The David Knight Show - Wed Episode #2184: The David Knight Show - 01/21/2026

Episode Date: January 21, 2026

Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code KNIGHT Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @[e-mail] App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act it's the david night show as the clock strikes 13 it's wednesday the 21st of january here of our lord 2006 well today we're going to look at competing gangs yeah there's some really bad guys out there in the streets and we sent some other people out to take them out but unfortunately they're starting to act like gang members themselves and So the question is, how do we protect ourselves? Those of us who got in the middle, gangs on the left of us, gangs on the right, I'm stuck in the middle with you. And which one is more dangerous?

How do we fight back against this? And more importantly, we're going to go back and take a look at how our culture got into the situation that it's in right now. What is happening to our families, our children, the relationship between men and women, and what is about to make it get a lot of? worse. I mean, there's going to be a lot of gasoline poured on this. AI is going to be the thing that's going to do it. How did we get to this situation? If we understand how we got here, then maybe all of the intentional distractions, chaos and conflict that are being created by

Donald Trump and the news media, maybe we can transcend that. Maybe we can escape their gravitational pull. We'll be right back. Well, again, you know, when I look at what just happened to another interesting case of a grandfather, 56 years old, an American citizen. He's a foreigner who came here and became a citizen about 35 years ago. He's never had any criminal convictions. And you look at the way that he was singled out and treated. And it truly is amazing.

And it's something that we have to pay attention to. we may, you know, we all agree that rapists and murders ought to be taken off the street. And I think many of us agree that illegal aliens who come here need to be deported as well. But it makes a difference how it's done, doesn't it? Doesn't it make things a lot more dangerous? I mean, every time you talk about one of these types of issues, the abuse of power by ICE, by the Trump administration, whenever we talk about that? Oh, what about this?

You know, look, we had this person over here who, in a lot of cases, it wasn't even somebody who was political or trying to be provocative that got attacked. And we just had an incident of a family that was in a car in Minnesota. They thought these protesters thought they looked conservative. They didn't know anything about them. So they went over and they attacked their car and the people in it. Is that different than what we're seeing from ICE? Actually, no. They had another incident where he had a group of four engineers during their lunch break.

They go to a restaurant. And one of them is anti-ice. And he's on a list on his phone that lets him know when the ice agents are doing something and so forth. Others were in favor of what ICE was doing. And so they were all over the place in terms of politics, but they're eating together. And they're having a lunch break. and the one guy who is on the list of leftists, he said, wait a minute, he said,

they've identified us as being ice, you know, because they said there's four guys, they're dressed like this, and they're at such and such a restaurant, and he kind of looked around and goes, oh, they're talking about us. And they thought that they were plainclosed ice. Because, again, ice is not following any of the rules

that they have for cops. They're not wearing uniforms in many cases. They're covering their faces. Now, these guys are not wearing masks, of course. Those days are hopefully behind us. Who knows? They put masks on us five years ago, six years ago now. And now they want to put masks on themselves behind what they're doing.

Anyway, we have these types of things happening. And so the left is just as bad, except they're not quite as dangerous. Because they don't have the legal authority to keep. kill you if you disobey their orders, right? I mean, they know there's going to be some consequences for them. The problem is that ICE knows that there will be no consequences for them. As J.D. Vance said, they have absolute immunity. And we've seen this over and over again. We're going to shut down the investigation. We're not even going to have an investigation. And we're not going to allow you to have an investigation as state or local into this shooting of

Renee Good. That's an admission, folks. I've seen this over and over again. When they hide their data about climate change. When they hide their virology data, when they don't do the studies, when they come after you, because you show the data, they decide they're going to hide you. I've seen this over and over again.

The people who seek to suppress information are usually doing it because, well, I don't say usually. I say, I have always seen it done because they're doing something criminal that they need to hide. So let's look at the particulars of this particular case here.

Again, you've got, I think the solution to this is not going door to door. You know, we've got government officials in Minnesota as well as in Washington State who have declared they are sanctuary cities and they're actually coming against a sheriff in Washington state who wants to enforce the immigration laws. And he would do it with search warrants and things like that, knowing who he's going after. You know, that would be a big advantage, wouldn't it? I mean, if you're going to be law enforcement, how much like a keystone cop do you have to be? I don't know who you're going after.

And that's what we see in this particular case. But the rot is coming from above. On the left, the rot is coming from governors and attorneys general who decide that they don't like immigration law. They're going to thumb their nose at immigration law, and there's no authority for them to do that. Immigration law is a power that has been delegated by the states to the federal government. Now, if it was something like gun control, for example, we had a leftist, or even Trump, who decides he's going to do gun control, and he's going to do it by executive order. And or however they do it, if they do it with Supreme Court decision or if they do it with a

congressional act, it would still be a violation. of the law. And of course, that is happening all the time. The very existence of the ATF is a violation of the Constitution, just like the existence of the Federal Reserve. But let's say that they've got some new rule that they're coming out with. And the local law enforcement does not have to comply with that. As a matter of fact, they should stand there as the lesser magistrate, as Matt Trujillo always talks about in his book. They should stand and interpose and nullify these. laws that are against the Constitution that gives them their authority because they swore to uphold it. But when it comes to immigration law, there is authority for immigration. There is

authority for ICE to exist or something like it. Unfortunately, these so-called law enforcement officers now believe that they are not subject to the law. And that's a much more serious circumstance than somebody coming across the border folks. Much more serious. And because of the potential for abuse. And so the reality is that they need to start at the top and work their way down. If you're going to have governors and attorneys general that are going to defy the Constitution, and if they are going to say, and you're not going to investigate these fraudulent daycare centers, if they're going to stand in the gap, if they're going to aid and abet criminal fraud,

which again even involves federal money. They should be prosecuted. They should, and this is not something we send out an army of armed and armored thugs to go get in people's faces and start pushing and shoving and shooting. This is going around with auditors and lawyers and doing it with due process. This is what needs to happen. He sees happen in an orderly way. Trump doesn't want to do this because his model. is to have professional wrestling conflict and chaos.

That is his M.O., that is his calling card. That is how he gets attention. And so he deliberately wants this kind of conflict at the lower level when actually we'd all be better served if he would do it at the top level. So the problems are on both sides at the top level. The problem is with the Trump administration and the in-your-face confrontational chaos that they desire to have

and the at the top of the left in terms of state and local government the fact that they want to completely flood our country and take it down, cloward and pivot style. Those are the issues.

But they want us fighting with each other. They won't fight with each other. They won't fight. The guys of the top won't fight with each other. They want us fighting with each other. And so sanctuary cities and states are violating the law, law. And you should start with them rather than the people that walked across the border,

for example. So the image that we have here, I'll just pull this up. Oh, that's the wrong one. Sorry, this one right here. This is a 56-year-old man. They had about 10 to 15 ICE agents who break in the door, you know, drug raid style. And actually, I've talked so many times about Brazil. And Brazil begins with this over-the-top raid of militarized, armored up police, kicking in the door, coming through the ceiling, the windows, and everything else, after this one guy. And it's a case of mistaken identity. And that is how the, that's the thread that runs through the entire story. They got the wrong guy.

And yet we have seen, even though when Terry Gilliam did that in 1984, it was so over the top. It was like, whoa, you know, this is satire, right? Taking it to the extreme. And yet, that's what it is in reality now. There is no over-the-top satire. This is our reality. So 10 to 15 agents, break in.

And you got this guy, he's 56 years old, and his grandson is their five-year-old grandson, terrorized the family. I mean, it's straight out of Brazil, the very beginning of Brazil. I heard something. I didn't see anything. Did that go out?

Did the visuals go out? Anyway, Travis is trying to play it. Thanks, Travis. The terrorize everybody. They dragged this guy out in 10-degree weather. And he's wearing shorts and crocs. That's it. No shirt.

Not even long pants. No socks. Nothing. Crocs and shorts. He grabs the blanket that his five-year-old son on as they're going out and wraps himself in that. The ICE agents, I won't even call him law enforcement or cops, they don't deserve that title. They're beneath that.

These guys drag him out, put him in the car. They drive around for an hour with him in the car. The family doesn't know where he is after they have fingerprinted him and now done some investigation. You know, you take the grandfather and you do the due process later, says Trump, right? at first that was just about firearms. Now it's about grandpas. You seize the grandpa first.

You do the due process later. And so they grab him after they do the due process, they realize this guy has never done anything wrong in America. He doesn't violate it anything. And he's here legally. These are people from Laos, the Hmong group, if I'm saying it correctly. I don't know if I'm pronounced that right.

It's H-M-O-N-G. I'll say Hemong. A lot of them came over from Laos because there was a civil war there, war that the U.S. got involved with at the time of Vietnam. And, yeah, this is the visuals that he's putting up. This is Brazil, Terry Gilliam's satire of 1984, except who now live in this satire. So these guys, 10 to 15 of them, automatic weapons pointed at people, fully armored, come in, terrorized the family. This just happened. That was ICE who did it. And then they drag the guy out

without any clothes on into the 10 degree weather. Driving around for an hour after they've done the due process, they realize they don't have a criminal here. And they bring him back and drop him off as if nothing ever happened. No apology, right? And I'm surprised that they didn't take him in and charge him for the interrogation, which is what they did in Brazil. But then they put out a cover story because this is filmed by a relative. It was very angry about this and put it out. And some of the people pointed out that it could have been worse. You know, we've had people who have been abducted who were not illegal immigrants,

people who were not criminals, and they were disappeared. And they don't know where they went. Some people whose crime was to come here illegally, which is a misdemeanor. And again, I think the real solution. First of all, you stop the welfare magnet. You don't pay welfare payments to anybody that comes here. Even if they come here as a legal immigrant. Certainly not to illegal immigrants.

And every other country you have to show that you can support yourself and your family before you become a citizen. So make that a rule for legal immigrants. And that illegal immigrants don't get a dime. that would do a lot to stop this. And then, of course, if people are committing crimes, you actually punish them rather than turning them back out on the street in a catch and release program.

You know, you see these people that they put up and they say, well, this person has been arrested for five different rapes and they were released each time, right? What is the matter with our justice system? So fix the justice system. Go after these governors and these state attorneys general. who are defying federal law that has been delegated to the federal government constitutionally, go after those people first instead of the innocent people that are out there.

But they have taken people away and you relatives can't find out where they went, even if they're illegal immigrants. They won't tell them what country they sent them to or if they're in a prison somewhere. Just nothing. They just disappear people. And you've actually got people on the right now who are cheering. of the kind of governments that have done that in South America, like in Argentina and Pinochet's Chile.

You know, they actually got people, well, let's put them on a helicopter, take them out over the ocean, drop them. Yeah, you'd be careful about that. That's going to come back around to you. So, again, the neighbor said, whatever you think this is, it's worse than you think. that's his detainment told me by phone on Monday is what happened they said 10 to 15 agents and so they take him out they finally they got the one guy they bring him back but then the

lies began from Homeland Security so you had DHS assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin who was putting out a whole series of lies about the shooting as well said that his arrest, the operation was targeting, quote, two convicted sex offenders. See, were they named Donald and Jeffrey? Well, actually, Donald doesn't have any convictions for, well, I guess he could say he does have sex offender convictions. We just had somebody come out with allegations, a Iraqi veteran, a male. and I just come out with allegations that he was trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein to Donald Trump.

And he alleges that Donald Trump raped him, homosexually. So we'll see what happens with that. Anyway, with final orders of removal from an immigration judge, they were looking for two convicted sex offenders. And so Trisha McLaughlin claimed without evidence that this guy lived with these two men and that he was detained because, quote, he matched the description of the targets. A few hours later, they posted photos and information

about the two Asian men that they were looking for. These were very young men. This guy is a grandfather. He's 56 years old. He doesn't look anything like these guys. I mean, even if you think all Asians look alike, right? There's an age difference. And, of course, we had a lot of Asian friends

and they even joked about that. There was a website all look same. And they were laughing about it. They said, they put this up and they show pictures of Asian people and they challenge you to say, is this person Japanese, Chinese, Korean? You know, what is this person? They said, we can't tell. You know, we're Asian.

So anyway, but there are other ways that law enforcement has of identifying people. And the age difference was ludicrous. but they put up, these people are the worst of the worst, and we were looking for them, and unfortunately we got this guy, but he lived with him. So he's kind of guilty by extension.

That was their justification. They didn't attempt to explain or prove the men were connected to him, and they both appeared to be significantly younger than him. And so they reached out for clarity. The person was writing this piece, said, but we didn't get any further feedback from that. And why, even under those circumstances, would you take a suspect?

Remember, you know, when we're talking about law enforcement, always in the past, police and law enforcement, always very, very careful to call people suspects. You know, even when there was a room full of witnesses who saw them pull the trigger and shoot somebody and they've got it on videotape, they still call them a suspect. We don't have that from ICE. We don't have that from Christine Home and Trish. McLaughlin. We don't have that from Trump. And so then there was a family statement that disputed this. The family said, no, Mr. Tau is his name, right? He is a U.S. citizen with no

criminal record, said the family statement. He does not live with, nor has he ever lived with the individuals at DHS claims were targets of this operation. The only people residing at the home or Mr. Tau, his son, his daughter-in-law, and his young grandson. They do not know the individuals that DHS has referred to. The family said no warrant was presented. Agents did not ask for Tau's ID, but they, quote, nevertheless, forcibly entered the home with weapons drawn. Brazil style.

They may have been looking for Tuddle, but they got Mr. Buttle. And the two don't know each other. They said, Tau and his family have lived in this home for two years. Well, the narrative that we get isn't just coming from Tricia McLaughlin, lying about this and saying, yeah, we're going out there, we're arresting all these criminals and so forth. It's also coming from the top, just like the repudiation of immigration laws on the left is coming from the top.

Here's Trump trying to justify some of this stuff. people vicious many of them murderers these are all out of Minnesota just Minnesota I say why don't you talk about that

more because people don't know do you want to live with these people I don't want to live with you Trump these are people that are living you're a vicious murderer as well and either put in

and a sex offender country from where they came or the countries respect us, and so they actually put them there. In the old days, they didn't respect our country. Biden wouldn't do this because he let them all in. You know, if you didn't have open border policies of Biden, none of this, all of the things that we, all of the time that we spend talking about Minnesota and everything else,

most of them are coming from out of the country. And it's been caused by a previous administration. Look at this. One after a one. Yeah, well, you get the idea. Okay. And, of course, you want to talk about the government-created problem. That goes back to Trump's first administration.

Remember, the key thing he was going to do was build the wall. He didn't do it. You know, Steve Bannon got convicted for fraud, and justly so, I think, because he and other people did a private foundation to build the wall. And then they filtered off a lot of money from it. But why did they do that? They did it because Trump wasn't building the wall. And he could have built the wall.

And he could have done something to enforce immigration in his first term. Instead, after everybody figured everything dropped off right away after he got elected. And it got very quiet in terms of border crossings. And then anybody realized he's nothing but a paper tiger. All talk. No action. And then you had the caravans. We'd never seen that before.

The caravans. And how did he deal with that? He didn't know how to deal with that either. So don't talk to me. about a government-created problem, a problem that's been created by every Democrat and every Republican administration. They have let this problem fester and grow.

They give money to people who come here illegally. It's almost like a bribe to get people to come here illegally. And that's bipartisan. That's both parties. They let this go on for decades. And then they create a big problem. And then they come in and say, well, you know, the only solution to this

is to suspend the rule of law and have martial law, militarized, federalized police, who are accountable to nobody, who don't have to do search warrants, who can violate every aspect of due process. That's the solution we got for you. You see how they play this game, don't you? It's disgusting.

And so this is what we're seeing there in Minnesota. Now, we're also seeing in Minnesota. A lot of clips of people saying the military is everywhere. And so people are putting up on social media all the movement of troops in Minnesota because Trump is ready, preparing to declare an insurrection act and use military force there. Because he wants confrontation. You know, we've had presidents who've used the military in the past to enforce civil rights stuff, but they did it in a way to try to avoid confrontation. Instead, this is being done in a way to invite confrontation.

And so that's on one side. That's the gang that's being set up on one side. And on the other side, they will put up pictures like this daily collar, got this guy. Some Antify guy with a rifle there, pretty serious looking rifle, and wearing a mask as well. You understand, we've got two different gangs, right? We've got the Antifa gang wearing a mask and carrying automatic weapons, okay? And then we've got the military doing the same, and ICE doing the same. And you and I are caught in the middle of this.

We need to speak up about this. We don't need to go silently into this. And we don't need to join one tribe or the other. And quite frankly, the people who are the most dangerous threat is not one or two guys out there with guns. Yeah, anybody can kill you. But it is the massive government operation that believes that it is accountable to no man and not accountable to God either. They can kill whoever they wish.

And they don't even have to show any remorse. Whether you're talking about people in boats in Venezuela or you're talking about people on the streets of Minneapolis. They can kill whoever they wish. They just have to say, well, I felt threatened by what they're doing. I felt threatened by those boats. I think they're going to bring drugs in. So we killed them.

And then we didn't kill everybody the first time. We went back, circle back. and eliminated the people who were struggling to stay afloat, the shipwrecked people, that we had just attacked. And so a daily caller spotted what appears to be mostly peaceful protesters. That's that picture I just showed you. And so these are mostly peaceful protesters. How about we have some mostly peaceful peace officers? Could we have that?

Don't talk to me about the ends if you don't care what the means are. makes all the difference in the world. Trump Berger says, can't wait for David to watch Trump speech at Davos. Well, his plane turned around from the last I saw. I don't know, is he taken another plane.

He had some problems with the Air Force one, which is a good example, I think, of the futility and arrogance of power. Here's a guy who's got his own private plane, you know, massive airliner, a big entourage and everything. He's got all of the protection. and everything, the best stuff that money can buy.

The best stuff that money that they've printed up can buy. And so this is like having the beast, the armored car break down somewhere. He's on his way to rally and it breaks down. He's got to call Uber. They had to turn the plane around and come back. They're saying it was some kind of a problem. I don't know. You can't believe anything they say.

Their default position is to lie, just like the Clintons. I said this for the longest time about Bill and Hillary. I said the truth, they would be better served by the truth than by the lies that they tell. But their default position is to lie about everything. I remember when we had that illegitimate son of Bill Clinton, who was, the poor guy was, you know, he bore some resemblance to Clinton. And his mother was a prostitute and said that Bill Clinton was the father was the father and so forth. And he used to have the Arkansas State Police would come by and give him money every Christmas and all this other kind of stuff.

And then that stopped when Bill Clinton ran for national office. And they would not do a paternity test to disprove that this guy was Bill Clinton's child. They gave him the cold shoulder and he was going around trying to get attention. And of course, because InfoWars was trying to support Trump would go around and we would cover all the things. I felt sorry for the guy. You know, he says, look, I'm not trying to get any money from him. I just, he's my father. I'd just like to have him acknowledge that.

Danny Williams was his name. Yeah, Danny Williams. Yeah, Danny Williams. And, you know, he, again, he was sincere in what he wanted, I think. I don't think he was looking for money. He was being used by people like Roger Stone and certainly for political purposes. And I said at the time, I said, look, if Trump would, not Trump, if, if Clinton would come out and kind of embrace this guy, be a father to him. We saw that happen with Arnold Schwarzenegger, right? He had an illegitimate child by his maid, and the kid looks a bit like him and everything,

but he's kind of mentored him and been a father to him. And he didn't get a lot of criticism for that. I mean, people respect that, even if they don't respect how this child came into the world and what you did to bring this child into the world, they respect you standing up to the responsibility. people would have respected that for Bill Clinton, especially given the fact that you had all these Democrats say he's our first black president. Well, he could be their first absentee black father to actually take responsibility for this stuff. But again, I said the truth would serve him better. If they would admit to it and do something about it, that would help them, especially with their base.

But instead, out of pride or whatever it was, hubris, they decided that they were going to deny the paternity. day of Danny Williams. Thank you for reminding me of his name. I'd forgotten his name, Travis. But anyway, so you see his people on the right. Not to be too pedantic, but most likely the rifle that the ice guy had wasn't an automatic, but a semi-automatic. You're right. I'm sorry. Yeah. I'm sure that if it was an automatic, they would have swooped in and taken it away. Possibly automatic, since there's not usually an easy way to identify that on the outside. He could have modified it, and you wouldn't really be able to tell from that distance. But most likely a semi-

automatic rifle. I thought about that when I said it. But thank you for correcting that because you know a lot more about firearms than I do. That's absolutely for sure. Anyway, sheriff deputies just pulled up and rescued a man being attacked by violent mobs. All this stuff is being put out by the right. And they're right. Right. So, you know, the response to all this stuff, we don't want to have mobs, whether they got uniforms and badges or whether they don't have uniforms and badges. Because some of the ICE people don't have uniforms and badges. That's a big part of the issue. there. And they're wearing masks. So how do we know they're not antifile? We would take their word for it, right? We don't want to have mobs of armed people out there harassing and arresting people that

they don't know anything about. We got mobs of antifile that are arresting people because, hey, you look conservative. We've got ice out there harassing and killing some people because it's like, hey, you look like a foreigner or you sound like a foreigner. I don't like your accent. What kind of American are you? Remember that line from Civil War? That's where we are right now. We don't want that from either side. And yet both sides will say, yeah, but what about, yeah, we got this, we got this antifog guy out there with a semi-automatic weapon. And, you know, what about him?

And then the other guys, they'll say, the anti-fod people say, yeah, but what about the ice people? It's just what aboutism. This is the downward spiral taking us all down the drain. Everybody's saying, yeah, yeah, my guy. are bad, but what about these other guys on the other side? We've got to do something about them. So,

they're violating the Constitution. CBS News reported that Justice Department is investigating Governor Walsh and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Fry over an alleged conspiracy to impede federal immigration agents during deportation

operations. You know, what do we do about this? Where's the local law enforcement? Well, they are AWOL, as a matter of fact. And they're absent without leave. And yet many of them are getting leave. Many of them are getting paid leave. You had the governor of Minnesota Wals signed a law back in 2023,

giving extended medical and family leave to anybody who wanted it. And it began on January 1st of this year. So they signed the law in 2023. He said it's going to go effective January 1st, 2026. And it has. And so you've got a lot of people, especially police officers. Dozens of police officers expected to tap into the new state paid leave program. Well, they're not really doing anything anyway, right?

They're not out there saying, you know, have you got a warrant for this? Let's make sure. They're not being a referee, right? Or is Sheriff Taylor when we need him from Mayberry? You know, we need somebody like that to be the referee between these two different sides. you know, to be the adult in the room. And they're not going to do that. And they're not going to protect people from the anti-faw mob either.

And so this part of the problem with this socialist blank check that they've written for people. It's like, you say you got a medical issue or you got a family issue, sure, go ahead and take off a couple of months. That's fine. We'll keep paying you. And there was no limit to the number of people that. that could leave from a given department. In other words, there wasn't anything in the law that says, well, once we get up to certain percent, let's say 20 percent,

you know, once 20 percent of the people are gone because of paid leave, then we have to wait until these people come back before you can take it. No, it's just as many people want to do it, can take it, because that's the way welfare programs work, right? They're entitlement programs. If you check the boxes, you get it. It doesn't matter what the consequences are. It doesn't matter if we can afford it or not.

you get the paid leave. And so that's the other issue that's there. But, you know, when you look at what they're not doing, they're not doing anything of any use anyway. So maybe I guess that doesn't matter. They're already a wall in terms of helping with things. Guard Goldsmith, Liberty Conspiracy, good to see you, guard. The mayor and governor have all constitutional prerogatives on their side per article

for section four. The feds are not supposed to enter without state request. The Insurrection Act is blatantly and dangerously unconstitutional. I agree with that. Now, I agree that the actions that are being taken by, and let me clarify that, you know, what Trump is doing with the military and what he's doing in the way that ICE is deployed and, you know, the thousands of them there are armored up, you know, going house to house as they've bragged they're going to do.

We're going to go door to door, they say. All of that is wrong. All of that is unconstitutional. But when you have state and state officials and local officials say we're going to block investigations into fraud, the Somali fraud, that is aiding and abetting criminal fraud. And so they have something that they can do about that. And if you say that they're going to set their state up as a sanctuary state, they don't have the authority to do that. under the Constitution, those powers have been delegated to the federal government to control the borders and that type of thing.

And so there is no authority for that. So the problem is, again, the way that it's being done. That's what I've said all along. I don't disagree with the end of what they're doing. And I think they have constitutional authority for the end of this. You know, we want to stop fraud. We want to stop illegal immigration and so forth. And unfortunately, you don't want to stop the welfare fraud.

is there. The welfare magnets bringing people in. But the way that they're doing it is all wrong. And you're absolutely right. He is invading with a massive army. He's invading Minnesota and, you know, do it in other states as well. Because he wants conflict. Like I said before, they could do this in terms of a criminal. Look, if you've got somebody and there's, I forget what it was, is it like half of the money, I think, that had been put out for daycare and food relief and so half of it was fraud. If you're going to preside over that and if you're going to block any investigation of that, that's criminal. That's aiding and abetting a massive fraud. And it's a massive fraud on the entire nation because they're using federal money to do that.

I don't agree with those programs. But this is also fraud. And so there ought to be white-collar investigations in this case. kind of stuff. Not door to door kicking them down and dragging people out in the snow. I don't ever agree with that. So, again, you got Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, right under Pam Bondi, saying, we are not going to investigate the shooting of Renee Good. Very arrogant in this statement. Well, we don't normally look at shootings like that done by law enforcement. If they say they felt like they needed it, we'd just go with whatever they say. We'd have a second

guess it, right? I've got a huge problem with that. And we look at this guy. Todd Blanche, where have we seen him before? His name first came up because he was the guardian angel of Galane Maxwell. He was the one who went to talk to the deputy attorney general, went to talk to Galane Maxwell. That doesn't show any red flags, does it? That the president would be so worried about what Galane Maxwell had on him and on the intelligence agencies. Remember, she deliberately posed with that book about spies and murders of spies and stuff like that

and the tales that they could tell. She almost taunted the intelligence agencies about what she knew. And so Todd Blanche goes to her and has a very, very long discussion with her. The next thing you know, she's moved to out of the prison and into club fed, where she's got very nice accommodations and get special treatment even there.

And so this guy, this fixer for pedophiles, Todd Blanche, the White House guy Blanche, it's kind of funny that that would be the name anyway. So he has declared that Jonathan Ross, the killer, was justified to kill. And as this reason, article points out, most Americans disagree with that. They said, why is it that in general, about 60% of independence and more than that for Democrats and nearly that many for Republicans? Most of them believe that the murder was murder. I believe that from the first time I saw it.

And so why is that if it's obvious? You've got Todd Blanche, you've got Christine Holmes saying, go back and look at the video. Well, as I point out in reason, most of the people have looked at the video, and that's why they think it's murder. And when you see the film from the officer that was there that he took, you can clearly see that she's not even looking at him, that she's supposedly trying to murder him. She doesn't have an expression of hate or fear or anything else. She's calmly turning the wheel. And you could already see from the first footage that was out there that she's moving forward, the wheel is turned. And I said, are these people never driven a car?

If somebody's telling you to get the car out of here, she's doing a three-point turn. And one of the things that she had to do to back up was because this guy runs out in front of her car, trying to use his body to stop her. That doesn't make any sense. That's not people who are trained in law enforcement are told, don't try to stop a car with your body. That's stupid. I mean, I even had somebody when I criticized that initially, some person said, well, what would you do? And I said, first of all, I wouldn't try to stop the car with my body.

And you can see from his footage that, you know, he walks around. and then he leaps forward just as she's starting to move forward. He leaps forward and leans into the car. But he still wasn't hurt. And all this nonsense about the internal bleeding. I mean, it's just been one lie after the other. Began with lies from Christy Knoem that they were stuck in the snow. They were not stuck in the snow.

We can all see that's a lie. And then they were attacked with cars, right? When they were stuck in the snow. No, Christy. You might want to look at the video before you start. making up lies, but that's the contempt that they have for us. No, they're not going to call me on this lie. They like me.

I can say anything I want, you know, just like Trump. I can tell them anything I want, and they'll second that. They'll go along with it. And so they lied about everything. And now they're saying that, you know, he was bleeding internally. And people point out, well, you know, if you're bleeding internally, they'll keep you in the hospital for observation. No specifics.

you know, what was that about? And why did it stop? The thing I thought was a real tell with that, where they said he was bleeding internally in the torso. Well, that sounds like a doctor's diagnosis. And I went into the doctor and I said, you know, I got such and such a problem. I think it might be something in your torso.

I don't know. I mean, when you walk out of that doctor's office, if that's all he knows, he doesn't have a clue. somewhere in your torso. Well, that's good to know. It's not in my arms, legs, or head, right? That kind of narrows it down. It was absurd.

And if he had had internal bleeding, they would have not released him in a couple of hours. That was a cover story. It was a story to cover for Trump's lie that he was run over, which we could all see did not happen. He didn't even get knocked to the ground, let alone get run over. And so the flip side of that was that I showed that video

the very first day. There was a guy saying, I'm a doctor. Let me help. Oh, stay back. You can't help, you know. You try to help. I'm going to have to kill you, you know, that type of thing.

And the reality is that she was alive for several hours after that. And they refused medical help to her. The sheriff who pointed out that they violated all of the rules of common sense and police engagement, whether or not you think this was justified he violated all the rules, said he'd had situations where his deputies had in defense shot and killed somebody who was shooting at them and trying to kill them. After they shot the guy, they ran up to administer first aid to him. He said the same guy that had just shot at and just tried to kill them, they tried to help

him after they stopped him. That's the way things are supposed to work. That's the way a just war is supposed to work. right you are supposed to stop the purpose of the war is to stop the violence that was started by somebody else so you don't start wars like trump does and then your purpose is to end the war as soon as possible and to avoid hurting anybody that is a non-combatant and when the threat stops like you've hit somebody and blown up their boat you don't circle back and kill them like the u-boat commanders did there we say Nazis.

You don't circle back and kill them. Instead, what you do is you administer aid. And that's what these guys are doing. That's what a trained cop is supposed to do. That's not what the Trump people are doing. It's a very, very dangerous precedent. They are rewriting all of the laws and the Constitution, and they're trying to rewrite moral law.

Now, I can't do anything about the Constitution. I can't enforce that. But I tell you what, I'm going to scream. real loud when they try to rewrite the moral law. So again, we're not investigating the shooting of Renee Good, says Todd Blanche. And by the way, they're not going to investigate anything about the pedophiles either. So Minnesota's Bureau of Criminal Apprehension complained that the agency had been excluded from the investigation.

And now you've got Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche saying that there's not going to be, you know, it said, first of all, we're going to lead it solely by the FBI. Now he comes out this last Sunday. and he was asked, what can you tell us about the investigation? When will that be made public? He didn't answer directly. Instead, what Todd Blanche said, well, we don't just go out and investigate every time an officer is forced to defend himself against somebody who was putting his life in danger. Sounds like he's already come to a conclusion here, doesn't it?

There's a lot of conclusions in that sentence. He's like, we never do. There's over a thousand shootings every year where law enforcement officers are put in danger. by individuals and they have to protect themselves and they have a lawful right to do so. The problem is he was never in danger. The problem is he was the aggressor. The problem is that he put innocent people, bystanders, at danger by shooting into that car and then turning that car into an unguided missile because he'd shot the person inside the car.

Everything he did about that was wrong. You know, we've had a lot of police departments who have decided that there's not going to do high speed chases of people anymore because, you know, we've got cameras and we know the car and we can follow this and see where it is and dispatch officers there. Eventually, they're going to run out of gas or stop somewhere. We can do that. But we're going to keep our distance. We're not going to try to match their speed and do everything they did because we've

had a lot of people who have been killed, innocent people who have been killed when we play those kinds of games. Same thing here. So Blanche said, just like Trump, just like Nome, just like Vance. This is self-defense, even though she was driving past him, and he shot two shots. And you could argue the third shot, these were all shot from angles where he was not in danger. The car was driving past him. And again, when you shoot somebody who is fleeing, that is not self-defense.

And I would say that that's not justified either. It's not justified if I do it in my home, if somebody breaks in, take something, they're running out with the thing, and I'm not threatened. I'm not justified to shoot them in the back and neither is a cop. And I don't care what the law says. It's not justified. We all know that. Don't let them gaslight you with their phony laws. If the law says that, then the law is, as one person said, an ass.

And so are the people who are enforcing that law. We're not going to agree to a law like that. We should demand that it be changed. So it turns out that if you look at the polls, And, of course, the polls aren't going to determine the guilt or innocence of Jonathan Ross and the government's not going to prosecute him. But it will have an effect on these politicians who are trying to rewrite the law and rewrite morality. And so independence, 58% of them saying the shooting was not justified with Republicans,

more than a third said the shooting was not justified. 24% said they weren't sure because you're always going to have these people who don't have an opinion about whatever it is that you ask them. You know, they never have their mind made up. So 88% of Democrats said the shooting was not justified. But again, 58% of independence. And even with Republicans, more than a third said the shooting was not justified. So there's a heavy, heavy partisan aspect to this.

But still, a lot of people can see what happened with all of this. And these results, he goes through several different polls. I'm not going to read your all the numbers. But it's pretty consistent. That's about 60% of the people say, you know, when you average it out, when you average out the biased Republicans and the biased Democrats, it works out to be about where the independents are, which is about 60% of the people saying it wasn't.

justified. So again, he's been given a paid vacation. And he'll probably get a medal from Christy home eventually. I mean, after all, they gave a medal to Fauci. I know it was a commendation. You know, we understand what that's about. So are they going to follow the law? They're going to follow morality? No. They will always lie to you. And so as they were saying, why didn't you wait for an investigation to speak out. Christy Knoem said, well, everything that I have said has been proven to be factual and true. You mean being stuck in the snow? You mean being attacked by a car?

All that was factual? Nothing you said was factual. Nothing you said was true. And we can all see that. You're transparently lying. So they point out here, Gnome like Blanch and says, everybody can watch the videos and see. And so Reason Magazine says, if that were true, that the videos leave no doubt on that score,

then why do 60% of Americans who have seen that footage say Good was not trying to kill Ross and that he acted recklessly? That's the least of all this stuff. The witness reported that one of the agents had told her to drive away, which would have been a straightforward and peaceful way to resolve the situation. But another agent took a more aggressive approach. Get out of the car. Get out of the car.

Started grabbing that. And, of course, you can hear from the, you know, it's amazing to me to see these conservatives. And it's people in the past that I generally agree with. You know, I need a Broderick and people like Ben Garrison saying, well, that's it. If you look at the cop's video that shows that he's innocent. The cop video, after he shoots her, just a minute or so after she said, Hey, everything's fine. I'm not angry with you and all that's going to.

He shoots and kills her. And then he mumbles on the video. Effing bitch, right? Yeah. That would be enough for me, folks. I would, uh, if I was on the jury, that's enough for me. I can see and I can hear. And I don't need to get caught up in this partisanship stuff here.

You know, one eight a broaderer is putting stuff out. Well, she should have just obeyed the cops. Which cop are you supposed to obey? And if I don't obey a cop, are they justified in killing me? You can always blame the victim. It's a shame to see that happening with Winnie to Broderick. Again, you'd always say, well, you should never have let Bill Clinton come to your hotel room. It's your fault, right?

I don't blame her. But here she is a victim, and she's blaming it. It's like the people say, well, that Central Park jogger, she should have known better than to go jogging in Central Park. And basically blaming the victim. And that's what Juanita Broderick is doing as well. So the right has caught the woke mind virus, says prethought project. And their symptoms are mass arrest and censorship. And I said this for the longest time.

I said, you know, this is coming again from the top down. I said there were terrible things that were done to Trump in terms of lawfare. It was so unjust. And everybody could see the injustice of it, that it propelled him past all the debates. He didn't have to participate in debates. He didn't have to defend his past record. He didn't have to have any agenda for the future they wanted to talk about.

And he just became the nominee. And I said the problem is, is that he's not going to go in and stop the kind of lawfare that was used against him. He's going to use that against other people. Why? Because he doesn't want to strengthen the Constitution and the rule of law. He wants to strengthen himself personally. I'm the bad guy on the street. You better not cross me.

Get on your knees to me. That's what he wants. And that's what Mago wants as well. As a free thought project points out, they prioritize ideology over reality. They silence dissent. They demand total conformity to a collective hive line. Yeah, that was what we always said about the left, wasn't it?

What Elon Musk said. about the woke mind virus. He was right about that, and now we have seen all that being done by the MAGA people as well. It turned the left into a caricature of authoritarianism, where liberty was traded for safety and free speech was branded as violence. But here's the terrifying plot twist that few were willing to admit. In 2026, the virus didn't die when the Wright started winning the culture war. It simply jumped hosts.

The new right has not defeated the woke mind virus. They have mutated it. We've traded blue-haired social justice warrior hysteria for red hat Caesar fanaticism. That's exactly what has happened. You know, we always say, be careful you don't become the monster you fight. Well, that is true for the tribes as well, isn't it? The symptoms remain exactly the same. An unquenchable thirst to use the violence of the state

to crush their enemies. Especially, you know, when you see some news organization out there saying, oh, look, you know, we're going to collect the tears of the left and all the rest of it. We're going to, you know, crush them and all the rest of it. Just don't trust an organization like that. Don't trust that. The goal is not justice. The goal is monopoly.

They don't hate the boot on your neck. They just want to be the ones who are wearing it. And so we see. this happening with the conservatives all the time. When you cheer for a police state to crush the left, you're cheering for a machine that will eventually crush you. And so that is the thing that we need to remember. That's what I've always said. It's kind of a paraphrase. We know this always, right? Remember Gerald Ford's version of that was he said, a government's big enough to give you everything that you want, is big enough to take everything that you've got.

Now, we're not talking about economic redistribution anymore. We're talking about the redistribution of power. And we're talking about two sides that want to hurt and kill each other. And just like these people are just driving down the street in Minneapolis, and they get attacked by maybe an antifah mob, or maybe they get attacked by an antifah, by a ice mob, simply because of the way they look. You're going to have these different mob.

are going to jump to conclusions. And that's the threat that we're all facing right now. And so, Wayne Allen Root. He's always an interesting character to read, an amusing comical character to read. So here's Wayne Allen Root. President Trump, there is a better way to empower ICE. Here are some creative ideas guaranteed to succeed

and make liberal heads explode. Right there. There's a guy right there. his strategy. We've got to make liberal heads explode. We've got to collect the liberal tears and all the rest of the stuff. And that's his justification. I need to hurt the other people. I need to hurt the other tribe. You can kind of dismiss anything that Wayne Allen Root has to say. But I thought it was interesting to look at it. I thought, well, what are his recommendations with this stuff? And so you've got to own the left, right? I'm so tired of this nonsense. But he had about five

different suggestions. And interestingly enough, the last suggestion is something that I've said from the very beginning. I was really floored to see Wayne Allen root. Agree with me on something. So idea number one, this is a key idea. Let's change the name of ICE to nice. That'll be, that'll make all the difference in the world, won't it? Well, you know, the interesting thing is if he, was a little bit more literate, he would understand that that was the name of the organization, the totalitarian organization, and a C.S. Lewis novel. And, you know, just like Ministry of Truth, that kind of sinister relabeling of that kind of stuff. That's not going to make any difference. So number two, he said protesters are paid, signed executive order banning paid

protesters. All right. I can kind of see that. The problem is then going to be, well, at what point do you call this compensation? I mean, did they set up a website somewhere? And now you're going to call that paid protesting. He said, if you're paid to do this, it's fake speech. So it would be banned. Well, I agree with that in principle. But again, political speech is political speech.

And people can pay for political speech. And where do you draw the line on this stuff? So that's an unworkable situation. He said, number three, no more kid gloves. Spray them down with water and 10 degree weather. Yeah, you know, I noticed that they drag people, but they don't know who they are. They drag them out in 10 degree weather. So, yeah, let's double down on this stuff.

Let's be harsh with people. He said, not only that, but dye the water red so that we can identify them with this dye, and we'll know who they were. It's like, oh, okay, so now you're admitting that red. is the color of communism. I thought that the MAGA people were all clueless about this. They said when the mainstream media labeled them as red states, they embraced it and boasted about it. So again, then he has his fifth idea. Anybody arrested in these violent protests should be bust to far away federal prisons or detention centers.

I'll look at that. You know, it seems like as we're coming up to 250th anniversary of the Declaration of the Declaration, of Independence, it seems like that was one of the things that King George III did, you know. Let's remove these people out of the area where they live and let's bring them into a jurisdiction where I can nail them, right? The left has done that. They use New York and Washington, D.C. to get people. So let's bust them away and let's send them to some, as he would call it, a red state or can't really give them our justice, you know, that type of thing. I don't agree with that. But then finally, he said, here's his grand finale, number six.

And this is the one that I agree with. He said, I said this 90 days ago. And I said it when all this stuff began as well. He said, stop sending ice into areas where violent and angry protesters and rioters block the streets and the politicians won't cooperate. That's what I said. I said, if Trump isn't actively trying to get conflict and chaos, why doesn't he go to the places where he's welcome?

He could come to Tennessee and the people would work with him on all this stuff, for the most part, you know, he would be a very friendly environment. And you wouldn't have all this conflict. But he wants the conflict because the conflict is vital to his political and public relations, right? That's what the man is all about. He wants conflict, not just within America, but he wants conflict with other countries. He wants conflict with the Democrats, but he also wants conflict with Republicans. That's what he thrives on.

So, again, Wayne Haldry doesn't get it. The whole point of this is to have conflict. As I said at the very beginning of this, if Trump wanted to really fix the problem, he could go to the top and he could start coming after people who are aiding and abetting massive fraud, for example. And part of that fraud, I think, is this whole illegal immigration thing. And certainly the federal government has the authority to enforce immigration law. So if these people want to set themselves up as a sanctuary city, come after these politicians who do that type of thing. Instead, he wants conflict at the grassroots level.

He wants a civil war at the grassroots level. Because he knows, and we need to all know, that we are at a fourth turning. People don't have any trust in these institutions. They can see how corrupt they are. We have massive financial fraud by the federal government, both bipartisan groups. You know, coming up,

we're going to hit $40 trillion of debt, probably at the end of this year. And that's the real issue. That's going to cause major economic consequences. And so he wants a war. He wants foreign wars, many of them. He wants to have domestic conflict, maybe even a civil war. That suits his purpose.

That is his wagged the dog response to all this. He wants the conflict. It's the key part of all of this stuff. So again, yeah, if that's a big tell, isn't it? Maybe Wayne Allen Ruddin. needs to go back and look at that. So we got another comment here from Guard. Try you want to read it?

Yes, we do. Guard says border control is not in the U.S. Constitution, only with a declaration of war against a nation state. Immigration and border control, as the Texas Constitution of 1869 noted, was up to the states. Well, okay, I'll take your word for it, Guard. I want to go back and look at that. I think that, you know, when we look at the general purpose of the federal government

and it was not to provide welfare payments. They say the general welfare, but they say for the common defense, I look at that as a broad category of that. But again, you know, I think that certainly on the fraud issue, when you've got people that are coming, would you agree with that, guard? That if you've got mayors and other people who are saying, yeah, we know that these daycare centers are fraudulent,

but we're not going to let you do anything about it because we love our Somalis, right? I think that is something right there. They are aiding and abetting criminal fraud at the very least. I think the other issues are an issue as well. But it all comes back to the welfare state. The welfare state is unconstitutional to start with. It's fraudulent to start with in the general area of that.

But, of course, then there's additional fraud on top of that. It's just like the CARES Act, right? What Trump did to lock everybody down was unconstitutional. He bribed everybody to do. do it. And then he bribed you to be silent about it with the CARES Act. And yet where did most of that money go? Most of it was taken up with fraud. The stuff that was supposed to go to small businesses went to large businesses more than 50% went to the 5% of the largest businesses. They redefined what a small business was for that purpose. So everything about it was fraudulent, as is most of the

stuff that government does. But at some point, you got to start saying, we're going to do something about it at some point. And so Guard says, yeah, Trump is in Switzerland where they mainly speak German. And he just told Davos, without us, you'd all be speaking German. That's even better than the JFK line when JFK went to Berlin and the Berlin airlift when they cut it off. And he says, he's been a Berliner. And he thought he was saying, I am from Berlin, right?

but a Berliner was a jelly donut and so they cut that off right away because you can hear the crowd laughing at him because basically what he was saying to them I'm an Oreo or something like that and it would have been I'm Deutscheutslander or something right

but anyway the yeah that's a new line I didn't know that he made it as to how the rest of the world you know handles you know presidential elections knowing that whoever

wins for four years, they're going to be sending this doofus to your country to give speeches. You know? Well, let's just hope they doesn't send the military to your country. I guess that's what most of them are thinking, especially people in Greenland. So we're going to take a quick break, folks. And when we come back, I want to talk about this family culture issue that is really at the center of what's happening to our society. politics is really downstream from this.

And a lot of the stuff that Trump is doing as important as it is, as dangerous as it is, is downstream from this major problem. And so we're going to talk about the central problem of this. How do we get to the situation of the disintegration of families, the disintegration of culture and relationship that we have with each other? How do we get to that point? And so we're going to talk about that when we come back. Stay with us. We'll be right back. Using free speech to free minds.

It's the David Knight Show. APS Radio delivers multiple channels of music right to your mobile device. Get the APS Radio app today and listen wherever you go. We have a special from Homestead Products, and you've got that, Travis, I think. Can you tell people about what's going on at Homestead Products? Yes, give me just a second here. I'm pulling it up right now. I left my phone, so.

so I don't have it. On sale, they have their Golden Rod tincture. It is now $9. It's a dietary supplement. It helps with system restoration and urinary issues. Goldenrod is exceptional at alleviating upper respiratory congestion, something from allergies, sinusitis, flu, or the common cold. And again, that's on sale at homestead products.

Dot shop, and you can use promo code night for 10% off anything at their website. Absolutely, yeah. Do something, look at some of these natural remedies. And they've got some wonderful things there at Homestead products. And, you know, look at some of these natural remedies that have been around for a long time. We've always had cold. We've always had flu. And, you know, there was a panic story that was put out by the mainstream media saying that this mother who just lost her four-year-old child to flu, has a message for everybody.

And, you know, so they're trying to sell you on the flu shots. She said, you know, my husband and I, we never got flu shots before. We never had a problem with this. And this child was very healthy. We don't really know what happened with it. And the strange thing they said was that, you know, wasn't the first person in the family to get sick. Other people had been sick, but, you know, we don't know how she got this disease. It's like, yeah, you go back and look at the cold house that the British had for 45 years that Mark and Sam Bailey talk about.

They did everything. They had people cough in each other's face, you know, to try to transfer the coal. They transferred mucus, all the rest of the stuff. They can figure out how it was transferring. And the lady, even in this article, she pointed out, she said, and I'm not really sure if it would have helped in this particular case because, you know, we have this new subclayed X or whatever this thing is called. Strain of flu, they tell us. And that's not what this flu shot was for. And, you know, they have this crystal ball that they consult, I guess.

I don't know how they know how to make up their flu stuff because they make the stuff up. They decide in advance that there's going to be this particular strain of flu, they say. And then that's the one that they manufacture the vaccine for. They say. And then they have everybody take that. So even in their fictional world of virology, the stuff doesn't add up. Even if you believed that they knew that there was a virus that was, if you believe that a virus was causing this,

even if you believe they knew the virus that was causing this, they don't know the virus that's going to cause that this year. So how did they vaccinate for that? The whole thing is nonsense. The whole thing is a fiction. And so, you know, when we look at all these different stories about how we get here, we've got this gravitational pull of politics and government that is dragging us into these things. Yeah, one flu over the cuckoo nest, FLU.

That's right, Travis. Anyway, it's pulling us into this, but like I said before, this is all downstream from what is happening to us as individuals. What is happening to us religiously, right? The politics is downstream from the culture. The culture is downstream from what we believe about God. And so we need to go upstream and look at the source of all this pollution in our society. And what happened to family? What happened to education?

What happened to culture? And why is it that women, not just in the United States, but globally? Why have they turned hard left as men have kind of stayed where they were? It was interesting theory about this and some new data that's come out. A lot of people like to talk about the offals, the affluent white female urban liberals, right? And yet it's not simply an urban or, or, white thing. This is something's happening across the globe. There's some kind of a global thing that is happening. And it's an interesting idea. But let's begin with the schools. We've got a Kansas school.

This is a report from Zero Hedge. A Kansas school has banned students from naming Charlie Kirk, Donald Trump, or Jesus as role models. Now, what's the first thing you think of as a Christian with that? I think, first of all, Jesus is not a role model. He's Lord. It's a big difference. We just got finished with all the Christmas carols that we're singing, right? Hark the Herald Angels sing, glory to the newborn role model, right? No, that's not it.

Christ is king. Christ is God. He is not, he is Lord. He is not simply a role model. Yes, we can learn things from him, but that's not the purpose of Jesus. And so there's a problem with this to begin with. But you had intolerance at this school, this elementary school. Don't even mention the name of Jesus, right?

Parents at an elementary school in Kansas are upset after students reportedly told they were not allowed to list Trump or Charlie Kirk or even Jesus as their role models for their assignment. This is coming from a school guidance counselor. Her name is Casey Countryman. That's an unusual last name. I've never seen that name before. So Ms. Countryman gave six graders an assignment called, quote, Find Your Voice as part of their, quote, leader in me program. They were asked to identify their role models, but any conservative role models were apparently not allowed.

Well, again, let me correct the author of this article here and say, Jesus is not conservative. He came to set us free. not to give us a new set of rules, not to get us involved in a political party. You know, when you look at the freedom in Christ, right, a lot of people say, well, look, you know, he took the Ten Commandments and he put him on steroids. And yes, that's right. You know, he said, you've heard, thou shalt not kill, right?

Or shall not murder. Actually, it's more accurate. But he said, I say if you hate somebody, you've already killed them, murdered them in your heart. You've heard not to commit adultery, but if you're not to commit adultery, but if you you look at them with lust, you've already committed adultery in your heart. So yes, he is giving us. He is saying, well, you know, the standard is much higher and you're not going to meet that

standard. But then at the same time, he died for our sins. He died to erase our shortcomings. At the same time, he tells us that it's an impossible standard that is there. But what he's really trying to do, I think, in this is not just to say, well, again, it's an impossible standard. I think what he's trying to do is to say to you that if you accept his forgiveness, if you follow him, you can be freed from the chains of hate.

You can be free from the chains of lust and other things like that, right? Sin is slavery. We don't see it as that. We think of sin as freedom, but it really is slavery. And so if we understand his perspective on this, It is if we make him Lord, we follow him, then that is, and we trust in his forgiveness, so we are no longer enslaved by our own sense of failure and things like that. That is a very freeing thing.

And that is really his purpose. He didn't come here to be a role model. You know, C.S. Lewis, as a matter of fact, said, well, a lot of people say Jesus is a great role model. But he said, that's not right. he's either a liar, a lunatic, or he's Lord, right? He claimed to be the son of God. So he's either a liar or he's crazy or he really is. And so, yeah, do follow Jesus.

You know, people say, you know, what would Jesus do that type of thing? And that is really kind of shorthand for, you know, how did Jesus advise us to live our lives, right? Like a lot of the things that we look at as prohibitions are not things that are going to justify us before. things that are going to hurt us if we don't do it. In the same way that you tell your toddler, yeah, that's pretty, that's red, but it's a fire. Don't stick your hand on that range, right? Don't touch that.

That'll hurt you. So he's trying to free us in that sense, I think. But he is not merely a good moral teacher. He's not merely a role model. He is Lord, the name, the title, above all other names and titles. And so these people who have the kids in school are concerned, and they should be concerned, about this guidance counselor. What kind of guidance is she giving kids? What kind of counsel is she giving kids?

When a student selected Trump as a role model, the guidance counselor reiterated her prohibition even more angrily than she did when one person chose Charlie Kirk, stating that the students could not write. political or religious figures on the board and in fact excluded political and religious topics altogether well again she doesn't know what is happening and we have the blind leading the blind in this school reports note that the children picking secular potentially controversial figures did not receive the same backlash from the counselor you know stop and think about that secular where do we get that you know is secular a juxtaposition to religious as we typically see? I don't see it that way. Secular at its heart is really the same word that we use for second, right? It has as the essence of its etymology

the idea of something that is fleeting, that is temporary, that is passing. So when you have a secular outlook, you are focused on the things of this world that are passing very, very, very quickly, as opposed to, I'd say the antonym is not religious, but the antonym is eternal. You can look at things that are eternal or you can look at things that are secular. They're here for a second. Now, when you talk about eternal things, that's why became people lumped it in with religious as the antonym for that. But again, administrators placed a disciplinary memo in her file, a teacher who had talked about, Charlie Kirk during Constitution Day.

She used him as an example of free speech, and they put a disciplinary memo in her file-threatening future action, told her that she must immediately shut down any spontaneous students' discussions on undefined controversial issues. So free speech is too controversial for them, and we're going to have censorship, right? The agenda is clear that children are being bullied and extorted into abandoning conservative ideas. Well, again, I, you know, conservatism is not an idea. These people are not really trying to conserve anything. And really, it is simply a reaction against change. And the problem is, is that conservatives will react against changing bad things that have been put into place by the leftists.

Case in point, the schools. These parents are interested in conserving the schools. they don't see what the schools have become. They don't see that the schools are not fit for purpose of educating their children. That's the conservative ideal. They're forced to embrace progressive talking points as a way to keep peace and their academic lives. You have to understand that all education is religious. It's just whose religion is going to be taught. This is something R.L. Dabdi made a great essay about.

right after the Civil War. And he pointed out that, you know, you can have education that's vocational or whatever. There's a lot of things that you can learn. And if you fundamentally get down to it, reading and writing and arithmetic, right, those are basically vocational. Those are simply the tools that you use to get an education, the tools of learning. But the education itself cannot be separated from a education. values and worldviews and your religious beliefs. That is the core aspect of it.

And of course, the people used to understand that in America. They would talk about the pursuit of virtue, right? And how do you define virtue? It really gets to the point where you can have a grammar school where you learn some of these tools. You learn to read, write, and learn how to do math. But then you get to the point after the grammar stage, you need to get to the point where you're involved,

in rhetoric and when you're involved in critical thinking, that's when the education begins. And we have completely lost sight of that in our schools. I know I've mentioned this before, but, you know, when I was young, you know, Pokemon was the big thing. And there were a lot of Christian parents that went, no, our kids are not going to have anything to do with Pokemon. The word evolution is in there, and we don't want them picking up, we don't want them picking that up and believing it. And then they would send their kids to school where evolution is taught as fact. You would be so much better off

letting your children watch Pokemon and keeping them out of the school. Same thing goes to something like Harry Potter. Oh, we don't let them watch or read Harry Potter. But we do send them to a government indoctrination facility where they're going to be taught things that are antithetical to everything we believe and they're going to be taught as fact.

Yeah, you're right. And we taught you evolution, right? We did teach you Darwin's theory of evolution. We taught you how it was wrong. You don't just ignore these things. You confront them. And that's the key thing. Conservatives need to stop this idea that we are going to have at the end of this story.

The very last thing they say in this story is we have to understand these schools are filled with leftists who want to condition students to join the liberal hive mind. Okay, give up the slogans and start taking control of your own children. How about that? You know, you are part of a hive mind. If that's all you want to do is blow up the leftist minds and cause leftist tears and all the rest of this stuff, maybe you too might be absorbed in some sort of a hive mind. So we need to get serious about this. We need to get intentional about training up children in the way they should go because when they're old, they will not depart from it.

Do you believe that? I believe that. And so then I see this article. This is on the federal list. It's time to end discrimination against homeschool graduates. And so even when you look at tech and vocational education, it's not real, they say, unless the authorities, unless the academics and the government people say that it's real. You've got to have, you know, that piece of paper. Back where I come from, we have university seats of great learning, where men go to become great thinkers.

And when they come out, they think deep thoughts. and with no more brains than you have, but they have one thing you haven't got, a diploma. Therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Universitatis Committee Atom I pruribus unum, I hereby confer upon you the honorary degree of THD. T-HD? That's Doctor of Thinkology.

Some of the square roots of any two sides of an Isoslis triangle is equal to the square root of the remaining side. Oh, George, that's got a brain. Yeah, if he didn't know the right, he's obviously gone to a college because they, he's got the Pythagorean theorem wrong. It's not nice Osloy's triangle. I had a professor, calculus professor, and he was from India, Mukherjee, and always got a kick out of the way he would say,

Patagorean, Pythagorean theorem. And he'd say, theorem, you know. Professor, what was that theory that is the basis of all trigonometry? Can you remind me what that's called again? You know, so you doesn't need to speak English that well to teach math. And he was a good math teacher, but I got a kick out of the way he pronounced that. Anyway, so yeah, we need to get the government and these colleges to recognize that we know something. Do we really need that?

Oh, it's fine. So you got a representative of a congressman out of North Carolina as put forward the Homeschool Graduation Recognition Act. And, you know, we never had a formal ceremony who represented you with a piece of paper, Travis. You are Lance. I'm feeling deprived over here. I miss my piece of papers.

Yeah, that's right. Although most homeschool alumni transition seamlessly. into higher education, HSD, A, H-School Legal Defense Association, assists hundreds of families confronting discrimination annually. The overwhelming majority of institutions and employers fully recognized and accept homeschool graduates. However, a small minority of employers and certain institutions deny opportunities

to these graduates. What kind of opportunities here? And, you know, what I always told the boys, I said, anybody is not going to, you simply because you're homeschooled and you don't have some kind of a high school or college degree. I said, you don't want to work for people like that. They're not going to recognize your abilities and your contributions if they're so focused on credentials. So just go find a real employer if you want to work for somebody. Ensure equal treatment for homeschool graduates. So we're going to have the government

that's going to mandate that. We've got to fix this. So the root of the confusion traces back to the 1990s when the first major wave of homeschool graduates started looking for opportunities in higher education. What kind of opportunities is that? The opportunities to go into debt? To not understand what the Pythagorean theorem is. I don't know. So H.SLDA collaborated with Congress at that point in time to amend the Higher Education Act in 1998.

explicitly affirming that homeschool graduates would qualify for federal student aid. There you go. Even though you're a homeschooler, they're going to let you go into debt to the banks and the colleges. Isn't that nice of them? They're going to let you start out life with a massive burden of debt for a piece of paper from the Wizard of Oz. That's what they're going to put you in there for.

Regrettably, the amendment was placed under a statutory heading designed for individuals, quote, who are not high school graduates, a relic of the era's skepticism towards homeschooling. And so they want to fix this, and they want to compel people to regard the homeschooling degree the same as a high school degree. I would be insulted to see a homeschool degree the same as a high school degree

when you look at the functional illiteracy of the vast majority of people coming out of homeschool, out of high school, I should say. I wouldn't want to be lumped with those people. So joined by colleagues across the political spectrum. And here's an example of this, which I think is kind of funny. One of the representatives, Lucy McBath of Georgia, shared her personal experience as a homeschooling parent.

Mary Miller of Illinois had similar sentiments. Committee Chairman Tim Walberg himself, a homeschooling father of three, also spoke in favor. Finally, Representative Bob Onder of Missouri highlighted his family's homeschooling journey while advocating for the measure. So these are older people. They haven't been homeschooled themselves,

but again, this testifies to the fact that, A, it's popular, and B, it doesn't hinder people. So, again, like the scarecrow, they don't need validation. It's fine if you want to get validation. I'm not saying that you shouldn't have that. And if you want to make yourself an indentured servant to the banks in order to get that validation, that piece of paper, that's the career choice that you need to make. But you might want to think about that and think about whether it makes any economic sense to go to college anymore.

And also what they're going to be putting you into. You know, I did everything I could to discourage and hamper the boys from going to college because I had had situations with Marxist atheist professors who were wise in their own eyes. And although it didn't affect me, you know, it made me angry. Actually, it hardened my values. But again, I always take the position not to lead them into temptation. So I didn't want to lead them into a college education. I didn't see any value in it anymore because of the tuition rates and the rest of the stuff that was happening there.

But that's your own personal choice. Your mileage may vary. So, again, they want to get validation from the government. Meanwhile, we got up to 25% of U.S. colleges may close soon, says Brandeis president at a meeting here. And what he's saying to them, his name is Arthur Levine. He is the president of Brandeis University. He predicted 20 to 25% of U.S. colleges may close soon due to disruptions in higher education. And what he's really talking about is the fact that people realize that it's a participation trophy.

The grading is not, you know, both the. entrance qualifications have been set aside by many of these colleges, as well as the actual evaluation, the grades there don't mean anything anymore. And much of what they teach you is irrelevant in the real world. And so I said the grading systems lack any meaning. They don't have clear standards. And so there is also grade inflation and no academic rigor. And again, But as long as you pay these people, they will give you that piece of paper. E. Unum pluribus, right?

So they will give you all of that stuff and split the society up rather than unify it. Our whole society is undergoing a transformation, he said, pointing to the shift from a national industrial economy to a global knowledge-based one. Now, stop and think about this. And he does mention that the model of higher education is really kind of a product of the Industrial Revolution. And it really is. It's like an assembly line. It's like a one size fits all. But it's actually that one size doesn't fit anybody. And he's not the first one to point that out.

He had John Taylor Gatto, who was New York State teacher of the year a couple of times. And he was a big advocate for homeschooling. And one of the things that he said was, look at how it really is set up like an assembly line. even the day-to-day operation of the schools are set up like an assembly line. He said, you get started on something, and you're not able to go too far in it before the bell rings, and you've got to go do something completely different. And what John Taylor Gatto did was he would organize field trips for his students, and he would go with them, and they would go out into the real world, and it was really more like an apprentice type of observation thing.

And so he wanted to expose them to real-world things rather than have them cut off and isolate. and grow up in this artificial environment where they are socialized by everybody that's their own age. He wanted to have a very different system, and he eventually just walked away from it. And so now the president of Brandeis University is saying that as well. You know, if you have a global knowledge-based system, when you stop and think about it, all the information that you need to teach yourself to do anything is all of all of the information. on the internet. You don't need a teacher or a guide. And if you do need a teacher or a guide, you can easily find somebody who is an expert in whatever it is that you want to learn. And so what

is the purpose of these institutions? They really have become like an industrial revolution artifact if you look at it that way. The problem that we have is that we have so much information. There's a lot of things out there, as I said before, education is simply about how do I do X. It's also about the wisdom to know whether you should do X or not. And so you need to have some wisdom in terms of consuming this information. There is so much information out there, and that's really going to be on steroids with artificial intelligence. And so you need to have some wisdom and some discernment in how you evaluate that information, how you use that information, and things that are not simply technical,

or vocational. A key component of the proposal is a shift towards competency-based education that measures student skills and knowledge instead of relying solely on grades. You know, and that's true of potential employees. When somebody is going to look at and say, well, I don't know, you don't have a piece of paper from a high school or a college or something. I don't think I'm going to think I'm going to hire. If they're looking, however, going to give you a try and evaluate your character, your work ethics, and your ability, that's a very different thing. You want to work for somebody like that. You don't want to work for somebody that's just like a, let me look at your CV and then make a decision about that and you're either there or not. So again, I remember when,

you know, 40 years or so ago, when I was in the workforce, there was, there were a couple of companies when they went out and hired programmers, they specifically did not want people who were computer science majors or engineering majors or whatever. They wanted people who were liberal arts majors that had studied classic literature and things like that, people who had been trained to think critically. And they said, well, if this person has been trained to think about things critically, then we can train them in programming. And we prefer to be the ones to train them in programming.

programming because we found that a lot of people come in with computer science degrees or engineering degrees. They have been mistrained in terms of the way they approach this. So if we've got somebody who has shown that they can learn a subject and they can think critically, let's bring them in and expose them to the technology. And we'll teach them to do the technical side of this and the way that we want. I thought that was always a very interesting approach. And that would be especially true today when you're looking at artificial intelligence. you are trying to communicate with a prompt what you want.

And so it's a very different way of interacting with things. So they said they address the concerns about grade inflation, saying grades have lost much of their meaning. And they've lost their meaning from the very beginning when they don't care about your SAT scores or any of the rest of this stuff. And so in many cases, what this has become is nothing other than a participation trophy for indebtedness. Another example,

film school. I remember a director saying, yeah, I like film school graduates, but I like them as production assistants. Because they have shown that they will do whatever you tell them to do, no matter how ridiculous or stupid it is, and they won't question it.

But he goes, when I want somebody who is creative, I'll get somebody who has not gone to film school, somebody who has worked in the industry and has shown me what they can do. I also thought that was an interesting approach. Anyway, Levine also addressed the rise of anti-Semitism on college campuses because he's Jewish. Again, this is the woke mind virus of the right. Don't criticize a foreign government because you might hurt the feelings of somebody who identifies with that foreign government. You know, we've got a lot of Jewish people who don't identify with Israel.

And then we've got a lot of Jewish people who say that they are trans-Israelis, right? They identify with Israel, and that's it. So don't criticize them. You'll hurt their feelings. And don't criticize the policies of that government because you'll hurt their feelings. And we need to get over that as well. But here's the key thing. And this is the article that I really wanted to get to.

This is actually a Zero Hedge article that was taken from an X post, an X article. and it was a chart that was put up based on some research showing over time how women had drifted very leftward, radically leftward. And that men, although they kind of trended up a little bit, they would have periods where they go back down. And they have basically averaged it out. They basically stayed where they were for a long period of time, whereas women have radically moved to the left. They said, why is that? Why have young women move left while young men have basically stayed the same as all this is happening? And so when they started looking at the question, Bill Ackman retweeted this in this post that showed the measurement there.

And his comment was simply, why? Why has this happened? Well, this person said, good question. Most answers that I've seen are either, well, this is tribal, women are emotional or at surface level. It's social media. Social media is bad. Said, but what we've been told about radicalization for the last 10 years is exactly the opposite of what has happened in reality. We've been told that men are increasingly radicalized to the right and that this is a bad thing.

When actuality, what is really happening is that women have been radicalized to the left. And men have stayed basically where they are. And so they'll tell you that this shows that women are getting enlightenment and they are progressing. But what the graph really shows is that they have been captured. And there's another way that men have been captured as well and all this. And the article gets into this is that the pattern is not simply American, however, it's also global. The Financial Times documented last year that the gender ideology gap is widening across dozens of countries simultaneously.

The UK, Germany, Australia, Canada, South Korea, Poland, Brazil, Tunisia. Young women are moving left on social issues. Young men are either stable or they are drifting to the right. And South Korea, not Carolina, South Korea is the extreme case. Young Korean men are now overwhelmingly conservative, and young Korean women are overwhelmingly progressive. The gap there is even wider than in the U.S. contributing factors besides mandatory military service for men, 18 months of your life is taken by the state. While women are exempt, there's also brutal economic competition, but the timing of divergence still tracks along with

smartphone adoption. Whatever is causing this, it's not simply American. The machinery is global. And so women evolved in an environment where social exclusion carried enormous survival costs. And, you know, that's one of the things, somebody asked me what my favorite movie is. And I said, well, I'd have to, if I was honest about it, I have to say this year has been pride and prejudice because I watched it so much when I was in the hospital. The contemporary movies were just horrible. And, you know, it had very nice cinematography, very nice music, and it was very restful to sit there. I couldn't really think much about anything. And so I just enjoyed the cinematography and the music. And then after a while, I started paying attention to the plot,

which is really secondary. What I found interesting about it was that, you know, Jane Austen was kind of an emerging feminist. There's an ongoing theme in the sense that in the society of that time, you know, women had no value if they were not married. And so they're all, you know, doing all these moves about and parents are trying to get them married off to this person or that person because that's their future. And so all evolved around that. And that was so antithetical to our society where marriage is now despised, especially by women. But I think it began with that.

And although I could see that that was a system that she didn't like and she was pushing back against, it was still refreshing to see a society like that that was trying to bring people together, trying to produce families, trying to create relationships. And we've abandoned all of that stuff. I also guarantee where Jane Austen to see where this sort of ideology led, she'd be like, never mind, pack it up, ignore everything in my book. Go back. I agree.

Men face different pressures than women, right? So, you know, exploration, combat, you had to tolerate being alone, disliked, outside of the group, for extended periods, whereas, you know, women were trying to get everybody to like them and fit into society and that type of thing. Men could handle temporary, who could handle temporary exclusion without falling apart had more options, more risk-taking, more independence, more ability to leave bad situations. And so, again, this shows up in personality research.

David Schmidt's work across 55 different cultures found the same pattern everywhere. Women average higher agreeableness, higher neuroticism, meaning sensitivity to negative stimuli, including social rejection cues. Men average higher tolerance for disagreement and social conflict. The differences aren't huge, but they are consistent across every culture that was studied. And so when you look at where we are today, everybody is now, however, becoming, you know, It was the women were there to kind of pull things together. And there was that adhesive quality that was put there by women who would build the home,

build the family, and that type of thing. And now everybody has become atomized and isolated. How do we even talk about culture, right? Culture is a group think, a group thing, not a group think, but it is a group thing. It is a set of common values. It's a community. It's all these other things. like that. You can't have culture if everybody is atomized and doing their own thing. You know,

I even think about this in terms of music, you know, because we had in the middle 20th century, we had these mass media communications, everybody was listening to the same music. You know, love it or hate it. You heard the same songs. And, and now everybody's got their own personal playlist that's there. How does that evolve into a culture? I don't know. It has to be a shared thing in some way or the other. But they point out, so again, we're getting back to what is causing this? What is the mechanism that is here? So the same environment is going to affect men and women differently because they are different.

And it's not just physically different. It's not just different skeletons. It's different approaches to things. And that has always been consistent over time. Well, social media is a consensus engine. You can see what everybody believes in real. time. That's what it was designed to do, by the way, by government. They wanted to see what everybody was thinking in real time. They wanted to see if their propaganda was working. I've

pointed that out many times. So now your government and corporate masters can see what everybody thinks, and they can see it in real time. Disagreement is visible, it's measurable, it's punishable at scale. The tribe used to be about 150 people, but now it's everyone you ever met, plus a world of strangers who are watching. Look at the timeline. Facebook launched in 2004, but was college only until 2006. The iPhone was launched in June of 2007,

Instagram in 2010. Suddenly, social media was in your pocket, and it was in your face all day, every day. And this is where we start to see the radical departure rapidly going up with women, globally, not just to the United States. going up being radicalized by this.

Women were roughly stable throughout the early 2000s. The acceleration starts about 2007-2008. The curve steepens through the 2010s as smartphones became ubiquitous, and platforms became more sophisticated. Women by nature are more liberal, but the radicalization coincides with the rise in smartphone adoptions. And what you can see from the graph, As you can see, you know, when they're graphing conservative and liberal values, you can see that right there.

There was always a spread between men and women, but you see this radical divergence after the smartphone and social media stuff kicks in. The machine turned on and the capture began. The mental health collapse with teenage girls tracks almost perfectly with smartphone adoption, with a stronger effect for girls than for boys. the same vulnerability that made social exclusion more costly in ancestral environments made the new consensus engines more capturing. The machine wasn't designed to capture women specifically. It was designed to capture attention.

But it captures people more susceptible to consensus pressure more effectively. Women are more susceptible on average, so it captured them more. And so, again, we can look at the institutional, industrial schools that had already shown this type of thing. You know, we knew this from the very beginning when we school the kids. You know, they were giving lots of young boys riddling all the time because the girls were very happy to sit there and put all their pencils in a row on the desk. And they could sit in the desk all day and do stuff like that. But the guys were getting very fidgety. They had to get out.

They had to do things. There's just a fundamental difference that was there. And so they are always more susceptible to that type of thing. Institutions respond to this. I also would like to point out this is something that's been known for decades. It was just common sense for a long time. That's right. This is why the vast majority of advertising money that's spent is directed at women.

Because they're more prone. They're more likely. to be manipulated or believe in ad buy into it than men are. That's again. Well, they want to be acceptable, right? They're worried that they're not going to be accepted by the group. And so there's that susceptibility to being manipulated that is there. Women are weaker and inevitably seen as victims in most scenarios. So the institutional response is to make the environment safer, which means that we have to remove conflict, which means that we have to censor disagreement, which means that the consensus then is strengthened.

So the counter arguments get removed or de-platformed and the loop closes. So universities flipped 60% female while simultaneously becoming a progressive monoculture. The institution young women trust the most during the years their worldview forms feeds them into a single ideology with no serious opposition. And so then for years, they are surrounded by peers who all believe the same thing. You have professors who have all believed the same thing. Their reading lists are pointing to the same thing. Disagreement is not even rare.

It's socially punished. You learn to pattern match the acceptable opinions and to perform them. Then they graduate into fields that are typically going to be female dominated. Things like human resources or media or education or health care. Nonprofits where the monoculture continues. So from 18 to 35, many women never encounter sustained disagreement from people that they respect. The feedback loop never breaks. And so this explains one of the reasons why when they counter, when they encounter a disagreement,

the response is just outrage. You know, I can't believe that anybody would ever think that. I mean, you know, nobody that I've ever known thinks anything other than what we all think together, right? Men took different paths. They got into the trades and engineering into finance military. Fields where results matter more than consensus. Fields where disagreement is tolerated, even rewarded.

The monoculture didn't capture them because they weren't in the institutions being captured, mostly because they were kicked out of those institutions. But that's a different story, says this person. Then you had the collapse of marriage. you know, the thing that would have astounded actually even Jane Austen, I think. And this probably matters more than most people think. Single women interact with government more as a provider of services. But married women interact with government more as a taker of taxes.

So one group is going to see them as a provider. The other is going to see them as a taker. The marriage gap in voting is one of the most consistent predictors. Marriage rates have collapsed. precisely during this period of divergence. Men saw marriage collapse from a different standpoint. They saw family courts, child support, alimony. The rational response was skepticism of expanding government power.

The algorithms operate for, so even though it's the same phenomenon, you had different perspectives on this, the algorithms, meanwhile, are optimizing for engagement. engagement means emotional response. Engagement means spending time on the platform. Clicking, sharing, commenting. Women respond more strongly to emotional content on average. They're more empathetic.

They can be more easily manipulated with sad stories. That higher neuroticism again, the higher sensitivity to negative stimuli. The machine learned this. And so it fed them content that was calibrated to the response patterns. Fear, outrage, moral panic, stories about danger and injustice and threat and wars and victims. Men got different feeds because they responded to different triggers. The algorithm doesn't really have a gender agenda that has an engagement agenda. But the engagement looks different by demographic.

So the feeds diverged. You know, we've seen this type of thing when we talk about AI psychosis. Yeah, people like the story I had the other day, a guy who was just retired. And he had a very stable family life, raised his three or four kids. And then they retire. And he's been the tech field. And you would think that he would even have some skepticism about software that's there. But he got captured by this AI.

How did he get captured by it? Well, it gradually began to feed some, you know, it would notice that he was. on some tangent or something, and it would reinforce that in order to keep him engaged. And that's a key part of these chat programs. They look, they can assess where you are, and they give feedback to that. So that creates a psychosis, even in many people who didn't have anything that could be discerned by anyone. It was so small if it was even there. But it reinforces and it magnifies that.

And it did that in the case of many adults and a lot of children. a real danger with it. So anyway, women ended up in information environments who were optimized for emotional activation. Men found alternatives like podcasts, forums, cars, wars, the manosphere, etc. Feminism told women their instincts and biology were oppressive and wrong. Wanting children was brainwashing. Wanting a provider husband was internalized misogyny.

Their natural desires were false consciousness installed by a patriarchy, and many of them believed it. They built their lives around it. Career first, independence, freedom from traditional constraints. But now they're 35 unmarried, measuring declining fertility against career achievements. And this is the trap. The sunk cost of admitting the ideology failed is enormous. This is the same type of thing we see with Maga, right?

They have poured so much energy. and things like that, into this, that even the people I talked to that got caught up in this January, the sixth thing paid a tremendous penalty. They couldn't move away from Trump. The sunk costs were just too much. They didn't want to admit to themselves that they had followed a lie and a liar. They didn't want to move away from that. So they doubled down.

Same thing is true with this. He said, you'd have to admit that you had wasted your fertile years on a lie. you'd have to admit that the women who ignored the ideology and married young were right. You'd have to admit that your mother was right. I think you can see why there's so little defection. Not because the ideology is true, but because the psychological cost of living is higher than the psychological cost of staying. It's easier to double down.

It's easier to believe the problem is that society hasn't changed enough yet. This is the same thing we see with the left and the right cults, especially with MAGA. You know, they look at all of these different issues that are out there. It's just that, you know, Trump is right. It's going to eventually work out that way. And I didn't follow the Pied Piper down to prison. Sorry to cut you up, but I know I've mentioned this before, but going to college, this is where the propaganda kicks into high gear.

You were literally buying in. You are paying thousands. tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending on where you go, to be fed these lies. It's not just a psychological cost. You have to admit that you wasted all those years and all that money. It's a sunk cost. And you have already at this point, you've already invested a lot of money. And so you want to make this thing work, you know.

I mean, you can even see that when people get a lemon car. I've had that happen to me personally. It's like, well, I know this car is going to work. This is just a temporary thing. After a while, you got to point out, you know, this thing's just a piece of junk. I've got to get rid of it. It's an albatross around my neck. But anyway, so the issue is that you've got different failure modes.

He said, men were not immune to capture. They were just captured differently. Women got ideological conformity. Men got withdrawal. They moved into things like porn or video games or gambling apps or, or outrage content. The male capture wasn't believe this or face social death.

It was, here's an endless supply of dopamine so you never have to build anything. And so different machines, different failure modes, women got compliance, men got passivity. The male line on that graph

staying flat through 2020 isn't necessarily healthy. It might just be a different kind of sickness. Men checking out instead of being pulled in. Or it might be that everyone and everything moved more left. It's just that women moved lefter. The male line is not flat anymore either.

The data from 2024 shows that young men are now shifting to the right. Young men are now actively moving more conservatively as a reaction to all of this. Women got captured first. The capture was fast between, 2007 and 2020. Men resisted longer, and they were captured

in a different way. But as the gap became visible and culturally salient, as men are the problem, they are now pushing back on this. So we haven't really gotten finished with it. I hate to stop in the middle of this. The bottom line is that now

the passivity is turning into active opposition. People like Andrew Tate, Nick Fuentes. That's what this little episode they did with Hyle Hitler was really all about. Now, these guys are doing it because they want money, but they know how to push these levers, just as if they were AI. And here's the bottom line. I'm going to jump to the bottom of this. The reality is that all of these factors that are pulling these things together, all these things that are atomizing us and putting us at war with each other,

whether it's left, right, male, female, all these different things, it's only going to be exacerbated by artificial intelligence, because artificial intelligence is, again, going to be optimized to engage and to monopolize your time. And so this is what we're looking at in the future. How do we pull out of this? We have to see something that is different than this, something that is transcendent. We have to see the long-term timeline. We have to see, I think, the value of age-old cultures and traditions. And we have to embrace that. Most importantly, we have to embrace what is above culture.

And that is the Lord Jesus Christ. When we abandon that, we're vulnerable. We're vulnerable to all these different things. And there'll be all kinds of deceptions and manipulations that will be coming. Well, that's all the time we've got for today. Sorry about that. And I wanted to get much further. I had a lot of other things I wanted to say.

But we'll cut it at this point. Thank you for joining us. Have a good day. The common man. They created common core to dumb down our children. They created common past to track and control us. Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing and the communist future. They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary. But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God.

That is what we have in common. That is what they want to take away. Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us. It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide. Please share the information and links you'll find at the David Knight Show.com. Thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers.

The David Knight Show.com