Andrew Clavin argues the right is winning the culture war, citing Quentin Tarantino’s police-boycott backlash and leftist "materialist" morality collapse—from Shakespeare to Scruton. He mocks Houston Mayor Parker’s defeat on transgender bathroom bills while contrasting LGBTQ+ rights with "culturally constructed" gender identity, framing progressive silence as authoritarian. Using Kipling and South Park, he predicts a faith-driven revival in five years, pitting America’s spiritual potential against Europe’s Islamist decline, ending with a gospel anthem. [Automatically generated summary]
People on the left are asking, is the right winning the war for our culture?
People on the right are asking, what's culture?
Trigger warning.
I'm Andrew Clavin, and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
All right, are we winning the war?
For culture, is the right winning the culture war?
Today, I'm going to try something never before done on right-wing broadcasting.
I'm going to make an optimistic prediction.
It's never been done on conservative broadcasting before.
I'll be doing it without a net.
And it's going to be very exciting because, well, for one thing, I'm always right.
This is a trick I've perfected just to annoy my wife.
So everything you hear, I say, will happen, will happen.
It's going to be very exciting.
Before I start, though, I have to say, I don't want to beat this story to death, but I just want to finish, since we've been following this story, I want to finish out the week talking a little bit about Quentin Tarantino.
We talked about his movie coming out, The Hateful Eight.
It's coming out for Christmas.
And he went to a protest against police brutality, so-called police brutality, and got up and called police murderers.
He said, these are murderers and the police are murderers, basically.
And there's been all this pushback from the police who are calling for, across the country, police are calling for people to boycott the Hateful Eight.
And so there were rumors that Harvey Weinstein, the producer, was asking Tarantino to apologize to save the picture.
And then there was a story in CNN's The Wrap, their showbiz site, that said he was going to apologize.
Yesterday he went on MSNBC and did not apologize.
It was the opposite.
Take a listen.
He's being interviewed by, what's his name?
Chris Hayes.
And Chris Hayes asks him if he was surprised by all the pushback.
This was Quentin Tarantino.
Were you surprised by the, frankly, the vitriol with which they've responded to those comments?
Well, yeah, I was surprised.
I was under the impression I was an American and that I had First Amendment rights and there was no problem with me going to an anti-police brutality protest and speaking my mind.
And just because I was at an anti-police brutality protest doesn't mean I'm anti-police.
And basically, there was a lot of people at that rally and we were all crying for, we were crying for a lot of things, but there was one thing in particular, which was stop shooting unarmed people.
We want justice, but stop shooting unarmed people.
But they don't want to deal with that.
They would rather start arguments with celebrities than examine the concerns put before them by a citizenry that has lost trust in them.
That's an amazing self-blind statement.
I mean, it really is an amazing display of self-understanding.
First of all, if the police don't shoot unarmed people, how are they going to improve their aim?
But secondly, you know, what is he talking about?
He was surprised when he called police murderers, that police kind of, you know, that's not working for me, you know?
It's not working for me that I'm out here risking my life to protect guys like you, you know, from bad guys, and you're calling me a murderer.
That does tick me off a little bit.
And then his First Amendment rights, because he has First Amendment rights because he directs motion pictures, but the police, when they say boycott his pictures, they don't have First Amendment rights.
Hey, they didn't stop him from speaking.
They haven't stopped them from speaking, and he can't stop them from answering them.
And the final thing I love in this is the idea that, oh, the police are just engaging with celebrities.
That's the only reason he was asked to the demonstration.
That's the only reason anybody's interviewing him.
It's because he's a celebrity.
I mean, if he doesn't want people to talk to celebrities, he should stay home.
Talent Is Blind00:05:55
That would solve the whole problem.
Anyway, my theory about this, about all these things, talent is blind.
People think talented people are bad or alcoholic or disturbed or they all have to be leftists and all that.
Talent is blind.
It falls on stupid people, it falls on good people, it falls on bad people.
The truth is, there aren't that many people who are really good.
When you look back through history and you find guys like John Keats, who was one of probably the greatest poet besides Shakespeare in England, he's a wonderful person.
He was a great guy.
Talent doesn't care.
It just drops out of the trees, hits whoever it hits.
Tarantino, I don't like his movies for reasons I talked about yesterday, but he is a talented guy, very talented writer, I think.
And, you know, he's also obviously a clown intellectually.
He doesn't know what he's talking about.
So we just wanted to finish that.
We will see come Christmas whether Tarantino's Hateful Light makes any money or whether the boycott comes true.
It'd be interesting if it does.
So who is winning the culture war?
I mean, this comes right out of that story.
Who is winning the culture war?
We ended yesterday by talking about what I call the materialist assumption, the assumption that there is no such thing as a spirit, that everything, you know, if two people make the same amount of money, they're equal.
If they don't make the same amount of money, there's some kind of inequality problem, that, you know, being a woman doesn't change anything.
You know, there's this materialist assumption that there are no essential facts to life.
There's no spiritual facts, no God, essentially.
And, you know, this was predicted.
I've talked about this before.
It was predicted by Shakespeare the minute Martin Luther hammered up his theses on the church in Wittenberg and the church lost its monopoly on the truth.
The church could no longer say this is what's true and this is what's true.
Once it became an open discussion, it was just in the cards that eventually we would reach this place where people said there is no truth.
And that's what Hamlet, in my mind, that's what Hamlet is about.
That's why Hamlet went to school in Wittenberg.
It's about the collapse of the monopoly on truth.
And part of that collapse is the materialist assumption.
What do you think of when you think of Hamlet?
You think of Hamlet looking at that skull, right?
That's the poster on every production of Hamlet.
And what he's saying, when he looks at that skull, he says, this is my friend Yorick, a last poor Yorick, who was his jester and kind of his babysitter, and he loved him.
And now he's just turned to the skull.
And as he thinks about that, he thinks, this is what happened to Alexander the Great, who was the greatest conqueror on earth until Napoleon.
He said, this is what happened to Alexander the Great.
And Alexander the Great turned to dust, and that dust was turned to clay, and the clay was used to stop a bunghole, to stop a hole in a keg of beer.
And he ends that speech by saying, even Caesar turned to clay, would stop a hole to keep the wind away.
And that's the materialist assumption, that we are no more than these bodies that then decay, and we just turn to clay.
And that's part of what Shakespeare knew was coming.
By the 19th century, when you had Darwin coming out, and a lot of the scientific revolution was really in full swing, there's a beautiful poem, one of my favorite poems in English, probably one of everybody who likes poetry, favorite poems, called Dover Beach.
It's by Matthew Arnold.
It came out in 1867, and Arnold is supposed to have been on his honeymoon on Dover Beach, you know, the white cliffs of Dover, and he was standing on the balcony of his hotel watching the tide recede, because obviously he was on the beach and he was watching the tide go out, and he reflected that the sea of faith, which had once encircled the world, was now also receding like that tide.
This is 1867, so it's after Origin of Species has come out, and he's looking at this.
Let me just read the last two stanzas.
The final stanza is one of the most beautiful pieces of writing, I think, in English.
I always look at poems to find if there are any old-fashioned words.
He uses the word girdle to mean not a woman's girdle, but a sash that goes around the waist, a piece of clothing that encircles you.
And he uses the word darkling, which is a poetic word for twilight or getting darker.
So he's looking out and he says, the sea of faith, he watches the ocean recede and he says, the sea of faith was once too at the full and round Earth's shore lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.
But now I only hear its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar, retreating to the breath of the night wind down the vast edges drear and naked shingles of the world.
And then he turns to his bride and in just one of the most brilliant stanzas ever written, he says, I love, let us be true to one another.
For the world, which seems to lie before us like a land of dreams, so various, so beautiful, so new, hath really neither joy nor love nor light nor certitude nor peace nor help for pain.
And we are here as on a darkling plain, swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight, where ignorant armies clash by night.
And 50 years later, those ignorant armies were going to clash and destroy this civilization that was at its peak.
There was no reason.
There was no reason to destroy it, but it had lost its God.
And when a civilization loses its God, it dies.
It dies within, it takes 50 to 70 years.
When a civilization gets rid of God, it takes 50 to 70 years, and then it's gone.
The Soviet Union, gone.
I mean, that's just one of the things that happens.
God is what informs your sense of right and wrong, because without God, there is no ultimate right and wrong.
And that's the argument we're having with the left right now, whether there's an essential reality.
You know, we read this piece by Roger Scruton.
That was the last thing I read yesterday.
Roger Scruton, this philosopher who was protesting against the materialist assumption.
He was saying, he was protesting against the idea that the human person is nothing but the human animal.
Law is nothing but relations of social power.
Sexual love is nothing but the urge to procreation.
Philosophy's True Goal00:10:47
The Mona Lisa is nothing but a spread of pigments on a canvas.
The Ninth Symphony is nothing but a sequence of pitched sounds of varying timber, and so on.
Getting rid of this habit, says Roger Scruton, is to my mind the true goal of philosophy.
And if we get rid of it when dealing with the small things, symphonies, pictures, people, we might get rid of it when dealing with the large things too, notably when dealing with the world as a whole.
And then we might conclude that it is just as absurd to say that the world is nothing but the order of nature.
And drawing that conclusion is the first step in the search for God.
So, after Tuesday's election, with a lot of conservative victories and victories for conservative ideas, the governor of Kentucky, the striking down of this bill, the so-called hero bill in Houston, that opponents claimed would allow transgender people to use girls' bathrooms when they were really men who just felt like they were women, and not legalizing pot, getting rid of the sheriff in San Francisco, even in San Francisco.
Molly Ball, who is an award-winning political writer for The Atlantic, she writes this article called, Liberals Are Losing the Culture Wars.
It's not a question, liberals are losing the culture wars.
In Tuesday's elections, voters rejected recreational marijuana, transgender rights, and illegal immigrant sanctuaries.
They reacted equivocally to gun control arguments, and they handed a surprise victory to a Republican gubernatorial candidate who emphasized his opposition to gay marriage.
Democrats have become increasingly assertive in taking liberal social positions in recent years, believing that they enjoy majority support and even seeking to turn abortion and gay rights into electoral wedges against Republicans.
But Tuesday's results in the broader trend of recent elections that have been generally disastrous for Democrats, not named Barack Obama, call that view into question.
Indeed, they suggest that the left has misread the electorate's enthusiasm for social change, inviting a backlash from mainstream voters invested in the status quo.
There were particular factors in all these races.
And she concludes, she says, Democrats have increasingly seized the offensive on social issues in recent years, using opposition to abortion rights and gay marriage to paint Republican candidates as extreme and backward.
In some cases, this has been successful.
She talks about Todd Aiken and Richard Murdoch, and Obama successfully leaned into cultural issues to galvanize the Democratic base.
But the Democrats' culture war strategy has been less successful when Obama is not on the ballot.
Two campaigns that made abortion rights their centerpiece in 2014, Wendy Davis's, Mark Udall's, they fell far short in most of the country, particularly between the coasts.
It's far from clear that regular voters are willing to come to the polls for social change.
And on she goes, that saying, the final paragraph, liberals love to point out the fractiousness of the GOP, whose dramatic fissures have racked the House of Representatives and tormented party leaders.
But as Matt Aglesius recently pointed out, Republican divisions are actually signs of an ideological, flexible, big-tent party, while Democrats are in lockstep around an agenda whose popularity they too often fail to question.
Really interesting, really interesting piece, reading a lot into this very small election where a lot of people didn't turn out.
So after the election, the mayor, Anise Parker, Houston's mayor who is an open lesbian, you know, greeted the election results with the usual left-wing open-heartedness and building bridges across the divide, across the Bardi divide.
Listen to her reconciliation speech after this election.
No one's rights should be subject to a popular vote.
It is demeaning and it is just wrong.
This was a campaign of fear-mongering and deliberate lies.
Deliberate lies.
This isn't misinformation.
This is a calculated campaign of lies designed to demonize a little understood minority and to use that to take down an ordinance that 200 other cities across America and 17 states have successfully passed and operated under.
They just kept spewing an ugly wad of lies from our TV screens.
Field of love.
And from pulpits.
All right.
Well, you know, I mean, this is an open lesbian mayor who's elected by 57% of Houston, so they can't be that small-minded, right?
There was something they didn't like about the idea of people with male genitalia, you know, saying, I feel like, you know, a woman like Shania Twain and walking into girls' bathrooms and girls' locker rooms, as Ben was talking about on his show, that Chicago case, in Chicago, right?
That Chicago case, I think, where the feds are suing a high school because they won't allow, they wouldn't allow this guy to walk into the girls' locker room.
Now, listen, I don't sail under a false flag.
I'm an artist.
I have worked with gay people all my life, some of the best, nicest, most creative, funniest, and inherently conservative people that I have ever met.
And I respect, you know, I was standing up for them and in times when liberals gave you a hard time about it.
I mean, there are liberals walking the planet this day with their rainbow stickers who wouldn't come back into my house because they met people there that they couldn't tolerate, okay?
And they would call you names and things.
They suggest that maybe you were gay, which in my case is hilarious because I only evolved into a human male like a week ago.
People ask if I believe in evolution.
I'm like, yeah, that was Tuesday, I think.
I was swinging on a tree.
But anyway, I've been doing this for a long time.
I don't think you're heroic to stand up in a time when ESPN gives you an award for just being something.
That doesn't really impress me.
I was doing this a long time ago.
I do have a lot of respect for the religious arguments against gay marriage, but I just don't think they should apply to the state, who I think should have no role in marriage anyway.
The state can't sanctify your marriage.
If you want to belong to a church that won't perform gay marriages, they can sanctify it in a way that is meaningful to you.
The state should have nothing to do with it.
That's where I stand on this, all right?
But her argument is: this shouldn't even come up for a vote, and her point of view is virtue, and yours is vice, yours is necessarily hateful.
There shouldn't be any argument.
You're voting on my rights.
Men are women if they say it's all about like reality.
We define reality.
Men are women if they say they're women.
Babies aren't human if you don't happen to want to be pregnant.
Homosexuality is inherent and irreversible, but gender traits are just made up by the culture.
I mean, I love that.
Being a male man is just made up by the culture.
But if you're gay, that's like just baked into your soul and your flesh.
And this whole, it's the whole idea, it's all, and you're anti-science, that's the other one.
It's all shutuppery.
It's all about shut up.
I mean, that's the first satire video I ever made was that the left's argument is just shut up.
And all those things that you hear, race, you know, you're a racist, you're a sexist, you're a homophobe, they're all just about shut up.
They're just not arguments.
You know, we do.
The right does make arguments.
And sometimes our arguments are good, and sometimes they're not so good, but we make the arguments, and all they do is try and shut you up.
So the thing is, the left always wins the culture war in the near term because it sounds nice.
It sounds nice to be tolerant of everybody, to be non-judgmental.
That sounds nice, okay?
And if they don't win the culture war on the ground democratically, the courts impose it on us, as they did with Roe v. Wade and with this recent gay marriage decision, which even though I'm fine with gay people getting married, I thought the decision was just absolutely wrong.
George Washington didn't cross the Delaware to make sure you could abort your baby and that men could get married.
Those are not constitutional rights.
That was not why those guys were fighting and dying.
And to say it is, it's just lying.
The left always wins the culture war in the short term, but the right always wins in the long term.
And the reason is the world is a conservative place.
The world operates on conservative principles.
This is what Kipling called the gods of the copybook headings.
A copybook was a child's book that would show you how to write, have nice handwriting.
And he would copy sentences out of the book.
So it's called a copybook.
And the headings would be little moral lessons.
So in Kipling's famous poem, The Gods of the Copybook Headings, the moral lessons are: if you don't work, you die.
If you don't work, you don't get any money.
So it's like you would write, if you don't get work, you die.
And the wages of sin is death.
And Kipling says we keep moving away from those gods, but they always come after us.
We keep making up gods, but the real gods, the gods of the copybook headings, come back.
And while I'm reading poetry, let me read the last two verses of this.
Kipling says, as it will be in the future, it was at the birth of man.
There are only four things certain since social progress began.
That was the word for progressivism, then social progress.
There are only four things that are certain since social progress began.
The dog returns to his vomit, and the sow returns to the mire, and the burnt fool's bandaged finger goes wobbling back to the fire.
We keep making the same stupid mistakes over and over again.
And he says, and that after this is accomplished and the brave new world begins, when all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins, so that sounds a little familiar, right?
All men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins.
As surely as water will wet us, as surely as fire will burn, the gods of the copybook headings with terror and slaughter return.
Okay, so that's the thing.
The conservatives are the people of the gods of the copybook headings, and the gods of the copybook headings always win in the end.
The question is, when?
When do we win the culture war?
As Mark Stein once said, it matters whether the bus stops at the top of the cliff or at the bottom of the cliff.
Morality And The PC Principal00:10:48
You know, reality is a very powerful teacher, but you do not want to attend this class.
It is not a happy place to be, all right?
So, you know, the PC rules, the shutuppery, the idea that there's no argument, there's only my virtue and your hate, there's only anti-science, there's only, you know, my opinion and your sexism, your racism, your homophobia, is meant to—why do you do that?
Why do you shut somebody up?
You shut somebody up to stop an argument.
So they can't make an argument.
And you only do that if you haven't got the goods, if you haven't got an argument to make.
They know that the gods of the copybook heading are following fast on our heels.
They just hope that they can outlast them to get their power and get their money and take your money and do all the stuff they want to do before those gods catch up with them.
But it seems to me that there's now some pushback, all right?
We talked a little while ago about Jerry Seinfeld coming out and saying, I'm not going to perform at colleges.
They get upset at everything.
He's talking about political correctness, the shut up culture.
Now, hilariously, this season on South Park, this obscene, foul-mouthed, absolutely out there cartoon that's on Comedy Central, Trey Parker and what's the other guy's name, Trey Parker?
And, oh, Matt Stone.
And they have a storyline this season where the school, it's about these, all about these little kids at South Park, where the school has been taken over by PC Principal.
PC Principal is just an utter thug and a bully, okay?
And here's a scene from South Park.
One of the kids, Cartman, is in the bathroom, and he's reproaching PC Principal for some of his behavior in the bathroom, okay?
And for doing something a little untoward.
And Cartman says to him, you don't want to end up like the spokesman for Subway, do you?
I mean, Jared Fogel, the guy who was just put in prison.
He was just put away for playing with children.
So this is what he says.
And this is PC Principal's reaction.
Take a look.
You don't want to end up like the spokesman for Subway, do you?
Did you just use a term that excludes women from an occupation?
Okay, let's back up.
Did you just say spokesman instead of spokesperson when women are just as capable of selling sandwiches as anyone?
Are you purposefully trying to use words that assert your male privilege?
So, it's a brilliant scene.
And if you couldn't see it, if you're just listening, he's smashing the kid, the child, he's smashing him against the sink and a wall.
I'll just like, absolutely take him to pieces.
And the kid says, wait, let's back up here.
Why does he say?
Well, it's a brilliant scene because what happens is a moral question, whether he's doing something really bad, you know, is transformed and silenced into a question of tolerance.
And that's what we're talking about, right?
talking about the morality of things being bled out of life so that it's all about difference.
And difference, if there's no morality, difference is all on a level.
Look, there are a lot of abnormal things in life.
Being gay is abnormal.
Being a genius is abnormal.
Being transgender is abnormal.
Being a serial killer is abnormal.
Abnormal has no moral quality, but all those things do have moral qualities.
And that's an open debate.
That's a debate we can have with each other.
I think people of goodwill can sit down and discuss whether things are moral or whether they're right.
I have to play one more scene from this because it just gets, it is really hilarious.
There's a kid named Kyle, and PC Principal calls Kyle and his father into the office.
He's sent to the office of the principal's office because he said a horrible, horrible, horrible thing about Caitlin Jenner.
So listen to this.
Your son said some things to a fourth grade girl that frankly make me want to puke.
What did he say?
You'll have to excuse my language.
I don't think Caitlin Jenner is a hero.
This kind of transphobic and bigoted hate speech isn't going to fly here, bro.
I thought we were all on board that Caitlin Jenner is an amazing, beautiful woman who had the exquisite bravery of a butterfly flying against the wind.
And then this sh ⁇ comes out of people's mouths!
That's PC principal.
All right, so why?
So I started out talking about the materialist assumption and the death of faith and the fact that civilizations can't survive the death of their gods.
And the reason I started out talking about that is the same reason Kipling wrote a poem called The Gods of the Copybooketting, not The Truths of the Copybooketting.
Because Kipling understood, as all people who think about it for more than 10 minutes understand, that without God, there is no moral end.
I mean, this is the Marquis de Saud, who invented sadism.
This is his great argument that without God, there is no morality.
We should just go after power and pleasure.
And he's right.
Saad was right, if there is no God.
And so you have to start inventing this crazy morality that the left invents.
And if you listen to the arguments, here's my theory, and then I'll give you my prediction.
For the time that Matthew Arnold was writing his poem, for about 100 years, maybe even 150 years, it made sense to move toward atheism.
It actually made logical sense.
Science was explaining so much of what the Bible had told us was miraculous.
You know, evolution seemed to get rid of Genesis and just the clockwork of the world.
Didn't seem to need a God.
But if you listen now, if you listen to the arguments that scientists are making against God, they're collapsing.
Richard Dawkins is the most famous, and his essential argument is that evolution is random and therefore there's no need for God.
That's not an argument that makes sense.
That's not a good argument.
You can't tell if a system is random when you're inside it.
Nobody who is inside a system knows whether it's random or not.
I mean, if we went to another planet with exactly the same systems in place and evolution had happened differently, that would be a clue that maybe it was random.
But we don't have even that.
So he's just guessing whether it's random or not.
And anybody who says it's intelligently designed, he dismisses with a sneer, but it's just a sneer.
It's just a shut up sneer.
Talking about Roger Scruton many years ago, not that many years ago, the guy who, the scientist, Stephen Hawking, who wrote the brief history of time, made the argument that now we know there are only a certain essential rules to create the universe.
We don't need God.
And so Scruton wrote a response in the Wall Street Journal saying, well, who wrote the rules?
You know, who wrote the rules that we live by?
So I was reading this in a cafe in Santa Barbara.
I'm reading the newspaper in a cafe, and I looked across, and I happened to be sitting across from one of these ladies' nails salons.
I can't remember.
I think it was called like Agnes' Nail Salon.
And I thought, you know, if I took Stephen Hawking's argument into Agnes' nail salon, Agnes would have come up with the same argument that this professional philosopher came up.
I mean, their arguments are just so bad.
Christopher Hitchens, whose writing I loved when he talked about God, he just talked nonsense.
The fact is, the fact is that if science now has turned a corner, science now has turned a corner.
I mean, quantum physics has just added a kind of uncertainty.
The uncertainty principle has made it seem as if the human mind has a part in creation, which could lead to the fact that all of creation is the result of a mind.
But more importantly, it's something called the anthropic principle, which is the fact that the universe is perfectly key for the production of a human mind that can understand it.
And that is, the odds of that happening are the same as a wind blowing through a junkyard and assembling a 747.
And to get rid of the fact that that really does point toward a creator, scientists are now inventing this idea of multiple universes, that there are infinite universes, and this just happens to be the one that works for human life.
They used to have a saying called God of the Gaps, which is people saying, oh, there's a God whenever science couldn't explain something.
That's science of the gaps.
That's science coming in when they have no proof.
There are no proofs of multiple universes.
It's simply to get rid of God.
Here's my prediction.
We are on the verge of another great awakening.
This happens in this country from time to time, when the idea of God comes back to us and our gods come alive in our minds once again.
I think we're less than five years away from this.
The only difference is I don't think it's going to start intense.
I don't think it's going to start at the bottom.
I think it's going to start at the top.
Intellectuals are now, the books that I'm reading, intellectuals are now beginning to realize that post-modernism makes no sense, that relativism makes no internal sense.
It doesn't make internal sense.
In order to get rid of the materialist assumption, you need materialist arguments.
And science has progressed past the point where it makes sense not to believe in God.
Once we rediscover the spirit, once we rediscover God, a lot of things that are taking place now are not going to happen anymore.
The argument that there's no morality is simply not going to make any sense, and we're going to have to start having an open discussion about what morality is.
I think the rise of Islam, the rise of Islamism that is destroying Europe, I think it's too late for Europe, but I don't think it's too late for us.
And I think once we understand that there is a good, there is a bad, and our God has shown us a better way than Islamism, I think that there's going to be a pushback that I do not think Islam will be able to withstand.
I think there is going to be a hopeful turning point in the very near future, and it's going to start with this great awakening at the intellectual level.
It's going to trickle down this time.
It's already happening to some degree because it's already true that people in the upper levels are more religious than people in the lower levels.
It used to be the other way around because it used to make sense the other way around.
It no longer makes sense.
Let me end with a quote from Winston Churchill who said this in the midst of World War II, obviously when England was on the verge of extinction.
Churchill said, the destiny of mankind is not decided by material computation.
When great causes are on the move in the world, stirring all men's souls, drawing them from their firesides, casting aside comfort, wealth, and the pursuit of happiness in response to impulses at once awe-striking and irresistible, we learn that we are spirits, not animals, and that something is going on in space and time and beyond space and time, which whether we like it or not spells duty.
All right, let's end there and we'll end the week there.
And it's time.
I think that brings us to some gospel stuff I like.
Gospel stuff I like.
This is one of my favorite gospel hits written by a now forgotten guy named William Spivery.
William Spivery was a gospel singer.
It was made into a hit by Manhattan Transfer, the a cappella group.
But this is the late, great Jesse Dixon.
He died a few years ago and just before he died, he recorded this song.