Andrew Clavin’s Daily Wire episode frames leftist ideology as a self-contradictory assault on life, from gender theory’s denial of biology to abortion’s "logic of death," while celebrating the Supreme Court’s Roe overturning as a return to states’ rights. He ties this to Marxist social constructivism—where truth is power-based—and critiques CRT’s "whiteness as property" framework, warning that rejecting objective reality undermines morality. The episode blends legal analysis with cultural critique, from Elon Musk’s free-speech battles to homemaker theology, concluding that leftism’s rejection of tradition and life’s sanctity risks societal collapse. [Automatically generated summary]
You know, the news of the week can be difficult to understand if we look at it from only one side.
For instance, we at the Andrew Clavin Show sometimes fail to consider the ideas of left-wingers simply because they're violent, baby-killing, pervert groomers who lie about everything and then try to silence the truth to keep themselves from being found out.
But there are good things about progressivism too.
For instance, it could happen to someone you don't like and screw up their lives for a change.
So every now and then, to make sure we're seeing the week's events from both sides, I like to get inside the mind of a leftist, metaphorically or possibly literally, shoving an alien probe or a spiked mace into his fundament and running it up to his brain until we have a better understanding of what makes him tick and ruin everything.
Today, I'd like to take a look at the abortion issue through the lens of leftist gender theory, that intricate, sophisticated web of intellectual ideas that leftists use instead of reality.
This week, we heard news that the Supreme Court might overturn Roe v. Wade.
To give you some historical context, Roe v. Wade is the famous 1973 decision in which the court weighed the claims of the lead character from Rosemary's Baby against those of Boston Red Sox third baseman Wade Boggs and ultimately sided with Satan.
Until the very moment the news that the court might overturn Roe was leaked to the press, leftists had been claiming that the term pregnant woman was unfair and had to be replaced by the punchline birthing person in order for their fantasy lives to continue undisturbed.
They even issued emojis of a pregnant man with which they could decorate their text messages so that they could be used later in a court of law to bolster their insanity defense.
Yet, on hearing the news that they might soon be unable to kill their unborn children if they lived in Mississippi, which none of them does, the left suddenly stopped speaking of birthing persons and began talking about a woman's body and a woman's right to choose.
If you protested that a baby is not in fact a woman's body and no one has a right to choose to kill a child for heaven's sake, you homicidal psychopath, you were told you couldn't have an opinion because you were a man and couldn't give birth, unless you happened to be a pregnant man emoji, in which case you were allowed to have an opinion, but you couldn't express it because you were just a cartoon of something that could never actually happen.
Now, at first, when you witnessed the left's sudden transformation from a bunch of violent hysterics shrieking that men could be women to a bunch of violent hysterics shrieking that men were so not women they couldn't even have an opinion about women unless it was to say how strong and rational women are, which is obviously complete nonsense, you may have thought to yourself, hold the phone.
It almost seems as if every word these leftists speak is malignant horse manure that they don't even believe themselves.
And yes, that would be one way to look at it.
But just for a moment, in the interest of mutual understanding, stop thinking rationally and try to see it from the leftist perspective.
According to leftist gender theory, the square-jawed masculinity of men and the nerve-igniting and incredibly great-smelling femininity of women are not aspects of physical reality, but simply social constructs created out of whole Cloth and the obvious facts by every single civilization on the face of the earth, except for one imaginary Indian tribe some university professor invented and then sold to a few gullible schmucks who never should have been in college in the first place.
According to this theory, once your consciousness rises above power dynamics and the meaning of language and the existence of truth and common sense, essential gender differences disappear completely.
And so everyone becomes homosexual, especially that bearded third grade teacher wearing a dress on TikTok who really ought to be in treatment somewhere.
I hope this exploration of gender theory, which is adjacent to queer theory and about three padded cells down the hall from race theory, has helped you to understand the brain of the leftist so we can return it to its jar on the shelf, leaving the leftists free to continue destroying things while shouting idiot slogans because he's brainless.
And also an evil twit.
Trigger warning, I'm Andrew Clavin, and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
I'm the hunky donkey.
Life is tickety boo.
Birds are ringing, also singing, hunky-dunkity.
Ship-shaped hipsy-topsy, the world is a bibbyzing.
It's a wonderful day.
Hoorah, hooray!
It makes me want to sing.
Oh, hurrah, hooray!
Oh, hooray, hoorah.
All right, the vast right-wing conspiracy known as Clavinon continues.
And today, we're going to talk about the left's insatiable desire to kill children and lie.
So it's going to be a very balanced show.
You know, before we get to this, I just want to mention that this month, my play, The Uncanny, which is based on my 1998 novel, will become my first produced play.
I've only written a few plays, and this is the first time it'll be produced.
It will be in Dublin, Ohio, which is near Columbus, a small theater that actually specializes in doing theater that's not woke, basically.
It will also be streaming and live.
The uncanny, the way the play works, is a series of ghost stories written, supposedly written over centuries, that contain the clues to a mystery that's taking place right in the present.
Not an easy plot to construct, but I think it's really well done.
And it's kind of got a theme of whether or not you can free yourself from history and start the world afresh as a new soul, kind of something that's important to both the left and the right.
You saw maybe the other day, a kid came up to Shapiro at one of his speeches and said, you know, if you believe that trauma can travel over the generations, you're actually woke.
And Shapiro, of course, then disassembled him.
But this is a play, so it's an interesting conversation about this thing that can't really be addressed through political thinking.
Go on StageWrite Theatrics, all one word, stage righttheatrics.ticketspice.com and find slash The Uncanny by Andrew Clavin, all linked together with dashes.
And it's for five nights.
It's only 15 bucks.
You can see it live in Ohio or you can see it streaming.
And I will be there on the 21st, the evening of the 21st, to talk back to the audience after the show.
Also subscribe to this podcast and leave us a five-star review, which we would really like and is very helpful to us.
And subscribe to my YouTube channel.
It's my individual Andrew Clavin YouTube channel.
You will get exclusive content there.
And if you ring that little bell, nothing will happen, but someone you don't know will die.
Also, if you.
I'm only joking.
Protect With ExpressVPN00:02:28
I don't, because I know my audience will be going, ring the bell again and again.
Also, if you leave a comment there and it is sufficiently hateful, racist, sexist, any kind of hate is fine.
We will include it on the show as fitting right in with the rest of the content.
Today it comes from Wolf the Iron Lord.
Together, saying with that name, he says, the intro last week was the most revolting, racist, and sexist thing I've heard in my life.
And of course it came from an old white man.
I'll be coming back hoping to see more every week.
We'd love to hear it.
Well, you've heard me talk about how important it is to protect your privacy online.
I do not want people targeting me with ads.
I don't want necessarily people just knowing where I'm going.
Choosing a VPN you trust is just as important.
I like to do research on my sponsors, and I only recommend brands to my listeners that I believe in.
I can say with full confidence that ExpressVPN is the best VPN on the market.
I got it right on here and on all my devices.
ExpressVPN doesn't log your activity online.
Lots of cheaper free VPNs make money by selling your data to advertisers, but ExpressVPN doesn't.
They even developed a technology that makes their VPN servers incapable of storing any data at all.
Also, ExpressVPN now uses a new VPN protocol they engineered to make user speeds faster than ever.
I've tried many VPNs in the past and they can sometimes slow my connection, but ExpressVPN is always blazing fast and lets me stream videos in HD quality with zero buffering.
I don't even know the thing is there.
The last thing that really sets ExpressVPN apart is how easy it is to use.
You don't need any technical skills to get set up.
Fire up the app, tap one button to connect.
That's it.
Even your grandparents could do it.
Not my grandparents for obvious reasons, but yours.
So protect yourself with the VPN that I use and trust.
Use my link, expressvpn.com slash clavin today and get an extra three months free on a one-year package.
That's expressvpn.com slash clavin.
Visit expressvpn.com slash clavin to learn more so no one will know when you're trying to find out how to spell clavin, which is k-l-a-v-a-n.
There are no easy very bad viables.
Also, one last thing.
You know, while we're talking about compelling theater, there is nothing more captivating than the insight, laughter, and camaraderie to be experienced at a backstage live event.
Now is your perfect chance to be there in person for the big show.
Join us for backstage live on June 29th at the historic Ryman Auditorium in downtown Nashville, Tennessee.
Why Humanity Matters00:10:01
We've been on a huge winning streak from suing the federal government to stop their tyrannical vaccine mandate to announcing our $100 million challenge to Woke Disney DW Kids.
That makes this the perfect time to get together and celebrate.
Join me, Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, Matt Walsh, and Daily Wire God King Jeremy Boring for our biggest live event of the year.
Tickets go on sale Thursday, May 12th at 10 a.m. Central Time for Daily Wire all-access members only and 12 hours later for the general public.
If you are not an all-access member, don't miss out.
Head over to dailywire.com slash subscribe and become an all-access member today.
Daily Wire Backstage Live at the Rymond in Nashville on June 29th.
See you there.
All right, a lot of business to take care of, but now we will get down to it.
We're going to talk about abortion given the news of the week.
If you are a Bible reader, you have probably heard of the Valley of Hinom, which in Hebrew is called Gehben-Hinnom and gets Greek Hellenized and then anglicized as Gehenna.
And according to the Bible, this was the place where the kings of Judah who forsook the God of the Jews burned their children alive as a sacrifice to Moloch, right?
And this is important because the establishment, the end of child sacrifice is really central to the establishment of the Jewish religion.
You all know the story about Abraham.
He was told to sacrifice his beloved son Isaac.
He took Isaac up to obey God, and he was going to sacrifice him, and an angel stopped his hand and said, don't do that.
We're going to give you instead a ram that you can replace your child with and sacrifice the ram instead.
And this is a very, the story is told like a novel.
There's suspense and pathos.
The little boy Isaac is saying, you know, where is the ram for the sacrifice?
And Abraham keeps saying God will provide.
And we know he's taking him up to kill him.
But that's not the way it happens.
There are a lot of interpretations, various interpretations of this story.
But one way, my way of looking at the Bible is frequently just very down-to-earth.
This is what happened.
This is a history of a people's relationship with God, a very special relationship in the history of humankind, not just the history of the Jews.
And sacrificing children was kind of the norm.
It was something that happened in a lot of primitive civilizations.
It makes perfect sense that you are going to appease God.
to make your own life better by sacrificing the future, right?
It's kind of a refutation of Richard Dawkins' genetic theory of morality.
You're not actually trying to preserve your genes into the future.
You're just trying to preserve your own pleasures, your own crops, your own goodness by sacrificing the future to God.
So God was actually in this moment with Abraham.
He was changing the course of the human mind.
We live in time.
We have to develop our thoughts over time.
He was leading mankind back to its humanity after the fall, after the loss of paradise and the loss of our relationship with God.
God was slowly, over the centuries, beginning to lead human beings back to their humanity and saying, don't sacrifice your children, you know, to me.
You can sacrifice a ram.
Instead, those who fell behind burned their children to Malach in Gehenna, and so Gehenna became a metaphor for hell.
And Jesus was frequently saying things like, you know, if your eye offends you, plunk it out, for it's better for you that one of your members should perish than your whole body be cast into Gehenna.
And this is translated in the King James Version as hell, to be cast into hell.
But he's talking specifically about Gehenna, this valley where people burned their children.
And all of this for Christians leads up to the moment when God makes the ultimate substitution and he substitutes his son for all mankind.
When he kills Jesus, when he lets Jesus be killed by humanity, he is sacrificing his son, and all sacrifices after that eventually cease.
There are no more sacrifices of ram.
There's no more replacement.
There's been one sacrifice for good and all.
And the thing about this is that it tells us when Jesus is resurrected, when he ascends into heaven, it tells us that our humanity speaks of something more than itself, that this flesh, the flesh that suffers, the flesh that gets sick, the flesh that rots, the flesh that gets pregnant, the flesh that hurts, the flesh that has sex, represents something higher than itself, is representative of a life that will go on being lived forever, forever.
And this makes life sacred.
That's what makes life sacred, is that it's not just here.
It's not just meat.
You're not just a meat puppet with chemicals inside.
You are an eternal thing represented, spoken into the world by your body.
If life is sacred, then it seems to me undeniable that the morality of abortion depends on only one question.
There's only one important thing.
Is that baby in the womb a human being or not?
And of course it is.
Every single argument that attempts to deny the fact that a fetus is a human being, an unborn child is a human being, does it by taking the child out of time, which is where we live.
We live in time.
If they say, oh, a child, the fetus feels no pain, an unborn child feels no pain, an unborn child can't make choices, an unborn child hasn't got full consciousness.
All that is also true of someone under anesthesia.
If you are under anesthesia, you can't feel pain.
You can't make choices.
You don't have consciousness at all.
But you can't kill that person because the person lives in time and will eventually wake up.
And the same is true of that baby.
Abortion is the killing of a child, a child in that moment.
Once you accept that, once you accept that fact, then all the arguments about the child, All the arguments for abortion could also be arguments for a man who wants to kill his wife because he's tired of her, right?
All the same arguments that you can make about killing your wife because you're tired of her, you don't love her anymore, could be the arguments that people made about abortion.
I want to have sex without commitment.
That's one of the things, the reason people have abortion.
Most abortions, over 90% of them, are just a choice.
You had sex, you got pregnant, you don't want the baby, get rid of it.
You could say the same thing about your wife.
I got married, don't want the wife anymore.
I'm going to get rid of her.
You know, she's ruining my life.
I had all these plans.
She's getting in the way of my plans.
So I'm going to take her out.
You know, I'm poor.
I can't afford.
You know, it's one thing for you to say that you're going to get a divorce, but I can't afford a divorce.
So I'm just going to take her out.
All of these, it's my body.
You can't tell me what to do with my body.
If I want to use my body to kill my wife, then I get to do that.
All of those arguments are the same if the child is a human being, which it undoubtedly is.
If we live in time, and we do, it's a human being.
There are only two differences between killing your spouse and killing a baby, killing a person you don't like and killing a baby that's unborn.
One is that your wife can speak.
She can call for help.
She can cry out.
She can plead for her life.
She can tell you her story.
All of those things are barred to a child.
And so we don't always have the same feeling about a child that we have, an unborn child, that we have about a grown person.
We can't see that child.
We can't see that unborn child.
So we don't experience it as a human being.
But here's the thing.
Other people's humanity is not created by your tears, right?
Other people's humanity is not there because you have compassion.
If every single person on earth stopped caring about Adam Schiff, which is a plausible scenario, right?
If nobody cared about him, his right to be alive would still be 100% intact.
So it doesn't matter whether you feel it or not.
It doesn't matter whether you feel that baby is there or not.
It doesn't matter whether you feel that baby is a person or not.
Its right to life is 100% there.
But the second difference between an unborn child and a full-grown person is the unique unity of a mother and child.
Not just physically that the child is living inside the body.
It's not the mother's body.
It doesn't have the same DNA.
It's a separate body.
But ego-wise, that mother and child are completely connected.
It's one body nurturing another.
It's one body in another.
And that process continues after birth.
The baby and mother are really one for weeks after birth until that baby takes its identity from its mother and learns its individuality from its mother.
And that's the start of a person's individuality, that relationship with his mother.
So essentially, negating that relationship is negating not just the child's humanity, but the mother's humanity and everyone's humanity.
If you negate that relationship between mother and child that's there even before the child is born, you're no longer human.
You are no longer a human being.
And it's not your humanity that you're denying.
It's not the child's humanity that you're denying anymore.
You are denying your own humanity and just about everyone else's.
It is essentially the logic of motherhood is the logic of human life.
The logic of motherhood is what makes us alive.
I know I've said it a million times, a million different ways.
Mother's Day is coming up.
I'm going to say it again.
Life and the meaning of life are all tied up in that moment when the child grows in the mother, breaks away from the mother, learns from the mother that it is alive.
You know, when God gives the law to Israel, he says, I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing.
Therefore, choose life that both you and your descendants may live.
The logic of abortion is the logic of death, not just for the child, but eventually for everybody.
It turns everybody to meat.
It gets rid of the sanctity of all of life, all of life, everybody.
So take God's advice.
Choose life.
All right, summer is on its way.
It's time to go on vacation, take some trips, take some travel, but you want to be in touch with your home and you want to make sure your home is secure.
Abortion Leak Debate00:15:41
You want to get, for instance, a ring doorbell.
So if anybody comes to the door, you can talk to them and find out who it is wherever you are.
And the protection of a ring alarm would also be good.
Ring is the video doorbell company, but now they have an alarm.
It's an award-winning home security system with available professional monitoring when you subscribe.
And best of all, you can install it easily yourself.
But they didn't stop there.
They've also got Ring Alarm Pro.
And when it comes to protecting your home, you can go pro with Ring Alarm Pro.
It is a next-level security system.
CNET calls Ring Alarm Pro a giant leap for home security.
Ring combined a home security system with a Wi-Fi router.
So this thing helps you protect your home and secure your network.
This summer, whether you're going across the country or just across town, you can rest assured everything at home is protected and also connected.
And that will stay that way with a Ring Alarm Pro subscription.
Ring has an award-winning alarm.
And this busy summer season to protect your home, you will want to go pro with Ring Alarm Pro.
To learn more, go to ring.com forward slash Clavin.
That's ring.com forward slash Clavin.
Anyone comes to your home, look at that Ring app and say, how do you spell Clavin?
he knows, start the alarm.
So obviously, the reason we're talking about abortion is because of the leak of this draft of a Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade.
Please God, may it continue.
This is a draft by Samuel Alito, writing for a five-judge majority.
It is the first draft.
It's been confirmed by John Roberts that this is the first draft.
The way it works is they produce this draft, then they pass it around.
There are possibly hundreds to over a thousand amendments and changes that are made.
Sometimes judges change their mind.
We don't know why it was leaked.
We don't know who leaked it.
You know, to be perfectly honest with you, I know this is great outrage fodder that it was leaked.
I don't even know.
I'm not even certain it's a crime.
I mean, this is one of the things that they're discussing.
Obviously, the person who leaked it should be found and disbarred.
I don't know whether they can be prosecuted.
The theory, of course, the most plausible theory is that it was a clerk of one of the liberal judges, hoping that enough intimidation would be brought to bear to make the judges change, the justices change their mind.
But I read the decision really closely.
I read the Alito draft really closely.
And I want to talk about that because, you know, everything is about the outrage of the leak.
That story is going to fade away.
Of course, it's outrageous.
Of course, it was a terrible thing to do.
Of course, the person should be punished.
But still, that's not the important thing.
The important thing is this decision and whether this decision is going to stand.
And I want to compare it a little bit to the logic of the left.
I mean, you know, this is the thing.
There really is no logic from the left.
And that is, it's really important to remember this.
You know, when I'm talking about sacrificing children, the reason God sacrifices his son is because it's a sacrifice of the spirit to the spirit to give the flesh a chance to represent itself as spirit, right?
The killing of your own child, the killing of a human child, is the sacrifice of flesh to the flesh.
It is basically saying, I want to live my life.
I have plans.
I want to have sex without consequences.
I want to do all the things that I have to do.
And this baby is getting on the way.
So let's get rid of him.
And there's no way they can make this argument.
I mean, Joe Biden is no longer mentally well enough to hold the lie.
You know, it's hard to lie.
And once you start losing your marbles, like Biden is obviously losing his marbles, you can't remember the lie.
So he's out there defending, attacking this decision.
And we don't know if it's the decision yet.
And this is what he says.
This is cut eight.
Do you think that this leaves has your members we've seen before?
We've never seen this happen before.
Well, you know, if this decision holds, it's really quite a radical decision.
And again, the underlying premise, and again, I've not had a chance to thoroughly go into the report, the decision, but it basically says all the decisions related to your private life, who you marry, whether or not you decide to conceive a child or not, whether or not you can have an abortion, a range of other decisions, whether or not how you raise your child.
So he says basically that you can abort a child.
And then he said this, this is cut seven.
This is about a lot more than abortion.
I hadn't read the whole opinion at that time.
But this reminds me of the debate with Robert Bork.
Bork believed the only reason you had any inherent rights is because the government gave them to you.
If you go back and look at the opening comments with Borke Biden, when I was questioning him as chairman, I said, I believe I have the rights that I have, not because the government gave them to me, which you believe, but because I'm just a child of God.
I exist.
I delegated by joining this union here to delegate some obligations, some rights I have to the governments for social good.
So Biden thinks that the child that is being aborted is a child and he has rights because he is a child of God.
Who this unborn child is the child of, I'm not sure.
But I mean, once you put those two statements together that this is a child and that you have rights because you're a child of God, you know, I'm sorry that Biden hasn't been defending Roe v. Wade all this time because it would have been overturned a long time ago.
And now Jen Pasaki says that you can basically peslay your sons to the last second of pregnancy.
Here's this exchange.
The president's position on choice has evolved over time.
So just checking for his official position, does he support any limits on abortion right now?
Peter, the president has spoken, has talked about his position many times.
He supports the right of a woman to make choices about her own body with her doctor.
I know that one of the Democrats that he endorsed and who won their primary this week, Tim Ryan, said yesterday that he does not support any limits on abortion.
Is that where the president's thinking is now?
The president has stated his view many times.
So does the president support abortion up until the moment of birth?
The president has spoken about this many times, Peter, and I would refer you to his own comments about abortion and a woman's right to choose and make decisions about her body with her doctor, which is what any of those women would do.
So if you won't answer, and of course the answer is yes, this is what the Democrats want.
They want abortion really up till the moment that you're not annoyed with your child.
I don't know why it should, what magic happens when the child emerges from the womb that suddenly turns it into a beloved baby if it wasn't a beloved baby before.
So the idea is that this is leaked and now the government, the media, the establishment, the corporations, all of this incredible power of deep state slash corporate slash media slash Hollywood power is going to be brought to bear against the people of the justices on the Supreme Court.
And the leftist media got immediately to work.
Here's a montage from our friends at Reading Your Research Center.
It's cut one.
All right.
Again, I'm just sort of composing myself here as I process this.
Honestly, I want to cry.
First of all, it's going to be very hard for me today because my blood pressure is so high.
I want to cry in so many different ways.
I also feel my blood pressure ticking up by the minute.
I couldn't go back to sleep.
It's that devastating.
This is a category five hurricane.
This is really an upending of the rights of women in American society.
Women who are poor, women are women of color, they will be forced to have pregnancies that they cannot afford to terminate and pregnancies that will then turn into children.
Next, they'll go after gay marriage and maybe the board, the, what is it, Brown versus Board of Education?
Yeah, gay marriage, maybe even interracial marriage.
The court will surely suffer for this shattering self-owned to its own legitimacy.
What did you think was going to happen in 2004 when they replaced Sandra Day O'Connor?
I hope there will be a national uprising.
What did you think was going to happen when Mitch McConnell stole the Supreme Court seat?
There is some connection between an effort to overturn an election and an effort to overturn Roe.
The founding fathers didn't recognize abortion as a fundamental right because the founding fathers were racist, misogynist, jerk faces who didn't believe that women had any rights at all.
He seems nice, doesn't he?
So you noticed, I'm sure you noticed for yourself, I cried, I had blood pressure, you know, it's an earthquake, it's all this illogical, all this emotional weight being cast out of your screens to convince you.
But they're doing what Scott Adams always calls arguing past the sale, right?
They're acting as if the issue at hand, which is the issue of whether this child is a child as a human being, has already been settled, which is, of course, the exact issue that it hasn't.
I love the argument, by the way, that the court is going to overturn interracial marriage because the whole theory here, I guess, is that Clarence Thomas, this is just Clarence Thomas' way of telling Ginny he wants a divorce.
We're going to overturn Roe, and that's going to send a subtle message to my wife that we're done.
Because there is a very happy and delightful interracial marriage.
But it's such a nonsense theory.
So let's take a look at the Alito decision, because I don't feel we're talking about this enough.
And I feel that the right, by basically imitating the left by going for outrage over the leak, and it's outrageous, I understand, but by not talking about what it is we mean, why it is, we think this is the right thing to do, even beyond the question, even beyond the question of the morality of abortion.
You know, certain people just make my life so much easier.
I don't know what I'd do without them, but none of them works here.
You can tell because this show is just a chaos.
It's just chaos here because we didn't use ZipRecruiter.
If you own a growing business and you need to hire, ZipRecruiter makes hiring so much easier because they do the work for you.
Right now, you can try it for free at ziprecruiter.com slash Claven.
ZipRecruiter uses its powerful technology to find and match the right candidates up with your job.
You can easily review these recommended candidates and invite your top choices to apply.
Additionally, ZipRecruiter has a complete suite of tools that makes it easy to filter, review, and rate your candidates.
Four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day.
No wonder ZipRecruiter is the number one rated hiring site based on G2 satisfaction ratings as of January 1st, 2022.
The hardest thing you have to do is to remember the special URL, ziprecruiter.com slash Claven.
That's where you go to try ZipRecruiter for free.
Once again, that's ziprecruiter.com slash Claven.
ZipRecruiter is the smartest way to hire if and only if you know how to spell Clavin.
It's K-L-A-V-A-N.
There are no E's in Claven.
I just make it look this easy.
Alito is very clear, by the way, that this decision is not going to affect other controversial decisions for the simple reason that there's not another life involved.
Obergfeld, the gay marriage decision, I believe that was a terrible decision, not because I'm against gay marriage, but because for the simple reason that And then Scalia mentions in his dissent where he says, I don't care what marriage is.
I care who governs me.
And it shouldn't be five lawyers in Washington, D.C. That's why it's a bad decision.
But Alito points out this overturning Roe v. Wade does not endanger any other decision for the simple reason is these other decisions do not involve another life.
They don't involve this incredibly complex question of what a life is and where it begins and how we are to deal with it.
And that's something that has to be governed by the states.
And remember, overturning Roe doesn't mean abortion is illegal.
It means each state has to do, pass laws in turn.
It means people have to debate with each other.
It means people have to vote on it.
It's what we call democracy, right?
So the logic of Roe v. Wade, and this is something that leftists, honest leftists will tell you, there is no logic in Roe v. Wade.
There's no constitutional logic in Roe v. Wade.
You know, the right, we often make fun of the decision that Roe is based on, which is the idea that there's a right to privacy.
And we make fun of the language where the court said, oh, you know, the right to privacy is in the penumbras created by the emanations from the Constitution.
And that is ridiculous, but I also think it's true.
I do think there is a certain right to privacy implied in the Constitution, just like I think there's a certain right to travel from state to state in the Constitution, even though that's never mentioned.
There are rights implied in the idea of a nation, a federation of states with ordered liberty.
There are ideas that are simply implied by that and are implied by in the penumbras of the emanations.
However, the right to privacy cannot protect the taking of a life, the taking of an innocent life.
Just because you're in my house doesn't mean I get to kill you and say, well, you know, it was my house, so I get to do what I wanted.
My house is my castle.
No, obviously privacy doesn't cover it.
So in a later decision, the famous Casey decision, the court said this is protected by the 14th Amendment.
So the 14th Amendment is a post-Civil War amendment that basically extends all United States rights to all members, all citizens of the United States, no matter what the state says.
It takes away from the state the right to deprive you of your rights.
It says, yes, the state has certain rights, but not the right to deprive you of your inherent rights as an American.
It says, no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property.
And so the court decided in Casey basically that this was a liberty, abortion was a liberty that was therefore protected by the 14th Amendment.
The problem is that in another case about suicide, the court said that any right that's not enumerated in the Constitution can only be thought to be there if it is, quote, deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, right?
So it has to be something that we, like traveling between states, deeply rooted in our traditions and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.
I don't know, you know, the right basically to marry, I would say to marry any one of the opposite sex that you want.
I think is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.
I don't think it's right to outlaw, I do think that that's a liberty that you do have that's not necessarily immediately mentioned in the Constitution.
So Alito takes great pains to show that all through history, abortion has been considered a crime after what's called quickening, the first time you feel the movement.
Now, this is even Thomas Aquinas, right, said this, that this is when abortion becomes illegal after you feel the quickening.
The whole thing about the quickening is it was the only sign of life they had before they had all the kind of science, you know, the ultrasounds and all the scientific ways we have of seeing a baby in the womb where we realize, no, that baby is alive really from the very start.
Traditions Not Easily Overturned00:04:33
So it's not deeply rooted in our law.
And as you heard that moron L.I. Mistel saying, it's because they were a bunch of jerk faces, those guys, those mean founders, they were mean.
They were jerk faces.
That's a really good legal, intense legal mind there, working at its best because the jerkface rule, of course, is long established.
But Alito goes through great pains to show that this is not established in our traditions.
And of course it is not a part of ordered liberty.
I mean, that is ridiculous.
It's not inherent.
The other thing he talks about is stere decisis.
And this is the idea that precedent should not be easily overturned.
And that's a good thing.
And Alito talks about what a good thing it is.
It means that you can count on the law.
It means the law is not going to change every time a new case comes in.
It means just because suddenly the right takes the majority of the court or the left takes the majority of the court, they're not going to be that fast to just overturn what was done by the last court.
It gets rid of the arrogance of judges thinking all the arguments of the past are wrong.
Stere decisis protects traditions.
It protects the handing down of wisdom through the years.
However, it's just common sense that it doesn't protect all traditions.
Just like any tradition, some traditions turn out to be wrong, right?
I mean, slavery was a tradition until we got rid of it.
And not just in the United States, but universally, people held slaves.
And then one day you say, oh, wait a minute, you know, guess what?
We were wrong about that tradition.
That one's got to go.
The left, of course, which has no respect for traditions, which does nothing but tear traditions down, which tears down statues, which tears down ideas, which tears down rights all the time, has no business standing up for maintaining tradition at all costs.
They claim, and this is simply untrue, like almost everything they say about this is untrue.
They claim that the judges, the conservative judges, the Trump judges, promised they were not going to overturn Roe v. Wade.
They did not.
They said it was tradition.
They said they respected tradition.
But Alito shows why this tradition is wrong.
And of course traditions have been overturned before.
The idea that segregation was all right as long as you were separate but equal was overturned in Brown versus Board of Education.
Overturning old decisions, precedent is something that you have to do from time to time as your understanding changes and as you see the effects of it over time.
And as science has changed our attitudes toward abortion, because we can see the baby more.
As I was reading this decision, I could not help but feel if you actually just sat and read it and stopped screaming for 10 minutes, if you sat and read it, you understood that your freedom was being given back to you.
Nobody is losing their freedom over this.
I always have said this, that when you give people a positive right, instead of saying you have the right not to have your speech interfered with, you have the right not to have your guns taken away, when you say that abortion is a right, you're not giving them a right.
You're taking away their right to decide in their state for themselves.
That is what you're doing.
And that is why I have been so hopeful about this, not just for the baby's lives that it will save, though of course that is my premium concern, my first concern.
But I'm also concerned that we remain a federation of states.
That is the entire idea of the country.
That's the definition of the country.
And it was soiled by slavery because slavery was such a great evil.
It was hard to say, well, states' rights are a good thing when the states' rights were being used to keep people enslaved.
That soiled the idea of states' rights.
This has soiled the idea of the federal government.
To kill 3,000 babies a day, to end the lives of 3,000 babies a day, completely, completely delegitimizes our central government.
And I think to go back to federalism, to let people sort themselves out, to let people go to the states where they can live the life they want to live, to remember that we are a federation of states with a central government that's supposed to leave us alone as much as humanly possible is a tremendously positive thing and a genuine blow to the takeover and the end of our rights.
And that's why, you know, when you read this decision, it's so rational.
It is so based in American tradition and American logic and constitutional logic that the only way you can reply is with the kind of reply we got from like Elizabeth Warren.
Let's take a look at that.
Fabric Revolutionizes Life Insurance00:03:44
This cut 10.
The Republicans have been working toward this day for decades.
They have been out there plotting, carefully cultivating these Supreme Court justices so they could have a majority on the bench who would accomplish something that the majority of Americans do not want.
69% of people across this country, across this country, red states and blue states, old people and young people, want Roe versus Wade to maintain the land.
We need to know we're not going to be able to do it.
And we have a right to do it.
We've heard enough from the actual breeds.
The emotionalism there is intense.
This poll stuff is wrong because though a majority say they would support Roe v. Wade, they also say they want strict restrictions on abortion.
A majority say they want strict restrictions on abortion, which Roe v. Wade would not have permitted and only was permitted by Casey, which rolled back Roe extensively.
It's all illogic.
And because it's all illogic, because it's all emotion, because it's all this desire to please the flesh at the cost of other people's lives, they have to strike back against the power of speech.
And that's why you're seeing this attack on free speech, this wild attack on free speech, which is what we'll talk about next.
Everything is already complicated enough.
You don't need getting term life insurance to make things even harder.
You want to protect your family.
You want to make that easy.
Fabric has moved life insurance all online.
So getting a policy that's right for your family isn't complicated.
Fabric was built specifically for parents to help you manage your family's financial future like a parenting pro, stress-free.
Fabric's new lower prices mean significant savings over other providers with great policies like a million dollars in coverage for less than a buck a day.
Everything is on your schedule with Fabric because it's all online less than 10 minutes to apply and you could be offered coverage instantly with no health exam required.
Then just personalize your quote to fit your family's needs.
Fabric is fully backed by Vantis Life, one of the most trusted names in life insurance since 1847, so you can feel confident you're getting a high-quality policy that meets your family needs.
With Fabric's online hub, it's easy to track your family finances all in one place, get affordable life insurance, set up your kids' college savings plan, and even establish a rainy day savings fund.
There's no risk to apply today.
Fabric has a 30-day money-back guarantee.
You can cancel any time, protect your family with term life insurance in just 10 minutes.
Apply today at meetfabric.com slash Clavin.
That's meet M-E-E-Tfabric.com slash Clavin to start collecting your family today.
Meetfabric.com slash Clavin.
Fabric insurance agency policies issued by Vantis Life, not available in New York and Montana.
Prices subject to underwriting and health questions.
The person who leaked this, assuming it is a leftist clerk, and I kind of think that that's a very good theory, It's not the only theory, but I think that's the best theory.
They knew that the press would support them.
They knew that the government, the deep state, the press, corporations would support them.
And Amazon and other corporations are saying, we'll pay any employee to go get an abortion in another state.
Of course they will.
Of course they will.
All the people who benefit from women being out of the home, who benefit so that they don't, so that they, you know, there's nothing good for corporations in women staying home to take care of their children.
There is nothing good for a corporation.
It means that there are fewer workers.
It means they have to pay those workers more.
Tucker Carlson's Disinformation Machine00:06:42
They don't like it.
Of course they want to turn you into what abortion turns you into, which is basically a puppet.
It turns you into a meat puppet.
That's what it does.
When you can just deprive, end that life inside you, you are no longer the creator of life.
You're the destroyer of life.
You are no longer fully human.
None of us are fully human when mothers become that thing.
Because they can't debate, they have fallen in love with silence.
And this assault on free speech has become eye-popping to me.
I mean, the New York Times, a former newspaper, has been going after Elon Musk ever since Musk made a deal to buy Twitter.
Their recent attack on him is unbelievable.
Elon Musk, this is what they said.
Elon Musk grew up in South Africa that saw the dangers of unchecked speech, apartheid government propaganda-fueled violence against black people.
There was no unchecked speech in South America.
I mean, it was, of course, there's a wonderful piece about this in the Daily Telegraph by Tim Blair, who just goes through all the restrictions on speech in South Africa during apartheid.
Of course, they had to restrict it because apartheid was like abortion, the depriving of people of rights.
You can't let people speak freely when you're depriving them of their rights.
And the same thing is true of this Ministry of Information.
They want to start at Homeland Security.
And this is, you know, we were making fun last week of Nina Jankowicz, who's going to be the head of this Ministry of Information, the Ministry of Disinformation, this attack on disinformation.
Listen to what Homeland Security head Alejandro Mayorkas says about Nina Jankowicz, because I have something that I haven't seen too many places.
Here's what Mayorkis says is cut 15.
Republicans are criticizing your decision, the administration's decision, to choose Nina Jankowicz to lead this disinformation board.
They say she is not somebody who is neutral.
Your response?
Eminently qualified, a renowned expert in the field of disinformation.
Absolutely so.
Now, I want to hat tip Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal, who mentioned this, and then I went and looked it up.
Nina Jankowicz was part of a think tank called the Wilson Center that produced a report called, wonderful title, Malign Creativity.
We don't want any of that creativity going around if it's malign.
She was at the head of the team that produced this report.
And this is what it said.
The executive summary says, this report strives to build awareness of the direct and indirect impacts of gendered and sexualized disinformation on women in public life, as well as its corresponding impacts on national security and democratic participation.
Gendered and sexualized disinformation is a phenomenon distinct from broad-based gendered abuse and should be defined as such to allow social media platforms to develop effective responses.
She then goes on to talk about malign creativity, which is the use of coded language, right?
Iterative, context-based visual and textual memes and other tactics to avoid detection on social media platforms.
It's the greatest obstacle to detecting and enforcing against online gendered abuse and information.
So think about this for a minute.
Gender abuse, attacking people for their gender, is disinformation.
It hurts national security.
And it's coded.
So people have to uncode it, right?
You can't just see it.
They have to tell you what it is.
And she finds that, or this report finds, the overwhelming majority of recorded keywords relating to abuse and disinformation were identified on Twitter and directed towards then Senator, now Vice President Kamala Harris, who accounted for 78% of the total amount of recorded instances.
So 78% of the comments that were referring to Kamala Harris and were gendered disinformation.
And this is what they say.
Online gendered abuse and disinformation is a national security issue.
In interviews with women targeted by Russian, Iranian, or Chinese state media, the research team found that gendered tropes form the basis of disinformation and smear campaigns against them.
This presents a democratic and national security challenge.
This is the woman who's going to be heading the Homeland Security's attack on, you know, Committee of Disinformation.
I can't remember what it's called.
I just call it the Ministry of Information from Orwell.
That's what it is.
This is a dangerous thing and a dangerous person.
And of course it's there.
Of course it is there to control conservative opinion.
And if you don't think so, if you don't think what this is about, you only have to look at another amazingly depressing and disgusting attack from the New York Times, a former newspaper, now just a left-wing attack machine going after Tucker Carlson.
They wrote this huge thing about Tucker Carlson.
I don't know how many reporters were involved in it, word after word, saying night after night on Fox, Tucker Carlson weaponizes his viewers' fears and grievances to create what may be the most racist show in the history of cable news.
It is also by some measures the most successful.
And they asked the graphics editor, because it has a big graphics, you know, graphic component.
They asked her on, I think it was CNN or MSNBC, what it was like to have to actually watch Tucker Carlson.
This is cut four.
Karen, I want to ask you what it was like for you to watch all these hours of Tucker Carlson's show.
It was revealing in a way that I can't even describe.
I mean, I had no idea.
I had not watched the show before this project.
And once I did, I realized that what we wanted to do would be to create an immersive experience so that the people who read the New York Times, who most likely don't watch the show on a regular basis, could feel what it's like.
Because I think it's easy to dismiss what he's saying as just another cable TV news host, but he's way more powerful and the content is way more dangerous than, I think, what anybody realizes unless you're watching the show on a daily basis.
It's amazing the trauma this woman suffered by finding out what half of the country thinks.
You know, I watch Tucker intermittently, and I have to say I really respect what he does.
I think he's a terrific writer.
I think his team does great journalism.
Why You Should Check MD Hearing Aid00:02:48
And sometimes I disagree with him.
When he was talking about Putin, I came on.
I thought he was 100% wrong about Putin.
I don't think he's 100% wrong about the war in Ukraine.
I think it is a dangerous situation that has to be kept, that has to be watched.
You know what you do with that?
You debate him.
You argue with him.
I did.
I argued here with him.
Anytime he wants me on a show, I've been on his show a couple of times.
I'd be happy to go on and discuss it with him.
We disagree about things.
That's how you handle that.
If you have a point of view, that can be defended.
I'm happy to say that Carlson's reaction was absolutely great.
He just held up the New York Times with his picture on it and him laughing.
That is what is happening right now.
It is a very hopeful sign that this illogic, the violence that goes with it, the people already rioting outside the Supreme Court, already causing trouble outside of the Supreme Court, is losing, is a sign of the left losing legitimacy.
I don't think the voters will tolerate it.
I don't think the people will tolerate it.
I think their reign of near terror is coming to an end, and that is a good sign.
And let us all hope that it begins with overturning Roe v. Wade, a bad decision that has just cost too many lives, too many lives.
Let's hope it's coming to an end.
A lot of people tell me I'm losing my hearing, and I say to them, What?
Sorry?
But nine out of ten people still buy hearing aids from clinics and pay $5,000 plus, even though much more affordable options exist.
That's why you've got to check out MD Hearing Aid.
MD Hearing Aid is an FDA-registered rechargeable hearing aid that costs a fraction of what typical hearing aids cost.
They bring clinic-level care right to you via telemedicine from doctors and licensed hearing professionals.
MD Hearing Aid was founded by an ENT surgeon who saw how many of his patients needed hearing aids but couldn't afford them.
He made it his mission to develop a quality hearing aid that anyone could afford.
If you forget to take your hearing aids off in the shower, don't worry.
The Volt Plus is water-resistant in up to three feet of water.
Plus, it's rechargeable with battery life that lasts up to 30 hours.
MD Hearing Aid has brought affordable hearing to over 600,000 satisfied customers.
Plus, they offer a 45-day risk-free trial with 100% money-back guarantee so you can buy with confidence.
Get clinic-level care for 80% less with MD Hearing Aid.
Go to mdhearingaid.com and use promo code Clavin to get their new buy one, get one, $149.99 each when you buy a pair deal.
Plus, they're adding a free extra charging case at $100 value just for listeners of the Andrew Clavin show.
So head to mdhearingaid.com and use the promo code Clavin and get their new buy one, get one, $149.99 each.
When you buy a pair deal, you want to say, how do you spell Clavin?
And I say to you, huh?
Sorry?
One?
The Battle Over Knowledge00:15:27
So much of what we're talking about today in our schools, in our discourse, and in the media, has to do with the theories that the left now accepts as absolutely the case, absolutely true.
And one of the best writers on this subject is named James Lindsay.
He's a best-selling author, speaker, and founder of the platform NewDiscourses.com.
He has a new book out called Race Marxism, which exposes the truth about critical race theory.
I'm almost through with his book, Cynical Theories, which is about all the different kinds of theories the left is producing.
James, thank you so much for coming on.
Hey, it's my pleasure.
Before we start talking about race Marxism and your other books, I want to talk a little bit about this prank that you pulled with two other people where you basically wrote fake theory papers and got them accepted by academic journals.
First, can you just explain it a little bit to the audience?
Yeah, I mean, so in 2017 and 18, two colleagues of mine, Peter Bogoshan and Helen Pluckrose, excuse me, we wrote 20 academic journal articles.
These normally take about a year to write.
One, we wrote 20 of them in a span of about a year, and we ended up having seven of them accepted.
These were absolutely ludicrous or horrifying papers.
We argued, for example, that you can learn something about rape culture by observing dog sex at dog parks.
And the conclusion we drew was that dog parks are Petri dishes of canine rape culture.
And therefore, we should train men the way that we train dogs in order to combat rape culture in humans.
And that paper not only was accepted by a leading journal in feminist geography, but it won an award.
We had another paper that we for excellence in scholarship.
And so we had another paper where we rewrote a chapter of Hitler's Mein Kampf, taking out the Nazi Party movement and replacing it with intersectional feminism.
We had a number of other papers that were quite alarming.
And like I said, seven were accepted.
We wrote 20.
Seven of them further, seven further of them were still under review when the Wall Street Journal caught us and told our story to the world, making it so we don't know what would have happened with those further seven.
So it was remarkably successful in terms of being able to comprehend their literature, feed it back to them, amplify it, and see that they really do endorse and accept these kinds of ideas.
And has there been any reaction to this?
I mean, has anybody taken responsibility for it?
No, absolutely not.
From what I understand, although I haven't tried to publish any academic papers significantly since, many of these kind of theory-based journals are checking credentials and identification now when people submit papers.
But beyond that, no.
They haven't changed their ways.
They think that they're right.
They think that they have the unique theory of how the world works.
And they've just put their head in the sand and or doubled down on it and had no substantive change whatsoever.
My colleague Peter Bogoshin, who worked for Portland State University, was brought up on a variety of different academic charges by his university and then hounded for a couple of years until finally he found his working conditions intolerable and left Portland State University last year.
Wow.
Wow, that's amazing.
Reading your book, I get the feeling, I mean, you seem to be not a person of the right.
I would call it, you seem to be a moderate liberal person.
Is that a fair?
Yeah, I usually tell people I'm something like a gold star or a gold flag liberal.
Like, you know, it's more in the kind of Thomas Jefferson.
I'm not quite a libertarian.
I'm not definitely not a leftist.
I don't totally mesh with the conservatives.
I'm sort of in this like nether region.
People say, oh, I'm politically homeless.
I'm really politically homeless.
Yeah, I can understand that.
Now, you talk a lot in the book that I'm reading, Cynical Theories, you talk a lot about the history of how this theory developed.
Could you tell us a little bit about that?
Because there's this kind of idea that the left kind of crept up on us and suddenly in the last few years it's exploded.
Is that a fair assessment?
Well, it's kind of like, I mean, I don't know if a mushroom is the right thing, but it's something that grows kind of underground for like 50 years.
And then all of a sudden, the fruiting body pops up out of the ground.
And it's more like that.
So, you know, it's very easy to trace the history of how these theories came, depending on how far you want to trace them back, either 50 years or 100 years, with an awful lot of very high specificity.
The so-called cultural Marxism movement, which started in the 1910s and 1920s, or the neo-Marxist movement or critical Marxist movement, which started in the 1930s and 1940s, are certainly massive contributors to what the left has been doing.
And what a lot of people didn't realize is that Marxism broadly changed substantially in the late 1960s.
And it attempted to have its revolutions at the end of 1960, 68, 69 are famous for that.
Those didn't work.
And what was called the new left that grew out of Marxist theory in the middle of the 20th century literally became, and the academics describe it as this, that became the academic left instead.
They realized that their pathway was to first take over university architectures, secondly to take over colleges of education, and then from there to get K through 12 education and to do a kind of a generational march.
And so we are now at the point where they think that they believe that enough ground has been laid to where they can burst out on the scene.
Their revolution, in a sense, came to fruit.
And we are now going through that revolution.
You talk about the kind of basis in postmodernist thought.
You talk about four pillars of this kind of theory, one of which is you call power knowledge, power dash knowledge.
Can you explain what that is?
Yeah, it's this idea, and this was very popular in postmodern thought.
It turns out that there were branches of neo-Marxist thought that were dabbling with this as well.
Maybe Theodore Adorno, the educator Paolo Ferreiri, where the idea is that what we consider knowledge is in fact decided upon by a political process.
So, you know, we think, and we're not wrong to think that experts who have studied their fields and have become very good at understanding, say, physics or something like that, work out the theories, they do the experiment, they check it, and they get good answers.
And so those people have knowledge about how the world works.
But what this view is, instead, the power knowledge view is, well, there was a credentialing process to decide who gets to be a physicist.
And there's a credentialing process within physics to decide whose papers get to be recognized and what results tend to be promoted and not promoted.
And so ultimately, it's just a huge political game that the people who are in power get to decide what counts as knowledge.
And so they create the definition of knowledge to be self-serving to keep themselves in power.
And so power and knowledge basically work as a single entity.
It's kind of taking Francis Bacon's old saying of knowledge is power and making it extraordinarily literal.
That knowledge, in fact, is just another application of political power.
It has nothing to do with reality.
It has nothing to do with truth.
It has everything to do with who gets to decide what we're going to call true and false so that they can enforce their view of the world on everybody.
So now, and it really doesn't have any borders.
I mean, a sane person, for instance, if he needed surgery or if a doctor told him he needed surgery would think, oh, I need surgery.
Now I have to find a surgeon.
But basically, this idea eliminates that because the doctor who told you that you need surgery doesn't necessarily know anything.
He just has the credentials.
And the surgeon who wants to do the surgery doesn't know anything.
I mean, is that fair?
Is there any kind of limit on this?
No, there's no limit whatsoever.
And in fact, within the discipline, if we can call it that, called fat studies, which we also wrote a fake paper and detected, within fat studies, they say that, in fact, obesity is not real.
Obesity is a medicalized narrative created by doctors that want to control fat bodies.
It's politics of thin people being enforced on overweight people.
In fact, you can't even use the word overweight because overweight implies that there is an ideal weight, which is just a political construction.
And so there's literally no limits on this.
Absolutely none.
So, all right.
So now you have no limits on any of this, except that the idea that this idea is right is right, right?
You can't say that this idea is a power is power and knowledge, can you?
Well, they can, as a matter of fact.
But what they argue is that they're the ones doing it correctly.
And this is where we go all the way back.
You know, I said whether we want to do it 50 years or 100 years, we go back 150 years or more, 170 years, to Karl Marx.
And Karl Marx laid out a theory of human ontology, of what it means to be a human being that most people don't even realize is the core of Marxism.
It's not his economic theory that's the core of Marxism.
He laid out this idea that what makes man a man, what makes men human, is the fact that they can envision something in their minds and create it in the world and see themselves in that which they created.
In other words, we can be as gods.
And that's what fundamentally makes you human.
And then what you make in the world makes the world more human.
And what we make with each other makes society more human.
And so his whole goal was to make everything more human through the process of imagining something and then making it in reality.
He called that the ability of the conscious subject.
And so anything for these guys that limits one's ability to be a conscious subject is in fact the problem.
So for them, because they believe that they're liberating subjectivity, they're the ones doing it right.
Everybody else, in fact, has some kind of an ideology or power-based program to continue to limit subjectivity, whereas they have the goal of opening subjectivity.
Therefore, they're the only ones doing it right.
Therefore, when they apply it, they're using their power for good.
Everything is power.
You can either use it for good or evil.
They're using it for good on the right side of history.
Everybody else is using it for wrong to maintain the status quo and maintain oppression that they benefit from.
And so it's not that they deny the application of the theory to themselves.
They don't think what they're saying is true either.
They think truth doesn't matter.
They think that they have the moral position that justifies why they get to do what they do, and everybody else needs to be stopped from doing what they do.
But of course, that moral position is a form of truth, right?
I mean, it has to be true that they have the moral position.
Well, this is basically what Marxist theory accomplishes, right?
Again, it's not an economic theory.
It's a belief in some sense that the world is separated into people who have access to some kind of special property.
They have advantage.
They have privilege.
And people who are unjustly excluded from that.
And so the people who are unjustly excluded from that can be raised, can have in them raised a consciousness of what it's like to be oppressed or unjustly excluded from full participation in the society that they are creating.
So rather than doing work in the world and seeing themselves in the product of their creation, they're getting paid to do somebody else's work.
If you paid me, if you were my employer and you paid me, you have a vision in your mind for what you want to see in the world, and you give me money and I make your vision come into the world.
And then you see yourself in the vision anyway, and I get lost in the whole thing.
And so what they say is, in fact, that truth is therefore a matter of a social formation.
That truth is a matter of what people believe as a group and as a society.
Whoever is in charge gets to decide what's true, but it's not true in the sense that it corresponds to reality.
So they don't necessarily think of true and I mean, they literally think of true and false differently than everybody has, whether you go back through the Enlightenment tradition for the last two to three hundred years, or if you even go back further into the kind of religious magisterium type position where the truth is ordained by God and given by God, and we know the truth because we have the scriptures, et cetera.
All of that has to be thrown right out and replaced with, no, the movement of society through time with the purpose of getting to the utopia is where you find the contingent truth of the moment, which will change in the next moment, which will change in the next moment.
And the conscious people, the Marxists, are the ones who know how to figure out what that is and therefore have to direct the course of history going forward.
Got it.
Okay.
So now how your new book is called Race Marxism.
How does this apply to, for instance, critical race theory?
Well, critical race theory does the exact same thing with race in place of economic class.
Literally exactly the same thing.
Marx outlines a special form of property called capital.
Some people have access to it, other people don't.
They set up a ideology called capitalism that justifies why they get access.
They oppress the proletariat that doesn't have the working class really that doesn't have access.
The working class can be awakened into a proletariat that might revolt against them.
The people who are creating this ideology called capitalism and living by it are the bourgeoisie who are this kind of falsely conscious, unaware, ignorant group of people who want the world order to stay the way it is, even though they don't know why, because they benefit from it.
Yada yada.
Well, in 1993, Cheryl Harris wrote a paper.
She's a famous pillar of critical race theory.
It's called Whiteness as Property.
She explains that whiteness takes the exact same role as bourgeois private property that Marx lays out in the Communist Manifesto.
So you have a special kind of property, whiteness.
Certain people have access to it.
Those are white people, so-called white adjacent people, or race traders, if you will, people who act white, like President Obama, for example.
There's a whole book called Acting White that's about how he had to act white to be president that the critical race theorists wrote.
And so the people who have access create an ideology called white supremacy.
That white supremacy is used to create a structure of racism that orders how society operates.
The people who benefit from it don't realize they benefit from it.
They have white privilege.
The people who are excluded from it are people of color, but they can be awakened to become anti-racists, to overturn the whole system, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
So it's exactly the same, exactly the same model.
And this is where they start saying things, and you hear this more with the gender stuff than with the race, but that you're erasing our very existence.
You're denying our existence because, or this is also where the cultural appropriation thing comes from, because the idea is that the authentic cultural property is being generated from the underclass that understands things in a different way.
And then that's just being stolen and appropriated into the upper class for their own benefit and taken away from the underclass.
This is why you see these exact same ideas.
You're being alienated from your own cultural product, being alienated from who you are as a black person by systemic racism, so on and so forth.
It's the exact same theory with race and place of class.
But it's really interesting to me.
A couple of things are really interesting about this.
One is that there's no way to establish any value of one thing over another, because any value of one thing over another is an act of unfair power.
So truth, beauty, justice, all of these things, I mean, even the things that they seem to be fighting for don't really exist in their world.
I mean, there's no way of defending, you know, when people argue, for instance, about whether a man can become a woman, those words don't mean anything.
They're basically arguing over the power to control those words.
Practice Race Wars00:04:15
Is there any bottom level here?
Is there anything to stand on?
No, absolutely not.
There's not.
I mean, Marx said, and to quote him directly, ruthless criticism of everything that exists.
So the thing that you want to seize control of is something that doesn't exist because you have to ruthlessly criticize everything that exists.
Herbert Marcuse, and we're going to use like a $10 word here, he's the leading neo-Marxist of the 1960s.
And he said that his movement, his critical movement, which is kind of the basis of everything that we're dealing with today with the woke movement, is an antinomian movement.
Its aesthetic is an anti-aesthetic.
Its basis is an anti-basis.
It's whatever exists must be recast and attacked by the negative.
Theodore Ardorno, another neo-Marxist, said it's not possible to give a positive image or to cast a positive image of the utopia.
We can only criticize the aspects of the society that we don't like.
Sorry, Max Horkheimer, the kind of first critical theorist, said the same thing.
The critical theory exists because we can't describe what a good society or an ideal society would look like from within the existing society, but we can criticize the aspects of the existing society that we don't like or that we wish to change.
And so, no, it has absolutely no basis.
It has absolutely no bottom.
I frequently, I mean, that was a lot of big words, but I usually say every woke slope is slippery because it's all social constructivist.
It's all in the ether.
It's all ideas.
It's all hyper-real projections of things that don't actually exist because you have to ruthlessly criticize everything that exists.
Because that's really where power is brokered most effectively when you don't have the truth on your side, when you don't have evidence or moral standing or any of these things on your side, is it's all caught up in word games and kind of this artificial reality that's created parallel to real reality where you can bully people in order to seize power.
So, no, there's no bottom.
There's nothing that cannot be criticized.
Anything that gets stable has to be made unstable.
That's the entire point of the program.
It just seems to me that it's inherently illogical because the motivation for it is to bring about something good, but they don't know what the good is and they can't establish the good.
So often when people are in these arguments, they're frustrated by the fact that one person is basically trying to take control of the language so there's no way to fight.
How do you recommend arguing with people like this?
I mean, it depends on who you are.
If you are rhetorically savvy, you can go play the word game fight with them and sometimes you can beat them at it.
For example, somebody asked me one time, I was in a discussion of one of these sorts, and this black gentleman asked me, he said, well, did you take into account your white privilege?
And it just came out of my mouth before I even realized it.
And I said, no, I'm a non-practicing white.
I don't practice my race.
Why do you practice your race?
And so sometimes you can do the verbal judo and throw them over your shoulder and win.
But if you can't, what you actually have to do is to stop and repeatedly just drag back to reality every single time.
Did you consider that what you said might be racist?
And you have to say things like, be that as it may, that's your opinion.
But we're talking about the facts here.
Was I wrong?
And when you pull it back out of that moralizing frame and make them fight on the ground of reality and facts, they don't have anything to work with.
And so constantly to kind of do that is one of the only ways that you can fight back, unless you're very rhetorically skilled and then you can turn these things back on them.
Another example is in the beginning of race Marxism, I give the definition for critical race theory.
I say critical race theory noun, calling everything you want to control racist until you control it.
And so somebody says, don't you think that's racist?
And I say, well, critical race theory means calling everything you want to control racist until you control it.
So that means you're trying to control me, so I must be being effective.
Is that what you're saying?
And when you can do that verbal judo, you can do it.
But if you're not good at it, you have to just refuse to enter their frame, pull back, and talk about reality.
The authors James Lindsay, L-I-N-D, S-A-Y, the new book is Race Marxism.
Really interesting, James.
I hope you'll come back and talk more about this.
There's so much to say about it, and it's destroying so much in its path that I'd like to talk more anyway.
Body As Source Of Meaning00:15:06
But I appreciate your coming on.
Yeah, I'd love to.
Thank you so much.
Thanks a lot.
You might want to go on a trip this summer or you might just want to sit in your car because it's not working and sort of pretend to drive on a trip.
And that's not going to get you anywhere and it won't make you popular with the ladies, but you know what will?
Saying rockauto.com.
Because when you say rockauto.com, not only do you sound like that, which is just cool in and of itself, but it also tells the ladies that you know where to go to get parts for your car so your car will work.
This is a very important concept.
You want your car working and you want to get those parts right online on your computer at rockauto.com, where they have an easy-to-use catalog, hundreds of manufacturers supplying them with the best parts you need at great, great prices.
And the prices at rockauto.com are always reliably low and they're the same for professionals and do-it-yourselfers.
So why spend up to twice as much for the same parts?
Or why just sit in your car pretending you're going somewhere and be all alone in your life when you say rockauto.com.
Go to rockauto.com right now and see all the parts available for your car or truck.
Write Claven.
You got to write it just like that in there.
How did you hear about us box?
So they know I sent you.
You got to know how to spell it and you got to spell it in that same voice.
K-L-A-V-A-N.
There are no ways ain't funny that way.
Well, the Daily Wire has accomplished a lot this year, including the announcement of our new platform, DW Kids.
We're taking on Disney, Hollywood, even Razor companies, and rebuilding the culture that the left has been destroying because it's about time we do something so you can too.
Stop giving money to organizations that don't respect you or your values.
Help us build alternatives where the left is tearing down foundations.
And start today.
Head to dailywire.com slash subscribe and use code Clavin for 20% off your new membership and join us in our fight to preserve real American values today.
So this idea of theory is so important because the fight that we're in, this fight to restore our country, not just to save our country, not just defend our country, but to restore it to some kind of sanity and sensibility.
is a battle of ideas.
As I constantly say, we're no better than the left as human beings.
Our ideas are closer to the truth and our ideas are closer to the good, which in politics is liberty.
In politics, it's ordered.
Liberty is the good.
And that is why our ideas resonate and why their ideas are so difficult.
But it's important to engage with these things, even though I know they're sometimes complicated.
I understand when you're listening to a guy who really knows his stuff like Lindsay, you've got to follow it very closely to understand how these people got so far off the mark that they're telling people that being fat is great, even though it definitely cuts short your life.
Because one thing, one truth, there is one truth that is undeniably not a matter of language or power, and that is the truth of death.
And it's where all of this comes to an end.
So last week, I was talking about materialism and how materialist theory always ends up in a feedback loop that proves itself by itself.
And the reason I'm talking about this is because I think a lot of this underlies the theory.
In other words, this theory stands on a platform, and this platform is made up mostly of materialism.
And the reason I talk about Freud and sometimes Marx is they are kind of the Ur theories of materialism that replaced the theory that God had created us and that there was a moral order.
And so because they're materialists, they have nothing outside themselves, and so they end up defending themselves by themselves.
So if Freud says you want to sleep with your mother and you say, no, I don't.
He says, well, you're saying that because you want to sleep with your mother and you've repressed it and now you're in resistance, right?
So there's no way out.
And that has continued on into this kind of critical theory where they say all whites are racist and you say, I'm not racist.
And you say, well, you only say that because you're racist, because you're white.
They say, all truth is power, and you say, that's ridiculous.
And they say, well, you say that because you have the power and you have the privilege.
And so you're always in that kind of feedback loop.
And it's kind of interesting because there's a famous mathematical theory or a couple of theories by a mathematician named Kurt Goodell who showed that no system can prove itself, right?
And that is why what they're doing is so wrong.
You can't appeal to anything outside of that theory.
But materialism also has another effect, and that is that it turns symbolism, a very important means of communication.
In fact, in some ways, the only means of communication, symbolism, because language itself is a kind of symbolism.
It turns symbolism into idolatry.
And ultimately, that idolatry, the idol that is idolized by materialism, is the flesh.
It's the most intimate and familiar material that we have.
It's the source of our experience.
And so it becomes the center of our symbolism.
And obviously, symbolism and idolatry are already linked, right?
When you build an idol to a god, when you build a statue of a god or a crucifix or any other symbol of a god, it is a symbol.
It's the symbol of the God.
And what happens is when you stop understanding that it is a conduit for your mind to experience God and you start to worship the idol itself, that's idolatry.
Now you're talking to a piece of wood and hoping this piece of wood will do anything.
And you go, oh, if you drop the piece of wood, how horrible.
I've dropped the God.
And you know, if the piece of wood is taken away, you know, the god is somehow injured, and you've lost the idea that you're just using this as a mental way of experiencing the spirit.
And the whole point of the spirit is because we live in a material world, as not the Madonna, but Madonna taught us we are living in a material world.
Material is the way that we experience the spirit.
Our flesh is the way that we experience the spirit.
We feel the spirit.
When we are taken away in an ecstasy, we feel it in our bodies.
When we experience God, we experience it in our brains.
All of these things are flesh, and yet they are the way, the conduit to the spirit.
So we need symbols.
We need ways of relating to something before us in order to reach God.
And that is why God, I believe, incarnates himself and comes to us as a person so we can relate to him in that immediate way.
Now, last week, I ended the conversation by playing three depictions of a psychiatrist in film that were all films based on the murders committed by Ed Gein, the transgender grave robber and killer who would dress up in women's bodies, basically, to make himself feel close to his mother.
And one psychiatrist, the earliest film, was Psycho, where the psychiatrist is a complete authority.
He's just explaining to you why Norman Bates did this.
And then we went on to Halloween, which is based on psycho or inspired by psycho, where the psychiatrist, played by Donald Pleasance, says, you know, no, there's something here I can't treat.
He's just evil.
I just got to stop this guy because he's evil.
And then finally, we have Hannibal Lecter, which is also based on the Ed Gein killings.
Hannibal Lecter, who is the ultimate materialist.
That's is he's a cannibal.
He eats humans because humans are just meat.
And he is the ultimate materialist.
And now he is the psychiatrist.
The psychiatrist has become evil.
And this is the insight of Thomas Harris, the author of the book.
It's in the book.
And I played this one clip.
I'll play it again.
Where Clarice is trying to get to Buffalo Bill, the Ed Gein-style transsexual killer.
And she talks about something that was left inside one of his victims.
She had an object deliberately inserted into her throat.
Now, that hasn't been made public yet.
We don't know what it means.
Was it a butterfly?
Yes.
A moth.
Just like the one we found in Benjamin Raspal's head an hour ago.
Why does he place them there, Doctor?
The significance of the moth is changed.
Caterpillar into chrysalis or pupa.
And from thence into beauty.
Our belly wants to change too.
There's no correlation in the literature between transsexualism and violence.
Transsexuals are very passive.
Clever girl.
You're so close to the way you're going to catch him.
Do you realize that?
So now what you have is you have the evil person in charge of translating the symbolism, right?
So Thomas Harris.
That book is a very, very intelligent book.
I've written about it elsewhere, but it's just a very smart book where he really is dealing with this issue.
You now have a psychiatrist who is by nature, if he's a Freudian, he's by nature a materialist.
He is translating the theories.
And the thing about materialist theory, he's translating the symbols.
I'm sorry.
He's translating the symbols.
And the thing about materialist theory is it always comes back to itself and it always comes back to the body.
And so you notice that he says the butterfly represents beauty and the killer is trying to achieve beauty.
And the way he's trying to do that is by taking women's bodies and making them for himself.
And this has a really complicated result.
It both turns your flesh, your body, into an idol.
It turns your body into the idol that you're worshiping, but it also makes the body meaningless.
It makes the body the source of meaning and meaningless.
I'll explain why.
It is complicated, but it is what happens.
So I'm going to try and explain it.
There's a famous painting called The Origin of the World by Gustave Courbet.
It was painted in 1866.
And Courbet was an extraordinarily talented, realistic painter and does very realistic nudes.
I can't show the painting, however.
I can't show the origin of the world because it would violate the Daily Wire's standards and practices because what the picture is basically is an almost photographically realistic close-up of a woman's genitals, a nude woman's genitals.
And you see this woman is lying on her back.
She has no head.
She has nothing, just her torso, basically.
But the perspective puts her genitals right in front of you.
It is virtually pornographic, except that it's painted, so it's so beautifully painted that it is pretty impressive.
There's some controversy.
They feel that they have found the head of the painting and maybe it was wrongly taken off, which would change the painting, but still, that would be the perspective.
And there's all kinds of debate about this, and people get all kinds of crazy about it because it's such a pornographic painting, such a sexualized painting.
But to me, what's fascinating about it is the title, The Origins of the World.
In other words, out of this vagina comes the world.
And Jacques Lacan, one of the founders of structuralist and postmodern thought, he was a psychiatrist, a neo-Freudian, went back to Freud and talked about this.
He owned this painting.
He displayed this painting in his offices, I believe.
And he was a guy who had a big theory of symbolism that related symbolism to the Oedipal complex, which we now know is not particularly normative, and people don't have Oedipal complexes normally.
But basically, he related all of all symbols back to the body, back to eroticism, back to sexuality.
And so there he had the origins of this world being this woman's genitals.
So if everything, language, meaning, order, morality comes back to the body, reality is in some sense an illusion created by the body.
The body is the only real thing.
Everything else is, as Lindsay was sort of describing, is created by us to satisfy our pleasure principles, our desire for sex, for power, for dominance, all those things, for greed, all of those things that the body, the flesh, feels, all meaning is created out of that.
And the body becomes both all-important and meaningless because if everything is an illusion of the body, then you can change that meaning.
If it's just an illusion, it's just a question of who has the power and what the body tells you naturally ceases to matter.
So if I'm disgusted by a sex act, if I look at a sex act and think that's wrong, that is just wrong.
It's just wrong to rape a child.
I don't need reason to tell me that you shouldn't be teaching children in a classroom about that they should cut up their bodies.
I just know that's wrong.
How do I prove it?
It's just an illusion of my body.
So your body at once becomes an idol.
It becomes the central source of all meaning.
And it becomes meaningless because you can't trust the meaning.
The meaning can be infinitely changed, right?
And so this idea is that life in the body is at once the source of meaning and meaning comes to fruition in abortion, right?
Because you can hear the arguments for abortion.
They say, well, if you have a miscarriage, you don't care about that, which of course is untrue.
Women grieve miscarriages all the time.
But it doesn't matter what you feel, right?
It doesn't matter what you feel.
That body is a human life, and its right to life is absolute.
It doesn't depend on your feeling.
It doesn't depend on the stories you tell.
It doesn't depend on your moral point of view, it just is.
It is what we call God-given.
And if you can't start with that, if you can't start with those God-given rights, you have absolutely nothing.
Life in the flesh is the ultimate denial of life, which is kind of what Jesus is trying to tell us, right?
If the flesh can be convinced of one story or another story, if it can create a story, it can dominate and force your story upon it, then all moral reality is up for grabs.
And this is essentially what theory is saying, what critical theory is saying.
All morality is up for grabs.
Have your genitals butchered, wear a dress, and force everyone to agree you're a woman, you're a woman, because the meaning is being generated by you, right?
But does that actually make sense?
Let's go back to that painting and look at it, the origin of the world.
A woman's body is certainly the origin of life, but it's not the origin of the world because the woman can't create herself, right?
She is herself a creation, and that's true of all of us.
And she is, a woman is a creation that creates.
And that too is true of all of us.
All of us create the experience that we have, right?
The experience of Andrew walking down the street is different than the experience of Knowles walking down the street.
We have different experiences that we are creating out of the world that we're given.
That's why a woman's body is just like all of us, because it also takes something into itself, right?
It takes men into itself, a man into itself, and the man impregnates the woman, and that gives meaning.
With Mary, right, she is impregnated by God.
Homemaker's Role in Faith00:12:00
And so Mary is kind of the ultimate human being because all of us are taking in the creation of God and bringing out the creation of our own personal experience.
Mary is the ultimate representative of the human experience, right?
And so what you have is a symbol of a mother who is the symbol of all humankind.
You know, feminists are always complaining that God shouldn't be male.
We shouldn't refer to God the Father.
But God is always male because we are always the mother of his creation.
He puts into us what we create.
And what the left has done and what materialists have done is they have separated, they have cut God out of the process.
They've cut God out of the process and they have been doing that.
They have cut reality out of the process.
And so instead of having the ultimate mother who is of Mary, the ultimate mother who is the ultimate human being because she is demonstrating what we do when we accept God, when we are, when we say yes to God, when we say, give us your reality and I will create my experience, I will become a branch of your vine and that is how I will bear fruit instead of being a stick lying on the ground.
When we accept that, we are acting like Mary and God becomes our bridegroom, becomes our husband, our father, all the words that the Bible uses to describe him.
So you have on one hand, you have Mary, the mother of God, as the symbol of all humankind.
On the other hand, you have the mother who has an abortion and becomes the symbol of death.
You have the choice.
Mother's Day is coming up.
I hope you have a lovely, happy Mother's Day.
I hope you remember who you resemble when you are a mother, how you resemble and are a symbol for all of us, all of humankind in its relationship to God.
And the only way we can bear fruit is to become a branch of that vine, and the only way we can bear fruit is to imitate Mary and say yes to God and choose life over choosing death.
So the Andrew Clavin show is kind of like life.
It goes by very quickly and then you're plunged into absolute darkness.
That's what's happening now as we approach, a preach a pot approach the brink of the clavenless.
I'm already, I've already gone over the brink into the clavenless week ahead where there will be darkness and gnashing of teeth.
But before we get there, we will solve all your problems.
Kind of useless because then you're gone.
But still, we will solve all your problems with the mailbag.
F*** them!
The f*** damn question!
Yeah!
All right, from Aaron.
Hello, big fan.
I was wondering if sometime you could talk about your homemaker theology.
I've got a lot of mom questions today, befitting the upcoming Mother's Day.
Wondering if you could talk about your homemaker theology.
It's something that I admire about a traditional relationship, but current generations lack the skills or motivation to do even the slightest of the homemaker's tasks.
I've dated lots of women.
I've never found a woman who actually knew how to cook, teach kids, garden, or really bring a nurturing atmosphere to family life.
Most women have claimed to want to be the homemaker, but in reality, when it came down to it, they just wanted a sugar daddy where the guy gives them money so they can do whatever they want with it.
I've had friends get married to these types of women, thinking they are getting a homemaker, but in reality, they get a woman who sits and watches TV all day long.
That seems to be the new version of homemaker that women want to aspire to.
I do admire a woman who wants to be a traditional homemaker, but the millennial ideology is money grows on trees.
So in your mind, what is the homemaker theology, biblical women theology, as far as gender roles and this new age socialist desire for sugar daddies?
You know, I'm not going to scoff at this letter because I hear it a lot from guys that they run into this a lot.
Women who basically look at them as a source of cash but don't actually want to do anything.
And I've actually met women like that indeed who have been told by feminism that they owe nothing to the relationship.
You know, I have spoken, and I don't know how theological this is.
Well, I do think it's theological.
I think that women represent the feminine side of God.
We know God is both male and female because he made both male and female in his image.
I think that side of God is more personal, more immediately connected to the spiritual side of things.
Mothers turn houses into homes.
They turn meals into acts of love.
They turn a lot of acts that might look like drudgery and sometimes might feel like drudgery into acts of love that we remember all our lives.
I always say if you don't think mothers are important, go up to a guy who's bigger than you and insult his mother and find out how important they are.
And I think that these tasks have to be taken from a spiritual angle or they just do become drudgery.
And one of the reasons I feel that women feel that they're drudgery is so many of their other tasks that were economic and social and business oriented have been taken away by mechanization and technology.
And my hope is that with computers as work moves back into the home, as it becomes possible to build businesses in the home, her social and economic roles will be restored and reunited to her homemaking roles so that she can be the kind of woman that is represented in the Bible when they talk about a woman who is more valuable than rubies.
They're talking about a woman who does business from her home, who creates clothes, who creates orchards, who buys land, who does all these things that were taken away from women by factories and by technology.
I'm sort of hoping the computer will bring that back.
So I do think that homemaking and the spiritual roles of motherhood, of wifing, of making food, which is such a spiritual thing to do, I think all those roles are supposed to be part of a larger role that women have in society.
And in dividing them, women have felt that they were basically sealed off into this wholly spiritual role.
And no one can be wholly spiritual.
We're all human beings.
We all want a role in society.
And I think that that's where a lot of feminism came from.
So I'm not doubting that this money-hungry, gold-digging woman exists.
But I think that if you keep dating her, it may be on you.
It may be that you're no longer looking or presenting the kind of person that a true homemaker wants to find.
And maybe you should think about that as well, because there are true homemakers out there.
They are, in my opinion, the center of our society, the hope for our society, our last connection with our spirituality, our last bastion of humanity.
And I think when we lose those mother homemakers, if we lose those mother homemakers, we'll have lost everything.
And as I have said, I know that they are denigrated now.
I know that feminists have told them they're just homemakers.
They're not as important as somebody who, some girl who goes on and reads the weather off a teleprompter on TV.
But that's just not true.
And God knows it's not true.
And the angels in heaven know it's not true and will salute you when you arrive.
So I think that if you keep running into this same gold digger, I'm not saying she's not there.
I'm just saying if you keep running into her, maybe there's something that you're presenting that you're looking for that a homemaker can't give you or that does not appeal to that.
And you should think about that.
From Bree, dear Overlord Claven, my husband and I have enjoyed listening to your show for years.
Now we can indoctrinate our daughter with your infallible wisdom.
Your books and show have been a tremendous joy in my family's life.
Thank you for being a constant source of clarity in such turbulent times and sends a picture of their daughter.
Oh my gosh, so she is so adorable with the truth and beauty.
She is so beautiful herself.
I just had to show you that picture.
If you're not watching, you're just going to have to take my word for it.
She's absolutely adorable.
All right, from Anonymous, I just subscribed to the Daily Wire, so I subscribed to the Daily Wire just so I could write to you.
I listen to you every week.
You've said words about motherhood that have truly touched my heart.
And I wish there was a way for you to know how grateful I am that you do what I do.
I'm a stay-at-home mom of two small girls.
My husband's a firefighter paramedic.
Lately, he's had to work extra shifts.
We don't have a ton of family to help us.
That leaves me fully responsible for the household and the girls for days at a time.
And when he gets home, he's exhausted.
I give him a day to rest.
I cook and clean.
I serve him anything he needs.
I always start out the time that he's home with an attitude of love and gratefulness.
I'm grateful that I get to be at home with the girls and that he provides a nice life for us financially.
I do anything I ask because I do care and I want him to feel loved and taken care of.
Somewhere along the way, usually day two of him being home, he starts to criticize me.
The way I cook, the way I clean, the way I parent, the food I buy, the people I talk to, you name it, he inserts his opinions.
This usually causes a huge fight between us.
He has extremely high expectations and our fights usually end with him admitting that he feels like I don't pull my weight.
It's impossible for me to understand how he could feel this way.
He's distanced himself from God.
I know there are two sides to every relationship.
I have plenty of shortcomings, but in this case, I feel like his soul is lost.
How do I help God win him back?
How do I not lose my faith in the process?
Again, thank you for what you do.
It's a gift from God, getting to hear your uplifting words each week.
All right, so I'm hearing one side of this, obviously, and I'm sure he has a side as well.
Certain things about this disturb me.
I don't know if he's changed.
I think that's a really important point.
Was he always like this, or has he become like this?
Because it's possible he suffered some trauma.
It's possible during this pandemic.
He has seen things that have affected him and they've made him angry or bitter, and he doesn't know it.
They've traumatized him.
I in no way want to suggest that you simply allow him to beat up on you or criticize you.
You're not a doormat.
But it does seem to me that the system you have now isn't working, that if every time he comes home, you're getting into massive fights and he's saying you don't pull your weight and you're saying whatever you're saying, which you don't really tell us.
I think that that can't be the right system.
If you have somebody that you can trust, you say you don't have family around, but if you have a pastor, if there's a therapist that you have, even if you have a close friend who loves both of you, it might be a good time to say, if he's changed especially, it might be a good time to say, look, something is happening that's really bad and I don't want it to happen and I'm willing to take my part of the blame.
I'm not willing to be yelled at all the time, and I don't think it's good for either of us that we are constantly fighting with each other.
Can we get to the place where we talk about our real feelings?
Can we get to the place?
And this sometimes does take a counselor who is trained in helping you do that and helping you communicate.
Most marital fights are not about what they're about.
You fight about the garbage, who's going to take out the garbage, you fight about this or that, but you're really fighting about something else.
And that may be the case here.
I don't know, for instance, if he's drinking or if you're drinking.
That could also be a source of trouble here.
So I don't have enough information to tell you what the source of trouble is.
I can tell you that if everything devolves into a fight and you feel justified and he feels justified, you feel you're doing everything you can, he feels you're not doing enough, that's never going to get you anywhere.
So it would be a good idea, I think, if you could bring in maybe a neutral third party who loves you both or cares about you both, like a pastor or therapist, to help you work this out.
But I think if there's some way that you can get to a third person and have this conversation and have somebody teach you how to communicate in some other way other than combative, it would be really good because I feel for you.
I understand that you want to do what is good for your family.
I think if this guy's a firefighter and a paramedic, he wants to do what's right.
He's obviously trying to do good in the world.
Maybe with a little bit of goodwill, you find that place where you find out what's hurting.
Something's hurting, you know, and I don't know whether it's you, him, both of you, but something is hurting.
And if you can get past the language of combat to the language of love, maybe you can find out what that is and start to heal that.
Because a lot of times, as I say, fights are not about what they say there.
Happy Mother's Day.
If you got a mom, if you are a mom, if you love a mom, say hello to them.
Tell them how important they are because they are.
They are the most important thing.
For all of us, I will see you again if you survive the Clavenless Week.
Odds are, no, but if you make it, I'll be here.
Spread the Word00:01:35
This is the Andrew Clavin Show.
I'm Andrew Clayton.
Hey, if you enjoyed this episode and want to spread the word, give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe too.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, on Spotify, basically wherever you listen to podcasts.
Also, remember to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including the Ben Shapiro Show, the Matt Walsh Show, and the Michael Knoll Show.
Thank you for listening.
The Andrew Clavin Show is produced by Lisa Bacon.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.
Production manager, Pavel Wadowski.
Editor and associate producer, Danny D'Amico.
Our audio is mixed by Mike Cormina.
Animations are by Cynthia Angulo.
Hair and makeup is done by Cherokee Hart.
Our production coordinator is McKenna Waters.
And our production assistant is Jacob Falash.
The Andrew Clavin Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2022.
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the left continues to struggle to find a compromise between their feminist pro-abortion talking points and their trans talking points.
Also, the White House refuses to condemn protesters, quote unquote, who are planning to hunt down conservative Supreme Court justices and show up at their houses.
The Johnny Depp and Amber Heard drama continues, but I think the lesson in this story is one that most people are ignoring so far.
And Trump allegedly suggests missile strikes against drug cartels sounds like a fine plan to me.
Plus, the guy who physically assaulted Dave Chappelle on stage during a comedy show will not face felony charges despite the fact that he was carrying a deadly weapon at the time.
It's almost like they want this kind of thing to happen more often.