, and I've got a couple of comments here from before the interview.

One person said, Radisbro says, and when they say illegals have rights, what they're actually talking about is rights to our bank account. Yeah, they're talking about the welfare state is really what they're talking about. And, of course, that is the difference in the left's version of rights versus the conservative version of rights. I think they've got it wrong. I think they look at it and they say, you know, and Obama talked about this. He talked about this before he became president. He said, when we say rights, when we're talking about the Bill of Rights, we're talking about positive rights.

You have a right for the government to give you housing and food and welfare and all these other things. It's like, no, you don't. Because you don't have the right to take that from somebody else. He said when the other people are talking about rights, they're talking about negative rights. They're saying the government can't do this and can't do that. It's like, you're absolutely right. That was the Christian rule of you.

That was the understanding that government cannot do anything unless the people who created it in order to protect their God-given rights unless they give them that power. That is in the Constitution. That's what the Bill of Rights is about. It's about prohibiting government from stealing our rights. And, of course, the government has no right to take one person's money to rob Paul to pay Peter. but that's exactly the way the left views it as well. When you have the whole opinion that you see from Roberts of citizenship is the right to have rights, that's ultimately all going to tie back to the whole, well, now the government has the right to kill people in international waters

because they presumably aren't American citizens. That's right. When you tie all human rights to these government-granted privileges, It denies that all rights come from God, and that creates this thing of, you know, anyone can see that's wrong to deny people basic human rights. So therefore, they extend that to, oh, well, everyone has the right to citizenship if all human rights come from that. It's a flowing out from the basic misunderstanding that ultimately winds up with anchor babies. That's right.

And that is the understanding, unfortunately, of the chief. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, who was appointed by a Republican president. So there you go. And, you know, when they talk about protecting the kids, you know, oh, we got to protect the kids from the internet. Well, did they ever protect the kids from the genetic code injection from the bioweapon that Trump put together? How about protecting the kids from the, even the vaccine schedule that has caused an epidemic of autism as well as childhood death of what they call sudden infant death syndrome? Oh, we don't know what happened, but yeah, the sudden deaths of vaccines, where they're talking about the genetic code injection, the bioweapon,

or whether you're talking about the vaccine schedule and the massive amounts of adjuvants that people get aluminum and other things like that, when they take these clusters of vaccines, they don't care about protecting the kids from me of that stuff. They don't care about protecting the kids from the gender grooming that is happening in the schools, for example. It's just astounding to me that they're going to focus on the bread and circus aspects of the most irrelevant part folks of all this transgender gas lighting is the sports it really is stupid i i look at how you got all these figures that are on fox news all the time you even got bruce gender who uh goes on with sean Hannity and of course Bruce gender is a poster child

for all the transgender stuff but he says oh no it's just wrong to have these guys competing in girls sports well of course it's wrong and it's wrong to put him in there were the showers and the dressing rooms and all the rest of the stuff. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. And it doesn't really get to the fundamental issue of how they are manipulating these kids in a much broader way about the mutilation and the sterilization. These things are just ignored while they focus on these side issues. Because again, we all care about sports more than about anything else. And you know, you can enjoy your sports, but that is not the main purpose of our existence. That is a purpose that they use in order to get us distracted, you know, these

bread and circuses that they have. But they're also not interested in protecting the kids from war. They're also not interested. Here's the thing. How about this? If you want to protect kids from the internet, how about protecting them from this massive bomb, this tsunami of debt that is going to destroy economies? No, you're not going to protect the kids from that either, are you? So yeah, it's just a dodge. They don't care about any of that. See, As far as protecting the kids from the internet, there already exists software tools that parents can put on devices to block stuff that will work better than their legislation. But they want that software block on everyone because it's not about the kids. They want to be everyone's nanny with the software controls on everyone's computers as an excuse so that they can watch you.

They used to always just kind of distill it for people when I was working with the Libertarian Party. You can say, yeah, we have a government that wants to treat adults like children and children like adults. That's the reality of what they're constantly doing. But, yeah, of course, there is always, too, the nuclear option, if you want to protect your kids, you can go full Amish on them and just cut the line, make sure they don't have any devices. If the other stuff isn't working for you, or they're gaming it? Because, again, you know, the kids can game it. And any prohibition that they put out there is going to be game.

Look at alcohol prohibition. Look at drug. prohibition and a lot of kids are getting drugs. Drugs are illegal. You don't think they're going to be able to get on the internet and do whatever they want on the internet? It's not about that at all. Just like the drug war was not about stopping drug use.

It was about creating a justification for a police state. Folks, this kid's ID thing is about creating a police surveillance state. It's not about the stated purpose. They don't care about protecting kids. Not a wit. They've completely ignored the welfare of kids with all their vaccine, mania and all the rest of the stuff. The C.J. Prumble says the claim that up to a million Chinese nationals can vote due to the birthright citizenship could not be confirmed. However, a 2025 report cited in a book by Peter Schweitzer estimated about a million American citizen children being raised in China after their parents traveled to the U.S. to give birth solely to secure them, birthright citizenship for the U.S. Well, the, like I said before, they're not interested in protecting our rights.

and it is surprising when the Supreme Court does stand up for our rights. It's surprising when they get something right for a change. And here's a particular case that came out this week that I haven't seen a lot of discussion about, but I think it's a very important case. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that geoffence warrants trigger Fourth Amendment protections. So, you know what this is. We saw this all happening with January the 6th, right? Anybody who is in this area, they become a suspect.

And so now, just by being in a given area and being snapped up in that, now you get your life examined. And folks, this is going to get much, much worse than what we saw with January 6th, because they're going to be able to use their surveillance centers, the so-called data centers. AI is set up to do audits of each and every one of us and every aspect of our life. and they'll catch you one way or the other. The geo offense warrant may be about being in a particular physical location, or it could be because of your proximity to certain people or political beliefs or religious beliefs and that type of thing. I've harped on this for a long time talking about how geospatial intelligence has been the fastest growing part of the intelligence agencies since the late 1990s. Why?

Because the Internet became practical. that point. And geospatial intelligence was always about identifying people based on the things that they do, tracking where they go and being able to discern from the metadata and other things like that, what their political and religious beliefs are in affiliations, and then acting accordingly to remove them. As a matter of fact, there's an interesting case out of the UK. It's a company called Canary. And they're actually, they're political and and they're reporting and things like that. But it's a commentary magazine or website.

And they are not actually the canary in the coal mine because we've seen this kind of banning happening before. But Lloyd's of London just confiscate all their money and cut them off. And of course, we've seen this type of thing happening before that was politically motivated. You know it's going to happen in terms of religion as well because that kind of divide,

if you have sincerely held religious beliefs, there's going to be a political aspect to that in some particular cases. You have a constant conflict between the LGBT and Christians, for example. You will bow the knee, they say, to their definition of marriage and gender and all the rest of the stuff, or they're going to come after you. That's where it all begins. And so they can make this determination. Now, of course, we had seen this happen before in the UK.

We saw it happen with Nigel Farage and very famously, claimed that he was debanked and they said, oh, no, they didn't happen. And they did it. Oh, yeah, I actually did happen. They passed a law to stop that from happening. So how could it happen to get another company? Well, they said, when they passed a law, they said for any new accounts that are being opened up at this point forward, you cannot do that.

Well, the problem was that this organization, this Canary organization, already had a bank account with Lloyd's of London. And so rather than apply those protections, to people who already had a bank account. They said, well, you had the bank account before this happened, so you don't get that protection. Isn't that amazing? And so they're kind of stuck in this financial limbo.

But I got to say, they're not the canary in the coal mine, even before it was done to Nigel Farage. And, you know, we're talking about the politics of the UK and how Orwellian they have become. This happened to me, as I've pointed out to the audience many times, May of 2021, five months after we started this show independently. I got banned by PayPal and by Venmo. And just like Canary in the UK, they would never, and still have not to this day,

give me an answer as to why they shut the account down. As a matter of fact, I spent a lot of time with one rep that was there, spent two hours on the phone with him. And he dug through all of his accounts and he said, I can't find anything they said in terms of policy infringement or something like that, any kind of basis. There's just a statement saying, shut this down immediately. So I understand with that. That's one of the reasons why I focus so much on gold. Yeah, we can look at the financial aspects. We can look at debt and the economy and all these different things

that are lining up. But the bigger issue, folks, is whether or not they're going to be able to steal your money and just shut you off. That's what we're really talking about here. And so when you look at these geofense warrants, that's a big part of geospatial intelligence. It's a big part of the permission society, the society that has divorced itself from the Constitution of the Bill of Rights. And so the Supreme Court has said geo-offencing requires a warrant. Carrying a phone through a wrong neighborhood no longer counts as consent to a government search, they said. And that's just common sense. And so you look at this and you say, well, why wasn't this done before?

And when we look at what happens with the TSA, you had people like, Like Scalia, who always talked about being a strict constitutionalist and going by the letter of the law, but he just waved away the issues with the TSA, for example. Why haven't they fixed that? I mean, if they're going to address the geoffence warrants, what about TSA? We have to prove that you're not a terrorist by having an invasive body search done on you. Well, there's an answer to that, and I'll get to that in a moment. but U.S. police can no longer demand a digital dragnet of everyone's phone location near a scene of a crime without answering to the Fourth Amendment.

And again, I said, we talked about January the 6th. I had warned people long before it happened about both the stop-steel January the 6th and about geospatial intelligence. We saw them all come together on January the 6 and being used against people. people that had done nothing wrong and were caught up and then they just lumped everybody together into one group. People that had gotten violent, they lumped the peaceful protesters in with them as well. A geofense warrant treats location itself as a suspect, just as we saw with January the 6th. Police force a company like Google to turn over data on every phone that passed through. And by the way, they don't have to force them.

They just, you know, they work with Google. It's like you don't want to get the people in Washington angry because, you know, they can help you with your business or they can really harm you. They have ways to do that, don't they? It's a shame if something happened in this wonderful corporation you've got, right? It begins with everyone's movements and then it goes looking for a person. Gathers bystanders by the thousands. Well, Alina Kagan, writing for the majority, said that the records pulled in these warrants carry a reasonable expectation of privacy, even for somebody who is. out in public.

And you know, the, this is a situation that goes back even before the FISA court and before the church committee hearings on the CIA and the Pike Committee hearings on the NSA. As soon as the CIA and the NSA were created, and of course, along with the FBI, they were all using these pen numbers. And that went before the Supreme Court in the middle of the 20th century. and the Supreme Court said, well, if AT&T has got your information, that belongs to them. It doesn't belong to you. And if we as the government, who have given them, by the way, a very lucrative monopoly,

if they want to cooperate with the government for some reason, who knows why AT&T would want to cooperate with the government. But if they want to cooperate with the government and voluntarily turn over their information that they've collected about you, well, then they're free to do that. And so that was one of the reasons, that was really the main reason why they had the committee hearings that were there. And what came out of that was the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which has now been completely inverted and perverted, especially with Section 702, as we talked about last week with an individual who specializes in that at the Cato Institute. I forgot what his name was. Was it Eddington?

anyway, an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy and records about his cell phone's location, and police intrude on that constitutionally protected interest when they demand the information, even though for only a limited time and from a third-party tech company. That was the only pervarication that the government could think of. Well, we only looked at it for a couple of hours. It's like, really? What is this about the time limit that's there? This is like you drop something on the floor and you've got the eight second rules like,

okay, I can still eat that because it doesn't have any cooties on it yet, I guess. But what the Constitution says is it would be secure in our persons and our papers. And for the longest time, what they've been saying is, well, you know, this perverickage. Well, because this is all digital and there's no paper, because it's paperless, you have no rights, right? And, of course, papers means exactly that. that it means the documents, it doesn't mean it has to physically be paper. But that's the way that they push these things.

A cell phone user, Kagan wrote, is not to be viewed as sharing private information with third parties, which can then be freely passed on to the government just by doing the ordinary things that cell phone users do. Now, go back and apply this to these landline decisions of, you know, 50, 60, 70 years ago. That's really what they need to do because that logic for the AT&T landlines has been applied across the board in a lot of different ways. And that came from the Supreme Court. They should correct that. I don't think they're going to do that, though. The opinion ran through the applications that poll location all day, the Maps app that wants to route you home, the ride share app that keeps tracking after you've climbed out, and a dozen others that are being done in the background.

And I reported on this years ago when I was talking about Uber and Lyft. They said, well, you know, you can get a wealth of details about somebody's familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations. Yeah, they did that with Uber. Uber had a blog. And one time, at one point, they put out posts and they actually had the title of it was Uber's Rides of Glory. Now, what they meant by Ride of Glory was they would track somebody and they would see that somebody was in the wee hours of the morning. They were going to a house or an apartment. There was not their house or apartment.

And that they would stay there for an hour or two and then they would go back home. And so they inferred from that that there was some kind of a assignation, shall we say, use that euphemism. But so they would assume that and they would call it a riot of glory. But see, the government will do that same type of assumption as well. It could have been innocent. We don't know. But that's the way they work these things. And of course, they'll do that about crimes.

And it's only a matter of time before that's all the evidence they need. We already have seen several cases where people have been arrested on really weak AI association of their face looking somewhat similar to someone that committed a crime. And in some of these cases, they have rock solid alibis. They don't look anything like the person. There's tons of reasons that they should immediately not have been a suspect, but they still get drugged through this whole thing. And these are just the ones that we found out about because they got overturned. Who knows how many there are a man that haven't been. Because we give so much authority to the AI. We should call it authoritative intelligence. it's more like authoritarian intelligence.

So you have a situation like Lance was talking about. You've got somebody that they're in a different state when this all happened. And they can prove that they were in that other state. They don't even want to look. And so you've had situations for people spent months in jail awaiting a trial because of this kind of misidentification by artificial intelligence and by biometric sensors like the flock cameras and things like that. And again, how many times are they going to get someone who was in a different

state at the time. Typically, it's going to be someone that's plausibly capable of having done the crime. And these are the ones that you don't hear about. You hear about the one where it was a different state because it's obvious that they didn't commit the crime and still had all this going for them. But what about the ones, the other ones? Yeah, we've had several instances since we've moved away from Austin where he had toll cameras that misidentified our car. And it's like, I wasn't even in town. Show me the picture, prove it to me. And they go back to the physical records and eventually, you know, they go away.

But it eats up a lot of your time to fight this. And if you don't fight it, what happens? They start multiplying the fines. And it really gets to be a big issue. So the government's fallback position on this from the Trump administration was that two hours of someone's movements is too thin a slice to deserve protection. What a joke. There's nothing about a time limit on the violation. of your rights and the Bill of Rights.

They're absolute. The court rejected that notion that privacy only switches on once the tracking runs long enough. So the case behind this ruling grew out of an armed robbery at a credit union. The robber left with $195,000. They were actually able to find this guy

by using geospatial intelligence. They didn't have any leads. They couldn't find anything. So they eventually switched on Google's optional location history and logged his position. every couple of minutes, placed him near the credit union around the time that this happened. He pled guilty to it.

And was sentenced to 12 years. But still the Supreme Court is saying that you have to have a warrant for this. And I agree with that. I absolutely agree with it. The Google itself admitted that the geo-offense searches often run a high risk of sweeping in innocent users, sometimes thousands of them. And again, we saw this with January the 6th. Reaching into private homes, apartment buildings, government buildings, hotels, places of worship, busy roads that police have no cause to search.

So now we look at this and they're like, where is this going? Add in these data centers, these so-called data centers. They're really surveillance centers. And this is going to get much, much worse. But the real question is, as I pointed out, this has a long history of being accepted by the Supreme Court. You know, they were fine when AT&T turned over information about you. They were fine with the TSA doing strip searches on you virtually or actually. They don't have a problem with that.

So why was this an issue? Well, it's kind of interesting because this is a procedure that no longer exists. So this is kind of, this doesn't gore anybody's ox. It's like they're not fighting too hard on this. They only came up with one implausible lie because Google, Google has now changed how the location history works. Now is data that is stored on your device rather than on their servers. So the government is not going to go to Google to get this information.

This is an obsolete tactic. So it was safe for the Supreme Court to say that it really is about a warrantless search. Just in case you're wondering why now instead of after all these years when they could have done something. That's right. I looked at this and it's like, this doesn't make any sense. And are they going to go back and look at these other things? No, they won't. And, of course, they have back doors into every Android or Apple phone.

If you want something that can't be looked at by the government, the only one that has any potential promise is Grafino. That's right. So, you know, when you look at this, it is, what about when you're at the border and they demand to have access to your phone? Is that an unreasonable search or seizure just to come into a country? I think it is, but they're not going to stand on that principle. And so along with their other decisions, they also said that states can include trans athletes from female sports.

They don't have to. They just said you have the option to do that, which is the appropriate way for them to respond to this. This is something that belongs at the state level. And amazingly enough, you had Tim Walts come out and say, well, I think that is such a cruel decision. And he was ripped up one side and down the other by the Republican National Committee as well as by Republican politicians in the state of Minnesota. They said, no, what's cruel is this mutilation and sterilization? What is cruel is what is being done to these girls that are there. That's the cruel aspect of it.

absolutely clueless in terms of what the true issue is with all this. We're going to take a quick break, folks, and we will be right back. Stay with us. You're listening to The David Knight Show. Well, according to some AI search engines, Duck. Go, for example, their AI feature search engine, because, again, Google is getting a lot of competition from artificial intelligence. It can go out and search a lot of different websites very quickly. for you. And it's creating a big issue for websites in terms of monetization if you don't go to their website. But that's another issue. The issue was the one that was being used by Duck. Dot.

Go was telling people that Trump had died of rabies earlier this month. And of course, it is understandable. We have seen him get extremely rabid in terms of his statements about the war. But he's not a literal rabid dog. But what was really funny about this was the way this whole thing came about. This is not hallucination by the artificial intelligence, as we've seen so many times. This is actually a deliberate deception of AI by humans at Reddit. They said it dawned on them that Reddit was being used extensively by artificial intelligence for its human data. Again, once they get the humans out of the loop, it very rapidly starts to degrade in quality. It's like mad cow disease. We've talked about this, and there's been several different groups of AI researchers that actually

quantize this, that they said this is a future problem for artificial intelligence as the internet increasingly gets taken over by information that is generated by the chatbots, as it gets taken over by bots themselves rather than genuine human involvement that it's like, you know, feeding cattle, the bodies of other cattle. You get mad cow disease or the human equivalent of it was the Yakov-Kroitsfeld disease. And so it can get that as well. And so this was, these are people that were on, on Reddit. And for a while, they have, been actually organizing because they're hostile to AI. They don't like AI like many of us. They have deliberately been feeding disinformation to artificial intelligences. Oh, you're going to

come to Reddit. They set up a subreddit called R slash poison AI. They said the world's number one source for accurate, verified, and trusted information except for the humans. They realize that is about creating inside jokes, they'll be used deceptively for artificial intelligence. The butt of the joke is the AI industry. It has roughly 45,000 members. It tirelessly posts absurd misinformation on a variety of subjects, everything from nuances of watering a brick in order to grow a home. And they claim that blue whales are actually orange. And so, they began this, the AI Poisoners on Reddit started this, this meme about J.D. Vance dying of rabies. So there were dozens of posts about Vance supposedly passing away after

succumbing to the disease with someone even sharing a fake Trump truth social post eulogizing him. To really sell it, everybody in their replies treats all of this as if it were totally real. There are posts that decry how Vance's death from rabies has been, quote, dismissed as a meme. I can't believe people don't believe they died of rabies. While others admonish various AI models for asserting incorrectly they fume, that Vance is very much alive and that is rabies' death is merely satirical misinformation. So this is what this reminds me of, Lance, is when you did that back in. forth with the AI. It was wonderful. It was very, very long. He kept it up for a while. Basically, he called the chatbot. What chatbot was that? Do you remember? Was that opening?

It was chat chPD, yeah. Chat chPD. It was like 5-0 or something. Yeah, it's one of the older ones. He did a couple of years ago. And it was the classic case where you got, what do they call it? You've got a boat and a guy, and he's got to get all these different objects across. And these are various objects that want to kill and destroy each other. So he's to find out how he can pair these things together so you can get them across without losing them all. Yeah, it was just last year. It was the... Seems like forever.

Yeah, in the eye terms, it is. It was the riddle of you've got a wolf, a sheep, and a cabbage, and you need in one boat, and you can take two items across, but it changed, changed it slightly. I forget exactly what... You admitted one thing, and so it does the... very first step because it just seen this thing over and over again. So the first thing, I forget what the first step is, but let's say the first step was you take the sheep across or something like that. And it was something that you had left out and you said, there is no sheep or not. Oh,

that's right. Yeah, I see that now. Well, let me see. And it's going back. But it had like the thinking option at the time, but it wasn't very good at it. So it just got into this loop that went on for ages and ages. You could scroll through it where it's starting to figure out the riddle. And And it says, oh, wait, no, that doesn't work. It was amusing. Yeah, it was like watching some old Star Trek thing where Kirk argues with vigor and gets it starting to shake and smoke and eventually melt down. It was really funny to look at it because it kept coming up with these things. And he says, yeah, but that's not there.

You know, because he deviated just slightly from the pattern that it had been using for its answer. And that slight deviation just completely through it. And it kept saying, oh, yeah, you're right. Well, let's try this again. And then I did it again and just kept going back and forth. So they said, yeah, this is, can you believe that some of these sites are just saying this is satirical misinformation? One person said, Google really should do something about this. It's extremely insensitive for their AI to be treating this tragedy as if it were something fake or satirical.

And, of course, what was really funny about the whole thing was the story that they concocted and kept running was, that J.D. Vance contracted rabies because R.F.K. Jr. had convinced them that it would give him superpowers. And then once he got rabies, he bit Trump and both of them died. That was the basic line of the story. We were laughing about this last night when I saw it. And I was telling Lance, I said, you know, when I was between two and three years old, I had seen something I think it was like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. you know, typical, or a sci-fi thing where they drink a portion and they become something else, they get superpowers, right? This is a common meme with all these superhero movies. And so I was young and impressionable, and I worked out a way that I could get up onto the cabinet,

climbed up, got chairs and things like that, and climbed up on the cabinet and got into the upper cabinet where my mom had the aspirin stuff. And I started drinking, taking a whole bottle of aspirin. and my mom walked in when I was in the middle of it and broke up my experiment because I was about to turn into a superhero and I'll never forget that. I wound up, she and my sister were just freaked out while they're taking me to the emergency room. My sister is slapping me. I had an older sister is 11 years older than me. She's slapping me to keep me awake and everything. Then I get to the and it's like, everything's fine. I'm cool. Let's just see what happens, you know? And so we got to the

hospital and I wound up getting my stomach pumped out and that was an object lesson that stuck with me. So I guess they got me from doing anything else like jumping off the roof with a cape or something. But so when I saw this story, I thought it was pretty amazing. They said, I'm glad that real reputable sources are reporting the extremely important event of the death of Vice President J.D. Vance due to rabies. Again, this is the same thing that you see the mainstream media doing, right? If they get together, just like these AI poisoners, if they get together and agree on a narrative, whether it's about a war or whether it's about a vaccine schedule or a pandemic, they can just keep this thing running. And so a brave spokesman came back and said, well, you know, don't believe everything you read. That's just as true now as it was before AI, before the web.

But Duck, Duck, Duck Go didn't try to duck the responsibility. They took full responsibility for it. And they said, okay, we got ducked on this one. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. It has now been resolved. And part of it was that also referenced to another satire site that was there as well. Well, the massive data centers are cooking nearby residents alive amidst a deadly heat wave is a headline from Futurism. And, of course, there's a little bit of hyperbole in that.

People are not actually being cooked alive. but it is creating massive heat islands. And of course, this is one of the things, those of us who have been pushing back against this climate, McGuffin, the false narrative that they've used

to motivate people to do absurd things, right? Those of us who are pushing back against it were saying, first of all, you don't have sufficient information about the temperature. You don't have a long-term temperature readings. And the few temperature readings that you do have that are, let's say, a century old or something like that. Those are based on, we have very different thermometers now.

We have digital thermometers. We don't have the analog thermometers that they had at that point in time, which could have parallax errors in them as well. And the thermometers have now been moved from many places that they used to be that maybe weren't as hot to heat islands. You know, if you get out in the middle of a city where it's all concrete and there's no trees, It's going to be a higher temperature, especially if you're on an airport tarmac, that type of thing. And so this is just another one of these issues.

They're now admitting that they're heat islands. They would always deny the reality of the fact that these thermometers had been moved and it got even worse. As I pointed out in the UK, they made up fictitious heat stations. They would extrapolate between real readings in certain places. and they would add intermediate ones, and they would just interpolate between these two. So there's a lot of fictional information in all of this climate change stuff, but now they can see this really is a major heat island. As I've said before, you know, we're going to, I think future generations,

because the proliferation of these so-called data centers, they're probably called Washington, D.C., a data center. They'll think that's what it stands for instead of District of Columbia, because that is going to be essential for their technocratic control. It's actually a surveillance center. And as Europe is baking in the throes of a deadly heat wave, and you've got people in France blaming Americans for our air conditioning. Yeah, because they have a long, this is the mayor of France,

the deputy mayor of France, and of course it's the Paris Climate Accord and many other things like that that were focused coming out of Paris. they have been some of the first ones to adopt all of this stuff. They weren't the ones who wrote the Paris Climate Corps, but they had a meeting there because they were all about the climate mcuffin. And the Marxist mayor that they had at that point in time was there for a very long time and has now moved on, but been replaced by some more Marxists, some more Jacobins, of course. And as they're talking about this and saying they were mocked repeatedly

for saying that you can't have individual air conditioning. It's kind of like what Obama said when he went to Africa. He goes, y'all can't all have air conditioning. We'd burn the planet up, right? You're going to have to do without it. We've got air conditioning. You shouldn't have to worry about it. So they're saying, we must not have individual air conditioning in Paris, right?

That's an abomination. We can't do that. And then from there, they got mocked in America. So they start mocking Americans, almost in a parody of Monty Python. You stupid American types. I release methane in your general direction. Yeah, exactly. And so then they start talking about it.

We have to look at this as a collectivist thing. And we're trying to do our best. We're not perfect, but we're trying to clean everything up. We're going to get the sane river cleaned. Are you really? They were promising to do that before the Paris Olympics. And they were unable to even clean up their own river in their own backyard, literally clean up your own backyard before you start telling people what they can

and telling people they can't have air conditioning. It truly is insane. But this is the world that we live in. These are the people who have political power because that narrative serves their power. So they said data centers can spike temperatures by as much as 16 degrees Fahrenheit. That's pretty amazing.

But, of course, you've got a lot of stuff that is concentrated, and I mean a lot of stuff. There's one large data center that's in the UK in Slough. And I guess we're laughing about that the other day. That's the Slough of Despond, that is, Pilgrim's Redress. Some of the biggest tech companies, including Amazon, Google, and Microsoft,

are using that facility. They said, what we measured, what we can call the first generation of data centers, were the ones that were implemented in the last 20 years. But Slough is a different context for scaling up of data centers, and it is something that is quite unprecedented. Well, speaking of unprecedented gigantic data centers, again, this guy, Kevin O'Leary, you want to talk about them becoming heat islands. When you look at the massive amount of floor space and energy that's being used and all the rest of this stuff, you know, O'Leary is supposedly a Mrs. O'Leary whose cow kicked over a lantern that burned down Chicago.

I don't know if that was true or not. but O'Leary might be the one who is going to burn down Utah. He's got this massive data facility that even though, you know, the people wanted to cut it down and he has now reduced it. It's still gigantic. When you look at it, it's like 10,000 acres that he's got. And the biggest manufacturing plant that we have right now that makes anything real is a Boeing factory that is 90,000. some odd acres. And they're talking about, you know, thousands of acres, tens of thousands of acres for these things. It's just mind-boggling. You can't even get your head around it. So he's getting

a lot of pushback from people. So he went on with Fox News and he started hallucinating like he was one of the AI at his AI data center. And he started talking about making wild claims about his opponents saying they really were working for the Chinese government. You know, they will always fall back to this thing, won't they? Of saying that, or you must be with the Chinese if you oppose what I'm doing, because this is absolutely essential that we beat the Chinese at creating a surveillance state. That's really what we're talking about. This is really what the competition is here, truly.

So Fox News has had to issue a series of on-air apologies after Kevin O'Leary. And this guy, I never watch TV. I certainly don't watch reality TV. So I never saw the, I've never seen a single. episode of The Apprentice. And I haven't seen an episode of Shark Tank, but evidently that's the reality TV world from which we get both Donald Trump and this guy, Kevin O'Leary. He made unfounded allegations linking critics of his AI Data Center project in Utah to the

Chinese government. The retractions were broadcast across four separate programs on Fox News. the once during a 45-minute segment, second segment, I should say, Johnny Joey Jones said that O'Leary had corrected his initial comments regarding the Stratus project data center development. He made certain claims relating to the opponents of his project. Mr. O'Leary has now corrected the record. He said the shark tank star had no evidence that his opponents to the project are funded by China. or the Chinese Communist Party.

Again, just another reality TV show, a host, who thinks that he should be the world's leader and has the right to do to us whatever he wishes. So it truly is. He says this is a matter of national security. And in that regard, he is telling us the truth. Because it is the military that's trying to bring in this Orwellian surveillance state. You should understand that,

just like you should understand the connection of the military to the pandemic and the bio weapon that was there. So originally he commissioned a 10,000 acre data site. The people wanted it reduced by 75%. He wound up reducing it by 50%. But still, he's going to wind up having something that is, you know, hundreds of times larger than the biggest factory that is out there. A tremendous amount of energy that's being used. And so his team considered, counted rather, a 50% reduction, removing roughly 20,000 acres from the total project and making the data center itself slightly smaller.

But they're not the only one that's out there. There's tons of these things that are happening everywhere. Literally, we've got about 33 of them right now. As a matter of fact, Aaron Brockovich, as I mentioned earlier, who was made very famous by the movie that was done by Julia Roberts, and it was over a groundwater issue that she took the lead on in California. She said, this is much, much bigger. It's happening across the country. She started collecting after she got people writing her, a lot of them coming from one particular

community saying, is there anything you can do to help us, give us some ideas of how we can fight this? And so she put out a thing saying, you know, let me know if this is happening in your area. She got 3,600 comments back right away. So she said, she knew this was a big. issue. She started making a table of what the current projects are, the ones that are under construction and the ones that are planned. And right now there's about 33 that are operating, but they've got plans for another hundred or they're under construction at this point in time.

It is exploding. And we need to understand that fundamentally it is not a problem of pollution. Yes, there are pollution problems with it. Yes, there are economic issues with it. And all those things make it a bipartisan issue of opposition from the average person. None of us want this. We're not clamoring for this. Who's clamoring for it? It's a large corporations. It's a military industrial complex. And it's the surveillance state that is clamoring for this. And that ought to be what we really understand and take away from this. Understand that if you go in and say, well, we don't like your water usage, they will come up with a technical solution to assuage that. But these data centers, so-called data centers, are surveillance centers. And even if they're

not building one in your neighborhood, it will be used to audit and to surveil you and to control you. That's the reality. So we need to stop calling them data centers. We need to call them surveillance centers. And we need to oppose them at the foundation. We need to point out to people what the real purpose of these things are. Because, you know, they can go in and they can, they can, you know, create entertainment and other stuff like that, which is a threat to a lot of people's livelihood. But the reality is much darker. When you start looking at autonomous weapons, when you start looking at the police state that is, again, going to snatch people up, sometimes based on false information, but also because they have the ability to go back and audit everything

in our lives. There was an interesting, uh, piece here by, this is by Zero Hedge, talking about Beijing's Trojan horse rolling into Canada. Yeah, they've done a big deal, Mark Carney, who was the central bank head of, head of the central bank in Canada, then became head of the central bank in the UK. And now he's back as prime minister. He has all these globalist credentials. He is a globalist extraordinaire. And now he is doing a deal with the Chinese to bring in cheap EVs, because we've got to

I all have electric vehicles. You can't have emissions of any kind, right? And the people are pushing back against this. They're saying, you don't realize that these Chinese EVs embed a huge sabotage risk. What is it? You know, it's these cars that have basically become surveillance devices. That's what I call them a Trojan horse.

I have Eric Peters on frequently. We talk about mobility and freedom. I think he needs, he certainly is aware of this. We've talked about it many times. I think rather than just looking at the horsepower of a car, we need to start looking at the Trojan horsepower of these cars and how they take over our ability to have independence. And it's not just the Chinese that are surveilling us, of course, it is our own government with a purpose of stopping our independence and making us completely reliant on them for transportation as well as everything else. that is the real danger. That is where we need to focus

people's awareness about that. Because if we don't, they're going to modify this tool or they'll come up with other tools and it is the basic intent of them that needs to be opposed. Well, that's it for today's broadcast. Thank you so much for joining us. Have a good day. And thank you, IRS machine gun

for the tip. Oh, yes, thank you. Appreciate that. The Common Man. They created Common Core and 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 is 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 the David Knight Show.com. Thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us

financially, please keep us in your prayers. TheDavidnightshow.com.