Will Cain Country - Has America Reached the Breaking Point? (ft. Michael Malice)

Episode Date: September 2, 2026

Day 5 of deliberations, and still no verdict. What’s really going on inside the courtroom on the Lindsay Clancy case? Michael Malice, Author of 'UNWANTED: a Tall Tale of the Old West and the New Wave' and Host of "YOUR WELCOME," joins the show to help unpack how this case has hastened America’s slow descent into tribalism, before weighing in on the debate over Flock cameras. Plus, they react to another gem from Hunter Biden’s podcast circuit appearances: his claim that he's 48.6% gay.Subscribe to ‘Will Cain Country’ on YouTube here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch Will Cain Country!⁠⁠⁠Follow ‘Will Cain Country’ on X (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), Instagram (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), TikTok (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), and Facebook (⁠⁠⁠@WillCainNews)Follow Will on X: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Two and five Canadians will hear the words, you have cancer. That's why every step and dollar raised matters. On September 19th, join thousands in Toronto for the Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation Walk. Challenge yourself, friends, and family to walk 21 kilometers in support of life-saving research. Together, we can carry the fire and help create a world free from the fear of cancer. Register today at pmcfwalk.ca.ca. Don't you wish you could just hit skip on the worst parts of your life? You know, the same way you can skip an ad?

I get it. I'm Siaia and I live in Ice Cove. I've made some questionable decisions that didn't end up the way I planned. And today, I'm still figuring it out. Somehow things usually get worse before they get better. Apparently, that's how I roll. So bundle up and come along for the bumpy ride. Stream a new episode of North of North Tuesdays on CBC Gem.

America divided beyond the point of no return. Stupidity versus wisdom. From capitalism to Lindsay Clancy. Breaking it all down with Michael Malice on Wilcane Country. It's Wilcane Country streaming live at the Wilcane Country YouTube channel, the Wilcane Facebook page. But here, just hit follow at Spotify on Apple. We are today with the host of your welcome, Michael. malice, ten-fold pat, two-a-day stand. And I want to start with what is being described in

internet circles as a banger. There is, at times, just special, special ability to put together the perfect post. And sometimes they don't come from someone you've ever heard of. This post, moments before I came on air, I thought, needs to be recognized for its genius. Toad on X, the men on the Lindsay Clancy jury should keep mentioning how hot they think she is in order to reverse psychology the female jurors into hating Lindsay Clancy. Bravo, Toad. Bravo. Sometimes you don't meet force with equal force. Sometimes you realize how to play judo or jujitsu.

Something's going on and it is in fact and evidence. So maybe we need to figure out exactly how to deal. with the jurors and then the Clancy. And it's not fair, Mike. It's not fair. Maybe it's not 9-3. Maybe it's not all the female jurors against the three male jurors. Maybe that's not the breakdown.

Maybe, as Lauren Conley told me yesterday on the Fox News Channel, nobody's harder on women than women. And I think that's true, at least, when voting for president. I'm not sure it's true in the case of Lindsay Clancy. You asking from life you will? No, you're just a guest on the program. No. It's a no

There's a whole Brady bunch on the screen So I didn't know if I'm going to be Marsha If I'm going to be Jan I thought using your name You're the lead I thought like when I said Mike I didn't know what the name of the help was

So I thought maybe you were referring to them Wow The help Wait Michael Do you not know the name of the two other faces On the screen right now I can't really see Because I'm looking

One of his feelings I see Patrick I'm looking into a screen but everything's small. He knows Patrick's name. For a moment, I was not prepared to deal with how crestfallen Patrick was going to be. If Michael Malice doesn't know tinfoil pad,

Greg, it's fine. Let's talk about, Greg, let's talk about Lindsay Clancy. I think the mischaracterization some people are making and not saying you is they think that necessarily these two or three jurors, are saying this woman should walk. Now, I think there's a panoply of options to my understanding of what she can be convicted into what degree. And my understanding, again, is that there might be a dispute as to, is this murder one? Is this manslaughter? Is this insanity? What I don't, if I could take a step back and talk about this case, every so often the media finds some case

that they glom onto, and then it becomes incumbent upon everyone in America to pretend that they're on the jury and become fixated on it and to have the correct opinion. And if you don't have the correct opinion, somehow you're a bad person. Let me take it back to the Renee Good case, for example. It is my view, and it's also the law, that if someone is fleeing a crime, a nonviolent crime, and they're not on their way to commit a violent crime, the officers do not have a right to draw on them. At the same time, if someone is pointing a gun or a vehicle at an officer, then they have the right, and I would even say the duty, to respond with firearms. The situation with Renee Good doesn't change that principle I just laid out. But for some reason, it is incumbent on all of us to look at it frame by frame because people understand in some level that your perception of what that situation is, the Lizzie Klan's situation is, slots you into one trial.

or another. So people are, oh my God, if you, so the possibility that you think that maybe these drugs had some effect on her and it should be a manslaughter situation or something else, somehow what they hear is, oh, you're saying people should legal be allowed to kill their children and walk. So it's really kind of unfortunate how divisive these situations are and how we're all supposed to pretend we're on the jury when this, my view is, if you kill your kids, you should get the harshest possible punishment. And as an anarchist, I wouldn't limit that to the government punishing you. But I'm also open to the possibility, broadly speaking, that someone under the influence, including alcohol, it's not the same as murder one. Okay. I mean, what was that

thoughtful line walking stuff that I just got? I mean, I get it when it comes to Renee Good. But what I think, okay, look, like as an abstraction, I agree, Michael. As an abstraction, all of these cases are more complicated and not as tribal or simplistic as they turn into, not on media. I think I also didn't like the shot at the media at large in this, because this is actually a trial that is being consumed through the lens of social media. The vast majority of opinions out there that are being formed are being formed through the medium of TikTok. This is perhaps, maybe not singularly, but among a handful of cases now, one where TikTok has shown its power to warp people's brains into believing they have special information on a trial. While, you know, okay, see, the thing is like in the, in the, in the, in the, in the abstract as a generalization can substance abuse absolve you of enough culpability that you're guilty maybe of murder two instead of murder one or maybe even wildly manslaughter instead of murder two but that generalization i feel like is misapplied in this situation now i fully recognize this this requires me in this part of the

conversation to begin to engage in the details of the case. Okay. Right. Here we've arrived at, okay, well, what drugs was she taking? And by the way, you know, does taking those drugs lead us towards postpartum psychosis, you know, because that's the contention, not that she was under the influence, but that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis. So I guess, you know, you finished your very even-handed statement with a harsh conclusion and one that I agree with ultimately.

Like, it's so what? But the tribalism is something that is happening at a broader level than even that, because the jurors aren't thinking about innocence. innocence isn't on the table. So for the TikTokers that are indulging in that idea, you know, that's just not in the realm of reality. But I don't know. I don't, I think this is different than Renee Good. I just do. Something different has happened, okay? Well, yeah, I think it is different because, I'm sorry to interrupt you, because this is something almost biblical. Save me. It's, when you're dealing with someone killing their, you know, a cop having an alteration with the fleeing suspect or maybe not fleeing suspect that's kind of why is this news right or it's

it's a horrible something that got out of hand a woman consciously killing their kids is something that is we can't wrap our heads around you can wrap your heads around the cop drawing on someone maybe they shouldn't have that's you see that in cop shows all the time this is is something that is completely uh uh beyond the pale and and an abomination and also to your point uh uh at one point uh someone point out to me, you know, she waited till the husband left. So if it's psychosis, you're not really planning and doing step by step. But my point is, I think people have the right, broadly speaking, to be like, before I render my judgment, I really want to go through this frame by frame because everyone just has this knee-jerk response where, well, if kids are dead, it's murder one,

vehicular manslaughter is a thing. I'm not saying it's good. I'm not saying these people should walk the streets. I'm just saying if I'm on that jury, I don't know that I'd be saying vehicular manslaughter in a drunk driving case versus murder one. That's all I'm saying. Right. Okay. Do you think that to the extent that you've paid attention, the defense has marshaled a strong enough argument that she is guilty of something less than murder one? Yes.

I would, I had not looked into it heavily, but I would be open to the interpretation that this is something less than murder one. Do you think she is not guilty by reason of insanity? The thing with the husband is a big one for me. When she, if you're crazy or if you're, you know, not having this premeditation, you're not waiting. You're committing the act. So that to me would push me very much toward murder one. So you're taking. Okay.

Or murder two. Yes. And I can't remember, I can't remember off the top of my head exactly what it's required to get this to murder one versus. murder. I think it's committing murder with extreme cruelty or atrocity. I think that's the dividing. Premeditation, isn't it? I mean, it's

kind of a state by state thing. I think in Massachusetts what differentiates murder one from murder two is look it up, Dan, it should be easily findable, but committing murder with extreme cruelty or atrocity. In which case you're like, well, using exercise fans. Section

one is an unlawful kill and committed with deliberately premeditated malice afterthought with extreme atrocity or cruelty during the commission or attempted commission of a crime punishable by death or life and imprisonment. Okay, now give me murder two. You got to look that up? Doing that, doing that. Second degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing committed with malice,

but without deliberate premeditation or the specific aggregating factors required for first degree murder. So it seemed more like a one. Okay, so it's lacking. It's lacking both premeditation and you said, and, by the way, the cruelty and atrocity element because you said that last line with the other prerequisite things. So you have to have both of those. And by the way, premeditated, to your point on the timeline, seems pretty obvious.

Right. Like if you think she's not, I think that the timeline suggests that she planned all this out, which is an obvious element of premeditation. This isn't an act of passion because you have to. heard a voice. He wasn't watching the Simpsons and she got up into the other room and went and did this. She sent him away. She had a limited window in which to get it done. That's murder one. Yeah. Can we talk about that for a second? Because this is the part that's kind of comedic to me. Because we all hear voices. The crazy part isn't that you heard voices. The crazy part is that she listened.

because I have a mic, and I'm telling you, Will, right now, you should shoot Patrick. And there's no part of you that's like, oh, well, I heard a voice. Michael, what's the other guy's name? I want to shoot the other guy. I want to shoot the other guy. What's his name? Hey, what the hell? Mike.

Yeah. Keep going. The idea that somehow you hear voices and, well, well, what am I going to do? How many times do you hear an ad, ask your doctor for whatever's right for you? I've never done it once. Stay quick break, but continue this with the host of your welcome. Michael Malice here on Will Cain Country. Two and five Canadians will hear the words you have cancer.

That's why every step and dollar raised matters. On September 19th, join thousands in Toronto for the Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation Walk. Challenge yourself, friends, and family to walk 21 kilometers in support of life-saving research. Together, we can carry the fire and help create a world. free from the fear of cancer. Register today at pmcf walk.ca.ca. Welcome back to Will Cain country. We're hanging out with the author of The White Pill, Not Sick of Winning, the New Right, and the host of of your welcome, Michael Malice. Okay, all right, so what we're doing is what you're encouraging us to do. That's kind of what your opening answer to me is. Like, you're kind of encouraging people to

consider that the jury is having to consider multiple elements. Yes. The thing is, okay, now, This takes me back, though, and maybe I'm being uncharitable. Maybe I'm being uncharitable to the public discourse. But it certainly seems to me, in fact, jump into the comments section, tell me if you think I'm characterizing this incorrectly, that the vast majority of people who are arguing against conviction for Lindsay Clancy are doing so based upon one of two factors. One, they think Patrick did it, and she's actually innocent. Or two, she's struggling with postpartum depression, not Patrick, not you, Patrick. We've got to stop this.

We really got to stop this. He's pat. You know how to stop him. You know how to stop him. You know how to stop him, Will. It's just take two seconds. Do it. Or two, that she is suffering from something that they can sympathize with because they too may have suffered with postpartum.

Depression or even the broader characterization of mental health issues. But those two responses defy reality, defy exactly what's happening. And hold on. Okay, go ahead. You're shaking your head. I think the other one that's saying is... Is that uncharitable? When you have people on a cocktail of psych, their argument, their argument.

When you have people on a cocktail of psych drugs that quickly combined with insomnia for days, bad things can happen. I think that's their argument more than the postpartum in the sense. I'm depressed. I'm going to do something to make your children. Oh, I think it's a third category. I don't know which... I think that's three categories. You're right.

I actually think category number two is the one that most people who are empathizing with Lindsay Clancy are in. So in other words, I think it's only a limited crazy few that think she's actually innocent, and this was coordinated by Patrick Clancy. I think there is a group that also believes it's big pharma, it's failed medical health system, it's all that. But I think the vast majority are in category two, which is, well, you know, I had postpartum depression or my sister had postpartum depression. I've seen postpartum depression. I think this group also includes mental health issues beyond postpartum depression.

Yes. I know someone who has mental health issues. I had mental health issues. And so they've taken that and broadly, you know what? And by the way, there may be a fourth category, not to overcompetion. this, but there seems to be an argument being made like, moms have it rough. Moms do too much. Moms can be taxed into this.

I've seen the man on the street interviews with this. But I actually think this. I think this. And yours, category three on the health system in Big Pharma, requires you to know some facts. Like she actually wasn't on 32 drugs. She was on one or two at a time. She saw eight different doctors.

you know, none of them diagnosed her with postpartum psychosis. So if you're saying that it's a big farmer of the health system, you have to show me where they failed. Right. So did all eight psychiatrists fail? Possibly. Did they all get it wrong? You know, if it's two drugs that drives you crazy, there's a lot of people out there on two psychotropic drugs at any given moment. So I think I find them all weak.

is the point. And then I'm going to play this clip from Nick Freitas. And this is where we get. This is why the trial is in a place where you don't like it, Michael, like where you're like, look, this is what we end up doing. Your opening answer said to us, don't do this. But I still think this from Nick Fradis is an accurate diagnosis. I honestly don't think that women understand what a catalyst moment this is. There's been a lot of conditions set for young men to just be fed up. This is the one where I don't think they realize you could look back in 20 years and be like, oh, this is where we lost the right to vote. Yeah, literally. Because the bottom line is, as women become more tribal, men are becoming more tribal. And bad news, our tribe doesn't need

you to secure our rights. You need us to help you secure yours. Yep. Okay, he goes on to say, I want to say something. I'm not advocating for this. I am diagnosing. I'm talking. I'm telling you that you're headed in this direction. Because I think he also said, because killing three kids ought to be well beyond the pale of tribal, tribal fights. And what I find fascinating about, I cut that part out just to make it more inflammatory. You just took the most inflammatory part. Don't do that. Don't do that.

It's a podcast. We have time to play the full clip. You got it. You got it, boss. Careful. Careful with Will. He heard voices earlier. Yeah.

I'm not messing around. What do you think, malice? I think that it's, women are less tribal now than they were in 2017. I think we're all forgetting that. Less what? They're less what? Then in 2017, less tribal. Less tribal.

Me Too. Yes, because the Me Too, remember Me Too? Less tribal. The Pussy Hat March. Have we all forgotten about this? Yeah. Like they put pussies on their heads and walked up and down and patted themselves at the back for it. We're not seeing that in 2026.

So I think, but I will also, one point that I think is far worse than the Lindsay Clancy case vis-a-vis the 19th Amendment is what happened in Massachusetts with them signing in third trimester abortion at will. That is something that I think I had Jessica Tarloff. I recorded with her for my show. it's dropping a few weeks. She was like, yeah, sorry, I'm on the same page as you. We could all understand the argument that I personally know one woman who had a stillbirth. I know several who have miscarried. This is as horrible as it gets. You know, my heart breaks for them. So we can understand the argument eight months along. There's some kind of horrific condition. You have no choice, you have to save the baby or the mother.

You have to make decision. But no one is in that operating theater applauding and going, hell yeah, health concerns. So when you saw the governor of Massachusetts signed that bill and everyone clapping, it was so disturbing to so many Americans. And I think that broader point in conjunction with the Clancy thing is what is making a lot of men be like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Let's take a look at this situation again. Well, I kind of disagree with you on where we were in 2000.

2017 versus now. It's interesting. I think, again, at a broad perspective that we are devolving into tribalism on an increasingly significant basis. Yes. So in general, I think we're more tribalistic than we were in 2017. And it's so interesting when you think about that because you're like, well, there's a great book on tribes that I want to read. I think tribes are fascinating. Tribes are the fundamental outside of the family, then you go to tribe. And so like tribe is the first evolutionary step in human societies. And, you know, it's a word that carries a lot of negative connotation, but it shouldn't carry complete negative connotation because it was a human survival tool. It was the first that we developed. And just because it was first doesn't mean that we're now evolved way beyond it. It's still important.

And tribes, like anything in the world, have their pros. and their cons, right? Like, you have a neighborhood watch, which is a form of a thing for tribes and defined by geographic tribalism. So you have it on multiple levels. You have racial tribalization. You have political tribalization. You have geographic tribalization. And I don't think the purpose is to move beyond it completely. I don't think the perfect society like eradicates tribes. I don't think that's the vision of a perfect society, but puts it rather in its proper place and elevates things above it. And actually, that's what United States of America uniquely did more than any other society or civilization in its history. But I didn't, like, Lindsay Clancy reveals a gender tribalization that I don't think I would have even fully appreciated in 2017.

Because in 17, that's writing, his name is Dan, by the way, Michael. That's what Dan referenced a moment ago. Like, it's on the heels of Me Too. And this one is so, and by the way, there were elements of Me Too that were true, but it just went way overboard and that kind of thing. There's nothing defensible about Lindsay Clancy. They're truly in my mind, and I think in a lot of men's mind, and I'm not speaking for all men, but I am speaking for all men, that you look at this and you go, at this point you've reached terminal velocity. You've reached the height of absurdity. And if we're going to draw gender tribal lines on the ability to kill three children and in some way escape culpability, responsibility, legal or moral, we're reaching a breaking point on tribal.

But this is not the result of that, though? I mean, because of the Me Too, like they feel emboldened to be this way for the lengthy claim to trial? I don't know. I actually think that Michael's point about the abortion thing is the more linear line to me. It's like, and I don't want to like superimposed. But like you go over a 20-year horizon from abortion should be safe, legal, and rare, to abortion should be celebrated through the ninth month, to I'm killing toddlers and I'm being morally excused in some way for doing so. Like that's the arc that's really bothering me. And I'm not saying that everybody that's, you know, for legal abortions thinks that Lindsay Clancy should be somehow for.

But that's sort of the line that I'm concerned about. Well, we're also seeing it in Canada where they're now having, you know, assisted suicide, so-called medical murder, I would call it, being delivered to, they're starting to give to mentally ill people in Europe. It's for teenagers now. So this is the pro-life people who are correct in that this quality of life situation and sanctity of a life situation is a very, very slippery slope. and we're seeing it worldwide.

And I find it very disturbing. And I'm also disappointed that more politicians aren't talking about it because this is something that motivates a lot of people. And of all the political issues out there, many of whom are just phony, this is really the opposite of phony. This is as sincere political issues you get. And the fact that there's so many states now that are, Gavin Newsom, one example, he killed his mom.

There's so many states and bragged about it later to the media. There's so many states where, now this is becoming normalized, it's very, very disturbed by it. Actually, I think you mentioned this last time or a previous time you were on, Michael. And there was a story that came out about a man who got a heart in Pittsburgh, I believe, that was from Canada. And I think I looked this up, and Canada is like three times, they sent three times more organs out of their country than anyone else.

They're like mass harvesting organs for world. Yeah. For like donors and stuff like that. Because of all the suicide, assisted suicides. Yeah. But Patrick, but Will, I got a question for you. Yeah. Will I have a question.

You said you wouldn't absolve that there's nothing defensive about her. Let's suppose, again, we, I'm thinking as the jury, not my personal opinion. Because as a juror, I think all of us, even the guy. on the bottom left, whatever his name is, would want us to be in a situation where those 12 jurors are as open-minded as possible. Because God help us if they're not, and you're the one who's on the defense stand. Let's suppose this situation, dad's drunk, kids in the car, he drives his car into a tree. Kids are gone, dad's alive, and the DA is only asking for murder one. Would you vote for murder one in that situation?

I don't know that I would. Let's take quick break, but continue this with the host of your welcome. Michael Malice here on Wilcane Country. Two in five Canadians will hear the words you have cancer. That's why every step and dollar raised matters. On September 19th, join thousands in Toronto for the Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation walk. Challenge yourself, friends, and family to walk 21 kilometers in support of life-saving research. Together, we can carry the fire

and help create a world free from the fear of cancer. Register today at pmcf walk.ca.ca. Welcome back to Will Cain Country. We're hanging out with the author of The White Pill, Not Sick of Winning, The New Right. And the host of your welcome, Michael Malice. Look at Michael coming in here, forcing us all to be human beings.

Which is ironic as I'm from space. You know, Michael, You know, it's interesting. No, you're right. Okay, so I'll start with the punch, the conclusion. You're right. And, you know, I grew up with a dad who was an attorney. And I grew up, I went to law school.

And I've been, so I worked for a criminal defense firm while in law school. And I saw a lot of this stuff, right? And my point of view was often to see exactly what you're saying, the human side of a lot of these things. Man, I saw awful, awful things, like exactly what you described, like a 19-year-old kid who was either just graduated high school, first year in college, whatever, that goes to a strip club and does what honestly a lot of dudes did, right, and drank too much and got in his jacked-up truck and drove home and killed somebody, right? What does that kid deserve? And when you're put into that position and you're forced to actually consider the concept of justice, it's a very, very difficult. position, right? I guess what I would say is, and I don't know what's going on in this Lindsay Clancy

situation. And this is, Patrick will have a hot take on this, but I am actually less concerned about juries and their conclusions than I am about prosecutors and judges. Amen. And their conclusions, right? So when I see injustice out there, and we do stories on injustice of criminals not ever facing accountability, I don't know how many I have ever done as a Fox News host where the jury got it way wrong. Do you know what I'm saying? It's almost always a judge or a prosecutor that declined to bring charges where you see the biggest injustices.

And those are individuals often motivated by politics in some ways. And so what I guess I'm not as concerned. Obviously there's going to be OJ situations. That was injustice delivered at the hands of a jury. And there's going to be those situations. But I would say they are in the minority compared to the rest of the justice system. I agree completely. And there's that other case where that cop lady went, I forget her name, she went to the wrong house and she thought it was her house and she shot the guy.

And, you know, there was a big trial. And his family, I remember the brother, younger brother, said, I forgive you. You know, like, you have to live with this. And he hugged her, and it was a really, maybe you guys remember the name of the lady I'm talking about. It was a very dark and emotional situation. And I don't think that situation is the same as that kid from the strip club. And I don't think it's the same situation as Lindsay Clancy. So I think, but again, speaking of tribalism.

Yeah, thank you. There's this situation. When you're dealing with, I remember I was watching a YouTube video. And this is, I was still, it was a mom and a older brother. The brother was like 17. And there was a 14 year old kid and they tortured him, his whole life. The only food he was allowed to eat was bread with the hottest hot sauce on it. He was like 90 pounds. They had him in a closet with motion detection. And when he moved, they would shove him in ice baths. And they would text each other and eventually they killed him. And I knew, without any doubt in my mind, and I'm not a tough person, you hear people from the military say, you know, you go to war, you have to pull that trigger, it changed you forever. I knew without any doubt in my mind that if I had the possibility to take out that mom

and that older brother, I would do it. And I wouldn't even bat an eye. And I was asking myself, I can be so sure because I think when it's kids and people ending kids, it hits you in such a primal place that it's a, that it almost precedes rational thought. This is like, you know, when a lioness just sees a tourist get too close to the cub and kills it. It's just like this is something primal for people.

And I think that's why in this case the emotions are so raw. It's like this is very different from, you know, Mike and Will were drunk and we, you know, we hit somebody on the car. You know, what a tragedy. This is like, oh, this cannot exist on the face of the earth. And I think that's why emotions are so high here. Right. I agree. Go ahead.

Patrick, my thought on juries. So like, real quick, we can tie this into a subject. I completely agree with you, by the way. Before you, hold on, hold on, because I want to actually tie this into a topic that I don't know that we were going to do. So the flock camera debate. By the way, I think the flock camera debate is more legitimate. I don't know why I'm making this comparison because they're both in the ecosystem and I'm weighing them. The flock camera debate is more legitimate to me than the data center debate. Like I see

both sides in the flock debate much more clearly than I see the data center debate. Okay, we can get to data centers in a minute. But the flock thing, right, it's like, do you want to stop crime or you don't want to stop crime? You know? And then the anti-flock side, which I think is, and I'm going to let you go on this, Patrick, and just second tied in. which is voiced well, I think, by Patrick is we don't have a problem identifying crime. We actually don't have that big a problem catching criminals. We have a problem enforcing crime. We have an accountability problem with judges and prosecutors, not in catching the bad guy.

And so if I give them this technology, what am I doing to really help stop crime? In fact, I'm worried about the opposite. It's going to be used against law abiding citizens. So I get your side of that debate, but you're big on this. like accountability thing. Are you, what did you think about my, what I said about juries versus judges and prosecutors? No, I agree with you on that.

So like, I think I am concerned about juries. The more that we, the more that juries don't really fit like the selection of your peers, like you have more people that are going to have disagreements with you when it comes to, you know, religious ideals or racial ideals, people will become tribal. and they will vote against you or in favor of you because of those those biases and so that's my concern with juries as we kind of become less homogenized and so but like as far as what you're saying I completely agree with you prosecutors and DAs and stuff are the problem right now because they're not

enforcing the law the and I'm not saying like I'm just saying like people who were who we know are really messed up like I arena who died a year ago. We literally have the guy stabbing her on video. And he's still not in prison or receiving what he should be receiving. So that to me, it's like we don't, you know, like flock cameras are going to go and they're going to record you. But we literally have the guy doing this on video.

We don't need, we already have a lot of the technology we already need to enforce these kind of things. So, Mike, where are you on the, on the, on the, on the, the flock debate. I feel a little like an immigrant, which I am, because there's one element of this that's just confusing to me, which is I spent a lot of time watching like these crime YouTube videos. And even like a suburban neighborhood, they follow a vehicle because everyone has the ring cam. And when you see these videos of someone in Manhattan or Williamsburg getting stabbed like 2 a.m., all the delis have, you know, close-circ cameras that the cops pull the data from. So I do.

don't know what the flock cameras are going to make that we don't already have. And people asking like, acting like it's this enormous unprecedented escalation, there's no, um, a presumption of privacy on a public street. I always, when I walk around Manhattan, whatever, soon, much less this thing. Sure, right. Exactly. Right. So whenever I'm committing my crimes in Manhattan, I'm always cognizant of where the cameras

are so I can, you know, do it off camera and blame it on a minority or something like that. So I don't, and I agree that just like the Patriot Act, these videos are going to be used to persecute innocent people and things like this, but I don't see how it's that much different from the status quo. There could be more harm than good, though. I could see that. Just people using it properly. Hey, can I ask a question about criminals?

Now, let's just acknowledge something in a minute. Most criminals are buffoons. They're dumb-dums. Okay? And so you disagree with that, Michael? Yeah, every politician is a criminal from my perspective. Quite literally. They're at least midweds.

I don't know who you're... They're at least midweds. Who are you defending with that rebuttal? What I'm getting at is my social media, I always see these stockings. They look like pantyhoes that people can put on their head, and it totally changes their face. into somebody else's face. I don't know if they're real, because I've never seen them in real life.

But literally, like, I could put on the panty hose and become an Asian dude like that. And it looks super real on social media. Is that why you have the pantyhows on, Will? I was wondering why you had the panty hose on. Let's order some. Yeah.

Will you get Ellie to order a batch? Yeah. Eddie Rates, by the way. Look at Will pretending he's not in panty hose right now. That's so funny. Is this a good time to play Hunter Biden? Just apropos of nothing, Dan. Play Hunter Biden.

Are you gay? Only a little bit. More or less than 50%. What? More or less than 50%. 48.6. We got to give Hunter this. He was joking around.

Hey, by the way, I really like it. Go ahead. I don't know. There's a part of me that's like... He's funny. He's pretty cool. He's pretty funny. I mean, I think this is kind of helping.

in his brand, his image a little bit. This, this, this, this podcast circuit. And I also don't really fault him for all the crack stuff, necessarily. What? What? The crack's okay. It's an American tradition. I mean, like, it's happened throughout, throughout, for decades.

So, you know, I think, I think the, uh, is an American tradition. Yeah. Yeah, is this a Florida thing? Maybe. I think that's meth. I'm going to tell you guys this. I said not just hear me out.

I didn't say the exact same thing Hunter said before, but I think I said it on the view. I said it on the view. I said everybody is a little bit gay. What I really meant is gay is a spectrum. And you want to pretend like it's a complete. binary, which I think, by the way, I think it's a fascinating conversation because I'm not even sure the LGBTQ crowd, I don't know where they are anymore on it. I don't know. Like,

everything's in the air now. Do you remember back in the day when there was like Time magazine cover and they were looking for the gay gene? Because back in the day, the argument was you didn't have a choice. Do you remember that? Like, you're born gay. And I don't know if that is a mindset that is still prevalent. I think it is like as a, people don't think anymore. We don't choose to be. They're not thinking through it.

Okay, see, like what Dan just did. Dan bought it. His name's Dan bought into it. He didn't think. Yeah, Dan didn't think just now. He just said the thing you're supposed to say. No. I'm from talking to a lot of people.

No, but Dan, that came around in the 90s in the mid-90s. That's a 90s thing to say, Dan. I listened to old roughline episodes. And Dr. Drew and Adam would joke about it. And then they actually got a letter from Glad one time where Glad's like, no, no, no, it is a gene. It's genetic. And you can't, you know, say these things anymore. Right. So, so the 90s thing was to say, I didn't choose this implying I'm born this. And they spent time looking for quote unquote the gene, right? It's genetic or whatever, which they've never discovered. But since then, wait, wait, wait, that's not true. That's not true. So with identical twin studies, they tend to both be the same. sexuality more than non-identical twins.

So there is a genetic component. What now? Identical twins have the same exact genes. They're clones, right? Because it's one egg. So identical twins tend to have the same sexuality more than two random people, which implies there is a genetic component. Okay.

Hence, no choice. But it's not entirely gene-drived because it's not 100%. Let's take quick break, but continue. this with the host of your welcome. Michael Malice here on Will Cain Country. Two and five Canadians will hear the words you have cancer. That's why every step and dollar raised matters. On September 19th, join thousands in Toronto for the Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation walk. Challenge yourself, friends, and family to walk 21 kilometers in support of life-saving research. Together, we can carry the fire and help create a world free from the fear of

cancer. Register today at pmcf walk.ca.ca. Welcome back to Will Cain country. We're hanging out with the author of The White Pill, Not Sick of Winning, The New Right. And the host of your welcome, Michael Malice. Right. So you can't say no choice anymore. And my point is, I don't think the movement even embraces that idea. Correct. Like I think they do, I think they do when it's convenient to embrace that idea. But they're open to also you can choose certain, certain, I don't know, predilections or attractions. Yeah. And that's my point. I actually believe that, I actually believe that to be the case. I believe it is a spectrum. I think there are people on the polls of it. And I think behavior and traits are along that spectrum. But it's a complicated thing,

Because once you acknowledge that, then you get into debate of is every choice I make, you know, good and valid. It's like anybody, any trait, you know. It's, I'll probably get in trouble with you, but you pick a trait, right? Do you think everybody has the same, the same trait for adherence to the truth and not lying? Like, I don't think so. I think some people lie almost, almost compulsively or genetic. I'm not saying it's genetic, more than others. Do you know what I'm saying?

They're called women. You've seen that in your life. We've done too many of those women things this week. I'm going to lose my entire female audience. We love you, women. Wait, well, to your point, one of the, my technique, I learned this after I did my first book, I will always throw whatever I can in the manuscript

and know that the publisher is going to read out some of it, but some is going to get through the cracks. and my book The New Right, which came out in 2019, discussed this very issue. And I threw in there, is it the act? If you are, you know, act, two girls in college get drunk and start kissing, is it the act or is it the emotion? If you're attracted to someone of your own gender, but you don't do anything about it. So the line I had the book was, the one I like is prison, Mike. Hold on.

Instead of two girls, because everybody likes and says that's cool. Is everybody a prison gay? the line I had in the book was, are you gay if you're on your knees, but your heart isn't in it? And they left it in. That's such a good lie. I was so proud of,

I was like, holy crap, you're letting this in, okay? That's such a good line. And I think the answer is yes. Yes. Yeah. Very clearly yes.

The answer, okay, hold on, let me flip it on you. What if, what if your heart is in it, but you're not on your knees. I think yes also, don't you? So you have it, the desire, but you never act on it. Right.

Or later in life. That happens a lot. So are you gay? So are you gay? Are you asking me? Yes. So the point is, to your question, is it the act or the desire? Well, the prison thing, the prison thing is necessity, right?

Yeah. So that's happening because that's the only option of something, because you are still a sexual person, but you can change your mind into convincing yourself for doing things like that because of sexual gratification like any human being would need. And it doesn't matter who the person is. I also think people in prison take me more to a visceral level. Yeah. Okay.

So, but this is going, this is going in a direction that gets very uncomfortable. It's already uncomfortable for a lot of people. But if you go down this line and you start saying, things like what we've just done, like even the debate we're having, you know, your heart in it versus the act. Then you get to the point where you say, okay, you're on the spectrum somewhere. Hunter Biden's right, right? Then therefore is every desire that you have.

And I'm actually struggling for the word. Is it desire? Is it a compulsion? Is it attraction? Is it whatever it is? Valid. Because then you get into the moral side of things, right? The religious side of things.

If religion says, that's not good. then you, and you're not born that way, you have no control, you have some element of control over it, then should you not be embracing it, right? Does someone have a predilection for line? Well, then don't lie is what religion says. Don't do that. And we condemn religion at this stage for passing judgment on this. Do you see what I'm saying? And so my point is, if Hunter Biden is right, what differentiates it from other things that you have a choice in? And religion says, don't choose this or do choose that? Well, I think the differentiation is harm. Are you hurting someone, right?

If you're lying or if you're stealing or you're killing your kids, that's very different from, you know, some two college girls having a hookup and giggling about it later. I think that's a big distinction. And I think the religious stuff. Okay, what about substance abuse? You're harming only yourself? And you're also benefiting yourself. Are you kidding? Have you tried, have you not tried crack?

It's, there's a reason people are really into it. Patrick, tell us about the crack. What's it like? It's like heaven in two-minute bursts. There's a reason people throw their lives away for it. I think that Hunter Biden is actually, what I'm getting at is scratching the surface of a conversation that has been put beyond the bounds of acceptable conversation that is actually the right conversation, the deep conversation. And all of these conversations are stuck in immediate condemnation of your bigot or you're a libertine or whatever it may be when we're actually having a deeper conversation about human morality, choices, and compulsions, for lack of a better word.

And also what's acceptable and what's not and what's acceptable behind closed doors and what's acceptable to discuss. Things you do with your spouse, you know, might be horrific to other people, but no one needs to know about it. What a nuanced-driven day. I just wanted to divide this into stupid people and smart people, America's Divide. And now we're stuck in what is gay, you know? Like, who knew who we're going to get here? I'll change the title of the show. Let's see if Michael Malice extends the same level of netherly.

nuanced grace to what happened on CNN last night. On one side, Jamel Hill, formerly of ESPN and now with the Atlantic and her condemnation of capitalism. On the other side, Kamel Foster, I believe Reason magazine. Is he still with reason? No. He does the fifth column, I believe. He's we the, is it the fifth column?

I know it's the fifth column. I'm really smart. really smart dude okay in his defense of capitalism watch i've just described the actual i've actually just described the basic facts of that ain't how it's always work slavery is an institution that is older than writing it predates capitalism the notion that white supremacy and all these other things are bound up with capitalism in an intrinsic and fundamental way is so absurd and laugh at it barely needs to be defended what do you mean it barely needs to be defended it barely needs to be it barely needs to be

You actually have to articulate what the connection is. How are these two things the same? I'm talking about private property, the right to exchange and sell it with whoever you like. What does that have to do with white supremacy? What is intended to work versus how it was actually working? It's not working. How it's working right now today. What is the white supremacist dynamic of private property? It's not working on. I think that's the problem. I think the problem is it.

Okay, so she's arguing that capitalism and white supremacy are intricately connected, one in the same. he's articulating beautifully what capitalism is. And I love the opportunity for someone to actually impose historical context on anything. It's like America invented slavery. He's like, first of all, slavery's been here before capitalism. So how are these two things tied together? Well, the other thing that's easily disprovable about her is if one person writes a book promoting white supremacy and one person writes a book promoting anti-racism,

which is going to sell more copies. According to her, it should be the white supremacist books. I can't think of any white supremacist books that have done well in the market, and each of us can rattle off dozens of books fighting racism that are in Target right now. In fact, those are the only books in Target right now.

So this premise of hers is just disproven just like that. There are no TV shows for white supremacy. See, how many Netflix shows are recast promoting minorities? All of them. You know, it's Willie Wonka's going to be made out of chocolate in the next iteration. So her claim does not hold cut ice if you think about it for two seconds. Well, would the rebuttal to that be to use our own arguments against it? Our own arguments would be the entire anti-racism movement and DEI at large movement was actually anti-cassism.

It didn't meet a true market demand or true market need. That's why it's all failed. Thus the, thus the, is it Clay Travis that pioneered this? Everything woke goes to shit or something like that. But that's how many books for anti-racist baby sell? Because it's not actually, it's not actually meeting any capitalist desire or need. You're absolutely wrong. Liberal white women, it's a, it's, I'm not kidding what I'm about to say. This people are going to laugh. I'm not kidding. It's their form of BDSM. They love reading books and considering media that tells them how terrible they are and how naughty they are. That's so true.

It is. I know those people. It's the same thing as 50 Shades of Gray, but in political context. Like, they love reading these books. They're like, oh my God. I'm so bad. I'm so bad. I need to be put in my place. There's a whole industry. They sell tons of books. They have seminars.

Yeah. Yeah. They can't stop posting about it either. It was over extrapolating how big it was. I saw it. Look, I saw it go to, okay, maybe you just overextended it. Like, the minute it starts becoming part of sports talk on ESPN, ratings go down. Okay, this is not capitalism.

Whatever is driving this is not capitalism. Wait, wait, but Will, that is capitalism. Capitalism means you go as far as you can, and when the market is saturated, you pull back. And that's exactly what you saw happening. Yeah. Yeah. You build apartment buildings, and then there's no market demand, and then you stop building apartment buildings happen here in Austin. So that is exactly how capitalism works. Boom and bus cycle of

capitalism. Exactly. Boom and bus. And Jamel Hill benefits from capitalism all the time. Dude, that's the other part. You you raked it in on this anti-racism stuff. You personally did in the form of contracts from ESPN spot. I believe I have it right. First ESPN, then Spotify. Now I don't presume the Atlantic contract is actually very big. Ouch. No, I mean, boom and bus, boom and boss. Senate candidate in Texas, James Tala Rico. Patrick,

why do you have four clips, three clips of this? Why do I need to hear all of this? I had CNN saying that they got him, and then I had two Tala Rico clips of him saying things in 2020. I just want the one of him sounding like Temele Hill. The first, okay, so that should be number one.

Number one. Tala Rico number one. It might be Tala Rico, too. Well, we'll see if this works. You know what? Who knows? You just stop it, Will. If you don't like it, just stop it.

It's off the trap. You know, now that you say it, it could be three. It's two. It's two. Now, Paysfiles and covered comments that Tala Rico made it four years ago. This is two. I'm so thankful that you asked this question and also thankful that young activists have really drawn the link between climate change and white supremacy and capitalism in our country.

and I think only ending the ways that all three of those oppressive systems work together, are we going to be able to begin the process of dismantling them? Now later, here we are. Dismantle capitalism and it's two evil brothers. White supremacy and climate change. He's just seen Michael's eye roll. You know why am I rolling? Because black people are from Africa.

So it's easier for them to live in a warm, climate than for someone who's Nordic. So if anything, climate change is hurting white people and helping black people. It's true. If you want to use a stupid argument. Trust me, I am suffering here. I'm living in Florida. It's hot as hell. It's way too hot,

way too humid. I need to go to the mountains. You shouldn't be. I'm like, it's calling. I saw this whole thing. You're not living in the Irish and their red hair and their freckles and why they are that way. And they over time genetically evolved into processing vitamin D living in a place like Ireland and, you know, the UK where they get so little sun and it's so gray all the time. So they got so fair to absorb as much vitamin D as possible.

And then they uprode themselves and moved to Arizona. And then you're going to get skin cancer. Dark. Real dark. I'm sorry, Patrick. I was over talking. Were you saying that somebody told you, you don't live in Florida, you live in Jacksonville?

Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for reminding me. Yikes. It's the worst part of Florida. The place where you always, always where you can get a gun on sale and find an easy crack.

Just asked Andrew Gillum. Pet Alligator. That's right. Man I can't believe That poor I don't know I think

God for Ron DeSantis squeaking that one out Do you see I think Gillum had another I think he got arrested again recently No

yeah in the last few weeks I have an Andrew Gillum I'll wear it next time I don't know I have to I'll lose it up I don't want to slander him

it's it's something like in that vein I believe I think drug He was test positive for meth in August. Oh, it's going downhill. Yeah. It was crack in gay liaisons, right?

And then it now it's on to meth? Yeah. Yeah. Man. Gameway drug. Florida, man. All right, let's finish this off with one. Go ahead, Michael.

Go ahead. I was just going to say, well, if Andrew Gillum ever kills his kids, I will vote to acquit. It was not. the cracks fault. It's fair. If, if, if, let's just play a thought experiment. Oh, boy. This isn't fair.

Oh, boy. Do you think if all 12 members of the jury for Lindsay Clancy were men that this would be over? Yes. You know what the big question is? Don't, you know what the big question is. Don't know what's going on in that jury box. The big question is, what was the jury selection process? Because we forget these aren't 12 people picked at random, right?

They have to be filtered. So her attorneys were filtering for something. So if it's 12 men, they could get a few through that would be acting like these two or three women. They use TikTok and other men don't. You know what I mean? Or use social media more. Okay. Now, if Lindsay Clancy were a man, would we still be debating right now?

And he's still claiming insanity. He'd be dead already. Yeah. he would have done it successfully. Men are better at ending themselves than a momentar. Yeah. I genuinely believe that. He'd have failed suicide attempt.

I believe he would successfully kill himself. But, okay, but would the jury still be deliberating? He's claiming insanity. No, I don't think so. Look at Chris Benoit. You know, that story. I don't think so either. I think, don't we have this, put that up.

Don't we have, don't we have an example of this? Put that up. Not Chris Benoit. We have an exact. We have, we have exactly. parallels of this where a guy strangled his three kids claimed insanity and the jury deliberated for two hours. Two hours. There's also there's also difference between insanity and was it the drugs, right? Right. Legally. How important is it? I don't think it's that in how is she has

postpartum psychosis? How important is it why she had the postpartum psychosis? Drugs, psychic break, whatever. If feeds into people's narratives, that's why. So if I'm in that jury and this rings true to me, I don't need to think she didn't do it. I just need to think there's a reasonable doubt. That's all that defense attorney. You know this working for a defense firm. You don't need to convince the people in the jury that she has clean hands. You just need to convince them you have enough reasonable doubt that you don't want her blood on your hands as well. And that's a much lower bar. All right. I forgot that Michael has to go in two minutes. I want to finish with Stephen Miller on CNN. I think. damn he's good. I know. I want this to be, and call me naive, a good faith discussion about what's happening right now.

When we use language that's designed to obscure the truth, that's not good faith. And the legal alien is an illegal alien. They're not an undocumented migrant. Okay, that's fine. That's another discussion for another day. I don't know the details of the assassination threat. All I can say, based on what you're telling me, is there's an illegal alien in our country who's making menacing threats. Regardless of the facts or circumstances, we don't want them here. We're going to get to the bottom of it.

And I would gladly come back on. They had more information to show. But the part of that clip, she sets up the question by calling an illegal immigrant an undocumented migrant. And he goes, are you talking about an illegal alien? And she goes, Stephen, Stephen, we're going to do this right now. He goes, well, I don't know. When you say that, are you talking about somebody who had a fake driver's license? Are you talking about somebody who didn't have a valid passport?

What do you, you know, you're saying undocumented migrant, I'm talking about an illegal alien. And she goes, we're trying to have a good faith discussion here. And he goes, it's not good faith for you to use a term that totally changes this debate. And what I thought was so genius about this is they think that word is ugly or mean, illegal immigrant or illegal alien. He's making the right point. You're not being in good faith by using a term that, intentionally obscures the nature of the conversation. You know what's happening there?

They use language to manipulate, not to communicate, and he called her on it. And for her to say, I'm naive that we're going to have a good faith argument. That's her saying, I think you're a liar. So if that's me, and if you open this eye, I'm naive thinking I'm going to have a good faith conversation with you, you're already on the attack. And it's passive aggressivism.

It's so phony and duplicitous. and I'm so glad he's not walking into her frame. He's not what? Walking into the way she framed the conversation. Right. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Perfect.

All right, Michael Malice, check him out. By the way, at your welcome or check out the books. Unwanted, the New Right, Not Sick of Winning, the White Pill, so many books, so many, so much genius. Michael Malice, thanks for hanging out with us today. All right, take care. That's going to do it for us today. make sure you follow us as well at Spotify or Apple. We'll see you again next time.

Listen ad-free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcasts. And Amazon Prime members, you can listen to this show, ad-free on the Amazon music app. Two and five Canadians will hear the words, you have cancer. That's why every step and dollar-raised matters. On September 19th, join thousands in Toronto for the Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation Walk, Challenge yourself, friends, and family to walk 21 kilometers in support of life-saving research. Together, we can carry the fire and help create a world free from the fear of cancer.

Register today at pmcfwalk.ca.ca.