After Party with Emily Jashinsky - “Happy Hour”: The Tucker-Fuentes interview, Erika Kirk and Forgiveness, and Politics at Work: Emily Answers YOUR Questions

Episode Date: October 31, 2025

On this week’s “Happy Hour,” Emily Jashinsky dives into a question about the Republican party’s relationship with labor unions and why both parties are out of touch with the working class.  Emily also shares her thoughts on her appearance with Megyn Kelly and Glenn Greenwald on the Megyn Kelly Live tour, why she talks about legacy media so much, why she’s deeply skeptical of AI, language in popular culture, and politics in the workplace. Emily also answers a series of questions about religion, including Erika Kirk’s public declaration forgiving her husband’s accused killer, thoughts on female pastors, the difference between political Israel vs the nation of Israel, and sex segregation in places of worship. Emily also addresses the Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes interview, what she really thinks about Fuentes, and nihilism. She also has some fun with questions about the “The Lord of the Rings”, her all-time favorite Housewife and city, and more. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Hello, after-party listeners. It's that time of the week again. Welcome to Happy Hour, Halloween edition of Happy Hour and even more casual version, of course, of an already casual show where I get to chat with all of you through the great questions and comments you send in via social media and email. So let's get to it this week. Now, as always say, I've discovered it's more fun to read these as I go. So let me start here. This one is from Clark, who has a question about Republicans and organized labor. Emma, listen to the podcast while ratty my palatton bike makes the workout hummed by. My question, what do you think of the philosophical debate, perhaps even a battle over organized

labor within the Republican Party currently. Trump quoted the Teamsters and their president, Sean O'Brien's notably spoke at the RNC. Vance co-sponsored real safety legislation as a senator with Sherrod Brown that stalled, but still the intent was there. Josh Hawley courts labor and speaks rather complimentary of unions. Lately, Mark Wayne Mullen, has made up with the teamster president after their notable spat a few years back, yet still there are some Republican lawmakers and more notable influential conservative thinkers like Chris Rufo and others who implore leadership to eschew union support, setting betrayal of free market and capitalist views. I'm not talking about public sector unions, but rather private sector trade unionism that is

increasingly finding a home within MAGA. I have a ton of thoughts about this, Clark, and used to cover it all of the time at the Federalist and on Federalist Radio Hour. I'm really fascinated by it because the political real alignment obviously means that the Republican party, at least Donald Trump, has brought in a significant chunk of working class voters who seem to have been voting a lot for Democrats in the Rust Belt before. So union members, more supportive of Trump than other Republican candidates in the recent past. And Sean O'Brien is a good example of how the, let's say, the footsie of the footsie that's being played between organized labor and Republicans.

Now, I tend to be a fan of most of what Josh Hall is. does. I think it's a really healthy challenge to the Republican establishments, reflects of dismissal of the working class. And that's just where I come. I mean, that's where I come from in general. I've, I think if you listen, you probably know my position on the culture war is that it's really a class war. And so I think both parties are disproportionately out of touch with working class people, whether they're rural working class people or inner city working class people. And so I definitely think that applies to the Republican Party. And I think Josh Hawley is offering a corrective.

I don't agree with literally everything he does, but I actually find his desire to like cap usury. He has a bill with Bernie Sanders on that. Just crazy moving of the Overton window in a healthier direction. I do think, you know, obviously American Compass is a group that I'm a member of and have done a lot of interviews with Warren Cass and folks over at American Compass. And their proposals on labor are basically that there are more like European models that Republicans could get behind in the United States.

Like they don't necessarily need to return to 1995 because labor unions, of course, became Rufo's not wrong, an insane force for radical left-wing politics. And that's why, you know, even I don't say radical as a pejorative as a descriptive. Even some of my kind of quote radical left friends are disenchanted with labor because it's sort of, you know, made nice with the right in different ways. So, yeah, I mean, like the Vance Rail Bill, this was after what happened in Ohio, which everyone probably remembers, the awful, awful. chemical spill in East Palestine, Ohio. And Vance basically said you need to have more operators. Well, why is that great for unions? Well, they have more people to be employed in high union density positions. And does that money then go into organizing that has a political bent? Yes. But the cost

benefit analysis is, does the union also support people's material conditions being just? And I think that's an important question. And that bill actually ended up stalling out as Clark notes because there were, I mean, there's a lot of reporting. I forget whether I reported it, but there's a lot of reporting that it was Ted Cruz, who is Nonna at all on the Vance-Hawley Rubio train when it comes to labor unions. And, you know, it was, you know, was, you. I guarantee you the rail line, Norfolk Southern, was lobbying and the industry was lobbying because they don't have to pay extra personnel and they don't want to have to install new sensors and all of that. So, you know, I think with Cruz, I'm sure it was a sincere ideological disagreement. But I also think, you know, safety concerns are like completely important.

I think nobody disagrees on that. And I think obviously there was a significant safety lapse in this case that warranted changing sensors. I did so much research on this bill. Like I was reading like every line of the bill because I must have written a story about it. I don't remember exactly and interviewed people on different sides of it. But at the end of the day, people are not going to be good citizens if their sort of working conditions are unjust and their living conditions are unjust. and that doesn't always necessitate government action. But it does mean that we should be much more skeptical of the CEOs and lobbyists who descend on Washington to defend a corporation's interest when, you know, sometimes I don't know how these guys sleep at night when you look at how much money they make versus what their lowest paid employee makes.

And I get all the arguments. I've thought a lot about all the arguments about why their salaries are so high. But the levels that these companies are completely out of control. So anyway, this is a long way of answer to the question. I think there's a long overdue rebalancing that doesn't necessitate supporting labor 100%, but does support having a better relationship with organized labor. I'm not like a really huge fan of big labor, that's for sure, not a really huge fan of laws against right to work. So I definitely get all of that.

My dad was in a public sector union for decades. and so it's such an interesting issue. Thank you for the question, Clark. I think basically it's a rebalancing that is in a healthy direction overall. Susie says, I saw you with Megan Kelly in San Antonio. You were great. Chelsea says, ha, ha, ha, wait, did you ever imagine you'd be walking on stage to fog machines? Man, those, I think Megan was calling it Smyre.

This was like smoke and light. that looked like fire? I don't know exactly. But no, I did not ever imagine that. It was a nice touch. I mean, what a beautiful, beautiful venue in San Antonio. That was incredible. I mean, that has got to be one of the best venues in the entire country. It is so beautiful. San Antonio is very beautiful. But it was such a great extra touch because, like, when you're not playing music, you have to really keep people engaged when you have that many people in a venue of that size. You really have to keep people engaged. And so I thought that was like a super clever production. All right. Angie writes, hey Emily, loved you and Glenn on Megan's show. I just finished watching After Party and was so glad to hear you

say we could write to you on Instagram. I've had an idea brewing since your episode with Walter Kern. Do you think we can further impose on you for a weekend after party show to the hangover? These puns are getting out of control. Sicking with the party drinking theme, the name works perfectly but the reason I actually thought of the hangover concept was because I could have watched another hour of you two or two of you and Walter talking about paint drying is still not a insatiated. I was thinking how cool would it be of Emily cover topics left over for the week that didn't make it in time for the live streams and how neat would it be if she had some of her guests join her for a hangover brunch, I eat mimosis, sands food. Ooh, mimosis without food, that's dangerous. There's so little content to enjoy in general on the weekend. So I was thinking you could do something around 20, 30 minutes, pre-recorded, of course, just an idea. Take care. Angie, thanks so much. Your description is actually kind of why I wanted to do Happy Hour. Because with Happy Hour, I tape it late on Thursdays. So I'm able to take a lot of the news. that didn't get covered over the week and think about it in the context of your questions. A lot of times you all ask questions about the stuff that was maybe in the background of these

news cycles, newsie, but in the background of it. And then since we release it Friday at 5 p.m., it becomes good weekend listening. So I like that. I like that idea so much that it's happy hour. Maybe at some point we'll have weekend content. We're just getting started here. So I'm all for creative ideas about what could come. into the future. Daniel Marquez 98 Essens, who is your favorite Lord of the Rings character?

Oh, man, who is your favorite Lord of the Rings character? This is, so my wonderful boyfriend is a huge Lord of the Rings guy. And so he would really enjoy that someone asked me this question, because I really loved, loved The Hobbit. I read it over and over again as a kid. My theory on Lord of the Rings is that it's too dense for most women. The Tolkienesque descriptions and world building becomes, I mean, it's fascinating and brilliant, obviously, but it sort of lacks the emotional resonance. And so I dropped Lord of the Rings in the first book. Like I couldn't even get through the first book, which I know is pathetic and wrong.

But that's just, I've never dipped back into them. And my theory is that it's much more popular with men because the mechanics of the world building are really interesting in ways that for women, it kind of lacks an emotional resonance and the action and the drama. So that's my general take on Lord of the Rings. But as a Hobbit fan, I would of course have to say my favorite character is Bilbo. I don't know. Does that work? I think it's fine. I like Bilbo.

Ghalam also always a delight. I think also the, what was it, the 70s cartoon, I bet I'll get a lot of emails and messages about this. I think the 70s cartoon version of the Hobbit, I think it was from the 70s, captured Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit. Better for me, man, people are going to be upset with this. Better for me than the film adaptations. I really, like the mysticism and the,

the world of Middle Earth, to me, came through so much clearer. It just matched what I had in my head more clearly than the film adaptations. If you haven't seen those, go and watch them. They're actually broken up on YouTube. Brooke, Brooke S-S-S-C-S-Q is your all-time favorite housewife and city. No question. All-time favorite housewife is Sonia Morgan, all-time favorite franchise, is the real housewives of New York City. I know that's a popular view in Bravo World these days, partially because absence makes the heart grow fonder. And since the originals were kicked off the show and they brought in a new crew and then put the show on pause, all of our hearts are growing fonder in the absence of these women. But even when they were on the air, I think it was abundantly clear that was lightning in a bottle, especially those seasons.

Like I would say three through seven-ish. I don't know if seven is the right, but like starting at three before it really devolved. this season in 2020 with COVID and Ebony Kate Williams, some of you may know from Fox News. It was lightning in a bottle. It was some of the best reality television ever made. And I just don't think you can beat New York City Housewives. I miss them.

It was to me they did a season where they were basically referencing over and over again gray gardens in this self-deprecating way. But I actually really think of New York City Housewives as gray gardens as this cultural this window into the the shifting norms of old money and new money in New York City society

in the age of the internet and what money does to old and new money you know what I shouldn't say money but what fame does to old and new money and how those interact I just think it was an incredible almost anthropological document of all of those seasons. They were just fantastic. And man, you're making me nostalgic. I've seen, I think they were on radio Andy talking about how, for them, it was always really fun and lighthearted. And I think that's what some of the new show was missing, obviously true. And what some of the new franchises are missing,

also obviously true. And probably why Miami Housewives is thriving right now. Because if you're talking about a Haitian mortician getting a coffee machine, at the reunion, you're doing something right. All right. Panthers 1566 asks, how do you feel about AI? Panthers 1566, my answer is deeply skeptical. Yeah, I think it's concentrating inevitably. I don't know how you have little tech, right? And the reason that I do what I do is because I'm skeptical of concentrated power.

And so I don't know how you do LLMs without concentrations of power. terrifying without having Sam Altman so thoroughly in control of such a thoroughly powerful a thoroughly powerful algorithm, thoroughly powerful tool. You know, it's, I just can't see any way this is overall a net benefit, even though there will be so many net benefits. just the concentration of power without, with such immediate force. You know, that's a, we think about the concentration of power of like a medieval king, for example. Well, the difference between a medieval king and, you know, someone with nuclear powers is you're able to do more to more people more quickly in hypermoderity that we're in right now.

And so I think concentration of power is even more frightening and has potential for an even less just outcome. And so LLMs just seem to be accelerating our transition to a world where there's just much more concentration of power. I think we're already going in that direction because of technology. You just look at the way Internet, like Web 1.0 became Web 2.0. It's, you know, the arc of the Internet universe is long. The arc of the technological universe is long, but bends towards concentration. And just the powers that LLMs will have over the grid over potentially weapons and drones and that type of stuff. It's censorship.

That's another one. There's already technology where AI is able, is showing some early abilities to read people's brainwaves. You could look into neuralink and all of that sounds like science fiction. It's not. And I think it's obvious to us that we're going to get to that point someday. Imagine having all of that concentrated power. And by the way, Sam Altman and others are pretty clear that they don't always know why AI does what AI does. That's crazy. And so when you have people who are unelected, especially in that type of power, man, You know, the ideal is where you have a sort of disperse, well-regulated technology that does become a net benefit, makes life easier and more comfortable, and allows us to pick what we want to do and what we don't want to do and creates a more just society.

I'm not optimistic. That's what's happening right now with AI, especially when you look into all the lobbying. That's happening here in D.C. to accelerate and to accelerate. the power going into the hands of just a few. No Lopez 8084 asks, why do you talk about CNN and Legacy Media so much? I think that's a great question. I talk about it so much because I see my job as filling the gaps where Legacy Media is failing to do its job. And I see it that way because legacy media puts all of its resources into covering the right. And occasionally you'll get a story, oversight on Democrats, oversight on leftist groups, liberal candidates, that sort of thing. So it's not that they don't do it. But they dedicate most of their resources. And they have vast

resources. They're attached to major corporations to skepticism, criticism of the right. Sometimes it's warranted journalistic activity. But where there's a gap is people who are conservative than coming back and scrutinizing the left and scrutinizing, particularly the media. So the media is my big interest and it's what I know best. And it's just the beat that I follow most closely. So that's why I talk about media a lot. I get this question all the time. Like, why don't you talk about this, this and this?

If it comes up, I'll absolutely say it. You know, if something comes up, like I think Bacha Unger Sargonne on News Nation asked me about the Politico Exposé on Young Republican Group chats. I hadn't said anything about it, hadn't planned to say anything about it, but When Bachi asked me, it was like, yeah, that stuff was wild. That's completely whack. And so, again, that's just how I see where I'm putting my resources. When you wake up every day and do, like, journalism and media stuff, you have to think.

You're drinking from a fire hose. So part of it is just thinking, okay, this is what I'm going to focus on. This is what I'm going to focus on. And I think we have enough people who are obsessed with the right and fixated on the right. So that's why I talk about it. I don't see my job as being someone who's like just neutral. calling balls and strikes. I think that would be dishonest. I try my best to call balls and strikes, but I'm telling you I'm doing it as a conservative, so you can kind of make of your mind.

And that's, I think there are a lot of people who have as liberal beliefs as I have conservative beliefs who are just calling themselves like reporters and anchors. It's so funny. It's sad, but it's so funny. And so that's why I tend to concentrate more on those areas, because I think that's what's missing in the media. All right. Texan 316. If you have kids, would you do homeschooling or public or have you really thought about it? Haven't thought too much about it. I covered public schools enough at the Federalists, and I went to all public schools until college. And a great school district, by the way, though I've come to see it as my public education is pretty inadequate.

So I'm pretty horrified by the state of our public schools. All right. Let's see. Going over to email here. James asks, let's see. Oh, this is a really nice intro. I appreciate this, James. Erica Kirk famously forgave her husband's killer. I was surprised at how moved everyone was by this, not because it isn't a powerful gesture, but because it is the very cornerstone of faith. As someone who has been in the faith my whole life, I could have guessed that would happen

before the funeral ever started. Are we as Christians doing such a poor job of showing what the faith actually is that people are blown away when we actually act like Christians? You spend a lot more time than I do in the secular world and I wanted to know your thoughts. Thanks, I only love the show, keep the good work. You're encouraging people and showing the balance between truth and love every day. James, thank you so much. That's incredibly, incredibly kind and means a lot to me. This is a very interesting observation, as though what Erica Kirk did was exceptional in a culture where it shouldn't be, right this it should be normal a culture of forgiveness should be normal but i think we all know that it is an exception uh that she did do something exceptional and i don't know if it's because

christians do a poor job showing uh that that we live in a culture of forgiveness so much as it is that um the so much as is that the culture itself is now so, I don't know if you've read Aaron Wren on the, what does it call it, the negative world. Basically, he says we're not in a Christian norm society anymore. Tom Holland has written a book basically about how the left's norms are Christian dominion. It's an amazing history book. And then at the end, he makes this argument. I love this book.

I recommend it to lots of people. But he makes the argument that the left's norms of compassion and forgiveness would not be possible in a world in which Jesus Christ had not come to earth. It's a really fascinating book and it's a fascinating argument. And so even the kind of, quote, wokenness is Christian in a broad sense that it's not pagan. It's about forgiveness. It's about the innocent and the vulnerable and the marginalized. And this is what Nietzsche's problem with Christianity was, right, that it was a weak religion, that it was a religion that valued weakness. And so you can see the logic there. And I think it's true that, you know, if you're arguing with someone on the left

about Christianity who cares about protecting vulnerable, marginalized people, and you ask, okay, what is your basis for protecting vulnerable and marginalized people? In many, many cases, you peel back all the layers, you end up at Jesus. You end up at Christian values and ethics. And there's a lot of debate about whether Christianity brought those values and ethics into the world, but there are also a lot of serious people who have looked at it. Tom Holland, him, as non-Christians and said, yeah, this was pretty much popularized by Christians. And so I think Aaron Wren talking about how we're in the negative world, that this is a world in which Christians are not a majority, like we're sort of past the part of critical mass. I think that is interesting.

Obviously Christians, you know, this is a predominantly Christian country, still roughly is in terms of people who identify as Christians, but obviously Christians didn't do a good enough job. You know, obviously, yeah, so I think to that point, James, that has to obviously be correct, that Christianity in America hasn't been able to withstand the seductions and temptations brought about by technology. I think that's where I would say, you know, after industrialization, you know, Marx is a product of industrialization. And postmodernism is a product of post-Marx dialogues on industrialization. They're always talking about changes to the workforce, changes to human life in the industrial era. And I think Christianity just failed to withstand that, especially then when the globe

continued to shrink with radio, television, the internet, and now social media and smartphones. And, yeah, it's like Billy Howell said on the show this week, it seems like the revival is happening at the same time as others are polarizing further against Christianity. So it is, you know, I agree with you. I thought the exact same thing. Like, of course, Erica Kirk is going to offer public forgiveness and soon of Tyler Robinson. I think maybe the reason it seemed so exceptional, A, because, you know, we live in the negative world now. and B, because she just was, she did it so quickly and so publicly, and the way she did it was so gripping, that would be part of my explanation. But also, yeah, I mean, I feel like Christians

right now have a sense that people are eager to see something really beautiful. And I feel like we all agree that what she did was really beautiful. So Christians were pushing it everywhere because we were eager to share, you know, the beauty and the liberation that comes with forgiveness. So those are some quick thoughts here. Marlow asked on episode 34 you mentioned about mom, Donnie visiting a mosque and a questionable imam and posing what of a Republican candidate visited a Christian church, which required single-sex services, what would the media do with that? I didn't realize that was the thing, so I looked it up, surprised to find that some strict Christian and Jewish sex do practice this way. Do you think this practice is commonplace for all religions in

America? I definitely don't think it's commonplace. I mean, it's definitely not commonplace in Christianity. Certainly it's commonplace that men and women have biological distinctions and with that come separate roles in life. But I don't think it's commonplace in Christianity. I don't know about, I don't know enough to say whether it's common in Judaism. But yeah, I mean, my point wasn't that Mamdani shouldn't, you know, go to a place where people are sex segregated. in worship, although I disagree with that. My point was, man, imagine how someone like Mom Doni would react if a conservative candidate did that or how the media would react of a conservative candidate did that.

It's a bold, bold move. All the things that that Imam has said about gay people, like the frenzy, because we've seen it happen before, the frenzy would be endless. And then on number 34, Marlowe asks, 35, Marl asked, Dave Smith made two statements that stuck with me. He said, everyone knows there's no drug problem coming from Venezuela. I didn't know that. Does he or was he being funny? That actually is true.

Most of, it's not to say that Venezuela does not produce drugs. It does produce drugs that end up into the United States. But it's a very small proportion of cocaine and basically like no fentanyl comes from Venezuela. So there's an argument for regime change in Venezuela that I disagree with. But it doesn't actually, I mean, Marco Rubio, He doesn't need to make this drug trafficking argument. He wasn't making it before to argue for regime change in Venezuela. But if you do make that argument, you can create a predicate for war.

And I think that's a really, I really think people, one of the things that has made us as Americans upset about Iraq and Afghanistan, isn't necessarily all of the mistakes that happen on the battlefield. It's the lying and the misrepresentation. So I think they need to be very, very careful with that. Dave also said, quote, Trump doesn't read a word. He gave an example from Larry King reaching and come up with what he was reading. Do you think Trump doesn't anything? I believe it takes in a lot of information by listening, but I find it hard to believe he reads nothing. Of course, I have no concrete evidence to prove it, but you're only pondering by assertions. Yeah, so I don't think Trump reads

books, and I agree. I think he takes in a lot of information by listening. He definitely reads articles because he will, his advisors infamously print out all kinds of articles all of the time. and I know people. He has had that article printed out. He signs it and then mails it to the author. And so not even as a troll. It just will write like, thank you, DJT and send it to someone. So he does read those articles. I doubt he reads books. He's been asked about his favorite book before and he'll just kind of scramble to say like the Bible. So I don't think he reads many books. He endorses a lot of books, but I don't think he reads that. It's kind of funny. All right. Sybil says, I just discovered you. What a goldmine your podcast is. It was amusing to hear you were raised Lutheran Missouri Synod. So Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, LCMS. My dad was an LCA pastor,

and we shuddered at the mention of the MS due the refusal to ordain women. My uncle Carl Bratton was a great Lutheran theologian who tried to bring orthodoxy back to the church. I'm not Presbyterian and my pastor is a woman. I have friends who believe that's unbiblical. They also happen to be divorced several times. So according to the Bible, they're committing adultery. What do you think about female pastures. Great question. So yeah, I grew up L CMS, but like low church L CMS is the best that I'd describe it. I never knew that there was such a distinction between like high church and non-high church until I went to other L CMS churches and realized that it was, yeah, I'd been, I'd been raised in low church, like very culturally evangelical environment. But now I'm non-denominational

church. So I actually don't really even believe. in any particular set of structures. You know, I don't believe, for example, I might believe LCS is better than Presbyterian, for example, but I don't believe any is the sort of anointed structure, which is why I go to a non-denominational church, obviously, if I didn't believe that I would think otherwise. I don't mind women giving...

like giving lessons, that seems perfectly fine to me. I don't think, I don't think I agree with women taking headship roles in the church. I think that's pretty clearly anti-biblical. I love to have a debate about that. Or I'm open to having a debate about that, I should say. I never really love, like, arguing because I just like conflict diverse. But I do think that's probably... The, I do, my opinion would be that. I think that's, that's contra-biblical, maybe not

anti-biblical, but contra-biblical, given the way men and women are described relative to Christ and the church. So that, that to me seems, it's obvious that men are supposed to take the headship, leadership roles. But I don't mind, you know, like, there are a lot of non-denominational churches where a woman will on a Sunday come up and talk about the book of Romans or something like that. I haven't thought a ton about it. It doesn't bother me on the surface. It may or not be right. But my instinct is that's okay.

But I don't think we as women should be pastors or anything like that. But I'd have to think more about it. Okay. Great question. Thank you, Sybil. All right. Let's see. Patrick Busek, another religious question, says, with the dispensationalist being so prevalent in Protestant and evangelical circles, I really hear the argument for why the Israel of the Bible

promised by God is not a physical country slash land. I'd like to hear your thoughts, which may need a longer segment where you approach things like the history of when this idea became prevalent. I don't remember hearing about dispensationalist ideas in my Catholic school upbringing, but I hear about it a lot in evangelical and non-denominational world that I'm now a part of. Thanks. Great question also. The LC-Mass Lutheran Church, Missouri, Senate has a fantastic document if you Google it on pre-millennial dispensationalism, which again, if you're not like outside of some of these like deep religious debates are not even, like most people just aren't even tuned into these like arcane theological debates, though they are important for political

purposes because a lot of times I see dispensationalists as weaponizing the goodwill of American Christians to buoy support in a political campaign for. Israel. And I obviously don't mind people arguing that the United States should support Israel or even support Netanyahu at all cost. I obviously disagree with it. But I don't mind it. I think that's perfectly fine. I don't like religion cynically being sort of intentionally and cynically being weaponized in that way. And I think there are people out there who are bad actors who actually do that. The argument for why the Israel and a lot of end times prophecies is not political. Israel, that definitely would be a longer segment. There's so much to, there's so much to talk about.

And I've been like going deep into the weeds on this for the last couple of years, actually just because I know I've mentioned this before, but in the line of the conversation about how it was raised L-CMS, but kind of, you know, a relatively low church L-CMS. I mean, I read the left-behind books. I was, you know, I never really questioned, like ideas. like the rapture and that sort of thing growing up. So even thinking about the particulars of the scripture, and this is somewhat new to me. So maybe what we should do is just have someone on the show to talk about it with. But I think the idea that political Israel, so the Israeli government, as opposed to like the nation of Israel, which could be the nation of Jews, right,

ethnic Jews, those are two different things in and of themselves. And so the evidence that the Bible is talking about the political country of Israel in the year 2025 or after the 1940s, I mean, I just don't think there's much evidence to suggest that at all. Is the Christian Church, the nation of Israel? That is a deep, deep debate that goes back a long time, that after Christ comes, Christians are the new Israel. So where that's referred to, I think that's a much better argument than the idea that somebody was referring to the government of Israel as opposed to the nation of Jews or the nation of Christians, nation meaning the worldwide community, which the Bible talks a lot about, all of the nations of the world. Does that mean, you know, Slovenia?

or does that mean, you know, all of the peoples of this background and this background and this background? I think the evidence for that is much stronger, but that's a real, I'm sure I'm going to get a lot of emails after that. But, yeah, it's a, it's a very interesting topic. I'll say that. And I'm still, you know, going deep into it. So I appreciate the question, Patrick. All right. Hadley says, listen today and ooh, just had to reach out quickly regarding Nick Funtas and Tucker. I listened to that episode last night and then you today goes on to say, this is a long email, a very interesting one. Oh, man. Yeah, this is a personal story about someone's son. And Hadley goes on to say, I'm grateful Tucker interviewed him, meaning Fuentes. I ended up really

liking Nick's message on weed, alcohol, and porn, which has a mom of boys is a huge worry. I will add that because of Nick, my son is in the process of converting to Catholicism, and that's a good thing. Interesting. So he's not all bad. I think Tucker did try and suggest he could maybe finesse his messaging on Jews. But I think so much of what they both say is completely taken out of context and clip. I did not feel after the interview that Nick hates Jewish people. I also don't think Tucker does either. I'll just say Tucker definitely doesn't. But, yeah, this is, highly goes on to say a lot of my son, a lot of my son and his friends were attacked in their formative years for wearing Maga. hats and being white. I think Fentis does have some good influence on young men. Maybe they do listen for entertainment as well, but I think he is very relatable. I really like Andrew Kavana as well, had Leah ads, but I think he's wrong about Nick. You know, this is a very, very interesting email. I wrote a piece for the Federalist this week trying to thread the needle on the question of people like Fentes, who are often, and this is a little. And this is a little bit of.

a tricky, tricky question, but I'm happy to answer it, who are often burying their true beliefs under layers of irony. And that layer, those layers of irony start to obscure what a person's actual belief is. Sometimes they lose track of what they actually believe. And it's also very difficult for people who are especially not Zoomers or Gen Alpha at this point to discern what someone actually believes. So it can have the effect of normalizing, you know, the way we speak to each other, the way that we think about each other. And so, I mean, let me actually just, I'm going to pull up the federalist piece I wrote here because I'll probably put it better in I'm writing, then I will

talking about it. But essentially, my argument was the self-serious lecturing that pushes young conservatives into race-obsessed group chats and noxious edge lord irony is needlessly counterproductive. It pours gasoline on a fire rather than persuading anyone.

And I make some of the same arguments that Hadley was making, why might conservatives in their 20s and 30s whose formative years came during the height of 2010's cancel culture now freely tossed around ugly Nazi memes and group chats? At some point, maybe around the time corporations were funneling millions into the coffers of an actual racist in the name of anti-racism, it remarked candy, it became clear to them that no matter what they said, accusations of bigotry would

follow. Antileft politics were regular categories categorized as objective manifestations of virulent hate by elite people in institution. So that power imbalance was alienating on a psychological level, on an ideological level, and, you know, so they were taught that these labels about bigotry were meaningless. And they were taught that by the left. They were taught that by the left. And the punchlines then bred this ironic detachment, the irony then bred nihilism. And I do not think this is a majority of people on the right. I absolutely do not think that it is a majority of people on the right. I work with a lot of students, and I don't think that's the case.

I think any number of people who then find their way into nihilism and the bigotry that it can breed is too many, whether it's on the right or the left. and but we don't have to do the sort of self-serious denunciations that drive people away from, you know, the, or that drive people towards is probably a better way to put it. The Nick Fuentes is of the world. And my take on Nick Fuentes is that he has grown up on camera and on social media and said all kinds of genuinely awful things. What I don't know is, as he seems to be right now, trying to repair his reputation, I can genuinely not tell what is sincere and what isn't. And I do not know if that is cynical and if that's a way to sort of insinuate himself into the MAGA mainstream and to become more and more powerful and alike because he's obviously someone that is smart and strategic. And so I think it's premature. I just don't know.

And I'm not going to pretend that I know Nick Fuentes is sort of sincerely backpedaling or growing or maturing or whether it's, you know, just another. Could honest to goodness just be another punchline. It could all just be another funny, funny joke where you talk about all of this stuff in a certain way. And again, the left taught young people identitarianism. They are the ones that started dividing us along those lines. after the sort of colorblind era where we were getting so close to genuine colorblindness, he would never completely eliminate racism, but we were coming so close cultural to genuine colorblindness. I grew up in the 90s, and it is, you know, my experience of not living before 1993 was of a very wonderful country in so many ways,

and the left-retaught identitarianism. So it's no surprise that those divisive anti-white identitarian, um, arguments which were platformed in mainstream institutions have pushed especially young white men towards pro-white identitarianism. I still think that is appalling and I think it's anti-American. But it's not as though I don't think people should be out there making dramatic denunciations of it, to be honest, because, you know, I have plenty of friends who are doing that and plenty of friends who are not. Just because I think, that push it, it makes a situation much, much worse. And, you know, overall, I say we are called

the love our neighbors and follow God's example. That's in James 3, which tells us, or James 3 tells us the tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body, it corrupts the whole body, sets the whole course of one's life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell. Also, the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure, then peace loving, consider it submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. So people who are modeling Christianity should be modeling what we are taught, which is that there is no Jew or Greek, and you should be watching their tongue because their tongue is also a fire and should be following God's example. We should be able to see that in their work. I don't say that with Nick Fuentes,

to be honest, but I very much understand the pull for young conservatives who have been marginalized over and over and over again by mainstream powerful leftist institutions. But yeah, you know, it's just one of those, it's just one of those situations where I think it's been so divisive on the right and needlessly so divisive on the right. So Hadley, this is a really good question, a tough question. Eddie says, Emily, not to cross-promote, but on the normally podcast, Mary Catherine, Ham and Mary Catherine Hammer, Eddie wrote. And Carol Markowitz often discussed how almost every conservative is forced to learn to speak fluent liberal because we can't really escape doing so.

Poor liberals don't have the same experience across political lines. And thus don't really speak conservative advantage. Conservatives. Do you see anything changing this dynamic anytime in next few years? And do you think this is why your audience questions are so good? Oh, I love that, Eddie. And I love Mary Catherine. I don't know Carol super well, but have followed her work for a long time. Mary Catherine is awesome. And this is completely correct. the language of popular culture is obviously left of center and I think was, you know, in the kind of peak woke period, uh, leftist. Not even just left of center. It was like outright leftist, especially when it came to, you know, the Associated Press, what in 2014 saying that it would

abide by an AP style prefer pronouns? Like 2014. What was like 2012? And they said no illegal aliens. They would not refer to illegal aliens in their copy. Uh, you know, it's the legal term. Uh, so yeah, yeah, I think that's true. I actually think it. does give conservatives a significant advantage. But I also think it gives conservatives an advantage because they have a better understanding, like on average, a better understanding of the left's position. And then the left is often arguing against a straw man. Like when Taylor Swift made that music video, you need to calm down. And the people protesting gay rights in the video were like toothless white people who she made to look like rednecks, like the worst stereotype of like

a redneck, quote-unquote. And, you know, the population that still at the time of that video had the highest proportion of disagreement with gay marriage was the black community. And that opposition to gay marriage rises as your income level goes down. So they have these, like, crazy strawmen on average, whereas I think the average conservative is better acquainted with the argument of the left. I think that's totally true. I don't know if it's changing. I think it must be because the monoculture is exploding into a million different niches. And so we're not going to share a whole lot of the same language anymore, like some of the same fluency. I mean, even when I talk to people who are super, super online, I feel like they're talking to different language. You know, people who are on Discord servers and really into meme culture and into some of these, like, really arcane discussion. I feel like they're speaking a different language. And I know people feel like I'm speaking a different language. And I know people feel like I'm speaking a different language. language for talking about certain things. So I feel like that's the way the world is going more and more. All right. So this is from Jessica. Another long note, another great note. Jessica says, I was curious if you had any

thoughts about how to continue to engage if something like that. And this was referring to a man who was otherwise pleasant and I agreed to keep in contact on the job transition front, posted a comment on social media about reading the obituary of Charlie Kirk with a smile needless to say it continued to become

very evident that the man across me had no idea how he hated my values and saying as much seemed totally normal to him the only thing I knew was to stop smiling

to signal that I wasn't on board but I'm finishing quickly move on a business conversation feels a strange context to do that in how to continue

engage or something like that to come with the future but I think no compromise is always necessary at this point well I do feel

like I didn't do anything to suggest I was okay with what he was saying. I didn't love my goal and to get a long reaction. I would love to humanize what is the other side to him if given a chance. This is such a good question, Jessica. You could probably tell you I haven't worked in a lot of non-political workplaces. So if you work in media and politics, these types of conversations are necessary, let alone normal. I mean, they're what we do. So I haven't kind of been in the sanitized, ideologically sanitized or should be ideologically sanitized corporate environment. So I know how tough this is.

And my instinct in these situations personally is always just to ask questions. And so if someone says that, I'd be like, oh, my goodness, well, why did you do that with a smile? Tell me more. Why do you think that? And then just keep asking questions. Maybe he'll say, well, because Charlie Kirk was a. hateful racist. And I go, oh, my goodness, why do you think Charlie was racist or hateful? Ah. And maybe he says, oh, because he didn't support the Civil Rights Act and said, you know, this, this and this.

You'd be like, okay, but why is that, just as why is that racist? And then just keep kind of going down and just being asking questions in good faith. You know, you want to get to the bottom of it. You don't want to own someone. You're not trying to own someone, destroy someone or virtue signal for your own sake. You know, in this interaction, you're trying to, uh, you know, be, you're trying to do good, right? But not for your sake, of course, for their sake, for our sake as a society. And you're likely not going to change anybody's mind. But asking questions I've found is a way to have a polite conversation and a civil conversation and a respectful conversation. Because I think that's what, you know, I'm a, I'm a kill him

with kindness type of person. Like that's, I think, always the best way to go about this type of thing. Now, I personally don't think the workplace is for politics, unless your workplace is political, because it's, you know, are you hurting your ability and your company's ability to do your job if you sort of pour gasoline on a political fire? So do you have an obligation actually to diffuse rather than pour gasoline on the fire? I think, Jessica, that's part of a question that you're going to have to answer yourself. I don't know. I know that it would be hard to sit there and nod when somebody said something like that. But at the same time, you're in the workplace and this is a colleague and the odds of it becoming a persuasive moment, probably not super high. So, you know, it's a moral cost benefit question. You know, is there is the moral benefit of having this conversation outweighed by the moral cost of failing your employer?

It's like a crazy way to think about it, but that's how I think about a lot of these things. and it's not just, you know, I don't know. I think questions are just such a great way to engage in good faith, because then you're showing someone that you're genuinely interested, and you're not trying to own them or destroy them. You're just talking. And often you can peel all the way back to that last layer of where they're really coming from, and if they're wrong, they're wrong, and it becomes very obvious.

This was a very long episode of Happy Hour. Lots and lots of questions, especially after San Antonio, which was a ton of fun. So keep sending them in to Emily at double-madecaremedia.com and at the after-party Emily Instagram. Appreciate all your support, everyone. We will be back with a new edition of After-Party on Monday, after-party Wednesday, and then happy hour next Friday.

See you all done.