Andrew Clavin’s Unfriending America dissects tech billionaires—like Zuckerberg and Dorsey—as "autistic sociopaths" weaponizing platforms to suppress conservative speech, from Hunter Biden censorship to Section 230 hypocrisy. He contrasts Riley’s data (black voters oppose defunding police) with NYT narratives, mocks Hirono’s bias denial, and frames free speech as a zero-sum war between "regular people" and Silicon Valley/Democrats. Despite dismissing voter fraud claims (citing Dominion’s failures), he warns Trump’s election denial risks undermining American freedom, insisting truth—not loyalty—drives his media strategy. The episode blends partisan fury with self-promotion for The Daily Wire, ending with a call to outmaneuver left-wing media through PragerU-style outreach. [Automatically generated summary]
A Vogue magazine cover featuring Harry Stiles in a dress is under attack for trying to make sexually ambiguous British boy band singers look like sissies.
Many believe that undermining the masculinity of simpering, reed-thin English lads who swivel their hips while singing pop songs surrounded by other boys with funny little accents could undercut the manhood of society, leading other sexually indeterminate singer boys from the country of Elton John, David Bowie, and Lou Reed to become girly weaklings in tight jeans who prance around to little tunes with other boys similarly attired.
What will happen to society in which masculinity is abandoned by prissy British pop stars who spend the majority of their time posing in different outfits in order to replicate an 11-year-old girl's idea of masculinity?
Who will fight our wars if when danger rises and duty calls, our nation can't reach out to its population of hip-swiveling chirpers of adolescent love songs and count on them to rush to the front and perform such favorite lyrics as walk in your rainbow paradise, strawberry lipstick state of mind, I get so lost inside your eyes, would you believe it, while leaning their smooth cheeks on one hand and gazing wistfully into space until the enemy panics and retreats.
Soon, if we're not careful, all members of society who sit around watching reedy Englishmen prance about on YouTube, singing such ditties as watermelon, sugar high, and sunflower, my eyes want you more than a melody, will have lost all notion of what it means to be a real man sitting around watching reedy Englishmen prance about on YouTube.
We must always be aware of just how powerful fashion magazines like Vogue can be.
Do you remember back in the 1980s when gay fashion photographers decided what was really beautiful in a woman was a stick-thin body remarkably like a boy's, and as a result, men lost their taste for girls with spectacular breasts and those womanly hips that make you dream of paradise?
Actually, I don't remember that either.
Trigger warning, I'm Andrew Clavin, and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
I'm the hunky donkey.
Life is tickety boom.
Birds are ringing, also singing, hunky-dunkity.
Ship-shaped hipsy-topsy, the world is a bitty zing.
It's a wonderful day.
Hoorah, hooray!
It makes me want to sing.
Oh, hoorah, hooray.
Oh, hooray, hoora.
All right, we are back.
Britain never will be slaves.
It's mailbag day.
God love us.
It is mailbag day.
We've got a great question today about voter fraud and this election, and I will answer all your questions about this since everybody's writing me about this and commenting on how I cover it, how I don't cover it, what I think of it.
I will bare my heart to you.
You will hear things on this show that you have never heard on any other podcast.
I will tell you all what I think about voter fraud in the mailbag.
Meanwhile, while you're waiting for that, it'd be a perfect time to go on YouTube and subscribe to the Andrew Clavin channel, where we already have over 200,000 subscribers, but we're trying to get to 47 billion.
So please sign on, press the little bell, and then you'll be notified of original content and new content.
I will come to your house and deliver that content personally and then walk away with your silverware.
Also, leave a comment, and if the comment is sufficiently obstreperous, we will put it on the air because it'll fit right in with everything else we're saying.
Today, we have a relevant comment from one Davy P who said, damn it, Clavin, how dare you say the British are dress-wearing woozies?
I'm a proud, patriotic Brit, and as soon as I wriggle out of this rather fetching peach-colored off-the-shoulder number, I'm calling the joke police.
I lived in England for seven years, all of that time.
The British do nothing but dress in women's clothes.
They just think it's hilarious.
I don't know why that is.
So yesterday I told you about a not yet released Harris poll which said that Americans consider freedom of speech the most important American value.
I think that's a really good thing to know.
The day before that, I was talking about the difference between a materialist slash consumerist approach to life, which regards most people as kind of inferior beings who can be made happy or at least kept quiet by giving them money and stuff.
And the difference between that and a spiritual slash Christian approach, which considers each human being a unique image of the Godhead whose individual experience of life should be nurtured in freedom.
These two ways of looking at life, of course, are related.
These two things are related.
The freedom of speech and the way you look at life are related.
If all you are is a consumer, what difference does it make what you think and why should your speech be as important or as interesting as the speech of some billionaire in Davos who has seized for himself the right to decide what our shared goals are and where the money you earn should be spent?
If you're just a consumer, what difference does it make what your opinion is?
If, on the other hand, you're important enough that Christ died for your sins, then it actually matters what you experience and what you think.
And therefore, your expression of your thoughts and experience, what you have to say, is sacrosanct.
It's an expression of your individual and unique self.
Now, today, we're going to talk about some of these tech guys before Congress, before the Senate yesterday.
We're going to take a look at some of these billionaire, autistic, and sociopaths who have created social media.
They created social media and they designed it specifically to make certain chemicals that induce rage and pleasure squirt in your brain so you'll be addicted to using their platforms.
Because they are, one, billionaires, two, autistic, and three, some of them sociopaths, they have no real connection to other human beings.
And they think those chemicals are all you are.
They think that's what you're made of and that's who you are.
And they have a right to censor and control what you say and think for the greater good because what difference does it make what you think and what you have to say?
If you are one of those Americans, as I am, who thinks that freedom of speech is the most important American value, now would be a good time to ask yourself why you believe that.
What is it about you that makes your speech, your experience, your life worth talking about and your freedom worth protecting?
Why is it true that you feel that way?
You want to know that so you can defend yourself from very powerful international billionaires around the world who don't see you in the fullness of your humanity and therefore don't care what you think and don't want to hear what you have to say.
If you don't know why you believe what you believe, you won't be able to defend it.
If you don't know why you should have free speech, you will not be able to defend it when they start making arguments about the greater good.
Let me just show you.
I just want to show you something I noticed in the newspapers.
I scan the papers, read the papers pretty deeply every morning and evening so I know what's going on.
And there were two pair of articles in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, right?
And both of them are by black columnists who write about race.
One is this guy in the New York Times.
The New York Times used to be a newspaper in case you've forgotten his guy named Jamal Bowie.
I hope I'm pronouncing his name properly.
It's B-O-U-I-E.
On his Wikipedia page, he has someone calling him one of the defining commentators on politics and race in the Trump era.
So you can guess what he's going to say.
So he's talking about the fact that the Democrats essentially lost this election.
They won at the top.
They won the presidency, but they lost everything else.
And they know it.
And that's what they're talking about.
They're talking about why this was so disappointing, why Trump got as many votes as he did, why they lost House seats that they were supposed to win, why it doesn't look like they've won the Senate.
So he says two narratives about what happened stand out.
First, the idea that left-wing slogans like to fund the police cratered the Democratic Party and downballot fights for the House and Senate.
And second, that President Trump's modest gains with black and Hispanic voters herald the arrival of a working-class multiracial Republican Party.
He says, there is no hard evidence that voters turned against Democratic congressional candidates because of defund the police and other radical slogans.
No hard evidence of this.
It does not show up in the congressional generic ballot.
There is no decline that corresponds with the unrest of the summer.
That's not true.
And there's little other data to support the idea of a direct causal relationship between the slogans and the performance of Democratic candidates.
What we have instead are the words of moderate Democratic lawmakers who believe those slogans left them unusually vulnerable to Republican attacks.
But this is a textbook case of assuming one thing caused the other because they followed in chronological order.
That's called post hoc ergo propterhoc.
He's saying this is the fallacy of because it happened first, because it happened afterwards, therefore it happened because of, okay?
He can't find, he is defending the idea that defund the police was not an unpopular idea.
So now here's Jason Riley over at the Wall Street Journal, a conservative guy, a black, also a black columnist who talks a lot about race.
And he says the press often presents the views of black elites as representative of the views of most blacks.
In fact, this is not true and the divergence in opinion between intellectuals and the broader society isn't unique to blacks.
White intellectuals don't speak for most whites either.
He says the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis earlier this year brought nationwide calls from black activists, elected officials, and the media to defund the police.
But when the people forced to live in high crime neighborhoods were consulted, only a small percentage cited over policing as the problem.
A Gallup poll released in August reported that 81% of black respondents, 81%, wanted the police presence in their community to remain the same or increase, while only 19% wanted it reduced.
In a separate survey released last year, 59% of black residents of low-income neighborhoods said that they would like the police to spend more time in their area than they currently do.
So in other words, why isn't Jamal Bowie looking at that and thinking, hmm, that is kind of hard evidence.
It's because he has no access to that.
He doesn't want to hear about that.
He doesn't want to hear about what the people think because he doesn't think it matters.
He thinks what matters are his ideas.
He thinks what matters are the 1619 project, things that have nothing to do with the rest of our lives.
They are not listening.
They don't think we exist in the same way that they exist.
That is a real example of Jason Riley just going out and finding evidence that people do not want to defund the police.
The other guy, that evidence was available to the other guy.
He just doesn't care.
So every time I do a Raycon ad, I want to sing it.
I want to go, Raycon.
And the reason is I use these things, these wireless earbuds, all the time.
I use them to listen to mostly to audible books.
And when you turn them on, they sing.
They go, Raycon.
So I have this tune running in my head every time I do this.
But they are terrific.
They're absolutely great.
They give you seamless Bluetooth pairing, a comfortable noise-isolating fit.
I love that because I use them when I'm hiking and there's a lot of wind and all this.
And the way they fit against your ears really keeps the noise out.
Jack Dorsey's Rule00:10:57
They absolutely don't make you look like an insect, which I appreciate, although maybe I look like an insect anyway.
This holiday season, it is a great idea for a gift or give yourself a gift.
Go to buyraycon.com slash clavin today to unlock exclusive deals up to 20% off your Raycon order.
But hurry, this offer is available for a limited time only and you don't want to miss it.
That's by B-U-Y-Raycon.com slash Clavin to unlock up to 20% off your Raycons by Raycon.com slash Clavin.
You can press the little button.
It'll go Clavin or tell you how to spell Clavin, which is K-L-A-V-A-N.
So the horsemen of the apocalypse of the tech apocalypse, Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg, Dorsey of Twitter, obviously, and Zuckerberg of Facebook, Sunder Pichai of Google was not there.
They were called up before the Senate.
The big thing was that the big idea was that they had censored the Hunter Biden laptop story from the New York Post.
That was the thing that really got people going.
But there are two sides to this.
There's a Republican side and there's a Democrat side.
And Senator Mike Lee outlines what those sides are.
This Cut 16.
Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg are very fond of saying, and I'm sure we will hear today, that we've got people on both sides of the spectrum who are upset with us.
The difference here, Tracy, is that you do have some people upset on the left, yes, but they're upset mostly because they want Facebook and Twitter to be doing more of their censoring, not less.
And people who are actually getting censored, with some rare and less visible exceptions, are overwhelmingly Republican, conservative, pro-life individuals and organizations.
You don't see that happening on the left.
So remember that as we listen to some of the clips from this, that the left wants them to censor.
They just want them to censor us.
And the right wants them not to censor.
They're not telling that nobody on the right is calling for the left to be censored.
Nobody.
Nobody on the right is calling for the left to be censored.
And that's an amazing difference between it's just like the difference in the Supreme Court where they want the right decisions, pro-abortion and whatever their cause is.
And we want constitutional decisions even when we have to bite it and lose.
I want them to decide according to what the Constitution says, even if I think that the Constitution is wrong there, then I want the law to be changed.
I do not want judges ruling me, okay?
It's really different.
It's really two different things.
And these guys, you know, Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey, but Jack Dorsey especially, Jack Dorsey especially.
Zuckerberg, I have this feeling, has a sort of sense of that he wants to be a little bit more fair.
Zuckerberg, I think, is just playing the game to make the most money for his company.
Whereas Dorsey, I think, is really, you just look at his beard.
I mean, it's the beard of a sociopath.
I won't say that he's a sociopath.
I don't know.
I'm not a doctor.
But anybody who has that beard is suspect.
And the other thing about these guys is they're untouchable.
The Senate cannot lay a glove on them.
Why?
Because the Senate doesn't understand this stuff.
It doesn't understand the algorithms they're using.
It doesn't understand how they work.
They can change those algorithms.
They can do all kinds of things.
All they understand is that they are faced with a group of people who have more power, or at least in instances, have more power than the President of the United States.
The President of the United States used Twitter to get his word out.
He's still doing it, and they are censoring it.
They're labeling it.
They're putting labels on it.
And the arrogance of them, especially Dorsey, Jack Boots Dorsey, I call him at this point, the arrogance of them is incredible.
Listen to Dorsey.
Listen to what Dorsey says about censoring the New York Post's Cut 9.
We were called here today because of an enforcement decision we made against the New York Post based on a policy we created in 2018 to prevent Twitter from being used to spread hacked materials.
This resulted in us blocking people from sharing a New York Post article, publicly or privately.
We made a quick interpretation using no other evidence that the materials in the article were obtained through hacking.
And according to our policy, we blocked them from being spread.
Upon further consideration, we admitted this action was wrong and corrected it within 24 hours.
Now, one of the reasons he thinks it was wrong was because it made the story much, much bigger than it was.
Now, as we reported yesterday, I think it was when I was reading from the Daily Beast, yeah, that was yesterday.
The MSN did the job for them.
They squashed the story.
They would not report the story.
The story simply died.
And you could hear the relief in the Biden team saying, oh, we thought it was going to spread.
It was doing so well on social media, but then luckily it didn't make it into the media.
It wasn't luck.
They squashed the story.
And when you're talking about, by the way, election rigging, that's election rigging.
It's not illegal, but it's election rigging, and we let them get away with it.
We let them get away with it when we let them take over the news media.
They've taken over social media as well.
We let them do this.
We don't build our own stuff.
We sit around and complain about the stuff they build.
And that is, especially when it comes to the culture.
We're doing other things, but when it comes to the culture, this is the thing.
Now we're learned.
We've learned our lesson.
We've made big inroads.
We have to continue making those inroads.
The arrogance of this guy to say all they had to do was obey us, and then they could go back on and disobey us because we changed the policy.
That's an amazing thing.
Just bend the knee to Twitter.
You know, that's basically what they're saying.
It's like they made a bad rule.
The New York Post violated the bad rule.
They changed the rule, but first they had to obey the rule in order to come on and not obey the rule because the rule wasn't made anymore, right?
Also, of course, the rule wasn't enforced on anybody else.
It wasn't enforced on the New York Times when they hacked Trump's tax returns.
It wasn't enforced on anybody who was saying all kinds of things against, you know, Dorsey is openly spitting in their eyes.
And so all they can do, basically, Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz, all they can do is go after them as best they can.
But basically, they know they're up against a power that has to be broken by the government before it can be dealt with by the government because right now it's more powerful than the government.
Here's Cruz going after him.
Because by the way, they're still doing this.
They're doing this with Trump's claims that the election was fraudulent.
All right.
These claims have not been taken to court yet.
We have not seen the proof.
We've not seen the evidence.
We've seen some evidence that goes around on Twitter and all this stuff.
There's no way that Jack Dorsey knows whether or not these claims are true or not, but he is labeling them, saying official sources say they're, you know, what is the official source for this?
So here's cut 11, Cruz versus Dorsey.
Does voter fraud exist?
I don't know for certain.
Are you an expert in voter fraud?
No, I'm not.
Well, why then is Twitter right now putting purported warnings on virtually any statement about voter fraud?
We're simply linking to a broader conversation so that people have more information.
No, you're not.
You put up a page that says, quote, voter fraud of any kind is exceedingly rare in the United States.
That's not linking to a broader conversation.
That's taking a disputed policy position.
And you're a publisher when you're doing that.
See, this is the thing.
And of course, the publisher thing is we all know, what is the number 230, some rule, where, and this is the important part of this, right?
They're a government creation.
Twitter, Facebook, Google, they're all government creations because they gave them this right to edit material without having the responsibility of publishers, right?
I've explained this a million times, just go over it briefly.
If they're a platform, they're like the phone company.
They have no right to edit content.
The phone company has no right to come on your conversation and say, oh, you know, those are disputed claims.
I'm sorry, grandma.
Tell your grandma that those are disputed claims.
They can't do that while you're talking to your grandma and telling her you think the vote was rigged, right?
They can't come on and do that.
But Twitter can.
Twitter can and still remain a platform.
And that's important because if they're a publisher who does curate material, then they can be sued.
Then if somebody goes on Twitter and says something untrue about me, I can sue Twitter for publishing that, right?
That's why they don't want that, because if I can sue Twitter, I could sue them into the, me alone, I alone could sue them into the ground for all the people who've called me names on Twitter and said things about them, said things about me.
I could sue Jack Dorsey and then he wouldn't be rich enough to wear that beard anymore because nobody would talk to him.
They would say, look, I'm sorry, but the beard is dispositive that you're a sociopath.
I can't talk to you anymore.
His life would not be as much fun.
This is what Lindsey Graham is saying.
It's cut 10.
Why do you have editorial control over the New York Post?
They decided, and maybe for a good reason, I don't know, that the New York Post articles about Hunter Biden needed to be flagged, excluded from distribution, or made hard to find.
That to me seems like you're the ultimate editor.
And if they lose this right, obviously, if they lose the right to edit, then they have lost the power that they are wielding wrongly against you because they don't care what you have to think.
They only care about you as a consumer.
That's what they want.
They want you to be a consumer, not a human being.
So it's been a long time since I've had to make a resume, but even talking about it makes me break out in a sweat.
I remember what a horrible chore it is.
Top Resume can help you.
They are the number one world authority on resume writing.
Recruiters and hiring managers lean on tech solutions to scan resumes for top picks.
Top resume writers know the keywords to use that will get your resume seen.
Do you know what it takes to get noticed when applying for jobs in today's competitive job market?
They do.
The experts at Top Resume will provide free quality feedback through a resume review.
I've gone on their website and used it.
It is really easy to use.
You can find out how your resume stacks up.
Just go to topresume.com slash Clavin and they will give you a free resume review.
It's as simple as uploading your resume to their site and you'll get a free evaluation and expert advice on how to make your resume stronger.
Top Resume is also giving my listeners 15% off their professional resume writing services.
So go to topresume.com slash Clavin today for your comprehensive resume review and 15% off resume writing services if you want to work with a pro.
That's topresume.com slash Clavin.
They will even teach you how to spell Clavin.
I know many of you have been asking.
It's K-L-A-V-A-N.
There are no E's in Clavin.
I just make it look this easy.
Why are they so arrogant?
They're arrogant, as I said, because Ted Cruz, he's the one guy who really does understand that the culture matters.
He's got that, but he doesn't understand algorithms.
Neither do I.
I would have no power to do that.
Challenging Climate Denialism00:15:50
And he also knows that a Democrat, all things being equal, a Democrat administration is coming into the White House and the Democrats have a, as Mike Lee said, they have a totally different agenda.
Listen to Richard Blumenthal talking to Zuckerberg about what he should do.
This is Cup 3.
How many times has Steve Bannon allowed the call for the murder of government officials before Facebook suspends his account?
Senator, as you say, the content in question did violate our policies and we took it down.
Will you commit to taking down that account, Steve Bannon's account?
Senator, no, that's not what our policies would suggest that we should do.
All right.
Now, Steve Bannon is a very hard-charging supporter of Trump saying that this election was rigged.
That is what he's been talking about.
Richard Blumenthal wants Steve Bannon censored.
Now, look, a lot of times I don't agree with Steve Bannon, but he's an interesting guy.
He has something to say.
Why should he be censored?
Why should he be censored from talking on what is essentially the nation's telephone?
Facebook is now the nation's telephone.
It is where we communicate with one another, and it is amazingly democratic.
I mean, left alone, left alone to allow us to chat and talk and share our ideas.
People are going to say all kinds of things.
You know, people have all kinds of opinions, some of them disgusting.
They should be allowed to speak those opinions.
Look, I have a lot of faith.
I have a lot of faith in the truth willing out.
It's interesting to me.
You know, they just published a bunch of books saying, attacking Donald Trump for keeping people out of the country based on their philosophies.
So communists, Islamists, anarchists, keeping them out of the country because of their philosophies.
Well, of course we want to keep those people out of the country.
Why would we let people in the country whose philosophy is destroy the country?
Why would you let people into the country whose philosophy that is?
So yeah, we want to censor people in that sense and that we don't want them living here if they don't want to live here.
If they don't want to live in this country, they shouldn't be allowed into the country.
But, but if you were born here and you don't like this country, you have a right to say so.
You have a right to come out and say so.
We don't want anybody censored.
I believe, because A, I believe they have an inherent right to speak, a God-given right to speak, and I believe we can defeat them.
I believe that, like, you make your Hitlerian argument, knock yourself out, make your communist argument, as long as you don't censor the opposing argument.
And that is what the Democrats want.
Here's Chris Koons.
This to me is just absolutely amazing.
This is Senator Chris Koons, cut four.
You do, Mr. Dorsey, have policies against deep fakes or manipulated media, against COVID-19 misinformation, against things that violate civic integrity.
But you don't have a standalone climate change misinformation policy.
I'd urge you to reconsider that because helping to disseminate climate denialism, in my view, further facilitates and accelerates one of the greatest existential threats to our world.
So climate denialism, let's just, we have to dig into that just a little bit because the left is so good at this.
The left is so good at labeling things.
You know, racial profiling.
Racial profiling is when a cop uses his cop intelligence to say, oh, that guy is suspicious.
And one of the things he sees may be the race of the person in context, right?
That's just called police work, but they call it racial profiling.
Now it sounds bad.
Objectifying women.
Men like to look at women, right?
If men didn't like to look at women, none of us would be here.
That's why we're here, because men like to look at women, right?
That's one of the ways all of us got our start.
When they talk about the gleam in your father's eye, that's the gleam in your father's eye, but they call it objectifying women.
And now it sounds like men are doing something wrong just by walking down the street and being alive and being men.
Climate denialism.
When you say denialism, you are immediately talking about the Holocaust.
That is where the word denial has been used in this sense, Holocaust denialism, right?
The Holocaust, one of the most documented atrocities in human history.
There are photographs, there are records, there are witnesses.
I mean, the witnesses are dying off now, but there were witnesses for a long, long time.
They said they were going to do it.
They did it.
Then they said they did it.
Then suddenly people said, oh, this never happened, all right?
So if you were denying the Holocaust, that is denying something that happened.
I believe you should be able to do that.
I don't believe you should be censored for it, as they do censor you in Britain.
I don't believe that should be a crime, but it does make you a schmuck, okay?
It makes you a bad person because you're saying this horror that happened, didn't happen.
You're confusing people about history, but you have the right to do it.
You have the right to do it.
Climate denialism is denying that a computer program that is making a guess about the future is not correct.
That's what you're doing.
That's a totally different thing.
You're saying this guess that you're making about the future is not correct.
And to say that it's an existential threat is not just a guess.
That's an extrapolation on a guess.
Even the worst climate ideas, except for the made-up ones like by Alexandria Casio-Cortez, but even the worst predictions are basically predictions of cost, what it's going to cost.
And the amount of money it's going to cost is really not that much when you consider how much the economy will grow 100 years from now.
Look, should we take care of the environment?
Obviously, nobody's arguing about that.
They're using, they're using our care for the environment to sell hysteria for the same reason they always sell hysteria, which is to increase the power of government.
They do it all the time.
It's always a panic.
They've done it with this pandemic, which is a real thing.
It's a real thing.
But the panic and the fear they sold was to get at Donald Trump and to increase the power of government.
And everything they said about Donald Trump, they're saying it now.
There should be a, I think it was Fauci who said the other day, there should be a federal approach to this.
Why should there be a federal approach?
Why should the people in Florida and North Dakota and Arkansas treat this the same way as they treat this in Manhattan?
utterly absurd that there should be the federalist approach was the right approach.
And so was the approach of the federal government helping, but not getting in the way of the companies that develop the magazines.
I think there's now, is there three of them?
Still two of them, but they're looking really good.
All right.
So he wants to censor anybody who denies, as he puts it, the extrapolation of a computerized guess that he is using to increase government.
So he literally wants to censor the opposition.
Now we get Maisie Hirono, who proves that there is no censor.
This has got to be, this woman's got to be one of the dumbest people in the Senate.
This is cut six.
Everyone who has systematically looked at the content of social media, from Media Matters to the Cato Institute to former Republican Senator John Kyle, has found absolutely no evidence of anti-conservative bias.
And data from Proud Tangle show that far-right content from the likes of Fox News, Ben Shapiro, David Bongino dominates the daily top 10 most engaged pages on Facebook.
Now, of course, as the God King Jeremy Boring has pointed out, one of the reasons conservatives have a large number of sites in the top 10 is because there aren't that many of us, right?
The big left-wing people hit so many more people, reach so many more people than we do still.
They're really reaching more people.
So we have much more choice to people to go to Ben and go to Dan and all they go to different people.
And so we get into the top 10 individually, but each one of the other guys, like the New York Times, is still, still a powerhouse.
And then she cites Media Matters.
She cites Media Matters, their ideas as proof that there is censorship of the left.
Media Matters, the guys who sit around and basically listen to this show.
Media Matters sit around.
This is their job.
This is their sad little job.
I can't believe they waste their lives doing this.
They sit and listen to my show and Knowles' show and Ben's show and then try to prove that we should be canceled.
That's what they do.
They have George Soros' money in their pockets, and that's how they spend their lives.
I would pity them, but it's a little hard to pity them when that's what they're doing.
I kind of do pity them, actually.
Anyway, these are the battle lines.
These are the battle lines that have been drawn.
It's Dorsey and big tech and the Democrats against you.
That's it.
That's a pretty tough fight to fight, right?
That is the biggest, most powerful people in the world against you.
And what they want is you to be quiet.
What they want is you to shut up.
And then they sit around at the New York Times and say, why is it, why is it that the right can convince people and we can't convince people?
Why haven't we been able to convince people when we tell them that Donald Trump is a Nazi?
Why can't we convince people when we tell them this or tell them that and we tell them that we should defund the police?
Why can't we convince people?
Well, it's because you hate them.
You hate them and we don't.
We're reaching out even to the left.
I'm reaching out to the left to say, I want you to be free.
I want you to be a free person to say what you want.
But in order for you to be free, I got to be free.
And in order for me to be free, you got to be free.
That's the way it works.
That's why we're fighting to have everybody be able to speak.
And they're fighting only to have their guys able to speak.
That's the big difference.
All right, the holiday season is upon you.
That means it's doorbell season.
One of these days, you're going to look at your ring doorbell and you're going to see a jolly fat man out there in a red suit with a big white beard.
You want to know he's there so you can let him in.
If you don't have a ring doorbell, how will you know when Santa Claus arrives?
With Ring, you can keep an eye on all of the hustle and bustle going on around you and feel safer inside your home, knowing what's going around outside and knowing if someone stops by.
Even if you're not home, you can talk to them on your phone, on your Ring app and find out who they are and what they want.
You can take a look and make sure your packages are safe.
Take a look and make sure your house is safe.
Even if you're home, that is very helpful, especially in the middle of the night.
You don't want to go wandering around.
You want to just look at your app and find out what's going on outside.
For a limited time, you can go to ring.com forward slash clavin for special offers.
That's ring.com forward slash clavin.
You can put a ring of security around your home by going to ring.com forward slash clavin.
And anybody comes to your door, say to him, how do you spell clavin on the ring app?
And if he knows the answer, call the police.
You don't want anyone around like that.
You want to hear more about the press and how much they stink?
You should check out enough by our favorite God King, Jeremy Boring.
He put this out just going after the media and how what a force they are for the Democrats.
They are a force for the Democrats.
I think we are breaking them.
I think we're breaking their back.
But part of it is by putting out videos like this.
This thing went to, I think, number six on the ratings of the top podcast.
It's called Enough again.
It is part of what we are doing to expand our reach.
I believe that the next part of this battle is reaching out to moderates.
We're talking to each other now, and that's really important because before you had nowhere to go to get the news from a conservative point of view, but I think we've got to reach out to everybody and start explaining to them why we're saying what we're saying.
We've got to be able to talk the language of the people because the people matter.
We're not going to get 100% of what we want.
That's not what we're looking for.
What we're looking for is to cling to the Constitution, to cling to the freedom we got.
And we are trying so hard to do this.
We have big plans for these next four years.
We've got Candace Owens coming on.
We've got investigative reporters joining the team, which I think is essential.
That's something I've been banging about for years and years.
We've got Prager Hughes content.
We're going to move into the culture.
Help us out.
Join the fight.
Join the fight by subscribing.
And to help you out, we are offering 25% off all memberships with code election over at dailywire.com slash subscribe.
You get all kinds of goodies for that.
Well, we may even send you a leftist tears tumbler if we're a special, special person.
25% off all memberships with code election over at dailywire.com slash subscribe.
And we do these, you know, not only do you get to be in the mailbag, by the way, if you're all access member, we do these all-access shows.
I'm doing one today at what I guess will be 5 o'clock in Nashville time.
Is that what it is?
So that'll be 3 o'clock in California and who knows what it is in New York, my God.
So remember, that's 25% off all memberships with code election over at dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Replace the legacy media with Daily Wire.
You will not regret it.
Mailbag is coming up, and we'll talk about voter fraud.
Mailbag.
I want that.
I want that on my alarm.
I want that on my phone from now on when my phone rings.
All right, here's the question everybody's been asking me.
So I've got this from Grant and Grant is standing in for a lot of people here.
He says, there seems to be a lot to discuss, Ray, the election litigation.
There are dramatic allegations concerning voter fraud.
They seem credible.
They seem plausible.
They will seem so to me until somebody can explain why they aren't.
I haven't heard you explain why these claims should be disregarded, yet you seem so little interested in them.
You and Ben both seem to have already moved on to discussions about the transition and what a Biden presidency will look like.
What are you playing at?
Something is not adding up.
Maybe you will explain it to us later.
Other pundits are discussing it.
Crowder is having fraud week.
He's almost as funny as you are.
Ah, come on.
Come on.
That's, I object.
All right.
I realize nothing has been proven, but there are many things worth discussing.
I didn't listen to your entire show yet today, but it seems that you might be purposefully avoiding the subject for some reason.
I don't get it.
Your listeners are anxious, primarily about this subject, extrapolating from my own thoughts and from discussions I've had over the weekend.
Many of us are very suspicious that the election may have been stolen.
If you know that it wasn't, please let us in on your secret.
I love you and will continue to listen to your show, though I may have to partially tune out while this election lawsuit business plays out.
Really fair questions, except for the thing about Crowder and also, what are you playing at?
What are you playing at?
You know, I have to do the show naked to be any more honest with you about what I think.
And I have said what I think about this.
I have said it.
And I have explained why I think it, but I will go through it in more detail because I'm just getting this question so many, so often.
Let me begin with this, all right?
I'm a teleologist.
I believe in the purpose of things.
I believe that things have a purpose, and when you use them for that purpose, you use them virtuously.
And so everything I do, I think, has a purpose.
But you also have self-interest, right?
And so I'm a writer.
I write for a living.
My self-interest there is to make a living, and I have to entertain and amuse and inform people to do that.
But my purpose is to tell the truth about life in different, various different ways.
My purpose in doing the show, I mean, look, this is something that became part of my life almost to my surprise.
It was just something that happened in my life.
It's not something I set out to do.
I do not live to be in front of a camera.
I live to sit and write by myself.
But it is something that has become part of my life, and I love doing it.
It's great.
But the self-interest here is to put on a show that you love.
My self-interest is involved in putting on a show that you love so the Daily Wire will be happy and the sponsors will be happy and my audience will be happy.
Burden of Proof00:11:22
That is my self-interest here.
My purpose here, my purpose is to tell the truth in support of American freedom.
That is my purpose.
That is why I do this.
That's why I started doing it.
That's why I lost a lot of my professional career doing it because I believed it was important to have the purpose of telling the truth in support of American freedom.
When my self-interest and my purpose conflict, which often happens in life, I try to stick to my purpose.
That's called making a sacrifice.
Sometimes you have to do that.
I try very hard to stick to a purpose.
Right now, my purpose and my self-interest conflict a little bit in that I know you guys want to hear about voter fraud and you want to hear about each new charge and each new things.
And I am not convinced this is a thing.
I am not convinced this happened.
There are, what was it, 150 million people voted.
There are going to be thousands of cases of voter fraud.
So when you hear people say there was absolutely no voter fraud, they're lying.
This is true every single year, every single election, every single time.
There are thousands of cases of voter fraud.
So when you see on Twitter, oh, they found 100 votes, that's going to happen every year, all the time, okay?
If I came on and said this all the time, you wouldn't love the show.
It would be, you'd start to think like, this guy hates Donald Trump.
I mean, I've been defending Donald Trump for all this time, but suddenly I hate Donald Trump.
You know, that's not the case.
That's not the case.
It's just that my purpose, which is to tell the truth in support of American freedom, is not going to entertain you if I say, you're not going to love it if I'm constantly talking about the fact that I'm not buying this in the least.
Now, people say, well, you've admitted that you don't know the answer.
Of course, I don't know the answer.
Neither do you.
Neither does anybody.
Nobody is on the phone with God saying, was there enough voter fraud to turn the election around?
Nobody knows.
We're all making judgments, right?
But the burden of proof is on them, right?
The burden of proof is on the people who are claiming that this would have to be the heist of the century.
This would have to be the heist of the century for Trump to have actually won the election, which it may be.
It may be the heist of the century, but the burden of proof is on the people claiming that something extraordinary happened, right?
If somebody walks in and says, I saw a flying saucer, the burden of proof is on them, okay?
So look, do I want Trump to have won?
Come on.
You've been listening to me all this time.
You know I want Trump to have won.
I want Trump to have won.
That's one of the reasons I ask myself the question twice when I believe something that I want to be true.
I ask myself, well, wait a minute, do I just want this to be true or is it true?
Trump was an unpopular president.
Part of that was part of that the press railing on him constantly?
Yes, part of it was him.
And I've talked about this a million times.
Some of the very traits that made him the excellent president that he was, some of the aggressiveness, some of the rudeness, some of the thick skin of him, the very things that made him do so much good were some of the things that made him unpopular.
At the point when he had engineered one of the greatest economies in my lifetime, he still was under 50% popularity.
That's an amazing stat.
Most presidents get up to 60% at some point in their presidency.
Every president, I think, since FDR has gotten up to 60% at some point in popularity.
Trump never did.
Was that all the media?
No, no.
Part of it was the media, but part of it was Donald Trump.
I mean, look, take one of the reasons that Trump was unpopular is that he didn't treat people correctly, okay?
And I've said this, I've said this for four years, right?
Take James Comey.
James Comey, in my opinion, is one of the worst civil servants in the history of civil service.
He is an arrogant, self-righteous, incompetent boob, okay?
He did everything wrong in the last election.
He did everything.
I don't even think he was criminal.
I just think he was an absolute incompetent.
He was taken in by Russian disinformation.
He made a show of himself.
He came out and said things in public he shouldn't have said.
He was terrible.
He deserved to be fired.
If he worked for me, I would have fired him.
I would not have fired him on Twitter.
I would have fired him face to face personally and then announced it after having done that.
And I would have been polite about it.
Why?
Because that's how you treat people.
Donald Trump doesn't treat people that way.
That's one of the reasons he can fight with a press that's calling him racist and calling him sexist and all the things that they call him because he doesn't treat people properly.
He can fight back against that.
And because he doesn't treat people properly, he's not a popular guy.
A lot of people signed on to watch him fight.
And that's why he got more votes this time, but not enough.
He alienated people.
People went out and voted for Joe Biden without voting for anybody else because they hated Donald Trump.
That's a tragic thing.
I've called it tragic for four years.
It's a tragic conflict of interest.
It means that the very things we loved about him were also things that hurt him politically.
The very fact that he wasn't a politician was one of the things we loved about him.
It hurt him politically because politicians know how to win and he didn't know how to win this time out.
So talk about the evidence.
There's not a lot of evidence that's going to turn.
The one place where he has a case, I think, is Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania acted badly and he may go to the Supreme Court and they may throw out a lot of votes.
Are they going to throw out 75,000 votes?
They're not going to do that unless they think there's some other state that he's also going to win and he'll win the election.
I don't even think the Supreme Court will look at it if they don't think the election is going to change.
It is a big rock to push up a big hill.
So now you have all the claims on.
So that's another thing, by the way.
Even if he's right, he has to prove it, and that's a big rock to push up the hill.
So what do I want to do?
Do I want to come on every day and tell you, oh, this is a big rock to push up the hill and, you know, we should be angry?
I got to see some proof.
I have got to see some real proof that enough fraud, there's always fraud, but I got to see some real proof that enough fraud took place to change the election before that's what I come on the show and bang on about every day, right?
And I don't want to bang on about the fact that Trump's wrong every day because even I find that unpleasant.
And I don't know.
I don't know.
I'm waiting for the proof.
I hear this stuff.
I hear this stuff about the Dominion.
software and it was changing votes and all this stuff.
The Democrats did this.
I can't remember 2009, 2004.
It was Bush, one of the Bush things.
They had this thing Diebold and they were saying, oh, Diebold changed all the votes.
Well, first of all, these guys have contracts that are worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
And if they go into court and prove that their software was changing votes, they will lose those contracts with hundreds of millions of dollars.
So you say, well, they're all left-wingers or all this.
You know, I haven't seen any proof of that.
That lady, the lawyer, Sidney Powell, very powerful lawyer.
She's on TV saying, I've got the proof.
I'm going to do this.
And she's reading testimony from guys from a software company called SmartMatic, right?
SmartMatic, and saying, yeah, they have deep ties with Dominion and their SmartMatic rigged the election in Venezuela.
And now there is no proof that SmartMatic had anything to do with Dominion.
Both SmartMatic and Dominion deny that they were in cahoots at all.
They deny any relationship with the Dominion denies any relationship, deep relationship with the Democratic Party.
This stuff is not proof, guys.
I'm sorry.
It's just not.
And so the burden of proof is on them, and they haven't produced the proof that would make me think like, wow, this is a real story yet.
Look, they may walk into court and Sidney Powell may open her briefcase and son of a gun, there it is, and I will report it and I will say, you know what, this didn't look like that to me, but now it does.
I was wrong before.
I'll be happy to say it.
I'll be delighted to say it, right?
I'll be sitting in Los Angeles, which will be on fire, but I'll be happy to say it because it'll mean we get four more years of Trump.
I'm not convinced.
I'm not convinced.
And I'm sorry, the burden of proof is on them.
People screaming on Twitter isn't proof.
Lawyers making charges isn't proof.
It's not holding together.
He lost by a lot, and he lost in places where Democrats lost.
That means that people were going in and cherry-picking their votes.
They were saying, I cannot stand this guy, Trump, but I can't stand these leftists either.
That to me, in a way, is a victory.
Do I hate the press?
I think the press is the most corrupt institution in this country.
I think the news media, and it breaks my heart to say it because I was a reporter.
I loved the press.
I loved them.
I made them heroes and novels.
I thought they were wonderful people.
They have become corrupted by leftism and corrupted by our academies and corrupted by basically huge international corporations who cherry-pick the people who go in and do the news and surround them with people who are basically globalists.
Do I hate them?
Did they hurt Trump?
Yes, I hate them.
Yes, they hurt Trump.
But still, Trump helped them out.
Trump helped them out.
If there hadn't been a pandemic, he would have won.
I'm sure of that.
But when the pandemic hit and he started talking about how unfairly he was being treated while people's grandmothers were dying alone in hospitals, he lost a lot of votes.
And when he got the flu, he lost a lot of votes.
And the pollster from our side, a right-wing pollster, told me that when it happened.
He said, this is the worst thing.
Him getting the woo flu is the worst thing that has ever happened to a president during a campaign because it made the left's narrative work.
Look, the left is going to fight their corner.
They're going to lie.
They're going to cheat.
They're going to call us names.
They're going to depict the people in our people in the worst light possible.
They did it with George W. de Bush.
They did it with Mitt Romney, for heaven's sake, the most anodyne, bland guy in the world.
They did it double time with Donald Trump.
That's why we fight them.
That's why we're here.
That's why the Daily Wire is here.
But if Trump goes to court and if he doesn't win, he has to just say, I'm done and go start Trump TV, which would be a great benefit to the country.
It does not help this country.
It does not help American freedom for him to keep claiming he was robbed after the courts say no.
It doesn't help.
It's not, you know, even if he harbors that feeling in his heart, I think he should just live with it.
You know, that's where I stand.
That's what I think.
I'm not going to talk about it every day because I know it's not what you want to hear, but that is what I think at the moment.
Again, I don't have a phone to God.
I may be wrong.
I'll admit it.
Believe me, I'll admit it if I'm wrong.
But I don't want you to come on and hear me talk about this stuff and then have it turn out that they don't have the proof, they don't have the goods in court, and then we have to pretend to be bitter for Donald Trump's sake.
I'm not here for Donald Trump's sake.
I'm here for your sake and for American freedom's sake.
That's what I'm doing here.
That's my purpose.
And I'm sticking to that purpose, even though it's sometimes against my self-interest.
I'm sorry, that's only one letter.
There are other questions that I won't get a chance to answer, but we'll go back to them.
I'll save them and we'll go back to some of them next time.
I will be back here tomorrow.
I hope you will be back here tomorrow, though.
After that, maybe you won't.
I'm Andrew Clavin.
is The Andrew Klavan Show.
And if you want to help spread the word, give us a five-star review and also tell your friends to subscribe too.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, on Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including the Ben Shapiro Show, the Matt Walsh Show, and the Michael Knoll Show.
Thanks for listening.
Andrew Clavin Show Production Credits00:00:44
The Andrew Clavin Show is produced by Robert Sterling.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
Our technical director is Austin Stevens.
Supervising producer, Mathis Glover.
Assistant Director, Pavel Wadowski.
Edited by Adam Saivitz and Danny D'AMICO.
Audio mixed by Robin Fenderson.
Hair and makeup, or head and makeup, is by Nika Geneva.
Animations are by Cynthia Angulo.
Production assistants, McKenna Waters and Ryan Love.
The Andrew Clavin Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2020.
If you prefer facts over feelings, aren't offended by the brutal truth, and you can still laugh at the insanity filling our national news cycle, well, tune in to the Ben Shapiro Show.