The Michael Knowles Show - "You Are HYPOCRITES!" Michael Knowles MANSPLAINS: Hot Women In Commercials

Episode Date: September 19, 2026

Michael Knowles is joined by four female guests to hash out the debate on everyone's mind: what's the deal with Sydney Sweeney? 🌹 Subscribe to Leftist Blondie here: https://youtube.com/@LeftistBlondie X — https://twitter.com/LeftistBlondie 🌻 Subscribe to Tilly Middlehurst here: https://youtube.com/@blondepraxis X — https://twitter.com/blondepraxis 🌷 Subscribe to Justice Hope Kuehl here: https://youtube.com/@justicekuehl Justice’s book “Feminist to Feminine” is available here: https://a.co/d/0bp8CReU 🌺 Subscribe to Emily Saves America here: https://youtube.com/@emilysavesamerica X — https://twitter.com/emilysavesusa And also Emily’s show with Priya Patel "Pretty Political" https://youtube.com/@PrettyPoliticalPod - - - DailyWire: Become a Daily Wire Member and watch all of our content ad-free: https://get.dailywire.com/infidels 40% off annual plans with code FIGHT 🍿 Run Hide Fight: Infidels is now available! Exclusively at Daily Wire: https://www.dailywire.com/videos/run-hide-fight-infidels 📲 Download the free Daily Wire app today on iPhone, Android, Roku, Apple TV, Samsung, and more. 📘 My book "Speechless: Controlling Words, Controlling Minds" is available here: https://dwplus.shop/Speechless 📗 My book "Reasons to Vote for Democrats: A Comprehensive Guide" is available here: https://dwplus.shop/ReasonsToVoteForDemocrats 🕯️ Get your Michael Knowles candles: https://thecandleclub.com/collections/michael-knowles 👕 Don’t dress like a squish. Shop my merch here: https://dwplus.shop/MichaelKnowlesMerch - - - Socials: YouTube — https://youtube.com/@MichaelKnowles Facebook — https://www.facebook.com/michaelknowlesshow Instagram — https://www.instagram.com/michaeljknowles TikTok — https://www.tiktok.com/@notmichaelknowles X — https://twitter.com/michaeljknowles - - - Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Okay, fellas, since Hollywood can't do anything right anymore, we did their job for them. The Daily Wire's newest movie is an ode to the great funny action films of the 80s and 90s. Good guys win, bad guys lose. No one apologizes for it. Check out run, hide, fight infidels. Now streaming only on the Daily Wire. Tired of your car insurance rate going up even with a clean driving record, you're not alone. That's why there's Jerry, your proactive insurance assistant. Jerry compares rates side by side from over 50 top insurers and helps you switch with ease. Jerry even tracks market rates and alerts you when it's best to shop. No spam calls,

no hidden fees. Drivers who save with Jerry could save over $1,300 a year. Switch with confidence, download the Jerry app or visit jerry.a.i slash wire. Who says Halloween only lasts one day? With Wayfair, one night of Halloween becomes a whole season at home. From larger than life yard decor and moody lighting to festive accents for every room in the house. Wayfair has what you need to make Halloween feel like magic all in one place. Because the best Halloween memories aren't made in just one night. They're made all season long. Shop Halloween decor now at Wayfair.com.

That's W-A-Y-F-A-I-R.com. Wayfair, every style, every home. Am I misogynistic left as blondeie? I think you're misogynistic for many different reasons. I like seen hot white women. I'm not going to cheer that people are watching more straight pornography than gay pornography. It is fundamentally hypocritical of Michael to applaud a naked advertisement as they stepped toward a conservative America. I got in big trouble the other day and not just with my wife, with you, the beloved audience, because Sidney Sweeney made a sports commercial.

And in it, she was not wearing very much clothing and she was covering various parts of herself with footballs and basketballs and things like that. And I pointed out that the Sydney Sweeney half-naked pro-gambling commercial is actually probably, on the whole, a positive development in our culture. I'm not saying it's perfect. I'm not saying that we're pro nudity or gambling or any of the like, but given where the culture was, I said that was probably a change generally in the right direction. I was pilloried, ripped apart in the comment section. The libs are upset. The feminists are upset. The conservatives and the trads are upset. So I decided I needed to invite a bunch of women on to tell me why I'm wrong. And those women are. Tilly Middlehurst, leftist blondeie. Welcome back to the program. Emily saves America here as always.

And Justice Hope Keel. Ladies, thank you for being on. Wonderful to be with. Thank you all for wearing clothing, by the way, because that's a big part of the controversy here. I just want to go down the line. Sydney Sweeney commercial Love it Hate it Think it's kind of bad But generally good for the culture Where right down the line

What's your opinion? Left is Blondie Sure Well I suppose you made this comment About thank you for wearing clothes I think however your opinion Would be that if we didn't It would be some great move for conservatism

But I think that when we Have to start out by saying My culture is not your costume Michael you don't get to You know Poopped sexual liberation just to own the lives. It goes completely against your Catholic doctrine,

I think, first of all. The left's job, as far as the feminist and the liberals being upset, is to critique systems that they think are harmful. And that's what they're doing. Now, they're doing it for the wrong reasons, I believe, and we can talk about that later.

But I do think that the real harm in this that people are overlooking is the promotion and the weaponizing of women's bodies as objects for class and for money and for gambling. So I think that's the real issue, and we can, you know, the male gaze. Now, just one point in response to what you said.

You said, Michael, I'm surprised, given your opinion of the Sydney-Sweeney ad, that you aren't encouraging us all to be naked. No, no, no, that would be a bad change for my show. The Michael Null's show, this is a PG show, a family program. We do not have naked women on. So if I went from clothed women to naked women, that would be a change in the wrong direction on my show. But for the pop culture, which is deeply pornographic and obscene all the time,

to me, at least, this kind of attractive, little immodest advertising of a beautiful woman is better than the recent, what we've seen for the last 10 years, immodesty, where the advertising is all like gargantuan men of androgyny wearing dresses. Anyway, let's keep going down the line. What's your opinion of the Sydney Sweeney ad? Yeah, I mean, I don't think it's fundamentally something different or unique comparative to what we've seen before in the culture. I do think that it is fundamentally hypocritical of Michael to applaud a naked advertisement as they step toward a conservative America when in his

world, I have read your book, Michael, under blasphemy law, Sydney is not only shame, she's also fined and blamed for men's loss. I mean, you can say that you're happy she's a registered Republican. You can say that you're happy she's a naked registered Republican. Those are all fine positions, but I think the only naked conservative woman you should truly be so happy to see is, of course, your wife. Yes, I think that's fair. And you may have misspoke. in my ideal regime, she would not have violated a blasphemy law. She would have violated an obscenity law. But I do want the obscenity laws too.

Yes. Yes. Okay. All right. Next one. Bring it on. Come on. Hypocrite, vile misogynist, whatever you want to call me.

Bring it on. My take is a little bit less, you know, I'm not going to call you hypocrite. Thank you. I do slightly disagree with you. I think I get what you're saying. Incrementally, this is like a better direction to be headed. But I think that the principle of double effect applies here. Like doing something wrong for the sake of somehow creating a good outcome is still something wrong.

And she's still naked on TV on our screens. She's still preventing sexuality in a context outside of what it was designed for, which is in the context of marriage. Our sexuality is powerful. It is beautiful. It is eye-catching. And it was meant and created to exist in a specific context. And that context is not on TV for every man to come across online. I'm a mother of a little boy.

I don't want him going online in seeing naked Sidney-Sweeney or naked anybody else. But I also think as a conservative Christian, it's really important that we approach our response to her charitably and with love, that we make sure that we are differentiating between calling out a wrong behavior and putting a label on her as a person. like this is who you are i was miss tennessee usa years ago i was on national television in the bikini so some people could look at me and be like this is really ironic that you're like here saying this um my heart has changed since then the lord has done amazing work in my life since then i knew him then and i hope that i know him better now and um i've grown and matured and i was also in my early 20s and i'm in my 30s now and so i think that we want to leave space for people also to grow and for the

Lord to develop them. And so I think that's a really important part of all of this, is having a charitable perspective towards her as well. Yeah, I think that's true. And you bring up bikinis, I would go further, even though I'm kind of mildly defending the Sydney-Sweeney ad, or I'm at least trying to look on the bright side of it. I'm anti-bikini, too. You know, the bikini didn't exist until the 40s, and it violated all sorts of public indecency laws, and I think it should. And it would be, it would be better, actually, if we did not have bikinis out today. Now, Sydney-Sweeney, She's half naked in this ad. She's not going the full Monty, but, you know, it's pretty suggestive.

She leaves very little to be imagined. Imagination, yes. There's very little left to the imagination, yeah. And it's not good. People who want to keep custody of their eyes, probably not good to see that ad. So, okay, incrementally, yes, okay, there's this issue. Final thought, Emily Saves America, pro-anti-Sweeney ad. I love it.

She's hot. If anyone had that body, they would also. be showing it. It's sex and gambling, the two things that sell. She got the exact reaction she wanted. I like seeing hot white women back on top. She looks amazing. No one can argue that. The only people are that are upset. And I understand, you know, the fake tried can serve as a, oh, no, this is so bad. It's actually a net positive. Okay. And then the other people are upset are the women writing the articles who are unfortunate looking, usually overweight and jealous. And you know what? If it was a fat black girl or someone trans or someone with one arm

or an indigenous person, they'd be so excited for her. Hold that thought. Appropos of nothing, go watch the Daily Wire's new movie Run High Fight, Infidels. We cannot run or hide from what is coming. We have to fight. I will be rewarded 10,000 times in the next life. When you die, You're nothing. Run-eye fight infidels, only on the daily wire. Okay, so this I think is what really motivates, at least my reaction to the advertisement, is the fact that for the last 10 years, it's like fat, pygmy, multi-ethnic, androgynous,

they-them men who are wearing lingerie in a Victoria's Secret ad. And the popular culture tells us not just merely to look at that kind of perverse obscenity, but to say that it's beautiful and to dare us to in any way contradict the idea that that's beautiful when it obviously is not. So when you get back to the critique that leftist blonde he was just making, you say your problem with this is that it attracts the male gaze, basically, that it uses women's physical beauty in order to sell products. And so I see that feminist issue. The Trad problem with it, which also was just mentioned, is that it presents sex outside of marriage. No, it's not, not actual sex. Like she's not, you know, bumping uglies on screen or anything, pardon the expression.

But, you know, it nevertheless portrays this sexual image and it appeals to the prurieran interest. There's no question. But I guess my point is advertising has always played on these kinds of things. One of the feminist critiques of Sweden's ad is that this is not what female sports is about. Women in sports are about, you know, physical prowess and excelling in games and whatever. I guess my point, though, is sports is about the body. Mathematics is about the mind. Sports is about the body. But to left as Blondie's point, when you say this is using women's bodies to appeal to this basic kind of male gaze, I guess that is the part that I would defend as an improvement over the previous idea. Because I want to return to a culture that is modest, that does not promote gambling. We haven't even really touched on the gambling part of the whole thing. But where we are right now, where we are right now, is we're told that we have to lie about how even the base desires of human nature work, even that appeal to the prurian interest, even what does appeal to our lusty aspects. And so it seems to me that if we're moving from that culture of lies to the culture that

actually gets human nature right, that says that, yeah, men like pretty thin blonde girls with large personality, that is an improvement because we're at least grounding our advertising in the truth. And you can't move to the perfect world until you at least get to that middle ground. Am I, am I misogynistic, Leftist Blondie? I think you're misogynistic for many different reasons. But I think you have very, very, you know, done a good job at misunderstanding the critique that I was levying there.

The critique was not that women cannot make themselves into sexual beings. It's not that they can't express their sexualities in the ways that they desire. It's about the end goal of it being used as a political bludgeon to say, We get to own the libs now and we also get to promote gambling, this thing that disenfranchises young adults and teens. The younger men, especially, men are two to one or about 3.4 to 1 times as likely as women to engage in gambling. People who are low income, people who have substance use disorders are more prone to addiction and especially with things like gambling. So if you want to say like this is the issue of the left is like it's diminishing women's sports. I don't think that any reasonable interpretation of the ad is that Sidney Sweeney is here to sell you women in sports.

Sydney Sweeney is here to sell you sex in order to get you to opt into gambling for sports. So it's completely uncharitable interpretation. But I do. I have a question. I want to clarify it. So you just said, Michael, you've misinterpreted what I'm saying. I am not saying that women shouldn't use their sexuality in any way that they choose. What I'm saying is Sydney Sweeney should not have used her sexuality.

in the way that she chose because it advances things that you object to. So isn't that a contradiction? No, it's not a contradiction. Unless you want to point it out to me, you can syllogize it if you'd like to, but it's not a contradiction. The point is that the end goal is bad. So I can say maybe I have a really charismatic personality. Now, we of course all in this panel probably disagree with that. But if I use my charismatic personality to, oh, thank you. I appreciate it. But if I use my charismatic personality to sell someone cocaine, I think I'm doing something wrong. No way. is interpreting Sini Sui's physique. But hold on, then I want to just establish,

then it seems like your major premise is wrong. And there I think I would agree with you. It seems like what you're saying is, no, no, no, women should not be using their sexuality in any way that they so choose. There are some ways that are good, and there are some ways that are bad. And we might disagree over the good and bad ways,

but you're saying it's bad to promote it in a way that sells sex to normie men and sells gambling. So what you're saying, it seems to me, if you're critiquing Sydney Sweeney is, hey, girl, you should not use your sexuality in this way. You should use your sexuality in a way that I approve of. Of course. I think that people should use their sexuality in ways that I approve of. I don't think that people who have certain sexualities that are aggressive towards other people or sexualities that are geared towards moral things should be doing. Of course not.

Okay. So the thing is not to say that a woman being sexual. No, of course not. The problem was not about the autonomy of. It was about the promotion of gambling, which harms people. And it's a tool to uphold class status. Okay. Sniii is far more about class than she does about, you know, sexualizing her body. So the problem isn't the sex. The problem is the gambling.

Of course, absolutely. Okay, all right. The sex is a tool. The sexual appeal is the tool to the end goal of getting people to gamble. So the sex isn't the problem. But I think the rest of the ladies on the panel, well, not Emily Saves America, but the other two ladies on the panel would say that the problem is the sex more than it is the gambling. Do I have that right?

I don't know that I'd say more than the gambling. To be honest, I haven't even thought about the gambling part. I saw the ad and I was like, this is so offensive. Just her being naked, I know that she's got stuff covering vital areas. She might as well be naked. Yeah, she's basically naked, mostly naked on screen. And I think that is, that's the problem with the ad, if you will. What then comes from the ad, there's more things, you know, gambling and,

Who knows what else will come from the ad? I don't know. But the ad itself, the problem that I have with it is her nakedness, the sexuality. Here I guess is my problem with that critique, which I agree with. You know, at a principle level, I agree with you. But it seems to me that given where we are in the culture, and given that our culture is filled with people who think exactly like leftist blondie, which is that there should be absolutely no limit whatsoever to the use of one's sexuality as such, that living in that culture, we are not going to go from that to the victim. age. We're not going to go from that to like the ladies shouldn't show a little ankle to sell bow ties or something. You know, we, we're, there has to be some kind of intermediate stage.

And so I'm willing to say, just as Irving Crystal said two cheers for capitalism instead of three, I'm willing to say two or even maybe one cheer for the hot Sydney Sweeney ad, because at least it's, would you at least agree it's moving us in the right direction or no? You think it's moving us further down the wrong direction of pruriance and vice? Yeah. I think that's. the problem because people are just redirecting it's still sexual sin so we're just redirecting the sexual sin into a different sin it's like i'm not going to cheer that people are watching more straight pornography than gay pornography even though i think that homosexual relationships are the biological norm and

how god created us to function i'm not going to celebrate oh yay like more people are watching straight it's an interesting thing to look at culturally this is but this is what i'm asking let's say we say it's all bad, you know, porn is just bad, and gambling is bad too in most cases. Okay, well, I think about my main man, Dante Alegieri, who's listing all of the sins in the inferno. And there's the sin of lust, there's Palawan Francesca being blown around on the winds of their own lust and their inability to discipline themselves. But then further down in hell, that is a more serious sin, would be the sins of like homosexual sodomy and other kinds of, even other kinds of sexual sins, and then there are many worse sins than that.

So because a guy being attracted to a hot blonde chick holding a couple of footballs in front of her chest, because that is more natural, that is more in line with natural and potentially well-ordered desires than say homosexuality or throuples or trans or whatever, then I think you would even have to agree that is necessarily an improvement.

Even if it's all bad, it's still better than the alternative. Yeah, and I would say, it feels more conservative than what we're used to seeing like you guys were talking about where there's this sort of forced, we're trying to force a narrative that like everybody is equally attractive biologically, everybody, you know, and you can just be attracted to anybody or anything. Yeah, it's going to feel more conservative than that, but it's still not conservative. Okay, but Emily, you're taking a different view even than that. Emily, your view is she's hot, she's blonde, she's white. She's all the things, she's a woman. She's all the things that you're not allowed to be for the last 10 years.

Exactly what I want to see. Let's just let's just dumb this down for everyone that will be potentially listening. We're going back to the OG 90s when you used to see NASCAR. All the girls were hot, blonde bombshells. They had big tits. They were nice to look at. Sorry, no one's arguing with that. So of course it's a win. If I'm going to watch someone on TV and they're going to promote sex and gambling, God bless her. She's great to look at, even as a straight woman. So, of course, it's a win. Do I want to see her or do I want to see a trans indigenous person with their balls hanging out on TV promoting it? Yes, this is a win for all of us.

At least it's not, you know, burning our eyeballs off, which is what I've been used to, being shoved down my throat for, I don't know, 10 years now. It's a win across the board. They're going to promote sex and gambling whether we like it or not. No, though it does occur to me, as you're making this point, which I'm basically inclined to agree with, it does occur to me if they had some big fat indigenous man wearing lingerie, that would probably be better for my soul than Sidney Sweeney because I'm not attracted to the big, fat, ugly, indigenous man. It doesn't arouse me in the way that a good-looking lady wearing very little clothing potentially could. But on your broader point where you say, look, the 90s are back, I think you are totally right. You are hitting the nail on the head here.

What we are looking at is 90s liberalism. And the left hates it because they thought they'd moved past 90s liberalism. For them, Bill Clinton is basically Edmund Burke at this point. They're playing around with like Hassan Piker and all these radical leftists. So they don't want to deal with that. And then the conservatives say, well, hold on. We didn't really like 90s liberalism that much either. You know, we did impeach Bill Clinton for sexual sins.

and the 90s were not the peak of human civilization. And I also agree with that. I think there are some people on the right who say, we don't want to go back to the 50s, we don't want to go back to the 1220s, which is what I would prefer to go back to. We want to go just back to the 90s, leave it there, it was all good.

Is that your position, or is your position that the 90s were a good intermediate stage to go back to, say, I don't know, the mores of the Carolingian era? I like the 90s. I miss supermodels. They're supposed to be skinny. They're supposed to be pretty.

They're supposed to be interesting looking. I like the Victoria's Secret Angels. And by the way, as a woman, it gave me motivation to level up. And it should give all women motivation to level up. Like the whole point is you're not supposed to look like everyone. It's supposed to be almost unattainable. That's what makes them special. But we gave everyone, including all the fat, ugly short women, you know, trophies for existing.

And we were like, yeah, let's celebrate everyone. Let's not. Let's celebrate the people that are naturally gifted. And Sidney's Sweeney's one of them. And the only people, like I said, that have an issue with it, are very unfortunate people. And I don't really care what they say. And the women on the left, no one hates women more than other women and specifically women on the left. I mean, left is balmy.

You talk about women being exploited. It's women who exploit themselves. They're selling their vagina online, they're prostituting themselves, they're posting naked online. We're blaming the men. it's the women choosing to be prostitutes and exploit themselves for the most part now. Well, women are the consumers, but it is true that all women hate each other. That's like a sociological fact, very well established. So we've brought up Edmund Burke.

We've brought up Dante. And now I think we need to bring up René Girard, because you make another good point, which is that it's not just about the effect of Sidney Sweeney on men, but also on women that were creatures of memetic desire. And so when a woman sees like, you know, perversity and ugliness all around them, they're going to make themselves more perverse and ugly, which is what a lot of the millennials did for the 20 teens. And, you know, they just, like, would pierce themselves everywhere, get a bunch of crazy tattoos. And so now if we have, like, really good-looking women, maybe they'll start to desire that and to shape themselves into that.

What is your take, Tilly? Is that we've now got the fullest defense of Sidney Sweeney, which is this is good for men. This is good for women, actually. It's good for everybody involved. You disagree. Yeah, I mean, I sort of sit in the middle here. I don't have a particular issue with the ad itself, but I do think this is ultimately why both Michael and Emily are not real conservatives, right?

I think you guys are representative of a syncretistic reactionary movement that spawned very recently and ought not to be trusted. I'm much more interested in the discourse that sprung from the ad itself. And I think we can say something about asymmetry here. For example, Sabrina Carpenter, we can probably agree she's an attractive, blonde, white woman in sort of conventional terms, as in she's objectively beautiful. I think that she does a lot more and absorbs a lot of hatred from the right. for her licentiousness because she is sexy liberally.

She is sexy leftistly. She says that men are bad while she takes her clothes off. Sidney Sweeney, she's been assigned this political value, and by all accounts, she possesses that to some degree herself. So her body is read as ideological by both sides of that spectrum too. And so her nakedness is nakedness conservatively, which is in sorts, I think that this is ultimately an oxymoron. I think that there is no world in which it logically follows

to say that this woman is naked in an advertisement, or even a white beautiful woman is naked in an advertisement, I don't think that leads to the West is becoming more Christian or more conservative. Because if a beautiful white leftist woman were naked in an ad, you would probably raise the alarm bells about degenerate cultural Marxism or even suggest that she's perverting the minds of men outside the West, causing them to view white women as promiscuous and sexual. So I just see a lot of hypocrisy on both sides here.

I don't think that we need any help leading people to conclude that white women in the West are being promiscuous and obscene. I think there's been a lot of precedent for, that already. The charge, though, that you're leveling at me, I think you're misinterpreting because I am not in any way suggesting that the advertisement is conservative. I am not in any way suggesting that I would promote it. In the Michael Pauldy, all of those advertisements would be illegal. They would be punished by the law. So I'm not suggesting that at all. I am not a libertarian. I do not want to return to the 90s. I want to return to the 890s or the 990s. I want to

return to a period before William of Ockham, okay? However, I think where we disagree is not on syncretism of ideology, it's on the paramount political virtue, which is prudence. It's the practicality of how things are actually improved. So it seems to me, my only thought on the advertisement is that it represents a movement in the right direction from a cultural position that is very, very bad and the hour is very, very late. So do you disagree with that point? Do you, Do you think, in other words, that given where we are at our depraved, decadent stage of culture, do you think that the ad represents a movement of the culture getting worse or getting better, even at the most marginal level?

Yeah, I mean, I think that if I would just accept those beliefs as they come, and if I would argue from your own turf, I would say that Catholic moral teaching sort of always forbids doing evil so that good may come anyway. I mean, St. Paul rejects. I'm not encouraging it. I'm merely asking your interpretation of it. Does that represent the culture getting worse or getting better? I don't think it represents the culture moving in one way or another per se, because I don't think that the ad is particularly unique.

I think that we've always seen beautiful women take their clothes off for advertisements in order to sell things. I think that that's something that we can all find common ground on, using our eyes to understand that this is something that continues to happen and happens even when fat people are also in advertisements. Well, hold on. If this doesn't represent a cultural change, then why are people talking about this ad in particular? If your point is this is just business as usual, there's nothing interesting or novel about it, then why is it that this ad of a nice looking blonde

lady wearing, you know, very little selling gambling? Why is, why has that dominated the cultural discourse for a week now? Yeah, I mean, I think that what's unique about her is firstly, she's probably, and you can correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I think she's one of the only new generation of household names who is young, female and also a registered Republican. I think that that's unique about it. And I think it's also unique that she has the reach that she does. I think those two things create this cocktail of cultural discourse that people regurgitate and argue with and debate on those grounds. And I think that conservative commentators routinely condemn sexualized pop culture as proof of Western decline. And really the principle that makes this nudity redemptive for you and the other nudity degenerate is simply the fact that Sydney Sweeney is a Republican.

In which case, I'm happy to argue about what is that she's beautiful? Yeah, it's that she's beautiful. She's a Republican, I suppose. Yes, because I'm not saying the ad is redemptive. certainly wouldn't say that. But the reason I say that it's a change in the right direction, the reason I say that it's implausible, I think, that you say, oh, this is really business as usual, there's nothing interesting about it. Well, the entire internet disagrees. The entire internet seems to the thing it's pretty interesting. And I think it's really Emily's point. I think

what's interesting about it is we have not really seen good-looking, non-feminist, blonde women, just selling female beauty as such in advertising for 10 or 15 years now. I think that is what's really dominating the discourse about it. And so I would not say that that is redemptive. The beauty itself actually can be redemptive. So that's an interesting conversation separately. But nevertheless, the reason that we're talking about it is because something new has happened. And so if something new has happened, it's either improving or damaging the culture. And I think Emily's right insofar as she's saying, this is an improvement to the culture. That's my whole claim. It has nothing to do Sydney, Sweeney, being, Republican.

Because we're missing a big point on Sidney's reactions. She had the interview that went viral that turned into the meme where she's like, when I want to speak about something, you're going to hear my opinion. Because she shut it down with, I think it was an anti-white comment. I would be shocked if it was anything else. And then this, she posted on her Instagram stories, the photos of, you know, the lesbians naked, the black girls naked, everyone else naked and knowing how to problem. What we like about her is she is shifting the culture because she's doubling down.

She's not apologizing, and she's showing all the leftists their hypocrisy of like, oh, you guys weren't upset about these things. That is a big shifting culture. Yes, you know, let me liken it to another major culture war debate, which is the abortion debate, because the people who are attacking Sidney Sweeney from the right here and saying that this is actually a bad move for the culture, I think it's kind of like the abortion abolitionists who attack the pro-life movement. The argument from the abolitionists against the pro-life movement is that they're not going nearly far enough, they're not moving nearly quickly enough, they're not giving us perfect policy, and they'll even make moral arguments as the one that we just heard from Tilly, which is they'll say, well, look, we can never cooperate with evil in any way. So if I were governor of a state right now, if I were on the Supreme Court for that matter, and someone said, okay, we're going to overrule Roe v. Wade on the grounds that we're going to send the abortion decisions back to the states, which in some cases could even liberalize abortion.

I guess from a purely principled perspective, I could say, well, I'm not going to overrule Roe v. Wade then because I'm still cooperating with evil, because we'll still have abortion legal in the states. We might even expand abortion. So I'm not going to do that. Or if I were governor and I got a pro-life law across my desk and it said, we're going to get rid of 80% of abortions, but we're going to tolerate some abortions in the early stages and with exceptions for rape, incest, whatever. And so it would reduce the abortions tremendously, but it would still permit certain abortions. The purist would say, well, I can't do that. I'm cooperating with evil in some way. You're still killing babies. It's still fundamentally immoral. I'm not signing that legislation.

Get rid of all the abortions or give me nothing. At a less consequential level, I think that's what you're seeing with the Sweeney ad, which is, okay, well, if someone's going to be jiggling around half-naked on camera, I'd at least have them appeal to natural desires rather than unnatural desires. I don't think that's immoral or hypocritical or, I don't know, contrary to anyone's deep faith, is it? I have a question about this, actually. Okay. Yeah, my question is, is do you think that encouragement of another's grave sins is a grave sin in of itself? No, I would certainly would never encourage sin, but I would, I would applaud if people move from a graver sin to a less grave sin. In other words, if someone is caught in habitual vice and particularly

grave vice, I would, I would not immediately lambast them if, as they are moving from vice to virtue, they get caught in a little bit of incontinence or confusion over virtue and morality. I would encourage a movement in the right direction. Well, I don't suppose that the ad is doing anything like appealing to men who might not be heterosexual. So, I mean, the ad is clearly intended towards young heterosexual men to get young heterosexual men to gamble. So my question, once again, and I'll re-ask it, is the encouragement of a vice or complacency with a vice, like a moral sin? Is that itself a mortal sin? That was the question, Michael. No, well, you could fall into the sin of scandal, which is what I'm arduously attempting to avoid here by clarifying this position,

which is you say, okay, we got this advertisement that's promoting gambling and appealing to lust. and so that's bad. We don't want that. It'd be better if we could get rid of all of that. But given that condition, if we previously, for the last 10, 15 years had ads that were appealing, that we're selling gambling and appealing to lust by appealing to, I don't know, homosexuality or otherwise deviant sexual desires, and now we have one that is not doing that, but is appealing to a more natural form of sexuality, I would have to conclude that that is an improvement. So I'm not encouraging more advertisements like this. I'm merely observing and interpreting that that is a movement in the right direction. Now, Justice, you had a point.

Yeah, I think when we're talking about incrementalism as far as abortion goes, the way that you can look at passing an incrementalist law is that I'm reducing abortion by X amount. So there is a reduction in evil that's happening that's actually measurable versus saying I'm okay with abortion up until this point. For example, I live in a state where a heartbeat and went into effect immediately as soon as Ropee Wade was overturned. And that wasn't to say we're okay with abortion up until the heartbeat. It's to say we're limiting. We're placing limitation.

Of course, I want to ultimately see all abortion becoming legal across the whole nations. But when we're talking about this ad, I don't think that we can equate those two because it's still lust. lust is still lust and I think as Christians I'm Christian but killing babies is still killing babies

Yes but killing less babies Right we're reducing the severity of it But I guess that's my point on the advertisements Is if we live in a popular culture Which again spreads by my misis So when you get a few big corporations promoting a ton of weird stuff You get those same kinds of themes everywhere throughout

The all the small companies start promoting that too So I guess my point is if we've had advertising, which is objectionable on so many grounds, that has been promoting really, really unnatural stuff for the last 10 or 15 years. And now you're seeing major advertisers beginning to promote less on actually natural stuff, albeit imperfect. It seems to, I would view that as a kind of a pie chart, that the more natural, albeit objectionable advertising, is going to memetically crowd out the unnatural weirdo perverse advertising that Emily was just describing, for the last 10 or 15 years.

And so it seems to me that those comparisons are pretty apt because you are getting a reduction of the severity and the gravity of the sins, even though you're still in a substantially vicious and sinful kind of environment. Am I misreading that? I guess it depends on your take on the severity of different sins. I would say lust is a problem,

regardless of who or what you're lusting after. And a measurable number of abortions being reduced. So if like, you know, let's say instead of a thousand babies being killed, pin, that's better. Like, we saved, you know, 990 babies that way. There's not that same quantifiable, like, it's not like a reduction in lust. It's still lust. Well, I don't know. I mean, in other words, not to be too evocative about it, but if I have desires, if I willfully entertain desires about my wife that are contrary to morality, the sort of thing that really I need to confess, even though it's my wife, but I shouldn't be, you know, thinking of my wife and just as purely as an object of lust or something like that. That's bad. And it's a sin and I should confess it. But that is much less bad than if I were thinking about some other woman in that way or some man. And that would be way worse if I were thinking about some man in that way. Or a billy goat. That would be way worse than if I were even thinking about the man. So in other words, we can't just say that all impure thoughts are exactly the same. Some actually,

it seems to me, are less grave than others. Would you disagree with that? A good question. It's a good question. That's why I asked it. Okay. The producers are telling me, I have to leave it there. Ladies, it's wonderful to be with all of you.

Michael, do we have... One more minute. Yes. Okay. I would never say no to you, Emily. We're not even touching on a huge aspect, which is, of course, left-leaning women who are always upset, talking about they're upset about sports.

Okay? This is a mockery of women's sports. When did you guys start caring about women's sports? I saw you guys, first of all, can't even define a woman. And now you have men and women's sports, whooping women's asses, taking their trophies, literally crushing their schools. And little girls, I've seen interviewed in real life on Fox News being like, yeah, they're just coming in. And like, I just, I don't know what to do anymore. Moms are crying.

So I'm like, oh, so now all of a sudden, they care about women's sports and they want to take it seriously after letting men once again dominate us. I'm out. Emily out. I totally agree. I couldn't have said it better myself and I certainly wouldn't have said it as directly and devocatively. Women, ladies, always wonderful to be with you. Thank you. I think I've convinced all of you of my point of view. Is that right? Before I get an answer, we'll just say goodbye. I'm Michael and I'll see you next time. Oh yeah, sorry. I didn't get you. Before I let you go, ladies, where can people find you? Down the line. Left is blind. Left is blonde. All social media. I'm blonde practice is pretty much everywhere except Instagram where I'm Tilly with loads of else because I won't change that one. On Instagram, I'm Justice Hope Keel and I have a podcast that's on all podcast platforms and YouTube called With All Her Mind.

At Emily Saves America, absolutely everywhere. Everywhere. You see her everywhere. And you can see all of these ladies here on the Michael Noel show, for which I'm very grateful. See you all next time. Every significant movement in history has started with protesting. You're a traitor. Uncle Tom. This is our generation's civil rights.

I have no idea what the protest is about. Bingo. Given the current climate, should have figure as polarizing as place Saunders. You can be allowed on campus? Ah, can you hear me okay? Thonders is a close personal friend of Chancellor Friedman. This is a decision I cannot fight. Islam will conquer the West.

Islamu'aikum. Are we paying attention? They've taken over the building. They're downstairs and they've blocked the doors. I seek forgiveness from Allah, the Almighty. We cannot run and hide. Mohammed is the messenger of God. It is no God but Allah.

What do you say? We turn those SOBs into a fine red mist. As we move, one man will cover while the other guys go. They call that leapcrosy. Stretch them out and listen. You need a course in safe weapons handling.