Good morning everyone. We will be continuing the classes on Epidemological Study Designs. We have so far completed the designs and descriptive epidemiology in detail. So today I will be explaining about analytical epidemiology. So we have covered the hypothesis. So in descriptive epidemiology we have made a hypothesis. So to test the hypothesis or to know whether it is true or false or to reject or accept hypothesis we conduct analytical epidemiology. So let's go into detail about the analytical study design. So in analytical epidemiology we will go to the steps or the types before the steps. We have two types of analytical epidemiological studies. As I mentioned the study remains a case control study and covert study and when these studies were used are also depending upon the nature of the study. So this is basically a second major type. The first one was descriptive and the second major type of epidemiology which actually focus on individual within the population but whereas descriptive epidemiology we are focusing on a group of people or a population. So population, descriptives we were collecting. Now we are going to check the individual perspective and the most important thing is testing the hypothesis rather than formulating it. So in descriptive study we were checking the hypothesis. Now we were formulating the hypothesis but in analytical study actually we are testing the hypothesis and rejecting or accepting it. So the first one is case control study. It is also known as retrospective study because it is going backwards because the cases and controls are already present at the beginning of the study. So the collection of data by asking questions or questionnaires or their previous data their hospital records. So it is a retrospective study but it is also known as straw-hawk study. You can see it as the reverse of cohort COHORT. So it is going backward. So cohort is always a prospective study. So opposite of cohort is straw-hawk. So case control studies also known as straw-hawk study. So question might come it as straw-hawk study. So never get confused with cohort study. Straw-hawk means case control study. So the basic thing in case control studies both exposure and outcome have already occurred before the start of disease. So before that you need to understand what is exposure, what is outcome, what is effect and what is cause. So the exposure and cause are same outcome and effect are same. Suppose we will take another example of few people or a group of people who are eating food from street side and who are eating from home and the chances of food poisoning. So our exposure is eating food from the street side because it has more chance to cause food poisoning. So the exposure or the cause is always eating street food and outcome or the effect is food poisoning. So always an exposure will have an outcome and it is the same as cause and effect. Effect and outcome are the disease. The exposure and cause are the reason for it. So exposure is the particular reason for creating that outcome or a particular disease. So here eating street food is the cause. So in analytical study the fundamental thing is we always keep a comparison group unlike descriptive study. In descriptive study we don't have any comparison group because we are just describing it. We are formulating a hypothesis. So here we have a comparison group that is control study. So the basic thing in case control study both the exposure and outcome already occurred before the start of the disease. If you are going to check the food poison of patients in a city or in a town in a village the exposure and outcome. People who have already consumed street food are there and many of them might have already developed the disease. So the exposure and outcome have already occurred and the study is always going from disease to cause because we are trying to find out whether actually eating street food caused food poison. So that is food poison to its causes. We don't know whether it is just a hypothesis eating food from street side caused food poison. So we want to know whether it is actually true or false. So we will be asking questions to the patients that is people who have food poison whether they had consumed more food from street side or they eaten from home and we will compare it or do analysis and we will find out whether the hypothesis is true or false. So it is going from the effect to cause but whereas in cohort it will be opposite. That will be dealing later. So this is the basic design of a case control study. So there will be cases and controls are already present. Cases means people with the disease control means people without the disease. How we select control will be coming in next slides. So to cases and controls the epidemiologist will ask questions and find out how many of them were exposed to our particular cause that is street food. Case is food poison. So people with food poison will be checking collecting data using questionnaire or any method and find out how many were exposed to street food and how many were not exposed to street food. At the same time controls without the disease also will be collecting data that how many were exposed to the street food or how many are eaten street food and home food. So always we need to have a control group. So our assumption is people who have eaten street food will have more chance to get the disease that is food poison than the people who have eaten less from the street side that is we are keeping the controls for comparison. So cases and controls without the disease to the both groups will be asking questions whether they have exposure or they are not exposed. Exposure is tobacco chewing whether they chew tobacco or not chew tobacco. So our assumption is in cases the exposure factor will be more compared to controls. So that is our assumption that is what we are trying to prove. In the cases the exposure will be more compared to control. So that is why we are keeping a control group because in control group without people without the disease will not be having much exposure compared to the cases. People who have the cause will be having more effect people. There is no effect means cause will be less or less cause less effect or less exposure less outcome. So the basic steps in a case control study. The first step is selection of cases and control then we have to match it then we have to measure the exposure finally analysis and interpretation. So how to select cases and how to select controls. Selection based on the diagnostic or eligibility criteria. We have to keep a diagnostic criteria and we have to keep eligibility criteria and we can take from hospital or general population. Whereas the selection of control control should be from hospital if the cases are from hospital and we can take controls the relatives of the cases are from the general population and the number of controls that is usually the optimal range is one is to one. The ideal ideal is one is one not optimal ideal is one is one. If you are taking one case you should have minimum one control and if there is more control the study will be good and you can have as many as four maximum of four. Beyond four it is not much effective. So at least you need to have one control for every case and while selecting this control you need to follow a step called matching that is every control should be matched based on the age and gender. Suppose if you are taking a patient with cancer that is a male patient with 40 age you need to select a control with the same age and same gender but without the disease. So that is what is known as matching to match age and gender. So control will be matched based on age and gender. So the third step is measurement of exposure. So how do you measure the exposure? Because you have already produced cases and controls. Now you need to ask about their exposure history. So in this case that is if you see the case of oral cancer the exposure is smoking or tobacco chewing. So we have cases and control groups so we will be asking the same questions to cases and controls. The exposure factor how many times you chewed how duration you were using this what were the symptoms. Same questions will be asked to cases and controls. So you can use interviews, questions as past records such as hospital records, employment records can take clinical or lab examinations and you need to take the records. That is why it is known as a retrospective study because we are going backward. So we are asking the past history of cases and controls. So most commonly this is the easiest analytical study because only you need to check the past history past medical history and past exposure history of a person. But one thing is you need to ask the same questions to cases and controls. But the main problem is the investigator should not be knowing the cases and control groups identity. If he knows the cases are cases the people are cases what happens is he might have had a chance to ask more questions and report more actively than the control group. Because control group will not have so much answers because only cases will be having more detailed report of their past history because they are having the disease. Controls is not having the disease. So when you ask the same questions how long you were using the tobacco means they will not say I have not used. So the same questions if we ask the investigator shouldn't be knowing the participants are belong to which group. This process is known as blinding. And the case control study it is very difficult to do the blinding and there will be bias. So blinding and bias will be checking in future classes. So the last piece analysis. So how do you analyze the exposure in groups? So what we are checking here is exposure. So how much exposure did the cases and controls have? So the measure of exposure is done by a method known as odds ratio in case control study. So suppose the same example of food poison the contaminated food or the street food. That is exposure of cause of disease and outcome or effect is food poison. This is our hypothesis. Contaminated street food causes food poison. So we select cases that is food poison patients and we select relatives, neighbors, friends of these people. We have more number of control that is 35 cases and 82. We can have 1 is to 4 ratio. That is 35 to 120 up to 140 controls we can have. But this is a scenario. We have 82 patients. So out of 35 cases 33 patients were exposed. That is 33 patients were taken food from street. In control 82 controls 52 people. 55 people were taken food from street. But you have to see that the number is more. You have to check the exposure rate. In cases just 2 people are non exposed. That is not taken food from street. But in control 27 people are taken. So if you see the ratio in cases the exposure rate is 94 percentage and control rate is 67 percentage. Because the exposure rate in among cases that is vertically you have to see exposed people 33 divided by the cases that is A by A plus C 33 by 35 this is 55 by 82. So you will get 94.2 and 67. So the exposure rate among cases is 94 and exposure rate among control is 67. That is what we are trying to prove. The exposure rate would be very high among cases compared to control because people who are exposed will be having high chances of an outcome. Because people who ate food from street will have more chances of having poison compared to people who have not eaten from street. So don't get confused after seeing this number because here it is almost triple amount of control that we are taking. So only thing we need to check the exposure rate. So in control the exposure rate is 55. So horizontal line is exposure rate. This is exposure this is non exposed. This is cases and this is control. So don't get confused and always see X axis we write cases and controls Phi axis we write exposure and non exposure. So this is 55 by B plus T that is 55 by 82 we get 67. So exposure rate is always high in cases compared to controls. So odds ratio it is very simple. We are trying to find out the odds of exposure among cases and controls. Odds means chances. So what are the chances of exposure among cases and odds of exposure among controls. The formula is very simple. You have to do the cross product. That is A by C divided by B by D. So it will become mathematically A D by B C that is A D by B C. You have to take the cross product. So A D by B C is the odds ratio. It gives the odds of exposure to the cases and controls we will be asking about their previous exposure odds. So this is the strength of association between the risk factor and outcome. Risk factor is eating street food than the home food. Outcome is food poison. So it gives a measure of strength of association. So when we multiply it 33 into 27 by 55 into 2 you get 8.1. So that is the measure of strength of association of eating street food and the food poison. That is exposure and outcome association. So in simple words we can say that street food eaters had a risk of developing food poison 8.1 times than that of restaurant or home eaters. So people who had eaten food from street side will have 8 times chance of getting the disease compared to the non-exposure group. Here I put restaurant eaters. Don't get confused restaurant anywhere or home side because we have only one exposure and one outcome in any study. So our exposure factor will be based on the hypothesis. So our hypothesis was like for this case eating street food could be the cause of having food poison. So street food eating will have an 8.1 times of risk in developing food poison compared to the non-exposed group. So here also I put some different this is some hotel name Sagar and Malabar. So don't get confused with the names only you worry about exposed and non-exposed. So that is all about case control study. So in cohort study the thing is everything changes because cohort study is a forward looking study or a prospective study. So you remember the word Strohok. Cohort is forward looking study. So the backward looking study is case control or it is also known as Strohok study. It is prospective study or longitudinal study with follow up we had seen in the designs or we can say incidence and incidence prevalence will be coming later. So cohort what is a cohort?  So the thing is it is proceeds from cost to effect. If the cost comes first if it is in case of our foot poisoning we will be observing people who are eating from street side and we will wait for the effect. Because at the beginning of the study all the people are without the disease that is the most striking part of cohort study. So the central study both the exposure and outcome have already occurred. But in cohort study not the exposure not the effect has already occurred. So we will wait for the exposure and the effect to happen in future time. So that is why it is known as prospective longitudinal or forward looking study. So you can see that study starts present. Today it starts. So in case of retrospective or case control study we will be asking their past history. What happened in previous time. But this is forward looking study so if study starts today now the population is free of disease. Today nobody is having disease. So what we do is we observe group of people. So what happens is we observe group of people. That is we observe a group of college students and the factor that is causal factor they develop in future time. So many of the students will be eating from street side and many are not eating from street side they are eating mess food. So that group a common group we will take some may be 100 students we will take. So 100 many will be going street side for eating food and many will not be going street side for eating food and we will keep on observing them. So at the beginning of study they are not even having factors that is exposure factor. Over the period they will be becoming two groups that is one is exposed group and this is non exposed group. The same scenario in case control study what is happening reverse because in case control study it started from disease and no disease exposed and non exposed. In control study it is going opposite that is study without disease few will develop the exposure group will go into exposure and few will go into non exposure group. And people who eating food from street develop food poison few may not develop food poison. People who eating from mess that is without exposure factor. Food poison few might not develop food poison but our exposure or hypothesis is to test the cause and effect that is eating street food will cause food poison. So in the last year there was a history of food poison during the month of April May. So this year we are planning to conduct on a group of people or a hostile group. So that will become a perspective or a cohort study. Last month there was a history of food poison for hostile people or a group of students. So we were conducting a study on the people and we were like asking questions that becomes case control study. So same group we can do different approach but in cohort study study will go to the future. It is a forward looking or prospective study. At the beginning of the study there will not be any cases. So it is time consuming and it is very difficult to follow up because we need to follow up the students, follow up the participants. Okay. So this is how it is design case control and cohort study. So there are three types of cohort study. One is prospective cohort study, retrospective prospective and combination. So I can give an example. So this is prospective study. So today we are starting the study. So there is a group of people without any disease. Few are exposed, few are in non-exposed group and some will develop disease, some will develop disease. Same with the non-exposure group. Outcome has not yet occurred at the investigation begins. So this is a very clear cohort study. Very particular or very proper cohort study. So retrospective so we can see that if we started in 2008 don't confuse with the study. If we starting the study in 2008 the population without any disease over a 10 period of time. All were group of people without any smoking habit over a 10 period of time they develop the habit that is exposure group. That is few are started smoking habit and few are not developing smoking habit. Okay the same group of people we are following for 20 years. So this is a prospective cohort study. We are also known as concurrent cohort study. So in 2028 the people with exposure that is people with smoking habit few develop disease and some did not develop disease that is lung cancer. And also a non-exposed group few develop disease and few did not develop disease. So you might have that doubt that how come the non-exposed group the lung cancer would develop. That is what our aim is. You have to find out an association between this exposure this smoking habit and lung cancer. So obviously we are postulating we are hypothesizing that the exposure group will have more number of cases and non-exposure group will have very less number of cases.  Our assumption is that smoking causes lung cancer. So people with smoking habit will have high chance of lung cancer. That is what we are trying to prove in hypothesis. Because there are 100 people with smoking habit they all will not develop lung cancer. And 100 people without smoking habit some of them might develop lung cancer. But when we compare the smoking and non-smoking the lung cancer development will be very high in smoking group. That is exposure will have a big impact in creating the decision. That is what our hypothesis was. So we are trying to prove the hypothesis. I hope that concept is clear. So this is a different thing that is retrospective cohort study. So what happens in the retrospective cohort study? Don't get confused with retrospective study. That is case control study. Here the study was started in 1998. The study we are starting in 1998. And it ended in 2008. So here we started the study in 2008. And it ended in 2028. We are starting in 2008. Don't think of the present 2020. You are starting in 2008. It goes in 2018 and it lasted in 2028. But whereas in this scenario the study started in 1998 and it lasted only 10 years. And in 2008 it stopped. What happens was, when we start the study we have already two groups of exposure and non-exposure. That is not present in the prospective cohort study. But the similarity is in 1998 the group which developed in exposure and non-exposure group the same group will be traced back till 1988. Because the same group of people will be assessed the same group of data will be assessed from their records. From their hospital records school records or habit records. So why we are doing a retrospective cohort study? Suppose we are doing a prospective study we need to it might take 20 years to complete. Starting in 2008 would take 20 years. But in retrospective cohort study, when we starting the study we are already completed at 10 years gap because people already are in exposure and non-exposure group. So we take the exposure and non-exposure group and we will ask the data or we will collect the data and we will follow the same cohort backward. So we will collect the data and we will make sure that all belongs to a single population. Suppose we are taking college students now they are 25 years or they are working. We will ask their college history and make sure that all belong to 1988 category. Or we will go back 10 years back and we will collect data and make sure that all belong to same age group or same college. Okay, it should have a same cohort design. Because cohort means they should have a common characteristics. If you are taking a college student group means the same group should be forward back 10 years back and we should collect data. So the advantage is we are advanced 10 years i.e. 10 year gap we have reduced. So this study will take only 10 years to complete. So we start at the study in 1998 and we will take 10 years to develop the disease. In 2008 they developed the disease and we will check the exposure. It is a little bit complicated when comparing but in retrospective study we are collecting the population data from the records. From their college records or from the student records. But in prospective cohort study we are starting the study with the population and waiting for them to develop into exposure and non-exposure group. Okay, but here we are starting the study with exposure and non-exposure group and we are collecting the population data from the records. So we are saving 10 years. And there will be in retrospective cohort historical cohort or non-concurrent prospective study. It is like we are collecting data from the history. Okay. So if the study is like this that is we are going from here to here to known as retrospective study and if we conduct the study in combined fashion that is historical cohort present scenario and the future follow up. It will be known as combination of retrospective and prospective study. So basic elements are similarly case control study. We have to select the study subjects. We have to obtaining the exact data on exposure. So we were checking also of exposure. Here we will get exact data on exposure because since we are going forward. It is a prospective study. Then we have to make a comparison group. Then we have to do follow up and analysis. So first thing we have to compare we have to select the population. Depending upon the hypothesis we can get general population or special population and we have to get the data. Second step we have to get the data from records, medical examination that will be in a follow up manner. Not from their past records. We have to do a past records when it is a retrospective cohort study. That is a combination. The same cohort will be checked for its records. The difference from case control study is when we are checking a retrospective cohort they are not developed into an actual case. They are just developed into exposure and non-exposure group. But in case control study actually we are checking the exposure of cases and controls. But here we have exposed and non-exposed group. When we are doing a retrospective cohort study not the cases. Then we have to select a comparison group. We can take internal comparison or external comparison group or with general population. You can take any comparison group. So it will automatically form a comparison group when we follow a population for a period of time. Some will develop the habit, some will not develop the habit. So people will not develop the habit. It will become automatically comparison group. Cohert within the same group. Sometimes it will not be available. So we have to go for an external comparison. Then you have to do the follow up. That is the main problem of cohort study. When you are doing follow up the same population will not be there. Some might have already left out of the city. Some might have gone for some other purpose. So there will be always attrition problem. Attrition research says that loss of people during a period of time. So there will always attrition problem in cohort study. Because maintaining the same sample over a period of 10 years and 20 years is very difficult. So it is very complicated study basically conducting a prospective cohort study. It is very difficult. It is administratively very complicated. It is expensive time consuming. But it is very good study because we will get the exact data. We need not to rely on the past entry or the data of patients. We can relate directly.  Because we are following up we can check it and we can count the actual risk rather than the odds ratio. Outs ratio is in direct way of checking the risk. So it is periodical medical checkup and hospital records, routine surveillance and questionnaires. In many ways we can obtain the data. So obtaining data is same. But in case control study we will be checking their past data which is already being written. One will be asking their past history. This is like follow up. Because we have seen patients without disease and over a period we will be asking questions. So analysis like here is the main analysis is calculation of relative risk. So the same example with disease and without disease analysis part what we are checking is incidence. So the same table with disease without disease and this is exposure and this is not exposure. It is non-exposure. Because the disease will be on x axis always and the exposure will be on y axis. So for 10,000 people 45 and developed poison and the remaining 9,955 did not develop. Whereas in non-exposure group only 5 developed disease. So the remaining were non-developing disease. So the incidence rate we calculate this will go horizontally that is among the exposure rate. The case control study exposure rate was calculated like vertically A by A plus B. Here it will be A by A plus C that is the presence of cases among the exposed group that is exposed group is A plus C presence of cases that is 45 cases among 10,000 that is 4.5. And the number of cases or the incidence of cases or presence of cases among the non-exposure group. Here it was among the cases and among the controls. In case control study here it was among the exposed group and among the non-exposed group. The difference you need to understand. This is prospect here that was retrospective. In retrospective it was going among the cases and among the controls. Here it is going among the exposed group and among the non-exposed group. So 45 by 10,000 and 5 by 10,000 45 by 10,000 45 by 10,000. So you get 4.5 is the incidence among exposed and 0.5 incidence among non-exposed. So the relative risk formula is incidence of disease among exposed that is horizontal and incidence of disease among non-exposed. So you get 4.5 divided by 0.5 is 9. So it implies that there is a 9 times risk of oral carcinoma in tobacco juice compared to non-juice or 9 times risk of getting food poison among street food compared to home food or restaurant. So analysis is different but the meaning is same. There we calculated the odds of exposure. Here we calculate incidence of disease among exposure and non-exposed group is just opposite. So the meaning is same. It is measuring the strength of association between exposure and outcome or the causal factor and the disease. So basically if relative risk is 1 then we can say that there is no association between this exposure and outcome that is eating street food or have getting developing food poison. There is no association. If it is more than 1 we can say that because of eating street food food poison has happened. If it is 2 we can say that twice risk. So greater the strength of association greater the relative risk greater the strength of association between the factor and the cause and effect. One example of another type of risk is attributable risk or attributable risk. It is also known as risk difference. Calculated by like this incidence among exposed minus incidence among non-exposed divided by incidence among exposed. It will be presented in percentage. So 4.5 minus 0.5 divided by 4.5 we get 88.9 percentage. It says that how much is the attributable power of that suspected factor. If 100 people are eating street food how many of them will develop food poison. So the power of that particular factor. Before relative risk we were seeing compared to the non-exposed group what is the risk of exposed. Here we are saying the power of exposure for the risk difference or what is the attributable risk of that particular causal factor. So we see almost 89 people will develop food poison if he eat food from the street side or if 100 people will have smoking habit. 89 people or 88.9 people will develop oral cancer. So that is the attributable risk or risk difference. And one last thing is population attributable risk. So it is what is the population effect. So it is like incidence of the death in the total population. This is only different thing coming here. So total incidence of disease. So all the disease incidence we have to include here in total population minus incidence due to the non-exposed so total population death minus population death happened due to non-exposed. So what is the incidence in non-exposed group divided by incidence in total population. So it also will give a percentage. It provides an estimate that if the suspected factor is removed from the population how much percentage of people will be saved. Suppose after calculating this we get 40 percentage. That is if we remove the causal factor of remove the street food. If we stop all the street food ventures we can save the total food poisoning disease 40 percentage. So if it is smoking and lung cancer, if we stopped stopping if we stopped smoking habit or if we prevented smoking we can save 40 percentage of the total death. So that is all about population attributable risk. The formula is different incidence of total population minus non-exposed incidence divided by incidence of total population. Here it was incidence of exposed. That exposed to become total population incidence of due to all the disease. So ultimately we get the disease of people with only exposed. So this is a little bit complicated. It gives a population attributable risk. It is mainly helping in preventing programs. If you are doing a mass program on tobacco banning of tobacco counseling that program will have this much effect. If we remove that particular factor from that population this much incidence can be saved. If population attributable risk is 70 percentage for the tobacco and lung cancer we stop smoking we can save 70 percentage of the death due to smoking from that population. That is all about case control and coercity. It was a lengthy session but try to understand the concept both are different but one or the same but has same scenario. One thing is going backward and one thing is going forward. The risk estimation also is just one is measuring the exposure other is measuring the incidence amount exposed to it. Thank you.


First of all, I wanna let you know how much I respect Pastor Joey and Rita. And join me in thanking the Lord for such tremendous pastors right here in Pace, Florida. Well, history is not prophetic, but it is predictive. Past behavior is the best indicator of future performance. And so one of the things I did was research every single century of recorded human history to try to find out what the most common form of government is. And so I put together a PowerPoint. And the, once it comes up here somewhere on the screen, there you go. So there's my website, and I sent out a daily history email that you can sign up for there, as well as videos and articles and so forth. So let's learn some lessons from history. God created Adam and Eve, they fell, Cain kills Abel, and then you got Nimrod. Nimrod, Josephus said he wanted to build a tower so high that if God destroyed the world again with a flood, he could survive on top. So it had this defiant attitude toward God and that Nimrod made everyone in town bake bricks and bring them or he would kill them. So it's defiant against God, oppressive over man. And that was the first attempt at a world government, right? So civilization began in Mesopotamia and this was the first notable civilization that he wanted to be the head of it. He wanted to be the first Antichrist. I mean, that's basically what it was, the spirit there. And God confuses the languages and the people scatter into language groups and those language groups turned into nations. Nations is God's invention to prevent a one world government. You take the population of the world, break it into groups and they're competitive against each other, right? They keep it from re-concentrating back into a one world government. But every generation you get some leader that wants to conquer a bunch of nations and wants to go back to this. And so you have Gilgamesh, king of Aruk. He's the first one to build a wall around the city. Matter of fact, the oldest story ever written in any language is the epic of Gilgamesh in the ancient Akkadian language. And it has him going on a long journey to meet an old guy who survived the global flood, calls it a global flood. And they actually talk about him building a big boat covering with tar and pitch. And then after the flood, repopulating the world, it's the story of Noah. And it's included in this epic of Gilgamesh. And this is a thousand years before Moses writes. And so over a hundred ancient civilizations have flood stories in their ancient past. Gee, maybe there really was a flood. I believe there was. And then you have Sargon of Akkadia, conquers a bunch of walled cities to consider the first empire from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean.  And he is the one who takes the 10 northern tribes of Israel captive. It's the biggest empire on the planet at the time. But it's conquered by Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, which is conquered by Persia. And they have Cyrus of Persia. He's got the biggest empire that the planet has ever seen up to this point.  Persia is conquered by Alexander the Great. He's got the biggest empire. We're on 330 BC. And then he stopped from going into India and you have Chandra Gupta of the Maura Empire in India, controlling a quarter of the world's population even way back then. And then you have the Roman Empire. And it's the biggest empire that planet Earth had ever seen up to this point. If you ever see a seashell that goes a little circle, a little bigger circle, a little bigger, bigger circle, that's actually a rate of geometric expansion called the Fibonacci sequence or PHI or the Golden Ratio. And it's applied to economics. It's applied to investments like crypto or whatever. And I decided to apply it to history and began to look. And sure enough, you see the little circle, bigger circle, bigger. And they keep with military advancements, kings can kill more people. So instead of king killing people with a rock, they can kill with a bronze weapon or an iron weapon or a phalanx spear or a symetre sword or gunpowder or drones or directed energy weapons, like space-based lasers and particle beams and microwaves. All right, the weapon improves, but it's that same fall in nature at Cain, Kale and Abel. And Augustus Caesar wanted to have the first world tracking system. Around 2 BC, he wanted to have a census. That was like modern technology. If he could add 5G and cell phones and satellites and face recognition software, he would have been tempted to use that. And then you have the Ascomite Empire in Africa and Attila the Hun 450 AD. He has an army of a half a million men wiping out cities across Europe. Mines, reams headed toward Paris. Little St. Genevieve, a young woman gets all of Paris to fast and pray and Attila skips second Paris. But you read the writings of the Christians in that time? They write that Attila's the Antichrist, but he had the spirit of Antichrist, right? And one of these guys would have been happy to. So in that sense, death is a blessing and the devil has to start from scratch again.  I can give it to whoever I want. And you're thinking, that's pretty audacious.  But you're like, when did the devil get all the kingdoms of the world? When Adam sinned? Adam was in charge of the garden. We know that because he named everything. When if you named something, you have kids, you name your kids, you have authority over your kids. Adam, who's the authority?  The moment Adam obeyed Satan, he was posturing himself as the one taking the orders and the devil is the one giving the orders. And then all the kingdoms of the world have one thing in common. They have a dictator who rules through fear. That's the motivating energy. And then Jesus said, the kings of the Gentiles rule over them, but it shall not be so among you. He that is greatest among you shall be the servant of all. I am among you as he that's service. So we're talking kingdoms and Jesus saying, those are top down through fear, minds bottom up through love. And anyway, then you have the Islam. And so you have seven century AD and Islam conquers from the Persian Gulf, conquers Egypt, which used to be Christian. Syria, which used to be Christian. Turkey, which used to be Christian. Spain, right, was conquered for 700 years. And then you have the Muslims are stopped at the battle of Tours by Charles Martel, his grandson is Charlemagne. He's got the biggest empire, controls all of Europe around 800 AD. And then the Vikings, 1000 AD. They have boats with low keels. They go up every river in Europe and Russia. And they've got the biggest empire. And then you have Genghis Khan, 1200 AD. He kills 30 million people from Korea to Hungary to Russia. And what, if he hadn't had died, he'd have been happy to keep killing and conquer the world. And then you have his grandson Kubla Khan and Tamerlane, 17, kill 17 million people in the 1300s. And then Ivan the Terrible of Russia, 12 time zones. And then you have Miss Hemisphere, Aztec Montezuma. And they're capturing tribes, taking them to the top of the temple, ripping their hearts out to the sun god and Otto Wopla and Incan Peru. And then the king of Spain, 1500s, has the biggest empire that planet Earth had ever seen up to this point. The Philippines are named after his son, King Philip of Spain. And then the 1600s, the king of France has the biggest empire the planet had seen, Louis the 14th, the sun king. And then finally, the king of England in the 17, 1800s, 13 million square miles, a half a billion people. The king of England was a globalist. He was a one world government guy with him at the top. America's founders didn't like that. They broke away and flipped it and made the people a king. So the most common form of government in world history is gangs. If we were to wake up tomorrow with no police, what would happen? It'd be fine for a couple of days and then people would rob stores. And when they got away with it, they would begin to go house to house. And then we would get our neighborhood together and say, we got to protect ourselves. We'd find somebody that knows how to fight. And we said, look, you be our captain. And then on the bad side, they would find their bad gang leader and we'd be back to gangs, good gangs and bad gangs, but they would demand loyalty. And so in all of this, one nation stands out. Around 1400 BC, millions of people came out of Egypt. And for 400 years, they did not have a king. It was ancient Israel. And it worked because every single citizen was taught the law and they were personally accountable to God to follow the law. And it worked for 400 years until what? The priest stopped teaching the law. They go, they did? Yeah, here's Eli, the high priest, his own sons are sleeping with women in the tent where the Ark of the Covenant is. And then you have a Levite with a silver graven image in the house of a guy named Micah. And I think, isn't that one of the commandments? You're not supposed to have graven images. And then there's a Levite with a concubine. The law says the Levites to marry a virgin of his own tribe. Here he is with the woman he's not even married to. He's not following the law. He's certainly not teaching it. And so the people turn into chaos. They got this concubine is raped and these sodomites banging on the door, something about that behavior that appears at the very last stages of a people ruling themselves. This abandonment to passion, casting off a self-restraint. And all the people go to Samuel the prophet and they say, this self-government system is not working anymore. We want to be like all the other countries. We want a king. Samuel cries and the Lord tells them, they did not reject you. They rejected me. And so you have the most common form of government. So a gang leader is called the king, right? You can call him Pharaoh. Caesar, Kaiser, Sultans are. The name changes, but it's one person that calls a shot to hierarchal. If you are friends with the guy at the top, you are more equal. If you are not their friend, you are less equal.   That's the default setting for human government. And so democracies and republics are attempts to take the power of a king and give it to the people. Ancient Israel was the first instance of this, but then you have the Greeks with their city-states in the Roman Republic and they would work for a while. Israel's worked because they had a big magnet in the sky called God. So you were virtuous because you were accountable to God. Athens didn't have that. Plato says that the self-government's not gonna work for a long time because human nature is selfish and he called it virtue and then the people don't have virtue. 380 BC, Plato said, people really don't have virtue if someone was born that truly had virtue, the world would crucify him. He wrote, Plato wrote that, 380 BC. And then you have the Roman Republic and it kept getting a different between the Republic and democracy. Democracy has two definitions. One is a general reference to the population, the populace being involved. And that was being used a lot in America during the Nazis in the Cold War, Truman contrasting us to the Soviets. So a general reference, but as a functioning form of government, demos means people, crossing means rule, a pure democracy, every citizen has to be at every meeting, every day to talk about every issue. And it's very time consuming. And so it could only grow as large as a city, so they call them city states because you physically had to be there every day.  They are your representative. Easy way to remember the word Republic begins with REP, the word representative begins with REP. A Republican form of government is a representative form of government.  We pledge allegiance to the flag and to the Republic. We're basically pledging allegiance to us being in charge of ourselves. And so when somebody protests a flag, what they're saying is I don't wanna be the king anymore. In one of my talks, I go through how ancient Israel inspired the Protestants during the Reformation and they basically founded New England and they brought this form of government without a king to America. But I'll talk about that maybe this afternoon. So if democracies and republics are attempts to take the power of the king, give it to the people, what if the king wants it back? Does he just ask for it? Hi, I wanna be the king. Give me control of your life. Oh, okay, yeah, here you go. Is that how it happens? No, so there's two ways that kings can take the power away from the people. One is fear, when people get afraid, they will panic and trade their freedom for security. And the second is free stuff.  And so it's like a gang leader takes over a neighborhood two ways, he can come in with guns and get everybody into fear and they submit to the mob or the drug dealer's so nice, he's giving away free drugs until you get hooked.  It's like a hunter catches animals through guns or bait. Right, one's a forward front door approach and the other's a sly back door approach. I was studying how to catch pigs in the wild.  You get this dependency. These are ways that, and so the different ways that matter of extolling, call it fear and food. You keep a large population in control by always keeping them in fear and then you always keep a food shortage and because then they're dependent on the government. In China, they would limit families to one bowl of rice, you know, a day and they didn't have time to plot a rebellion. So scriptures, fear man bringeth a snare. Snare is a trap. When you make decisions out of fear, you are entering a trap. That's why over and over again the Bible says fear not, fear not, well I don't know what to do. Spend enough time in the presence of the Lord and in His word until you get peace in your heart then make your decision. But do not make a decision out of fear and then the other is every man is drawn away of his own lust and enticed, like Eve, you know, she saw that the apple was, you know, good for the pride of life and that and so forth. So let's talk about fear. How do you create an atmosphere where an entire nation gets into fear so they'll trade with their security? You have to sow discord, right? When there's no discord, there's peace. It's like, I don't, I'm not in any reason to give up my freedoms, everything's fine. So you have to sow discord. So how do you sow discord? Now a couple of scriptures, Psalms 133, how good and pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity. Everybody say unity.  Everybody say discord. We have unity, we have discord. Imagine being in heaven. There's unity until somebody comes along and sows discord in heaven. It happened. The name devil means to divide. He's divide, he's sowing discord and of course he's cast out of heaven. He gets thrown down to earth and what does he do? He sows discord in the garden with Adam blaming Eve and Cain kill and Abel. And then we have this period of the Hebrew Republic that 400 years out of Egypt before King Saul and Gideon defeats 100,000 Midianites. And nobody is even thinking about invading Israel after that. But Gideon has an illegitimate son named Abimelek. He wants power. He goes to the town of Shechem because his mom had been like a concubine to Gideon and he goes to the men. He says, he does critical race theory. He does race identity politics. He says, is it better for you that the sons of Gideon reign over you? Remember also that I am your flesh and your bone. And then the men of Shechem says, well, we gotta vote for him because he is our brother. And so he uses this and then they go to the temple of Balbarith, the city treasury and he takes money to hire protesters and rioters, Antifa, BLM type to do what? It says, and they gave him three score and 10 pieces of silver out of the house of Balbarith.   And then the men of Shechem made Abimelek king. So you take a country completely at peace. No threats, but on the inside, you sow division based on race. And so the Hebrew Republic would have ended here rather than a century later with King Saul. Had not somebody threw a millstone over the wall and it killed Abimelek. Anyway, so let's fast forward Machiavelli. Italy, 500 years ago, lots of city states, Venice, Genoa, Naples, Florence, Siena, and they're fighting. And Machiavelli thinks if one prince could control all of Italy, it would stop the infighting. So he writes a book called The Prince where he advocates the ends justifies the means. The end of one prince controlling all of Italy is such a good end, because it'll stop this infighting, that any means necessary to get there is justified. Lie, cheat, steal. So if a prince conquers a city and the city does not wanna be conquered, they would hate him.  To commit violence. And they're smashing windows and setting things on fire. The people in the city will panic and want somebody to come in and restore order and the prince can come in, get rid of the very criminals he bribed to create the mess. Nobody will know the better for it and everyone will praise the prince as a hero, right? And so it's good marketing. You create the need and fill it.  And they'll pay anything for it and thank you for being there, right?  You have to get people to create these riots. You have to have FBI entanglement type things. So Machiavellianism is called create or capitalize on a crisis to consolidate control. That's a mouthful. And so Ramamannuel said, you don't ever want a crisis to go to waste. It's an opportunity to do important things you would otherwise avoid. And Ben Dominic, Fox prime time, Ramamannuel's famous dictum, never let a crisis go to waste. Normal times don't produce the outcomes that the authoritarian left once because people are not scared enough to give them the limitless power they crave. Crises are necessary. And so if there aren't any on offer, they manufacture them. And so you and I see a crisis, our response is how can we help people through it? They see a crisis, their response is how can we usurp power through it? Henry Lewis Menken wrote, the urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it. Climate change, oh the world, we got it.  Let's look at the British empire. It did become the biggest empire on planet earth. How did they get so big? Did they just walk into a little country and say hi, we wouldn't be the biggest empire on planet earth. Okay, here are the keys, is that how it happened? No, so let's look at how they took over India.  They did it in Kenya and Nigeria and they even did it in America during the Revolutionary War. Right, we had a century and the Americans and the Indians and sort of reached an equilibrium and the British went to the Mohawk Indians. General Johnny Burgoyne, coming now from Canada and New York and he meets with the Mohawks and he stirs up discord and he promises a money for scalps and so they scalp lots and lots of Americans and it was so bad that it was mentioned in our Declaration of Independence as one of the 27 reasons why we were rebelling against the king. The king has excited domestic insurrections among us and is endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. Right, so we were getting along with the Indians but they wanted to stir this up and the French Revolution, you see again a government wanting to stir up crises, crush the enemies of the revolution and Robespierre was the one leading the French Revolution. He was their head of their Committee of Public Safety like their Homeland Security and he gives a speech in 1794 called Terror Justified. Lead the people by terror. Basis of popular government during a revolution is terror. Terror is nothing more than swift, severe and flexible justice.  Just north was Fort Mims, Alabama and the British go to the Red Stick Creek Indians. Do you know the French pronunciation of Red Stick? Batan Rouge. Batan means stick, rouge means red. So the British go to the Red Stick Creek Indians and promise them money for scalps and so the Red Stick Indians capture Fort Mims, Alabama. They capture 500 people and then they proceed to scalp them all and this is what the historical marker says. Here in Creek Indian War 1813-14 took place the most brutal massacre in American history. Indians took the fort with heavy loss then killed all but about 36 of the some 550 in the fort. Creeks had been armed by British at Pensacola in this phase of the war of 1812. Do we really think the British Empire cared about the Red Stick Creek Indians? No, they were coming into an area where there was peace, they were sowing discord and they were causing this Christ, why, because they wanted to conquer both areas. And then you have Hegel. So we talked about the devil sowing discord in heaven, sowing discord with the Adam, Blay, Medivh, Cain, Kill, and Abel, sowing discord with the Bemalek, sowing discord with Machiavelli, sowing discord with the British Empire and now we have Germany. So Napoleon conquers and six million people die. Afterwards, the king of Prussia said we can't get conquered that easy again. We need to strengthen our state. And he has a philosopher who's a professor at the University of Berlin named Hegel. And Hegel influenced Darwin and Hegel had a student named Karl Marx, who was a member of the Young Hegelians at the University of Berlin. And so Hegel took what I just explained and made it into a nice neat triangle it's called dialectics. The thesis is the status quo, right? So it goes thesis is one corner, anti-thesis or antithesis on the opposite corner. And then the top is a synthesis. It sounds complicated, but it's not. In other words, you, thesis is the status quo. Everybody's been getting along, the way they've been getting along. You have to create discord. You have to create an uncertain crisis. You have to create a problem that's real bad. And then everybody panics in fear and surrenders some of their freedom to settle for an answer that's just half as bad. And then that becomes the new starting point, thesis and you create another antithesis, another crisis that's real bad and gets everybody to panic and fear and they surrender some more of their freedoms to settle for an answer that's just half as bad. That becomes the new thesis starting point. You create another problem that's real bad. Everybody panics in fear again and then they settle for a answer that's just half as bad. And every time they settle, they're giving up a little of their individual rights to the state. And so, Carl Marx says, how do you create a problem that's real bad in the country?  Like Machiavelli, you get people to smash windows and set them on fire. You get these agitators, they create a crisis that makes everybody panic, and then everybody says, we need the government to come in and restore order. And the government's like, okay, we're glad you're asked. We're going to come in, we're going to restore order, we're going to take away all your guns. We're going to take away your freedom of speech, because you might set somebody off. So we've got to, and we're going to track you. And we're going to, you know, and so they would begin to take, the answer is always, you have to give up some of your freedoms to solve this problem. And so, Carl Marx got a name for this, he called it critical theory. That's where you study a country and you see all the groups, economic groups, religious groups, racial groups, and you call some victims and others oppressors, haves and have nots. And you pit them against each other to create discord. And so at first it was economic, proletariat versus the bourgeois, which was the poor against the rich. They organized the blacks against the whites, the Catholics against the Protestants, the Muslims against the Christians, even the Hutus against the Tutsis and the Congo and Rwanda. The people in Congo and Rwanda saw themselves as one, but the Belgian and German colonizers came in and measured them and their features and arbitrarily said, you are a Hutu and you're a Tutsi. And they made them go down to the government and register as a Hutu, as a Tutsi, and then they stirred up discord between them and they even fought each other and genocided each other and weakened each other and then the colonizing power said, well, we're going to come in and restore order. And everybody's like, oh, thank you for restoring order. Yeah, they were behind it. I talked to people in India. They said, yeah, that's what the British did in India, right? This is the standard model. And so it's interesting that Patrice Kuller is one of the founders of Black Lives Matter said we are trained Marxists. Come in, identify groups, put the groups against each other. So discord and then everybody surrenders their freedom to the government for a solution. Castro said the revolution needs the enemy. The revolutionary needs his antithesis, which is the counter-revolutionary. And if enemies were lacking, they had to be fabricated. In other words, you can't get people to give up their freedoms if everything's fine. You have to get them into fear. There has to be an enemy to organize against. And if there are no enemies, you make them up. You fabricate them. Like a Christian nationalist or a white supremacist, you try to make some boogeyman that's not really not there and you want to make them into the enemy so that you have a reason to make people into fear to give up their freedoms to fight them. Jesus talked about this. He said if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. Lincoln said a house divided against itself cannot stand. It's introducing an autoimmune disease into the body politic. What's an autoimmune disease? It's where your own immune system starts attacking your own organs. You have a war going on inside of your own body. And so we have the body politic. You come in and you get it to fight itself within the country. Like a bimalek, all of Israel, but he gets the men of Shechem, the right to fight the rest. Like Machiavelli, you come in, you get these groups to fight each other. The British Empire getting groups to fight each other. Hagel, they get the groups to fight each other. So how do you destroy a marriage? So division.  So division.  So division.  So division. So critical race theory, patriotism is the enemy. You get people to identify with subgroups and you pit the subgroups against each other to create division, to create discord, to get everybody into panic and fear so those surrender their freedoms. Franklin Roosevelt said whoever seeks to set one nationality against another, seeks to degrade all nationalities. Whoever seeks to set one race against another, seeks to enslave all races. And then he says January 2nd, 1942, remember the Nazi technique, pit race against race, religion against religion, prejudice against prejudice, divide and conquer. I saw this quote from Charles Barkley, the NBA basketball player on a CBS sports panel, April 2021. He said, man, I think most white people and black people are great people. I really believe that in my heart. But I think our system is set up where our politicians, whether they're republicans or democrats are designed to make us not like each other so they can keep their grasp of money and power.  Now there are some good ones and we got to get behind them, right? Their only job is, hey, let's make the whites and blacks not like each other. Let's make the rich people and the poor people not like each other. Let's scramble the middle class. I really believe that in my heart. And so taking this sewing division more to the present, we have Chicago. We have Al Capone. And we have a guy named Saul Alinsky that's riding around with Capone's hitman, Frank Nitty.  The whole neighborhood would panic in fear. There's discord and they would submit to the mob. And Saul Alinsky says, well, this is easy. Let's just apply this to politics. And so he influenced our politics. He even, Hillary Clinton did her senior thesis at Wellesley College on Saul Alinsky. And even a former president was a Alinsky organizer in Chicago. And so Saul Alinsky says the first step in community organization is community disorganization. Disruption of the present organization is the first step. The organizer's first job is to create the issues or the problems. The organizer must first rub raw the resentment of the people of the community. An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent. The fan, the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. The organizer polarizes the issue, helps lead his forces into conflict. He must search out controversy for unless there is controversy that people are not concerned enough to act. And in the front of his book, he has an acknowledgement to Lucifer. We started off talking about Lucifer.  The first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively, he at least won his own kingdom. Lucifer, that's his M.O., modus operandi. That's what he does. He sows division. And Alinsky in Rolling Stone magazine, March 72, just a couple months before his death in June of 72, Alinsky said, if there is an afterlife and I have anything to say about it, I will unreservedly choose to go to hell. Hell would be heaven for me. Once I get into hell, I'll start organizing the have-nots over there. They're my kind of people.  And anyway, so not only do they create the crises to sow discord so they can use their power, they blame you for creating the crises. They blame you for sowing the discord. It's something called psychological projection, where the attacker blames the victim. Blame shifting. You accuse others of what you do. And so it's in the Bible. So it's a psychological, it's a narcissistic defense mechanism to avoid responsibility. And little kids do it. I didn't start to fight. You did. Or a cheating spouse will accuse the faithful spouse of being unfaithful. And Potiphar's wife accused Joseph of lusting after her when she was lusting after him. And you have Ahab seeing the prophet Elijah. And Ahab says, well, you're the troubler of Israel. And Elijah's like, you're the one troubling Israel. You're blaming me for your problems. And then Jesus talked about it. Why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye but fail to notice the beam in your own?  First, take the beam out of your own eye. So here, they're the ones that have the beam, but they're blaming you, right, for the speck. They're the ones that are doing the bad stuff, but they're wanting to blame you for it. And they did it to the apostle Paul. He's in the temple in Jerusalem praying. Some Pharisees see him and they start a riot and they're pulling Paul apart and the Romans rescue Paul. And then there's a trial. And the Pharisees send a prosecuting attorney named Tertullus who begins to accuse Paul saying, we have found this man a pestilent fellow, a mover of sedition among the Jews and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes who's gone about to profane the temple. And Paul answered, they neither found me in the temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, nor in the synagogue, nor in the city. Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me. The Pharisees started the insurrection at the capital, but they wanted to blame this innocent Paul for doing it. And Nero did it. He wanted to build a project in Rome, but there was this poor area about a quarter of the city where a lot of Christians lived. He set it on fire and he blamed the Christians for it. And so he began the first persecution of Christians. The Christians were innocent. He does the crime. He blames these innocent Christians for the crime and he proceeds to kill lots of Christians. And they did it to Jesus. Here are these Pharisees, right? Jesus says, you're of your father, the devil. These Pharisees had the audacity to accuse Jesus himself of being demon possessed. And Adam did it to God. Right? He blame shifted. Adam sinned, but he says, well, it's the woman you gave me. It's really your fault. It's the sinful man's response is to blame the innocent person for the guilt that they're doing. And so David Axelrod was a campaign manager, an advisor to a previous president. And he said in NPR radio, April 19, 2010, in Chicago, there was an old tradition of throwing a brick through your own campaign office window and then calling a press conference to say you've been attacked. Right? You blame the innocent people and they're like, I didn't do it. Let's say there's a secretary of state who is colluding with Russia, giving away a fifth of the U.S. uranium to Russia and coincidentally getting a $145 million contribution from Russian oligarchs to her Clinton Foundation. She pays for a steel dossier to accuse her opponent of colluding with Russia. And he has to go through all the impeachment trials and all the investigations. And when it ever gets pointed back at her, by that time, it's old news. The water's muddy. The public doesn't know who to trust and she gets a pass. And interestingly enough, the investigation of Trump was an excuse for the government to get all the evidence that could convict Hillary and destroy it. Let's get these laptops destroyed. Let's get these servers destroyed. Let's get the text messages destroyed. Let's get the emails destroyed. Right? And then let's say there's a candidate that is extorting Ukraine saying, stop investigating my son or I'm going to hold back billions of dollars of USA. What did they do? They accused his opponent of extorting Ukraine. The exact crime. Why? So that people make a mental association where there's smoke, there's fire. They hear this person's name is next to this, right? And if it ever gets pointed back at him, by that time the water's muddy, the public doesn't know who to trust and he gets a pass. You know, I'm convinced that they knew that Biden had documents in his garage next to his Corvette. And they knew at some point it was going to come public. That when he was vice president he got all these documents that had to do with Ukraine, that had to do with all kinds of business deals that his son was involved in. And he's like, oh, this is going to come to light. What did they do? They intentionally staged a very public raid of Mar-a-Lago for one reason only, the headlines. They wanted to make really big headlines that Trump's got these documents he's not supposed to. They make a big headline, big headline. And then it finally comes out that Biden had documents and it's like, well, I guess it's okay and Biden gets a pass. Right? So these are tactics where they want to accuse you of what they're guilty of. They need a crisis, but they want to blame you for the very crisis that they're doing. And so there's a term that gets thrown in called false flags. And that's again, blaming you. So where did this come from? I spoke in Beaufort, North Carolina, and that's where Blackbeard's Queen Anne revenge was sunk. Blackbeard was a pirate and after the British started cracking down on pirates, he decided to downsize.  But they had this museum there. And so I spoke at this big event. They had congressmen and judges and it was right there on the water. You could see the waves. It was like really pretty. And the person driving me around was the head of the museum. And he was telling me about Blackbeard stuff. And he says, you know, the pirates really did not want to kill you because if they got into an actual battle and get wounded, there are no pirate hospitals to go to, right? And plus they didn't want to blow up the ship because they want all the booty from the ship. And so they wanted to basically get you into fear so that you'll panic and give up your freedoms. And so they would raise a flag of a friendly nation in distress. And so the other nation would be looking through the telescope and they'd be like, oh, there's one of our country's ships. And look, oh, they're having problems. Let's go over and help them. And then we get closer and closer and closer until they got too close where they could not get away. And then they take down the friendly flag, the false flag, and they put up a pirate flag. And all of a sudden these people are like, oh, no.   And he took the wicks that you would light the cannon with. And you would light them on fire and stick them in his beard and in his hair. He'd have pistols in both hands, dagger in his teeth. And these pirates would jump onto the ship. And the people were like, oh, look, take my money. Right? It was a shock in awe. It was to go for this effect where you plan something to get people suddenly into panic until they'll give up their freedoms. And so let's look at this in a political military sense. 1700, Sweden was a big country. It had a rival country, Russia. And the king of Sweden wanted to attack Russia, get into a fight. But his parliament would not approve the funding. So Sweden's king Gustav III had the tailor of the royal Swedish opera, so Russian uniforms. And then he had Swedish soldiers put on the Russian uniforms and staged an attack at a Swedish outpost at Pumala. And the word spread across the country that the Russians had attacked Sweden by the time he gets to Stockholm, the parliament panics and says, okay, we'll approve the funding for the king's war that he wanted from the very beginning. And the Nazis did this. They wanted to invade Poland, but world public opinion wouldn't support it. So they had Nazi soldiers dress up as Polish soldiers and attack a German outpost at Gliwitz that happened to have a radio tower.  The Nazis dressed as Polish were attacking. And they would give the play-by-play. Well, the Polish are killing here, the Polish are shooting here, the Polish are... And this news report gets spread around the country, around the world that the Polish had attacked and the Nazis are like, well, you started it so we have an excuse to invade Poland and to take it over in 1939 and start World War II. And the Russians did it. So the Russians wanted to invade Finland. World public opinion wouldn't support it. And so the Soviets shell a Russian village on the Finnish border and make it look like the Finns had shelled the village. And the media picks it up that the Finns started it and the Russians have an excuse to invade Finland in the winter war of 1939. And then the Japanese did it. They had a railroad on the coast of China near Mukden and they claim that a explosion took place and destroyed their railroad. And so the Japanese invade China and kill over a hundred thousand in Nanking China. Later there was an international investigation. They walked the entire length of the railroad and there was no explosion. It's like, what, maybe a spike was missing or something? They simply fabricate. They made up an excuse so they could invade and kill hundreds of thousands of people. And then Turkey did a similar thing. Constantinople was changed to Istanbul, which in Greek means the city, and that was the capital of Christian Europe for a thousand years. The Byzantine Empire, Greek Orthodox. Well, the Turks invade and by 1955 there is a small remnant of Greeks. So you had a leader named Ataturk who was the founder of the Turkish Republic and he wanted to have a secular government. He outlawed the pheases, outlawed the Arabic language, outlawed the calls to prayer, first one to let women be educated, first one to have women hold office. So Ataturk was a modern leader and he said, Islam is nothing more than Arab politics. And Turkey was a great nation before the Arabs came in. So he was a modern leader, but then you got a guy named Menderes, 1955, and he wants to get back to this fundamentalist Islamist caliphate type thing. But he's bothered by this Greek community in Istanbul. And so he has a plan. And the plan was for a Turkish university student to put a bomb in the Turkish consulate over in Greece and an Ataturk's birthplace over in Greece and blow it up and then to stir up the people of Constantinople to attack this Greek neighborhood. The bomb never went off, but the newspapers ran with the story anyway. A bomb, a bomb, and it stirs the people of Istanbul to attack this Greek neighborhood and smash the stores, smash their businesses in their homes and smash their churches and basically drive out. Here's this innocent little community and they plan something and they get destroyed. And recently Erdogan did a similar thing. He ran for office as a secular leader. Once he gets in, he starts moving in the fundamentalist direction. The Economist magazine said, democracy is like a train, said Mr. Erdogan once you get off once you've reached your destination.  And when he started to have a anti-Erdogan movement growing, he decided to stage a coup against himself. And he flies in an airplane and lands and claims there was a coup. He pulls out a list of 30,000 of his political opponents and has some zip-tied taken away. And when the dust settles, he didn't have any political opponents left. And Stalin did a similar thing in 1939. There was a growing anti-Stalinist movement. At the same time, Stalin had a supporter, Sergei Kirov, very popular. They built a statue to him in Leningrad. And so he was getting a little too popular for Stalin's comfort. So Stalin had an idea. He would assassinate his friend, Sergei Kirov, and eliminate a potential rival and blame the assassination on the anti-Stalinists. Everybody would believe it because the anti-Stalinists didn't like Stalin and they didn't like Sergei's supporting Stalin. Stalin used this as an excuse to have some hearings, to do some investigations, some questioning to bring people in, to lock them away and to kill over a million people in the first great purge of 1936 to 1938. And Hitler did a similar thing. Germany was a republic, but there was a party called the National Socialist Workers Party, and they had if it was Hitler.  And so, Hitler's under the table group were called Brownshirts. They were the Antifa BLM of the day. They were nicknamed Sturmabteilung, which means stormtroopers. And they would storm into the meetings of Hitler's opponents and disrupt the meeting. And then they would lock arms and block access to public buildings. Could you imagine people locking arms in public? And then they blocked streets and then they went into the cities and they smashed windows and burnt and looted and set on fire over 7,500 stores owned by Jews in the night of broken glass, crystal knocked. And then did I mention their capital got set on fire, the burning of the Reichstag? And in the confusion, Hitler decides to have some hearings, some investigations. Had to bring people in for questioning, to arrest them, to lock them away and to shoot them without a trial. And when the dust settled, Hitler didn't have any political opponents and Germany transitioned from a republic to a dictatorship. And so we have this sewing of division blaming the enemies. You know, Tucker Carlson showed this clip of the video of the very first people to break into the U.S. Capitol. And they're coming in in military style. Some will go this way, some will go that way. They're dressed in tactical gear. And lo and behold, there was no group of Trump supporters dressed in tactical gear. And then it begins to come out that the FBI had people in the crowd, right? Assets embedded in the crowd.  And lo and behold, he is on film the night before saying we got to break in, we got to break in. And then when they're, he's filmed pulling back barricades. He's filmed motioning people in. He's texted, said, I'm orchestrating the whole thing. And then the FBI is like, oh, we don't want to pay attention to him. And then he's pictured, in this picture, the one guy with the baseball hat looking this way, had been at all of the Antifa BLM rights in 60 cities trashing him across the country. And there's eyewitnesses that says, we saw Antifa people go into the bushes and put on Trump t-shirts and then assault the Capitol.  And it talked about doing this globally. So Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum Theory, Mallorick, right. But if the past five centuries in Europe and America have taught us anything, it is that acute crises contribute to boosting the power of the state. And I thought this was interesting. This is Peter Thiel, founder of PayPal. And he's giving a speech at Stanford last year. And he said, the zeitgeist or the attitude on the other side is, we are not going to make it for another century on this planet. Therefore, we need to embrace a one-world totalitarian state right now. Whatever the dangers are in the future, we need never underestimate the danger of a one-world totalitarian state. And then he quotes Scripture. 1 Thessalonians 5.3, the political slogan of the Antichrist is peace and safety. I want to suggest we would do well to be a little more scared of the Antichrist and a little less scared of Armageddon. What's he talking about? Let's be less scared of the world ending climate change. Let's be less scared about the world crises and be scared of the people that promise to save us from the world crises. The people that create the problem behind it. And of course, we don't need to be scared of anybody because we have Jesus and he is in charge. And I'll get it into this afternoon. I have a presentation where I give all of the creation or redemption from God's point of view is fascinating. So the globalist tactic is get people into fear. Then they will trade their freedom for security on a local level, on a national level, and on a global level. But the Lord's response is fear not. Perfect love casts out fear.  He loves you. He sent his son to die on the cross to pay for your sins. He wants to spend eternity with you. The more you spend time in God's presence and realize how big he is, then you realize that you can trust him. And he's doing what he's doing basically to turn up the heat. And so you read Deuteronomy 28, but then you read Leviticus, I think it's 25. And it says, a nation that hearkens the voice of the Lord will be blessed, a nation that does not hearken to the voice of the Lord. And Leviticus says, these bad things will happen. And if they still don't turn, these bad, bad things are going to happen. And if they still don't turn, these bad, bad, bad things are going to happen. In other words, God says, there's plan A and plan B.  He really wants a relationship with you. If that doesn't work, there is plan B, and that's he hides his face and he lets you experience the consequences of your selfish decisions and then you turn to him out of desperation.   And then finally some more people will turn to him. And then it turns up some more of them. It gets really bad. People say, okay, and they finally are flat on their back and look, God, help me. But then everybody that's turned, that's going to turn, has turned. And what does he do with the rest of them? He turns up the heat and he fries it, right? Anyway, God's just, he has to judge this in. So as more power concentrates into fewer hands globally, God's counterbalance is to have more people involved locally. And so he wants to get us involved. And he's letting evil expose itself. So you see all this wicked stuff and it's like some people are going to be fine with the wicked stuff. It's like, okay, they're making their decision. It's like, look, we're going to pull back the curtain. Here's Satan clubs on high school campuses. Satan worshiping Grammys, you know, all the trans stuff. And some people are going to be fine with it. Oh, okay. And others are like, look, I was silent long enough. I can't be silent anymore. And they cut the rubber band and they get more excited about Jesus. And so God is pushing the world. Josiah had a grandfather, Manasseh, wicked, sacrificing children to bullock. There's nothing more unjust than killing an innocent baby that didn't do anything wrong. And a just God cannot be silent because otherwise he'd be giving consent to it. Like a wedding ceremony if you're silent, they're giving consent. If God's silently giving consent, he can't give consent because he's a just God. And so Manasseh has prophets come to him and says, you're doing the same thing that the people that were here before Israel did. And because they were doing it, I brought Israel in to judge them. Because you're doing it, I'm going to drive you out. Manasseh dies, his grandson Josiah is a teenager, starts to seek the Lord. He's the king. They're cleaning out the temple that his granddad had trashed. They find the law of God. They read it to this young king. He rips his garments and repents. And then he sends to a prophetess in town, a woman named Holda, the wife of the king's tailor. And she says, judgment's coming, but not during your lifetime because you, the king, repented. And so I believe that if we repent, and so Josiah had this huge Passover, right? And Josiah sent the Levites out to teach the law. And Josiah tore down all these Sodomite temples and there was this revival. And it lasted for his 31 year reign. Who knows? If we repent, God can put off his timetable. That's one of the reasons maybe it's so hard to figure out the date because maybe he's given himself some leeway. I don't know. And so, you know, I read through lots of history. Every, so here's a way of explaining it. You have a freshman chemistry class. A teacher has a beaker with a solution and pours in a catalyst that causes a reaction. And some stuff precipitates and gets heavy and settles to the bottom of the beaker and other stuff gets ever vested in bubbly and floats to the top of the beaker. The time period we're living in, so every generation has a crisis. Until the Han, Genghis Khan, bubonic plague, Spanish flu, World War II. Every generation has a crisis. And that crisis is a catalyst that causes a reaction. And some people's reaction is to run away and hide and deny their faith and deny Jesus and even take the mark of the beast. How am I going to survive without the government? Other people's response to the crisis is, God, where do you need me? I'm dead, my life is hit with Christ and God. And historically, the Christians would run to the need, right? There's a bubonic plague. They'd run to try to help out. There's a crisis. They'd run, right? And it's when the early church was persecuted, what did they do? They prayed for boldness, right? It's the same crisis that causes two reactions. The same crisis that is going to cause some people to panic and fear and submit to the antichrist. That same crisis is going to cause the body of Christ. Get more excited about Jesus and be more bold for Jesus. So if we get through this crisis, there'll be another one. If we get through that crisis, there'll be another one. Jesus' wheat and tears grow together until the harvest. And so the same crisis that causes corrupt power to concentrate into the hands of fewer people, that same crisis will cause some people to turn to Christ, and it's in times of crisis that God raises up leaders. Right? We would never have heard of David, Gideon, Moses, right? If it hadn't been meant for a crisis. And we're the bride of Christ. Every Romance Davos builds up to a decision-making moment of forsaking of all others and choosing the one. I think God is pushing the world to a decision-making moment. And some people are going to choose the all others. I want to be liked. I want to be a friend. I don't want people to not invite me. I don't want them to block me. And others are like, I don't care about the all others. All I care about is Jesus. So in closing, I just want to remind you that someday you'll be dead. That's a nice way to end the talk. And you're going to be in heaven because you believe that Jesus died on the cross to pay for all your sins. And when we've been there 10,000 years, bright shining as the sun, with no less days to sing his praise than when we just begun, imagine you have been in heaven for 10,000 years. You're walking the streets of gold. You meet Moses. Maybe Moses will invite you over to his place. I don't know what it's like in heaven, but I bet Moses will have a pretty nice place. Maybe like today, this size. Maybe he'll have one of those big fireplaces where the logs don't burn up.  I heard one preacher say, in heaven you'll travel as fast as you think. And I'll probably show up late. My wife will say, where were you? I was thinking about something else, I don't know. And we finally all get there.  You tap him on the shoulder. You say, Moses, tell us the story. I read the book. I even saw the movie. And, and room will get quiet. Moses will stand up. And he goes, I was 80 years old. And it was a crisis, right? This Pharaoh, this who embodied the antichrist of that era. He had his military, these chariots, and they were charging in at us. And we were totally unarmed. And I just stood there in faith, trusting God, holding on by staff that God used me, used me to deliver your people. And the waves came in and swallowed up Pharaoh's chariots. We're going to say, wow. And we're going to look around the room and see David. Say, David, tell us your story. The room will get quiet. David will stand up. He goes, I was just a teenager. And this giant thug, Goliath, was mocking our God and making fun of our faith.  I said, enough of that.  And then we're going to hear Gideon tell his story. And Deborah and the Apostle Paul. It's going to be really exciting. And then everyone in the room is going to look at you. Say, you tell us your story. What did you do when it was your turn to be down there on earth? What were they saying about God in your country or the baby that the Lord knew in the mother's womb or the sex that God made them male and female? What did you do when the whole world was against you and they're sitting on the edge of their seats? What are you going to say? You know, I'd hate for any of us to be up there and Jesus walking in the room and a screen come down and show all kinds of great things and people come to the Lord and him saying, this is what I had planned for you to do down there on earth. But you just didn't have enough faith and courage.  It was a little in and heel, little fear of man. You said, I let that little fear of man where people are going to think about me, hold me back from doing all this great stuff for Jesus. And you can't go back to earth and do anything else for Jesus because you're already in heaven because you believe that Jesus is down on the cross to pay for all your sins. But guess what? We're still on this earth. We still have breath in our lungs. We still have feet to try the soil. You still can do those things you'll be known for forever. God chose for you to be alive right now at this time in history and he wants to use you in a powerful way for his glory. God bless you.


You need a financial advisor with the freedom to focus on your specific needs. Whatever your goals, Reeve Potter can create a game plan tailored to you. Call Reeve at 432-0777 at Pikeville, Kentucky to learn more. On Thursday, September 1st, Mountain Top Media ordered Pikeville High School with its Best in the Mountains awards for Best Cheerleading Squad, Best Coach, Best Football Field and Best Sports Team. I think it's all kind of we've all been together from the beginning. We've toured with each other since we were in 5th grade and we've always had the mindset that Pikeville, you're the top of excellence and our goal from that age is to win a national championship and now to do it to us and these group of girls. I think it means the world to all of us so to get this award also means a lot to me. These awards are well deserved and are a reflection of the community's thoughts and feelings towards Pikeville High School as the awards are given based on a large vote. Students and faculty of Pikeville High School can take pride knowing so many people in the area believe them to be the best in the mountains. For Mountain Top News, I'm Kelsea Dean.