Tue Episode #2136: The David Knight Show Best Of - 11/11/2025 - The David Knight Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to this Tuesday, November eleventh edition of The David
Knight Show. Today is going to be a best of
compilation rebroadcast. My family got some very tragic news. My
mom's twin brother, my uncle, very suddenly passed away. It
was completely unexpected. But to lay your fears, he did

(00:21):
not get the vaccine, so it has nothing to do
with that. I want to ask that you please pray
for my mom. I said he was her twin brother
and they were very very close. They spoke every single day,
and so it is especially hard on her. Keep her
family and your prayers, but especially her. Keith did a

(00:42):
lot for the show. He was one that did most
of the backgrounds that you see on it and many
other things as well. Here's a big help to the
show on top of just being a fantastic uncle. So
now we're going to go to the rebroadcast the best
of CANNA. Thank you all enough.

Speaker 2 (01:09):
Welcome back, and I want to begin with a couple
of statements from people that about this book. The book
is FDR A New Political Life. The author is David Beto,
and this first one that's here is from Hillsdale College.
It's Burton Fulsome he says the book FDR A New
Political Life is the most illuminating one volume history of

(01:31):
FDR ever written. American historians have come to recognize that
Roosevelt's New Deal did not end the Great Depression, but
prolonged it. David Beto carefully explains why so many FDR
programs and power grabs were so counterproductive. To go from
the older FDR histories to David Beto's wonderful new work

(01:52):
is to make a historic leak from the dark ages. Also,
another author, David Mcalis, says, when it comes to race
and Western influence, FDR's vision of the world order was
muddled by delusional phenomenon. He was not a man of
empire or genocide, like his wartime allies Churchill and Stalin,

(02:12):
but he was a dreadfully old fashioned Victorian quack, an
amateur phrenologist who believed that repopulating the Pacific rim with
certain choice cross breeding would create a better world for all.
David Beto takes us further than his predecessors along the
breadcrumb path into Franklin Roosevelt's thick forested interior and again

(02:33):
many wonderful stellar reviews. And I got to say even
though I wasn't able to read the entire book, when
I read of it really does match with this. I'll
give you one more. This is from Jim Bovart, who
we've interviewed on the show many times. He said. Historian
David Beato, who previously exposed how President Franklin Roosevelt ravaged
americans constitutional rights, is back with a new book vividly

(02:57):
exposing his personal perfidy from the dawn of Woodrow Wilson
administration to nineteen forty five, the betrayal at Yalta and beyond.
With volleys of research, Beto demolishes Roosevelt's reputation as one
of the quote unquote great presidents. And so I look
at FDR like Lincoln. These are presidents who come in

(03:19):
at a time of great societal upheaval and change and war,
and they have an active role in redefining our society.
I think we're in a time like that right now.
This is a guy who ran as a peace candidate
but then turned to war. He was there at the
center of the fight between gold and fiat currency. He
was preside over a rapid expansion of lebiatha and federal

(03:44):
government with very creative excuses to override the constitution. He
instituted surveillance and there was a free speech revolt against him.
He also weaponized the FCC, and we can see, you know,
we've talked about what was going on with the FCC.
We pointed out that why should broadcast media have its
content controlled when they don't control the press. Well you

(04:07):
can look to FDR for that. So joining us now
is David Beato. Thank you so much for joining us.
This excellent book here that you have.

Speaker 3 (04:14):
Thank you so much. You know, it's the thing you
were you brought up the I mean, if you don't mind,
go ahead on the FCC issue. And it brought to
mind the contrast between FDR and Trump. You know, Trump
makes these wild threats about the involving the FCC. He
goes public with it. He tries to get Jimmy Kimmel

(04:36):
off the air, which really wasn't worth the effort, frankly,
and he succeeds short term. But now Kimmel is back
on the air. So Trump looks silly. What FDR did
is he did it behind the scenes. He did it carefully.
He would never make a public statement like that. He
went to the sponsors of For example, there was a

(04:57):
leading anti New Deal radio common called named Boke Harder
in nineteen thirty eight, one of the top rated commentators
in the country on CBS. And so how did Roosevelt
get him off the air? He did, opening an IRS investigation,
an immigration investigation because Carter was from Canada. And then

(05:17):
finally he went to the executives. He went to the sponsors,
including Marjorie Merriweather Post sold at least she was the
original owner of mar A Lago, and she used her
influence and Carter was forced off the air, and by
the end of nineteen thirty eight, all anti New Deal

(05:41):
commentators on the main networks were off the air. And
despite the fact that most newspapers were hostile to FDR,
he did it all quietly. He did it all behind
the scenes with a scalpel, where Trump used the blunt
edge of the sword. Maybe many ways we should be

(06:01):
thankful for that. Yeah, the Trump is like a bull
in a china shop. So often and sometimes when he
doesn't need to get his way, he doesn't get his
way because he's so I don't know, obvious about it.

Speaker 2 (06:14):
Yeah, maybe his real thing is more about getting Americans
divided and fighting each other than it is about the
actual reform. But what FDR did is something that we've
seen a pattern of people in government typically doing, and
that is working behind the scenes, quietly sending out messages
to make sure that this group of that group has
shadow banned or canceled. And you can use your own

(06:38):
judgment in terms of doing this, because you're a private
corporation and you can do that. But of course he
kind of did that with in terms of telegrams and
things like that before, not the social media side, of course,
but actual physical telegrams. FDR had his involvement with that
as well. And they see the early trends of the
surveillance states. The technology has changed, but the nature of

(07:01):
men in power hasn't really changed that much. Talk a
little bit about the Black Inquisition and things that were
involved in that.

Speaker 3 (07:08):
Okay, Well, the Black Committee was a Senate committee was
headed by Senator HUGO. Black, who later ended up on
the US Supreme Court despite his clan background, and Black
was an attack dog for the New Deal. He was
really Roosevelt's main ally, I would say, in the Congress.

(07:32):
He was to go to guy Well, Roosevelt wanted an
investigation of anti New Deal organizations, and Black was more
than happy to cooperate in this. So Black would call
these witnesses and they would, you know, sometimes successfully hold
him off, and he would bring in leading anti New

(07:54):
Deal figures. And so Black got the bright idea, or
someone got the bright idea, well, why don't I get
their private telegrams? Telegrams were the emails texts of the time.
They were over half of long distance communication. People would
say things and telegrams that they wouldn't say in letters,
but they would say now in an email or a text,

(08:16):
and there were thousands of them. They were instantaneous, virtually instantaneous.
So Black goes to Western Union and the other telegraph
companies and said, I want copies of all telegrams sent
to and from members of Congress, and he had other

(08:37):
people as well, for like a six months period. And
Western Union's response was are you kidding? You know, our
customers would hate that. And Black goes to the FCC
gets approval, and of course the FDR would have had
a hand in this, although again he didn't really have
to order Black to do anything because Black was serving

(08:58):
the New Deal and got FCC approval.

Speaker 2 (09:02):
So again it's FCC because telegraph.

Speaker 3 (09:04):
Companies were ordered to provide that was one example, all
you know, millions of telegrams. But then they expanded the
Black expanded the investigation to include other cities, targeted individuals,
and so forth. So he went in there with his
staffers into Western Union, and they had to keep copies
of the of telegrams, right, that was sort of part

(09:29):
of their requirement.

Speaker 2 (09:30):
And they got big. That was a government, that was
a government first went through them. Sorry, that was a
government requirement to keep the copies in the first place.

Speaker 3 (09:39):
Yes, yeah, well I think the telegraph companies probably maybe
would have kept their own copies anyway, I don't know.
But they were required to keep copies of all telegrams
and they went through millions. And I couldn't believe this
when I saw, but yes, that was true. They went
through about ten thousand a day over a very long
period of time. And the committee staffers had instructions to

(10:03):
don't look at anything of a personal nature, just to
look at material related to lobbying. What would be lobbying, Well,
the committee had a specific definition indirect or direct lobbying.
Indirect lobbying would be any attempt to influence public opinion.
So our conversation would be an example of that. So

(10:24):
any attempt to influence public opinion would be considered lobbying.
So they went through copied selectively, and they would ambush
witnesses because this was all secret. None of the witnesses
knew they were doing this. None of them knew, And
eventually came out because Western Union informed started to inform

(10:46):
people who were being targeted, and one of them sued
very prominent law firm in Chicago. Still there, Silas Strawn
was his name, and Strawn was a heavyweight and in
one federal district court. By at that time, Black had
done his damage and he said, well, we're done with
our investigation. However, this was a very good precedent for

(11:10):
the future. Now, of course Black could use the telegrams
that he'd gotten his illegal booty, but he couldn't do
any more of this kind of search, nor could official
future congressional committees.

Speaker 2 (11:23):
Did they use.

Speaker 3 (11:24):
Important precedent, But it's not very well known. He as
a federal court judge.

Speaker 2 (11:28):
Yeah, we usually think about, you know, what's going on
with Faiza and everything, and you know that came after
World War two, because with the creation of the CIA
and NSA, they started getting information from the phone company,
getting pen information, who did they call, and that type
of thing which they could infer a lot from. But

(11:50):
actually this predates all of that. Were they using this,
as you said, they were questioning people. Did they use
this information as a perjury trap for people? Yeah, I
asked him a question that they are new to answer.

Speaker 3 (12:03):
I suspect that that kind of thing went on. I
haven't come across it. I have reason to believe from
just reading some of Roosevelt's comments that he was you know,
this information was shared with him, But I can't prove it,
but I think it was used for all sorts of

(12:25):
the various reasons. See, historians have kind of looked in
the wrong place. They've looked at people like jag or Hoover,
who again there's a lot of things he did too,
but the mass surveillance, this is a better example of
mass surveillance. But people even looked at it. In fact,
I hadn't even heard of the Black Committee till about
twelve years ago when I was doing research and I

(12:47):
came across to it. I said, what's this thing, the
Black Committee? What's that is that describing the nature of
the committee. Yeah, it was a Senate committee. It was forgotten,
not by a lot of conservatives, though conservatives would be
bringing up in the nineteen fifties, and that's part of
the reason why McCarthyism came about, because they were pissed

(13:08):
and they thought, well, you guys are now complaining about
civil liberties, what about the Black Committee.

Speaker 2 (13:13):
And that's a parallel to today as well, isn't it.
You know, when you're suffering injustice like that, you feel
entitled to propagate it against your enemies again. You know, so, wait,
you guys did so what about that? Let's do it again.
I love the title that you got trials.

Speaker 3 (13:29):
Probably Trump's going to do sedition trials. That was yes, right,
that's right, the same thing that Jay six people were
convicted of. Stupid Yah, that should have been repealed exactly
or at least severely limited.

Speaker 2 (13:41):
I like the way that you've got to hear in
the in your book, the Black Inquisition. You know, that
really does get your attention as you're looking at it,
just like it was like, oh okay, you go critics, Yeah,
the Black Inquisition. And then there was a pushback against
that part of it was William Randolph Hurst was of
course targeted that because I guess I could say anything
that he says is going to be influencing public opinion, obviously,

(14:04):
so let's get all of his telegrams. And so he
actually you have a chapter here the Right and the
Left Free Speech Coalition. So there's a pushback with that.
He joined with the ACLU left as William Randolph Hurst
pushing back, tell us little bit about that.

Speaker 3 (14:20):
Yeah, well, the Black Committee had gotten a treasure trove
of Hearst related telegrams, but they did a very stupid thing.
They did a public subpoena. None of this was subpoena,
by the way, but they did a public subpoena of
one and only one telegram that they probably already had.

(14:42):
And this telegram was where Hearst was accusing this prominent
member of Congress, the committee chair, of being in league
with the communists. It was kind of a hyperbolic telegram.
And I guess what the Black Committee, what Black thought was,
people just see that as so over the top, this
will be good pr for us. But instead what happened

(15:03):
is other members of Congress, like you know, a guy
named McCormack, who is future Speaker of the House, a
guy named Emmanuel Seller. These are New Dealers, they say,
this is uncalled for, this is this is the tactics
of Mussolini. So it actually backfired on Roosevelt. Even many

(15:23):
of his own New deal supporters were against this. And
this is this is very interesting and very discouraging in
some ways because during this period you had a lot
of civil libertarians who on the left who were willing,
even though they liked Roosevelt, who were willing to push

(15:45):
back against him. And that is not as true today.
Maybe that will change now, but it's not what it
certainly hasn't been true today.

Speaker 2 (15:56):
Well, today there's so much more partisan in tribal and
we don't seem to care about principles, We don't seem
to care about the rule of law. And that's true
of both sides, isn't it.

Speaker 3 (16:05):
Well, yeah, it's the people at the time. Give you
a sense of the difference. Hl Mankin was in your
face kind of anti New dealer, simil libertarian, you know,
I don't know, agnostic, heal he needed everybody, but who
was friends with everybody? He had correspondence that span the
political spectrum. He was respected, he was liked as an
individual could talk to people. I don't think there are

(16:28):
as many people who can who fit in that category today.

Speaker 2 (16:31):
That's right. Yeah, he was real clever wit. I mentioned
frequently his thing. A year ago, if I had a
gold coin and a flask of whiskey, the whiskey was
illegal in the coin was legal. This year, the goal
coin is illegal and the flasko whiskey is legal. So yeah,
he was always hadn't heard that one, but he was
always pointing out the absurdity of FDR. Yeah. So, I

(16:53):
think one of the very telling things about FDR was
the war and peace issue. And you've got in here
part of his speech, which truly is amazing, that he
makes when he's running as a candidate as a peace candidate.
He says, I've seen war. I've seen war on land
and sea. I have seen blood running from the wounded.

(17:14):
I've seen men coughing out their gas lungs. I've seen
the dead and the mud. I've seen cities destroyed. I've
seen two hundred limping, exhausted men come out of the
survivors of the regiment of one thousand that went forward
forty eight hours before. I have seen children starving, I've
seen the agony of mothers and wives. I hate war.

(17:35):
And you write, and, as he so often did, FDR
exaggerated his exposure to the fighting in World War One
was limited and sanitized. While the Navy had sent him
on a guided inspection of American naval and marine bases
in Europe. The main impression conveyed by his contemporary contemporaneous

(17:57):
diary account was that of a sightseer. So talk a
little bit about that. How he ran as a peace
candidate and then he flipped pushing us into war.

Speaker 3 (18:08):
Well, FGR was playing both sides of the street. For example,
in the nineteen thirties he'd been the guy to suggests, well,
maybe we need neutrality laws, and then later he pushed
for repeal of the Neutrality Act, saying I wish I'd
never signed it. Never mentioned that he was the guy

(18:31):
that helped to inspire it in the first place. So
he was a rabid interventionist. When he was Assistant Secretary
of the Navy under Wilson, he was constantly trying to
imitate his cousin Theodore and get some sort of incident. Possibly,

(18:52):
so he was a Hawk. But then in the thirties
he sort of realizes there's all this anti war feeling
and he appeals to that. He actually applauds the Munich Agreement.
But then after that he becomes much more of an
interventionist and certainly aligns himself with Winston Churchill and so forth.

(19:19):
But a lot of this is done quietly, so he
started playing both sides of the street, and he is
in trouble in the nineteen forty election. His opponent, Wendell Wilkie,
who was kind of an interventionist too, but starts talking
like in America Firster during the last part of the campaign,
is making inroads. So FDR is worried about this, so

(19:42):
very shortly before the election he gives this speech he'd
never given a speech this strong, where he says, I've
said this before, and I'll say it again and again
and again. Your boys are not going to be sent
into any foreign war, full stop. And Wynda Wilkee heard

(20:03):
that on the radio and he said, that hypocritical son
of bit some of a bitch has just lost me
the election. And whether or not that was true or not,
FDR was that was a clear motivation. His son went
up to him and said, Dad, why did you say that?
You never said anything like that before, And he said, basically, well,
I had to win, you know, for the good of

(20:24):
the country, that kind of thing. So just amoral and
amoral figure, maybe worse in so many ways, a very cynical,
jaded man, I think, who had great charm, Yes, but
I never really cared for him. I'm going to confess.
Did you ever see that movie Sunrise at Campabello?

Speaker 4 (20:47):
No?

Speaker 2 (20:47):
I never saw that.

Speaker 3 (20:48):
Oh it was a movie made in the fifties starring
Ralph Bellamy playing FDR in his battle against Polio, and
I just you know, Bellamy capture at FDR. In some
ways it was supposed to be a sympathetic portrayal, but
there was just this charm which always seemed a little
bit phony to me. Yeah, and and very calculating but

(21:12):
very effective.

Speaker 2 (21:13):
Yeah, he seemed he seemed that way to me as well.
But I always kind of just dismissed that. As you know,
when you look at movies at the time, you know,
people came across as very stiff and pretentious, and you know,
putting on airs and that that's kind of the way
that a lot of people would come across. Even in
the movies at that time, they wouldn't come across as
you know, genuine or and so I kind of just

(21:36):
put it up to the zeitgeist of the time, if
you will. But yeah, it's it's interesting. And you begin
with his rise to power. Talk a little bit about that,
where did this guy come from?

Speaker 3 (21:47):
He he had a big advantage, and that he was
born into comfortable circumstances, not super wealth, but wealth. He
was a distant cousin of Theodore Roosevelt, and very distant,
like seventh cousin, but the family had context with each

(22:07):
other and so forth, and he went he did. He
did the typical trajectory of someone in that class. He
went to Groton, a very exclusive private school, and he
went to Harvard. He got a Columbia his law degree
from Columbia. He had very mediocre grades. He was not

(22:29):
a good student, but he was a glad hander. People
liked him. He made his impact socially, and then it
was some people approached him and said, mister Roosevelt, we'd
like you to run for Congress, or not for Congress,
for a state legislature in New York. You know, Theodore
was president at the time, they happened to be Democrats.

(22:51):
I guess they thought that that was a brilliant move.
Now I say that if the Republicans had approached Franklin,
he probably would have run as a Republican. In fact,
he had supported his cousin very openly. When his cousin
ran for reelection, was his first vote was for Theodore.
But the Democrats asked him it was a good Democratic year,

(23:12):
nineteen oh eight, So he ran as a Democrat and
he was able to win. And from there he just
impressed people. He got the attention of a guy named
Josephus Daniels who was Secretary of the Navy. Quite a racist,
Southern racist type. But Daniels was charmed by Roosevelt. He

(23:33):
had a very apt comment. He said he was just
like an actress. He had that he had it right,
And someone had said was the case of love at
first sight. You know, when Daniels saw him, I don't
think anything went on, but he made him assistant Secretary

(23:53):
of Navy, and from there Roosevelt was imitating his cousin,
either intentionally or by chance. Theodore had been in the legislature.
Theodore had been assistant Secretary of the Navy, and then
Theodore was vice presidential candidate as Roosevelt was in nineteen twenty,
so the very similarity. A lot of parallels between them.

(24:16):
One difference, though Franklin did not volunteer to fight in
World War One. He was in his late thirties. He
could have his cousin. Theodore said, you have to get
into the infantry, not just the Navy. You have to
get into the infantry. You have to get in the fight.
And Roosevelt came back and said, well, my boss thinks
I'm essential, And maybe his boss did say that. But

(24:40):
Theodore had had, you know, a similar boss, he didn't
have to go in. But Franklin was not the man
that Theodore.

Speaker 2 (24:47):
Was right, and so he did not.

Speaker 3 (24:50):
He did not serve in the military.

Speaker 2 (24:53):
So at that point he was able bodied. At that
point he was able bodied and could have.

Speaker 3 (24:57):
Yeah, that was before his bout of polio, which was
nineteen how old. He's right here in nineteen twenty one.

Speaker 2 (25:04):
So it was about how old when that happened.

Speaker 3 (25:07):
He was about thirty nine, quite a young man. And
the story there's an interesting story there. Now a lot
of people said, can't you say something good about Roosevelt.
I will say that, you know, he showed great determination.
Of course, he had a lot of he had a
lot of help, He had a lot of doctors, he

(25:29):
had a lot of you know, leisure time, He had
a lot of support. But he showed great courage and
overcoming that. Part of the story that I was surprised
by is who did he blame for the polio? He
blamed a Republican center. And the story on this is
really fascinating. I begin my book with it. There was
an investigation, well, there was something called the Newport scandal,

(25:51):
the Newport sex scandal. Do you recall reading that?

Speaker 2 (25:55):
Yeah, no, I skipped over to the black Inquisition stuff.

Speaker 3 (26:01):
What happened was Roosevelt was Assistant Secretary of the Navy,
and there was a guy at one of the naval
bases in Newport who was investigating whether there were same
sex relationships going on in the navy. Thought this was,
you know, major scandal and so forth, and even did
his own private investigations where this guy would find people

(26:24):
to go in and they would actually have sex right
with these men, right to try to entrap them. So
Roosevelt found out about this. The investigation was basically had
no funding. The Secretary of War had refused to back it,
I mean, the Attorney General refused to back it, and
Roosevelt stepped in single handedly and set up a investigative

(26:48):
unit headed by him called Section A in the Department
of Navy, which investigated this issue of same sex relationship
ships in the Navy. And they would send out investigators
who again would entrap people by having sex with them,
and Roosevelt, I think quite clearly knew what was going on.

(27:13):
A local journalist in Newport pushed back on this and
accused Roosevelt of doing this, and Roosevelt basically responded said, well,
you know, you know, isn't it important to you know,
to find what's going on here? Why are we so

(27:34):
worried about procedure? And it was actually Controversially you would
think this period is very anti gain. It was, but
people in Congress and the press thought this was imhorrant.
These tactics were beyond the pale, and.

Speaker 2 (27:49):
So that's one of the things that we've lost.

Speaker 3 (27:50):
He did his best to cover it up, and it weakened.
It puts so much tension on him that he said
that it had lowered his resistance and made him more
susceptible to the outbreak of polio, which may have been
true actually because it was a lot of us contaminated water.
But again, if your immunity, you know, if you had

(28:12):
low resistance and so forth. So he blamed this senator
till his dying day for causing his his polio.

Speaker 2 (28:20):
Well, you know what you're talking about that.

Speaker 3 (28:22):
Ord investigation which almost derailed his career, almost destroyed him,
and he get lucky.

Speaker 2 (28:28):
It's the tactic that's involved there, and people don't know.

Speaker 3 (28:30):
Everybody did. And you would think this would be a
period where they would say, alter gay, we need to
root them out.

Speaker 2 (28:36):
And they may have thought that, but this.

Speaker 3 (28:39):
Is beyond the pail. And of course these people that
had been destroyed, many of them were innocent. You know,
they didn't get any benefits, right, get military funerals. They
were destroyed. And Roosevelt is able to ride through it,
partly because other things go on that avert public attention.

(28:59):
But the New York Times, as a matter of fact,
has a big story where it calls his behavior. They
blame him for it. The Times blames him in this
article and basically, you know, comes a conclusion he's unfit
for office. But he's able to escape this somehow because

(29:19):
of other things going on, and it's forgotten and most
people today don't even know about it, but it's quite
an important it's quite an important story in his life.

Speaker 2 (29:30):
Well, it reveals his character, which we then saw later
when he's coming after politically.

Speaker 3 (29:34):
And Roosevelt was quite clear that he wasn't worried about
the means. It was the end yet something done. This
is view towards civil liberties. These people need to be
shut up. Yeah, I think some way to shut them up.
That was a real harm Massager.

Speaker 2 (29:49):
That's a real hallmark of everything that he did. You know,
he doesn't care.

Speaker 3 (29:53):
I think he was always kind of a default interventionist,
and I think a lot, you know. I mean, I
think he did have an ideology, and I think he
had been a Wilsonian interventionist. He was a great admirer
of Wilson, right, He defended Wilson when he ran for
president nineteen twenty, even though much of the public was
sick of Wilson. He defended the worst aspect, the most

(30:14):
repressive aspects of Wilsonian. So I think that was his
default position. That's the best way I could explain it.
I think the relationship with Churchill made a difference, but
I think you see even signs of that before that
where he's trying to do it. His focus is on

(30:35):
the North Atlantic. By nineteen forty one, he is desperately
trying to provoke an incident in the North Atlantic and
he builds up minor incidents or you know, into cause
celebs and is trying to get into the war. Clear
he wants to do that. By nineteen forty one by

(30:56):
any means that he can't, but the public is hostile
to the idea. Well werewhelmingly the public is you know,
does not want to get in another form war. They
remember World War One, they do not want to do
that again. But he's able to get aid to Britain
to lend lease, which is very open ended. But again

(31:17):
selling this is well, of course we won't have to
go in, you know, we can help the British, right,
give them the tools and they will finish the fight,
as he pleased to say, and that kind of thing.

Speaker 2 (31:32):
But kind of where we are right now with Ukraine. Right,
kind of where we are right now with Ukraine, I guess, yeah, exactly, Yeah,
we can just give them the weapons and we won't
really get involved. But the Germans aren't taking the bait
to the extent that he wants them to. So he
kind of shifts to the Pacific, right, and there's massive
sanctions against the Japanese that preceded Pearl Harbor. And of course,

(31:57):
what do you have about Pearl Harbor? What's your take
on Pearl Harbor? Did he engineer that too and keep
things secret? They're in a kind of subversive way? What
what what is your opinion?

Speaker 3 (32:08):
Okay, yeah, again, he is he his focus is in
the North Atlantic, but he eventually comes to the conclusion, well,
you know, if we're going to go to war Japan,
that's fine with me, and you know, maybe we can
get into the European War as well. I don't think
I think that that's part of what he's he's pushing.

(32:30):
And really, since you know he he there were opportunities
to to uh to have peace agreement with Japan. The
Japanese Prime Minister offers to meet with Roosevelt in the
middle of the Pacific to have a summit. So let's
hash this out. Roosevelt doesn't take the opportunity. At one point,
the Japanese actually say that they were willing to evacuate China.

(32:54):
He doesn't take the opportunity, So he's he's, he's they're
sort of a Now, okay, Pearl Harbor. Did Roosevelt know
about it? I don't think he did. And my argument
for that is, I think the best evidence is that
they did know that Japanese would attack. They thought the
attack would probably be somewhere like the Philippines, maybe in

(33:20):
you know, Singapore, somewhere like that. They did not think
it would be Pearl Harbor. Very few people thought that.
Almost nobody thought that. And part of the reason they
didn't think that is they they didn't think the Japanese
were capable. They didn't think they were good pilots. They
didn't think that they could they could pull something out
like that. And even the commanders on the ground and

(33:41):
Roosevelt did short change them short and Kimmel. There at
the Pacific, they wanted observation planes, but Roosevelt diverted all
resources to the North Atlantic. They wanted, you know, they
if they had had those observation planes, for example, it
might have made all the difference changed them. But even

(34:03):
they thought that the main danger from the Japanese was sabotage.
That's one of the reasons why they put the planes
in the middle of the field. In many cases it
made the more vulnerable to attack, but theoretically less vulnerable
to sabotage. So what is Roosevelt's first reaction after the attack. Well,

(34:23):
it's from a butler who saw him, and Roosevelt's response was,
I will go down in disgrace. He thinks, my god,
I didn't expect this. I'm going to be in trouble
because of this. So I don't think I don't think

(34:43):
they knew that the attack was going to be at
Pearl Harbor, partly because they underestimated the Japanese. I think
Roosevelt was reckless, However, that he knew an attack was
going to come, I think he could have done much
more to Warren naval commanders throughout the Pacific that an
attack was going to come. There were clues that it

(35:03):
could have come on Pearl Harbor, naming the time of day.
They did know the time of the day when the
Japanese were going to just in the embassy had been
ordered American Embassy to destroy their codes, and that was
at seven thirty am, which would have been a very
good time for an attack on Pearl Harbor, and they
didn't put two and two together. So I think it's

(35:23):
more in competence. But I don't buy the theory that
has been put forward by people like Stinnett, who makes
this argument that you know that we knew that the
Japanese fleet was on the way and so forth. I
don't see the evidence for that. We did break one

(35:45):
of the codes, but we didn't break the crucial you know,
naval code, broke the diplomatic code, so we knew a
lot of it was going on. Roosevelt knew a lot
about it. He was reading a lot of Japanese mail,
and maybe they could have put two and two together,
But I think it was sort of racism in some sense.
They just didn't think the Japanese could pull something like
this off.

Speaker 2 (36:06):
You know, they found out, didn't they. Well, talk a
little bit about you got that.

Speaker 3 (36:10):
Issue, and I'd be happy to talk with people about it.
But I don't buy that that he knew sure that
it was going to happen at Pearl Harbor.

Speaker 2 (36:18):
Sure, well, talk about fear and emergency.

Speaker 3 (36:21):
You're saying, okay, Well, when Roosevelt ran in nineteen forty
nineteen thirty two, he he pledged to maintain sound money.
Now I didn't exactly say well gold, but who were
didn't either. But he also gave a speech right before
the election called a little known speech called the Covenant Speech,
where he would talk about, you know, gold contracts, the covenant. Right,

(36:46):
he said he would hold the covenant, you know, basically,
I will uphold you know, the use of gold.

Speaker 2 (36:52):
Right.

Speaker 3 (36:53):
Then very shortly after the election, he makes a decision
to go off the gold standard. He calls in his
Secondcretary of the Treasury, he was much more actually Secretary
of State, who was much more conservative than him on
financial issues, Cordell Hall. And he says, Cordell, congratulate you.
We're going off the gold standard tomorrow. And he pulls

(37:15):
out some money and it was a money that was
issued by the whatever, the Federal Reserve Bank of Tennessee.

Speaker 2 (37:22):
I guess.

Speaker 3 (37:22):
He said, this is from Tennessee, your own state, Cordell.
And what makes this money good? It's only good because
we say it's good. And again that is what he did.
And then he does a lot of crazy things after that.
He does a program to purchase gold, and he sets

(37:44):
the well, no, not to purchase gold, but to set
the price of gold. So he say, is it's gold
buying program? And how does he determine the price? He
determines it then from things like he says, well, I
think the price should be nine teen cents today because
it's a lucky number. You know. He would say things

(38:04):
like that. And Roosevelt was very superstitious. He had lucky shoes,
he had lucky hats. So this is this is not
as strange as you might see. And it was just
it was just a crazy, crazy town. But what saved
us in terms of financially in the thirties was we
had massive gold imports from both Europe and the Soviet Union.

(38:28):
Your people are taking their gold for obvious reasons out
of those places and bringing into the United States. So
we have a tremendous gold inflow to the United States
through those sort of happy not happy, tragic accidents. I
guess you could say, both from Russia and from Castalin
is buying a lot of American goods using gold. That's

(38:50):
part of it. And of course the gold is coming
in from Germany because Jews and others are taking their
taking their gold out.

Speaker 2 (38:59):
Yeah, It's interesting, you know, when you when you look
at how he was reacting, how he had his lucky
shoes and all the rest of the stuff, and how
arbitrary things were. That sounds very familiar to them in
a disturbing way, doesn't it, you know, kind of a
erratic and arbitrary, capricious what he's doing with these things.
We're starting to seek, Yeah, parallels.

Speaker 3 (39:20):
With Trump, but they are big differences too. Yeah, But
you know, I think there are there there there, there's
there's some parallels that you control.

Speaker 2 (39:29):
M So talk a little bit about the end of prohibition.
That's that's one of the things everybody, you know, happy
days is here again. How much of that was yah?
Did he build that up for his his campaign? And
how much of that was really an initiative of his
or was it just that people had had it with
alcohol prohibition at that point he got ahead of that?

(39:51):
Was he was he opposed on that by the Republicans
or what what was the situation with the prohibition? And
I I don't.

Speaker 3 (40:00):
Discuss prohibition a lot, but Roosevelt was a straddler. He
wasn't going to take controversial positions. He was also a
straddler on trade issues and terriff issues, so he was
not a leader of the anti prohibition forces. There were
Democrats who were the more conservative. Democrats interestingly tended to
be the more anti prohibition and there was a big

(40:23):
element in the party and people were sick and tired
of the Prohibition loss by nineteen thirty two. The Republicans
chose to kind of avoid the issue. So Roosevelt and
getting the nomination, it certainly was a popular position, but
he also recognized that this is a popular position, and

(40:45):
he came out for repeal of the Constitutional Amendment bringing
in Prohibition. He took a very strong stand. I think
there were other motivations though. One was a great tax source.
And as a matter of fact, during the early New Deal,
even though they're talking about income taxes, most of the

(41:09):
tax collections are from excise taxes people like things like cosmetics, cigarettes, alcohol.
That's where the bulk of the revenue is raised. So
Roosevelt is raising the tax top rate to I don't
know eventually it gets so, you know, well over ninety percent,

(41:29):
but it's going way way up. He makes a big
deal about this, but that means that the wealth they
find ways to find tax shelters. They don't pay it.
So where does the actual money comes. It comes from
the nickels and dimes and people going to movies. Be
there's a tax on movie tickets. It comes from the
nickels and dimes of working class people. But Roosevelt is

(41:49):
very clever and never acknowledging that. And of course the
excise taxes on liquor as well.

Speaker 2 (41:56):
Yeah, I always think is.

Speaker 3 (41:57):
Maybe in the back of his mind too, and he
uses that revenue source in a major way.

Speaker 2 (42:02):
It's always soaked the rich and then it's always the
poor middle class to pay all the taxes. That's another
thing than.

Speaker 3 (42:07):
Never seen your example of that.

Speaker 2 (42:09):
Yeah, yes, another thing never stops. And of course the revenuers,
you know, that's what they called the people that were
coming after the stills in the mountains and everything, because
that was really what they wanted. They wanted the money
that was there. So talk a little bit about the
Supreme Court packing issue as well, and his fight to

(42:29):
essentially just completely rewrite the constitution. When we look at
what happened with a new deal should be called.

Speaker 3 (42:36):
A new constitution, well proposes. He keeps his quiet again,
but then in nineteen thirty seven. He's all puffed up
because the nineteen thirty six election was one of the
more spectacular landslides in American history, partly because Roosevelt is
very effective in using New Deal money, targeted money, and

(42:57):
I could talk about that as well, how he was
able to win such a big majority. But he thought,
I'm going to get a third New Detail, right. He
wanted to be more radical, He wanted to do more,
but he thought, what good will that do if the
Supreme Court, which has been strucking down, striking down measures
like the Triple A and the National Recovery Administration? What

(43:20):
good will all my effort be unless I get a
sympathetic court. Okay, Well, he decides he proposes to increase
the size of the court, and he gives a speech
where he basically says, they're over extended, they're old, they're tired.
I want to help them. You know, they've got a

(43:41):
big workload. Well, he gives his speech, and he wants
to increase the size of the court, and he obviously
thinks he can pull it off because I don't know,
you're talking about something like she whizz. The Republicans are
down to like sixteen twenty senators he's got overwhelming majority.

(44:02):
You would think that he could pull this off easily.
And he's so disingenuous and it's so obvious what he's
doing that there is a big movement against core packing,
led by a New Dealer, Senator Burton Wheeler, who'd been
an ally of Roosevelt and turns against him, and Wheeler
is the ideal guy to lead this effort. The Republicans

(44:26):
are very smart. They lay back and let the Democrats
take leadership, and they do. Now. The campaign is very grueling,
and it becomes clear during the campaign that Roosevelt is
essentially won because one of the justices on the Court
is switched sides, and it's clear that he's probably going
to get all of his New Deal programs sustained. But

(44:49):
he keeps pushing on. I guess it becomes a matter
of principle for him. He keeps pushing on. He pushes, pushes, pushes.
The majority leader of the Senate is exhausted, He is
in bad shape, and he ends up having a heart
attack and is found with a copy of the Congressional
Record in his hand. His name is Joe Robinson, and

(45:11):
Roosevelt is It doesn't go to Robinson's funeral, and there's
a lot of controversy about that. Why don't you go
to the guy's funeral? Probably because he was pissed off
that Robinson wasn't doing a better job. Anybody says, well,
you would understand. You know, he had to fight for that,
and it hurts Roosevelt no end. And Roosevelt is defeated.

(45:33):
So in a lot of ways, that is an example
of a left right coalition. There are many examples, but
that's one. He's defeated by Democrats. Could you imagine that
happening under Biden. I would find it difficult to imagine that,
or Franklinder Trump in the opposite direction. But it did
happen then, which says something positive about Americans during that period.

(45:59):
Americans and Congress included. That's right, higher level of character
in a lot of ways.

Speaker 2 (46:05):
And I've mentioned many times about the fact, you know,
we have our war on drug that's been going on
for over half a century. But we had the eighteenth
and the twenty first Amendment, which said that they had
enough respect for the Constitution that everybody had, they had
a constitutional amendment to stop in order to start it,
and then stop the alcohol provision because they knew that
they didn't have that power in the Constitution. But today,

(46:26):
you know, we don't care about that. We just do
whatever we wish. I think it's kind of interesting.

Speaker 3 (46:30):
Everybody agreed on that we have to have a constitutional amendment.

Speaker 2 (46:33):
Y's right. It's one of the biggest arguments against the
War on drug I think is the fact that we
have those two amendments that are there. But when you
go back and you look at this particular case with
a Supreme Court, the fact that he's got the votes,
but he still wants to press on with this thing
because it's a matter of personal prestige and power. I think,
the same type of thing that we see with Trump.

(46:54):
And yet does he take the kind of vengeance against
people who go against him and kind of that we
see Trump taking against Republicans. I say, he doesn't attend
the guy's funeral or whatever, but you know, he gives
him the cold shoulder. But did he really go after
people like Trump will go after somebody like Thomas Massey
who opposes him on his agenda.

Speaker 3 (47:15):
Yeah, he keeps us And this is this is what's interesting.
There is an investigation under another loyalist. In fact, he'd
been offered the position on the Supreme Court before Black,
but wanted to stay in Congress. His name was Senator
Sherman Minton, and if you search his name, the thing

(47:36):
that usually comes up as there's a bridge named after him.
But now maybe that'll change. Button was a very young guy.
He was already in the Senate leadership, first termer, and
he was very tight with Roosevelt. And Minton starts his
own investigation, basically succeeds Black's the Black Committee's it's the

(47:57):
same committee, but Black is now in the Usupreme Court,
and so Minton heads this investigation. They can't search telegrams anymore,
but one of the things they do do is uh
the use uh. Minton gets permission to look at the
I R s uh uh the tax for uh tax

(48:20):
records of people he targets, for example. He gets that,
but men gets very frustrated because there's a lot of putback.
People pushback, people are very upset about his methods, and
he's he's does it. He lacks Black subtlety. Black had
some subtlety, and Minton is just charging for it. And
so Minton gives a speech, he said, well, we need

(48:42):
a law against these big newspapers because most of the
press was against Roosevelt. So he said, let's make it
a felony to publish anything known to be untrue fake
news basically the fact they used that term false news
or fake news. And he proposes this bill. And what

(49:06):
is the reaction to the bill? You almost universal opposition
sets in almost from the beginning. As it is setting in,
Roosevelt has asked about the Minton bill in a news conference,
and I think Roosevelt was the guy that had the idea.

(49:26):
I think he put Minton up to it. I can't
prove that, but I think it's true because Minton was
not the kind of guy to go off on his own.
And it reflects what Roosevelt thought of the press. He
was asked about this, and he said, well, you know,
if we had such a bill, we wouldn't even have
enough room in the federal prison system to hold all
the prisoners. And he gets a little laugh, right, and

(49:49):
then is he moves on to a new topic, and
I wish they'd done follow ups. They didn't. He says,
you boys asked for it. You know that's what he says,
You boys asked for it. You know, I mean you reporters,
you you know, people you asked for this, and then
he moves on to the next topic and he drops

(50:10):
it right because Minton ends up dropping it and it
discredits his investigation, and his investigation is pretty much shut
down after that. So FDRs, those two years after the
nineteen thirty six election are a low point for FDR.
There's pushback against him. He loses core packing, the Minton

(50:31):
Committee collapses, and he is he puts all of his
attention on core packing. As a result, he isn't able
to get his radical New Deal program in nineteen thirty eight,
thirty seven, thirty eight that he wanted because he focuses
almost entirely on core packing, and then later after it
really is too late on these investigations.

Speaker 2 (50:52):
Yeah, it's kind of interesting when we look at this
period of time, you know, when all the institutions were
being reconsidered reiment, if you will, and he's fighting against
the constitutional pattern that had been accepted. That he was
getting pushed back even from his own party against some
of this stuff because as we talked about people understood
the principles, he had a lot of people who did

(51:13):
not share his idea that the end justify as a means,
and we don't see that today, we're in a much
more dangerous situation. I think when we look at this,
why it's good to go back and look at history.
You look at the radical change that was accomplished during
the FDR period of time, and you look at the
fact that now we have people on both sides have
become unhinged from or have detached themselves from basic principles

(51:38):
about free speech, the rule of law, and having a
due process to investigate things like that. I think we're
in a very dangerous time right now. I think this
book helps to get people to understand that if we
look at the context of the historical context of this.

Speaker 3 (51:54):
Yeah, and we're seeing a lot of people on the
right who were talking about free speech, local control, states rights, Yeah,
turned on a dime.

Speaker 2 (52:04):
That's right.

Speaker 3 (52:05):
This is very discouraging to see this.

Speaker 2 (52:07):
Yeah, now they want to come after their idea of
fake news. You know. Now they've got their own fake
news vendettas that they want to come after. So it
is there is so much here. I mean, we could
do several interviews with this. This is an excellent book.
It is a very important presidency to understand the context
of the times in which we live in our government.
And I really highly recommend this book FDR A Political

(52:30):
Life by David Beto. And you pronounce you spell your
name as b E I t o. Is that right?
That's right? Yeah, so it's not spelled like the Texas politician.

Speaker 3 (52:43):
Oh please now, And a lot of people will call
him Beto O'Rourke, but I think it's better. Actually, Oh yeah,
I believe that's why his name is pronounced.

Speaker 2 (52:53):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (52:54):
I keep telling people that, even if it isn't true,
but I think it is true.

Speaker 2 (53:00):
Yeah. I used to always call him Robert Francis O'Rourke
or whatever his original name was. I said, he's a
trans Hispanic. He identifies as his Panic. Yeah that's right. Yeah.
We don't want to resurrect him with any attention, I guess.
But an excellent book, and thank you so much for

(53:20):
joining us. And there is much to learn in terms
of politics and history. As a very seminal presidency, unfortunately
for many of us would like to see government that
follows the Constitution. FDR's presidency was an unmitigated disaster and
it bears looking at it and see if we see

(53:41):
any repetition in current events as a warning, as a
harbinger what was coming, because as we were talking about earlier,
you know, this whole stuff was secretly getting information on
his enemies. We saw that immediately after World War two ended.
We saw that immediately being transferred over to the NSA,
the CIA, the FBI and all these people that using
the income taxes final people. These same tactics are used

(54:04):
over and over again. Thank you very much, David Beto.
The book is FDR A Political Life. Thank you folks
for joining us.

Speaker 5 (54:10):
Have a good day.

Speaker 6 (54:41):
You're listening to the David Knight Show.

Speaker 2 (54:52):
There's been some new interesting information about the link between
the MMR vaccine and autism. It turns out and Children's
Health Defense has a story. It turns out that some
of their scientists have looked at this and they've produced
their own paper in response to the gold standard that

(55:12):
has been sold by the medical community in the mainstream
media since two thousand and two. Supposedly, this two thousand
and two study debunked any link between autism and vaccines,
and now these people have looked at this study coming
again from the New England Journal of Medicine. The usual suspects.
You can usually count on this kind of garbage coming

(55:34):
from them, and so the question of vaccines and autism
desperately needs to be put back on the table. This
is a peer reviewed research letter by Children's Health Defense
scientists calls into question a two thousand and two study
at the New England Journal of Medicine that officials always
use as their strong evidence of no link between the

(55:57):
MMR vaccine and autism. A decade study, however, does not
support rejecting the causal link between the measles mumps rubello vaccine.
They say in the new stuff, they said, simply math,
and they did the scientific study wrong. It was done
by the usual people. Like I said, when you look

(56:18):
at these studies, any of these studies, the first question
you should have is quibono who benefits from this? Right?
And of course when it's coming out of the New
England Ternal Medicine, you know that it's the pharmaceutical industry
and the medical communities that are behind this. The pediatricians
are pushing this. AMA is pushing this, and they are

(56:39):
in bed with the pharmaceutical companies. Jablonski and Hooker called
for the study to be replicated after correcting for errors.
They said, there's problems with measurements of certainty, contradictions and
numbers presented in the studies table, and a flaw in
the method used to determine risk. I wonder if this

(57:01):
thing was done by Peter Navara. It sounds like his tariffs,
they said. Landmark publication and one of the most prestigious
medical journals in the world, whose erroneous conclusions have reverberated
through news outlets and doctors' offices alike for the last
twenty three years, is shown to be invalid by the

(57:22):
most basic form of arithmetic.

Speaker 1 (57:24):
Do they get anything right about this study? Is more
than a question.

Speaker 6 (57:27):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (57:28):
I would like to see them go back and revisit
the Framingham study, which I've had. The doctor that did
the surgeries lectured me on that many times to say
it proves that you need to have status. And it's
like somewhat skeptical of that, which makes me wonder if
this is being used so much by the medical community,
who funded it and to what purpose. The problem is

(57:51):
not that we were sold sixty nine billion dollars a
year in vaccines based on faulty analyzes that riddled our
children with toxins left them in chronic and debilitating disease state,
if not death. The problem is that we bought it.
The New England Journal Medicine paper by Madson and others
is one of the key studies cited by vaccine advocates

(58:12):
to say that it is a myth that there is
a link between these bactisms, these vaccines, and autism. And
they did this twenty three years ago. They said there
was a lot of mounting evidence showing a link. And
of course if you just looked at the explosion of
autism at that point in time, you knew something was happening.

(58:34):
But again, the report from you know, the reply I
should say from the mainstream media is don't look at this.
You know, they get very upset if anybody talks about
doing a study. It's like, what do you have to hide,
and you know, well, it's all been done, the science
is subtled, blah blah blah. Well, if it's scientific, then
you should be able to replicate that and you shouldn't

(58:57):
have a concern about somebody doing another. Look at that.

Speaker 7 (59:00):
They analyzed and settled science came from the same group
that did the computer model for COVID that showed it
going up forever and didn't give the same output twice.

Speaker 2 (59:12):
Well, that was the Imperial College of London, But New
England Journal of Medicine is just as bad as they are.
They said they looked at five hundred and thirty seven
thousand children in the Danish healthcare system. They separated them
into vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. The problem was that they
didn't normalize this, they said. When they looked at it,
they said the risk of autism was the same in

(59:33):
both groups. There was no association with a child's age
at the time of vaccination or the time since vaccination,
or the date of vaccination and the development of autism.
But this study has become a cornerstone publication to say
that there is no connection to autism. But the two people,
two scientists from Children's Health Defense, said that the study

(59:56):
results as presented showed that the authors are ninety five
percent confident that the recipients of the MMR vaccine are
anywhere from forty seven percent less likely to get autism
to twenty four percent more likely to be harmed by
the autistic disorder. Think about that, Okay, they're nearly one

(01:00:18):
hundred percent confident that they don't have a conclusion here,
because if you can go anywhere from forty seven percent
less likely to twenty four percent more likely to have autism,
that is so wide that you can't have any confidence
in this study.

Speaker 1 (01:00:33):
Yeah, that's quite a swing. Imagine somebody comes and says,
I've got a great investment for you. Now you might
be forty seven percent likely to make double your money,
or maybe you're twenty four percent likely to lose it.

Speaker 8 (01:00:46):
All.

Speaker 1 (01:00:46):
You know, I'm not exactly sure. I don't know how
we're doing this, but.

Speaker 2 (01:00:50):
Yeah, they've got confidence that they don't really have a
conclusion here, So it.

Speaker 1 (01:00:55):
Doesn't even make sense.

Speaker 2 (01:00:57):
Yeah, they said this is strong evidence of a need
for more evidence. So problems with how the study was conducted.
They said they had also a statistical adjustment. They used
this to correct data to account for biases, confounding factors
on limitations in the data. The authors didn't share their
detailed model for the kind of statistical adjustment that they did,

(01:01:21):
which would have been appropriate given that the adjustment changed
the safety signal to its opposite. It changed it from
leaning toward harm to leaning toward protection. So all we
do is they come in and wave their hands and say, well, well,
we initially did this. It looked like it was causing autism,
but then we applied a statistical correction, and now it

(01:01:41):
shows that it doesn't.

Speaker 1 (01:01:43):
Well, once I massaged the data, yeah, exactly, once I
made it so it didn't, they said.

Speaker 2 (01:01:50):
The studies authors are confused about the size of the
vaccinated and the unvaccinated cohorts. The number of vaccinated versus
unvaccinated individuals with autistic disorder and other autism spectrum disorders
varies between these tables. For example, renalyzing unadjusted data from
one of their tables indicated with a ninety percent confidence

(01:02:11):
that children who received the MMR vaccine had an eighteen
percent greater incident of autistic disorder or other autism spectrum disorders.
They so the original medicine paper is foundational to the
pharmaceutical industry. Canard that quote vaccines don't cause autism. However,
the numbers literally don't add up, and you can see

(01:02:32):
how they're massaging the data, and they don't tell you
the factors that they've applied to. They just give you
the inconclusion, there's no science in this, and folks, this
is The whole reason this is when you look at
what they do with the quote unquote science of virology
about the existence of viruses. They never do real science
on any of these viruses. They've not isolated them. They

(01:02:54):
have not isolated something and then exposed a population to
it and see the disease developed. That's never never been done.
That's why many doctors are saying, we no longer believe
that in any of this virology stuff. The study was
also done at the beginning of an explosion in autism rates,
when fewer vaccines were recommended to children, and when there

(01:03:16):
were fewer other possible toxic exposures as well. And so
there's yet another lawsuit that's been filed against RFK Junior's
CDC over the failure to test cumulative effect of seventy
two dose childhood vaccine schedule. Think about that, six dozen vaccines,

(01:03:37):
and what they're saying is you have barely, if you
have at all, tested the individual vaccines, but you've never
even attempted to test for safety the combined effect of
these seventy two And so there's a lawsuit there saying
the agency has not done its job. And of course
the CDC is under HHS. It's directly under Susan Monarez.

(01:04:02):
You remember her. She was put in first. They brought
in somebody who was not so friendly to vaccines, and
the industry was not happy with that, and he was
told by the Trump administration when he was on his
way to the hearing, don't bother to show up. We've
withdrawn your name, and they put in in his place
Susan Montarez, who has been put there from working for BARDA,

(01:04:27):
which is like the biological equivalent of DARPA, very dark,
very sinister work that they're doing there, and what she
has been focused on at BARDA was artificial intelligence designing
m RNA drugs, the very thing that Trump began his
administration with with Stargate, if you recall. So I looked

(01:04:50):
at this and I thought, well, this is just this
whole thing was set up from the very beginning to
put somebody in there that looked like is going to
be a win for skeptics. Instead, what we wind up
with as an AI m RNA person who's going to
be there, Well, she is at the CDC.

Speaker 1 (01:05:07):
So the lawsuits going to say, isn't it funny how
that keeps happening with the Trump administration. Yeah, isn't it
funny how all these people that are supposed to be
on our side they get in there and immediately switch gears.

Speaker 2 (01:05:18):
Yeah, or they don't get in Yeah, you.

Speaker 1 (01:05:20):
Can tell Dan Bongino. Yeah, funny exactly.

Speaker 2 (01:05:24):
CDC demands proof of harm while refusing to conduct the
studies that could provide it. That is exactly what we
see from these people over and over again. You know,
when you got a natural substance, so we've got to
have some studies or you can't say this or that
about it. But they won't do the studies. They won't
fund those studies. They don't care. So they say, well,

(01:05:44):
there's no studies because they don't fund them, and then
they shut it down.

Speaker 7 (01:05:49):
According to consider how much of the medical field is
about knowing which drugs interact with which ones. It's shocking
that they haven't done any studies to see if these
seventy two vaccines can impact with each other.

Speaker 2 (01:06:02):
Yeah, oh absolutely, or to see what the cumulative effect
is of all the adjuvants and preservatives and things like that.

Speaker 1 (01:06:08):
Because it's been coming up more and more as time
goes on that the babies are just not capable of
really clearing these things out of their system that it
accumulates in them at a much higher rate and a
faster rate than and it wouldn't adult because they don't
have a fully developed systems to flush these kinds of
chemicals and toxins out.

Speaker 2 (01:06:24):
Well, it's one of these things like the masks, right,
even if they're science were correct in terms of viruses
and stuff, then that means that the masks were ludicrously inefficient.
Could be like a hurricane fence trying to keep out mosquitoes.
You know. But when you look at like the hepatitis
B vaccine which they want to give newborns, it's like,

(01:06:45):
just test the mother and see she's got hepatities B.
If she doesn't have hepatities B, you don't need to
give that to the baby. It's ridiculous.

Speaker 1 (01:06:52):
It's truly evil.

Speaker 2 (01:06:54):
Yeah. According to the complaint, the CDC violated the First
Amendment Free Speech and fit the Amendment do Process clauses
of the US Constitution, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act,
which agency actions are considered to be arbitrary and capricious
if they have failed to consider an important aspect of

(01:07:14):
the problem. Well, I mean, what would government what we
have left of the government. If we took out everything
that was arbitrary and capricious, we much left the government
with them in the constitution, I guess. Lawsuit is now
asking to force the CDC to study the childhood vaccine
schedule and the interactions. They said, the lawsuit is bringing

(01:07:35):
to light critical facts about the US childhood vaccine schedule
about which most parents are unaware. The schedule is essentially
an experiment on our children. One that becomes increasingly concerning
is more shots are added and combination of vaccines introduced.
I mean they added the COVID shot, the MR and
a Trump shot to the childhood schedule. On Friday last week,

(01:08:00):
HHS announced that it is reinstating the Task Force on
Safer Childhood Vaccines. The lawsuit describes this as an encouraging
small first step, but saying that it still does not
address the lack of safety testing of the entire vaccine schedule.
They said, this case exposes structural failure of the institution. Now,

(01:08:22):
what it exposes is the fact that these institutions are
riddled with corruption and they are captured by the industries
that they're supposed to be regulating. Individual vaccines undergo limited
FDA testing, and neither the FDA nor the CDC has
ever required or conducted safety testing of the cumulative childhood

(01:08:43):
schedule that is now seventy two doses. They said to
expose the data on harm caused by vaccines would destroy
confidence in the program. The program is more important to
them than whether or not it actually helps children. It's
what we're talking about, the iron law of bureaucracy, and
also about corruption for the people that the bureaucracy is

(01:09:05):
actually working for, as not the public, but it's working
for the people who have created this stuff. The FDA
is there to make sure that they are free to
do anything and to give them legal cover to do anything.
Our plaintiffs live the reality of this unproven vaccine recommendation schedule.
It's two doctors who have filed this, two doctors who

(01:09:28):
actually did some science, and for publishing these results, they
had their licenses taken away. Thomas lost his pediatric practice
after publishing data comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Staller had
his license revoked for writing medical exemptions based on genetic
risk factors. Doctors who do such research and dare publish

(01:09:51):
it will have the research ultimately retracted even after being
published through a rigorous peer review process. In my case,
said Thomas. A few days after this study was available online,
the Oregon Medical Board had an emergency meeting immediately suspended
my license, claiming I was a threat to public health.

Speaker 1 (01:10:13):
You notice they don't claim he's lying. Yeah, they don't
come out and say you're telling falsehoods. They just said
you're a threat to public health.

Speaker 2 (01:10:21):
They're right because public health is not about individual health.
It is this nebulous thing that exists for its own
benefit in order to dominate us.

Speaker 1 (01:10:32):
And to me, that wording is a tacit admission of yeah, okay,
you're right about this. Sure, there's a connection here. However,
we're prioritizing what we think is important. We think that
if you were to put this out there, that people
would stop getting vaccines, and that that would lead to
more problematic outcomes for us. Yes, yes, they don't want

(01:10:52):
people to be able to make an informed decision.

Speaker 2 (01:10:54):
That's right, especially parents, because that's the other part of
the lawsuit. They say that it also affects them amendment
for parents because it deprives parents and children of life, liberty,
or property, and that it denies parents their quote, fundamental
liberty interests in directing their children's medical care and children's
fundamental right to bodily integrity, because they know that if

(01:11:18):
you confront a pediatrician with this stuff and refuse to
do this, the pediatrician is likely to report you to CPS.
And just like the Oregon Medical Board revoked this doctor's license,
CPS will come in to try to revoke your parenthood
take your children away from you. They said, this framework
denies the existence of medically vulnerable children, while the CDC

(01:11:43):
refuses to recognize any category of vaccine vulnerable children despite
mounting evidence that they exist. And of course, as we
reported in the last couple of weeks, the American Academy
of Pediatrics is now engaged in a campaign to re
move religious exemptions. They want to come after the First
Amendment for parents as well. They want to say that

(01:12:07):
you can't refuse to get vaccines because they were the
product of an abortion or something like that. Texas Attorney
General is now suing Eli Lilly for bribing doctors to
prescribe high profit drugs, and of course, Eli Lilly is
the giant pharmaceutical company that Trump went to to get

(01:12:28):
the head of HHS for his first term. That was
Alex Czar, the head the CEO of Eli Lilly. He
was the one who ran the so called pandemic. Now
Attorney General Ken Paxton is suing Eli Lily for allegedly
bribing doctors to prescribe their most profitable drugs, especially the
weight loss medications, but also other prescriptions that were there.

(01:12:51):
He says that the result of this, by getting them
to pick the more expensive drugs, has resulted in millions
of dollars in claims, Medicare claims and texas that have
been made at taxpayer expense. When you look at what
they do, it's the first hand in the experience that
I had with this Elquist thing. You know, it's a

(01:13:12):
blood thinner thing to stop blood clots. And the medical
community they're all just like, oh, yeah, that's the one
thing that you use. You know, they have been so
thoroughly propagandized by Pfizer that that's what they sell. And
the doctor said he had a patient who paid thousands
of dollars a month to get this blood any medication,

(01:13:35):
and it's like, that's ridiculous. There's a lot of things
out there that can thin your blood and not even
prescription pharmaceuticals. But that's what they do. They work with
them to say this is the one that you want,
and look, we've got to study here, you know. So
these are the GLP one weight loss medications, Manjaro and

(01:13:57):
zip Bound that are produced by Eli Lily. He claims
that they are engaged in an illegal kickback scheme. He
said Eli Lilly fraudulently sought to maximize profits a taxpayer expense,
and put corporate greed over people's health, just like with
the opioid epidemic. Plaintiffs include the State of Texas and

(01:14:18):
Health Choice Alliance LLC, a New Jersey based research organization,
and in addition to Monjaro and zip Bound, the complaint
named a dozen drugs sold by Eli Lilly to treat
conditions including migraines, ezema, leukemia, and breast cancer. Eli Lilly
offered illegal incentives to Texas medical providers for prescribing the drugs.

(01:14:41):
Listen to this, including free nurses what is that? And
reimbursement for support services. Hey, I got a free nurse
for you.

Speaker 1 (01:14:51):
How do you manage that as an indentured servants?

Speaker 2 (01:14:55):
Yeah, I guess they take the salary of the nurses.
Eli Lilly in twenty twenty three, I said, it's monjaro
shots on kids as young as six. This is the
JLP one drugs, that family of drugs. Several lesser known
JLP one drugs can be prescribed off label for children,
but of course this hasn't been tested for that. Texas's

(01:15:16):
new lawsuit follows an October twenty twenty four suit that
the state and the Help Choice Alliance filed against major
insulin vendors, including Eli Lilly, for overcharging so and also
a kickback scheme. This seems to be standard operating procedure
with pharmaceutical companies, whether you're talking about insulin, or whether

(01:15:36):
you're talking about opioids, or you're talking about now these
weight loss drugs. And then finally we have inside mRNA vaccines.
You've got Robert Redfield, who was the CDC director for
Trump in his first term. This guy is coming out
now and kind of fessing up. But from the things

(01:15:57):
that he's saying, he ought to go to jail. He said, quote,
we turned the body into a factory with no clear controls.
And if you go back and look at the archives,
I said that publicly when they started talking about that.
If you remember they had.

Speaker 1 (01:16:11):
You said that almost immediately, Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:16:13):
Yeah, they said. They went. Trump set up this little
dog and pony show, and he had all these pharmaceutical
executives come in and set at the table. They went
around the table and he had them all lined up
in the order of how quickly they could do this,
and he said, no, that's not fast enough, next one,
that's not fast enough. And he gets to moderna and
they said, we can do it right now, because we're
going to use your body as a factory to manufacture

(01:16:38):
this vaccine. And I said, well, what could possibly go
wrong with that? I said, that sounds like cancer. How
do you ever stop this thing? And actually, what it
reminds me of when I look at this, it reminds
me of somebody mentioned it earlier Fantasia. It reminds me
of The Sorcerer's Apprentice. How appropriate you know when you

(01:16:59):
talk about pharma ka the Sorcerers. Uh, this is basically
if you look at these marching brooms with their buckets
of water, that's basically what they unleashed on you with
the MR and a vaccine. I think this is the
this is the perfect analogy for the Pharmacheah, you know,
it just keeps coming in. That's what the m RNA does.

(01:17:21):
It keeps multiplying and multiplying in your body as it
is damaging your body, flooding your body with spikes, these
spy proteins. Yeah, that's the that's the analogy right there,
and pharma marches on. Now Robert Redfield is going to

(01:17:43):
tell us the truth about that. Finally five years ago,
where was he? Okay, he was in the position to
do something about it. He was the CDC director and
he wouldn't give you the obvious issue with it. Hey,
we don't have any way to turn this off. Where's
the off switch? We can't control this. We just unleash it. Right,
we do this pharmachea incantation injection and it's off of

(01:18:05):
the races.

Speaker 1 (01:18:06):
Well, there's probably a lot more money for him to
be made being quiet back then, but he's now. He
wants some headlines.

Speaker 2 (01:18:12):
He also wants you to trust him, So he's out there.
He wants to sell bird flu pandemic and he's been
doing that. But he's also the guy that's out there
saying it came from China. Now, right, we didn't develop it.
It came from China. The virus did well.

Speaker 1 (01:18:28):
He said, this is that there is a virus.

Speaker 2 (01:18:31):
Yeah, this is if there was a virus. Yeah. Xpose
News has the article about a new documentary called Inside
mRNA Vaccines the movie. They say it's an unfiltered second
opinion on the science behind mRNA technology to provide the
public with information the corporate media will not cover about
the development and global rollout of the mRNA vaccine technology. Well,

(01:18:55):
I hope that they get into the long history of this,
but I have concerns about it since they have Robert
Malone who has another limited hangout guy. But this thing
had been developed for quite some time, the vaccine itself
as well as all the lockdown and the tactics that
they were going to use against us. They had wargained

(01:19:16):
that from Dark Winter on. But the vaccine had been
developed with BARDA and DARPA for quite some time before
they roll that out as well. This premiered on the
twelfth of August. This documentary features exclusive three D animations
and depth interviews. I guess they show the mRNA unleashing
the spike proteins like the marching brooms of the buckets

(01:19:39):
of water, perhaps professionals who expressed concern about potential gaps
and data transparency, risk assessment, and long term safety associated
with the rapid adoption of this platform. The documentary argues
that while regulators and much of the scientific community maintain
that COVID mRNA vaccines are safe and effective, the technology

(01:20:00):
is rapidly expanding beyond pandemic response, including potential applications and
the food supply. Of course, Brooke Rollins the person that
Trump just put in and USDA, the first thing she
did was to prove mRNA injections into chickens and pigs
and beef into our food supply to supposedly protect them

(01:20:23):
from bird flu. mRNA I think is going to be
the legacy of Trump. I think people are going to
I think history is going to be on my side
when it comes to Trump, because they're going to see
that this guy was both the father and the funder

(01:20:45):
of mRNA vaccines. He has said over and over again
how he's the one who created it. He's the proud
I guess we should.

Speaker 1 (01:20:53):
Be unable to stop himself from bragging about it.

Speaker 2 (01:20:55):
Yeah, instead of being the founding father, he is the
funding father of the a bomination that we call the
COVID vaccine, but mRNA in general.

Speaker 6 (01:22:38):
Making sense common again. You're listening to the David Night Show.

Speaker 2 (01:22:59):
In Joining us now is James Bradley, who is the
author of Flags of Our Fathers, a great book and
a great film that was done by Clint Eastwood. And
he's now got another book, not about that was about
Ewajimo course and World War Two. This one is a
nonfiction book and it is about Vietnam. It's called Precious Freedom.

(01:23:20):
And some of the views that are here, one person,
Norman Solomon, said, for more than sixty years, Americans have
looked at Vietnam through the wrong end of a telescope.
That's a great way of putting it. He said. Precious
Freedom turns it around and brings people into sharp focus,
from Vietnamese people who lived there and died to the

(01:23:42):
Pentagon's gun gun sights. And so I think it's a
very important story. And he's spent a lot of time
working on this story, and this is a story that
for most of us, Vietnam is a very very important
milestone in our life. I think it's shaped as me
shaped my view of government and war in many different ways,

(01:24:02):
and I didn't even go. I mean, I can only
imagine the people that were thereby I did know people
that went that were slightly older than I was. I
had two older sisters, and they knew a lot of
people who had been involved in going to Vietnam and
that experience that happened. And so this is a story
that is told with characters from both sides, Americans as
well as Vietnamese. Thank you for joining us, James, good

(01:24:26):
to be here. Thank you. Now you spent a decade
in Vietnam researching this. Tell us a little bit about
that and what Vietnam is like and what that experience
was like.

Speaker 8 (01:24:38):
Well, I went. You know, I had written four books
up to that point, so I thought, you know, I
wrote all about the Pacific War. So I think my
brother enlisted in the Marines in nineteen sixty seven. So
I was watching Walter Cronkite every night studying the Vietnam War,
and I thought, you know, I'll write a book about Vietnam.

(01:25:00):
I'll just spend three years here. But it took me
over ten years because I had to unravel all the
propaganda Bologney told to us by Walter Cronkite, into ken
Burns right now. It's just you know last night you
talked about a little thing that a few folks that

(01:25:22):
fooled America about COVID, about the vaccine.

Speaker 2 (01:25:26):
Yeah, you know, I mean Trump was.

Speaker 8 (01:25:29):
A Russian spy and America, the American government did it.
The same with us with Lee Harvey Oswald and the
Vietnam War.

Speaker 2 (01:25:39):
Yes, absolutely right, you know it is. And we look
at Vietnam. I keep going back to one of the
I haven't read your book yet, but you know when
you go back and you look at the Fog of
War that was done by Errol Morris. I don't know
if you ever saw that or not. His documentary five Times. Yeah,
that's a good documentary. And he just has this now

(01:26:00):
of getting people to confess things that you normally you
would not expect they confessed to. So he spent a
lot of time talking to Robert McNamara, who was running
this whole mess. And macnamara said, he went back to
Vietnam and they banged the guy who was his counterpart
at the time set up and said, what is the
matter with you? Don't you know anything about history? For

(01:26:21):
a thousand years? We oppose the Chinese and you're trying
to tell everybody that we're Chinese puppets and it's a
Domino theory and all the rest of this stuff. And
McNamara said, yeah, you know, he was right. What is
Vietnam like today? I mean, I've seen still some border
conflicts between them and China, and there's a lot of
competition there, but they've become highly industrialized. Is that right.

Speaker 8 (01:26:46):
Yeah, China is the forever enemy of Vietnam, you know,
after more than a thousand years of fighting each other,
and that's how the Vietnamese learned these techniques to repel
the invader. You know, Vietnam right now, if you include reserves,
has the largest army in the world. This shocks people.

(01:27:07):
It's bigger than India, China, America, Russia. Wow, they are
watching their borders. They're not invading anybody.

Speaker 2 (01:27:14):
Yeah, and you know they're.

Speaker 8 (01:27:15):
Protecting their borders. Vietnam's for the Vietnamese and they are
growing by eight percent a year. Vietnam is so successful
right now, and it would have been successful a long
time ago if the French and the Americans hadn't decided
to vomb it for eighty years.

Speaker 2 (01:27:35):
Yeah, Yeah, it's amazing. To think that they could get
it that wrong. You know that they think they portray
Vietnam as a China puppet when actually you know they were.
They were always you know, opposed to them and opposition there.
Now you did this as a as a fiction book.
You have done nonfiction before. We talked about Ewjima and

(01:27:58):
the Marines that were there in Flags of Our Father.
Why did you go to a nonfiction approach?

Speaker 8 (01:28:04):
You know that is sorry. The book is really history
as fiction. Everything in the book is true. But whereas
Iwo Jima, you know, all the characters were concentrated on
a little tiny spit of land. I had stories from
all over Vietnam that I couldn't connect in a storyline,

(01:28:27):
so I just did it. I fictionalized it. But you know,
so maybe I took a character that I have fighting
somewhere where they didn't. But everything is from interviews I
did over ten years of living in Vietnam, interviewing the people,
and David, You'll be shocked. I'm the first American author

(01:28:48):
to go to Vietnam and say how did you win?
I caddied for Vince Lombardi when I was a kid.
I'm a little older than you. Bart Starr lived for
four doors down up at bass Lake from the Bradleys.
And for anybody who doesn't know who Vince Lombardi is,
when you win the NFL trophy, I mean the Super

(01:29:11):
Bowl Trophy, this year you will win the Vince Lombardi Trophy.
So Vince studied when he lost a game, if they
won or lost, we admitted it, and we studied how
we lost, and we figured out how the winners won.
And I'm the first author to go to Vietnam and say,

(01:29:32):
you guys obviously won, how did you do it? And
the answers? Are this book precious freedom?

Speaker 2 (01:29:38):
Yes? Yes, there's actually a comment that you have from
Oliver Stone, who's had James Bradley journeyed to Iwajima and
returned the flags of our fathers now of interest to
Vietnam and brings the precious freedom, brings us precious freedom,
where he reveals that if we had known what happened
in the nineteen sixties in Vietnam, American mothers would have

(01:29:58):
never sent their children into a rock in Afghanistan. The
truth is the best vaccination against great lies. I think
that's very important. And so by going with the fictional thing,
you can cover a lot of different facets that are
still very realistic at the same time. And so tell
us a little bit about some of the characters out
of there. You got both American and Vietnamese characters in

(01:30:20):
your book, right.

Speaker 8 (01:30:23):
Yes, it's basically Chip in May. Chip is a US
Marine and you know, Pete Hegseth got it wrong. They
were in pretty good shape in the Vietnam era, you know,
our marines. It wasn't the fatness, it was the fat
heads in the Pentagon.

Speaker 2 (01:30:44):
Yeah.

Speaker 8 (01:30:45):
Chip goes into May's front yard. May is fifteen years old.
Look at this little chick. She's fifteen years old, never
thought about war. Chip shoots her father in the head.
May sees that, and at fifteen she says, I'm going
to kill every American I ever see. And conveniently, the

(01:31:06):
Americans came in in helmets and uniforms, and you know,
you could tell what an American was. So this May
went out and snipered Tod death five Marines. Those are
the kills she got medals for. And what is untold
about the Vietnam War is the role of women. Here's

(01:31:29):
a photo, this girl with the machine gun. Can you
see it?

Speaker 2 (01:31:33):
Yeah, yeah, she killed one.

Speaker 8 (01:31:35):
Hundred and seventy four Americans. Wow, look at she's twenty
two years old. Wow, the number one marine sniper killed
ninety four. We write books about them, you know, we
haral them. But this is unknown that girls were out
there killing Americans and it was because of that thousand

(01:31:58):
years of fighting the Chinese, and they went out and
they had a plan. We we you know, in America,
the story is how did this happen? You can watch
eighteen hours of ken Burns and it's like, wow, this
is still confusing. But if you go to Vietnam, well,
actually you can't get them to talk to you. But

(01:32:21):
I did. It took me six months of drinking tea.
And if they if they part the veil and tell
you they had a plan. They were teenagers, but they
knew how to seize the initiative. This was not happens
to or accidental that Vietnam beat America. They had a plan,
they knew they were going to do it, and they

(01:32:41):
executed the plan.

Speaker 2 (01:32:43):
Well, it's also the fact that they're actually defending their home.
You know, that's a that's an important thing. You know,
that's a big advantage for defenders when they're actually fighting
for their lives and fighting for their home, as opposed
to people who are going because they've been told that
there's some kind of geopolitical thing maybe that maybe exist

(01:33:03):
or maybe doesn't exist. I think that is a key thing.
I think that's a real big part of why we
do so poorly in all these asymmetric wars everywhere.

Speaker 8 (01:33:13):
Yes, no, that's if Ho Chi Minh. I'm from Wisconsin,
if O Chi Minh had evated Wisconsin, that war would
still be going on.

Speaker 2 (01:33:22):
Yeah, we would never give up, that's right.

Speaker 8 (01:33:24):
I mean, you know me at fifteen years old, I
knew every alleyway I could run at night for five blocks,
jump over fences, I knew what doors were open, you know.
So they were defending their homeland. That's the key. And
I've been to Afghanistan, you know, I lived in Iran.
This bombing of Iran that we recently did in June

(01:33:47):
that united the Iranian people like never before.

Speaker 2 (01:33:50):
Oh yeah, and we already support your leader.

Speaker 8 (01:33:52):
If you A Vietnamese guy told me, he said, you know,
we were trying to recruit people in this valley, this
isolated valley, and they said, what's an American? What's the
war what are you talking about? And then an American
jet came and dropped bombs and he said, we didn't
have to We didn't have to recruit anymore. You Americans

(01:34:13):
got everybody in line with just a few bombs.

Speaker 2 (01:34:16):
You know, we've seen that in movie after movie as well,
haven't we. You know, movies about you know, the American
Revolution or whatever, where somebody's I don't want to get
involved in the civil war, whatever, I don't want to
get involved until the war comes to them and they
get attacked by one side and necessarily now they get
galvanized and they're in it. I think that's the key thing.
You know, we lose our wars before they even begin

(01:34:38):
because we don't talk about why we should be there.
And if we go to war for an unjust cause,
we are going to lose that war eventually, because the
people who have a just cause in terms of defending
themselves are going to have the determination to finish it
and whatever it takes. That is the most important thing,
I think, is that determination. We talk about the morality

(01:34:59):
for the we have a just war or not? You know,
have we been attacked and how are we going to
fight this? But when we ignore that and we start
acting as the world's policeman. Then what we've done is
we've sown the seeds of a shaky foundation that isn't
going to be able to sustain us. And on the
other side, they have a strong foundation to fight back.

(01:35:21):
As you point out, if they had invaded us, we
would still be fighting them. I think that's a key
thing I think we have.

Speaker 8 (01:35:28):
David, can I interrupt here?

Speaker 2 (01:35:29):
Sure, I'd like to.

Speaker 8 (01:35:31):
Say to your viewers and listeners if you could just
back up and listen again to what David just said.
That is the key to this book, Precious Freedom. They
were defending mom and dad. Yeah, and they had a plan,
and the Americans went and they were fighting communists. You know,
how do you find a communist? And what is a communist?

(01:35:55):
The Vietnamese I interviewed, who were fifteen, sixteen, seventeen years
old back in the nineteen sixties. The one guy told me,
he said, I didn't know democracy or communism. He said,
they shot my mother and killed her. He said, that's
all I had to know.

Speaker 2 (01:36:11):
Yeah, that's right, and that's how we lose these wars.
We don't understand what we're really fighting for. So you
talk about distorted revisionism that we've seen here in the US.
Define that a little bit. When we talk about the
Walter Cronkite version of the war, when we talk about
the ken Burns version of the war, how has your

(01:36:33):
vision of the war changed? You said, it took you
a while to come to terms with that.

Speaker 8 (01:36:39):
Well, here is a real mind teaser, and I hope
you don't mind if I use visuals. It'll save That's fine, Yeah, library,
none but the American view of the war. If you
turn on ken Burns, Walter Cronkite, look at any documentary
starts with this. There was a North Vietnam and a

(01:37:00):
South Vietnam. Can you see it?

Speaker 2 (01:37:02):
Yeah?

Speaker 8 (01:37:03):
Yeah, And there was a border between two countries, and
we came to rescue South Vietnam against North Vietnam. So
I go into this eighty five year old guy's house
and he said, mister Bradley, he said, this was all imaginary.
The New York Times drew a line across my country.

(01:37:24):
He said, I never thought I needed a visa to
visit my uncle. There was one Vietnam. This is how
they viewed it. There was one Vietnam, and we invaded
the whole thing. So my brother was told, you know,
you go train in the Marines, you go to the
South Vietnam, and you fight for freedom against these terrible Kamis.

(01:37:47):
But the Vietnamese never saw it that way. They saw
one country. And if you read the speeches, everybody's giving
I mean, all the Vietnamese. They start with, there's only
one Vietnam. There will only be one Vietnam. And they
were right. If I drew a line across Texas, David,

(01:38:08):
you know, I'm Canadian and I come down there with
the Canadian Army, and I say, there's a West Texas,
East Texas. There's a border. You're bad on the west side,
the good is on the Like, what are you talking about.
We're Texan, there's one Texas, and you would, you know,
down to your grandkids, you would fight to have that reality.

(01:38:30):
Come back. What you said earlier about seven minutes ago.
The key was not our veterans. They did a good job.
The key was our leaders set up a false a
false situation right from the start. We lost that war
before we started.

Speaker 2 (01:38:52):
What is now the politicians that were there. Okay, so
you got Ho Chi Minh in the north and you
got the South Vietnamese government. Was that something that Americans created?
Was that a CIA creation or was that something that
said so it didn't start with the French. Yeah, Cia,
what happened?

Speaker 8 (01:39:13):
If I could? You know, the French were there for
eighty years Roman Catholic Church, by the way, and you
know for the church, the French went in eighteen eighties.
They couldn't control, just like us in Afghanistan. They had
the cities, they couldn't control the country. Ho Chi Minh
goes overseas to study the Western media for thirty years

(01:39:36):
and then figures out how to beat the Americans. He
comes back first. They pushed the French out. Well, in
nineteen fifty four, when they pushed the French out, they agreed,
we'll have a temporary line at the seventeenth parallel temporary
and they wrote in the Geneva language, this is not

(01:39:57):
two countries, this is not a border. The French have
been here for eighty years, and we're just gonna let
them withdraw to the south. And then you know, to
get the French on ships to let them go. But
the Allen Dulles, the CIA, Dwight Eisenhower, Cardinals Spelman, Pope
Pius came in and said, hocus pocus, CBS New York Times,

(01:40:20):
make that out a border, and look at there's this country,
South Vietnam, North Vietnam. Well we weren't paying attention. What
was an Indo China? So I grew up thinking there's
a North Vietnam, South Vietnam. I saw it every day.

Speaker 2 (01:40:36):
I mean me too. Yeah, you know, but we know.

Speaker 8 (01:40:40):
People that think that there was a COVID thing that
hit the United States, right, and that there's a vaccine
that makes you if you take poison, you get healthy.
So what they did with us Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK.
And there's these two countries. But the Vietnamese, the people there,

(01:41:01):
tens of millions, didn't you know, what are you talking about?
Two countries? The South Vietnamese leaders had been in the
French Air Force. They were traders to the country. When
MacNamaras stood with the South Vietnamese leaders, the Vietnamese looked
and like, wow, we beat the French, and now here's

(01:41:22):
the American enemy also. So this is why it took
me ten years. I had to unravel everything I knew
about the Vietnam War.

Speaker 2 (01:41:33):
Yeah, and of course that happened that long. I guess
after really maybe a decade or so after what we
had done in Iran. You know, That's the other thing.
Americans look at Iran and they remember the hostage situation,
the Ayatola, Well they don't remember what's what happened with
the shaw that we put in power and the Savaka
that the CIA train and I've talked about that many times.

(01:41:56):
I was exposed to that because I had in the
engineer school. There was a lot of uh Iranian students
who came there and they were protesting, and I was
asking them why they were wearing masks, and they started
telling me about the Savak and it's like, what you know,
So our history and our perception is so distorted by
media and so distorted by a selective starting point in

(01:42:19):
the narrative that it is really hard to get to
the truth. That's why, you know, books like this are
very important to open up people's minds to understand how
they've been controlled. I think. So you really kind of
see this as a David and Goliath story right.

Speaker 8 (01:42:34):
Well, the day the I don't know David and Client,
but it's a story of the Vietnamese. They're like, if
you if you poke of Japanese. They have a certain history.
They have no ability, they've never been invaded. You know,
they don't know, they don't they haven't practiced those arts.

(01:42:57):
If you talk to an American, our history is not
how we were invaded by Mexico and then the Germans
invaded us and then we don't have those skills. But
the Vietnamese, that's their only history. If you're Vietnamese, you
grow up with that history of you know, great grandfather
fought the Chinese here and then your great great grandfather

(01:43:21):
fought the Mongols in that river. I mean, I have
a picture of a guy who was sixteen years old,
about this tall, and he sunk five navy ships on
a river using techniques that were one thousand years old,
the Battle of the Bagdong River from nine hundred and
thirty two. And I said, you were sixteen and you

(01:43:45):
recreated a battle that was a thousand years old, and
he said, yes. Vietnam has a proud military history. So
that's what they know. So if you want to lose
a war, invade Vietnam, tomaw, nuclear arms, use whatever you want,
you're gonna lose.

Speaker 2 (01:44:04):
Yeah, that's amazing, And I guess we probably could say
the same thing about Afghanistan as well. They have taken
down one empire after the other, taking them on and
taking them down in their country. So I guess they've
got a long history of girl of warfare as well.

Speaker 8 (01:44:18):
They But David, why do we choose Yeah, because they
wear sandals. I mean Pete Egseth wants you know, short
hair and no beards. Well, jeez, you know they call
these girls. I mean, look at this. This is Ho
Chi Minh. Okay, that's Ho Chi Minh with General Ziap.

Speaker 2 (01:44:40):
Yeah, Ho Chi.

Speaker 8 (01:44:40):
Minh is the military genius of the Vietnam War. Beat
the French and the Americans. Look at this tiny guys
with General Ziap. General Ziap is the winniness general of
the twentieth century. David, we talk about Eisenhower, MacArthur. Zapp
beat the French, he beat the Japanese, he beat the Americans,

(01:45:04):
he beat the Chinese. Vietnam is the only country in
the world to have defeated three members of the United
Nations Security Council. That's their history is how to get
rid of the invaders. And we wouldn't listen to that.
But can I just say something that there was a

(01:45:25):
United States Marine Commandant, General shop General David Shoop Medal
of Honor, taroa medal of honor. One of the worst
marine battles. This guy knew battles and he resigned when
Johnson wanted to go in Vietnam, and General Shue put
on a suit and tie and crisscrossed the countries in

(01:45:47):
the sixties saying, there's no way we can win. Ho
Chi Min's the George Washington. So there was a David
Knight understanding that the media was, you know, fulling the
American public back in the nineteen sixties, and it was
being broadcast by a United States Marine commandant, not some

(01:46:11):
you know, crazy pinko, you know, demonstrating, but a commandant
was saying, the Vietnamese are never going to give up.
We're going to lose. He said, the Vietnam War is
not worth one of our deaths. Yes, this was coming
from a military man, and he was right. But Washington
wouldn't listen because Brown and Root, which became Haliburton Lockheed,

(01:46:36):
you know, they made out Vietnam was a tragedy for them.
It was a profit center.

Speaker 2 (01:46:43):
When I was looking at it as a as a
young teen, and then on into high school. It looked
to me like, you know, the military industrial complex was
using it to practice and develop weapons. I mean, I
could see that even when I was in high school.
These guys are making a killing from this stuff, using
it to as a testing ground for their military hardware

(01:47:04):
that they want to sell. Yes, sir, And that seemed
like all it was to me. You know when I
looked at that, It's absolutely insane how we have been manipulated,
controlled and misguided by these people who are the leaders
that are there, and they still keep doing the same
thing over and over again. Now you've got a fictional character.
I think it's the mother of the main American character

(01:47:27):
of the Marine, and she kind of goes through this
transformation that I think a lot of people in America did.
I remember when it first started. You know, my family's conservative,
so they would yeah, this is, you know, going to
make the world say for democracy type of thing. And
then gradually they started to understand what this war was
really about. And I think you've got a character that
represents that in the Mother. Is that correct?

Speaker 8 (01:47:49):
Betty. Betty is the mother of Chip, and she you know,
is college educated. She's from Minnesota and a wonderful woman
gives her son to the United States Marine Corps. And
then a guy, a funny guy by the name of
Muhammad Ali says, I'm not going to kill brown people.

(01:48:10):
You know, this is an immoral war. And what she's
shocked by is that the media doesn't report his words.
And she finds his words from a friend and she's like,
why isn't Walter Cronkite saying why Muhammad Ali won't go?
And then a guy by the name of doctor Martin

(01:48:32):
Luther King stands up in Riverside Church and says, the
United States government is the biggest purveyor of violence in
the world. This we are supporting a dictatorship. Ho Chi
Minh is the George Washington We cannot win.

Speaker 3 (01:48:49):
One hundred and.

Speaker 8 (01:48:50):
Fifty three newspapers criticize doctor King. But the key is
nobody read doctor King's speech because the Washington Post, New
York Times AP nobody would reprint it because it was
the truth. And guess what, Doctor King got a bullet
in the head one year to the day of that

(01:49:11):
anti Vietnam speech.

Speaker 2 (01:49:15):
This wakes They really don't not too concerned about killing people,
are they? I mean, you know, it can be one
on one, or it can be tens of thousands of people.

Speaker 8 (01:49:23):
Yeah, and this wakes Betty up, and Betty slowly begins
with a friend of hers who's a librarian, to see that,
Oh my god, she's she's supporting this violence unconsciously. She
doesn't know that she gave her son to this wrong cause.
And of course her son comes back damaged like so

(01:49:47):
many of all of the You know, my father, he's
a symbol of heroism. Donald Trump has got my dad
right behind him. If you look at a shot of
Trump in the Oval Office, the Egojima statue is right
behind him. My father cried in his sleep for the

(01:50:08):
first four years of his marriage. I learned that after
he died. My mom told me, you know, this is war.
We have got to stop talking about heroism and start
to own up to if you want to go to war,
let's have the Trump kids go first. And then you know,
the grandkids of Marco Rubio and Pete Haigseth must have somebody,

(01:50:33):
you know, send them off first. My dad was on
yo Jima and there were colonels in front of them.
There were colonels getting shot. Come on, boys, they were
leading from the front in Vietnam, the colonels were in
helicopters and in the back boys, you go out there.
The military changed after World War Two, and we still

(01:50:56):
have not righted it.

Speaker 2 (01:50:58):
Yeah, leading from the rear, except you know, Trump put
out that picture of him as the Robert Duvall character
and apocalypse. Now, It's like, if that isn't disturbing, I
don't know what is. If he sees himself that way,
a guy who has never been to war and he's
going to be the guy quarterbacking this from the back.

(01:51:18):
And when you look at just the disconnect that is
there and the lack of depth as he talked to
these generals that he summoned in there, well, it's truly
is amazing, and it really is something I think the
people need to pull back and take a look at
what a just war is, and they need to look

(01:51:40):
at our history of idiotic aggression. I mean, we're about
to do this again in several different places. I mean,
they want to go into Venezuela, they would like to
get involved. I think in Iran. Will you talk about
a quagmire in Iran? As large as that country is
and the history that we've had with them, A lot
of pent up anger because of what the CIA has

(01:52:03):
done in Iran for a very long time. We just
don't seem to learn those lessons, and it's a very
important lesson to learn, isn't it.

Speaker 8 (01:52:12):
Well, why can't we learn those lessons? You know, you
should be broadcast, you know, prime time. But you're telling
the truth. So, I mean, you know what you say
about Iran. I lived in Iran. Iranians saved my life.
I learned that Iran is Persia. Iran is not you know,

(01:52:33):
Iran is not in bombing Baltimore. You know, China's not
in San Francisco Bay. We could we have. I'm out
here in Mauritius, in the middle of the Indian Ocean,
and at night I can almost hear all the billions
of dollars of equipment that America is prepositioning here to
bomb Iran. Like why, why let's stop it, Let's make

(01:52:59):
Chicago rate, you know, put the money in Saint Louis
rather than out here in Diego, Garcia. But this is
what the book is about. That's why Oliver Stone said,
if we knew what I found out and precious freedom,
mothers would have never given their kids to go to
Iraq in Afghanistan.

Speaker 2 (01:53:18):
Yes, we need to be skeptical of what the government
is telling us when it gets us into these wars.
And now I'm afraid they were probably going to say
and if you know, people had known this, we wouldn't
have gotten involved in Venezuela and Iran and start, you know,
a war with China and Ukraine and all these other
things that we're trying to escalate. Look at how many
different theaters we're in right now, and these are big fights.

(01:53:41):
And I think it was Colonel Douglas McGregor said, we're
really picking fights that you know, we can't cash these
checks essentially, to paraphrase what he had to say, we're
still doing that everywhere. It's incredibly bad leadership that we
have civilian as well as military.

Speaker 8 (01:53:58):
That's the story of precious freedom. That the reason I'm
talking about the book, and I'm so grateful that you're
getting it out there, is it's not just it's not
a book about the Vietnam War. It's a book about America,
American media, how we are being fooled, the military industrial complex,

(01:54:22):
you know, and how the world sees us, and how
we're taking our innocent sons and daughters and whipping them
into these froths of what we call patriotism and sending
them over to situations that they cannot win in. So,
you know, but again it took me ten years to

(01:54:44):
figure it out Vietnam. You know, I thought of Vietnam
as some dark place, you know, the jungles, and they're
growing by eight percent a year. The Vietnamese are confident,
they will welcome you if you go there. And I
realized Vietnam War was a tragedy for them, but it
was a victory. They won. They have the confidence of winners.

(01:55:08):
And you know, I tipped my hat to all the
American Vietnam veterans. They did They did what they were
trained to do. The problem was our leaders put him
in a jar that was impossible to break out a situation,
and we lied and lied and lied. I believed all.

(01:55:30):
You know, I'm seventy one now, I believed many of
these lies till I was, you know, fifty three and
went to Vietnam.

Speaker 2 (01:55:39):
Let me ask you about Walter Cronkie. Could you mentioned
him a couple of times? And you know Operation mocking
Bird was very prevalent. Then we know that he was
very friendly to the CIA narratives and stuff like that.
But at the same time as that was happening, I
heard criticism from the rights saying, you know, he's going
to cause us to lose a war because he's reading
the names of the men every night that are killed

(01:55:59):
in this war. What is your take on how that
was that part of the propaganda?

Speaker 8 (01:56:05):
The Kronkite to Cronkite, you know, it's just like all
our prostitutes right now, they successfully, you know, go down
the line so that the CIA will keep them, you know,
in the chair and they appear to be you know,
all this war, you know, people are dying. Walter Cronkite

(01:56:27):
was went to Vietnam a number of times. He knew
William Colby of the CIA, who was running the CIA operations.
William Colby later admitted that the United States secretly the
CIA kidnapped eighty thousand innocent civilians, tortured them, tortured him,

(01:56:48):
killed them eighty thousand. He's admitted this to Congress. Walter Cronkite,
David Alberson, all these guys knew what was happening. It
was a torture program. We had torture centers all over
South Vietnam. They knew, you know, but they didn't admit
that we bombed Laos. There was an airport in Laos

(01:57:10):
that was the busiest airport in the world in the
middle sixties. Where was Walter cronkaink Yeah, William west Moreland.
General west Moreland was probably the biggest opium dealer of
the nineteen sixties, running opium through the Saigon airport out
to that was the French connection out to the Mediterranean,

(01:57:31):
washing the money in the Vatican Bank. This was all
William west What happened to William west Moreland after Johnson
kicked him upstairs, he went to be Chief of Staff
of the Army and he started to work on Gladio
in fighting the communists in Italy. This was a worldwide

(01:57:53):
opium network that started, you know in the Golden Triangle.
They shipped it out of Vietnam because we controlled it militarily.
You're talking about billions of dollars of CIA money. So
Walter Cronkite didn't know this. Our top newsman, morally Safer,
couldn't figure this out.

Speaker 2 (01:58:16):
It wasn't on the script they were given. Yeah, when
you look at Afghanistan and what's happened, what happened there
with opium stuff. It's amazing that we keep seeing, you know,
all of these different that how they've used the War
on drugs to fund their military operations. I'm thinking of
Ron Contrat and other things like that. The CIA is

(01:58:39):
a whole nother story. Maybe maybe you'll do a book
on them one day as well, so you know, we
look at this moving forward. The uh, there's a lot
of a lot of different characters that you're able to
with a fiction thing, a lot of different people stories
that're able to pull into a fictional account. That'd be difficulties,

(01:58:59):
you said to do otherwise, tell us attle bit more
about the book and your approach to that.

Speaker 8 (01:59:05):
Well, you know, mister Song was a twenty one year
old Vietcong leader. When I was thirteen years old, I
watched CBS News and they said, here we are on
Route nine. Route nine is the key artery that cuts
across the parallel to the DMZ, and the Marines are
out on Route nine. And I looked and I thought, well,

(01:59:28):
my brother's Marines control Route nine. So I go out
to Route nine years later with mister Song, and I said, oh, yeah,
this is Route nine. I remember seeing this in newsreels
back when I was a kid. He said, you didn't
see us in those. He said, you didn't see me
in those newsreels. And I said, what do you mean.

(01:59:48):
Your nickname is the Tiger of Route nine. Why didn't
I see you? He said, because Americans shot all the
newsreels during the day. He said, we were sleeping during
the day, don't you. Men said, America has eyes in
the sky. Don't fight during the day. He said, I
didn't fight in the day. I fought at night. It's
easy to be courageous at night. So what I didn't

(02:00:10):
realize is America never dominated Vietnam for a twenty four
hour period. I'll repeat that, America was never winning, not
even for twenty four hours. Because every day, at four pm,
what did the Marines do? They retreated and they dug
a hole, They went back in, They put wire around,

(02:00:33):
they put mines, and they tried to get some sleep.
And that's when the viet Cong came out. They had
specialists trained to walk like spiders through these minefields and
disconnect them all and then attack the Marines at night.
So after the sleepless Marines woke up, the survivors they

(02:00:54):
couldn't go out on Route nine. They had to have
mine sweepers. There are all sorts of mines out there.
The Vietnamese were fighting at night. You need night goggles,
night film to see the Vietnam War from the view
of the Vietnamese. And the other thing is, you know,
President Obama told a group of Vietnam veterans, you won

(02:01:17):
every battle. Well, what are you talking about? Ho Chi
Minh trained his people. He said, don't win a battle.
He said, We're just going to ambush. If you knock
off the pinky of a marine, they'll report that home.
There'll be doctors, there'll be you know, tourniquets. He said,
you know, you just you ambush quick in, quick out,

(02:01:41):
the three quicks and the one slow. The three quicks,
you know, get ready, attack withdraw, what's the one slow? Prepare?
He said, never attack unless you have the advantage. So
if I was fifteen in Wisconsin, David, I could figure
that out. Going to see this Canadian army moving in

(02:02:02):
a bunch with helmets, I'm not going to attack them.
They could kill me, but I'm gonna get them. You know,
when they turn the corner, they're not looking, you know,
sling shots, get them in the knee, run away, hide
in the bush. They were ambushing us. We never controlled
Vietnam for a twenty four hour period. Wow.

Speaker 2 (02:02:24):
Yeah, that's very different from whatever I've always heard the line,
Like you point out, with Obama, he's not the first
or only one who said that. I've heard that from
a lot of people who want every battle, but then
they would turn away and leave it, you know, So
that was their best case example of trying to explain
what was happening there. And even when they put that
spin on it, it's like we had leadership. They could

(02:02:45):
win every battle and lose the war. What's the matter
with this? But that puts a whole new spin on it.
The fact that they're pulling back constantly. And of course
the Vietnamese understood that they were fighting a war of attrition,
and you know, they that's because he understood America and
he understood that, as you point out, because they had

(02:03:06):
a lot of experience with other invaders. It's that war
of attrition, and that's how we always lose these wars,
these asymmetric wars. We go in and try to occupy
a country and turn it into what we want it
to be then it turns into a war of attrition,
and that truly is an amazing insight, very different from
what we heard. That's why it's important for people to

(02:03:28):
see this book.

Speaker 8 (02:03:28):
I think you know, and I'm a Wisconsinate talking to
somebody in Texas. If I could bring up, of course,
the number one game in the history of football, the
Ice Bowl nineteen sixty seven, Dallas Cowboys lambeau Field Vince
Lombardi bart Starr. If you look at the stats, the

(02:03:49):
Dallas Cowboys rushed for more yards, they had more sacks.
You could look at the stats, and that's like the
Vietnam War. It's as if the Texas knew whose media said, hey,
look we won that game in lambeau Field at Ice
Bowl for the NFL Championship. Look we ran for more yards,

(02:04:10):
Look we had more sacks. Look at this stat. Look
at that stat. But in the end, the Green Bay
Packers Bart Star Vincelambarti won and Ho Chi Minh was
the Vince Lombardi general Zapp who was the winning US
general of the twentieth century. And I'm not saying this
to rub it in. I'm saying it to if we

(02:04:32):
had realized these things, and even if we would realize
what happened in Vietnam, that's the source. You know, folks,
there's a David Knight goal. And David, you and I
don't know each other. We didn't talk about this in advance.
I would, you know, recommend everybody right now, take your dollars,
go to David Knight gold, get it, get some gold.

(02:04:54):
Why am I saying that? In nineteen sixty six, the
Prime Minister of Vietnam to the New York Times, You're
going to go off the gold standard. This war is
going to ruin the dollar. He told that to the Times.
The Times readers in sixty six couldn't figure it out.
Seventy one, Nixon goes on, it's because of Vietnam. Yeah,

(02:05:16):
the reason we lost in Iraq and Afghanistan is we
didn't look at the lessons of Vietnam. The economy, the debt,
the riots that we have right now, the government line,
these are all stories that came. You know, the seed
of them is in the Vietnam War, and they're in

(02:05:38):
this book, Precious Freedom.

Speaker 2 (02:05:40):
Yes, we keep making those same types of decisions. You know,
when you talk about the general who went around telling
everybody that ho chimenh was like George Washington, and that
really is the way that they we won the Revolutionary
War again defending your home. And it wasn't like they
won any battles. I mean, they won your town. That

(02:06:00):
was like basically the first of battle that they really won.
But they were all wars of attrition and it was like,
you know, the British could say, yeah, we got those
guns and conquered in Lexington, but they got hammered the
entire time they were coming back. And we need to
think in those terms, and we need to stop thinking
like the world's policemen, and we just can't get that

(02:06:23):
through to people. Maybe you know, your book can get
that into people's minds, that perspective and how we have
just the wrong approach in terms of doing this. But again,
I think it comes back to the fact that and
things are only getting worse in this regard that we
don't have the proper kind of determination whether we're going

(02:06:43):
to get involved in a war. I mean, we look
at the wars that we've had since World War Two,
it's predominantly been because there hasn't been a real consideration
or discussion of what's happening we've been lied into it
and pushed into it by the executive branch and a
supine pentagon that is there. It's interesting that you mentioned
Wes Mooreland. I didn't know about his involvement with Gladio.

(02:07:06):
I mean, I've looked at Gladio quite a bit, but
I didn't notice that he was there. And we should
think about that part of it as well. I mean,
NATO has got an unbelievable history when you go back
and look at NATO, not just the things that are
happening in Eastern Europe, but a long, long history of
false flags and things like that. Yeah, the book is

(02:07:30):
precious freedom and I tell you freedom is precious and
so is life, and we have allowed our government to
put them on a very low priority. They've got a
different priority. We need to start waking up as a people,
and I think the important thing is that we have to.
And you know, when you've got a fictional narrative like this,

(02:07:52):
it's very powerful because you can get into people's feelings
in a way that's difficult to do in a nonfiction book.
And I think that that ability to tell a narrative
story like that can really affect people's hearts and minds,
and that's what this is all truly about. That was
something that was a big part of the Vietnamese. The

(02:08:15):
north of the Vietnam War was the hearts and minds
that they were losing, and we need to make sure
that they don't have control of our hearts and minds again.
And I think the best anecdote is to have the
truth presented to them in a very effective way. And
I think your book is one of those ways that
people can get that message out to people. Thank you,

(02:08:37):
I appreciate it.

Speaker 8 (02:08:38):
Thank you for giving me the chance to talk.

Speaker 2 (02:08:40):
About well, thank you for what you're doing. I think
it's very important work. And I think it's important for
people to see this. And we all grew up a
Vietnam and I think it's also important for people to
go back and to question what they were told. And
once you do that, that's a real eye opening experience.
And so many of us have had that experience with Vietnam.

(02:09:03):
I who a lot of people who went to Vietnam
and they had that same kind of experience and were
severely harmed by that. But our country was severely harmed
by the Vietnam War. So again the book is Precious Freedom.
And people can find it on Amazon. Is that the
best place for people to find your book? Do you
have a website that you're sell it? Okay to jump
to Amazon?

Speaker 8 (02:09:24):
It will be you'll get it delivered November eleventh. It's
being you know, officially published, but pre orders you don't
really help a lot. And it's you know, this is
going to have a lot of readership in Asia. Vietnam
is not a small American story. It was global.

Speaker 2 (02:09:44):
Yes, it should be made into a movie. I like
your other book was. I think it would probably. Yeah,
I think it'd be a great movie. It's a story
that really needs to be told. Who knows, maybe Clint
Easwood will do it. He's still game for doing movies.
He's not up with that, but maybe we'll find a
good director, if there's any left in Hollywood. I don't know,

(02:10:05):
but it would be a great movie, I'm sure. Thank
you so much for joining us. Thank you, James Bradley,
and again, the book is Precious Freedom.

Speaker 6 (02:11:05):
Joyed listening to the David Knight.

Speaker 2 (02:11:07):
Show Welcome Back. Our guest is Steve Bonta. He's a
publisher of the New American. It's a magazine from the
John Bursa Society, and we were just talking off air,
and he's lived in Argentina, so he can tellus a

(02:11:28):
little bit about that. He's also most recently lived in
China as well. He's the author of a book Inside
the United Nations and a lot of articles from the
New American. As a matter of fact, it was one
that I wanted to get to today before he came
on that I didn't have a chance to. And we'll
talk about that. And that is a un trying to
establish a tax, a global tax on shipping and the

(02:11:49):
name of the climate mcguffin, and so we'll talk about
that as well. But he also contacted me because we
want to talk about gold and money. That's also very
topical right now. So thank you for joining us. Steve,
happy to be here. Thank you. Let's talk a little
bit since I was just talking about Argentina and beef
and things like that. It gives your take on what's
having lived in Argentina, give us your take on what's

(02:12:11):
going on.

Speaker 4 (02:12:12):
Yeah, I mean the thing about Argentina, I lived there
as a teenager way back during before the Falklands War
and the military junta days. Oh wow, Argentina is not
like well, the whole southern corn Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile
in particular. It's really quite different from what most Americans
think Latin America is like. And most people think of

(02:12:33):
Latin America, they think of, you know, men with sombreros
and donkeys and you know, to tortillas and that kind
of thing. We think in terms of Mexican and maybe
maybe Caribbean, American, Puerto Rico and southern South America. Argentina
in particular is a lot more like Europe. In fact,
Argentina culturally is more Italian than Spanish. There are more

(02:12:56):
people of Italian ancestry than Spanish ancestry, and the current president,
Pavier Milay and excuse me, is one of them. And
when I arrived in Argentina in nineteen seventy nine, I
was really shocked at how well educated the people were.
It's a very bookish society. People love to play chess
for example. Not to put too fine a point, they

(02:13:18):
have their problems too, but they are very well educated,
and in those days kind of mostly mal educated, and
you know, pironas and supporters of the socialism and so forth.
But Milai is a different animal altogether. He's remark a
very very bright guy and extremely articulate. You know, anyone
who knows Spanish listening to him talk, he's very persuasive.

(02:13:42):
He's really a silver tongued individual, and as is his mentor,
an Argentine economist named Alberto Benegas Leans. You can find
lectures by him on YouTube as well. And these are
both men a very sound understanding of free market economics
and principles of libertarianism generally, not the non aggression principle
all the rest of this stuff. And so Melay is

(02:14:05):
a multi talented individual, very much in the Argentine mold.
He's accomplished, I believe, a rock guitarist and a semi
professional soccer player football player at one point, and this
kind of thing, and mostly self educated as an economist
as well as a successful talk show host, kind of
a Rush Limball type figure. And now obviously he's the

(02:14:26):
president of Argentina. Argentina is of all of the Latin
American countries, probably has the government most similar to ours,
at least on paper. So the Argentine. When Argentina first
became independent of Spain, it was ruled for several decades
by a series of what they caught called kyldijos, which
were military dictators, culminating in a guy named General Rosas,

(02:14:49):
who was a really horrific dictator, ran a true police state.
This was in the eighteen fifties, and when Rosas finally fell,
he was replaced a group of men quite similar learned
the American founders, called themselves the Generation of eighteen thirty
eight came forward. Some of them had studied in Europe
and in the United States, had traveled abroad, studied the
systems of government of the countries, including the US Constitution,

(02:15:14):
and they attempted to craft a constitution similar to ours.
Argentina is a federal republic, just like the United States is.
It consists of provinces rather than states, but it's very
much a federal type arrangement. And unfortunately, unlike the U, well,
i mean maybe similar to us that you know, their
constitution has been has been reformed with scare quotes a

(02:15:34):
number of times, and so this has enabled the rise
of you know, of the left.

Speaker 2 (02:15:40):
You know.

Speaker 4 (02:15:40):
Obviously, Argentina, as Melay never tires of pointing out, you know,
was once one of the world's most powerful countries. In fact,
if you were a European ground down by the yoke
of European feudalism, you know, a peasant yearning to be
free and have and have, you know, some some sort
of opportunity life. There were two prime destinations in the
late nineteenth century. One was, of course, the US, and

(02:16:03):
the other was Argentina. And Argentina, like the US, was
was and remains a melting pot, very amenable to immigration,
and at one time was very very a place where
a man could basically go and do as he pleased,
you know, and prosper or fail according to his own efforts.
And obviously all that and that led to a state
of affairs where by the early twentieth century Argentina was

(02:16:24):
one of the top five or so richest countries in
the world. And the expression in English as rich as
in Argentine was a common expression back in the Roaring twenties.
And all that all that's changedmore yeah, yeah, And so
Argentina has since undergone almost a century of socialism. They
call it perhism, but it's it's a species of collectivism,

(02:16:47):
and with just horrific results. When I was there more
than forty years ago, living there. I've been back since,
but you know, when I was actually living there, the
inflation rate was running at you know, fifty hundred percent
per month and this kind of thing, and no one
under those circumstances could save money. You know, the moment
you got paid anything you need immediately had to buy land,
or buy gold, silver, any type of actual assets, because

(02:17:09):
the idea of actually putting in a savings account or
anything like that was not to be thought of. So
this is the way the Argentine economies evolved. And then
Malay comes along and says, have you had enough? And
the younger generation in Argentina, kind of similar to the
way our gen z is shaping up here, has said,
you know, we don't want this anymore. You know, this
may have worked for our parents and our grandparents and

(02:17:30):
great grandparents, but this isn't what we want. We want opportunity.
We want to be able to, you know, to actually
enjoy the fruit fruits of our labors. And so I
think malay Is is right headed. And you know, but
now he's encountering he's in a situation where he's no
longer living in the world of theory, he's living in
the pragmatic rough and tumble world of politics where the

(02:17:53):
reality is and this may be may or may not
be reinforced by this weekend's elections National congressional elections is heat.
You know, he's kind of a lone man. The Pirunas
still dominate the Congress, and they use it to this
to thwart most of most of his agenda. So it's
been very, very rough slog for him, and whether he'll
succeed is still an open question. I mean when I

(02:18:14):
see these right now, he's been, he's been, he's been, uh,
you know, barnstorming all around the country to rapturous crowds
in many towns and cities that have never had an
Argentine present president visit them before because he wants he
wants to make gains in Congress and this weekend's congressional elections.
But I see these videos and I think, yeah, one
person could step out of the crowd of a pistol

(02:18:35):
and this would all be done with.

Speaker 2 (02:18:37):
You know, it's well, it's a very cautionary tale for
us because if they started with a constitution and aspirations
of freedom looking at America, and then you look at
what happened with the Parinistas, and all the rest of
this stuff. A large part of that, I think is
the cult of personality, and I think that's one of
the things that you know, I don't know. I've never

(02:18:57):
lived there, so I don't know the pulse of the people.
But when I look at how infatuated they were with
one and a vita perone and how that, you know,
played out through them, this whole idea of people getting
attached to an individual or to a party rather than
to a set of principles, and I look at that
and say, well, you know, you can't really reverse course.

(02:19:17):
And in a sense, Javier Malhai comes in with a
very charismatic personality as well. It's a different type of
personality as you point out, you know, his rock star
aspects and his you know, sharp tongue that he's got,
you know, throwing out not only debating points but also
insults to people, and the hair that he is his trademark,
and all the rest of the stuff. So in a

(02:19:38):
sense you still have the Argentine people, I think influenced
the great deals. Everybody is as we are here in
America by personalities that are there and if they can
have a situation where they're their free society can be overthrown,
and you wind up with a paranistas, and you wind
up with people being disappeared, put into helicopters and flown

(02:19:59):
out and dropped into the ocean. If you're a political dissident,
that can happen anywhere, it can happen here as well,
can it.

Speaker 4 (02:20:05):
Yeah, And I mean it has happened here in the sense.
I mean, Pern was the same generation as FDR, and
FDR's the stamp of his personality still remains in Washington,
d C. I mean, he FDR was the you know,
the pivotal twentieth century figure in American politics in which
he basically came out, he seized the tiller of the

(02:20:27):
ship of state and said hard left. Yeah, that's right,
that's what we're gonna do. And from now on, you know,
everything is going to emanate from the federal government. The
federal government. There is no problem that cannot be solved
by the creat you know, creative application of federal government force.
That was the premise of the New Deal. And these
other lesser figures, you know, Lindon Johnson and more recently,

(02:20:51):
you know Clinton and Obama and even you know Joe
Biden and so forth are just really pale shadows, but
they're they're swimming in his wake. And the state affairs
were Washington, DC is wholly owned by the Democratic Party,
which embodies that philosophy, I think, more completely than the Republicans,
although they're certainly not perfect either. You know, this is
really a part is an issue as such. But all

(02:21:13):
of that which which which Trump is now purporting to
fight against and overturn, and you know it's over, is
the legacy of the culture personality of FDR and his
the man who followed him, Truman as well, to some extent, right,
you know, had that effect. But they they permanently altered,
well up till now, permanently altered the direction of the
ship of state. And it's proving a very rough slog indeed,

(02:21:35):
to change people's minds and say, well, you know, we
need to get back to the idea that the federal
government is the creation and not the creator, that it
is to be subordinate to the states, and they in
turn to the people and and the Constitution. All this
type of thing. It's a very tough sell now. So
you know, I had a very interesting interview that's the
same thing.

Speaker 2 (02:21:55):
Yes, I had a very interesting interview last week with
a guy who just wrote a new biography of FDR,
and very interesting. His point of view was that even
though you had the Democrats who wanted to go to
the same place that FDR did, you still had a
lot of opposition within the Democrat Party to a lot
of these extreme, radical authoritarian tactics that FDR was doing.

(02:22:18):
They said, we don't want to do it that way.
There was a clear understanding in early twentieth century America,
just like we saw with alcohol prohibition. You know, they
wanted alcohol probition, but they didn't do something like our
drug war. They said, we've got to have a constitutional amendment.
And so you had people, even though they wanted to
go to the same place that FDR did in terms
of government control and government, you know, taking over and

(02:22:42):
running everything, they said, we're worried about that tactic, you know,
whether it's packing the Supreme Court or various other things
that he was doing. And that's what I think is
sadly liking on both the left and the right in
America today. And I go back and I look at FDR.
I don't know if you familiar with the work of
Strauss and how at forth turning the book this there,
but I see it. To me, I see that we're

(02:23:03):
in another fourth turning right now, as they predicted. And
you know, we have these fourth turning presidents like Lincoln
and FDR. And now I think Trump is in that
mole who want to go very quickly. Accelerationists. They want
to create chaos and they don't care what means are
used as long as they get their desired end. And
I think we're seeing the problem right now, and I

(02:23:25):
think we're going to see this is that even if
we agree on the goal of where they want to go,
and I do agree with the Trump on many of
the goals of where he wants to go, very concerned
about the means that he's using because it's going to
set very very dangerous precedents that will come back to
haunt us.

Speaker 4 (02:23:40):
I think, well, and this is you know, the problem
with permitting the radical I hate to use the word
radical left, but you know, these radical utopian reformists, they're
they're all collectivists by disposition, allowing them enough leeway until
you get to the point that Argentina was in by
teen seventies, where they control the judiciary. They control all

(02:24:03):
the local governments, they control the police force, everything else
is And the same was true by the time that
Allende came to power in Chile in the nineteen seventies,
or when Fujimori came to power in Peru in the
in the nineteen nineties, In all of those cases, and
the radical left had progressed to the point where they
were militarized where they were you know, they're kind of

(02:24:26):
going where Antifa would like to go. But hasn't We
weren't quite that there yet. The question becomes, how do
you solve that problem when you're so far gone that
there's no longer any appeal to the law, because you know,
the judiciary is all corrupted, and you know the police
can't be relied upon and all this type of thing,
and so this this creates a well nigh insoluble problem.

(02:24:48):
We said, well, the only the only thing to do
is to do what Pinochet did in Chile and Fujimori
did in Peru, and the military Junta Galtieri and people
like that did in Argentina, and that as you win
and use this extraordinary force and you try to clean house.
And I'm very much afraid that we're we're approaching that
point in the United States, because we've already gotten the
point where the law is so twisted that you know

(02:25:13):
that it does they don't do much if if if
you go out and wearing the banner of Antifa or
Black Lives Matter or something like that, and uh, and
you know, and vandalized stores, assault, even kill people, and
this sort of thing. You know, the law gives you
a slap on the wrist, but heaven't forfend if you
defend yourself against someone that you know has happened in
Kenosha right here in Wisconsin a few a few years ago.

(02:25:35):
And this type of thing where where you know, where
you get the point where where the law and the
judiciary can no longer be relied upon it. It gets
to the point and this is what revolutionaries, of course know.
They understand that if they can destabilize things to a
certain point, the only possible remedy is some sort of
a crack down from above. And then that generates the
pretexts that you see, you see they are fascist, just

(02:25:56):
like we're saying, you know, and that gives them more, more,
more and more impetus. And that's kind of what's happening
now where the Trump administration has the situation where the
cores of a number of our major cities are completely
out of control, and the local magistrates don't want to
do anything about it because they're they're they're in they're
in sympathy within, because they perceive that that crime creates

(02:26:19):
creates a rationale for more government. I meant, some level
venal politicians like crime and like civil unrest because it
creates a need for them and their services. And so
that's the reason that that places like Chicago and Memphis
and Portland in LA and New York of course, uh
you know, their local you know constabulary are saying, oh,
we're not going to crack nowt you know, and so forth,

(02:26:41):
and so what are you going to do? It's it's
a very difficult problem.

Speaker 2 (02:26:46):
And I think that's coming that push is coming from
the right. Also, I've said for the longest time in
terms of this fourth turning, I said, you come back,
and you're like previous three fourth turnings we've had in
the US have been you know, the depression of World
War II, part of that civil war party. And I said, yeah,
and so I said, you know, I think we're probably
going to have all three of these things at once.
I think we're going to have a depression. I think

(02:27:07):
we're going to also have a civil war, a revolutionary war,
and a world war. And it seems like all of
our global leaders are, regardless of what political party they're in,
regardless of whether they're left or right, they all seem
to be pushing us in this direction.

Speaker 4 (02:27:23):
I wish I could say, no, you're wrong, and here's why.
But I mean, obviously anything can happen. No one can
see the future, but I tend to I would not
be at all surprised. Yeah, if that that scenario unfolds
over the next five to ten years.

Speaker 2 (02:27:34):
Yeah. Yeah. Well, let's bring back to the farmers. I mean,
you know, what do you think have you paid attention
to what's going on? I mean a lot of what
they're saying is and we have seen this when we
saw things with the eggs for example. You know, they
go through with a pc R procedure and say, well,
we got one chicken here that tested positive, so we're
going to kill all five million of them here at
this location. That type of thing, it was kind of

(02:27:56):
a government imposed thing began under Biden, but it continued
under Trump's USDA until Brooke Rawlins said, now, our solution
is that you vaccinate all the chickens with mRNA and
so and other animals that this mRNA vaccine. So the
question is, you know, we have so many different issues.
You know, one of the issues with beef stuff is

(02:28:18):
the consolidation of it. Part of that is the government
mandated centralized processing meat processing places that are there. You know,
what what do we do from a market perspective? I mean,
certainly Trump and Bessent are not even focused on what's
going on with the farms. And it's a surprise because
we saw what happened in the first Trump administration when

(02:28:40):
he started messing with China and trade and tariffs and
things like that. They immediately retaliated against agriculture and the
government was slow to act at that point in time
to repair the damage that they had inflicted. And they're
being very very slow to do it. Now, what do
you think is going on with that?

Speaker 4 (02:28:57):
Well? In generalities, First of all, I mean, the problem
is we tend to elect urban people as presidents. Obviously
being no exception, he's an East Coast urbanite. He's now
a Florida urbanite and whereas formerly he was a you know,
a New York urbanite. But but those people, and I
can say this without without prejudice, because I grew up
in rural western Pennsylvania on a farm. So I've lived

(02:29:20):
in Nebraska as well, worked in a small cattle bank
in a Nebraska cattle town.

Speaker 2 (02:29:25):
For some of you, so well, you've had quite a background.

Speaker 4 (02:29:28):
I've been around it, you know. But I can tell
you this. I mean, the the contrast and culture between
I live in Wisconsin now, by the way, which is
a farming state, primarily you know, dairy farms. But but
but but the contrast and the mentality of you know,
the man of the earth, the farmer and the urbanite
is very stark. And urbanites tend to view the economy

(02:29:52):
primarily in in financial terms. You know, the secret to
to economic success is making sure, you know, he being
an eye on the money supply and proper you know,
monetary policy and all that type of thing. Because of course,
you know, all the big cities are where the banking
and the finance takes place. That's that's their primary Raizone
deetra is to be you know, enablers of international trade

(02:30:15):
and finance and banking and all that sort of thing.
I mean, you know, the Federal Reserve is is actually
the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is where all
the action is as far as monetary policy concerned. So
that's that's the lens through which someone like Trump is
going to tend to see the world and not really
have a grasp of farming. I mean, I happen to
think that you know, casey uh Ezra taff Benson some

(02:30:37):
other good you know secretaries of agriculture, that we shouldn't
even have a Department of Agriculture. I agree, I don't
see that as being part of the constitutional purview of
the federal government, and that that that's kind of an
extra constitutional heresy that goes back also more than one
hundred years well before FDR. You know, the the the
the Department Agriculture was already you know, had kind of

(02:30:59):
had a finger in the pie and was was was
influencing the but it was meddling with the market mechanisms
as far as you know, the prices of crops were concerned,
this and this kind of thing. So I mean, you know,
I tend to be a Jeffersonian in the sense that
that I think that an ideal republic is first and foremost,

(02:31:20):
you know, agrarian, not you know many I think manufacturing
and finance and all those things are fine, but but
it's all predicated on a strong agrarian you.

Speaker 2 (02:31:31):
Know, absolutely, yeah, I absolutely agree. Yeah. He believed that
an agraian society was essential to maintain our liberty and
our form of government. And I agree with him. You know,
when you look at our civil war, for example, I've
mentioned many, many times that Italy had a civil war
at exactly the same time, and well that they didn't
have slaves, but it was about the consolid the consolidation

(02:31:53):
and centralization of power, creating a nation state when in
the past they had had a relatively decentralized agrarian you know, Italy.
They wanted to create a nation state and it was
driven by a lot of manufacturing and urban interests that
were involved in that. And so that's what we see
happening over and over again. Jefferson said, as you're talking

(02:32:15):
about how it's always focused on finances and other things.
They said to cities are a threat to the health,
the wealth, and the liberty of man. I think nothing
has changed with that it's just in the nature of
the way that people live. You know. Well, here, here's
the thing.

Speaker 4 (02:32:30):
About agrarianism is that, number one, it delivers the best
possible standard of living. I mean, you know, Rome was
never had it better than when they were in agrarian
republic for example. And the same could be said mutatus
mutandus of the medieval Italian republics and so forth and
so on, although many of them were also they were
based on trade and all this kind of thing. But

(02:32:52):
the thing is that agrarianism is not conducive to domination.

Speaker 2 (02:32:57):
That's right. You're self sufficient, yes.

Speaker 4 (02:33:00):
But but finance is I mean, I mean the basis, yeah,
that the basis for you know, call it imperialism or
whatever you want to call it, that that kind of
thing being you know, a superpower is is finance. You
have to have robust finances and a robust banking system
and all this. That's very much, of course, in sync
with the Hamiltonian vision of America. But but you know,

(02:33:22):
I mean, America did just fine for all of the
decades that it wasn't a superpower. You know, a world
in girding power, and you know, the the idea and
this isn't as much implicit in the policies and rhetoric
of the Trump administration as it was in all of
his predecessors going back to the early twentieth century. The
idea is that America is a superpower and must remain

(02:33:45):
a superpower.

Speaker 2 (02:33:46):
Yes, yes, we're the you know.

Speaker 4 (02:33:48):
The phrases like, you know, we're the indispensable nation. All
this kind of thing, well kind of kind of feed
into that. But I mean, and and and and here's
an interesting thing, you know, speaking of Argentina as well.
I mean, Argentina, interestingly enough, has never been a great military.
They've never they've never mad. Yeah, the Wars was was
it was an exception of this interesting history there too,

(02:34:11):
the wind of that right now. But uh, but but
by and large, Argentina has been very content, you know,
with its its dominion there in southern South. America has
all that all that it needs and and and feels
no need though it certainly has the resources, I mean,
resource wise, it's just as blessed as the United States.
They could become a superpower if they wanted to. They
just they just don't want that. And uh, you know,

(02:34:33):
and and so the United States, you know, I mean,
I mean, it's heresy to say this, but but I
I wrote an article a while ago for the magazine
questioning the very premise, you know, should should America be
a superpower? Is this really what the founders envisioned? Is
that is that we want? And and obviously it depends what
you mean by by superpower. You mean, well, you know,
the greatest country on earth, the place that everybody wants

(02:34:55):
to go to live and all that. Okay, well, I suppose,
but if you meet it in the sense that we
mean it today, you know, the dominatrix of the world,
so to speak, that's that is something very much counter
to what to what the founders wanted. And so going
back to our agrarian roots, you know, like, wow, what's

(02:35:16):
his name? That the financial the financial wizard who now
lives in Singapore. I can't think of his name, but
he's he's said a lot in recent years. He thinks
that that the future of wealth is actually going to
be in farming. After this whole fourth turning thing, get
you get through the.

Speaker 2 (02:35:29):
Well, Bill Gates kind of thinks that, doesn't he I mean, yeah,
he's bought a lot of land, even though he doesn't
want to have agricultural farming. He wants some manufacture food.
He still has bought a lot of land, and I
think he realizes that's the fallback position maybe after they
destroy the food supply and everybody is fed up, just
like there with Beyond Me. I was just talking about
how their stock that hit a high of two hundred

(02:35:50):
and forty dollars is now less than a dollar. So
after all of that, people turned back to the farm.
And so he's kind of hedging as bets by getting
farm land.

Speaker 4 (02:35:58):
Yeah, yeah, and why not? I mean, I mean, because
that's they call it real a state for a reason.
You know that there's a certain you know, tangible reality
about owning land and and and developing it for farming
or whatever.

Speaker 2 (02:36:12):
You know.

Speaker 4 (02:36:12):
Uh and so, and I think we've we've sort of
become divorced from that in our in our relentless quest
too for ascendency over nature, which you know is understandable.
You know, It's it's good that we have things like
the polio vaccine and all the rest of that. Nowadays,
you know, we have modern medicine and and maybe that
life is not quite so hobsy in as it once was.

(02:36:33):
So it's understandable that we that we that we want
to subdue nature, you know, the more brutish aspects of nature.
But at the same time, you know, you don't want
to throw the baby out with the bath and say,
you know, we're going to live entirely in this technocratic society,
completely divorced from from from the need to get our
hands dirty, you know, Micro's style or anything like that,
you know, and so yeah, yeah.

Speaker 2 (02:36:56):
A virtual reality, yeah, which is not a reality at all. Well,
you were talking thinking about, you know, this idea of
American exceptionalism and how we are indispensable and how we
have to be you know, it has to be packed
Americana and so forth, and how financial issues are so
much a part of that. And so of course when
we look at the Federal Reserve and what is happening

(02:37:18):
with gold. But give us your take on that. That
is of course the superpower that underlies the American empire,
and that is the ability to conjure money up out
of nowhere, and they may be at.

Speaker 4 (02:37:30):
The end of their wealth to use it and force
ever real right, it's the world reserve currency that's the
real rough. And that's the reason I mean, I was
I was. I was talking with with an economist the
other day on this. You know, why is it that
Argentina when they print a lot of money, all they
get is horrendous inflation, whereas we do the same thing
and somehow it never has that same effect. Well, the
answer is that we enjoy a luxury that the Argentine

(02:37:53):
Central Bank does not. Namely, we can export. You know,
we can print lots of money. We can we can
create lots of debt X and the hillo and people
will come and buy it because, you know, pursuant the
remnants of the Breton Woods Agreement and just the way
the world works now, everything is denominated in dollars and

(02:38:15):
there's a unique demand for US dollars that doesn't exist
for Argentine pesos or even euros or Japanese yen or
something like that. So so, you know, so we've managed
to insulate ourselves to some extent, and a lot of
the inflation has been shipped abroad. But what's happening now,
I mean, inflation is a very it's a little more
complex than simply okay, you know, we double the money

(02:38:36):
supply and prices and prices double that kind of thing.
It's not as simple as that. It's much it's more diffuse.
And and this is the reason, and that a lot
of economists, you know, not just modern monetary theorists, but
a lot of economists, Keynesians all reject the idea that
inflation is ultimately a monetary phenomena. It's caused in effect
by governments and banks printing money. Because it's hard to see,

(02:38:59):
you know, in terms of the rices price rises versus
you know, the money supply. It's it's it's it's very complex.
It's hard to perceive. You know, some prices rise faster
than others, and so forth and so on. So but
what the reality is that inflation is caused by printing money.
Inflation is not possible except under the circums under conditions
of a fiat money source, and fiat means money that's

(02:39:22):
not tied to gold and silver. Funny thing is that
gold and silver for all of uh, you know, all
the obloquy that's been thrown at them. You know, gold
was famously called a barbarous relic by by by Pains and.

Speaker 2 (02:39:38):
This kind of thing.

Speaker 4 (02:39:39):
People who who believe in the advisability of returning to
the gold standard are are are are derisively called gold
bugs in economic parlance and so forth. In spite of
all that, the fact is that that gold and silver
remain real money, and then their price behaves like real money.
So if you want to sort of cut through all

(02:40:00):
of the complications of inflation, you know, consumer price inflation
versus asset inflation, all this type of thing, you know,
and and see, well, what's really happening. You look at
the price of gold and silver, and it's going through
the roof because you know, but here here's the interesting
thing I saw on articles.

Speaker 2 (02:40:15):
And I think it's because the central banks don't buy
into this canesianism, and certainly they don't buy into the
modern monetary theory, which I call the magic money tree
of the m MT. They're they're accumulating gold for their
own purposes. And even if they're trying to come up
with an alternative economics system financial system to ours, which
has been weaponized, they are still turning to gold for credibility.

Speaker 4 (02:40:39):
Well sure, all they say, well, it's just a hedge
and all this type of thing. But but but the
reality is, and I saw, I mean, so if you
I was just attending a conference the other day down
in Florida that the miss Institute, And there's a lot
of talk about this and one of one of the
one of the cardinal features of a free market, a
non inflationary free market economy, is that over time, prices

(02:41:01):
will tend to fall. Okay, and we saw this, for
example in the United States post Civil War the latter
half of the nineteenth century. Is that prices of goods
and services gradually decrease over time, and to some extent,
we even see it today, although it's very much muddied
by the inflationary waters. But you know, you see, for example,
things like the prices of cell phones and laptops is

(02:41:24):
over tend to decline over time. And here's but here's
something that never declines in prices, price supposedly, and that's houses.
People love to flip houses, buy houses, investments, real estate
because people you know the mantreges. You know, the value
is always going to go up, even if you don't
do anything to improve the value is going to go
up over time. This has been our experience. Well there's

(02:41:45):
a reason for that, and the reason is that those
are assets that are very close to you know, where
the money spigots are. You know, and the money the
money center banks where the new money enters the economy,
and so like stock prices, the prices of real estate,
houses and so forth are driven up artificially by by
inflationary government policy. But here's an interesting fact. Apparently the

(02:42:08):
price of houses, if reckoned in terms of gold, has
also been slowly declining over the years of decades. In
other words, if you if you reckon things in terms
of gold or and or silver, then then you see
the true you know, the real economy, and what we're
seeing now with with with gold, you know, the skyrocketing
gold and now silver prices as well. I'm kind of

(02:42:30):
glad I bought silver of the last several years. Although
that's a silly thing to say, though, isn't it, because
my silver is quote unquote worth more, But it really
isn't worthless. It would be the height of folly for
me to take the silver, say, oh, now it's worth
twice what it was. I'm going to sell it and
get that you know, you know, and make a profit
on it. I'm not making a profit because what's happened is,

(02:42:51):
you know, the worth of the dollar relative to real money,
to silver and gold has plummeted, and that is those
are both indices of very severe inflation, even if we're
not yet seeing it on the at the grocery stores.

Speaker 2 (02:43:07):
I agree to Argentina as a matter of fact, there
were some articles saying, you know, you need to start
looking at assets and even things like the stock markets.
You know, look at them in terms of gold, and
they don't look so good. You know, we've had a
lot of inflation in terms of stock prices, a lot
of it because of the AI bubble, But when you
look at it in terms of you know, Dow Jones

(02:43:28):
Industrial Average or me these other market wide metrics, it
hasn't gone up as much as as gold has. And
I've talked to Tony Arderban in the past. We've looked
at people have done experiments going back and saying, you know,
how much would it cost to do certain things, you know,
over one hundred years, say one hundred and twenty years

(02:43:48):
ago or so, before they went onto the Fiat thing
if you had gold, you know, if you bought a
custom soup, or you took a trip where you did
this or that, and start to compare it, and they
find that it was pretty much just like you were
saying with with real estate that it was basically the
prices were about the same if you priced it in
terms of gold, although the prices have gone up significantly

(02:44:11):
in terms of fiat currency.

Speaker 4 (02:44:13):
Well, and in the fact that people have this mistaken
idea that think in terms of what things are worth
dollar is a reflection of the intuition that people have
that goes back to the days when we had sound money,
you know, pre you know, the bank the Bank Act
and pre FDR and all that kind of thing, And
that is the idea that that money should be both
a something with value and also an accountancy something, a

(02:44:40):
way of keeping records, whereas in a fiat money system
money no longer has value. It's just an accountancy device. Okay,
the value is still there, but it's been it's been
divorced from money, you know, the goal that's reflected in
the behavior of gold and silver in that sense, but
money itself is no longer repository for for value. I
know that some of the mesians will will criticize this,

(02:45:04):
the very idea of a value, you know, this kind
of thing, because valuation is very subjective. But that's but
that's that's the issue right, and so, but people still
think money should be valuable in some sense in sense
that it once wasn't. So that's where where this this
this confusion arises from people. I'd say, well, you know,
how much is this worth in nineteen sixty five dollars

(02:45:26):
or nineteen eighty dollars and this kind of thing. And
that's all what we have now is under so called
fiat money, which is really a contradiction in terms is
purely and simply a system of accountancy that is fraudulent.

Speaker 2 (02:45:39):
Yeah, that's right.

Speaker 4 (02:45:40):
Because you know, it says, you know, you put a
thousand of me in the bank and it's still going
to be worth a thousand plus whatever interest, you know,
ten years from now, twenty years from now. Of course
that's not the case. Everybody knows this.

Speaker 2 (02:45:51):
Yes, that's right. And so when you look at the
retail trade, a lot of urban mining going on people.
New York Times actually wrote an article about it this
last week, about the rush of people to go down
to the Diamond District in New York City where people
will pay you for your jewelry. So people are taking
gold and silver jewelry down cashing it out. One woman said, well,
you know, I got seven thousand dollars for this, and

(02:46:13):
now I'm going to go take a vacation whatever. So
she's not using it as a store value. She's just
cashing it in and taking a vacation at taking advantage
of the fact that she can get the vacation that's
still priced in dollars. She can get that in the
value of gold. But what they're doing is they're transferring
out of an asset that retains its value into something

(02:46:35):
that is evaporating very quickly. Makes sense if you're going
to immediately consume it, and a lot of people are
caught in a liquidity trap. As a matter of fact,
we saw the plunge and gold and silver. The questions
were was this last day or so? Questions are is
this profit taking because it's been going straight up for
quite some time, or as one person who is a

(02:46:56):
former Federal Reserve governor said, I think this is indicating
something's bigger than that than just price than taking profits.
They said, this looks to me like a liquidity issue,
like the type of thing that we saw back in
the spring of twenty twenty when we had the lockdowns
imposed on us, and that type of thing, and so

(02:47:16):
I think a lot of people in the financial markets
are getting caught in a liquidity squeeze and they're having
to liquidate gold with that. So we'll see what happens
with that. But that's the key issue, and it's really
a control issue. I think it's kind of interesting. You know,
we talk about Bretton Woods as you as you mentioned before,
when you look at what happened with Bretton Woods two,

(02:47:37):
Kissinger moved it to essentially the petro dollar. He kind
of tied the dollar to energy using Saudi Arabia and
that has now disappeared. Perhaps that's what's going on with Venezuela.
What do you think about that they got more oil
than Saudi We could have I could reinstitute a petro
dollar if we control that oil.

Speaker 4 (02:47:57):
Yeah, that's part of it, to be sure. And his
neighbor Guiana turns out has a lot of oil too,
So you know that that whole part of the world,
as does Mexico and so yeah, I mean and Argentina
does too. I didn't know people don't know this, but
particularly down in Patagonia, uh in Chubut Province and in
particularly there's a there's a and Huaya way down the
southern tip of Argentina has now become quite quite the
oil boom town.

Speaker 2 (02:48:18):
So Patagonia is not just high expensive clothing, right.

Speaker 4 (02:48:23):
Oh no, I've been down there, putiful area. But but
it's definitely it's it's it's prospering quite quite remarkably. And
a lot of that is because because of the oil
it's found on the continental shelf off you know, off
the coast of Argentina there, and so yeah, there, there,
there's a lot of and and you can bet that
that's in the back of Trump's mind and Beson's mind
as well, when they're you know, kind of building this

(02:48:43):
this new bromance with with Melas Argentina because you know,
so yeah, I mean no doubt oil is is still
in spite of all of the you know, the quest
for alternative energy and and and the kind of fanatical
attempts to get rid to rid the world of fossil fuel,
the pragmatic reality is that that oil ain't going anywhere

(02:49:04):
anytime soon, That's right, So it's going to remain the
main you know, stock in trade and of growth. Yeah,
I mean, China right now is trying to sort of
belatedly realize that their policy of having a financial you know,
bamboo curtain around China and you know, preventing the art
that the Red men be from being used internationally for

(02:49:25):
fear that it might become be destabilized or something like this.
They're finally realizing, if we really want to compete with
the United States, we have to try to internationalize, to
globalize the Red Men b and make it an alternative
the US dollar. But they have one major disadvantage, and
that is that China has no oil. They don't none
that anyone's aware of. They're completely you know, an oil
and gas importing country from Russia and other places, and

(02:49:49):
so they they're not a power player.

Speaker 2 (02:49:51):
Yeah, and you go back and look at it. I mean,
oil is foundational to so many of our wars, and
you know, as well as to the economy. And if
you go back to nineteen thirty and the technocrats and
the technocracy Incorporated and so forth, they were talking about
essentially getting rid of money and evaluating everything in terms
of energy usage. And of course you got a lot

(02:50:13):
of people who buy into that technocracy philosophy, people like
Teal and Musk or around Trump, and you know, yeah, exactly,
and so you know, I think this whole idea that
it for them, it makes sense to evaluate things in
terms of energy, and of course the energy would be
the barrel of oil still as a practical matter, so

(02:50:35):
I think that's the foundation of a lot of the
stuff that we're seeing here.

Speaker 4 (02:50:39):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (02:50:40):
Absolutely, Yeah.

Speaker 4 (02:50:41):
So while we talk.

Speaker 2 (02:50:43):
About that, I mean the UN, though sees that their
power basis is kind of using what I call mcguffin,
because that goes back to what Hitchcock said, you know,
it's basically just something that you put out there to
control the narrative. And so their basic is to try
to also control energy by restricting it, by taxing it

(02:51:05):
and so forth. And you had an interesting article on
the New American about the UN tax, and we see
something being done right by Trump here. I have been
very critical most of Trump's policies, but I think one
place where he has done a far better job than
any of the other presidents has been on the energy issue.
In both the first term and now I think in

(02:51:26):
the second term. It's still not perfect. There's many things
that are still left out of it. But they put
their foot down against this UN global tax on shipping.
Tell us a little bit about that. Yeah.

Speaker 4 (02:51:36):
Well, so this is something that has been in the
works for a number of years. At the behest of
the IMO. The International Maritime Organization, which is a little
known UN appendage. It's part of the UN, and its
job is to regulate shippings. By the way, there's a
corresponding organization to regulate aviation, and they're trying to do
the same thing, to instigate a global tax on aation

(02:52:00):
fuel as well. But that's a that's another story. So
that the shipping tax is potentially a tectonic event because
it would represent i mean, irrespective of what kind of taxes,
it would be the first time that the United Nations
would have independent taxing.

Speaker 2 (02:52:17):
Authority and they have to have that. Yeah, well, and
they have to have that to be a powerhouse, really,
you know, you've got to first you got to have
the ability to tax, and you have to have the
ability to raise an army, right.

Speaker 4 (02:52:30):
Yeah, And so those are two things that politically were
not palatable back in the mid nineteen forties when the
UN and also the Breton Woods system were set up.
The people who set up would have dearly liked to
have proclaimed the UN a world government then, but knew
that that was not feasible, and so they created an
organization that could be the framework could be. It could

(02:52:51):
be gradually filled out over time and turn into a
world good. Which is why the UN looks.

Speaker 2 (02:52:57):
Like a government.

Speaker 4 (02:52:58):
Why it has, you know, basically a by can cameral
legislature you know as the Security Council and the General Assembly,
and has or purports to have executive, legislative and judicial
powers and all this type of thing. There's a reason
for all of that, okay, But what the UN doesn't
have de facto is the number one you mentioned, a military.
I mean, to the extent that there's a UN military

(02:53:19):
at all. It's crucially dependent on the willingness of member
states and to contribute troops to serve under UN command.
But they don't have the authority to levy their own troops,
you know, to conscript people. They don't have their own
independent military. And the same is true of taxation. All
government's worth their salt, you know, have the authority the

(02:53:40):
power to raid to levy taxes, which the UN doesn't.
I mean, So, I mean, how does it get funded? Well,
primarily by again by by by donations from member states,
membership fees and the like. And that's been a great
has curtailed the UN's ability to live up to the
potential envisaged by its founders. But now if if and

(02:54:00):
and you know, we were warning about this, I and
my colleague Alex Newman in particular written a number of
articles on this impending global tax and shipping, which has
been in the making for you know, five six years,
has kind of been out there, and we fully expected
that it was going to going to happen this year
and that would represent the first time that the UN
was able to collect to have its own revenue stream. Okay,

(02:54:22):
and and it won't be the last. I mean, if
if it's past, there are other ideas out there like
taxing international uh transactions of internet tax obviously, carbon tax
of fuel as another as another major one, things like
a global income tax and global property taxes for further
down the road. But certainly they you know, that's they

(02:54:44):
kind of hope for that as well. And in this case,
you know, the what happened was that the Trump administration
in a rare I have to say, a rare spasm
of ideological clarity. Yeah, Trump himself said this is an
unconstant institutional global tax. It's not happening, and if anyone
tries to make this happen, we're going to impose, you know,

(02:55:06):
severe penalties on them and so forth. And the result
was that some countries, including Argentina by the way, which
earlier this year abstained from voting on the measure. They
kind of tried to wiggle their way through it. They
they turned into a firm no vote. And on the
other hand, you know, Brazil, China and most of the EU,
certainly you know, Great the UK are supporters of the measure,

(02:55:28):
but the but Saudi Arabia and the other major petroleum
exporting countries, a lot of countries that are crucially dependent
on cruise lines, like the Caribbean nations for for their
for their economic well being, were all opposed to it
and ended up being a very slim vote no. But
it's not really no, okay. So what they were going
to basically at this at the IMO summit in London,

(02:55:51):
they were supposed to rubber stamp this thing and another
year or two it's going to start coming into effect
in the UN we'll start having all this money coming in,
uh ostensibly in the name of of of you know,
of reducing carbon emissions. And and and moving forward to
the net zero twenty fifty goal and all that stuff. Okay,

(02:56:11):
And instead they were they were on the verge of
saying it's just not going to happen. But in the
last minute active of parliamentary ledger demand, a couple of
people said, oh, well, you know, well, here's what we'll do.
We'll vote to table the thing for a year. So
that's what they did, said, Okay, we're not going to
make a decision right now, We're going to meet again
a year from now. And of course they're hoping. It's
hope that the politics will change by them. And this

(02:56:34):
is what they always do. This is how the globalists operate.
If once you don't succeed, you try, try, try, try,
try again, until eventually you get the result that you want.
So this is not going away. Who knows to trump,
you know, give credit where credit is due.

Speaker 2 (02:56:47):
It's like the w A Show's pandemic treaty. You know,
they get shut down, they keep coming back, the relentless,
going to keep having back and changing a little thing
or or maybe just bringing it up as it was,
you know, for another one of these things. And it's
kind of interesting, you know, because we've kind of seen
this pattern, and of course it's a big new Brazinski
was all about this in terms of, you know, creating
the Trilateral Commission and these different economic areas, creating trade

(02:57:11):
groups that would essentially have some economic control over people,
and then unifying those trade groups into a political entity.
That's the pattern that we saw happening in Europe with
the Common Market, then becoming you know, going in with
more and more economic control in the marketplace, and then
finally coming in with the Euro and things like that.

(02:57:33):
Now they're moving to you know, after they established more
and more political control of people. Probably all of this
push with Ukraine everything is to give them a European army,
which they denied they were doing as Brexit was happening.
The reports they wanted to European army. Oh no, no,
we don't want that. Now they're talking about it openly,

(02:57:53):
and so we see these types of things. It's kind
of interesting that the UN has taken. You know, you
can unify people economically, then unified them politically to create
this large governing block and then bring those blocks together
into a world government. But in the case of the UN,
they're doing it politically and now they're moving into the
economic stage, kind of doing it in reverse order. Either way,

(02:58:16):
it's that same goal of consolidation and centralization, isn't it.

Speaker 4 (02:58:21):
Yes, and using as an entering wedge things like trade
and economics. In fact, as of course the Europeans did
way back in nineteen fifties. Oh no, no, this isn't political.
This is just about free trade and open borders. And
obviously who can oppose such positive sounding axioms, right, But
of course, as it turned out, it was about much
more than that. And then they're trying to do the
same thing here in the New World. They did with

(02:58:42):
the FTAA of a generation ago that ultimately kind of
fell apart. They tried to create, you know, a from
Canada to Tierra del Fuigo, you know, this free trade zone,
ostensibly free trade zone, and that eventually didn't work out.
But they're still working on me. You know, the fact
that we have a sort of a customs agreement of
trade agreement amongst the US, Canada and Mexico. There are

(02:59:03):
souls out there who want to transform that into some
kind of a broader you know, North American political union,
people like Mark Carney, you know, openly talk about then
his predecessor, Justin Trudeau up in Canada. We are very
well aware of this, and certainly some of the you know,
the people in Washington as well, know that that's the
real goal. You use trade and you persuade people of

(02:59:25):
the advisability of having open borders and free trade, and
then you work towards the political conversions.

Speaker 2 (02:59:30):
That's right. And of course I remember when Trump did
said I'm going to get rid of NAFTA. We don't
like NAFTA, so I'm going to do the USMC replace
it with something else. Yeah, and you guys were spot
on at the New American and saying that, well, the
usmc A is is not really fundamentally different from NAFTA.
There's just been some tweaking and some other stuff. So
what do you make of the fact that Trump began

(02:59:51):
this administration by attacking a lot of the same agreements
that he was boasting about in his first administration, coming
after Mexico, coming after Canada, even accusing Canada bringing fentanyl
onto the country. What do you make of that? Has
he changed? Does he not want to have this unification
that is there with Mexico and Canada's economic unification?

Speaker 4 (03:00:15):
Well, there's some evidence that his he did learn some
things during his four years in the political wilderness. Obviously,
certainly experiencing, you know, the brunt of lawfare and all
that had an effect on him. But more than that,
I suspect that he's actually done something that he probably
hasn't done a lot of in his adult life, and
that's done some serious reading about some of these issues.

(03:00:37):
This is the one, you know, the thing about money men,
A lot of money men that they're so busy doing
what they do, they don't take the time to really read.
And so while you know, I mean, I think a
lot of Trump's instincts are spot on. You know, he's
instinctively hues toward freedom and so forth, he doesn't really
have a strong understanding of a lot of these issues,
and he relies on his advisors and this kind of thing,

(03:00:59):
and he does seem to different crop of advisors his
first his first time around. You know, he bought in
the idea, well, I need to surround myself with policy experts,
and in practice that usually means people of CFR and
Trilateral's pedigree. And that's why we had that revolving door
of Secretary of State and this kind of thing under
the first Trump administration, and he's constantly feuding with his

(03:01:19):
cabinet as because he'd appoint people who were basically globalists
and elitists and thought differently than he did, but they
were sold to him by his circle of advisors. Well
you need to have, you know, your newcomer to Washington,
so you need to have these these seasoned experts, you know, helping.
He quickly realized, I don't like what they're telling me
to do, and so this time around he does seem
to have made wiser choices in that regard.

Speaker 2 (03:01:42):
In fact, virtunately, he's got this one really really bad
hangover Peter Navarro, who came up with those reciprocal tariffs
in that chart that was just utter nonsense and in prison.

Speaker 4 (03:01:54):
So he's got a chip on his shoulder.

Speaker 2 (03:01:56):
Yeah, yeah, So maybe he's trying.

Speaker 4 (03:01:58):
To mean Scott Besant is the one guy in this
Trump administration that is kind of cut from that cloth,
this kind of its establishment type guy, and most of
the rest of them are, you know, I mean, there's
a lot to quibble with. Certainly, it's there's certainly no
Ron Paul or Thomas.

Speaker 2 (03:02:15):
Massey, but you know, yeah, and you know, you get
back to Scott Bessett and where we began with Argentina.
When you look at this, the beginning of his twenty
billion dollars bailout to Argentina, this hasn't gone very well. Actually,
you know, the paso, the Argentine peso has continued to

(03:02:35):
go down in spite of his financial lovers that he's
been pulling. Yeah.

Speaker 4 (03:02:40):
Well, and mean again, as much as I love Melea
and Argentina, we have no you know, the president has
no constitutional power to bail out other countries, even via currency.
So I mean Clinton did that with Mexico back in
the mid nineteen nineties and got into all kinds of trouble.
He has exchanged that stabilization fund in his case, to
just up and send money to to Mexico to stabilize

(03:03:01):
the Mexican treasuries and all that type of thing. Whereas
you know Best and so, well, it's a currency swap.
Well what does that mean. It means that we go
in and buy their worthless currency with our somewhat less
worthless currency. So you know, that's that's pretty much what's happened.
And yeah, I mean, we'll see the elections in Argentina
are coming up this weekend. It's a kind of circle
and we'll see what happens. Mela will be president one

(03:03:23):
way or the other for two more years, presumably, but
whether or not he has a more compliant Congress is
very much in doubt at this point.

Speaker 2 (03:03:33):
We'll see. Yeah, yeah, well, and again, I think a
big part of what we're seeing happening in the backfire
of Bessence policy is the de dollarization that's going on internationally,
and people are walking away from the dollar because it
was weaponized by Biden and continuing to be weaponized by Trump.
They want a different financial system. They're moving to gold,

(03:03:53):
or they're trying to establish bricks or something like that.
And just to I think it is also a harbinger
of the declining power of the dollar financial system that's there.

Speaker 4 (03:04:04):
What do you think, Well, absolutely, I mean, I mean,
you know, this is something again, as with military power,
we're loath to admit that that the state of affairs
that we have all come to accept as natural for
the past several generations, to wit that the dollar is
going to be forever and ever. Amen, you know, the
world's dominant currency, that that that that could ever change.

(03:04:26):
But again, you know, the Germans thought the same up
through World War One. I mean, you know, the German
mark was was, you know, alongside the British pound, and
we get it. You know, also adduced that the example
of the British pound, which happened to World War Two
was the world's great great currency. Where's the pound today? Yeah,
where's the mark? Well, the mark doesn't even exist anymore.

(03:04:46):
We know about German hyperinflation after World War One. So yeah,
and here's the thing too, if you know, the triggers
for calamitous hyperinflation, you know, Weimar Republic style hyperinflation usually
are major traumatic events like a civil war or a
major military loss. And so if the other things that

(03:05:08):
we talk about come to pass, you know, if the
civil unrest continues, if the United States gets involved in,
you know in some kind of major world war starting
over Taiwan or Ukraine or something like that, you know,
these things could all prove the death knell to dollar supremacy. Yes,
because because you know, potentially, at least, you know, could
just absolutely detonate a bomb in the middle of our

(03:05:31):
American sense of confidence and complacency about the dollar.

Speaker 2 (03:05:35):
And I think a lot of people see that. I
think that is fundamental to a lot of this move
into gold and silver away from the dollar that we're seeing,
and of course, again the weaponization of this financial system
that we set up. We're destroying it ourselves, even if
we don't do it from within. But there's a lot
of issues that are coming up within, so very important

(03:05:58):
that people keep their ear to the ground, and one
of the great places to do that is at Dnewamerican
dot com. Thank you so much, Steve for joining us.
Our guest has been Steve Bonta, who is who is
the publisher of The New American, And it's always a
pleasure to have people on from JBS. And I just

(03:06:20):
I want to see more stories out there about concern
about the federalization of policing and other things like that,
because I tell you I'm just going back. I talk
about it constantly. I said, whether John Burst Society was
like sixty years ahead of the rest of everybody when
they talked about the dangers of the federalization of the
police and the militarization of the police, you know, back

(03:06:41):
in the nineteen sixties. Support your local share for whatever,
that is more important than ever. I think, and we
got to be careful that we don't move into that
because of a particular goal that we have. We have
to be mindful of the precedents that we're setting and
of the means that we're using. Because of those are
going to be the things that are going to be

(03:07:02):
used to hang us when the administration changes, as it
inevitably will. Yes, well, so, thank you so much for
joining us the common man. They created common Core. They've

(03:07:25):
dumbed down our children. They created common Past to track
and control us. They're Commons project to make sure the
commoners own nothing and the communist future. They see the
common man as simple, not sophisticated ordinary. But each of
us has worth and dignity created in the image of God.

(03:07:49):
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

(03:08:10):
and links you'll find at the Davidnightshow dot com. Thank
you for listening, Thank you for sharing. If you can't
support us financially, please keep us in your prayers, Ddavidnightshow
dot com

All Episodes

Tue Episode #2136: The David Knight Show Best Of - 11/11/2025

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Ruthie's Table 4

The Joe Rogan Experience

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Tue Episode #2136: The David Knight Show Best Of - 11/11/2025