The Matt Walsh Show - Daily Wire Backstage: Introducing the 2nd Greatest Commercial Ever

Episode Date: May 23, 2024

Backstage has a reputation for surprises, and we just raised the bar. Jeremy Boreing shocked everyone with the launch of Jeremy’s Razors: The 2nd Greatest Commercial Ever. Plus, the guys break down the state of The American Experiment: where we are now and what's next, explore the conception of freedom, dissect the Trump vs. Biden debate, and much more. Watch now for sharp insights, big laughs, and the boldness that defines The Daily Wire. You won't believe, or expect, what happens next!   - - -    Today’s Sponsors:   Birch Gold - Text "BEN" to 989898 for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit.   Helix - Get 30% off your order + 2 Dream Pillows at http://www.HelixSleep.com/Backstage Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hey, everybody. This is Matt Walsh. Drop everything you're doing and check out the latest episode of DailyWire Backstage. You're going to hear Jeremy Boring, Ben Shapiro, Andrew Clavin, Michael Knowles, and yours truly talking about all the important issues affecting you and your family. You don't want to miss it unless you're leftist, in which case, you're canceled. Welcome to the Daily Wire Backstage. I'm Jeremy Boring, joined by Ben Shapiro, Andrew Claven, Matt Walsh, and Michael Noles. Glad to be back with you guys. It's been a minute. Just a reminder that we'll be taken some questions during the course of the show from our Daily Wire Plus subscribers. Not a DailyWire Plus subscribers. Head over to DailyWirePlus.com and join today. If you are, head over there.

Ask us your questions. We're going to do our best to get a lot of answers out tonight. Interaction with our subscribers is one of the most enjoyable aspects of doing this show. It is, in fact, the only enjoyable aspect of doing this show. No, I like being with you guys. It's a great show. We have fun. We get to smoke Mayflowers.

We get to, you know. We're also going to do something really enjoyable for me tonight. I don't know if it'll be enjoyable for anybody else, but they told me just as I walked on stage, hey, we've got a little bit of a problem. I said, what's that? They said, well, when we've been promoting the show all week, we've been saying, you know, tune in for Daily Wire backstage.

You'll get all your favorites, Ben Shapiro, Michael. Plus, we're going to have shocking news, like big news, really big news. I said, cool, what is it? And they said, well, it was a bit of an oversell. We don't have anything. I said, what do you mean? You actually marketed the show publicly. You said, plus giant earth shattering something new.

And they said, yes. I said, and you don't have anything earth shattering? And they said, no, we don't have anything new at all. I said, how does a thing like this happen? And they said, well, we have, you told us to do it. That's fair. That sounds like something I would do. But what occurred to me is that I, in my back pocket, do in fact have something new

and earth-shattering and cool that we could premiere on this show, except we weren't planning to premiere it until a week from now, which means they are scrambling backstage to put together, just for you guys today, the brand new, second generation, Jeremy's Razors commercial. We're going to be world premiering it right here on the show in approximately 15 minutes.

So call all your friends, especially the scruffy ones, tell them we will be doing something. I think people will enjoy it. Every one of you play some small role in the... I'm just glad. I'm really glad to hear

because all week I've been reading off the teleprompter. I said, this is going to be the biggest show ever. Jeremy is a huge announcement. And I felt out of the loom.

Yeah, well, I'm glad. I was sad that I didn't know what it was. Now I'm glad that you also did know. Matt literally turned to me earlier today in the makeup chair and he was like,

so what's this thing that's happening tonight? I was like, I don't know. I'm just one of the owners of the company. I have no clue. Truly, when they said back,

when they said, no, you told us to say that. I don't have any idea what I thought it was going to be. I mean, I must have thought it was going to. I think maybe... This is pitiful. What can't come to come? Maybe in the back of my head I thought we were going to premiere the commercial. I can't think of any other huge news that I wanted to... But it is huge. We, obviously, this is a long time in the making. You know, the first commercial has been called by some, including our marketing department, who titled it on YouTube, the greatest commercial

ever. And I stand by it. Many people say. Many people say. I stand by it. I think it was, in fact, the greatest commercial ever. It was the most well-justified launch of a company ever. But what it wasn't was the greatest razor ever. And as it turns out, making a razor is very difficult because it takes a razor-sharp blade and runs it across people's most sensitive spots. And so we've worked really hard over the last two years to completely redesign our razor. I never thought that I would employ engineers. One of my favorite things about being a guy who never made it through college. It's that like I employ Yale graduates and I employ Harvard graduates, I employ lawyers, but I never thought I would employ engineers.

And now we have full-time engineers on staff. We've been hard at work. We've got brand-new partners. We've moved all of our manufacturing out of China. And this new razor is world-class. It's on par with the best razors in the market. And it comes now, I think, alongside our other products through Jeremy's razors, like our shampoo, our condition, our lotions, our deodorants,

which are already top-tier products. The only thing that was lagging was that razor. because it's, again, a very difficult thing. It takes a lot of engineering. We finally have a really competitive product. And I think we have a somewhat hilarious and deeply offensive commercial to attend to its launch. So again, come back in here in about 15 minutes, and we'll bring that to you. Meanwhile, the world doesn't get better between backstages.

It only seems to get worse. And there's a new sort of, I shouldn't say new. It's been sort of fermenting for the last handful of years, but I think it's really gaining prominence now. both in the very intellectual part of the American right, but also in the very fringe parts of the American right. And the fact that what I'm about to bring up is happening in both of those places, like people who we all in this room read,

people with whom we are friendly, people with whom we admire are participating in this conversation, also the complete whack jobs, the people who I don't think should have any voice in our movement, I think that they're malevolent forces, are also circling the same idea. That makes the idea, I think, something that we should talk about.

And that's this idea that the American experiment is over. This idea that none of our institutions that have taken us through the last two plus centuries on this continent exist anymore that we can't find any solution to our cultural and political problems through the political system and that perhaps it's time to look to older systems, strongman, monarchy, even dictator.

I mean, when you have major voices in the sort of conservative intelligentsia, openly discussing the idea of whether a dictator will be required to save this country or an emperor would be required to save this country or a king would be required to save this country, I think that that's something that merits actual conversation. So I thought rather than talking about the latest stupid thing Joe Biden said, or, you know, the most salacious details from the Trump trial, although they are fun to talk about. Let's talk about something that we can only talk about when we're together.

Let's get to the deep stuff. So, Michael, you're a monarchist. Yeah, well, look, they tie in. He pins it on the Catholic. We're all crypto monarchists. We all think Trump is Caesar. I didn't think crypto. Yeah.

By the way, we don't think that Donald Trump ought to be Caesar. We think that Baron Trump ought to be Caesar. Okay, there's a very different thing. Look, the problem is this. I am not calling for the overthrow of the American regime. The problem is that the American regime has been overthrown, and it has been overthrown by the 17th Amendment, which fundamentally orders the relationship of the states to the federal government. It's been overthrown by Congress giving away all of its

power to the executive agencies. It's been overthrown by any number of things that have taken place not over the last 10 years, but over the past 150 and 200 years. And even that is not necessarily to be lamented. It just happens. You can't rewind the tape. You can't go back in time. But the argument to look toward certain classical thinkers, notably Polybius, is that there are different kinds of government. Our founding fathers and framers wrote about this a lot, and I think they were channeling Aristotle and Polybius. Polybius's idea of the cycle of regimes is that

you got three acceptable forms of regime, and then you've got their kind of evil twins. So you've got monarchy, which can be good. Monarchy, when it's good, is governing for the common good. When it goes bad, it's a tyranny, and it's just like a dictator for his own self-aggrandizement. Aristocracy can be good. There have been good aristocracies.

aristocracy means good, you know, or governing for the good. The bad version of that is oligarchy. We see those all around the world. Democracy can be good. A republic can be a really good thing. But it turns into mob rule when it goes bad and you ignore the common good and you govern for yourself. And our framers and founding fathers wrote about that ad nauseum. So the question is, where are we in that cycle of regimes? Unless you believe that America just paused history, If you really believe we've, as Fukuyama, at the very least as caricatured as having said, that we've reached the end of history and it's over and liberal democracy won. Unless you think history is really over, then you do have to entertain the possibility that something will come next.

Yeah, I mean, I don't know who those guys are that you just mentioned. There's some buddies in mind from New York. Plebius? Okay. I'm kind of, I agree almost with the, with the, with the, the, the, the, of the people you're talking about, Jeremy, that I do think that the institutions are fundamentally broken. I don't see any political solution to it, but I also don't think that a dictator is the solution either. So essentially, we're just screwed is where I land on it, I guess. I might have guessed where you would have that. Hopelessness. You know, here's the reason, it's all a question of timing. I've been having this conversation with my son since he was little.

When do you jump off the carousel? Because there's no point dying for a regime that is no longer worth that. There's no point pulling a cato and, you know, saying, oh, we have to bring back the Republic when the Republic is over. Right. But here's the one indication that the republic is not yet over. Because remember also the despair is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you despair and you don't fight for what you have, you're not going to keep what you have.

One person, Donald Trump, was elected and the entire government and the press and the academy and the intelligentsia, acted like a Jew had walked into a Nazi Bund meeting. They acted like the worst possible thing. There's one guy, one guy, a loud mouth who doesn't really know what he's doing, and probably never read the Constitution. And all of this force had to be put together to throw him out. The lies that are being told as we're speaking, the trials they put him through, the violations of our norms, all of these things, which makes me think they're vulnerable.

It makes me think that the system that is, in place is not invulnerable, you know, that it can be taken down. And so if it can be taken down and if it can be taken down without mass violence, it seems worthwhile because the essential premise of the founders was that people were a certain way, which is that they should be free. They didn't say that they wanted to be free. That was the George W. Bush ridiculous statement that people want to be free. People don't want to be free. They want to be taken care of. But that the people should be free, I think remains true. And so that remains worth fighting for until it's not. But isn't there, there's this observation of Tocqueville, who writes democracy in America,

probably the best observer of early American politics. And he observes that the rhetoric of the revolution and the post-revolution is very liberal and enlightenment and abstract and, you know, about freedom and everything. But the behavior of America is a little different. It's a little more conservative. It's a little bit more about tradition and way of life and these tightly knit communities. And so I sometimes fear that the thing we want to regain is the traditional American way of life. But we believe our forebearers press releases. So we're falling for the abstract liberal philosophy when in fact what we need to return to is tightly knit communities with families having lots of kids and going to their churches. This critique of liberalism is true.

is that liberalism, unmoored from virtue, turns into moral relativism. Right? Liberalism is basically the idea that a thousand flowers should bloom, that free speech is a good thing in and of itself, that freedoms are used to that they're of inherent value. Now, the reality is that without a framework of virtue, freedom is not of inherent value, actually, because it turns out that when you freely choose to do something evil, it makes you a worse person, not a better person. Freedom is not itself a virtue. Freedom is instrumental if you have choices between a series of virtues and you can probably, prioritize between those virtues. But freedom to use pornography, for example, is not actually a well-used freedom or a true right in any serious sense. What that means is that if you don't have that virtue, which is really what's falling away, then what you end up with is this inability to choose between value systems. And so all value systems are then treated as equivalent. And once all value systems

are treated as equivalent, then you basically have post-constructionism and the idea that everything is just a matter of grabbing power and imposing it on people that you don't particularly like. The thing that I think everyone keeps missing, and it's fascinating, I think there actually is some consensus in the United States, even with many people that I truly disagree with, because I've had conversations with them about this. The consensus is not about values so much as it is about localism. The reality is the conservatism, that virtue, which I think conservatism really is about conserving. When people say, what is conservatism conserving? The idea should be virtue, and it should be the institutions within virtue that allow you the freedom within virtue to live

a wonderful life within this kind of virtuous framework. That's what we're trying to conserve. It's not merely the institutions, it's also that framework. It's why when you read Locke, sort of in a vacuum, for example, you end up with the sort of Yoram-Hazzoni critique of Locke, which is, that Locke is himself attempting to destroy virtue, but that's not true. Locke was spending half of his time doing Christian apologetics. So, like, the reality... Protestant apologetics, but, oh, sure, we digress. But the sort of basic idea is that conservatism is built ground up, and leftism is built top-down.

And so those two things are now in conflict. And the left has used the top-down structure in order to quash the little platoons, right? So it's quash families and communities and religious, religious institutions and churches and all this sort of stuff. But I don't think that they've gotten quite as far as either they think or as the right things. I think that they keep kicking the can down the road. If they really wanted to, if they really had the power to do full tyranny, does anyone doubt that if Joe Biden really had the true power, the real true power to do true tyranny that he wouldn't go. for it? I think he would go for it. I think that he's a little tyrant in his heart.

There's no question. And I think that was certainly to a Barack Obama, who was a big tyrant in his heart. But isn't there this problem? But he does not have, he doesn't actually have the power or the approval from the American people to do that, which suggests that this is not quite over. What would count as true tyranny in your mind? What would count as true tyranny would be the federal government forcibly dissolving churches. We couldn't have this conversation.

Right? Like, I don't think we're that far from it, but I don't think we're yet. I think that you see, what you see is kind of little bubbles of tyranny that, that bubbles in the surface and pop. But I don't think that, that you're never that far from it is probably. Well, I would argue we had true tyranny during COVID. I mean, I tend to agree with that. It happened. But the rights, but the rights preferred monarch was, was, uh, true. The president of the United States at the time. Right. But it's not just that. It's also that, that that is also forgetting that there are many states that did not go along with the true tyranny. Right. Meaning that I moved my entire family from California to.

Florida, partially because Florida was not a true tyranny in the way that California legitimately acted full on tyrannically during COVID. But even that was, as long as it was, it still was, it was a temporary way station. Now, I think that there are other aspects of tyranny that are more permanent in California than just a COVID lockdown. I think that was like their most open and obvious exact. This is one, the real big reason I moved my family from California, aside from the tax regime, which is a form of property tyranny, is that I think it's going to be nearly impossible to raise a religious family in the state of California. I think they really will attempt to forcibly to solve churches and go after full-on religious institutions. And that will be tyranny.

But I don't think that at the top federal level, that power yet exists. I think that the founder's system of checks and balances is still robust enough, despite all of the changes that have been, I think, terrible for the country in terms of the administrative state and the executive branch. That that, I don't think that we're quite there yet. But I would also argue that I just one quick thing that they might not need true tyranny because once you sort of capture the hearts and minds of people and you own them that way, you don't need true tyranny. Once you just get us all addicted to drugs and drugs. Right. So for example, shutting down the churches, well, we're at a point where they don't need to do that because people have abandoned church on their own. It's almost like a pointless endeavor.

And they shut down the churches. They touched other churches during COVID, and people stopped going and kind of went along with it, and they haven't gone back. Okay, but the thing is, there's a vacuum there. There is a difference between coercion and a vacuum. The vacuum can be filled by a resurgence. Coercion prevents the resurgence. True tyranny says you cannot come back to church. A vacuum is, you left the church, and now you're not coming back. And that's on you. That's not on the government. I also just don't know. My shul was closed during COVID. And you know what happened? We all went back to Shul. And not only we go back to Shul, my Shul went from having had 100 families to having

almost 400 families in the course of about three years. So, like, true, this is where things get rebuilt, is at the local level. And because, you know, listen, we all talk about national politics all the time and the elections are fun to talk about and they're interesting to talk about. And of course, they make a huge difference. I think the area where they actually make the most difference is in foreign policy because the president has plenary power over foreign policy. As you can see from Joe Biden, running around like a child with a lit match in a factory of flammables on the international stage. but domestically, there is still real capability. I mean, the lives that you guys lead in Tennessee,

or the life that you're leading in Virginia, or life that I'm leading in Florida, this is not a life dominated by tyranny. This is a life that I've built in my community that I think is quite rich and filled with social fabric, but that's an act of will on my part, and it requires the vacuum. And the point that I'm making is that vacuum still exists,

but it has to be filled by a bottom-up movement. I want to get to a corollary of all the stuff we're talking about because it's really important. What you just said, it shows the fact that we have been making the wrong argument. I'm sure you all saw Harrison Butker, the chief's picker. The Chad meme? You mean to come to life with the yes? The guy was great, making a speech about the fact that the thing that women should be doing is building, making homes and having children and being homemakers. The reaction to it shows you exactly what they're afraid of, right?

I mean, that is exactly the thing that they're afraid of, which means that we've been arguing about the wrong thing for a long time. We've been arguing about systems. And systems, as you pointed out, don't do anything without the value system in which they're enclosed and out of which they came. The systems came out of a form of Christianity that basically said, oh, people are individuals. They, you know, that individualism was created by the Catholic Church, but it also led to Protestantism. So there was some kind of syncretism there that we have to deal with. But I know you hate it. Still kicking myself.

I wasn't around at the time. But the thing about it is. is when Butker made that speech and they jumped on him with the kind of ferocity that let you know immediately they were terrified, immediately. This cannot be said. It wasn't they said, we disagree. It was this cannot be said.

And the Kansas City Chiefs, to their credit, said, well, you know, we believe in free speech. That's the wonderful thing about this country. And conservatives cheered. Conservatives should not have cheered. Their answer should have been, no, we believe this too. The owner of the chiefs said that. No, he's right.

This is what we should be doing. And it's what we should all be doing. In other words, the system of free speech, I believe in free speech with all my heart, but I believe that we should be using it, not to defend free speech, we should be using it to defend the values that underpin free speech and keep it apart.

What I'm not sure of is the contra argument. I'm not sure that you can use coercion to instill actual values. I'll give you a great example of it. Just happened this week. Julia Fox, who I never heard of before, but I think she dated Kanye West. That's the only way I've heard about her.

And I think she was an actress and a model or something. She came out, she just did a podcast. I covered it on the show today. where she said, I am celibate. I have now been celibate for years because the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs decision. And my act to reclaim my power is I am going to be celibate. And I thought, don't threaten me with a good time, honey, you know, to prove, you know. Even though she lives in a state where she can still get an abort? Yes. And that's the key here. This is the national government versus the localism argument. I guarantee. I guarantee. guaranteed Julia Fox lives in a state where she could get as many abortions as she wants.

And yet, the law is a teacher, and that change in the law changed her behavior. I don't even think she realizes it changed her behavior for the good, but it did change her behavior for the good. And she sounds more normal, by the way, than the last time I heard her do it. You know, it's funny. This is one of the arguments. One of the things that's happening on the right, the young right, is they've gotten a new name for racial thinking. It's human biodiversity, right? And so one of the things that they believe, though, is that we're in a perfect situation because the only people could be having children are conservatives.

And I think there may be something to do that. We may have them out and not. We may have them exactly where we want them, you know? So here's the thing. There is one aspect of conservatism, as we talked about, is the conservation of virtue. But another aspect of conservatism is Russell Kirk, Catholic, talked about, was

the idea that there is a certain gradualism in care and carefulness when it comes to the exercise of power. And so, yes, the law is a teacher. but there is a difference between a teacher and a jailer. And what I mean by that is that you can teach people, but you have to teach people sort of where they are.

I can't teach calculus to my 10-year-old. Evolution, not revolution, kind of thing. Well, it's just you can lead the people, but you can't lead them from so far ahead beyond the horizon that they can't even see you. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And if you try to drag them from there, the chain's going to break.

It's too long a chain. Yeah. And so the idea of the law compelling things that the public is just not going to, go along with, you'll actually create a backlash instead of actually getting people to where you want to go. But aren't there so many examples of the law doing exactly that, where the law changes people's opinions about a thing and their values? I mean, you gave one example. Another maybe smaller example that I was thinking about recently is smoking cigarettes. I mean, you could still,

you know, you can still smoke cigarettes, but, you know, in the younger generations, they just don't do it anymore, which was, you know, 40 years ago, it's unthinkable that you would have a bunch of 25-year-olds that wouldn't even touch a sick rate. But that's an excellent example of gradualism in the law. So they didn't just ban smoking out right in the United States. Right? They did is they put significant taxes on it and they banned it for people below a certain age. And then they banned it. And then those people all aged up into. But it was also all the all the institutions of power had this relentless message that this is bad and dirty and gross don't do it. And it's over just just you hear it over again. That's not legal. By the way, I agree with that. So I agree with that. I agree that are that are our institutions

ideally, and this is your point, Drew, our institutions ideally should be echoing virtue, and we've made a mistake on the right by suggesting, again, it is not actually, this is what I was saying before. The difference between an instrumental value and inherent value is very crucial. An instrumental value is a value that you hold in order to get to something, right? Money has instrumental value, not because you have a sack of cash in your backseat, but because you can use that sack of cash to do things with, right? Freedom is an instrumental value. It is not an inherent value. Just being free is not in and of itself valuable because if you're on a desert island, there's nothing else around. You're totally

free, and it's of no value whatsoever. It's object-oriented. You have to actually use it for something good. And so when you're talking about education toward proper use of freedom, you know, that's what all the institutions should be doing. And that's why it's important, to give an example, it was not enough to me. Joe Biden gave a speech about one of his terrible speeches, about the campus protesters. And he said, it's just terrible that they're breaking the law. But also, there is a right to free speech. Okay, we all agree there's a right to free speech. That wasn't the question. The question is, not even whether they're breaking the law, the question

is, are they assholes or not? Right? Is what they're saying right or is what they are saying wrong? Because I promise you, if those were white supremacists on the law and Columbia University, he wouldn't have been talking about the inherent values of free speech versus lawbreaking. He would have been talking about the actual message. I'm not sure I agree with you about freedom, though. I think freedom is an inherent

value, but in order to maintain it, the values that underlie it have to be in place. I mean, you don't have freedom. I mean, I always This guy is always saying you have the freedom to do the right thing, but that's not freedom at all. So, yeah. Can I ask a freshman philosophy 101? What is an inherent value?

Well, no. Friendship, family. What is freedom? So the classical definition, I'm glad Drew brought this up as he was mocking me for articulating. The classical conception of freedom is articulated not only by Lord Acton, who some of the libertarians still like, but articulated by Dante, articulated by many classical thinkers, is that freedom. And Donozo-Cortez puts this very well. Freedom is not just the ability to choose. Freedom is willing, and willing is predicated on knowledge.

So to bring that down to earth, if freedom were just choosing, we would be freer than God, because God can't sin. I can sin. Am I freer than God? I'm not freer than God. Freedom is willing, and willing is predicated on knowledge. If you don't know anything, if you're totally ignorant, you can't really will. This is why kids don't have freedom, right?

That's why we have age of consent laws and things like that. So God, having, has perfect will in part because he has perfect knowledge. He's omniscient. So he's perfectly free. I am not perfectly free. This is why it must be the case that freedom is, to put it really bluntly, the ability to do what we ought to do, rather than just... The problem is got... Where did I go wrong in the logic?

Because God knows what is right to do, and we don't. So the question is who just saw it. and who decides? And if the person who decides has complete control over you to make you choose what he decides is good, you are not free. So that's a pragmatic limitation on power. Yes. That is not a redefinition of freedom. Right. So this is, so what I mean by that is that you don't want to delegate to any power. Right. The ability to define right and wrong so narrowly that you can't choose between objects. Right. But you also don't want people to have the, the quote, unquote, it's not freedom to harm another person.

Why not? Why isn't it, but why not? Why shouldn't there be freedom to harm another person? Because the logic, the same logic that creates freedom creates the right not to be harmed. Okay, how about a puppy? Do you have freedom to harm a puppy? Here comes Christyneum. Take the human being out of it. Do you have, like there's certain things that we agree don't have to do with consent,

which we can get into later, but we don't believe that you have the freedom to do those things. Because they are inherently harmful. Are you agreeing, Ben, with his, definition? I do agree with the definition. Sure. Sure. And I think this is where good night folks, that's all I need. This is where Orthodox Jews and Catholics are united in their belief, but it is not a Protestant belief and it is not a

fundamentally American belief. The fundamental American conception of freedom does include the, at least the and the Protestant definition of freedom more precisely includes freedom to fail. It isn't only freedom to succeed. It's not only freedom to do what's right. I don't know. By the way, by the way the

Bible didn't just give us freedom from sin as though that only means that now you have the opportunity to do what's right. He gave his freedom from sin and that he ameliorated the consequences of sin. If you went back, if you went back to the Mayflower, like these cigars, and you talked to Governor Bradford and you asked him his definition of freedom, Governor Bradford, who took toys away from children on Christmas because they had no right to play on Christmas Day? Whose definition of freedom would the Great Pilgrim Bradford have agreed with? There's no question. It would have been mine and bet.

And I wouldn't ask him. I'm more interesting. No, no, I'm interested. I'm interested. I'm interested. I'm interested in a biblical conception of freedom. Hold on. Well, we are, because that's what the American experiment is predicated on. The biblical definition of freedom starts with the Exodus, and it is free from the tyrant. It is, hold on, hold on, it's freedom from Pharaoh, and it's a freedom that is accompanied by risk. Would that we were slaves again in Egypt? Because when we were slaves again in Egypt, when we were slaves in Egypt, we at least knew from whence our meal would come. And when our water would come. king, God said they're not rejecting the prophet. They're rejecting me because they're asking for a king.

How does that differ from what Michael said? Okay, so two things. One, you have to finish the verse. The verse in Exodus is, let my people go so that they may serve me in the wilderness. That's the actual finish of that particular verse. So the second. Which is, by the way, which is not what they did. Right. They didn't do that and God smacks them around for it. Second of all, the biblical term, Heirut, right, so the word in Hebrew for freedom is Hebrew, it doesn't apply, it doesn't appear literally anywhere in the Bible so far as I'm aware. Cherut is a very modern term. And it really does... When we talk about freedom in the...

Here's the reason I agree with Michael. It's because, in consequence, it doesn't make so much of a difference. Because what the founders were saying is that there have to be pragmatic limits on the government, because a government that is powerful enough to define virtue is also powerful enough

to ban virtue. Right. Right? But that is not an argument for the good of the freedom itself to sin. That's not the same thing. Right? This is two different types of right. And so you do have an exemption from the government in the sense that you don't want the government to be quite that powerful. But inside my own family, for example, my kids are free in the sense that they can do good things. But they are not free to do anything. Does it make them unfree? Are my kids unfree by definition? Yes, of course they are. A parent is a tyrant and rightly so. Their children are not free. Okay, but is my kid deprived? Or is that good for my child?

kid. The point is that the government is not a tyrant. The parent's not a tyrant. The parent is a parent. But the government is also not a parent. Well, some parents are parents. Right. Right, but the parent is the boss of the house. The point, this is why I hate so much when you hear people on the left suggest that the government is a father and mother, right? It's not. The government is neither of those things. But that is, again, a more pragmatic... I keep coming back to pragmatism, because

otherwise, you have a universalist theory of what government can and cannot do. And I don't believe in that. I think that local government, me and my friends, in our HOA, we get to make all sorts of rules the federal government does not get to make. Why? Because you have a broader level of homogeneity and agreement about values, which means that we can compel that there can't be a porn shop in the middle of our living facility, right? But that's not true on the federal level because you have broader disagreements and you have very pragmatic concerns about handing tremendous power to the power. But there's

even your HOA can't compel you to do rightly. Yes, there are there because they, because they violate certain fundamental human virtues or the possibility there are. But here's where the disagreement lives. You posit that freedom is only freedom if it's freedom to be virtuous. And I posit that there is no virtue apart from freedom. That this is a chicken and the egg, that it's a cycle, that it can't be defined only in one direction. It works in both directions. You can't compel virtue because it's unvirtuous to the exact degree that it was compelled.

What is education? Well, education isn't coercive. It's very clear. It is coercive. It's not tyrannical. It's coercive. But it's coercive. It's coercive.

It's coercive. So doesn't it seem like the concept of freedom is just not a useful concept? Well, I think it is. That's why many cultures throughout history, probably most of them, weren't focused. They didn't talk about freedom at all. Even probably today, you go to most places on Earth, and you talk about freedom. It's not part of their, it's not part of their language. They don't, they don't discuss it.

It's not that it's useless. It's that it's now the victim of tremendous semantic overload. Yeah. But also, to the exact example, to extent that we're told it is for freedom that Christ has made us free. It's pretty central to Christian theology to say that freedom is not useful. I think it's central to all. It's not a useless concept. All theology based on the Bible is that if you're not free, then your love of God is not love. Yeah, but freedom in the Bible is totally different. Freedom of choice is vital

to, you're correct, to achieve virtue. That is true. But that does not that mean that the freedom to sin is an inherent good. No. That's not the same thing. No, but freedom of sin is a natural accompaniment to the freedom to choose. Jeremy's point, I think, is very good, especially on Exodus, when you view Exodus as the figure

of history. This is a very, to quote my favorite, one of my favorite old dead men, Dante, you know, he views Exodus. One of, yeah, he's pretty close to the top. Certainly his favorite dead man. He views Exodus as the figure of history. You know, like,

all stories have a literal meaning, they have an allegorical meaning, a moral meaning, all these different meanings. And so what is the story of Exodus? It is literally the story of Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt from the Pharaoh toward the promised land. And it is allegorically the story of God's chosen leader leading God's people to the promised land. And is analogically, you know, from the perspective of the end times, telling us how we all escape this slavery. I mean, you're going to hate. You're misdemeanor. I'm misreading, Dante. What you're talking about? I'm misreading. I probably am because I'm I'm going to let you argue about Dante because you have diverse perspectives and diversification is key.

Whoa. One person who works the hard way is Isaac News, who invested a large sum of money in the South Sea Company. Unfortunately, when the South Sea bubble burst in 1720, Newton lost a lot of money. This is why diversification is really important, even for people like Isaac Newton. During times of economic uncertainty or market volatility, investors tend to flock to gold as a safe haven asset. His value tends to increase during turbulent times providing a buffer against those market downturns, which is why people are turning to gold right now and why Birchgold is busier than ever. Birchgold understands that navigating financial decisions can be incredibly daunting. That's why they're dedicated in-house IRA department is there to guide you every step of the way.

Birchgold is committed to addressing your questions and concerns promptly. Their team is always ready to provide answers and clarity, whether it's about fees, tax on rollovers, or the timing of the process. They are here to ensure you feel valued and well-informed. text Ben to 98-98-98 to talk to one of Birch Gold's experts in claim your free info kit on gold. You'll learn how to convert an existing IRA or 401k into a tax sheltered IRA and gold. The best part is. It doesn't cost you a penny out of pocket. Just text Ben to 98-98-98-98. That's Ben to 98-98-8. Yeah, how much gold they've sent me for all the work we've done for them over?

None gold. No gold. I would just think every now, then you'd open a pack and go, well, that gold. Yeah. I said that at the 15-minute mark of the show, we were going to do something big. something huge, something unprecedented, we're going to premiere the second greatest commercial ever. And we didn't do that because it's now 40 minutes in it. But we're going to do it now. This is, as I said before, we've been hard at work for two years on trying to move our manufacturing out of China, and we've done just that. I'm going to tell you more about it. Michael's shaved with it. I've watched people shave with it. I have a beard. I mean, it's part of my stick. And we'll talk about that when we come back. But first, here it is. We're proud to present

the world premiere of the second greatest commercial ever. I'm Jeremy Boring, CEO of Daily Wire and founder of Jeremy's Razors. Woke Razor companies love to take your money while trampling on your values. Me? I just love your money. What the hell is this? Hey, nobody calls Cut on my set, but me. What do you run Hollywood now? Two on the nose.

What is this? We're filming the commercial for the brand new, second generation Jeremy's Razor. Yeah, I get it. moved our manufacturing out of China. Plus, with the new Sprint 3 and Precision 5 Blades, you can shave like a man, not a manifesto. But who's he? I'm Black Jeremy.

Huge fan. You mind if we get a selfie? Oh yeah, come on. Look, we talked about this. Customers want diversity. Customers want inclusion. Customers want Black Jeremy. And for the commercials to be less macho.

Can we please lose the flamethrower and the car? It's overcompensating. and we need... Who are you? I'm Deska. I've been following you around half naked for two years. That makes you some kind of expert on advertising? Besides, don't you think it's a little insulting to black people?

Oh, we prefer people of color. Don't you think it's a little insulting to black people of color that instead of giving them their own roles to play, you just recast them as a beloved white character? Hell yeah, it is. We don't do it for people of color. We do it for liberal white women. I'll spell it out for you.

Liberal white women make most of the purchasing decisions for the family, so happy commercials with people of color smiling at each other make them feel hella virtuous. Bitches love to feel virtuous. They do. That's why there's no white people in commercials anymore? Exactly. But that's so...

Gay? Sorry, I'm the body positivity hire. You are so brave. What is even happening right now? Think of all the razors you'll sell. And don't forget Jeremy's shampoo and conditioner. They are excellent products. Hey, what if I play your character a little less bitchy?

Unbelievable. Jeremy's Razors is for liberal white women. It's for men, conservative men. So stop giving your money to woke corporations who hate you. Give it to me instead. Hey, liberal white ladies. You know what's up. Go to jeremy'sraisers.com now and buy you.

the new radically redesigned second-gen racers, featuring sharper, longer-lasting blades, and superior durability. Now in more inclusive three and five blade models. Oh, man, I am so offended. That was the thing that happened in all of our lives. That's two days. That was two days in March. It's actually the truth, right?

You don't see any white people in corporations anymore. And everybody says, oh, it's like they don't understand that white people are still their customer. No, they do understand. They understand who their customer is. That's the problem. We know who our customer is to, we feel like our customer will probably appreciate the commentary.

We're doing something different. In addition to rolling out the brand new Gen 2 razor, as I said before, it's a truly world-class razor. It's on par with anything else that you've tried. We have a precision blade. We have a quick-shaved blade. Michael, which one have you used?

So I've got the precision, and I don't want to brag or anything. I have very supple skin. I've got a little cute little baby face over here, and I dry shave. So I get out of the shower. I don't use, I hate shaving cream and stuff. And I was a little nervous that I'd lose half the moneymaker. You know, if I just, no, it's a beautiful shave.

It really is an excellent shave. And then I get to keep my supple little face. I want to test this thing on my head for Friday show. Give me the one that was going to work best on my head. I will do. And in fact, Co-CEO.K. Love has been shaving his head with it, and I've seen blood very few times. No, he's dead. We're doing something else new, which is we're selling on Amazon here before.

You've only been able to go to jeremy's raisers.com. Today, you can go to Amazon. That's really important for us because we want, obviously, for the product to be accessible to more and more people. And that's important, A, because it's how we keep the lights on around here. It's also important, though, because we do have a mission with all of this, and our mission is to actually create competition in the marketplace on behalf of conservatives for basically the last two decades. Corporations have moved further and further and further to the left, taking for granted

fully 50% of their potential customers. And this country, they've done so because they just assume that if they cater to the right, the left will abandon them and have a lot of options in doing so. But if they pander to the left, you have no option. You're just going to keep buying their products here. Keep giving them your money no matter what. That's what we're trying to challenge

by building these brands and these companies. So we hope you'll go over to Amazon. It's hard. Getting into a new platform like Amazon, obviously everybody's there, but you need to trend, you need to rank. We need it to be prime eligible, which means that Amazon needs to see that there's demand for it.

So head over to Amazon. This is what you're looking for, this lovely new box, and the brand new Jeremy's Razor, second gen, Razor 2.0. Do it right now. We're really excited about the product. And, you know, if it's good enough for Michael Knowles, I mean, then it needs a better recommendation. Well, I mean, producing that commercial was the seventh circle of hell. So back to Dante. Yes. Oh, you've had fun. By the way, you're really funny in the commercial. You are funny. That's nice of you.

When we started the company, I used to routinely tell people you were a terrible actor, and I said so on account of, you were a, I mean, truly bad. Yes. Truly bad. But you found it. You found it somewhere. I feel like in lady ballers you were hilarious, in the commercial you're hilarious. Again, if you just give me like a very, a person who just pissed off to be there, I'm a method actor.

I have to be in the place. You have to find my motivation. Was he in the commercial? I had the most important role of the whole thing. It was a black guy. You were a black guy in there? Yeah, hold on. Is that you?

Yeah, that was me. You had Troy Bayhart. He really lost himself in the character. Wow, that's impressive. Robert Dan from Europe. That appears in the background of the selfie. That's good. Second viewing, you'll see it.

I was hoping for a full Al Jolson, you know. I love to sing. I was going to say for a minute, I thought we'd lit a black guy in here. By the way, Siaka, who plays Black Jeremy, and Al also had a very funny role in Jeremy's Razors, is a good buddy of ours, is now Black Jeremy. Like, I think it's going to buy me a lot of freedom not to have to be in all the commercials. He's funny.

He's genuinely hilarious. He's genuinely hilarious. And a good guy, too. It is true. And also, I will admit that I found it very funny when the actress says that she has been following around half naked for two years and you never noticed. I do like that line a lot. Yeah. Was the car different?

Yes. That was a different McLaren. So the God King's McLaren is a bass boat blue. I don't know if that's the official color. But I call it a Bass Boat Blue McLaren 600. And we thought that for black Jeremy that he needed something with a little more attitude. A little funkier. We've got a purple McLaren 720.

So we now have two McLaren's. Am I going to keep getting paychecks or is this? I don't know that I've ever gotten a paycheck. Ben said it was in the mail. I assume it's coming at some point. Yeah. It's hard to find money to pay you when we have to keep spending day after day to change the locks over and over. Just keep picking them. He keeps on.

So anyway, back to the freedom. conversation. Back to Dante. Let's go back to Don't. Do you want to talk about that? Yes. I'll let you. I have one final point on Dante. Then you can tell me why I'm totally wrong. Dante was a little bit of a rhino. And this is a weird thing. Dante, he fights at the Battle of Compaldena

for the Pope, the Pope's side. Then he goes back, the Pope's side wins, then he becomes like a rhino of the Pope's side and he's pro-emperor side, and then the Pope's side kicks him out and sends him into exile. So the upshot of all of this is Dante argues to the point of like pragmatic limitations on power

for a kind of early separation of church and state and it's not a total separation. He thinks the civil authority should receive light from the spiritual authority, should be guided by the spiritual authority and illuminated by it, but that they're distinct, that the state, the emperor and the pope,

the spiritual authority, both receive their power directly from God. And so that basically the emperor doesn't have to answer to the pope. And this is a kind of early limitations. on the power of government, though it's not this total secular, you know, the church should have no say in anything.

And I think Dante was right. First of all, we're having a kind of conversation at cross purposes because one thing we're talking about is the nature of man before God, which is different than the nature of man before government. Right. So that we're talking about two different things. And the quality of freedom in those two different situations

is different, which is the problem with Catholic theocracy. In Dante, Dante goes into hell and views the, people who are damned for the choices that they have made. And because Dante is an actual great poet, the people come to life in such a way that you actually feel for them in their situation. But he's told not to feel pity for them because they have made their free choices. So they're obviously, the freedom is a good, even in hell. And so he's not saying that they only had the, we're given the freedom to do the right thing. He's saying, we don't pity them because they have chosen where they are, and their humanity shines out of the point. Hold on. I don't understand why that makes

freedom to do the wrong thing itself a good as opposed to a natural consequence of this using freedom. Because it naturally accompanies the freedom to do what's right, which is why in the exodus, we see that God's people sin, even on their way out, and God doesn't forsake them. And in Christian theology, that's fulfilled in Christ, who yes, yes, gives us freedom to do what's right. But That is accompanied by forgiveness for doing what's wrong. Yeah, but in the old... You have the freedom. There's a multiplicity of God just going hog wild on.

Yeah. Okay, so the distinction that I was going to make about the definition of freedom is that people misuse it because it's such a broad term. Right. And so people mean a bunch of different things by it, right? Sometimes what people mean is I'm free to do whatever I want to do. Sometimes it means that I need a freedom to have health care, right? which is I want somebody else to do something for me.

Like, there are a bunch of different uses of the word freedom that are actually mutually exclusive in some cases. The two that I want to focus on that I think that they get mixed up really easily in this particular conversation are a right in the sense that you have no duty to do X, where you have two choices that are both morally justifiable or interesting or irrelevant, like whether you're going to have meat or whether you're going to have milk tonight, right? Like, if you're a Jew, they're going to have meat or milk tonight. You can have a cheeseburger or pork if you're not.

a Christian. Which is your, like, that has no moral qualifications and really has no moral importance. And so there's no duty. So the definition of that kind of freedom is you have a right to do X because you have no duty not to do X. Right? That is one kind of freedom. That is not the same thing as you have a freedom to sin. You have the, you have freedom to choose among various different things because you have no duty not to do that. So in other words, I don't have it, I do have a duty not to sin. I do have a duty not to sin, which means I don't have a right to sin. I have a duty not to sin on a moral level. That is different from the thing we're talking about on a governmental level, which is an immunity,

which is the government does not have the power to compel me to do this thing. That's why I keep going back to the pragmatic thing. Yes, so the two different kinds of freedom. Right. So if you agree with that, then we're actually all in agreement. So then I think we basically, that goes back to my point, which is that when I say is it a useful concept, I'm not saying it doesn't matter or it's unimportant, but in conversation and in political debate, if the definition of freedom require, you know, we could debate it for two hours and it has 50 different meanings and people mean 50 different things. It gets to the point where just in common conversation, when we're having a political debate and it seems like it's just not useful to talk about.

And so I feel the same way about rights. We talk about rights and what even is a right? And that's why I've tried to not use that term as much, instead talk about responsibility, which is the flip side of rights like you're talking about. But people understand that concept more. It's more useful concept and a useful term. Wait, there is an important thing about this going back to Polybius, because I think the cycle of regimes is real.

There's no question about it. All history shows it. But the question to me is this. When a democracy or whatever you want to call it, when it becomes chaos, such that a strong man has to be brought in, and it then morphs into a tyranny. I mean, Lord Acton's point in the fall of the Roman Republic that you were actually freer after the Republic fell in August,

and this is actually true. If you think the empire was bad, just wait until you hear about the Republic. Right, exactly, exactly. So you were actually freer in that situation. But my argument with Acton on this is that if you don't have the right to choose who governs you, you actually aren't free.

And so my only point, My only point is this, in the fall, in the morphine of a democracy into a tyranny, you have lost something of value. And that's why I think before you let the democracy fall to bring order, you should actually try to preserve the democracy. And there is something at least to, you know, I love American history. We're talking about the pilgrims and the revolution and everything. You know, America doesn't have a tradition of a king. We could have. There were very serious fan with fathers and framers who argued for it or for some kind of elected monarchy or, you know, Washington as king or something. But we don't. We just don't. We don't have a real family.

I quite like the Windsors for all of their, you know, foibles and eccentricities. I think they've been basically good for England over the last century or more. And, but we don't have that. So, you know, until Emperor Baron comes up, we've got to deal with our own political tradition. But don't we see in Washington turning over his sword to the, you know, political authority, don't we see something amazing? I mean, aren't we seeing something there that is unique in history, almost unique in history, and just an inherent good? I mean, don't we see in that moment something that is inherently good? And in the fall of the republic, don't we see something that is unfortunate? King George has said to have remarked upon hearing that Washington handed over.

The king said this. The king said this. He said that Washington might be the greatest man in the world. I think he said it to Benjamin West. Yeah. I mean, yes and yes. No. I mean, listen again, as a defender of the Republican, and a deep non-believer in the return of a tyranny or a monarchy, just on the theoretical level, the idea that one form of government is inherently better than another because you vote, I don't think is true. I agree with you. Because I think that rights proceed, if you like rights all that much, and I'm talking here about, or structures of law, property, these things historically precede the form of government. They don't act as a result of the form of government, historically speaking, meaning that if you want to look at the rights that

existed for the British, those well pre-existed the power of parliament. They started with a bunch of oligarchic lords fighting with the king to disassemble power. They weakened under the power of the growing power. I mean, that's actually true. And by the way, I mean, one of the cases that you can easily make with regards to the American Republic is that if you're looking at the rights, I mean, and here, obviously you get into very dicey territory because not everybody in America had rights, most obviously black Americans. But if you were looking at the inherent centralizing power of a tyrannical government. It was very weak early on. And one of the reasons that it was kind of weak early on is because not everybody could vote. One of the things that,

one of the things that you get along with full suffrage is the ability to swamp rights in dramatic new ways, right? A welfare state. But to hear that you don't support democracy is going to keep me awake at night. And that's why I'm glad I have a helix mattress. Wow. I have loved my helix mattress for years. And one of the reasons is I never sleep. And when I lie awake, I know how comfortable it is. But, you know, I've had it for a decade. It's a gift that keeps on giving. Helix harnesses is years of mattress expertise to offer a truly elevated sleep experience or lying awake experience. The Helix Elite Collection includes six different mattress models, each tailored for specific sleep positions and firmness preferences. I love this thing,

truly, and I truly am awake all night, so I'm thinking, this is comfortable. You guys are going to sleep on it. You'll miss it, but I'm just telling you, if you're nervous about buying a mattress online. You don't have to be. Helix has a sleep quiz that matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress. Why would you buy a mattress made for someone else? Plus, Helix has a 10-year warranty. You can try it out for 100 nights, risk-free. They'll even pick it up for you if you don't love it, but that's not going to be a problem because you will. Helix's financing options and flexible payment plans ensure a great night's sleep is never far away. Helix is offering our listeners 30% off all mattress orders and two free pillows. Go to

HelixSleep.com slash backstage. That's Helix sleep.com slash backstage. This is their best offer yet. It won't last long with Helix. Better sleep or better lying away. Starts now. So 20 is Nightline. Did a full episode on our good friend Andrew Tate the other day.

And it was, you know, mediocre as nightline usually is. And it included some interesting material and included some really dumb material from some sort of gender studies professor who's explaining why feminism is good for us all, is exactly why Andritate exists. Legitimately, it's like the episode was made about why Ander Tate is evil. And then some of which I agree. And then large chunks of which I agree. And then the counter is not responsible manhood.

It's some dude being like, but feminism is a solution for everyone. I was like, God, bless it. ABC, you're the worst. But the most interesting part of the doc was that they're all these outstanding sexual assault warrants on the Tate's and sex trafficking warrants on the Tate's and all of us. And there are a couple of the women who have come out and said, I was not sex trafficked, I consented. And the prosecutor in that particular case says, well, it doesn't matter if you consented, it's still sex trafficking.

If you were convinced to come via the lover boy method to Romania and then serve effectively as a prostitute on camera, it doesn't matter whether you wanted to do it or you didn't want to do that. That is still sex trafficking. It's a crime. It is a crime. And this raises the question of freedom, because freedom always sort of implies with it consent, right?

Consents of the government would be democracy. So this goes back to is consent the core value? Because for the West, it's not just that even if you argue that it's an inherent value, it has become the inherent value in the West. It's the only value that matters. And you can see the breakdown of that system of morality every single day, particularly with young women who have been told their entire life that their consent is a binary question, it's yes or no.

And then men look at that and they're like, okay, well, if consent is all that matters here, then I can do whatever I want to do to you. long as you consent to it. And our society no longer has the language to condemn women for saying yes to the thing, or even more importantly, condemn men for taking advantage of a woman who says yes to a thing. Because it's not taking advantage if she says yes to the thing. And that's a sickness in a society. This is, if you read the New York Times, the New York Times writes like three or four sex articles every week. And every single one of them is musing over how things could have gone so wrong when they had consent. And this is again and again. In New York Times, which I take to be the voice of the left

as an old fashion, they're kind of a fusty old paper. They're dealing with leftism as it was 60 years ago, but now it's permeated our society. But their idea is like sex is the only willed human action that takes place outside a moral context. So that if you have consent, you can do the, there's no such thing as, if you dress up in leather and have somebody stick cigarettes in you, you're not degrading yourself as long as you consent. And the idea that you're, and the idea that you can degrade because if you have no soul, there's nothing to degrade, right? As long as your body is having pleasure. Yeah, that doesn't exist.

I think the important point is that they don't have the language, but the concepts are still there. Yes. Yeah. But the only language they have to describe the concepts as consent. That's how you end up with, you know, a woman who shacks up with a guy for a night, gets drunk or whatever, college campus, and then wakes up in the morning and she's feeling, she knows she feels a certain way. She feels like her dignity has been violated. She feels like she's been taken advantage of. She was not raped, but the problem is that consent is the only word she has to describe how she feels.

And so she says, well, my consent was violated. And so then this thing that is not rape becomes rape because that's just her way of condemning, not just the guy, but also her own behavior. Correct. But then it becomes, so then everything becomes free. Everything's a binary question. It's either on this side of the consent line or on that side of the consent line. But the reality is, there's a whole, there's a whole x-axis here, right? That you're ignoring, right?

You get the y-axis, which is like consent or not consent. And then you have the x-axis, which is degrading or not degrading. And things can exist in all four quadrants, right? You don't have stuff that's consensual and not degrading, which is hopefully, you know, like marital sex. And then you have things that are consensual and degrading, which is a very real quadrant right there. And then you have things that are consensual and non-consensual and non-degrading. It would be probably empty. That's an empty quadrant.

Then you have non-consensual and degrading. That's a huge quadrant. Consensual and degrading. is a really big quadrant. Non-consensual and degrading is a very big quadrant. But they've disappeared an entire quadrant from that. Non-consensual and non-degrading. Like a cocktail waitress runs in here right now,

clips a cigar, shoves it in my teeth, lights it on fire, and forces me to drink a McAllen-25. Right. It's not consensual, but not degrading. But it was edifying. That's fair. Exactly. Exactly.

But that category of consensual and degrading. Consensual and degrading just doesn't exist for these people. It just doesn't exist at all. And so women are lost for this language. And then because of that, because they've degraded themselves, it makes it very difficult for them to form normal human relationships. Also, the fact that men and women have a nature that if you get drunk with a bunch of guys, you're making a mistake.

And they say, well, that's blaming the victim. But it's not. It's like walking down an alley at 3 o'clock in the morning and you get mugged. It's the mugger's fault. But you're an idiot. And you've done something because there are muggers, because human beings are corrupt. And, you know, that's not a place to be at 3 in the morning.

Walking it out in a tsunami without an umbrella, I guess it's the weather's fault, you know, in a way, but these things are to be expecting. Also, an umbrella and a tsunami's not going to be much good. Not much good, no, no. But, you know, again, I think that does go to the, when you make freedom your highest priority without any countervailing values, you end up in these very ugly places. Yeah. Well, again, I think that we're confusing the freedom that is part of the dignity of being a human

being and the freedom, the political freedom, which is, yeah, agreed, yeah. Agreed. I mean. What do you want to talk about this? not this. You guys resolve your differences? What's that? I think we're talking about it. I think we just have to excise Nolze. Well, I was launching, hold up. I was launching an entirely new business while Jeremy's

raised in 2.0. When I said one minute before walking on set, let's just release the razor. I didn't realize that they'd need me to like send out tweets and give instructions to the team and sign documents. I will say that when I host, I'm a little more involved than this. You're a better host than that. I am in a lot of ways. The only thing, the advantage that I have over you is that the less you know, the more charming you can be as well. Basically, for me, it just comes down to like, I'm not going to give up my freedom. Yeah. I mean, it really is that simple. I know that's like a, a simple thing, but even my freedom to fail. Economic freedom is an enormous part of freedom that I don't think you

can maintain in a course of, I mean, you don't have economic freedom in Russia because if you even start to build a successful business. Vladimir Putin comes and takes it away from you and makes it his business. Yes, but in the year 900 BC, he owned that business. That's the thing. But you don't understand. In the Lithuanian Polish Commonwealth. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Well, we've covered most of the big topics. We covered Jeremy's Razors 2.0. The Battle of Compalino. We covered Dante. We covered freedom in Exodus, consent. Julia Fox. Yeah, is there anything else? The only thing we haven't talked about is Donald Trump's sex life.

So I think it's probably worth like just coming out of this beautiful philosophical world that we've lived in and get down into really disgusting. This is driving me crazy. I have to admit, this Trump trial is making me nuts. I mean, it's- I love it. Well, it's incredibly entertaining. But it is the greatest violation of American norms and principles and ethics that I think I've seen in my lifetime. It reminds me of a Capra movie, you know, like Mr. Smith goes to Washington, where everybody is corrupting.

Except for Mr. Smith, you know. Well, this is the thing. They have turned this guy. Aside for this. They have turned this guy into a hero in the same way that Samson is a hero. You know? That's fair. It's like, in the same thing, if you shear him off his hair.

Yes. Yeah. This is his great power. Exactly. It's also true. And so I can't wait for him to put in the doorway of the courthouse. I mean, he pushes down all of the pillars and all of the collapses upon the Philippines. But nothing stops him.

This is like, this is like, talk about a tsunami. This is like a tsunami of, oh. oppression that has hit him, everybody, every single institution we have is trying to bring this guy down and they can't stop him. This is the thing. Even I have come to admire Donald Trump. Everybody, everybody jokes Donald Trump has lived a very colorful life and he's talked about it and bragged about it. I cannot think of another human being who with this kind of stuff thrown up for indictments. They want to put him in jail for 700 years or whatever. And he seems only to be energized by it. He's going out, He goes to Harlem to do a little bodega rally. He's doing a rally in the South Bronx. A Republican has not, a white guy, much less an orange guy, has not entered the South Bronx in probably 100 years. This guy's going to go do it. And the reason I love the trial, it is so unjust and it's so absurd. And their star witness has committed more egregious crimes than the guy they're actually trying to prosecute. But and unprosecuted, by the way, for their star witness? Yeah, and basically just like can't help but talk about them.

And all the time. And like, with all of that, they are so farcically bad at prosecuting Trump. Everyone, the AG, this judge is a complete joke. The prosecution, like, didn't know what their store witness was going to say. They didn't realize the defense had prepared anything. That every second this trial goes on, I feel that Trump gets stronger. I don't think it's just rosy. It's absolutely a blessing for him. It's a blessing in disguise. It's the worst thing I would never want to be put through it. There's a massive blessing to his political campaign for a couple of reasons. One, as you say, it's on its face an absurd charge.

Second, the coterie of witnesses that they have is legitimately a woman who sells sex for money on camera. And a lawyer who stole $60,000. Right. I mean, when she said to that she was shocked, how did I find myself here? I mean, I don't know. How do you find yourself there every single day on camera? On camera, yeah.

You were just doing your job as the answer. Like, you found yourself shocked the same way, I find myself shocked to be sitting behind the desk talking. Like, what are you talking about? The whole trial is absurd, but it's also done him the favor of putting him, as he says, the ice box. Yeah. That's actually great for him. If I could have constructed a campaign wherein Twitter did not exist for him.

He would be forced into fake Twitter where no one was, and he would just tweet into it and no one would ever notice. The oblivion might call it. Right, exactly. You might call it truth social. And he was then put into a room where he was literally not allowed to talk for multiple hours a day. But he could only emerge to speak about how he wasn't allowed to talk. and then go back into that place. And if he could do that for the rest of it,

I hope that this trial lasts another seven months. Well, don't worry, there's three or four more coming up right behind it. But they're not going to get there in time. They can't do it. This is the only one. This is the weakest of the four. The world on fire. He's the worst president.

He is the worst president. He is so terrible. Everything the man does is just trash. I mean, the world is literally on fire and it's all his fault. It is every element of it is his fault. He is rash at this. It's unbelievable how bad he is the president. Did you see he, so he releases, he's going to release a million barrels of oil from this Northeast Reserve, Joe Biden.

He'll bring it down by two cents for one day. Yeah, he'll bring gas down by nothing. But he needs to do it to have any shot of restoring gas prices. And so he can't just drill for more oil because the left won't accept that. But they need more oil, so they do it in this really inefficient way. Then Joe Biden, he goes after the International Criminal Court because they seem to be getting big for their bridges. Even though Joe Biden is the one who rescinded Trump sanctions on the International Criminal Court. Then he's whining about how Russia invaded Ukraine.

Russia only invades Ukraine, according to Zelensky, because Joe Biden weakens America's stance on Russia. Because he said if it's only a minor invasion. He literally did the just-the-tip routine. He's like, if it's just the tip, it's probably fine. This is after-stating. It's like gone in Afghanistan. Yeah, that's right.

It should be, it should, it should, the strategic oil reserve thing, that should be an impeachable offense in a lot of ways. You're stealing from the strategic oil reserve to start your election. Yeah, during the election. Like, I know it's not impeachable, but it's. He's explicitly trying to buy votes now.

like explicitly trying to buy votes. He's going to young people. He's like, just shoveling cash at them. He's like, here's the student loan bailout. You want some money? I'll give you some money, man. Here's some money. And he's like, you know what?

The oil price are too high? What if I just take some money? I just throw the money at you. And he's doing this over and over. I mean, it's so clear at this point that he's just handing out goodies to constituent groups. I will. And it's not going to work.

I think he's going to lose. Let me say this. I am hopeful that he will lose. After 2016, I'll never say again what's going to have. I've been going to have every election since like 2008, by the way. But I think that I think he could truly lose. The thing that concerns me, I'm deeply concerned about this early debate. I think that the early debate is a mistake.

On Trump's what? Mm-hmm. Oh, gee, okay. And I think that we will go, we meaning conservatives broadly, and I fear Trump himself, will go into the debate with the exact wrong set of expectations. Every time there's a state of the union with Joe Biden, we're like, oh, I can't wait to watch this train wreck. He's probably going to poop himself and follow.

all off the stage and he doesn't. He's good. He mixes us up with the Republicans. He's good. Yeah, he was energetic. He's energetic. He's feisty. He was good in the debates last time and Trump was not good. And we keep going on with these like low expectations like they won't give this guy a shot of adrenaline in the arm and he won't be able to perform. And when you go in with those expectations, you lose every single time. If you think there's no way Joe Biden can stand up to Donald Trump in a debate. First of all, he did and became president probably in large part because of it last time. And he will again. Donald Trump has to go in here and fight for his life and win. But here's what he really needed. Okay, so here's my suggested strategy for the Trump debate.

Okay, so number one, he should go in and he should just be calm. If he's calm, he's going to win. If he gets agitated, Biden is going to win. Because Biden, as you say, is going to go in the back room. He's going to find a youth and he's going to suck the blood from the youth. He's going to reinvigorate himself. He's not just going to smell the youth this time. This is going to go in the back room. This time it's the fangs. He's going to go full for it. But the, so the other thing is that I really believe that Donald Trump should push very hard to have RFK Jr. on that stage. I think you should really push to have RFK Jr. on that stage. And I'll tell you why. I think this is right. Because RFK Jr. right now is drawing somewhere around 10% of the vote. He seems to be drawing a little

bit more from Biden than from Trump. And I think that's only going to grow because it turns out there are many never-Bidens, more never-Bidens than there are never-Trumps at this point in time. If you're voting for Trump is because you actually want to vote for Trump. Like who's voting for Trump because they just, they hate Joe Biden so much that they're voting for Trump. That's really not Trump's base. Trump's base is mostly people who really, really like him. His base is like 43, 44%. Joe Biden's base is right now like 36, 37%. It sucks. And not only that, RFK Jr., he thinks that he is running for right-wing votes, which means that in a debate, he's going to turn, he's going to smack Trump. When he turns and he smacks Trump, who does that attract? Not the Trump voters. It attracts the Biden voters.

The Biden voters like that RFK Jr. is going after Donald Trump. Then RFK Jr. will turn, and he He will clock Joe Biden on being a bad president, and he will continue to bleed viders, Biden's voters. It's risky. Plus he fills time. Plus he fills time. I think the more time, I think Donald Trump in debate is pepper. He's not salt.

He's great in primary debates because he has about six minutes combined to talk. And it's all little jabs. And if you give him 40 minutes on a stage to debate, I've never seen him be good in a debate that's 40 minutes. I don't agree with this. I think Trump jumped on this because he smelled blood and I think he's right to smell blood, even though, I don't actually think Trump is going to underestimate Biden. I think he's, you know, he's going to make, he's foolishly saying he's not going to be any good.

But I think he knows that he has to do something here. And there's something else about this. And this is an insight I've actually stolen from my son. I'd let him say it, but he's in Edinburgh's drinking McCallon. On his own head, right, on his twin helix. Yeah, yeah. Peet. Exactly.

On nose his mattress. The Senator only drinks those piti with me. He does. He loves the dirt. He likes the, he could eat coal as far as under his own. However, he pointed out that Trump has a new coalition that his, this is not just the minorities, but he also has a coalition of people who are saying like, I don't like him, but I'm voting for him. The first time that people said that in 2016 when we sort of said, you know, when I sort of said,

all right, I'm going to vote for me because he's better than Hillary, we felt that we had to join the crowd of the people who loved him. Now we don't even feel that way. We feel like, I feel perfectly, I mean, people yell at me for it, but I feel perfectly free to say, I don't think he's a good guy. I don't think, you know, I thought he did a good job for three years, a decent job for three years. But I'll vote from twice. I'll move from state to state, of course. I mean, yeah, because it's just so obvious. And I think if he can go on and basically make that case, make the cases like, Joe, you have done a terrible job.

You did this, you did this, you do this, you do this. I think he would. He just, he has to not get sucked into January 6th. That's the big trap that Biden is going to set for him. He's going to start off and he's going to say, you look, he's going to say, he's going to say, You lost the election. You won't accept that you lost the election. And then you led an insurrection. And Trump, because he's almost path alive. He's like Marty McFly in Back to the Future, too, right?

It's like, you chicken, chicken McFly. And then he's like, the Petzfeld Lynn, right? The Dolly Zoom. Exactly. If he can avoid that, if he can just say, listen, you know, Joe, you and I disagree about who won the 2020 election, but there's one thing that everyone agrees about and it's that you're a president. I mean, if he says that, to win.

And I agree that I think that, I think that, this will be a disaster for Biden. And it's different than 2020. The most obvious, for the most obvious reason that Biden now is fully senile. He's actually senile. And he only had, he only has two gears now. And one gear is confused, dottering and confused and incoherent. The other gear, and this is what we saw on the State of the Union, is angry and shouting. And the only way that he's able to be coherent for a long stretch of time is to be angry and shouting the entire time. He just did it at a commencement speech with Morehouse, where he just, it didn't make any sense tonally, like he's angry in shouting at a commencement speech because that's the only way that

they can get this guy to make sense for a long period of time. So he's going to come into this debate and he's going to be an angry shouting mode. And if Trump can just be not only calm, but also sort of just his whimsical sort of self with this angry shouting old man, I think the contrast will be really favorable to Trump. Except that. If Trump makes the election a referendum on Trump, he will lose. If Trump makes the election a referendum on January 6, or on 2020, or on 2020, broadly speaking, he will lose. And if Donald Trump makes the election referendum on Joe Biden, he will be the 47th president. The problem is I've never seen Trump not make himself the center of whatever conversation he walks into. But I think, you know, I don't know. I'm kind of optimistic

about this debate. I'm not even sure it's going to happen, to be honest, but like I think if it happens, I think the minute Biden said it, you could tell he we did it because he's running scared. I mean, He would have no reason for him to do it. And the way Trump jumped on it, I just thought like he smells blood. And he is, you know, people keep saying he's not a politician, but he kind of is a politician. You mean he was the president of the United States before a year? Well, not only that. Run three times to be president.

He's a natural politician. Yeah, he is. Is there a world where a bad performance leads to a move to ouster Biden from the ticket at his convention? He's almost impossible. No way. No way. Is it impossible? Yeah.

But, well, because if you oust him, who are they going to put in place? there's no one they can put it. There's one person. Well, it's Michelle's the only person. Michelle, they're not going to do it. I just don't think they're going to do it. I think they're going to ride this horse past its death. I don't know what chapter you think of it.

Ride this horse until the horse is a skeleton. We are going to be taking questions from our Daily Wire Plus subscribers. We've been seeing your questions in the chat. We're going to take them now. If you're not yet a member, please head over to DailyWireplus.com. Become a member today. Our subscribers make it possible for us to continue to bring you this great content. to continue to bring you this show, Ben Show, Drew's show, Matt's show.

Michael's is more like a charity thing. You don't really contribute to that. That's something that I get- It's full of love, you mean. I get points in heaven for that one. But also, the entertainment that we're doing, if you haven't seen Mr. Bircham, please go over to Daily Wire Plus and give it a watch. It's the fulfillment of Adam Carolla's really 30-year vision.

It's the character he first created that brought him into show business, and we've helped him realize that with our first animated. series for for grownups, you know, other than our children's animated stuff over at Benke. If you haven't seen Judge Matt Walsh, the fulfillment of Matt Walsh's 30-year vision to sit in condemn people and condemn people. Then please head over and give that a watch as well. I will say this about Mr. Bertram. I wanted to say this at a, if they'd asked me at the premiere to say anything, I was going to bring up the fact that the first time I met Adam Carolla, he charged me $15,000 for the privilege.

So Ben and I were running a thing called Truth Revolt at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. And we're having a student conference at Pepperdine University. And Ben came up to me and he said, well, I think maybe I said we should have a speaker. And Ben said, I'm really good friends with Adam Carolla. But he would definitely come down. It's a 23-minute drive. I mean, he'll drive 23 minutes to do it for me. I've known him for, I've known since I was a kid.

So I was like, oh, man, they're close. They're good friends. I call up Adam's team. They're like, yeah, 15 green. And I was like, well, it's 23 minutes. you've known Ben since he was a kid. Don't make me say 17, man. So I was thinking, look at how far we've come.

The first time I met Adam, he charged me $15,000 for the privilege. And here we are a decade later, and he charged me $9 million. They get to go to one party with them. It's a fun show, though, it's worth watching. Our Daily Wire subscribers make it possible. So thank you to you. And here is our first question. is it worth debating falsehoods about Trump?

The drink bleach falsehood, the fine people, falsehood, et cetera, with people who constantly complain about Trump and refuse to change their minds no matter how many times you disprove their statements. I think that question answers itself. I will say that one thing that I've done, so obviously, if you hadn't noticed, Jewish. And that means there are a lot of people I know are libs

because not in the Orthodox community, but everybody else who's not in North... The Orthodox community is like 150% pro-Trump. And then you have all the Lib Jews. The Jew-ish, you mean. It's not very religious. But there are some who are really, really mad at Biden. Because they're looking at how Biden, I mean, it's long past time, obviously.

But because of what Biden has done on Israel, they are livid. And I'd talk to some of them and they're like, yeah, but I just can't vote for Trump. I can't vote because they're still libs. I can't vote for Trump. And what I've said to them is, okay, so either stay home or vote for RFK Jr. If you're not going to vote for Trump, do not give your vote to Joe Biden. Because the minute that you give your vote to a person with whom you heartily disagree, your vote means nothing. It means nothing. It's not malleable anymore. If they know they can just check you up in that comment.

I agree with this with someone with whom you, I would say I'll give my vote to someone with whom I heartily disagree. I heartily disagree with Donald Trump quite often. I would not give my vote to someone with whom I fundamentally Right, that's fair. So, I mean, these are people. Also, when you're discussing, I, too, know many liberals for my sins. And one of the things that I've decided is I never discuss personalities with them. Because I'll say, the minute the conversation starts, I'll say, look, you're going to tell me how much you hate Trump. I'm going to tell you how much I hate Biden.

They're politicians. There are many, many hateful things about them. Let's talk about the principles. And then if I can convince them on the principles, then I'll say to them, then just don't vote. If you can't vote for Trump, just don't vote. I think you could also, on the questioner's point of, Do you fact check, you know, all the fake propaganda? I think if you just calmly, you don't need to go tit for tat because there will be 10 more lies for every one you correct.

But if you just sort of calmly say, yeah, none of that's true. Just none of it's true. And I'm happy to disprove any number of them that you want. But at a certain point, I just, you have to recognize the sources of your information are not credible. I know that you believe that they're true because of the bubble in what you operate. People will not believe that. They will not. I mean, even after this NPR thing came out, I would say to people that I've been telling people that NPR is poison for years. And when it came out that the woman who runs NPR is essentially a CIA operator, I said, now do you believe me? No, come on. They just will not believe it. Those lies are just absolutely permeate the atmosphere. Wait, you're saying that government-funded propaganda isn't wholly accurate.

But anti-American propaganda, that's the crazy part we're living in. That's one of the big mistakes our deep state makes. They're very anti-American. Yeah. If only we had a good deep state. If the courts allow Donald Trump to be kicked off the ballot in the swing states, do you think that would justify a civil war? I think justifies the wrong question.

I mean, you can make an argument. Look, I mean, our founders thought that a tax on Snapple or whatever tea they were drinking. Justified a revolt. I mean, you can make an argument that, like, the income tax justifies a revolt of something. And how? But however, you have to ask questions like, does it have any chance of succeeding? Does it have any chance of creating a better situation that we have right now? Do you want to shoot your cousins?

Exactly. You have to start asking all those kinds of questions. And I think that, you know, so then the answer is obviously no in that case. I don't know. If they prevent us from being able to function as a country, which removing the frontrunner from one of the parties from being on the ballot, constitutionally, you are getting, if not fully there, very close to the point where the political system can no longer give you a win. But it's such a, it's such a hypothetical. Like, it's just,

that's not what's going to happen. What's going to happen is what's happened. The court's going to get involved and the court's going to say, yeah, that's not how, that's not how it works in this country. You can't pull those shenanigans. By the way, it's, I think that that's, it's such an important point because as seriously as, as we take the, you know, throwing Trump off the ballot thing is about, they take the January 6th thing way more seriously. Neither of those were destined to succeed or be in any serious way a threat to the working order of our republic. That's right. And I'm so sick of this crap about how this is going to be the last election. There will be no more election. Not a single person in the United States believes that.

No one believes it. When politicians say it, they don't believe it. When hosts say it, they don't this is not going to be the last. I promise you, it's not going to be the last election. I don't bet 100 percent on very many things. I will bet 100 percent. That four, years from now, we will be in the middle of another presidential election cycle. I'd be willing to bet everything that I own and all of my children's future onings on that proposition. And anybody who says different, I got to tell you, like, I don't believe you. And if you really believe that, then I think that, you know, if you lose the election, then right now, if you believe that Joe Biden is such a threat, for example, on the right to democracy, that it's literally the end of the country, the end of the

country. If he gets elected, then you're in, then you, you have a duty to do something about it. And you don't, because it's not true. This is why the first guy who believes evil things is going to do evil things. And we have a system that prevents the most people things. This is why the first conversation of the night was important. Because if you believe that we can gain no more goodness out of our political system, then you have a duty to revolution. When the founders did what they did, yes, it was over a one-cent tax on Snapple. But it wasn't really over the one-cent tax on Snapple. It was over the fact that they petitioned their government and petitioned their government and petitioned their government, and they were given no voice, they were given no recourse.

There was nothing that they could do to have a say in how they were governed. They could not affect political change in any way if they had been able to affect political change. If George III and Parliament had just decided to give representation to the colonies in parliament, there would have been no moral justification for the American Revolution. But they wouldn't. And so there was. But they also, but to go back, to my point that the other thing they had going is that they could win. Now, it's quite amazing that they won, but they could win, given the situation they were in at the time. But, you know,

the question that we have is that even if the government does something like they kick Trump off the ballot. Now, that's, we agree, that's full on tyranny. Um, can some sort of movement like that actually have any hope of succeeding? Only if it's... organized by the states. Yeah, it would have to grow up organically. It would have to be organized by the states. There's no like we, the people, like your militia down in, you know, Plainview, Texas or something is going to overthrow the federal government. Of course, that's not going to happen. Your militia up in Michigan would, of course that's not going to happen. A move like that, if it were to have any chance of succeeding, would have to be a collection of the states doing it.

And listen, you're talking, again, you were talking about shooting your cousins. I get a little frustrated when people act as though they look forward to the idea of revolution. Revolution is, I haven't met my cousins. Depends on the cousin. Revolution is not the moment that we are in, and it is not a moment that we should hope to find ourselves in. We're in a moment where we are losing political battles at a rate that we need, that demands a change in tactics. At the same time, we're winning political battles all the time that still mattered. Donald Trump was president three and a half years ago.

Roe versus Wade was overturned, which is something I frankly never thought was going to. That's exactly right. Yeah. And so I'm sorry to disabuse everyone of their fantasy that they're, you know, that at 65 years old, you with your semi-automatic AR-15, as long as you don't have to run more than four steps uphill are somehow going to overthrow the United States military that's not real. That's not real. I'm hoping to be sent to France to flirt with the girls. That's why I have been frankly. This news, though, too, is the fact that Biden's freaking out over everything and, you know, spilling oil from the northeast and agreeing to the debate.

and agreeing to the debates and everything. The one thing it shows you, it's not that Trump is going to win, it's not that it's not rigged. At least it's not totally rigged. That's right. At least Biden thinks he could lose. Yes. Which is a good.

No, I'm telling you, they are vulnerable or they would not be behaving like, they wouldn't have reacted to Harrison Butker if they realize that women are waking up. Look what it took for Biden to win the first time. And they will not succeed at shutting down the country again going into this election. They can, if they would. Call in the pandemic. They would. If they could, they would. What are the chances that the debate gets canceled because of Trump's insistence on a drug test?

I think there's a high chance it'll get canceled, but I don't know if that'll be. It won't be because of that. I think it's funny to demand a drug test. But if you think that Joe Biden couldn't pass a drug test, the way drug tests work? Yes, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Like, giving the guy a shot of adrenaline two minutes before he takes the stage. Yeah. They couldn't get Jose Canseco in the night. Is he continents enough to pee in, like a jar on cable? Oh. Run him, man. If we lose this election, whose fault will it be in my? In mine. I'm going to say it's the fault of whoever you already didn't like.

Yes. I like that. Here's what I know for a fact. Nolz. It will be my fault. And I base this on the fact that no matter what happens in politics, it's your fault. I get blamed.

You should have pushed harder for Ronda Santis. What do we talk about it? I literally voted for Ronda's in the primary. after he backed out, after he dropped out. That's how much I wanted Ron DeSantis to be the nominee. And then if I say that, people are like, you don't sufficiently support Donald Trump. And I'm just like, guys,

I am a mere shampoo cell phone on the internet. If you think that the daily wire being a little nicer to your preferred candidate would change the fact that the base, the voters wanted Donald Trump. I did not want Donald Trump to be our nominee. I wrote an essay. That said, I don't think Donald Trump.

I think Donald Trump should be disqualified on the basis of his behavior in 2020. And by the way, some of your hosts have been very pro-Trump for many years. And some have been very pro-Trump for many years. We have a political process in this country. And also, we're a media company. It's not my job to get Ron DeSantis to be the nominee. That's not my job. That's Ron DeSantis' job.

And you're missing an important point. It's the Jews. I mean? I'm right here. The Jew. By the way, if you want to recast that question as what can Donald Trump do to win, that's not on Donald Trump, right? And then, like, I think everybody understands that if he, if he loses,

then he bears a large percentage of the responsibility for losing. I don't think people understand it. No, I really, no, I don't. I think they're looking for other reasons. But if there is one thing that he can do to win, that is not just personality-driven, liberate the state parties to go get the votes, build state parties that are not complete crap.

The biggest problem the Republican Party has right now is not Donald Trump, as a candidate. The biggest problem the Republican Party has right now is not even the media, although the media are, of course, of course, a huge problem. The biggest problem the Republican Party has is that they destroyed their state parties in places like Arizona and Michigan and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. And you need people to go knock on doors and collect votes. That's what you need to do because Democrats are doing that. You know how I know this? Because there's only one state in the country that did it right in 2022. And there was a red wave in that state and that was Florida. Everywhere else, they blew it and they got this little pink trickle at best. And so if Donald Trump wants

to win, every dollar that is pouring into the honesty, every single dollar should be a get-out-the-vote dollar in the swing states. Donald Trump could lose and it not be his fault. It is more likely if he loses that it will actually be his fault because of his lack of discipline is an ability to frame the conversation. It's so funny that this is a controversial statement because no one ever doubted this for one second about John McCain, about Mitt Romney. If George v. Bush had lost in 2004, people would have been like, ah, can't believe that guy. Part of it, though, is the extraordinary measures taken against Trump in 2020 and 2020. Correct. Agreed. So they re, you know, upended a lot of the voter rules. I do think part of the state. The entire apparatus of the government is a rate against him.

Yes. That could cost him the election. Yes, it could. Of course it's. So one thing you do, yes, you have to have the state parties to get out the vote. You also need a robust voter integrity effort. This is, I remember in my early days in politics, working on campaigns. Out of walking, out a knocking. Yes, exactly. Passing out palm cards. But we would have the ballot integrity people, and we would catch people, and we'd catch SEIU bussing in union members at a district and all that, that always happens everywhere. The Baltimore Board of Election Supervisor

just got caught on camera this week, and he said, yeah, there was some shady stuff that happened in that election. We still don't have clarity. Someone might upload it a thumb drive twice or whatever. So that happens all the time. To quote FDR's advice to LBJ, after LBJ lost an important election to him,

FDR said, you ran fine, but you forgot to sit on the ballot box. You forgot, in a way, it's actually, to FDR's credit, you forgot who counts the votes. That's really what matters. And then LBJ took an extreme lesson from that and stole the election. Is the Democrats' election strategy delusional, or are they confident knowing it's already written? That's a strange question. The only thing delusional about it is that they thought Biden might be a good candidate. But as you say, they have no one else to replace it.

It is delusional. It is delusional because a normal candidate would, like Joe Biden is, I've been saying he's delusional for three years on a political level. He won in 2020 because he ran against Bernie Sanders as a moderate. And then he ran as a dead person against Donald Trump. And what the American people wanted was a moderate dead person. And instead what they got was a radical dead person. And they don't like radical dead people as it turns out. It turns out that all the people that Joe Biden is pandering to are the least popular people in America.

That's right. People do not like the college protesters. People do not like the pro-chemosin in Dearborn, Michigan. people do not like the trans radicals. People are not fond of these people. And Joe Biden keeps doubling down the entire. We've done this stick so many times on the show, I won't repeat it. 2012 is the most important election.

Barack Obama changed the way Democrats think about elections by basically cobbling together a coalition of the dispossessed and doubling down on his base while ignoring the moderates and he won. And every Democrat since then has thought they can do that. The only reason it worked in 2020 is because every voting rule changed and everyone voted nine months in advance of the election. That's literally the only reason. But what's the delusional part?

The delusional part is that he thinks that if he keeps doubling down on Hades. He thinks that if he, yes, the delusion is that Joe Biden thinks he's Barack Obama. Right. Yes. That's the delusiness. But the Democrats are scared out of their wits. They're not delusional. They understand they're. But all the people around him are fully delusional. Because if they were smart, I mean, James Carville was saying this. If they were smart, they'd be in his, Roy Tashara is saying this. They'd all be in his ear saying, dude, the votes you're losing are in the middle of the spectrum. Those votes are wide open. They're so wide open that RFK Jr. is running at 10%. those votes are wide open. What in the F are you doing?

And instead everyone around... That's what James Carville said? All I heard was, that old got to go get down down here, y'all. You have to play it backwards. What do you make of big right-wing Twitter accounts starting to blame Jews for everything? They're all in my feed.

Drew's leading them. What I like is they hate Jews for making money, so they hate them for being capitalists. They hate them for being socialist. It's like you can't win. Whatever the Jews do. Generally. I mean, anti-Semitism, to give a definition,

anti-Semitism is a conspiracy theory about the power of the Jew in society. Whatever you hate most in society, the Jew is behind it. It is why it is distinct in definition from other forms of discrimination. Doesn't mean it's better. It doesn't mean it's worse. It is distinct because it is a distinct phenomenon. Again, not better, not more important, not worse. Just distinct.

Okay, the reason that you see right-wing Twitter accounts that are now doing this crap is because the right-wing does now have a grievance. mentality. Part of that grievance mentality has been justified by the institutional dominance of the left and right-wingers who rightly feel that they have been ground under the boot heel of a culture that dispossesses particularly white Christian males. All of that is true. But this has resulted in a quasi-intersectional philosophy wherein white Christian males are at the bottom of the intersectional hierarchy and those who are quote-unquote most successful in the society are to blame, which is identical to left-wing intersectional philosophy. The only difference is who they think

or is at the bottom of the intersectional hierarchy, and who's at the top of the intersectional hierarchy. And so grievance culture comes all the way around. The only thing that the intersectional leftists and the right-wing antisemites agree on is that at the top of the hierarchy is the Jews, because the Jews are disproportionately successful. The thing is, the intersectional hierarchy,

they think that the Jews are white, so they're disproportionately successful. And the white supremacists and the alt-writers and the anti-Semites think that the Jews hate white people, and therefore they're at the top of the intersectional hierarchy. But they all seem to agree. So that's power.

You're at the top of both hierarchies. So that's the famous joke about the Jew in 1939, who walks past the other Jew sitting on the park bench, reading Der Sturmer. And he says to him, why are you reading Der Sturmer? He says, look how much good news there is in here. We run the banks. I have to say that I do not agree with this thing about the source of anti-Semitism. It is a religious thing.

If you go back and see pre-Nazis, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, all these guys were saying this weird religion, Christianity, has come in and stolen our true German values, and it's all the fault of the Jew. That is what they say. They say Christianity is against our nature. The blood of the Germans, the Aryan blood is running in our veins.

It's all the fault of the Jew who sold us Christianity. And that's why the thing survives, as long as it does. And it is worse than other forms of bigotry because it's a bigotry against God. It is bigotry against God. And just one other thing I have to say is that, as far as I'm concerned, The Jews aren't powerful enough.

My biggest problem with the order, the elders of Zion thing is that it's a forgery. Like if I don't understand, where are the Jews? Why do they make things run better? I mean, you did use their space laser on Rishi's helicopter. That was good. But you missed the other two. Right. Intentionally.

We aren't like, we don't hit every time. I will say, you know, I take a more limited and simpler view of anti-Semitism. And that I would. classify it like any other bigotry, racism. Of course, racism is a big one. You know, if you're an anti-black racist, it's because you hate black people. You think that black people are inferior in some way. And if that's what you think about black people, then you're racist. Now, you might not hate black people, but have other views about black people, some stereotypical views even. And some of those views might even be like insulting, but it doesn't automatically make you a racist. That's true.

Or the example I give is like, let's say Asians. You might not hate Asians. However, you might subscribe to the stereotype that Asians are bad drivers. Now, are they actually bad drivers? I don't know. They're probably not any worse than anybody else. But if you believe that, you just happen to believe. It doesn't mean that you're racist or, you know, ethnocentric against Asians.

And so I would say that anti-Semitism is a hatred of Jews. Okay, the reason I'm going to make a distinction here, no one ever says, I hate blacks because they're too powerful. That's generally not a thing. For literally hundreds of years, blacks were hated when they were slaves and not powerful. When it comes to- They're viewed as less than. Right. When it comes to Jews, the reason that anti-Semitism has so often resulted in anti-Jewish pogroms and violence, and this is going back centuries. I mean, there's nothing new. The reason is because when you perceive a group as unjustifiably powerful, typically that means that you're going to drag them in the streets and kill them. And so when... The Russians, they weren't powerful in Russia when the Cossacks came into their little village. No, no, no, no, wrong.

So if you go back to the history of the Lithuanian Polish Commonwealth, second callback. Second call back. If you go back, then the claim of the Cossacks was that the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth was dominated at the top levels by merchant Jews. This was pushed by the Cossack leaders.

It's legitimately in their rhetoric. So again, that's true. By the way, that goes all the way back to the Bible. I mean, if you want to go all the way back, Pharaoh says it, he says there are these Jews. and there are foreign people and they're going to become powerful and they're going to rise up against us, right? That's his justification.

Haman's justification in the book of Esther is there's a people and they dwell among you and they're not going to listen to your laws and they're going to rebel against you, right? Every aspect of anti-Semitism is typically geared against the quote-unquote nefarious power of the Jews, which of course is what Hitler is talking about, which is why Hitlerian anti-Semitism crosses streams with these other forms of anti-Semitism, historically speaking. Muslim anti-Semitism is much the same thing, is these perfidious Jews who have somehow gained power over Muslim holy sites and are using their war. world powers in order to manipulate. The reason that that anti-Semitism crops, this is why anti-Semitism is so weird, in a sense, is that, typically speaking,

when you are racist against a group, it's because you look down on that group. It's actually more akin, if you're going to make it's an analogy, the analogy that you'd make is more like no-nothing hatred of Catholics in 1850. Yeah, yeah. That's actually the better analogy.

With total loyalty. It's the same thing, right? Matt Frat has actually made this point. Like, this is a good, I think it's a good analog. If you substitute Catholics for Jews, then you'll understand this form of discrimination better. Because this actual argument was made about Catholics throughout the 19th century in an attempt to limit Catholic immigration, suggesting that Catholics were nefarious tools of the Pope who were coming in, taking over the financial industry, dominant in wide and varied industries in the United States, and had to be stopped because of that.

Yeah. You see? Check, check, check. But isn't, but is it, Jeremy's on board. Isn't that just a, is that really different in kind from what? what people who are bigoted against the group always due to the group. Now, you're right that with Jews or with Catholics in this example, they're accused of being too powerful. But what's really happening there is that they're being blamed for whatever happens to be going wrong in society. And I would argue that when people are bigoted against the group, they tend to find a way

to blame that group in some way for the problems in society. That's an argument for better By the way, that's a better definition of racism than what you were giving before. I don't like the definition of racism, which is just I hate people. Well, no, but what I'm saying is that is that if you're racist, legitimately racist against someone, this is what tends to happen next. It's what happens after the racism because you hate them, now you want to blame them for stuff. But that's, the blaming for stuff is not what the race is. Again, again, this is a group therefore you hate the group.

Well, no, I know, I'm talking about the group. I'm talking about you. This is a chicken and the egg thing. Because I don't think that racism starts with I hate them in my heart and then I blame them for everything. I think it can start with blaming them for everything and then become hatred in your heart. That's true. That thing, that cycle goes both directions. And even the whites who are holding black slaves in the South feared their power.

It was they were going to cut your throat at night. That was that they all, that appears in all of their letters they're going to cut. But isn't that, that's more to my. That's more to my. No, I agree with you. And on your point, Matt, look, all stereotypes are true. That's why there's stereotypes. That's how they became stereotypes.

There's an element of truth. Yeah. And so it obviously doesn't apply to individuals necessarily. But so that's part of it. Another part of it is what Drew says, which is if you look into like esoteric Nazism, there is a deeply anti-Christian aspect in as much as it becomes pagan. Well, they said the head of the church advisory to Hitler said this idea that Christ is part of Christianity makes me laugh.

The furor is Christianity. Yeah, yeah. Positive Christianity is there. like kind of a cult version of it. So there's that aspect, certainly. But also then, it comes down to me at this basic level of different groups are different, right? And sometimes they have the same interests, sometimes they have different interests. And when you're living together, different groups find reasons to get frustrated with each other. So it's no surprise that groups with different religions find reasons to get a little hostile to each other. When it comes to the modern, again, it's in

niche segments of the right. But this obsession with the state of Israel, I think, what's the big problem with the state of Israel? Let's throw out, as I do, the theological claims for the state of Israel, because obviously it's not my religion. Let's throw out even historical claims. Let's just get down to brass tax, the right of conquest, as we used to call it, before 1947. The Israelis went to a land that historically had been theirs, and they went back to it, and they were granted this land by international bodies, and then they fought a war, and now it's their land. How is that different from America going in and taking America? But I would go beyond that, too, though, and the question that nobody seems to ask is, which do you want the world to look like, the state of Israel or everybody

else? Yeah, I guess this is my point. You can always get into an argument, because if the right of conquest is all that matters, then why not conquer it back? It's not all that matters, but I guess my point on this is the very height of our civilization was a period where we, in Christendom, went to the Holy Land to take it away from Muslims. So the notion that we're now saying that the Muslims are. What you're arguing is is correct in the sense that when you talk, I've said this before when I talk about Israel. It's the only country in the world where I'm asked to explain the legitimacy of its existence.

It never happens with literally any place else. Nobody ever is like, why is France deserved to be France? What is France-ness? Ukraine now, right? Right. I mean, the United States gets the same challenge. Yeah. I mean, I would say. On stolen land.

At a far lesser level. Even the people who argue that the United States is on stolen land don't really. There are less existential. There's not U.N. There's not U.N. charter or U.N. resolution after U.N. resolution. And also that group of people who are acknowledging stolen land, they aren't immediately calling for the entire country to be turned over to the tribe of the Sioux in a real way.

It's a bunch of bullshit, they say, in order to please their left-wing friends and pretend that they give a shit, which they don't. So when it comes to the state of Israel, suddenly you're forced to make these arguments about, like, well, is it based on history? Are you based on religion? Is it based on that? So, see, your argument, I agree. If you win, you exist. End of story. Then, then the only question becomes, does the world look better or worse if it looks like this thing or that thing? And that's Drew's question. And that's really the only question that we tend to ask generally in foreign policy. Especially for us who aren't Israel. Is an American? When I look at, say, Ukraine and Russia, I'm looking at America's interest. Now, I can decide that differently than other people. But do I want, do I want Ukraine to look more like Ukraine or do I want to look more like Russia. Do I want China to look more like Taiwan or do I want Taiwan to look more like China? Right? Like, these are the questions that you typically ask when it comes to foreign policy. When you look at Israel versus Hamasistan in the Gaza Strip or the Palestinian Authority terror-dominated areas and the question is, should there be a state there? In a vacuum, there shouldn't even

be a state there. Forget about Israel. I'm not for the establishment of any terror state anywhere. I wasn't for the establishment of ISIS-Stan. Like, this is so absurd. And the claim that somehow it's bad for the world. Israel thoroughly destroys and defeats a terror group that is currently holding five Americans hostage is so beyond reason. It's so crazy to me. And that doesn't mean you can't critique Israel. Go ahead. Fine. Critique it. Critique all these. Critic America and France and UK. Do all of it. The one thing I will say is that the critiques that are brought against the state of Israel are never parallel by any critiques anywhere else. They're unique to the state of Israel.

You never see it brought on, like, obviously, if you get me going on this topic, it's incredibly annoying to me. And one of the things that makes it so incredibly annoying to me is that now that Israel is at the top of the news, which has been since October 7th, I talk about Israel a lot. I spent my entire career not talking about Israel, literally my entire career. If you go back through the first show, through show number, whatever it was on October 9th, the amount of time that I spent talking about Israel was, I am sure, less than 1% of the total runtime of my show. But now you're going to well under 1%. And then I start talking about the thing that literally is on the front pages every single day, and critiques are brought against me personally that

would not be brought against people who are Christian who say the exact same things. And there I find something peculiar. Unless it's a Catholic defending the Pope, right? Unless it's where you can invoke dual loyalty. There's something tragically comic about the fact that the Jews are in position. As you say, every country, every great nation, every great empire was built on conquest. Somewhere along the line, somebody conquered somebody. So the Jews are in the position of having to do what you do at the beginning of a society,

but because much of their leadership is European-based, they actually have the mindset of people later on in society when they start to say stupid stuff, like maybe women should have power too. And maybe we should feel guilty about killing our enemies. You know, those are things. Those are late stage civilizational things, but they're in a kind of first stage civilizational moment. It's kind of tragic comic.

Yeah, yeah. I need some advice. Is it off-putting if the girl asks the guy out? Off-putting to the guy, I suppose? Yeah. I would imagine this as a girl saying, Yes. Is it a problem if I ask a guy out?

Yeah. That's got to be with this question. I never responded all that well to it. It actually happened on a few occasions. Good for you, dude. Yeah, thank you. I'm boasting. Just a little humble brag right there to drop the, you.

But it actually, I'm trying to think, because my gut instinct says, no, that'd be great, ladies. If I'm single, ask me out. But no, actually, when it happened, I did not like it. There's a way to do it, though. There's a way to do it. I mean, how hot are we talking here? That's so principle. You have no principles.

It would be a total deal killer to me if a woman proposed marriage. Oh, yeah, for sure. Total deal killer. But if a gal came up to you and said, hey, you know, blah, blah, blah, blah, we ought to grab a drink sometime or whatever. As a way of- Party I'm going to. Yeah, breaking the ice or something, you know, or in some cases maybe the girl knows that the guy's a little shy. And I think that there's an appropriate, there's an appropriate version of that.

The problem with asking, the problem with a woman proposing, though, is now you've broken whatever. those ices are early. Now you have to be in a position of actually agreeing to the institution of marriage, which is agreeing to a form of male headship over the family. Yeah. So it is, it is a kind of perversion of a woman. Could you imagine? Also, let's be real about this. A man entering into a marriage is generally making a decision that males are hesitant to make. Right. Yeah. Where women entering into a marriage is a decision that women are generally very eager to make. Generally. Like that doesn't mean true in every certain circumstance, but that is generally the way the math works. Men are giving up the field of women for this one woman, and that is a very,

very important decision, obviously. And women, because they're not driven by the same impulses, have found the person they wish to hire children with. So of course they want to get married. So if they're saying to the man, do you want to get married to me, that's a form of pressure. That's not actually a form of proposal. When a man says that to a woman, he's offering her a thing that she wants. It's not, it's generally speaking. How dare you? How dare you? Forbin. During your first book club, you mentioned a dystopian sci-fi novel you had written would soon be published. Did you scrap it, or do you still plan to go ahead with it? That's for Jeremy.

I mean, so I did write, in fact, a dystopian sci-fi novel. It's been done for like two years or something. I think it's sent it to you, Drew. I like that. Yeah, Drew was kind enough to pretend he liked it. And, you know, like, maybe we'll do something with it, or maybe we won't. It'll go alongside the other two complete books. Ben writes books sometimes, Scots.

This question's for me. So you redesigned the men's razor. Are you doing the same for the women's razor? Indeed, we are. We will have a brand new women's razor. Hopefully in time for the holidays, it's different and kind than the men's razor. I think one of the problems with the original women's razor that we released is that it was very similar to the men's razor. And women's shaving needs are different than men's. So the lies. The razor we're going to release acknowledges those differences. For the whole group, what is the end game? If all of these, nefarious characters are trying to bring down the country, what do they stand to gain? This country makes them rich. I can't imagine another country would offer them the same possibilities. I'll offer my thoughts, and then I'll let everyone go around and answer this question. I think that you start from the assumption that politics are fundamentally rational. And I don't think that they

are fundamentally rational. I think that they're driven fundamentally by the spiritual, and that it is the nature of man. We can argue about what the pope said about man being fundamentally good or what and he was right or what luther said about man being or calvin about man being depraved i think they're both right as bishop baron as bishop baron pointed out today on x by the way but at the end of the day man in his sin tries to accumulate material wealth to himself he tries to accumulate power to himself he tries to advance his needs, his wants, his ego. He tries to wheel and deal. He tries to get laid. I mean, you really can't imagine how much of human history has been driven just by some guy in power

trying to get laid. Yeah, yeah. I mean, so much of what happens in politics does not happen in a purely rational way. People will vote against their interests. Of course they will. You can't believe how much happens out of ideology, which is things that people believe are true that aren't. And so they'll do something that harms them that they thought would help them. All of this is always at play in any institution in any institution that involves human beings. And so I just think you can't reduce our politics down to science. It is like every other aspect of the human experience. It's a projection of underlying spiritual truths. And people are kind of a spiritual train wreck. Yeah, I would say it's a little bit out like asking what do, what does someone gain from

revenge. Well, they gain revenge. They gain revenge. They gain it for its own sake. And that's basically what's happening here. You've got a lot of people that have told themselves a story where they are the victims and they have all these forces victimizing them and they seek to destroy those forces just to destroy them because they feel like it's the right thing to do. And they have this instinct of destruction. I don't think they've thought, to your point, I don't think they've thought, much farther ahead than that. Like, what happens next? What happens when you, and we talk about this all the time.

You know, they tear down things. They redefine things. They don't really redefine. They get rid of one definition, replace it with nothing. And so there is no, there is no, like, step two. It's just the step one of destruction, and that's it. So I'll break it down into, I think there are two distinct groups. And I think that one usually leads and then surrenders to the second.

So I think what you say about a certain group of people is totally true. Those are the revolutionaries. revolutionaries don't care what comes next. And the great lie they say is there's going to be utopia after they tear everything down. But all they really want to do is just burn things because they hate the system in which they live. And they have no idea for what comes next. But it's got to be better than this terrible thing that's victimizing me. I agree with you. That's a revolutionary group. Then you have the elites. And they're the ones who are the real mystery, right? Those are the people like the Joe Biden's of the world who have sat high on the hog for a very long time or the idiots in Hollywood or the people on Wall Street who support this whole agenda. What are they doing? And I think they're the answer. is that they believe falsely, as it turns out, that like elites do in nearly every society that ends up being transformed, that they can channel the passion of the revolutionaries into a gradualistic change in which they get to retain the levers of power, which is like the best of both worlds for them. They get to retain the elite status. They get to retain the money

and the power and all these things. All they have to do is harness the 1.21 gigawatts that is the college protesters, and they can use that power in order to forward the mission of making the world a gradually better place. And when you're in rooms with people like this, and I've been in a lot of rooms with people like this, that is how they talk. They talk about, not in revolutionary terms, but we together can make the world a better place. And there are people who are agitating on the outside. The arc of history begins toward justice. Right, exactly. And I think that when they say stuff like that, what they failed to recognize is they have no systemic immunity, they have no immune system to the revolutionaries when confronted with them,

which is why when you look at the college campuses in 1968, 1969, or even today, And you're like, why are these administrators just handing over the place to the revolutionaries? The answer is they agree with the revolutionaries. It's not that they're handing it over. They are the revolutionaries. They just don't have the balls or the willingness to give up what they have in terms of power in order to just join the group. And so when they're confronted with that reality, their own hypocrisy, they end up just surrendering full scale to the revolutionaries. Looking for a protein shake that tastes as good as it performs?

Meet rock and protein max. Packed with 50 grams of fuel. It'll help you keep up when your day won't slow down. And because it's always creamy and never chalky. Every sip tastes great. Even better, it's lactose-free and has zero added sugar. It's not every day you find a protein shake you actually want to finish. Catch rock and protein in the dairy cooler at a store near you.

Rock and protein and Shamrock Farms are registered trademarks of Shamrock Foods Company. I basically agree with Jeremy on this. I think that the things are, the Pope was utterly wrong. And the reason he was utterly wrong? Here comes the Calvinism. Here we go. No, it has nothing to do with Calvinism. It has nothing to do with Calvinism.

It's because he wasn't saying what all the slaves. Catholics who want to prove him right say he was saying. He was talking about people's behaviors. He was not talking about the creation being good. He was saying that he said, he said we were all sinners. He said, he said, you have the occasional sinner and wrote. Afterward, but before he said, but he said, but the thing is, this thing is, everything ends up being a post-dacto-clarification. It's Jesuitical. This is the thing. The thing that I saw in Hollywood is that people who think they are good usually have not had the offer of, Sex, money, and power.

And sex, money, and power on the table, I would say about 85% of people will sell every principle they have. And so once you have the power, I think a lot of these people are just capturing the flow. I think Joe Biden is a perfect example. I mean, the guy's a weather vane, but he thinks he's capturing the flow. He does. The guys who are dangerous are guys like Obama. I think Obama is actually, in some ways, has far more integrity than Joe Biden. Because he's a believer.

He believes that we're a bad country and that we're the problem. and that's why he wanted to realign us with Iran. Barack Obama is the least cynical, evil president who did the most cynical thing to get reelected. Yeah, I agree. You know, it pains me to say that I agree with everyone, even Drew spouting this Calvinist nothing. But especially I agree with your point, Jeremy,

that even bringing up the Pope, who my brief defense of the Pope, which I'm obligated to do as a duly loyal, is it seems to me what he's saying is, man, God doesn't make anything evil. So God makes man and the whole creation good, but man abuses his free will and sins and sin and death pervade the world. And so now we end up in this spot where there's concupiscence and all, and we're all just going to like sell everything for sex and money and everything. But to know what the end game is, you have to have some sense of the nature

and the final end of man. And so, you know, I have a sense of it. I think we all have basically, roughly the same sense of it, you know, pretty close at least. And for a lot of people, though, especially for our liberal friends, they have a very different sense. They deny original sin, and they deny heaven and hell. So they're actually, they disagree with us on both the nature and the end of the end. And where we're going. Exactly. Yeah. So then what's in that? We're all in the same page. People are inherently good and the kingdom of heaven can be made here on earth by my hands. Yep. Yep. Yeah. The most fundamental, the most fundamental conservative belief is the belief that original sin is original sin and that only God can

redeem, can redeem what's fallen. Like that, that really is the, the heart of the whole thing and the left, every ism of the left is an attempt to redefine what is original sin, even, even libertarianism. And I have a lot of libertarian, lowercase, L, libertarian tendencies in my theology and in my politics. But libertarianism just says that original sin is coercion. Yeah. Just like socialism says that the original sin is, or communism, it's class, it's socialism, it's the means of production, et cetera. Yeah. Like they've all just come up with a, if this hadn't happened, everything would be good.

Right. Yes. And if we can overcome that, everything will be good. And the view of the men at this table with very important and notable theological distinctions between Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Jewish perspectives. I mean, there are places where we wildly disagree. But at a sort of fundamental level, we'd say, no, original sin is the thing that actually happened in the Garden of Eden. and the thing that man and his free will perpetuates,

and there is no one doing that by man. No thing that we accomplish as a society will change fundamentally what human beings are, and that ultimate redemption is in the hands of God, and for the Christian it's accessed by way of the cross of Christ. And for the Catholic, it's got something to do with the cross of Christ. It used to have something to do with the cross of Christ. but now, no, the thing that Protestant and Catholic agree, of course, is that the redemption of man

is not in the hands. It's not man's problem to solve. It's man's problem. Yeah. At some point, we're going to have to do a seminar on, like, just the people with the religious differences on, like, the first couple of chapters of Genesis, because it really is fascinating. Like, the Jewish take is pretty different on some of this stuff. It ends up in much the same place. Well, I was careful to be inclusive of you. When I said that man perpetuates that sense, then through his free will choices. Yes, yes. I understand that we don't agree on the forward transmission of original sin.

No, no, actually, I was going to argue with the original sin part, meaning there's widespread sort of dissension inside Orthodox Jewish texts about whether human beings were made good in the Garden of Eden and then brought sin about through the sin or whether human beings were always conflicted. And then they brought sin about because, and they didn't bring sin about. they sinned by eating from the tree because what that sin was, was supplanting their own conception of what the world should be for what God's conception of what the world should.

Oh, that's my view. Right. I mean, so, yeah, I think that it's what that's not. No, I think, I think the important thing is that when you put us all together, our basic beliefs, we're right. I mean, we are, we are provably right about the nature of mankind. Yes, people are really, people can be really, really bad. That's, that's, that's, and this notion that people are naturally wonderful and tend toward the good.

Yeah. Like, in their actions. that's false. Like they, the, what, call it, concupiscence,

call it the Yates or Harrah in Judaism, call it sinful nature of man and cal, whatever you call it. Right. Human beings are, take a room full of people

and they are not going to naturally do the good thing because of all of whatever you call. And no curing any, one particular flaw of man will lead to a utopian. No system will. No system.

I will close with this thought for you, though, which is that in my personal view of the garden, it's not that man was sinful, per se or virtuous per se based on his actions or choices or predilections from the moment of creation. It's that righteousness by God was defined and declared by himself. He made it. He made man just exactly how man was, naked and dumb and tripping over rocks in the garden and lonely and prone to who knows what kind of bad behaviors if it had all played out. That wasn't the definition of what

was good to God. God defined his creation as good based on his own declaration. And the temptation of man was the temptation to judge whether or not God was right. It was to supplant God as the moral authority, as the judge. And so I don't believe that man got worse when he ate. It's not that I think his behavior got worse. It's that I think he, the deal that he made with the devil in some ways, the devil was lying with truth. He did suddenly see his nakedness. He did suddenly see his failure to measure up to God. Whereas before that, the question of whether he measured up to God wasn't even on the table. Which is why you like this. He was God made him and said he was good and that was good That's why I should read the Bible in the original Hebrew.

The word for cleverness and the word for nakedness are the same word. It's a room. That's an exact word in Hebrew. Yeah. At any rate, we could probably fix it if we just vote for the right guy. Thank you guys for hanging out with us here at Daily Wire backstage. We're going to do another one eventually. And please head on over to Amazon.com.

Buy your second gen. Jeremy's Razors. We'd really appreciate it. Support all of the sponsors from today's show, Helix Sleep, and Birch Gold. and go over and become a subscriber if you're not one now. If you are, thank you again. We'll see you guys next time.