Andrew Clavin dissects 2016’s GOP chaos, where billionaire Donald Trump—despite Planned Parenthood support and tax favors for the rich—won South Carolina by 10 points over Rubio, exposing the party’s fractured establishment. Mocking Cruz’s integrity as a roadblock and Trump’s "constitutional fascism" (Putin praise, violence rhetoric), he ties the rise to backlash against political correctness and a craving for "real men," while Hollywood’s The Witch—endorsed by The Satanic Temple—becomes a symbol of moral inversion, where child sacrifice is framed as progressive. Jax Blackmore counters, calling such claims absurd, but warns that reversing right and wrong risks societal collapse, just as lost classics like The Rose of Tibet prove forgotten truths linger beneath the noise. [Automatically generated summary]
Now seems clear that across this country, Republicans are angry.
They are speaking out, and we have heard their voices.
We have heard their voices, and they are telling us that they are sick and tired of a Republican establishment that is dominated by wealthy donors.
And so they've decided to cut out the middleman and just nominate the wealthy donor themselves.
We have heard their voices, and they are telling us that they're angry at a party that doesn't care about the working class out in flyover country.
And so they've decided to nominate a born billionaire from New York City.
We have heard their voices, and they are telling us that they are angry about the values of evangelicals being ignored.
And so they've decided to nominate a man who praises the abortion mill planned parenthood, cheats on his wives, calls for violence against those who oppose him, and curses like a sailor.
We have heard their voices, and they are telling us they are angry at Washington, D.C.'s war on the middle class, and so they've decided to nominate a man whose tax proposal favors the wealthy.
We have heard their voices, and they are angry at the lack of virility in our national discourse, and so they've decided to nominate a whining bully boy who sends his lawyers to try to silence those who say mean things about him.
Republicans are angry.
They are speaking out, and we have heard their voices, and they are crazier than a bunch of outhouse rats.
Trigger warning.
I'm Andrew Clavin, and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
Once again, I take a weekend off, and the country goes to hell.
I mean, last week, I took a few days off, and the Illuminati murdered Antonin Scalia, smothered him with a pillow to establish the New World Order, and this time we're doing it ourselves.
We've got Donald Trump is now just soaring ahead in the race for the presidential nomination of the Republican Party.
So I have a story to tell today about Hollywood, about something happening in Hollywood.
Winning Is a Drug00:15:48
Now, I've been out here a long time, and I've actually done a lot of work.
I'm not one of these guys who talks about Hollywood.
I actually have done a lot of work in Hollywood.
I've been paid to do work in Hollywood.
I still take a lot of meetings and, you know, get jobs there.
And so being shocked is no longer in my mental res in my emotional repertoire.
You know, I mean, it's not something I do.
I don't sit around and go like, oh, my goodness, Sean Penn, you know, supported Hugo Chavez, and Hugo Chavez destroyed Venezuela, and he never said, I'm sorry.
You know, that's not where, that's not where I live anymore.
But this story, I have to say, it did kind of make me stop and think because, you know, I'm not personally involved in it, but I was sort of involved in it as an audience member.
And so I'll talk about that.
But I'm going to talk about that at the end because it actually reflects back, has something to say about what's happening in politics, what happened in politics over the weekend.
Obviously, just to deal briefly with the Democrat primary, Hillary Clinton won the Nevada caucuses.
And that was, the reason there's no reason to talk about that, that was the machine strikes back.
That was the Empire Strikes Back.
Bernie Sanders has had a little bit of an insurgency movement going.
We said it probably wouldn't play out too long, but it really, you know, it doesn't seem like it'll hold out in the South.
And the reason for that is because the machine, the Democrat machine, is working in ways that the Republican machine is not.
The Republican machine is falling apart.
It's collapsing under the insurgency.
But the Democrat machine looks like it's still in place.
Looks like.
It may not be, but it looks like it is.
And what that means is, you know, when you hear that, you know, Hillary Clinton won every delegate in black-dominated counties, you know, you may think of people voting like in a 1950s documentary where they sit around the dinner table and mom and dad talk and the kids kind of listen and they decide who they're going to vote for.
That's not the way the Democrat machine works.
The Democrat machine works where your union comes up.
You know, your church, in the black community, there are, and I know this from working with people who have worked in these communities, there are black churches where the guys get payoffs to make sure their parishioners are poured into buses.
There are black churches now where they will not preach against abortion because they fear that it looks bad for the Democrat Party.
So they are actually preaching, not Jesus.
They're preaching Obama.
They're preaching the Democrat Party.
And this is a well-oiled machine that totes people en masse to voting booths, tells them who they're going to vote for.
They get out, they pull the lever they're told to pull, and they go back and the people who are shepherding them around get goodies.
That's working right now for Hillary Clinton.
All that said, she won by like five or six points over Bernie Sanders, a crazed old man, you know, touting something that hasn't worked since the 19th century.
And so, like, she's still not doing very well.
She's still a weak candidate.
I think as they get deeper and deeper into those machine areas in the South and all this, that he stands no chance.
But still, he made a pretty good run of it.
But let's look at the Republicans.
This is the big story.
Obviously, Donald Trump is kind of rewriting the rules of politics.
And the thing is, right now, he won so big in South Carolina, 10 points, I guess it was, with Rubio coming in second.
He won so big that he now has to be looked at as the likely nominee.
That doesn't mean he's going to win, but he's the likely nominee.
I've been sort of saying for a couple of weeks now, sort of behind the scenes, I haven't wanted to say it, that really the only thing that's going to stop him is if Ted Cruz goes to Rubio and says, I'll drop out if you'll promise to appoint me to the Supreme Court.
I don't think that's going to happen.
The reason I don't think it's going to happen is because the primaries are so stacked together.
March 1st, which is Super Tuesday, is so close, is coming up so close.
They're going into the South where all these evangelicals, even though Cruz lost the evangelicals, which was really, really telling, even though it's just too tempting to him to stay in.
And the only reason I even think of it, the only reason I even think of it is because I have so much respect for Cruz.
I think he was the best candidate.
I think he would make the best president.
But I also think he's probably the one person who has enough integrity to sort of put the country in front of his own ambitions.
But not quite.
That's asking an awful lot of any politician.
People don't go into politics because they have small egos.
They go in because they're huge egos and they can't really see, you know, it's kind of like they can't really see that things aren't going to work out.
It's like Jeb Bush, you know, staying in, Jeb Exclamation Point, Bush staying in as long as he did.
You know, they just can't see this.
But what also makes it tempting is what we'll call the mathematical argument.
And this is the big argument that's kind of going around by people who don't want to face up to the fact that Trump is now a very, very likely winner.
The mathematical argument is that the vote against Trump is divided.
And that's what Rubio Rubio was on with Democrat Shield George Stephanopoulos.
And Stephanopoulos said, you know, how come you're not attacking Trump when he's the leader?
So here's a cut of Rubio making the mathematical argument.
Is it time to take on Mr. Trump directly?
Well, this is not an election like others up to this point.
As I said, you know, there's seven, eight people dividing up 70% of the vote.
And so we had a very unusual circumstance.
I was being attacked from all sides.
I mean, I had one super PAC that spent $40 million going after me.
So you can only take on so many people at one time.
And this is not about going after Donald Trump.
It isn't.
I know people want to obsess about that.
This election is about who is best capable of the government.
Well, he is the dividing Republican Party.
I know that I am.
Well, he's the frontrunner when you have seven people running and they're dividing up 70% of the vote.
We need to remember here, over 70% of Republicans nationally have basically said, we're not voting for Donald Trump.
And as long as that 70% is being divided up by five people, of course he's a frontrunner.
But once that number narrows, we'll have a different election and we're getting closer to that point.
And John Fund, a very intelligent observer of elections, a very good writer, wrote a kind of more sophisticated version of this where he says Trump is the frontrunner, but he has to find a way to win a majority of the delegates.
And the kind of campaign he's running is making it harder for him to crack a ceiling of about a third of the vote.
In the run-up to South Carolina, Trump came out in favor of the health care mandate, defended Planned Parenthood, accused George W. Bush of lying about the Iraq war, and stood by his call to impeach Bush.
His consistent inconsistency helps explain why only four in 10 GOP voters in a new AP poll view Trump in a positive light.
He will have trouble growing his coalition to win a majority of delegates, even as more candidates drop out.
So Trump fund concludes, if we are headed for a contested convention, what will happen?
I don't know.
But I do know that Republican delegates will be leery of nominating a candidate viewed unfavorably by 60% of general election voters.
Now, of course, this has started to happen a little bit and that the fact that Jeb Exclamation Point put a period on his campaign, so to speak.
You know, he dropped out saying he didn't mind so much because he got to go home and sleep with his best friend.
His wife was furious about this, by the way.
It was just a terrible thing.
She said, what?
No, no.
I mean, you know, I have to, just as a quick aside, I have to say I really don't go for this hating on guys like Jeb Bush.
I don't think he would have made a great president.
I think he would have made a fine president.
I don't think he was a weakling.
I think he would, you know, he didn't listen to the base on immigration.
And the Republican machine has fallen apart.
Hillary Clinton is lecturing the base.
You know, now that she's got a little bit of a wind behind her, you know, she's kind of wagging her finger at the base saying it can't be all about what we do for you.
She's telling them this because she feels the power of the machine.
You don't lecture the base.
You don't contradict the base unless you've got that big tractor in back of you, you know, pushing the people into the voting booths.
That's not working for the Republicans.
And all this talk about big money in elections obviously isn't true.
I mean, the people are the final deciders, and they were never going to go for Jeb Exclamation Point.
It was never going to happen.
I mean, anybody who was paying attention could see it, but he didn't know it.
So when he was talking about immigration and saying, oh, you know, people come over here illegally, that's an act of love, and you don't get it.
And you don't, you know, he was kind of counting on that big tractor in back of him, looked over his shoulder, and uh-oh, the big tractor had sprung a leak and was smoking, you know, blowing smoke and had flat tires.
So that's all that happened to him.
He did not have what Hillary Clinton has.
But all this talk about the mathematical argument is leaving out the power of winning.
I got somebody over the weekend, not just one person, a couple of people, tweeted to me and Ben and Beck and Rush Limbaugh.
They tweeted this picture.
We'll put it up here if you're subscribed and you can watch.
It's a big locomotive that says Trump, and it says, get on board or get run over.
And they tweeted this to all the kind of commentators who are not on board with Trump.
Get on board or get run over.
Now, first of all, I have to say, this train is going to have to wait online to run me over.
I'm already standing in front of like the atheist train and the abortion train and the immorality is good train.
I'm at this point just the kind of flat bald head lying on the train track with a fist raised up from his shaking, waiting for the next train to come over.
If it's Trump, I don't care.
I'm going to say same thing.
But that is the power of winning.
And you hear this, you hear this in the people who are supporting Trump.
I came home, my friend, whom I love dearly, Ann Coulter, tweeted after Trump's victory, I'm as happy as an idiot college student after Obama was nominated.
And I thought, Ann, that should tell you something.
But Hannity, I came home, you know, I was out at the theater on Saturday night because even though the Republic is dying, I still have to have a life.
And I came home and I don't sleep much, so I went and watched the late, you know, some late TV and there was a rerun of the Hannity show.
And Hannity has made this argument that he has not endorsed Trump.
He's giving everyone a fair shot.
And that's a half-truth.
Hannity does give everyone a fair shot.
He lets all the Republicans come on and speak.
He lets them say what they have to say.
He challenges them all and all this stuff.
But there's just no question that he radiates this Trump support.
He was gloating after the results came in in South Carolina.
And he was picking on Steve Hayes, who has been this consistent principled voice against Trump as a conservative, because he doesn't like Trump because Trump isn't a conservative.
And when Hayes, you know, he said, Hannity said to him, you know, do you finally get this, Steve?
And Steve said, you know, I know Steve.
He's a really good guy, and just a very, very bright and principled guy.
And Steve says, you know, I've always gotten it.
I just don't agree with it.
You know, and he said, he said, Trump came out for the mandate the other day, which is the part of Obamacare, which is Obamacare.
And it's kind of comical that Trump did come out.
Now Trump has kind of dialed that back a little bit.
But remember, Trump was blaming Cruz for the appointment of John Roberts to the Supreme Court because John Roberts upheld the mandate.
And so now he's saying he's for the mandate anyway, so it doesn't matter.
And Hannity said, and Hannity said, he's been on my show six times.
I've asked him about health care six times.
He says he'll repeal Obamacare.
In the same way that the candidates, Cruz and Rubio and Jeb Bush and all these people, were unprepared for the schoolyard bully techniques of Donald Trump and were unprepared to be called a liar and to have people say, oh, you're weak and you're stupid and you're ow and you remind me of a child molester and you remind me of a retarded person.
The same way they were unprepared for that, because they should be unprepared because it shouldn't be acceptable to the American public, but it is at this moment.
In the same way they're unprepared for that, I think Sean Hannity does not understand how liars work.
I've spent long periods of time with people who are actual pathological liars.
And what happens is you break down after a while.
You start to believe them because everybody else you know, their words have some relationship to truth.
And pathological liars, they have no relationship to truth.
I don't think he understands that Trump will tell him anything he wants to hear.
You want him to be against Obamacare?
He's against Obamacare.
You want him to say the word conservative over and over again without having any concept of what it means, of what constitutional government means, what individual liberty means.
He'll do it.
He's fine.
That's fine.
That's fine.
So this power of winning seems to give legitimacy to people.
And Trump deals with this all the time.
Let's hear the cut of Trump talking about how he views the Republican establishment for a minute.
What's your view of the GLP establishment now, sir?
I think it's a mess.
I think it's a mess.
And I think they better get their act together because they're going to keep losing elections with the kind of thinking that we have with the Karl Roves and the Stephen Hayes and these characters that can't get themselves arrested.
If you want to keep people like that, if you want to keep listening to people like that, you're never going to win.
You're never going to win.
They're from a different age.
They're from a different world.
See, now, just before the primary, Trump obviously got in this fight with the Pope.
And I'm not a Catholic, so I can't judge the Pope at all as a Pope.
He may be the popiest Pope who ever poped.
I mean, I have no idea, you know, whether the guy's a good pope because I'm not a Catholic, so he's not speaking to me in that way.
I can judge him as a world leader, and as a world leader, I feel he's been a disappointment.
And this is speaking completely unreligiously.
It really bugs me, this thing between the evangelicals and the Catholics, where the Catholics feel the evangelicals have left the true church, and the evangelicals feel that Catholics are worshiping the Antichrist and all this stuff.
It doesn't really matter how you worship.
It's who you worship.
And I think that, you know, if these guys can't get that, I mean, if Jesus were listening to this, he would be like, oh, I never should have started talking to these Gentiles.
They're crazy people.
They kill each other.
I mean, that's what I think Jesus would have had to say about this.
But Trump knew that he could attack the Pope, but the Pope really should have kept his mouth shut.
Really, the election is not his business.
It's not what he should be talking about, I feel, as a world leader, leaving aside him as the leader of the Catholics, as a world leader, I don't feel that that was where he should have stepped.
And he said that if you believe in building a wall, this is what the Pope said, you're un-Christian.
That's ridiculous.
But speaking, using the term un-Christian in a literal way, what people mean when they say un-Christian is they mean you're not nice.
You're not being nice.
You know, Jesus wasn't nice.
Read the book.
The guy's not nice.
He was a sardonic, you know, rough, tough guy.
You know, so that doesn't mean anything to me.
But there is a philosophy in the Bible or an outlook in the Bible that you can go against.
And this idea that by winning, you have done something positive that is virtuous, that's un-Christian in a philosophical, in philosophical terms.
I'm not talking about being a mean person.
I'm saying in philosophical terms that winning makes everything justified.
Winning in politics is what the philosophers call necessary but insufficient.
It's necessary but not sufficient, right?
You have to win.
You have to win.
But that doesn't mean you're right.
It's like when the Democrats say, well, government does good things.
Government does good.
Yeah, you know, kings do good things.
Dictators do good things.
Serial killers do good things, you know, with their, they're nice to their dogs.
It doesn't matter.
The question is, are you doing what is right?
Okay.
When you worship a God who got nailed to a cross, you understand that sometimes the good guys lose.
So the fact that Trump is winning doesn't really mean anything in terms of what we want, what we want the government to be.
That said, as we go forward, and if Trump continues to win, as right now it looks like he will, you will start to see people whose principles you thought were A suddenly talking about Z. Because winning is a drug and people follow it.
Winning Is A Drug00:04:52
People follow the strong man.
As Bin Laden said, they follow the strong horse.
They will follow Trump.
And people who you thought were going to stand up for what was right are going to stop.
So you're just going to have to listen to the show because we're going to just let the train keep running us over again and again.
I've said, I did a whole show about why I don't like Trump.
I won't go through it all again, but just very quickly, one, he's not conservative.
Two, he's not knowledgeable.
And by the way, this argument that he makes, I'm going to get the best people.
I'm going to get the best people.
And we're going to lock them in the room.
That's a bogus argument.
Do not listen to that argument.
That is a bogus argument.
Someone has to pick the people.
Someone has to decide who the best people are.
Someone has to decide, are they the best conservative people or the best liberal people?
Are they the best people who believe in government health care or the best people who believe in free market health care?
Somebody has to do that.
That's what a leader does.
And when the best people disagree, because the best people often disagree, somebody has to say, I picked this one.
So having the best people, all presidents have the best people on tap.
The president can call anybody he wants and get an opinion.
He has to make that decision.
So Trump's idea that he is going to have people figure this out for him is bogus.
It's a bogus thing.
So he doesn't know what he's talking about.
He doesn't know what he's talking about.
He's not a knowledgeable guy.
And the third thing, and this to me is decisive, is he's a lot.
And I'll tell you why that's decisive.
Two quotes.
One, Putin says I'm a genius, so now I like Putin.
That's almost a direct quote.
I'm saying it off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure that's what he said in one of his speeches.
Putin says I'm a genius, so now I like Putin.
That's a guy who puts himself above everything.
Putin is a dictator.
Putin is a tyrant.
Putin is, you know, there's no reason to like Putin whether he says you're a genius or whether he says you're scum.
He's the same guy.
That's not a guy who deals with reality.
It's a guy who deals out of his ego.
And the second is this one, and I'll play it again.
I know I've harped on this, but I'll play it again.
Here's Trump telling people what to do to hecklers.
So I got a little notice in case you see the security guys.
We have wonderful security guys.
They said, Mr. Trump, there may be somebody with tomatoes in the audience.
So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them.
Would you seriously?
Okay?
Just knock the hell.
I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees.
I promise.
I promise.
You know, so if you're dealing out of your ego and anyone who doesn't like you or speaks poorly of you is your enemy, and secondly, you feel justified in calling a mob of people to possibly beat the crap out of this guy, and he'll deal with it.
And I'm serious, I'm serious, you know, he wasn't kidding around.
You know, that could have really happened.
That could have actually happened.
It's only a matter of time before you fall afoul of that guy.
Remember, you think you're safe because you think he likes you.
He's on your side, but he doesn't like you.
He likes him.
And when you say something, when you step on his toe in any way, you're going to look around and all those people screaming around you how great it is to beat the crap out of you are going to be beating the crap out of you.
That's how fascism happens.
And Trump is not a philosophical fascist.
He's a constitutional fascist.
And I think that that to me is decisive.
So here's the problem.
I mean, Trump to me, there are all kinds of reasons why Trump is popular.
The Republicans have been weak against Obama.
And, you know, we like the sound of men being men.
I've argued that feminism has so distorted manhood.
True manhood looks a lot more like Gary Cooper than Joe Pesci.
But feminism, when women support that kind of manhood, that's the kind of manhood you get.
When women turn against men, men become ravening beasts.
And so that's what looks like manhood, you know, and that Joe Pesci thing that Trump does.
But mostly, I think, and David Gerlinter said this in Weekly Standard last week, and I just completely agree with this.
The main point, the main point about Donald Trump is political correctness.
Political correctness is a plague.
For the last 40 years, to speak the simple truth in this country has been as much as your job was worth.
You could lose your job.
I mean, to say that women are different from men and have different desires and capabilities and weaknesses than men, to say that there are dysfunctions in the poor black community that have more to do with their behavior than how they're treated, to say that Islam has, there are problems in the philosophy of Islam that may be irreconcilable with Western philosophy and Western life and Western values.
To say those things is to make yourself reviled.
And because those things are so obviously true, because they're right, it makes people crazy and they want to throw this bull into the china shop and break it up.
But in the end, they're making excuses for a guy who's a thug, for a guy who lies, for a guy who behaves in his personal life in a way that would be unacceptable in any other candidate, for a guy who speaks to other human beings in a way that should be unacceptable.
The Witch's Satanic Experience00:07:40
So I always feel, here's the thing, and this will bring me to the Hollywood story.
I always feel when I'm talking to Democrats that I'm talking in a kindergarten level.
Like, don't steal.
It's bad to steal.
I know he has money and you want some money, but you can't steal his money.
Don't lie.
I know you think it's politically correct, but don't do that.
Don't do it.
And now for the first time, I feel like I'm talking like that to Republicans.
No, it's not good to beat up people.
It's not good to have a crowd beat it.
That's actually a bad thing, you know?
So suddenly good is bad and bad is good because you want something because you're angry because you've lost it.
So this brings me to Hollywood.
Over the weekend, a new movie opened called The Witch.
And The Witch is part of a new trend that I'm kind of excited about of intelligent indie horror.
So there was this thing called the, was it the Babaduk?
Is that how you pronounce it?
The Babaduk.
Everybody liked it.
I thought it was overrated and kind of, I'd seen it before, but it was still talented, great acting, interesting.
There was It Follows, which I think was the best of them.
Very interesting take on kind of sexually transmitted horror disease.
You know, it was very interesting and very scary.
And now there's this one, The Witch, which takes place, it's from this company A24, which is having a great year.
They brought out Amy, which I also saw over the week, and I'll talk about later in the week, Ex-Mackina, which was a very interesting little science fiction picture.
They've been having a really good run.
And so they brought out this picture, The Witch.
And what it's about is about a Puritan family who's expelled from a village for having some, we don't know what it is, but there's some kind of heretical view, and they're expelled.
They go out and live on the edge of the forest.
And there are witches in the forest who begin to bring Satan into their relationships.
And all their relationships are very well created.
And so you see the weakness in the family that allows the devil to get into them, you know, and you see why that happens.
And it got these rave reviews.
It got rave reviews.
I would have said it's more interesting than good.
I got kind of bored.
It's about 90 minutes long.
I got bored after 45 minutes.
Very slow moving.
It's never really frightening.
What it is, though, it's the debut of a director named Robert Eggers and the first really big part for an actress named Anya Taylor Joy.
And these two people are going to have big careers.
They're both enormously talented.
Anya Taylor Joy is absolutely beautiful.
And she's really a good actress.
She's about 19, 20 years old.
And so you're going to see these people.
This is the start of these two big careers.
And that makes it interesting in and of itself.
So I went because I'm interested in spooky pictures.
So I, you know, I'm always the first guy online to see these films.
Didn't think much of it.
So I come back and I find that, first of all, they're making all these political remarks about it.
In Wired, somebody wrote this.
This is a crazily feminist movie.
It's a feminist movie.
He says, this is Scott Pierce writing a wire.
He says, of course, in New England, at the time of Eggers movie, any woman who fell outside of societal norms became a suspected witch.
Women who lived atypical lives, women of color, women who challenged patriarchal systems, even a girl like the witches Thomason, who just found herself in the unfortunate position of becoming a woman in a family of zealots with a few misbehaving goats, got called witches.
This isn't true.
This isn't true.
In the movie, the devil is real.
In this movie, and I'm not giving anything away that's not in the trailer, this movie begins with witches sacrificing a baby, a human sacrifice of an absolutely gorgeous little baby.
They rip it to shreds.
It's not on screen, so it's not unwatchable.
You know, it's well done and all this, but you know what's going on.
They rip this baby to shreds, drink its blood, and smear it, you know.
These are Satanists, and they've got, and the devil is real in this story.
And so this whole idea that this is a feminist film, or the other thing they said, and by the way, it doesn't matter what the director says.
He says it's a feminist film too.
It doesn't matter.
It's what's on the screen that matters.
And the other thing they say is, well, it shows you how awful these Puritans were.
It shows you how, well, does it?
I mean, if the Puritans were afraid of witches and witches are real, then burning witches, not such a bad idea.
They didn't burn them, they hanged them, but it's not such a bad idea if they actually are agents of Satan, you know?
So the film is none of those things that the left says, but because the right has no infrastructure for reviewing things, the left gets to define the terms of the debate.
So A24 wants to promote this movie as we all want to promote our work.
And if I have a new book coming out, I send it around to people who might talk about it and people who might like it and people who might have me on their shows.
And that's what A24, this is this indie company, what they do with this.
And one of the people they send it to is the Satanists.
They sent it to the national organization, the Satanic Temple.
It's a national satanic temple.
And they loved it.
The Satanists loved it.
Why not?
I mean, it's the devil giving, you know, the devil kind of terrorizing these people and sacrificing a baby.
And they make an official documentary, what do they call them?
Like just a featurette, a promotional video.
So here is Jex Blackmore, a spokesman for the Satanic Temple, doing an official, this is an official featurette promoting this film.
This is witchcraft.
She plays a castle!
Why have you turned against me?
I'm Jax Blackmore, national spokesperson of the Satanic Temple.
When I saw The Witch, I was incredibly impressed by the historical accuracy and a rehashing of folklore that is part of American history.
I have come to steal you.
Here we stuck a fly in through the trees.
Come on, clock at it.
Come here, clock it.
We live in a Judeo-Christian society, so concepts and embodiments of evil and embodiments of good are part of the imagination of Americans.
The witch was kind of the handmaiden of Satan.
It took a life of its own because it's really the manifestation of evil in female form.
The fear of witches and of the influence of the devil came from Europe in hundreds of years of perpetuating this mythology about satanic influence.
We are children of sin, old.
It's I tell thee, I have raised up no witch in this house.
The influence of Satan and satanic influence on women and on the colonies was part of what compelled the religious structure together.
And people suffered greatly as a result of it.
The witch idea deserves more consideration because of the history and evolution in American thought of the witch being dangerous.
It is my hope that we can encourage people to see this film and really undergo a transformation and inspire a satanic experience.
So this woman is thrilled to be represented by a film in which her religion is shown sacrificing a baby, tearing a baby apart and bathing in its blood.
She's thrilled.
I mean, she loves it.
And the film company is thrilled to have her endorsement, you know?
And I thought, where have I seen this killing babies is okay thing before?
Oh yeah, so it's like the whole Democrat Party platform.
So, you know, when you start to hear yourself saying that good is bad and bad is good, when you start to hear yourself saying that bullying is fine, that cursing people out is fine, when you start to hear yourself saying that, you know, killing babies is great, it's just the satanic experience, that Satan is good and God is bad.
Lost Classics: The Rose of Tibet00:02:13
You know, ask yourself, how likely do you think it is?
How likely do you think it is?
This is the freest, most prosperous civilization that ever existed on the face of the planet.
How likely do you think it is that everything we think is black is white?
How likely do you think that is?
It's, you know, we get things wrong.
Mostly when we get things wrong, it's because we go against our values.
You know, when we had slavery, it wasn't because our values were bad.
It was because we weren't playing to our values.
We weren't doing what we were supposed to do.
When we are un-Christian in the literal sense of the word, it's not because Christianity is wrong, it's because we're wrong, you know?
But it does leave open this argument.
When you tell people that right is wrong and wrong is right and you can't speak the truth and all this, it leaves open this argument that black is white as white is black.
And that is what we're seeing in this election.
And if the train runs over me, folks, believe me, you're just going to see my fist come out of that train track because it's not the way to go.
Metanoiete, folks.
Think again.
Think again.
All right, stuff I like.
This week, I want to talk about lost classics, things that I think are really classic works that are completely, have been completely discarded.
The first one, a classic adventure novel, a classic adventure novel that nobody knows about.
It's called The Rose of Tibet.
It was written by a man named Lionel Davidson in 1962.
I obviously, because I'm a crime writer, I talk to people in crime mystery stores.
Aren't as many of them left as there used to be, but they tell me this is one of the most asked-for books that is most often out of print.
It's so often out of print.
Nobody has heard about it.
The Rose of Tibet.
It is up there with the classics like King Solomon's Minds and She and those kinds of books.
The author wrote another good thriller called The Knight of Wenceslas, which has been compared to top thrillers.
I don't think it's quite as good as The Rose of Tibet.
The Rose of Tibet is a classic.
And then the guy disappeared.
I think he became, he was Jewish, and I think he became a Zionist and just got very involved in Israel and all this stuff.
And his novels really tapered off.
They aren't very good.
They're not even really readable.
I've read a couple of them.
They're not that good.
But this is a great one.
The Rose of Tibet, just a totally lost adventure novel.
If you love those things like I love them, it's really worth reading.
That's it.
The week begins.
So I'm going to hold this country together by main strength for the next four days, and then you guys can just blow it apart next weekend.