Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 5, 2024 - The David Knight Show

03:01:28

The David Knight Show -11/5/2024

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Thank you.
	Using free speech to free minds.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	As the clock strikes 13, it's Tuesday, the 5th of November, year of our Lord 2024.
	Remember, remember, the 5th of November.
	Gunpowder, treason, and plots.
	And we've got lots of plots.
	The usual suspects.
	You think that we're going to have an election today?
	Don't know about the counting.
	It's going to go on for quite some time.
	What I'm counting on is the fact that these people are not going to accept the results on either side.
	This is what they've been building up to.
	So we're going to talk about that.
	What comes next?
	It's the usual suspects on both sides.
	And we're also going to talk about prepping.
	We've had lots of articles.
	From mainstream media, from alternative media, even from economic publications, looking at the prepping economics and all the rest of this.
	So we're going to take a look at that.
	Regardless of what happens, it's a smart thing to do.
	But we're going to begin with January the 6th, Part 2.
	We'll be right back.
	Well, as part of this setup, it's very as part of this setup, it's very important for everybody to believe that this thing is hanging on a razor's edge.
	And that their vote is going to count.
	And it could go either way.
	And so we have pollsters going both ways.
	Good example of this is the poll in Iowa that came out on Saturday.
	Trump was furious about it on Sunday.
	On Saturday, Harris has a four-point lead over Trump and a final PBS poll in NPR. You know, people get what they pay for, right?
	This is their final poll in Iowa.
	And, again, we see all these people talking about the general election, and this candidate is up by two points, and the general election, and so forth.
	That is meaningless.
	It's the Electoral College that counts, and that's why they talk about the seven battleground states, so the people who total it up by, you know, the winner getting the delegates.
	And, of course, not all states are winner-take-all, but most of them are.
	Still, each side is stoking its base.
	And so the left and Drudge Report's got this up at the top.
	Look, he's dying.
	The campaign is dying.
	And then she's surging and all the rest.
	You see exactly the opposite on the other side.
	We've got two different media markets.
	And you've got people feeding the information that their listeners and readers want to see and hear.
	And telling them exactly what they want to hear.
	And so both sides are getting very different information.
	After voting ends, a winner is named.
	71% of likely voters say that if their chosen candidate is a loser, he or she should accept the results.
	27% say the losing candidate should challenge the results in that scenario.
	Now, what does that involve?
	Well...
	It's a question.
	Trump told his audience in one of his final campaign rallies Sunday in Pennsylvania that he shouldn't have left the White House after his loss to Biden.
	And in response to that, Alex Jones said, we've got to vote harder.
	What you don't realize is that they're hardly counting the votes.
	That's...
	That's the reality of all this stuff.
	But Trump was furious on Sunday.
	He says it's not even close in Iowa.
	So after that came out from NPR on Saturday, and I don't necessarily believe that, you know, looks like an outlier compared to other polls, but it was somebody who has a very strong reputation and Of accuracy in Iowa.
	We're going to talk about the polls here in just a second.
	Early Sunday morning, Trump jumped on Truth Social, fired back at a poll coming out of Iowa showing him losing to Lala.
	He had once held an 18-point lead there in Iowa when it was between him and Biden.
	And so he screamed in all uppercase, I love the farmers!
	They love me!
	The just out Emerson poll has me up 10 points in Iowa.
	Thank you!
	And it was once 18 points.
	But nevertheless, when you look at the spread, one poll has got him up by 10.
	Another poll has got her up by 4.
	It's a spread of 14 points.
	Now, how does that happen?
	It's all supposed to be scientific.
	Well, you know, Nate Silver doesn't buy that.
	Nate Silver, the guy who runs all these different simulations, and he looks at it, well, we'll talk about what he has to say, but he looks at it mainly, too, from an electoral college standpoint.
	But first, what does she say?
	Everybody is saying she is the Iowa polling queen.
	Ann Seltzer, built a reputation as Iowa's polling queen, the best pollster in politics, quote-unquote, over decades of conducting the Des Moines Register polls.
	The ex-president tore into the survey, calling her a Trump hater.
	And again, he said, all the polls except for one, heavily skewed toward the Democrats by a Trump hater, who called it totally wrong the last time.
	And they have me up by a lot.
	There's a lot to say about that.
	You know, this is something that is being put out by NPR, PBS. She works for a newspaper.
	I'm sure she's hard left.
	And this is what they did.
	Look, you can skew these polls very easily.
	In the same way that we've talked about this before, when the pharmaceutical companies do their quote-unquote tests, right?
	And you might have three different drug companies that have three different drugs for the same condition, let's say.
	And they'll hire people to do their tests, and guess what?
	Every one of the groups that runs the tests finds out that the company that hired them is better than brand Y or Z, right?
	It's always brand X is the one that you want.
	They're the people who hired me.
	You get three different testing organizations with three different drugs for the same condition, and they will all find that their employer has the best one.
	So, Iowa hasn't voted for a Democrat in the presidential election since Obama in 2012.
	And was written off by the Harris campaign.
	She wrote off the North Carolina campaign, too, apparently.
	You know, if you think that the votes count.
	They stopped all their ads in North Carolina.
	Seltzer's poll was immediately decried as an outlier in Trump's campaign.
	Pointed to the Emerson poll, again, up by 10.
	With this one, he's down by 4.
	14-point spread.
	She said part of the reason that Harris is leading is her strength with women.
	It's part of the boost that Lala has gotten this time.
	And so, as they're trying to manufacture this consensus, that's why Trump is around posing with women's athletic teams.
	Because, you know, this became a really big thing when the trainees tried to take over the teams.
	And everybody asks, what is a woman?
	Why don't the Republicans ask, what is a baby?
	You think that might help you with your big issue, the elephant in the room, the abortion stuff?
	What is a baby?
	And then when you answer that, you might want to answer the question, what is an abortion?
	And you might want to show pictures of a baby, pictures of an abortion.
	You deserve to lose.
	You losers.
	You satanic suckers.
	That's what you're doing.
	You're sucking on the satanic teat.
	Disgust me.
	Both parties, disgust me beyond belief.
	This is not a choice between good and evil, folks.
	This is a choice between two evils.
	Two evils.
	So, let's talk a little bit about the polls here.
	The newest poll from ABC and from FiveThirtyEight.
	That was Nate Silver's thing.
	ABC hired him or whatever, so they've now merged.
	His FiveThirtyEight.
	He shows Trump 53%, Harris 46% chance of winning.
	And he doesn't do this by taking a national poll.
	I'm going to poll 1,000 people or 2,000 people across the country.
	No, he runs these simulations.
	Various combinations.
	And he says, well, you know, when you average out the number of wins, circumstances that she wins and other circumstances that he wins, I see it as 53-46.
	And he calls it an electoral college of Trump 287, Harris 251.
	Not even close.
	You need 270 to win.
	So we shall see what happens, but I don't think we're going to have an answer today.
	I don't think we'll have an answer tomorrow either.
	But let's talk a little bit about what Nate Silver, who knows something about polls, has to say about polls.
	And how the pollsters are rigging their numbers.
	It's beyond just, you know, when you have, certainly polls are used to nudge the public.
	Right?
	To push you.
	They call them push polls.
	Pushing, nudging.
	They will use these polls to try to say that they've got momentum.
	And I think that's going on both sides.
	It always happens that way.
	And so they use it for that.
	You also have internal polling from the candidates that they keep private, that they don't tell people.
	You also have something called the exit polls, which they also don't tell you about.
	It's interesting, the exit polls are run by one corporation.
	One, corporation.
	And you'll hear, if you listen to the election coverage, you'll hear all these people, all the major networks will say, okay, well, exit polling in such and such a place, you know, in this city, in this state or whatever, we asked men versus women, and here's what men versus women said.
	Here's what black versus white said.
	Here's what college-educated versus, not college-educated.
	I don't say uneducated.
	They have a different education.
	I would say a better education.
	And those of us who went to college.
	But anyway, you know, they'll break it down.
	Income levels.
	All these different demographic cross-tabulations.
	But you will never, you will never, never, ever hear any of these networks say, well, here's what the exit polls said in terms of total votes for this candidate and total votes for that candidate.
	Because if they did that, you would compare that to the reported results.
	And you would lose your confidence in this pageant, this wag the dog pageant.
	Yeah, these people are the tails that are wagging the dog.
	And the dog is just going crazy today.
	The dog is running all over the place, wagging all over the place with this little tail that is being whipped around.
	Now, they will not tell you the difference.
	They'll not tell you the total.
	They'll give you all kinds of demographic breakdowns, but they won't say, according to our exit polls in this state or this area, any of these things, according to our exit polls, Trump got this percentage, and Lala got that percentage.
	Because then you would look at the results and you would see that it was rigged.
	Because that's what the State Department does.
	The State Department looks at the official reports of an election, and it compares it to the exit polls.
	And if it sees more than a 5% difference, it says the election was stolen.
	All this stuff that happened for the last four years, nobody wanted to go back and look at the exit polls versus the totals.
	Isn't that interesting?
	It kind of destroys my whole faith in this process, quite frankly.
	From ballot access to debate access to the exit polls being hidden and all the rest of this stuff, folks, it's garbage.
	It's absolute garbage.
	Why do people want to kill each other over this?
	It's not relevant to your life except to get some idea of how they're going to attack you.
	It's just that simple.
	Nate Silver, love him or hate him, is a numbers geek.
	Well, you know, he got the 2016 thing wrong.
	He famously missed that on Trump.
	But he does have some interesting things to say about how the whole polling business is rigged.
	Most of the election data we think of comes not from the results, but from the numerous polls that are put out.
	However, polls are only quasi-data.
	They're not real statistics that you can use with any certainty.
	The phrase, garbage in, garbage out, comes to mind.
	If you kind of model, okay, even if your model is great, if you feed it garbage data, you're going to get garbage results.
	Usually their models are busted too.
	Polls are based on a magical combination of actual data collected in non-random ways, testing questions that may or may not skew the results, and then mashed through a black box formula that tries to turn this rather dirty non-random data, quote-unquote, they put the data in quotes, into something that more closely resembles the real world.
	Yeah.
	But they said that doesn't make the polls useless.
	If they were useless, then the campaigns wouldn't spend so much money on doing internal ones.
	It's just that the polls aren't what we're told they are.
	They lie to us about that, too.
	The issues aren't what they tell us they are.
	Their positions on the issues aren't what they tell us they are.
	The polls are not what they tell us they are.
	Do you see a pattern here?
	I'm trying to get you to understand how this system is rigged.
	I've seen it all my life.
	I've worked in it.
	Any errors in that model that skew results away from the real electorate will introduce systematic errors that are invisible.
	Sometimes the skew is just because the pollster's model is innocently wrong.
	But sometimes it's not innocently wrong.
	Just like the climate models.
	Their models are skewed.
	Their assumptions are skewed.
	I talked about it last week, and we need to keep repeating this.
	You know, as small as the contribution of CO2 is, 0.04% of the atmosphere.
	And we're supposed to believe that that is defining the climate, not the sun, not volcanoes, not other things like that.
	And then we're supposed to believe that all of that, that's a problem, is man-made.
	So there's only 3% of that is man-made according to them.
	Only 3% of 0.04%.
	And yet, we've got to completely reorganize the global economy, society, and everything on the basis of that.
	Such an incredible lie.
	And then you had some other scientists come out and say, you know this figure that you've been using for CO2 absorption by plants?
	It's off.
	Plants are actually absorbing 31% more CO2 than you say.
	Well, that changes everything, doesn't it?
	No, it doesn't change a thing.
	Because it was never based on science.
	It was never based on real data.
	It was never based on accurate models.
	And they don't care.
	They just keep going.
	Same thing is true of the pandemic.
	The pandemic wasn't based on Farr's Law, which shows that you've got a bell-shaped curve.
	You know, the curve that was supposed to flatten in two or three weeks.
	You've got to flatten the curve.
	That curve.
	As far as law, going back to the early 1800s, whenever you would see something concentrated in an area or something like that, it would go up, then it would go down.
	Well, that wasn't in the model.
	The model said that every person that contracts COVID, whatever that is, every person who contracts COVID, It's going to pass it on to two and a half other people.
	Now, how do they know that?
	First of all.
	Secondly, it wasn't a curve, bell-shaped curve.
	It was a straight line.
	They just kept going up and up and up forever.
	We're all going to die.
	And that's the garbage that they fed to Trump, those two smart people, Fauci and Birx.
	They were smart enough.
	I don't know that they fooled him.
	I think he went along with it, quite frankly.
	But, you know, pandemic models, climate models, election models.
	Nate Silver has been watching this process at work for years.
	He concludes that pollsters are skewing the results intentionally, intentionally, to show a race that is closer than it is.
	He says they're hurting or they're covering their behinds because they're scared to look like an outlier.
	It's groupthink.
	This is the same type of thing that you see with the people who were, you know, part...
	If you challenge their climate assumptions and where they want to go with their agenda, or if you challenge the pandemic, you're out.
	Your career is over.
	You toe the line.
	You don't want to stick out, right?
	The old saying in Japan...
	That the nail that sticks up will be hammered down.
	So you don't want to stick up.
	You want to say the same thing that everybody else is doing.
	This is why our institutions are so corrupt.
	Nobody has any integrity.
	There are people who have integrity.
	They're purged out of these corrupt institutions, of course.
	People in the medical community who speak up, they're kicked out.
	People who tell you the truth are kicked out, fired, whatever.
	So, you know, that includes journalism.
	So, anyway, everything to feed the partisan mania and to feed the potential for conflict.
	So, take, for example, this afternoon's polling release from the British firm Redfield and Wilton.
	They polled all seven of the core battleground states, and in all seven, Harris and Trump each received between 47% and 48% of the vote.
	And he says, isn't this a little bit convenient?
	Because whatever happens, Redfield and Wilton, not a firm with a well-established reputation in the U.S., Redfield and Wilton will be able to throw up their hands and say, well, we projected a tie, so don't blame us.
	And then he talks about the math behind it.
	He says, well, here's the deal.
	He said the theoretical margin for these polls is really plus or minus six.
	Because the margin of error that's usually reported in polls is usually only for one candidate's vote share.
	So you know when they say plus or minus three?
	They're really talking about one of them.
	And that's why Nate Silver runs multiple iterations of these different things.
	But he says the real spread is plus or minus six.
	What this means is that if the pollsters are doing honest work, we should see a lot more outliers than we do.
	He said, even if people love to complain about them on Twitter.
	So he says, you know, the range of the error is plus or minus six points.
	How did they all get like within one or two points?
	Because they're fudging the data.
	Now, still, when you look at this Iowa thing, we're looking at something that's these two polls are 14 points apart.
	So there's still something else going on here.
	But what he's saying...
	Is that even if the race is really close in all these states, no one pollster should produce six or seven polls saying the same thing.
	If, he says, it is statistically impossible because even perfect polling has a random margin of error.
	This would be like flipping a coin a thousand times and getting heads all the time.
	Not very plausible.
	Actually, according to Silver, the odds of the polls looking the way they do are infinitesimally small.
	Outrageously infinitesimally small, if I can say that word.
	Based on binomial distribution, which assumes that all polls are going to be independent of each other, which theoretically they should.
	It is really, they emphasize that, unlikely.
	Specifically, the odds are 1 and 9.5 trillion.
	Against at least this many polls showing such a close margin.
	But you know, hey, we got a $35 trillion.
	$36 trillion now.
	$36 trillion.
	So we deal in trillions all the time.
	The problems are most acute in Wisconsin, where there's been major polling errors in the past, and pollsters seem terrified of going out on a limb.
	There are 33 of 36 polls, more than 90% of them, that have the race within 2.5 points.
	In theory, that's just 1 in 2.8 million chance polls.
	That so many polls would show the Badger State to be so close.
	So rather than confirming that these people are accurate, everybody coming up with exactly the same stuff, what Nate Silver is saying is it confirms that they're fudging him.
	You shouldn't be getting the same results all the time.
	I don't know.
	I haven't seen any statisticians responding to this to contradict or to confirm that.
	But look, all of this, to make it even worse, all this presumes that you're going to have an honest count.
	We've got people who've been saying for four years we don't have an honest count.
	And I know exactly how they rig this stuff.
	I've watched them rig the election machines.
	You know, you look at the mail stuff going back 60 years ago.
	People driving around with election machines in the back of their trunk and being caught doing it and so forth.
	So why we might not get a presidential winner tonight.
	Winner, winner, chicken dinner.
	In 2020, during the COVID pandemic, 46% of the voters opted for mail-in ballots.
	Well, it's a little bit down this time, but, you know, we all knew that that was going to be a formula for mischief, right?
	Mischief and corruption.
	And everybody was saying it.
	We were all saying it in the summer.
	You know, just like we all knew about Hunter Biden's laptop.
	Why are they waiting to do anything about that?
	Why don't they do something?
	Oh, we're going to wait and surprise everybody in October.
	Well, guess what?
	The October surprise was that the media completely ignored it when it came out and pushed back against it.
	That was a surprise for them.
	But they should have started earlier than that when they knew about it.
	Instead, they want to game it.
	And they got gamed themselves.
	And perhaps they wanted to game the vote counting and they got gamed themselves.
	For this election, some swing states, including Nevada and Michigan, have new laws and policies designed to expedite the ballot counts, but others, including battleground states of Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, still don't allow the counting of absentee and mail-in ballots until Election Day.
	So are these diligent civil servants out there doing this right now?
	I don't know.
	And going back four years ago, it wasn't until Saturday that Pennsylvania and Nevada Put in their results.
	So the media coronated Biden on that Saturday, and there's a bunch of other states who are turning the stuff in gradually, Wednesday and Thursday and things like that.
	But the media, I remember, I've talked about this many times, coronated Biden on that Saturday.
	60 Minutes had their Operation Warp Speed Delivery Program, you know, special report, how they're going to deliver the vaccines.
	They had that in the can, and so when they coronated Biden on Saturday, 60 Minutes ran that on Sunday.
	And then on Monday, they said, as soon as we find out, you know, whether these things are good or not.
	Yeah, right.
	Right.
	We're going to roll these things out right away.
	They got all these guys in military uniforms talking about how they're going to roll this thing out.
	Well, they got the answer the very next day.
	Pfizer saying, yeah, we're 90% effective.
	And then they started this competition between Russia and Pfizer, Moderna, everybody up in the other one within a day or so of them.
	You mean, you didn't know what it was?
	Now you're, oh, well, we're 93%.
	Oh, then we're 94.
	Well, now we're 94 and a half, that type of thing.
	Do I hear 100?
	Yes, I did hear 100 somewhere.
	So, again, last year, Pennsylvania, Nevada, these battleground states, it took them until Saturday, to find out.
	And so, you've got a lot of back and forth that is happening in the media now.
	about what is really going to happen and so the MAGA media is all about the fact that you've had Democrats out there talking about how they're not going to allow Trump to take office and this goes back to February an opinion piece by Russell Berman published by the Atlantic details how Democrats could try to disqualify Trump if the US Supreme Court didn't declare him ineligible to run for president The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,
	they said, bars anyone who's engaged in insurrection against the U.S. The problem is that he wasn't found guilty.
	The problem is he wasn't even indicted.
	And the Supreme Court's already kind of addressed that.
	When Colorado tried to keep him off the ballot, but according to the lawyer who was arguing for Colorado trying to keep him off the ballot, he said a Trump win could cause a constitutional crisis in Congress where Democrats would have to choose whether they confirm someone they believe is ineligible or defy the will of the people.
	Well, they've defied the Constitution, they've defied the will of the people many times, so why wouldn't they do that again?
	And it doesn't have to be based on facts, they just have to believe it.
	Their best faith think he's ineligible.
	Democrats have a serious chance of winning a majority in Congress in November, even if Trump recaptures the presidency on the same day.
	And if that happens, Berman wrote to the Supreme Court, he said, well, they could prevent him from taking office, and we could be back here again.
	So they're not giving up.
	The other side's not giving up.
	But in terms of Democrats, Jamie Raskin, So that it's going to be up to us on January the 6th, 2025, to tell the rampaging Trump mobs that he's disqualified.
	And he just said that last week, November the 1st.
	During an interview with Bill Maher, Raskin said the Democrats are not going to allow the Republicans to steal the election.
	Despite his comments about not certifying the Electoral College votes, Rankin said Democrats would honor the results.
	So he's back and forth on both sides of it.
	And this is something you'll see from both people on the left and the right.
	They'll go up to the line, they'll take a step over it, and then they'll walk it back.
	Oh, yeah, no, yeah, we're not going to let this happen.
	Oh, no, no, we'll abide by it, yeah.
	And you hear that talk from both sides.
	A pox upon them.
	On both.
	He says it's a free, if it's a free and fair election, we'll do what we've always done and we'll honor it.
	If.
	If.
	You think he's going to say it's free and fair?
	And then top official of the DNC told Reuters, as soon as Trump falsely declares victory, we're ready to get up on TV and provide the truth.
	And tap a broad network of people.
	Who can use their influence to push back.
	They have a broad network of broadcasters who will do that.
	So, that's the guys on the Democrat side.
	Now, on the Republican side, you've got people like Steve Bannon.
	He says, so, the election is going to be a lot longer than next Tuesday, November the 5th.
	We have to drive and converge all of our forces on the 5th to maximize ballots, to maximize votes.
	But, man, it doesn't end there.
	Mike Davis, founder and president of the Article 3 Project, said Trump needs to win the election by at least three or four percentage points to make the results definitive.
	What in the world is he even talking about?
	We don't have a national election.
	You know, that's why these polls, I think, are so, that are national polls, are so meaningless.
	Oh, look, nationally, she's up by two or whatever.
	That doesn't mean anything.
	It's on a state-by-state basis.
	So maybe what he means is, maybe he means that they've got to win by two or three in each of the two or three points that In each of the battleground states.
	But that's not what he says.
	Here's what he says.
	The Trump supporters need to continue to show up and vote as early as possible in massive numbers.
	And we need to win this thing decisively on November 5th by three or four points.
	So he doesn't specify.
	I don't know what he means.
	Let's just assume that he knows the bare minimum about how this thing is supposed to work.
	Does he?
	I don't know.
	Trump says he shouldn't have left the White House.
	And so that's what he was saying on Sunday in Pennsylvania.
	He told supporters he shouldn't have left office after losing.
	He described Democrats as demonic.
	He complained about a new poll in Iowa that I talked about.
	But this is what he said.
	I shouldn't have left.
	I mean, honestly.
	Because we did so.
	We did so well.
	Didn't have left.
	Well, he says this is what they're going to say.
	They're going to say, we may take an extra 12 days to determine this, and what do you think will be happening during those 12 days?
	What do you think happens, he said.
	And the crowd yelled back, cheating!
	And I think it is absolutely imperative, if these people want you to believe their results, they need to come back in a timely manner.
	I've always felt that delayed results were cheating, and I've always talked about that, for decades.
	I said, look at this.
	Look at what happens in every state that When you look at, I used to sit there and watch the election night results.
	And you'd see all the results come in from the rural areas, from the suburban areas, from the Republican areas.
	They would all turn it in.
	And then later, much later, the cities would turn their stuff in.
	I was like, have any of these people ever played poker?
	You're playing with a dishonest poker player.
	He says, yeah, show me your cards.
	Oh, okay.
	Well, I need another ace up my sleeve and pull the thing out.
	I mean, I've seen this state after state, election after election.
	And so, yeah, I think these delayed results are suspicious.
	And I think if they really wanted people to have faith in their institutions and their process, that they would do it sooner.
	The crowd says, well, if they're going to wait 12 days, it's cheating.
	Trump said these elections have to be, they have to be decided by 9 o'clock, 10 o'clock, 11 o'clock on Tuesday night.
	A bunch of crooked people.
	These are crooked people, he said.
	Well, it won't be decided that way.
	So there will be accusations that will be flying.
	And there will be a lack of trust.
	But let me tell you that on the other side...
	They've always gamed this thing as well.
	And the other side has lied to us as well.
	And what Trump's going to do is declare victory, right?
	He's going to declare victory.
	But that doesn't mean he's the winner.
	He's just going to say he's the winner.
	More of our people vote early that count.
	Theirs voted male.
	And so they're going to have a natural disadvantage, and Trump's going to take advantage of it.
	That's our strategy.
	He's just going to declare himself a winner.
	So when you wake up Wednesday morning, it's going to be a firestorm.
	We're going to have the TIFO crazy, the media crazy, the courts are crazy, and Trump's going to be sitting there mocking and tweeting shit out, you lose.
	I'm the winner.
	I'm the king.
	And he'll be all over.
	He'll be going, where's Hunter?
	Is Hunter on a crack pipe?
	It's Hunter on a crack pipe, you know, because he says, then it doesn't matter.
	You know, Trump is king.
	Now, he said that October the 31st, 2020.
	Before the 2020 election, he told that to a group of Chinese supporters through his billionaire sugar daddy, the Chinese communist executive.
	You can't make this stuff up.
	It is so twisted.
	And, you know, he says, yeah, we're going to, you know, we're going to, they're going to say we won.
	He's going to say, no, you lose, and we're going to have this fight and everything.
	He was telling them that a few days before that.
	We had people who were saying that much earlier than that as well.
	It was always a plan.
	We all knew that vote by mail was going to be something that was going to create chaos and disruption.
	From the inside, and do it iteratively, right?
	That is always the plan, just as Fauci said, October 2019, the Milken Institute.
	How do we make everybody take a shot that hasn't been tested?
	We do it from the inside.
	We do it with disruption, and we do it iteratively.
	That's the way these guys run this stuff off.
	But they all knew that it would be chaos, and they all knew it would be corruption, and they all planned to utilize that.
	And so now they're kind of talking about the same thing again.
	And, as a matter of fact, this is, you know, Bannon said, yeah, that's right.
	I don't care what happens.
	We're going to say we won.
	And, you know, he's still doing that.
	He said this earlier this year at CPAC in the spring, I think it is, April or something like that.
	Because he gave us three years of peace and prosperity before he was hit with a Chinese bioweapon.
	What a liar.
	He was hit with a Chinese by a weapon.
	No, he injected us.
	He's lying.
	The 2020 election.
	Media, I want you to suck on this.
	I want the White House to suck on this.
	You lost in 2020.
	Donald Trump is the legitimate president of the United States.
	An agent of chaos, lies, deception, Steve Bannon.
	Won!
	Trump won!
	Trump won!
	Yeah.
	The road to Hegelian hell.
	That's the guy.
	Here's another one.
	Alex Jones on Sunday.
	Fight harder.
	Vote harder.
	We're ready for the Civil War, right?
	These guys.
	Same guys.
	The usual suspects.
	So, in Trump's morning speech in Pennsylvania, he said he shouldn't have left office, and so Alex gets on in the afternoon.
	He says, I was just watching Trump in Pennsylvania.
	And he said he was...
	He was angry.
	He was going through all the evidence of election fraud.
	And so he says, yeah, we know the Democrats are going to steal the election again from Trump.
	So we're going to have to have a stop the steal part two.
	And everybody pay Alex to stop the steal again.
	And pay Trump to stop the steal again.
	And they'll keep the money as they did the first time.
	And you'll go to jail after they fleece you.
	Trump is starting to get it, he told his audience.
	Is he?
	Is he, Alex?
	Is he starting to get it?
	After nine years, he's starting to figure out how the system works.
	Boy, this guy is smart.
	He's going to save us all, isn't he?
	He didn't have any clue as to what was happening before.
	Babe in the woods.
	But all of our hope relies on him.
	He's starting to get it.
	And so then Alex says, I'm saying fight harder in the election.
	Vote harder.
	If you've got these touch screens, I mean, hammer it.
	Hammer it.
	If you've got, you know, paper punching stuff, you don't want to have any hanging chads.
	You've got to vote harder.
	Punch those things out.
	Yeah, look.
	Stop the Steal began two days after the election.
	It began with a disinformation broadcast by a CIA agent.
	Well, not CIA. He's an intelligence community.
	He is a psyop, a spook, Steve Pachinik, a fiction writer.
	And he goes on with Owen.
	And he sells this garbage, which the next day, that was on Thursday.
	The next day it was picked up by Rush Limbaugh.
	It was picked up by Clarence Thomas' wife, who sent it in a text to Mark Meadows, Chief of Staff for Trump, said, I certainly hope this is true.
	There was absolutely no way that it could be true.
	Here's what Steve Pachenik did when he kicked off the Stop the Steal.
	Just remember, Stop the Steal was kicked off by an intel guy who bragged that he did psyops.
	A guy who worked for Henry Kissinger.
	A guy that Italy...
	Said it was responsible for giving the order to execute kidnapped Prime Minister Aldo Morrow when NATO ran their false flag, Operation Gladio.
	What's happening now and the reason I couldn't come on the Alex Jones The show last night was I was not given the permission that I needed to in order to say what I'm about to say now.
	I do not work for the federal government.
	I'm not paid by them.
	This is really a sting operation.
	So who gave him permission?
	Everybody else.
	Who called him?
	Trump knew this was happening.
	Eric knew this was happening and warned the public.
	I knew this was happening.
	However, I could not say anything about it.
	What happened was we marked, watermarked every ballot with what's called the QFS blockchain encryption code.
	Total BS. Total BS. Word solid.
	And who has it?
	So this is not a stolen election.
	On the contrary, We reversed the entire game of war along the lines of Sun Tzu, the art of war.
	And Trump was brilliant.
	What a consummate bullshit artist he is.
	All of this was expected.
	All of this is part of the sting operation we're running.
	And let me tell you that 48 hours ago...
	Except who are you stinging?
	Who are you pulling the wool over their eyes?
	...but I can say now, with the permission of people in the intelligence community and elsewhere, Oh, he doesn't work for them, though.
	He has sent out thousands and thousands of national guards to 12 different states.
	Washington, Delaware, Arizona, Alabama.
	Two days after the election, he's lying about this.
	you have to consider and rethink what this is really about.
	The genius of Trump is that he is able to pull back at any point and manipulate the opponent without the opponent ever realizing.
	His own people don't realize it when he stabs him in the back.
	And it was Trump who initiated this, the Biden family.
	Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Jill Biden, Jim Biden, Frank, the whole family was played right into a game where they were convicted and you're seeing what's happening now.
	What was not announced...
	Who's playing who?
	We watermarked all the ballots with what I said at QFS blockchain, which is a very hard encryption code to break.
	And the second thing is we sent probably 20,000 or more National Guard's 48 hours ago, none of it was reported, and I thank the press for not reporting it in others.
	I thank the press for cooperating with us.
	What's happening is you're seeing a sophisticated sting operation that was initiated by Trump.
	Nothing was said about that.
	Steve, you've just broken certainly perhaps the biggest news since the election here on this show.
	I have to play this out logically in my head.
	That's why I go on your show.
	Well, I love you, Steve.
	I'd kiss you on the lips right now if it wasn't digitally.
	Yeah.
	And they kept kissing Steve.
	They kept bringing him on back.
	Every time they bring him on, I would get on the social media and I would talk about it on my show.
	And this is something that was widely, you had, just to give you some names so you don't trust these other people either.
	Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Schaefer jumped in on this.
	Steve Quayle jumped in on this.
	And there was some guy, I don't remember, do you remember his name?
	Some guy in the UK put it out too.
	I'd never seen that guy before, I've not seen him since.
	But he's got something of an audience, this Brit.
	In the UK. Those three.
	I know.
	At least those three.
	Putting it out verbatim.
	Yes, we have the sense of Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Schaefer.
	I have this inside information as well.
	That 20,000 National Guard are arresting people two days after the election in 2020.
	The whole thing was a sting and they knew this.
	And look, folks, none of that could possibly be true.
	The ballots are not even printed up by individual states.
	All that was a lie.
	He came on in subsequent things and said, yeah, CISA is coordinating all of this stuff.
	Well, unfortunately, for Steve Quayle, not Steve Quayle, for Steve Puccini, the CISA had come out and completely debunk all this stuff.
	But that didn't stop them from continuing to lie.
	That was the one thing that surprised me.
	I told Alex, I said, you're going to get caught in this lie.
	There's no way that any of this stuff that Steve said is true.
	And you're going to be found out.
	He's saying there's 20,000 National Guard out there arresting people.
	Everybody's going to know that you're a liar.
	If you lose your credibility, what are you going to do with InfoWars?
	He didn't care.
	And he never paid a price for that.
	It's amazing to me, isn't it?
	And it was believed by all these people, along with, you had a general...
	Lieutenant General, I think.
	McInerney was talking about how there was a firefight in Germany.
	They had a shootout over ballots and computers or something in Germany.
	All those total BS. Total BS. Not a shred of evidence for any of that stuff.
	These people are disinformation agents.
	So who are they working for?
	You know, the intelligence agencies are not monolithic.
	They got different factions.
	And so they're playing you.
	And they're competing against each other.
	And you need to think about that, because this is all going to be coming at you again.
	And so, you think that people would never believe that stuff?
	You would think that after these things were shown to be lies, that people would walk away from this?
	But no.
	People were so angry with me.
	And still are.
	Whenever I talk about this, people get really angry with me.
	I'm sorry, but I've got to tell you the truth about these lying, grifting criminals.
	And yet people don't get it.
	As recently as October of last year, the 17th of October, somebody was at a rally and the press asked this woman about the sting.
	Listen to what she has to say.
	A year ago.
	The election, I believe, was stolen.
	But we know that.
	Space Force has it all.
	Trump has all the information.
	Space Force has it all.
	It's not CISA. Trump's got it all.
	It's going to be overturned.
	What do you think Space Force has?
	Space Force is a military branch of the, you know, just like the Army, you know, all the military.
	And they literally, walk up here.
	They literally, the night of the election, they literally...
	Watch the election be stolen.
	They know they watermark the ballots.
	They know exactly what happened with every ballot.
	They know what fake ballots, all right?
	They saw, they knew the election switches.
	They know what countries were involved.
	They know they followed the money.
	They know what every politician that's been paid off.
	They know there's, um, there was 260,000, 269,000 Yes, sealed indictments, but I think it might even be up to 500,000 sealed indictments, and I believe that we're going to have an emergency broadcast,
	and the military's going to come in with martial law, and we're going to be shown eight hours on, eight hours off of videos for seven days, the world, and they're going to be showing us taped, Tribunals, tape confessions, and the world is going to be awakened to what's really going on with the deep state.
	Wow, yeah, that's right.
	There'll be no justice in this life.
	Not for the people who poisoned us with a bioweapon.
	And you see, Bannon was still, everything was going great until the Chinese hit us with that bioweapon flu.
	Yeah, keep selling the lie, Bannon.
	You piece of filth.
	I shouldn't come after individuals like this, but folks, I just, I can't.
	I know a lot of these people, personally.
	I don't know Ben, but boy, he is a known quantity if you take a look at this stuff.
	And I'm just talking, this is just a word to the wise, folks.
	Some people listened to me, most people didn't.
	I was saying this when I had a much bigger audience at InfoWars.
	It's why I got fired at InfoWars.
	I said, on the Monday when the Electoral College votes were tabulated, I said, it's over.
	We can stop this, stop this deal.
	And I said, if you continue on with this stuff, it's nothing but a grift.
	And so that's when Alex fired me.
	I was told by his producer, as soon as I pushed back on that Steve Pacinic lie, she said, Steve Pacinic has called up and he's demanding that Alex fire you.
	I said, oh, so Alex works for him?
	Who does Steve work for?
	I know he used to work for Kissinger.
	Does Alex work for the Kissinger Bilderberg Group?
	No.
	No.
	So, I kept doing it.
	And I knew I was going to get fired.
	I was surprised when they didn't fire me.
	And then he did fire me, and that surprised me again.
	I was surprised when people didn't turn Alex off.
	Then I was surprised when he didn't turn me off.
	And then he did fire me.
	And I'm fine with that.
	My conscience is clear.
	I warn people.
	I've had people who've written me letters.
	Saying I would have been there on January 6th, except for your warning.
	I told people it was a lie.
	It was a grift for money and fame.
	And I told them that there would be agent provocateurs there on January the 6th.
	They were going to be set up.
	And I told that to people all the way up to the morning of January the 6th.
	And it happened like an hour or two after my program ended.
	So it was pretty clear to me, it's as clear as it could be, I tried to warn people about it.
	As a matter of fact, even to the extent my crew knows it as well.
	When Alex came on, he wanted to sell this stuff.
	First of all, I told him in a phone conversation between us that it was a lie.
	And then he came in, he wanted to push this stuff on the show that I had.
	And I said in front of my crew, I don't want you on my show talking about that stuff.
	I'm surprised he didn't fire me right then.
	They all thought he was going to fire me at that moment.
	He waited a little while, though.
	But that was what it was about, folks.
	And so, with all that background, you see this headline from the Washington Post.
	Four years after Stop the Steal, an organized army emerges online.
	What?
	They said, the online movement that won national attention four years ago was driven by a small, disordered, and slapdash group of right-wing fringe accounts.
	Now, why would the Washington Post cover up for Alex Jones and Roger Stone and Alexander and these people who invented the stop to steal grift?
	Why would they do that?
	As a matter of fact, even Roger Stone came up with a title, Stop the Steal, in 2016.
	They just reused it again in 2020.
	But Washington Post wants you to think that this is something that comes from Twitter.
	Because they're more interested in shutting down Twitter than they are any of these other people.
	That's why they're lying to you about this.
	So as Election Day approaches, the Department of Justice is still continuing to arrest people with new January the 6th cases.
	Here we are, four years on.
	I told people it was a trap.
	And, you know, we've got people like Joe Biggs now in jail for decades.
	His only hope is a Republican president who will pardon him.
	Same thing with Stuart Rhodes.
	But, you know, the people who put this stuff together, Trump, Alex, Roger, Ali Alexander, they walk!
	They take the cash and they walk.
	The supporters are the ones who go to jail.
	Rich man's war, poor man's fight, isn't it?
	Isn't it that way with every one of these wars?
	Domestic or foreign?
	So, stop and steal organizers.
	Get the money.
	The supporters get the jail terms.
	After they've been fleeced.
	Trump abandoned them to save himself.
	He wasn't going to put himself on the line.
	It's one thing to pardon the white-collar criminals that his son-in-law is friends with, but it's another thing entirely to pardon people that the left is coming from.
	So he just offered them up.
	Just offered them up to placate the Democrats.
	So, when we go back four years, just to remind you how this all played out.
	On January the 6th, Roger Stone was going around.
	He had some people who were making a documentary film on him that followed him around for a couple of years.
	I mean, every time he'd come in the studio, he's got a film crew in tow.
	And so they filmed all this stuff, and for them, it culminated in January 6th, so it was a big win on their documentary.
	I've never watched it.
	They put together a documentary film after following him around for two years.
	They called it A Storm Foretold.
	But, you know, they're following him around.
	And he's saying all this stuff in front of the cameras and letting them record it.
	And so, as all this stuff was happening on January the 6th, this article from Daily Mail is quoting from their film.
	He said, I really need to get out of here.
	He's packing his suitcase, and he calls the Capitol riot a mistake.
	He says it's going to be very bad for the Trump movement.
	No, I think it's really bad for the movement.
	This hurts, it doesn't help.
	I'm not sure what they thought they were going to achieve.
	Yeah, that's what I said.
	I said, okay, so the Electoral College votes are in on December the 14th.
	What are you going to achieve?
	What does going to Washington on January 6th, what does it achieve?
	Right?
	That was a question, he says, I don't know what they think they're going to achieve.
	Well, that was always a question about stop this deal.
	That was always a question, of course, you could argue, prior to the electoral college votes, you could always argue, oh, well, they're contesting these elections and so forth.
	But at that point, what was the January 6th thing about?
	What were they going to achieve?
	Right?
	Since Election Day, Stone had worked with other right-wing operatives to raise money, put the January 6th protests into action.
	Dictating text messages to an aide, Stone said that he would resurrect the Stop the Steal campaign on November 5th.
	He told another, because again, Stop the Steal went back to 2016.
	Washington Post doesn't know that.
	He told another, and they must not have watched the documentary either.
	They must not have been there either.
	I was there.
	He told another aide his brand would be, quote, quite a bit hotter.
	He said, we're going to raise money from stop to steal.
	It'll be like falling off a log, quote, unquote.
	We're going to raise money from stop to steal.
	It'll be like falling off a log.
	Boy, I hear that a lot.
	That's why I knew it was a grift.
	That's why I told people it was a grift.
	They're robbing you.
	They're giving you false hope.
	They're robbing you.
	And then they're going to send you These Judas goats will send you to Washington, D.C. on January the 6th.
	Don't listen to these people.
	I don't care what happens with this election, as I said over and over again.
	It's irrelevant.
	As I pointed out yesterday, you want to fix something, you do what the people in Idaho did at a county level, and you ban these poisonous shots.
	It's not the Chinese flu.
	Bannon is still lying to people like that.
	Trump is still lying to people about that.
	All of them are.
	They know better.
	So when you've got these people that are there, you look at this and it's like, why were the organizers and the profiteers set free?
	Why is that?
	I think that's an interesting quote.
	Anyway, four months before the voters even cast their ballot, Stone predicted that Democrats would try to steal the election and devised a plot for Trump to hold on to the White House.
	He was saying that kind of stuff.
	Just like Bannon was telling people in meetings, right?
	Private meetings.
	I heard all this stuff.
	I knew all this stuff.
	It's going to be really nasty, he said.
	In front of the filmmakers when he was at home, July 9th, 2020, he told a staffer that Trump should reject the election results, should pressure courts whose judges he had appointed to rule in his favor.
	Stone said, imagining Trump's remark, he should say, I'm the president.
	F you.
	You're not stealing Florida.
	You're not stealing Ohio.
	I'm challenging all of it, and the judges that we're going to have are judges that I appointed.
	So, he was publicly downplaying his role in Stop the Steal Movement.
	As he was trying to get a pardon from Trump, he wrote a November the 30th blog post that he was, quote, not a participant, unquote, in any of the organizations that were using the Stop and Steal name in 2020, even though he came up with that tagline.
	And even though he said, it's going to be like falling off a log to raise money on this stuff.
	That's the kind of cynical calculation, folks, that goes on at InfoWars.
	It really is.
	On December the 23rd, the White House announced that Trump would pardon Stone for his convictions in the Mueller case.
	By December 30th, Stone had launched a fundraising drive to help fund the rallies and pay for private security.
	And so he didn't show up for the rally at the Ellipse.
	He told aides that some of the rally's organizers were trying to exclude him.
	He told aide Kristen Davis that he had complained to Julia Fancelli, that's the public's supermarket heiress who poured a lot of money into this.
	She bankrolled the day's events.
	Of course, Alex Jones had said he was paying for it.
	Then it came out that she was paying for it.
	Organizers prevented him and Alex Jones from appearing on stage.
	Stone said, I just caused a little problem for them with Julie Fancelli.
	You spent $300,000 and neither Jones or I are speaking.
	In the days following, January the 6th, Stone put forth his Stone Plan, quote-unquote, where Trump would preemptively pardon himself.
	Stone, allies in Congress, along with other Trump backers, including people who had been convicted.
	In an inauguration day, mobsters like the white-collar criminals, that he did pardon.
	He didn't pardon Julian Assange.
	He didn't pardon the J6ers.
	He didn't pardon Ross Ulbrich.
	He didn't pardon all these people who deserved it.
	Instead, it was...
	Mobsters.
	White-collar criminals.
	Friends of Jared Kushner.
	In an inauguration day call with a friend, Stone denounced Trump as a disgrace.
	He said he supported his impeachment.
	Stone said he betrayed everybody.
	Yeah, he especially, especially betrayed the people on January the 6th.
	I'm done with this president.
	I'm going to go public supporting impeachment.
	I have no choice.
	He has to go.
	He has to go.
	Run again!
	You'll get your brains beat in.
	Yeah.
	He had some things to say about beating in the brains of Jared Kushner as well.
	Stone wanted to secure a second pardon for himself, for Trump, in the former president's final hours of the presidency.
	Trump was hesitant, but he then issued a pardon for Steve Bannon.
	But not one for Stone.
	Stone was outraged.
	And that's what you see there on that call.
	He also called Bannon a grifter scumbag.
	You know, he was right about that.
	It takes one to know one.
	By Inauguration Day, Stone ranted about Jared Kushner, whom he blamed for the plan's failure.
	Quote, he's going to get a beating.
	He needs to have a beating.
	And he needs to be told, this time we're just beating you.
	Next time we're killing you.
	Stone said this on camera.
	Aware that the cameras were on, an aide urged Stone to say that he was joking.
	No, no, it isn't joking.
	Not joking.
	It's not a joke, he said.
	Stone said Kushner needed to be, quote, punished in the most brutal possible way.
	And he said he'd be brain dead when I get finished with him.
	Stone then said that Trump was the, quote, greatest single mistake in history.
	He added that Trump could face prosecution by federal prosecutors in Manhattan.
	Foretold that.
	He mocked the idea.
	Of course, those are state prosecutors.
	He mocked the idea.
	There's also a federal prosecutor.
	He mocked the idea of Trump running again in 2024.
	You just heard that.
	Run again and we'll beat your effing brains in.
	Well, Bannon, who was pardoned, by the way.
	What was he pardoned for?
	Stealing money from his supporters to build a wall.
	This is the game that these people run over and over again.
	They rob people blind.
	And then he gets pardoned by President Trump.
	Now, the other guys that were part of it, they're still in jail.
	But Bannon was pardoned.
	And then the guy that he works with and for...
	This Chinese Communist Party member, billionaire, Guo.
	He positions himself as being anti-communist.
	You know, like Trump positions himself as being anti-globalist.
	But whether or not he is, he has now been convicted himself, this Chinese billionaire, patron of Bannon.
	Actually, Bannon was arrested on this We Build the Wall scam.
	They arrested him when he was on Guo's yacht.
	And now Guo, the Chinese billionaire, has also been convicted and arrested for, guess what?
	Ripping off his supporters.
	These people, especially, look, I know this kind of stuff.
	We were scammed by a con artist who had been convicted at federal, state, and local levels of coming after Christians.
	And we were new Christians, and we were very trusting of that.
	He knew how to talk the talk.
	And that's what these people do.
	I've seen it.
	I've experienced it myself.
	These people who con you, who take advantage of your trust as a conservative, as a Christian, or whatever it is, they read you.
	And they can manipulate you.
	Very clever.
	And that's what Guo does.
	That's what Bannon does.
	And they've been convicted in court of that.
	They don't have the other kind of convictions.
	Bannon threatened to ruin the life of former Donald Trump political advisor if he didn't help protect Guo from rape charges.
	Bannon, in 2018, threatened Sam Nunberg with a lawsuit from his boss, Guo Wingui.
	I don't know.
	This guy calls himself Guo Miles.
	He's got at least three or four aliases that he goes by.
	That's another sign.
	He's also known as Ho Wang Kwok.
	Wan Hung Lo.
	We in trouble.
	Unless he appeared in a video alongside the mogul, he threatened him with a lawsuit, unless he does a video denouncing the allegations that have been leveled against the Chinese billionaire.
	So we need you to cooperate, said Steve Bannon, quote-unquote, and this can be dropped.
	He's a thug.
	Bannon is a thug.
	He is a gangster.
	You hear the way that Roger talked?
	You hear the way that Bannon talks to Nunberg?
	We need you to cooperate.
	And this can be dropped, he said.
	Otherwise, Kwok is going to bankrupt you and ruin your life.
	These people are organized criminals, and they come after their supporters.
	They betray their own people.
	Nunberg refused.
	Guo filed a defamation lawsuit against him days later, court records show.
	He was accused of rape by a former personal assistant who also filed suit in New York City in 2017.
	Personal assistant said she'd been held prisoner and subjected to verbal abuse and physical attacks for two years until she escaped.
	Guo denies the charges, but was convicted in New York jury in July of federal charges that he stole hundreds of millions of dollars from anti-Chinese Communist Party political movement that he launched, along with Biden.
	And then they fleeced these conservatives.
	Biden's alleged threat to Nunberg highlights how deeply enmeshed in Guo's operations the former Trump campaign chief was.
	Bannon was infamously arrested on Guo's yacht in 2020 as part of the We Build the Wall fraud.
	He was convicted of that.
	Trump pardoned him for that.
	Now, where is Guo?
	I'll just finish this up.
	I forgot that my guest is coming on.
	On the second hour or so, I apologize to him, but I'll get to him right away.
	I just want to talk about what's happening with Guo.
	Guo was arrested March 15, 2023 in New York by federal authorities for conspiracy to defraud his online followers out of more than a billion dollars.
	These people don't rip off liberal Democrats.
	They rip off conservatives.
	They rip off anti-communists because they know how to talk to them.
	These included $452 million in unregistered offering, $150 million in loans for GTV, that's GuoTV, in addition to $250 million for membership programs and $262 million for the Himalaya Exchange Cryptocurrency Project. in addition to $250 million for membership programs and $262 He faced 12 criminal charges, including securities and wire fraud, racketeering and money laundering,
	After a trial that lasted for seven weeks in Manhattan federal courthouse, he was convicted of defrauding investors and supporters of around a billion dollars.
	He was found guilty of nine of the 12 criminal court accounts, including securities and wire fraud, racketeering, and money laundering.
	His sentencing is scheduled for November the 19th.
	Do you think he can get a pardon from Trump?
	Do you think that's what they're betting on?
	We're going to take a quick break, folks, and we're going to be right back.
	We have the filmmaker of Project 1916, exposing the lies about Margaret Singer and the black genocide.
	So we're going to take a quick break, and we will be right back.
	Stay with us.
	PIANO PLAYS
	PIANO PLAYS
	ORCHESTRA PLAYS
	ORCHESTRA PLAYS .
	Thank you.
	.
	Thank you.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Thanks for joining us again.
	And we have as our guest here Seth Gruber, who is with the 1916 Project.
	I talked about this a couple of weeks ago, and we've been trying to get our schedules together so that I could get them on.
	Somebody who knows them heard the broadcast and said, hey, they'd like to talk to you.
	So I'm very excited to talk to him about this.
	This is the issue of the election, folks.
	And it's an issue that the GOP is running away from, and that is the abortion issue back then.
	But even beyond that, what this project is, and we're going to let him lay out the film, and they can organize screenings at churches and that type of thing.
	This is fundamentally about the agenda of Planned Parenthood.
	You know, what is behind the abortion?
	And so the website is the1916project.com, and joining us now is Seth Gruber.
	Thank you for joining us, Seth.
	Thank you, David.
	Honored to be on, brother.
	Thank you.
	Let's talk a little bit about, tell people how you got into this.
	You've got a background in film, I'm assuming, and so tell people a little bit about that and the other things that you do, and then we'll talk about the 1916 project.
	So I don't have a background in film.
	I have a background in homeschooling, which means I can do anything I want because I'm not an idiot and I'm not a gay communist.
	And so because my mother put me through classical Christian education and because I was memorizing the entire preamble of the Constitution and the entire Declaration of Independence by the time I was 11, including whole chapters of Scripture, I I can do whatever the hell I want.
	Thank you, America, and thank you, Kamala Harris, for trying to obliterate the homeschool community.
	I mean, if she gets elected, that's a conversation for another time.
	But have you noticed it's always about the kids, right?
	Yeah.
	If they can't kill them in the womb, they'll sexualize them outside the womb.
	If they can't do that, they'll indoctrinate them or just chemically castrate them.
	That's right.
	Planned Parenthood, David, is not only the largest abortion provider in the world, they're also now the second largest provider in America of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.
	So, chemically castrating transgender drugs for America's gender-confused youth.
	Wow, the same organization as both things?
	What a coinkedink!
	Except it's not.
	They're not an abortion organization, guys.
	They're a culture of death organization.
	And they will profit off of The hyper-sexualized culture that they helped architect in the first place.
	And that's a lot of the history that we tell in the film and book, The 1916 Project.
	But I was raised in Los Angeles County.
	I was homeschooled through eighth grade.
	I went to public high school in Nixon's alma mater, Whittier High School, where my dad and all my aunts went.
	And my senior year, I did my senior project on abortion.
	Now, I knew what abortion was.
	My mother led a pregnancy center while pregnant with me.
	She was helping save babies and love on moms while I was still in utero.
	So I've actually been a pro-life activist since I was a fetus, David.
	But there I am as a senior, realizing I don't have as many good answers to my pro-abortion friends as I'd like to have, and I felt convicted about that.
	So I picked abortion as my senior project, which you had to do a senior project to graduate.
	And my high school told me, you can't pick that topic.
	And I said, excuse me?
	And I said, I recommend you read the Constitution.
	You're making me read in government class, or you're going to have a lawsuit on your hands.
	So at 18 years old, as a former homeschool kid, David, I threatened to sue my public high school for viewpoint discrimination.
	And guess what?
	They backed off real quick.
	I then went to a fake Christian college in Santa Barbara down the street from Oprah's house called Westmont College.
	I thought I was joining a Christian college of my like-minded Christian peers.
	Turns out there's pro-abortion professors on that faculty.
	There still are to this day.
	And I've been barred from speaking on campus for clubs as an alum for three times now.
	So I got the steel in my spine, not at like UC Berkeley or UCLA, but at a fake Christian college where I thought I would meet people that would want to join me in tearing down the high places of child sacrifice, but I was thoroughly disappointed.
	So to answer your question, that's my background.
	Then I started speaking full-time on the issue of life when I graduated in 2014, over 10 years ago.
	And in 2022, we launched the White Rose Resistance, which is now the fastest growing pro-life organization in America.
	We're two and a half years old and our film is going viral right now on X or Twitter.
	We've done 800 screenings in churches, 800 churches screening since the middle of June.
	And the 1916 project is really all of the hidden history of the secular moral revolution and the dirty little secrets of the sexual revolution, which you have to understand.
	If you're going to understand the soil from which Planned Parenthood was birthed and has grown.
	And so my contention is that that year, 1916, and that woman, Margaret Sanger, more evil has flown from that woman in that date that's impacting today's upside down, perverted, inverted, disgusting society than any other revolutionary leftist of the 20th century.
	I know that's a heck of a claim, but I think I can defend it.
	Not even Hugh Hefner or Alfred Kinsey could have been who they were without following on a trail that Sanger had already been blazing since 1914.
	Wow.
	Yeah, that is amazing.
	I loved what I saw.
	I loved the way that you'd switch that from the 1619 project to the 1916 project.
	It was providential.
	Yeah.
	One of the things that I will never forget, it was the first time that I saw the patriarch of the Bush family clan right there as the treasurer for Margaret Sanger on their very first fundraising letter.
	I don't know if that was 1916 or 1914 and when it was the exact date, but I remember seeing his name on the upper left-hand side as the fundraiser, Prescott Bush.
	And so this is something that we see happening.
	There's a bipartisan aspect of it.
	One of the things that I find to be the most frustrating...
	But also, you know, strange mysteries of this is why the Republicans will not take this on directly.
	As I said earlier in the program, they came out and said, okay, well, what is a woman?
	You know, they would ask that question to people, and they can't answer it.
	They won't answer it.
	So why don't you say, what is a baby?
	What is an abortion?
	They won't define those things, and they run away from this issue.
	So that's why what you're doing is so important.
	So, David, check this out.
	Here's how simple this is.
	They won't define marriage, therefore they won't protect it.
	They won't define a baby, therefore they won't protect them.
	They won't define a woman, therefore they won't protect her.
	Pay attention.
	That's right.
	We're dealing with more than just the genocide of babies, as if that's not bad enough to wake people up.
	We're dealing with a war against reality as we know it.
	These people are logogogs and lexographic molesters.
	Be wary of logogogs and lexographic molesters.
	Tell us what a logogog is.
	Word tyrants.
	Logogogs are word tyrants.
	And lexicographic molesters are those who rape the English language to make it mean whatever they want to mean.
	They're Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland, is what I'm trying to tell you, David.
	Now, when I use a word, it means exactly what I choose it to mean.
	Neither more nor less, says Humpty Dumpty.
	And Alice goes, uh, can you really make words mean so many different things?
	That's all.
	And Humpty Dumpty responds, the question is which is to be master.
	That's all.
	Humpty Dumpty means are we to master language or is language to master us?
	Because if language is to master us and there's an external reality and language and words are pointers and they refer to something in the real world.
	So David is a man.
	Look, man.
	I know it's crazy to say this in 2024, but when I say man, I don't mean woman.
	So words are pointers.
	They refer to something in the real world.
	Or are we to master language, which means that there is no objective truth.
	Everything is subjective and flimsy, and you can just twist language like a pretzel to make it appear however you want it to appear.
	This is a war against reality itself.
	And listen, those who murder the unborn cannot be trusted to govern the born.
	Those who think that the right to life is a joke won't get any other rights right.
	Those who think that being human is not enough to have human rights, because check this out, David.
	Every major secular bioethicist in America for decades has admitted to this day that human life begins at conception, that it's a human being.
	So they admit it's a human, but they say it's not a person with rights.
	It doesn't get human rights.
	So in 1973 with Roe vs.
	Wade, what kind of moral premise did we plant into the law that being human is not enough to have human rights?
	Oh, okay, well then where do these rights come from?
	Then it has to come from some sort of cognitive ability or function or accidental property, which means that the elite, those with political power, can always invent the new litmus test, if you will, for who's valuable and who isn't.
	Guess what?
	Sanger believed the same thing.
	She was a eugenicist, okay?
	And eugenics is actually worse than racism, by the way.
	Racism, while disgusting, might just focus in on ethnicity or skin color.
	As the basis for discrimination.
	Eugenicists cast a far wider discriminatory net, if you will.
	Oh, epileptics?
	Oh, mentally and physically disabled?
	Oh, you're missing a limb?
	Oh, you have a low IQ? Oh, you have a history of criminal behavior in your family?
	Oh, you have a history of alcoholism?
	Oh, you have a history of, you know, Whatever, like prostitution or divorces.
	Oh, you don't make a lot of money, huh?
	You're in and out of the home a lot.
	Whatever it is, the eugenicists always come up with new criteria for who has value and who doesn't, who should be allowed to have kids and who doesn't.
	We're dealing with a very pernicious, disgusting, and evil ideology, and it's alive and well today.
	We're not just talking about like, oh yeah, it wasn't Hitler a eugenicist, oh yeah, Are you talking about Stalin and Mussolini or Pol Pot?
	No, I'm talking about Kamala Harris.
	I'm talking about the entire Democrat Party and probably half of the GOP. Listen, I'm voting for Trump because we have to stop Kamala Harris.
	We have to stop her.
	But I'm one of the main pro-life leaders, David, who will regularly hold Trump's feet to the fire because of what you just said.
	His pro-choice rhetoric And abdication on the unborn has influenced the GOP to weaken their language on protections of the unborn, weaken their language on marriage.
	It's incredibly infuriating.
	And so what we're doing with the film is we're trying to educate people about the history of these ideas.
	Because it is connected to today's secular progressive movements.
	By the way, progressives are not progressive, they're regressive.
	All of their ideas are not modern or new.
	We've seen all that before in antiquity, and it always destroys societies and civilizations.
	So, 1916 is when Margaret Sanger opens her very first clinic.
	In the Brownsville neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York.
	That is, for all intents and purposes, the first Planned Parenthood clinic, which is the billion-dollar organization today that's the best-funded nonprofit in human history, the largest abortion provider in the world, the largest provider of the pornographic, obscene, disgusting sex ed, comprehensive sex ed in the schools, and of course, nearly the largest provider of transgender drugs.
	Trans Drugs for Teens is now Planned Parenthood's fastest-growing revenue stream.
	So you'll learn Hitlerian, Hugh Hefner, Alfred Kinsey, groomer, pedophile, KKK links in my book and film about the history of Planned Parenthood, which is actually the history of the sexual revolution.
	And you actually can't understand the sexual revolution without understanding cultural Marxism.
	All this stuff goes together and we kind of blow the cover off of all of this to awaken Christians and common sense Americans to the dire straits that we're in right now.
	So hopefully people will push back.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	It's nothing new.
	We have people who've lived under totalitarian regimes, and they said, we've seen this exact playbook before.
	They call it woke to make it sound like it is something new, but there's nothing new.
	And when you were talking about eugenics, I thought about it, you know, it's kind of interesting because just as they will raise and lower the number of weeks of age of a baby in order to destroy the baby and say it's no longer a person.
	They will also do that with IQ level.
	They'll raise or lower the level of IQ. It doesn't have to necessarily be somebody who is severely low IQ. They might later on raise that IQ level up to maybe just a little bit above normal, right?
	Maybe if you've got 100 IQ, maybe that's not good enough.
	Maybe they want to kill you because they don't really think they need that many people.
	So, again, we can see that that IQ level, for example, is going to be going up and down, just like the weeks of maturity in a baby.
	all of these different things are up for negotiation with a eugenicist and they will do it to everybody won't they that's right yep margaret sanger called herself a eugenicist um and sometimes i get criticized for things i say about sanger because uh some some i think good-hearted pro-life people who just don't know the history of of kind of our civilization and the history of bad ideas in the last 120 years or so um are like really come on seth like hitler Yep.
	Hitler, really?
	Are you saying that Sanger and Hitler were pen pals?
	No, I'm not saying that.
	I'm saying it's almost that bad.
	Actually, I'm saying it's almost that bad.
	In 1927, the Supreme Court, our Supreme Court, the United States High Court, issued their Buck v.
	Bell decision.
	It was an 8-1 decision that upheld Virginia's 1924 mandated sterilization law.
	And in an 8-1 decision, our Supreme Court said that the state can forcibly sterilize people that the elites define as unfit to reproduce, as a threat to the gene pool, if you will.
	Margaret Sanger celebrated and endorsed that decision publicly when it was decided.
	And the judge who wrote the opinion...
	His name is slipping me right now because I haven't had my coffee today.
	He summed up his majority opinion saying three generations of imbeciles are enough.
	Okay.
	Guess what?
	At the Nuremberg trials, that's right, the Nuremberg trials before we hung a bunch of Nazis, the Nazis cited our Buck versus Bell decision in their defense, David, as if to say, yeah, who are you to judge us?
	You Americans were doing eugenics first.
	And I have a study here, because I know you're a history buff.
	It's called Eugenics in High School History.
	I thought you'd find interesting.
	Failure to Confront the Past by Thomas Cargill.
	And he's at the Department of Economics at the University of Nevada at Reno.
	And what he did was he looked at the nine most commonly used History textbooks in public high schools in America.
	And he looked specifically on eugenics and some of the history of this stuff.
	All nine of the most commonly used history high school textbooks in public schools in America have virtually no mention of the Supreme Court decision Buck v.
	Bell, which is up there with Dred Scott.
	In the next 10 years, over 70,000 Americans were forcibly sterilized.
	Let me make sure your listeners know what that means.
	They tied people down to tables.
	And they tied the woman's tubes or they snipped the dude, and forcibly, in forcible surgeries because the elite said, you don't get to have kids.
	Okay, what?
	How is nine most commonly used history of high school textbooks have no mention of Buck versus Bell?
	There was almost no mention of Margaret Sanger.
	Or the eugenics movement in the early 20th century in America, which, I mean, every mainstream ecclesiastical institution in America in the early 20th century was on board with eugenics, okay?
	Like, including alleged conservatives.
	People don't understand how pernicious this was.
	Yeah.
	It was the follow the science of the 1920s.
	They just believed that this was science.
	This was progress.
	This is what we have to do.
	And so Margaret Sanger wasn't just part of the eugenics movement, David.
	She was the eugenics movement.
	She defined birth control not as a way to help poor minorities plan their parenthood.
	She defined birth control as a way to control birth.
	The births of people she didn't want reproducing.
	And here's how she defined it.
	She said, A few years later, in 1939, she launched the Negro Project.
	That's what she called it.
	Her first board member was the exalted Cyclops of the Massachusetts KKK. His name was Lothrop Stoddard, and he's the only American to have had a one-on-one meeting with Adolf Hitler in Germany after he rose to power.
	He was invited by the Nazis to Germany, and he met with Himmler and Joseph Goebbels and Fritz Saukel and Robert Lay and Hitler himself.
	Wow.
	And he writes about it in his book, Into the Darkness, Nazi Germany Today.
	That guy sat on Planned Parenthood's board for years.
	He was referred to as one of the spiritual fathers of Nazi Germany by Hans F. Gunther, who was a German race anthropologist and a high-ranking member of Hitler's goons.
	And he helped influence a German court to reach a positive verdict in sterilizing certain Jews while he was in Germany.
	I could go on and on and on and on.
	How is it that the founding board member of Planned Parenthood, who sat on there for I think like a couple decades as a board member, was part of the KKK in Massachusetts, wrote a book called The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy.
	Heinrich Himmler said that Stoddard's two books provided for him the blueprint For what would become the final solution, meaning that, yeah, the Nazis got the term subhuman, not just from Lothrop Stoddard.
	His other book was The Menace of the Underman, Underman translated into Untermensch by Alfred Rosenberg, Adolf Hitler's chief racial theorist.
	So that not only did the Nazis get the term subhuman from Planned Parenthood, they also based the blueprint for the final solution off of Stoddard's two books.
	Now your whole audience is like, this guy's a kook, David.
	You had some weirdo on you.
	I would have known this if this was true.
	No, I have all the citations in the book, the 1960 Project.
	I'll stop now, but it is that bad.
	We have been lied to about the history of progressive ideas for the last hundred or so years, and why?
	Because they're connected in a direct line to today's progressive revolutionary movement and today's Democrat Party.
	And if people knew the history of what we're facing today in America and what it goes back to and who it goes back to and where those ideas came from, they would begin voting differently, they would begin living differently, and they would begin running from today's Democrat Party.
	And that's why they hide and bury this stuff.
	And, of course, that's one side of it.
	They draw from every political philosophy as long as it's totalitarian.
	They can pull in their woke stuff and their struggle sessions.
	They can pull that in from the communists.
	They can pull in the eugenics from the other people.
	But, yeah, it is a new profit center for Planned Parenthood.
	This sterilization of kids.
	Perhaps that's one of the reasons why they don't want to talk about the eugenics case specifically and about what happened because it looks too much like what is going to be done to them throughout the schools.
	And that's the key thing.
	You know, we're told as Christians not to fear those who can destroy the body as much as those who can destroy the soul.
	And that is really, I think, the focus of these programs that are being supported by Planned Parenthood and this larger agenda in the schools.
	Tell us a little bit about – you have this outreach, and you've shown it at several hundred churches, you say 800, that have seen the documentary?
	Yeah.
	Talk a little bit about it from a Christian perspective and what you're pointing out to the churches to try to wake them up to what is happening around them.
	Yeah, there's a lot we're trying to wake up the church to.
	I mean, David, I believe that unless the church flatulent becomes the church militant, it will become the church irrelevant.
	And by militant, I don't mean like, you know, go grab your AR-15s right now, although I am saving up for my next one.
	But what I mean is like militant and righteousness.
	Right.
	Militant in fervor.
	Militant for pure and undefiled religion in the public square.
	And so what we're trying to wake the church up to is that this is not quote-unquote political.
	It's fundamentally spiritual and theological.
	Now, is abortion political?
	Yes, of course it is, because there's laws around it, and so it has a political aspect.
	These things manifest in the cultural and political realm, and we have to fight there too.
	Duh.
	But is it fundamentally political?
	No, of course not.
	I mean, you go back to just a few decades ago, okay?
	Like, let's go several, actually.
	Let's go to maybe the 50s or 60s.
	Well, it's all downstream from spiritual, right?
	You know, the culture is downstream from spiritual, and the politics is downstream from that as well.
	Well, almost every Democrat in the Democrat Party in the 50s and 60s was pro-life.
	You know, you just think about that.
	That's kind of weird to think about, right?
	And then, of course, you go from safe, legal, and rare with Hillary Clinton to shout your abortions with Kamala pretty quickly.
	It's like, wow, that happened fast.
	No, it didn't happen fast.
	Things happen gradually, then suddenly, just like bankruptcy.
	Yeah.
	Okay, they brew, and then one day the dam breaks open, right?
	And then like a drag queen hits you in the face and you're like, no, drag queen story hour happened really fast.
	It's like, well, no, it actually didn't.
	Okay, there were a lot of cracks on the dam up there in different places.
	You just didn't recognize it, Christian.
	And then one day there were too many cracks and it just couldn't hold, and the whole thing came.
	And then we go, wow, what happened to America?
	I was like, well, okay, you want to know the answer, Rick Warren?
	You were doing your cute little gospel so you could be invited to Davos by Klaus Schwab at the World Economic Forum every year.
	By the way, there's a reason why Rick Warren's invited to Davos every year and Jack Kibbs and Eric Metaxas are not, but anyways, because the former are hirelings and the latter can't be bought.
	We have a church in America who cares far more about accolades and attaboys and seal claps from their congregations and not losing the ties of the registered Democrats in their congregation that they refuse to call to repentance for voting for child sacrifice party.
	And they're actually not interested in sacrificing on behalf of the unborn, the family, the cause of liberty, the things that God actually cares the most about.
	Like, how heavy is a millstone exactly, David?
	How heavy is a millstone?
	I mean, like, if you cause them to stumble, you should go drown yourself.
	What about if you tear their limbs off and cut their penis off?
	Okay, as a minor.
	Yes, that has happened in America.
	They say we're conspiracy theorists, right?
	They say that's not happening.
	No minor has had genital surgery.
	No, they have, okay?
	Like, that is so demonic.
	There are no words for it.
	So all human conflict is ultimately theological, to quote Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, and to paraphrase you.
	All human conflict is ultimately theological.
	And so we're trying to wake up the church to see that this is our duty.
	When you talk about babies, procreation, marriage, man, woman, gender, babies, next generation, parents, parenting, that's our territory as the church.
	That's what the church for centuries in antiquity has led on.
	And now they've politicized everything that was fundamentally...
	Familial, spiritual, and theological, and say, it's political, so shut up.
	Johnson Amendment, separation of church and state, we're going to take your 501c3 status.
	Okay, then take it.
	I don't care anymore.
	Take my 501c3 status.
	And pastors need to be willing to give that over if it means preaching the gospel and standing as a bulwark between evil and the next generation.
	If something doesn't change soon in America, David, I don't think we get the Republic back.
	Are you aware of a civilization, David, that initially adopted the fruits of biblical faith and imbibed Christianity and then abandoned it for sexual libertinism and chaos and then found their way back to the fruits of Christendom?
	I'm not.
	I'm not aware of a civilization that went from Christ to chaos and back to Christ again.
	When civilizations go down the route that we're going down right now in America, historically, they don't find their way back.
	They lose their civilization or they're taken over by pagan hordes.
	Okay.
	Like what's the average lifespan of a civilization?
	250 years.
	If I'm doing my math right, we're less than two years away from that.
	Okay.
	So unless the church wakes up and gives God a reason to show America mercy by participating in Christian resistance, which could mean, yes, outside of abortion centers, pleading with moms to choose life, having hundreds of believers at school board meetings to primary every single one of those groomer school board members who push gender theory and, and, having hundreds of believers at school board meetings to primary every single one of those groomer school board members who push gender theory and, and, and, and Planned Parenthood's pornographic
	There's so many things we can be doing as a church to bring about cultural transformation, but it starts with the pulpits.
	It starts with the church.
	If pastors would preach the full council of God.
	Yeah.
	Christians would begin voting.
	You know this, we're the largest and weakest voting bloc in America.
	Largest and weakest voting bloc in America, simultaneously somehow.
	Because Christians are so pious and self-righteous, or they're progressive, and they just don't show up and vote.
	And so what's going to happen in the next...
	A few hours.
	And in the next few weeks, depending on how long it takes to count votes this time, is going to be on the church.
	And so what we're doing with the film and with the White Rose Resistance, David, is we're just trying to plead with the church.
	Look at how evil this agenda is.
	I'm not asking you to wear a MAGA hat.
	I'm asking you to adopt the mantle of Christian resistance that your forefathers lived and died according to before it's too late.
	And I think we need to understand on this election day that going into a ballot box and checking a box, that's not done, right?
	That you're not done with that.
	The real hard work is in each and every one of our individual lives.
	As your parents homeschooled you, as we homeschooled our kids, if you are against this, Be a leader.
	Take the lead and take the lead of your family.
	And lead your family away from this corrupt institution.
	That's the key thing.
	Christians need to understand that we've had this conversation, I've had this all my life with people, it seems like, but certainly for the last 35 years.
	I would talk to people and try to tell them what had happened in school and say, this is not the school that you went to.
	It's completely different.
	Well, yeah, I know that.
	I've seen the reports, but, you know, that's happening in another state or it's happening in another school district or whatever.
	But even if it's happening in my school, not in my kids' classroom, well, in 2020 they got to see that it was happening in their kids' classroom.
	And so now there's no excuse.
	We know.
	And that's what the Christians need to say.
	So now what are you going to do about it now that you know what this institution is?
	What are you going to do about it?
	First, get your kid out, and then if we get enough of us, we can shut down that institution.
	And we can restructure and build it from the ground up.
	I mean, these people want a great reset.
	Let's do a great reset of families.
	Let's do a great reset of education.
	That's what we need to have a great reset of.
	Our institutions have been completely taken over by the Marxists.
	They wanted to march through them, and they did.
	And they did.
	They've got it now.
	They told us what they were going to do.
	You know, one of the things I look at when I look at Margaret Singer...
	And eugenics and everything.
	Also think about another strain that was very popular, and I think it's coming back in a big way with the people out of Silicon Valley, and that's the technocracy.
	And of course, you know, that just melds right in with this whole eugenics thing.
	Do you see anything coming through with that?
	This kind of, this mania about, yeah, we're all going to, we're going to be the smartest people, the best people.
	You know, we can go on the other way from DEI, right?
	It's very easy for us to swing the pendulum too far in one way, And then go back in the other way.
	So it seems to me like we're very vulnerable at this point, after they've run this DEI thing, for us to go hyper on the competency thing into a technocratic eugenics type of thing.
	I don't know, that's just my thought.
	What do you think about that?
	Well, I mean, you know, it's interesting seeing the ideas that are originally fringe and mocked at that then become popular really fast.
	I mean, I'm sure you've seen this.
	You know, you've seen more cultural decay just because you're older than me.
	You see how quickly a bad idea can become really bad and really popular.
	It's like, what are we doing?
	Why are you believing this?
	And so there is...
	There is a movement right now on the technocrat, I just call them all gay communists, but it's probably not very Christian to me, in Silicon Valley and those master world planner billionaire bettors of ours that want to create, now wait for this phrase, The ubermenschen.
	Yeah.
	So not the untermenschen, which, again, was, let me say this again for your listeners, was a phrase that the Nazis got from Planned Parenthood, their first board member, meaning subhuman in the title of Heinrich Himmler's famous Nazi propaganda book, Der Untermenschen, which, by the way, I just found an original copy online.
	I just bought it.
	You don't see these really anymore because they're trying to bury it.
	Well, now the flip side of that would be, you know, ubermenschen.
	Now you're on a list.
	I know.
	I guess the way to describe this, like, historically would have been positive and negative eugenics, right?
	So negative eugenics would be like, sterilize the people we don't want having kids.
	Positive eugenics would be encourage the fit and the strong to have lots of kids.
	And so positive eugenics is also quite nasty, but it doesn't always result in obliterating the weak.
	But guess what?
	It will always go there eventually.
	This is the Promethean impulse that pagans have when they believe what the serpent said in Genesis 3.
	Ye shall be as gods.
	And live forever, right?
	We're going to transfer over to a robot.
	That's right.
	That's good, David.
	Exactly.
	That Promethean impulse goes all the way back to the garden.
	And so now we're seeing a lot of conversations, articles being written about this, attempts to do things like this.
	Even with Elon Musk and others, actually, as much respect as I have for him, with these chips in our brains, with expanding our brain capacity.
	Oh, nothing to worry about with that.
	Yeah, yeah.
	With attaching like, you know, different robotic improvements to human beings.
	I mean, there's a lot of things that they want to do to create like this superhuman race.
	And you know what's going to inevitably happen if we go that way and that stuff becomes popular.
	Is that if we do create an elevated, well obviously not different species, we're the same species, but an elevated class or way to be human and way to practice being human, the poorer and the weaker who cannot afford or get their hands on such advancements in technology will eventually be dominated by the stronger human.
	That's right.
	And if you think that's like conspiratorial and you're listening to David and I right now, you're an idiot who doesn't know your history.
	Yeah, it goes back to Plato wanting to do that.
	You go, like, look at Brave New World, Aldous Huxley selling that idea.
	I mean, they always want to stratify society with themselves on the top.
	And that brings back to, I want to go back, because I meant to ask you this earlier.
	Margaret Sanger, how in the world did she get the way she was?
	What was her origin story of this monster?
	Yeah, I'll give a flyover, because you can go really deep on that.
	So you should go to the1916project.com and get my book.
	The subtitle, David, is The Lying, the Witch, and the War We're In.
	The Lying, the Witch, and the War We're In.
	Yeah.
	Not a lion that roars, but L-Y-I-N, the lying.
	Okay, so Sanger was a communist.
	She was part of the New York labor movement.
	She was a serial adulterer.
	She was one of the first mothers of the free love movement.
	She wanted to free the libido and free women from the consequences of that libido by limiting birth.
	I'm surprised she didn't run for president like our current candidate.
	Well, Kamala Harris really was the first Margaret Sanger.
	She, too, slept her way up the levers of power.
	That's right.
	And that's a hilarious story.
	It's sick, but it's hilarious.
	Anyways, I just saw a video of Kamala Harris' husband at her campaign rally yesterday.
	Oh, my gosh.
	David, these jokes, like, write themselves.
	And he goes, you know what Kamala does?
	She puts her head down and she goes to work.
	Yeah.
	And I'm sorry.
	I was just like, her husband saying that at his own wife's rally was just hilarious.
	Anyway, that was Margaret Sanger too, okay?
	And she was living in Greenwich Village in 1914, which is, by the way, the same place that the Stonewall movement and the homosexual movement was birthed.
	It's the same place that Kate Millett, with her book Sexual Politics, hosted these Maoist consciousness-raising liturgical struggle sessions about how to destroy the patriarchy, right?
	And they would say, they would chant, like, how do we destroy the patriarch?
	By taking away his power.
	And how do we take away his power?
	By destroying monogamy.
	And how do we destroy monogamy?
	By promoting licentiousness, eroticism, pornography, homosexuality, and abortion.
	By the way, that story comes from Mallory Millett, who became a conservative Catholic, whose sister, Kate Millett, was one of the most prominent second-wave feminists, whose work really provided the creation for women's studies and feminist studies programs at American universities.
	Anyways, I don't know why everything bad comes from Greenwich Village.
	I don't know what it is about that.
	But anyways, that's where Sanger's living.
	In Greenwich Village in 1914, okay, David?
	And she starts attending these kind of leftist, revolutionary think tank gatherings with lots of alcohol.
	And this was hosted at Mabel Dodge's apartment, where she held sort of a French-styled salon and gatherings.
	And Sanger's topic was always sex.
	And it's interesting reading some of the people who were there writing about Sanger later.
	And Mabel Dodge said, who hosted these gatherings in her apartment, said Sanger's topic was always sex, she said.
	She said it was almost as if she was chosen by the powers that be to be a new gospel and a new voice for the rehabilitation of sex.
	And she said that this was taboo back then, talking about Sanger, her friend Sanger.
	She said, like, because, like, no one talked about that stuff then.
	You know, like...
	She's just a little bit ahead of her time.
	She could have been a movie studio head.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Like free love and adultery and like orgasms without responsibility.
	Like, whoa, that's super taboo.
	But that's what Sanger was about.
	And so, I mean, I believe that a lot of this is demonic influence, by the way, which is important to talk about.
	And so, and then Sanger really gets radicalized and she becomes fast friends with Emma Goldman, who was another of the hero's Of the second wave feminists like Kate Millett and Gloria Steinem and others.
	And Emma Goldman was an anarchist and communist who had come to Greenwich Village to begin raising up sort of, you know, a generation of new disciples.
	Have you noticed this about the left guys?
	They're very good at secular discipleship.
	They're often better than we are to disciple the next generation to be salt and light and ambassadors for Christ.
	So anyway, you asked me, how did she become who she was?
	So this is really, really interesting.
	Sanger starts spreading her leaflets, pamphlets on sex and free love and illegal forms of douches and contraceptives that were like, not just illegal, but dangerous.
	And she starts sending these in the mail.
	I have one of them that actually got her indicted behind me in my cabinet.
	And I buy this stuff before they're gone forever.
	And so she gets in trouble with the Comstock laws.
	These are the anti-obscenity laws of the time.
	By the way, we still have many anti-obscenity laws on the books.
	They're just never enforced because of how sick our culture is.
	And so rather than get arrested, guess what Sanger does?
	Here's how the mother of abortion and the patron saint of feminism gets her beginning.
	She flees to England.
	She has her socialist friends raise her kids, and she has them forge her a passport, and she flees to England to avoid being arrested by New York state authorities.
	She spends 18 months being the first Kamala Harris and sleeping her way up the levers of influence in England.
	H.G. Wells, who wrote War of the Worlds.
	Yep.
	Jumped in his bed.
	Many other beds.
	And then she meets a man who she would refer to as basically her biggest influence of her life.
	She talks about him, this man, this way in her writings, which I have the unfortunate job description of having to read so you don't have to.
	His name was Havelock Ellis.
	He was the Alfred Kinsey of England.
	He wrote over 100 books on every weird form of sexually titillating experimental activities.
	He himself was impotent, so he was always trying to find new ways to get excited.
	That's the PG-13 version.
	He hosted orgies in his home, and he would force his wife to watch him as he participated in these entanglements with both men and women.
	He liked to experiment with hallucinogens during orgies.
	And he begins an affair with Margaret Sanger.
	Havelock Ellis was one of the fathers of the free love movement.
	He was a predecessor even to Kinsey.
	And He begins to write about his sexual adulterous affairs with Margaret Sanger in letters that he forces his wife to read.
	Wow.
	And drives his wife insane.
	So a real peach.
	Wow.
	And he begins to coach Sanger to prepare for her journey back to New York City.
	He told her to focus on the more scientific-sounding themes of eugenics and birth control and less on her revolutionary-sounding themes of communism and anarchism.
	He coached her to be more effective.
	Well, here's where it gets interesting.
	If this was Sanger's most...
	Influential, political, and sexual mentor.
	They remained pen pals until his death.
	She went back to England multiple times to see Havelock Ellis, and he became a very popular guest writer in her magazine, The Birth Control Review, which was Planned Parenthood's publication for decades.
	Guess who he was discipled by?
	Guess who Havelock Ellis' mentor was?
	Who's that?
	Francis Galton, who coined this word, he coined a word, it was eugenics.
	Francis Galton coined the term eugenics.
	He's the father of the eugenics movement.
	Havelock Ellis was his protege.
	Well...
	Francis Galton was inspired by his cousin's book, Origin of Species and the Preservation of the Favored Races.
	That's right, by Charles Darwin.
	That would be the half cousin of Francis Galton.
	So not only did we go from Darwinism, Survival of the Fittest, To eugenics, elimination of the unfit.
	Not only did we go from one to the other really quickly, David, but it happened within the same family.
	Apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
	So, by the way, Darwin was really fascinated and inspired by Thomas Malthus, who was an English clergyman who, at the end of the 1700s, when America was 20 years old, begins to write about a population bomb and how, way before Paul Ehrlich's 1968 book, About how population growth, food production can't keep up with population growth.
	So eventually we're gonna have massive starvation unless you obliterate the weak and the poor and the dying and the diseased.
	And so Darwin read Malthus's writings.
	Galton read Darwin's writings.
	Havelock Ellis read Galton's writings.
	And Sanger was mentored by Havelock Ellis.
	So literally from one person to the other, all who knew the other, we went from too many people on planet Earth To Survival of the Fittest and then, of course, Darwin's other book, The Descent of Man, which is, like, overtly eugenic.
	Like, Origin of Species is, like, animal stuff.
	And then in Descent of Man, he just says, like, well, let's just apply that to human populations.
	Okay.
	And then Galton, who says, oh, thanks, cuz.
	I love your book.
	Let's obliterate human unfit people who mentor sexual weirdo Kinsey-like England Havelock Ellis orgy hosting dude who becomes Sanger's number one political and sexual mentor.
	So we went from survival of the fittest to obliterate the unfit to sexual chaos and orgies to child sacrifice awfully quickly, didn't we?
	What am I trying to say?
	Ideology is a hell of a drug.
	And ideas have consequences and bad ideas have victims.
	So that's a little bit for your question.
	What a fascinating story.
	It's fascinating and it reminds me of what you see in the Dickens novels all the time, right?
	Everybody's related to everybody else.
	Ideologically, they're all related to each other, and I think there's some kind of generational demonic thing going on here as well.
	But it is interesting, you know, to see what a tight clique that was, and where all these ideas are coming from.
	Almost like it's a cabal, or like they planned it.
	That's right.
	We see all these different streams that many people will think of as being separate and independently coming, but we see they had a common origin, and they're now converging together in our society at the same time, aren't they?
	It's amazing.
	Very well said.
	Wow.
	It truly is amazing.
	I'm sure that's a fascinating film, the1916project.com.
	Now, people can see the trailer there.
	Is it online?
	How do you have this set up?
	Yeah, the trailer's on our website, but we released the film right before the election for free on Twitter, now called X.
	And so the Spanish version has over 7 million views.
	The English version has over 2 million views, or 2.5 million.
	So if you go to the1916project.com, pick up the book.
	The book will rip your face off.
	It will red pill you.
	It will Holy Spirit pill you.
	You ain't never read a book like this.
	And the book goes way deeper than the film, by the way, David.
	So it's not just like a replica.
	it's like way more information that I wanted to put in the film but I didn't have the space for And then as soon as you go to the website, a window pops up.
	It says, watch the film.
	And so it'll take you straight to our Twitter, our X account, our 1916 Project film X account, and you can watch the whole film there.
	But it's only up until November 13th.
	And then we're going to pull it off of X, and then in short order, we'll get it to various streaming platforms.
	But we wanted to take it to the largest and freest social media platform in the world right now, thanks to Elon Musk buying it.
	And so that's where we decided to release it initially.
	So...
	That's where you can watch it right now.
	And then our ministry, The White Rose Resistance, we made the film.
	Our donors paid to get this film done.
	We traveled to Munich, Nashville, Houston, Los Angeles, New York City.
	It's a fascinating, it's a beautiful film, just aesthetically.
	I have an incredible producer and team.
	It's beautiful.
	We put the pieces together.
	We did the old Glenn Beck chalkboard style where you connect all the dots and this goes to this and this goes to this and we did that.
	The book, if you get it from us, our website comes with a timeline in the book that's a replica of the chalkboard scene in the film of all the dates and people and how all this insanity called the 21st century happened by left-wing weirdos, architects of the culture of death.
	And so we're really trying to teach people that ideas have consequences and bad ideas have victims and that all of this is fundamentally theological and spiritual and it's time for the church to wake up.
	And so we launch resistance chapters with my ministry, the White Rose Resistance, all around the country.
	We've launched in Boise, Fort Worth, Denver, Southern California, Florida.
	And now we're planning a bunch of launches for next year.
	And then we hire regional leadership, we do trainings, and we show believers what Christian resistance looks like locally where God has them.
	Meaning, we're in such a mess in the culture, David, we can't vote our way out of it.
	That's right.
	We can vote to restrain evil.
	Of course we can vote to restrain evil insofar as we can given the choices.
	But like...
	It's going to take, like, a rebirth of Christians sacrificing and rebuilding a culture of life, which starts in your own home first, by the way.
	That's right.
	And it starts by not being ashamed and not being silenced.
	And you notice that the line of attack, especially social media and everything, is to get people to self-censor and to get people to sit down and to be ashamed and not to say anything.
	And we have to, first of all, get over that, or we'll absolutely be totally worthless.
	Hispanic views, 7 million, than you did of English-speaking documentary, 2 million.
	Why do you think that is?
	People that I've known that are Hispanic, they have a lot more conservative families than the English.
	Do you think that's what's happening with it?
	Or is it just the way it went out?
	I think that might be it.
	I'm still trying to figure that out.
	I didn't expect it to do quite so well, actually, on the Spanish version.
	But I'm very pleased that it is.
	Because those would be, historically, if you want to look at the history of eugenics, Minorities would historically be some of the classes that Sanger and Herilk would have focused a lot of their clinics on.
	And the vast majority of abortion clinics today are located within walking distance of majority black and Hispanic neighborhoods.
	So anyways, but I like what you said, David, about self-censorship.
	That's one of the final, actually, strategies, is that you don't even have to use the threat of cancel culture or big government or big tech to silence your political opponents because they become cowards and they're afraid to speak.
	Theodore Dalrymple has this really interesting observation about this.
	This might be a fun thing to finish on.
	He says, in my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate.
	And therefore, the less it corresponded to reality, the better.
	When people are forced to remain silent, when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse, when they are forced to repeat those lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of integrity.
	Yes.
	To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself.
	Your standing to resist anything is thus eroded and even destroyed.
	A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.
	If you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.
	That's so true.
	I've told people so many times...
	It's just communism again.
	That's right.
	Solzhenitsyn was fully on that in his essay, short essay.
	It won't take you very long.
	You can read it out loud in five minutes.
	But his essay, Live Not By Lies.
	And that was the thing he said.
	He said, look, I understand if they're going to kick you out of your job, your home, and all the rest of this stuff.
	He goes...
	You know, maybe you say to yourself, well, I'm going to go along with this.
	He goes, but don't believe it.
	And that's what Orwell was into.
	I understood.
	You know, do not believe that two plus two equals five.
	If they get you to actually believe that and double think what you and to say and to literally go along with what you know is not true and really internalize that and believe it and live by that.
	That's the ultimate goal.
	The heresy of heresies.
	That's right.
	It's common sense.
	That's right.
	Their goal is to control you.
	I mean, that's why they have the struggle sessions where they do the self-denouncement.
	But of course, we see that now.
	You've got to be an anti-racist and all the rest of the stuff.
	It's all a replay of these strategies that have been perfected by them.
	And so I think it is key.
	We don't want to be necessarily combative, but we also know that because Jesus said, you know, they're going to hate you if you We know that's going to be there, but we don't try to create conflict.
	We want to give people the truth, but we want to have both truth and mercy bound around our neck.
	And so we want to do it in a merciful way, a non-confrontational way, but we have to not be afraid of that confrontation, and we have to not be afraid of getting our feelings hurt.
	Or hurting somebody else.
	We don't try to do that, but the key thing is that we have to not be intimidated, and that's what they really do seek to do.
	So, very important.
	I'm so glad to see your – it's fascinating, the history that you've gotten.
	As you point out, you've got the book there at the1916project.com.
	You get a lot more information than is even in the documentary.
	The documentary for a couple more weeks is free on Twitter, and you have set up a package to help churches to disciple people to get them to understand the times in which they live and what the battle is about and what the side, which side is, you know, what the issues are and where they need to be on these issues to think about them.
	And I think that is the key thing.
	I've told people in this election We need to not focus so much on who is right as on what is right.
	And so that's a very key thing to get those principles down to people.
	That is something that the church definitely has a role in, to show what is right.
	That is very, very important.
	So thank you so much.
	Seth Gruber, it's been fascinating to talk to you, and I'm sure it's a fascinating book and a documentary.
	I haven't seen it yet, but I will do it as soon as I get some time.
	Thank you so much.
	Let me know when you watch it.
	The1916project.com.
	That links to our White Rose Resistance Ministry website as well for people that want to join.
	We're doing an event in D.C. on January 23rd, the day before the March for Life, called Life or Death Con with Eric Metaxas, Ali Bestucki, Dr.
	George Grant, Nancy Piercy, some other incredible voices.
	So people are invited to come join us at any of our live events.
	Subscribe to my podcast, The Seth Gruber Show.
	And then pick up the book, and you can host a screening at your church.
	So if you see it on X, and you're like, I've got to bring this to my pastor in church, churches are hosting screenings still.
	And so those are some of the ways you can engage with what we're doing.
	But David, thank you for your clarity and your voice, and I enjoyed talking with you today.
	Thank you so much.
	And you've got a podcast, too.
	That's great.
	The Seth Gruber Show.
	Thank you so much.
	That's right.
	All right, folks, we're going to be right back.
	Stay with us.
	Stay with us.
	Stay with us.
	Stay with us.
	Stay with us.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Jeb Clanton, thank you very much for the tip.
	He says, it's a war on reality.
	If a pregnant woman is killed, there's a charge of murder for the unborn baby as well.
	They know what they're doing.
	That's right.
	More American double-think.
	And he said, good interview with us, Seth.
	Yeah, very interesting, sharp guy.
	You know, when you stop and think about it, what are they saying?
	Well, if the woman wants the baby, it's a person.
	If the woman doesn't want the baby, it's not a person.
	If it's not a person, even though it's a human being, we can kill the person.
	Except that they don't really care what the mom thinks later on, do they?
	I mean, it is just, it's all over the place.
	And this whole subjective idea, this situational ethics, this situational morality is really...
	Scott Helmer, good to see you.
	And by the way, Scott Helmer, in case those of you don't remember, Scott is a musician, artist, a songwriter.
	He's got a website that's excellent.
	He's got some excellent songs there.
	Thank you for the tip.
	I appreciate that.
	He says, and as we pointed out before, if a bioweapon was really created and released in the entire world from the Wuhan lab in China, the military would have bombed it into oblivion and showed it on the news 24-7 and probably would have gone to war.
	It's all a scam, just like the elections.
	That's right.
	It is to take away any culpability for, you know, things like remdesivir even, not just the vaccine, but even remdesivir, you know.
	Rand Paul can buy stock in Gilead that makes remdesivir, and he can Hector Fauci and say, you're going to create vaccine hesitancy.
	And then talk to him about gain-of-function, to try to look like a hero, and to make the whole thing look like it was real.
	That's the key thing.
	Let's talk a little bit about the vote thing again.
	It was kind of interesting.
	I saw Scott Sherr, who I've talked to several times.
	His daughter was sacrificed.
	Literally, for this Trump pandemic nonsense.
	All the rules that were put in at the hospitals and they paid people to kill other people.
	His daughter, Grace.
	OurAmazingGrace.net is where Scott Scherer is and you can follow his lawsuit.
	A very important lawsuit coming up also in November.
	This is important because it's not just about medical malpractice, but it is also about deliberate malice from the doctors.
	That's a very different thing.
	If it's medical malpractice, just send it to the insurance companies.
	And, okay, they're going to raise your rates.
	And maybe it'll be difficult for you.
	Maybe if you get enough of these, maybe you might not even be able to be a doctor anymore.
	But if it's deliberate, that's another case.
	And they tried to get that thrown out, but they won in court.
	And that evidence will be heard.
	But I saw Scott Schera talked about the etymology of the word vote.
	And I thought it was really fascinating.
	I like to talk about history.
	I like to talk about the history of words.
	And that's really what we're talking about when we're talking about etymology.
	Not entomology, which is about insects.
	But the voting thing.
	Identified in medieval Latin as votere.
	A verb, to vote.
	It originally comprised a pact of devotion, right?
	Same root word as devotion.
	The voting.
	As devotion to God or a tribute to a divine entity over the intimacy of a request, you still have votive candles and things like that as part of a devotion.
	So we're talking about devotion, votive, a vow, and vote.
	It's all tied together.
	And so I guess when I look at this and I look at the etymology of this, you know, we need to make a distinction.
	You know, it's frequently said, money is the root of all evil.
	Well, that's not true.
	That's not what Jesus said.
	As a matter of fact, we need to use money.
	We need to use it wisely.
	We need to let it take over our life.
	We need to not make an idol of it, and that's what Jesus said.
	He said, the love of money is the root of all evil.
	You have to use it.
	You can't avoid it in this life, and he had a great deal To say about money.
	I forget what the count was, but he mentioned, you know, financial things hundreds of times to give an example because that's where we live in this life.
	That medium of exchange.
	So money is not evil, but the love of money is the root of all evil.
	And in the same way, we can vote, but we don't have to be devoted, do we?
	That's why I said of the people who are pushing this, and it disturbs me to see so many pastors jump into this, because we don't have anybody that you really should be devoted to.
	So why would you endorse any of these people?
	Keep it about the issues.
	Keep it about what is right rather than who is right.
	Jesus is not on the ballot, as I said yesterday.
	Perfection is not on the ballot.
	No, don't be a perfectionist.
	Jesus isn't on the ballot.
	That's right, so don't put him there.
	Don't make him the running mate of the person that you want other people to vote for because you're devoted to that person.
	Don't be devoted to them.
	This is a path, and I have seen so many people who, I hate to mention names because they otherwise will many times do good work.
	I don't want to call them out.
	When I do it, it gets people upset.
	But you know, when they do things like this, it concerns me.
	When I see well-known preachers who might do a good job of the gospel, stick to the gospel.
	Stick to something that you know about.
	Instead of getting involved in politics, instead of endorsing people that you don't know, and you don't know anything about them, and even the things that are public knowledge, you don't want to pretend that you know.
	And you're going to give a pass to that.
	That's not what we're called to do.
	That's not a loving thing for that person, as I've said many times.
	All the people who gather around Trump...
	And who pray for him and take selfies of themselves praying with him and put it out on social media?
	Do they really love him or do they love themselves?
	Right?
	Do they love power?
	Or do they love principles?
	What are these people about?
	Here's a good example.
	This is somebody, I'll mention his name because he's not somebody like...
	Greg Laurie, who's out there pushing people, say, be salt and light.
	And we're laughing about that, and Whistler said, yeah, Trump is an irritant, isn't he?
	He's kind of like salt, but there's not a whole lot of light there.
	He's pretty benighted.
	But this is a Southern Baptist pastor.
	Southern Baptist Conference, SBC. And he's somebody who has in the past gone around with Republican politicians to push for biblical marriage, to push against abortion, to be pro-life and all the rest of the stuff.
	And now he is endorsing Lala Harris.
	He claims that she has character, competence, and a high regard for life.
	And it's like, oh, wait a minute, wait a minute, there's something else going on here.
	He's a black pastor.
	And I imagine he's got a large church of 3,000 people.
	And, you know, I don't know this guy.
	His name is McKissick, I think.
	But again, isn't this hypocrisy just reek to heaven?
	To say that she has regard for life?
	I've never seen anybody push abortion more than her.
	To say that she is competent, one of the most incompetent people that has ever slept their way to the top, and to say that she has character.
	It's just unbelievable.
	So it is rank hypocrisy to support a reprobate like this.
	And yet, he does it.
	He tries to make the case.
	He says, I would never vote for an adulterous, childish, habitually lying person.
	Now, is he talking about Lala or Trump?
	No.
	He was talking about Trump, and it's true.
	It fits.
	It fits for Trump.
	It also fits for Lala.
	And so that's why I say we don't have a choice between good and evil.
	We have a choice between two evils, especially for a pastor.
	So that was the subtitle of his essay there.
	He says, For the better part of 40 years, I saw Democrats endorsing, encouraging, elevating gay rights agendas, other same-sex marriage, advocating and advancing abortion rights.
	President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, was impeached for perjury following an adulterous affair he had while in office.
	None of the above aligned with my Christian values.
	But now he's going to embrace all this, you see?
	And everybody sees this hypocrisy.
	He's got a large church and he thinks, I guess, that it's going to help him to vote along ethnic lines.
	But God doesn't see ethnic divisions, right?
	Everybody's part of the human race.
	The difference is which way are they racing?
	Are they racing towards God or are they racing towards the Democrats and Republicans?
	Where are they going?
	And that is, again, vote how you want, but don't devote yourself to this.
	He says, I've even written op-ed pieces.
	I've toured, as I said before, with Governor Abbott there.
	He said evangelical leaders rightly called Clinton out for his sex scandal with Monica Lewinsky, and then his lying about it.
	It's astonishing to see these same leaders ignore Trump's many sex scandals and ignore that he was found liable in a court of sexually abusing a woman.
	All of that is true.
	I've said all that myself.
	But does he not see the hypocrisy in what he is doing when he is excusing this for Lala at the same time?
	It's a very concerning thing.
	His name is Dwight Kissick.
	Dwight Kissick.
	So, um...
	Again, yesterday I started talking about what I think a world religion is going to look like, where it's going to come from.
	I saw this, AI chatbots are the new priests.
	And I mentioned this yesterday.
	This Episcopalian group put in, created this thing called CATHY, which is an acronym for Churchy Answers That Help You.
	Supposed to answer faith-based questions.
	So they've put in, you know, come up with a female name and all the rest of the stuff because that's where they're headed.
	But they put all this stuff in, the collective knowledge of people we trust, right?
	And so we're going to bring this in.
	And so this is the collective knowledge of the, in this particular case, Episcopalians.
	But is it the collective knowledge?
	Knowledge of the Word of God, for example.
	Even if you fed this thing the Bible.
	Do you want to put it in the position of trust?
	And they talk about the fact that this is also being done with other religions.
	They have Buddha Bot.
	They have Chatbot Eli.
	I guess that's Jewish.
	They have Gita GPT. I have no idea what that is.
	They have Quran GPT. So if we were to say that these chatbots can ingest and can summarize and collate these religious texts, the way it seems to me as they're kind of pushing this, you know, we could put all this stuff together and we could have a one-world religion.
	We just take the best of all of these different religions that are there.
	So they said it can serve as a tool for priests, helping them to build sermon outlines.
	This is an opportunity for the church to engage in ways that it never has engaged before.
	Has mankind different?
	Has the nature of man changed?
	No.
	Has the nature of God changed?
	No.
	No, of course not.
	And so, why is it that we need to do something new and novel?
	Well, it's not actually new and novel.
	The technology is a little bit different, but the ideas are ancient, aren't they?
	So, you know, we could bring in psychologists as well.
	You know, we could bring in Confucius.
	We could bring in Jung.
	We could bring in Freud.
	We could bring in all these different influences.
	We could merge that all with the Bible, the Koran, you name it.
	And we create this AI. It has all the answers.
	I guess we call it 42 out of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
	Tell us the meaning of life.
	It's 42.
	That'll be what it comes up with.
	But when we look at it, of course it does have its odd hallucinations still.
	They pulled back a little bit from it when it suggested that Gatorade could be used as a baptismal font.
	Is a soulless chatbot really the future of spiritual nourishment?
	Let's put Kathy to the test, and I found myself confessing more to her than I expected.
	You see?
	And I think there's something here.
	Altman, Sam Altman, the OpenAI CEO, said it's a mistake to assume that they are human-like in their thinking.
	I try not to project my human anthropomorphic biases onto it.
	In other words, it's better to think of bots more like another specie altogether, like an alien.
	And then this article says, but who wants an alien priest?
	People want answers to deep questions with empathy and not just with facts.
	Chat is a very poor replacement for a real priest.
	You know, people are a very poor replacement for the mediator between God and man, the Lord Jesus Christ.
	The idea that these are just religious ideas, that these are just texts, we as Christians don't believe that.
	We believe this is the very Word of God.
	We believe that it is alive.
	And there is something distinct about that.
	And if you haven't had that experience, well, you ask for it.
	But the Word of God is alive.
	The chatbots are not alive.
	And they never will be.
	The Word of God is not the cumulative wisdom of men.
	It is the wisdom of God that has come down to man.
	We could have access to all the religious scholarship in human history.
	But it would only be effective if it was programmed to say, I don't know, on occasion.
	An invariably all-knowing bot would quickly be dispensed with.
	Is that what people hate about God?
	The fact that he knows everything?
	The fact that God does not say, I don't know.
	He knows everything.
	He declared the beginning from the end.
	He created everything.
	That's the source that I want to go to for answers.
	Not Kathy.
	When I ask Kathy why God would allow me to struggle with social anxiety, or why I routinely find myself cocooning away from others, I hope for some spiritual deeper guidance, maybe a Bible verse or two on the topic.
	Instead, all Kathy could muster was pablum, that anxiety is a common human experience.
	Forget about it.
	It happens to everybody, right?
	I guess Kathy's not ingested the Psalms yet.
	Maybe it's still working on the Episcopalian stuff.
	Not to criticize any Episcopalians out there.
	But while Telving agreed that there are opportunities for generative AI to be effective purveyor of knowledge on spiritual matters tailored to the needs of an individual bot should never replace humans helping in a time of need.
	And of course, that's the other thing about it.
	Do we approach God from the standpoint that we just want to know things, or we want to know about Him?
	Or do we want to know Him?
	Right?
	And so that's what this is ultimately about.
	We don't have a high priest.
	Who is a chatbot.
	We have a high priest who has been tested in every way like we have.
	And knows what we have gone through.
	And has empathy for that.
	And is our one mediator.
	So the chatbot is only simulating empathy.
	It doesn't really have any consciousness.
	It can never really witness anything, they said.
	To nourish your soul, you need to be in the presence of other souls, they said.
	And even more importantly, in the presence of God, except no substitutes.
	And yet, we see that increasingly, the church is turning towards what can never satisfy us.
	Politics, competition between people.
	Churches hosting turning point, get-out-the-vote events likely violate tax law, experts say.
	Well, of course, that's not true.
	It's not true.
	And, of course, Seth mentioned this earlier, the Johnson Amendment, which they always come back to.
	What a fake that is.
	They called it an amendment, but it's not as if it changed the First Amendment to the Constitution.
	It didn't.
	And I think that was deliberate.
	I think they wanted people to think, well, okay, we've got the First Amendment, but now we've got the Johnson Amendment.
	And so I guess that's overridden.
	No, it doesn't.
	As a matter of fact, it wasn't even a law either.
	So it was not an amendment.
	It was not a law.
	It was a rule that LBJ pressured the IRS to put in, and the IRS is afraid to enforce it because they don't want to have their fraud called out.
	And so they've been challenged on it numerous times.
	And they have backed down in every single one of these things.
	But what I found interesting about this was the fact that I see a lot of these articles, several of them have been written by NBC, ABC. Some of them have been put up on the Drudge Report.
	They're going to come after these churches where Charlie Kirk was focusing everybody on politics.
	And yet they don't have any problem at all with Lala going to black churches.
	Isn't that interesting?
	It's always, oh, these MAGA churches, they should lose their taxes.
	Well, the IRS isn't going to do that.
	They're afraid of that.
	It's a bluff.
	But they don't even talk about it when she goes to the black churches.
	Oh, that's great.
	And so what they're trying to say is, well, this is different.
	And again, they mention it here in this article from NBC. They say what they're doing definitely violates the Johnson Amendment.
	But actually, they say what they're doing almost definitely violates the Johnson Amendment.
	Does it?
	How can you be almost definitely?
	You're either definitely...
	Or it's almost a violation of the Johnson Amendment.
	Or it's definitely a violation, but it's not almost definitely.
	It's that a 1954 law that bars churches and other non-profit groups from directly supporting political candidates.
	Again, it's not a law.
	It's not an amendment.
	It's a bluff.
	It's a bluff.
	But I don't think that it's the sort of thing that is going to make the church stronger.
	It's not going to make people stronger to focus on this stuff.
	Charlie Kirk is going around to these churches and he's telling them, go door to door and get people to go vote for Trump.
	Are you going to go door to door to give them the gospel?
	Come on!
	I mean, this is ridiculous to have this kind of energy redirected to this kind of Idolatry.
	And I don't think going door-to-door is necessarily a great way to do it either.
	You know, people are nowadays, people are kind of taken back if you go door-to-door.
	You know, it used to be a way that a lot of things were sold, you know.
	You sell household appliances full of brush salesmen or whatever.
	Go door-to-door, sell them Bibles or whatever.
	But people don't like that anymore.
	But anyway, there's a long history of churches, including progressive and historically black congregations, getting involved in elections by registering voters, canvassing neighborhoods, providing transportation to polling sites.
	And NBC says, but those are legal.
	As long as they don't explicitly target or exclude voters based on party affiliations.
	And they said when Kirk has gone around telling people to do this, he said, well, here's a list.
	You know, don't go to the Democrats.
	Go to the Republicans.
	Remind them to go vote.
	But the tests of the Johnson Amendment, the people recorded themselves making an explicit endorsement of a candidate, for example, because they're pro-life or whatever, and sent it to them.
	I don't think that that's necessarily – Again, if you've got somebody who has good character and you can recommend them, I just don't see anybody that's on the ballot at the top of the ballot.
	There's not to say there'd be a lot of people down ballot that you could recommend to people, and you should be able to do that.
	The First Amendment protects both political speech as well as religious speech.
	But regardless, you shouldn't be bought off.
	If you're going to lose your 501c3, so be it.
	Who really cares about that?
	So, again, when we look at this, it is a redirection away from what is important.
	This is a Christian apologist who is a former Muslim.
	He once spent his days attacking Bible believers, but now he's worried about what he sees in the American church.
	He says, I think you're sacralizing politics.
	He said, everything is neck and neck in all the polling data, and I told you before why that is.
	The poll people don't want to stick their neck out.
	So they're going to say, we can't tell.
	Looks like they're all equal.
	He said, leading supporters of the two top presidential contenders to zealously embrace their candidates of choice.
	And again, I think what the church needs to do is focus on what is right, not who.
	He said, but interest in and understanding of the importance of the electoral process is justifiable, but morphing that into something religious is not right.
	He made his case against the temptation among believers to misplace politics in a list of priorities.
	He said politics is a means by which we can look at our moral values and apply them in a public way for the public good.
	I think every believer in Christ has to ask themselves the following questions.
	When you're engaging with someone in a political conversation or a cultural or social conversation and that person disagrees with you, listen to this.
	You're engaging them in a moral or political conversation, and they disagree with you.
	He says, how do you see them?
	Think about this for yourself.
	We all need to think about this.
	Do you equate their value as a person with their value of their ideas?
	Because if you do that, when you dismiss their ideas, you dismiss their value as well.
	And again, we want to make it about what is right, not who is right.
	We don't want to compromise on what is true in order to get along with somebody.
	But we also don't want to demonize them because they are supporting an idea that is wrong, or they disagree with us.
	He said, the Christian worldview does not allow believers to denigrate the worth of others simply because of their perspectives or their political persuasions.
	It's what we always talk about when we say, Love the sinner, but not the sin, right?
	We have to focus on what is right, not sit there in judgment of them as to whether or not they're right.
	And we extrapolate that out to politics as well.
	He says that's a Christian worldview, but he says other worldviews don't allow for that.
	Other worldviews, like Islam, that he came out of, We'll equate the worth of a person with the value of their beliefs, which is why you have apostasy laws in some religious systems where you can eliminate someone based on the ideas that they hold.
	Now, that elimination can be, you know, you can debank them, you can push them off of social media, you can fire them, you might kill them in an Islamic country.
	Because the value of their ideas and the values of them as a person is equated.
	The Christian can't do that.
	There's no place in the gospel where you're allowed to do such a thing.
	Human beings are made in the image of God, he said, and Christians have no right to devalue an individual as a person, even if I have the right to not value their idea.
	And we're obligated to separate the value of an idea a person has from the value of the person themselves.
	That's why it's such a horrible thing to see so many people say, well, I'm the health ranger, but I don't really care about the vaccine.
	I don't care about all the stuff that Trump did.
	I just want to own those libs, and I want to see them miserable and crying.
	I mean, that's such an antithetical thing.
	It's just crazy to try to foment this kind of division.
	And as I was saying at the beginning of the program, you have to be very careful because a lot of people make a lot of money doing exactly that.
	He says, think about the assassination attempt on Trump.
	It's a sickening phenomenon that after a shooting like that, there was actually a hashtag that the body count wasn't one higher.
	We've never seen that before, he said.
	But also, we watch Biden debate.
	And in his performance, he says, I think people on the conservative side were gleefully hoping that he would embarrass himself because of cognitive decline.
	It's one thing to be informed that he has cognitive decline.
	It's another thing to be glad about it.
	And so, you know, when we look at this, we see over and over again, here's Franklin Graham.
	Without a doubt, this is the most consequential election in my lifetime.
	I just played the joke about that.
	Democrats and Republicans are both doing that.
	Saturday Night Live was laughing at Democrats who would do that because they're Democrats.
	The most important election of my lifetime, right?
	Well, we understand that, you know, and clearly he didn't understand what was going on in 2020.
	He took the jab.
	He got pericarditis.
	You know, I think he honestly believed that.
	But, you know, he took the jab.
	Bill Gates is calling for a new religion to guide humanity in the age of AI. We'll come back to where we began with all this stuff.
	And that is, you know, AI as a new religion.
	Gates pushing that.
	He suggested in a podcast appearance with ultra-leftist billionaire Reid Hoffman that humanity will need a new religion to navigate the challenges and the opportunities presented by the rise of AI. Gates reached a new level of creepiness,
	says Breitbart, by asserting that humanity needs a new god to worship in the age of AI. He emphasized the need for a new religion or philosophy to guide humanity as AI increasingly shapes our world.
	And this is something, folks, we need to warn each other about.
	We need to warn people about what a tool of deception AI is created to be.
	It's there to surveil us.
	It is there to propagandize us.
	It is there to censor us.
	But it is the ultimate deceiver.
	And in that regard, it is absolutely, 100% satanic.
	Gates acknowledges the tremendous potential of AI to solve some of the world's most pressing problems, such as disease and hunger.
	You think that AI is going to solve these things?
	And climate change, he said, which is not a problem.
	However, he also cautioned that the allure of these technologies could be so great that people may become addicted to them, spending more time in virtual worlds than in the real one.
	And I can imagine as Gates was saying that, he was rubbing his hands together like a fly, you know, in glee.
	They might be in the virtual world all the time!
	And yet, AI is supposed to be a remedy for the virtual world?
	To counteract this risk, Gates suggested a new spiritual framework may be necessary to keep humanity grounded and connected to one another.
	You know, he said, you can almost call it a new religion or a new philosophy of, okay, how do we stay connected with each other and not addicted to these things that make video games look like nothing in terms of attractiveness of spending time on them?
	That is what they're absolutely focused on.
	How they can draw you into their virtual world and keep you there.
	But isn't that what this election is about, too, at the national level?
	Elon Musk told people the truth a few months ago, before he got into this.
	He said, if you understand how this thing works, Soros is spending this money at the local level.
	Because that's where he gets the biggest bang for his buck.
	So why is Elon Musk spending $75 million and even more than that?
	Well, we're going to talk about that when we come back.
	We're going to compare that to some of the things that are happening with preppers.
	But before we take a break, we'll cover that when we come back as well.
	Trevor Long, thank you very much for the tip.
	He says, thank you for your guest, David.
	It does still baffle my mind why pro-life people support Trump.
	We must pray for them.
	Yes.
	And we need to pray that the blinders will come off of a lot of people's eyes because it is that fear and that misdirection that can be very dangerous to all of us.
	And that's why I talk about the politics issue here.
	We're going to take a quick break, and we will be right back.
	ORCHESTRA
	PLAYS ORCHESTRA
	PLAYS ORCHESTRA
	PLAYS You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	The End Jason Barker says, I find it interesting that the majority of early and mail-in voting is from the elderly.
	I'm pretty sure a lot were killed off in the pandemic.
	Are dead people voting?
	Or are they ballot harvesting from nursing homes?
	Yeah, we'll never know.
	I just don't trust the elections.
	By the way, Jason Barker, Knights of the Storm.
	Always good to see Jason there.
	Washington Post.
	A new generation embraces living off of the land, with or without the land.
	And I thought this was interesting, and I think it's something that we all need to think about, right?
	We can warn other people, and we should warn other people when we see things.
	Our powers of persuasion are limited.
	As I said, even when I was at Infowars, I could tell people, don't do what these guys are telling you to do.
	It's going to be tragic.
	But they would still do it.
	And so you have, even if you can get the information out to people, there's still no guarantee that you're going to be able to convince people.
	So just as we were saying earlier about children, that type of thing, get your kids away from these institutions.
	Homeschool them.
	And we need to look at prepping as well.
	We can try to talk people down from this fever that happens every four years, heightened this time to a new degree.
	But at the same time, we need to think about what we can do to provide for ourselves.
	And so I thought this was a very interesting story from the Washington Post.
	They looked at a convention that was happening in the Blue Ridge, let's see, at the foot of the Blue Ridge Mountains.
	So I don't know where this is.
	I didn't see where the town was, but I missed out on it.
	It was in October.
	About 6,000 people.
	So it's probably not too far away from us.
	We're in the Blue Ridge Mountains.
	Anyway, this is the way they described it.
	They said, Cassandra Daniel held a quail in one hand, nestling the yellowish-brown-feathered bird's head between her fingers, and in her other hand, she grasped a pair of kitchen shears.
	Oh, no, says the Washington Post reporter.
	I know what's going to happen next.
	As an audience of a few hundred people watched rapidly from rows of folding chairs, Cassandra Daniel turned to the four volunteers who had joined her.
	They were all women, one in a shirt with a Bible verse, let all that you do be done in love.
	And each of them held a quail that they tried to keep calm.
	So see, she thought this is very cognitively dissonant that...
	She has a t-shirt that says, Let all you do be done in love.
	And she's about to kill and eat a quail.
	Ladies, I'm going to need you to commit, she said.
	She ordinarily, her ordinarily cheerful face had turned serious.
	She didn't want the birds, which she had raised in her Maryland backyard, to suffer.
	So one by one, the four of them knelt over a white plastic bin and cut the necks off of the quail.
	Within a few minutes, the women were holding up meat that wouldn't look out of place on a foam tray in a grocery store.
	And I guess this is where Washington Post thinks it all comes from.
	The quail would go home with the women in a plastic food storage container.
	They could serve it for dinner.
	Fresh, homegrown poultry with a taste that Cassandra described as delicious and a touch gamey.
	She said, I honestly didn't think that I could do it, said one woman, beaming.
	I'm excited to try the meat out, I mean, but I did it myself.
	And it means more.
	It was day one of the sold-out Homesteaders of America Conference.
	That's the name of the conference, in case you want to try to find this when it happens again.
	It just happened in October.
	It was on the fairgrounds at the foot of the Blue Ridge Mountains.
	6,000 people attending sessions on growing crops, homeschooling, canning, using plants for medicine, raising livestock.
	Kids were labeling meat cuts on worksheets, and booths were selling chicken coops, wool products made with a spinning wheel.
	Now, this is useful education.
	And I mean it.
	This is useful education.
	While these other kids are out there, Studying the history of feminism or whatever, right?
	These people are learning real survival skills.
	Homesteading, going back to the land, living more simply, becoming more self-sufficient, tends to see an uptick, they said, when people's faith in society is shaken.
	Think about recessions or supply chain disruptions or political upheavals.
	Or pandemics.
	Wait a minute.
	Did we check all of those boxes?
	Or you might think about the deliberate destruction of your food supply, like this.
	Yeah, no, these turkeys are not having a bubble bath.
	They're solely pushing this foam out to kill them all.
	Because, you know, we have to do it for the bird flu or whatever.
	And then we've got to kill the cattle.
	We have our society.
	This is coming from the government.
	The government is deliberately burning down our society.
	Just think about all the coal plants.
	They were very productive.
	Clean.
	You know, they can go back.
	You can clean up a coal plant.
	It doesn't have to be dirty.
	And the ones in China and India are dirty.
	They don't have any concern about that.
	But, you know, you can't even have one even if you clean it.
	And even though these things have been around, and they're very efficient, and they're very clean, and they're paid for, oh, we've got to destroy that.
	And so they're tearing these things down.
	They're destroying our food supply.
	They're destroying our energy.
	So, they talked to one person, the author of the 2020 book, Shelter from the Machine, Homesteading in the Age of Capitalism.
	They said it was clear from the pandemic, early days, that homesteading would see another spike.
	You think?
	The COVID pandemic was exactly the sort of thing that gets people thinking.
	They're in a city.
	They're in lockdown.
	It looks like the food deliveries are getting a little bit shaky.
	Yeah, they busted the supply chain and all the rest of this stuff.
	And then there's a couple of examples in their article of some people who are living the dream.
	Here's Elias Castillo.
	He wove through the green tangle of a suburban yard in Fairfax County, Virginia, pausing to point out everything that he was growing.
	He said,
	When he and his wife were house hunting in 2020, they had two non-negotiables on their list.
	Number one, their new home had to have land, and number two, it couldn't have a homeowners association.
	That is the most important thing, because in his property where he's got all this stuff happening, he's only got a one-third of an acre.
	That's not a lot.
	Usually, if you've got that little land, you usually are in a homeowner's association.
	He said the house was almost secondary.
	The plot of land was what we wanted.
	He said it's about a third of an acre.
	It's crammed with plants.
	He said, and maybe the third of the acre is just where their garden is.
	I imagine maybe doesn't include the house.
	He says it's not chaotic gardening, but it is very close to it.
	He says they've managed to grow as much as 80% of the produce that his family eats in a year.
	And they show a little sign there that says the Castillo Garden.
	Fruits, herbs, and veggies established 2020.
	And see, the reason they found him was because he's also supplementing himself by teaching other people how to do it on YouTube.
	A few short years later, they live on an old farmhouse in 84 acres.
	This is a different couple.
	I'm sorry, I just skipped on this.
	Skipped a couple pages.
	They go to a 36-year-old.
	And she started out just wanting healthier food.
	So she just started growing one or two things.
	And then they were living in a neighborhood that had a homeowners association.
	Well, I tell you, there's a gazillion reasons why you don't want to live in a neighborhood with the Homeowners Association.
	We've made that mistake in our life as well.
	But she said her husband was the president of the board, and as soon as they started growing this stuff, he says, you know what, we need to think about moving, because he knew what was going to happen with it.
	So a few short years later, here we are, they live in an old farmhouse on 84 acres.
	Enough space to run a mile without leaving the property.
	They're raising chickens, pigs, ducks.
	Their goal is to be fully self-sufficient.
	A city girl and a former ballet teacher.
	She said her transformation has taken some acquaintances by surprise.
	But unlike the other guy who says, I'm a suburban homesteader, He doesn't see that he's going to be butchering animals anytime soon, but that's what these people are doing.
	Both of them have set up media sites, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, things like that, where they share what they have learned with people, and they're making money from doing that.
	A 2020 Homesteaders of America survey found both liberals and conservatives among the groups of membership with 44% of respondents considering themselves to be conservative compared to 27% said that they were liberal.
	More than 74% reported being Christian, Protestant, or Catholic as they labeled themselves.
	For Homesteaders of America founder, Amy Fuel, it was health that started her on a path from her life in a Northern Virginia suburb and as a media professional towards farming and towards homeschooling her children on five and a half acres.
	But faith came along the way.
	On her blog, she writes,"...the homesteading movement isn't just a trend.
	It is literally a movement of God getting back to the stewardship of the land." And I would say to the stewardship of the family as well.
	You know, God has provided these opportunities for us with homeschooling, this respite away from the tyranny of government.
	We don't know how long that's going to last, but we need to take advantage of that.
	And we have a time here where we can learn still how to do some of these things in case we have not, like in the case of our family, it's not something we've done before.
	Karen's made great strides this year.
	Since 2020, she said her organization has seen a spike in Christian conservative demographic.
	There were signs of that at the conference, which opened with a prayer and featured an after-hours revival, complete with baptisms, they said.
	And so, this is something that it's time to take advantage of.
	Most of her comments centered on legalizing the sale of raw milk.
	Which proponents claim carries health benefits lost in the pasteurization process?
	Well, it's not just a claim.
	It is truth, but they can't say that on MSN. And I love this question, this rhetorical question.
	Why is it easier to get fentanyl than raw milk here?
	She said.
	Yeah, think about that, right?
	We've had 50 plus years of drug prohibition.
	You can get any drug you want to, really.
	But it's harder to get the raw milk.
	Why is that?
	Another one.
	Meeting.
	M-E-A-T-I-N-G. Homestead goals with rabbit.
	Also, pasture and soil management.
	These are some of the things that were there.
	Hats that said, make milk raw again.
	If there was a common theme across the conversations with scores of attendees, it was a desire to be less dependent on societal structures and the convictions that they could opt out.
	And stop relying on mass-produced food.
	Get back to the basics in their own households and do it right now.
	As one of the attendees said, holding up something, this is food.
	Now, that's one aspect of it.
	Let's take a look at another aspect of it.
	This is an article from Car and Driver talking about how 3D printing technology is keeping old cars running.
	Now, this is something that is very new.
	And, you know, if somebody's...
	Somebody's interests and abilities don't run to agriculture.
	Maybe it's technology.
	Maybe you could use 3D printing technology.
	And in this article, they talk primarily to Jay Leno and about Jay Leno because he's been doing this for quite some time.
	He collects a lot of classic, very, very old cars for which there is no way to replace the parts.
	And so when he has a part that breaks, what they do is they take a scan of it and they get it into their CAD programming.
	So they got something that fractures, you know, they bring it in, and they get it in that CAD program, and then they 3D print it.
	And they're not printing it in plastic.
	They are printing it in, you can actually 3D print metal.
	And this is something, of course, Jay Leno, money is no object.
	He's got his own engineer.
	And all the rest of this stuff.
	But this is the type of thing that I could see not necessarily just being used for collecting old cars, but to be able to keep current cars running.
	You know, maybe cars that maybe are not as new as the computerized ones.
	But maybe cars that are, you know, 30 years, 20 years old, that are still predominantly analog, you should be able to do something like this.
	He gave some examples.
	He said he had a 1913 Packard.
	It had a big straight-six hydro-locked cylinder, and the engine, he says, an L-head design with the cylinders cast in pairs.
	it blew the whole cylinder apart he first attempted the usual old car avenues of repair that didn't work then he sought out new and old stock and spare parts some restoration houses from junkyards for a 1913 car
	he couldn't find anything so that's when they started doing their own 3d printed stuff using a laser scanner to capture the broken cylinder dimensions and then doing a cad modeling to fix it and then 3d printing it he said the foundry couldn't reproduce the piece that was this thin So he said, first they took it, they 3D scanned it, and then they take it to a foundry and say, can you cast this?
	Again, money's no object for him.
	To a one-off of a thing like this.
	But he said, they couldn't reproduce a piece that was that thin.
	He said, I don't know how these people did it back in 1913.
	Isn't that interesting?
	But he said, so that's what got us on the 3D printing thing.
	And then he talks about an old Rolls-Royce engine.
	This is a 1907 that was steam-powered.
	And they're doing 3D printing to get that thing going.
	Why do I talk about this?
	Because, folks, we have to find ways to be independent of this system.
	And when you look at the election today, I just have to shake my head And say, how do we get away from this stuff?
	It is hopelessly corrupt, hopelessly resistant to change.
	We have to go around it, beside it.
	We're not going to change this system.
	Mises.org had an article about the economics of prepping.
	They said, prepping is a very small industry in the U.S. with annual spending, specifically on prepping, less than what the government will spend in the time that it took me to prepare this episode of the podcast, he said.
	I'm not an expert prepper.
	Or even an expert on the prepping industry.
	This is not a how-to episode.
	It's not meant to be any form of advice.
	In this episode, I'll focus solely on prepping for natural disasters and not on artificial disasters.
	So what is an artificial disaster?
	That's something the government creates, like the pandemic.
	He says artificial disasters don't come from society.
	They don't come from nature.
	Artificial disasters come from government.
	For example, things like hyperinflation, economic collapse.
	So when you're doing your prepping, make sure that you go to davidknight.gold as well.
	Because you want to make sure that you've got some wealth prepping, some wealth insurance, because that's the key thing as well.
	So you want to be able to have skills, supplies, and part of those supplies are going to be gold and silver.
	Of course, Tony Arderman can help you with that.
	He can help you to gradually accumulate that as well.
	And that's one of the things he's talking about in the economics of prepping.
	He says you go out and you buy things when they're on sale.
	But if you just average it out over a longer period of time, it still works.
	And over a longer period of time, we know that what is going to happen to fiat currencies, as Tony always says, quoting Voltaire, they always go down to zero long term.
	So over a long period of time, we know that averaging things out is going to be advantageous.
	But he's talking about in the economics of prepping, he says, just pick up stuff when it's on sale.
	He says even basic government interventions like forestry policy he would include in an artificial disaster.
	And it absolutely is.
	We look at all these wildfires.
	I've said this so many times.
	Every summer when they start talking about it, I go back 50 years to my uncle who was head of the forestry department at the University of Missouri in Columbia.
	And he told me then, he said, this is going to be disastrous what they're doing.
	They're moving from stewardship to this kind of, let's worship nature, you know, environmentalism.
	Let's not take out the dead wood.
	Let's just leave it there to rot and to create fuel for any kind of natural forest fire.
	Government-created disasters are worse and last longer.
	The natural disasters, and they require additional preparations for issues like home production, self-protection, and alternative money and healthcare.
	This is, you know, certainly natural disasters are happening all the time, but we can see this artificial disaster, and we can see it building.
	He said, Prepping's just making sure you've got all this stuff along with emergency medical kit, flashlight, fire extinguisher, things like that.
	He said, Stage 2 is just adding to these inventories with the possibility of a longer emergency.
	You do it by starting to buy some of the identified items in larger sizes in bulk every pay period, possibly save some money.
	Everything you buy at the store today on sale is probably only going to go up in price.
	You can extend the savings by including goods like toiletries.
	Jack Lawson, the double volume book that he sells at CivilDefenseManual.com, he talks about that.
	He says, you don't have to buy really expensive, storable food or anything.
	Just start collecting canned goods when it's on sale and things like that.
	And he's got a lot of great tips there, CivilDefenseManual.com.
	Anyway, going back to Mises, he said, some goods only seem to realize their value in an emergency.
	Like something like a solar-powered radio that only gets used when you're outdoors sometimes.
	But preppers usually remember to have these types of goods on hand.
	And he said that prepping or being prepared is highly rational activity.
	Preppers are much more likely to contribute to solving the problems as the actual first responders, far less likely to increase the burden of the disaster itself, So-called victims.
	And we saw this happening, didn't we?
	You know, North Carolina, Hurricane Helene.
	And, you know, we still have the Amish people there building buildings for people.
	The government has left them alone and not helping them.
	We've seen that Elon Musk was there to deliver some Starlink stuff to help people get communications, and that was good.
	But you know, what about the homes?
	Well, look at what the Amish are doing.
	They're there to build these homes, and they do it pretty well.
	Now, you know, when I thought about this, I thought about Elon Musk.
	And he has a small home that he was saying.
	Of course, a lot of it is hype.
	I don't think he's going to have it at this price.
	A $10,000 box home.
	A groundbreaking initiative through Tesla, selling fully furnished homes for a mere $10,000 each.
	In a symbolic move, Musk sold his own $50 million mansion to reside in the inaugural Tesla home.
	Now, they're showing some boxable homes there.
	The boxable ones are saying that they would go for $12,000.
	Let's go with a $10,000 number.
	You know, Elon Musk gave Trump $75 million.
	He could have bought 7,500 of these homes and carted them out to people.
	And, of course, it's not his responsibility to do that.
	I'm just pointing that out as a contrast.
	To say, what is it that he's getting from Trump for a $75 million investment?
	He has always been at the epicenter of government handouts.
	And I think it is one of the most laughable aspects of this election that he's going to be the person who is going to be...
	It's like making a bank robber the president of the bank.
	He's going to be there to make sure that we don't have waste in government.
	This is a guy who became the world's richest man by feeding on the waste of government.
	And now they're elevating this up.
	Well, taking pictures with Ron Paul.
	We'll get Ron Paul in here.
	Well, it'll be interesting to see what Ron Paul does with that.
	But, yeah, he could have put a lot of these things in, but what he's really interested in doing is buying influence.
	And I think you're going to...
	When we look at government and we look at these natural disasters, you understand that you are on your own.
	They are not going to be there for you.
	You need to do your own preparation.
	You and your neighbors are going to be the network that is going to hold this stuff together.
	The government isn't going to be there.
	The government doesn't even have – I couldn't find a count of how many homes have been destroyed.
	They don't even care.
	They don't even care enough to count.
	They're coming up with some numbers about the total amount that is going to be involved, and a lot of that is going to be for building roads and things like that, from which we have seen no evidence.
	I did have – I was going to show a clip of it.
	I don't have it in the board here.
	I was going to show a clip of some people who came from out of state.
	They were miners, and they real quickly built a road and a bridge over one area, And then they had the local officials.
	That's why local elections are important.
	They can make things much worse or much better if you've got the right local officials.
	They can even ban the vaccine, as I pointed out yesterday.
	But they had some local officials showed up and told them, you can't do that anymore.
	I said, why not?
	Oh, no, that's our job.
	You can't do that.
	Stop them from building a road.
	And they had already done it very quickly.
	How long does it take to get this kind of stuff done if the government really wants to do it?
	No time at all.
	I mean, just take a look at what happened in the Russian-Ukraine war where they knocked down that large bridge with a bomb.
	They made a point of getting that rebuilt in a couple of months.
	Have they even started doing anything in North Carolina?
	Not that I see.
	Yeah, you are going to be on your own.
	This, you know, even if this was the most important election of our lifetime, it's still not very important in the larger scheme of things.
	You need to focus on what is happening with yourself, your skills, the things that you have, prepping, and making relationships, and especially the relationship that you have with God.
	Those are the things that are important.
	Don't get so caught up in this election.
	That you want to kill other people.
	That's the thing that bothers me about this.
	on this.
	Have a good day.
	The David Knight Show is a critical thinking super spreader.
	If you've been exposed to logic by listening to The David Knight Show, please do your part and try not to spread it.
	Financial support or simply tell the others about the show causes this dangerous information to spread farther.
	People have to trust me.
	I mean, trust the science.
	Wear your mask.
	Take your vaccine.
	Don't ask questions.
	Using free speech to free minds.

▲